I just thought that I would get your perspective on the issue of PCs killing other PCs. Now , I'm not talking about when the DM swaps out your character with a doppleganger or some other sneaky trick that leads to PC-death (all of that is perfectly legit) - what I'm talking about is when one player decides to bring the campaign down by choosing to slay one or more of the other players at the table.
Let me throw you out the scenario. Every couple weeks our group gets together and plays D&D for a good 10 hour session. Recently the DM, who is a stellar DM I might add, has been running us through a homebrew conversion of the Curse of Azure Bonds. We are about 8 sessions in and having a blast.
In the last session or two, one of the players has kind of fallen off - he got split from the party, and decided to make a new character. Once he entered the game however, it was clear he had little intention of joining the group. Choosing instead to "hunt" us down for our crimes, which resulted in one of the other players characters getting killed (Hold Person followed by a coup de grace by the renegade player). The session ended there, with everyone kind of sour and holding a grudge over the whole situation. I'm sure the player who got killed thought it was a jip, especially after investing a solid 80+ hours into his character...
I mean it's one thing to get your character offed by the DM - Hell, that is half the fun. But to be slain by one of your own (another PC) somehow seems cheap! Especially considering that it was a completely mean spirited act, designed to disrupt the campaign. Don't the players have enough enemies to worry about? Isn't the game designed to be played as a team? As a player, aren't you ALMOST obligated to join the party and participate in the action (reasonable exceptions withstanding)?
Maybe I'm going about this all wrong, but I thought I would see what you guys and gals had to say about the issue. I don't want to see the campaign end just because one player is bent on ruining it, but I know that I for one have little tolerance for this kind of thing.
Comments, complaints, insight, welcome...
I think in that situation I would pull out my percentile die and say to the murderous PC "There is a 1% chance your character gets hit by lightning and dies before he finds the rest of the group." Roll them right in front of him, and no matter what number comes up, say "Oh look, that was the number for lightning. Your character dies. Now roll up a new one, have a seat, and play nice, or let us get on with enjoying the game."
Seriously, I would never allow such a thing to happen unless the other players consented to it (which it doesn't sound like they did in your case). If someone's taking their character death hard enough that they have to take someone else down with them, they're taking it too seriously. Heck, I killed one of my PCs just last week, and they simply said "My corpse sizzles as a full-round action." (Brought them back later, though.) That's my opinion.
If your DM is really as stellar as he is, then he is A) already handling it, or B) throwing said player from the group. The most easiest choice is to ask the player to leave because he is ruining the fun for everyone, however if this is a close group of friends that can be touchy, so therefore we have to look into how the DM is handling it.
First let me say this, when you are party of a group, and been gaming with them within a campaign for awhile, you know the campaign goals, and the reason the party is following them, so your new character should have some type of tie into the campaign goals that would make him join the group.
Now, I am going to assume that the DM didn't know that the player was making this type of character, and was seriously going to kill party members, now that he knows, he probably should have a talk with the player and ask what his beef is, and why he is disrupting the game. Maybe just by talking it can be resolved without having to force his hand and remove him from the group.
As for PCs killing PCs, I frown upon it, and there will be conquences, but in all seriousness, if the roleplaying comes down to that, then I let it go, because that is the why I roll!
|
This sort of stuff is very bad news for a gaming group, because it can lead to feuding in real life and may cause players to give up and leave. It should be very much discouraged by the DM, who if he really was "stellar" should have prevented this, either in-game or by a serious out-of-game telling-off to the player who instigated this. When PCs attack other PCs, it is almost always about real-world grudges being brought into the game. It's nasty and it's personal. This should be stamped on - hard. The game is about having fun, not working out your frustrations by engaging in fantasy murder of your friends.
I partially disagree. Going to break havoc in the campaign for no reason is definitely a no-no and will get the player ejected from the group but sometimes PCs kill other PCs because it makes sense for them to do so.
Now, let us assume that PCs occasionally kill sentient beings because these beings oppose their goals in some way (so if your characters never kill anything sentient out of principle, this does not apply to your campaign...). Usually those sentient beings are NPCs controlled by DM but what to do when the opposing person is another player character? "I cannot kill that character because he is another PC" is sort of metagaming many, me included, frown upon, it is using information player has but character doesn't. And usually pretty rich coming from a guy who just slaughtered a kobold village because it was there (and they had 50 silver pieces).
While there might be personal conflicts between players to initiate PC vs PC fights, it doesn't need to be so. One character of mine killed this new guy because he was highly suspicious and about to tempt rest of my group under his thrall (this from my character's perception, admittedly he was a bit paranoid and trigger-happy). Then he got killed by another character who had long-term suspicions about my character's dimming mental health and figured now he had finally lost it (and she was a bit paranoid and trigger-happy too).
Actually, I think all the character deaths in that rather paranoid campaign came because of other characters...
So, if a campaign does include intra-party conflict (and with people I usually play with, they frequently do), sometimes characters kill other characters. But only whne it makes sense. Disruption for its own sake is not tolerated.
RPGs are a social activity. Anyone that isn't contributing to others' fun shouldn't be there.
Period.
RPGs are a social activity. Anyone that isn't contributing to others' fun shouldn't be there.
Period.
That's the baseline of it, to my perspective too. Now of course, it isn't that black and white. Sometimes things will happen that aren't fun for one character/player, but fun for the other. But they should never be big, like player kill, unless the other player (that got/gets) killed, agreed to it.
I've been in groups before that were very borderline (two characters really harassing the more weaker ones). I didn't DM those, but I try to avoid such things in my group, unless the players agree that it's part of the game they want to play.
Recently I'm having a similar thing in the group I'm dm'ing. No player kills, but more alignments bumping that could result in something worse. I've talked to all involved to try and find out what a.they found of the current situation b. where they plan to go with their characters story wise.
I wouldn't allow a player just to make a character to kill off other PC's in the group if they didn't agree with it..
But yes.. I can feel your pain. Maybe the DM has a plot ready to get killed character back up and convince the new comer?
