Killing as fun and games: a question for the Good Guys

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Late Medieval period. Guy encased in armor riding around amongst tons of peasants with next to nothing, killing as he sees fit.

If the peasants even managed to unhorse the guy in armor, they might never manage to get him out of his armor to actually hurt him, and if they did, they might be punished by their own lord, who may have wanted the capture for ransom purposes.

The entire nobility thought it was DANDY fun and games to ride around killing kerns and such and occasionally getting involved in a ransom situation. Or killing each other when they REALLY felt wronged. When they weren't doing that, they were engaging in blood sports in moderately more controlled situations (jousting, the melee, etc.)

Killing your own people was generally frowned upon. If you were a commoner, it was definitely evil, but if you were one of the cats who could afford armor.... it wasn't really held as "evil" per se. Killing the people from a manor or two over was not such a big deal. Killing the people from 10 manors over was your God-given duty.

Killing someone as an evil act? That's a pretty modern idea. Probably has no place in the average D&D game. When you arrange it so that the killing is of opposing armies, or of goblins/orcs/etc that have been raiding your villages and so on... killing would be considered down-right good.

 

[Arkhandus]

* How do we create a GOOD aligned people In-Character, who view killing as fun and games? *

As before, I see your question as flawed in its basic premise. :\

Killing is never fun and games to good people.

Fighting may very well be, and is quite a different matter.

Also, lethal force is not a necessity in D&D. Many creatures will run away if sufficiently cowed with a liberal beating, and even tenacious foes can usually be taken out of the fight with nonlethal force (those which cannot are generally the kinds of unliving monsters that should pose no moral quandary to destroy, such as the Undead).

Enjoying the act of killing is purely an EVIL impulse and unnatural, a result of mental flaws in some humans.

What you should be asking, is "How do we handle killing in D&D settings without disrupting suspension of disbelief, or breaking the alignment system?"



Now, part of the question can also be circumvented by considering the nature of D&D settings. Some creatures in these settings are just plain Evil and/or unliving. Enjoying the destruction of Undead, Constructs, Fiends, Mind Flayers, and such would not usually be evil. Especially since the usual reason for enjoying it is the satisfaction of knowing that another unnatural abomination, or manifestation of pure Evil, has been destroyed and will do no more harm.



Many creatures in D&D, such as orcs and goblins, are evil by and large, with decent members of their species being quite rare in most D&D settings. While not capital-E Evil, many are still irredeemable or just too violent and resistant to redemption. Their gods (Gruumsh, Maglubiyet, Hruggek, etc.) create them to be evil, their cultures compel them to become evil and accept it as the only/right/best way.

So while adventurers and paladins and such may feel some regret at slaying these fellow living creatures, they know that letting them live is likely to result in more attacks upon decent humanoids and more generations of such creatures rising up to cause even more harm.



This isn't true of real-world humans; we're all human to begin with, and while we have different cultural influences, we retain normal human inclinations and can learn to accept other peoples' ways. None of the popular faiths that I know of preaches for us to destroy one another, at least not as anything but a last resort; people are converted all the time to different faiths, as they decide for themselves what to believe. And many live without adhering to the beliefs of one faction or another, without necessarily being persecuted for it.

Real-world humans would rather, on the whole, live peacefully and with whatever prosperity they can manage to achieve. D&D humans are generally the same, but live in a much harsher and more dangerous world, with all manner of monstrosities and divinities looking to do them harm, try controlling them, or acquire their services. They have to deal with the fact that life is harsh and slaying evil creatures is often a necessity. But at least they also have the assurance that some benevolent/righteous Powers are looking out for them and will take care of them when their own time comes.



But in a D&D world, goblinoids and such are compelled by their very religions, leaders, and peers to actively attempt destruction, or otherwise preying upon, of all other creatures. They have little choice in the matter and little reason to doubt it; an orc doesn't want to be savagely beaten or slain by his peers for taking pity on the random elf or human in the village they raid, even if he does by some miracle have a flicker of compassion in his heart. At most he may go solo and try to find his own way, but other orcs from other tribes won't accept him; Gruumsh demands they subjugate or slaughter all non-orcs, with no mercy.

While these races may be victims of their own races' cruel and savage societies, many are nonetheless evil to the core. Most could not be redeemed in a typical D&D setting; their racial imperative is domination or genocide. Many are the orcs who give in to violent impulses and bloodlust, for it is in their nature as creations of Gruumsh. They would never accept Good as being the best way for them. Few are those who lack the orcish imperative to kill and dominate and revel in it all.



For a human paladin or the like, slaying orcs is usually a matter of necessity to protect innocent non-orcs, as well as justice for those the orcs are likely to have harmed or slain beforehand, and holy extermination of unrepentant, irredeemable monsters who love slaughter entirely too much and are nothing but a threat to other people as long as they live (even if only because they will keep breeding to produce more legions of orcs, to slaughter humanoids in the next generation and all those that follow).

