RPG Evolution: What if I just kill him?

We all know the "murderhobo" archetype. I've now come face-to-face with a few.
sergeitokmakov-themis-6347375_1920.jpg

Image courtesy of Pixabay.

We've heard the term before: "murderhobo," player characters that lead a nomadic existence defined by indiscriminate violence and a lack of social ties. These PCs are not merely a choice but a symptom of a deeper cognitive disconnect: the assumption that an NPC's authority is derived exclusively from their hit point total or combat statistics.

Where do murderhobos come from? In my weekly Dungeons & Dragons library game that's open to the public, I've discovered they're out there, and I have a better of idea why.

The Digital Legacy

My encounters with murderhobos usually happen after the second game, when a player has gotten comfortable enough to ask. In-game, an authority figure tells them what to do (usually a sheriff or judge), and the player asks a simple question: "What if I just kill him?"

The murderhobo does not emerge in a vacuum. Though it's existed before video games were common, it surely nowadays comes from the digital sandbox. In most computer role-playing games (CRPGs), players are conditioned to interact with the world through a binary interface. An NPC can be classified as a Static Quest Giver, often rendered unkillable by the game’s code—the aforementioned plot armor—or an Enemy, whose sole purpose is to be reduced to zero hit points for experience and loot. This binary creates an interesting dynamic where players only respect what the software forces them to respect.

When these players move to the tabletop, they often test the limits of the Dungeon Master’s world by attempting to kill low-level authority figures, such as town guards or local magistrates. If the DM has not established the institutional weight of these characters, players assume that a weak stat block implies a lack of importance.

The Hit Point Hallucination

A core tenet of the murderhobo's logic is the Hit Point Hallucination: the belief that the capacity to take damage is the ultimate measure of an NPC’s worth. Historically, hit points have always been a nebulous abstraction. Since the original rules, they have represented a combination of physical durability, luck, and the will to survive. As the rules have evolved, particularly in the 2024 revision, this abstraction has been clarified to include "stamina, resilience, and endurance".

When a player looks at a king with 10 hit points and a dragon with 500, they often conclude that the dragon is important and the king is not. This ignores the reality that hit points do not determine effectiveness in battle until they reach zero. A king with 1 HP can still command an army to fire a thousand arrows. The fallacy lies in treating hit points as meat points rather than a narrative resource.

The core of the murderhobo problem is the belief that the player is the only "real" person in the world. In a collaborative narrative, the NPC's reality is maintained by the DM and the shared imagination of the group. If the party kills a beloved NPC, they are not just "clearing a mob"; they are destroying a piece of the shared world that everyone has invested in.

But to be clear, there has to be a world in the first place. A player can't be blamed for threatening every guard when they've been eyeballs deep in dungeon monsters for weeks. Conversely, if the game is hack-and-slash only, this may well be acceptable (there's a visceral thrill in playing a chaotic, violent campaign, though it probably doesn't last long) and as long as that's the goal of the campaign and everyone agrees, being openly violent can be fun.

Most times though, it's one player who is new to the game or gets bored with it, reacting to the lack of stimulus or the frustration that their character can cast miracles, but they have to listen to this (surely low level) NPC. Depending on how resilient the DM's campaign world is, they might not be wrong to think they can get away with it too. When players know that the world reacts logically to their actions—that killing a shopkeeper leads to the closure of the shop, the loss of a supply line, and a permanent Hostile attitude from the merchant's guild—they begin to see the world as a persistent entity rather than a disposable playground.

The Authority of the Shared Dream

The murderhobo mindset can be a mismatch of expectations for those who have not yet learned to trust the DM or the world. Authority in a TTRPG is not a number; it is a story. It is the collective agreement that the king’s decree matters, that the merchant’s life has value, and that the party’s actions have weight. Conversely, not killing everything should matter; this means rewarding non-combat solutions, making NPCs feel like living people with goals and fears, and using the 2024 Influence rules to show that Charisma is just as powerful as a +1 longsword.

"Can't I just kill him?"

Sure, I respond with a smile. "But then you have to deal with the consequences." And that's usually enough to make the player change their mind.

Your Turn: How do you deal with murderhobos?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

D&D had always flirted badly with murderhobo due to the combat and HP difference between PC and NPCs. IF the NPCS were powerful, why do they need me, Oofta, Bob, and Brian PCs to help out.
And if we are so powerful why do we have to listen to those sissy city folk?
Trying to get any new person regardless if they a tween or in the retirement home, to remember it is a group game is chore. And I wish, more information were in the core books on how to handle this.
The lack of it aimed at players is just as bad as stripping the system elements supporting game in handling it
 

log in or register to remove this ad

D&D had always flirted badly with murderhobo due to the combat and HP difference between PC and NPCs. IF the NPCS were powerful, why do they need me, Oofta, Bob, and Brian PCs to help out.
And if we are so powerful why do we have to listen to those sissy city folk?
Trying to get any new person regardless if they a tween or in the retirement home, to remember it is a group game is chore. And I wish, more information were in the core books on how to handle this.
Getting them to remember it is a group game is their job as a player, as well as the GM's. There doesn't need to be any more about it in the books. It literally covers it in the introduction. If you, as a DM, want your players to specifically focus on it, print it out and highlight it. I don't know, maybe I am skewed by having mature players.

