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?
You're presuming designation of good and evil is something the adventurers entirely get to arbitrate on their own. That's not often the case at many table who aren't attended by people who recreationally engage in moral reasoning or (worse) arrive at the table to deliver critiques of moral reasoning in the course of gameplay (unless that's all agreed upon, but there are these places called coffeeshops where people can have these things called "philosophical conversations" if this world really excites you there's even a sort of paid DM version where your table is called a class and your fee is called tuition). More often than not, the distinction between good and evil has been arbitrated by the game world, either as published, DM's design, or not as common some sort of group world building ahead of the game. On a meta level alignments are still assigned in the Monster Manual, and let us not forget the MM, MToF or VGtM are not presented explicitly as "the ecology of dungeons and dragons." Rather, they invoke the monstrous, the foe, fiends, etc. You can play a morally sophisticated role playing centered game with 5e, but at the end of the day, the RAW still lean heavily on a presentation of adversarial situations with more guidance and mechanics to resolve such adversity through the use of violence than games a lot lighter on violence and heavier on exploration and interaction.
I find these debates over applications of violence based on evil as social construct or evil as literal primordial force (like good, chaos and law) interesting, but I think when it leads to critiques of each others play styles, and the personal out of game investments getting whipped out, the topic wears out its welcome. Has the usual suspects in these conversations debated or critiqued enchantment magic and how suggestion or charm are exploitative of NPCs autonomy and interiority and thus are inherently abusive evil acts yet? I'll get my popcorn ready.
In the meantime, murderhobo, largely a perjorative by the role playing invested, but also worn as a badge of honor by some so labeled.
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
How do the adventurers know that they are killing evil? If the adventurers decide to deem something evil, can they now indiscriminately slaughter it?
Because the Cosmology of the setting SAYS Goblins are Evil. Because Goblins have repeatedly engaged in slaughter, rapine and pillaging of human/demi-human settlements for centuries (in the case of Greyhawk, more than a millenium). Because they are servants of Evil gods, carrying out their wills on the world. Because Evil is an actual objective force in the Multiverse and not a subjective thing.
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
Well yes, your presumptions leads to richer role playing while maybe a bit thin on bloodshed. Hack and slash and or murder hobo while maybe more impoverished on the role playing front are fattened with bloodshed. Both tables are still playing D&D.
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.
When you write it that way, it reminds me of a comic book character from the 1980s and 1990s called Groo the Wanderer. I have about 60 issues of that series... hm... I should go re-read those.
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.
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.
When you write it that way, it reminds me of a comic book character from the 1980s and 1990s called Groo the Wanderer. I have about 60 issues of that series... hm... I should go re-read those.
same era, deeper cut: Snarfquest. Into the Dragon archive I go!!!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
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.
That’s a very Greyhawk point of view. Not all campaigns are like that.
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?
You're presuming designation of good and evil is something the adventurers entirely get to arbitrate on their own. That's not often the case at many table who aren't attended by people who recreationally engage in moral reasoning or (worse) arrive at the table to deliver critiques of moral reasoning in the course of gameplay (unless that's all agreed upon, but there are these places called coffeeshops where people can have these things called "philosophical conversations" if this world really excites you there's even a sort of paid DM version where your table is called a class and your fee is called tuition). More often than not, the distinction between good and evil has been arbitrated by the game world, either as published, DM's design, or not as common some sort of group world building ahead of the game. On a meta level alignments are still assigned in the Monster Manual, and let us not forget the MM, MToF or VGtM are not presented explicitly as "the ecology of dungeons and dragons." Rather, they invoke the monstrous, the foe, fiends, etc. You can play a morally sophisticated role playing centered game with 5e, but at the end of the day, the RAW still lean heavily on a presentation of adversarial situations with more guidance and mechanics to resolve such adversity through the use of violence than games a lot lighter on violence and heavier on exploration and interaction.
I find these debates over applications of violence based on evil as social construct or evil as literal primordial force (like good, chaos and law) interesting, but I think when it leads to critiques of each others play styles, and the personal out of game investments getting whipped out, the topic wears out its welcome. Has the usual suspects in these conversations debated or critiqued enchantment magic and how suggestion or charm are exploitative of NPCs autonomy and interiority and thus are inherently abusive evil acts yet? I'll get my popcorn ready.
In the meantime, murderhobo, largely a perjorative by the role playing invested, but also worn as a badge of honor by some so labeled.
What?
I’m sorry, not being mean, but I literally don’t understand some of what you just said.
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
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?
