Ok first post and it is a long one so please bear with me but I started playing a campaign with my s/o and some friends, and I have run into an issue. My character is a necromancer and he clashes with my group, morally he is not exactly evil but he has no issue with violence solving issues no matter how small because of his background he really has no honor. Whether it be killing a shop keeper, or assaulting/killing an orphan pickpocketing us. My party seems to frown upon this and actively discourages it and they even go as far as shame me and not help me in battle unless they absolutely have to, for playing my character the way that he is written. I also worry the first time I resurrect a non enemy my party will lose it.

I have spoken with my dm about it and he doesn't really seem to have a problem with my desire to make my character a not so nice guy at times but he has made me aware that I will have to deal with the party as a result of my actions and he has not directly said he wouldn't stop them from killing me but he has eluded to it. He will ask me if I really want to do something before I do it, and I usually bow down to the group's demands.

It has gotten to a point that it is making d&d become no fun for me at all and my dm is aware of this and we have talked about shelving my character for another more "dark" campaign and doing a new one, talking to the group and voting to see if they are willing to allow him maybe giving some opportunities to explore the a-hole-ish side of my character somewhere in the campaign despite the possibility of it severely upsetting them, or me just outright quitting the party. All of which I don't feel too keen on as the possibility of severely upsetting my party part doesn't bode well for me as I don't think he will save me if they turn on me even if we all agree on allowing me to do not nice things, and I don't want to stop playing the character I put a lot of time into making.

I was hoping to see if anyone has had a similar situation and how did it get handled? Am I being selfish for not having a character that conforms to the party, and being mostly unwilling to change him? I feel like I am, but tbh outside of d&d I am a very mellow decent person, and I tend to be a doormat a lot. So there is a big appeal to play a character that is not like me. 

Also my s/o does take some issue but she just deals with it. 

Tldr: my party is more on the good side and I am not exactly, my dm may let them kill me if it came down to it. I'm not having fun as a result and I am willing to leave the group because of it despite it possibly causing problems.

I can only really speak to this as a DM.

I understand you are playing the C in character, and that it is fun for you. That not doing so is wrecking your fun. I will also point out that your doing so is wrecking the fun for the other players.

If I were your DM, i would strongly suggest saving that character and building a new one. One of the reasons that I have zero sessions where everyone creates their characters together is because of exactly this issue. That is, I never allow a character created solo into a  game I am running unless there has been a death in the campaign -- only those created during the zero session alongside everyone else creating theirs.

Because what's going on is that your character is ultimately wrecking everyone's fun -- you can't have fun because you can't play this character properly, the other players aren't having fun because this cahracter "is a jerk", basically, and the DM isn't having fun because they have to mediate this.

The killing thing? That's a consequence of those actions. The DM is likely willing to allow it because the character is that disruptive, and that makes that character a problem for the party in game, and for the table out of game.

The character sounds fun, don't get me wrong. But there is a time and place -- a kind of game and way of playing -- for that character, and this campaign doesn't seem to be the one for it. 

it is entirely your choice, and this is strictly from a DM's perspective, not a players.

This is typically the kind of thing to have worked out at session 0. It seems you’re past that, but you can always have one anyway. Just an out of character discussion where everyone talks about the kind of game they want to play, and everyone gets on the same page. 

If that’s not going to happen, I hate to tell you, but you may be the problem. First if, if someone says “but that’s what my character would do” or something similar, it’s a big red flag. At that point you’re basically admitting that your behavior is rubbing the wrong way, you know it is, and you’re choosing to continue doing it. I say your behavior, because you’re the one choosing to make the character do what he’s doing. You can simply choose to have him do something else that doesn’t annoy everyone else. Yes, you should play the character you want, but there are limits. You are part of a group. When your idea of fun starts pushing up into everyone else’s idea of fun, you are the problem.

To put it another way, if one of your party members had made this post complaining about your behavior, I’d say they should tell you something like: yes, your character can do what they want. But my character, and the rest of the party, are going to kick your character out of the party, since my character doesn’t want to adventure with an evil person. Because that’s what my character would do. 

I get it fun is the party's goal and in most sessions my character has really been nothing more than an npc anyways as the story has been focusing on our Barbarian and Eldritch Knight so far. My dm has not directly said he is disruptive as I have not done anything other than make a suggestion or two of doing something violent. Our zero sessions were individually meeting with our dm as our schedules were all a little too hectic to do a group right away.

