He tried it one more time and got caught by the party wizard who noticed that his magic items were gone. A quick Detect magic later and the wizard got his items back. (It is somewhat hard to hide the fact that you have every magic item that a player has ever collected in your backpack when the backpack glows with magical energy.)Then the wizard passed me a note.
NOTE: I cast Feeble Mind on the rogue for stealing my life savings. How evil is that?
My reply: That is justice, harsh justice but justice.With this unknown illness befalling the group's rogue they passed a caretaker 100g and left the now mentally deficient rogue with the caretaker, to drool the rest of his life away in a corner.
Ok... Just need to toss something out there... I think some people have a twisted sense of 'justice.'
Killing... Feeblemind... this goes a bit too far. I would have ZERO problem with the rogue getting roughed up a bit. It's absolutley legit to tell the thief that he's no longer trusted and no longer welcome in the group.
But seriously... Killing him dead? for a little bit of ebezzaling? That's hardly 'Heroic' behavior.. Feeblemind is even WORSE.
That's basically saying, that if I caught someone breaking into my car, I am perfectly justified dragging them downstairs, grabbing a screwdriver and giving them a lobotamy right there.
Then drop them off somewhere with a caretaker and wash my hands of it.
REALLY?!?!
When did that become the 'justified' punishment for theft? Worst case scenario i could see chopping off a hand... but still, this is all pretty harsh for him presenting each player 150gp instead of 162gp...
Ease up phantom, I agree with you that's not heroic, but you don't know what alignment the group was playing.
Ok... Just need to toss something out there... I think some people have a twisted sense of 'justice.'Killing... Feeblemind... this goes a bit too far. I would have ZERO problem with the rogue getting roughed up a bit. It's absolutley legit to tell the thief that he's no longer trusted and no longer welcome in the group.
But seriously... Killing him dead? for a little bit of ebezzaling? That's hardly 'Heroic' behavior.. Feeblemind is even WORSE.
That's basically saying, that if I caught someone breaking into my car, I am perfectly justified dragging them downstairs, grabbing a screwdriver and giving them a lobotamy right there.
Then drop them off somewhere with a caretaker and wash my hands of it.
REALLY?!?!
When did that become the 'justified' punishment for theft? Worst case scenario i could see chopping off a hand... but still, this is all pretty harsh for him presenting each player 150gp instead of 162gp...
Adventurers aren't nesicarily concerened with heroism or justice. certainly some are but many are, by today's standards downright psychotic. Steal from them at your own risk.
Torger
But seriously... Killing him dead? for a little bit of ebezzaling? That's hardly 'Heroic' behavior.. Feeblemind is even WORSE.
When did that become the 'justified' punishment for theft? Worst case scenario i could see chopping off a hand... but still, this is all pretty harsh for him presenting each player 150gp instead of 162gp...
Remember the penalty for cattle rustling in Texas ? ... How many GP is a cow ?
Honestly it all depends on your players. Do the majority of your players have their big boy pants on? Can they handle some minor conflict? Is your Rogue actually RPing as a thief full time, or just doing it to the party? Are you giving your players every roll they're entitled to notice what's going on? If all of these are yes, then there's no problem with it.
If you have a group of players that spend endless amounts of time arguing over loot, or who get super angry if their characters die. Or whine and complain when failing rolls, or [insert other childish behaviors here]. Then it's probably not the right fit for the game you're running.
Every table is different. Handle it how you feel you have to.
To me things don't always happen in a vacuum. To use your ruin example; are the party travelling to/from somewhere as part of their quest? If the party magus is on watch, and is able to slaughter a bunch of goblins w/o waking anyone, he'd not even be out there at all, except for the adventure. If the party sends the rogue into the ruin, the rogue doesn't know that shadows won't rise from the floor, and he's relying on the rest of the party to come calling (especially the cleric) when he screams like a little girl.
So, to my point of view, the rogue is sharing the risk when he's picking that lock, or when he's scouting out 60' ahead because he's the one with the stealth and the dark vision. He knows* if things go south his buddies will rescue him.
Sorry perhaps I let some past history color my comments. There have been a few times where members of the party I was playing with at the time were deliberately trying to avoid the danger but collect the rewards. I know the house rule I made after that wasn't perfect, but it was all I could come up with at the time to try to keep things honest. In the end I guess it's better left to a judgement call by the GM rather than a hard and fast house rule on rewards.
