Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[Sunic_Flames]

I also have a game with one reckless person. And by reckless I mean 'fucking stupid'.

Don't tamper with that. *points at powerful looking item which radiates an aura of necromancy*

Guy: *goes to tamper with it, gets yelled at by multiple allies, backs off*

Then a bit later...

*prisoner begins emanating a sinister aura (narrative license to indicate something is wrong)*

Smart person: *detect magic, gets strong aura(s) as a readout*

Smart person: We need to diffuse the magic or kill him.

Guy: Oh noes! You made me drag him 10 feet for nothing! Gah! *draws axe, kills prisoner*

Group finds out after the fact that either meant an Inspired was trying to manifest (and an axe to the chest would save the day, as the group had no chance against one but the prisoner was near dead) or that it was a Death Throes like effect, but worse (kill him, and he explodes). Had Guy waited a second longer, he would have known which. He got lucky and guessed right. Had he been reckless and punched the prisoner (non lethal damage) instead he would have diffused the situation regardless. Let's face it, killing the prisoner for a reason like that is pretty damn stupid.

I know at least some of the group is considering leaving the guy. Really, what do you expect when the 'CG' guy is acting more 'CS' in a purely good aligned party. Even some of the evil NPCs this group has interacted with have managed to offend them far less.

[fil kearney]

Can 4/5 people leave a game and then meet up later for a "new" game without the 5th person?

In play by post... say we've got 14 months of game thread.. and when filling replacements we hire on a chucklehead inadvertantly... I would say it would be ridiculous to archve and scrap the 14 months of thread history to "be nice" to the chucklehead.  booting is more logical. 

What part of "Don't kick people out of your game" reads like "you can't leave a game if you are not having fun?"

If yer the DM and yer not having fun, yer not leaving the game.. yer closing it.. and whoever is left has to start a new game.  So in that sense, "don't kick people out of your game" is essentially saying, "you cant leave a game if you are not having fun"... unless you as the DM choose to KILL the game because you are not having fun.  Is that fair to everyone else who is enjoying each other's company?

It is funny how every time this argument comes up people always drag leaving a game into it. 

why do you think that is? 
maybe it's a basic "him or me" mentality
or maybe when it's the DM, it is "him or the whole game"
I think the two are entwined.  But you've obviously been around the block a few more times than I have, so I'd like to hear your perspective as to why it keeps happening...?

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

I do have to agree there... but I propose all in game issues become out of game issues. 

Here's a real example I DM'd....
Jojo plays bobo the sorceror pyromaniac.  Any time anyone in game gives bobo trouble: fireball tantrum. after a few sessions, DM asks jojo, "fireballing everything is really derailing the story line.  can you stop doing that?"
Jojo replies, "that's how bobo works... so I can't change."
DM replies, "Can you play something else?"
Jojo: "I don't want to."
DM: "well, I gotta let you go, then."

The moment you address what a character is dong in game, it becomes out of game.. because you are questioning the motives of the player.  I don't see how we can separate in game from out of game.  if yer an ass in game or an ass out of game.. yer still an ass. 
When people are posting, "player x is a problem, hat should I do?" how often is the thread about a single instance, a one time event?  IF we can grab a few links to such threads, I would not be surprised if the poster is referring to a number of infractions, or an ongoing situation.
Sure, finding ot what has been attempted to resolve the problem previously is good to know that there is at least an effort to clarify any potential misunderstandings, but doesn't that very quickly leave the realm of in game and enter out of game?

Isn't in game issues just a symptom of out of game trouble?  my example above is one of a player ho only ants to play a pyromaniac sorceror.  that can't be resolved, and that in game symptom is caused by an out of game preference.    I would propose ALL in game issues are the same.   You can't separate them, can you?

[Dragon Snack]

... but I propose all in game issues become out of game issues.

Isn't in game issues just a symptom of out of game trouble?

I'm inclined to agree with this and I think this is part of the problem with this 'discussion'.  Perhaps a more clearly delineated definition of "in game" vs. "out of game", with examples from both sides, would be helpful.

[AndyJames]

There really isn't any discussion simply because in-game issues are always out-of-game issues. It is not the character being a douche, it's the player. Always. Even in the example above, the player is being a douche for not wanting to change the character and refusing to play another character.

