Isn't Success in D&D Dependent Upon Murder?

[airwalkrr]

Before I begin, let me please iterate very clearly that:

I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

I'm looking for rational discussion on this social phenomenon. Moving on.

I had a rather insightful moment the other day when, while talking with my buddies after a game, we began tallying up the number of corpses we had stacked (proverbially of course) in the course of the present campaign. Our number was an estimate based on shaky memory, but I had been journaling our progress quite diligently for a number of sessions so it is fairly accurate. By the time we were 4th level we were responsible for the death of some 160 creatures, many (if not most) of them sentient and intelligent. It was actually a discussion that began in-character on the morality of killing sentient creatures, whether evil deserved to be punished, and whether death was the appropriate punishment. Since the majority of our party was good-aligned (at the time; we've shifted down the axis a bit since then) we began discussing the issue in-character when we realized that even our good-aligned PCs had differing opinions on the matter and it eventually developed into a real-life conversation.

One situation which came up was an encounter with a humanoid of some sort (an orc I think) who ate humans. While many of us agreed in-character that such an act was cannibalistic and vile, our characters discovered that the orc had not slain the humans and had in fact merely scavenged the bodies. It turns out the orc was actually neutral and had never killed anyone before. In the end, we sent the orc on its way after teaching it a lesson on the devouring of intelligent species, but we got to wondering whether the orc's behavior was really improper, or in D&D terms, evil.

I occasionally play characters who are racist bigots against some kind of humanoid because it presents an interesting roleplaying challenge to the group. My favorite is the elf so convinced of the superiority of elf-kind that he views humans as little more than chattel and deems even half-elves as nothing better than slave-drivers. In his estimation, creatures such as orcs and goblins must be eradicated from the world in a genocidal effort. I even play such characters with good alignments from time to time, though they are more tempered in their beliefs, seeing orcs as simply beyond redemption genetically (extermination being a kind of necessary evil) and humankind as children who must be constantly supervised and even scolded at times. These characters have often proved expedient in games where the other players are willing to wax eloquent over the morality of killing every monster they come across. But in truth, a vast majority of the D&D game is centered around this kind of killing, often in cold blood. The monster must be slain because it is evil. If you allow the monster to live, it will probably backslide into its evil ways and become a recurring villain. And besides, if you don't kill the monster, he will probably at least be angry that you took his stuff (stealing is always easier on the conscience when the previous owner is already dead). At worst, he will swear vengeance against you and become the mastermind behind an entire story arc designed to squash your characters where they lie.

The point is, in order to get the rewards of playing the game well (namely XP and treasure), monsters must usually be dead, cremated, and ashes scattered to the wind atop the highest peak in sight by sundown. Now there are certainly exceptions to the rule, but I have found the vast majority of the time, things are better for my characters when the bad guys are dead and stay dead (and don't become UNdead). Western society is thoroughly familiar with and used to extreme violence. Crime is widespread and Hollywood tells us that the story isn't over until the villain is dead (until he returns to life for the sequel). D&D is hardly the worst thing we could be exposed to so I don't question whether or not violence is appropriate. However, I do question why a hobby needs to be so dependent upon what is essentially murder (many monsters are just humans in monster-suits) to be fun. I've thought about it many ways and I just can't see that the game would be much fun if I purchased a merciful weapon, turned bad guys in to the law, and only destroyed things that weren't alive already (like undead and constructs). Campaigns that don't rely on such things are rare, and it often requires an unusual group of people to pull such things off.

We often don't think of it as murder. We think of it as justice. We think of it as revenge for misdeeds done towards us or our love ones. Maybe we simply don the evil alignment and say we don't care. But the fact of the matter is the main characters are basically serial killers who often even have their own routines ("Cut out his tongue so they can't speak with dead!" "Burn the bodies so they can't be animated later!" etc.). I think it is intriguing to ask ourselves why we find pretending to be killers so amusing. Is the human race simply wired to kill? Are we acting out our own inner aggressions? The debate on this issue is certainly old, but I doubt it will ever end.

