Bloodthirsty PC's

[weem]

Except of course, it doesnt change what was done, nor deeds done previously.

Your entitled to yours and theirs, but say one of mine, the barbarian, once a threat to the clan, he ends it. And he certainly was one. Once corrupted, whose to say he wouldnt again?

Really doesnt change much.

/shrug

You're getting hung up on the example for some reason, I'm not sure why. I clearly state at the beginning of the example...

Fortunately, through 9 levels of play in this campaign, my players have shown great constraint when it comes to the respect of the lives of their enemies. I have not had many opportunities to show them the consequences of poor behavior, but if your players are killing everyone they encounter, there should be a reaction.

To give an example of something that happened recently...

The example I gave was the only one I could think of where the players realized a consequence of their "quick to kill" actions (mainly because they are not quick to kill). These consequences were not severe - I was not trying to make a point, or even correct behavior - it's simply what happened.


Anyway, the main point of this was that IF you feel your players are using death as their only tool to solve problems AND you want to do something about it, here are some ideas. I shared these ideas because this problem (of players killing everything in sight) is not an issue in my games, and it's probably because of the things I do in my games.

Also, as I mentioned, if you are running a game for evil characters, then killing is going to be the norm, and you are all set. You probably don't need to change a thing

 

[carmachu]

The example I gave was the only one I could think of where the players realized a consequence of their "quick to kill" actions (mainly because they are not quick to kill). These consequences were not severe - I was not trying to make a point, or even correct behavior - it's simply what happened.


Anyway, the main point of this was that IF you feel your players are using death as their only tool to solve problems AND you want to do something about it, here are some ideas. I shared these ideas because this problem (of players killing everything in sight) is not an issue in my games, and it's probably because of the things I do in my games.

The problem is, while I agree in the general that bloodthristy players can be a problem, and you can use a variety of tools to get them focused on other methods, that particular example was a rather poor example of it. There are a host of other ways.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We were talking about this issue at a party I was at yesterday. (The parties I get invites to are soo cool!) Why PCs are so bloodthirsty:

1) It's often all they are good at. If you're very very good at killing things, and crap at everything else, you will tend to solve all problems by killing. See the D&D fighter class, tho it's true to a large extent of all D&D classes, except the pre-3e thief and the post-1e bard.
2) You get xp for it.
3) The players are desperate to move the plot forward and have exhausted all options save for violence. This is a pacing issue, imo.
4) No long-term consequences. PCs often aren't around long enough, either because of the length of the game or life expectancy, to face the realistic consequences of violent or intimidatory behaviour.
5) There's no law. Rpgs, such as D&D, are often set in wild uncivilized places, where there are no authorities to dispense justice.

PCs are also very quick to resort to threats of violence to get NPCs to do what they want. Moreso than I think most humans would be.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like the OP suggestions and some of the responses, I think there is a general correctness about the counterarguments that killing people is both easier and faster than not killing people, and more often than not ends with the same result, and a little extra XP and gold to boot.

Also, as I mentioned, if you are running a game for evil characters, then killing is going to be the norm, and you are all set. You probably don't need to change a thing

IMO if your party is evil, killing should be the normative outcome, but if you, and they, are good, then instead of "interrogation", it's "wanton torture" or something. There's more than one way to skin a cat...though if the cat's alive it's often the best way.

 

[athos]

Kill them all, let Pelor sort them out

If you think about medieval times, people were not exactly the loving, tolerant people that are around today. They burned human beings they thought were witches, treated people of other religions horrendously, and god help anything that resembled an actual monster.

I think it is completely within the scope of the game to have people act the part of the time frame they are playing in. I am not saying every paladin should be lawful stupid, but that the concept of humans killing what they do not understand is not original to D&D, it exists in our own world as well.

Making players be politically correct is ok, if they are having fun doing that, but I prefer to play characters that are completely opposite of me in the real world. I would never knowingly hurt another creature for anything other than the defense of my family, but in D&D, I can play an evil wizard scheming to take over the kingdom through dastardly deeds. To me, playing something I wouldn't allow myself to do in real life is where the fun comes in.

If a group of ogres is terrorizing the village, as a DM, I would actually award a group more xp for figuring out a win/win situation where they got the ogres to maybe act as a protector for the village in exchange for some cattle or something. But this would assume the ogres were neutral or shrek-like good, not blood thirsty d&d ogres with evil in their hearts and a taste for human flesh. If the latter were the case, extermination is certainly a valid option IMO.

It is up to the DM to mix it up. Sometimes you have a misunderstanding, sometimes you have an evil villain, sometimes you have to deal with prejudice, and sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn and progress. That is D&D.

I do like you letting your players know up front how you DM. That is only fair. If they don't want a politically correct game, they can pass yours by, which is their right.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Interesting post and some great information. I admit as a player I have gone the bloodthirsty route before. It's my normal response to DMs who think good stories mean railroading.

