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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Last Sat I played in a session. Our group came upon a group of zombies and immediately started killing them. The necromancer who controlled them appeared and was furious that we were killing his minions and slaves for no good reason. The DM stated several times that the zombies were just standing there, doing nothing. The group did not care, because they knew that zombies are inherently evil and all must be destroyed. There are certain immutable in-game facts, based on a 40 year history. Sorry, you want to play monsters in your game, that goes against the entire history and themes of D&D.
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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Its NOT bad justification. Again, Evil is not some relative force. Its a universal, objective force in the multiverse. Otherwise, the Cosmology would not exist. And, again, I'm not talking about butchering everything that exists. I'm talking about the fact you go kill MONSTERS who are not merely humans in funny suits.
The complexity of plot involves figuring out which people in a town are secretly in league with said Monsters (like in the Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlet). The complexity is in figuring out the Drow you fought in The Hall of the Fire Giant King were followers of The Elder Elemental God and NOT Lolth and avoiding doing the dirty work of House Eilservs/Tormtor in wiping out Lolth's followers for the former to become the dominant faction in The Vault of the Drow. Ultimately, the best solution is weakening BOTH factions to prevent the Drow from wreaking havoc on the surface through their proxies (the Giants, the Slavers of the Pomarj, Lareth the Beautiful's forces near Hommlet, etc).
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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Last Sat I played in a session. Our group came upon a group of zombies and immediately started killing them. The necromancer who controlled them appeared and was furious that we were killing his minions and slaves for no good reason. The DM stated several times that the zombies were just standing there, doing nothing. The group did not care, because they knew that zombies are inherently evil and all must be destroyed. There are certain immutable in-game facts, based on a 40 year history. Sorry, you want to play monsters in your game, that goes against the entire history and themes of D&D.
But why shouldn’t those themes change? Evolve with the times?
Mostly playing devil’s advocate here but really confused why you guys are getting so worked up and hating this idea so much.
As I said before, you play your way. I haven't played D&D for forty years, and quite frankly I don't care about what happened in D&D forty years ago. D&D isn't a setting; it is a game system. According to you, Ebberon, Wildemount, Theros and Ravnica go against the entire history and themes of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Its NOT bad justification. Again, Evil is not some relative force. Its a universal, objective force in the multiverse. Otherwise, the Cosmology would not exist. And, again, I'm not talking about butchering everything that exists. I'm talking about the fact you go kill MONSTERS who are not merely humans in funny suits.
The complexity of plot involves figuring out which people in a town are secretly in league with said Monsters (like in the Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlet). The complexity is in figuring out the Drow you fought in The Hall of the Fire Giant King were followers of The Elder Elemental God and NOT Lolth and avoiding doing the dirty work of House Eilservs/Tormtor in wiping out Lolth's followers for the former to become the dominant faction in The Vault of the Drow. Ultimately, the best solution is weakening BOTH factions to prevent the Drow from wreaking havoc on the surface through their proxies (the Giants, the Slavers of the Pomarj, Lareth the Beautiful's forces near Hommlet, etc).
That’s great! I like games like that. But why can’t there also be good drow like on Eberron?
As I said before, you play your way. I haven't played D&D for forty years, and quite frankly I don't care about what happened in D&D forty years ago. D&D isn't a setting; it is a game system. According to you, Ebberon, Wildemount, Theros and Ravnica go against the entire history and themes of D&D.
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.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
Its NOT bad justification. Again, Evil is not some relative force. Its a universal, objective force in the multiverse. Otherwise, the Cosmology would not exist. And, again, I'm not talking about butchering everything that exists. I'm talking about the fact you go kill MONSTERS who are not merely humans in funny suits.
The complexity of plot involves figuring out which people in a town are secretly in league with said Monsters (like in the Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlet). The complexity is in figuring out the Drow you fought in The Hall of the Fire Giant King were followers of The Elder Elemental God and NOT Lolth and avoiding doing the dirty work of House Eilservs/Tormtor in wiping out Lolth's followers for the former to become the dominant faction in The Vault of the Drow. Ultimately, the best solution is weakening BOTH factions to prevent the Drow from wreaking havoc on the surface through their proxies (the Giants, the Slavers of the Pomarj, Lareth the Beautiful's forces near Hommlet, etc).
