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.
Champions! That brings back memories! First it was Danger International and then it was Champions. We loved that game!
I don't even know why we are arguing on here. I get what Kotath is saying. If possible you should add nuance to the game. HOWEVER, there is issue when you start adding real world 'morality' onto a fantasy game. I was at a Barnes and Noble checking out some of the books and a young guy came up and asked if I needed assistance. We started talking and of course he played and soon we were having an animated discussion. I felt a bit foolish getting so pumped up with a guy young enough to be my son. I remember he had a tiefling girl character who had skill in dinosaur riding. But then we got on the subject of religion and he confided in me that his parents didn't like him playing and questioning every in game thing that might be against his religioun. I'm not religious, but if I was I can see why it might be a bit hard to explain to your parents, "Yes I will be at church on Sunday, but that afternoon I'll be playing a half-devil girl riding a dinosaur."
So this is why I think it is important to be very careful not to tie 'real world stuff' to 'in game stuff'. Its not too far of a leap from there to 'satanic panic'.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I've heard it before and it just sounds like insufferable whedonesque hipster redditor speak. The same people that will say "heckin' doggo" and crap like that.
No. This term has existed for decades and honestly accurately describes a play style.
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.
D&D wasn't made so people could make parallels between problems in real life, it was made so people could actually enjoy the game. If you want to talk about problems in real life go on a different site.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
You can play that way, but don't call someone a snob for playing D&D. RPG does stand for role-playing game, not MMORPG simulator.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
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.
D&D wasn't made so people could make parallels between problems in real life, it was made so people could actually enjoy the game. If you want to talk about problems in real life go on a different site.
I do enjoy playing the game. And if you wanna play that way that’s fine. Just not the way I like playing. It doesn’t creep me out or anything, but I definitely get bored after like an hour if all we do is kill stuff.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
You can play that way, but don't call someone a snob for playing D&D. RPG does stand for role-playing game, not MMORPG simulator.
then don't treat other players are being somehow less than you because they play differently than you do. The fact is, D&D was originally /designed/ to be a simulator. Look into the history of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
Then why even bother having lore?
Because lore is interesting. My point was, that different people play different ways, and the RP snobs tend to look down their noses at the hack and slash players. They should not, the RPers and CR wannabes are /not/ any better than the "murder hobos" are. They /think/ they are doing it right, but there is no /right/ way to structure a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
You can play that way, but don't call someone a snob for playing D&D. RPG does stand for role-playing game, not MMORPG simulator.
then don't treat other players are being somehow less than you because they play differently than you do. The fact is, D&D was originally /designed/ to be a simulator. Look into the history of the game.
I won't treat players any less if they want to play a hack and slash game. I just wanted to point out that someone isn't a snob if the wanted to play more than just a third of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
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.
BioWizard is spot on here. Just like society these days, the D&D community has identified people they can feel justified attacking people over, and think that they are morally superior. The simple fact is, people get different things out of a game. I've been playing D&D since 1986. The first adventure I played elf was a CLASS, not a race. I've played in Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft. I've played GURPS, D&D, AD&D, 3.0 (not 3.5), 4.0 and 5.0. I've got some RPG experience.
Hack and slashers are people too. Hell, in the old days, /nobody/ role played much. Every group I was in until the early 2000's was mostly hack and slash. Nobody then looked down on the RP players then though, like the RP snobs look down on hack and slashers now. They don't deserve to be looked down on any more than the folks who think that Critical Role is the be all and end all of D&D. God, I wouldn't want to PLAY a campaign that was taken as seriously as CR is. I spend way too much time laughing at bad fart jokes in my games. We like combat. RP's OK, but my group can take it or leave it. We do a bit of roleplaying, but we keep it bare bones. We give our characters a personality and we generally control them in a consistent manner. Exploration has sucked in every system I've tried and is not FUN.
So again, BioWizard's comments are pretty much spot on, and why I refer to people as RP snobs with derision. They don't like it any more than folks enjoy being looked down on for playing a hack and slash game. They can take their superiority complex and bugger off, because D&D is for everyone...including murder hobos.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
An edgelord is typically someone who does dark, disturbing or otherwise disruptive things to seem 'edgy' (hence the name, they are trying to be the 'lord of edginess').
