Is it right to kill a PC if it's against my character morality to let him live?

>DM handled the campaign poorly.
this, I fucking hate playing with randos

Yes. He got pretty pissed I killed his character. He kept shouting he was just roleplaying an evil thief and that as such he had to mock the good guys. Still, I would expect him to know better than casually kill innocents in front of me.

I made him go under 0 and he failed to save. Keep in mind we fought for a few rounds, he stabbed me with his dagger and then I hit him with my claymore. He simply broke.

Besides, if I knocked him out and handed him to authorities... actually the DM would pull some bullshit reason to free him, but wouldn't he normally be hanged for serial killing?

He was the party thief, so I would say kinda important.

>I made him go under 0 and he failed to save.

Jeez, what system is this again?

>Says he was just roleplaying
>Is mad at you for roleplaying
I believe you may have found the sadly not-rare That Guy in the wild.

dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Death_and_Dying

I sent him to like -7 or -8 and he couldn't roll the required fortitude.

You do not need to justify why you kill a person that killing other to get what they wanted when there were other means. You are in the clear. He murdered and you told him to stop, but then he get a boner for that and try to tease you more.

Hopefully next time he won't try to play such a turboedge character and go for a more low key kind of Evil.

>-7 or -8

>With this variant, characters can't be reduced to negative hit points - 0 is the maximum.

Well, we played with hitpoints going under 0 since the beginning. DM probably read it wrong then or is using something else.

>it's what my character would do
>oh yeah, and this is what my character would do

Indeed, the fault is with the DM for allowing such conflicting characters in the first place, and then not dishing out consequences for the dickass. You really should not do that with players you don't have experience with.

I agree.

However, now thinking deeper, would a neutral character be okay with the evil character randomly slaying people?

Because even if he lacks empathy for those killed, isn't it asking for trouble? I'm pretty sure the entire town guard would jump on our backs if I hadn't cut him down.

I think even some evil characters would be pissed about random murderhoboing without real profit.

Absolutely justified, though it sounds like you have a standard retarded doormat DM with a fragile inflexible railroad plot who doesn't give a shit about the players and it's really their fault for allowing this sort of situation to happen

Players who get their jollies by killing random peasants are fucking cancer anyway, I expect that player to be complete shit whether they be a lolrandumb chaotic neutral or a Lawful Stupid paladin

Let's not turn this into an alignment discussion.

What you're describing is a pragmatic character, which is hardly related to any of the nine alignment points.

Basically. There's a difference between evil and retardation.

I mean, committing a triple homicide for the rent on a horse? I think any DM worth their shit would use that as the world's most convenient reason to fuck that party to hell.

Next session is a closed box what will happen. I'm pretty sure the town guard will probably hold us and interrogate us over what happened. Maybe he convinced the thief to roll a new character.

Or maybe DM will retcon this entire situation.

Pick a god and start praying that second option happens.

Then kill the thief again when he starts being a faggot

>Is it right to kill a PC if it's against my character morality to let him live?

Yes.

>the DM

Wait, I thought you were the DM.

I mean... hopefully dude learned their lesson. Right?

> He kept shouting he was just roleplaying an evil thief and that as such he had to mock the good guys.
What a hypocritical cunt.

As a general rule, if you're killing each other in a cooperative game, at least one of you are doing it wrong. In this case, I blame the other guy, but moreso the DM for allowing the situation.

Hopefully.

Relying on that "I was just roleplaying" crutch is retarded IMO. The good guy can also say he was roleplaying when he kills the bad guy.

DM's fault for enabling That Guy.

You did the right thing OP.

I'm not sure. He seems to be the vindictive type. After he was dead he also shouted I cheated because I had the first attack. Better watch my back if he is back.

Even if he makes a new character, he seems like the sort of autistic shitstain that holds a grudge.

I don't want to jinx your game or anything, but.... I mean, this might get worse before it gets better, ya know?

Maybe remind him it's just a game. You were playing a good character and it was 'his' duty to stop that rampaging lunatic.

Sounds like you need a new DM if he lets him back in the campaign just to attack you.

Yeah, I will also prepare for that. Hopefully DM will contain him this time.

I've been there.
Don't allow the GM to retcon or make the thief roll another character, people like him are a problem and will sooner or later fuck with the campaign.
If the DM doesn't listen simply get out and look for another table, it's not worth wasting time with this kind of people.

Just don't let "that guy" get you down. If it stops being fun because of him, it's just a game.

That is also true. Sounds like the game can turn sour if that guy keeps being that guy and the DM continues to enable him. Not a lot you can do in that case - but at least it came to a head early, right?

If he starts being a shitheel again just kill him. Again.

At some point that just becomes a bigass pvp match with nothing getting done and the party eventually boots one or both of them.

100% justifiable. Neutral, lawful, or chaotic good would all agree that it was a good idea.

It's only okay to kill a PC if you have established beforehand that you are going to come to blows and might even kill each other.

In no other situation is killing another player character a good thing to do.