As defined, this thread is talking about a situation that cannot occur. Ever. It is like putting 7.5kg of uranium-238 together and not expect it to go boom.

[PhoenixInferno]

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

I do have to agree there... but I propose all in game issues become out of game issues. 

Here's a real example I DM'd....
Jojo plays bobo the sorceror pyromaniac.  Any time anyone in game gives bobo trouble: fireball tantrum. after a few sessions, DM asks jojo, "fireballing everything is really derailing the story line.  can you stop doing that?"
Jojo replies, "that's how bobo works... so I can't change."
DM replies, "Can you play something else?"
Jojo: "I don't want to."
DM: "well, I gotta let you go, then."

The moment you address what a character is dong in game, it becomes out of game.. because you are questioning the motives of the player.  I don't see how we can separate in game from out of game.  if yer an ass in game or an ass out of game.. yer still an ass. 
When people are posting, "player x is a problem, hat should I do?" how often is the thread about a single instance, a one time event?  IF we can grab a few links to such threads, I would not be surprised if the poster is referring to a number of infractions, or an ongoing situation.
Sure, finding ot what has been attempted to resolve the problem previously is good to know that there is at least an effort to clarify any potential misunderstandings, but doesn't that very quickly leave the realm of in game and enter out of game?

Isn't in game issues just a symptom of out of game trouble?  my example above is one of a player ho only ants to play a pyromaniac sorceror.  that can't be resolved, and that in game symptom is caused by an out of game preference.    I would propose ALL in game issues are the same.   You can't separate them, can you?

Move the game into a densely populated city with a responsive police force.  He'll get arrested and put on trial.

YAY!  More roleplaying opportunities and remind the player that you are serious about the pyromania ruining the story!

I believe this was said in one of the podcasts - a "good" DM never says no.  They say "Yes, and..."  If they're playing douchebags in-game, give them in-game consequences for their douchebaggery.

[Callix]

First opinion here, what I want is for you not to want to tell people.

That's nice. If this is a mod decision, say so and I won't post in this thread again.

Back to not opinion. Otherwise, everyone wants everyone else to want to have their opinions. I want you to want to admit that your position is opinion. But this is simply my desire.

I have worked this issue over for years.  And in that time I have seen or heard of hundreds of cases of kicking people out of the group.  And not a single one of them has had any merit.  That is conditional proof.

Not one case of kicking someone? Or not one case for in-game reasons? The two are very different.

Almost everyone belives that a player should be kicked out, yet they cannot give a actual circumstance.  That is conditional proof.

Actually, whenever anyone gives a reason (player is highly disruptive and unwilling to change; playstyles clash horribly (superheroes in survival horror, etc); character occupies too much of the DM's time, and again the player won't change, etc), you have insisted that these are insufficient and easily worked around. I'd appreciate some guidelines on how to manage these "easily", especially in the case that the player is being bullheaded about it.

As for logical proof I posit that "Being mean to your friends is bad" "kicking a friend out of a game is mean" ergo "Kicking a friend out of your game is bad."

I play Magic. I have a friend who is quite nice, but in any game of Magic, becomes abusive, demeaning, and thoroughly annoying. He shows no inclination to change this. So, rather than lose a friendship to botched amateur psychotherapy, I don't play Magic with him. I'm still his friend. I'm just not his Magic friend.

I apply the same rules to D&D, but if the remainder of the group want to continue the game, should they all have to "leave", then restart the game, or can they just kick the disruptive player?

In short, is it wrong to be mean to one friend to ensure that three or four other friends can enjoy their hobby? I agree that it is better, where possible, to work things through, but I have seen no evidence that the kind of "working through" you talk about, which is as much an exercise in amateur psychology as anything, doesn't put your friendships under more strain than excluding someone from a game would.

Being certain makes it non opinion.  Not being personal also makes it non opinion.

If certainty made things factual, all religions would be true. Different religions have contradictory beleifs. Therefore, not all certain beliefs are true. Thus, you may be certain of something, and it still be your opinion. In this case, it is a deep-seated opinion, another mark in its favor. But it doesn't make it fact.

