Discouraging Mass Murder
- Thread starter Momeeche
- Start date
kitsune9
Adventurer
Hi Momeeche,
If you want your players to be more merciful to whatever they face up against, here's a few approaches:
1. The baddies surrender and they don't fight to the death. If the PC's are blood-thirsty and kill their prisoners, then what comes around, goes around. Do not hesitate to coup de grace their characters.
2. PC's who kill everything in their wake earn a reputation of not only don't mess with them, but avoid them. The goblins that raided the food stores are a nuisance, but when word reaches the villages ears of how the PC's killed the entire tribe, that makes people nervous, becuase other goblin tribes are going to come and take revenge and it will an all-out war. Once word reaches the villagers that the PC's wiped out the tribe, they will beg the PC's to leave the village. Other villages will be hesitant to providing aid or sanctuary to the PC's.
3. Give difficult decisions to the PC's. What will the PC's do with all those old and young goblins? Do they get the axe too? If they do, even good-aligned organizations will express their disgust of such wanton slaughter.
4. If the PC's have a reputation of letting evil doers go even when raiding their lair, they are likely to be reasoned with or negotiated with by the evil doers at various stages of the PC's progression. Otherwise, if the PC's are going around killing everyone and everything, the lair is going to throw all their resources into the defense. Or should the PC's be foolish to sleep in the dungeon, they are going to have serious problems on their hands, when they realize they've been boxed in and the entire tribe is battering down the doors to make an all-out assualt.
5. If the PC's have NPC hirelings or other similar people along, they will be vocal in their disgust of wanton bloodshed. This could be "voice of reason" to guide the PC's to a more balanced approach.
Outside of the game, have a chat with your players and tell them that you would like to run a less blood-thirsty game.
If you want your players to be more merciful to whatever they face up against, here's a few approaches:
1. The baddies surrender and they don't fight to the death. If the PC's are blood-thirsty and kill their prisoners, then what comes around, goes around. Do not hesitate to coup de grace their characters.
2. PC's who kill everything in their wake earn a reputation of not only don't mess with them, but avoid them. The goblins that raided the food stores are a nuisance, but when word reaches the villages ears of how the PC's killed the entire tribe, that makes people nervous, becuase other goblin tribes are going to come and take revenge and it will an all-out war. Once word reaches the villagers that the PC's wiped out the tribe, they will beg the PC's to leave the village. Other villages will be hesitant to providing aid or sanctuary to the PC's.
3. Give difficult decisions to the PC's. What will the PC's do with all those old and young goblins? Do they get the axe too? If they do, even good-aligned organizations will express their disgust of such wanton slaughter.
4. If the PC's have a reputation of letting evil doers go even when raiding their lair, they are likely to be reasoned with or negotiated with by the evil doers at various stages of the PC's progression. Otherwise, if the PC's are going around killing everyone and everything, the lair is going to throw all their resources into the defense. Or should the PC's be foolish to sleep in the dungeon, they are going to have serious problems on their hands, when they realize they've been boxed in and the entire tribe is battering down the doors to make an all-out assualt.
5. If the PC's have NPC hirelings or other similar people along, they will be vocal in their disgust of wanton bloodshed. This could be "voice of reason" to guide the PC's to a more balanced approach.
Outside of the game, have a chat with your players and tell them that you would like to run a less blood-thirsty game.
InVinoVeritas
Adventurer
You might also want to take a look at this thread: Always With the Killing.
It covers a lot of the questions about mass murder, the penchant for violence, and in-game consequences. A lot of the advice given in that thread will be very useful as well.
It covers a lot of the questions about mass murder, the penchant for violence, and in-game consequences. A lot of the advice given in that thread will be very useful as well.
the Jester
Legend
By having their actions have consequences.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
That old thread that was linked above had problems, namely an inability to identity the actual problem.
If your players are randomly killing innocents, you shouldn't be playing with them. It's not a problem with the GM, with communication, with setting expectations, with heavy combat vs light non-combat rules, but just having bad players. Of course, this is rare but it seems to come up in threads like this all the time.
The old thread had some good discussion anyway, but the original example was ridiculous and not indicative of the problem. Too much discussion revolved around crazy PCs and not solving the far more common issue.
In this thread the DM came up with a great solution to an overly violent PC... but they identified the problem being a metagaming player out for XP.
If the players are using violence as the solution to most or all problems, then it's worth talking to them about the issues. You might even find they won't enjoy the games you run and need to find new players.
