A PC who wont kill

[Felix]

There's mental illness in this statement, but not where you think it is.

Might as well say, "FranktheDM, you're mentally ill because what you think is stupid" instead of taking the veiled insult way around it.

He mentioned the "utter refusal to kill", meaning that it is a modern notion that it's always and everywhere wrong to kill. Which is frustrating because there are times when killing is most certainly not wrong.

FranktheDM admits the possibility of mercy into the world ("The worlds D&D takes place in have a place for mercy"), so it's not as if he's espousing a Kill 'em all mantra. He's just rejecting the idea that anyone in a DnD campaign world, violent and dangerous, would be able to survive unless they had the ability and willingness to kill if the situation demanded it. No, they don't have to exercise that ability often, but they must have it.

As far as subduing goes, this is perfectly acceptable provided the target can be subdued with a permanancy equal to death. Once you have that 10th level blackguard unconscious, you need to be able to throw him in chains, strip him of magic, take him to justice, et cetera. You don't just knock him out and leave him lying there, brush your hands off and say, "that'll teach him" and then leave.

And if you don't have the option of delivering him to justice, what do you do? Tie him up for his minions to free? Toss him in the bag of holding until he suffocates? Cut out all the unvital organs and leave him a useless bloody mess until a cleric with Heal shows up? Kill him and get it over with; you're saving the lives of the people he would have killed.

 

[lukelightning]

Remember that in most D&D worlds prisons or jails would be rather ineffective at dealing with most baddies, unless you are going to resort to clumsy "anti-magic cells" and stuff like that. Plus in "Ye Olden Tymes" punishment was more often financial or corporal; criminals were fined, punished with humiliation (e.g. stocks), flogged, maimed, or executed.

So "taking people to jail" instead of killing them might not be an option.

 

[ruleslawyer]

As far as subduing goes, this is perfectly acceptable provided the target can be subdued with a permanancy equal to death. Once you have that 10th level blackguard unconscious, you need to be able to throw him in chains, strip him of magic, take him to justice, et cetera. You don't just knock him out and leave him lying there, brush your hands off and say, "that'll teach him" and then leave.

And if you don't have the option of delivering him to justice, what do you do? Tie him up for his minions to free? Toss him in the bag of holding until he suffocates? Cut out all the unvital organs and leave him a useless bloody mess until a cleric with Heal shows up? Kill him and get it over with; you're saving the lives of the people he would have killed.

Or try to redeem him. Or (my players' favorite strategy): Baleful polymorph. Let him spend his life as a newt, or a sheep, or a pig.

 

[danzig138]

Which is frustrating because there are times when killing is most certainly not wrong.

Try not to state this as fact. It isn't. For some people, killing is always wrong. Period. For some people, killing is always wrong, but sometimes necessary.

FranktheDM admits the possibility of mercy into the world ("The worlds D&D takes place in have a place for mercy"), so it's not as if he's espousing a Kill 'em all mantra. He's just rejecting the idea that anyone in a DnD campaign world, violent and dangerous, would be able to survive unless they had the ability and willingness to kill if the situation demanded it. No, they don't have to exercise that ability often, but they must have it.

I imagine that quite a few of the inhabitants of the typcial D&D world (heck, let's go default Greyhawk here) never kill. Average peasant in the Free City of. . . probably not a killer. Maybe never even comes up in his life. Heck, some of them probably don't even kill their own food. Maybe in Frank's, umm, mentally sound world, everyone must live or die by the sword (or spell), but that's certainly not the assumption for my game setting. If it works for him, or for you, keen. But it's not the OTW of things.

And if you don't have the option of delivering him to justice, what do you do? Tie him up for his minions to free? Toss him in the bag of holding until he suffocates? Cut out all the unvital organs and leave him a useless bloody mess until a cleric with Heal shows up? Kill him and get it over with; you're saving the lives of the people he would have killed.

Or maybe your character has such a strong belief that he does whatever he can to deliver the now-subdued person to justice, even if it inconveniences him. Maybe he thinks "Kill him and get it over with" is the justification of the weak-willed who don't actually serve the cause of good, but instead seek rationalization for their own need to murder.

Nifty how different characters can approach things in different manners, isn't it?

