The Problem of Murder Hobos in Gaming
I was thinking recently (shocker I know), and something occurred to me. My games tend to be based on the kind of stories I enjoy reading and seeing--that is, they're clearly heroic in nature and they tend to involve epic overarching storylines (to varying degrees), with character pathos and drama liberally sprinkled in. I don't allow evil characters (though I have made rare exceptions for specific players I know can handle it.
For the most part, this formula has been widly successful. I've been complimented on my skills as a GM many times over, and rarely have I had complaints about the games I run. There is, however, one trope of these great stories that continually eludes me, and I find it intriguing. That trope is, to my mind, what lies at the core of being a hero and why they act the way they do.
Put simply, heroes don't kill. Yet, in RPGs, the heroes might have neutral good or lawful good written on their character sheet, while still engaging in wanton murder and slaughter.
Note that I'm not talking about traditional D&D where monsters get cut down and that's it. That debate has raged on for decades, and the simple fact is, in that particular cosmology, orcs and goblins are, by their very nature, irredeemably evil monsters who are as unnatural as they are inhuman. They're not classified as demons, but they're demonic in nature. Period. Your campaign may not be that way, but that's the intent of the game.
No, what I'm talking about are settings like modern urban fantasy games. Take a setting, for example, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's perfectly okay to cut down demons and vampires. After all, they're unnatural creatures from beyond the pale who are manifestations of the evil of the Old Ones. That was a bit challenged later, but that's the basic idea of it. Humans, on the other hand, our heroes simply don't kill. There are human laws to deal with human evils, and if you start just killing people, you become the monster you fight.
It's super easy, sitting in our chairs with numbers on a page, to say, "That's a bunch of horseshit; if I don't kill that guy he's going to come back and hurt more people, so I'm perfectly justified." That's a valid argument from a purely unemotional, soulless, logical standpoint. In truth, however, if you start making that call, it doesn't stop. The crimes that are worth execution become less and less. From a purely character standpoint, your character would, in point of fact, slowly turn into the very monster they began fighting.
As a storyteller I have no real issue with that...except that's not how any player, ever, has actually played it. When the bad guys kill, it's wrong. When the good guys kill, it's justified. Period. That bugs me, and I really think it's just being desensitized to the whole thing. It comes from not being able to really put yourself into the shoes and world of the characters, no matter how good a player you are. Gaming is wish fulfillment, and for a great many gamers, that means "I wish we could just kill people who are garbage and hurt others." There is no slippery slope in wish fulfillment.
I did have one player who took it down that route, many years ago, and she did it brilliantly, even sacrificing her character for an entire season of play to seek redemption for "magical detox," and accepting a different pre-generated character in the interim. That was a fantastic story arc, and it just grew out of a player making the rational and very painful decisions her character would've made in that situation.
On the other hand, I've had player characters accidentally shoot innocents (even kids) in the face, and just shrug it off as, "ah, well. No big," then justify it as their character being reckless. I've had characters callously watch the murder of innocents that they may have been able to save, then years later claim their character carried zero guilt for it, because they were a soldier and soldiers see that kind of thing. Sure, reckless is all well and good, and being a soldier means you deal with hard shit on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean you don't deeply regret and feel guilt about the harm you've caused, guilt that will haunt you forever. In fact, I'd go so far as to posit just about every soldier who sees combat would love to undo or make right at least one thing they've done.
But in RPGs it's easy. It's what you want it to be. Again, it's wish fulfillment.
I don't really have an answer for this problem, and I'm absolutely not complaining about my groups. I am one of the most blessed GMs in the history of gaming to have the players I have in my two groups, and the chemistry we have as groups. It's just one niggling issue that keeps coming up for me, and I wanted to ponder it a bit.
There's the option of mechanically enforcing it somehow--the old Marvel Superheroes game used to deny Karma if you killed someone. I could take away story points or XP, but that tends to breed anger and resentment among players, and they need to have a good time, too. So long as nobody else at the table is complaining about it, I don't feel a mechanical enforcement is a good solution (if there's even a problem to begin with).
I dunno. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this. Just thinking aloud. As always, thanks for listening, and feel free to leave your thoughts below!
For the most part, this formula has been widly successful. I've been complimented on my skills as a GM many times over, and rarely have I had complaints about the games I run. There is, however, one trope of these great stories that continually eludes me, and I find it intriguing. That trope is, to my mind, what lies at the core of being a hero and why they act the way they do.
 |
| Source: https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/selling-with-story-how-to-make-your-customer-the-hero-donald-miller/ |
Heroes Don't Kill
Put simply, heroes don't kill. Yet, in RPGs, the heroes might have neutral good or lawful good written on their character sheet, while still engaging in wanton murder and slaughter.
