"Leaving aside the decorative horror and focusing on the underlying game theory. So. Even assuming the villagers have no way of killing him even by cooperatively sacrificing themselves - there's a saying in dath ilan 'Anyone can kill anyone but they probably shouldn't' and maybe that's just not true here, in which case fine - and even assuming they don't all go 'fuck this guy's unfair division of gains from trade, let's head to the afterlife and leave him with an empty village' - then, if nothing exists in the world outside this village, if there are no hidden players not on the gameboard, then it would seem to be in this person's best interests not to let anyone else kill anybody and run the whole village for his own profit, until somebody else comes along who's stronger and kills him. Which is the case I described before."
"I agree that, assuming the villagers let the adventurer get away with that and don't just leave for the afterlife, if one is a fourth-circle cleric, one could perhaps come in and kill the adventurer and get a little sad bit of power. It doesn't - seem like something that scales. The reason it works is that it's isomorphic to a two-player game where one player has all power, and the other player has none but goes along with an unfair division of gains instead of leaving for the afterlife."