D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Remathilis]

Can one play a non-lethal character?

Grappling, Enchanting, Sleeping, Charming, Polymorph....

You missed the memo. Charm spells and magic that robs people of their autonomy are eviler than necromancy. It's better to fry them with a ball of fire than make them your friend against thier will.

 

[Jack Daniel]

This might be an unpopular or controversial opinion in current fandom, but I really love killing goblins -- or orcs, or kobolds, or any other stock enemy meant to die in droves. it hit me last night when I was playing Torchlight 3 (which is a video game and not a D&D one, but bear with me). The goblins in that game are very much the murderous, pyromaniac lit psychos of Pathfinder pre-2E and the feeling of obliterating them on screen filled me with a nostalgia for doing so at the table with dice in one hand and a cold brew in the other. There's just something truly satisfying about the over the top, silly mass murder of enemies designed specifically to die in droves.

I am not saying that is all I want out of D&D, or that I have an issue with a table or a game treating some traditional stock enemy types as not-stock enemy types (except Nazis -- Nazis should always be stock enemy types). I am just saying that killing goblins by the score is FUN.

That stuff is fun. But it's also the case that the last few decades of modern fantasy have humanized orcs, goblins, kobolds, ogres, and other traditional D&D humanoids to an extraordinary degree. And frankly, I'm okay with that. Elder Scrolls orcs and Warcraft goblins are cool. Shrek is a decent bloke. Even the good Professor Tolkien ultimately decided that orcs had moral agency, and that somewhere there must have been at least some orcs somewhere siding with the Free Peoples and fighting against the Enemy in the War of the Ring. I'm too much of a Tolkien stan to ever argue with the Professor.

So at some point (years back), my campaigns naturally drifted away from treating orcs and goblins as soulless demons cloaked in mortal flesh that only deserve a quick death because they're a stain on the natural order… and I imported or invented whole new monsters which are definitionally soulless demons cloaked in mortal flesh that only deserve a quick death because they're a stain on the natural order. I use beastmen (inspired by a variety of sources — skaven from Warhammer, broo from Glorantha, trollocs from Wheel of Time) as my "Chaos-created cannon-fodder" du jour.

After all, orcs are cool. They're mean, they're green, they're betuskèd, they're bros. (And orcesses look like Shulkie!) But a horrible monstrous swine-man with glowing red eyes and no soul or language or culture bearing down on you with some jagged-edged iron blade that it got from the night mare mounted spectre in charge of the local divison of the Dark Lord's Chaos-Army? Quick, kill it with axes, kill it with bullets, kill it with magical fire!

 

[CleverNickName]

You missed the memo. Charm spells and magic that robs people of their autonomy are eviler than necromancy. It's better to fry them with a ball of fire than make them your friend against thier will.

Of course, if they are truly evil, they won't have any qualms about betraying their friends. Which means you could always hire them. "You work for the Big Bad, eh? He sounds like a lousy, cruel boss. How much is he paying you, anyway? Well, we'll triple it. And when the time comes, you get to be the first to punch him in his smug face."

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

Let's say the player's concept is something like Kenshin or Batman where they have a code against killing.

Without the Keep or Kill rule where the player chooses whether or not the target dies at 0HP, you get these situations in 3e where you end up acting like you're trying to capture a Pokemon, hitting them until you think they're low and then using subdual because subdual makes you suck on toast at fighting. And THEN you crit on the first hit anyway and they explode in a fine red mist along with the Thou Shalt Not Kill character concept.

But doesn't the player (and their character) know that killing is typically a part of the game? Unless the campaign was established as a non-lethal one before hand, death is probably going to be on the table.

Typically you want to make a character appropriate to the adventure.

Combat is typically part of the game, not necessarily killing, going on more than a decade of D&D now since 4e.

And whether causing death is on the table from the player's side is in their hand's.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's say the player's concept is something like Kenshin or Batman where they have a code against killing.

Without the Keep or Kill rule where the player chooses whether or not the target dies at 0HP, you get these situations in 3e where you end up acting like you're trying to capture a Pokemon, hitting them until you think they're low and then using subdual because subdual makes you suck on toast at fighting. And THEN you crit on the first hit anyway and they explode in a fine red mist along with the Thou Shalt Not Kill character concept.

I think that makes more sense as a campaign style decision. For some campaigns such character might make sense, but it would feel cartoony for others.

And the problem with universal and always-on easy nonlethal option is that it then effectively makes anyone who chooses not to utilise it a murderer.

 

[Scribe]

You missed the memo. Charm spells and magic that robs people of their autonomy are eviler than necromancy. It's better to fry them with a ball of fire than make them your friend against thier will.

I didn't want to reopen that discussion yet LOL.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think that makes more sense as a campaign style decision. For some campaigns such character might make sense, but it would feel cartoony for others.

What's wrong with one person choosing not to be a killer especially if they don't interfere with the others who want to?

And the problem with universal and always-on easy nonlethal option is that it then it effectively makes anyone who chooses not to utilise it a murderer.

...Which they are and would have been without non-combat being easy. They're just lazy and unconcerned if non-lethal isn't easy.

 

[Cadence]

You missed the memo. Charm spells and magic that robs people of their autonomy are eviler than necromancy. It's better to fry them with a ball of fire than make them your friend against thier will.

My son's party showed one of the opponents (a kobold) what it meant to be on the side of a halfling who was really in to cooking. Very loyal new party member.

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't want to reopen that discussion yet LOL.

I'm just pointing out that there really isn't a way to play a true pacifist. D&D ends up with PCs committing some manner of violence against thier foes, be it physical or mental. The best you can do is try to not to engage in active murder and hope you can avoid as much unintentional manslaughter as possible.

 

[payn]

I'm just pointing out that there really isn't a way to play a true pacifist. D&D ends up with PCs committing some manner of violence against thier foes, be it physical or mental. The best you can do is try to not to engage in active murder and hope you can avoid as much unintentional manslaughter as possible.