As for D&D flirting with it. That may be true if you are in a small farming village. But it doesn't take much to take down one PC, even in the mid-levels. And early levels, forget about it. It is easy. Now an entire group. If they are all murder-hoboing around a city. Ok. I guess that is what they want the campaign to be, them being serial killers and trying not to get caught. Doesn't sound like a fun campaign to me, but if that is what they want, they can have it. (In my case, they would need to find a different DM.)
 

Unless we are talking about real world consequences, for murderhobos of "let the world burn" variety, they don't mean squat. People need to care enough about something in game for consequences to work. When players don't even care about what happens to their own characters, there is very little DM can do in game to reign them in.

I don't find that kind of games fun to run. My IRL consequence for that kind of murderhoboing is dropping the game. I've done it before and will do it again.
 

My monk is level 8, and has not killed a sentient, living creature. She would if she had to, but she hasn't had to.

Edit: She does nonlethal damage by default, and most fights end in flight or surrender.
 
Last edited:

My monk is level 8, and has not killed a sentient, living creature. She would if she had to, but she hasn't had to.

Edit: She does nonlethal damage by default, and most fights end in flight or surrender.
It perhaps says something about 5e rules that she hasn't even killed someone by accident; which otherwise would realistically likely have happened at least once by now assuming she's been in any decent number of fights and is fighting to win: she hit too hard, or underestimated the foe's ability to defend or take damage, or slipped up and turned a non-lethal strike into a lethal one by hitting the foe in the wrong place, etc.
 

Unless we are talking about real world consequences, for murderhobos of "let the world burn" variety, they don't mean squat. People need to care enough about something in game for consequences to work. When players don't even care about what happens to their own characters, there is very little DM can do in game to reign them in.

I don't find that kind of games fun to run. My IRL consequence for that kind of murderhoboing is dropping the game. I've done it before and will do it again.
While I agree I think it's incredibly rare for a player to decide that they "don't even care about what happens to their own characters" outside of the irrelivant edge case where a player wants to kill off their PC to make a new one instead of talking to the GM and just retiring it. The more common murderhobo who only cares about growing their PCs power is why designing against the PCs having regular mechanical needs to be filled by NPCs within the world was such a blow in favor of enabling the worst murderhobo elements
 

The core of the murderhobo problem is the belief that the player is the only "real" person in the world. In a collaborative narrative, the NPC's reality is maintained by the DM and the shared imagination of the group. If the party kills a beloved NPC, they are not just "clearing a mob"; they are destroying a piece of the shared world that everyone has invested in.
Villain concept: violent Mind's Eye/Sign Of One extremists
 

@tetrasodium

Don't care in sense that characters are disposable and easily replaceable. They care in a sense they like personal power growth, but if their character dies, well, another one takes place. Some people aren't invested in their characters and don't put much effort except in mechanical build.
 

@tetrasodium

Don't care in sense that characters are disposable and easily replaceable. They care in a sense they like personal power growth, but if their character dies, well, another one takes place. Some people aren't invested in their characters and don't put much effort except in mechanical build.
I'm not sure what you are trying to describe, but it sounds like something extremely different than 103 & most. I frequently don't care if my PC dies simply because "if [my] character dies, well, another one takes [their] place", but that doesn't mean I go around slaughtering NPCs or acting in a way that would result in the gm flipping the table. That's not an unusual approach to characters in d&d and there's nothing negative about it. The murderhobo player quick to launch into the thread's"how about I just kill him" title ime tends to view their PC as nearly invulnerable to the risk of mere guards and such and in the case of 5e that tends to quickly become 100% true right up until the gm is willing to invoke rocks fall you die type smite equivalent force. That safe until rocks fall you die level of insulation actually reinforces the problem behavior because it automatically makes the gm look like an unreasonable killergm no matter how it's done (ie fiat inappropriate encounters poisoning etc) and being viewed as an unreasonable killergm poisons the table's social dynamic in ways that effectively leads to the campaign dieing off. IoW the social contract prevents the gm from ignoring that murderhobo's insulation to kill the effectively invulnerable PC for the same reason the other players at the table don't want to step in and have their PC deal with the murderous bandit in the party in the same way they dealt with every other similar bbeg.
 

My monk is level 8, and has not killed a sentient, living creature. She would if she had to, but she hasn't had to.

Edit: She does nonlethal damage by default, and most fights end in flight or surrender.
I didn't know until recently that technically, the non-lethal damage rule in 5E is only on melee attacks. Not ranged attacks and not spells (apparently no "knock-out arrows" Green Arrow-style).
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Related Articles

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top