In your case, I am suspecting that you and the GM have had a miscommunication, because you might not have told him that your character was one who is on the furthest end of the good spectrum and doesn't allow murder to happen.

In most cases, having a good aligned PC and having an evil one is a recipe for disaster, especially if the Evil character does not portray his character good enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=e-0hgP1tNH8

>the furthest end of the good spectrum
You don't need to be anywhere NEAR the furthest end to not accept lolrandom asshole murdering people for petty reasons. Arguably, as points out, you don't even need to be good to find that shit completely unacceptable for a number of reasons.

Completely justified. DM sounds completely neutered about the situation. If he assured that "there would be no problem" you can only assume he means that he has no problem with you roleplaying and killing a PC due to this interparty conflict that he allowed to be born.

I agree: that guy was causing harm to the party by killing all those unrelated people and should've stopped when OP started calling him a dick for it. (I'm paraphrasing: I don't know if OP actually called him that, I am just conveying a point)

So if he were a good player, he would've stopped and killed people in a gruesome fashion only when it was more appropriate.

The best Evil characters, are those that do not harm/offend the party. Physically or Mentally.

Alignment shmalignment, anyone with more than 3INT would agree cutting the thief out is a good idea

Trying to complete a quest with some fucking lunatic who murders civilians for 3 gp? You could be Chaotic Evil orcish assassins scouting the town for pillaging and this faggot would STILL be a hindrance to your mission.

The "heroes have to work together to stop the bigger villain" works only if the evil character isn't laughably stupid like yours was. There's plenty of ways to be evil and self-serving that doesn't involve murdering innocents.

Is it right to kill a PC if it's against my character morality to let him live?
My character is Evil and another PC is Good. Before the start we predicted it would end in crap, but the DM insisted there was no problem. Basically he made a story where all the heroes have to work together to stop the bigger villain. Okay.
Then the good PC murdered an entire family so he could steal a heirloom. Being evil I told him he was a murderer and that he would have to pay for this later. He then mocked me, told I needed him alive because he was the thief. My character got this close to cut him down in that moment but the DM told us both to can it... which doesn't change my character witnessed a triple murder (one being a child).
He then murders another family, now because he didn't want to pay to rent a horse. I told him it was now too much, but he told me that he would do whatever he want. DM told us to stop, but he decided to prove a point by going slaying people across the street.
I lost my patience and told him I would attack him. DM said that I shouldn't, I told him I just did and rolled my dice. I hit him and took a good chunk. He fought back and in the end I killed his PC.
So was killing him justifiable? Because I don't see how DM wanted my character to work with someone who casually murdered innocents.

I don't get it.

Did you smoke something user?

user, you are either high or you are very bad in making a point.

What do you mean? Like before the game?

You might as well say that the player of the retarded thief should've asked the other players before the game if they were okay with him murdering random families in front of the good characters and then rubbing it in their faces.

>be paladin
>kill serial killer outlaw to stop a rampage
>fall because he was needed to save the world
Foiled again!

Considering it was party thief paladin could just kick a door to some pub at night and go on a recruiting spree. "You are going to save the world, and you are going to save the world, and you are too going to save the world! Anyone who is against saving the world will be checked by me for evilness through most reliable methods."

The only excuse this idiot has is if he was playing a fucking psychopath, and even then, why in the fuck would he even choose to roleplay that?

On top of that, he was a shitty fucking thief if he needed to kill literally anyone who had something he wanted.

>oh no, a regular civilian family
>better murder them all because I'm as clever and as stealthy as a drunk ogre
>heirloom get
>fuck I'm a great thief

Kek.

>He kept shouting he was just roleplaying an evil thief and that as such he had to mock the good guys.
He was role-playing a problematic, murdering dick antagonizing the party and causing trouble.
Once again, pic related.
GM gets equal blame for allowing the bs and expecting the paladin not role-play a paladin despite the murderer role-playing a murderer.

If you're expected to curb your character's inherent urge to smite, then the thief's player should be expected to curb his character's tendency to be a dick. Preventing PC on PC violence is a group affair.

>despite the murderer role-playing a murderer.
... any small animals gone missing in your neighbourhood recently OP?

This pic says it all. Saved.

If his Thief had to kill dozens of people just to steal a singular item from untrained, illiterate peasants, then he was a shitty thief in addition to being a cunt.

Good Paladin-work, OP. The gods smile upon your justice.

evil in a party can work
but by all means this is not how. you have all rights to kill the fucker.
his actions are just the actions of a psychopath, not of one whom wants to stop a bigger evil.

the only way I can think of at the moment to justify an evil character is by;
1)playing him as a "for the greater good" type.

2)playing him as someone super loyal or whom has even befriended the party or one of it's members.

3)evil character on the road to salvation as he slowly leaves the path of evil.

>The best Evil characters, are those that do not harm/offend the party. Physically or Mentally.
Does that include making jokes about the ranger screwing his animal companion? 'Cause my evil character does that a lot.

