Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anselyn" data-source="post: 5299966" data-attributes="member: 55456">Yes. You are entirely correct. I was wrong.Without careful thought, I was incorrectly equating pacifism with a refusal to kill others. In fact an adherence to non-violence is a the best short definition.However, given the thread was about "the killing" it's noteworthy that your comments were pointing out the problems with non-violence. The violence that you discussed above (police, prison etc.) are not all killing. Clearly, one may result in the other but it's not a certainty. More generally in the thread, there have been comments about man and violence - but violence doesn't have to be killing. In fact, I thought one of the lessons of WWII was that it was hard to get men to kill the enemy. This is why the military now have such carefully trained programs to brutalise recruits to transform them into killers - even when that's what they want to be.In game terms where does this lead us? In not sure. But - some D&D grind results from the necessity to "kill them all" in most fights. More running away or yielding by opponents in response to the demonstration of the capability for violence might be more "realistic".Looking at cinematic fights, a downed opponent is just out of the fight, it doesn't need to be clear if they're dead/mortally wounded/knocked out - the story just proceeds with them out of the picture.  In fact, given the wargaming roots of D&D where units rout, why did the one-on-one version head towards a almost mandatory killing outcome? I suppose it's the moral roleplaying dilemma of what to do with the captives.Then, when we've chosen to eliminate moral considerations associated with "melee" we end up with PCs killing hobos to show their chops.</blockquote>

Verification