D&D 5E What does "murderhobo" mean to you?

redrick · Dec 14, 2017

I would add.

I think "murderhobo" is more a description of a kind of campaign than of one particular PC. Can players push a campaign in a murderhobo direction against the wishes of the DM? Sure. But I think it's a description of an overall pattern of the kinds of things PCs engage in.

I also don't think "murderhobo" makes any assumptions about alignment. Most murderhobo campaigns are probably Lawful and Neutral (or Good and Neutral in AD&D) playing to alignment as defined in the expectations of that campaign. A murderhobo party might only undertake "Good" quests to clear out dungeons. "A group of goblins has been raiding farmers. The local magistrate asks you to solve the problem." The adventurers go in and kill all the goblins, helping themselves to their stuff. Or, a group of Bugbears has kidnapped the family of a local merchant. The adventurers go in, kill all the Bugbears, loot their treasure, and free the family of the merchant.

And it's totally appropriate for murderhobos to engage in diplomacy, sneaking, or other tricks to avoid having to kill every one of the monsters, but this is done for tactical reasons, not out of any concern about reducing the body count. Within the moral context of a murderhobo campaign, killing monsters is morally acceptable, so there's no reason to look to reduce monster casualties.

When I use the term murderhobo, there is some affection, but also a critical look at the kind of campaign that normalizes killing intelligent, sentient humanoids as "Good." Not that playing these kinds of campaigns is badwrongfun, but just that I enjoy games with a more complex moral fabric. I would rather play an actual Evil campaign than a Good campaign where we just indiscriminately slaughtered dungeon inhabitants. The idea of labeling whole societies of creatures as Evil and worthy of indiscriminate killing reminds me of the dehumanization of other peoples and societies in our history. I don't say that as a judgment of anybody else who plays those games — I play them too — but, for myself, I aspire to play them less.

Celebrim · Dec 14, 2017

[MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION]: A very good post and there is a lot to dig into in that, but I'm going to jump at the most complex element you brought up and get my word in before too many opinions jump on it.

redrick said:
The idea of labeling whole societies of creatures as Evil and worthy of indiscriminate killing reminds me of the dehumanization of other peoples and societies in our history.

I about half agree with that statement. While it may remind you of that, if that was the purpose then there would be a much easier direction to go in - simply label one or more of the human societies as evil and worthy of indiscriminate killing. That you have explicitly non-human things in the game means that well, they don't necessarily have any humanity to dehumanize them out of.

What I object to is not absolutes. I'm absolutely ok with a sentient creature being absolutely evil and worthy of destruction. What I object to with regards to 'murderhoboism' is whether or not the creature is worthy of destruction tends to not even be a considered issue in the game, at least by the PC's. Things are killed not because they are evil, but because they have XP, and the fact that they've been assigned a black hat is just cover for behavior which would in any other context just be murder. Typically, if this isn't considered by either the GM or the players, the result is the societies that differ from each other only in the hats that they wear. Something is evil only because it was labeled as such, and worse something is good only because it was lablelled as such.

However, I also object to the opposite. If something in the game is labeled a 'demon', I don't want to hear about how nuanced the portrayal is and how humanized this thing is. If something is a literal incarnation of evil, don't humanize it. Or if you want something that is only a little bit evil, don't borrow terms like 'demon' and confuse the issue.

What I admire the most is a spectrum, where not only does gray exist, but so also does black and white. Overly simplistic palettes of either just black and white, or just grey (or sometimes just black) don't impress me and to be honest make me rather uncomfortable.

