Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That is one of many ways to play.
D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
Exactly.
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, that's the way the game presents play.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
The current game. The discussion doesn't specify a version of D&D, and is historical in nature.
Necropolitan
Hero
One of the points of society is to put as many steps between "Problem" and "Violence" as possible.
But sometimes the problem IS violence. A person has decided they prefer robbery to honest work because it's easier or more profitable, a person is murdering people, or even just a drunk person throwing a punch. In that case the proper response is to ensure that person can't hurt others, prioritizing the lives of the innocent over the aggressor. Sometimes if the threat they pose is high enough should they not be stopped the only option is to use lethal force.
D&D simply has a world where there are more problems of violence that can't be solved without violence than the real world, especially those involving lethal force. More people willing to murder for pleasure or profit, actual monsters who are eating people (in real life maneaters are put down as well), people with ideologies that demand they harm others, etc. Bandits in D&D aren't starving, they've just decided they'd rather kill and rob people than get a less profitable job and/or they like killing.
I'd argue current D&D might even be less violent than real life would be in the same situation since there are far more nonlethal options. Just imagine if police officers were equipped with wands capable of casting sleep instead of guns.
The problematic elements are just in how the violence is presented, like by having 'evil races,' treating enemies as sources of XP instead of people, etc.
And for the most part I've seen the problematic elements being addressed. As long as D&D books aren't putting in the problematic elements then it's on players and DMs to govern their own behavior.
I'm currently playing in a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign and my party just got past a group of sapient giant toads by talking to them instead of attacking even though killing the toads would have been profitable and easier. We had to lie about being poisonous to prevent them from eating us but it felt wrong to attack first and I figure an arrangement can be made to feed them later.
My party went to their cave hoping to save their victims. The yetis attacked when we entered it and we slew them. I don't see how there are any moral or ethical problems there any more than there would be if the yeti were human serial-killing cannibals in the same situation.
But sometimes the problem IS violence. A person has decided they prefer robbery to honest work because it's easier or more profitable, a person is murdering people, or even just a drunk person throwing a punch. In that case the proper response is to ensure that person can't hurt others, prioritizing the lives of the innocent over the aggressor. Sometimes if the threat they pose is high enough should they not be stopped the only option is to use lethal force.
D&D simply has a world where there are more problems of violence that can't be solved without violence than the real world, especially those involving lethal force. More people willing to murder for pleasure or profit, actual monsters who are eating people (in real life maneaters are put down as well), people with ideologies that demand they harm others, etc. Bandits in D&D aren't starving, they've just decided they'd rather kill and rob people than get a less profitable job and/or they like killing.
I'd argue current D&D might even be less violent than real life would be in the same situation since there are far more nonlethal options. Just imagine if police officers were equipped with wands capable of casting sleep instead of guns.
The problematic elements are just in how the violence is presented, like by having 'evil races,' treating enemies as sources of XP instead of people, etc.
And for the most part I've seen the problematic elements being addressed. As long as D&D books aren't putting in the problematic elements then it's on players and DMs to govern their own behavior.
I'm currently playing in a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign and my party just got past a group of sapient giant toads by talking to them instead of attacking even though killing the toads would have been profitable and easier. We had to lie about being poisonous to prevent them from eating us but it felt wrong to attack first and I figure an arrangement can be made to feed them later.
Yeah. Another example in Rime of the Frostmaiden was a group of yeti who were eating people. They had other options for prey so it wasn't a question of necessity and were sapient so it wasn't that they didn't know they were eating people.
My party went to their cave hoping to save their victims. The yetis attacked when we entered it and we slew them. I don't see how there are any moral or ethical problems there any more than there would be if the yeti were human serial-killing cannibals in the same situation.
KYRON45
Hero
Did you take their stuff when the violence was over though?
Last edited:
MGibster
Legend
But that's just it. In the past, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, etc., etc. weren't part of the same society adventurers were. i.e. They were outsiders, and the rules for dealing with outsiders is typically different from how we deal with other members of our group.
Orcs aren't people. They're not real. How many of us lament the loss of the poor pawn sacrificed to achieve a particular goal in a game of chess?
Yeah. We had to supplment our pay and it's not like they were doing anything with those Boots of Elvenkind anyway.Did you take their stuff when the violence was over though?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
One thing to take note of here is that in D&D, "society" as an institution is much weaker than what most of us live in today. Numerous areas of infrastructure are non-existent, and most of the others are markedly weak. Issues of violence prevention, investigating incidents and identifying the perpetrators, punishing them in a manner that fits the crime while also keeps their civil rights in mind and still tries to deter other would-be offenders, etc. only have modest levels of institutionalization. Even magic, where it's capable of filling in some of the gaps, is frequently regarded as not being ubiquitous enough to approach anything like what we see today.
Which necessitates the justification of violence as a force that's required to hold your bog-standard D&D society together.
Now, there's some variation on this in most settings. Civilized areas are considered to be civilized because they're removed from that need, largely due to a combination of sufficient armed forces, mechanisms (social and otherwise) dedicated to keeping out "the others" (i.e. any group perceived as being opposed to society's interests), and powerful interests (e.g. mercantile, religious, etc.) that have a vested interest in preventing not only upheaval, but unrest as well (which even the potential for upheaval can cause, hence the need to make things seem safe as well as be safe).
But step away from these civilized areas, and all of that either falls away or is quickly suffers a marked reduction in effectiveness. At which point, violence quickly becomes a safeguard for survival, hence the need for specialists in that regard, which are the PCs.
Remathilis
Legend
Replace "bandits, goblins, and orcs" with "street gangs, drug cartels, and petty criminals" and "PCs" with "law enforcement agency" and try to use that same justification. Bonus if you can justify civil forfeiture alongside it.
Mod Note:
You’re a veteran poster here. You know better than this.
Similar Threads
- Locked
