Making D&D morality less repulsive.

[MGuy]

Why do I bring this up? Because when someone is detached to that extent it means that they're not thinking about what they're doing. And that kind of attitude is poisonous to a roleplaying game.

I agree with you heavily on this point. I cannot express enough how much I agree with this sentiment. It is in fact for that reason that I'd rather keep combat lethal by default. It is much more rewarding that IF the players at the table are thinking about the lethality, justifications, and ramifications of their actions that they have to go out of their way to see them through. Just as in RL to subdue someone without hurting them you have to put yourself at personal risk I believe my RPG should echo that.

Edit to add: By making it nonlethal by default you're making sure that the player's don't have to actively think about their actions because they can go at it, gloves off, without any need to think it out.

[PoliteNewb]

(EDITED to add: And when they ARE placed in those situations...the enemy usually recognizes that the PCs have the intent/ability to kill, and they respect that fact by surrendering. This is especially true because in most cases, there are no legal niceties...they are relying on the PCs sense of honor and decency not to simply chop their heads off, and it is in their best interest to become very compliant, very quickly.)

Of course this might not hold true for groups like deserters, guards deep within a castle, tribesmen defending their land, etc.. Or you might be one of the few hero groups to, you know, actually act like modern heroes who uphold humanistic values and there's no way for them to know that.

I'm...not sure what you're saying here, or perhaps I was unclear. Can you rephrase?

It suddenly doesn't make it okay for you to kill them just because their attitude was bad and they fight you anyway--only if their decision to fight you and ignore your surrender attempts put you in physical danger.

I agree. I thought I said that.

To go along with your Batman/Superman example above, your intent seems to be simply to make players wring their hands more often about killing. I just don't see that as a valuable design goal for a game involving swords, lightning bolts, and giant fire-breathing lizards.

I don't see why if you want to play around with lightning bolts and dragons you inherently need to wrack up a body count that would make The Punisher gawk. Maybe for the grim-and-gritty games, but Eastern and Western comics (to say nothing of cartoons) have been already doing this for decades.

This is probably the disconnect between our thinking...I don't play D&D to play comics. If I want to play comics, I play Champions or another similar system (and interestingly enough, Champions DOES use the nonlethal default you're talking about).

But no...I play D&D to model sword-and-sorcery fiction and ancient myths, where monsters had limbs ripped off and heads cloven, and you killed your fukken enemies.

And I do not believe that doing this automatically makes your character an amoral bastard. It is, to me, entirely about WHY you are doing those things, and to whom. Because if your enemies are mindless ravaging beasts or blackhearted villains, killing them is just fine. In fact, from the perspective of the people they would kill/rape/loot if you don't stop them, it is in fact awesome and heroic.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If a player's character should care at all about not killing stuff then there are plenty of ways to avoid it in DnD and it would be more worthwhile, if you want to make the game less about killing, to enhance the non-combat parts of the game.

This can only work if everyone is on the same page. If even one player, or God Forbid the DM wants to play The Punisher in a team of Classic Superheroes then that means that there's going to be a confrontation.

This would be fine if D&D was actually advertised as a Grimdark game where you're a disruptive dumbass if you actually want to play an idealistic and shiny hero. But time and again, people whinge on and on about playing larger-than-life heroes who are unironically good and noble--not surprising, because D&D is a game of heroic fantasy.

But their actions don't match up to their ideals or desires. Not because they're actively engaging in hypocrisy, but because players follow the path of least resistance. And if the path of least resistance is 'be a total bastard when you reflect upon it', then we shouldn't be surprised if there's a ton of unintentional dissonance going on. And because there are a lot of people who just don't give a toss in the first place because they just want to feel the thrill of victory, you may as well steer players who were going to do this anyway into the default 'not a total bastard' path.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And I do not believe that doing this automatically makes your character an amoral bastard. It is, to me, entirely about WHY you are doing those things, and to whom. Because if your enemies are mindless ravaging beasts or blackhearted villains, killing them is just fine. In fact, from the perspective of the people they would kill/rape/loot if you don't stop them, it is in fact awesome and heroic.

That's true enough, but the way D&D is constructed it's very easy for both DMs and players to accidentally head down the path of bastardry. And even if they realize what's going on, they might be compelled to go down that path anyway because they have to overlook the bastard actions of other players who Just Don't And Won't Care and having the game continue is more important than having consistency of character.

[kzt]

As you described, I find all of those EXCEPT the 8-year olds to be equally acceptable. If someone breaks into my house with the intent to kill me (which you stated they have) and the ability to kill me (which all of the examples except the 8-year old have), I feel completely justified in my decision to kill them first.

Actually the 8 year old has the ability to kill you also. Guns work for everyone. Knives don't take a lot of strength. The issue is does he have the motivation?

It is a lot more likely that you can stop an 8 year-old short of shooting them. It is not 100%. But most people are less willing to kill a child and are willing to take a riskier course of action to avoid this.

[MGuy]

As you described, I find all of those EXCEPT the 8-year olds to be equally acceptable. If someone breaks into my house with the intent to kill me (which you stated they have) and the ability to kill me (which all of the examples except the 8-year old have), I feel completely justified in my decision to kill them first.

Actually the 8 year old has the ability to kill you also. Guns work for everyone. Knives don't take a lot of strength. The issue is does he have the motivation?

It is a lot more likely that you can stop an 8 year-old short of shooting them. It is not 100%. But most people are less willing to kill a child and are willing to take a riskier course of action to avoid this.

8 year old probably can't shoot well and certainly doesn't have the reach/athleticism to be able to pull off a successful knife attack especially if you see the child coming. While I would be "more willing" to shoot the child with the gun I would probably think it a simple task to outmaneuver the child and relieve him/her of the weapon.

[PoliteNewb]

As you described, I find all of those EXCEPT the 8-year olds to be equally acceptable. If someone breaks into my house with the intent to kill me (which you stated they have) and the ability to kill me (which all of the examples except the 8-year old have), I feel completely justified in my decision to kill them first.

Actually the 8 year old has the ability to kill you also. Guns work for everyone. Knives don't take a lot of strength. The issue is does he have the motivation?

It is a lot more likely that you can stop an 8 year-old short of shooting them. It is not 100%. But most people are less willing to kill a child and are willing to take a riskier course of action to avoid this.

8 year old probably can't shoot well and certainly doesn't have the reach/athleticism to be able to pull off a successful knife attack especially if you see the child coming. While I would be "more willing" to shoot the child with the gun I would probably think it a simple task to outmaneuver the child and relieve him/her of the weapon.

This. And upon reflection, there are cases where it could be justifiable to shoot an 8-year old intent on killing you with a gun. Because let's face it, not all 8-year olds are created equal. I would bet there are child soldiers of 8 years somewhere in the 3rd world who would blow me away with an AK-47, and are both physically and mentally capable of doing it.

But I was referring to the average 8 year old I'm familiar with...I have one of those (9 years old, actually). And I highly doubt he could seriously injure me with a knife, even though he comes to my shoulder. It is highly unlikely he could successfully shoot me with a gun. So even if he could possibly kill me, his ability to do so is not enough that I would feel justified in shooting a kid.

And yes, intent is also a major factor; children don't make decisions in the same way adults do, and we don't hold them as responsible for their behavior. So I would also not feel justified, because that child couldn't make a conscious decision to murder me in the same way an adult could. They don't (can't) understand the gravity of their action, or the consequences.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In some martial arts we learn to avoid permanently injuring attackers coming at us with intent to kill, but if I were teaching self-defense I wouldn't teach those techniques because they're difficult to learn.

Causing minimal harm is the most righteous path, but you need to look out for yourself first. Plus, people don't have infinite time to study esoteric arts. If you have to arbitrarily choose between learning a nonviolent martial art or learning first aid and (violent) self defense, you'll probably do the world more good learning the second.

[kzt]

8 year old probably can't shoot well and certainly doesn't have the reach/athleticism to be able to pull off a successful knife attack especially if you see the child coming. While I would be "more willing" to shoot the child with the gun I would probably think it a simple task to outmaneuver the child and relieve him/her of the weapon.

They probably can't shoot well. That doesn't assure they will miss. A knife doesn't have to used athletically to cut or stab. Their random uncoordinated swing just needs to connect to your femoral artery to ruin your weekend. It's a calculated risk that many people would be willing to take, but it is a risk.

As a friend of mine one pointed out, it seems absurd talk about running like hell away from a kid with a Swiss army knife. It didn't seem that that absurd when the kid was chasing him with the Swiss army knife screaming that he was going to kill him.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But no...I play D&D to model sword-and-sorcery fiction and ancient myths, where monsters had limbs ripped off and heads cloven, and you killed your fukken enemies.

No offense or anything, but that's a level of violence beyond the comfort zone of most players. It's probably not for Shadowrun or WoD, but seriously, heroic fantasy is generally light on the ultraviolence unless the game goes out of its way to advertise the grittiness and grimdark (like God of War). The default level of violence is firmly PG or PG-13. I mean, really, what's the most graphic act of violence in the theatrical version of Lord of the Rings trilogy? Probably the Uruk-Hai getting sliced up in <2 sec cutaways and roaring in defiance. What's the most graphic act of violence in the Star Wars movies? Probably Random Bar Jerk getting his arm sliced off in the first movie and a <2 second shot of it lying in a pool of alien blood.

I mean, D&D is not like WH40K or even Exalted. I could probably run a game or two with my Mom and my niece and except for some questionable modules like Revenge of the Ghouls not expose them to anything worse than they'd see on Saint Seiya, Naruto, or the (bowlderized) version of Inuyasha. Aaaaaand... ripping off limbs and cleaving heads in two is right out.

So... why, by default, should D&D game effects steer PCs into that level of violence without player intervention? It seems more appropriate (both in content and keeping with genre conventions) to Set Swords To Stun.

[Fuchs]

Saint Seya has a lot of violence. My kid brother saw one episode at the age of 4 or 5 or so, and then talked at the dinner table how "that man punched into the stomach of another, and then couldn't get his arm free, and the other cut it off".

Star Wars has Anakin getting dismembered and burned alive in Episode 3. Jedi teens getting killed on screen, and kids off-screen. Someone choked to death. Limbs cut off from Luke and Vader too.

Superhero comics have people getting murdered by the dozens in Batman, or genocide committed every few years in some marvel cases, and that's not counting Hitman, where body parts and organs fly around for Lulz, or Punisher.

I don't know what heroic fantasy you read, but in the books I read, people are killed by the dozens. It's just not that often described in graphic detail. You really think all those orcs in LotR were knocked out?

Anyone who plays an RPG at the table problably has enough of an imagincation to understand that all those mooks dieing in the background die violently, and brutally, and painfully.

I don't go into graphic detail, but non-lethal damage as standard is not the fantasy I know and want to play.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Star Wars has Anakin getting dismembered and burned alive in Episode 3. Jedi teens getting killed on screen, and kids off-screen. Someone choked to death. Limbs cut off from Luke and Vader too.

Superhero comics have people getting murdered by the dozens in Batman, or genocide committed every few years in some marvel cases, and that's not counting Hitman, where body parts and organs fly around for Lulz, or Punisher.

Which was... done by the villains, not the heroes. Modern fantasy heroes are not supposed to rack up a Huge Needless Bodycount, unless the writing was awful.

And as for the Anakin thing him getting dismembered and burned alive with Obi-Wan walking away was not something that went over well with anyone smarter than the typical popcorn crowd. A lot of people criticized that scene, fanboy apologia aside.

I don't know what heroic fantasy you read, but in the books I read, people are killed by the dozens. It's just not that often described in graphic detail.

Which of course cycles back into the cognitive dissonance and detachment that is the OTHER (and main) troubling aspect of the violence D&D gleefully indulges in. There's a reason why stories don't go into graphic detail unless they're trying to specifically punch the reader/viewer in the gut.

I personally find that more questionable than the enjoyment of the violence. Ultraviolence doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it something I wouldn't show to my mom. The 'I just killed 30 men on the way to the temple--it was great, sooooo much loot!' disturbs me a lot more than 'then I sliced off the Dark Lord's head and black blood came gushing out!'

[shadzar]

That's true enough, but the way D&D is constructed it's very easy for both DMs and players to accidentally head down the path of bastardry. And even if they realize what's going on, they might be compelled to go down that path anyway because they have to overlook the bastard actions of other players who Just Don't And Won't Care and having the game continue is more important than having consistency of character.

Then it would be the players, not the game, to blame for the players bastardry.

The game has rules that enable you to walk up to peasant child X and stab them in the face to death. As long as rules exist for killing, that will always be possible. The game is not at fault if someone does this.

[PoliteNewb]

No offense or anything, but that's a level of violence beyond the comfort zone of most players. It's probably not for Shadowrun or WoD, but seriously, heroic fantasy is generally light on the ultraviolence unless the game goes out of its way to advertise the grittiness and grimdark (like God of War). The default level of violence is firmly PG or PG-13.

Really? I generally think about the Conan movies (quite bloody, even though one of them was PG), the Beastmaster (genocide, people reduced to bones and goo), the 13th Warrior (what, 3 decapitations?), and so on.

What's the most graphic act of violence in the Star Wars movies? Probably Random Bar Jerk getting his arm sliced off in the first movie and a <2 second shot of it lying in a pool of alien blood.

What? How about tons of stormtroopers being gunned down, numerous pilots being blown up (not to mention the death star), the garrotting of Jabba the Hutt, the wampa's arm being sliced up, the tauntaun's stomach being cut open...

Now regardless of how much blood was shown during all of that, it all happened, and it wasn't a big deal.

Or let's go back to your comic book example...there is one kind of comic D&D is well-equipped to model, and that's sword-and-sorcery comics. Ever read stuff like "Savage Sword of Conan", or "Arak, Son of Thunder"? TONS of violence, often graphic. Decapitations (though they usually just show the swing and splash of blood), daggers rammed into the breast of hideous beasts, wrestling matches that end with a dude's neck snapping. One issue of Arak has him throw a hand axe into a guy's head (shown), and then the guy displays a hideous vitality due to his black sorcery, and crawls around with blood pouring out of his head.

There was at this time no rating for comic books...this stuff was sold to kids at the newsstand. And again...it wasn't a big deal.

Which of course cycles back into the cognitive dissonance and detachment that is the OTHER (and main) troubling aspect of the violence D&D gleefully indulges in. There's a reason why stories don't go into graphic detail unless they're trying to specifically punch the reader/viewer in the gut.

I'm confused with what you're arguing...is it the QUANTITY of violence you object to, or it's graphic nature?
If it's Quantity, Star Wars has tons of killing, right there on the screen. You just don't have to see most of it.
If it's graphic nature...what are you bitching about? D&D has no graphic violence. It's a game where all the action is in your head, and you kill guys by reducing their HP. There is no need to discuss the hideous gore, and most people don't. You can seriously describe the action in terms like "you strike down the dark lord with one fell blow" or "your axe cleaves his helm in twain" or "you deftly parry his blade and run him through". There is no need to describe blood, entrails, or any of that crap.

I personally find that more questionable than the enjoyment of the violence. Ultraviolence doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it something I wouldn't show to my mom. The 'I just killed 30 men on the way to the temple--it was great, sooooo much loot!' disturbs me a lot more than 'then I sliced off the Dark Lord's head and black blood came gushing out!'

The first example (killed 30 men, yay loot) is not disturbing because guys were killed, or because of a detachment from violence. It was disturbing because the reason for the killing was trivial. If those 30 guys were clearly depicted as "bad guys", with clear (even if simple) reasons why, the fact that you had to kill 30 of them does not disturb me in the least.

I have no problem treating orcs like Nazis in an Indiana Jones movie. They are bad guys, and the hero is supposed to gun them down, or knock them into airplane propellers, or whatever. If you want to play a game of very nuanced morality, where you are never quite sure who is bad and who is good, that is absolutely a viable type of gameplay...but I don't think it's the default for D&D.

EDIT:

Another example, regarding the violence level of heroic fiction. The Wheel of Time, whatever you might think of the author's quality, is undoubtedly a widely sold and read fantasy series...I read those books in junior high/high school, and I'll let my kids read them. Those books contain numerous (often graphic) depictions of violence...gushing blood, severed limbs, etc. etc. And much of this is by the heroes.

Rand Al'Thor, for all that he is an emo bitch, is the main protagonist and mostly regarded as a hero. Go through the books and give me a rough figure on how many people (not even shadowspawn, I'm talking human people) he kills. I'm guessing in the thousands. Hell, give me a count on how many people Perrin Aybara kills...and a main feature of Perrin's personality is that he hates killing.

In heroic fiction, if you are a good guy who can swing a sword or axe or throw fire or whatever, it is expected of you that you are going to put bad guys down like rabid dogs. NOT doing that makes you a bastard, because you are standing aside and letting evil win.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I have no problem treating orcs like Nazis in an Indiana Jones movie. They are bad guys, and the hero is supposed to gun them down, or knock them into airplane propellers, or whatever. If you want to play a game of very nuanced morality, where you are never quite sure who is bad and who is good, that is absolutely a viable type of gameplay...but I don't think it's the default for D&D.

In heroic fiction, if you are a good guy who can swing a sword or axe or throw fire or whatever, it is expected of you that you are going to put bad guys down like rabid dogs. NOT doing that makes you a bastard, because you are standing aside and letting evil win.

This is exactly the kind of shit that I'm talking about.

And if the problem isn't with D&D, but the kind of stories it models, then D&D should take the lead and purge this shit from the game. I like carnivals, especially the classic old-timey ones, but that doesn't mean that they have to import Freak Shows and animal cruelty. Who the fuck cares if a big part of heroic fantasy is thoughtlessly swording mooks with a handwave of 'they're orcs!' or 'they're Nazis' and people whining that they feel bad if you point out how fucked up it is? It is fucked up and someone should do something about it rather than just resigning to it.

[Almaz]

I have no problem treating orcs like Nazis in an Indiana Jones movie. They are bad guys, and the hero is supposed to gun them down, or knock them into airplane propellers, or whatever. If you want to play a game of very nuanced morality, where you are never quite sure who is bad and who is good, that is absolutely a viable type of gameplay...but I don't think it's the default for D&D.

In heroic fiction, if you are a good guy who can swing a sword or axe or throw fire or whatever, it is expected of you that you are going to put bad guys down like rabid dogs. NOT doing that makes you a bastard, because you are standing aside and letting evil win.

This is exactly the kind of shit that I'm talking about.

And if the problem isn't with D&D, but the kind of stories it models, then D&D should take the lead and purge this shit from the game. I like carnivals, especially the classic old-timey ones, but that doesn't mean that they have to import Freak Shows and animal cruelty. Who the fuck cares if a big part of heroic fantasy is thoughtlessly swording mooks with a handwave of 'they're orcs!' or 'they're Nazis' and people whining that they feel bad if you point out how fucked up it is? It is fucked up and someone should do something about it rather than just resigning to it.

I know you feel passionately about this and I don't think it's a bad way to feel, but everyone here knows that we are going to have something supplying an unlimited stream of badguys to beat up. If you say they can't be anything we could have a moral attachment to, people will make them mindless zombies and robots. We've seen Saturday Morning cartoons and the effects of the Comics Code Authority. Some group or another is going to be beat up wholesale, even if you make it so that it's done so in a family-friendly way.

You can only really make it impossible for "violence solves everything" if violence is genuinely weaker, which is not the story which D&D models. D&D may model an idyllic just war, but, in part due to being based on a wargame, it still models a war.

[shadzar]

I have no problem treating orcs like Nazis in an Indiana Jones movie. They are bad guys, and the hero is supposed to gun them down, or knock them into airplane propellers, or whatever. If you want to play a game of very nuanced morality, where you are never quite sure who is bad and who is good, that is absolutely a viable type of gameplay...but I don't think it's the default for D&D.

In heroic fiction, if you are a good guy who can swing a sword or axe or throw fire or whatever, it is expected of you that you are going to put bad guys down like rabid dogs. NOT doing that makes you a bastard, because you are standing aside and letting evil win.

This is exactly the kind of shit that I'm talking about.

And if the problem isn't with D&D, but the kind of stories it models, then D&D should take the lead and purge this shit from the game. I like carnivals, especially the classic old-timey ones, but that doesn't mean that they have to import Freak Shows and animal cruelty. Who the fuck cares if a big part of heroic fantasy is thoughtlessly swording mooks with a handwave of 'they're orcs!' or 'they're Nazis' and people whining that they feel bad if you point out how fucked up it is? It is fucked up and someone should do something about it rather than just resigning to it.

Then the problem is YOU.

You dont have to play the game in a way you dont like. If you cant find a group to play with, then find something else to play.

D&D, like many other things, is made with something in mind. How you use it is up to you.

Rather than trying to say the shit doesnt ened to be in the game, play your games without it, and see if you can convince people through playing D&D with you that your way is fun. If you can't then it isnt what those people want. You aren't going to change what others want, and you are an asshole to try. You CAN change the people you play with, if their playstyle doesn't agree with you.

I am hearing Jack Chick all throughout your angst. The stories D&D models, are the ones the players make of it, just like i explained to Maj in the other thread. Only a fool would try to model one type of story with a game because it will not be open enough to get people playing it to make any money. (See Vampire) The game has to be able to do it your way, and let another do it their way. You just have to find the right people to play with that agree with your way of playing.

While it is what 3rd edition and 4th edition did because they OWN the rights to the game, you really don't have a right to try to change the way other people play it. 4th edition sees this problem because people didnt just embrace it lovingly, but it is having hard times because it isnt the way many people want to play. Those people are playing the older editions that provide what they want. Likewise you wont and shouldnt try to change D&D, but you CAN play your game, your way, when you find others that want to play that way with you.

Freak shows went away as people learned they weren't fun and human rights people got involved. Guess what...freak shows or their kin still exist. women with BAs are strippers or exotic dancers, because it makes more money and provides for their kids better than the job they cant find to use their BAs.

So again, people trying to change something to suit them, but force everyone else to agree, rather than finding the right group of people to spend time with that already agree. A symptom of the overpopulation of the world.

You really are just fighting and losing a war of attrition, and should try to play with people of like mind, rather than trying to force others to agree with you. You do NOT have to play in a way you dont like or want to, but that may mean you dont get to play at all. Pick the lesser of the two evils, like everyone else in the world must do, and live with your choices.

[Dominicius]

For what it is worth, I agree with Lago on the issue.

With default D&D you can have an evil character and a good character in a party and by the end of the day if you take out all the fluff and gloss it is hard to even tell them apart. Both are defaulted to being murdering hobos so people are forced to roleplay the motivation for their actions rather than having the ability to showcase their character's morality via the actions themselves. And while that can work to a certain extend there comes a point when people will begin to get unhappy about it.

[shadzar]

For what it is worth, I agree with Lago on the issue.

With default D&D you can have an evil character and a good character in a party and by the end of the day if you take out all the fluff and gloss it is hard to even tell them apart. Both are defaulted to being murdering hobos so people are forced to roleplay the motivation for their actions rather than having the ability to showcase their character's morality via the actions themselves. And while that can work to a certain extend there comes a point when people will begin to get unhappy about it.

But you have to step into the world of the fiction to see the difference from today's world and its views.

I mean even today there is a fine line between genius and psychopath....

You just have to have a foundation within the fictional world that says this is good, and this is evil. Don't try to mix real world with it, but either accept the fictional universe, or dont accept it.

[FatR]

That's like complaining that both sides in a war story are trying to gun each other down.


Anyway, that's exactly one of the problems with "non-killing by default" approach. It is only really applicable to a crimefighting story (and then primarily because such kind of story operates from the assumption that the law enforcement side is ultimately far more powerful and has far better backing than the lawbreakers' side, and therefore can impose handicaps on itself), not to a war story. And DnD, as well as heroic fantasy as a whole, are generally far closer to the latter.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You can only really make it impossible for "violence solves everything" if violence is genuinely weaker, which is not the story which D&D models. D&D may model an idyllic just war, but, in part due to being based on a wargame, it still models a war.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against solving approaches with violence or even ultraviolence. I'm not even against gunning down hordes of faceless people. I'm just saying that the game should not have all three of these things at the same time:

A) Your characters are presented as unironic heroes befitting the modern definition.

B) You fight hordes of unnamed cannon fodder that just exist for you to defeat.

C) You fight with lethal force.

So I'm okay with a story like Shadowrun or God of War where you play anti-heroes or even genuine evil bastards as long as the game doesn't sugarcoat it. I'm also okay with a story like Mutants and Masterminds or Avatar: The Last Airbender where you take on faceless goons by the hundreds but don't kill them. I'm also okay with a game or show where you're a non-ironic hero and the only people you kill in violent and hilarious ways are named characters or people that you know are committing evil. Killing orcs who are pillaging a halfling village is okay. Killing orcs that are just wandering through the forest is really skeevy.

My problem is that a disturbing amount of stories do all three at once and that leads to really crazy assumptions like killing orc babies or Nazis just hanging out in a bar. I suppose that a fourth caveat is that it's done thoughtlessly. I also don't mind scenarios where all three of those previous points hold true but the heroes are extra sure what they're doing, like blowing up the Death Star or dropping bombs on a tank factory.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And DnD, as well as heroic fantasy as a whole, are generally far closer to the latter.

You can only really make it impossible for "violence solves everything" if violence is genuinely weaker, which is not the story which D&D models. D&D may model an idyllic just war, but, in part due to being based on a wargame, it still models a war.

I know that the main attraction for D&D and heroic fantasy in general (even relatively enlightened shows like A:TLA) is the highly stylized violence, but it's a really shallow and/or morally questionable way in which to interact. I tried to reach a compromise with the needs of gameplay versus the needs of the story on the front page, though, but I feel especially heartfelt about all of the mindless violence. Dungeon slogs and random encounters are inevitable in D&D, but surely the game can be constructed in a way so that the cognitive dissonance isn't as bad?

[shadzar]

I'm also okay with a story like Avatar: The Last Airbender where you take on faceless goons by the hundreds but don't kill them. I'm also okay with a game or show where you're a non-ironic hero and the only people you kill in violent and hilarious ways are named characters or people that you know are committing evil. Killing orcs who are pillaging a halfling village is okay. Killing orcs that are just wandering through the forest is really skeevy.

You are still missing it. D&FD was made by and FOR people from the wargaming background. Those people were playing out historical battles as armchair generals, who killed the nameless faces in the crowd. That is what it is. That is where it came from.

D&D wasnt made or modeled after Avatar, and only Aang was agaisnt killing in Avatar.

You can model your story or fictional universe how you want, but so long as you are playing D&D, then you have at the heart of it a game based on and built from killing and wargames.

[Plebian]

I know that the main attraction for D&D and heroic fantasy in general (even relatively enlightened shows like A:TLA) is the highly stylized violence, but it's a really shallow and/or morally questionable way in which to interact. I tried to reach a compromise with the needs of gameplay versus the needs of the story on the front page, though, but I feel especially heartfelt about all of the mindless violence. Dungeon slogs and random encounters are inevitable in D&D, but surely the game can be constructed in a way so that the cognitive dissonance isn't as bad?

but that has to be handled on an individual level. trying to force everyone into "but don't you feel bad about the orc orphans" isn't even going to work at all for a lot of people because they're in no way real; the average gaming group doesn't spend a whole lot of time pondering the poor life choices that led to the orc tribe's lamentable and fatal meetup with the party. some will, certainly, but trying to find a way to make everyone play that way? that's just silly.

[Username17]

You can only really make it impossible for "violence solves everything" if violence is genuinely weaker, which is not the story which D&D models. D&D may model an idyllic just war, but, in part due to being based on a wargame, it still models a war.

I know that the main attraction for D&D and heroic fantasy in general (even relatively enlightened shows like A:TLA) is the highly stylized violence, but it's a really shallow and/or morally questionable way in which to interact. I tried to reach a compromise with the needs of gameplay versus the needs of the story on the front page, though, but I feel especially heartfelt about all of the mindless violence. Dungeon slogs and random encounters are inevitable in D&D, but surely the game can be constructed in a way so that the cognitive dissonance isn't as bad?

In a war, your goal is to win, not necessarily to kill all the children in the town you are at war with. I mean, that might make you win, but there are probably easier ways to win.

I think the easiest way to get people to play less genocidally is to simply embrace victory conditions. If you win the day and hear the victory music when the goblins break, there's no reason to hunt down every last goblin on the field and face stab him. If in the final calculation for the war, a unit counts the same if they are "lost" due to being dead as they do to being "lost" to being captured, and trading captives back is worth anything at all, then taking captives would be the preferred method in most cases.

As soon as you have actual goals other than "kill all the monsters and get their delicious kill XP", players will start min/maxing towards those goals instead of asking how much XP they get for smashing kobold eggs.

-Username17