I've spent a few months on this forum now. I lurked long before I dared post anything. I've seen some odd terms that I haven't found anywhere else, but one in particular stands out to me; "Murder-Hobo". From context I've got it down as roughly equivalent to "Homicidal Maniac". I did a search of the Forums, and didn't find a thread that addressed this, so perhaps it's not a Frequently Asked Question. I get the "murder" part of the term. What puzzles me is the "hobo" part of it.
"Hobo" is a somewhat old fashioned term for a homeless individual, especially one who travels from place to place seeking food and shelter. It was never a very nice thing to call someone. I don't quite see the connection between that and Homicidal Mania. Or maybe I do, and I just don't like the implications.
What is a "Murder-hobo"? Where did the term come from? At the risk of being Politically Correct, doesn't it seem a touch insensitive in this day and age?
Adventurers typically don't have a set "home," going from town to town, living in inns and taverns and the homes of those who would host them. So "murder-hobo" is appropriate because... well, adventurers stereotypically ARE homeless, travelling from place to place seeking food, shelter, and adventure, and if you're a homicidal maniac while doing it, you are literally a murderous hobo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
"Murder hobo" is a derisive term for groups or characters who focus on combat with little concern for non-combat gameplay. Particularly groups who use creature alignment as the way to determine whether or not to attack: good=let it live, evil=murderize.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've spent a few months on this forum now. I lurked long before I dared post anything. I've seen some odd terms that I haven't found anywhere else, but one in particular stands out to me; "Murder-Hobo". From context I've got it down as roughly equivalent to "Homicidal Maniac". I did a search of the Forums, and didn't find a thread that addressed this, so perhaps it's not a Frequently Asked Question. I get the "murder" part of the term. What puzzles me is the "hobo" part of it.
"Hobo" is a somewhat old fashioned term for a homeless individual, especially one who travels from place to place seeking food and shelter. It was never a very nice thing to call someone. I don't quite see the connection between that and Homicidal Mania. Or maybe I do, and I just don't like the implications.
What is a "Murder-hobo"? Where did the term come from? At the risk of being Politically Correct, doesn't it seem a touch insensitive in this day and age?
Expanding on what DevanAvalon posted, the concept behind the term is that the characters in question don't really roleplay or do anything beyond combat. Everything is solved with murder.
King offers the adventuring party 1,000 gold to clear out a goblin settlement, never specifically states that they have to murder them, just remove them. Party just instantly sets them on fire, with no hesitation.
Priest of Lathander makes a mistake, accidentally causes an issue where a civilian dies, adventuring party decides he has to die now.
Party is in a bar, and one of them gets hit with a flagon from a drunken patron. Fighter decides to run their sword through the drunken idiot.
Casual googling dates back to around 07, but the term was around earlier than that. It really just boils down to a lack of creativity behind the playstyle. It's something you typically see from new players or from those who really just don't embrace the roleplay style of the game. Video games RPGs really just kind of teach you that being something akin to this is fine because that's how most games are designed. There might be some negative to just murdering everything but by and large it's not enough to stop you. Skyrim is probably the biggest example of this that's the easiest to showcase and speak to. You can go to Whiterun, murder pretty much every murderable NPC, and all you'll do is serve some time in jail. Then you get set free and for the most part, except for the npcs that are direct quest tie ins that might have perished, no one else gives a damn.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I thought the "-Hobo" part was because the act of killing someone often in town to achieve some small immediate goal forced the party to go on the run, so they remained Hobos living in camps away from comfortable civilization.
When I think of a murder-hobo, I think of the player that has his character kill the shop keeper because he is annoyed he can't get a better price for that thing he wants. He can't be bothered to pay the asking price, go on a side quest to obtain the item, or any RP that could improve his relationship with the shop keeper. Nope. "I pull out my longsword and thrust it into him." Rolls, "I got a seventeen." The DM replies, "OK Roll for damage ..." Rolls, "I get six, ... plussss four, so TEN damage!" DM, "He slumps over face down on the counter and his blood quickly spreads and covers everything, including the bottle with the Potion of Water Breathing." Player, "I roll him over to one side and pick up the potion and wipe it and my hands off on a nearby blanket." ... Party hastily exits the shop and keep walking right out the town gate.