In each case, it doesn't hurt to, subtel or not (as you see fit), to inform the DM of your worry and displeasure with the current course of action.
well, I been in lots of fun games where pc's have killed other pcs; heck I have probably killed my freind Dave's characters 6 or 7 times over the years; once 3 times in one game. We still laugh about it. Had my characters killed and have watched others kill others; its part of the game most often part of the story because my aforementioned buddy is known as the world killer because his characters tend to betray the party and become some dark awful godlike thing that has to be put down like the raving dog he...... hehe, but of course sometimes I am the dark awful raving thing preemptively striking dave's character that is gonna put me down lol. I know of a few gms that have said that after a couple years of gaming, my buddy Dave killed their world. He's just a guy whose characters have a hard time saying no to power and corruption. Makes for a fun game sometimes; wondering if someone is gonna out break the world before Dave :) It takes years mind you; is not a goal or anything. (hehe we all chip in and buy him culthulu gear like shirts and backpacks)
I have almost never played with or seen a person make up a character just to screw over a party or take someones character out because they didnt like them in real life any any such nonsense as that; these sort of people dont play with us and never make it past the first game session.
Some gm's enjoy stress and confrontation between party members; was once in an excellent game that got fractured into two groups whereas each group split off and began playing on a different night with the same gm in the same game. There was just no reconciliation of our characters and we were all fine with that.
In the game I gm; I of course let pc do whatever they want and dont tell them how to run their character; but if you play in my game for more than a few session and havent figured out that the pc's are really pretty much your only friends and that the world is out to get you and your much stronger together than alone; your probably pretty dim because the pc know that the bad guys are waiting for a sign of weakness or a slip up like that to move in and take advantage. Lots of inner pc quarreling has stopped because of fear of the bad guys was worse than whatever the pc had done to irritate the other pc.
Sure, every player has the right to roll up a character of his own design... Something he feels like playing. It's also every player's job integrate his character to the group and smoothly push the story forward.
You can have a rogue amidst a group of lawful goodp characters and have a blast playing. There's no need to have resentment between players just because alignments don't match. The rogue offers his help as a "guide" in a rough city, and the good characters look at each other and say "all right, we'll tolerate you for now, but don't try anything, or we'll have to force justice upon you!". The rogue uses the group as 'bodyguards' againt his own enemies and at the end is forced to flee the chaotic city, following the group. The PCs then take the rogue under their wing, saying he has nowhere else to go.
So, even if PC alignments are opposite, it's still a team oriented game between players.
Would a bowling team keep a player who just shoots his ball in the gutter on purpose to hinder them. No, of course not. Same thing with roleplaying.
Ultradan
Well, if the player had a solid in-game reason to let his character behave like that, and had the ok from the DM, then this might barely be ok, but killing other PCs is always an recipe for bad feelings among the players, even with an in-game justification.
Somehow, you report of the event leaves me doubting that this reason was there, and as others have suggested, the player had other reasons for doing this. And if this was the case, your DM should have gotten off his ass to prevent this by all means! Normally, I let my players do pretty much what they want, but I always have an eye out if they do something which has only metagaming reasons, or even completely unrelated reasons, and won´t hesitate to tell them, hey, thats unreasonable to do for your PC, can you justify that ?
It seems to me that the player wanted to have his "revenge" for having his PC killed (or wandered off), and that is about the worst possible reason for that behaviour.
Tell the DM what you think about it, and ask what he will do about the situation. I see the danger of your group breaking apart because of this.
Stefan
Never had this happen, but the closest thing that ever came to it was when one character cut the other character's arm off. Why? Well, I was running "The Spiral of Manzessine" (from Dungeon #94) and said character touched a tattoo that crawled up the character's arm and attached itself. Other character (the one with the really sharp sword) cuts off the character's arm, not knowing what the tattoo did. (Mind you, I had previously spent about 5 minutes describing the effects of said tattoo. For the record, it's a tattoo of dimensional anchor. Pretty handy.)
The limbless character was fortunately a cleric, and regenerated his arm. In game, that situation resolved itself.
Player to player though, the player who cut the character's arm off was quite upset that the other would make a decision like that. They hashed it over for about 5 minutes and came to the conclusion that yes, the touchy-feely character made a bad choice.
Now this certainly isn't on the level of one character killing another, but it does serve to show light on player-player interaction. I'd have to say really sit down and discuss *why* one character would want to kill another one in their same party. "Just 'cause I can" isn't a good enough reason, IMHO.
|
Ages ago I was in a campaign where the DM felt that he encourged good role-playing by putting the characters in positions where they hated each other. It was lame and none of the campaigns went very far.
I know that you said that the DM was a great DM, but it just feels like he should have more control over the game. This was just screaming disaster long before this event.
I think that the rest of the party should band together to kill this "lone gunman" before he offs the party one by one. Then for the next three characters that he brings in, the group should agree to off him before he gets any kind of idea to do it again. (The group should be a bit edgy after this last one.) After losing his own character time and time again, he might be more understanding and willing to "play nice".
I believe that a fight between PCs should only be allowed when the players explicitly agree to it out of game. There should be a frank discussion of consequences and why it's being introduced into the game. If the players don't agree-- one player is unwilling to risk having his PC die-- then they need to negotiate a different turn of events.
In very strict cases, intra-PC fights can work. Sometimes it would "make sense" for in group fights to happen-- even so, there's no need for it to happen. You can almost always get the same characterization from discussing an angry encounter with shaken fists and never a blade drawn.
As an absolute minimum, as a GM, I'd refuse to enforce the system for the roll. The two players can decide what hits and misses and what the damage looks like. If the two players have a similar vision, it will look very cool-- if one of the players just wants to lash out, it'll look pathetic.
(Yes, I have personal experience, where allowing this type of conflict decimated a pretty good game. Read here if you want to see what I learned from it.
|
Ah, PvP. My arch-nemesis.
I have no problem with intra-party conflict, if it serves the story and is not done with the intention or effect of hurting other players' feelings. Think about your favorite ensemble show. How often do the main characters have conflicts, even ones that come down to violence? It can definitely make for compelling drama. When I was in high school, I had a group that understood that. Characters were designed to fit common goals, but played as distinct individuals. If they disagreed with one another about important issues, they let one another know. Only once did this result in character death, to the best of my knowledge. Same thing with party traitors - we had a Star Trek game where another PC was designed as a Cardassian spy, and the reveal was one of the highlights of the campaign, as he managed to kill another PC and cripple the ship before we brought him down.
The thing we all realized was that we were working together to tell a story. There weren't hard feelings, and we didn't take conflict in one game over to another.
Unfortunately, that doesn't sound like the situation you face - one which I have sadly grown accustomed to over the past year or so. The group I play with now is practically PvP-centered. Did that other kid beat you at Twilight Imperium? No problem, throw his character into a vat of acid in a D&D game for no reason. Not getting the impression that a guy you like is interested? Try to bring a building down on top of his head in game for spite! Likewise, we had an entire campaign structured around PvP - before the game started, the DM told us that another player was conspiring with demons, and that we'd need to take care of it in game. So the focus of the campaign became our struggle to take him down, which was made impossible by the DM's refusal to let him die until the final lame showdown.