I have played more than a couple of characters who refused to kill. Some refused to kill intelligent beings, but were cool with hunting animals for food, and I've played some who refused twouldn't do it himself, and wouldn't subdue someone for a party member to kill. I had one who actively preventted party members of delivering so-called "mercy killings". These characters didn't screw the party. Made them go out of their way sometimes, but didn't reduce their effectiveness. And I had one who refused to kill, and refused to let the party kill, but was not humble about it. Lorded his moral superiority over the group like a freaking hammer.

Now that guy, they didn't like. And they finally let him know they didn't like him by getting stabby with it. Several times. I certainly coulnd't deny that he was kind of asking for it.

So for those who think it just can't work, if you haven't tried it, don't dismiss the character concept right off the bat. It could result in some fun, or at least moderately interesting times. If you have tried it and it didn't work, I understand that not all concepts will work in all games. Believe me, I get that.

But regardless, maybe you could try and avoid saying it's stupid, or a mental sickness. Cause of all the things in the world that are, being unwilling to kill isn't.

 

[Ozmar]

Try not to state this as fact. It isn't. For some people, killing is always wrong. Period. For some people, killing is always wrong, but sometimes necessary.

Yes, hence the mental illness.

Anyway... just a thought: killing someone in the D&D world may be seen as less of a "moral evil" than killing someone in the Real World. After all, in the Real World, death is final. In D&D, depending on the setting, death can be reversed. Among particularly powerful opponents, death may merely slow them down. So killing might not be considered to be much of a harm at all.

(For an extreme example, consider the Ghostwalk setting. Killing someone there might not be any worse than punching them in the nose. Some people might even kill themselves to gain the advantage of being a ghost, and then have themselves raised later when they're done.)

But regardless, maybe you could try and avoid saying it's stupid, or a mental sickness. Cause of all the things in the world that are, being unwilling to kill isn't.

Well, consider the perspective of one who thinks this way: they probably imagine a (not inconceivable scenario) in which a robber is attacking an innocent person, and the only immediate solution is to get in a fight to defend the innocent, and that this may lead to killing the attacker. Or maybe they imagine a situation where the only sure way to stop the attacker from doing harm is to kill him. Maybe you both have guns, for example. In such a situation, killing the attacker is morally required. At least according to those of us who would consider "all killing is always wrong" to be a mental illness somewhat unique to modern culture.

Just offering a view into this perspective. Consider it useful grist for role-playing.

 

[Felix]

And while I'm bloviating, I might as well opine on the "I subdue, they kill" method.

If an individual's code doesn't allow them to kill, it can mean one of two things. Firstly, that they won't allow an enemy to die; secondly, that they themselves won't physically kill another.

In the first case, you can very much take the moral stance that "killing is wrong", because not only do you disallow your own commitment of it, but you similarly disallow anyone associated with you to do so. That way, you ensure that your actions of subduing enemies don't simply make killing easier for others. This is consistent, because if "Death Is Wrong", then not only is it wrong for you, but also it is wrong for others.

In the second case moral ground cannot be guaranteed; just like mob bosses order hits and don't pull the trigger, someone who subdued but allowed (or even encouraged because of his unwillingness) others to kill would be as integral to the death of the victim as he who Coup de Grace'd. Here the argument is inconsistent: it is wrong for me to kill, but it is ok for you to kill, and moreover, it is ok for me to help you kill. By subduing someone, you remove their ability to fight for survival; you render them impotent. It is tanamount to killing them in many cases.

---

Regarding the effacasy of these two dogmas:
The first is awkward within your usual group of DnD PCs. Not only on a metagame basis because many characters are geared towards killing with maximum efficiency, but also because of the game world; if there is a moral absolute (Good and Evil exist), then killing Evil in the commitment of Evil is arguably virtuous. So trying to prevent other PCs from doing what they are deisgned to do, and what is demonstrably Good for them to do, is awkward.

In the second case, the hypocracy stands out. The PC claims moral high ground by surrounding himself with others who do not have that high ground. Essentially, his morality is upheld by others' immorality. I can see this working very will for a villian who wants to be able to say truthfully, "I have never killed anyone", but I have a very hard time conceptualizing a PC who does this because he believes "Killing is wrong".

