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

airwalkrr said:
The point is, in order to get the rewards of playing the game well (namely XP and treasure), monsters must usually be dead,....

Incorrect. You get XP (and frequently treasure as well) by defeating monsters. This does not need to involve killing them, just placing them in a postion where they can do no more harm. Subduing them and turning them over to authorities works just as well; you get the same amount of XP either way. Depending on the situation, you might even get more. You also get XP for meeting story goals as well. These are not optional or house rules; this is stuff right in the DMG and most recent adventures.

airwalkrr said:
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.

You could easily come up with a campaign that involved the destruction of the undead as it's focus. I've played in one, as a matter of fact. Almost every single monster we killed was eithe dead, or something trying to kill us first.

(There's actually a great thing in Arcana Unearthed called spell templates. One of them is acquirred through the Peaceful Mage feat: it turns all your spell damage into subdual damage. Excellent for dealing with foes you want to capture and question.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

WayneLigon said:
(There's actually a great thing in Arcana Unearthed called spell templates. One of them is acquirred through the Peaceful Mage feat: it turns all your spell damage into subdual damage. Excellent for dealing with foes you want to capture and question.)
Might the Book of Exalted Deeds have had something similar, or am I misremembering?

Not to mention, a section or so devoted to "Waging Peace" or the like.

Of course, I could be thinking of Complete Divine or something - it's been a little while since I've used them.
 

Plane Sailing said:
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.

Yes indeed. Although I like to think that we've actually advanced over the years, and that what we now think of as right and good and true is closer to correct than the morality of times past. Of course, I fully expect people in a couple of centuries to look on us as monstrous savages for some of our beliefs.
 


Unless I was playing an evil character, the subject of it being murder would never cross my mind. Killing, definately. But then killing happens all the time in the real world.

From the wilderness/ancient ruins exploration POV: You and your buddies are out in the woods camping and this axe weilding guy comes into the camp. Would you try and subdue him so you could take him back? Or would you be more inclined to end the threat in the swiftest, most efficient and least dangerous way possible? Which to me, 9 times out of 10 would be to kill him fast so he doesn't hurt me or my friends.

From the assault the enemy POV: I'm in the military, so my POV might be skewed differently than yours. If there's a group of people out there hurting and killing people or getting ready to. As a member of a small group of elite arse kickers, we're going to go in there and take them down before they can hurt anyone else or unleash that appocolypse they're working on. Sure we could go in and try to "arrest" them all, but we don't have the resources to take prisoners that outnumber us 10 to 1. Plus you can't keep "arresting" them when you have to drag all your prisoners allong with you. So, the best thing to do for us and the people we're trying to protect is to kill them. Some prisoners may be taken, but not many.

And to divorce the viewpoint from reality where some people/things are naturaly irredemably evil, why would you let it live? Your doing the world a favor by removing it.
 

For some reason, Firefly episodes, and some westerns IIRC (the latter not being a thing I've seen many of), kinda remind me of morality in D&D. Maybe I'm miles off there. :uhoh: :confused:
 

We are products of our societies. In western society, life is held in high regard, which is why murder is a heineous crime. But in other places in our world, life is not held in the same high regard, representing a different and contrasting mindset. And our world doesn't have monters.

Think on it a moment. A world full of monsters and dangerous, hungry ones to boot. I would think a mindset of 'kill first, ask questions later' would flourish and become the norm because hard experience has shown monster type X kills villagers so whenever monster type X is seen, it is kill or be killed. Then that extrapolates to the unknown - looks like a monster, acts like a monster, ergo, it is a monster. And since monsters have time and time again shown the reasons they are monsters and not Ewoks by their savagery and killing, it is easy to see how violence could become a fact of life.

In a fantasy world full of dangerous monsters, it is not murder.... it is called proactive self defence when you kill monsters. The fact that some monsters have treasure makes it profitable and hence, a lifestyle. It is called adventuring.
 

airwalkrr said:
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).
I dunno; I think that could work pretty well. Constructs are completely cool, and I could really dig a campaign centered around them. And having some kind of legal mandate to capture enemies alive could be a really fun complication.

airwalkrr said:
Is the human race simply wired to kill?
I've always assumed so. Part of being a meat-eating species, probably, to say nothing of whatever bent for intra-species conflict that competition for resources might have bred into us. I don't see anything wrong with providing entertainment for that instinct, though.