Depends on how obviously intimate the ranger is with their animals. Also how snarky/sarcastic your character is when mocking them. Playful banter is one thing. Publix accusation and humiliation is going to stir up trouble.

Just because you are evil, doesn't mean that you go around murdering everybody you ever meet. This is just bad roleplaying.

Does it make the character's player laugh? If so, ANYTHING is fair game. General rule of IC comedy.

That's not evil, and not even good characters have to be nice.

What kind of animal companion? This is relevant to the types of jokes. In the unlikely event that the's the fantasy equivalent of a Welshman with a sheep companion then all jokes are safe, regardless of quality. They would also most likely be true.

Even playing as an evil character, I would have seen his actions as bringing too much bad press and attention to the party. He's a liability. I would have murdered him in his sleep.

I was taught that it's up to you to keep the game going. No matter how dickass a thief you are playing, YOU have to explain why or how he doesn't provoke the paladin into turning him in or arranging a field execution. Of course, the paladin player is also expected to cooperate, but it's clear that in this case the thief didn't just refuse to cooperate, but went out of his way to antagonise the paladin. So fuck 'im.

Cast a geas on the character.

Your dm was a dick. I always tell my party I'll run a campaign for any alignment as long as the party reaches consensus before the campaign on what type of campaign they want to play.

"It was all a dream".

The other player was roleplaying his PC, but then again so were you, so you were justified in your actions.

The one truly at fault here was your DM. He should have known this sort of thing was going to happen and took steps to prevent it, instead of just going "stahp it gaiz" whenever it flared up. What the hell did he think was going to happen allowing this sort of thing?

You did the right thing. If he really wanted to be an evil theif he would kill innocents without you knowing. It may be in character for him to be a murderer, but it's not in character for a criminal to repeatedly commit crimes in front of someone who they need to cooperate with and know will react poorly.

If you attacked him the very first time he did something I'd say you went too far. But he killed two families including children and insulted you to boot.

the other PC was also at fault
its your obligation to make a character that at least has a chance of functioning in the type of campaign you're playing
if you want to play as a psychopath who kills villagers for fun, maybe save it for when you're a party of barbarians come to loot and pillage the countryside

To be honest, it wasn't a very serious question. Pretty much every character in the party either detest and constantly insult the others, or are too dim to participate. The only PC death so far happened due to infighting. It's, uh, not so much an evil campaign as a dysfunctional one.

Oh, and the companion is a giant badger.

Deus Vult!

Yeah. As a cost/benefit analysis, you're sacrificing one life for rescuing countless potential others. It's not even because of his previous crimes that killing him is justifiable, it's because you know he will repeat them until he is stopped somehow. It's regretful that you couldn't find a better way to stop him, but you couldn't, so you did the best/most Good you could.

It would help your PCs Goodness rating to at least take pity on a man who is so misguided that they murder for personal gain, and regret that they could not have lived a better life. But I like bleeding heart Good so that's only my opinion.

>If only he used his powers for good
But to be fair this thief sounds like a moron. Like said.

Unless the thief had "complete lack of self-preservation" as a character trait, I'd question whether repeatedly doing horribly evil things in front of a heavily armed good person, continuing even after they take issue with it, counts as "just roleplaying the PC".

Good people don't kill other people just because they're morons. In any case it's still justifiable.

You did good, soldier. In the age before implanted bombs a sword to the head was the way to keep the Suicide Squad on task.

Shit that never happened. :)

Yeah, you're totally justified killing him. If he was really your friend, he would have at least tried to hide his crimes. But if he just flaunts them in front of you, he deserves to die.

Anyway, why was he adventuring with you? How did his goals line up with yours? This sounds like the work of a weakass GM who can't keep his players in line, i.e. can't say no to "that guy."

Another option, if you can't kill him due to his skills, is to cripple him. Chop off one of his feet. He won't be murdering any families if he can barely make it to the door.

Go a step further, cut off his legs. Make it so that he is totally dependent on the party to do his job and that his job is the only thing he is capable of doing.

The only thing I don't understand is why the thief didn't just do all that without letting the rest of the party know, in-character.

Terrible character and a terrible GM. You really ought to consider ditching the group. I'm sure you'll agree at least after next session when garbage GM makes your paladin fall.

The only requirement I've ever needed to keep any kind of character in line is they need ADVENTURE to be priority number 1. LG or CE come second. If a character wants to strap a baby goblin to their back and keep adventuring, that's fine. If they want to murder a family and risk imprisonment or execution, they're risking adventure's priority spot and need to be 'retired.'

Edgelords gotta edgelord.

I feel like either OP isn't telling the whole story or OP doesn't know the whole story in this situation. I cant imagine why someone would just randomly kill an entire family over what? A few silver for boarding a horse? And you said he stole a family heirloom. Was it important to the plot? I feel like we are missing a lot of context here.

Because murderhobo.

>I cant imagine why someone would just randomly kill an entire family over what? A few silver for boarding a horse?
edgelords are real, and their actions are always stupid

Ha the thief important