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

[Kaodi]

Going back to one of the points made in the earlier posts:

The idea that it is better to kill your enemies so they do not come back runs counter to how D&D actually works. It is largely irrevalent how many times McMeanie the Mephit comes back to take a slice out of the party, since the challenge will be roughly equal to whatever would of presented itself in McMeanie's place.

Only in the real world does it make a certain kind of sense, and only if there is no one ready, willing and able to take the " villain's " place.

 

[Mark CMG]

It would be nice to see the core game focus as much on foiling plots as just killing things and taking stuff. I can kill things and take stuff with a mindless video game. I want more from a tabletop rpg.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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, ...

Hardly. Killing is not murder. Murder is killing of ones own people for personal gain outside the rules of society.

 

[Set]

It's interesting to compare D&D, which is arguably inspired by works like The Lord of the Rings novels, with those same works.

The Hobbit was very much a 'kill the dragon and take his stuff' with no pretense at morality involved. The dwarves motivation was greed, pride and revenge, with no thought at all of such niceties as 'defending the Lake Town residents from the evil dragon.'

In Lord of the Rings, to contrast, the 'adventurers' didn't go out of their way to hunt down and kill the enemy, whether orc, goblin or nazgul. Nor did they 'take their stuff.' Treasure was handed out by allies, such as Tom Bombadil, Bilbo or Galadriel. Fights where strategic battles, usually instigated by the enemy, or raids to reclaim captured assets (such as kidnapped hobbits).

D&D seems to follow the Hobbit model, where the adventurers may or may not give a hoot what the dragon is up to, only that it is sitting on a pile of phat loot. The existence of alignments, making the killing of some creatures (even if they aren't actually doing anything harmful), and stealing their stuff into a *virtuous* act only excuses and promotes this mindset.

A DM who wants to maintain a more Lord of the Rings style game, instead of 'kill things and take their stuff' would be better served to make sure that the adventure seeds involve rescuing people from a rampaging dragon, or stopping an orc invasion, rather than having the party hear about a dragon somewhere and be encouraged to go kill it for no reason other than to steal it's horde.

'Loot' would be necessarily spoken for, in many occasions, and replaced by *rewards.* The Orcs captured a caravan of goods that represented the years income for the hard-working peasants of Whogivesacrap, and the party is expected to return the stolen loot, *but* the villagers are willing to pony up a bunch of stuff they have no use for, like uncle Wilbur's sword, which is supposed to be magic, and those weird bottles of liquid that they found in the hut of that witch-woman they burned at the stake two years ago and that nobody has been brave enough to risk breaking.

Maybe the dragon snatched up the baron's tax shipment to the king, and the baron will offer the party all sorts of stuff to recapture it, and hey, according to the shifty guy who approached them after it, the king *hates* the baron, and wants the party to take their sweet time, so that the baron twists in the wind and misses his due date, allowing the king to 'graciously grant him an extension, in light of his extrenuating circumstances, in exchange for certain considerations to be named later...' The party kacks the dragon, and obviously, unless the dragon was running a mint, every single thing it has in it's horde belongs to *someone,* and boy do they pour out of the woodwork, each with their hands out, but the party can look forward to collecting rewards from the baron, king, local villagers, etc. for their 'heroic deeds.'

Ah, and if the party finds out that someone leaked the tax shipments route to the greedy dragon, and that said shipment only included *half* of the money owed to the king, well, won't the king find *that* to be an interesting datapoint...

IMO, it's the DM's job to set the tone of the adventure. It could be 'kill people and take their stuff,' but it doesn't *have* to be. Change the 'loot' to 'rewards' and change the motivation from 'murder for fun and profit' to 'saving people and getting rewarded for it.'

 

[green slime]

Ah. Deja-vu.

Yes. No. Black. White.

Maybe. Ambiguity. Grey.

How about: It depends on your game?

For many,they play to just have a few hours fun free from moral quandries. It's perfectly ok to slaughter Orcs, because they are orcs. There isn't much to discuss here. Its perfectly fine way to play, just there doesn't seem much point to me to discuss it.

