Isn't Success in D&D Dependent Upon Murder?

[jcfiala]

Isn't success in RISK dependent upon Murder?
Isn't success in Monopoly dependent upon ruining the financial security of your opponents and thier employees?
Isn't success in Settlers of Catan dependent upon clear-cutting and strip mining an island faster than anyone else?
Isn't success in Vampire dependent upon killing and or humiliating your rivals before they can do it to you?
Doesn't success in Tomb Raider involve desecrating tombs, places of religion, and ruining some of their arceological value so you can get something powerful/valuable?

A lot of games allow people to simulate doing something they wouldn't or couldn't do if it were real. It's fun. It's not real.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Isn't success in LIFE dependent on leaving the details of your life, from your career to family planning, open to the fickle whims of Fate?

 

[Henry]

Isn't success in LIFE dependent on leaving the details of your life, from your career to family planning, open to the fickle whims of Fate?

Actually, in the original version, the college route was vastly superior to the blue-collar route, but I believe they altered that in the revised version.

 

[Caliban]

Before I begin, let me please iterate very clearly that:

I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

Do or do not. There is no try...

 

[T. Foster]

Success in D&D is generally dependent on violence and fighting, but is only dependent on "murder" if the DM makes it be (or allows it to be). Non-intelligent animals and animal-like monsters generally don't carry much/any moral baggage when killed (at least among the people I play with). Likewise constructs, undead, and other soulless/non-living monsters (demons, devils, etc.). So, really, this is only an issue when dealing with humans, humanoids, and other intelligent monsters (such as dragons), and in these cases I do think it's wholly appropriate for good-aligned characters to ask "is it possible to defeat these foes without having to kill them?" and/or "have they committed specific actions that warrant being killed over?" and if the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, then it behooves them to at least try not to kill them or possibly risk an involuntary alignment-change.

Neutral characters are allowed to be a bit more pragmatic and morally gray in justifying their actions (a lot of the sorts of justifications you hear for killing by good characters are, IMO, actually more appropriate to neutral characters), and of course evil characters can and will kill whatever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

Part of this also lies with the DM and how he designs his adventures -- since I think good-aligned characters should strive to kill as few intelligent foes as possible, I try to design my adventures in such a way that there aren't many unavoidable fights to the death against intelligent foes (unless they're really nasty and definitely have it coming...) and that the characters can "succeed" in the adventure just as well by tricking, capturing, driving away, negotiating with, or simply avoiding intelligent foes as by killing them all.

 

[trancejeremy]

It really depends on what you mean by "Murder". If you define it as "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". Then the answer is no. Most killings in D&D by players aren't of humans, and those that are, are generally either in self defense or sanctioned by whatever government is in power. (Like vs. Bandits, etc).

OTOH, if you mean murder as in "deliberately kill", then probably. But even then, I really think most cases would be in self defense. I mean, using a citizens arrest on most monsters or villains doesn't work.

Actually, though, I would say that talking to encountered people/monsters is actually a big part of D&D. Not just blindly attacking everything a party comes across. Even though it can be dangerous (as illustrated in that cartoon in the 1e MM about the Giant Lynx).

 

[Felix]

And ninja.

You've only got one?

You don't want more than one; or have you forgotten the Law of Inverse Ninja Strength?

 

[Derren]

It really depends on what you mean by "Murder". If you define it as "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". Then the answer is no. Most killings in D&D by players aren't of humans, and those that are, are generally either in self defense or sanctioned by whatever government is in power. (Like vs. Bandits, etc).

Replace "human" with "sentient creature" and you just described the main occupation of nearly all adventurers.

OTOH, if you mean murder as in "deliberately kill", then probably. But even then, I really think most cases would be in self defense. I mean, using a citizens arrest on most monsters or villains doesn't work.

The problem is that it is a bit hard to explain why it was self defense when you are breaking into their lairs (also a common occupation for adventurers).

 

[Felix]

The problem is that it is a bit hard to explain why it was self defense when you are breaking into their lairs (also a common occupation for adventurers).

If orcs have been conducting raids on your farmland to rape the crops and burn the women, are you the aggressor when you go to their lair and wipe them out?

 

[Hawkshere]

D&D is a murder simulator?

OMG, somebody call Jack Thompson!