The difference here is that the conflict is not motivated by the story. On the one hand, it's motivated by out-of-game frustrations, which is metagaming of the worst kind and will only lead to more hurt feelings. In the other case I mentioned, the conflict actually drives the story, instead of the other way around. This could be okay, except where the only person enjoying himself is the one causing the disruption.
Even stranger, many of the kids in the group seem to thrive on this warped atmosphere, to the point where several of us have been forced to ban all player conflict in game. I don't like doing it, since it detracts from the realism and cuts off an area ripe for good storytelling as I described above, but where it's such a distraction, outright banning it is sometimes necessary.
All that is, I suppose, my way of saying that if your group doesn't appreciate the PvP that's going on, you should ask your DM to put a stop to it.
Even stranger, many of the kids in the group seem to thrive on this warped atmosphere, to the point where several of us have been forced to ban all player conflict in game.
I know people like that...we play board games together where this happy backstabbing and personal vendettas are much more fun than in RPGs. There are people who are not that keen on that kind of gaming even in board games (you know, not playing to maximum efficiency but instead doing kingmaking and making sure that the hated rival definitely will be the last one, even if you yourself is second-to-last) but I do find it amusing...especially since there are seldom any clear relationships as everybody has backstabbed everyone else enough to justify anything...and they do add whole new political aspect even to those games where normally there aren't any political aspects (what personal conflicts to fuel and which to quell, whose side should you take etc.).
I have also been in PCs-conspiring-with-demons campaign (actually, mine was the major conspirer) but there the DM didn't inform about these conspirations, it was up to players to figure out what was going on. And again, my character got involved with demons in her free will, she was sort of selfish and greedy character who would be happy to get sort of power demons were offering...
In general I would say that DM should avoid initiating PvP (though of course he can provide the possibility or in short campaigns/oneshots even rig the storyline to favor this type of conflict) and even to provide plot points to favor co-operation...but if characters disagree on something PvP initiated by players themselves should be available.
This week's Save My Game is Character-on-Character Violence.
Generally, killing a fellow PC for the reason originally described ( which came across as " I hate this game, I'm killing off the other characters so we can play something I wanna play ") warrants summary ejection from the table.
Killing a PC whose player is caught grubbing schwag just because it's a kewl new item - in essence, smoking the greedy bastich - is very justifiable imo. A morning star migraine is sometimes the only solution to such behavior, especially if one has already addressed the player regarding such behavior. When the reply is along the lines of " it's in character " or " I'll do what I want ", well ... oops.
In this case, you have a PK'er at a tabletop game. Those are bad enough in online games. At the table, the answer generally has to be swift and severe. Barring - as other posters have said - a deliberate set up by the GM, which strikes me as very unlikely, such a thing is almost always an act of spite which can kill both the campaign and severely damage the relations between all the people around that table. Deal with it swiftly and surely, talk it over with the GM and the other players. Whatever is decided, it must happen quickly, or it will rapidly get much, much worse.
Of course, if the GM is unwilling to address the issue, the players can set a trap or series of traps to deal with the perp. Alarm spells are the simplest such example to use. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is a higher-level one. Various symbols, glyphs and runes are also suitable. Explosive runes can be delivered by courier, for example...
I had posted about a similar situation on another thread.
We had a situation where the players discovered a powerful magic item (the Tunic of Q'uil Maya- the most evilest deity in my campaign setting) that one of the players (a gnomish rogue) donned immediately.
It made him want to start giving into his greedy nature almost immediately due to his low will save, and he stole a few items before being discovered. One of the players wanted to kill him, but he made a will save and doffed the tunic.
The players then debated wether they wanted the tunic around at all, with one arguing rightly that the company they work for would want it as an item to research, and the other arguing rightly that they couldn't afford the risk involved in bringing it back.
It devolved almost instantaneously into a very quick PvP with two players unconcscious and bleeding in the blink of an eye (right after a battle when everyone was wounded). While I felt that everyone was playing perfectly in character, right up until the fatal blows, I also felt that this was a campaign wrecker for various reasons.
In the week between sessions it degraded into personal bickering over it, with both players involved in the PvP demanding that I eject the other from the group and resorting to personal insults against one another.
I met with each player individually and ascertained their desires and willingness to compromise and then created a short story that picked up from the killing blows and allowed a peaceful resolution that everyone was happy with. Without it, I think there would have been a second, more personal round of fighting.
I basically feel identically to Magdalena's above comments. I don't want to take away the choice of players to hold firm or play their character (even when their character wants to be "bad"), but this is a social, group activity and a certain degree of OOC respect is de rigeur. If we play with respect, integrity and faithfulness to the spirit of the game, I believe character conflicts can be resolved non-violently and add color and flavor to the game, much as they do in comics, books and movies. I mean, when has Wolverine not gotten into a fight with a new PC, I mean character he meets?
I don't want to take away the choice of players to hold firm or play their character (even when their character wants to be "bad"), but this is a social, group activity and a certain degree of OOC respect is de rigeur.
You know, that's it right there. I kind of feel like the campaign has been compromised over something out of the Book of Foulplay! In-character fighting is something that occasionally happens, and if the involved players are having fun, then it is totally cool. But, pulling the old coup de grace against a fellow PC - an action notorious for its low survivability - just because you aren't enjoying the current situation of your character is just plain low.
I suppose I will see how this situation is handled next session. I know that I will have some input - thanks for the comments all!
We need to be clear about the distinction between killing another PC as part of an interesting storyline, and killing off PCs just to ruin the game. Once, my co-DM and I put the names of all the PCs into a box and pulled them out one by one to be on different sides of an in-game political issue... one that would end in a lot of bloodshed. There were a LOT of PCs, and after a lot of fun, we had a lot fewer characters to keep track of.
But if you're in the middle of "Age of Worms," for example, and one player goes berserk and starts his character on a PC-killing rampage, you really need to talk to that guy. If the other players don't mind, then it's all cool. But if they object, then this additional person is neither a friend nor anyone you want in your group (and, in all likelihood, is someone still in middle school, because after that most people outgrow the need to ruin others' games for the fun of it).
It's all about motive. I will take the (paraphrasing) Augustinian view of war and killing as a morally neutral act, which is colored by the intent.