And your logic takes two opinions as premises (both widely-held, rational opinions, but still opinion), and doesn't consider the entire situation.

To anyone this example offends, I apologise in advance.
1) Being mean to your friends is bad.
2) Lying to your friends is mean.
C) Lying to your friends is wrong.
By your logic, one should never lie to one's friends. However, white lies are the grease in the cogs of society; if we never made those little lies for others' convenience, the world would be an angrier place. Telling a friend in a blind rage "I don't know where (object of rage) is." is the right thing to do, even if it's a lie. Since this uses exactly your logic, save for a single similar premise, we must conclude similar results: Kicking players is generally a bad idea, but exceptions may exist.

I'm not going to try to argue anymore since the concept of "opinion" is lost.

Nox Noctis saw the light before I did - I'll withdraw too since this thread is not meant for discussion. Good luck Callix. 

This thread is mean for discussion, or rather debate.  Here's the thing, you need to offer something.  You need to offer a real situation where a person should be kicked out for in game reasons.  Or you need to refute the premise somehow.
[/quote]I hope I've refuted your premises sufficiently. Opinion does not mean "what I think is my opinion". Opinion is anything you believe that is not proveably true. Your premises are opinions, and your conclusion is a logically following opinion. And I've said that I respect that, and encourage others to do so. But I would like you to acknowledge that your position is opinion. If you don't want this in this thread, we can take it elsewhere.

FAKE EDIT:

I believe this was said in one of the podcasts - a "good" DM never says no.  They say "Yes, and..."  If they're playing douchebags in-game, give them in-game consequences for their douchebaggery.

As to that, your solution is to be a douchebag to your friends. That isn't a good way to keep friends, in my experience. And ultimately, why can't a good GM say "Yes, and don't bother coming back next week"?

[PhoenixInferno]

As to that, your solution is to be a douchebag to your friends. That isn't a good way to keep friends, in my experience. And ultimately, why can't a good GM say "Yes, and don't bother coming back next week"?

I'm sorry, why should actions not have consequences?

[Callix]

As to that, your solution is to be a douchebag to your friends. That isn't a good way to keep friends, in my experience. And ultimately, why can't a good GM say "Yes, and don't bother coming back next week"?

I'm sorry, why should actions not have consequences?

Not that they shouldn't have consequences. But that the players need fair warning before the long arm of the law comes down on them. There are several reasons:

1) Resolving this OOC means the problem player doesn't take up game time, and helps keep everyone having fun.

2) DM smiting almost never goes down well with the person in question. In my experience, having a character get RFYD'ed or similar is actually more irritating than not letting the player come back, and it lets them create a new character, come back, and be annoying again.

3) If the consequences aren't sufficient to constitute a smiting, then the trouble PC is likely to run with it, causing even more mayhem and destruction... and completely sidelining the party in the process. No fun for anyone else.

4) If there are just general inconveniences everywhere the problem character goes, then the player least likely to be worried by this is the problem player. Either the other players leave them out of things, which has the player leave the game because he's been unoficcialy shunned, or they bear the minor inconveniences, and you're punishing the other players for having a bad player in the group.

5) People respond better when something is done to their face. If you tell the player "If you keep doing that, then we can't play together", then stick to it, that results in less hard feelings than just screwing over and/or shunning that player until they leave.

In short, I think that most "problem PCs" have elements of out-of-game problems, as well as in-game ones. And I think in-game solutions to the out-of-game aspects seldom work well. If you have good players, subtle, in-game penalties will keep players in line, and are a good idea. But when you have disruptive, bullheaded and off-mood players, then in-game cues from a world they don't really care about aren't going to affect them.

[fil kearney]

As to that, your solution is to be a douchebag to your friends. That isn't a good way to keep friends, in my experience. And ultimately, why can't a good GM say "Yes, and don't bother coming back next week"?

I'm sorry, why should actions not have consequences?

local guards actually killed the character after I kicked him out. 