I'm actually seeing a lot of bad advice in this thread. "Pick a different game, make it a puzzle game, etc." That's a great way of having unmotivated players who might just abandon the setting and go find monsters to kill (and this is assuming they're not players who should just be ditched).
I've learned through hard experience that often I need good-aligned NPCs rather than monsters for dealing with PCs who occasionally go crazy. (Dark Sun is great for that; templars are scary, and these are evil cops so expect torture, robbery, etc. Even if you can bribe your way out of jail, since the templars are corrupt, you just lost a chunk of change.) However, generally the threat is enough; if I found I had to bust out templars in order to keep PCs from randomly killing bartenders, I'd dump those players and find new ones.
If your players are randomly killing innocents, you shouldn't be playing with them. It's not a problem with the GM, with communication, with setting expectations, with heavy combat vs light non-combat rules, but just having bad players. Of course, this is rare but it seems to come up in threads like this all the time.
The old thread had some good discussion anyway, but the original example was ridiculous and not indicative of the problem. Too much discussion revolved around crazy PCs and not solving the far more common issue.
In this thread the DM came up with a great solution to an overly violent PC... but they identified the problem being a metagaming player out for XP.
If the players are using violence as the solution to most or all problems, then it's worth talking to them about the issues. You might even find they won't enjoy the games you run and need to find new players.
I'm actually seeing a lot of bad advice in this thread. "Pick a different game, make it a puzzle game, etc." That's a great way of having unmotivated players who might just abandon the setting and go find monsters to kill (and this is assuming they're not players who should just be ditched).
I've learned through hard experience that often I need good-aligned NPCs rather than monsters for dealing with PCs who occasionally go crazy. (Dark Sun is great for that; templars are scary, and these are evil cops so expect torture, robbery, etc. Even if you can bribe your way out of jail, since the templars are corrupt, you just lost a chunk of change.) However, generally the threat is enough; if I found I had to bust out templars in order to keep PCs from randomly killing bartenders, I'd dump those players and find new ones.
Play a game that doesn't involve killing?
Sometimes players just get tired of the same old thing and go on killing sprees with their characters.
I would not use positive reinforcement nor would i use negative reinforcement. That is for dogs and other pets that do not understand spoken words to train them, not for humans.
When you start telling your players "No you can't kill the last goblin cowering in the corner" after long fought battle with adrenaline levels at a high, then what else might they expect you to tell them, maybe "No you can't check to see if the door is trpped, you have to open it and find out"?
What you do is also not to try to get the players PCs to sympathize with the enemy as kiling all your opponents is a pretty good tactic to make sure they dont come back for revenge later.
There are other tactics, but the players have to want to use them. Don't trick them by having a living enemy always have some information or something, but place it in the right places so that when they find one that would have information they might take the chance to spare the life in exchange for it. If goblin X is the only one with the information about where the BBEG was headed, then dead the PCs are pretty much SOL.
The players must be allowed to make their own choices, because that is where the game is for them. Depriving them of a valid choice can turn them away form playing.
I would say just ask them simply outside of the game either before or after a session: "Why do you kill everything?" No matter what their answer, you are likely to be unable to change their minds, as it might just be the game they want right now is to kill everything. But at least you would know why they are doing it. Maybe knowing why could help you tailor later combats that don't end in total body count.
Do you often play where an enemy would escape and later bring a stronger force down on the player party in past games? If so, this could be why killing everything has become the tactic to prevent you from being able to do so, so the players can exercise something they may have been wanting to try but was always thwarted due to the escapee.
Let the PC opponents start TPKing the party if you want to try the reinforcement of some sort of behavior and need to do that. This will show that the PCs aren't the only ones that might employ that strategy in combat.
I don't know the book in question, so what is the problem with them killing every enemy?
Sometimes players just get tired of the same old thing and go on killing sprees with their characters.
I would not use positive reinforcement nor would i use negative reinforcement. That is for dogs and other pets that do not understand spoken words to train them, not for humans.
When you start telling your players "No you can't kill the last goblin cowering in the corner" after long fought battle with adrenaline levels at a high, then what else might they expect you to tell them, maybe "No you can't check to see if the door is trpped, you have to open it and find out"?
What you do is also not to try to get the players PCs to sympathize with the enemy as kiling all your opponents is a pretty good tactic to make sure they dont come back for revenge later.
There are other tactics, but the players have to want to use them. Don't trick them by having a living enemy always have some information or something, but place it in the right places so that when they find one that would have information they might take the chance to spare the life in exchange for it. If goblin X is the only one with the information about where the BBEG was headed, then dead the PCs are pretty much SOL.