 

[Dr Simon]

Well yes, in a way D&D experience is predicated upon killling things and nicking their stuff.

BUT:

You raise the point of justice against murder. Hence the prevalence of undead, demons, brain-eaiting aberrations and inherently evil humanoids. By making bad guys who are intrinsically nasty the whole concept becomes more palatable compared to a more morally grey style of campaign where the 'bad guys' are perhaps just following the wrong leader.

ALSO:

The experience is given for *defeating* opponents, not just killing them. It is entirely within the DM's purview to award XP for bringing 'em back alive, and perhaps ramping up experience awards for non-combat success, even for the number of innocent lives saved etc. Bringing in the concept of bounty or ransom helps with the moetary aspect. I admit that this is not the default, but it is pretty simple to alter the morality of XP awards.

(On a seperate note, you mention PC 'mutilation' of corpses. From the point of view of a pre-modern society this is quite often what you do to your enemies, to show your power over them is complete. On a side note, I was struck the other day about the utter stupidity and cultural bias on behalf of game writers of having *burial* as the default funereal method in a world where re-animation as undead is common. Surely, surely everyone would have cottoned on to cremation as a better method, gentle repose spell notwithstanding)

 

[UnsocialEntity]

Well one of the things most cultures do during war is find ways to dehumanize the enemy to make it seem like it's ok to kill them. Well D&D goes even one step further and makes the enemies literally not human.

D&D as presented by the "core rules" also has a pretty clear black and white good and evil system going for it, and most of the time you spend is killing creatures that are considered evil. Town hires you to clear out orcs that have been attacking them? An act of good and protection. BBEG is getting an artifact to rule the world? Time to protect the world through liberal amounts of killing!

If you're more curious about hobbies in general... well, I guess people just like having some sort of competition. Games like chess, while way more abstract, are basically about taking out your opponent. Video games, barring extremely rare exceptions (the sims i'm looking at you), involve problems and goals often with a good amount of death. People just seem to like to have challenges, and a way to achieve a goal. Sometimes those ways involve a hefty amount of violence.

As far as violence goes, well it's a part of mankind (wars) and animals (predator/prey, territorial/mating disputes, etc), so it shouldn't be too surprising if it gets emulated in an imaginary game.

That was pretty rambly, sorry if it hops from point to point a lot.

 

[Tonguez]

We often don't think of it as murder. We think of it as justice. We think of it as revenge for misdeeds done towards us or our love ones. Maybe we simply don the evil alignment and say we don't care. But the fact of the matter is the main characters are basically serial killers who often even have their own routines ("Cut out his tongue so they can't speak with dead!" "Burn the bodies so they can't be animated later!" etc.). I think it is intriguing to ask ourselves why we find pretending to be killers so amusing. Is the human race simply wired to kill? Are we acting out our own inner aggressions? The debate on this issue is certainly old, but I doubt it will ever end.

During wartime soldiers kill others and there is usually some complex rationalisation to such killing so as to make it acceptable. This has been the case for as long as humans were able to rationalise such things

IMHO in DnD we play 'mecernaries' our PCs basically go out and fight the enemy in return for profit (be it pillage or payment). We rationalise that the enemy is an evil monster and thus killing it is 'doing good' and also monsters (like orcs) are not human and thus 'not us'.

I occasionally play characters who are racist bigots against some kind of humanoid because it presents an interesting roleplaying challenge to the group. My favorite is the elf so convinced of the superiority of elf-kind that he views humans as little more than chattel and deems even half-elves as nothing better than slave-drivers. In his estimation, creatures such as orcs and goblins must be eradicated from the world in a genocidal effort. I even play such characters with good alignments from time to time, though they are more tempered in their beliefs, seeing orcs as simply beyond redemption genetically (extermination being a kind of necessary evil) and humankind as children who must be constantly supervised and even scolded at times.