If, in the course of a game, there is a point where one PC killing another advances the story ro tells a good tale, then its good. But you can make sure that you can employ grown-up, responsible PCs who can handle it.
However, killing other PCs just becaue "you can" or because "I think it fits" is ridiculous. The game is about fun and a story, and a team, I think. This doesn't help.
Ultimately, it is the job of the DM to deal with this. I don't care if it takes a retcon or a major curveball, but this stuff shouldn't slide, and the DM should not let it go.
Ever been on a quest to attain all the pieces of the Hand of Vecna? hehe believe me; there is no way to do this without some pc's killing pcs because the more pieces you have the more peices you want; you go into this game knowing with eyes wide open and everyone watches how many peices each player has until some player makes a stab at putting them all together
I would not play with any gm who tried to tell me what my character can and cant do; if they are going to do that they might as well play the guy and I will do something else. No gm should take part in a squabble between characters; between players sure, but not characters. That kind of authoritarian bias in a game is so unfair that that game is probably not worth playing in. I have seen stupid games where the ground has opened up under very low level characters that had a squabble over weather or not some npc was going to be tortured to attempt to extract information; a very poor way for a gm to intervene. Parties should have hard situation that they have to work out and in our group; if you get killed the arguement is decided and you lost; you will probably get rezzed if the party can afford it and your character had redeeming qualities. Very rarely have I ever seen a party split and come to blows destroying the whole game. I dont think anyone who wants to play in a campaign style game that may go on for years ever intends to make a character that is going to come into combative conflict with other characters, but that does seem to happen somewhat commonly to the shadey type charactes who over time makes one shady deal to many and sells out the group or some such dear thing. Walking that fine line is a lot of fun for several in our gaming group; its the thrill of the game for them kinda testing what they can get away with walking the razor edge; must say, it is kinda fun sometimes being the guy on the other side trying to moralize it all as bad enough or not so bad, necessary or wanton, ect.
I have seen games where one player had his character kill off a player with a minimal nod from other players; was the gms fault and we were all young, hotblooded guys at the time and the gm had spend the last few weeks ignoring everybody else and playing mostly just with this guy. If you gming and your players are playing chess or computer games or card games; well, you should reevaluate your technique.
Are there really players who play to just screw over other players, man, that sucks. I feel for whatever groups have had to deal with that garbage. Really going from game to game trying to get revenge for some slight; ack, that is terrible. Our games are more like a party atmosphere where we all bring snacks and drinks and joke around.
To continue...it is often a fun idea to play one-shot game where DM can freely rig the events so that PvP becomes inevitable. Say, make a group which all pursue same magical artifact for very different reasons...they can come together because everyone is looking for the same thing and it is easier to get to that item together...but once the mission is accomplished, last one standing will be the one to get the item.
Of course in one case the fighting started already halfway to the game when some people decided that some other people would be more trouble than worth in the end...and it is even more fun when some of the players are oblivious to what on earth is happening and why did that one guy get shot in the dark...(for the record, I was one of those players who were kindly not informed in the beginning that we would be playing In Nomine...and it took a while to realize that something very strange was happening around us)
When I was in high school I had a PvP take down a campaign I was running, and two of my friends became enemies over it. Since then, I've been leary of it, unless it's part of a game scenario and all parties concerned are good sports.
As a player, I frequently use my PCs to enforce a sort of party discipline against two kinds of behaviors that I find disruptive: 1) concealing treasure from your fellow party members and 2) violence without cause against fellow party members. In my last campaign, I was infamous for threatening to turn the culprits into toads, but also elected as an informal party leader because even the thieves trusted me to be even-handed. I was chaotic good--which in my mind doesn't necessarily conflict with building an effective team. (They were later shocked when Iqbal the Transmuter was replaced by a Greater Doppelganger and nearly destroyed the entire party, but that falls under the DM conspiracy side of the debate).
So, my point is--don't wait for the DM to handle it. If the guy is being anti-party through his character, call him on it. Your fellow party members will likely back you, and the offender will likely either fall into line or get his new PC killed and not come back again because he knows he can't spoil everyone else's fun.
I have, this past weekend, been rudely reminded of why sometimes a player will have his character kill one or more of the other characters.
Player immaturety and stupidity. If the GM hadn't done in a player's two characters for me (when the rest of us had the normal one character each), I would have seriously considered smoking them both just to prove a point to the player.
I have to say, in almost all situations, PK'ing is horrid - but, despite the generally scumbag nature of PK'ing, when a player acts like a spoiled brat and expects to get everything ... Well, suffice it to say that waking up dead sometimes is a way to make a point when all else has failed to do so.
More on the ensuing rant thread ...
I would not play with any gm who tried to tell me what my character can and cant do; if they are going to do that they might as well play the guy and I will do something else. No gm should take part in a squabble between characters; between players sure, but not characters. That kind of authoritarian bias in a game is so unfair that that game is probably not worth playing in.
So you would have no problem if I joined your party, and every week devised a way to kill the whole group all the time? The GM would let it happen, you guys would die, and it would suck. It isn't a matter of saying "you can't tell me what to do" as much as a matter fo saying "don't be a jackass and ruin the game."
I think calling a DM regulating his game authoritarian is tantamount to removing all of his authority or power to regulate things.
An example: Do we call Football referees who signal personal fouls authoritarian? No. The players play as they will, and his job is to keep the game running and fair. And I think a GM who protects PCs from getting whacked for no apparent reason aside form "I can do what I want" is being a very fair referee.
|
|
Ever been on a quest to attain all the pieces of the Hand of Vecna? hehe believe me; there is no way to do this without some pc's killing pcs because the more pieces you have the more peices you want; you go into this game knowing with eyes wide open and everyone watches how many peices each player has until some player makes a stab at putting them all together
I would not play with any gm who tried to tell me what my character can and cant do; if they are going to do that they might as well play the guy and I will do something else. No gm should take part in a squabble between characters; between players sure, but not characters. That kind of authoritarian bias in a game is so unfair that that game is probably not worth playing in. I have seen stupid games where the ground has opened up under very low level characters that had a squabble over weather or not some npc was going to be tortured to attempt to extract information; a very poor way for a gm to intervene. Parties should have hard situation that they have to work out and in our group; if you get killed the arguement is decided and you lost; you will probably get rezzed if the party can afford it and your character had redeeming qualities. Very rarely have I ever seen a party split and come to blows destroying the whole game. I dont think anyone who wants to play in a campaign style game that may go on for years ever intends to make a character that is going to come into combative conflict with other characters, but that does seem to happen somewhat commonly to the shadey type charactes who over time makes one shady deal to many and sells out the group or some such dear thing. Walking that fine line is a lot of fun for several in our gaming group; its the thrill of the game for them kinda testing what they can get away with walking the razor edge; must say, it is kinda fun sometimes being the guy on the other side trying to moralize it all as bad enough or not so bad, necessary or wanton, ect.
I have seen games where one player had his character kill off a player with a minimal nod from other players; was the gms fault and we were all young, hotblooded guys at the time and the gm had spend the last few weeks ignoring everybody else and playing mostly just with this guy. If you gming and your players are playing chess or computer games or card games; well, you should reevaluate your technique.
Are there really players who play to just screw over other players, man, that sucks. I feel for whatever groups have had to deal with that garbage. Really going from game to game trying to get revenge for some slight; ack, that is terrible. Our games are more like a party atmosphere where we all bring snacks and drinks and joke around.
There might be campaigns where characters killing characters makes sense, if all the players and the DM agree. The original post doesn't sound like that.
If everyone is happy with the concept of mutual fratricide, fine. Personally, I wouldn't touch a campaign like that with a barge pole, because the fun of the game comes from tactical cooperation. I can visualise an instance where it might be dramatic to pit PC against PC in plot terms. But as a DM, that smacks of terrible railroading, and would probably be one of the main things that could kill a campaign and a gaming group unless it was obvious it was going to happen from the beginning (and so why bother, since the dramatic tension would be lessened).
In my experience, inter-PC violence is about inter-player agression. It is not pleasant, not fun, and frankly completely immature. I used to do that sort of stuff when I was 12. I don't do it now. And again, it kills campaigns and gaming groups. And if it is about "I won't play with a DM who won't let me do what I want," well, we all have to grow up, and maybe so do PCs. Nobody can do what they want all the time. Want to go around killing other PCs? Well, that character would be expelled from the campaign if I was DM'ing. Don't want to play with me? Bye!
Personally, I wouldn't touch a campaign like that with a barge pole, because the fun of the game comes from tactical cooperation.
To each their own. For me the fun comes from character interaction with outside world and also among themselves. Tactical cooperation is nice thing but sometimes it is more a side product than actual goal (which must be the reason why our group tends to find level suggestions in Dungeon adventures too low...).
I played games where PCs did stick together no matter what beyond the scope of realism when I was 12 but I don't do that anymore.
|
|
Personally, I wouldn't touch a campaign like that with a barge pole, because the fun of the game comes from tactical cooperation.Tactical cooperation is nice thing but sometimes it is more a side product than actual goal (which must be the reason why our group tends to find level suggestions in Dungeon adventures too low...).
I.e. you don't cooperate and then die. Well, I guess my lot are focussed on "winning", so they are interested in achieving the immediate goal of the scenario and not so big on roleplaying. They/we are powergamers by and large, so inter-PC conflict is not part of it - i.e. personality-wise they really play themselves, and we all get on well, so the conflict doesn't arise.
We have done one-shots where the characters were potentially at odds. I played a true necromancer in a party with an undead-phobic sorcerer. Kinda fun, but we didn't attack one another - I just ran away in a big fight and left them to their fate (which they survived). And it fell apart quickly, so the scenario was never completed.
Right now, I want (as a DM) to tell a big, long-term AP-style plotline in the campaign. PvP would be a tad disruptive, especially as the plot ties into the PCs individually. I don't have to worry about it because I know it won't happen with this group.
However, there was real aggro between two members of the group a few years ago, which was personal and dated back a long time. There were arguments and difficulties around the table, and it disrupted play a lot. In the end, one of the guys had to leave and we got a replacement. That was not fun to play in. And PvP was the original cause of the aggravation, two decades (yup) previously. So it can be very corrosive to gaming group stability.
And on a personal note, what is this crap about PvP settling disagreements between PCs. What are they, a bunch of complete psychos? As I said above - everyone has to grow up. That includes PCs. Offing fellow party members is just silly. I can see it as a plot thread, but not to deal with treasure allocation issues and the like. I don't really want to play a psychopath. I have worked with/for plenty of those in real life (I'm not sure how many of the "PvP is great" crowd actually have proper jobs and realise that evil is real and does your appraisal on a six-monthly basis) - I don't need to see them in my fantasy game, except when they are NPCs getting their rightful come-uppance.
And on a personal note, what is this crap about PvP settling disagreements between PCs. What are they, a bunch of complete psychos? As I said above - everyone has to grow up. That includes PCs.
I wrote about this somewhere earlier in the thread: many PCs at some point do kill sentient beings, yet few people call them psychos if they go and kill bunch of kobolds, or that doppelganger which has been impersonating the mage of the group. In typical D&D, violence does happen. Why should PCs be excluded? ("because the goal of the game is tactical cooperation"...oh, ok, if you want to play it like that...)
Mind, I am not talking about killing a long-time childhood buddy because he took an extra silver piece, since that would be psychotic. But what about a mysterious stranger who you happened to meet in a tavern when you were hired for a quest, and who is acting very suspiciously and is obviously (from character's point of view) trying to betray you all? Removing such an obvious threat does make sense, no? Especially if your character has tendency to rely more on intuition than cold logic?
Considering psychotic behavior, I saw one really well-played example in one modern-day campaign...character was a nice normal girl who just happened to end up in wrong crowd (that is, us), suddenly getting involved in weird conspiracies, magic etc. This all was rather shaking experience but real moment of cracking up came when she quickly reacted to (misinterpreted) threat and shot an innocent bystander, and when she realized what she had done...
My character was admittedly a nutcase who was on holy mission and labeled most thorny moral questions as collateral damage, ie. a normal fantasy PC who just happened to be in wrong time and place.
|
|
And on a personal note, what is this crap about PvP settling disagreements between PCs. What are they, a bunch of complete psychos? As I said above - everyone has to grow up. That includes PCs.
I wrote about this somewhere earlier in the thread: many PCs at some point do kill sentient beings, yet few people call them psychos if they go and kill bunch of kobolds, or that doppelganger which has been impersonating the mage of the group. In typical D&D, violence does happen. Why should PCs be excluded? ("because the goal of the game is tactical cooperation"...oh, ok, if you want to play it like that...)
