D&D General Violent Solutions to Peaceful Problems

[iserith]

Sometimes, I find that the group chooses violence because the NPC is unintentionally being played antagonistically and very punchable in a socially safe situation (Out of character) to act on that punchability.

Yes, or even intentionally. I can't tell you how many merchants I wanted to murder because the DM was playing them as if they just didn't want to sell us something. Your role is to sell things to people and you don't seem to want to do that? Guess we'll just have to rob you. punch

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, or even intentionally. I can't tell you how many merchants I wanted to murder because the DM was playing them as if they just didn't want to sell us something. Your role is to sell things to people and you don't seem to want to do that? Guess we'll just have to rob you. punch

I often recount the time that a DM didn't like tieflings but instead of saying no, or sucking it up, allowed them but made everyone in the world racist against them to Marvel comics mutants levels. People would cross the street to spit on me. No one would let me shop in their stores of sleep in their taverns. And they got violent.

Violent against a species that, as an express, well known evolutionary trait responds to physical harm with a gout of hellfire.

Then he was shocked and appalled when the very first town burned down after a guy ran out of a bar brandishing a chair to beat me with and life, uh, found a way. I was perfectly willing to not choose violence. That character was basically the nicest person I ever played, but how else am I supposed to reply to racism and attempted murder?

 

[Weiley31]

"I wish to talk"

Doom Slayer whips out BFG.

 

[Ace]

Conceal and carry is common in real life, but you will have a hard time defending blasting somebody just for attempting to pick your pocket. Especially, if "they bumped me" is your only evidence of such.

Absolutely. But D&D is often as not lawless sometimes post apocalyptic. And of course sleep spells are non lethal . I tend to assume medieval levels of violence in my games which was a lot.

 

[Reynard]

Absolutely. But D&D is often as not lawless sometimes post apocalyptic. And of course sleep spells are non lethal . I tend to assume medieval levels of violence in my games which was a lot.

Medieval levels of violence weren't especially high unless you count how local powers treated dissenters. There were laws aplenty, enforced by common courts and nobility alike. Banditry existed but certainly not at the scale presented in popular media of our time. Most medieval violence was vassal on vassal -- that is, skirmishes between rival powers. People in general were far more likely to die of disease, famine or accident than intentional violence.

 

[Ace]

Medieval levels of violence weren't especially high unless you count how local powers treated dissenters. There were laws aplenty, enforced by common courts and nobility alike. Banditry existed but certainly not at the scale presented in popular media of our time. Most medieval violence was vassal on vassal -- that is, skirmishes between rival powers. People in general were far more likely to die of disease, famine or accident than intentional violence.

Coroners rolls suggest a medieval English homicide rate in s Oxford 100x time that of modern England ! The rest of England was about 20 per 100k around that of say Chicago USA T. hat city is considered less safe than a war zone in many areas and several unfaltering nicknames the only one I can use being Chiraq , a portmanteau of Chicago and Iraq

This was from Aeon Why has England lost its medieval taste for violence? | Aeon Essays

Author
Jim Sharpe
is professor emeritus of early modern history at the University of York. He is the author of Dick Turpin: The Myth of the English Highwayman (2004).

My game world is probably more violent than that mainly do to monsters and the like. Call it 25-30x the murder rate by humans and the like plus the need to arms at hand for the various horrors out there.

 

[payn]

Medieval levels of violence weren't especially high unless you count how local powers treated dissenters. There were laws aplenty, enforced by common courts and nobility alike. Banditry existed but certainly not at the scale presented in popular media of our time. Most medieval violence was vassal on vassal -- that is, skirmishes between rival powers. People in general were far more likely to die of disease, famine or accident than intentional violence.

Right, just like the wild west.

Absolutely. But D&D is often as not lawless sometimes post apocalyptic. And of course sleep spells are non lethal . I tend to assume medieval levels of violence in my games which was a lot.

Setting and context do matter I suppose. I stopped playing in games like that a long time ago.

 

[MGibster]

Should every action have a consequence? What if it's just shenanigans and a strong response from the DM would derail the campaign, would you say that consequences are consequences, and just rewrite your campaign, which now becomes e.g. a jailbreak? Or do you look the other way do you don't have to toss out the entire plot? Does it do anything beyond changing the PCs alignment(s)? Do you even actively seek some sort of revenge to teach those roguish players to do better roleplay?

I am very much an "actions have consequences (good or bad)" DM. But there are times when the natural consequences of a PCs actions might derail or change the tone of the campaign to a point where other players won't have fun. As a DM, I somtimes have trouble balancing my desire to preserve player character autonomy while ensuring everyone is having a good time. I'm going to weasel out of your question by saying it really depends on the situation. I've had PCs take actions that were completely surprising and moved the campaign in an unexpected direction which was fine. I've had other occasions where the PCs actions essentially spelled the end of the campaign. What a DM really needs to do, in my humble opinion of course, is to call a time out and explain to a player the negative consequences of their actions. Now don't do this for every little decision, just for the ones that might have a negative ramification on the campaign for one more more players.

 

[MGibster]

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of players have their PCs react violently to anything which threatens their autonomy in the game world. In other words: "Surrender or die" is very likely to be answered with an axe to the face, even if the odds are overwhelming, and even if the PC's behavior is mostly reasonable in other situations.

Many players would rather choose character death than lose autonomy. It's one of the reasons I'm very hesitant to call a time out and discuss the ramifications of a PCs actions. I'm afraid of removing player choice.

 

[Reynard]

Many players would rather choose character death than lose autonomy. It's one of the reasons I'm very hesitant to call a time out and discuss the ramifications of a PCs actions. I'm afraid of removing player choice.

One thing i want from my players (any players, not just one particular group) that I rarely if ever get is PCs acting like living people, including (importantly) a desire to continue living. Not in a refusal of the call to action, or a fear of facing danger kind of way -- after all, the real world is full of soldiers and firefighters and mountain climbers and all sorts of folks who presumably want to live but choose danger for one reason or another -- but just a "make decisions that are likely to prolong their lives kind of way. Surrendering in the face of overwhelming odds is one of those kinds of choices.