So for example, if you look at what I'm trying to attain, you might have something like:

Dwarves & Elves: On the whole, these tend to be better people than humans. They tend to be rather serious about honor and morality and they tend to have few vices. But they are still rather far from perfect, and individuals can become just as corrupt and even murderous as any human.
Humans: Realistic for what I see of humanity, most people struggle with even basic morality, charity, truthfulness, energy, and stoutheartedness. They are often morose, dishonest, incapable of telling truth from falsehood or good from evil, slothful, despairing, and easily depressed. They are moody and testy and frequently say things that they don't really mean. They almost all have at least some sort of vice they are trying to overcome. But they are also capable of soaring and inspiring deeds and the blackest and foulest of works. Indeed, among the best of them, their own acquaintance with evil lends them a compassion and understanding even an elf and dwarf would find astounding.
Goblins: On the whole, these tend to be worse than humans. They tend to act very much like they don't have a conscious, and the culture most are raised in only makes the problem worse. But just because they are a rather foul bunch doesn't mean that every single one is a murderer, or that they aren't individuals with a certain degree of honor and even nobility. It is conceivable, if rare, that a goblin could be good and there are rumors that in ages past, perhaps most of them were.
Gnolls: Are basically incapable of being good. They probably lack free will in this regard, and are the expressions or puppets of the will of an evil deity. So far as it is known, they are incapable of rebelling against their evil master. However, they are not fully depraved or wholly alien. While not really capable of good will, they aren't at all times compulsively destructive and you can appeal to their instincts for survival or more humans sorts of desires for food, drink, music, and so forth. They can be honestly merry, happy, or even in their own way grateful. But their instincts go deeper than any reason, and fundamentally they are a sort of lesser fiend.
Demons: Fully depraved and completely alien, they are not only incapable of being good but incapable of not being evil. They cannot experience pleasure or any other good thing, and are motivated solely by the desire to spread their pain and misery to everyone else. They consider evil entirely an end unto itself, and not a means to anything but more evil.

In this view, which I admit is just my homebrew take on things, killing goblins without cause is murder, because goblins aren't wholly depraved and individuals might actually be innocent of wrong doing. It still happens a lot because most goblins are unrepentant bandits that loot and pillage for fun, but to that extent you treat them as bandits or raiders just as you would human bandits or raiders. To the extent that many dwarves, elves, or humans argue that goblins should be killed on sight, it is not because 'their goblins' but because they believe that they have fallen or been corrupted to the same class of beings as gnolls - lesser servitors of evil lacking in free will. Absolute proof that a goblin had free will and was capable of good would give most of these people pause, regardless of what they were raised to believe.

But on the other hand, under the above, killing a gnoll is not murderous. The entire species really are semi-autonomous agents of evil made in a certain sense in mockery and imitation of real people like elves, humans, and yes, goblins. And the idea of humanizing a demon is only foolishness and evil itself, as only the ignorant would imagine that any apparently human behavior or sentiment on the part of it is anything but deception. It isn't merely evil, it literally is Evil. From that range, I can play out any sort of story, from stories about finding what you call 'humanity' where you don't expect it, to facing off against implacable horrors wholly lacking in mercy.

redrick · Dec 14, 2017

Celebrim said:
[MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION]: A very good post and there is a lot to dig into in that, but I'm going to jump at the most complex element you brought up and get my word in before too many opinions jump on it.

I about half agree with that statement. While it may remind you of that, if that was the purpose then there would be a much easier direction to go in - simply label one or more of the human societies as evil and worthy of indiscriminate killing. That you have explicitly non-human things in the game means that well, they don't necessarily have any humanity to dehumanize them out of.

What I object to is not absolutes. I'm absolutely ok with a sentient creature being absolutely evil and worthy of destruction. What I object to with regards to 'murderhoboism' is whether or not the creature is worthy of destruction tends to not even be a considered issue in the game, at least by the PC's. Things are killed not because they are evil, but because they have XP, and the fact that they've been assigned a black hat is just cover for behavior which would in any other context just be murder. Typically, if this isn't considered by either the GM or the players, the result is the societies that differ from each other only in the hats that they wear. Something is evil only because it was labeled as such, and worse something is good only because it was lablelled as such.

However, I also object to the opposite. If something in the game is labeled a 'demon', I don't want to hear about how nuanced the portrayal is and how humanized this thing is. If something is a literal incarnation of evil, don't humanize it. Or if you want something that is only a little bit evil, don't borrow terms like 'demon' and confuse the issue.

What I admire the most is a spectrum, where not only does gray exist, but so also does black and white. Overly simplistic palettes of either just black and white, or just grey (or sometimes don't black) don't impress me and to be honest make me rather uncomfortable.

