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

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Sure, some players come to the table after a really bad day and want to romp on things, but others want a chance to feel like they are able to take control of situations that would normally be beyond their control. In killing the D&D opponents, the players have control; the rules are pretty clear about what you need to do and the math is simple to figure out. A DM can screw with the players if he or she really wants to, but if they are all playing by the rules, players know their actions will have a direct and understood effect.

If the players try and use other options such as redeeming the opponents, capturing and imprisoning them, or just talking your way out of a situation, the rules are not clear how it should be handled and is left up to the DM's judgement. As a result the control shifts back to the DM and that just isn't as satisfying for some people.

 

[gizmo33]

I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

Well then what is the point? Because as far as I can tell, it's not a matter of simply asking whether DnD's main activity is killing creatures - it seems to be for the vast majority of campaigns (though I've played in games where we went the whole night without a battle). This is most about taking a value-ladened word like "murder" and trying to apply it to people's hobby. It's a bit of the "no offense, but...", which is almost a guarantee of causing offense.

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

IME a rational discussion would have started with the definition of "murder". Instead, I think you're yanking some people's chains with the following...

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'm not trying to start a flame war but I find these statements to be a little funky. I don't know why you are singling out "Western society" - seems like an unecessary, and somewhat misleading, thing to say. "Extreme violence" and "widespread crime" is also very subjective and I think really deserves to be established rather than assumed.

Then there's this whole thing about Hollywood - a large proportion of the stories of Hollywood movies are based on legends, comic books, novels or whatever. Hollywood reflects our culture and doesn't "tell us" anything we don't already think we know. So I'm not really sure how mentioning Hollywood really clarifies anything but perhaps it's a stock phrase used in morality-based rants.

Finally, what is "essentially murder" really depends on your definition. It's a bit of "bait and switch" to use a word with heavily laden moral overtones and then try to define it as a synonym for "killing". The word has certain connotations and I think you're being overly (or not so) dense to try to use it for something else. If I call eating steak for dinner "essentially murder", I have an agenda and I'm not being honest if I claim that I don't.

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.

The adversary is a "monster" - which is really just a characture of the basic human adversary. Making the opponent a monster is supposed to alleviate the moral issues regarding killing because a monster, by definition, is irredemably evil. Of course much of sci-fi/fantasy has evolved the "monster" to be a much more human character in disguise. I don't think many people ever asked these issues of "Grendel" and his kin in the olde days.

 

[Whisper72]

Well, if you look at contemporary society, we build upon murder as well. We kill to eat. Sure, we let a butcher do the work for us, but still, make a tally of how many animals have died to feed you (okay, for simplicity/argument's sake, I am ignoring vegetarians etc.) by the time you are 18, same thing... only in DnD, some of those animals are actually sentient...

 

[Deset Gled]

Success in D+D is not dependent upon murder, it is dependent upon survival. And, when you have a bunch of nasties try and kill you, killing them back is often the only option. Trying to avoid the beasties and not kill them when another option (like reasoning with or feeding) is available is a mark of a Good character. Searching out enemies and hunting and killing them (for purposes other than food) is Evil.

A better question might be: why is the D+D world so hostile? Why are so many things trying to kill me?

 

[Zimri]

Well, if you look at contemporary society, we build upon murder as well. We kill to eat. Sure, we let a butcher do the work for us, but still, make a tally of how many animals have died to feed you (okay, for simplicity/argument's sake, I am ignoring vegetarians etc.) by the time you are 18, same thing... only in DnD, some of those animals are actually sentient...

If you want to go that route then at best "negligent homicide" feeds an awful lot of vegetarians and the like too. All sorts of animals get ,for lack of a better term, "plowed under" when food is harvested from fields.

I have no qualms about being called a killer or murderer for eating meat so long as we are calling a spade a spade all the way across the board.

 

[Kelek72]

I've always considered the good characters in D&D to be legally able and morally responsible for stopping the evil inherent in their world. If they don't, if they're pacifists, good dies. Period. Thats not an option. Killing the evil is usually the only way to ensure victory in D&D. If you don't finish the job, it almost always comes back to haunt you.

Murder is the wrong word. If the police have to shoot someone to save an innocent victim, its not murder. When the killing act is justified, its killing "to save in the long run" and usually "save me right now!"

 

[evildmguy]

While this was mentioned, I don't think it was emphasized enough.

In our 21st century morals, most people consider murder/killing bad.

However, we are trying to play a game that is supposed to be set in medieval times. And they had VERY different definitions of what was murder and what wasn't. The social classes at the top, in general, had no sense of the lower classes being equal and therefore deserving things. Some of them, especially the rulers, figured the lower classes had everything due to their leadership and it was their right to take ANYTHING away from them, even their life. They didn't have a morality as we did with regards to life. They probably justified it by saying they were sending them to heaven.

Slavery is another thing that was justified under the class system and that's not how we perceive it today.

