Discouraging Mass Murder

How would you discourage players/the party from killing everyone and everything they could otherwise get away with killing? I mean, they could subdue some monsters and mind-dominated people, or they can kill everyone in the room? How do you get them to kill only when they have to and otherwise avoid turning it all into "Blood Meridian, the RPG"?

The "Blood Meridian RPG" thing, is from a guy I don't like, but if you know the book and how bloody game can turn, as a joke it is not too far off the mark.

The husband and I have been thinking about an XP bonus (+10% is easy to figure) for dealing with monsters and things that do not involve mass murder and burning down everything and looting and scalping the corpses.

I've had this before in games I've DM'd.

I wouldn't change the game in the form of awarding bonus xps for peaceful resolution nor would I stop giving xps for killing stuff. If you want to go those routes, it's best not to change in mid-campaign, but better to have those rules in a new campaign.

My solution is apply reasonable reactions to the party's actions in game.

If the PCs keep their mouths shut and don't brag about it, they can get away with it for awhile; especially when fighting monsters whose kin don't have access to divination spells.

Eventually they will whack someone who has friends or kin who will want to figure out what happened and the friends and or kin will find out who killed the NPCs in question either through basic detective work or divination spells.

You can give the PCs a hint as to what is up in the form of a single NPC who calls them out on what they did. He/she attacks them trying to avenge the death and they will probably kill him or her.

You can also have the local law visit them and warn them to cease their behavior or they will have prices on their heads.

If they don't get the message you are free to escalate.

Thanks,
Rich
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I really like the idea Silverbane mentioned about giving them the chance to commit to their actions by asking them if they "kill" an opponent. At zero or close, when the killing blow lands (that "to hit" roll that signals the badguy is entering negative territory), let them know that the enemies fate is in their hands and they have the option of finishing the opponent or doing something else.

Players in all DnD games do this. My favorite is the idea of always reacting with lethal force in answer to ANY provocation. The guy in the bar spills his drink on you - I stab him with a sword! The pick pocket in the street tries to grab your coin pouch - I grab his arm and lop it off with my axe! The town drunk tries to punch you - I vaporize him with Burning Hands!

Its all in how you run the game. But it does boil down to DnD being very focuse don combat and combat related XP. However, you can handle it with RPing as has been suggested. If the local constable doesn't take kindly to people exercising lethal force at every chance they get, then the players will learn its a bad idea when they are jailed for murder or at the very least asked to pay large sums of blood money, o rindentured as servants to relatives to pay for their crimes.

I ran an adventure where the players were supposed to guard a courier as he traveled to town. They arrived during a street festival and in the chaos, a pickpocket slipped out of the crowd and went for the satchel. The monk began chasing her down through the city streets and quickly caught up to her. He held her down on the ground and began beating her with lethal force. She played dead, managed to bluff him, then when his gaurd was down, she stabbed him with a hidden dagger (sneak attack). He survived that attack and then began brutally beating her to death in the street while festival goers watched in horror screaming. By brutal I mean describing in very vivd detail how he was going about the extremely bloody business. Needless to say, the town bigwigs were less than impressed with the overall results. They paid the group for doing their job and protecting the courier, but they immediately distanced themselves because they weren't the type to rule through instilling fear in their populace with such extreme methods. Point being - there were reprecussioons for their actions. (The monk eventually lost his Lawful alignment after some more extreme incidents.)
 

How would you discourage players/the party from killing everyone and everything they could otherwise get away with killing? I mean, they could subdue some monsters and mind-dominated people, or they can kill everyone in the room?

<snip>

The husband and I have been thinking about an XP bonus (+10% is easy to figure) for dealing with monsters and things that do not involve mass murder and burning down everything and looting and scalping the corpses.
I agree with what others have said about out-of-game communication.

For a 4e game, you might also look at the mechanical tools available like Quest XP and the 0 hp rules.
 

There's only one proven method for cutting down on mass-murdering PCs: ask the players not to play mass-murderers, then make sure you present them with interesting, non-murder related ways of interacting with the game world.

For all those posters suggesting the removal of in-game incentives for killing --which is a fine idea, but not a solution to the OP's problem-- I ask you this: what if the player's murderous behavior has nothing to do with in-game incentives? You are assuming role-playing gamers (and their characters) are primarily rational, goal-oriented actors. 25+ years of play has taught me that's a foolish assumption :)!
 


There is lots of good advice in this thread. A couple of thoughts though in defence of your players:

I often play the heroic role (where they are available) in computer games, even if this puts me at a disadvantage. I try to be careful to do the 'right' thing and have even been known to restart a level when I accidentally killed a civilian, etc. I remember being outraged when I first played GTA III because I was railroaded into killing a mobster's wife before I could continue the game. I was pilloried for this by a friend of mine who generally plays the villainous option, saying that the villain's role is often more fun, and what am I killing - pixels?

I generally replied with some sort of moral argument, rabbiting on about immersion, empathy and so on, but I have to admit that he has a point. I am not actually harming (or saving) anyone real with my choices, and while the argument might be made that I am somehow hurting or desensitising myself, that is my choice to make.

Suffice to say that playing good or evil in games might well just be a matter of personal taste. Perhaps you simply have more empathy for imaginary people than your players. This is not uncommon - I have no taste for the recent glut of torture-porn' cinema, but their popularity suggest that there are many who do, and I am not going to suggest that everyone who enjoys watching 'Hostel' is depraved (at least, not here - for fear of derailing the thread).

In any case, the point is that when you talk to your players, the high moral ground might best be avoided in favour of simply telling them that the game you are comfortable running is not one in which everyone is killed by the party.

Of course, it may in part be your fault (sorry!). Your players might not care about the killing because there are no consequences for the killing of innocents, or even that the world and its characters aren't 'real enough for the players to treat them as reality. i.e., it may as well be a computer game.

In both these cases, you can improve things by ramping up the roleplaying and the depth of your world.

On the other hand, (in defence of you) your players might just be monsters. The good news is that Role Playing Game worlds are generally the home of heroes; heroes who make a habit of killing monsters - heroes who hear the lamentations of the widows, and respond.

So, when the players start finding pictures of themselves on the hitching post with "Wanted - Dead or Alive" written underneath, they might start changing their tune. When the families of the deceased offer rewards for the execution of the party in revenge for the death of their loved ones, they might start to be more careful. When the PC's learn that Trugarne, the Bloodking of the Devilspawn Orcs has launched an army to destroy their home village - in vengeance for the death if his child at their bloodthirsty hands, they may well say "Damn, I hope we can find us some heroes to help us!"

That said, this is not about being vindictive. It's just that in a real world, your actions reverberate with consequences, both good and bad. Kill indiscriminately for long enough, and it's going to come back to bite you.
 
Last edited:

There's only one proven method for cutting down on mass-murdering PCs: ask the players not to play mass-murderers, then make sure you present them with interesting, non-murder related ways of interacting with the game world.

For all those posters suggesting the removal of in-game incentives for killing --which is a fine idea, but not a solution to the OP's problem-- I ask you this: what if the player's murderous behavior has nothing to do with in-game incentives? You are assuming role-playing gamers (and their characters) are primarily rational, goal-oriented actors. 25+ years of play has taught me that's a foolish assumption :)!

Mallus, hang on, mate - there are many possibilities! The removal of in-game incentives for killing may well indeed be a solution to the OP's problem. Or it may not. Ditto your "only one proven method" suggestion, or my thoughts.

Any individual's answer rarely provides a catchall solution. We don't know the full circumstance, and it is rare there there is a universal answer. At best we are simply providing options for the OP to cherry pick what works best for his group. So no need to assume that we are making assumptions, foolish or otherwise! :)
 
Last edited:


I find that in games where there is an actual, real, significant chance that the characters will die in a combat, the players are more likely to look to alternate means to solve a problem.

Also...

PC: "Who knows the location of the Great McGuffin of Magic-Dude the Wizard?"
NPC: "Garblec, Goblin Shaman of the Orange Skin tribe certainly knows its location."
PC: "Uhm... you mean that goblin tribe we slaughtered last session?"
 

I'd have that out of game discussion, and the first topic on the agenda would be making sure that everyone at the table understands the difference between "murder" and "killing". If they don't, the discussion is likely to be fruitless. If there is some disagreement on the lines, ironing those out is likely to solve the bulk of the problem all by itself.

Avoiding murder is easy in any game. Avoiding killing may take some active work--even up to changing systems, for more pacifistic options.
 

Remove ads

Top