I would like to point out that another reason players get this way is xp. We have all had the less than fume who only gives xp for kills. Make the enemy flee or surrender and it's zero for you. So as a DM it's good to explain upfront that xp comes from defeating an encounter and that doesn't always require killing everything that moves.

 

[Wolf1066]

I would like to point out that another reason players get this way is xp. We have all had the less than fume who only gives xp for kills. Make the enemy flee or surrender and it's zero for you. So as a DM it's good to explain upfront that xp comes from defeating an encounter and that doesn't always require killing everything that moves.

Then some players go from D&D run by a DM who only awards XP for killing to a game such as Traveller or Cyberpunk or some contemporary setting, where laws abound and the aim of the game is not necessarily to exterminate anyone you perceive to be in your way and they attempt to deal with everything as if they are still playing D&D.

This then leads to all sorts of fun when they find themselves being pursued by the local law and/or have contracts put on them.

Thankfully, most learn quickly.

I've encountered some players that seem to think that the game is "The [player's name] Show" starring [player's name] with a supporting cast of [the rest of the players]. The game is a B-grade TV show in which they, the Star Of The Show, can do whatever they like and all the other characters - PCs and NPCs alike exist to suit their purposes. They can torture like Jack Bauer - and expect perfect results - destroy property, break and enter, kill without compunction - and then wonder why the other characters aren't supportive of them.

Then the GM gets the task of having to respond to the player's excesses in a realistic fashion.

Fine if everyone is OK with fighting their way out of every situation, constantly watching their backs and being on the run from the law in a place where pretty much everyone is against them and they can't rely on the locals to hide them (why would the locals want to?). But in reality - how long are 3-7 people going to last like that?

 

[ExploderWizard]

There can be a variety of reasons for the 'kill everything' style of play:

1) It's simple. Players don't have to worry about thinking too much. They just enjoy kicking in the door,killing and looting.

2) Players learned from past games that leaving anything alive just brings more grief and trouble than it's worth.

3) Players think that more killing results in better in-game rewards. If this is actually true, then change this answer to "Duh. Why not?"

If the main reason is #1 and it rubs your DMing style the wrong way then that's just plain old playstyle incompatibility. The other two reasons can be addressed and corrected in play.

Why spare the villains?

If the PC's are merciless toward the bad guys and that is upsetting your preferred style of game then assume the role of the PC's for a second and, based on their experience and knowledge, think of a good reason to show compassion or mercy.

Many villains are portrayed as rotten to the core, evil bastards with few if any redeeming qualities. Add on to that service to some inhuman vile demon or whatever and death seems like the only viable option to adventurers with half a brain.

Some of the best villains can be important and influential members of society that might actually do a great deal of good things apart from their nefarious activities. Crime bosses that have legitimate businesses, and employ a large number of regular people, give generous donations to charity, and sponsor medical centers and orphanages, are a perfect example. Sure they are evil, and do terrible things, but they also have a human side and perhaps even a family. The point is, that these types of bad guys are not just two dimensional paper targets.

NPCs as people:

Provide the players with a variety of NPC's to interact with that do not have ' make the PC's lives hell' as a top priority in their lives. The players need to know that interaction with an NPC can generate in-game rewards beyond the XP they may get for just killing them.

Once the ongoing, living NPC's can start generating better rewards than dead ones, the players will see the benefits of less killing firsthand. If you make the players regret sparing most of the lives they do then the killings will resume in short order.

Let the players see the effect that they have on people throughout the campaign. Perhaps that desparate thug the PC's let go changed his life and became an honest man. Later in the campaign this guy can reappear in a position to provide the PC's with much needed aid.

 

[Wolf1066]

Some of the best villains can be important and influential members of society that might actually do a great deal of good things apart from their nefarious activities. Crime bosses that have legitimate businesses, and employ a large number of regular people, give generous donations to charity, and sponsor medical centers and orphanages, are a perfect example. Sure they are evil, and do terrible things, but they also have a human side and perhaps even a family. The point is, that these types of bad guys are not just two dimensional paper targets.

That pretty much describes my villains to a "T".

NPCs as people:

Provide the players with a variety of NPC's to interact with that do not have ' make the PC's lives hell' as a top priority in their lives. The players need to know that interaction with an NPC can generate in-game rewards beyond the XP they may get for just killing them.

And I do this all the time. The PCs have friends, allies and business-people they trust and can rely on.

 

[malcolypse]

one of my favorite characters was a horrible bloodthirsty sob of a half-orc, who was raised until he was eight in a barbarian orc tribe. then, a group of adventurers found the tribe and slaughtered them mercilessly. he was small enough to hide and was overlooked. afterwards, he wandered his way into civilization, begging and stealing to live. he found his way to the world's "adventurer's college" as the dm called it.

the party was the group of kids that kept the other kids from beating up the monster when he arrived. years passed, and he was still a horrible person, but he'd adopted a new family.

he would do anything for his new family, so he learned to contribute to their adventures as best he could. by being ruthlessly and visciously evil, since they couldn't.