Further, they had a MUCH different concept of justice. Justice was vengeance back then. It was what ever the wronged party could do to get back at the offending party. Various societies at times have tried to regulate this but it still came down to being strong enough to hold onto what you had and defending yourself against those that might be stronger. Many times, the code of laws justified going after vengeance. That IS how we got "an eye for an eye" after all.

That is so **ALIEN** to us, or at least to me. I don't have to carry a gun to protect myself. I don't have to worry about invasion. I don't have to worry about a monster coming to kill me. (Okay, I kinda do with some of those, but not to the extent that happened in the middle ages. And even then, being a white male saves me from a lot of our modern "monsters.") I have no idea what it is like to have to hunt/gather/plant food.

I think this is what has made some of the game systems out there so popular. DND gets rid of all of that with an absolute alignment system. If something is evil, in terms of alignment, it is acceptable to get rid of it. WW, then, with Vampire added shades of grey to the monsters for a different kind of game. Both enjoyable and for different reasons.

And, in any game, the point is to have fun. Perhaps the next game, you explore those themes. Again, though, I think DND makes it easy by making it more black and white but shades of grey are certainly possible.

As for "wired to kill" I read somewhere that in a study, it is actually hard for the normal person to kill. The reason a soldier gets the training he does is to overcome not wanting to kill. I hope that I, and all of you, don't have to face that type of situation. But for games? No problem. I can kill 'em in both RPGs and computer games and have no problems with my conscience!

Good discussion!

Take care.

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Oh, and

This recently came up in our game. One of the players decided he wanted to play a pacifist. He was going to have a code of honor and the first item was not to kill. We talked about that and realized how tough that is, in game.

First, I asked whether he can let others kill? If he can stop them, should he? And how is that different from him doing it?

Second, after him saying he wanted to do non lethal damage, I asked about what the difference was if he knocked them out but a fellow PC killed them?

Third, I asked about things *are* pure evil, like demons and devils.

We had a very interesting conversation about this, including the other guys not wanting to be sneak attacked later because they just tied up some guys, who would have gladly killed them.

In the end, the player made it his character's personal code not to kill but that he understood the need for killing. And I think it will create some very interesting role playing situations!

Take care.

edg

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I suppose that when the conquistadors 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. Genocide is even easier when the enemy is a ravenous monster prone to acts of evil

Only if you consider live human sacrifice "evil."

But let's not split hairs.

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.

That's ridiculous.

The upshot of this line of thinking is that the individual is incapable of judging right from wrong; morality is subjugated to the state.

Every free thinking and moral individual should utterly reject that line of thought. That way lies fascism.

To refuse to make moral judgments is moral cowardice.

But anything more is well into politics, so I'll stop there.

Ahh, the deviousness of moral relativism: We'll avoid the discussion of actual right and wrong, by taking the discussion off the table entirely. Because, to even discuss it is to risk offending someone, and that would truly be a crime.

I wouldn't say we are "wired to kill", but we did develop under conditions where life was pretty violent.

What, waiting to rack up another 10,000 years of evidence before you jump to any conclusions?

Of course we are wired to kill. That is the least common denominator.

Civilization-- culture, morality, and respect for the rule of law-- are not our natural state. These are acquired habits. And they have to be forcefully defended against people who only understand force.

The many fruits of civilizations have consistently, through all of history, been forcefully taken by uncivilized barbarians who can only be deterred by force.

This is incontrovertible.

So, violence is still in our mental lexicon of possible solutions to tough problems.

When the "tough problem" in question is whether or not violence will be visited upon you, then violence is the only adequate (and moral) response.

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.

You wouldn't kill Hans Gruber? Never?

You're off my list of foxhole buddies.

I don't endorse his use of lethal violence because of his "special situation," I endorse his use of lethal violence because it is the right thing to do. It rings true.

If the police have to shoot someone to save an innocent victim, its not murder.

I believe you can neatly divide this thread into those who would agree with you on such a simple, black-and-white concept, and a few sophisticated moral relativists who won't.

History has not dealt kindly with civilizations that become so secure, so complacent, so sophisticated as to separate themselves from the simple morality of simple men. You have to reach a pinnacle of security and safety-- a pinnacle earned with blood and sweat and that simpler morality-- before you can afford to indulge in moral relativism.

Which brings me back to the OP.

If the PCs hail from a world that has reached that pinnacle of safety and security, then the DM can afford to indulge them with sophisticated morality plays.

However, if, as is true in the majority of campaigns I have played in and run, and as is true in the "core" expectations of D&D, the PCs hail from a world that has not yet reached that pinnacle, then it should be expected of them to set about the business of achieving that pinnacle by ruthlessly killing every single son-of-a-bitch who threatens the security and safety of their own civilization.

 

[der_kluge]

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

No. You must also TAKE THEIR STUFF!!


Remember, kill things and take their stuff.

Then success is guaranteed.