The answer: it depends.
Seriously, it's up to the group to decide. I could see an amusing group of scoundrels where the rogue pockets a few items each looting session, then the wizard tallies up everyone's shares and mysteriously announces each person's shares smaller than it should be (to compensate). Slip the cleric some booty on the side and away you go.
Point is, if the players are aware and are okay with what's going on (and compensate for balance purposes) it's fine. If it's a predatory jerk that's annoying his fellow players, not so much.
I'm sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on the "character actions can only be dealt with in character" crowd. Either you let your games fall apart far more easily than I, or (as I suspect) you haven't actually played in a game where party theft was an issue (and "well that's because we wouldn't let it" is a trite excuse for bad advice).
I once played in a game where the rogue pretty much stole every single piece of treasure we found. And it was funny for a little bit. But, as we hit about level 6 or 7, it quickly came to the point where we just didn't have the gear we needed to survive (it was already a pretty item-sparse game and we tended to fight fewer, harder fights). Now, naturally, several characters tried to confront her about it, only to be told by the other players that we weren't letting her play her character (to be fair, those players were incapable of 4-function math and didn't understand the effect she was actually having on the game). The DM refused to intervene. Our fighter finally lost it and decided to kill the rogue's beloved pet. The game broke down from there...
As a DM, your responsibility first and foremost is to keep the game running and the players having fun. Storytelling, acting, and writing all come secondary (and to be fair, even the best games have writing I would tear apart in a film and acting I would tear apart at a high school play; we let these things go because gaming is fun). If your game falls apart because you think you're just a narrator, you're not a very good DM.
So, years later, when I decided to run a sequel to the campaign, I was faced with the issue of how to deal with player and her theft. Fact of the matter is, side plots/secrets/theft from the party is that player's hook. She does something like that in every single game she plays. So, if I want her to be interested in my game (and I do), I should provide that hook in some way. And, to be fair, I normally think party theft is funny, as long as it isn't ruining the game. So it was easy enough to tell her, as DM, that I wouldn't be allowing those kinds of shenanigans to continue. I told her she could steal minor items of value, but that A: She didn't have access to Magic Aura, B: I just wasn't going to allow her to steal the really valuable loot. Every time the party found a major pile of loot, I made sure it included a few lesser jewels or art items that she could try pocketing, and she nearly always succeeded.
The player was happy because she got to steal, and the party was happy because they weren't bankrupt. Did it feel like I was putting bumpers on my game? Yes, of course it did, and ideally I wouldn't have to. But the player had already shown she didn't know when or how much to steal. If that's the problem in the OP's game, he should consider intervening.
How come Tanis, Flint, and the rest of the group from the Dragonlance novels never roasted Tasslehoff alive? Tas was stealing everything from everybody all the time.
Tasslehoff was cute and benevolent. Most PCs skimming are malicious and doing it for self gain, at the expense of the party.
Tasslehoff never took anything major and more often than not, he'd give stuff back or help the party with them. It's not like Tasslehoff owned a +5 weapon from his skimmings while everyone else was stuck with +1 weapons.
Also, it was a known trait of the DL halflings. His companions knew about his tendencies and he never tried to hide it. That's the same as saying out-of-character "Guys, my guy steals the occasional non-important thing here and there. Is it ok?".
So as long as it fits the "character concept" then it shouldn't be discouraged out of character?
Absolutely.
What if my character concept is a seemingly normal rogue who is planning a mass murder-suicide the next time the rest of the party is asleep?Would you discourage that concept? Awww...but I'm just "roleplaying my character!"
Some concepts stink, and should be either discouraged, or preferably outright made unavailable by the GM.
Setting parameters for character concept is always the province of the GM. Concepts that involve backstabbing the other characters, whether literally or metaphorically, are a good way to spoil everyone else's fun, a real jerk-move.
Your example is extreme. If somebody comes to our table to play, and his idea of fun is to destroy the game within the first two hours, then it will certainly be the last time for him. If, however, the concept of the character is an edgy or insane character, and he gives away hints of his intentions over the course of a few evenings, the other players will know what to expect and may react accordingly. As a GM I would not discourage it, and as a player I would only be vexed if there hadn't been any hints or signs showing the other player's intentions.
I don't like all these points about WBL and 'stealing from the party'.
As long it is not the normal type of character and/or behavior for the player, I say let him try to pull it through, and then let him see if the other players still want to play with him.