---

Extenuating circumstances of course may apply. A PC who is a Bhaalspawn and who cannot kill because doing so would cause him to transform into an avatar of the Lord of Murder... then OK. Subdue away and allow others to kill. As long as the PC does not espouse the idea that "killing is always and everywhere wrong" I can see the no-killing PC existing. The beguiler for instance. Hardly any lethal capacity, but very effective at removing enemies.

/bloviating

 

[werk]

My buddy Dennis always talked about his cleric of peace. Not only would he not kill people, he refused to engage in violence of any sort often hiding his eyes or shouting "stop, stop" when combat broke out.

I think it lasted a whole game, maybe two sessions...

 

[ruleslawyer]

At least according to those of us who would consider "all killing is always wrong" to be a mental illness somewhat unique to modern culture.

IIRC, the Buddhist doctrine of ahimsa (nonviolence) is at least 2500 years old, and, given the nature of religious philosophy, probably itself stems from even older (probably Hindu) doctrines. But that's getting into RW religion, so I guess we should steer clear.

To get us back into D&D-land: There's nothing really wrong with having a PC be unwilling to kill, but at the same time recognize that sometimes, it is necessary to kill. I doubt, for instance, that Sir Knight, a good-hearted and generous man, is happy that his horse craps in the city streets, thereby adding to the dirt and dust of the cityscape and making the street-cleaners have to work harder. But he does need to ride on something. Regrettable necessity is a fine justification for violence. If anything, I'd never allow a character who preferentially took the violent approach to solving problems to have a good alignment IMC. Enjoy carving up goblins? Feel like they deserve it for being nasty creatures? Get a kick out of riding forth and doing battle with the minions of evil? Don't believe in trying to stem the flood of violence, but instead revel in battle after battle against all foes about whom you're worried might be a threat to civilization? Wonderful. Welcome to alignment Chaotic Neutral.

 

[Felix]

Try not to state this as fact. It isn't.

If survival (not only of the individual, but of the society/race/religion) is the basis of morality, then there are circumstances that will require killing and it won't be wrong. If you disagree with that premise, we can take the discussion elsewhere; but assuming the premise, then killing is not always and everywhere wrong.

I imagine that quite a few of the inhabitants of the typcial D&D world
*snip*

My apologies. I should have noted I was refering to PCs, who are the ones knowingly willing to face the dangerous environments and creatures of your DnD world.

Or maybe your character has such a strong belief that he does whatever he can to deliver the now-subdued person to justice, even if it inconveniences him.

This is fine; at least his moral attitude is consistent. The problem I have is with PCs who claim moral high ground and allow others to kill for them.

Nifty how different characters can approach things in different manners, isn't it?

Perhaps my post #36 might show I already understood this.

But regardless, maybe you could try and avoid saying it's stupid, or a mental sickness. Cause of all the things in the world that are, being unwilling to kill isn't.

I will point out I never have said that unwillingness to kill is stupid. The only time "stupid" has been said in this thread is when I translated jokamachi's reply to FranktheDM as accusing him of being mentally ill because he disagreed with Frank's assesment in a veiled insult.

That being said, I am not rejecting the virtue of restraint. There are times when not killing is the answer, and this is a vast majority of the time. However, to uniformally exclude the option of killing is a mistake. I am not arguing to exercise that option often, only to allow for it. There are circumstances, not hard to imagine, where inaction because you might kill would be wrong.

 

[cmanos]

I played a charcter in Shadowrun who would not kill. He would main, incapacitate, or subdue, but he would not kill. He believed very strongly that if you didn't kill the employees of the corporations you were running against, those corporations would be less likely to come after you.

This concept evolved from my character into every character in one entire game, not just mine. We had 6 shadowrunners who took pride in their ability to infiltrate corporations, incapacitating guards and other runners. It was a matter of pride that we could accomplish these tough jobs cleanly (i.e. no wet work).

I could definitely see this transferring over into D&D. I don't see it as gimping themselves. They have a code that all life is sacred, or that killing is just wrong, or even more along a karmic track...kill and be killed.

While it does pose a challenge it can be quite fun.