For others, this is not enough. Therefore To them, I would ask; Why is it necessary to take the easy way? What dictates that the only two actions a player character has to choose from is "kill-or-be-killed".

There are always a multitude of ways to resolve any real crisis. Surrender is always an option, when dealing with Intelligent foes. As is aking prisoners. Believe it or not, people actually parleyed during war, throughout history.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Dude. I would TOTALLY kill Hans Gruber. What I meant was that I wouldn't kill or even attempt to use that kind of violence to resolve a conflict unless there was no other way, the same way McClain is forced to (and as a police officer, he gets a bit of a pass, anyhow). But McClain uses the force necessary to the task at hand. He wouldn't use the same level of violence if he didn't have to...we have mores, rules and laws to prevent exactly that. What I wouldn't do is use that same level of violence if, for example, Microsoft shipped me a defective product.

That, and I don't ever reasonably expect to use that level of violence BECAUSE we've reached that pinnacle you've mentioned. I can go through my entire life without owning or holding a firearm or personal weapon....and not be considered odd for doing so.

That said, I fully agree we need those 'rough men who stand ready'. The 'Carthage' lecture in Starship Troopers comes to mind (from the book, at least). And, as often as not, the PCs are those rough men, marching off to do what the Duke's men or the townsfolk or the local church cannot.

Or, as one of my players is often want to say: "Them orcs ain't gonna kill themselves."

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What dictates that the only two actions a player character has to choose from is "kill-or-be-killed".

The nature of the enemy you face.

The most celebrated example of non-violence, I suppose, would be Gandhi, whose strategy succeeded because of the inherent decency of the British.

This strategy would have been much less successful against, just to pull a name at random... Attila the Hun.

Set these two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum-- the British on one side and the Huns on the other-- and then figure out where on that spectrum the Orcs of your campaign reside. From there you may be able to determine how successful a non-violent approach may be.

If your D&D experience is typical, you will either be forced to adopt a violent solution, or the local mayor will be posting new Adventurers Wanted advertisements before his little hamlet is wiped off the map.

There are always a multitude of ways to resolve any real crisis. Surrender is always an option, when dealing with Intelligent foes.

Of course, if you're dealing with Intelligent AND Evil foes, Surrender is a particularly stupid option.

It's hanging out at the bottom of the Successful Approaches barrel, somewhere next to Appeasement and Suicide.

But it's an option.

As is taking prisoners. Believe it or not, people actually parleyed during war, throughout history.

Of course, throughout history, "prisoners" usually translated to "slaves."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think you're making the mistake of taking what your non-good PCs in your personal campaign are doing, airwalkrrrrrr, as being representative of what other people do in their campaigns.

The player characters in my campaign are involved in a very literal battle for survival against a hostile state. Under any definition of murder, they're not commiting it; in fact, they've spent a great deal of effort to SPARE lives, even the player characters who are somewhat shady in general.

So, no, success in D&D isn't dependent on murder. It might be in your campaign, though.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

But in truth, a vast majority of the D&D game is centered around this kind of killing, often in cold blood...

Yes, absolutely.

It is also tacitly racist. While there are exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of settings are clearly taken from Western Europe. Further, the setting is designed so as a result of the available races and nationalities, most protagonists – PCs and NPCs – are male and white, while villains are not. For example, the drow are a matriarchal race of black skinned people.

Further, it is explicitly elitist, authoritarian and undemocratic. There are no democracies in any setting I am aware of, the nations are always feudal and/or monarchies. The local Lord or King is always – functioning as the mouthpiece and proxy of the DM – right in all senses of the term right, including morally, ethically, legally and so on. The PC are simply there to receive marching orders, not to participate in a discussion, let alone in the decision making process of how to manage their own lives.

The worlds described and designed by D&D are at best morally vacuous.

I do not game for the morality designed into the word setting. I game to hang out with other gamers.

I think it is intriguing to ask ourselves why we find pretending to be killers so amusing...

(Shrugs) Looking at it objectively, humanity is God’s failure. No, I’m not joking.

 

[thedungeondelver]

To the original poster:

Yes.

Yes it is.

Now give me a save vs. Death.