If he did a good job being a jerk, then three cheers for him and on to the next campaign.
If he was just being a jerk, then drop him.
How come Tanis, Flint, and the rest of the group from the Dragonlance novels never roasted Tasslehoff alive?
I've often wondered this myself.
Your example is extreme.
Of course it was. The point is to show that this idea that "any behavior is OK as long as it fits the character concept" is a bad idea, the extreme case is to illustrate why.
If somebody comes to our table to play, and his idea of fun is to destroy the game within the first two hours, then it will certainly be the last time for him.
What if that's the concept then? Let's take it back a notch. My new character is a serial killer who kills elves. Bad luck for the player to my right who has an elvish character he quite enjoys playing.
Won't destroy the campaign, since the other characters are safe. Good concept then?
Obviously there needs to have a line drawn somewhere, we both agree on that. I would simply point out that a good point to draw the line is that if your character concept involves backstabbing the other party members, whether literally or metaphorically, then it's a bad concept.
There is a difference between playing a jerk and playing a character who backstabs the other PC's. Nothing wrong with the former, but don't pretend it's no different than the latter.
|
How come Tanis, Flint, and the rest of the group from the Dragonlance novels never roasted Tasslehoff alive?
This reminds me of the campaign this Name came from we were running the old AD&D modules and in the tomb of Huma my kender found a room full of Steel bars covered in gold flake and convinced the party to let me keep it as a souvenier.
|
Let's see what happens if we put this into a real-world example. We're talking about folks in life-or-death combat situations, wealth which becomes weapons and armor, and people you have chosen *for whatever reason* to work with.
So, you're in the army, and you're in a foxhole with your buddy, and you find out he's been stealing ammo clips and grenades from you and the rest of your platoon while the encampment is regularly trading fire.
What are the consequences to him of that action. Aiding the enemy? He's certainly depriving other people of gear that could be helping them against the enemy. Larceny, definitely.
But the truth is that we're not playing a game going for 100% simulation. Things give and take for the enjoyment of the group. Stealing is far more likely to be acceptable to a group you've gamed with for a long time, as long as they know that you as a person won't take it too far. In a new group, with new people, it can definitely cause problems. The gm may need to step in to let heads cool, and to refocus the game on something the party can enjoy. He's the referee, he gets to decide if something pushes too far past what the group will tolerate.
Otherwise, an obtuse player might just keep pushing until someone starts a real fight, and that's not needed at a table. For those of you who think this wouldn't happen at a table with rational adults, well, you're kind of right. A rational adult wouldn't play a rogue and steal from the party unless he had a clue that it would fall within the acceptable lines for the players. So, by definition, the player pursuing theft when it upsets the other players is not a rational person, or one playing like an adult.
Again, there are parties where it is acceptable to play a rogue, and skillfully nab some gold where you can. However, there are places where it is not acceptable, and a rational player can see these invisible lines and walk within them like everyone else to guarantee a mutually-enjoyable gaming experience.
He's cheating the rest of the party members as well as the other players; he's stealing resources from the party and some of the enjoyment from the players. Pathfinder and D&D are not competitive games, they are cooperative games.
I think this post sums up the different forms of gaming played by different groups who all, confusingly, use the same rules. The gaming groups I have enjoyed playing with have always thought of D&D, and now Pathfinder, as a co-operative storytelling game. This means that although it is not played competetively, the player characters do not necessarily have the same goals and objectives. Certainly they are supposed to have their own agendas. I distinctly remember an AD&D illustration titled "There is no honor among thieves.".
If the rogue player wants to role play his character as a pick pocket or shop lifter, let him do it against the NPCs, who after all didn't invest time and money to playing the game and won't resent him for it outside the game.
Again a really interesting twist. My players and I expect all NPCs to have their own motivation and "in game life" too, it makes the story more interesting... but it also means there is no difference between stealing from a companion NPC or a companion player, they are all "people". As players and GM's we invest time and money in playing an interesting game. A thief out to screw the party can make a more interesting game, it can save the GM the job of creating an NPC to do the same. The thief however should look forward to the same consequences as an NPC if caught.
