I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
I think the main thing here is it sounds like these players are looking to play a very different style of game to what you are so it may be better for you to somehow try and find another game or see if any of them would like to play a seperate game with a different style if you don't have too many friends who play D&D whichever is more practical for you. I personally wouldn't particularly enjoy a campaign like that, more so for the lazy and less story points you mentioned.
I'm not sure to what degree you're triggered by it, if it actively upsets you then definitely leave this campaign but even if its just not your style of play then you're not going to enjoy it either. If I may say though if it is the former remember there is nothing objectively wrong about how they're playing, its just a different style to what you'd prefer so unless they're being actively toxic to you as a person don't let that affect your view of them as people. Not saying you are doing that but sometimes I've heard of people thinking crazy characters means secretly crazy players.
I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
Sounds like its time to not be with that group.
As a DM, killing guards is going to trigger town escalation. I don't care how justified the reason is, at casual glance its going to not end well for a party, at first. If the guard is obviously an agent of a cult, or some other evil storyline, eventually the party can explain and prove why they did it but just casually killing guards is a huge no. Even though we're getting away from the concepts of alignment, you can't justify it from A RP perspective.
As a player, killing a guard means I better have a VERY compelling reason. I need to be able to prove beyond reason that his death right now is the only viable solution to a problem.
If the DM isn't discouraging it, then by association they are not only permitting it, but expecting it.
The most important piece though? You. If you are getting triggered by it, and it's affecting you the person? Then that isn't healthy for you. If you want to try and reconcile things, then have an open conversation with them, but keep it in the back of your head that there is the chance that they don't change. If they don't, then your only recourse really is to leave.
At the end of the day, no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
No, you're absolutely not being too sensitive. I would feel the same way in your shoes, and I wouldn't have much fun with that group. And I've definitely been disturbed by D&D sessions: one time a DM ran a session where a bunch of kids died, played as a dark joke. Kind of ruined the game night for me. So your feelings are totally valid.
But! One thing I like about playing with friends is that you can usually find a compromise, so try to bring this up out of game, just a "hey guys, when you kill guards and stuff it makes the game a lot less fun for me. Would you be okay reining in the random violence?" They might not realize that this is a big issue for you and not just a minor gripe or in-character thing, so give them a chance to fix it. Addressing issues directly out-of-game can work wonders. If they're good friends, hopefully a compromise can happen. Playing with friends is usually at least as much about hanging together as about the game—and if it's not, they might not be the best of friends in the first place.
However, if everyone else is enjoying themselves, and you can't find a compromise, you shouldn't look down on them or try to force a change. Unless they're being racist or something objectively bad, their way of playing is just as valid as yours, even if it's lazy. In that worst-case-scenario, you can always walk away—eventually, you'll find some players more like you.
1. I understand players finding murder hoboism annoying, but if you find it truly disturbing I'd possibly suggest a different system, not just a different group. It just seems to go with the D&D culture and you're going to encounter it from time to time (not universally, but commonly enough).
2. Agree completely.
3. Agree potentially. It should, but it depends on the DM.
I don't think you need to change system, but it does seem you need ot find a new group. My experiece of D&D is murder-hobos are rare, so I guess it is just the circles you walk in.
A am not keen on th mechanics of allignment but if characters are killing guards for doing their job then I would tend to think they are evil alligned (at least unless the guards are working for an evil cult or something). Evil alligned characters do exist in D&D but in my expericance are a minoriy and mand DMs ban them (adventurers ar eoften called heroes after all)
A lot of it is down to the DM, killing a guard for doing his job should lead to the party facing overwhelming forces If I was DMing I would make it very clear to the party that they couldn't win a fight. The encounter could end either with their surrender, capture (maybe using non-lethal strikes or having them stabalised when they go down) or possibly escape.
As mentioned this sort of thing should be discussed in a session 0, if it wasn't you can always have a "session 0" mid campaign where the players and DM discuss OOC what they want from the game.
