|
Murder is killing but is killing murder?
Dictionary.com
mur·der [mur-der]
noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
This is Murder.
PCs dont usually do this. If killing happens in a game it probably is this....
World English Dictionary
Justifiable Homicide
— n
lawful killing, as in self-defence or to prevent a crime
The reason why I'm posting this is I see the word murder used alot to describe the fighting in the games. Even in jest its used "Murder Hobos".
In my latest game, murder, or pvp is actually coming up as important.
The game setting is a bunch of players stuck in a game, if you die there, your character dies in the real life of the setting. Not so original, but we have had fun so far.
Now where it really matters, is there is no raising, there is no resurrection. Anyone that dies is not coming back, and pvp has occurred. There are even pvp guilds.
So murder is a part of the game, as is suicide and sanity.
The players also look down on the killing of npcs for drops and coin, but they treat it quite differently to some poor gamer that gets ganked and his brain gets kentucky fried irl. So it is a fantasy game, but life and death really have meaning, and the players really think about fighting other living players.
"Monsters" never is because when I think "monsterS" I think the unintelligent beasts, or those that have a contempt for human life and want to eat everyone that crosses their path. That's not murder.
Killing orcs on sight? That I would consider murder. Despite the fact that orcs may be at war with your race it's no different, in my eyes, than if it were an enemy tribe of humans.
There is also a weird guild of bot killers in this game. So they go around knocking off shop keepers and the like. They are loathed and all this murder is making them good and affluent. So far, no living player or faction is dealing with them. This guild has the power to go through the local guards (a band of 50+ pirates beats a force meant to deal with some thieves), so it will need a player response to put them down.
As for other games I've run, monster killing can be murder, but it is usually viewed with lenience. I have thrown the dilemma of overzealous monster killers at the players, and they have not been eager to punish.
One kingmaker game, some goblins joined our settlement. They were a guild of craftsmen. Everyone was told, they are people, and hard workers, no killing of them. That worked for that settlement.
"Monsters" never is because when I think "monsterS" I think the unintelligent beasts, or those that have a contempt for human life and want to eat everyone that crosses their path. That's not murder.
Killing orcs on sight? That I would consider murder. Despite the fact that orcs may be at war with your race it's no different, in my eyes, than if it were an enemy tribe of humans.
If the orc is just inside your bow range, and can only barely be seen, surely it isn't quite murder.
I mean, at that range, they just look like green pigs. Pigs and orcs aren't people.
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing of another HUMAN being is murder, yes. Human. Not manticore, not red dragon, not vrock, not shambling mound. Not even elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling. A case could be made for half-elves and half-orcs, but realistically? Considering real world medieval law? Unlawful killing of halfbreeds should bring a pretty low fine.
Errr, you may wanna read up on the setting again, because non-human PC races aren't considered second class citizens or anything. It's still murder to kill one.
If anything, HUMANS are the ones considered inferior by some of the other races, not the other way around.
Golarion =/= The real world.
It does not work by the same laws as IRL medieval times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure that varies from place to place. Killing halflings in Cheliax should amount to a fine. Not every place will end up with the line that separates murder from scalp money at the same place. Certainly, the official policy is that every demihuman is equal across the world, because any other way would justify jerk players to harass other players. This does not mean it is particularly realistic, or that you can't change it in your campaign.
She is right on Cheliax, and in certain other areas.
In Sargava killing Mwangi is very excusable, the colonists are still at war with them.
Won't somebody think of the shambling mounds?
Murder is killing but is killing murder?
No, the words are not synonymous. An unjustified killing of a sentient creature when the perpetrator recognized it was wrong would be murder.
An executioner carrying out a death sentence is not a murderer.
A soldier fighting enemy combatants in a war zone is not a murderer.
On the other hand, a PC going into a village and slaughtering every living thing, because she did not like the color of the awnings in the town would be murder.
I always ensure that if the party members take a life, it is clearly either sanctioned by a legal authority or clearly a matter of survival or self defense.
In our gaming worlds, things tend to be more black and white. There really are entities that exist only to kill, destroy, and corrupt, e.g., vampires, ghouls, etc.
Eliminating these kinds of creatures is a matter of survival.
Still, I always give my player characters legal cover even for these actions.
In service,
Rich
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Run Jacob Saltband! Run! You're wanted for attempted deicide, dragicide, feyicide, goblicide, titancide, re-homicide, aggressive flumph fondling, and 15 other charges. What are you doing trying to seek legal advice for fantastic homicide on the internet!? Diviners can track that sorta thing y'know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, there is nothing so low as a flumphophile. No hope for them, just wipe them out. Won't somebody please think of the flumphs???
