D&D 5E Killing is bad: how to establish morality

[Dualazi]

There's a thing I notice in fiction that I feel falls away in rpgs sometimes. The heroes don't kill outside of the heat of battle, and even then, they still try to not kill. Countless times I've seen heroes put themselves in bad situations because they let someone go or they take them to prison instead of just snapping their neck early. From Luke Cage to Fin and Han to whoever.

Are inspiration points a good enough mechanic to reward players making in character decisions that aren't the best from a strict stand point? Taking a prisoner instead of just killing them, for instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excuse me for needing clarification, did you mean you would like to see more of this ‘heroic’ sub-optimal play when you say it “falls away”? As in, it’s present in other media forms and then is absent in D&D?

The more practical way of looking at it is that in other structured media the fate of the character is always out of the player’s hands, while simultaneously hand-waiving any negative consequences as a result of these actions. Batman was mentioned earlier, and he’s a prime example of this. We all know that he’ll win in the end, same as we know that the joker will escape, and any lives lost as a result of this little repetition are casually ignored. PC’s don’t have that luxury, they (ideally) don’t have plot armor, and most savvy players understand cause and effect.

This transitions into the more philosophical side, where you have to ask yourself if such base bravado really qualifies as ‘good’. If there’s no way to rehabilitate an evil population like gnolls/kobolds/goblins/whatever, then yes, full extermination is a ‘good’ act, in my book. There are so many viewpoints people can hold on the topic of morality that really you should just sit down with your players and lay out what is and isn’t negotiable, since D&D at least operates on good and evil being quasi-tangible forces that can affect the world.

Lastly, I assume people don’t do it for the simple metagaming reason that they don’t like being burned, same as when many people don’t have family in their backstories, because the DM will try and use them negatively. Every time a released prisoner backstabs them, and every time a villain falls of a cliff only to return, the PCs become more inclined to simply solve their problems in the most permanent fashion they can.

To answer your question though, I wouldn’t go with inspiration. I would try and make it worth their while in other ways, such as gaining new contacts and allies, or having the captured foes reveal important information. This makes PCs see it as a viable way of conducting their group to meet their goals, rather than an obligation to avoid being called evil. Basically, if you make it so it’s not always sub-optimal, then they’ll treat it as such without the need for a carrot on a stick.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

First, if this is what you want, then D&D is the wrong system for you. D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff.

Second, according to various things I've read, in order for people to kill easily, they must first de-personalize their targets, In other words if one sees someone/thing as a person, it is much harder to kill him/it. So consistently make the enemies people rather than bags of hit points. Have enemies talk to the PCs first. Give them chances to see the culture and good sides of potential enemies. Let them find journals. Add small touches: bandit x has a wedding ring on, or bandit y has a small, new pair of children's shoes in his pack.

Third, get everybody on the same page as to what type of game y'all want. If players just want a traditional D&D game, they're going to be unhappy if you use the above methods to make them feel bad about killing bandits x and y.

 

[delericho]

There's a thing I notice in fiction that I feel falls away in rpgs sometimes. The heroes don't kill outside of the heat of battle, and even then, they still try to not kill. Countless times I've seen heroes put themselves in bad situations because they let someone go or they take them to prison instead of just snapping their neck early. From Luke Cage to Fin and Han to whoever.

Are inspiration points a good enough mechanic to reward players making in character decisions that aren't the best from a strict stand point? Taking a prisoner instead of just killing them, for instance.

Rather than using a mechanical reinforcement, you're probably better off instead discussing campaign expectations with the players - if you want them to adopt a Batman-style "no killing" rule, the best thing to do is say that to them.

But if you do want to reinforce that, your best bet is probably to do it in-setting: have the mercenaries they discuss talk about all the juicy ransoms they can get for capturing enemies alive; have the locals react with appropriate horror when the PCs get known as killers; have local law condemn the PCs to death for killing a noble even if they were entirely justified in doing so (what, you didn't think medieval-style law was fair did you?).