I accept that it is a bit metagame to leave PCs out when it is OK to go bashing in the heads of perfectly intelligent goblins. The "deeper morality" of D&D has always been a bit suspect, even racist ("that guy is green, so it is OK to kill him and take his stuff"). I would suggest, however, that playing a person who kills his fellow party members as cheerfully as his avowed enemies may not be the most profound way of addressing this particular ethical conundrum, though it has a certain logic.
My point is more that I don't really get much of a kick out of PC conflicts, as it is a bit too "real life". I think that the PC killing bit appeals more to (1) those who have aggression issues, either through maturity or other personality issues, or (2) those who want to explore a more "navel-gazing" (and I don't meant that in a derogatory way) approach to role-playing where plot advancement is less key that character interaction. In my view, (1) is pernicious and (2) is fine if you like it - and I don't, much.
Luke:
So you would have no problem if I joined your party, and every week devised a way to kill the whole group all the time? The GM would let it happen, you guys would die, and it would suck. It isn't a matter of saying "you can't tell me what to do" as much as a matter fo saying "don't be a jackass and ruin the game."
Valegrim:
Nope, I would have not problem with this and you are welcome, players enforce group discipline based on the player created model of group cohesion. They set the party rules and enforce them.
Luke:
I think calling a DM regulating his game authoritarian is tantamount to removing all of his authority or power to regulate things.
An example: Do we call Football referees who signal personal fouls authoritarian? No. The players play as they will, and his job is to keep the game running and fair. And I think a GM who protects PCs from getting whacked for no apparent reason aside form "I can do what I want" is being a very fair referee.
Valegrim:
A referee enforces rule infractions, they do not tell a team member how they should be playing the game. Many of my groups write up team charters and players sign; many players use this scrupulously or non scrupulously to their advantage; I will always answer and alignment question if a player asks, but I do not interpret their charter or how it applies; that is their business. Really, if you do this, and it is not easy I grant you, but in the long run your players will thank you for it as you, like a referee are impartial. Run your game, present problems for the party to solve, but stay out of it. If you have an npc that is involved; play that guy; but be certain your players know it is the npc's opinions not yours.As a gm you want great players, but people just dont become great players without great experiences and a lot of fun. A great gm builds this in players so that players want to play the game; for them the game is everything. I just wish I could relate to you this whole experience; my players call me all the time about their characters and at wierd hours; write me long letters about thier characters; lay awake dreaming about the game; hehe it like we are all living in the same obsession; and were all having loads of fun. I have players that won't speak to other players outside the game, sad, but true; but in the game; it is the game, standing room only.
I am really curious as to why you guys have so much anger about other players. I can't imagine getting mad at someone killing a character of mine; boggles the mind. I know of some gms that get mad when players kill their monsters; that boggles too. hehe this whole you cant play in my sandbox and play with my toys is well; come on; do you real want to sit in a box of sand; alone?
I think that the PC killing bit appeals more to (1) those who have aggression issues, either through maturity or other personality issues, or (2) those who want to explore a more "navel-gazing" (and I don't meant that in a derogatory way) approach to role-playing where plot advancement is less key that character interaction. In my view, (1) is pernicious and (2) is fine if you like it - and I don't, much.
Yeah, I guess it is a matter of playing styles. And I admit it is fun when sometimes our ragtag team of individuals who everybody predicted to be a failure suddenly turns out to be highly efficient war machine in the best "see problem-solve problem-reap reward-repeat" fashion.
|
|
I am really curious as to why you guys have so much anger about other players. I can't imagine getting mad at someone killing a character of mine; boggles the mind. I know of some gms that get mad when players kill their monsters; that boggles too. hehe this whole you cant play in my sandbox and play with my toys is well; come on; do you real want to sit in a box of sand; alone?
I always find your views very interesting, in as much as I don't agree with them too often. I hear what you are saying, but my view is that D&D is a social excercise that involves players and DM together. PvP can really tear a rift between the players (inc. the DM) as it can become very personal. I don't really give a damn about PCs - they are just figments of people's imaginations - but real people can get upset by this sort of thing. And that can make life difficult if players end up bickering or leaving, which is a shame. As a DM, I would hope the PCs are having a good enough time playing the game without having to tear chunks out of eachother to amuse themselves. PvP just strikes as childish - I don't really see it any other way, unless you are getting really deep into a character who is an a@&!*@*!. But that is only really fun for that player, nobody else really, which still makes it a bit childish, or at least selfish. And at a deep level, D&D is about wish-fulfulment. If that involves killing your mates by proxy, that's a little weird.
So while I agree up to a point, I think that there has to be some sort of metagame restraint because D&D is a social activity that takes place in the real world with real people who have real feelings. Where that level resides is debatable, but my personal experience tells me that PvP is beyond the acceptable bounds. If you have a group who can handle that sort of thing, bully for you and I'm slightly envious since it opens up dramatic possibilities that are closed to me. But even I find the idea of PvP a bit distasteful given the implications.
I am really curious as to why you guys have so much anger about other players.
I am curious where you have detected this anger at. It seems to me as though no one is angry, just discussing this.
I don't think stopping a PC from killing another is authoritarian at all. I don't care if my character dies, but it better be for a good reason. People put a lot work and energy and have fun with a character, and if some player just whacked him because "he could" I would be unhappy. I think that any DM who would let his party devolve into an anarchic fratricidal killing spree has a problem, especially if any attempt at intervention is considered "authoritarian."
I do not think it is fair when people say "get over it" about your treasured character, or "it's just a game." Or "Oh well, your guy is dead, why are you upset?" People play this game to have fun, and put alot of creativity, emotion and time into cultivating an alter ego who makes the game fun for them. And to kill one might be a little frustrating, upsetting, or sad. And compound that frustration with the fact that it was done for little or no reason. And when it happens, the whole game starts to suck for some involved; the DM has a responsibility to ensure fairness, and make sure the game is fun for all.
You seem to interpret "Dm shouldn't let PCs whack each other" as "DMs should run PCs." I, nor anyone else, said a DM should run your PCs or make you do anything. I am saying, as have others, that when PCs begin to take actions that are not conducive to a constructive RPG environment, we shoudl interfere. The specific topic is not PCs who kill each other in the story, with reason and makes the game better. The topic is how players who brazenly kill each other, irrespective of the feelings of others in the party, should be handled.
Nonetheless, I am curious how your party reacts to DM actions. From what I can infer from your posts, I would imagine a hen-pecked DM who is berated any time he makes a ruling that does not please the players or has the NPC get away with something. Otherwise, he would be an authoritarian presence in the game.