Shouldn't have been an antipaladin...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If PF happened in our world, any hero who got apprehended by the cops would be the epicenter of a ludicrously huge media s~#~storm for several years while the authorities tried to deal with every disparate charge. A good way to become the most famous person of the decade...
|
Different legal systems. Most monsters would classify as either enemy nations or 'outlaws.'
As my own campaign setting is predicated on nation states, 'humanoid tribes' classify as outlaws or criminals, as their citizenry is for the most part civilized and the ones living in caves are there for their own jackass reasons (essentially, civilization got the orcs/kobolds out of caves, and then some decided that 'real orcs live in caves' or claimed oppression, or simply wanted to be bandits, and went back there).
A tribe who's obviously murdering their way through things though tends to step into the hostis humani generis situation though. But just an orc on the road? He's got rights just like you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different legal systems. Most monsters would classify as either enemy nations or 'outlaws.'
As my own campaign setting is predicated on nation states, 'humanoid tribes' classify as outlaws or criminals, as their citizenry is for the most part civilized and the ones living in caves are there for their own jackass reasons (essentially, civilization got the orcs/kobolds out of caves, and then some decided that 'real orcs live in caves' or claimed oppression, or simply wanted to be bandits, and went back there).
A tribe who's obviously murdering their way through things though tends to step into the hostis humani generis situation though. But just an orc on the road? He's got rights just like you.
@Spook Good points!
It is an entirely different situation. Our fantasy worlds do not have the same ethical structures that our civilized, peaceful, modern world does.
In service,
Rich
PS Come see my seminars at GENCON 2013!
[url="http://zhalindor.com/staats2.htm"]Staats GENCON Site[/url
The dead, burned and buried tell no tales.
Snipe that diviner just to be sure.
Different legal systems. Most monsters would classify as either enemy nations or 'outlaws.'
Yes, definitely +1. "Murder" is a legal term, and God knows there are been enough real-life legal systems that defined the killing of the wrong sort of person as something other than murder. (Including the Book of Leviticus.) The wrong race, the wrong tribe,... there's no reason why "the wrong species" should be exempt.
Isger is not going to have any problems with the killing or goblins, orcs, hobgoblins or any thing in between (octaroonlin), given they were almost wiped out by demihumans, and a lot of the current people in Isger, are orphans from the goblin wars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the people have Isger have good reason not to like Goblinoids.
I'd say it's wholly dependent on the context of the situation going on in the game. If the players are just roaming the countryside, killing things and taking their stuff, unprovoked, then "murder" might fit.
If the players are hired by a faction that's at least considered an authority(king, town guard, etc) to eliminate an entity, then that's no more murder than sending troops off to war(which is an entirely other matter in itself).
More often than not, killing things during the course of "adventuring" is to ensure that possible threats to common folk are removed; such as killing some local monster that happens to prey on hapless humanoids, thinning the population of a group of creatures that disrupt the lives of the common folk, etc.
It's all about context.
For some groups, context doesn't matter. DM: "There's some tough looking guys, looks like that have some nice stuff. Roll Initiative." I feel like these sorts of games are where the "Murder Hobos" title come into play. No rhyme or reason, very flimsy backstory, just "oh, hey, those guys are looking at us funny, or something, let's fight."
Almost every sandbox-style game I've played winds up like this. Without a "reason" to be adventuring, the game turns into a never-ending buffet line of just killing things and taking their stuff. Murder Hobos.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The war angle does play in, which has the added fun of if the king is sending the heroes off to war, they're technically agents of his kingdom and therefore actions he performs could be construed as the king's responsibility.
Again, its an issue on how legality is handled in the setting. We generally have faux-medieval, which tends to show less interest in legal matters then genuine medieval (who was responsible for what was a big deal (tm) in the old world).
The Hostis Humani Generis thing though enters into play for guys like the standard humanoid tribe, or 'bandits.' Its a concept that rises from admiralty laws, which were based on the idea that he seas belong to everyone and people who preyed upon people from a country on the seas them without they themselves representing a nation were considered to be preying symbolically upon all. Why does Spook bring up the ocean? Because the prospect of outlawry is similar.
