Making D&D morality less repulsive.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Lago if people care about not killing people they will take the extra step to not do so. If they don't then let them kill.

MGuy, if people care about killing people they will take the extra step to do so. If they don't then let them not kill.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's right. The Status Quo should accommodate the pacifists. The Golden Mean just doesn't frickin' work. You can't play a non-killing dude in a group where even one person is openly willing to killing someone, not without being a hypocrite or starting a group confrontation.

Most people seriously don't give a shit whether their character leaves a trail of dead or unconscious bodies in their wake. They'll default to what makes them think less. So in order to accommodate the non-killing guys combat should default to non-lethal.

[shadzar]

That's right. The Status Quo should accommodate the pacifists. The Golden Mean just doesn't frickin' work. You can't play a non-killing dude in a group where even one person is openly willing to killing someone, not without being a hypocrite or starting a group confrontation.

Most people seriously don't give a shit whether their character leaves a trail of dead or unconscious bodies in their wake. They'll default to what makes them think less. So in order to accommodate the non-killing guys combat should default to non-lethal.

Utter horse shit.

The non-killing guy can easily continue non-killing while the rest do all the killing they want.

This sounds like a vegan trying to force others around then at a dinner party to not eat meat. So long as he has his option for a meatless meal, he shouldn't be a dick and try to have others do without because he doesn't want it.

Sounds like you want Charlie Brown the Roleplaying Game, or Lion Witch and the Wardrobe RPG with their strong Christian overtones as opposed to playing D&D.

Nobody said you had to play D&D, you are welcome to choose another game, better yet let Jack Chick as his Insane Christian Party (aka the Jackass-alos) stay back in the 80's buried in the same steam tunnels that they used to drum up an attempt to blame D&D for all the shit wrong with the world.

There is NO reason a person cannot go throughout the game not killing while the rest of the party does, and sadly I had to play 3.5 for a while, and I did just that with a Githzerai Monk. He killed no one but didn't try to be all bitchy-britches over the rest of the party for doing so.

[Krakatoa]

It seems like this is something incumbent on the DMs and players than a flaw in the system. I would probably be uncomfortable in a game all about killing X Race because THEY'RE EVIIIL--but any decent DM knows that murder.death.kill is not a morally palatable game. Sure, some games have subdual-as-default built into the mechancis (Mutants and Masterminds for example) but that's because non-lethal fights are a staple of the superhero genre and make sense in a setting with due process.

The fantasy genre is more likely to give you situations in which non-lethal damage is a dumb idea, even when you're not assuming evil is a racial trait. If you encounter bandits--of any race--on the road, and leave them alive, they're likely going to attack someone else once they've healed up. There's no police force or judicial system in the average DnD fantasy land, so it becomes morally irresonsible to assume they've learned their lesson and let them go.

[Vebyast]

There's no police force or judicial system in the average DnD fantasy land, so it becomes morally irresonsible to assume they've learned their lesson and let them go.

Offhand thought: if the party is actually trying to be capital-G Good, and they have a paladin or a cleric with them, give the party Geases for free. Maybe not at will, but definitely enough so that they actually can let those bandits on the road go free.

[PoliteNewb]

While it's quite possible to construct an adventure where the loot falling into the PC's hands is just a side-effect of some nobler objective rather than a thing in of itself, it becomes increasingly contrived as time goes on.

Why does it feel contrived? Most of the campaigns I've run have done that for most every adventure. We stopped doing "go into a cave and kill a bunch of random shmucks" when we got out of junior high.

It is entirely possible to run a long campaign without having to worry that your guys are acting like murderous hobos. Yes, they will kill people (a LOT of people), even if most of those people have funny teeth and odd physiology. But there are tons of perfectly valid, and even moral, reasons for you to kill those guys. And once you've killed a guy who deserved it, taking his stuff is really not an atrocious act, IMO. It's not like most of these villains are good family men who have their wife and kids weeping over their corpse, or who leave a will or anything.

