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

[Igwilly]

Well, right where I live, if you want to be Mister Murder, you play GTA. RPG is for something else for us.
Some things, however, may affect this in my case:
1) I’ve played with many groups where I live. Many players. However, many of them were novices to the game.
2) If I think it’s ever necessary, I say to players right away that my campaign is not about living your antisocial fantasies. It has been a long time since I had to say that.
3) I began playing D&D with 4e, and most of the description tells you about how this is a game of heroic fantasy, where you either are the hero, or do otherwise amazing adventures. The DMG actually tells you about the kind of player we’re talking about. Before (and after!) I started playing a tabletop RPG, I played/play a lot of Final Fantasy and the like. I never got the idea of a “murderhobo” as the way to play D&D.
4) Honestly, most DMs here think like me, so unless the campaign is about evil characters, or you are allowed to play one, that playstyle will not last for long.
In addition, as I said it before, there are some surprising numbers of cases where you are legally allowed to kill someone; and that’s not talking about the boogeyman monster.

P.S: An easy fix is that you do not get xp for killing things you are not “supposed” to kill.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I've run a bunch of D&D with no (or limited) killing. Works just fine. Some of these were gaming for kids, wherein the mean goblins run away at 0hp. Others were on the opposite end of the spectrum with sophisticated parties that had complex, noble goals and the ingenuity to strive after them without laying waste to everything in their path.

Yup, tons of rules are dedicated to combat and violent abilities. Most of these do not need to result in death as pointed out by previous posters. You can easily use death saves for NPCs and monster-types, RAW, which gives everyone a measure of protection. You can easily customize xp to prioritize non-violent or non-killing resolution. It's no big deal.

The biggest deal, as always, is getting player buy-in. If your players want to be murderhobos, they'll be murderhobos, mechanics be damned. Save the campaign idea for another time and another group. Not all groups want to play murderhobos. D&D doesn't force or even suggest that PCs act as such.

And it doesn't matter if other systems might be a better match for the campaign your envisioning. I always feel its better to alter a system you're happy and comfortable with to suit your needs rather than force a whole group to learn a new system. The D&D rules are a toolbox which you can use to build whatever you want.

 

[Shasarak]

So all Australians are murderous psychopaths?

I know that I am not brave enough to say that to an Australians face when I have so much to live for.

 

[Valmarius]

Granted, I've only been playing/DMing for 6 years, which doesn't seem long in the grand history of D&D. But of the 27 players I've run games for in that time 20 of them had never played a tabletop RPG before.
I've literally never had to admonish a player for the kinds of behaviour being described here.

Personally I think it's a matter of framing scenes in such a way that the players know what their options or obstacles are.

 

[77IM]

To respond to the OP, here's what I'd do.

1. Mechanical change: When you reduce an enemy to 0 hp, you decide what happens to them! Here are some options:

• They fall unconscious and start bleeding out, per normal rules.
• They just fall unconscious. It's OK if you knock them out with a fireball or something. I'm going for a slightly more narrative angle here.
• They are at 1hp and conscious, but are Really Messed Up. I'd say, they are incapacitated (see appendix A), meaning they can move but not take actions. This means they can stumble around and talk, which is exactly how you want your enemies.
• They are at 1hp and conscious -- but your sword is at their throat, or your arrow is aimed at their eyeball, or whatever. At any point in the future, you can just snuff them out. And they know it! Their choice, whether to cooperate or eat steel.
• They are at 1hp and conscious -- but they have lost the will to fight, at least temporarily. They know you've beat the snot out of them and will either retreat or surrender or give you what you want (DM's choice, based on the NPC's personality). If the DM decides that the NPC really would never lose the will to fight, then they basically commit suicide-by-PC.
• You capture them somehow; slap some cuffs on them, throw a net over them, push them into a paddywagon; whatever makes sense in the scenario. It helps to prep this (carry cuffs with you, set a trap, etc.).

Whatever you pick, it has to make sense. If it doesn't make sense, pick something else.

2. Mechanical change: I really like Heat system from Blades in the Dark. It's an abstract way of tracking how wanted you are by the law. I'd probably adapt something like it to D&D. The easiest way would be some sort of Reputation system, where doing missions for the authorities increases your standing, while murdering people decreases your standing.

The thing you want to avoid is, "Whelp, you killed somebody, now you are going to jail and you have to retire that PC and make a new one." Instead, I'd want a mechanic that provides a gradual descent into criminal status. Some sort of trade-off between doing heroic deeds and getting away with murder.

Initial design of such a system might be: When you do a heroic thing, +1 standing (max +5). When you kill a person who you shouldn't have, -1 standing (max -5), and you must pay 1,000 gp weregild to their next of kin. Also the magistrates come around to question you, and if you can't talk your way out of it, they throw you in jail. The length of time is equal to your standing:

• 0 or more: 1 week in jail (it's a humiliation more than anything else).
• -1: 1 month in jail.
• -2: 3 months in jail.
• -3: 1 year in jail.
• -4: Jailed for life.
• -5: Executed.

I'd make it relatively easy to talk your way out of it; your allies can help, and your standing would be a modifier to all the checks. Basically there are all sorts of extenuating circumstances that the PCs can call upon, or they could cast doubt upon the magistrates' evidence. The object here is to scare the players with the threat of jail time, not to actually jail the PCs.

3. Most importantly, provide mission goals that don't require killing. There are volumes written on this subject so I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader. Even something as simple as a wanted poster that says, "Reward: 10,000 gp alive; 5,000 gp dead" will go a long way towards ensuring the players actually use all the mechanical options presented in #1.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

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?

Yah, totally my fault when I present situations like the one I described (that was a literal transcription of a situation that happened in one of my games). When there's absolutely no reason to attack someone and yet the player chooses to do so, it's absolutely my fault, no doubt about it.

I know that I am not brave enough to say that to an Australians face when I have so much to live for.

Wise choice. There's a reason why Australians survive Australia...

 

[iserith]

Yah, totally my fault when I present situations like the one I described (that was a literal transcription of a situation that happened in one of my games). When there's absolutely no reason to attack someone and yet the player chooses to do so, it's absolutely my fault, no doubt about it.

Sometimes there is no good fictional reason for the character to do that. But the player may have other reasons. Sometimes those reasons are instigated by the DM's approach. I think it's worth looking inward first before blaming the other, since it's only yourself that you can change (if needed).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

Honestly I'd find a different system. Sure, as many have pointed out you can use D&D in the way you describe, and several have suggested useful house rules to make it work better. But if you don't want to slaughter enemies and take their loot, why use a system designed to do exactly that?

 

[Draegn]

With regards to killing opponents, has anyone found that their players, for lack of better word, have become "racist and/or sexist" in their approach to "justice". For example, trying to redeem the female half elf thief, while outright killing a male half troll thief?