Slaying evil humans is more likely to provoke a moral quandary from paladins, as they will know that humans are more likely to be redeemable, and a paladin is more likely to use nonlethal force when fighting humans they know to be dangerous and/or villainous, unless they know those humans to have commited horrible acts worthy of execution.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't think good people in a D&D setting would view killing as "fun & games", but they do see it as something that sometimes needs to be done.

Like say, police. While they don't go out of their way to kill people, they have little qualms about doing it when they need to. Adventurers are often in the same basic role, but they don't have the non-lethal options police do these days.

 

[WillieW]

Willie!

Sorry to sidetrack the thread, but I just wanted to say, it is good to see you around these part, Mr. Walsh. You wrote some of my favorite Dungeon adventures of all time.

You briefly posted to my old Aquerra boards some years ago, but it nice to see you made your way to EN World.

Not hijacking the thread either, but thanks for the kind remarks.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey there, WillieW. A pleasure to meet you. Cheers to one of the designers submitting for Dungeon Magazine.

 

[WillieW]

Hey there, WillieW. A pleasure to meet you. Cheers to one of the designers submitting for Dungeon Magazine.

Thank you, kindly.

 

[green slime]

Seriously Edena, this has to be one of your worst ponderings ever.

1) Killing is not the only way to gain xp.
2) Killing is actually only at best a secondary effect: You actually gain xp for overcoming a CR.
3) What the PC's experience and what the player's experience are two different things completely.

 

[WayneLigon]

I guess it's what you mean by 'fun and games'. While few of my characters would have ever said that wading in ankle-deep blood was 'fun' or that they 'enjoyed' it quite a few of them would have said it was 'satisfying'. Weeding out a bandit cave? Something that needs to be done but hardly enjoyable. Taking out an orc village? Yeah, there is something enjoyable in that. It depends on the campaign world, but even more about how the group actually plays the game.

The game world.

Especially in earlier editions, orcs are like fungus. Nothing good comes of them, and leaving even a bit behind just means there's more orcs later. And you can't even use them to flavor cheese. Killing them is like mowing grass, and I've been known to whistle while mowing grass. In 3E (and in some instances beforehand, depending on the setting), orcs ain't nessesarily evil but that's the smart way to bet. You can't stop every orc in the onrushing hoarde and say 'I say, chap, are you evil?'. No, you cut the neutral orc down with the CE orc and hope for the best for the ones you know were not evil in their hearts. You find the occassional tribe of neutral orcs, then you know you can deal with them. Carefully, and probably never really trusting any but the odd exceptional individual, but you can deal with them.

How people play the game.

I think the idea some people have that D&D is a game of killing, and one where killing is all 'fun and games' is that so many D&D games are run in a simplistic nature where no real thought goes in to the characters or the world they inhabit. It's done as a somewhat more complex boardgame, leaving the monsters not as inhabitants but as game peices to be gotten rid of. Now, while that's a good way to play to blow off some steam or just as an adjunct to getting together to party with your buddies, it seems to me that a significant number of people never go beyond this style or 'level' of play.

NPCs always fight to the death. NPCs will always try to screw with the party. NPCs will always do any number of things because that's the nature of a board game peice. It always reacts in much the same way regardless of what you try or what you do. Is it any wonder that after several sessions of such play that PC's react the same way? They know they can expect no mercy from the enemy, so they'll give none. And a lot of people walk away from that experience thinking for the rest of their life 'well, that's just how D&D is played'.

Let's go back to the bandit cave. There will certainly be some - even most - who will fight to the death. These are desperate hard men who can expect little mercy from the local justice. Like as not they all have a price on their heads. Some though should beg for mercy, or throw down their weapons when five guys in armor burst in, throwing spells and sending in wolves to harry the group.

The other side exists as well. The orc raiding party doesn't kill the party it defeats but captures them for ransom or to be taken to the iron mines. The party sees the enemy will not nessesarily kill them out of hand, then they can be made to understand that they don't need to do the same.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Read This

Ok guys, listen:

The From the Ashes Boxed Set, which detailed the destruction of Medegia, was 2nd Edition Canon.
So, we are going to use 2nd Edition Canon, and in 2nd Edition you gained experience *primarily* from killing. You *could* gain experience in other ways in 2nd Edition, but killing opponents was the primary way.

Again, as per Canon, the people of Medegia were a primarily human people. Although beaten down by the Holy Censor, and enduring harsh living conditions, these people - mostly serfs and peasants - most certainly did not see killing as fun and games.
The armed forces of Medegia also did not see killing as fun and games, in general. The clergy and worshippers of Hextor were perhaps an exception.