An edgelord is typically someone who does dark, disturbing or otherwise disruptive things to seem 'edgy' (hence the name, they are trying to be the 'lord of edginess').
In this case, wiping out a Goblin village is NOT being an edgelord. Its also NOT being a murderhobo. It most often is the default for older settings because that is what was expected. Its only newer settings and editions that have changed this, but the problem is the DNA of the game (in this case, the Cosmology) is set a particular way. They are GOBLINS and they are Evil not just because they're hellbent on murder, rapine and generally destroying human/demi-human civilization. They are Evil because the forces of Good/Neutrality/Evil are actual forces of the Multiverse and not something that is abstract or relative. Goblins are the creations of their gods, who are Evil.
Anyone who has played classic OD&D and AD&D knows this because the default settings were the Avalon Hill Survival Board (OD&D) and The World of Greyhawk (AD&D). The eastern Flanaess of The World of Greyhawk is a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery/High Fantasy hybrid where humanity is holding on by its fingernails. The continent is mostly a howling wilderness of darkness and every surviving Goblin (or Hobgoblin, or Kobold, or Ork, or Bugbear, or Gnoll, or Norker, or Ogre) is another spear aimed at (relatively) defenseless settlements spread out from the main centers of habitation. The Points of Light idea from 4th Edition was quite literally lifted whole cloth from Gygaxian Greyhawk (1980 Folio/1983 Box Set).
We're talking, btw, about the foot soldiers of groups like The Shrine of Evil Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands), The Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavers of the Pomarj (Scourge of the Slavelords), in other words the villains of the setting. They're (again) not merely misunderstood souls who just need to be shown the error of their ways. These monsters will either enslave humans/demi-humans or put them to the sword. Why shouldn't humans/demi-humans expect to return the favor of No Quarter?
If there is a Good Goblin, he's a 1-in-1,000,000 of his kind and was likely killed long before any adventurers show up to do him in for being a humanoid. You want to play such a Goblin who isn't a pint-sized murder machine? Okay, you're the one exception to the rule. You've somehow risen above the vast overwhelming majority of your kind (99.99%) to be something more than a Monster.
In this case, wiping out a Goblin village is NOT being an edgelord. Its also NOT being a murderhobo. It most often is the default for older settings because that is what was expected. Its only newer settings and editions that have changed this, but the problem is the DNA of the game (in this case, the Cosmology) is set a particular way. They are GOBLINS and they are Evil not just because they're hellbent on murder, rapine and generally destroying human/demi-human civilization. They are Evil because the forces of Good/Neutrality/Evil are actual forces of the Multiverse and not something that is abstract or relative. Goblins are the creations of their gods, who are Evil.
Anyone who has played classic OD&D and AD&D knows this because the default settings were the Avalon Hill Survival Board (OD&D) and The World of Greyhawk (AD&D). The eastern Flanaess of The World of Greyhawk is a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery/High Fantasy hybrid where humanity is holding on by its fingernails. The continent is mostly a howling wilderness of darkness and every surviving Goblin (or Hobgoblin, or Kobold, or Ork, or Bugbear, or Gnoll, or Norker, or Ogre) is another spear aimed at (relatively) defenseless settlements spread out from the main centers of habitation. The Points of Light idea from 4th Edition was quite literally lifted whole cloth from Gygaxian Greyhawk (1980 Folio/1983 Box Set).
We're talking, btw, about the foot soldiers of groups like The Shrine of Evil Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands), The Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavers of the Pomarj (Scourge of the Slavelords), in other words the villains of the setting. They're (again) not merely misunderstood souls who just need to be shown the error of their ways. These monsters will either enslave humans/demi-humans or put them to the sword. Why shouldn't humans/demi-humans expect to return the favor of No Quarter?
If there is a Good Goblin, he's a 1-in-1,000,000 of his kind and was likely killed long before any adventurers show up to do him in for being a humanoid. You want to play such a Goblin who isn't a pint-sized murder machine? Okay, you're the one exception to the rule. You've somehow risen above the vast overwhelming majority of your kind (99.99%) to be something more than a Monster.
This entire problem started when someone at WOTC had the bright idea to think "hey, we can squeeze some more cash out of customers by providing stat blocks for monsters as players". Naturally, no one thought of the repercussions down the line. Not that I totally blame them. Who knew this movement would gain so much steam, and infect so many areas it has no business getting into.
