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

[S'mon]

. Is the human race simply wired to kill?

Yes, although probably less so than our ancestor & relative species such as the australopithecines and chimpanzees. The ability to live alongside each other in large communities and generally not kill each other seems to be a fairly recent evolution.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Replace "human" with "sentient creature" and you just described the main occupation of nearly all adventurers.

"Sentient creature" does not equate with "deserving of life."

There are some vicious, rotten, evil bastards in the world, and-- sentient or not, human or not-- they deserve to die.

These sentient creatures spend their waking hours plotting evil.

 

[Mallus]

These sentient creatures spend their waking hours plotting evil.

With one notable exception, that sounds like my players.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

Deconstructing D&D?

For most people, D&D is a game and just that. They don't think about the reasons they play at all, or what they get out of it. But I think this discussion is interesting and healthy, so I'll throw in my two cents.

I believe the violence at the core of D&D (and most RPG's) reflects a desire to escape from the complexity and nuance of the real world, where we're expected to to act in a "civilized" manner, and where our opponents and tormentors are rarely clearly identified, absolute or confrontable. D&D offers us the vicarious pleasure of not only facing unambiguous threats directly but the wish fulfillment of having power over them.

Also, D&D emulates the ethos of an earlier, perhaps simpler time, as some others have pointed out. A time when violence was considered not only an acceptable solution to solving problems, but often the only solution.

Don't forget that D&D also teaches the benefits of cooperation and teamwork. But games are primarily meant to entertain, not inform. What is more exciting, talking out your problems with the local circle of druids or bashing in the head of the orc chieftan who led the raid on your village?

I know what my choice would be . . .

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Further, it is explicitly elitist, authoritarian and undemocratic. There are no democracies in any setting I am aware of

Hmmm, although the ruling council of plutocrats/guildmasters isn't what we'd consider a modern democracy, it resembles how most democracies worked through most of world history, and the "free city with a ruling council" is pretty much a staple of almost every published setting.

I think Eberron has some proto-democracies as well. And Ptolus, while it's part of a Roman Empire-style empire in decline, has a major movement among the NPCs to set up a democracy and/or republic in the city.

 

[amethal]

Its partly dependent on murder.

However, it also involves looting as well.

The other members of my party are willing to tolerate my character's insane refusal to accept a reward from poor villagers for such acts as rescuing kidnapped children, or destroying a rampaging werewolf - but any suggestion that they should also refuse a reward is viewed as blasphemy.

Kill things. Take their stuff. There's no point doing one without the other.

In the long run, my character will fall below the wealth by level guidelines, and will become a liability to the party, so in the D&D universe they are right and I am wrong.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Interesting thread but I believe that trying to apply real world morality to a DnD world is doomed exercise.

It depends on what you expect as the result. If your expectation is an interesting conversation, it's an almost guaranteed success.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In the long run, my character will fall below the wealth by level guidelines, and will become a liability to the party, so in the D&D universe they are right and I am wrong.

Take the Vow of Poverty feat and laugh all the way to wherever you tithe.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

You don't want more than one; or have you forgotten the Law of Inverse Ninja Strength?

I wondered about that...

Actually, in the original version, the college route was vastly superior to the blue-collar route, but I believe they altered that in the revised version.

Don't get me started.

Where was I. Oh, yeah. D&D is murderous, sexist, racist, elitist and ungodly. Don't look to it for ethics or morality or traditional family values (unless your family is hopelessly sick). Look to it instead for good, clean fun.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

D&D was originally based in a pseudo medieval setting so it has retained pseudo medieval sensibilities, one of those being killing a lot of people to get ahead is okay (as long as they aren't the wrong people to kill) and pursuing the goal of having a ton of money to throw around is good (usually by being good at killing a lot of people if you're a knight).

Even outside of the middle ages heroes are glorified for their ability to pile up the bodies of their foes, such as Achilles in antiquity who killed a lot of people.
To quote the hero Conan on what is best in life: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

Killing ability = Success is a running theme throughout human history (as is arguing against).


I guess what I'm trying to say is that of course success is dependent on killing in D&D, and no one should be surprised by that.