Oh, and two other things: don't have every catch-and-release villain immediately come back for bloody vengeance (actually, it should be rare - and a heel/face turn should be at least as likely, if not moreso); and do have the children/wives/allies of slain opponents seek revenge. That way, you reward the catch-and-release behaviour directly in-play, and are likely to see more of it.

 

[JonnyP71]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but is this really a morality issue, or is it simply down to the game system and the gaming approach of all concerned?

In any system where a general aim is to gain experience points to become more powerful, and where the main method of gaining experience is via killing enemies, then the group will generally be looking to kill most things they meet!! This has been ingrained into the current generation of gamers. Basic/1E D&D gave 80-90% of experience points for treasure - the idea was to get the loot and avoid combat where possible. 2E shifted that a little towards class actions - spellcasting and successful use of class abilities. Since 3E it has been pretty much 'xp for kills', with a hint towards a bit of xp for quest goals.

So change it. Use milestone xp? Or simply say '3000xp for completion of this quest - irrespective of how many enemies are killed'. Or maybe give MORE xp for encounters avoided/diffused using clever non-violent tactics, and less for brute force.

It's not just that though, there's a laxness and general disdain towards alignment systems nowadays - 5E has no mechanical penalties/benefits for acting outside/within alignment.

Change that too. Withhold spells/class powers from classes who don't stick strictly to the tenets of their alignment/religion/order. Find ways to reward those who do.

Finally, build consequences into the game fiction. Maybe they meet an orphaned girl - soon after the party slaughtered her father? The local authorities could declare them outlaws and put a bounty on their heads? You could have arrest/trial sequences? Shopkeepers may shun them.


In short: the game mechanics encourage killing - but the DM is in charge of the table and is free to tweak in order to try to install a different mentality within his players.

 

[CapnZapp]

There's a thing I notice in fiction that I feel falls away in rpgs sometimes. The heroes don't kill outside of the heat of battle, and even then, they still try to not kill. Countless times I've seen heroes put themselves in bad situations because they let someone go or they take them to prison instead of just snapping their neck early. From Luke Cage to Fin and Han to whoever.

Are inspiration points a good enough mechanic to reward players making in character decisions that aren't the best from a strict stand point? Taking a prisoner instead of just killing them, for instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we need to adress the elephant in the room.

Dungeon & Dragons is a light-hearted game about kicking in doors, killing monsters and taking their loot at heart.

I'm not saying that is all it can do. I am not saying you have to play it that way. None of that is my point.

The point is that other games have fundamentally different values at heart. A common root issue for players to treat NPCs badly is if the game (subtly or overtly) conditions you to treat them as inferior.

So the simplest advice is: have your group try out other games. Games with more mature morality. Games where the player characters aren't inherently superior to other persons in the world. Games with far less monstrous foes (its much easier to kill an Orc than a human, which is a core reason for having so many Orcs in D&D!). Games without levels. In these games, you can't run rough-shod over the wills or even lives of others, or there will be consequences.

Since this is a game ("no animals were harmed during this production") such consequences really help you act humane. This includes me, by the way. And probably you too, if you're being honest.

Yes, what I am saying is: controversial actions that probably would brand you a sociopath if acted out in real life, is completely normal and understandable behavior in a game, since sometimes all you want is to win; and if all you need to win is to kill or hurt some imaginary foes, then it's completely expectable that you will do just that.

In order to have players act with compassion you can really do with a few "soft"* boundaries in your game of the kind only sociopaths would need IRL. And D&D simply doesn't have those. But other games do.

*) By soft I mean not encased in rules. You're talking and I'm talking about how ethics make players voluntarily restrict their behavior. D&D has made attempts at keeping this in check, but always in immature clumsy ways (such as encouraging DMs to change the PC's alignment when their character acts in ways contrary to the DM's wishes. This only creates friction between DM and player while not at all addressing or resolving the real issues)

The discussion about Inspiration is, unfortunately, just another way of not having to confront the real issues (even if it is much less blunt than alignment changes) and it is my strong opinion it is not the right way to approach the problem.

