Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Scribble]

I think something that is very much missing from both 3E and 4E D&D is morale checks. At some point most monsters would simply surrender; it would only be logical. I am sure plenty of DMs run their games with that assumption but it should have been a core assumption in the first place. If someone surrenders, murder and pillaging becomes a clearly darker side of grey choice.

If I remember correctly they talked about removing it in 3e because they felt it was a decision the DM should make, and not something he/she should leave to the dice.

I'm not sure I agree... I think the tendency for a lot of DMs is to think (if even unconsciously) "If they want this XP they're gonna have to earn every bit!" which is followed by the monsters fighting to the death.

 

[Nymrohd]

Exactly. Heck if they think it should be a DM decision, is there any real notice in DMG about monster morale? It really gave an additional dimension to the game, and would help 4E grind issues if implemented correctly. The problem I've seen with morale in AD&D was that some players memorized morale rules and worked not so much on defeating some encounters as much as on forcing morale checks. And if the rules are not thought out there is potential for imbalance (say hello to Diplomacy monsters from 3E).

 

[Garthanos]

morale is rather close to one of the elements defined as part of hit points...

 

[Hussar]

Nymrod - totally agree. I too wish to see the return of morale in D&D.

Although, 4e does allow you to intimidate bloodied creatures into running/surrendering, so, they at least give something of a nod to it.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking View Post
If D&D was always about looting and killing, then how does one explain Dragon Magazine articles (and covers) which have nothing to do with looting and killing? For example, there is an article in an issue of the Strategic Review that deals specifically with conducting trade.

Well, I'll see your example and counter with the example from the same magazine which details the campaign where you have players with HUNDREDS of PC's over the course of the campaign.

It's fun when we can pick and choose evidence and ignore anything we don't like.

 

[Jhaelen]

If I remember correctly they talked about removing it in 3e because they felt it was a decision the DM should make, and not something he/she should leave to the dice.

Yep, and I definitely agree that this was a good move.

Note that official adventure modules contain information about monster morale in their tactics sections. Typical conditions for monsters fleeing or surrendering include their leader or a certain number of enemies being slain, bloodied or down to x hp.

Naturally, DMs can ignore the tactics section if they don't agree with the advice it presents.

When I'm creating encounters myself I don't think about this stuff in advance, I simply judge it on the fly depending how well things are going for the party or their enemies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I'll see your example and counter with the example from the same magazine which details the campaign where you have players with HUNDREDS of PC's over the course of the campaign.

It's fun when we can pick and choose evidence and ignore anything we don't like.

Right under what you chose to quote:

One could probably determine the % of article pages then and now directly related to things to loot or kill, and methods of looting and killing, versus other stuff. Some articles might be iffy -- is an article about Vecna worship related to looting and killing? -- but one should be able to get an overall idea whether things are the same, different, or whatever.

You can't counter me with something I've already provided.

You can try very hard to take things out of context, though.


RC


PS: AFAICT, no one is arguing that D&D has not always had a strong component of looting and violence. The argument, AFAICT, is that looting and violence is not "all" D&D is about.

When faced with a proposition "X is Y", such as "D&D is all about murder and pillage", then the counterexamples, where "X is not Y" are all that are relevant to disproving the initial proposition.

Only when faced with the proposition "X is mostly Y" does it become relevant to examine the agreed-upon cases where X is Y. The purpose of doing so would be to determine how much of X is Y -- as described in the post you selected from.

This isn't "picking and choosing evidence and ignoring anything we don't like" (the way your quote selection is), but is selecting evidence on the basis of its relevance to the question, which is about as basic as it gets in terms of rational discourse.

Surely you must know this?


RC

 

[Nymrohd]

What insensible arrogance. This is not a debate club. The topic is not supposed to be defined in absolutes. The sentence structure that something is all about something else is widely used to mean that the subject is largely about the predicate. Trying to prove your point as if this is a case to be won instead of seeing this as a discussion and absolving it of all nuances so that it can provide you with a pointless victory over an internet debate is just shaming.

 

[Hussar]

Nymrohd? Is that directed at me?

Ok, I can see that by the time on the clock, I'm going to start repeating myself, so, it's time for me to sum up my case and get out. So, I'll leave the thread with a couple of thoughts.

RogueAttorney called Basic D&D a game about exploration. Ok, let's run with that for a moment. Let's take two hypothetical adventurers. Guy 1 explores for ten years. He never kills anything nor does he steal anything. He just makes maps, finds the source of rivers, and meets interesting people.

At the end of ten years, the character is still a 1st level character. Nothing has changed.

Guy B slaughters and pillages for ten years. Cuts a swath across the land.

At the end of ten years, he's a Lord, has a castle, great power, and is a huge hero of the land (or villain I suppose).

Now, considering that none of the classes in Basic/Expert have any abilities tied to exploration, and the game does not in any way reward exploration, exactly how is the game about exploration? OTOH, every class in Basic/Expert has abilities tied to combat, and the game rewards in every way it can killing and looting. How is it not a game about murder and pillaging?

Now, we can quibble about the "all" in the thread title. Sure. Is it "all" about murder and pillaging? No, of course not and I don't think anyone in this thread, certainly not me, has claimed that it is. But, saying that D&D in any edition, is about murder and pillaging is, IMO, like saying rain is wet. It's a bit of a "well duh" sort of thing. Of course it is.

When a system specifically rewards certain actions, that system is ABOUT those actions.

In my opinion of course.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, now I understand. Sorry RC, had to take you off ignore to see. I only responded to the one point because that's what was quoted. Having spent way too much time dancing with you about niggling points and dueling anecdotes, I have no wish to continue that game.

It's funny that I responded about the "all" bit even before I took you off ignore to read what I suspected was a post that Nymrod was responding to. Sorry, not interested in playing "Pin the Tail on the Pedant" today. If it hasn't been obvious that NO ONE was arguing in favour of the "all" since the beginning of this thread, well, perhaps going back and rereading posts with a bit more care might help.