However him and I have been talking and it seems we may just kill my character off and make him do it in a way that the party will hopefully realize the magnitude of the loss as we are so far dealing with a necromancy as something the main enemy is employing against us so my guy may have a major use eventually. That way I can just roll a character I had as a back up in the event mine got killed. 

It seems like Dorsay’s got the right of things for the most part. If it were me and I really, really wanted to keep playing that character I would consider two possible ways to proceed:

1. The “Now?” Approach: This is where you mostly go along with the goody-two-shoes in the party for the sake of peace, but still express your character’s personality in other ways. When your character encounters an NPC they wish to kill, simply ask “can I kill him?” When the party says “no,” back down. You’ve still expressed your character without disrupting the party. If that NPC proves to be a jerk, ask “how ‘bout now? Can I kill him now?” Basically you’re asking the other players for queues as to when it will be acceptable for your character to indulge their darker side, but are still able to express that darker side all the time.
2. The Redemption Arc Approach: This is where your character evolves over the course of the campaign from beginning a dark, murder happy antihero to being something that genuinely approaches being a hero later in the campaign. Basically let your party’s ethics shape your character’s personal morals over time. (Kinda like the cat in Stuart Little. He went from trying to eat Stuart when he first saw him to actively saving Stuart’s life in the end.)

You might even choose to combine those👆two approaches and use the “Now?” approach as a means to the redemption arc. Those’re my thoughts anyway as a sometimes player sometimes DM. If you don’t like either idea, then it may be better to create a less edgy character as EA suggests.

This is a tough issue. I've never played an "evil" character or someone that is morally grey, but I've seen people who have, and it doesn't always turn out nice. First and foremost, I would think something like this should have come up in session 0, where everyone is discussing their characters and how they want to play them. A session 0 is a great place to set the standards for how everyone's characters will act, and what kind of game the players want to play. 

However, in your case it seems that it's a bit late to figure that out and come to some sort of agreement, so I have a few options for you:

First option: This one is pretty obvious, but I thought I should suggest it anyway, which is to just create a new character. You could have the DM or the players kill off your character, which seems like something the players want to happen anyway, then just make a new character that works better with the party. It is just really hard to play a murder happy character if the rest of the party doesn't fall in line with what you want to do, and thus it's much easier to get away with something like that in an "evil" campaign then in a "standard" campaign.

Second option: Now I know you said that you put a lot of time into making that character and don't want to shelve them for another campaign, which I understand completely, as someone who puts a fair amount of time into my character's backstories. So, if you want to continue playing this character, but also want to work with the party, then why not have some sort of shift in their personality? Perhaps your character could have something bad happen to someone they love, and all the sudden their opinion on death changes from that experience. Maybe some magical being comes to them physically or in a dream and says that they need to change their ways, or maybe they say that they should put up a guise of being nice, while working toward some big grand plan. Obviously, you would need to work with your DM on this one, and I don't know if doing something like this would take away from the character you want to play, but it's an option. 

Third option: This one might not work, as it would definitely require a lot of DM involvement, but if your DM is cool with it, you could have your character become a villain in the story. Either your party tried to kill them, and your character decided they had enough with trying to affiliate with nice people, or else your party succeeds in killing them, and as a necromancer they come back to life as some sort of ghost or mega undead or something, and the DM could turn your character into a villain. Either of these options would probably mean that the DM takes control of your character, and you would still have to make a new one, which I don't know if you would be okay with that. But this way your character still gets to be a part of the story, and you can join the party with a new character that would perhaps be more aligned with the party's morals.

I hope this helps, and that you can find a solution that works for the whole table!

Quote from Xalthu >>

This is typically the kind of thing to have worked out at session 0. It seems you’re past that, but you can always have one anyway. Just an out of character discussion where everyone talks about the kind of game they want to play, and everyone gets on the same page. 

If that’s not going to happen, I hate to tell you, but you may be the problem. First if, if someone says “but that’s what my character would do” or something similar, it’s a big red flag. At that point you’re basically admitting that your behavior is rubbing the wrong way, you know it is, and you’re choosing to continue doing it. I say your behavior, because you’re the one choosing to make the character do what he’s doing. You can simply choose to have him do something else that doesn’t annoy everyone else. Yes, you should play the character you want, but there are limits. You are part of a group. When your idea of fun starts pushing up into everyone else’s idea of fun, you are the problem.