Again, the real issue is how to introduce ethics that make players voluntarily restrict their behavior. So go play a game where the players can't get away with the things they get away with in D&D.

Then, if you find that solves your problem (by your players acting more in line with how you want them to), but you still like D&D's accessibility and overall playability you can import those ethics back into D&D. How? By having played those other games, and then remembering how you acted in them.

TL;DR: You really are needlessly restricting yourself if you try to solve this issue entirely from within D&D's paradigm.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Second, according to various things I've read, in order for people to kill easily, they must first de-personalize their targets, In other words if one sees someone/thing as a person, it is much harder to kill him/it. So consistently make the enemies people rather than bags of hit points. Have enemies talk to the PCs first. Give them chances to see the culture and good sides of potential enemies. Let them find journals. Add small touches: bandit x has a wedding ring on, or bandit y has a small, new pair of children's shoes in his pack.

One way to do this:

There are never "orc #1, orc #2, and orc #3" or "pirates #1-10". Every fight is always against "the fat orc, the orc who's a little balding, and the orc with the ripped tunic" or "Ned, Fred, Ted, Glen, Larry, Harry, Barry, Johnson, Ed, and Scary."

Also, if Ned, Fred, Ted, and Glen are all down and bleeding after six seconds of combat, Larry, Harry, Barry, Johnson, and Ed should throw down their weapons and try very hard to look like they're not with Scary, who is still fighting tooth-and-nail (while holding a thermal detonator!). BTW, as DM, if you know the enemies aren't going to fight to the death this also frees you up to use larger groups of enemies, which in turn encourages players to let enemies surrender so that they don't end up fighting those oversized groups of enemies to the death every time. Virtuous cycle.

Encounter: Around midnight, a DC 12 Perception will make a PC notice a soft splashing sound from off the bow, and a DC 12 Investigation check lets them know it is the sound of oars. Two rounds later, ten pirates scale the side of the ship. Their goal is to steal as many valuables and slaves as they can (five or six unarmed civilians for slaves would be ideal) and then retreat back into their rowboat, but if discovered by sailors or PCs on watch, they laugh maliciously and draw their weapons. Ned, Fred, Ted, Glen, Larry, Harry, Barry, Johnson, and Ed all have Pirate (NPC) stats and will throw down their weapons in dismay if either Scary or four other Pirates are killed or captured, and Scary has the stats of an Gladiator (NPC) and a 6-beaded Necklace of Fireballs, which he is loathe to expend (it's part of his mystique) except in a dire emergency, such as if the other Pirates have all surrendered or look like they're going to. Cowards!

NECKLACE OF FIREBALLS
Wondrous item, rare

This necklace has 1d6 + 3 beads hanging from it. You can use an action to detach a bead and throw it up to 60 feet away. When it reaches the end of its trajectory, the bead detonates as a 3rd-level Fireball spell (save DC 15).
You can hurl multiple beads, or even the whole necklace, as one action. When you do so, increase the level of the Fireball by 1 for each bead beyond the first.

If captured, a pirate can lead the PCs back to their base and show them where to sneak ashore without grounding the ship, but they will remain cooperative only as long as they are scared. If they start to feel more secure they will begin to abuse the sailors, children, and other civilians on the ship.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

First, if this is what you want, then D&D is the wrong system for you.

That is a weird thing to say, since the system works just fine when played by players playing characters that act just as the OP states they'd like to seem them act. Works just fine at my table - has for many years, and many editions.

D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff.

That's odd... my Player's Handbook says "Dungeons & Dragons immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions. The world needs heroes. Will you answer the call?" on the back, and "Everything a player needs to create heroic characters for the world's greatest roleplaying game".

That seems like a lot is being ignored if all you are taking from that is kill things and take their stuff - and it never says "kill" in any explicit terms, and implies "stuff" as one of many things to be sought rather than the only.

 

[Uchawi]

You could put in mechanical constraints to reward certain behavior, but D&D overall is a violent game. You would have to address the DM side of things as well, in regards to limiting violence for NPCs or monsters. The only time I believe it would be worth the effort is for young players. It also will place more emphasis on high skill use, or casting classes.