As a DM, I've always been against anything that causes people to leave the table with hard feeling towards a fellow gamer. A player in my game stole a ring from treasure and more than a decade later other players in the group still remember it. They aren't resentful of his rogue, they're resentful of the player himself because they trusted him. This game requires trust around the table. You can't see everyone's dice rolls, so you trust them to have actually rolled a "hit" when they say they did, to erase the gold off their sheet when the party all chips in to buy potions, and to see that everyone gets an equal share of the rewards for the risks they took as a party.
I agree, as a GM I am absolutely against the creation of bad feeling between fellow gamers, I do not however feel that "bad feelings" between characters damages the game nor should it harm the players relationships.
Let me tell you the story of "Evil" Bob, a player in a long running and memorable campaign. He played a character who managed to co-opt vast quantities of resources (including a lost city and ancient library full of spells), without the other characters knowledge. He joined at least two organisations antithetical to the other party members. He also co-opted resources from these organisations without their knowledge, in order to build a personal power base.
As he was discovered by the player characters he legged it, taking two other easily corruptable members of the party with him. With a nearly even split in the party extra PCs were made and the groups went in different directions but with the same end goal, essentially an opposition. We played the two groups alternately for a while.
Ultimately "Evil" Bob's character alienated both sets of the player characters and his NPC allies to the extent that they joined together to destroy him in an epic battle. He took the risks and very nearly succeeded in becoming the major power in the game world (Think Raistlin).
"Evil" Bob, in screwing the party(s), managed to help create a dynamic, enjoyable, and memorable campaign. I, as a GM, can sit back and bask in the glow of "best game ever" (which often happens when my old group gets to reminiscing) when nearly all the impetus came from the character interaction. The last few weeks of the game were a scramble of "Let's get [Bob's Character] before he takes over the world."
Bob still plays with us, and so do most of the rest of the group. No-one took it personally when their characters were spectacularly screwed over. Bob didn't take his eventual extreme demise personally either....they chopped him up and burned him and scattered the remains under the collapse of a massive temple. I, as GM, didn't take it personally when he derailed the original plot either. We all had fun.
The point being that there are consequences for any action that your character takes against the party, but these should (in my ideal game) be played out in character and in game.
Is a Rogue “skimming” treasure as he finds it “Role playing” or is he stealing from his adventuring companions?
Yes.
|
I've often wondered this myself.
How come Tanis, Flint, and the rest of the group from the Dragonlance novels never roasted Tasslehoff alive?
Because unlike most of the thieves being discussed in this thread he (all kender really) would steal your bent spoon or hard candy from your rations not piles of boring old coins, the funny carved club before the relatively plain but powerfully magic sword......
Played a Rogue in a group where the Cleric kept accusing me of stealing from the party, cuz...he's a THIEF! He stopped when I started insisting HE pay for an independent Cleric to cast the 'truth detector' spell. 12 for 12! You never get caught if you never do it. Thirteenth time, I stole one cp. But failed to buffalo him into another run, so I paid for it. Of course I got caught. He He...
But remember, the guilty dog howls the loudest. In another group, this same player was playing the Rogue and got caught ripping off the party big time. Don't know all the details, but it broke up that gaming group.
Bumped into that player shortly after at a restaurant and left a penny on his table...
Again a really interesting twist. My players and I expect all NPCs to have their own motivation and "in game life" too, it makes the story more interesting... but it also means there is no difference between stealing from a companion NPC or a companion player, they are all "people". As players and GM's we invest time and money in playing an interesting game. A thief out to screw the party can make a more interesting game, it can save the GM the job of creating an NPC to do the same. The thief however should look forward to the same consequences as an NPC if caught.
Your views... are... interesting...
Saving the DM's time... lets all do a bit of PvP!
As soon as the wizard starts blasting we save the DM the time to create encounters! You even save him the time to make an adventure!
Maybe you should play a Gladiator Campaign and save your DM a lot of time?
Again a really interesting twist. My players and I expect all NPCs to have their own motivation and "in game life" too, it makes the story more interesting... but it also means there is no difference between stealing from a companion NPC or a companion player, they are all "people". As players and GM's we invest time and money in playing an interesting game. A thief out to screw the party can make a more interesting game, it can save the GM the job of creating an NPC to do the same. The thief however should look forward to the same consequences as an NPC if caught.
Your views... are... interesting...
Saving the DM's time... lets all do a bit of PvP!
As soon as the wizard starts blasting we save the DM the time to create encounters! You even save him the time to make an adventure!
Maybe you should play a Gladiator Campaign and save your DM a lot of time?
