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

I love and deeply respect Pterry and his work, but I don't think the belief in Santa Claus is what separates me from a chimp.

EDIT: But if I'm wrong, and Sir Terry is right, that is a naughty word terrifying and chilling endorsement of capitalism. I'm only human because I buy things.
Way to miss the point of Hogfather.

Commerce has nothing to do with it. That's a side effect. The important part is to believe in myths, because that's how you learn how to believe in things that, strictly speaking, do not exist, because that's how you make them exist.

"THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."

Justice, Mercy, Law, Kindness, Love... those are all things that only exist insofar as humans make them exist. And humans need to learn how to do that, and what to aim for.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Social interaction systems don't have to be just the most combat-like elements though; they can be used for extracting information or persuading people to cooperate. The more aggressive uses are just a subset.
Which is fine until and unless one takes the stance, as I do, that if those mechanics work against NPCs they have to equally work against PCs; at which point the player-side desire for social mechanics scurries back into the corner.
 

Way to miss the point of Hogfather.

Commerce has nothing to do with it. That's a side effect. The important part is to believe in myths, because that's how you learn how to believe in things that, strictly speaking, do not exist, because that's how you make them exist.

"THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."

Justice, Mercy, Law, Kindness, Love... those are all things that only exist insofar as humans make them exist. And humans need to learn how to do that, and what to aim for.
Well, the problem is that there are a lot more Moist von Lipwigs in the worlds than there are Hogfathers.

Myths do shape our reality. But that is where the danger lies. And you need to ask "cui bono?" Whenever someone is telling you a myth. Because whenever someone is asking you to believe in them, they're after some combination of three things; your money, your immortal soul or your butthole.

Ask yourself: to whom are we being asked to show Mercy? Contrast that who the myths instruct us to behead using the sword of Justice? Ask yourself what is a societally accepted way to show kindness, who determines that and who disseminates those myths? What is sacred love and what is profane pornography?

It's not that these things do or do not exist, they are memes. You are right. We make them exist. But who is telling us to make what?
 

Which is fine until and unless one takes the stance, as I do, that if those mechanics work against NPCs they have to equally work against PCs; at which point the player-side desire for social mechanics scurries back into the corner.
I do prefer that rules are reciprocal between all characters. For example, i'm a big fan of 3E/PF1 NPCs built like PC. Though, I know thats not popular around here at least. I dont have an issue with subs-systems, however, like in PF1 for social encounters. For example, the noble's invite becomes a social dungeon of sorts, where the PCs must navigate attitudes, hidden agendas, etc.. I dont expect the PCs to form starting attitudes and positions and have the NPCs try to interact with them at the same time. As interesting as the idea is, its just more expedient to GM the situation one sided.

Now, things like diplo and intimidate skill I have used against the PCs, at least in 3E/PF1. I know some players freak out cause they think they are losing agency, but I dont tend to think of intimi/diplo as mind control as many players expect either. The ruleset gives bonuses and minuses if you have been effected. It doesnt force a PC or NPC to do exactly what the user wants. That has often been misunderstood.
 

Which is fine until and unless one takes the stance, as I do, that if those mechanics work against NPCs they have to equally work against PCs; at which point the player-side desire for social mechanics scurries back into the corner.

Speak for yourself and people you play with. If properly structured (as carrot-and-stick processes rather than action demand processes) I've seen plenty of people willing to deal with it.
 

Way to miss the point of Hogfather.

Commerce has nothing to do with it. That's a side effect. The important part is to believe in myths, because that's how you learn how to believe in things that, strictly speaking, do not exist, because that's how you make them exist.

"THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."

Justice, Mercy, Law, Kindness, Love... those are all things that only exist insofar as humans make them exist. And humans need to learn how to do that, and what to aim for.
That conversation between Death and Susan is one of the most resonant things I've ever read. I can quote most of it from memory, and that particular conception of humanism has become a personal guiding principle.
 

I do prefer that rules are reciprocal between all characters. For example, i'm a big fan of 3E/PF1 NPCs built like PC. Though, I know thats not popular around here at least. I dont have an issue with subs-systems, however, like in PF1 for social encounters. For example, the noble's invite becomes a social dungeon of sorts, where the PCs must navigate attitudes, hidden agendas, etc.. I dont expect the PCs to form starting attitudes and positions and have the NPCs try to interact with them at the same time. As interesting as the idea is, its just more expedient to GM the situation one sided.

I prefer what you call reciprocal design here. I just think you need a game with less moving parts than latter day D&Doids have to make it practical to do that. But its entirely possible; I ran BRP and Hero based games for years that way for example. You just can't have a game that does it have the complexity that middle-to-upper level 3e/PF1e had and do that.
 

It is also a personal style thing.

Some people approached early D&D as creep along looking for traps, and trying to avoid fighting monsters unless you can get a sweet ambush.

Others in early D&D loved to kick in doors and charge cleaving left and right.
And over time, the door-kickers' influence on the game grew stronger, and balance between the styles was broken.
 

Probably true, although people do still play D&D with minimal violence. While the Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign I played in had a to-me-surprising number of situations and encounters where we were able to resolve conflicts with negotiation and nonlethal solutions, the campaign still had plenty of fights.
But would those people play D&D if it wasn't the game everybody knew and was playing?
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top