D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Randomly Generated Name]

I am a neo-alignment type of GM who does exactly this. The player character's action determine how they are seen by numerous factions and people of the setting. However, Ive found players that were quite shocked that the PCs could be seen as antagonist at all. It just didnt compute that the PCs are not "heroes" and thus their actions are always for the greater good in a very simplistic way. Also, it played strangely with alignment in past with this type of mindset. This is where the assassin that only kills bad guys is actually a good guy comes from. A sort of ends justify the means morality stretch to fit the overall dynamic of white hat PCs. Exasperated, of course, by no evil GMs because of problematic player behavior of evil that must steal all babies candy and kick every puppy as a requirement of the label.

There is this anime I once saw where achievements good or bad were reflected on a necklace that everyone had. In the show in the first episode the main character accidently killed his best friend so his first title was "best friend killer" most shops wouldn't do business with him and those that did jacked up their prices. Was a pretty funny show but would make an amazing cursed item.

 

[Randomly Generated Name]

Welcome! Stick around a while, we don't bite. Mostly.

Although, given what you were searching for when you found this, that might not be a feature but a drawback.

Anyway, no offense taken at all. I am a huge fan of DMs and tables making the game their own. I was just thinking about various issues, and when I make the mistake of thinking, I tend to post very long essays here.

I try not to do that too often. The thinking thing. Always ends up in a bad way. Now ... I have to go see if Netflix still has Is It Cake?

I hade somthing for this...Somthing about it not being about the journey but the destination? Yeah, that sounds right.

Haha glad I landed here. Great post, as I stated it was refreshing to read. Well thought out and articulated perfectly. Was a joy to read. I'm a quality over quantity person myself.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, THIS can of worms.

Mark my words, THIS will be the next fight in the TTRPG scene. Its an inevitable consequence. D&D alignment went from White Hats and Black Hats to moral relativism, and the end point of this discussion will be how RPGs (and in reality, ALL media) casually uses violence in ways that are desensitizing and harmful.

I still recall an article I read 30 years ago on a website called POWER KILL. It's a bit of a read (about 1.5 Snarfs long) and it's written like an RPG ruleset for a simple RPG you play alongside a regular RPG. The short version is if you took your last RPG session and then rewrote the actions of it to exist in our real world (for example, going into a goblin warren to hunt goblins and take their treasure becomes going into a low rent tenement and attack and steal from the residents) your PCs would be monsters. Absolutely wretched beings. But we excuse this fantasy because goblins, or vampires, or demon worshippers. The game rewards it.

The sands have shifted since 1996. Orcs are for playing, not slaying. Goblins are people too. And the excessive violence used in the game feels a little antiquated as well. You can certainly try to back away from elements of it (D&D has danced away from humanoids being used only for killing, but hasn't from undead, demons, or aberrations being unredeemably evil. Yet.) But I feel as people begin to look hard at how media portraying violence as good (and the tacit condoning of acceptable violence in media used to justify violence in the real world) gets more scrutinized, I feel the game (and in fact, a lot of gaming) will have to look at what options and mechanics it has for peaceful, non-violent (or at least non-fatal) resolution.

Put simply, D&D will at some point have to stop ignoring how it encourages players to commit war crimes as part of routine play.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Yes, D&D is a squad-level wargame with role-playing elements barely tacked on. Always has been. That people play entire sessions without combat does not change that. That people use this wargame to play in-depth, character focused stories also does not change that.

Yep this is how I feel too. When it comes down to it, DnD is a wargame, and ruleswise anything beyond that is a footnote. It's just that the combination of a single heroic character each along with relatively easy to pick up and play rules has lent itself well to RP and character focused storytelling.

But I hopped across to DnD from Warhammer Fantasy, so it's not really surprising that I view it from this angle.

If DnD ever did start phasing out the combat side of the game, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

 

[payn]

I agree, and tried to say what was essentially this same point elsewhere, but was told in no uncertain terms that this was absolutely impossible and could never, ever happen.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Oh, THIS can of worms.

Mark my words, THIS will be the next fight in the TTRPG scene. Its an inevitable consequence. D&D alignment went from White Hats and Black Hats to moral relativism, and the end point of this discussion will be how RPGs (and in reality, ALL media) casually uses violence in ways that are desensitizing and harmful.

I still recall an article I read 30 years ago on a website called POWER KILL. It's a bit of a read (about 1.5 Snarfs long) and it's written like an RPG ruleset for a simple RPG you play alongside a regular RPG. The short version is if you took your last RPG session and then rewrote the actions of it to exist in our real world (for example, going into a goblin warren to hunt goblins and take their treasure becomes going into a low rent tenement and attack and steal from the residents) your PCs would be monsters. Absolutely wretched beings. But we excuse this fantasy because goblins, or vampires, or demon worshippers. The game rewards it.

