redrick
First Post
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.
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.