D&D 5E Killing is Wrong: Adding Theme to a Campaign

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone.

I was wondering what advice others could give on running a more city based, civilized game, especially one where killing outside of true self defense or battlefield combat would be looked down at as wrong. A game where stopping the villain means bringing them in to justice. A game where the heroes grapple with the notion that killing their enemy would be easier, but also wrong.

Obviously, this sort of thing could be discussed before hand and roleplayed by the players, but I've always liked it when a game's theme was supported mechanically as well (for instance, I really like corruption/sanity rules in horror genre games). I've considered using a form of Sanity, or cribbing a bit from WoD's morality system.

Also, how would such a game affect your choice of character classes? If killing was to be avoided, would you still play a fighter, or would the ability to defend your allies and subdue your opponents with a good punch to the face still be desirable?

Thanks for your input.

 

[TerraDave]

Good topic!

Change or subvert the alignment system. Easy solution would be to just drop it. Instead you could have potential allies who are evil and enemies who are not.

You also have to establish who has rights. Seems like you want it to be all sentients. Easy way would be to just stick to humans, plus maybe other player races, in the game, so this doesn't really come up. Again, you can go farther on who has to be treated as an equal.

Finally, social norms do count. Again, easy way is to clearly establish "killing bad". Harder would be to have the players push against a culture that tolerates to much violence.

 

[TerraDave]

Double post

 

[Tony Vargas]

A game where stopping the villain means bringing them in to justice. A game where the heroes grapple with the notion that killing their enemy would be easier, but also wrong.

Oh, I played that game for 20 years on and off, it's called Champions!

Seriously, though, it's often not even that much easier - sure, in past editions you had to declare 'subdual' and take a penalty, but, if you're willing to deliver a personal beat-down instead of a fireball or barrage of arrows, there's no penalty for declaring unconsciousness instead of death at 0 hps.

Hmm... that suggests something, right there - a party of mostly-melee types would be well-suited.

I've always liked it when a game's theme was supported mechanically as well (for instance, I really like corruption/sanity rules in horror genre games). I've considered using a form of Sanity, or cribbing a bit from WoD's morality system.

WoD-style Humanity wouldn't be out of the question, I guess. You might try to work with Inspiration. Doing the right thing earns you some, at the most basic. You could have inverse inspiration - Angst (hey, you mentioned WoD first), that lets the DM impose disadvantage. Unlike Inspiration, you wouldn't just give it out, instead you could tie it to the WoD Humanity scale. When you do something that'd require a 'humanity check' you get Angst if you succeed or lose Humanity if you fail. As you slide down the Humanity scale, it gets harder to acquire inspiration - you slough bonds and ideals (losing your flaw last), and, as in V:tM, when your humanity drops too low, you lose control of the character.

Also, how would such a game affect your choice of character classes? If killing was to be avoided, would you still play a fighter, or would the ability to defend your allies and subdue your opponents with a good punch to the face still be desirable?

Actually, with 5e's non-lethal option working for melee attacks, a traditional STR/melee fighter, even if he is using a sword, could be a pretty fair choice - archers would be a tad hosed. Casters, of course, have at least some non-lethal spells, but then, you may decide magic has legal or moral issues, or both...

 

[iserith]

0 hit points means "taken out," whatever that means in context short of death.

Give XP for things other than killing monsters and NPCs.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I honestly don't think it can be done. One of my biggest issues with running D&D and with D&D players is their seeming total lack of morality in play. Even when I set out from the beginning that evil characters are not allowed and have given point-by-point explanations of what I consider to be evil acts, I get people committing evil left, right and centre to the point where I have to threaten to stop DM'ing if it continues. Only then do players start policing their own actions and even then, it's a constant, "Are you sure?" fight.

And it's not a thing with new or experienced players, either, it's just a core behaviour of people, I think. Take away consequences and most people are just plain nasty. I don't understand the desire to be a murderous psychopath who goes around raping and pillaging but it's so prevalent in gamer behaviour that I've given up trying to understand it.

