Should they kill Ryder in DLC?

I'd pay to see it as the reaction on here and reddit alone would be worth the price of admission. Why stop at just Ryder let's have a Suicide mission DLC to the Kett homeworld where we kill off the entire squad along with the kett as well. To quote plinkett: '...and all of 'em die. These are positive changes'.

Why should they kill Ryder if they want to change MC?
Did they state somewhere that ME:A was going to be a story based on a single character like the original trilogy?
Maybe they are going to apply the "DA philosophy" to Andromeda. And to be honest I wouldn't be surprised.

The idea is actually not unappealing.

Ryder could die as he/she lived: Liam has another great idea. This time, he has leaked top secret AI information to the kett Primus as a confidence building measure. The Primus suggests a meeting somewhere at the ass end of the cluster, which totally looks like a trap, and in a plot twist that surprises everyone, it turns out to be a trap. The Tempest explodes after one last cool oneliner.

"Liam, you id..." *BOOM*

Yeqah DA's approac hwo0rks well for DA I don't see it working quite as well for ME

"It's the story of a world galaxy, not the tale of a single hero pathfinder!"

DLC, oh.

maybe but changing protags all the time isn't always the right idea either.

I only like a protagonist death if is avoidable. I usually kill Hawke, but I'm glad I can choose to save her if I so desire. I hate with a passion not having an actual "Shepard is alive" scenario in ME3.
If the DLC is post game, and give some good closure, and Ryder death is not mandatory (like, dead or safe, the next story happen in century or so, Ryder can't be there fighting anyway, so who care if she dies young or old?) I'm fine.
But I think Ryder have finally, by the end of the game, matured enought to let the player actually (hopefully) develop the character as they want their characters to be (I don't like how preimposted are the Ryders: it'a as bad as Hawke, if not worse. I want to decide myself what personality have my protagonists)

Same here. I have no complaints about Hawke or the Inquisitor, but I would've preferred continuing Origins.

As far as Ryder is concerned... he's just getting his feet. I want more.

Both approaches have their pros and cons. As for myself I usually get attached to my characters but not to the point that I need them in any subsequent installation. Like I have already stated elsewhere, what really matters is that they give a satisfying conclusion to their story which does not mean that I have to see them aging or dying. As long as they have exausted their role in the "grande scheme" of things I have no problems in letting them go.

In DA both the Warden and Hawke imho had exausted their role as MCs. With the Inquisitor they got themselves in a more troubled position, especially after Trespasser, because his loose ends are somehow more "personal" than Warden and Hawke's. I don't think that The Blight and the Mage/Templar Wars are something that fall under their responsability, nor we should expect them to put an end to those problems.  The matter of Solas is slighty different because he is a single individual with all the implications that this could entail.

As for Ryder I consider his position to be even more troubled. I don't expect him/her to lead the humanity vs the Ketts, it could be him as well as someone else. But as "The Pathfinder" I expect him to retrieve the remaining arc(s) and to finish his father's business, because otherwise I would feel like he had not fullfilled his role in the story.

TL; DR As long as they finished Ryders's story they can do as they please. 

The wicked side of me would love Ryder to die, perhaps in a daft way like falling over when putting her trousers on and hitting her head on a desk. The internet tears would be glorious.