I susppose that when the conquistodors came to the New World they had a very similar attitude as did most of the colonial powers of the era and right up to the early part of last century. Genpcide is even easier when the enemy is a ravenous monster prone to acts of evil

 

[Silver Moon]

The experience is given for *defeating* opponents, not just killing them. It is entirely within the DM's purview to award XP for bringing 'em back alive, and perhaps ramping up experience awards for non-combat success, even for the number of innocent lives saved etc. Bringing in the concept of bounty or ransom helps with the moetary aspect. I admit that this is not the default, but it is pretty simple to alter the morality of XP awards.

I've always done this type of XP awards - the players get the experience for the successful completion of the mission - if they can do so by avoiding combat they shouldn't be punished.

 

[delericho]

It was actually a discussion that began in-character on the morality of killing sentient creatures, whether evil deserved to be punished, and whether death was the appropriate punishment. Since the majority of our party was good-aligned (at the time; we've shifted down the axis a bit since then) we began discussing the issue in-character when we realized that even our good-aligned PCs had differing opinions on the matter and it eventually developed into a real-life conversation.

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of PCs (even Paladins) are Chaotic Neutral at best, with a large number actually being Evil, when viewed through a lens of actual (rather than D&D) morality.

I even play such characters with good alignments from time to time, though they are more tempered in their beliefs, seeing orcs as simply beyond redemption genetically (extermination being a kind of necessary evil)

I hate to say it, but a character who acts on those views isn't Good, or even Neutral. The clue there is "necessary Evil".

We often don't think of it as murder. We think of it as justice. We think of it as revenge for misdeeds done towards us or our love ones.

Killing out of revenge is Evil. And true justice is rarely delivered by those emotionally invested in a situation. That's why it's imperative that even the most monstrous of criminals receive a fair and impartial trial. But anything more is well into politics, so I'll stop there.

I think it is intriguing to ask ourselves why we find pretending to be killers so amusing. Is the human race simply wired to kill? Are we acting out our own inner aggressions? The debate on this issue is certainly old, but I doubt it will ever end.

I'm pretty sure it's nothing more than simple escapism. There's a visceral appeal to being the hero, doing all the things that yuo could never, or would never do. And then you put away the dice, put down the controller, switch off the DVD, and get back to reality. I don't think it's really anything to worry about.

 

[DragonLancer]

Its escapism, pure and simple. Thats how we get around murdering sentients when our characters have a good alignment.

You can't sneak past the guards because they might come up behind you. The party has to kill them to safely progress through the dungeon. Then theres the hassle and (depending on your level of roleplaying) the hassle of taking captured monsters back for trial - a trial that will most likely end up with them executed. So really, the adventurers are doing society a favour.

 

[DaveMage]

Its escapism, pure and simple.

I think this says it rather nicely.

 

[DJCupboard]

I'm not going to get all snooty and say I don't usually play the way you describe it (kill, kill, kill; it's the only way), because I usually do play in a group of efficient killers out to save the day and/or score the loot, and to a degree the core books promote this mindset, but that does not mean it is the only way to play. As has already been stated, you get the xp just for defeating the monster, which can be accomplished without murder. In fact, you get the xp for overcoming obstacles, which means a properly prepared DM doesn't need to throw monsters at you at all. Getting past the deserted and boobytrapped ancient ruin, outwhitting the evil politiican who is trying to take over the city for his own nefarious purposes, etc; these are all ways to gain xp under the RAW. I once played a monk with the most of the vow feats from the B.E.D. (and I know others have as well), who gained most of his XP from converting evil NPCs to the "Right Path" using subdual damage when he absolutely had to. I've known people to play RPGs in order to teach important social and moral lessons to teens and other school age children.

But yeah, most of the time it's kill the hideous thing in front of us and scour its lair for useful trinkets.

~Dave~

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of PCs (even Paladins) are Chaotic Neutral at best, with a large number actually being Evil, when viewed through a lens of actual (rather than D&D) morality.

I suppose that would be actual contemporary morality - as someone else has pointed out up-thread, in years past the actual morality (which would have been considered 'good' at the time) was really pretty brutal.