Let's say you have your average adventuring party. Its got a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric. They are all good, some lawful, some chaotic. They come across a small village on their adventuring journey. It is populated by mostly goblins and their wolf companions. Since they are good upstanding adventurers, they proceed to kill every one of the goblins because they are evil. That just isn't a story that is interesting to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Drow that are not wholely degenerate DO exist in The Vault of the Drow (not necessarily Good, more like some flavor of Neutral). You find them in Erelhei-Cinlu and they can help you navigating the setting. But a lot of them are Half-Drow (one parent was a surface Elf slave, the other a Drow) or Half-Elf Drow (human/Drow hybrid). They are a very tiny minority.
Let's say you have your average adventuring party. Its got a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric. They are all good, some lawful, some chaotic. They come across a small village on their adventuring journey. It is populated by mostly goblins and their wolf companions. Since they are good upstanding adventurers, they proceed to kill every one of the goblins because they are evil. That just isn't a story that is interesting to me.
Fine, that's not interesting to YOU. But doing so does NOT make one a Murderhobo.
Let's say you have your average adventuring party. Its got a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric. They are all good, some lawful, some chaotic. They come across a small village on their adventuring journey. It is populated by mostly goblins and their wolf companions. Since they are good upstanding adventurers, they proceed to kill every one of the goblins because they are evil. That just isn't a story that is interesting to me.
Fine, that's not interesting to YOU. But doing so does NOT make one a Murderhobo.
It makes one "normal" within the social structure that char grew up in. And the player is doing what is natural for the char.
Let's say you have your average adventuring party. Its got a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric. They are all good, some lawful, some chaotic. They come across a small village on their adventuring journey. It is populated by mostly goblins and their wolf companions. Since they are good upstanding adventurers, they proceed to kill every one of the goblins because they are evil. That just isn't a story that is interesting to me.
Fine, that's not interesting to YOU. But doing so does NOT make one a Murderhobo.
I believe that in the technical definition of the word, you are a murderhobo. I'm not going to say anything about the connotations surrounding the word, just the literal definition of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Noun. murderhobo (plural murderhobos or murderhoboes) (role-playing games, derogatory slang) A player character who wanders the gameworld, unattached to any community, indiscriminately killing and looting.
Therefore, if a player were to kill a village of goblins, but then proceed to not kill/loot a village of good people they aren't a murderhobo.
Drow that are not wholely degenerate DO exist in The Vault of the Drow (not necessarily Good, more like some flavor of Neutral). You find them in Erelhei-Cinlu and they can help you navigating the setting. But a lot of them are Half-Drow (one parent was a surface Elf slave, the other a Drow) or Half-Elf Drow (human/Drow hybrid). They are a very tiny minority.
So why, exactly, would similar communities or factions of non-evil Orcs, Goblins, etc not exist?
You should read Volo's to get an understanding of why various monster species are evil. Someone was commissioned by WOTC and went to great lengths to codify their evil culture.
Drow that are not wholely degenerate DO exist in The Vault of the Drow (not necessarily Good, more like some flavor of Neutral). You find them in Erelhei-Cinlu and they can help you navigating the setting. But a lot of them are Half-Drow (one parent was a surface Elf slave, the other a Drow) or Half-Elf Drow (human/Drow hybrid). They are a very tiny minority.
So why, exactly, would similar communities or factions of non-evil Orcs, Goblins, etc not exist?
* Because the DM said so. *
If you want you have non evil monster races in community, GO FOR IT. But you have no right, other play styles are BADWRONGFUN. I had this fight back in 81, see the * for the correct answer.
Noun. murderhobo (plural murderhobos or murderhoboes) (role-playing games, derogatory slang) A player character who wanders the gameworld, unattached to any community, indiscriminately killing and looting.
Therefore, if a player were to kill a village of goblins, but then proceed to not kill/loot a village of good people they aren't a murderhobo.
Indiscriminately: in a random manner; unsystematically.
Good, upstanding adventurers choosing to kill every single EVIL thing is not indiscriminate killing. Therefore, I go with NOT murderhobo. I love your thinking in this forum Brooklyn, and agree entirely with what you've said thus far.
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.
Again, you are both insisting that I and those I gamed with do not exist. I am not telling either of you that you are lying about your experiences, merely that roleplaying was not any sort of new concept even back then.
The point that you seem to have completely missed is...that it's just as wrong to condemn hack and slash/murder hobos as it is to condemn RP snobs. You seem to take offence to the RP group being RP snobs, why are you ok with people being classified as "murder hobos"?
People who like hack and slash games are NOT doing it wrong. It shouldn't be OK to treat those players like second class citizens, yet here we are.
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.
IF they are right about the 'every single thing' they do kill being evil (or at least the DM giving them at least some meaningful evidence thereof), rather than them conveniently declaring them evil and killing them.