The hostis humani generis concept basically says 'if you're a pirate, your ass is grass.' This provision still exists today. For example, it is only their civil nature and desire to avoid outcry that prevents the Japanese government from having the people who routinely sabotage, attack and attempt to destroy their whaling ships executed for piracy. Essentially these folks ignore the laws of the sea (such as you don't try to sabotage other ships and leave them adrift for the crew to potentially starve) and as such they have those protections for seafarers stripped.
Outlawry is damn near identical, it is people who by rejecting the laws of the common world or nation, lose the self-same protection of those laws. The average humanoid tribe is essentially bandits. What really keeps them living in caves is the fact that most of them are essentially criminals practing cannibalism, rape, abomination, worship of dark gods and the like as a matter of course and therefore they are not afforded any legal protection because they have chosen to live in a way totally in denial of that law.
Modern legal systems are nicer in general, protections are applied even to people who have thrown the responsibilities they flow from completely away (we don't shoot serial killers down in the streets like dogs for example). Also modern systems are interested in this strange thing called 'proof.' Supposedly during the medieval era people who were to be punished by the civic authorities would often make some general blasphemous statement or the like, hoping to be brought before the Inquisition (who despite modern thoughts) actually tended to give a damn about whether the person in their dock actually did what they say they did) recieve a mild punishment for blasphemy, and recieve a church backed proof that they didn't commit the crime the civic authorities said they did (along with a nice 'So Your Majesty, are you saying the Church was lying when they said I didn't actually owe you that?').
It can be a catch-22 in some worlds though where orcs won't be let into the system even if they declare they'll follow the laws and then try to, but thats simple racism and well, also sadly a part of these things. From an adventurer perspective the materials gained from defeating these outlaws could also concievably be considered due plunder from military action, or robbing material from an outlaw (who has no legal protections) and therefore not robbery at all.
It also might be that the government doesn't recognize local authorities. Leading to stuff like 'Well those tribals just happened to have this gold idol. We brought it back to hang on my wall. They were quite preturbed, but I dont' see why!' In general though this ethic classifies a bit as a 'jerk' mindset, although it might also be viewed as colonial (although in a colony case, the citizens are at least considered to be under the mother-nations legal system and the mother-nation technically considers their nation and its material as its property).
Basically for the Tl;Dr...
"The orcs are jerks, so they don't get legal protection. If they weren't jerks, they might. Religions might result in fairer shakes for people if they behave. Nations tend to be jerks to other nations (but we knew that)."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Hostis Humani Generis thing though enters into play for guys like the standard humanoid tribe, or 'bandits.' Its a concept that rises from admiralty laws, which were based on the idea that he seas belong to everyone and people who preyed upon people from a country on the seas them without they themselves representing a nation were considered to be preying symbolically upon all. Why does Spook bring up the ocean? Because the prospect of outlawry is similar.
A very good and detailed post. I'd just like to point out, that what this analysis really provides is a reason why killing orcs might not be considered murder.
It's equally possible that a particular authority figure might either have some sort of understanding with local orc tribes, amounting to legal recognition of the the tribe as another nation, or might simply consider the orcs to be funny-smelling but legitimate citizens and deserving of legal protection.
So ultimately it comes down to how the game master creates the world, or at least the part of the world that you're in. Canonical Golarion seems to be relatively free of species prejudice (by design), so it would not surprise me to learn that killing orcs in Cheliax was murder. It would also not surprise me to learn that killing orcs in Lastwall was positively encouraged.
When you absolutely, positively have to kill every orc in the room, accept no substitutes.
I think orcs would go well with capsicum.
Thanks for the clarification.
In earlier fantasy you do see more use of slay actually.
It is above board, it is okay! It was slaying.
Jingle bells and all that.
|
|
If you go back to King James English, you'll note a big difference between to Kill and to Slay. David, for instance, is said to have slain tens of thousands and that this was a praiseworthy thing. To Kill meant basically to murder---to slay implied that there was more or less acceptable justification for it. This is why a lot of moderns are confused about 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' (newer translations render that as Murder rather than kill).
The original Hebrew made the distinction actually. Its translations that created the whole kill as opposed to murder thing.
The 'medieval' approach to this was also seen in the Napoleonic and even WW1 conflicts. The idea that one tuesdays its our job to try to kill one another, but its just because its what our nation demands.
C.S. Lewis, a veteran of the trenches of WW1 actually commented once he'd expect to have a good laugh with a German soldier in the afterlife if they had ended up killing one another.
