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

That shift matters. It stops being “right vs wrong” and becomes “this is what happens when you do that.”
Which is what some players cannot handle and respond with saying that the DM is not letting them do what they want with the PC. Which I think makes for a poor player and most DMs would say that you can do anything, but need to live with the consequences.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Over the years
1. Blue bolt from out the sky, instant kills the pc.
2. Remind them of other ways around the npc.
3. Remind them I an not their bitc.... um Meat computer. And they should play nice.
4. Threated them with a uno game. AKa I pack up.
5. Yes, but the pc will be on the most wanted.
6. Just said "naughty word No".
 

I usually use a Glabrezu to solve the issue. And then i say to the Murderhobo (who was just murdered by the crab claws) to wait for a future TPK to join again in a brand new campaign (that wont ever happen).
 


Part of the problem comes from a player that optimizes a character only for combat. When the only thing a character is good at is whacking something with a weapon, then the solution to every encounter is whacking it with a weapon. If the GM is lucky, the player will listen to a GM suggestion that maybe this encounter is best handled by a character with negotiation or stealth skills. Perhaps having to yield the spotlight to a player with a character capable of talking will encourage future builds that are more rounded.

Otherwise the GM may have to do things like have the dead guard's Sargent launch an investigation into his long time friend's death. Including such things like Speak with Dead, Zone of Truth or just plain old talking with witnesses. When the murder hobo's party has to deal with being arrested while sleeping in the inn and hauled to jail in dirty night shirts(or less) to face murder charges over the dead guard, the problem usually fixes itself. Perhaps the guard's family will accept the entirety of the party's possessions as a orphans and widow's retirement account in return for the Sargent releasing the now very poor party. Or maybe the Mayor sends the party on a quest for which the party has to pay all expenses and gets to keep none of the loot. Of course, the murder hobo character gets to sit in the town jail hoping the party completes the quest and returns.
 

"F*** around and find out" has more or less been my motto.

The king may have 10 hp, but his bodyguard and court wizard may have dramatically more. Sure, off the town guard - the mayor will probably hire a bounty hunter whose more than capable of taking the PC down.

There are consequences for actions, inactions and insinuations. Sometimes, the PCs do need to take out that corrupt guard or put the surly nobleman in his place. But you have to be willing to accept the consequences - and there will be consequences.
 

If someone in-character wants to murder a town guard then we play that out. After that, I-as-DM determine (often with the help of lots of dice!) what happens next. Maybe the PC gets away with it. Maybe someone else gets wrongly accused. Or maybe - and much more likely - the PC quickly becomes a "wanted man" and either has to hide, flee, or face the music...which, if the crime is heinous enough or done to the wrong person, can even include execution.

As DM I have, in-character as the local nobility, drumhead-tried and executed a PC for crimes (wanton endangerment of the crown prince plus the deaths of numerous common folk) committed in town; while at the same time laying interdict against the revival of some other PCs who died in the same event. And the player of the executed PC knew damn well it was coming, and took it in stride. :)

Far more common, though, is PCs and even entire parties getting themselves banned from towns or realms on pain of death should they return.

On a broader scale, and despite whatever veneers of nobility might get laid on top, most D&D settings pretty much run on a "might makes right" ethos. The PCs at some point are likely going to test this and see where they fit in the pecking order, and I'm fine with that. A logical extension of this is they're also at some point likely to apply this ethos against each other in order to establish something of a pecking order within the party or company, and I'm fine with that too if it happens.
 

So, first I let my players know at Session 0 that the game has to be fun for everyone, and DMing a murderhobo campaign is not fun for me. Not judging - if that's your thing, then bless. But find a more copacetic DM.

Or if, it's at school, then just no. We run a PG campaign, and randomly murdering people is not PG.

So murderhoboing is not on the table when it comes to games I'm running. However, there's still a lot of killing, and then it becomes a question of A) roleplay, and B) consequences.

My monk only uses nonlethal attacks against sentient opponents unless it is very clear that there is no other option. She's just not comfortable killing people if she doesn't have to, but she also goes along with the group consensus. On the other hand, the party's paladin initially prevented them from executing a fairly nasty prisoner, on the grounds that he gave an oath to reform, on pain of death. Unfortunately for him, the same villain ran into the party again, having manifestly not changed his ways, and after he was again captured the paladin killed him out of hand, without discussing it with anyone else. This made sense.

Consequences are consequences. The world should react sensibly to the party. So if you are running around killing folks, even folks who arguably deserve it, the authorities might not think highly of your vigilantism. Or your victims might have friends. Etc.
 

On a broader scale, and despite whatever veneers of nobility might get laid on top, most D&D settings pretty much run on a "might makes right" ethos. The PCs at some point are likely going to test this and see where they fit in the pecking order, and I'm fine with that. A logical extension of this is they're also at some point likely to apply this ethos against each other in order to establish something of a pecking order within the party or company, and I'm fine with that too if it happens.
I would not be fine with this. It obviously depends on the group, but I would not enjoy it, and I don;t think my players would either.
 

It entirely depends on the type of game i run.

For my beer&pretzels h&s monty haul game, not only do i tolerate it, i expect it. I have running joke with this one group " How many sessions before heroic PCs become amoral bunch of murderhobos". At this point, with those guys and gals, it's not question of If, but When. They have fun, i have fun, we all have fun.

For other games, consequences. Not all fights are fair, NPCs don't have stat bar over their heads, and if they bite more then they can chew, i'm not afraid to TPK party. FAFO principle.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Related Articles

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top