D&D 5E Killing is Wrong: Adding Theme to a Campaign

[Tony Vargas]

So, what you're saying is that if you never used ranged weapons, and you restrict yourself to combat spells that are non-lethal, you'll be doing great!

You'd be avoiding murder charges, at least. ;P
You'd have to be 'careful' using ranged weapon, yeah, but unless you subscribe to the theory that ranged is totally optimal, that shouldn't be too much of a hit. Afterall, most of the time, the other guys'll be facing similar issues, and, when they cross the line, you have a case of self-defense, which the OP was fine with.

Non-lethal combat is possible in D&D, and always optional (subduing a charmed ally or friendly NPC). It is not efficacious for the vast majority of encounters without seriously tweaking the RAW.

You're clearly thinking of older editions, when you had to declare subdual and take a penalty. Your 5e optimized GWM can go to town on someone as hard as ever and leave them unconscious. If you think rules tweaks are necessary to let archers and fireball-tossing wizards in on the beatdown, it's not like they'd be extensive or difficult tweaks.

 

[Yaarel]

The hit point descriptions work well for nonlethal damage.

Full hit points: fresh and alert.
More than half hit points: superficial scrapes, bruises, redness, etc.
Half hit points: ‘bloodied’, noticeable cuts, tears, burns, etc., increasing fatigue, loss of alertness, defenses down.
Zero hit points: killing blow, vital organs, system shock.

Nonlethal combat looks the same as lethal combat except for the end when the lethal attack puts the sword thru the heart of a vulnerable opponent. Instead of killing, the final attack of a nonlethal combat knocks the target out, places on restraints, or so on.

 

[Igwilly]

Well, this is my experience; I don't speak for anyone else. Now:
In my hobby years, I found the "murderhobo" archetype to be plain false. In one case, one case only, there was a real murder by the PCs in the games I played/DM'd. It was a tense scene and the player wished to make his character much darker than before.
Other than that, once a player got under the control of a curse, and attacked the party to death. A player tried the pacific way, but it didn't work.
Honestly, the morals behind killing was a question I faced in my beggining years as a player/DM. I went into a search for spiritual and legal advice. Turns out, counting all the situations of legitimate killing, murder by the PCs showed itself as being pretty rare from the start.
Most D&D situations are supposed to be life-or-death situations. Situations in which our lives, and perhaps many others, are at stake. And that's not talking about murderous monsters who try to kill everyone on sight.
That's one reason I hate 4e/5e rules for knock-out: there's next to no moral reason to ever use "normal" combat rules. Trying to solve a fight by non-lethal means is harder than slashing the enemy with a sword.
Now, it could be our playstyle. Story was always a main concern and few, if any, adventures were purpose-less. Most players were begginers, that may have relevance to the subject. Still, I just cannot agree with the muderhobo myth. Not with the players around here.

 

[BookBarbarian]

One of the best systems I've seen to give players incentive for not going full murderhobo is the Shadow Point system in Cubicle 7's Adventures in Middle-earth. It's the lynch-pin to keep D&D players from killing Bilbo, taking the Ring, and becoming the new Dark Lords.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just cannot agree with the muderhobo myth. Not with the players around here.

Like I said upthread, these things can be regional (and 'region' pretty small). I remember joking that D&D characters were a lot like serial home-invasion robbers, years before I heard 'murder hobo,' and it got laughs, then, too (uncomfortable ones, sometimes). The game really does lend itself to that whole killing things and taking their stuff dynamic, and to wandering around from one adventure to another. Whether you get into that rut or not..? :shrug: ...we all have free will, no.
The game also lends itself, some, to heroic-fantasy 'storytelling,' you just might have to work at it a bit more.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Like I said upthread, these things can be regional (and 'region' pretty small).

It's not regional.