[Maxus]

A friend of mine (actually semi-involved in the game I mentioned from the Cheating DM thread) played a Paladin, whom the DM tried to make Fall for "Looting corpses".

And the retort he came up was was "These things do no good to them now. It is my moral duty to see that these weapons and armor go on to serve the greater good, either by being used in the service of good, or being sold and the money used to further the cause of good in any number of ways."

According to him, for the rest of the adventure arc he made sure some of the Paladin's cash from loot-sales went to "charity". The DM, one of the "ROLEplay, not ROLLPLAY" types reversed his opinion of said Paladin and kept finding little ways to keep the Paladin's cash up.

[MGuy]

Lago if people care about not killing people they will take the extra step to not do so. If they don't then let them kill.

MGuy, if people care about killing people they will take the extra step to do so. If they don't then let them not kill.

I really like how you skipped the part right after that about how it should be harder to be a true hero. I mean that kind of was a put in there to make the distinction that since its harder to be a villain (cause party conflict) then being a goody 2 shoes should be harder as well to make things fair.

Naturally MOST people actually DO want to kill stuff and take a sick joy in actually ending the lives of opposition. Even those who don't want to "kill" so much don't bother letting them live for the constant fear of retribution that comes naturally with leaving team evil alive. Team evil keeping their numbers and being willing to end lives while team good is afraid to do the same means that team evil will eventually triumph.

@Lago: I agree. Its harder on pacifists if they want to stop the killing but making it easy mode for them kind of ruins the challenge of playing that kind of character. The only REAL reason to play a pacifist is because going that route IS harder. If its no different than doing things as regular it takes the spice out of doing it. Being a pacifist if the game caters by default to it may as well just be a forgotten people of back story as the character will never be conflicted over it and I believe there are appropriate times for a character to be conflicted. Confronting the party and trying to get them to take a moral stand actually sounds like it'd be a good bout of rp.

[Vnonymous]

Heroes murder people and take their stuff.

Heroes murder people in really, really gruesome ways. Heroes are cruel and nasty, and often commit despicable acts(like rape, that shows up all the fucking time in myth). The goonlike morality that you want to apply to heroes means ruling out almost all of the source material, from Sampson in the Bible to Gilgamesh to blah blah I have said this before.

Heroes are nasty people to be on the wrong end of - Hercules himself got pretty fucking nasty at times, and you really have to go to the Arthurian Legends to find 'good' heroes, and even then they're pretty hard to find. DnD just does not work with the sort of morality that you are proposing, and your attempt to straitjacket the game with it is dumb.

If you want to abide by the whole "Let's not murder the orcs they were just raised wrong and we should try and rehabilitate them" then that could be an interesting campaign, but it would not be dnd by a longshot. If you really want to make "Adventures with Slave Morality" then you totally can - that's just not what dnd is about, and none of its' source material supports it either. I mean fuck, even the starwars characters murder millions of people when they blow up the deathstars/destroy star destroyers/wipe out stormtroopers.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I mean fuck, even the starwars characters murder millions of people when they blow up the deathstars/destroy star destroyers/wipe out stormtroopers.

I'm not aware of any definition of murder that includes killing active-duty soldiers who are actively shooting weapons at you. If there were any such definition, I would submit it was retarded.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Vnonymous, is that sarcasm? I'm pretty sure it is, but you know, Poe's Law. I have to check.

The fantasy genre is more likely to give you situations in which non-lethal damage is a dumb idea, even when you're not assuming evil is a racial trait.

As an aside, even though I'm using the word 'pacifist' interchangeably with 'hero acceptable to modern-sensibilities', it's just because I can't think of a better shorthand. Honestly, I'm not a pacifist and I think that there are situations in which it's not heroic or creates the most good to go down this path.

I'm not saying that some villains or threats that don't have to straight-up die--no one is going to give you grief if you decide that The Joker or Hannibal Lecter is going down. Or that troupe of Stormtroopers charging through town and shooting up civilians because they're bored. What I'm objecting to is the casual, off-hand killing of that D&D indulges in. Killing someone with a face and a history is less morally objectionable than the faceless masses.