To conclude, I must reiterate that no one is angry, nor has anyone said DMs should control PCs; we have said, overhwelmingly in the majority, that PCs who wantonly slay their allies for no good reason, or just to be a jerk, is a problem, and are trying to approach it. I think that a DM who makes an attempt to creat a gaming environment where PCs don't just slay each other for giggles is doing well; and any DM who takes steps to keep a game fun is neither authoritarian or overstepping his bounds.
If you disagree, wonderful; this is the essence of discussion and freedom of thought. If your group can handle this, then I salute thick-skinned players and hope you continue to have fun.
Well i have read alot of this post and i see alot of things that suprised me, it seems to me that alot of people "fear" the PvP aspect of the game to the point of not allowing it or makeing players agree to it OOC... all i ask is WTH is that about? when i am Roleplaying i am doing just that i am playing this person i made up and following his/her "alignment" or what have you, had a game where a Rogue assenated a NPC and my paladin saw it, i demanded she give herself up, she tried to run and in the prosses of trying to stop her she attacked me i fought back and she died, it was sad really not for either of us but our charactors where kinda sad, as for PvP being banned, i feel that once you ban something completely or have to stop the game to discuss it OOC you have lost some of the "magic" or "game immersion" that alot of people look for in a RPG, the only time i made PvP stop was when it was egtting personal and no longer had anything to do with the game, then all you do is take a short break and chat about why people are yelling at each other find the in charactor reasons and if none are there then talk it out OOC so it does not effect the game. but it seems kinda loco to flat out say, "There will be no pvp in this game"
But just my 2 copper :)
Here's the easy way to make your idea match up to the no-PC slaughter folks Nathen.
Before you begin your campaign, decide what limits the PCs are under. Don't go with the easy default of "none", get specific. If you and your fellow players are all PvP happy, then more power to you. If everyone's expecting the same thing, whatever that thing is, then you're likely to find happiness.
Do note that the system is far better calibrated for conflicts against external groups. I'm not a fan of chargen-- it takes far too long for trivial deaths to be on the table-- but that's just one opinion. If I was in a "go ahead and kill your fellows" group, I'd make sure I was set up for PvP and could play along happily. I'd be upset if we played without PvP after optimizing for it though...
i dont set rules on the PvP in my games at all, heck if the PC's want to kill each other that is their problem, i just run the world and make sure rules are followed i will never tell a player "you cannot do that" when his/her charactor would in reality have no problem doing said action, will it screw up my adventure? God no, i try and plan for those kinds of things and if a player dies, oh no better look for another "Enter class here" or hey look i have 5,000GP worth of dimonds in my back pocket, i am just saying when did Roleplaying become the GM plays the game and the players are their for the ride? it just seemed to me that anyone telling my OOC "You cant attack my Charactor" is like telling me in real "You cant eat that taco!" or something like that, i have never had a problem like what was talked about above, but then my players know i would not only allow it but i might join in with a NPC.
|
|
i dont set rules on the PvP in my games at all, heck if the PC's want to kill each other that is their problem, i just run the world and make sure rules are followed i will never tell a player "you cannot do that" when his/her charactor would in reality have no problem doing said action, will it screw up my adventure? God no, i try and plan for those kinds of things and if a player dies, oh no better look for another "Enter class here" or hey look i have 5,000GP worth of dimonds in my back pocket, i am just saying when did Roleplaying become the GM plays the game and the players are their for the ride? it just seemed to me that anyone telling my OOC "You cant attack my Charactor" is like telling me in real "You cant eat that taco!" or something like that, i have never had a problem like what was talked about above, but then my players know i would not only allow it but i might join in with a NPC.
Yeah, but.....
It just seems weird to me that PCs would want to attack eachother. Ah well, different strokes for different folks.
In the game I gm; I of course let pc do whatever they want and dont tell them how to run their character; but if you play in my game for more than a few session and havent figured out that the pc's are really pretty much your only friends and that the world is out to get you and your much stronger together than alone; your probably pretty dim because the pc know that the bad guys are waiting for a sign of weakness or a slip up like that to move in and take advantage. Lots of inner pc quarreling has stopped because of fear of the bad guys was worse than whatever the pc had done to irritate the other pc.
I think you have hit on what can, at least some of the time, be a major factor in this behavior. When I think back to the campaigns I have run I notice that the ones where I had player feuding problems are the same ones where I had allowed the power level of the players get out of control. In fact I'm noticing the first stirrings of this in my current campaign. The players have gotten a little complacent as they are sweeping up wimpy goblinoids without really facing true danger to their characters most of the time (note to self - lots of weaker creatures don't create encounters comparable to the EL). What I have noticed is that my 'independent' players start flexing their muscles and challenging other players over various issues.
Essentially if the DM is not providing enough danger and challenge then some of the players find it by pitting themselves against the other players. I can't speak to the specific issues regarding the game mentioned above but some of the time the answer to the problem is to ramp up the danger level and start offing players. The effect on the group can be dramatic. Their combat moves start looking like a well choreographed ballet of death - because their characters lives depend on it and consensus building among the party becomes the players watch word. In fact I have noticed that the first subtle sign that my players are not feeling threatened is often not in what they are saying but the fact that their play on the battle map has become ragged and their actions uncoordinated. This takes place before even they really consciously realize that they are not in danger - its just an emotional feeling of complacency. But that tells me that its time I took the gloves off and re-establish the their characters mortality.
(I'm not sure how many of the "PvP is great" crowd actually have proper jobs and realise that evil is real and does your appraisal on a six-monthly basis)
It's lines like this that make me regret that this forum does not allow tag lines. This would make a great one.
...And at a deep level, D&D is about wish-fulfulment. If that involves killing your mates by proxy, that's a little weird.
I think that D&D can be about wish fulfillment but it is not a requirement. Sometimes the game can be about drama - so that the whole thing starts to play out like some kind of a fantasy version of Les Miserables (or some other drama based story). In this type of game treasure, or even XP, can become very much a secondary goal far lower in priority to the creation of the communal story itself.
Ultimately I guess this is actually a kind of 'wish fulfillment' as well but in this case the reward is that the game generates powerful emotions in the players or they leave the table only to find themselves thinking about the events in the game long after the session was played.
This is why Cthulu works even though the players know perfectly well that their characters are going to probably go insane and kill half the party. The players are perfectly aware that their chance of 'winning' is so low its not even worth talking about. Their poor characters were dead before they even rolled their stats - all that remains to be resolved is in what horrific manner they are going to die. Despite this the emotional and cognitive rewards for the players are high enough to make this a popular way of playing.