Some also consider murder-hobos as players that kill everything without ever trying to RP around a problem. They see two aimless goblin scouts on some patrol away from their camp, and rather than capture them and attempt to extract information or some other plan to obtain an advantage against the goblins, they simply ambush them, shooting them dead with arrows and spells so they don't cry out, hopefully. A DM that describes two aimless goblins wandering around away from their camp is delivering an option to the party. It would be interesting if they chose not to use the single solution they use every other time, and maybe it would be fun too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I thought the "-Hobo" part was because the act of killing someone often in town to achieve some small immediate goal forced the party to go on the run, so they remained Hobos living in camps away from comfortable civilization.
Usually, it's just a reference to the fact that adventurers rarely have fixed bases of operation and tend to wander around, making them technically homeless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Usually, it's just a reference to the fact that adventurers rarely have fixed bases of operation and tend to wander around, making them technically homeless.
I think this is close.
But I think really the idea is that in the old D&D days, people generally did not RP much other than the actual dungeon (though there were exceptions). The party started at the entrance to the dungeon, and walked inside and started attacking whatever was in the dungeon. The stuff inside was meant to be fought, so we just killed it. Nobody tried to negotiate with the orcs. They're there to be killed, after all. And inside the dungeon, you had no home -- you just wandered around, eating rations, barring doors to rooms from wandering monsters, and killing as you went. When you filled up on encumbrance, you went back to town and sold things off, and then returned to the dungeon. You might have had a home in the town, but because you didn't really RP about being in the home at all, the only in-character play that occurred happened in the dungeon, where you had no home, and where all you did was kill things.
Thus... murder hobo.
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.
I've spent a few months on this forum now. I lurked long before I dared post anything. I've seen some odd terms that I haven't found anywhere else, but one in particular stands out to me; "Murder-Hobo". From context I've got it down as roughly equivalent to "Homicidal Maniac". I did a search of the Forums, and didn't find a thread that addressed this, so perhaps it's not a Frequently Asked Question. I get the "murder" part of the term. What puzzles me is the "hobo" part of it.
"Hobo" is a somewhat old fashioned term for a homeless individual, especially one who travels from place to place seeking food and shelter. It was never a very nice thing to call someone. I don't quite see the connection between that and Homicidal Mania. Or maybe I do, and I just don't like the implications.
What is a "Murder-hobo"? Where did the term come from? At the risk of being Politically Correct, doesn't it seem a touch insensitive in this day and age?
Expanding on what DevanAvalon posted, the concept behind the term is that the characters in question don't really roleplay or do anything beyond combat. Everything is solved with murder.
King offers the adventuring party 1,000 gold to clear out a goblin settlement, never specifically states that they have to murder them, just remove them. Party just instantly sets them on fire, with no hesitation.
At least from my perspective, wiping out a goblin settlement doesn't make you a murder-hobo since we're talking about Goblins. They are evil creatures that are mostly bent on destruction of human and demi-human civilization for their own ends. Burning down a human settlement (like Hommlet, for example) after having looted every house, makes you a murder-hobo because you're little better than raiders/bandits. You're SUPPOSED to go out into the wilderness and clear it for human/demi-human habitation. You're not a dirtbag for trying to make sure civilization isn't snuffed out. You ARE a dirtbag when you aid in civilization being snuffed out. Maybe for some that is a fine, if subtle distinction. Adventurers are, by their nature, willing to be mercenaries and that makes them one step from being murder-hobos.
I've spent a few months on this forum now. I lurked long before I dared post anything. I've seen some odd terms that I haven't found anywhere else, but one in particular stands out to me; "Murder-Hobo". From context I've got it down as roughly equivalent to "Homicidal Maniac". I did a search of the Forums, and didn't find a thread that addressed this, so perhaps it's not a Frequently Asked Question. I get the "murder" part of the term. What puzzles me is the "hobo" part of it.
"Hobo" is a somewhat old fashioned term for a homeless individual, especially one who travels from place to place seeking food and shelter. It was never a very nice thing to call someone. I don't quite see the connection between that and Homicidal Mania. Or maybe I do, and I just don't like the implications.
What is a "Murder-hobo"? Where did the term come from? At the risk of being Politically Correct, doesn't it seem a touch insensitive in this day and age?
Expanding on what DevanAvalon posted, the concept behind the term is that the characters in question don't really roleplay or do anything beyond combat. Everything is solved with murder.
King offers the adventuring party 1,000 gold to clear out a goblin settlement, never specifically states that they have to murder them, just remove them. Party just instantly sets them on fire, with no hesitation.
At least from my perspective, wiping out a goblin settlement doesn't make you a murder-hobo since we're talking about Goblins. They are evil creatures that are mostly bent on destruction of human and demi-human civilization for their own ends. Burning down a human settlement (like Hommlet, for example) after having looted every house, makes you a murder-hobo because you're little better than raiders/bandits. You're SUPPOSED to go out into the wilderness and clear it for human/demi-human habitation. You're not a dirtbag for trying to make sure civilization isn't snuffed out. You ARE a dirtbag when you aid in civilization being snuffed out. Maybe for some that is a fine, if subtle distinction. Adventurers are, by their nature, willing to be mercenaries and that makes them one step from being murder-hobos.
I’m sorry, this is terrible.
This is basically the justification for being a murder hobo.
Not to mention EXTREMELY eerie parallels to the European genocide of Native Americans irl.
Sorry. I know you’re not supposed to mention rl political stuff but the parallel was just so obvious I couldn’t ignore it.
Wiping out a goblin village because goblins are evil according to the Monster Manual is the definition of murder hoboing.
Also of meta-gaming.
Not necessarily, if your character is a racist who believes all goblins are evil and the best thing for society is to eliminate them Then it is not meta gaming but is murder hobo.
I am not sure if the Europeans thought the Native Americans were evil or just inferior and just wanted them out the way so they could take over the land. I think a better example is the Nazis who believed Jews were inheritantly evil and the ruin of society.
I think one of the problems is the alignment system in D&D. Sure all demons are evil and I have no problem attacking them on sight but the manuals should not label all goblins as NE. Generic humanoids and probably a lot of others like dragon's should be shown as any alignment even if they have a comment that they tend to evil.
Wiping out a goblin village because goblins are evil according to the Monster Manual is the definition of murder hoboing.
Also of meta-gaming.
Not necessarily, if your character is a racist who believes all goblins are evil and the best thing for society is to eliminate them Then it is not meta gaming but is murder hobo.
I am not sure if the Europeans thought the Native Americans were evil or just inferior and just wanted them out the way so they could take over the land. I think a better example is the Nazis who believed Jews were inheritantly evil and the ruin of society.
I think one of the problems is the alignment system in D&D. Sure all demons are evil and I have no problem attacking them on sight but the manuals should not label all goblins as NE. Generic humanoids and probably a lot of others like dragon's should be shown as any alignment even if they have a comment that they tend to evil.
If you think Goblins (evil FAERIES from European mythology) are gaming analogues to any non-European indigenous peoples, you have your head stuffed where the sun don't shine. They are creatures made by Magubliyet, an evil deity of Acheron that hates humans and demi-humans. And yes, they are EVIL. Evil is not some abstract concept, but a real perceivable force in the Multiverse. That's why Detect Evil exists. That's why the Cosmology chart for D&D has the Lower Planes, where Magubliyet and the Goblinoid pantheon exist. Goblins (and Hobgoblins, and Orcs, and Bugbears) are not simply misunderstood "ugly races" and/or indigenous folk, they are Chaos given form and represent the destruction of civilization. They raid, pillage and do all sorts of nasty stuff.
And again, to bring this back around to the original topic, a Murder-Hobo is someone that butchers his fellow humans/demi-humans willy nilly. He's the kind of disruptive gamer who slays the innocent fruit peddler because he thinks its funny. Or kills the party's contact after robbing him. Its not, however, the Paladin dispensing justice via hanging to the dirtbag Bandits/Highwaymen who tried to murder and rob the party on their way to an adventure. Its also not the Cleric who accepts No Quarter from Goblins because they serve an evil deity in direct opposition to the Cleric's deity.
If you think Goblins (evil FAERIES from European mythology) are gaming analogues to any non-European indigenous peoples, you have your head stuffed where the sun don't shine. They are creatures made by Magubliyet, an evil deity of Acheron that hates humans and demi-humans. And yes, they are EVIL. Evil is not some abstract concept, but a real perceivable force in the Multiverse. That's why Detect Evil exists. That's why the Cosmology chart for D&D has the Lower Planes, where Magubliyet and the Goblinoid pantheon exist. Goblins (and Hobgoblins, and Orcs, and Bugbears) are not simply misunderstood "ugly races" and/or indigenous folk, they are Chaos given form and represent the destruction of civilization. They raid, pillage and do all sorts of nasty stuff.
QFT.
I hope you don't mind but I am going to save this quotation (I will credit you) and use it elsewhere, because you have explained this whole thing almost perfectly.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
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.
If you think Goblins (evil FAERIES from European mythology) are gaming analogues to any non-European indigenous peoples, you have your head stuffed where the sun don't shine. They are creatures made by Magubliyet, an evil deity of Acheron that hates humans and demi-humans. And yes, they are EVIL. Evil is not some abstract concept, but a real perceivable force in the Multiverse. That's why Detect Evil exists. That's why the Cosmology chart for D&D has the Lower Planes, where Magubliyet and the Goblinoid pantheon exist. Goblins (and Hobgoblins, and Orcs, and Bugbears) are not simply misunderstood "ugly races" and/or indigenous folk, they are Chaos given form and represent the destruction of civilization. They raid, pillage and do all sorts of nasty stuff.
And again, to bring this back around to the original topic, a Murder-Hobo is someone that butchers his fellow humans/demi-humans willy nilly. He's the kind of disruptive gamer who slays the innocent fruit peddler because he thinks its funny. Or kills the party's contact after robbing him. Its not, however, the Paladin dispensing justice via hanging to the dirtbag Bandits/Highwaymen who tried to murder and rob the party on their way to an adventure. Its also not the Cleric who accepts No Quarter from Goblins because they serve an evil deity in direct opposition to the Cleric's deity.
Since 'Because Evil' or 'because a god says so' are the best plots in the history of literature....?
I'll try this again. NO ONE is saying that Goblins represent any given real life race or culture. What is being said is that MIND SET that there are races or cultures that are pure, irredeemable evil is a mindset that exists in real life. It is reinforcing that mind set, that 'logic,' that way of thinking that is being questioned.
Furthermore, you are basically insisting that goblins (and presumably other similar races) are not only non-sentient in your campaigns, that they have no freedom of thought, but that is the way they should be in all campaigns, thus justifying such treatment of goblins even in campaigns where they do have self-determination, irrespective of whatever their creation story may or may not be.
But D&D does not go that way, when goblins became a playable race they made it clear that some goblins are good or neutral even if they are in the minority. Also using the term race for the various types of humanoid means they will always be compared to the different ethnic races of humans on earth.
But D&D does not go that way, when goblins became a playable race they made it clear that some goblins are good or neutral even if they are in the minority. Also using the term race for the various types of humanoid means they will always be compared to the different ethnic races of humans on earth.
Murder-hoboing began decades before goblins became a playable race, so the fact that they are now, has nothing really to do with what murder-hobos were engaged in doing in the 1970s.
When we played it back in the day, all of the goblinish races were considered monolithically and irredeemably evil. We would walk into common rooms with females and "orc whelps" and just cut them down. Nobody felt bad for doing it. They were mortal equivalents to demons and devils, back then. Nobody had any qualms about killing them and taking whatever treasure they had (especially since, lore-wise, nearly any treasure a goblin had was probably stolen in the first place, as goblins generally didn't produce much on their own).
As for the assertion that ruling that all members of a race act one way, such as evil, means they are non-sentient, that would bring in all demons and devils under the non-sentient umbrella too, because I'm pretty sure all of them are monolithically evil. But I don't think anyone has ever suggested before that this made all balors or all succubi "non sentient".
Murder-hoboing began in D&D because people enjoyed the tactical challenge of combat, the intellectual challenge of dungeon puzzles, the awareness challenge of traps, the geometric challenge of mapping the dungeon (while the DM was doing their darnedest to trip you up), and the social challenge of figuring out how to divide up loot fairly amongst a group in which everyone wants the same treasure. Monsters in those days were coded in the book, and portrayed by the DM, as "something to fight." It generally wasn't a moral issue because we were not interested in the challenge of RPing morality, at the time.
Now, maybe people are interested in doing that, and so those who weren't interested in RPing morality are looked down on, but it's frankly unfair and ahistorical to do so. I'll cop to being a murder-hobo back in the day -- and I'm not embarrassed or ashamed of it. It's how the game was played. You may as well blame me for "killing my opponent's king" when I checkmated him in chess.
And I'm sorry but if anyone back then had ever tried to suggest that any of the bipedal, sentient, primate-shaped races in old school D&D such as goblins or orcs were "analogues to real world human races" or should be compared to them, I can tell you that my friends and I, eighth and ninth graders that we were, would have laughed in your face. It never even occurred to any of us to think that way. We would have told you in all seriousness, that there already ARE analogues to the real-world human races in D&D.... they're called humans. And all flavors of them, of all ethnic/racial/cultural types you can imagine from the real world (plus a bunch that never existed in the real world but Gygax plagiarized from other fictional sources) are present -- as part of the human race.
If any group regardless of origin is acting like a bunch of bandits, it will be assumed that they're the bad people. I find this to be an acceptable assumption because, if it's not as simple as banditry for greed, the story deepens and how far the players stepped in it makes all the difference.
I've seen a campaign where a group of players managed to RP a group of Neutral Evil creatures to abandon their master and live in peace near a village they had been harassing on command. At first, it seemed like the creatures were the bad ones. Then, they discovered that someone in the village stole something sacred. Then, they discovered that the creatures' boss stole the sacred item from one of the player's deities.
Those players are very averse to fighting, though. So, no unnecessary blood was shed.
Yet, it seems reasonable to me that many or most players would attack the attacking creatures first before attempting any peaceful discourse.
This is not the same as those who cut swaths of carnage through opponents for loot, XP, or "winning D&D" without any thought to a deeper plot.
There is nothing wrong with playing like that if everyone is having fun with it. Murderhobos earn the name when it's not fun for others.
It always goes back to those who impose themselves upon others as being more important than the other players - other players meaning party members and GM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've spent a few months on this forum now. I lurked long before I dared post anything. I've seen some odd terms that I haven't found anywhere else, but one in particular stands out to me; "Murder-Hobo". From context I've got it down as roughly equivalent to "Homicidal Maniac". I did a search of the Forums, and didn't find a thread that addressed this, so perhaps it's not a Frequently Asked Question. I get the "murder" part of the term. What puzzles me is the "hobo" part of it.
"Hobo" is a somewhat old fashioned term for a homeless individual, especially one who travels from place to place seeking food and shelter. It was never a very nice thing to call someone. I don't quite see the connection between that and Homicidal Mania. Or maybe I do, and I just don't like the implications.
What is a "Murder-hobo"? Where did the term come from? At the risk of being Politically Correct, doesn't it seem a touch insensitive in this day and age?
<Insert clever signature here>
Adventurers typically don't have a set "home," going from town to town, living in inns and taverns and the homes of those who would host them. So "murder-hobo" is appropriate because... well, adventurers stereotypically ARE homeless, travelling from place to place seeking food, shelter, and adventure, and if you're a homicidal maniac while doing it, you are literally a murderous hobo.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
"Murder hobo" is a derisive term for groups or characters who focus on combat with little concern for non-combat gameplay. Particularly groups who use creature alignment as the way to determine whether or not to attack: good=let it live, evil=murderize.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Expanding on what DevanAvalon posted, the concept behind the term is that the characters in question don't really roleplay or do anything beyond combat. Everything is solved with murder.
King offers the adventuring party 1,000 gold to clear out a goblin settlement, never specifically states that they have to murder them, just remove them. Party just instantly sets them on fire, with no hesitation.
Priest of Lathander makes a mistake, accidentally causes an issue where a civilian dies, adventuring party decides he has to die now.
Party is in a bar, and one of them gets hit with a flagon from a drunken patron. Fighter decides to run their sword through the drunken idiot.
Casual googling dates back to around 07, but the term was around earlier than that. It really just boils down to a lack of creativity behind the playstyle. It's something you typically see from new players or from those who really just don't embrace the roleplay style of the game. Video games RPGs really just kind of teach you that being something akin to this is fine because that's how most games are designed. There might be some negative to just murdering everything but by and large it's not enough to stop you. Skyrim is probably the biggest example of this that's the easiest to showcase and speak to. You can go to Whiterun, murder pretty much every murderable NPC, and all you'll do is serve some time in jail. Then you get set free and for the most part, except for the npcs that are direct quest tie ins that might have perished, no one else gives a damn.
Another way to see it is...
A scofflaw scoffs at the laws.
A killjoy kills joy.
A murderhobo murders even hobos just for giggles.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I thought the "-Hobo" part was because the act of killing someone often in town to achieve some small immediate goal forced the party to go on the run, so they remained Hobos living in camps away from comfortable civilization.
When I think of a murder-hobo, I think of the player that has his character kill the shop keeper because he is annoyed he can't get a better price for that thing he wants. He can't be bothered to pay the asking price, go on a side quest to obtain the item, or any RP that could improve his relationship with the shop keeper. Nope. "I pull out my longsword and thrust it into him." Rolls, "I got a seventeen." The DM replies, "OK Roll for damage ..." Rolls, "I get six, ... plussss four, so TEN damage!" DM, "He slumps over face down on the counter and his blood quickly spreads and covers everything, including the bottle with the Potion of Water Breathing." Player, "I roll him over to one side and pick up the potion and wipe it and my hands off on a nearby blanket." ... Party hastily exits the shop and keep walking right out the town gate.
Some also consider murder-hobos as players that kill everything without ever trying to RP around a problem. They see two aimless goblin scouts on some patrol away from their camp, and rather than capture them and attempt to extract information or some other plan to obtain an advantage against the goblins, they simply ambush them, shooting them dead with arrows and spells so they don't cry out, hopefully. A DM that describes two aimless goblins wandering around away from their camp is delivering an option to the party. It would be interesting if they chose not to use the single solution they use every other time, and maybe it would be fun too.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
To me, a murder hobo is someone who just wants to kill everything and is a d*ck about it. They don't care about anyone else's fun, only their own.
See also; Wangrod
Usually, it's just a reference to the fact that adventurers rarely have fixed bases of operation and tend to wander around, making them technically homeless.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think this is close.
But I think really the idea is that in the old D&D days, people generally did not RP much other than the actual dungeon (though there were exceptions). The party started at the entrance to the dungeon, and walked inside and started attacking whatever was in the dungeon. The stuff inside was meant to be fought, so we just killed it. Nobody tried to negotiate with the orcs. They're there to be killed, after all. And inside the dungeon, you had no home -- you just wandered around, eating rations, barring doors to rooms from wandering monsters, and killing as you went. When you filled up on encumbrance, you went back to town and sold things off, and then returned to the dungeon. You might have had a home in the town, but because you didn't really RP about being in the home at all, the only in-character play that occurred happened in the dungeon, where you had no home, and where all you did was kill things.
Thus... murder hobo.
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.
At least from my perspective, wiping out a goblin settlement doesn't make you a murder-hobo since we're talking about Goblins. They are evil creatures that are mostly bent on destruction of human and demi-human civilization for their own ends. Burning down a human settlement (like Hommlet, for example) after having looted every house, makes you a murder-hobo because you're little better than raiders/bandits. You're SUPPOSED to go out into the wilderness and clear it for human/demi-human habitation. You're not a dirtbag for trying to make sure civilization isn't snuffed out. You ARE a dirtbag when you aid in civilization being snuffed out. Maybe for some that is a fine, if subtle distinction. Adventurers are, by their nature, willing to be mercenaries and that makes them one step from being murder-hobos.
Wiping out a goblin village because goblins are evil according to the Monster Manual is the definition of murder hoboing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’m sorry, this is terrible.
This is basically the justification for being a murder hobo.
Not to mention EXTREMELY eerie parallels to the European genocide of Native Americans irl.
Sorry. I know you’re not supposed to mention rl political stuff but the parallel was just so obvious I couldn’t ignore it.
Not necessarily, if your character is a racist who believes all goblins are evil and the best thing for society is to eliminate them Then it is not meta gaming but is murder hobo.
I am not sure if the Europeans thought the Native Americans were evil or just inferior and just wanted them out the way so they could take over the land. I think a better example is the Nazis who believed Jews were inheritantly evil and the ruin of society.
I think one of the problems is the alignment system in D&D. Sure all demons are evil and I have no problem attacking them on sight but the manuals should not label all goblins as NE. Generic humanoids and probably a lot of others like dragon's should be shown as any alignment even if they have a comment that they tend to evil.
I totally agree.
If you think Goblins (evil FAERIES from European mythology) are gaming analogues to any non-European indigenous peoples, you have your head stuffed where the sun don't shine. They are creatures made by Magubliyet, an evil deity of Acheron that hates humans and demi-humans. And yes, they are EVIL. Evil is not some abstract concept, but a real perceivable force in the Multiverse. That's why Detect Evil exists. That's why the Cosmology chart for D&D has the Lower Planes, where Magubliyet and the Goblinoid pantheon exist. Goblins (and Hobgoblins, and Orcs, and Bugbears) are not simply misunderstood "ugly races" and/or indigenous folk, they are Chaos given form and represent the destruction of civilization. They raid, pillage and do all sorts of nasty stuff.
And again, to bring this back around to the original topic, a Murder-Hobo is someone that butchers his fellow humans/demi-humans willy nilly. He's the kind of disruptive gamer who slays the innocent fruit peddler because he thinks its funny. Or kills the party's contact after robbing him. Its not, however, the Paladin dispensing justice via hanging to the dirtbag Bandits/Highwaymen who tried to murder and rob the party on their way to an adventure. Its also not the Cleric who accepts No Quarter from Goblins because they serve an evil deity in direct opposition to the Cleric's deity.
QFT.
I hope you don't mind but I am going to save this quotation (I will credit you) and use it elsewhere, because you have explained this whole thing almost perfectly.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
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.
Once again I totally agree with your analysis.
But D&D does not go that way, when goblins became a playable race they made it clear that some goblins are good or neutral even if they are in the minority. Also using the term race for the various types of humanoid means they will always be compared to the different ethnic races of humans on earth.
Murder-hoboing began decades before goblins became a playable race, so the fact that they are now, has nothing really to do with what murder-hobos were engaged in doing in the 1970s.
When we played it back in the day, all of the goblinish races were considered monolithically and irredeemably evil. We would walk into common rooms with females and "orc whelps" and just cut them down. Nobody felt bad for doing it. They were mortal equivalents to demons and devils, back then. Nobody had any qualms about killing them and taking whatever treasure they had (especially since, lore-wise, nearly any treasure a goblin had was probably stolen in the first place, as goblins generally didn't produce much on their own).
As for the assertion that ruling that all members of a race act one way, such as evil, means they are non-sentient, that would bring in all demons and devils under the non-sentient umbrella too, because I'm pretty sure all of them are monolithically evil. But I don't think anyone has ever suggested before that this made all balors or all succubi "non sentient".
Murder-hoboing began in D&D because people enjoyed the tactical challenge of combat, the intellectual challenge of dungeon puzzles, the awareness challenge of traps, the geometric challenge of mapping the dungeon (while the DM was doing their darnedest to trip you up), and the social challenge of figuring out how to divide up loot fairly amongst a group in which everyone wants the same treasure. Monsters in those days were coded in the book, and portrayed by the DM, as "something to fight." It generally wasn't a moral issue because we were not interested in the challenge of RPing morality, at the time.
Now, maybe people are interested in doing that, and so those who weren't interested in RPing morality are looked down on, but it's frankly unfair and ahistorical to do so. I'll cop to being a murder-hobo back in the day -- and I'm not embarrassed or ashamed of it. It's how the game was played. You may as well blame me for "killing my opponent's king" when I checkmated him in chess.
And I'm sorry but if anyone back then had ever tried to suggest that any of the bipedal, sentient, primate-shaped races in old school D&D such as goblins or orcs were "analogues to real world human races" or should be compared to them, I can tell you that my friends and I, eighth and ninth graders that we were, would have laughed in your face. It never even occurred to any of us to think that way. We would have told you in all seriousness, that there already ARE analogues to the real-world human races in D&D.... they're called humans. And all flavors of them, of all ethnic/racial/cultural types you can imagine from the real world (plus a bunch that never existed in the real world but Gygax plagiarized from other fictional sources) are present -- as part of the human race.
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.
It's always situational.
If any group regardless of origin is acting like a bunch of bandits, it will be assumed that they're the bad people. I find this to be an acceptable assumption because, if it's not as simple as banditry for greed, the story deepens and how far the players stepped in it makes all the difference.
I've seen a campaign where a group of players managed to RP a group of Neutral Evil creatures to abandon their master and live in peace near a village they had been harassing on command. At first, it seemed like the creatures were the bad ones. Then, they discovered that someone in the village stole something sacred. Then, they discovered that the creatures' boss stole the sacred item from one of the player's deities.
Those players are very averse to fighting, though. So, no unnecessary blood was shed.
Yet, it seems reasonable to me that many or most players would attack the attacking creatures first before attempting any peaceful discourse.
This is not the same as those who cut swaths of carnage through opponents for loot, XP, or "winning D&D" without any thought to a deeper plot.
There is nothing wrong with playing like that if everyone is having fun with it. Murderhobos earn the name when it's not fun for others.
It always goes back to those who impose themselves upon others as being more important than the other players - other players meaning party members and GM.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.