If you encounter bandits--of any race--on the road, and leave them alive, they're likely going to attack someone else once they've healed up. There's no police force or judicial system in the average DnD fantasy land, so it becomes morally irresonsible to assume they've learned their lesson and let them go.

Which is why I also said that another tool that PCs need is a way to force compliance from surrendered or defeated foes. Such as the geas idea. Or being able to diplomatize the bandits into actually giving up their banditry.

Why does it feel contrived? Most of the campaigns I've run have done that for most every adventure. We stopped doing "go into a cave and kill a bunch of random shmucks" when we got out of junior high.

Because even though most campaigns aren't that shallow, it's very easy to include filler encounters that boil down to 'these duders are in your way. Stab they ass.' Yeah, no one does the classic dungeon crawl without their tongue firmly in cheek anymore, but nearly everyone uses the bandits attack/guards are blocking your way to the evil king's throne room/you meet a wandering patrol kind of gameplay padding. Which will create the same effect.

Naturally MOST people actually DO want to kill stuff and take a sick joy in actually ending the lives of opposition. Even those who don't want to "kill" so much don't bother letting them live for the constant fear of retribution that comes naturally with leaving team evil alive. Team evil keeping their numbers and being willing to end lives while team good is afraid to do the same means that team evil will eventually triumph.

Infantile view of morality aside, most players (as in, the RL people actually playing and not the charcters in the story) seriously don't give a shit. No, really, they don't. They approach D&D as a game, not a roleplaying exercise. Cheerfully committing evil doesn't register on them at any level because they divorce themselves as the player from the character, giving them little more thought than a Monopoly token. Immersion is a skill that has to be learned or taught and oftentimes people just don't give a damn even if they know better.'

I agree. Its harder on pacifists if they want to stop the killing but making it easy mode for them kind of ruins the challenge of playing that kind of character.

Uh, no shit? That's the point. This makes about as much sense as you going 'but making the fighter balanced ruins the point of the character!' or 'but making female adventures balanced with male ones ruins the point of the character'.

I think it's a testament to how fucked up Dungeons and Dragons had made us if the position of 'you know what? Maybe let's NOT rack up a body count in the hundreds for no real reason' is viewed as an extra-special treat you have to work for. This is exactly why I made this thread, because that mentality is rather disgusting if you think about it.

That should be the default. Seriously. People don't actually LIKE playing the kinds of characters their actions D&D encourages them to do imply; the only reason why they do is, again, compartmentalization. Remember No Russian? Remember the end of Saints Row 2? Remember God of War 3? Remember the Tenpenny Tower quest? Occasionally, a game will remind people of the fact that the characters that they're playing are total bastards and it breaks people out of their reverie. And it always upsets a huge portion of fans when they realize this. But the thing is, it's not like those games did the reveal from nowhere. They didn't force the protagonists to suddenly become bastards, they just broke through the player's detachment.

Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be characters like The Punisher and Wolverine. The former is totally my favorite Marvel series. I'm just tired that the default D&D gameplay railroads you into playing, at best,, black anti-heroes.

Confronting the party and trying to get them to take a moral stand actually sounds like it'd be a good bout of rp.

For fuck's sake, stop thinking of it in-universe and think of the actual real life gameplay. No, it's not a good source of RP. It's a good way to start at-table fights. Because you'll have some people who will only want to approach the game as a game and not a roleplaying exercise. They seriously do not give a shit about the moral implications of their actions for weal or for woe, they just want OOC action. And if you make doing the right thing mechanically harder, they are going to do the wrong thing.

If you want this kind of moral dilemma, you should do it without being nudged by the rules. Otherwise the powergamers and casual players won't budge from their positions. They'll seriously look at the roleplayer like they're trying to hurt their gameplay experience in order to stroke their ego--which they're technically doing.

