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


log in or register to remove this ad


Violence first parties stem from DMs having no consequences for all the murders and violence they do. Natural consequences to tons of violence tends to curb that strategy.
It'd stem from the players' choices, not the DM's reaction to those choices, no?
Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but wouldn't the players first have to decide they want to use violence- and then the GM decides if there are consequences for murder and violence.
 

It'd stem from the players' choices, not the DM's reaction to those choices, no?
Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but wouldn't the players first have to decide they want to use violence- and then the GM decides if there are consequences for murder and violence.
Kinda, but no. The first choice would be the players, sure. But a few such instances don't murderhobos make. It's the difference between someone who has stolen and a career thief.
 

You've misdirected that blame
The system undermining its own dm's efforts to have consequences doesn't stop there though, the pcs don't even need a shelter where they can rest up and recover like a personal keep or an inn because a ditch near a tree is squarely within what the design requires.

The only consequence of weight the gm has in their quiver that can be directed at a hypothetical NPC slaying murderhobo like the thread describes us gm fiat & that tends to reflect negativity on the gm when used to such a degree
The system's design can't stop consequences. That's purely a DM thing. If the DM has the guards/bounty hunters/assassins/etc. respond to murderhobo murdering and the PCs start being hounded, imprisoned, and dying as a result of indiscriminate violence and murder, they will stop. The system can't start or stop those consequences. Only the DM can.

Logical consequences =/= DM Fiat.
 

This all assumes that the raising will work. There's no such guarantee since the soul can refuse to return. Every killing has a chance of being permanent, and therefore has a moral cost. You KNOW before you commit the murder that the person may not ever come back to life, even if you pay the 2500gp.
I'm sure a legal concept like mens rea or guilt in absentia would emerge in a fantasy legal system to take refusing to be resurrected into consideration. If the soul doesn't want to come back, can you even say that a wrongful execution was a miscarriage of justice? "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" may be a legitimate moral argument if heaven is real and god is good.
 

The system's design can't stop consequences. That's purely a DM thing. If the DM has the guards/bounty hunters/assassins/etc. respond to murderhobo murdering and the PCs start being hounded, imprisoned, and dying as a result of indiscriminate violence and murder, they will stop. The system can't start or stop those consequences. Only the DM can.

Logical consequences =/= DM Fiat.
Yes system design can very much limit the GM's options for consequences and will very much do that when that system's edition shift removes the PC's need to get and maintain things like regular gear updates or even a structure to rest up in.

Once the players know that their PCs don't need anything from the NPCs in the world where they face those purely hypothetical and entirely undefined "consequences" that you keep calling on others to create for your point to work it leaves the gm with a scenario where the world and those in it have very little room to push back with your hypothetical consequences without the gm invoking execution or imprisonment->make a new PC by fiat other than simply refusing to provide any adventure content even when those players decide to murder and loot the town or something on the grounds that said town is hostile and unwilling to speak with them.

So make your case instead of expecting others to invent the hypothetical consequences you think check the box you are claiming is available. Once you do that it becomes possible to explain why it isn't as great as you are painting it to be
 

I'm sure a legal concept like mens rea or guilt in absentia would emerge in a fantasy legal system to take refusing to be resurrected into consideration. If the soul doesn't want to come back, can you even say that a wrongful execution was a miscarriage of justice? "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" may be a legitimate moral argument if heaven is real and god is good.
That isn't exactly going to help deter wanton murder.
 

There are absolutely ways to do evil characters that are interesting, and work with a group. But even a Punisher-sort can create conflict when they decide to do something like executing the villain that the rest of the party planned on turning over to justice.
To me, that's a perfectly legitimate in-party discussion/argument/conflict to have. Some of them want to turn the villain over to justice while one declares "Out here, we ARE the law" and tries to put the villain on drumhead trial right then and there...or just executes the villain, whatever.

Sit back and let 'em fight, says I.
Thinking about that, maybe it's not so much the flavor of evil but whether the player takes into account the rest of the party when playing their character. Heck, even a super-LG character can create trouble at the table when they don't do that.
IME the super-LG character tends to cause far more problems than the super-E.
DCC RPG has you starting out as the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, and it's a hoot. But you don't stay there (provided you survive the funnel). I like games where, for the most part, you have something to fear from that group of town guards. Where you have to worry about consequences for your actions within the world and its societies. Even when you're able to fight dragons, there should still be some risk to the lesser threats.
Very much this. It comes from tha game having a flatter power curve. Flip side: even at low level you should present at least some slight risk to the dragon.

That, and the zero-to-hero journey kinda loses its point if the 'zero' part gets skipped.
 

The system's design can't stop consequences. That's purely a DM thing. If the DM has the guards/bounty hunters/assassins/etc. respond to murderhobo murdering and the PCs start being hounded, imprisoned, and dying as a result of indiscriminate violence and murder, they will stop. The system can't start or stop those consequences. Only the DM can.

Logical consequences =/= DM Fiat.
Maybe.

If the system or setting is designed such that there's very few levelled or mechanically-powerful entities other than the PCs (and the players know this) then once the PCs get a few levels under their belt, if they decide to go rogue there's really nothing that can stop 'em.

And if the DM then has to invent a bunch of high-level types, which otherwise don't make sense in the system/setting as presented, to act as a guardrail on the PCs and impose those logical consequences, that's DM fiat all day long.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Related Articles

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top