To put it another way, if one of your party members had made this post complaining about your behavior, I’d say they should tell you something like: yes, your character can do what they want. But my character, and the rest of the party, are going to kick your character out of the party, since my character doesn’t want to adventure with an evil person. Because that’s what my character would do. 

  My dm does like the idea of my character as it has its merits of being fun. I think we both assumed the party may be open to the idea of going along with my murder happy tendencies at times but I have been stonewalled. However my backup would be a paladin that doesn't like hurting people, drinking, lying or doing anything remotely morally gray. My dm thinks it would be playable even if he was insufferably kind. If there was one thing about the paladin that would match up to me as a person is I am nice. 

As both player and DM, I have no issues over playing a dark game, but the others at the table must want to play a similar game, or conflicts between players will arise. even if everyone is on board with it, someone at the table may think another player has gone too far. PC to PC combat can sometimes happen in these dark games, and that can spill over into player to player conflict, especially if one or more players involved hold a strong connection to their character.

For a party that's mostly "good", when one in the party takes, by another's interpretation, unnecessarily brutal actions against NPCs, or PCs, there is bound to be friction among the party. Extreme, movie-setting example: A group of people living in a town setting cannot reasonably be expected to let a vampire hang out with them in the local tavern, when they know that the vampire occasionally kills and drains one of their children, in order to stay youthful and healthy looking. A movie goer would not expect the townspeople to let such behavior slide, even if the vampire is otherwise friendly and generous to the townsfolk.

Quote from IamSposta >>

It seems like Dorsay’s got the right of things for the most part. If it were me and I really, really wanted to keep playing that character I would consider two possible ways to proceed:

1. The “Now?” Approach: This is where you mostly go along with the goody-two-shoes in the party for the sake of peace, but still express your character’s personality in other ways. When your character encounters an NPC they wish to kill, simply ask “can I kill him?” When the party says “no,” back down. You’ve still expressed your character without disrupting the party. If that NPC proves to be a jerk, ask “how ‘bout now? Can I kill him now?” Basically you’re asking the other players for queues as to when it will be acceptable for your character to indulge their darker side, but are still able to express that darker side all the time.
2. The Redemption Arc Approach: This is where your character evolves over the course of the campaign from beginning a dark, murder happy antihero to being something that genuinely approaches being a hero later in the campaign. Basically let your party’s ethics shape your character’s personal morals over time. (Kinda like the cat in Stuart Little. He went from trying to eat Stuart when he first saw him to actively saving Stuart’s life in the end.)

You might even choose to combine those👆two approaches and use the “Now?” approach as a means to the redemption arc. Those’re my thoughts anyway as a sometimes player sometimes DM. If you don’t like either idea, then it may be better to create a less edgy character as EA suggests.

 This made me think of “The Expanse” more the books than the show. In it, there’s a character who doesn’t really have a moral compass. But he realizes he doesn’t and he should so he looks to other characters he respects to tell him when it’s appropriate to start fighting or to hold back. 
Something like that could be kind of fun to play. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

It seems like Dorsay’s got the right of things for the most part. If it were me and I really, really wanted to keep playing that character I would consider two possible ways to proceed:

1. The “Now?” Approach: This is where you mostly go along with the goody-two-shoes in the party for the sake of peace, but still express your character’s personality in other ways. When your character encounters an NPC they wish to kill, simply ask “can I kill him?” When the party says “no,” back down. You’ve still expressed your character without disrupting the party. If that NPC proves to be a jerk, ask “how ‘bout now? Can I kill him now?” Basically you’re asking the other players for queues as to when it will be acceptable for your character to indulge their darker side, but are still able to express that darker side all the time.
2. The Redemption Arc Approach: This is where your character evolves over the course of the campaign from beginning a dark, murder happy antihero to being something that genuinely approaches being a hero later in the campaign. Basically let your party’s ethics shape your character’s personal morals over time. (Kinda like the cat in Stuart Little. He went from trying to eat Stuart when he first saw him to actively saving Stuart’s life in the end.)

You might even choose to combine those👆two approaches and use the “Now?” approach as a means to the redemption arc. Those’re my thoughts anyway as a sometimes player sometimes DM. If you don’t like either idea, then it may be better to create a less edgy character as EA suggests.