I'm using Cthulu as an example of high emotion style of gaming as that is where my experience lies but I could just as well be talking about a style of D&D. A good D&D session where one takes down the dragon makes a fortune in GPs and gains a level is a lot of fun but a good emotional style game, Cthulu, D&D or any other system, is the kind of thing you remember for the rest of your life.
i dont set rules on the PvP in my games at all, heck if the PC's want to kill each other that is their problem, i just run the world and make sure rules are followed i will never tell a player "you cannot do that" when his/her charactor would in reality have no problem doing said action, will it screw up my adventure? God no, i try and plan for those kinds of things and if a player dies, oh no better look for another "Enter class here" or hey look i have 5,000GP worth of dimonds in my back pocket, i am just saying when did Roleplaying become the GM plays the game and the players are their for the ride? it just seemed to me that anyone telling my OOC "You cant attack my Charactor" is like telling me in real "You cant eat that taco!" or something like that, i have never had a problem like what was talked about above, but then my players know i would not only allow it but i might join in with a NPC.
Now this I can't say I agree with. It is one thing for the players to sometimes kill each other because it furthers the story itself in some manner but when it just starts becoming some kind of random happenstance with no real meaning then I'm a heck of a lot less enthused. Even in a Cthulu game, maybe especially in a Cthulu game, players don't just start offing each other for little real reason.
Certianly I want the player killing to be a lot more meaningful then Samantha and Harry both think Jack is a slob and so they conspire to have their characters kill his every few sessions.
i dont set rules on the PvP in my games at all, heck if the PC's want to kill each other that is their problem, i just run the world and make sure rules are followed i will never tell a player "you cannot do that" when his/her charactor would in reality have no problem doing said action, will it screw up my adventure? God no, i try and plan for those kinds of things and if a player dies, oh no better look for another "Enter class here" or hey look i have 5,000GP worth of dimonds in my back pocket, i am just saying when did Roleplaying become the GM plays the game and the players are their for the ride? it just seemed to me that anyone telling my OOC "You cant attack my Charactor" is like telling me in real "You cant eat that taco!" or something like that, i have never had a problem like what was talked about above, but then my players know i would not only allow it but i might join in with a NPC.Yeah, but.....
It just seems weird to me that PCs would want to attack eachother. Ah well, different strokes for different folks.
I don't have time to reply to most posts here, unfortunately. Nevertheless I thought I'd toss my two bits in on this one.
How is a PC attacking another PC really all that different from a PC attacking an NPC? Granted, if you are long time buddies it is a different matter. How many parties start with a group of people who meet in an inn, or are hired by Noble X? If you have no real history with this person, how is it any different killing him as opposed to killing another person of the same race? It all comes down to context I suppose.
I've killed my share of PCs in games and been killed a fair number of times. Oddly enough, it's never arisen out of OOC conflict or resulted in such. Not too long ago a Necromancer I was playing had my girlfriends PC assassinated so I could animate her (As a sentient undead, whom I immediately took control of). This was perfectly logical in his mind, it was the simplest way to resolve growing interparty conflict without losing a useful tool. I have absolutely no problem with conflict between PCs as long as it is appropriate to the situation/characters.
Sorry for the rambling and probably half incoherent post, trying to rush a bit since I'm running late.
|
|
I accept that it is a bit metagame to distinguish PCs and NPCs. My point is more that it can create trouble between players. The point is fairly fully thrashed out above, and probably depends on the style of play.
I think Jeremy's point above is also interesting, i.e. that PC conflict is a reflection of the ease with which they are dealing with the stuff the DM is throwing at them. This may be akin, though not completely analogous to, player boredom. As such, PCs attacking eachother may be because the DM is failing to provide a suffiecient challenge, i.e. they don't need eachother badly enough so disruption of tactical cohesion doesn't matter. I would be interested to know how much PvP has been going on in the AoW AP, given its notoriety as a meatgrinder.
|
|
(I'm not sure how many of the "PvP is great" crowd actually have proper jobs and realise that evil is real and does your appraisal on a six-monthly basis)
It's lines like this that make me regret that this forum does not allow tag lines. This would make a great one.
Thanks - I was a little disappointed when I thought no one had noticed this witticism. ;-)
|
When I'm the DM, killing PCs is my job. If you want to kill PCs, start your own campaign. Until then, that PC becomes an NPC and you can go away or start a PC that plays nice with others.
(FWIW, I actually try pretty hard to keep from killing PCs outright.)
I'm not interested in playing or DMing the kinds of games where PvP is normal. I try to balance encounters to push PCs to the edge without pushing them into the oubliette. If the players are attacking each other, that messes with the balance equation. Worse, it doesn't have a consistent effect, since players are seldom consistent enough to be counted on, so it's much more likely that a given encounter will be trivial or deadly.
Mostly, though, I just don't enjoy playing in or GMing groups where PvP is common, and I mostly game with people of like mind. When GMing, I make my rules clear up front, so if you stay around, I assume it's because you're willing to abide by them. When playing, I try to find out the rules up front, so that I'm not surprised on that side of the screen either.
I think that D&D can be about wish fulfillment but it is not a requirement. Sometimes the game can be about drama - so that the whole thing starts to play out like some kind of a fantasy version of Les Miserables (or some other drama based story). In this type of game treasure, or even XP, can become very much a secondary goal far lower in priority to the creation of the communal story itself.
Exactly. And there are missions to be accomplished and accomplishing those missions is rewarding, even if the mission would be getting the other PC to the hospital and explaining to the doctor how he got those very strange injuries without sounding criminally insane, please don't call the police...(one character of mine "fell in the grill while BBQing". In January. Still better tale than the truth.)
I have one player who has a habit of creating PCs who have a desire to kill other PCs which has caused some problems, but has also cause a lot of fun. One example is Attikal a Human rogue who has changed sides twice fighting the rest of the group and then joining up with them again (although not trusted a all) and is going to be a reacuring PC/NPC in my campain world for some time.
if it is disruptive PVP is very bad but can be great fun if the chariter is now going to become a npc(and there is no hard hard felling amongst the group).
From a hardcore rp point of view, killing each other is good and fine but from a gaming perspective, the CRs of encounters are designed assuming the 4 PCs are working together. As a whole, the rest of the team should be able to keep one person in control. you'd have a real problem if the PCs were split down the middle in terms of wanting to kill each other.