D&D General Violence and D&D: Is "Murderhobo" Essential to D&D?

[TheSword]

No is the simple answer. There are lots of campaigns that don't require murderhobo. In fact I don't think we've played that way for a very long time.

 

[Rdm]

I have always been confused by the argument "it is okay to kill evil aligned creatures because they are evil aligned" because I find myself asking questions like: What alignment would you ascribe to a person that has zero remorse or hesitation to kill people for having other beliefs?

When not dealing with creatures that are literally infused with or are the embodiment of an alignment (such as devils and various other outsiders), is it not the creature's overall outlook and behavior that informs what their alignment is? And if that is the case, which I believe the books have always presented it as being, then why is it possible for one character that behaves as a self-interested loner that kills who they view to be 'the bad guy' to be Neutral Evil and another that behaves identically to be Neutral Good, and all that differs is what their view of 'the bad guy' happens to look like.

And also the "super hero" question comes to mind: Isn't part of being 'the good guys' refusing to use the same methods as 'the bad guys'?

It's one thing to be unconcerned with the moral quandary and just play the game, and I can't get doing that, but it's an entirely different thing to try and claim that Good and Evil being real forces in the world includes Good having free reign to do the things that make Evil evil so long as they have picked the right target.

I would say the error lies in saying ‘killing them for having other beliefs’. The problem is acting on those beliefs in a way which oppresses others or does violence. If someone hits someone over the head with a lead pipe or threatens to and the other person responds by punching them they are not in fact doing the same thing. They are not morally and ethically equal because ‘violence’.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, it makes sense that, for example, your second attack is at your initiative + 5, the third attack is at +10, etc. And there are lots of ways that an initiative system could be more "realistic" with more complexity. You could add modifiers for weapon speed (modified by Str), or the level of the spell being cast (modified by Int). You could break movement up the way you break up multiple attacks. And so on.

I don't use weapon speed.

I do use casting times - you start casting on init x and finish on init y where x is your roll and y is [x plus the spell's casting time] - because that block of time is when you can be interrupted or countered. (this is VITAL for keeping casters in check, balance-wise)

When it matters, I break movement up; for example where are you when the lightning bolt goes through the combat, or are you within the reach of a melee type whose init just came up (I generally don't use AoO's or similar), or stuff like that.

But...other than driving people away from the game, what would this really achieve? Would combat really be more fun?

Hasn't driven anyone away from here that I know of; in fact our initiative system has garnered some compliments from players of other systems on how well it works.

d6, reroll each round, each attack or shot gets its own initiative. All 6's are resolved, then all 5's, etc. down to 1's. There's some other bits to it, but that's the basics, and it serves us very well.

 

[Weiley31]

Seeing as nearly all monsters dont just sit there and offer PCs a cup of tea when the PCs encounter them

I'd be all for a PC vs Monster/BBEG battle to be settled via an Epic Tea sipping. If Adventures in Middle-Earth can have smoking rules, we need sipping rules for scenarios like this.

 

[Shiroiken]

Combat wasn't always the first choice to solve problems (if violence was required, you ideally wanted to win before rolling initiative). The game has changed over the decades to focus more and more on killing as a source of success (XP), until people started ignoring XP completely. This is why I only award half XP for monsters, using that amount to give XP for social and exploration encounters, as well as the occasional quest. This encourages players to consider alternatives, when possible (stories have conflict, and sometimes violence is the only solution).

The lesson I learned at 7 years old is that it's a bad game design. I refused to play it after two games.

Alas, I have but one reaction to give! I didn't learn this until much later, and it stunted my growth in learning GOOD boardgames.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sometimes I don't give XP for killing monsters at all. I know, wacky. XP is a tool the DM can use to chivvy the game in a particular direction. So if I tell the players that XP will be awarded for representing core character drives, problem solving, overcoming encounters, and milestones, but specifically not killing monsters, they start off with a very different frame of reference. Killing creatures could be part of overcoming encounters, but it doesn't have to be. It's not like PCs are reluctant to draw steel, or that you won't have combat if you don't incentivize it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I would say the error lies in saying ‘killing them for having other beliefs’. The problem is acting on those beliefs in a way which oppresses others or does violence. If someone hits someone over the head with a lead pipe or threatens to and the other person responds by punching them they are not in fact doing the same thing. They are not morally and ethically equal because ‘violence’.

