Moral Dilemma: Killing and Deaths in RPGs

[Jmarso]

There's something baked into D&D that makes monsters surrendering or running away just not as satisfying as killing them. My players will often go out of their way to hunt down a retreating foe, even if it's just one goblin or even a single crab (this happened!).

The way the game used to be played in older editions, XP was awarded for killing monsters- I think that's where it comes from. Nowadays, I see a lot more of the philosophy that "a creature generally won't fight to the death if it can somehow escape," and playing monsters 'smart' means more of them will flee, perhaps even abandoning a lair for good, in order to preserve their lives. In these sorts of situations, I'll award full XP for the 'defeat' of the monster as opposed to slaying it. When I was a teenager playing with friends, failure to slay meant "no XP for you, biotches!"

Hunting down a retreating foe is a player choice. Some people are just 'finishers' and don't like the idea of leaving a live enemy at their backs, especially if there's a chance of encountering it again. When I was a kid, if I was playing Samwise Gamgee I would have chased Shelob right back into her cave and tried to finish the job. Fortunately I've grown out of that sort of single-mindedness playing DnD!

 

[Victor Spieles]

I have felt the same way since I began playing. Back in high school I used to have nightmares about being forced to kill people because they were orcs. (See? My subconscious was with the zeitgeist way before I was!)

Though I have fun with the combat part of D&D, honestly the high amount of killing is the big sour note for me. My own experience of the game would be better if the default end of a combat was "defeat" instead of "death."

There's something baked into D&D that makes monsters surrendering or running away just not as satisfying as killing them. My players will often go out of their way to hunt down a retreating foe, even if it's just one goblin or even a single crab (this happened!).

I think killing things is very foundational to D&D, but it doesn't have to be. I'd love to see more adventures, like Wild Beyond the Witchlight, that don't require killing to move the plot forward.

BookTenTiger I have encountered the same thing with players. In the last two years I have consciously tried a more non-lethal approach to combat encounters. I have had monsters retreat. I have had creatures flee. I have had monster and villains surrender. I even brought back Morale checks. But 75% of the time players, even the non-combat focused players, still choose to chase down and slay the monster, creature and villain.

One game session went way off course with the players resolutely needing to hunt down the injured dragon even though it fled its lair and left behind its treasure hoard. I basically had to DM adjudicate that the dragon had escaped after a half hour of the players burning through spells, magic items and skill checks to track and trail the dragon. It wasn't enough that they had defeated the dragon. They had to slay it in their minds for the adventure to be over. The dwarf ranger said the adventure wasn't over until the dragon's head was hanging in his feast hall.

Which I am seeing really comes down to me having to change RPGs and the type of players I choose to game with.

Thank you for your input.

 

[BookTenTiger]

BookTenTiger I have encountered the same thing with players. In the last two years have tried a more non-lethal approach to combat encounters. I have had monsters retreat. I have had creatures flee. I have had monster and villains surrender. I even brought back Morale checks. But 75% of the time players, even the non-combat focused players, still choose to chase down and slay the monster, creature and villain. One game session went way off course with the players resolutely needing to hunt down the injured dragon even though it fled its lair and left behind its treasure hoard. I basically had to DM adjudicate that the dragon had escaped after a half hour of the players burning through spells, magic items and skill checks to track and trail the dragon. It wasn't enough that they had defeated the dragon. They had to slay it in their minds for the adventure to be over. The dwarf ranger said the adventure wasn't over until the dragon's head was hanging in his feast hall.

Which I am seeing really comes down to me having to change RPGs and the type of players I choose to game with.

Thank you for you input.

It's almost like you need a reward for when enemies flee or surrender.

Something like:

If combat ends with enemies fleeing or surrendering, characters gain a free Short Rest.

 

[Jmarso]

I even brought back Morale checks.

Morale never should have been dropped from 5E. I still use it, after a fashion, as DM. It's just transparent to the players. It's the single most effective way to end an encounter without total slaughter when dealing with semi-intelligent / intelligent opponents.

 

[Victor Spieles]

The way the game used to be played in older editions, XP was awarded for killing monsters- I think that's where it comes from. Nowadays, I see a lot more of the philosophy that "a creature generally won't fight to the death if it can somehow escape," and playing monsters 'smart' means more of them will flee, perhaps even abandoning a lair for good, in order to preserve their lives. In these sorts of situations, I'll award full XP for the 'defeat' of the monster as opposed to slaying it. When I was a teenager playing with friends, failure to slay meant "no XP for you, biotches!"