It really is a question of how the civilization works though that determines how this sort of thing is seen. Whether its moral or not is another issue, but that gets us into alignment debates.
for some reason, murder of sentient humanoids of the orcish or goblinoid subtypes isn't considered murder. despite them being sentient humanoids.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, that depends on the culture, kingdom's laws, etc, etc.
Also, while the medieval era was more brutal in its few acts of violence, the west was different from the east in its conception of tyrants, as well as factors such as the Church and its pesky 'made in the likeness of God' element. We get down on our ancestors in the middle ages a bit, lets not forget that our current society has robotic killbots flying in the air like winged monkeys.
Still, hopefully not inflammatory statements aside, you really can't seperate a civilization's philosophy from its laws, nor look at its interactions in a vacuum.
The society's religious, political and ethical outlooks all determine if killing some random dude is murder. Typically murdering strangers on the road was considered a horrible no-no due to the idea of obligation to a guest (and a general desire to not have it legal for you to have your guts spilled out in public).
Some cultures would demand special markings, others a tax to avoid violence. Some might specify allowed locations (orcs are safe, unless past the barrier wall, thats the treaty!). If the orc is impure, you might kill him. If he too was a reflection of the eternal Atman then you might treat him more charitably. If their ancient progenitor stole immortality from the great tree of life causing all races to grow old and die, you might be seriously pissed at the dudes.
Also, the legal questions regarding if they act like bandits, animals (eating people), or act like another country or nation. Course then we get into the challenge of the pirate to Alexander (I have one ship and am a pirate, you have a thousand and are an Emperor).
The answer to this question is really 'what does your world say.' And even in the world, the cultures might disagree.
If it would be murder to kill a human in the same circumstance, it's murder to kill an orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc.
This is only true if the world that you are playing in is one where orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc. are not unrepentant, irredeemable monsters. In worlds where they are unrepentant, irredeemable monsters, killing them on sight is pure and simple self-defense, just as it would be to kill a rabid dog.
How people choose to play dictates what is and isn't murder. Asserting that there is only one way to see this is asserting there is only one way to play the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it would be murder to kill a human in the same circumstance, it's murder to kill an orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc.This is only true if the world that you are playing in is one where orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc. are not unrepentant, irredeemable monsters. In worlds where they are unrepentant, irredeemable monsters, killing them on sight is pure and simple self-defense, just as it would be to kill a rabid dog.
How people choose to play dictates what is and isn't murder. Asserting that there is only one way to see this is asserting there is only one way to play the game.
Yeah I know, some people like to play games where baby murder is a-ok, some don't.
Yeah I know, some people like to play games where baby murder is a-ok, some don't.If it would be murder to kill a human in the same circumstance, it's murder to kill an orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc.This is only true if the world that you are playing in is one where orc/goblin/drow/naga/etc. are not unrepentant, irredeemable monsters. In worlds where they are unrepentant, irredeemable monsters, killing them on sight is pure and simple self-defense, just as it would be to kill a rabid dog.
How people choose to play dictates what is and isn't murder. Asserting that there is only one way to see this is asserting there is only one way to play the game.
i actually like Mikaze's world design standpoint and view, everything is morally flexible, and thus, murder of infantile members of any species is still murdering infants.
i support the idea that an orc, goblin, drow, naga or even demon raised in a background that encouraged and nurtured a good alignment, could possess a good alignment as long as it didn't seem forced.
murdering Orc babies should not be legal on the grounds of "but there Orcs". if there were political reasons to slay them, such as a waged war, there might be a legal exception back home, but the Orcs will still see your group as the ones that slaughtered their babies.
and the war would have to have reasons to justify it, those reasons could be as simple as greed or xenophobia, but even though the war makes it a neutral act to the people who waged it, the premeditated intent to slaughter the Orcs in the first place counts as premeditated murder where the alignment chart is concerned.
it's not just the action, but the intent and motivation. killing Orcs because "Orcs are Evil and Irreedeemable!" isn't too different from a few things from our own history it would violate the ToS to discuss, but it would be racism through glasses of the worst psychotic dictators.
For me murder and killing are the same thing. How protected you are from the legal penalties of such behavior varies from species to species, race to race and region to region.
By the definition 1 of the OP
Murder with intent. Even non Non deliberated non premeditated.
See a bear? Attack the bear with intent to kill the bear? Thats murderin.
Self defense against a bear that thinks its also protecting its babies from your invasion into its territory? Unless your intent is to beat its butt blue until it runs away, Its murderin. I rarely see the non lethal damage rules used especially against wildlife.