Why would anyone want to actually waste time in game attempting ot arest him while te rest of the party goes the other way?  almost everyone sits on their ass, and the targetted player has to fight to keep his character out of jail or whatever... ad once he's in jail... what?  invite him back to roleplay sitting on his ass while the rest of the team adventures?  or worse, allo him to roleplay getting out and continue wasting time in the game? 
I disagree with your blanket "have consequences" solution.
Good games do have consequences to actions, but if the player doesn't ant to play a different character, why go through all that crap, PI? 

[PhoenixInferno]

lGood games do have consequences to actions, but if the player doesn't ant to play a different character, why go through all that crap, PI? 

He might change his mind.

[Arcane-surge]

About lies, white or otherwise: I gave up lying two or three years ago, and manners soon after that. That said, I seem to be doing alright. I'll agree that there are a lot of lies, white and not, going on, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that lying under any circumstance is the right thing to do (Though I can't say with authority that it's wrong, either). Either way, it does have consequences. In your example, Callix, you talk about lying to a friend who's in a blind rage about the location of the object of their rage. Now, that's a solution, I'll give you that, but there are plenty of other ones that don't involve lying, such as calming them down, telling them off, or flat out telling them that you won't tell them. Not lying doesn't mean always telling the truth on demand.

On in-game consequences: I understand how consequences such as guards and trials and the like could be seen as DM smiting and could easily become DM smiting, but isn't necessarily so. It seems reasonable that, if Jojo is lighting everything and everyone on fire, everyone might want to put a stop to that. This may be seen to stray from the adventure, but really, this BECOMES the adventure. The other PCs can work on a defense or try and bust him out, he can have all kinds of interactions while inside, that sort of thing. Maybe Jojo learns to become a little more selective with his pyrotechnics. Talk to Jojo's player as well, and explain that what's happening is a reasonable consequence of what's going on, and that you're not just trying to screw his character over because he's burning everything.

On the whole kicking people out deal: I've been playing tabletop for about ten years, and I larped for about half that (That's right. Super nerd here), and the only time I've ever had to actually ask a player to leave and never come back was when complaints mounted up against a few guys for violations of the "No Touching" rule in Larp. However, there are tons of times when I've wanted to just bounce someone out on their ass. Maybe I'm too charitable, but I've always tried to address the problems both in and out of game rather than just taking what's probably an easier way out.
I've dealt with my share of douchebag characters, crazy killer characters, and all kinds of other problem ones. Sometimes the party solves these sorts of things for me, by saying, "We ditch Mr. Babyeater O'Kittensquisher there, and head off for greener pastures, because our characters don't want to be associated with a guy whose armor is adorned with horseshit and dead puppies." People start to understand that as part of a group, there are certain criteria that are good. Also, I play with my friends. My friends are fuckers, to be sure, but they're my kind of fuckers. We are generally not fuckers to each other, because we are friends. Maybe we're boring, or I'm excessively calm, but when you guys tell stories about shouting matches or arguments or actual fights that happen over D&D (Or a most anything else, honestly), I'm sort of surprised.

[Josh]

I also have a game with one reckless person. And by reckless I mean 'fucking stupid'.

Don't tamper with that. *points at powerful looking item which radiates an aura of necromancy*

Guy: *goes to tamper with it, gets yelled at by multiple allies, backs off*

Then a bit later...

*prisoner begins emanating a sinister aura (narrative license to indicate something is wrong)*

Smart person: *detect magic, gets strong aura(s) as a readout*

Smart person: We need to diffuse the magic or kill him.

Guy: Oh noes! You made me drag him 10 feet for nothing! Gah! *draws axe, kills prisoner*

Group finds out after the fact that either meant an Inspired was trying to manifest (and an axe to the chest would save the day, as the group had no chance against one but the prisoner was near dead) or that it was a Death Throes like effect, but worse (kill him, and he explodes). Had Guy waited a second longer, he would have known which. He got lucky and guessed right. Had he been reckless and punched the prisoner (non lethal damage) instead he would have diffused the situation regardless. Let's face it, killing the prisoner for a reason like that is pretty damn stupid.

I know at least some of the group is considering leaving the guy. Really, what do you expect when the 'CG' guy is acting more 'CS' in a purely good aligned party. Even some of the evil NPCs this group has interacted with have managed to offend them far less.