And yet when people have defended the "it's okay to kill the creature because it has an evil alignment" it hasn't been in situations of the sort that you describe where violence is used as a reaction to other immediate violence.

I've seen it argued that killing a goblin as soon as you see it, no matter what it's doing or what you know about that particular goblin, is not evil "because goblins are evil".
I've seen it argued that torturing a drow prisoner was acceptable for a good aligned character to do "because drow are evil."
I've seen other times where that same argument is presented - not "it wasn't evil to kill that particular creature because of the circumstances leading up to it" which is the defense of self or another argument (which I agree affects the morality of an action), but "It's only possible for something to count as evil if it's done against a non-evil entity" and also accompanied by "even if that specific goblin happened to not be evil, it's still not evil that I killed it on sight without any provocation because 'goblins are evil'"

And I have no phrasing of that argument made general other than to say "killing them for having other beliefs" - at least not without my own statements sounding extremely hostile.

 

[Flamestrike]

I would say the error lies in saying ‘killing them for having other beliefs’. The problem is acting on those beliefs in a way which oppresses others or does violence. If someone hits someone over the head with a lead pipe or threatens to and the other person responds by punching them they are not in fact doing the same thing. They are not morally and ethically equal because ‘violence’.

Yes but the evil alignment is not 'is currently doing something wrong'. The evil alignment is 'likely have done something wrong in the past, and will likely do something wrong in the future'. It's a general statement of a creatures ethics and morality, nothing more.

I have always repudiated people who argue that 'good' and 'evil' are just teams, with both sides free to murder, torture, beat and do worse to each other.

If your PC is engaged in murder, torture, slavery, or harm of any kind, he is EVIL regardless of the alignment, or beliefs of his target.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And yet when people have defended the "it's okay to kill the creature because it has an evil alignment" it hasn't been in situations of the sort that you describe where violence is used as a reaction to other immediate violence.

It was exactly my point earlier in the thread, that the need for absolute evil opponents doesn't mean one would go slaughter them for no reason.

Let's examine two stiuations which PCs can witness:

A. You have a group of demons inkoved from another plane, embodiment of evil, who are attacking a merchant caravan.
B. you have a group of bandits, who obviously aren't doing the right thing currently by attacking a merchant caravan.

The answer of my group would be to kill the demons, but arrest the bandits, not kill them, because there is absolutely no need for that especially since the game rules don't make it possible to inflict more harm than needed in melee, and they would accept surrender of any of the bandits, whom they now have the duty of taking to a regular law enforcement in world (and if they are part of the law enforcement, to a court).

The logistics of prisonners complicates gameplay. Really. I can easily see situation where killing opponents would be more efficient, especially in situation where the PCs are a few heroes fighting a large group (attack on the pirate stronghold instead of just meeting bandits). But they won't do that to bandits, and in my game, they would be evil to refuse to take prisonners because it's not convenvient. (And have them just be knocked out and ignore them isn't enough because they will be ready to resume their actions the next day...)

So, murderhoboing is useful because it avoids many complexities, but involves accepting from the PCs a behaviour that would make them evil.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not to question the morality or anything, that's fine, but I think it's a little more complicated than that. So arrest them and do what exactly? What if they're a week or more from the nearest, IDK, jail or whatever? Just pause the campaign and take the two week hit to escort them to the authorities? What kind of proof are they going to offer those authorities that the men are actually bandits? What will the authorities do with them even if you do that? Will they hang the bandits (sounds likely in a lot of scenarios), and if they do hang them what happens to the moral compass? Do the players even have the authority to 'arrest' anyone or act as agents of the law?

I'm not nitpicking, I just don't think there's room in every campaign to handle every encounter like this. Moral complexity snowballs quickly. I'm not saying the answer is to kill the bandits mind you, but the players aren't the sheriff either.