The sands have shifted since 1996. Orcs are for playing, not slaying. Goblins are people too. And the excessive violence used in the game feels a little antiquated as well. You can certainly try to back away from elements of it (D&D has danced away from humanoids being used only for killing, but hasn't from undead, demons, or aberrations being unredeemably evil. Yet.) But I feel as people begin to look hard at how media portraying violence as good (and the tacit condoning of acceptable violence in media used to justify violence in the real world) gets more scrutinized, I feel the game (and in fact, a lot of gaming) will have to look at what options and mechanics it has for peaceful, non-violent (or at least non-fatal) resolution.

Put simply, D&D will at some point have to stop ignoring how it encourages players to commit war crimes as part of routine play.

This is exactly what I feel is going to happen over the next 25 years or so. Over time each 'bad guy' activity/motivation has become more and more unacceptable to include, because if you do include it (even as something specifically evil for the heroes to fight against and prevent) it's taken as supporting that evil.

Obviously, stabbing people or setting them on fire is assault, grievous bodily harm, and murder. All of those are obviously pretty high up on the 'evil' tier list, and the only reason what they've survived this long is because DnD's entire ruleset is based around combat.

Given another decade or two, playing combat in TTRPG's will be seen as supporting murder and violence.

 

[Reynard]

Put simply, D&D will at some point have to stop ignoring how it encourages players to commit war crimes as part of routine play.

It does no such thing. Even old D&D didn't: hunting down every goblin for XP was a good way to get killed, since the real XP came from treasure. And now, killing isn't required at all.

But again, combat in D&D isn't violence, it is play. It is chess. Violence requires victims, and there aren't any in D&D combat, only participants.

 

[Randomly Generated Name]

There is this anime I once saw where achievements good or bad were reflected on a necklace that everyone had. In the show in the first episode the main character accidently killed his best friend so his first title was "best friend killer" most shops wouldn't do business with him and those that did jacked up their prices. Was a pretty funny show but would make an amazing cursed item.

having to go through a campaign where everyone could see "puppy kicker/steals from babies" displayed at all times. Just thinking about it makes the old DM in me smile ear to ear.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

having to go through a campaign where everyone could see "puppy kicker/steals from babies" displayed at all times. Just thinking about it makes the old DM in me smile ear to ear.

So while I can understand the concerns raised by, inter alia, @Frozen_Heart ... I want to make sure that everyone understands that the purpose of the thread is to reflect on the issue, not to castigate people who love and enjoy combat in D&D and violence in popular culture. As I wrote at the beginning of the OP-

My purpose is not to assign any sort of blame, by the way, but simply to look at the issues. As most of you know from my threads, I love D&D, and play both 5e and various TSR-era editions of D&D (as well as other games).

And at the end-
Violence is fun. It is fun to engage in combat! I like it! I mean, if I didn't enjoy the combat, I would be playing a different game.

Don't get me wrong... I like combat in D&D. Because it IS FUN. And I like stylized violence as well ... I mean, I did just have a thread ranking the greatest Tarantino movies. And when I did the top seven action heroes, I wrote this:

By the way, the list isn’t in order, except for number 1. John Wick, man. Don't mess with John Wick. John Wick isn't an action hero. He's the one you send to kill the other action heroes.

John Wick is the sound of eternal awesomeness, forever. John Wick is what would happen if Face/Off was Nic Cage playing identical twins who had to switch faces and kill each other. John Wick is the sound of a knife being slowly pushed into an eyeball.

Instead, I think that it can be interesting to see how people view combat and violence in D&D, and how they internalize the rules of the game that prioritize combat. For that matter, I also think it's interesting that there is, and has been, some evolution in various ideas and approaches.

For example, I think that complicating the idea of acceptable targets by making humanoids less of a monolithic, alignment-coded group is a natural evolution. But ... it also doesn't fundamentally change the game- from the beginning of the game until now, humans (aka, "Bandits" or "Brigands" or "Baddies") have always been fair game as well. If you can kill a human bandit, you can kill an orc bandit. After all, if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

But ... I also think that there has been some evolution in the approach. I know that I was uncomfortable reading B2 again (specifically, the women and children parts) because it did make me think about the unfortunate nits making lice comment, and while I could have edited it out (DM POWER, @Randomly Generated Name !!!!) I just couldn't run it for a group of younger teens.

Anyway, if I had all the answers, I would be the King of Everyone. And I'm not.


.....yet.

 

[overgeeked]

As recently as 2020, the APA reaffirmed their stance that there is no causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.

APA reaffirms position on violent video games and violent behavior

There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association.

www.apa.org

"There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution (PDF, 60KB) adopted by the American Psychological Association."

Violence in tabletop RPGs is in every way imaginable less impactful than violence in video games. If there's no causal link between the immersive violence of video games and violent behavior, there's even less chance of a link between abstract violence in tabletop RPGs and violent behavior.