Hunting down a retreating foe is a player choice. Some people are just 'finishers' and don't like the idea of leaving a live enemy at their backs, especially if there's a chance of encountering it again. When I was a kid, if I was playing Samwise Gamgee I would have chased Shelob right back into her cave and tried to finish the job. Fortunately I've grown out of that sort of single-mindedness playing DnD!

Jmarso I think you hit it on the head with XP. The default model in RPGs and video games for years has been the more creatures or enemies you slay the more XP you gain to advance or level up. It gets hardwired into your mind after hours and years of playing

Which comes back to the type of RPG the group chooses to play and the style of play the group is comfortable with.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's almost like you need a reward for when enemies flee or surrender.

Something like:

If combat ends with enemies fleeing or surrendering, characters gain a free Short Rest.

A little gamey, but hey... I think some players have been "trained into" killing every foe, either because they'll sound the alarm or plot a vengeance. How many recurring villain in media where death isn't the standard outcome escaping prisons and resuming their evil behaviour? Exposition to this kind of media may influence players into a "no survivor" mentality.

The default model in RPG and video games for years has been the more creatures or enemies you slay the more XP you gain to advance or level up.

I remember when playing Pathfinder Kingmaker's CRPG stumbling upon a map with 3 peaceful mammoth grazing. I killed them. I needed 3x720 xp at the moment. But I felt bad afterwards.

 

[BookTenTiger]

A little gamey, but hey... I think some players have been "trained into" killing every foe, either because they'll sound the alarm or plot a vengeance. How many recurring villain in media where death isn't the standard outcome escaping prisons and resuming their evil behaviour? Exposition to this kind of media may influence players into a "no survivor" mentality.

Yeah, exactly. I try to be really explicit when enemies flee or surrender.

After all, there are times when a goblin flees in order to alert the rest of the clan.

So if an enemy flees or surrenders and I want that to be the end of an encounter, I will explicitly tell the players "the goblin flees, never to be seen again" or "the goblin surrenders and is out of the fight."

However, I think enemies fleeing or surrendering kind of steals the spotlight away from characters. They can no longer use their cool powers on that enemy. So pairing it with a little reward (extra HP, escalation die, short rest) could be fun.

 

[Jmarso]

One game session went way off course with the players resolutely needing to hunt down the injured dragon even though it fled its lair and left behind its treasure hoard. I basically had to DM adjudicate that the dragon had escaped after a half hour of the players burning through spells, magic items and skill checks to track and trail the dragon. It wasn't enough that they had defeated the dragon. They had to slay it in their minds for the adventure to be over. The dwarf ranger said the adventure wasn't over until the dragon's head was hanging in his feast hall.

In this particular case, however, wasn't it at least a partially logical choice to pursue and slay the dragon? Especially if it was an evil dragon. Sure, the players could let it go and secure its hoard, but what are they turning loose on future settlements in the future? An angry, impoverished dragon that is only going to get older and more powerful, perhaps even actively seeking revenge against the players that defeated it and stole its hoard... this is a case where players wanting to finish off a wounded foe makes sense in game.

Of course, unless they can fly, it's pretty easy for the dragon to get away once it's outdoors...

Bottom line, though, if this style if play is starting to bother you and is no longer fun / entertaining, it's definitely time for some changes, like you've said.

 

[Ixal]

It's almost like you need a reward for when enemies flee or surrender.

Something like:

If combat ends with enemies fleeing or surrendering, characters gain a free Short Rest.

Introduce the concept of ransom in your games (widely used in history).
That doesn't apply to all enemies, but will make the players think at least if its more profitable to take enemies alive (the other way is for slavery, but thats not really something most player characters will engage in).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I do not have a lot to add the advise given to the OP except if they stick with or go back to D&D at some point. One is check out the Wild beyond the Witchlight. I have not yet read the while thing about half but combat and in particular lethal combat is not the best path in that adventure.
It is an example of a different way to design a D&D adventure. I have no idea as to how it plays.
The other is something I have been doing that reduces the body count in some adventures. If the gang leadership is dead and they have taken significant casualties then gang breaks up and most of the membership flees the area. Especially so if the party retreats to rest. They come back the castle ruins and the remaining bandits have fled every which way out of the territory. Mission accomplished, if the mission was to stop the bandits preying on the area.