But I do have to admit, I've always found the whole "evil humanoids" thing in D&D and similar games to be kind of annoying. I'm okay with killing a bunch of bandits, sure. But the idea that it's more okay to kill a bunch of bandits that happen to be goblins than it is to kill a bunch of bandits that happen to be humans is pretty loathsome to me. That's why I prefer campaigns that focus on humans as the primary intelligent, non-supernatural foe: It's harder to forget what they really are and just tar them as "monsters".
 

It's a complex question without a straightforward answer, especially given the fact that divergent gameplay between groups and campaigns means that D&D's dependency on killing sentient creatures varies.

The escapism angle has already been pointed out, and I won't harp on it....any more than to point out that violence in D&D is often like watching violence in 'Die Hard': John McClain is given little choice or chance to choose another option (though he tries at turns) and because of his special situation, we endorse his use of potentially lethal violence, even if we ourselves would never do the same.

First, you need to consider that morality, in-context, is different for most characters in a D&D environment. Unlike the real world, D&D characters can produce real, iron-clad proof that someone is Evil. D&D alignment provides a concrete framework for knowing whether or not the sentient/creature you're dealing with is truly evil or not. And within the context of most D&D settings, where might often makes right, lethal violence is considered a fitting punishment for someone who refuses to submit to authority...especially if that someone is potentially violent or abusive themselves. Long term rehabilitation or prisoner maintenance are strangely out of character for a game with the term 'dungeon' in the title, but there we are.

Further, this can go a long way towards determining motivation. In the situations most D&D players find themselves, they often are not the primary aggressors or initiators of the violence overall, though they may be pre-emptive in specific situations. For example: In 'Against the Giants', the characters are sent by Geoff's rulers to 'punish the miscreant giants' who have been raiding human lands and killing their subjects. It's clear that the giants respect only force, and force is what is expected to be used. A paper thin justification? Certainly, but we're back to escapism again. Another example? In Paizo's Shackled City adventure path, the campaign begins with the party searching for orphan-kidnapping slavers, who are selling people into slavery in the underdark. The party CAN negotiate with some of the bad guys and can avoid actually fighting quite frequently...if they choose that route. Some villains, however, refuse to negotiate and can only be dealt with by force.

Now, it is possible to fight and not kill in D&D, but it's a much harder route...not unlike real life.

These issues are made even more complicated when you are fighting unspeakable horrors or mindless monsters. Sure, you can drive off the owlbear...but that beholder or roper? When a demon or devil comes to call, their mere act of existence is often enough to justify full lethal violence for most settings.

To look at this from even further away: often, in D&D, the party is almost certainly goal-oriented. As often as not, the party will have no choice but to fight their way TO that goal. To get the foozle, you must slay the cockatrice. To rescue the hostages, you need to slay the Ogre leader. To stop the volcano from erupting, you must smash the altar. As often as not, the typical D&D party will choose non-violent solutions if an when they prove viable and realistic, IMHO, but often that simply isn't the case.

And, of course, is the issue of labelling it murder versus killing. Murder is, after all, a loaded term, emotionally. Does one consider it murder to put down a mad dog after it's killed someone? It's a complex question all its own. If you've ever seen "Sharpe's Rifles", there is a part where Sergeant Harper tells Lieutenant Sharpe he'll make a good "Killing officer." When Sharpe doesn't understand, Harper explains (in his Irish brogue) :

"Oh…now that’s too bad, Sir…I thought you’d ‘ave known, coming up yerself from the ranks as ye did…there are only two kinds of officers; Killing Officers and Muuurdering Officers.

Killing Officers are poor old buggers that git you killed by accident.

Muuurdering Officers are mad, bad old buggers that git you killed on purpose, for a reason…for a country or a religion….maybe even for a flag. They're mean, murdering old buggers.
"
 

I think the first point that gets ignored in these sorts of discussions is that there isn't any one D&D game. Some are about going into a dungeon, killing things and taking their stuff. Some are about a black-and-white struggle of Good versus Evil. Some can even be about the struggle to do the right thing in a morally complex (and ambiguous) world. All of them can be fun, dependent on your own personal taste. All of them are D&D.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top