You're presuming designation of good and evil is something the adventurers entirely get to arbitrate on their own. That's not often the case at many table who aren't attended by people who recreationally engage in moral reasoning or (worse) arrive at the table to deliver critiques of moral reasoning in the course of gameplay (unless that's all agreed upon, but there are these places called coffeeshops where people can have these things called "philosophical conversations" if this world really excites you there's even a sort of paid DM version where your table is called a class and your fee is called tuition). More often than not, the distinction between good and evil has been arbitrated by the game world, either as published, DM's design, or not as common some sort of group world building ahead of the game. On a meta level alignments are still assigned in the Monster Manual, and let us not forget the MM, MToF or VGtM are not presented explicitly as "the ecology of dungeons and dragons." Rather, they invoke the monstrous, the foe, fiends, etc. You can play a morally sophisticated role playing centered game with 5e, but at the end of the day, the RAW still lean heavily on a presentation of adversarial situations with more guidance and mechanics to resolve such adversity through the use of violence than games a lot lighter on violence and heavier on exploration and interaction.
I find these debates over applications of violence based on evil as social construct or evil as literal primordial force (like good, chaos and law) interesting, but I think when it leads to critiques of each others play styles, and the personal out of game investments getting whipped out, the topic wears out its welcome. Has the usual suspects in these conversations debated or critiqued enchantment magic and how suggestion or charm are exploitative of NPCs autonomy and interiority and thus are inherently abusive evil acts yet? I'll get my popcorn ready.
In the meantime, murderhobo, largely a perjorative by the role playing invested, but also worn as a badge of honor by some so labeled.
What?
I’m sorry, not being mean, but I literally don’t understand some of what you just said.
He is saying they are all evil because they are written that way and the PC's know they are written that way.
What he is dodging is the question of how writing them that way makes for a better campaign. Even setting aside all meta questions of morality, it facilitates the simplest of solutions and reduces campaigns to tactical exercises, likely without even the depth that most actual tactical games typically have (since D&D is not written as a hard core tactical simulator either).
I can understand how people would like that kind of play on occasion. I have more trouble understand that kind of design being sustainable without boredom setting in.
Sorry, that's not really what I'm saying, barely half of it. I'm saying hack and slash is a style of play. Just like a game where diplomacy, or politics, or intrigue or the consequences of power is a style of play. Kotath is belittling the former and privileging the latter. He's free to do so as frequently as he does. What he did do was put words in my mouth where he's claiming I privilege hack and slash over let's just call it more thoughtful role playing. That's just not true. I just don't believe there's a need to hold one play style as superior to the other. In other words, when you, Penelope, write:
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
Yes! Exactly.
I'd say it's fine to find Jacqsyn's play style as a style you agree with. However, if you are writing "Yes! Exactly" as if that play style is some sort of "correct" way to play, you can privilege that play style if you want, though I think one of the main fault lines within the D&D player community is the need for role playing intensive players (who fail to own its own excesses, like the tedium that goes with multi page backstories and concept art of the characters "arc" before the game's even out of session 0 ... not a universal but it happens enough that when I wrote that _everyone_ knows the sort of play(er) I'm talking about) feeling the need to denigrate the hack 'n slash crowd (which I think makes up a larger contingent of the player world than some may realize).
To end by circling back to Kotath's dismissal, hack n' slash isn't a reduction to tactical exercises or a pretense to simulate, any more than FPS games or most action blockbusters are realistic tactical simulators. Kotath may have trouble understanding how that play style is sustainable without boredom setting. There are lot of entertainments -- off the top of my head slasher movies, Kaiju films, Doom metal off the top of my head -- that may seem a monotony to someone not taken by it, yet they all have very passionate fan communities around them. At the end of the day, the game has room for both.
And I'm sorry if you didn't or still don't understand what the earlier post or this post meant. It doesn't bother me. You ask a lot of questions, sometimes the answer isn't as simple as "Yes, excactly."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This thread has been repeatedly going off topic and staying off topic. The question as to what 'murderhobo' means as been thoroughly answered and the thread seems to be consistently devolving into discussions and in some places arguments of evil and other philosophical topics. There have been reminders to stay on topic that have been ignored so the thread will now be locked.
You're presuming designation of good and evil is something the adventurers entirely get to arbitrate on their own. That's not often the case at many table who aren't attended by people who recreationally engage in moral reasoning or (worse) arrive at the table to deliver critiques of moral reasoning in the course of gameplay (unless that's all agreed upon, but there are these places called coffeeshops where people can have these things called "philosophical conversations" if this world really excites you there's even a sort of paid DM version where your table is called a class and your fee is called tuition). More often than not, the distinction between good and evil has been arbitrated by the game world, either as published, DM's design, or not as common some sort of group world building ahead of the game. On a meta level alignments are still assigned in the Monster Manual, and let us not forget the MM, MToF or VGtM are not presented explicitly as "the ecology of dungeons and dragons." Rather, they invoke the monstrous, the foe, fiends, etc. You can play a morally sophisticated role playing centered game with 5e, but at the end of the day, the RAW still lean heavily on a presentation of adversarial situations with more guidance and mechanics to resolve such adversity through the use of violence than games a lot lighter on violence and heavier on exploration and interaction.