 

[Dausuul]

when i was a kid, killing people was considered a bad thing. sure, you would have death and what not, but it was considered a bad thing. Like, you didn't celebrate killing a bunch of your enemies most of the time unless they were like, personified evil, or freaky monsters. you killed because you had to, or because the thing was like, ya know, as smart as a cockroach and gross or trying to eat you. Or just like, really horrible.

Nah, you killed them because they were in your way and nobody had ever mentioned their names. You didn't celebrate it, you didn't struggle with the morality of it, you just whacked them and moved on. Only when you came up against somebody with a name did you start going "Oh, no, can I really kill them? Isn't that baaaaad?"

The Luke who threw away his lightsaber rather than kill Vader is the same Luke whose arms were red to the elbows with the blood of stormtroopers and Jabba's goons.

Here's some of the various movies i saw as a kid.
http://www.gamesradar.com/20-coolest-80s-fantasy-films/

Let's see. Going through those movies and picking the ones I remember well enough to assess:

• Labyrinth. Hard to say. There's a big fight scene at the end, but I don't recall anyone being definitively killed in it. I'll concede this one, for the sake of argument.
• The Princess Bride. But not this one. At. All. The hero of the piece is a pirate who "never leaves captives alive," and rather casually admits that "I kill a lot of people." Inigo and Fezzik also talk quite casually about killing. As far as onscreen deaths go, Inigo butchers five men in about ten seconds when facing Count Rugen, and nobody bats an eye. The only times anyone shows mercy are a) hero to hero and b) hero to BBEG.
• Dragonslayer. Not a huge amount of human-on-human killing here. The issue doesn't come up much, but there are also no examples of humans showing mercy that I can recall. In the one human-on-human battle, it ends in death, and ain't nobody agonizing over it. Vermithrax gets a sob story, but no one ever suggests that killing it is a questionable solution. And on the question "Is it okay to kill baby monsters?" this movie answers with a resounding "Yes."
• Willow. Really? You're going to cite freakin' Willow as an example of heroes worrying about the morality of killing their foes? *cough*Madmartigan*cough* *cough*Sorsha*cough* *cough*basically anyone capable of fighting*cough*
• Conan the Barbarian. I'm not even gonna touch this one. I don't want to get gore all over me.

Now, maybe my memory is selective, and the other movies have heroes who really are careful about not killing anybody, as opposed to not killing people with names. Somehow I doubt it, though.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Inspiration is one way to go, although not the best way IMO. For starters, if your players embrace the campaigns' ideals you'll be handing out inspiration like candy.

I would just explain the campaign expectations at the start of the campaign. If you want the players to play heroes who don't kill people (be sure to define what exactly people does and doesn't encompass) then just ask them to make characters who embrace those values. I've played a number of campaigns where my character refused to kill (although I draw a line at telling other characters what they can or can't do; my characters tried to lead by example). I've even played in a few campaigns where we all adopted a largely non-violent approach because that's what our characters would do (these were horror-themed D&D campaigns where we were basically playing extraordinary "normal" people). In my opinion, the best way to do this is with player buy-in.

Of course, it's important to avoid punishing the players for behaving morally. If the players sneak/talk/something-else their way past an enemy, they should get the same xp as if they fought their way past. If the players feel like they have to resort to violence in order to get xp, they're probably going to resort to violence more often than not. Also, don't punish them for letting their enemies live. While it's basically inevitable that a villain they spared will come back to haunt them, it should be the exception rather than the rule. If you let the bad guy live and he goes on to kill a PC's close friend, it's a lot less likely that the PC is going to let enemies live in the future. There's good opportunity for RP in that, but don't be surprised if the heroes decide to sacrifice their moral high ground for the health and safety of the people they protect. That is after all, in its own tragic way, heroic.

There was recently a Kickstarter for a non-violent RPG, Lotus Path, so giving that a go might be an option to consider.
http://www.neatorama.com/neatogeek/...acters-Must-Solve-Conflicts-Without-Violence/