And for the record, no one likes a character or player that tells them what to do. It's viewed as pushy and bossy, especially if it's done with a side of moralizing. You're setting up the Actual Good Guys for failure by requiring them to jump through all these hoops. If you want these kinds of characters in your game at all, you have to go out of your way to accommodate them. Marvel and DC have to bend over backwards to uphold their generalized 'Heroes Shall Not Casually Kill' rule and they still backslide a lot.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Cutting the throat of a comatose character takes almost no time and effort. If you want death to be the default, bringing dead characters back to life should be exactly that easy.

[FatR]

• Get rid of battle-based experience. 3E and 4E's way of trying to avert this was bullshit because even if it didn't directly endorse murder it endorsed brinksmanship that very likely lead to combat. Characters should only get experience for completing an objective or adventure. If they get clogged down in unnecessary fights on the way to complete it, then tough cookiepuss.
• Most sapient critters should be able to be reasoned with. Unless you have an irredeemably evil race like balors, you should be able to talk/bluff/intimidate your way out of most fights.
• D&D needs to make it so that most critters will run or surrender on losing odds--this includes if they think that they're outmatched. It makes players feel badass if they see the ogre army crumble and head for the hills if they recognize the PCs. It makes the PCs feel badass if a lizardman chief approaches them respectfully in the woods and offers them peace in return for respecting the forest.
• Evil societies need to be as evil as you can get while still maintaining a PG-13 rating. This means going a bit further than Nazi Germany. The best way to do this is to implement a Halo-style caste system with the upper echelons being multicultural or being headed by actual demons or gods or whatnot.
• People actually need to see rewards for being good. Your party should be PROUD of the fact that they've defeated over a thousand foes without killing a single one. They should take PRIDE in the fact that they're the only ones the Sahugin will listen to because they've treated everyone fairly. As it is, D&D is a wasteland of nihilism and greed and that just generates a 'fuck it, even if I kill all of these dragons no one will give a shit' attitude.
• Because people still like killing shit, the Monster Manual should have a lot more critters where it's actually acceptable to kill them on sight without thinking about it too hard. When you destroy a sentient golem, you're actually doing it a favor because you're releasing the tortured elemental spirit. Killing a Dire Wolf shouldn't make PCs feel bad about harming nature because they're stupider than chickens and attack everything else on sight for the lulz. Ghouls literally have no purpose in life other than to harm others; kill them and feel good about it. A lot of critters, like demons and mind flayers, are actually composed of concepts like greed and sadism--destroying them doesn't even kill them because they'll be back in a few years and they have a racial hivemind anyway.

Oh well. While the thread sinks into the debate on the (a)morality of killing as applicable to RPGs, I want to say, that I support the points above more or less wholly, and support the points below with reservations:

[*] If you're going to have evil sapient critters capable of moral choices, the game should make it clear that they're evil because of their upbringing and not race. Not only will this stop people from slaughtering the orc raiding party who just wanted to get some food, but it also makes killing the actual evil bastards more satisfying. No one really gives a shit about taking out Random Mook #32, but people will line up around the block to stick a sword in Luca Blight or Szass Tam.

An evil sapient race or "race" can be capable of moral choices, but is either magically tied to an Evil Overlord or have to consume other sapients as a part of its lifecycle. A vampire, depending on parameters of vampirism in the setting, can be free-willed, but still evil practically by definition, as the only good choice for him would be to commit suicide. Whether you want include such beings in your campaign (and whether you want to provide a way out for them) depends on how grimdark the setting is supposed to be.

[*] D&D needs to make it so that critters are actually easily convinced to abandon their evil ways. Even if you take out the band of deserters nonlethally and tie them all up, what are you going to do with them? You could leave them to die in the woods, which is just as bad, or you could go through the inconvenience of carrying them around. Or you could just tell them that if they swear allegiance to your Lord and give up their evil ways, they have a hot meal and a pardon waiting for them in your hometown and here's a symbol showing that they have PC protection.

Making people who are violently opposed to you see things your way and be your followers should be harder than stabbing them in the face, just in general. Irrespective of whether PCs good or evil. Although good PCs should have easier time preaching the ways of not being bastards in non-cynical settings.