I find these debates over applications of violence based on evil as social construct or evil as literal primordial force (like good, chaos and law) interesting, but I think when it leads to critiques of each others play styles, and the personal out of game investments getting whipped out, the topic wears out its welcome. Has the usual suspects in these conversations debated or critiqued enchantment magic and how suggestion or charm are exploitative of NPCs autonomy and interiority and thus are inherently abusive evil acts yet? I'll get my popcorn ready.
In the meantime, murderhobo, largely a perjorative by the role playing invested, but also worn as a badge of honor by some so labeled.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Myself I have decided that in my games all of the approved (by WotC) PC races are neutral and while some do evil things from time to time just as us humans do makes in my opinion a more interesting game world. So yes if a group of goblins have been going on a killing spree they would have a bounty placed on them by the local rulers/authority in the area to end the problem. But also by that same token goblins and such are smart enough to know if they go about killing and other such mayhem bring down the wrath of others to wipe them out. But those that just rob a merchant caravan or two, or raid a farm for food do not get hunted down and exterminated.
Because the Cosmology of the setting SAYS Goblins are Evil. Because Goblins have repeatedly engaged in slaughter, rapine and pillaging of human/demi-human settlements for centuries (in the case of Greyhawk, more than a millenium). Because they are servants of Evil gods, carrying out their wills on the world. Because Evil is an actual objective force in the Multiverse and not a subjective thing.
Well yes, your presumptions leads to richer role playing while maybe a bit thin on bloodshed. Hack and slash and or murder hobo while maybe more impoverished on the role playing front are fattened with bloodshed. Both tables are still playing D&D.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
When you write it that way, it reminds me of a comic book character from the 1980s and 1990s called Groo the Wanderer. I have about 60 issues of that series... hm... I should go re-read those.
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.
same era, deeper cut: Snarfquest. Into the Dragon archive I go!!!!!
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That’s a very Greyhawk point of view. Not all campaigns are like that.
What?
I’m sorry, not being mean, but I literally don’t understand some of what you just said.
Yes! Exactly.
Thank you
Yes, it is. However, its not describing a Murderhobo
Sorry, that's not really what I'm saying, barely half of it. I'm saying hack and slash is a style of play. Just like a game where diplomacy, or politics, or intrigue or the consequences of power is a style of play. Kotath is belittling the former and privileging the latter. He's free to do so as frequently as he does. What he did do was put words in my mouth where he's claiming I privilege hack and slash over let's just call it more thoughtful role playing. That's just not true. I just don't believe there's a need to hold one play style as superior to the other. In other words, when you, Penelope, write:
I'd say it's fine to find Jacqsyn's play style as a style you agree with. However, if you are writing "Yes! Exactly" as if that play style is some sort of "correct" way to play, you can privilege that play style if you want, though I think one of the main fault lines within the D&D player community is the need for role playing intensive players (who fail to own its own excesses, like the tedium that goes with multi page backstories and concept art of the characters "arc" before the game's even out of session 0 ... not a universal but it happens enough that when I wrote that _everyone_ knows the sort of play(er) I'm talking about) feeling the need to denigrate the hack 'n slash crowd (which I think makes up a larger contingent of the player world than some may realize).
To end by circling back to Kotath's dismissal, hack n' slash isn't a reduction to tactical exercises or a pretense to simulate, any more than FPS games or most action blockbusters are realistic tactical simulators. Kotath may have trouble understanding how that play style is sustainable without boredom setting. There are lot of entertainments -- off the top of my head slasher movies, Kaiju films, Doom metal off the top of my head -- that may seem a monotony to someone not taken by it, yet they all have very passionate fan communities around them. At the end of the day, the game has room for both.
And I'm sorry if you didn't or still don't understand what the earlier post or this post meant. It doesn't bother me. You ask a lot of questions, sometimes the answer isn't as simple as "Yes, excactly."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This thread has been repeatedly going off topic and staying off topic. The question as to what 'murderhobo' means as been thoroughly answered and the thread seems to be consistently devolving into discussions and in some places arguments of evil and other philosophical topics. There have been reminders to stay on topic that have been ignored so the thread will now be locked.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here