Do GMs let PCs kill other PCs?

This awesome cover comes from here.

Does this happen in your games?

Do your players have their PCs willingly kill other player PCs for any reason (and we're excluding Paranoia games here for obvious reasons)? And do you, as GM, step in and stop it?

In an old AD&D campaign I was in, almost every character was evil or chaotic neutral. I was one of two good alignment PCs. I was the neutral good elven fighter/thief who sometimes sided with the bloodthirsty lawful good paladin. We worked together, but sometimes some folks were cut out of the loop out of selfishness or sacrificed willingly.

Which is not the same as killing another PC directly.

No, that happened in Champions, of all RPGs. Players would have their 'superhero' PCs kill other 'superhero' PCs because the concept was stupid, or because the player was bragging, or because of sheer spite, or because of sheer idiocy. Here are some examples with names and concepts tweaked to protect the guilty and remorseful:

• U.S. Secret Agent Alan Blackbird kills a new hero inspired by a Zulu warrior and a prophet (because the player doesn't like the hero's name and character concept). And so Shaka Jesus dies without having thrown a single punch, or even managing to turn the other cheek;
• The player of the mutant alien soldier Ranger is so ticked off at the player of electrical superhero Tesla Ivanovich's constant belittling of his character, and gets treated to a headshot through the eyesocket in the middle of the game, killing him instantly;
• Once again, Alan Blackbird kills a powerful fire based hero. This time, at the insistence of the player -- to show the other PCs just how tough his character is, he tells Alan Blackbird to shoot him in the chest. Alan Blackbird complies, but all Fire Laddie's defenses are based on activation rolls (there's a chance that the each of the defenses won't activate), and none of them activate. Fire Laddie dies, in game, to a sucking chest wound.

We always let these things lie, as the dice and the choices were considered sacrosanct. And the GMs in our group did too (though they would sometimes fudge if the heroes were acting particularly heroic when fighting villains).

In our defense, we were young and foolish and insecure and teenagers at the time.

How do you handle situations like this, if at all?

Reasons We Play RPGs -- Valid / Not Valid / Incomplete

I wanted to look at 4th Edition Champions, and take a look at the different types of players and explore how:
(1) they may have found satisfaction in other pre-RPG hobbies
(2) their needs were met by RPGs
(3) they may have been lured away by other post-RPG hobbies

The following list is taken from the classic HERO Big Blue Book (4th Edition), but is expanded upon and grouped differently.

Combat-related Reasons

The Combat Monster
- wants to fight; games must have combat

The Mad Slasher
- joins games to "kill" for stress release
- conflicts with roleplayers and plausbility

Intellect-related Reasons

The Tactician
- is primarily interested in the tactical challenges of battles
- can be interested in political challenges if it's a matter of game mechanics or securing a numerical/tactical superiority

The Mad Thinker
- sees everything as a puzzle or a problem to solve
- loves to outwit the villains and sometimes the GM

The Rules Ravager
- wants to bend or exploit the rules
- may not have any interest in the campaign per se

Character- and Story-related Reasons

The Copier
- copies characters from other media
- expects to be as good as those characters

The Pro from Dover
- wants to be the best at what they do
- may conflict with other PCs or NPCs

The Plumber
- likes to detail his/her character with intricate personality and backstory
- loves being ensnared in moral quandries and emotional scenes

The Romantic
- most interested in the interpersonal relationships of characters
- professional and family and romance

The Tragedian
- likes to explore tropes of literary tragedy with PCs
- not concentrated but diffused and sustain betrayal, loss, death, etc. throughout campaign

The Genre Fiend
- expert in the tropes and conventions of the genre
- expects them to come out in play

The Showoff
- wants to be the center of attention

Meta-related Reasons

Social Gamer
- wants to game because all his friends do

Game Sweetheart
- wants to game because current / would-be / former significant other does

Game Spouse
- wants to share experiences with avid RPG spouse


The Questions
How many of these reasons are now satisfied by other outlets? Do computer games -- and more specifically computer RPGs -- satisfy these needs? Does social gaming satisfy some of them? Do easier outlets for creative expression like role-playing forums and online societies address these needs? Has the table top RPG niche shrunk?

And will initiatives like ConstantCon reclaim lost marketshare?

The Right Way to Roleplay

Everyone knows that old adage: if your group is having fun, then your way of roleplaying is the right way of roleplaying.

Time after time, however, discussions and opinions emerge about the right way to roleplay. Discussion and arguments tend to gravitate around these issues:

• Player knowledge vs. character knowledge - some people believe that as a role-playing exercise, the integrity of the experience is compromised if a character acts on knowledge that he/she cannot possibly have. This includes the location of secret doors and traps, the weaknesses of certain monsters, and creating gunpowder in a campaign where the tech level just doesn't support it. Other believe that since it's a game, past meta-gaming experience should inform current gameplay -- otherwise we're just gonna keep getting killed in the same damn area by the same badly-designed killer dungeon.
• Player skill vs. character skill - if you are naturally charming and cunning, then your skill at bargaining, lying, and seducing people at the gaming does not stem from your character's abilities but from your own. Some styles of play support this, and encourage otherwise not-so outgoing players to stretch themselves a bit. On the other hand, if your character is clearly a stupid oaf in conception, coming up with an uncharacteristically brilliant idea also stretches credulity.
• Character-is-me vs. character-isn't-me - some people create characters that are slightly better/worse/different versions of themselves, while others create very different characters each time character creation rolls around. The former are sometimes looked down upon for being not very original, while the latter run the risk of being labeled drama-hogs and frustrated thespians. Both tend to incur this type of loss of respect if their role-playing habits or personalities (real of affected) rub other players the wrong way a lot.
• Roll-playing vs. Role-playing - seemingly the opposite of the first two issues, this centers around a player (and sometimes GM) reliance on the dice to determine everything, regardless of the skill, decisions and gameplay involved.

In my personal opinion, the issues mentioned above aren't a black & white thing (you either are, or you aren't crap). Normally, there are gradations along a continuum along with other mitigating circumstances that complicate them.

Will try to tackle each of these issues one-by-one to see how the possible histories and nuances of these issues may have come about, and how the may be resolved at the game table.