[*] D&D really needs to stop that whole 'less pretty races are less advanced and more violent' bullshit. In the next campaign setting, the Mountainhome Alliance should be composed of goblins, halflings, humans, dwarves, and warforged. The Forest Federation should have elves, lizardmen, orcs, birdfolk, and aasimar in it. Seriously. And unless you're specifically trying to paint a society as evil, they should have critter intermixing.

This trope ain't going to go anywhere, and whatever you think of it, don't delude yourself that it's possible. See: the sliding scale of orc repulsiveness outside of DnD, depending on how inherently evil they are supposed to be (including here clear derivatives, like Darkspawn).

[MGuy]

Infantile view of morality aside, most players (as in, the RL people actually playing and not the characters in the story) seriously don't give a shit....'

Firstly I gave no view on morality in the part you quoted for this. I said that A) People like killing stuff. That's why GoW gets off to having blood and gore. That's why people play brutal games, that's why so many more of them have blood and gore in them now a days. When people, both new and old, come to my table they don't say "Let's beat this guy" they say "Let's kill this fucker". I made no attempt to say that people consider this evil or that evil, just that most player's (at least in MY experience) who play the game want to kill shit. And B) a good reason for them to do it is to make sure it doesn't come back. People DO care about that shit. I've seen it and if a group isn't getting repeat offenses from letting the big bad live without sealing him up or incarcerating him (all extra steps they'd have to take on top of beating him anyway to get pacifistic) then the MC is playing a children's game.

Uh, no shit? That's the point. This makes about as much sense as you going 'but making the fighter balanced ruins the point of the character!' or 'but making female adventures balanced with male ones ruins the point of the character'...

Now here you're not being fair. Fighters can't have nice things and females not being able to compete? You compare that to a player intentionally playing a pacifistic character? There are far more "fighter" archetypes and female adventurers than there are "pacifists" first of all. I don't mind building an entire game where pacifists have to do special work to subjugate shit because this is a hack n slash game and you're already railing against the game's principles by playing someone who shouldn't want to use ANY sort of violence at all. So your comparison isn't even on equal terms.

I don't mind people deciding to NOT rack up bodies but that decision should come with the logical costs. Batman has to KEEP fighting the same dudes over and over again because he won't finish them. Goons can be more afraid of their bosses than fighting the players to the end because the PCs don't kill but their Master will if they run away. What would be the point of inserting a Surrender/Run part if they only get knocked out when they fight the PCs? The PCs aren't going to kill them so the reason to have badguys runaway/surrender diminishes greatly. And I pointed out that you can have pacifists EASILY in a system that promotes the enemy running away/surrendering because they can triumph without killing them. And that's skipping over the fact that they should be avoiding violence altogether.

And I don't see how you can KEEP jumping back between "people are ignoring what's going on" and "people are going to be horrified at what they are doing because this brings it in their face". I WANT people to get attached to their characters because at my table when I run or play it is a roleplaying exercise AND a game. If I didn't want it to be a roleplay exercise I would just play Smash Bros. There is no reason that both can't apply. Again I don't see the reason for a person to play a pacifist in a game system where more rules are made for combat than anything else. To do so is already going against the expectations of the game and if they are doing it for RP reasons then god damnit it should be harder to mother fucking do. There is NO POINT to slapping pacifist on your character sheet if it doesn't change what you are doing. Its just background wankery that doesn't even come into play because you're already doing that.

For fuck's sake, stop thinking of it in-universe and think of the actual real life gameplay...

I am thinking of actual game play! You're ignoring parts of what I'm saying and then going into hyperbole that doesn't even make sense. You already mentioned a surrender/run thing for the enemies. If they surrender/run then the players have the option of letting them live. Secondly a pacifist being in the group does not stop other people from killing. I don't know what group you play in that has a rule that once one person's character decides to do something that all of them have to comply. A pacifist, since they are deciding to participate in combat at all, is already going against pacifism anyway. Their life choice to not kill stuff is just that. It is their own. This doesn't force anyone else to do shit. And if the player WANTS to try and convince the others to do it he can try amicably both in game and out. If they are not old enough to talk it out then fuck it the game continues the way the group wants. If the pacifist is so butthurt about it he should find a group with deeper interest in roleplaying such a thing.