 This made me think of “The Expanse” more the books than the show. In it, there’s a character who doesn’t really have a moral compass. But he realizes he doesn’t and he should so he looks to other characters he respects to tell him when it’s appropriate to start fighting or to hold back. 
Something like that could be kind of fun to play. 

 
It would certainly make for some fun social encounters. lol

[NPC Shopkeep]: “That’ll be (insert exorbitant price) gp.”
[Necromancer]: “Can’t I just kill him and take it?”
[Other PC]: “No, you can’t just kill him. (to NPC): “How about… (begins haggling).”

Quote from GUS_21 >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

This is typically the kind of thing to have worked out at session 0. It seems you’re past that, but you can always have one anyway. Just an out of character discussion where everyone talks about the kind of game they want to play, and everyone gets on the same page. 

If that’s not going to happen, I hate to tell you, but you may be the problem. First if, if someone says “but that’s what my character would do” or something similar, it’s a big red flag. At that point you’re basically admitting that your behavior is rubbing the wrong way, you know it is, and you’re choosing to continue doing it. I say your behavior, because you’re the one choosing to make the character do what he’s doing. You can simply choose to have him do something else that doesn’t annoy everyone else. Yes, you should play the character you want, but there are limits. You are part of a group. When your idea of fun starts pushing up into everyone else’s idea of fun, you are the problem.

To put it another way, if one of your party members had made this post complaining about your behavior, I’d say they should tell you something like: yes, your character can do what they want. But my character, and the rest of the party, are going to kick your character out of the party, since my character doesn’t want to adventure with an evil person. Because that’s what my character would do. 

  My dm does like the idea of my character as it has its merits of being fun. I think we both assumed the party may be open to the idea of going along with my murder happy tendencies at times but I have been stonewalled. However my backup would be a paladin that doesn't like hurting people, drinking, lying or doing anything remotely morally gray. My dm thinks it would be playable even if he was insufferably kind. If there was one thing about the paladin that would match up to me as a person is I am nice. 

 The thing Is, it’s not just your DM’s opinion that matters. Talk to the rest of the players. It could be if you explain what you’re trying to do, they’ll better understand and be willing to work with you on a compromise that can work for everyone. 

Echoing Xalthu - "it's what my character would do" is a crappy reasoning when you're the one that built the character. If you're ready to use that as an excuse to be evil and attack people/murder hobo/whatever, then be ready for that same logic to be used by the other players. 

If they're playing Good characters, then they're purposely hamstringing themselves by trying to find a reason to keep your character there at all. "What their characters would do" would be anywhere from the spectrum of kick you from their adventure party to attack you outright, depending on what part of killing people you do. 

It's not all you though, as the DM should be a little more proactive in setting boundaries and discussing these things, as others have said. 

Basically, in my opinion, you should make a character that would actually work with your group, rather then purposely making one to work against them. 

Quote from GUS_21 >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

This is typically the kind of thing to have worked out at session 0. It seems you’re past that, but you can always have one anyway. Just an out of character discussion where everyone talks about the kind of game they want to play, and everyone gets on the same page. 

If that’s not going to happen, I hate to tell you, but you may be the problem. First if, if someone says “but that’s what my character would do” or something similar, it’s a big red flag. At that point you’re basically admitting that your behavior is rubbing the wrong way, you know it is, and you’re choosing to continue doing it. I say your behavior, because you’re the one choosing to make the character do what he’s doing. You can simply choose to have him do something else that doesn’t annoy everyone else. Yes, you should play the character you want, but there are limits. You are part of a group. When your idea of fun starts pushing up into everyone else’s idea of fun, you are the problem.

To put it another way, if one of your party members had made this post complaining about your behavior, I’d say they should tell you something like: yes, your character can do what they want. But my character, and the rest of the party, are going to kick your character out of the party, since my character doesn’t want to adventure with an evil person. Because that’s what my character would do. 

My dm does like the idea of my character as it has its merits of being fun. I think we both assumed the party may be open to the idea of going along with my murder happy tendencies at times but I have been stonewalled. However my backup would be a paladin that doesn't like hurting people, drinking, lying or doing anything remotely morally gray. My dm thinks it would be playable even if he was insufferably kind. If there was one thing about the paladin that would match up to me as a person is I am nice.

 
I’ma just point out that “kind” and “nice” are not the same thing. Suppose you get a flat tire. A “kind” person will help you change it, a “nice” person will empathize with you about how much it sucks having a flat tire. Someone who is kind but not nice might tell you you’re a dumbass for getting a flat tire the whole time they’re helping you change your flat. Someone who is nice but not kind might empathize with you the whole time they stand there watching you change your tire all by yourself. Where I live, people are not always nice, but they’re frequently kind.

I’m sorry to be so blunt but this is entirely on you. You are taking part in a group activity where everyone needs to figure out how to get along. The group seems to have been doing fine up until you joined. You are the outlier. You are the one causing the strife. This means you need to change. That your character is the way they are is never, absolutely NEVER, an excuse to be disruptive in a game because you are entirely in control of how your character is. When a character doesn’t fit in, you make that character different enough to fit in or make a whole separate character that fits in; either way, it has to get along with the other party members well enough that the game can progress and everyone can have fun. If you simply cannot have fun playing the kind of character that gets along with the other characters, then this is a perfect illustration of someone playing at the wrong table. You are not a bad person, you just need to find people who want to play the same way you do rather than round-peg-into-a-square-holing yourself into a group that you don’t really fit.

Showing up with a character that disrupts the game is the same as showing up to play hockey without skates or a stick, moving the chess pieces contrary to their roles or hitting the other player with your tennis racket instead of the ball. You’re not playing the game, you’re causing problems. One of the most basic assumptions about participating in a group activity is that everyone agrees not to ruin the activity for anyone else. 

Letting your character react with violence to any small problem he's encountering isn't a viable character concept, that's just edgelording. You're not playing a single-player game, and even in GTA you'll have 5 stars eventually, and NPCs will hunt your psychopath character down to unalive him. I get that playing a necromancer is cool and all that, but if you can't give it more substance than "got no honor, kills things and raises zombies" everyone else will find that annoying at best - and you seem to be already way past that point. Imho, time to disappear that  char and roll a new one that is a lot more suited for cooperative roleplay.

It seems that you did not write that character to work with the group or campaign...and are undermining other players' fun. Reacting to little things with violence isn't great either...and there should be consequences within the group and society.

There are ways to run an evil character. We have a character in our group that would switch sides in a battle for gems...but we are aware of it and can plan for it if we want.  You could run a NE narcissist type that tries not to publicly hide the evil but still does questionable things...like explains them away. You could do LE where he is evil but follows a code or laws. Also, you can do a lot of evil with a Neutral alignment like CN...where your kind of random.

I have to pipe up because of a prior comment.

It was mentioned that an alternative character would be the complete reverse of the original one. A Paladin  "that doesn't like hurting people, drinking, lying or doing anything remotely morally gray. My dm thinks it would be playable even if he was insufferably kind." 

My concern, as a DM, is that this is the flipside of the same trap that is getting your character into trouble right now.

This is a game where everything is morally gray. You are going out, breaking into archaeological spaces, robbing them, killin things and people, and generally doing stuff that is pretty much not always ok with a person who is unwilling to hurt people, lie, or do anything remotely morally grey".

I don't know the campaign, the style of play, or other factors (such as the party) but if this character is pretty much the opposite extreme of the previous one, then you are going to run into the same issue.

Way back when, in the olden days, when rocks were young, Paladins had a huge problem because most people played them as uptight, hyper moral, super goody two shoes.   IF you are going to play one, do not play them that way, and especially do not play them in a way to "get back at" or punish the other players and their characters for making you have to change.

I know that's the good feeling, but all it will do is create the exact same problem of you not enjoying it and them not enjoying it and then it will be hard to understand why it happend when you did the exact opposite.

The reason is the extremes in relation to the other Player characters. If I can be so bold, some suggestions:

Play tem as a noble paladin who is looking for a necromancer that heard the party had run into him. Be evasive about why -- keep it a secret. Dont even try to come up wit a reason for why -- it is that secret. Later, when the BBEG is revealed, you can say "that's why", out of the blue, with no more explanation, and that will be a very cool justice bit.

Have him question the party's actions, but not stop them or slow them -- remember, for some reason these people were partnered with this person that he is hunting for a secret reason -- so he'll stick around to see why. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

Make sure he has flaws. If your group has the XGE (Xanathar's), then use those tables and charts to create a more fleshed out character. And among all of that, give him a wekaness tha the party is good at providing cover for. Maybe he has a problem with rats, and the party is good at dealing with rats. Pick something from the past that the part did well dealing with, and make that a weakness. It doesn't have to be a fear (paladin, after all), but it should be a kind of thing where the character is pretty much useless. THen give them a strength in an area where the party has been weak.

in short, don't just create a character who is meant to be a problem -- create a character who is meant to be a part of the team, but slightly off, with what sees like a secret reason for being there. Who is quietly (important part) judging them (unimportant part),  but doesn't create a problem until and unless they go way too far intot he dark side, and then becomes their conscience -- but gently.

Paladins are the selfless characters -- the kindness is always there, the hopin that if they give the benefit of the doubt, that their actions (their modeling the right way to be) will be enough. THey will be the first to stand before a hail of arrows, but also the first to frown as corpses are being rifled through. THey will bury the dead -- but they won't demand others do it.

And, of course, as Paladins, they will stand against whatever is thrown at them.

If ou do this, the fun will increase. ANd maybe the next campaign or a later one the necromancer can return, and folks will be ready for that.

If you're not having fun, don't want to change the character you play and it doesn't mesh with the rest of the group then it's time to look for another group to play with. 

Quote from IamSposta >>

It seems like Dorsay’s got the right of things for the most part. If it were me and I really, really wanted to keep playing that character I would consider two possible ways to proceed:

1. The “Now?” Approach: This is where you mostly go along with the goody-two-shoes in the party for the sake of peace, but still express your character’s personality in other ways. When your character encounters an NPC they wish to kill, simply ask “can I kill him?” When the party says “no,” back down. You’ve still expressed your character without disrupting the party. If that NPC proves to be a jerk, ask “how ‘bout now? Can I kill him now?” Basically you’re asking the other players for queues as to when it will be acceptable for your character to indulge their darker side, but are still able to express that darker side all the time.
2. The Redemption Arc Approach: This is where your character evolves over the course of the campaign from beginning a dark, murder happy antihero to being something that genuinely approaches being a hero later in the campaign. Basically let your party’s ethics shape your character’s personal morals over time. (Kinda like the cat in Stuart Little. He went from trying to eat Stuart when he first saw him to actively saving Stuart’s life in the end.)

You might even choose to combine those👆two approaches and use the “Now?” approach as a means to the redemption arc. Those’re my thoughts anyway as a sometimes player sometimes DM. If you don’t like either idea, then it may be better to create a less edgy character as EA suggests.

This would be my suggestion as well

Remember that a campaign is a journey, both literally and figuratively, and that your character can evolve from their starting concept. Think about why your character has so few qualms about killing "innocents", and how their view of the world might change now that they're in regular contact with other characters that seem horrified at the idea of killing a street urchin for mere pickpocketing

I generally agree with pretty much everyone who's responded, but want to make/reiterate some specific points:

Odds are the assumed social contract (the PCs will stay together, and not kill each other) is the only thing preserving the party as it is.

You are here to have fun as a group. If your fun is in ruining other people's good time, you're doing it wrong.

The problem is mostly on you, and somewhat on your DM. This is a cooperative game, and it is incumbent on the players to create characters that can work together. The character you described ought to have great difficulty working with anyone: good, evil, or neither. It's not that there's no room in most groups for inter party conflict, but characters who are basically made to stir it up don't fly in most games.(I place some blame on your DM, because they seem to be encouraging you.)

Your proposed replacement character sounds likely to be just as annoying to play with. It won't get itself stabbed by the other characters like your current one, but it'll still probably break up the party, but only after making the rest of the players hate you.

It is entirely possible to play an evil character without being "arbitrary murder guy". Like all other characters, evil characters want things. They have goals in life. They are aware that their actions have consequences. They are working with the other characters for a reason. Even if you will absolutely shank a dude at the drop of a hat, there are usually easier ways to get what you want, and you should know this. You can probably get away with suggesting murder for expedience, when there's no easy solution to the party's problems, but casual murder for no particular reason is going to be alienating.

You can probably fix the group problems, but you have to want to. This will require talking with the other players, not the DM, and admitting that you, not your character, have been a jerk. Then you lot can probably hash out a character revision or replacement that gives you your fun, without ruining everyone else's.