Hunting is murder. War is murder. Fishing is murder. Chopping down a tree is murder. Picking a flower is murder. Mowing your lawn isn't murder because when you mow your lawn your grass doesn't die. Sometimes its sanctioned by local authorities, sometimes it's not.
Murder with intent means "I'm gonna kill that thing' and then you do. War doesnt undo murder, hunting licence doesnt undo murder. Calling it hunting doesn't remove the 'kill part' or the 'intent part'.... In modern society the law won't let you hunt an elk outside of season or fish without a licence, or hunt wolves in alaska without a license. You cant hunt people out of season either.
Its murder alright. Killin humans and killin kobolds and killin cows and chickens and killin trees and killin flowers and stomping on bugs, killing in self defense, and even 'putting something out of its misery' and euthenasia are all murder (intent to end a life followed by ending it), (some legally justifiable or with mitigating circumstance, some written off as survival of the fittest or 'the natural order of things' or in the case of bugs or picking flowers something that maybe isn't even frowned upon or encouraged) but each is weighed differently by both morally and legally by both the society and the individual. I laugh that vegetarians think being vegetarian isn't murder on the grounds that what they eat doesnt cry or scream or bleed animal blood when it dies and that difference makes what they do better than meat eaters. Just because a flower can't look at you with disney eyes and tell you about its family... Just seems silly.
Did your actions result in a death? Yes? Before it died, did you intend for it to keep living? No? There's your murder. Is murder always a bad thing? Depending on who you talk to maybe yes and maybe no in regards to what they think it's ok to murder or not. You murdered a lot of yeast to make the donut. Yeast is fungus. Fungus is organisms. Organisms is life. Covered in dead sugarcane and corn plant syrup. And it was delicious, delicious murder.
The non lethal damage rules are, in my experience, used far less often than I'd generally prefer, especially among characters that consider themselves 'good'. But a lot of other players and gms will take a different stance on that because 'orcs are pigs with people feet' and deserve no mercy or quarter.
Assault or Battery with the intent to end a life or drive a person into suicide, is called attempted murder
Bullying a Person into Suicide, is also Murder
Participating in, Advertising, Endorsing, Spectating, or Encouraging a Gladitorial Bloodsport such as Dogfighting, the Roman Arenas or the Hunger Games, is also murder, or at least an accessory to murder
Telling a Person to Jump off a Bridge, is attempted murder, if they actually do it and die, it's murder
Giving a Person something you know they are allergic to, something that will cause a major potentially fatal reaction, or simply giving a whole cake to a diabetic and forcefeeding it to them, are murder
Neglecting a child for months and letting them die of starvation, organ failure, or sickness from neglect, is murder
holding a child face first in the deep end of a swimming pool mostly submerged, is murder
holding a pillow over another's face to suffocate them while they sleep, is murder
donating flawed blood that leads to a fatal transfusion, is murder
giving your aunt expired mustard or moldy bread, is murder, even if it is all you have.
Excellent examples, though i'm at least a little gray on a few of them. Sad as it is, neglecting a child for months might be 'negligent homicide' since 'intent' may be variable... Some people dont expect being negligent to result in death necessarily. Some people are so negligent that they don't even know they're being negligent in the first place. A poorly buckled or configured seatbelt isn't murder per se but is still against the law as unintended 'homicide' is a frequent result.
Moldy bread may be another gray area. You have to know its moldy and know that mold can kill... could be a negligent homicide there as well....
Negligent in the sense that you don't know better.
In these cases homicide differs from murder in that 'intent' may be absent.
When your motorcycle passenger doesn't wear a helmet it may be stupid, but it's not 'attempted murder' because the 'intent' to wreck horribly isn't there.
The difference mechanically in game terms is whether you stick to the real world legal definition of murder which only applies specifically to humans, or the more generic non legal definition which is intending to kill someone or something and then doing it.
Is working homicide? By working, you take away another human being's possibility to have that job, and (s)he may desperately require that income to survive.
Is not helping the starving people homicide? Should provide inadequate help (from donating to encountering fatal situations) also be treated as homicide?
Using tabletop as an example, if you're a level one commoner seeing a group of poors being chased by a cannibal monster, does not helping make you commit homicide? If you're a level one warrior in the king's army and the king orders all the babies in town to be killed, does following the order make you a murderer? Does fighting back and kill your ex-fellow till you fall also make you a murderer? Would protest against the king and have you hung be self-murder? If you see someone going to be executed for unknown reasons, would not helping be murder?