It has exactly ZERO to do with "declaring them Evil". They ARE Evil. They ARE hellbent on domination, enslavement and eventual destruction of humans/demi-humans. They follow Evil gods and their religious leaders (Shamans & Witch-Doctors) tell them do follow these ideals. You kill them because they will eventually snuff out the flickering points of light on the continent.
I saw a term conflation mistake that if corrected allows for distinctions better than the moral absolutism being contended with. Murderhobo is not hack and slash. A style of play where characters "exterminate" denizens of dungeons as if someone designed the ecosystem purely for the sake of adventures going in and slaughtering them, and being "heroes" of the local hegemonic community for doing so ... that style is hack and slash. This style of play is also discouraging of character arcs because usually the dungeon ecosystem is filled with traps for the killing of adventurers with few clear reasons as to why or how the denizens of the dungeon manage to exist in the same environment, in other words the adventure is literally seeded with pitfalls for the character development. It's generally a style accepted by the whole table from the onset where the players get together "to kill monsters."
Murderhobo usually doesn't start out as a consensus of the table or at least a consensus between players and DM. It usually starts with "You gather in a tavern." "I poison the tavern keeper." "Wait, what?" (that could be the DM or another player there). "I have a poisoner's kit, so I poison the tavern keep, but I'm an assassin so I'm able to do it on the sly." [stealth checks, poisoner proficiency set, saving throws]. "OK, the tavern keeper falls poisoned and dies. The Watch is called." "I kill the first Watch member through the door and run into the night." ... Either this character is somehow corrected into what the DM and other players wanted to do, or the murder hobo bon homie is embraced by the rest of the table and the campaign basically becomes Townships and Bullies.
And there are gradations between those areas and the more "moral" nuanced cultural encounter narrative style play being offered. Whatever implications aside, I think given the bulk of D&D players are actually more casual to the Stranger Things kids style of play than Critical Role, murder hobo and hack and slash are likely very much alive and well play styles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Noun. murderhobo (plural murderhobos or murderhoboes) (role-playing games, derogatory slang) A player character who wanders the gameworld, unattached to any community, indiscriminately killing and looting.
Therefore, if a player were to kill a village of goblins, but then proceed to not kill/loot a village of good people they aren't a murderhobo.
Indiscriminately: in a random manner; unsystematically.
Good, upstanding adventurers choosing to kill every single EVIL thing is not indiscriminate killing. Therefore, I go with NOT murderhobo. I love your thinking in this forum Brooklyn, and agree entirely with what you've said thus far.
How do the adventurers know that they are killing evil? If they adventurers decide to deem something evil, can they now indiscriminately slaughter it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My monsters don't have depth because of any social movement. They have depth because I think that they make games more interesting than just running around slaughtering things because they exist. "Because they are evil" is a really bad justification for killing something in my mind, and makes for a boring plot.
You can play your game your way, and if it includes universally evil monstrous species, you can do that. I don't enjoy that type of game, but the reason I don't enjoy is not because of any social or political movement. I simply like more developed and complex plotlines.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Last Sat I played in a session. Our group came upon a group of zombies and immediately started killing them. The necromancer who controlled them appeared and was furious that we were killing his minions and slaves for no good reason. The DM stated several times that the zombies were just standing there, doing nothing. The group did not care, because they knew that zombies are inherently evil and all must be destroyed. There are certain immutable in-game facts, based on a 40 year history. Sorry, you want to play monsters in your game, that goes against the entire history and themes of D&D.
Its NOT bad justification. Again, Evil is not some relative force. Its a universal, objective force in the multiverse. Otherwise, the Cosmology would not exist. And, again, I'm not talking about butchering everything that exists. I'm talking about the fact you go kill MONSTERS who are not merely humans in funny suits.
The complexity of plot involves figuring out which people in a town are secretly in league with said Monsters (like in the Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlet). The complexity is in figuring out the Drow you fought in The Hall of the Fire Giant King were followers of The Elder Elemental God and NOT Lolth and avoiding doing the dirty work of House Eilservs/Tormtor in wiping out Lolth's followers for the former to become the dominant faction in The Vault of the Drow. Ultimately, the best solution is weakening BOTH factions to prevent the Drow from wreaking havoc on the surface through their proxies (the Giants, the Slavers of the Pomarj, Lareth the Beautiful's forces near Hommlet, etc).
But why shouldn’t those themes change? Evolve with the times?
Mostly playing devil’s advocate here but really confused why you guys are getting so worked up and hating this idea so much.
