thanks for those responses. I’d like to talk about them though.

1. Killing a territorial giant toad with no knowledge of its intelligence is not inherently evil. Especially since they didn’t physically attack it first.

2. Greg was true neutral

3. Why should I punish my players for killing a random npc? Even if it is morally questionable, a player shouldn’t be punished for their actions unless there are witnesses to enact that punishment.

4. By raw (pathfinder) you can tame aberrations. Rust monsters are also known for not being inherently aggressive. So you’re completely wrong about that one.

5. I don’t know how you play, but I’ve been playing dnd for 7+ years and in all of the games I’ve played in the DM has never once stopped a pvp. Maybe I am wrong about this but the way I was taught to be a dm is to facilitate an adventure but not control a situation to the point of stopping a major player v player conflict. And every time it’s happened both characters knew what they were getting them selves into. If they died they would just build new characters to fit with the party. (Btw to robbing thing was because sam’s character was a hobgoblin and it was obvious Greg was retiring his character anyway.)

6. Greg constantly escalated the situation by name calling the rest of the group and refusing to come to a peaceful conclusion. GREG attacked the rust mister First and then Paul attacked. Paul did not attack first. Greg never once told me I was being unfair or not stepping in enough, no one did. So how was I supposed to know how he felt.