So IMO the only way to do it in an RPG is to use an RPG system that hews closer to reality than D&D does. Sure, you can make town guards 20th-level who are backed up by pet tarrasques, but that kind of "control" is just that, an artifice designed to control player behaviour. In an RPG system that is closer to reality, the consequences for player actions are more organic.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Also, how would such a game affect your choice of character classes? If killing was to be avoided, would you still play a fighter, or would the ability to defend your allies and subdue your opponents with a good punch to the face still be desirable?

Ranged combat becomes much less desirable. Monks and melee fighters are better, Sharpshooters are worse. (You can't Sharpshoot nonlethal damage, nor with Agonizing Eldritch Blast.)

Before you choose 5E as your system to run such a campaign, think hard about https://stirgessuck.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/the-promise-of-dd/.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I honestly don't think it can be done. One of my biggest issues with running D&D and with D&D players is their seeming total lack of morality in play... I don't understand the desire to be a murderous psychopath who goes around raping and pillaging but it's so prevalent in gamer behaviour that I've given up trying to understand it..

Sometimes these things are regional...

 

[Soul Stigma]

I honestly don't think it can be done. One of my biggest issues with running D&D and with D&D players is their seeming total lack of morality in play. Even when I set out from the beginning that evil characters are not allowed and have given point-by-point explanations of what I consider to be evil acts, I get people committing evil left, right and centre to the point where I have to threaten to stop DM'ing if it continues. Only then do players start policing their own actions and even then, it's a constant, "Are you sure?" fight.

And it's not a thing with new or experienced players, either, it's just a core behaviour of people, I think. Take away consequences and most people are just plain nasty. I don't understand the desire to be a murderous psychopath who goes around raping and pillaging but it's so prevalent in gamer behaviour that I've given up trying to understand it.

So IMO the only way to do it in an RPG is to use an RPG system that hews closer to reality than D&D does. Sure, you can make town guards 20th-level who are backed up by pet tarrasques, but that kind of "control" is just that, an artifice designed to control player behaviour. In an RPG system that is closer to reality, the consequences for player actions are more organic.

In fairness, a lot of people play D&D to tell stories in a fantasy world where the real world has only a skin-deep commonality with it. We all (or most of us, I guess!) live in a world where killing a person is rarely sanctioned. I think players like for their characters be the "are you talking to me?" badasses that they, the players, generally can't.

As far as killing in a city, that's a flavor thing. I pull from an amalgam of Norse, Celtic and other historical laws to structure the laws of my holds. Witnesses are key (and can be influenced if they look up to or respect you), and in cases where the "victim" is not a notable citizen, a wergild is paid to the family, if any, and nothing more is said about it. Villains, depending on their crimes, still fit in this structure.

Just positing an alternative take on the whole "city law" thing.




Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, also take a look at this:

To speak in the broadest of generalities:

In older D&D, violence is the means to an end.

In newer D&D, violence is the means and the end; violence is its own reward.

Let’s consider how this informs certain facets of the game.

Experience Points: To start with the obvious, in older D&D, the characters won most of their XP from treasure, and practically none from slaying monsters. Although they typically pulled the treasure from the bodies of their slain enemies. In newer D&D, the characters don’t get any XP from treasure, but instead get almost all their XP from slaying monsters. In other words, we shift from “killing monsters to get their treasure” to “killing monsters to kill monsters.”

Morale: Older D&D typically features a system to model the morale of enemies, so that there’s some chance that some of them run away to fight another day. This is no problem because the characters have no reason to mind, as long as the monsters drop all their treasure before running away. But it is a problem in newer D&D, when the entire point is to kill them. Various systems to award partial or full XP for fleeing opponents have been attempted, but they’ve never really worked that well.

Random Encounters: The traditional way to ‘punish’ characters who take too long to get on with it, act overly-cautious, argue loudly, or are just unlucky is to subject them to a random encounter. These monsters generally have little or no treasure, so are strictly nuisances in OD&D. With newer D&D, a random encounter is its own reward, and it hardly makes much difference to the characters if they’re fighting four orcs who randomly jumped them on the side of the road or four orcs who have been patiently waiting for them in a 10’x10′ room.

*snip more good stuff*

Since you're trying to restore the game to a state where violence is no longer an end in itself, you may want to change some of the rules.