Note that I'm not talking about traditional D&D where monsters get cut down and that's it. That debate has raged on for decades, and the simple fact is, in that particular cosmology, orcs and goblins are, by their very nature, irredeemably evil monsters who are as unnatural as they are inhuman. They're not classified as demons, but they're demonic in nature. Period. Your campaign may not be that way, but that's the intent of the game.
No, what I'm talking about are settings like modern urban fantasy games. Take a setting, for example, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's perfectly okay to cut down demons and vampires. After all, they're unnatural creatures from beyond the pale who are manifestations of the evil of the Old Ones. That was a bit challenged later, but that's the basic idea of it. Humans, on the other hand, our heroes simply don't kill. There are human laws to deal with human evils, and if you start just killing people, you become the monster you fight.
It's super easy, sitting in our chairs with numbers on a page, to say, "That's a bunch of horseshit; if I don't kill that guy he's going to come back and hurt more people, so I'm perfectly justified." That's a valid argument from a purely unemotional, soulless, logical standpoint. In truth, however, if you start making that call, it doesn't stop. The crimes that are worth execution become less and less. From a purely character standpoint, your character would, in point of fact, slowly turn into the very monster they began fighting.
 |
| Source: https://me.me/i/murderhobos-listen-and-understand-the-pcs-are-out-there-they-eea5037a20e146b29a6049e8006d7c1f |
The Murder Hobo Paradox
As a storyteller I have no real issue with that...except that's not how any player, ever, has actually played it. When the bad guys kill, it's wrong. When the good guys kill, it's justified. Period. That bugs me, and I really think it's just being desensitized to the whole thing. It comes from not being able to really put yourself into the shoes and world of the characters, no matter how good a player you are. Gaming is wish fulfillment, and for a great many gamers, that means "I wish we could just kill people who are garbage and hurt others." There is no slippery slope in wish fulfillment.
I did have one player who took it down that route, many years ago, and she did it brilliantly, even sacrificing her character for an entire season of play to seek redemption for "magical detox," and accepting a different pre-generated character in the interim. That was a fantastic story arc, and it just grew out of a player making the rational and very painful decisions her character would've made in that situation.
On the other hand, I've had player characters accidentally shoot innocents (even kids) in the face, and just shrug it off as, "ah, well. No big," then justify it as their character being reckless. I've had characters callously watch the murder of innocents that they may have been able to save, then years later claim their character carried zero guilt for it, because they were a soldier and soldiers see that kind of thing. Sure, reckless is all well and good, and being a soldier means you deal with hard shit on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean you don't deeply regret and feel guilt about the harm you've caused, guilt that will haunt you forever. In fact, I'd go so far as to posit just about every soldier who sees combat would love to undo or make right at least one thing they've done.
But in RPGs it's easy. It's what you want it to be. Again, it's wish fulfillment.
I don't really have an answer for this problem, and I'm absolutely not complaining about my groups. I am one of the most blessed GMs in the history of gaming to have the players I have in my two groups, and the chemistry we have as groups. It's just one niggling issue that keeps coming up for me, and I wanted to ponder it a bit.
There's the option of mechanically enforcing it somehow--the old Marvel Superheroes game used to deny Karma if you killed someone. I could take away story points or XP, but that tends to breed anger and resentment among players, and they need to have a good time, too. So long as nobody else at the table is complaining about it, I don't feel a mechanical enforcement is a good solution (if there's even a problem to begin with).
I dunno. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this. Just thinking aloud. As always, thanks for listening, and feel free to leave your thoughts below!
I won't run such a game. I'll play in one, though it isn't my preferred style of playing, but I will not run one. Fortunately, it's never been an issue for me.
ReplyDeleteWell, this depends on the kinds of games you play, but I tend to enforce this by showing how the world reacts to the characters. Mothers cry in the streets and seek out authorities to get revenge for their loved ones. If townspeople witness PCs kill someone they view as an innocent, their reaction may range from fleeing in terror, to seeking redress, to grumbling in protest, to forming a lynch mob depending on how they view the risk of taking on the PCs. I think that that's as far as I would go in terms of enforcing any type of moral behavior unless the PCs are agents of some sort of supernatural force (i.e. clerics, warlocks, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThe more differing viewpoints on moral decisions that you can bring in, the more players will weigh their actions. One thing to consider is how much your players want that type of decision. Some people don't want hyperrealistic moral decisionmaking when playing escapist fantasy, but for those that do then feel free to chuck helpless baby monsters and have every bandit be a father of three.
Most players have to be invested in the survival and cooperation of non-monster NPCs to give even the most remote of darns. That means less foils and more friends and the foils have to be friends of their friends.
ReplyDelete