So for example, if you look at what I'm trying to attain, you might have something like:

Dwarves & Elves: On the whole, these tend to be better people than humans. They tend to be rather serious about honor and morality and they tend to have few vices. But they are still rather far from perfect, and individuals can become just as corrupt and even murderous as any human.
Humans: Realistic for what I see of humanity, most people struggle with even basic morality, charity, truthfulness, energy, and stoutheartedness. They are often morose, dishonest, incapable of telling truth from falsehood or good from evil, slothful, despairing, and easily depressed. They are moody and testy and frequently say things that they don't really mean. They almost all have at least some sort of vice they are trying to overcome. But they are also capable of soaring and inspiring deeds and the blackest and foulest of works. Indeed, among the best of them, their own acquaintance with evil lends them a compassion and understanding even an elf and dwarf would find astounding.
Goblins: On the whole, these tend to be worse than humans. They tend to act very much like they don't have a conscious, and the culture most are raised in only makes the problem worse. But just because they are a rather foul bunch doesn't mean that every single one is a murderer, or that they aren't individuals with a certain degree of honor and even nobility. It is conceivable, if rare, that a goblin could be good and there are rumors that in ages past, perhaps most of them were.
Gnolls: Are basically incapable of being good. They probably lack free will in this regard, and are the expressions or puppets of the will of an evil deity. So far as it is known, they are incapable of rebelling against their evil master. However, they are not fully depraved or wholly alien. While not really capable of good will, they aren't at all times compulsively destructive and you can appeal to their instincts for survival or more humans sorts of desires for food, drink, music, and so forth. They can be honestly merry, happy, or even in their own way grateful. But their instincts go deeper than any reason, and fundamentally they are a sort of lesser fiend.
Demons: Fully depraved and completely alien, they are not only incapable of being good but incapable of not being evil. They cannot experience pleasure or any other good thing, and are motivated solely by the desire to spread and shed their pain and misery to everyone else. They consider evil entirely an end unto itself, and not a means to anything but more evil.

In this view, which I admit is just my homebrew take on things, killing goblins without cause is murder, because goblins aren't wholly depraved and individuals might actually be innocent of wrong doing. It still happens a lot because most goblins are unrepentant bandits that loot and pillage for fun, but to that extent you treat them as bandits or raiders just as you would human bandits or raiders. To the extent that many dwarves, elves, or humans argue that goblins should be killed on sight, it is not because 'their goblins' but because they believe that they have fallen or been corrupted to the same class of beings as gnolls - lesser servitors of evil lacking in free will. Absolute proof that a goblin had free will and was capable of good would give most of these people pause, regardless of what they were raised to believe.

But on the other hand, under the above, killing a gnoll is not murderous. The entire species really are semi-autonomous agents of evil made in a certain since in mockery and imitation of real people like elves, humans, and yes, goblins. And the idea of humanizing a demon is only foolishness and evil itself, as only the ignorant would imagine that any apparently human behavior or sentiment on the part of it is anything but deception. It isn't merely evil, it literally is Evil. From that range, I can play out any sort of story, from stories about finding what you call 'humanity' where you don't expect it, to facing off against implacable horrors wholly lacking in mercy.

Well said.

Lanefan · Dec 14, 2017

Aldarc said:
Weren't you also upset that you could not play a hack'n'slash approach to the Eberron orcs?

Oh, probably.

But then, I like hack'n'slash as an element of the game; and by no means do I equate murder within the game to murder in real life.

Question for all: if a party in fact has a home base (e.g. a shared castle or a particular pub or inn they own) they keep returning to between adventures, are they still hoboes?

Lanefan

Rod Staffwand · Dec 14, 2017

I chose the "homeless adventurers" option, even though the two choices aren't mutually exclusive. In my understanding, the murderhobo meme started 15+ years ago as a way to describe a certain D&D playstyle.