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with their way of playing. I wouldn't like it either, but you don't get to decide how other people have fun. If you're in a group and out of the whole group, everyone but you wants to just kill stuff and take its loot, then you do not fit in with that group, and you should bow out (politely -- no need to insult anyone). You absolutely should not attempt to change the way the rest of the group is playing just to suit your preferences -- that is not fair to them, and you have seen what it is like when the play style is not comfortable to you. You wouldn't want it to feel that way to them, would you? That doesn't solve anything -- it just changes who is unhappy.
Politely bow out of this group and find another group that wants to do more social/RP stuff and does not want to just kill everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game is almost entirely about combat. The three "pillars" that support it are Combat, Exploration, and Social interaction. No matter which of these you chose, you are going to be dealing with combat.
While exploring? The rules cover what happens when a fight breaks out. When socializing? The rules are about what happens when the negotiations break down.
Even pets die, constantly. Anything you could conceivably call a "pet" risks death, however temporary that might be.
Honestly, I think you're in the wrong game entirely. I don't know of any game that don't involve fighting and killing. If that "triggers" you, find something else to do with your time.
The Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game is almost entirely about combat. The three "pillars" that support it are Combat, Exploration, and Social interaction. No matter which of these you chose, you are going to be dealing with combat.
While exploring? The rules cover what happens when a fight breaks out. When socializing? The rules are about what happens when the negotiations break down.
Even pets die, constantly. Anything you could conceivably call a "pet" risks death, however temporary that might be.
Honestly, I think you're in the wrong game entirely. I don't know of any game that don't involve fighting and killing. If that "triggers" you, find something else to do with your time.
There's a pretty wide divide between "the evil overlord has been oppressing these lands for decades, he needs to be brought to justice and his men with him, and that justice will be meted out with finality" and "that guard turning us away was just doing his job but he annoyed me so out come the knives". There's going to be a lot of combat in most campaigns, yes - that doesn't mean killing everything and everyone that gets in your way should be standard operating procedure though.
Lots of games don't involve killing -- Champions is one. There is fighting, yes, but not a lot of killing (usually) in that game.
Call of Cthulhu, has a lot of horror, and characters may die or go insane, but there usually isn't a huge amount of combat in that game. A lot of times if you are in combat in Call of Cthulhu you're probably gonna die. So the characters ('investigators') have a lot more incentive to avoid combat when possible, which you don't really have in most games (incentive to *avoid* combat).
Savage Worlds can have a lot of combat, but you can also do things like "dramatic tasks" which are like amped up, much more interesting, versions of 4e D&D "skill challenges" -- they have rounds of initiative and you draw cards to see who goes first, and critical fails can happen and so on, but the RP is usually not about combat per se.
You can, BTW, do all of those things in D&D -- declare that 0 hp is unconscious, not dying.... do more "investigating" than combat... run skill challenges rather than fights. But classically, combat to the death is a big chunk of the D&D play style. Not to say that killing guards and mayors is normal (even in my old school 8th grade hack-and-loot days, we never did that)... but if you want a non-combat game you really need a game group that has all agreed to it.
What game can you play that does not involve killing? Can you name even one? Champions has it. It's unusual, but still present. In Call of Cthulhu being killed is pretty much a given, the whole point of the game is how long you can stay alive before you get killed. Savage world has combat. I covered D&D pretty much.
The worlds is full of dangers, even the most minute of things can potentially kill you. Did you know that the common housecat can kill you? There is a thing called "Cat Scratch Fever". It's not just a cool song, it exists in the real world and you can be killed by it. A tiny little kitten is terribly cute and harmless looking, but they bite and scratch when upset. There are endless ways to be killed in the real world. You can't move, you can't take a breath, you can be killed in your sleep if you stop breathing, and people do. Check out "sleep apnea" if you want to know about it. You can be killed in an accident if you go anywhere or do anything.
Even in something like a Romantic Comedy, you will still see people who might be killed. Tripping and falling are a standard of the genre. Someone bumps into someone else on the sidewalk and they stumble. If killing is what triggers someone, there is no escape from it. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. I give exaggerated examples only to illustrate my point. Nobody dies in My Little Pony that I know of, but they do kick, and bite, so there you are again.
I really don't think that this is the point of this thread.
The OP was complaining about Murder Hobos and killing random NPC's for no other reason than annoyance.
What game can you play that does not involve killing? Can you name even one? Champions has it. It's unusual, but still present. In Call of Cthulhu being killed is pretty much a given, the whole point of the game is how long you can stay alive before you get killed. Savage world has combat. I covered D&D pretty much.
The worlds is full of dangers, even the most minute of things can potentially kill you. Did you know that the common housecat can kill you? There is a thing called "Cat Scratch Fever". It's not just a cool song, it exists in the real world and you can be killed by it. A tiny little kitten is terribly cute and harmless looking, but they bite and scratch when upset. There are endless ways to be killed in the real world. You can't move, you can't take a breath, you can be killed in your sleep if you stop breathing, and people do. Check out "sleep apnea" if you want to know about it. You can be killed in an accident if you go anywhere or do anything.
Even in something like a Romantic Comedy, you will still see people who might be killed. Tripping and falling are a standard of the genre. Someone bumps into someone else on the sidewalk and they stumble. If killing is what triggers someone, there is no escape from it. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. I give exaggerated examples only to illustrate my point. Nobody dies in My Little Pony that I know of, but they do kick, and bite, so there you are again.
I really don't think that this is the point of this thread.
The OP was complaining about Murder Hobos and killing random NPC's for no other reason than annoyance.
Combat was not the issue.
This. I said there is going to be lots of combat in most campaigns, yes. That doesn't mean this combat can't have less abhorrent motivations than "they got in our way", "I was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on someone" or "let's just kill them already, that way I don't have to remember who this NPC was again".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Side question: I guess "murderhobo" is a traditional term, but does anyone else think the 'hobo' part is unnecessary? Someone in the habit of killing nonviolent people is just a murderer, regardless of their living situation.
It stems from such characters typically not having any roots and simply travelling anywhere for the sake of whatever the adventure dictates; they are probably able to afford accommodations, but they are homeless in the sense that they don't have a home or care about one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
This might seem shocking... but, what are 'Murder Hobo's"? A character race, I presume. Can you provide a DnD beyond link for that?
From the thread, I presume it's not so much the 'murder hobo' question, but rather one player (yourself), not really feeling the three other players, or DMs desire to play an overtly Chaotic/Neutral Evil leaning campaign... one centered around all the other players being 'Murder Hobos'.
You are NOT being too sensitive. I agree with all of the salient points you make (about that kind of simple minded 'Evil' play style). Honestly, you'll probably find a lot of games that occasionally go that direction, it's sort of a common trope, especially since so many naturally Evil aligned character races are being introduced all the time. (I'm laughing with you here) Just assuming the other players are sticking to the standard behavior of 'Murder Hobos', having experienced it yourself, it's not really insulting or rude to decide to opt out.
"Um... Look everyone. The truth is I thought I knew what I was getting into when I agreed to go along with this whole "Murder Hobo" campaign, but I was wrong. You guys are probably role playing perfectly... it's just I don't have the stomach for all the bad karma and, er... Evil... involved. So how about you just decide my character isn't evil enough and kill me off for now?"
Some campaigns have basically evil characters rolling through evil places... I mean if the NPCs were Nazi Vampires (or whatever) in Castle slaughter everything, you wouldn't care. Winston Churchill said, If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd root for the Devil... right? But Murder Hobos invading Peoria or HappyFunLand is a different game. (Every time I write Murder Hobo, I think of "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer"...). It's totally legit for you, without judging one way or another, to decide that it's too much for your personal aesthetic and to politely opt out.
If the other players and DM are worth playing with again, they might tease you a little, but should respect your decision. You hadn't experienced their style of campaign, and now that you have... it's not for you. Perfectly understandable.
