Quote Originally Posted by Amnestic View Post
You may or may not be correct, but if the 'correct' form of roleplaying a class is as out-of-the-norm disruptive to the group/DM, that's probably not a good sign, unfortunately. Especially when it's one of the 'core four'.
Disruptive for what?

Fighting monsters and looting dungeons? Sure. You know what else is disruptive for that? Traps. Resource scarcity. The monsters themselves. Bluntly, a lot of people are under the misconception that a game being co-operative means there should be no obstacles nor friction to co-operation. That is really, really far from truth. In actual fact, a good chunk of co-operative games add obstacles and restrictions so that co-operation becomes more challenging - because co-operation itself is part of the challenge. There is no inherent flaw to one or more special roles existing to create mayhem in the group. It's a difficulty toggle: there's a choice between games that don't need those roles and co-operation is hence that much easier, and games that do need them and you need to watch your back as a consequence.

---

Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
I'm not so sure about all the PHBs and DMGs throughout the decades, but I will note that the various public campaigns (e.g. LG, LFR, PFS) have always had a big boldfaced rule of "No PVP."
You are correct about public campaigns & I would have to amend my statement to cover them.

But, consider: typically rules for specific campaign are only added when basic rules DON'T include such rules. And it typically isn't necessary to add rules to ban something no-one ever tries - to the contrary, bans are often targeted at common things. So there are two possibilities:

1) player versus player, under basic rules, is possible and common

2) a lot of campaign holders decides to add a redundant rule for whatever reason.