The players must be allowed to make their own choices, because that is where the game is for them. Depriving them of a valid choice can turn them away form playing.
I would say just ask them simply outside of the game either before or after a session: "Why do you kill everything?" No matter what their answer, you are likely to be unable to change their minds, as it might just be the game they want right now is to kill everything. But at least you would know why they are doing it. Maybe knowing why could help you tailor later combats that don't end in total body count.
Do you often play where an enemy would escape and later bring a stronger force down on the player party in past games? If so, this could be why killing everything has become the tactic to prevent you from being able to do so, so the players can exercise something they may have been wanting to try but was always thwarted due to the escapee.
Let the PC opponents start TPKing the party if you want to try the reinforcement of some sort of behavior and need to do that. This will show that the PCs aren't the only ones that might employ that strategy in combat.
I don't know the book in question, so what is the problem with them killing every enemy?
jedavis
First Post
This. If you change the incentives, and the players knows the incentives have changed, behavior will probably change to follow. My group recently switched from D&D (with XP/kill) to Traveller (with XP/week of training), and the brutality has gone way down. After four sessions and maybe two months of in-game time, I think I can still count the number of sentients they've actually killed as a party on one hand (Jance, Grip, and Poor Bloke Who Opened the Shipping Container Full of Angry Marine). They came into possession of a pocket nuke last session and actually decided not to use it (the line "I am not comfortable killing the janitors [of the corporate HQ they were considering bombing]" was used); I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, they'll probably try to use it next session... but it was a step away from thoughtless mass destruction towards calculated mass destruction.
Also, Mastering Iron Heroes had a good discussion of alternate XP reward systems; I believe there was one which gave XP only for recovering treasure, for example. Might be worth looking at for this kind of thing.
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
One issue that may be encouraging your players to kill opponents that might be spared is the combat system itself. In some game systems, it is harder (modeled by a penalty to attack rolls, or some other mechanic) to deal non-lethal damage than it is to deal lethal damage. Players do not want their characters to be penalized for being humane.
A way to combat this problem is to make non-lethal and lethal damage the same, and to allow the player to determine what happens to an opponent that they reduce to 0 hp. The player may decide to have the opponent die, fall unconscious, or surrender the fight.
Another, similar issue is that a dead opponent will rarely turn on them later, while a live one will. Many players hate it when being the good guy comes bask to bite them in the butt.
This is something that can be reversed... Have a slain enemy return as an undead spirit, bent on vengeance. Have one spared from death ally himself with the character. Make sure that mercy is rewarded, not punished.
A way to combat this problem is to make non-lethal and lethal damage the same, and to allow the player to determine what happens to an opponent that they reduce to 0 hp. The player may decide to have the opponent die, fall unconscious, or surrender the fight.
Another, similar issue is that a dead opponent will rarely turn on them later, while a live one will. Many players hate it when being the good guy comes bask to bite them in the butt.
This is something that can be reversed... Have a slain enemy return as an undead spirit, bent on vengeance. Have one spared from death ally himself with the character. Make sure that mercy is rewarded, not punished.
On Puget Sound
First Post
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: Give them an alternative to killing their foes. Typically, this means a working legal system of some kind, or some possibility of redemption for the enemies.
Otherwise, the rule of "never leave a live enemy behind; they will always show up again more powerful than before" is only sensible play.
Some creatures simply can't be reasoned with, but many savage humanoids, for instance, can be thrashed soundly and told to "never come south of the mountains again." I've even seen a party create a trade treaty that gave the enemy tribes a strong reason to stop raiding.
Otherwise, the rule of "never leave a live enemy behind; they will always show up again more powerful than before" is only sensible play.
Some creatures simply can't be reasoned with, but many savage humanoids, for instance, can be thrashed soundly and told to "never come south of the mountains again." I've even seen a party create a trade treaty that gave the enemy tribes a strong reason to stop raiding.
GreyLord
Legend
I played a murderous group once that had a tangle with these guys. We were a bunch of cut throats that basically got caught. So we murdered the village...didn't matter, somehow these guys got word of it. We met up in a town and managed to kill the first group, but saw more were coming and fled Northwards to another village near Baldur's gate were we went to a Temple to try to appear as pious priests. Instead, we got turned in by the priests there, and the temple was surrounded by Flaming Fist. We holed up, but when they stormed it, there was no escape. It was a total TPK.
Taught us not to play the villains...or at least if we wanted to play a chaotic and evil party...to be more discrete about it, and maybe think about why we wanted to play that way instead of the normal heroic good guy campaign.
Similar Threads