People do not necessarily know that "strong aura" means whatever it means.  You (or the book) needs to tell them.  And/or you need to let them make mistakes and learn.

If he says oh-no kill him, let him.  Then deal with it, in the story.  You are straitjacketing if not railroading with your plot.

[Josh]

Can 4/5 people leave a game and then meet up later for a "new" game without the 5th person?

In play by post... say we've got 14 months of game thread.. and when filling replacements we hire on a chucklehead inadvertantly... I would say it would be ridiculous to archve and scrap the 14 months of thread history to "be nice" to the chucklehead.  booting is more logical. 

What part of "Don't kick people out of your game" reads like "you can't leave a game if you are not having fun?"

If yer the DM and yer not having fun, yer not leaving the game.. yer closing it.. and whoever is left has to start a new game.  So in that sense, "don't kick people out of your game" is essentially saying, "you cant leave a game if you are not having fun"... unless you as the DM choose to KILL the game because you are not having fun.  Is that fair to everyone else who is enjoying each other's company?

It is funny how every time this argument comes up people always drag leaving a game into it. 

why do you think that is? 
maybe it's a basic "him or me" mentality
or maybe when it's the DM, it is "him or the whole game"
I think the two are entwined.  But you've obviously been around the block a few more times than I have, so I'd like to hear your perspective as to why it keeps happening...?

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

I do have to agree there... but I propose all in game issues become out of game issues. 

Here's a real example I DM'd....
Jojo plays bobo the sorceror pyromaniac.  Any time anyone in game gives bobo trouble: fireball tantrum. after a few sessions, DM asks jojo, "fireballing everything is really derailing the story line.  can you stop doing that?"
Jojo replies, "that's how bobo works... so I can't change."
DM replies, "Can you play something else?"
Jojo: "I don't want to."
DM: "well, I gotta let you go, then."

The moment you address what a character is dong in game, it becomes out of game.. because you are questioning the motives of the player.  I don't see how we can separate in game from out of game.  if yer an ass in game or an ass out of game.. yer still an ass. 
When people are posting, "player x is a problem, hat should I do?" how often is the thread about a single instance, a one time event?  IF we can grab a few links to such threads, I would not be surprised if the poster is referring to a number of infractions, or an ongoing situation.
Sure, finding ot what has been attempted to resolve the problem previously is good to know that there is at least an effort to clarify any potential misunderstandings, but doesn't that very quickly leave the realm of in game and enter out of game?

Isn't in game issues just a symptom of out of game trouble?  my example above is one of a player ho only ants to play a pyromaniac sorceror.  that can't be resolved, and that in game symptom is caused by an out of game preference.    I would propose ALL in game issues are the same.   You can't separate them, can you?

I know little about pbp games.  It seems strange that you would play for 14 months and add new people in.  My take would be to do things differently.  I know I would be upset to be kicked out of a game I was trying to play. 

As for jojo you have a number of issues.  The first is that the only thing a player controls is their character and the only part that can be anything, is his personality.  Hence people get attached and stubborn.  When making the character the player should have figured out why he wa an adventurer with a group raiding dungeons because that's what DnD is. 

Also the character is derailing the railroad.  If someone is screwing things up generally they are not interested in it.  Besides fireballs do solve most problems in DnD.  the problems they don't are creatures immune to fire.  You may also be playing too much "not-DnD."  Action adventure dungeon crawl is DnD.  The further you are from that the less viable your game.

[Josh]

... but I propose all in game issues become out of game issues.

Isn't in game issues just a symptom of out of game trouble?

I'm inclined to agree with this and I think this is part of the problem with this 'discussion'.  Perhaps a more clearly delineated definition of "in game" vs. "out of game", with examples from both sides, would be helpful.

"In character" means what the character thinks sees or does
"In game" means anything that takes place in the context of the RPG you are playing.  Questions, instructions as to movement, hp anything that is directly part of play.
"out of game" anything not pertaining to the play of the game.  Eating, kibitzing, going to the bathroom or fucking the GM are all out of game.

[Chemus]

...fucking the GM...