I'd be MUCH more insulted to have a game where you light someone on fire and they lived through it for no other reason than because there is a soft, no death, cushion to rely on. I mean if you're going to talk about "morality" then how is beating someone half crippled, burning their skin off, then waltzing away more moral than busting in the place and running them through? If ANY one cares about the moral at all isn't it much MORE fulfilling that you have to go out of your way to do it? Then you have to ask yourself is it "moral" to beat a hungry animal half to death then leave it to be eaten by other predators? Are sentient constructs to be beaten down? They can't be knocked out so you'd have to cripple them... permanently. Is that moral when they are just guarding a place? If you're going to start going down the moral coaster for the game then you have to reexamine the WHOLE of the game including the part where COMBAT is the game's mainstay. If "pacifism" is to be the default then most of the game should be a social encounter where you talk things out, or a stealth game where you avoid conflict. That's what "pacifism" is and its a lot less violent and amoral than beating people up to get your way/what you want.

Or is this all just going to result in a "not dead" stamp you place on creatures and things the player's beat? If this is so do the things not get up and seek revenge? Do these things just stop what evil things they were doing/planning on doing because you came and beat them up? You beat up a bunch of reavers and leave. Great so they wake up a while later and keep being reavers. You "can't" kill them because there's a pacifist in your party. You're not going to reason with them, they are reavers. Perhaps you have the model whee they disappear after they get beaten up? If so how's that different from being dead?

[PoliteNewb]

Because even though most campaigns aren't that shallow, it's very easy to include filler encounters that boil down to 'these duders are in your way. Stab they ass.' Yeah, no one does the classic dungeon crawl without their tongue firmly in cheek anymore, but nearly everyone uses the bandits attack/guards are blocking your way to the evil king's throne room/you meet a wandering patrol kind of gameplay padding. Which will create the same effect.

I'm still missing the moral problem of killing guys who attacked you. Yes, people use the quintessential bandit encounter or evil goon squad or whatever. But those kind of encounters aren't "your PCs encounter a bunch of unwashed guys eating their breakfast" and you proceed to slaughter them...it's "a bunch of dudes leap out of the woods and try to stab your kidneys". You can, and should be able to, murderize guys like that without feeling too many qualms about it. Self-defense is completely moral.

That said, I agree that these kind of encounters should involve enemies surrendering, fleeing, and otherwise not fighting to the last man. And yes, I think cutting down fleeing/surrendering enemies is morally reprehensible, and should be disincentivized. A fairly simple way to do that is to give XP for enemies who surrender or are put to flight...heck, maybe even pay an XP premium for enemies defeated without killing.

That said, let me examine your list.

I agree with:

--Awarding some (even the majority) of XP for things OTHER than killing fools. As I mentioned, perhaps you get MORE XP for LESS killing.

--Encounters that can be solved without resorting to violence (i.e. negotiation, reasoning, etc.).

--Enemies that flee/surrender...chalk this one up to "enemies should act sane, unless they aren't". I will note earlier editions had this, with the morale check...it was a good mechanic.

--Convincing enemies to switch sides. This is actually a good idea, and should be feasible...it's actually a pretty common theme. You just need to avoid having it be too easy to succeed, or too easy to know when you've succeeded. Plenty of villains are going to plead and promise to change and be lying their black hearts out.

--Evil societies should be evil. I wish this went without saying.

--An end to "pretty = good, ugly = bad". While I agree in theory, this is hard to implement. Also, see "disagree" below.

--Plenty of critters you can kill without feeling bad. I feel there are already a bunch of these, and more can be had simply by reducing the Int of some monsters and making them "big nasty animals" instead of sapient beings.