However, the powerful army of demons, orcs, and marauding humans and others arrayed to destroy Medegia by an insane Ivid, *DID* view killing as fun and games.
They viewed killing as fun and games so much, that they fought each other for the right to despoil particular regions of Medegia, for the right to slaughter the people in those areas.
This force obliterated Medegia. The mortality rate for Medegia's populace was greater than 95%. All cities, towns, and villages were completely leveled or reduced to ruins.

Ok? Get the picture?

Now, consider what happened to Medegia, in the light of 2nd edition game mechanics.
Killing, gains you experience. Killing, gains you levels. Killing, makes you more powerful, and thus able to better kill (or defend, as the peaceful people of Medegia found out the hard way, as they could not defend themselves, having no power to do so.)
The killer, advances in power. The non-killer, does not advance, or does not advance nearly as rapidly.

In 2nd Edition game mechanical terms, the only way Medegia *could* have built a force strong enough to protect itself was *if* it had been a land of warmongers, people constantly trying to kill each other, people constantly at war with each other, until enough high level NPCs existed in Medegia to gather a credible defense of the realm against the outside invasion (assuming, obviously, that they would cooperate.)
Since Medegia was composed of humankind, and normal humankind at that, this was impossible. Had they been worshippers of Lolth, had Lolth set them against each other, had they participated in the kind of society Lolth imposed on the drow, then they - like the drow - might have become militarily powerful (the drow constantly war with each other and everyone else, under Lolth's tutelage, which is why they are so strong, within the game mechanics.)

What, then, could have saved the people of Medegia?
You will answer: outside aid. But no outside aid was forthcoming within the Canon, so let's discard that.
You might answer: they could flee. But that proved futile in the Canon, so let's discard that.
You might answer: they could stand and fight. But they were overwhelmed militarily within the Canon.

Let's go back in time, to a time a hundred years in the past.
Let's give the people of Medegia a hundred years to prepare for the armaggedon that faced them in the Greyhawk Wars.

In this scenario, let's assume:

The people of Medegia *KNOW* that in one hundred years time, a colossal attack will be aimed at their country, and they alone must face it. They do not know exactly what this attack will be like, or who will be attacking, only that there *will be* an attack.
No outside aid is forthcoming.
No flight is considered.
Hiding in fortified secret places is feasible only if a successful defense is also mounted, since the attackers are seeking out such hiding places.
No internal aid (such as Faerie living in Medegia) is forthcoming.
NO artifacts or relics will be discovered! If Medegia wants those, they will have to become strong enough to make their own!

The people of Medegia must, on their own, figure out a way to become powerful, become capable of throwing back the attack.

Now, PCs and NPCs and Commoners and others In-Character are *not* aware of levels or experience points. But if they kill on a regular basis, they *might* become aware that for some reason they are becoming rapidly more powerful (as character classes: fighters, wizards, clerics, thieves, etc.) than those who are not busy killing things.

If they figure this out, they will see that being evil, is a path to power. Because evil advocates killing, and killing - for some arcane reason not understood - leads to rapid power.

Will the people of Medegia, then, turn to evil, in order to obtain the strength they need to defend their country?
Or can the people of Medegia, while still neutral and even good aligned, find a way, within the game mechanics (even though they know nothing of the game mechanics) to obtain the strength necessary?

Which leads again to the question I posed: Is there a way for a good (or in this case neutral) aligned people to learn to view killing as fun and games?
Because, within the game mechanics, that is the *only way* for the people of Medegia, to survive Ivid's assault!!

Edena_of_Neith

 

[RFisher]

D&D is (or at least was) a game about killing. Killing gets you experience points. Killing gains you levels. Killing gets you treasure (which got you experience and levels, see 1E.) Killing gets you magic (and yet more experience and levels, in 1E.) Killing, makes you more able, to kill.

In the D&D I started with, you get XP for two things:

1. Defeating monsters. Yes, even my 1981 Basic rulebooks says...

Experience points are also given for monsters killed or overcome by magic, fighting, or wits.

...and...

Situations might also allow the DM to give partial experience if the characters learned from the encounter without actually defeating the monster.

2. Treasure. In classic D&D, the real XP (by-the-book) comes from treasure. If you can figure out how to get the treasure without risking being killed yourself, you do so. It's easy to pass up on the XP award you'll get from killing a monster, but it's crazy to pass up on the XP award you'll get from treasure.

(Yet, players do even pass up treasure when they feel taking it would be uncharacteristic for their character. At least I've seen players do that.)

Killing is only one way of defeating monsters & defeating monsters is only one way to gain XP.

* How do we create a GOOD aligned people In-Character, who view killing as fun and games? *

I don't. When I do create a good aligned character, they may see killing as a necessity. (Or not. I've made characters who would not kill in any circumstance. Even though 3e didn't give me any benefits from it like Gurps did.)

Although, I would imagine that characters in fantasy worlds would have different ideas on the value of life than I do. I believe people of earlier periods in the real world have had different ideas on the value of life than I do.