(um... you might want to avoid bringing up the VERY logical points you make here, which are valid criticisms of their play style. I think it's better to opt out based on the underlying 'evil' motif, rather than the other players choice to play 'evil' very simplistically and illogically. It's possible to role play an evil character without going on a killing frenzy over banal encounters... and frankly a lot of times that seems much more 'evil' as opposed to the 'mad dog' types.)
Good luck. & although I'm not familiar with Murder Hobos... hopefully this won't set you against any and all inclusion of intrinsically 'evil' party members in the future.
Best,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe” When the Winds fail you, row.
A "Murder Hobo" is a character or group of characters that kill indiscriminately and for no real reason. They generally have no home base (hence the "hobo") and kill everyone they meet. Shopkeeper charging too much for rope? Killed. Guard wants a reason to enter the palace? Knifed. Players are bored? Sorry, random NPC.
Generally, Murder Hobos don't really roleplay their characters and tend to sabotage games. They don't put thought into playing, and can make other people who want a more serious game very annoyed.
I think that's how this particular group plays and the GM is supporting it as there weren't any consequences mentioned.
For the OP, I would suggest that you gently inform them that you don't like that style of play and bow out. Just let them know why you're leaving.
I have no idea how many campaigns are kill/loot everything but it is a style of play that some folks like. I think it might be a way for them to blow off steam. I'm not saying it's great, just that it exists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As others have said, this is a session zero issue where expectations were not communicated well, and I would just leave and find another group that aligns with your playstyle. If your group asks why you are leaving, just say that what you expected out of the game is different from everyone else, so you want to find a table that better suits your needs.
Honestly, I think you're in the wrong game entirely. I don't know of any game that don't involve fighting and killing. If that "triggers" you, find something else to do with your time.
D&D has a lot of rules focused on fighting, but it is also possible to ignore the combat pillar too depending on the type of campaign. In my opinion, with a bit of work and homebrew, D&D is flexible enough as a system to do almost anything and fit almost any playstyle. If combat is not something the table cares about, the GM can just reduce combat to a contested skill check like an Athletics grappling check.
A "Murder Hobo" is a character or group of characters that kill indiscriminately and for no real reason. They generally have no home base (hence the "hobo") and kill everyone they meet. Shopkeeper charging to much for rope? Killed. Guard wants a reason to enter the palace? Knifed. Players are bored? Sorry, random NPC.
Generally, Murder Hobos don't really roleplay their characters and tend to sabotage games. They don't put thought into playing, and can make other people who want a more serious game very annoyed.
The same can be said for roleplayers, and it could be extremely annoying for the rest of the table for a roleplayer to bog the game down. Being disruptive and annoying is not limited to murder hobos. Not every table cares about story or background, and roleplaying as a style should not be put on a pedestal over murder hoboing in my opinion. D&D is so much more than just a medium for storytelling, and there is nothing wrong with using D&D to loosen up and blow off steam. I do not like murder hoboing myself, but I see that as a difference in play style rather than something that is intrinsically bad.
I hate shiitake mushrooms with a passion, and I find offal to be absolutely awful, but I am not going to preach about how they ruin any food dish that contains them, since plenty of people do find shiitake mushrooms and offal to be tasty.
I don't think you're being too sensitive. I couldn't participate in such a game either. There's zero narrative possible in such a game where everything with the slighest hint of opposition devolves into killing.
The Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game is almost entirely about combat. The three "pillars" that support it are Combat, Exploration, and Social interaction. No matter which of these you chose, you are going to be dealing with combat.
While exploring? The rules cover what happens when a fight breaks out. When socializing? The rules are about what happens when the negotiations break down.
Even pets die, constantly. Anything you could conceivably call a "pet" risks death, however temporary that might be.
Honestly, I think you're in the wrong game entirely. I don't know of any game that don't involve fighting and killing. If that "triggers" you, find something else to do with your time.