I disagree with:

--Nonlethal damage default. Just because it's stupid.

--"Evil because of upbringing". I don't wanna get into a whole nature v. nurture thing, and I will agree that orcs are primarily violent because they have a violent culture. But if you're a hero, you're fighting evil, not psychoanalyzing it. Regardless of the culture they were brought up in, every orc or goblin or human bandit made a choice to go out and carve up strangers for their shinies, and if that results in a PC fireballing them, those are the breaks.
PCs don't (or at least, shouldn't) kill "the orc raiding party who just wanted to get some food". That's bullshit. Orcs are just as capable as any other race of farming or hunting or trading. But they often don't, because they'd rather just fucking take it. Well, when they try that, you can kill them, and you don't have to wring your hands over it. It's called self-defense.

--Need to see the rewards. This is kinda pointless, because these rewards only matter if you value them. You cannot make someone care about having a sterling reputation, as a non-killer or a square dealer or whatever...they have to want to care; and if they do, they don't need additional incentives.

--"pretty = good, ugly = bad". While I largely agree (as noted above), I absolutely disagree that you should have good orcs and goblins and stuff. Orcs and goblins are pretty much solidly in there as "evil"; there is just way too much cultural crap to overcome, although D&D has been trying.
If you want more pretty villains and ugly heroes, invent NEW races to do that with, who don't already come with cultural baggage.

[Starmaker]

If you want more pretty villains and ugly heroes, invent NEW races to do that with, who don't already come with cultural baggage.

See, that's it. Evil cultures, not evil non-magical races.

Physiologically, an orc is basically a tall hairy dude. D&D has moved away from Tolkien's "bodies of pretty ladies occupied by spirit shards of an evil god". If you want a race of evil orcs, you need to go back to that, which creates an overlap with fiends. And you want to keep fiends, since they come with weird abilities and in more body shapes, and do not feel like MMORPG palette swaps.

The inclusion of evil cultures in your game is not offensive. They have existed and do exist on Earth. You'll notice that cultural goodness goes up with technical progress. So it makes sense that orcs, traditionally inhabiting wastelands and restricted to raiding as a means of obtaining "advanced" goods (see Races of War), will be less "good" in a cultural sense than more civilized races. Add a helping of foreign customs and morals, e.g.:
[*] raiding as a method of warfare is frowned on by the civilized races: bad nasty orcs do not want to play the organized warfare game they suck at so much;
[*] each free orc can speak for himself/herself just fine, thus, orc chiefs cannot speak on behalf of their people. Orcs believe that survival is the proof of power and feel no obligation to uphold bargains made by (and to) now-dead parties. This nets them a reputation for shameless treachery ("Yes, I'm aware you made a pact with Chief Wolfskull. Do I look like him? No? Well, if you feel you've been slighted, I can arrange for you to speak with him directly. *axe to the head*).

At no point this allows for orcs to be kill-on-sight on the basis of race alone. And yes, if you enter hostile orcish territory, you're provoking them to attack you, much like if you wander in the forests of South America where isolated tribes are known to live.

[Roy]

So, longsword (and spears, and axes, and maces, and spells, and all the other lethal things) are poorly suited to killing fools?

No. Remove the goddamn penalty to do non lethal damage if you want to go that route, but don't pretend swords are bad at killing fools in the face.

It's far easier to completely disable someone than it is to kill them instantly. A sword can end your participation in a fight in any number of ways, but actually killing you D&D-style requires a clean shot to the head or body. Anything else will take you out but leave you alive for a few hours or days, and (in the DND-land of fast-healing barbarians, potion-chugging fighters, and clerics) nonlethal damage is the best way to simulate that without another hit point track entirely.

Second, in historical battles, most kills were by coup de grace. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that guys in armor fought until one of them got knocked down or hit on the head, and then the other guy stuck a knife in his eye or his armpit while he was down.

Also, consider armor. Knocking someone around and bruising them badly is pretty easy, no matter what you're using. Planting a spear on a curved piece of eighth-inch steel without it sliding off is really, really hard.