I think you might have completely missed his point. No one said every game played has to result in this type of campaign.
The basic rule is Characters shouldn't treat NPCs like NPCs and PCs like PCs. That method usually lacks a major degree of verisimilitude. If a gaming group can't handle their characters getting screwed over then maybe some strict campaign rules need to be put in place.
But why limit your players with rules unique to PCs when they can potentially add flavor to the game? If I outlawed theft amongst players in my games then I would also feel as though stealing from NPCs should be outlawed as well.
Each character, PCs and NPCs alike, is a living person in an imaginary world. Why set boundaries that create a rift in the types of characters?
@ Atarlost.
I respect your decision to create rules for your PCs to play by in order to make your game more fun and playable.
Just take it into consideration that not every group needs rules like this to function and have an unbelievably fun time.
As a side note, if you were to play in a game where your character was stolen from by another player character, how would you react?
Is a Rogue “skimming” treasure as he finds it “Role playing” or is he stealing from his adventuring companions?
If you have a player doing this, is this something you need to take care of as a GM?
How about if you are a player and another player is doing it? How do you deal with this?
And what if you are playing a rogue who is “Skimming”? does anyone have the right to tell you how to “role play” your character?
What do you all think? Thank you.
I played a character that did exactly this. It started as a metagame thing. I was the player that usually took it upon himself to keep track of party treasure and the divvy (and by extension, it was my character doing the same thing in-game). Despite the fact that I was playing a scoundrel of a PC, the rest of the group simply left me to the task once again. So when the treasure was divided and there was an odd coin or three left over, he'd pocket them. This went on for awhile with no one noticing, so he'd start pulling an amount of coin out for himself before dividing, leaving the total an amount that split evenly amongst the party. Again, no one noticed.
The amount he took didn't raise suspicion, and the DM was made aware of the actions well in advance. No problems. I told the group about it later once the campaign was finished. No one seemed to bear any grudge over it.
One thing that I don't really understand is the insistance that the skimming rogue is hurting 'WBL.'
(Honestly, I have issues with the whole WBL concept to begin with, but that's a differnet thread'
Is there an assumption going on here that the party is expected equal access to ALL treasue in the game?
What about the treasure in the chest behind the third block that nobody noticed?
What about 3 magic swords from the bandits that got away?
what about the spellbook from the wizard that we showed mercy to and allowed to live and keep his stuff?
I don't believe any game out there is intended for you to completely have ALL the gear that's EVER presented in it...
Now what's the difference if you let your prisoners go, or turn them and 'the evidence' over to the authorities... or if you killed them and the rogue skimmed a bit?
Either way the fighter and the mage got nuthin...
I'll admit it's a JERK thing to do, but I just don't agree with the whole 'disrupting the balance of the game... killing your own party because you swiped some gold and bought a tavern...."
Heck, to drudge up another thread... if the DM choses not to burn the mages spell book, and doesn't sunder a fighters sword... THAT should equal anything the rogue kept from them... ;)
|
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to get to this tread sooner.
This thread looks like it will be an interesting read. I have only skimmed it.
As someone who has played along side people who have rogues, who do a little skimming all I can say is that it is very irritating. I also fid it extremely frustrating when have to “separate Player from Character knowledge” when I known someone has their character skimming money from the party.
Skimming just breeds mistrust.
I am sure this has been pointed out in a previous post.
|
Ok... Just need to toss something out there... I think some people have a twisted sense of 'justice.'
Killing... Feeblemind... this goes a bit too far. I would have ZERO problem with the rogue getting roughed up a bit. It's absolutley legit to tell the thief that he's no longer trusted and no longer welcome in the group.
But seriously... Killing him dead? for a little bit of ebezzaling? That's hardly 'Heroic' behavior.. Feeblemind is even WORSE.
That's basically saying, that if I caught someone breaking into my car, I am perfectly justified dragging them downstairs, grabbing a screwdriver and giving them a lobotamy right there.
Then drop them off somewhere with a caretaker and wash my hands of it.
REALLY?!?!
When did that become the 'justified' punishment for theft? Worst case scenario i could see chopping off a hand... but still, this is all pretty harsh for him presenting each player 150gp instead of 162gp...
When you start stealing from people who run around breaking into places that dont belong to them, and killing other sentinet creatures for a living.....its generally a bad idea to steal from them.
When they kill other creatures to gain their loot/wealth, why shouldnt they kill the person in their own party that thinks its a good idea to steal from them? Because its anonther player at the table isnt justification to not kill them....
I'm not so sold on the whole WBL thing either, but it's not quite the same as stuff the party doesn't get. It's a boost to one party member's gear and thus power at the expense of the others. Someone laid it out in one of these threads, if the thief skims just 10% off the top in a 4 person group he winds up with almost half again as much as the others 32.5% vs 22.5%
If he channels that all into something like a tavern or just keeps a big bag of gold and jewels to drool over, then it doesn't much matter. The GM can feed a bit more treasure to keep the group on WBL track.
If he turns it into gear then he starts being more powerful than everyone else. If he turns it into gear that boosts his stealing...
He could also turn it into either 'non-optimized' loot, or a bunch of potions that kept him alive in book 2... by book 3, they're all gone.
Loot and gear comes and goes... One guy having a few extra potions ISN'T that unbalancing in the grand scheme of things.
If he's buying extra stat boosting permant stuff.. or more spells for a book... or things like that, i could see a problem... but that's hardly guaranteed.
Also, There is a massive push for all things being equal. I think this is a false dream to begin with... However, just because one character gets a boost in one department... does NOT mean your character sucks now.
If he was STEALING your sword, and magic ring off your finger, and you already had those bonuses counted... THAT's trouble... If you never even HAD the gear, then you don't really miss it.
It's really a player by player issue.
When you start stealing from people who run around breaking into places that dont belong to them, and killing other sentinet creatures for a living.....its generally a bad idea to steal from them.When they kill other creatures to gain their loot/wealth, why shouldnt they kill the person in their own party that thinks its a good idea to steal from them? Because its anonther player at the table isnt justification to not kill them....
...
...
Well... I suppose if you look at it like THAT, it's hard to argue. Personally I have never played in a group where we killed the bandits and monsters JUST because they had a sweet looking sword and a set of glowing boots...
We killed them because they attacked us and/or were a threat to the realm around them.
If your playing a game of cut-throat pirates... then YEAH, by all means start gutting the no-good thief....
But if you only kill clear and actual threats to your physical person, then NO, PC or NpC should be killed in the street for lifting a few gold, or only mentioning six +1 daggers in the pile instead of seven
Toss his corpse down a sewer.
....why is this thread so long?
It is against city regulations to feed the alligators.
He's doing both actually. Roleplaying is not a defense against in-game retaliation for in-game actions. Expecting to get away with something solely because of the invisible PLAYER CHARACTER tattooed on your forehead is the most infuriating sort of metagaming there is, IMO. Ask yourself, what would the PCs do if a hireling or NPC were to do this? Expect no better treatment if a PC happens to be the offender.
Listed. :)
Your example is extreme.Of course it was. The point is to show that this idea that "any behavior is OK as long as it fits the character concept" is a bad idea, the extreme case is to illustrate why.
If somebody comes to our table to play, and his idea of fun is to destroy the game within the first two hours, then it will certainly be the last time for him.What if that's the concept then? Let's take it back a notch. My new character is a serial killer who kills elves. Bad luck for the player to my right who has an elvish character he quite enjoys playing.
Won't destroy the campaign, since the other characters are safe. Good concept then?
Obviously there needs to have a line drawn somewhere, we both agree on that. I would simply point out that a good point to draw the line is that if your character concept involves backstabbing the other party members, whether literally or metaphorically, then it's a bad concept.
There is a difference between playing a jerk and playing a character who backstabs the other PC's. Nothing wrong with the former, but don't pretend it's no different than the latter.
[emphasis above mine]
Since I haven't experienced this type of behavior yet, this is all just theoretical. But to pick up your example, as a GM I would ask the player why he wants to kill elves and how he acquired this desire / insanity.
Now, I normally start campaigns at level 1, and if he didn't evolve his trait and tried to kill the elves in the party in the second session, 'just because', without ever giving any hints away, you know, like scraps of paper with "I hate elves" written in blood on them, I simply woudn't allow it. Period.
But if we had played for several evenings, average party level is 5+, and the player had given enough hints that would make Hannibal Lecter proud, I would. because I know my players would like it too.
I could tell you about several occasions we had where a lot of PC vs PC killing was involved, but I don't want to derail this thread into "Let me tell you about my character"...
But it's funny how we got from stealing to mass-murdering...