In this case, wiping out a Goblin village is NOT being an edgelord. Its also NOT being a murderhobo. It most often is the default for older settings because that is what was expected. Its only newer settings and editions that have changed this, but the problem is the DNA of the game (in this case, the Cosmology) is set a particular way. They are GOBLINS and they are Evil not just because they're hellbent on murder, rapine and generally destroying human/demi-human civilization. They are Evil because the forces of Good/Neutrality/Evil are actual forces of the Multiverse and not something that is abstract or relative. Goblins are the creations of their gods, who are Evil.
Anyone who has played classic OD&D and AD&D knows this because the default settings were the Avalon Hill Survival Board (OD&D) and The World of Greyhawk (AD&D). The eastern Flanaess of The World of Greyhawk is a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery/High Fantasy hybrid where humanity is holding on by its fingernails. The continent is mostly a howling wilderness of darkness and every surviving Goblin (or Hobgoblin, or Kobold, or Ork, or Bugbear, or Gnoll, or Norker, or Ogre) is another spear aimed at (relatively) defenseless settlements spread out from the main centers of habitation. The Points of Light idea from 4th Edition was quite literally lifted whole cloth from Gygaxian Greyhawk (1980 Folio/1983 Box Set).
We're talking, btw, about the foot soldiers of groups like The Shrine of Evil Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands), The Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavers of the Pomarj (Scourge of the Slavelords), in other words the villains of the setting. They're (again) not merely misunderstood souls who just need to be shown the error of their ways. These monsters will either enslave humans/demi-humans or put them to the sword. Why shouldn't humans/demi-humans expect to return the favor of No Quarter?
If there is a Good Goblin, he's a 1-in-1,000,000 of his kind and was likely killed long before any adventurers show up to do him in for being a humanoid. You want to play such a Goblin who isn't a pint-sized murder machine? Okay, you're the one exception to the rule. You've somehow risen above the vast overwhelming majority of your kind (99.99%) to be something more than a Monster.
Currently, in the Forgotten Realms, Ebberon, Wildemount, Ravnica, and Theros, goblins, orcs and drow are not universally evil. They are evil because of the teachings of their god, and the situation their species is in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Champions! That brings back memories! First it was Danger International and then it was Champions. We loved that game!
I don't even know why we are arguing on here. I get what Kotath is saying. If possible you should add nuance to the game. HOWEVER, there is issue when you start adding real world 'morality' onto a fantasy game. I was at a Barnes and Noble checking out some of the books and a young guy came up and asked if I needed assistance. We started talking and of course he played and soon we were having an animated discussion. I felt a bit foolish getting so pumped up with a guy young enough to be my son. I remember he had a tiefling girl character who had skill in dinosaur riding. But then we got on the subject of religion and he confided in me that his parents didn't like him playing and questioning every in game thing that might be against his religioun. I'm not religious, but if I was I can see why it might be a bit hard to explain to your parents, "Yes I will be at church on Sunday, but that afternoon I'll be playing a half-devil girl riding a dinosaur."
So this is why I think it is important to be very careful not to tie 'real world stuff' to 'in game stuff'. Its not too far of a leap from there to 'satanic panic'.
As a confirmed murder-hobo player myself, this is the answer. In the old days we called ourselves hack-and-slashers, but murder-hobo fits as well. Don't let the RP snobs tell you that there are three essential pillars to D&D.
You can get by without exploration and RP ;)
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
No. This term has existed for decades and honestly accurately describes a play style.
D&D wasn't made so people could make parallels between problems in real life, it was made so people could actually enjoy the game. If you want to talk about problems in real life go on a different site.
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
You can play that way, but don't call someone a snob for playing D&D. RPG does stand for role-playing game, not MMORPG simulator.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Then why even bother having lore?
I do enjoy playing the game. And if you wanna play that way that’s fine. Just not the way I like playing. It doesn’t creep me out or anything, but I definitely get bored after like an hour if all we do is kill stuff.
then don't treat other players are being somehow less than you because they play differently than you do. The fact is, D&D was originally /designed/ to be a simulator. Look into the history of the game.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Because lore is interesting. My point was, that different people play different ways, and the RP snobs tend to look down their noses at the hack and slash players. They should not, the RPers and CR wannabes are /not/ any better than the "murder hobos" are. They /think/ they are doing it right, but there is no /right/ way to structure a game.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I won't treat players any less if they want to play a hack and slash game. I just wanted to point out that someone isn't a snob if the wanted to play more than just a third of D&D.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
BioWizard is spot on here. Just like society these days, the D&D community has identified people they can feel justified attacking people over, and think that they are morally superior. The simple fact is, people get different things out of a game. I've been playing D&D since 1986. The first adventure I played elf was a CLASS, not a race. I've played in Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft. I've played GURPS, D&D, AD&D, 3.0 (not 3.5), 4.0 and 5.0. I've got some RPG experience.
Hack and slashers are people too. Hell, in the old days, /nobody/ role played much. Every group I was in until the early 2000's was mostly hack and slash. Nobody then looked down on the RP players then though, like the RP snobs look down on hack and slashers now. They don't deserve to be looked down on any more than the folks who think that Critical Role is the be all and end all of D&D. God, I wouldn't want to PLAY a campaign that was taken as seriously as CR is. I spend way too much time laughing at bad fart jokes in my games. We like combat. RP's OK, but my group can take it or leave it. We do a bit of roleplaying, but we keep it bare bones. We give our characters a personality and we generally control them in a consistent manner. Exploration has sucked in every system I've tried and is not FUN.
So again, BioWizard's comments are pretty much spot on, and why I refer to people as RP snobs with derision. They don't like it any more than folks enjoy being looked down on for playing a hack and slash game. They can take their superiority complex and bugger off, because D&D is for everyone...including murder hobos.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
What about edgelord? What exactly does that mean?
Someone who does evil/disturbing things to look cool.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
okay
An edgelord is typically someone who does dark, disturbing or otherwise disruptive things to seem 'edgy' (hence the name, they are trying to be the 'lord of edginess').
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Thanks. Idk that either.
In this case, wiping out a Goblin village is NOT being an edgelord. Its also NOT being a murderhobo. It most often is the default for older settings because that is what was expected. Its only newer settings and editions that have changed this, but the problem is the DNA of the game (in this case, the Cosmology) is set a particular way. They are GOBLINS and they are Evil not just because they're hellbent on murder, rapine and generally destroying human/demi-human civilization. They are Evil because the forces of Good/Neutrality/Evil are actual forces of the Multiverse and not something that is abstract or relative. Goblins are the creations of their gods, who are Evil.
Anyone who has played classic OD&D and AD&D knows this because the default settings were the Avalon Hill Survival Board (OD&D) and The World of Greyhawk (AD&D). The eastern Flanaess of The World of Greyhawk is a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery/High Fantasy hybrid where humanity is holding on by its fingernails. The continent is mostly a howling wilderness of darkness and every surviving Goblin (or Hobgoblin, or Kobold, or Ork, or Bugbear, or Gnoll, or Norker, or Ogre) is another spear aimed at (relatively) defenseless settlements spread out from the main centers of habitation. The Points of Light idea from 4th Edition was quite literally lifted whole cloth from Gygaxian Greyhawk (1980 Folio/1983 Box Set).
We're talking, btw, about the foot soldiers of groups like The Shrine of Evil Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands), The Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavers of the Pomarj (Scourge of the Slavelords), in other words the villains of the setting. They're (again) not merely misunderstood souls who just need to be shown the error of their ways. These monsters will either enslave humans/demi-humans or put them to the sword. Why shouldn't humans/demi-humans expect to return the favor of No Quarter?
If there is a Good Goblin, he's a 1-in-1,000,000 of his kind and was likely killed long before any adventurers show up to do him in for being a humanoid. You want to play such a Goblin who isn't a pint-sized murder machine? Okay, you're the one exception to the rule. You've somehow risen above the vast overwhelming majority of your kind (99.99%) to be something more than a Monster.
This entire problem started when someone at WOTC had the bright idea to think "hey, we can squeeze some more cash out of customers by providing stat blocks for monsters as players". Naturally, no one thought of the repercussions down the line. Not that I totally blame them. Who knew this movement would gain so much steam, and infect so many areas it has no business getting into.
Currently, in the Forgotten Realms, Ebberon, Wildemount, Ravnica, and Theros, goblins, orcs and drow are not universally evil. They are evil because of the teachings of their god, and the situation their species is in.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System