As a member of a gaming group where this were to happen, I would be very distracted. I'd find it difficult to concentrate on the game, no matter who the participants were. I think that this should be only conditionally allowed in games

[Josh]

Actually, whenever anyone gives a reason (player is highly disruptive and unwilling to change; playstyles clash horribly (superheroes in survival horror, etc); character occupies too much of the DM's time, and again the player won't change, etc), you have insisted that these are insufficient and easily worked around. I'd appreciate some guidelines on how to manage these "easily", especially in the case that the player is being bullheaded about it.

Heres the thing.  These are interpreted cases and the problem is that usually the interpretation is wrong.  For example, people who are disruptive or won't change have reasons.  Determine those and they are easy to deal with.  People occupy the DM because he lets them, etc. 

I play Magic. I have a friend who is quite nice, but in any game of Magic, becomes abusive, demeaning, and thoroughly annoying. He shows no inclination to change this. So, rather than lose a friendship to botched amateur psychotherapy, I don't play Magic with him. I'm still his friend. I'm just not his Magic friend.

Are we doing a complete list of non rpgs?  I am talking about RPGs.

If certainty made things factual, all religions would be true. Different religions have contradictory beleifs. Therefore, not all certain beliefs are true. Thus, you may be certain of something, and it still be your opinion. In this case, it is a deep-seated opinion, another mark in its favor. But it doesn't make it fact.

Faith, the cornerstone of religion, is about uncertainty.  QEDMF.  But seriously, Certainty in a logic/mathematical sense.  I have proven something, that makes it certain.  If someone proved religion then it would be certain.  You are mixing up two lines of thought here.

To anyone this example offends, I apologise in advance.
1) Being mean to your friends is bad.
2) Lying to your friends is mean.
C) Lying to your friends is wrong.
By your logic, one should never lie to one's friends. However, white lies are the grease in the cogs of society; if we never made those little lies for others' convenience, the world would be an angrier place. Telling a friend in a blind rage "I don't know where (object of rage) is." is the right thing to do, even if it's a lie. Since this uses exactly your logic, save for a single similar premise, we must conclude similar results: Kicking players is generally a bad idea, but exceptions may exist.

Hilariously you pick this example because I am pathologically truthful.  I also know a little about dealing with people you say “I am not telling you, calm down and have some coco.”  I advise you not to lie. 

That being said, lying still is not mean, unless it is a hurtful lie.   But if it were then yes you statement would be correct. 

I hope I've refuted your premises sufficiently. Opinion does not mean "what I think is my opinion". Opinion is anything you believe that is not proveably true. Your premises are opinions, and your conclusion is a logically following opinion. And I've said that I respect that, and encourage others to do so. But I would like you to acknowledge that your position is opinion. If you don't want this in this thread, we can take it elsewhere.

 
Opinion can be anything not provably true, correct.  That's what the proof would be for.

[jcm]

Are we doing a complete list of non rpgs?  I am talking about RPGs.

It seems like that sort of thing could happen with RPGs. I had some friends that nearly came to blows over sports video games, so they stopped playing sports video games with each other. I had plenty of friends who wouldn't play first person shooters with me because of how much trash talking and yelling I did. Heck, part of the reason I got into RPGs is because no one in my family would play board games or cards with me after a while.

To bring it solidly back to RPGs, maybe someone has a friend who they won't play RPGs with, but will still hang out with and do other things. It at least seems plausible to me that it could happen.

[Callix]

Heres the thing.  These are interpreted cases and the problem is that usually the interpretation is wrong.  For example, people who are disruptive or won't change have reasons.  Determine those and they are easy to deal with.  People occupy the DM because he lets them, etc.

A disruptive player takes up the GM's time because they're a player, and the GM needs to listen to their players. If the GM won't listen to you, you might as well not be playing. And shunning a player is even more anti-friendship than booting them.

Are we doing a complete list of non rpgs?  I am talking about RPGs.

The analogy holds. It is possible to have friends you just don't play certain types of game with. RPGs could easily be one of those types. And when you discover that a certain friend is one that you don't like to play RPGs with, you may need to remove them from a game. Nicely, of course. But they may need to leave.

Faith, the cornerstone of religion, is about uncertainty.  QEDMF.  But seriously, Certainty in a logic/mathematical sense.  I have proven something, that makes it certain.  If someone proved religion then it would be certain.  You are mixing up two lines of thought here.

Fair enough, but your proof takes opinions as premises. "Kicking friends out of a game is mean" is an opinion I would agree with, and I agree that kicking players is undesirable. But the conclusion that "kicking a player is never justified" requires "it is never justified to be bad". And we both know that's rubbish. Breaking into a house to call an ambulance for the owner is a justified wrong. Given this, while kicking a player is bad, we must consider if any justifications exist. In your experience, you have never encountered them, and conclude that they don't exist. Others, with different experiences, disagree. Looks like conflicting opinions to me.

Opinion can be anything not provably true, correct.  That's what the proof would be for.

And I am not satisfied with your proof. We may be justified in doing things that are, in the abstract, bad because all the alternatives are worse. As such, we may be justified in removing a player from a game.

[RobbyPants]

So you kicked him out for out of game reasons? 

What I mean by that sentence is you have never kicked someone out, so you have no real example of someone who needed kicking out. 

I'll be honest, I didn't kick him out because we were so close to the end of the semester, that I didn't see the need anymore.  The game was ending in a few weeks, I'd asked him to stop cheating, and he seemed to cut back.

I didn't invite him back next year and didn't even tell him about the game (passive-aggressive? probably).  That was due in part to his cheating and annoying gaming hadits in D&D as well as all the lying and cheating he did outside of the game.  Had he gotten as bad as he did earlier in the year and not fixed it after being talked to, I would have kicked him out.

[Sunic_Flames]

I also have a game with one reckless person. And by reckless I mean 'fucking stupid'.

Don't tamper with that. *points at powerful looking item which radiates an aura of necromancy*

Guy: *goes to tamper with it, gets yelled at by multiple allies, backs off*

Then a bit later...

*prisoner begins emanating a sinister aura (narrative license to indicate something is wrong)*

Smart person: *detect magic, gets strong aura(s) as a readout*

Smart person: We need to diffuse the magic or kill him.

Guy: Oh noes! You made me drag him 10 feet for nothing! Gah! *draws axe, kills prisoner*

Group finds out after the fact that either meant an Inspired was trying to manifest (and an axe to the chest would save the day, as the group had no chance against one but the prisoner was near dead) or that it was a Death Throes like effect, but worse (kill him, and he explodes). Had Guy waited a second longer, he would have known which. He got lucky and guessed right. Had he been reckless and punched the prisoner (non lethal damage) instead he would have diffused the situation regardless. Let's face it, killing the prisoner for a reason like that is pretty damn stupid.

I know at least some of the group is considering leaving the guy. Really, what do you expect when the 'CG' guy is acting more 'CS' in a purely good aligned party. Even some of the evil NPCs this group has interacted with have managed to offend them far less.

People do not necessarily know that "strong aura" means whatever it means.  You (or the book) needs to tell them.  And/or you need to let them make mistakes and learn.

If he says oh-no kill him, let him.  Then deal with it, in the story.  You are straitjacketing if not railroading with your plot.

One word. Bullshit. When someone detects magic, and I tell them there is a strong aura he figured out it meant something big pretty fast. He did whip out the axe and kill the prisoner... in the middle of a holy temple. Suffice it to say, he got yelled at. And it does make one wonder just what kind of thought process would make someone say 'well, you made me drag the guy for nothing so now he dies!' Hint: It's not anything remotely expressed as good aligned, or even evil aligned. It's just nuts. So he got to be reckless, he got yelled at for being reckless, and he is being doubted for being reckless. It would not surprise me at this point if the others chose to leave him behind at some tavern. I will not railroad them into keeping the guy around if that happens. I find it amusing you are accusing me of railroading by having him face logical (and rather tame) consequences for his actions while advocating characters should never be kicked out no matter what, essentially railroading the party into keeping around Mr. Chaotic Stupid. After all, holy temple = good priests. Last I checked, good priests take offense to killing with such little warning and provocation. Especially since he had to drop the guy, pull out his axe, line up the CdG... it wasn't just some wild swing, it was a premeditated effort. I could have just had them 'attack the evil within their walls' and it'd still be a logical consequence.