I've literally DM'd D&D games for hundreds of people over the last thirty years and about 10% of that would've been online gaming with international players. If you haven't seen the murderhobo dynamic in play in a majority of your games, I'd question just how much you've actually played and how big a pool of players you're drawing from. It's absolutely a common thread which if you don't quash it, hard, will overtake a game. Anyone saying otherwise is, IMO, either being disingenuous or hasn't had a wide or varied experience of players.

If you're put into a situation in game where there's absolutely no reason why you would kill an NPC and then say you're going to kill them, then that's not a fault of the DM, that's on the player.

"You are granted an audience with the king and as you walk into the royal court, your name is..."

"I attack the king!"

"..."

 

[iserith]

It's not regional.

I've literally DM'd D&D games for hundreds of people over the last thirty years and about 10% of that would've been online gaming with international players. If you haven't seen the murderhobo dynamic in play in a majority of your games, I'd question just how much you've actually played and how big a pool of players you're drawing from. It's absolutely a common thread which if you don't quash it, hard, will overtake a game. Anyone saying otherwise is, IMO, either being disingenuous or hasn't had a wide or varied experience of players.

If you're put into a situation in game where there's absolutely no reason why you would kill an NPC and then say you're going to kill them, then that's not a fault of the DM, that's on the player.

"You are granted an audience with the king and as you walk into the royal court, your name is..."

"I attack the king!"

"..."

The thing that all those games have in common is you though. How can you be sure it's not you who is provoking this behavior?

 

[BookBarbarian]

"You are granted an audience with the king and as you walk into the royal court, your name is..."

"I attack the king!"

"..."

I've had games like this. Now I make it clear in Session 0s that I won't DM this kind of game anymore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you haven't seen the murderhobo dynamic in play

Oh, I've /seen/ it, just not nearly so universally nor so intractably as you seem to have. Early on it was profound: I'm sure plenty of folks could tell stories about running Village of Hommlet when it came out and having players treat the town as a dungeon, but, like I said, around here, as the hobby broadened a little, it became a lot easier to run games with a different emphasis.

I'd question just how much you've actually played

Prettymuch a weekly basis since 1980.

how big a pool of players you're drawing from.

Hundreds, easily, I run at cons, so get a wide variety. But it's mostly local, gamers from the SF Bay area (though, we get lots of immigrants, from all over the country and world, around here, I don't compile demographic statistics on my players). I've also played & run a lot of games other than D&D, which may have had something to do with it.

If you're put into a situation in game where there's absolutely no reason why you would kill an NPC and then say you're going to kill them, then that's not a fault of the DM, that's on the player.

There are players who don't 'get' the idea of a setting with friendly/non-combatant/irrelevant NPCs yet, and players (and DMs) who are sucked into treating all encounters as combat encounters, because the game, especially the early game, presents combat stats for them and has a familiar pattern of fighting, looting, and resting. But, it can be the DM's fault - one hurdle that DMs need to get over that can be subtle is communicating the situation effectively to the players. Sometime a player will misunderstand, mis-read, or read something 'between the lines' that just wasn't supposed to be there - that's our fault as DMs for not doing a better job explaining as much as theirs for not paying attention or jumping to wrong conclusions.

 

[iserith]

There are players who don't 'get' the idea of a setting with friendly/non-combatant/irrelevant NPCs yet, and players (and DMs) who are sucked into treating all encounters as combat encounters, because the game, especially the early game, presents combat stats for them and has a familiar pattern of fighting, looting, and resting. But, it can be the DM's fault - one hurdle that DMs need to get over that can be subtle is communicating the situation effectively to the players. Sometime a player will misunderstand, mis-read, or read something 'between the lines' that just wasn't supposed to be there - that's our fault as DMs for not doing a better job explaining as much as theirs for not paying attention or jumping to wrong conclusions.

Or those games that are heavy on teasing out the DM's ponderous exposition via interviewing maddening NPCs, scenes which completely lack in any compelling dramatic conflict (let alone an actual dust-up), until someone gets bored and starts stabbing the cagey, quirky innkeeper just to see some action.

It's not a good solution for the player to employ in my view, but I think it's easy to see how a player gets there.