And then you remember that not everyone you fight is a low level humanoid in armor. And that this isn't Earth. A D&D character is generally better than their closest Earth equivalent. Particularly, stronger.

[Username17]

I disagree with:

--Nonlethal damage default. Just because it's stupid.

The percentage of people involved in wars who actually died on either side in most of history was actually incredibly small. Sword fights in RPGs are almost universally dozens or hundreds of times more lethal than actual historical sword fights.

If you don't like things defaulting to "nonlethal" damage, just call it "normal damage". And then when you run out of hit points you are "out of action" or "incapacitated" or whatever, and then you are almost certainly not dead. You could have a Necromundaish table for what happens to people who are incapacitated if no one takes the opportunity to do something specific to them.

-Username17

[Korwin]

People might not have died as frequently as in D&D in history, but got more often crippled...
Dont see the fun in playing an cripple...

[PoliteNewb]

I disagree with:

--Nonlethal damage default. Just because it's stupid.

The percentage of people involved in wars who actually died on either side in most of history was actually incredibly small. Sword fights in RPGs are almost universally dozens or hundreds of times more lethal than actual historical sword fights.

-Username17

Couple things:

1.) You're talking people who were just "involved in wars"...lots of those people may have never taken a wound or given one. People who don't receive damage don't really count for a discussion of damage.

2.) Even if somebody took damage, they could have surrendered/fled and lived to talk about it...just like in D&D.

3.) Where do you get your figure of "incredibly small"? I've been googling for the past 20 minutes and can't really find any accurate figures on death rates in ancient combat, so I accept you could be quite correct, but I'd be interested in seeing how you got that conclusion.

The best I've found are links that indicate A.) a lot of ancient wars were more about posturing than actually killing the other guy, and B.) a lot of warriors (especially knights and other wealthy types) were more valuable dead than alive. But that doesn't really tell us anything about the lethality of ancient weapons...just that if people don't want to kill you, they probably won't.

But if 2 guys are seriously going at it with swords, with the intent to kill each other, is one of them really likely to live through it?

[tzor]

I'm not sure where you can get the notion that real world combat was less lethal. The probem is that real world combat was always indirect. Damage could lead to crippling damage which in turn would lead to death.

[sabs]

Thermopylae for example
1000-2000 greeks died.
20+ thousand persians died.

That's not really "less lethal"

During the 30 years war, they estimate that around 350,000 were killed in battle. Possibly as many as 600,000 in total out right killed, or who died later on due to wounds received.

[Doom]

I imagine he means "incredibly small" in the sense of "much smaller than most people think". The number of deaths at Themopyle isn't the issue...the Persian army numbered 250,000 or more (much more, if you factor in support units), so you're looking at a 90% survival rate.

A unit losing 10% of its forces in a battle probably lost that battle. A 'completely destroyed' unit in ancient terms lost perhaps half its troops. Time and again, ancient armies were 'destroyed' in this manner, only to reform in weeks, or months. Complete 100% fatalities certainly happened, but that's the sort of thing that is talked about for a very long time (cf Custer's Last Stand). I'd check some accounts of Roman battles.

It's also a matter of perspective. Trench warfare was horrific combat, but I'm sure the survival rate was above 90% (er, everyone who actually went to the trenches and shot at an enemy counts for this). A WWI fighter pilot was very glamorous...but they generally lived/avoided crippling injury less than two weeks, with an overall survival rate very low. Since vastly more folks fought in the trenches than in the air, overall casualty rates could be viewed as "low".

1 on 1 dueling is a different matter entirely.

[JigokuBosatsu]

Thomas Covenant:

Six: Anti-theft. Broke into Foul's house to give him presents.

I am full of love right now.

[Username17]

Thermopylae is a great example. Eleven thousand Greeks, and about 2000 of them died. A quarter million Persians, and about 20,000 of them died. A grueling fight to the finish where people were fighting "to the bitter end" in a meat grinder that dragged on for three fucking days, and casualties were under 10%.

-Username17