I think you misunderstand the OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
I think the main thing here is it sounds like these players are looking to play a very different style of game to what you are so it may be better for you to somehow try and find another game or see if any of them would like to play a seperate game with a different style if you don't have too many friends who play D&D whichever is more practical for you. I personally wouldn't particularly enjoy a campaign like that, more so for the lazy and less story points you mentioned.
I'm not sure to what degree you're triggered by it, if it actively upsets you then definitely leave this campaign but even if its just not your style of play then you're not going to enjoy it either. If I may say though if it is the former remember there is nothing objectively wrong about how they're playing, its just a different style to what you'd prefer so unless they're being actively toxic to you as a person don't let that affect your view of them as people. Not saying you are doing that but sometimes I've heard of people thinking crazy characters means secretly crazy players.
Sounds like its time to not be with that group.
As a DM, killing guards is going to trigger town escalation. I don't care how justified the reason is, at casual glance its going to not end well for a party, at first. If the guard is obviously an agent of a cult, or some other evil storyline, eventually the party can explain and prove why they did it but just casually killing guards is a huge no. Even though we're getting away from the concepts of alignment, you can't justify it from A RP perspective.
As a player, killing a guard means I better have a VERY compelling reason. I need to be able to prove beyond reason that his death right now is the only viable solution to a problem.
If the DM isn't discouraging it, then by association they are not only permitting it, but expecting it.
The most important piece though? You. If you are getting triggered by it, and it's affecting you the person? Then that isn't healthy for you. If you want to try and reconcile things, then have an open conversation with them, but keep it in the back of your head that there is the chance that they don't change. If they don't, then your only recourse really is to leave.
At the end of the day, no D&D is better than bad D&D.
No, you're absolutely not being too sensitive. I would feel the same way in your shoes, and I wouldn't have much fun with that group. And I've definitely been disturbed by D&D sessions: one time a DM ran a session where a bunch of kids died, played as a dark joke. Kind of ruined the game night for me. So your feelings are totally valid.
But! One thing I like about playing with friends is that you can usually find a compromise, so try to bring this up out of game, just a "hey guys, when you kill guards and stuff it makes the game a lot less fun for me. Would you be okay reining in the random violence?" They might not realize that this is a big issue for you and not just a minor gripe or in-character thing, so give them a chance to fix it. Addressing issues directly out-of-game can work wonders. If they're good friends, hopefully a compromise can happen. Playing with friends is usually at least as much about hanging together as about the game—and if it's not, they might not be the best of friends in the first place.
However, if everyone else is enjoying themselves, and you can't find a compromise, you shouldn't look down on them or try to force a change. Unless they're being racist or something objectively bad, their way of playing is just as valid as yours, even if it's lazy. In that worst-case-scenario, you can always walk away—eventually, you'll find some players more like you.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
1. I understand players finding murder hoboism annoying, but if you find it truly disturbing I'd possibly suggest a different system, not just a different group. It just seems to go with the D&D culture and you're going to encounter it from time to time (not universally, but commonly enough).
2. Agree completely.
3. Agree potentially. It should, but it depends on the DM.
I don't think you need to change system, but it does seem you need ot find a new group. My experiece of D&D is murder-hobos are rare, so I guess it is just the circles you walk in.
A am not keen on th mechanics of allignment but if characters are killing guards for doing their job then I would tend to think they are evil alligned (at least unless the guards are working for an evil cult or something). Evil alligned characters do exist in D&D but in my expericance are a minoriy and mand DMs ban them (adventurers ar eoften called heroes after all)
A lot of it is down to the DM, killing a guard for doing his job should lead to the party facing overwhelming forces If I was DMing I would make it very clear to the party that they couldn't win a fight. The encounter could end either with their surrender, capture (maybe using non-lethal strikes or having them stabalised when they go down) or possibly escape.
As mentioned this sort of thing should be discussed in a session 0, if it wasn't you can always have a "session 0" mid campaign where the players and DM discuss OOC what they want from the game.
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with their way of playing. I wouldn't like it either, but you don't get to decide how other people have fun. If you're in a group and out of the whole group, everyone but you wants to just kill stuff and take its loot, then you do not fit in with that group, and you should bow out (politely -- no need to insult anyone). You absolutely should not attempt to change the way the rest of the group is playing just to suit your preferences -- that is not fair to them, and you have seen what it is like when the play style is not comfortable to you. You wouldn't want it to feel that way to them, would you? That doesn't solve anything -- it just changes who is unhappy.
Politely bow out of this group and find another group that wants to do more social/RP stuff and does not want to just kill everything.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game is almost entirely about combat. The three "pillars" that support it are Combat, Exploration, and Social interaction. No matter which of these you chose, you are going to be dealing with combat.
While exploring? The rules cover what happens when a fight breaks out. When socializing? The rules are about what happens when the negotiations break down.
Even pets die, constantly. Anything you could conceivably call a "pet" risks death, however temporary that might be.
Honestly, I think you're in the wrong game entirely. I don't know of any game that don't involve fighting and killing. If that "triggers" you, find something else to do with your time.
<Insert clever signature here>
There's a pretty wide divide between "the evil overlord has been oppressing these lands for decades, he needs to be brought to justice and his men with him, and that justice will be meted out with finality" and "that guard turning us away was just doing his job but he annoyed me so out come the knives". There's going to be a lot of combat in most campaigns, yes - that doesn't mean killing everything and everyone that gets in your way should be standard operating procedure though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lots of games don't involve killing -- Champions is one. There is fighting, yes, but not a lot of killing (usually) in that game.
Call of Cthulhu, has a lot of horror, and characters may die or go insane, but there usually isn't a huge amount of combat in that game. A lot of times if you are in combat in Call of Cthulhu you're probably gonna die. So the characters ('investigators') have a lot more incentive to avoid combat when possible, which you don't really have in most games (incentive to *avoid* combat).
Savage Worlds can have a lot of combat, but you can also do things like "dramatic tasks" which are like amped up, much more interesting, versions of 4e D&D "skill challenges" -- they have rounds of initiative and you draw cards to see who goes first, and critical fails can happen and so on, but the RP is usually not about combat per se.
You can, BTW, do all of those things in D&D -- declare that 0 hp is unconscious, not dying.... do more "investigating" than combat... run skill challenges rather than fights. But classically, combat to the death is a big chunk of the D&D play style. Not to say that killing guards and mayors is normal (even in my old school 8th grade hack-and-loot days, we never did that)... but if you want a non-combat game you really need a game group that has all agreed to it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I really don't think that this is the point of this thread.
The OP was complaining about Murder Hobos and killing random NPC's for no other reason than annoyance.
Combat was not the issue.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This. I said there is going to be lots of combat in most campaigns, yes. That doesn't mean this combat can't have less abhorrent motivations than "they got in our way", "I was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on someone" or "let's just kill them already, that way I don't have to remember who this NPC was again".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It stems from such characters typically not having any roots and simply travelling anywhere for the sake of whatever the adventure dictates; they are probably able to afford accommodations, but they are homeless in the sense that they don't have a home or care about one.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yep, the hobo part originates from them traveling from one village to another and killing (thus the murder prefix) anyone who they meet.
This might seem shocking... but, what are 'Murder Hobo's"? A character race, I presume. Can you provide a DnD beyond link for that?
From the thread, I presume it's not so much the 'murder hobo' question, but rather one player (yourself), not really feeling the three other players, or DMs desire to play an overtly Chaotic/Neutral Evil leaning campaign... one centered around all the other players being 'Murder Hobos'.
You are NOT being too sensitive. I agree with all of the salient points you make (about that kind of simple minded 'Evil' play style). Honestly, you'll probably find a lot of games that occasionally go that direction, it's sort of a common trope, especially since so many naturally Evil aligned character races are being introduced all the time. (I'm laughing with you here) Just assuming the other players are sticking to the standard behavior of 'Murder Hobos', having experienced it yourself, it's not really insulting or rude to decide to opt out.
"Um... Look everyone. The truth is I thought I knew what I was getting into when I agreed to go along with this whole "Murder Hobo" campaign, but I was wrong. You guys are probably role playing perfectly... it's just I don't have the stomach for all the bad karma and, er... Evil... involved. So how about you just decide my character isn't evil enough and kill me off for now?"
Some campaigns have basically evil characters rolling through evil places... I mean if the NPCs were Nazi Vampires (or whatever) in Castle slaughter everything, you wouldn't care. Winston Churchill said, If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd root for the Devil... right? But Murder Hobos invading Peoria or HappyFunLand is a different game. (Every time I write Murder Hobo, I think of "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer"...). It's totally legit for you, without judging one way or another, to decide that it's too much for your personal aesthetic and to politely opt out.
If the other players and DM are worth playing with again, they might tease you a little, but should respect your decision. You hadn't experienced their style of campaign, and now that you have... it's not for you. Perfectly understandable.
(um... you might want to avoid bringing up the VERY logical points you make here, which are valid criticisms of their play style. I think it's better to opt out based on the underlying 'evil' motif, rather than the other players choice to play 'evil' very simplistically and illogically. It's possible to role play an evil character without going on a killing frenzy over banal encounters... and frankly a lot of times that seems much more 'evil' as opposed to the 'mad dog' types.)
Good luck. & although I'm not familiar with Murder Hobos... hopefully this won't set you against any and all inclusion of intrinsically 'evil' party members in the future.
Best,
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe”
When the Winds fail you, row.
A "Murder Hobo" is a character or group of characters that kill indiscriminately and for no real reason. They generally have no home base (hence the "hobo") and kill everyone they meet. Shopkeeper charging too much for rope? Killed. Guard wants a reason to enter the palace? Knifed. Players are bored? Sorry, random NPC.
Generally, Murder Hobos don't really roleplay their characters and tend to sabotage games. They don't put thought into playing, and can make other people who want a more serious game very annoyed.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I think that's how this particular group plays and the GM is supporting it as there weren't any consequences mentioned.
For the OP, I would suggest that you gently inform them that you don't like that style of play and bow out. Just let them know why you're leaving.
I have no idea how many campaigns are kill/loot everything but it is a style of play that some folks like. I think it might be a way for them to blow off steam. I'm not saying it's great, just that it exists.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
As others have said, this is a session zero issue where expectations were not communicated well, and I would just leave and find another group that aligns with your playstyle. If your group asks why you are leaving, just say that what you expected out of the game is different from everyone else, so you want to find a table that better suits your needs.
D&D has a lot of rules focused on fighting, but it is also possible to ignore the combat pillar too depending on the type of campaign. In my opinion, with a bit of work and homebrew, D&D is flexible enough as a system to do almost anything and fit almost any playstyle. If combat is not something the table cares about, the GM can just reduce combat to a contested skill check like an Athletics grappling check.
The same can be said for roleplayers, and it could be extremely annoying for the rest of the table for a roleplayer to bog the game down. Being disruptive and annoying is not limited to murder hobos. Not every table cares about story or background, and roleplaying as a style should not be put on a pedestal over murder hoboing in my opinion. D&D is so much more than just a medium for storytelling, and there is nothing wrong with using D&D to loosen up and blow off steam. I do not like murder hoboing myself, but I see that as a difference in play style rather than something that is intrinsically bad.
I hate shiitake mushrooms with a passion, and I find offal to be absolutely awful, but I am not going to preach about how they ruin any food dish that contains them, since plenty of people do find shiitake mushrooms and offal to be tasty.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I don't think you're being too sensitive. I couldn't participate in such a game either. There's zero narrative possible in such a game where everything with the slighest hint of opposition devolves into killing.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I think you misunderstand the OP.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter