Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6933557" data-attributes="member: 42582">Superhero comics are very violent, and yet killing is not a prominent feature in them. (Or, at least, wasn't when I was reading them regularly - 70s, 80s, 90s.)I think that it is hard to rid D&D of violence - there aren't mechanics for a whole lot else - but that doesn't mean that it has to involve killing.The same mechanical change is present in 4e. Some 1st ed AD&D supplements - UA, OA - also had rules for vanquishing/subduing that were applicable to most foes and didn't lead to penalties to attack or damage.There are also approaches to D&D that break from the "kill things and take their stuff" paradigm. In 4e treasure is linked to "treasure parcels", not looting. Jame Wyatt put forward a similar idea in his 3E OA book. And given that treasure is not a huge part of 5e (not needed for XP or character development), 5e likewise doesn't require this approach. It was really only essential to classic D&D (B/X, OD&D, Gygaxian AD&D), where the whole focus of the game was on scouting out dungeons and then taking the best loot from the dungeon occupants.I don't think this gets to the core of the issue.If you make it hard or dangerous to fight and kill, then choosing not to fight and kill doesn't tell us anything about the morality of the PCs except that they are expedient.If you want the conduct of the heroes to show moral character, then you want them to choose not to kill even when that would be as easy as any other choice.Two responses.The quick one: perhaps. Depending how hard it is to get Advantage in your game, and how much the players value it.The longer one: why is taking someone prisoner not the best from a strict standpoint? Why, in your game, is it a disadvantage to spare the lives of enemies? Once you can answer that question you'll probably have a better idea of what you might want to do to change the tone of the game (assuming that's what you want to do).I think an important point to keep in mind is that it is possible to separate the PC and the player perspective. For instance, from the PCs' point of view sparing enemies creates the risk of treachery, retribution etc. But as a GM, those NPCs are under your control. You get to choose whether or not they keep their oaths if released on parole. If, in fact, you play those NPCs in a way that rewards the players for not killing or murdering them then the players may develop a sense that playing their PCs as merciful won't hurt them as far as "winning" the game is concerned.</blockquote>

Verification