[Not quoting to save space]
As I said before, you play your way. I haven't played D&D for forty years, and quite frankly I don't care about what happened in D&D forty years ago. D&D isn't a setting; it is a game system. According to you, Ebberon, Wildemount, Theros and Ravnica go against the entire history and themes of D&D.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That’s great! I like games like that. But why can’t there also be good drow like on Eberron?
Totally agree
Let's say you have your average adventuring party. Its got a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric. They are all good, some lawful, some chaotic. They come across a small village on their adventuring journey. It is populated by mostly goblins and their wolf companions. Since they are good upstanding adventurers, they proceed to kill every one of the goblins because they are evil. That just isn't a story that is interesting to me.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Drow that are not wholely degenerate DO exist in The Vault of the Drow (not necessarily Good, more like some flavor of Neutral). You find them in Erelhei-Cinlu and they can help you navigating the setting. But a lot of them are Half-Drow (one parent was a surface Elf slave, the other a Drow) or Half-Elf Drow (human/Drow hybrid). They are a very tiny minority.
Fine, that's not interesting to YOU. But doing so does NOT make one a Murderhobo.
It makes one "normal" within the social structure that char grew up in. And the player is doing what is natural for the char.
I believe that in the technical definition of the word, you are a murderhobo. I'm not going to say anything about the connotations surrounding the word, just the literal definition of it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Noun. murderhobo (plural murderhobos or murderhoboes) (role-playing games, derogatory slang) A player character who wanders the gameworld, unattached to any community, indiscriminately killing and looting.
Therefore, if a player were to kill a village of goblins, but then proceed to not kill/loot a village of good people they aren't a murderhobo.
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
You should read Volo's to get an understanding of why various monster species are evil. Someone was commissioned by WOTC and went to great lengths to codify their evil culture.
* Because the DM said so. *
If you want you have non evil monster races in community, GO FOR IT. But you have no right, other play styles are BADWRONGFUN. I had this fight back in 81, see the * for the correct answer.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Indiscriminately: in a random manner; unsystematically.
Good, upstanding adventurers choosing to kill every single EVIL thing is not indiscriminate killing. Therefore, I go with NOT murderhobo. I love your thinking in this forum Brooklyn, and agree entirely with what you've said thus far.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
The point that you seem to have completely missed is...that it's just as wrong to condemn hack and slash/murder hobos as it is to condemn RP snobs. You seem to take offence to the RP group being RP snobs, why are you ok with people being classified as "murder hobos"?
People who like hack and slash games are NOT doing it wrong. It shouldn't be OK to treat those players like second class citizens, yet here we are.
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
It has exactly ZERO to do with "declaring them Evil". They ARE Evil. They ARE hellbent on domination, enslavement and eventual destruction of humans/demi-humans. They follow Evil gods and their religious leaders (Shamans & Witch-Doctors) tell them do follow these ideals. You kill them because they will eventually snuff out the flickering points of light on the continent.
I saw a term conflation mistake that if corrected allows for distinctions better than the moral absolutism being contended with. Murderhobo is not hack and slash. A style of play where characters "exterminate" denizens of dungeons as if someone designed the ecosystem purely for the sake of adventures going in and slaughtering them, and being "heroes" of the local hegemonic community for doing so ... that style is hack and slash. This style of play is also discouraging of character arcs because usually the dungeon ecosystem is filled with traps for the killing of adventurers with few clear reasons as to why or how the denizens of the dungeon manage to exist in the same environment, in other words the adventure is literally seeded with pitfalls for the character development. It's generally a style accepted by the whole table from the onset where the players get together "to kill monsters."
Murderhobo usually doesn't start out as a consensus of the table or at least a consensus between players and DM. It usually starts with "You gather in a tavern." "I poison the tavern keeper." "Wait, what?" (that could be the DM or another player there). "I have a poisoner's kit, so I poison the tavern keep, but I'm an assassin so I'm able to do it on the sly." [stealth checks, poisoner proficiency set, saving throws]. "OK, the tavern keeper falls poisoned and dies. The Watch is called." "I kill the first Watch member through the door and run into the night." ... Either this character is somehow corrected into what the DM and other players wanted to do, or the murder hobo bon homie is embraced by the rest of the table and the campaign basically becomes Townships and Bullies.
And there are gradations between those areas and the more "moral" nuanced cultural encounter narrative style play being offered. Whatever implications aside, I think given the bulk of D&D players are actually more casual to the Stranger Things kids style of play than Critical Role, murder hobo and hack and slash are likely very much alive and well play styles.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
How do the adventurers know that they are killing evil? If they adventurers decide to deem something evil, can they now indiscriminately slaughter it?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System