Murderhobos don't have a place in the 'world'. They have no real hometown other than perhaps as a 'starting town'. They have no connections to ongoing events, backstories, histories or long-term relationships with NPCs. They exist solely as avatars to allow players to play D&D--namely by invading the homes of 'monsters', killing them and stealing their loot. There is no larger context to their adventures or greater purpose to what they do. Any 'quests' are seen merely as pretexts for the adventuring activity itself. Starting the party at the entrance to the dungeon works just as well for such players.

Seen realistically from the perspective of an NPC in that world, adventurers might well be thought of as murderhobos--strange, antisocial sorts that spend all their time in holes in the ground searching for their fortunes. Then, when they have more money then they could ever possibly spend, continue to spend all of their time in holes in the ground searching for more gp, xp and magic items. Bunch of weirdos, if you ask me.

Some such groups may be more amoral than others but, in my experience, they usually have little to no regard for NPCs. NPCs that are helpful are all well and good, but any that pose a hindrance, problem or opportunity are usually dealt with rather harshly. I remember a player back in my 2e days that once killed 'bums' in town because he was a couple of hundred xp short of leveling.

I don't think that the murderhobo campaign is the default for D&D or ever was, even in the early days. Even in the mid-70s you had groups doing epic fantasy campaigns with elaborate NPCs and world-building, running very sophisticated games with the rather sparse and clumsy rule-sets of the era. Though, in my experience a whole lot of 10 year olds that pick up D&D on their own go through a murderhobo phase before growing out of it.

I also don't think the murderhobo campaign is necessarily bad. Sometimes those darned DM plots become too twee and precious and you just want to royally mess up some orcs (or maybe that shopkeeper that gives you lip or the paladin that keeps trying to convert you).

Also, the preferred term is Nomadic Badass, thank you very much.

Shasarak · Dec 14, 2017

Olgar Shiverstone said:
No fixed address; kills if provoked (often provoked without provocation). After killing, takes stuff.

Honestly if they did not want to be killed then why are they made out of XP?

The Crimson Binome · Dec 14, 2017

Lanefan said:
[...]and by no means do I equate murder within the game to murder in real life.

Shouldn't you at least pretend to, while you're playing the game? To your character, someone dying within the game world is every bit as tragic as someone dying in the real world would be to us. (Except possibly in that it's easier for rich people to reverse death, in a world with magic.)

Elderbrain · Dec 14, 2017

To me, if your characters go about killing Orcs, Goblins, etc. not because you caught them in the act of doing something evil (i.e razing a village of helpless Commoners), and not in self-defense, but simply because they happen to be Orcs, then that's acting as a Murderhobo. Killing the defenseless Orc children and babies, looting their stuff, then the Players justifying it on the grounds that "The MM says Orcs are Chaotic Evil!" I see too much of this kind of justification outside of the game, do we really want it in our fantasy? (If the PCs are explicitly Evil-aligned themselves, then that's different - they're just acting in character.) Now, obviously there can be cases of honest mistake - you see a Drow with weapons drawn and kill him, and it turns out to be a Drizzt-type Good Drow ...

The Crimson Binome · Dec 14, 2017

Elderbrain said:
(If the PCs are explicitly Evil-aligned themselves, then that's different - they're just acting in character.)

So you're saying that Evil-aligned characters are obviously going to go around killing people indiscriminately, because that's just what they do?

Lanefan · Dec 14, 2017

Saelorn said:
Shouldn't you at least pretend to, while you're playing the game? To your character, someone dying within the game world is every bit as tragic as someone dying in the real world would be to us. (Except possibly in that it's easier for rich people to reverse death, in a world with magic.)

If someone my character cares about dies in-game, my character would see that as tragic. But my characters in general tend not to care much about orcs or dragons or giants or goblins or hippogriffs or kidnappers-of-princesses and so their deaths usually mean little to nothing; particularly if it's the very common case of either they die or I do.

D&D 5E What does "murderhobo" mean to you?

What's a Murderhobo to you?

Powerful adventurers who bully commoners

Homeless adventurers who kill orcs and take their stuff

Something else

I've never heard the term before

redrick

First Post

Celebrim

Legend

redrick

First Post

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Rod Staffwand

aka Ermlaspur Flormbator

Shasarak

Banned

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Elderbrain

Guest

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads