I think the quintessential murder-hobo was the young player. As someone mentioned you went to the dungeon in the module and started clearing it out room by room. I would not be surprised if the 10 to 12 year old player is the same today. You just wanted to roll those dice and use your powers (at least that is the way I was and my friends were).
As we aged we changed, but when we were young we were heavily engaged in the power fantasy and I am guessing that is still true for young players today.
I think the quintessential murder-hobo was the young player. As someone mentioned you went to the dungeon in the module and started clearing it out room by room.
Part of it is youth, but part of it is just that's how the game was largely played back then. Remember, it has its roots in Chainmail, which was a miniatures wargame. There was no morality attached to the miniatures. I have an army, you have an army, and the goal of the game, just like the goal of chess or Stratego or Battleship, is for my forces to beat your forces. The players back then, including the adults, often came from the wargaming background, and they viewed D&D as a tactical simulation more than a roleplaying game. Yes, there were people who RPed to the hilt, but the majority of players in the 70s and 80s were concerned with "clearing out dungeons" as you say. This is what tournament play was like, as well. All those old modules that were "designed for tournament play" like G-1-2-3 and so forth -- those are just maps full of monsters to kill and treasure to loot because that was the point of tournament play. So yes, lots of us were kids and unsophisticated back then, but there were plenty of adults who did as well, because the game was a modded miniatures wargame, and there was no morality to killing things in a wargame -- killing enemies was the whole entire purpose of the venture.
Coming back now, when people have introduced new elements to gameplay, and implying that somehow people were immature or "wrong" to play it the original way, again, is ahistorical and wildly unfair to the original players -- without whose money and enthusiasm, we would not even have the "more sophisticated' version of the game that people love today.
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.
Biowizard - yes, that is the way I recall it as well. And in my mind there was nothing wrong with that.
Technically my 12 year old self was not a murder hobo. I had a keep, a wife, a village I protected, etc. In my mind I would triumphantly return home to a happy wife (naturally eternally grateful since I had saved her once upon a time), throw some head trophies in a corner for my servants (probably also people I had saved and thus happy to serve) to mount so any visitors would be suitably impressed with my might and prowess, regale the lady with my feats of bravery (she’d fawn over every detail of course) then it was off to have a pint at the village pub to impress more people with just how great I was.
So not a murder hobo, just an murder glory hound. So much better... ;)
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.
You do realize this is a GAME, right? This is not a simulation of reality, right? Its a pseudo-medieval world (whether European or otherwise). A world where adveturers have to go out into the wilderness and carve it out for humans to exist. A place where monsters hide that have ill intent towards any human settlement. A place where bandits/raiders, whether composed of humans who were formerly part of organized army groups that were defeated or goblin/hobgoblin/orc/bugbear/gnoll humanoids war parties, roam and destroy merchant caravans that keep the flickering light of human civilization from being snuffed out. Every single instance of such civilization destroying enemies are there to be defeated. Period. This is not conjecture or propaganda made up for the purposes of human conquest. These monsters serve malevolent gods that want to dominate, slaughter and devour human civilization. Stopping them isn't Evil, even when its at the source. Goblin "children" are just tiny monsters and any PC foolish enough to turns their back on them will get ganked when they stab them with whatever is handy or crack their skulls with rocks. Goblin females are just as tough and just as capable as their mates.
You wanna play Goblins as different-skinned humans? Fine. That's you and that's your prerogative as a gamer. I don't because D&D monster races are not free-willed. This isn't Lord of the Rings, where any self-willed creature under Eru was and had the capacity to be redeemed as Tolkien was a Roman Catholic and his works reflect his faith. D&D goblins aren't humans. They aren't simply misunderstood. They are forces of destruction that engage in murder, pillaging and slavery of humans and demi-humans. They aren't the creation of a loving and forgiving Supreme Deity, but are the will of their wicked creators made manifest.
However, historically, the original coding of all monster races in D&D, including the ones that people now use as playable races such as goblins, orcs, bugbears, and so forth -- the original coding for ALL of those races was as enemies to be killed. That was the purpose of their inclusion in the AD&D Monster Manual and in the pre-existing source books. They were there to be fought, killed and looted. It was their purpose.
And because it was their purpose, the people who had their characters go into the Caves of Chaos or the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or the Vault of the Drow and kill everything that moved and take its loot were not portraying bad or unethical characters. They were playing the game as intended -- as a tactical simulation of what fantastical but feudal-era inspired small unit combat would have been like, derived from the rules of a miniatures wargame in which the ONLY goal was to wipe out the game pieces on the other side. Those players, me included, largely treated both their characters and the enemy monsters as game pieces. We who played that way were not "the real monsters" for portraying our characters as cutting down goblins or orcs or trolls. We were doing what the game was designed for us to do.
These days such play is looked upon with derision, but there was nothing wrong with playing that way back then -- far from it... it was the default, standard, expected way to play, and the designers created the monsters knowing people played it that way. To turn around now 40 years later and heap derision on those players because they played the game in the way it was meant to be played is, as I keep saying, unfair and ahistorical.
I mean you could say the same thing about CRPGs. In the earliest CRPGs, like Ultima I, II, III... all there was to do, really, was murder things and take their loot. The programmers didn't give you anything else to do, and certainly in those games there were no moral decisions to make. Ultima IV was the first to introduce any sort of morality (the path of the "Avatar" and its 8 virtues), and once it did, there was sort-of no going back. But just because post-Ultima IV games revolved around morality, doesn't mean people were somehow being "cruel" to the Ultima II orcs for wiping them out. Wiping out orcs in Ultima II is what you were supposed to do -- because the developers hadn't come up with anything more sophisticated yet, and older computers couldn't have handled it even if the had.
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.
You do realize this is a GAME, right? This is not a simulation of reality, right? Its a pseudo-medieval world (whether European or otherwise). A world where adveturers have to go out into the wilderness and carve it out for humans to exist. A place where monsters hide that have ill intent towards any human settlement. A place where bandits/raiders, whether composed of humans who were formerly part of organized army groups that were defeated or goblin/hobgoblin/orc/bugbear/gnoll humanoids war parties, roam and destroy merchant caravans that keep the flickering light of human civilization from being snuffed out. Every single instance of such civilization destroying enemies are there to be defeated. Period. This is not conjecture or propaganda made up for the purposes of human conquest. These monsters serve malevolent gods that want to dominate, slaughter and devour human civilization. Stopping them isn't Evil, even when its at the source. Goblin "children" are just tiny monsters and any PC foolish enough to turns their back on them will get ganked when they stab them with whatever is handy or crack their skulls with rocks. Goblin females are just as tough and just as capable as their mates.
You wanna play Goblins as different-skinned humans? Fine. That's you and that's your prerogative as a gamer. I don't because D&D monster races are not free-willed. This isn't Lord of the Rings, where any self-willed creature under Eru was and had the capacity to be redeemed as Tolkien was a Roman Catholic and his works reflect his faith. D&D goblins aren't humans. They aren't simply misunderstood. They are forces of destruction that engage in murder, pillaging and slavery of humans and demi-humans. They aren't the creation of a loving and forgiving Supreme Deity, but are the will of their wicked creators made manifest.
You realize the literature I was talking about in my opening question is fiction too, right? Just because something is fictional does not excuse it being shallow.
And as I mentioned, Goblins are evil in official 5e lore because a god killed their creator god and somehow thereby controls their souls but inexplicably PC goblins are neither required to follow that god nor to be evil.
Bandits are bandits, as you say, regardless of race. That is not the same thing as literally being born a bandit. Stopping evil is not evil. Genocide because any given people are literally arbitrarily defined as evil is still genocide.
My earlier question was never answered. Why, exactly, does it have to be genocide to be fun? And yes, that question applies even in the context of a game, even if those feeling that way are absolute saints in real life.
The problem with introducing the moral quandry is its a trap to screw players. Don't do that. It makes you a jerk as a DM because you make it where there is no right answer for the players to get out of that doesn't come out as stupid no matter what. Playing any monster race as simply being humans in funny suits turns the game completely on its head. If you do that, you need to either remove combat or alignment (and all powers/spells derived from alignment) from the game entirely. We're not playing modern humans and monstrous races aren't people and trying to make them into persons creates more problems than it solves. Orcs aren't black people (or Asians) like many "woke" morons are now claiming. Goblins are not simply misunderstood tribal people. NOT in D&D. They DO engage in genocide, murder, rapine and pillaging of human and demi-humans. The moment you make them persons, you have created a problem you won't be able to get out of since killing them will be the equivalent of killing another person. At that point, you're better off not even having such foes in the game.
I've got a text file with Brooklyn's answers saved up to reference for later, they are so on point.
And funny enough, I have no problem with people playing monstrous races. Its from OD&D, which many people don't realize. Heck, even from pre-D&D like Blackmoor where the Ork King Funk the First ruled Castle Blackmoor and the Vampire Sir-Fang was there too. But they were the Evil side. Because you're right, it was a Tactical Simulation. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing Evil characters. But they are foes, nonetheless. And they are Players, not "monsters", which in AD&D included humans (bandits/raiders, etc). Monsters are there to be defeated. Parlaying with them that creates a temporary advantage for civilization, okay. Trying to make peace with all Orks? Good luck with that, you're likely to end up enslaved, tortured and then dinner one night (or sacrificed to Gruumsh and then made into dinner).
People play D&D in different ways. Some people enjoy a combat focused campaign, where morality is something that just "gets in the way" of a good story. In those campaigsns, goblins, orcs, and every other monster is just a bag of XP and treasure. Other prefer more complex campaigns, where the enemies have actual motivations instead of just "evil because they are evil." I much prefer the second variant, but both are viable ways to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Murderhoboing is the fine art of killing critters for free xps and loot. Some would say farming chickens/bunnies in some Crpg to level up would be murderhoboing. Murder Hoboing depended on your group and DM. Some groups saw orcs(insert whatever monster race) as free xp, others had more shades of gray approach. Neither was wrong.
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.
99% of these threads end up getting locked (to the detriment of the interesting discussion) because people cannot simply understand and accept the words written by Brooklyn. Please, for the love of Magubliyet, STOP reading into things so greatly that you continue to find the things I do in my fantasy tabletop GAME offensive in some fashion.
As a veteran, I've had many a discussion about real life war. Real world war. Talks about who the good guys and bad guys are. Are the bad guys all bad or just misunderstood? This is neither the time nor the place, but there's merit in discussion about trying to see things from the "bad guys" side. You know what sort of discussion never happens? When I go out and shoot those "bad guys" in my Call of Duty game. There's a serious and drastic difference.
And funny enough, I have no problem with people playing monstrous races. Its from OD&D, which many people don't realize.
Right but you point out the difference. Classically in D&D, there are 3 types of beings: PCs, NPCs, and Monsters.
PCs are the stars, the protagonists, and the ones who are (by default) expected to win/kill. PCs are 3 dimensional.
Monsters are the bad guys, by definition (regardless of alignment) and (by default) are expected to lose/die. Monsters are 1 dimensional.
NPCs are supporting characters and may be killed or survive, help or hurt the party. The NPCs are in the gray area -- but not the monsters. NPCs are (perhaps) 2 dimensional
Yes, you could play a Red Dragon as a PC, but then it's not a Monster -- it's a PC. It plays like a PC, it wins, it has hopes and dreams, it can be whatever alignment you want -- it's a real 3 dimensional character, etc. When it's a PC. All the other red dragons in the world, though, are monsters, and are chaotic evil, and are not 3 dimensional or generally even 2 dimensional characters. Like Smaug. He's in one scene. There was no reason or need for Tolkien to make him a 2 or 3 dimensional character.
Now, modern players tend to want everything to be 3D, including monsters, and that's OK. But classically, the only 3D characters were PCs. And so killing the non-3D characters was not considered an issue back then.
People play D&D in different ways. Some people enjoy a combat focused campaign, where morality is something that just "gets in the way" of a good story. In those campaigsns, goblins, orcs, and every other monster is just a bag of XP and treasure. Other prefer more complex campaigns, where the enemies have actual motivations instead of just "evil because they are evil." I much prefer the second variant, but both are viable ways to play.
Agreed.
I’m not offended by people playing the first way as long as all the players are cool with it. I just don’t wanna play that way.
I’m not offended by people playing the first way as long as all the players are cool with it. I just don’t wanna play that way.
I completely agree.
But the term "Murder Hobo" implies a level of derision toward people who play that way. Not saying you are derisive... but the term is used negatively, and the implication is that there was something wrong with people who played the game that way over the past years, and even more wrong with them if they want to play the game that way now.
I find it really strange to be in the position of wanting to defend the "murder hobos" because our group outgrew that pretty much the second we started playing Champions, which had much more subtle game-play revolving around morality just by the nature of the superhero genre (e.g., in those days superheroes generally didn't kill). But whether or not I want to play that way now, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing that way. And I don't look down my nose at the people who do.
Similarly in MMORPGs... I always find the "RP server" and join a "RP guild." I do not do PVP, ever, because I find it not to be fun. But I don't look down my nose at the people who play on PVP servers or assume they are all a bunch of "PKers".
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.
This thread is probably in need of a good lock at this point. We’ve gone far past the original discussion and now it’s become a debate on which play styles of D&D are better than others. Doesn’t matter. If the table wants to be murderous cretins, so be it. If the table wants to role play every encounter, so be it. We can debate the historical aspects of D&D and old modules, new modules, non modules, and what everyone wants, but we’re starting to delve into attacks on how people play, and that just ain’t cool.
This thread is probably in need of a good lock at this point. We’ve gone far past the original discussion and now it’s become a debate on which play styles of D&D are better than others. Doesn’t matter. If the table wants to be murderous cretins, so be it. If the table wants to role play every encounter, so be it. We can debate the historical aspects of D&D and old modules, new modules, non modules, and what everyone wants, but we’re starting to delve into attacks on how people play, and that just ain’t cool.
Thread locking is for people who can't deal with world views that conflict with their own. It is the mark of a weak original position.
This thread is probably in need of a good lock at this point. We’ve gone far past the original discussion and now it’s become a debate on which play styles of D&D are better than others. Doesn’t matter. If the table wants to be murderous cretins, so be it. If the table wants to role play every encounter, so be it. We can debate the historical aspects of D&D and old modules, new modules, non modules, and what everyone wants, but we’re starting to delve into attacks on how people play, and that just ain’t cool.
Thread locking is for people who can't deal with world views that conflict with their own. It is the mark of a weak original position.
Some discussions aren’t the intent of the original post. If you want to have a discussion on that, then you make a new thread where that is the point. Again, we are delving into personal attacks. That isn’t the point of any discussion thread.
Let's keep things on topic, which is the origin and meaning of the term 'murder hobo' and not the merits of play styles. That's a whole different thread
If you want a perfect example of a Murderhobo, then watch The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising. The Chaotic Neutral Sorcereress character of Luster is a Murderhobo, while the group's monk, Brother Silence, is a close second.
In my experience, a murder hobo is a combat focused player, who tries to solve all problems posed by the dm with combat. For example, a town guard blocks your way because you are suspicious. Instead of persuading or intimidating the guard to let you pass, the murder hobo bashes his head in. For another example, a shopkeeper demands an extravagant price for his +1 longsword. Instead of simply haggling or intimidating the shopkeeper, even just looking elsewhere for a better price, the murder hobo takes out his longsword and kills the shopkeeper, running away with the sword. For a less evil example, the party invades the fortress of a evil warlord and halfway through, the party sees a servant holding a luxurious meal. Instead of the party trying to follow in stealth or pretend to be the warlords minions, the murder hobo attacks the cook.
Murder hobo's are totally fine as long as either the rest of the group is fine with it or they are also murder hobo's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When players get creative.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the quintessential murder-hobo was the young player. As someone mentioned you went to the dungeon in the module and started clearing it out room by room. I would not be surprised if the 10 to 12 year old player is the same today. You just wanted to roll those dice and use your powers (at least that is the way I was and my friends were).
As we aged we changed, but when we were young we were heavily engaged in the power fantasy and I am guessing that is still true for young players today.
Part of it is youth, but part of it is just that's how the game was largely played back then. Remember, it has its roots in Chainmail, which was a miniatures wargame. There was no morality attached to the miniatures. I have an army, you have an army, and the goal of the game, just like the goal of chess or Stratego or Battleship, is for my forces to beat your forces. The players back then, including the adults, often came from the wargaming background, and they viewed D&D as a tactical simulation more than a roleplaying game. Yes, there were people who RPed to the hilt, but the majority of players in the 70s and 80s were concerned with "clearing out dungeons" as you say. This is what tournament play was like, as well. All those old modules that were "designed for tournament play" like G-1-2-3 and so forth -- those are just maps full of monsters to kill and treasure to loot because that was the point of tournament play. So yes, lots of us were kids and unsophisticated back then, but there were plenty of adults who did as well, because the game was a modded miniatures wargame, and there was no morality to killing things in a wargame -- killing enemies was the whole entire purpose of the venture.
Coming back now, when people have introduced new elements to gameplay, and implying that somehow people were immature or "wrong" to play it the original way, again, is ahistorical and wildly unfair to the original players -- without whose money and enthusiasm, we would not even have the "more sophisticated' version of the game that people love today.
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.
Biowizard - yes, that is the way I recall it as well. And in my mind there was nothing wrong with that.
Technically my 12 year old self was not a murder hobo. I had a keep, a wife, a village I protected, etc. In my mind I would triumphantly return home to a happy wife (naturally eternally grateful since I had saved her once upon a time), throw some head trophies in a corner for my servants (probably also people I had saved and thus happy to serve) to mount so any visitors would be suitably impressed with my might and prowess, regale the lady with my feats of bravery (she’d fawn over every detail of course) then it was off to have a pint at the village pub to impress more people with just how great I was.
So not a murder hobo, just an murder glory hound. So much better... ;)
You do realize this is a GAME, right? This is not a simulation of reality, right? Its a pseudo-medieval world (whether European or otherwise). A world where adveturers have to go out into the wilderness and carve it out for humans to exist. A place where monsters hide that have ill intent towards any human settlement. A place where bandits/raiders, whether composed of humans who were formerly part of organized army groups that were defeated or goblin/hobgoblin/orc/bugbear/gnoll humanoids war parties, roam and destroy merchant caravans that keep the flickering light of human civilization from being snuffed out. Every single instance of such civilization destroying enemies are there to be defeated. Period. This is not conjecture or propaganda made up for the purposes of human conquest. These monsters serve malevolent gods that want to dominate, slaughter and devour human civilization. Stopping them isn't Evil, even when its at the source. Goblin "children" are just tiny monsters and any PC foolish enough to turns their back on them will get ganked when they stab them with whatever is handy or crack their skulls with rocks. Goblin females are just as tough and just as capable as their mates.
You wanna play Goblins as different-skinned humans? Fine. That's you and that's your prerogative as a gamer. I don't because D&D monster races are not free-willed. This isn't Lord of the Rings, where any self-willed creature under Eru was and had the capacity to be redeemed as Tolkien was a Roman Catholic and his works reflect his faith. D&D goblins aren't humans. They aren't simply misunderstood. They are forces of destruction that engage in murder, pillaging and slavery of humans and demi-humans. They aren't the creation of a loving and forgiving Supreme Deity, but are the will of their wicked creators made manifest.
It all depends on how you want to run your world.
However, historically, the original coding of all monster races in D&D, including the ones that people now use as playable races such as goblins, orcs, bugbears, and so forth -- the original coding for ALL of those races was as enemies to be killed. That was the purpose of their inclusion in the AD&D Monster Manual and in the pre-existing source books. They were there to be fought, killed and looted. It was their purpose.
And because it was their purpose, the people who had their characters go into the Caves of Chaos or the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or the Vault of the Drow and kill everything that moved and take its loot were not portraying bad or unethical characters. They were playing the game as intended -- as a tactical simulation of what fantastical but feudal-era inspired small unit combat would have been like, derived from the rules of a miniatures wargame in which the ONLY goal was to wipe out the game pieces on the other side. Those players, me included, largely treated both their characters and the enemy monsters as game pieces. We who played that way were not "the real monsters" for portraying our characters as cutting down goblins or orcs or trolls. We were doing what the game was designed for us to do.
These days such play is looked upon with derision, but there was nothing wrong with playing that way back then -- far from it... it was the default, standard, expected way to play, and the designers created the monsters knowing people played it that way. To turn around now 40 years later and heap derision on those players because they played the game in the way it was meant to be played is, as I keep saying, unfair and ahistorical.
I mean you could say the same thing about CRPGs. In the earliest CRPGs, like Ultima I, II, III... all there was to do, really, was murder things and take their loot. The programmers didn't give you anything else to do, and certainly in those games there were no moral decisions to make. Ultima IV was the first to introduce any sort of morality (the path of the "Avatar" and its 8 virtues), and once it did, there was sort-of no going back. But just because post-Ultima IV games revolved around morality, doesn't mean people were somehow being "cruel" to the Ultima II orcs for wiping them out. Wiping out orcs in Ultima II is what you were supposed to do -- because the developers hadn't come up with anything more sophisticated yet, and older computers couldn't have handled it even if the had.
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 problem with introducing the moral quandry is its a trap to screw players. Don't do that. It makes you a jerk as a DM because you make it where there is no right answer for the players to get out of that doesn't come out as stupid no matter what. Playing any monster race as simply being humans in funny suits turns the game completely on its head. If you do that, you need to either remove combat or alignment (and all powers/spells derived from alignment) from the game entirely. We're not playing modern humans and monstrous races aren't people and trying to make them into persons creates more problems than it solves. Orcs aren't black people (or Asians) like many "woke" morons are now claiming. Goblins are not simply misunderstood tribal people. NOT in D&D. They DO engage in genocide, murder, rapine and pillaging of human and demi-humans. The moment you make them persons, you have created a problem you won't be able to get out of since killing them will be the equivalent of killing another person. At that point, you're better off not even having such foes in the game.
I've got a text file with Brooklyn's answers saved up to reference for later, they are so on point.
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.
And funny enough, I have no problem with people playing monstrous races. Its from OD&D, which many people don't realize. Heck, even from pre-D&D like Blackmoor where the Ork King Funk the First ruled Castle Blackmoor and the Vampire Sir-Fang was there too. But they were the Evil side. Because you're right, it was a Tactical Simulation. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing Evil characters. But they are foes, nonetheless. And they are Players, not "monsters", which in AD&D included humans (bandits/raiders, etc). Monsters are there to be defeated. Parlaying with them that creates a temporary advantage for civilization, okay. Trying to make peace with all Orks? Good luck with that, you're likely to end up enslaved, tortured and then dinner one night (or sacrificed to Gruumsh and then made into dinner).
People play D&D in different ways. Some people enjoy a combat focused campaign, where morality is something that just "gets in the way" of a good story. In those campaigsns, goblins, orcs, and every other monster is just a bag of XP and treasure. Other prefer more complex campaigns, where the enemies have actual motivations instead of just "evil because they are evil." I much prefer the second variant, but both are viable ways to play.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Murderhoboing is the fine art of killing critters for free xps and loot. Some would say farming chickens/bunnies in some Crpg to level up would be murderhoboing. Murder Hoboing depended on your group and DM. Some groups saw orcs(insert whatever monster race) as free xp, others had more shades of gray approach. Neither was wrong.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
99% of these threads end up getting locked (to the detriment of the interesting discussion) because people cannot simply understand and accept the words written by Brooklyn. Please, for the love of Magubliyet, STOP reading into things so greatly that you continue to find the things I do in my fantasy tabletop GAME offensive in some fashion.
As a veteran, I've had many a discussion about real life war. Real world war. Talks about who the good guys and bad guys are. Are the bad guys all bad or just misunderstood? This is neither the time nor the place, but there's merit in discussion about trying to see things from the "bad guys" side. You know what sort of discussion never happens? When I go out and shoot those "bad guys" in my Call of Duty game. There's a serious and drastic difference.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Right but you point out the difference. Classically in D&D, there are 3 types of beings: PCs, NPCs, and Monsters.
Yes, you could play a Red Dragon as a PC, but then it's not a Monster -- it's a PC. It plays like a PC, it wins, it has hopes and dreams, it can be whatever alignment you want -- it's a real 3 dimensional character, etc. When it's a PC. All the other red dragons in the world, though, are monsters, and are chaotic evil, and are not 3 dimensional or generally even 2 dimensional characters. Like Smaug. He's in one scene. There was no reason or need for Tolkien to make him a 2 or 3 dimensional character.
Now, modern players tend to want everything to be 3D, including monsters, and that's OK. But classically, the only 3D characters were PCs. And so killing the non-3D characters was not considered an issue back then.
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.
Agreed.
I’m not offended by people playing the first way as long as all the players are cool with it. I just don’t wanna play that way.
I completely agree.
But the term "Murder Hobo" implies a level of derision toward people who play that way. Not saying you are derisive... but the term is used negatively, and the implication is that there was something wrong with people who played the game that way over the past years, and even more wrong with them if they want to play the game that way now.
I find it really strange to be in the position of wanting to defend the "murder hobos" because our group outgrew that pretty much the second we started playing Champions, which had much more subtle game-play revolving around morality just by the nature of the superhero genre (e.g., in those days superheroes generally didn't kill). But whether or not I want to play that way now, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing that way. And I don't look down my nose at the people who do.
Similarly in MMORPGs... I always find the "RP server" and join a "RP guild." I do not do PVP, ever, because I find it not to be fun. But I don't look down my nose at the people who play on PVP servers or assume they are all a bunch of "PKers".
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.
This thread is probably in need of a good lock at this point. We’ve gone far past the original discussion and now it’s become a debate on which play styles of D&D are better than others. Doesn’t matter. If the table wants to be murderous cretins, so be it. If the table wants to role play every encounter, so be it. We can debate the historical aspects of D&D and old modules, new modules, non modules, and what everyone wants, but we’re starting to delve into attacks on how people play, and that just ain’t cool.
Thread locking is for people who can't deal with world views that conflict with their own. It is the mark of a weak original position.
Some discussions aren’t the intent of the original post. If you want to have a discussion on that, then you make a new thread where that is the point. Again, we are delving into personal attacks. That isn’t the point of any discussion thread.
Let's keep things on topic, which is the origin and meaning of the term 'murder hobo' and not the merits of play styles. That's a whole different thread
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If you want a perfect example of a Murderhobo, then watch The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising. The Chaotic Neutral Sorcereress character of Luster is a Murderhobo, while the group's monk, Brother Silence, is a close second.
In my experience, a murder hobo is a combat focused player, who tries to solve all problems posed by the dm with combat. For example, a town guard blocks your way because you are suspicious. Instead of persuading or intimidating the guard to let you pass, the murder hobo bashes his head in. For another example, a shopkeeper demands an extravagant price for his +1 longsword. Instead of simply haggling or intimidating the shopkeeper, even just looking elsewhere for a better price, the murder hobo takes out his longsword and kills the shopkeeper, running away with the sword. For a less evil example, the party invades the fortress of a evil warlord and halfway through, the party sees a servant holding a luxurious meal. Instead of the party trying to follow in stealth or pretend to be the warlords minions, the murder hobo attacks the cook.
Murder hobo's are totally fine as long as either the rest of the group is fine with it or they are also murder hobo's.
When players get creative.