| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I earlier explained why the analogy to video games works in this instance. I'm certainly not claiming that drawing a comparison to video games is valid for everything you might look at. That would be a stupid thing to think.
Adamantine's Dragon argument was "tabletop games have X, therefore Y". What I pointed was that video games have both X and ¬Y. That is, a medium very similar to tabletop games having X does not imply it also has Y.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So stop arguing as if your opinion is the end all and accept that others may have a differing view. Just because the thread contains an argument are to whether others agree with his view does not make AD's view any less valid than yours.I have refuted Adamantine Dragon's position. I explained why his conclusion does not follow from the premises. If someone disagrees with this, then they should provide a coherent reason to disagree. Just calling it an opinion is a dishonest attempt to avoid addressing the points I raised.
And if you aren't sure that the perception of violence in games is a concern, I invite you to review some of the news stories after each and every mass shooting.I am aware of these news stories. Note that they have not stopped violent video games from being popular and commercially successful.
Vivienne, you have asserted a position. Nothing more, nothing less. You might think you have "refuted my argument" but that is nothing but a conceit.
/sigh
Is Murderhobos really worth going out on your shield for?
/sigh
Is Murderhobos really worth going out on your shield for?
Real men use soapboxes; Those have a higher acrobatics DC.
Also consider the fact that Kobolds (LE suckers that they are) probably have a set of laws, at the top of which is "No Killing Kobolds". But adventuring parties almost always kill first and ask questions later with them involved.
FUN FACT: Derogatory sneering at people who enjoy a combat-oriented game "roll-play" game as opposed to a "deeper", more "mature" "role-play" game dates back to at least 1980, at least according to Wikipedia.
Nothing wrong with a combat oriented “roll-play” game. They are quite fun, even if I prefer more role-playing. What I object to is games where the PC’s run around killing everything they see, including peasants, ect, acting out weird rape fantasies, looting everything and everyone, burning villages and what not. I made it clear the a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined as “murderhobo”=""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain". "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo".
So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.
As a self confessed murderhobo, let me tell you, your definition is wrong. Murderhoboing is going around city to city, dungeon to dungeon, murdering monsters and taking loot. Nothing more, nothing less. The barbarian does it to test himself against monster, the paladin because his god tld him to, the wizard in the advance of magic, the rogue n search of riches, the bard to become famous. Sometimes you're in a quest to save the world, sometimes you do it because killing monsters is fun.
Except that it's not *MY* definition, it's a standard internet definition.
And, what you describe is just "adventuring". When you add in killing innocent NPCs, then you are a "murderhobo".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guide says their laws can be ignored because they are relatively unable to enforce them.
"Do they have a flag?"
"If you do not have a flag then you do not have a country. It's a rule I just made up and I enforce it with this gun."
Eddie Izzard
My guide says their laws can be ignored because they are relatively unable to enforce them.
Is your tour guide a paladin by any chance... :)
|
My guide says their laws can be ignored because they are relatively unable to enforce them.Is your tour guide a paladin by any chance... :)
No no. Although the guide does say they are an ok source for clean water they are generally a lousy source for fireside conversations. They only get a 2 star rating from the guide.
No no. Although the guide does say they are an ok source for clean water they are generally a lousy source for fireside conversations. They only get a 2 star rating from the guide.My guide says their laws can be ignored because they are relatively unable to enforce them.Is your tour guide a paladin by any chance... :)
Sounds like a good guide! Anywhere I could find a spare copy? I want to know what they say about those hippies with kitties.
|
|
Sounds like a good guide! Anywhere I could find a spare copy? I want to know what they say about those hippies with kitties.No no. Although the guide does say they are an ok source for clean water they are generally a lousy source for fireside conversations. They only get a 2 star rating from the guide.My guide says their laws can be ignored because they are relatively unable to enforce them.Is your tour guide a paladin by any chance... :)
I found my copy in the library next to this book.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real men use soapboxes; Those have a higher acrobatics DC./sigh
Is Murderhobos really worth going out on your shield for?
Real murderhoboes use whatever they can get their hands on. Be it a shield, soapbox, cobblestone, peaceful protest sign, violent protest brick, shank, shiv, tomato, other peoples' lost teeth, or their complementary union sap; the members of the Golarion Union of Murderhoboes for the Betterment of Others, (GUMBO), will make their voices of peace heard by brute force!
GUMBO members are not the problem, it is society's biased and undeserved perception of us as vagrants, murderers, and the murderers of vagrants that causes us to be denied our civil right for the pursuit of happiness. Some of us are happy planting flowers and helping the poor. Other murderhoboes just want to be allowed to live their peaceful, merry lives in the upper-class districts of Oppara, the capital of Taldor. Just because the majority of us happen to get our kicks from "street cleaning" and the "redistribution of wealth" does not mean we are any less entitled to our rights. To attach a negative connotation to the great and noble name of the second oldest profession is outright discrimination. And we will not stand for it, or sit for it, or lie down for it, or beg or even roll over for it. We may sleep with dogs on cold winter nights to keep warm, but it is unjust to treat us as dogs.
Please do not drag our humble title of "Murderhobo" through the muck and grime.
Sincerely yours,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representative
Murder Noun. 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).
I really think we should change the term to second-degree-murder-nomad, or maybe even manslaughter-nomad. Murder brings with it the strong connotation of premeditation and forethought. Also the term hobo usually brings with it the connotation of a decided lack of material goods, or means to procure them. Nomads, while still having a certain connotation of less than average wealth, do have tents, and animals, and sometimes even nice weapons. More importantly nomads almost always have a means by which to procure material goods, sometimes through bartering. Manslaughter-nomad sounds so much more appealing than murderhobo. When I hear murderhobo I think of some whacked-out junkie eating people's faces because they are high on bath-salts. Clearly a manslaughter-nomad is just killing because something got in the way of their greater quest, interrupted their migration, or disrupted their economic livelihood. That type of killing isn't even recognized as a crime in some countries, right?
Murder Noun. 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).I really think we should change the term to second-degree-murder-nomad, or maybe even manslaughter-nomad.
I think it should be "Hobo with a Shotgun."
Murder Noun. 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).I really think we should change the term to second-degree-murder-nomad, or maybe even manslaughter-nomad. Murder brings with it the strong connotation of premeditation and forethought. Also the term hobo usually brings with it the connotation of a decided lack of material goods, or means to procure them. Nomads, while still having a certain connotation of less than average wealth, do have tents, and animals, and sometimes even nice weapons. More importantly nomads almost always have a means by which to procure material goods, sometimes through bartering. Manslaughter-nomad sounds so much more appealing than murderhobo. When I hear murderhobo I think of some whacked-out junkie eating people's faces because they are high on bath-salts. Clearly a manslaughter-nomad is just killing because something got in the way of their greater quest, interrupted their migration, or disrupted their economic livelihood. That type of killing isn't even recognized as a crime in some countries, right?
i prefer the Term "Homicidal Nomadic Bandit".
the deeds a PC performs aren't much different than those of a bandit, pirate, mercenary, or thug.
the deeds a PC performs aren't much different than those of a bandit, pirate, mercenary, or thug.
Umbriere, don't take this the wrong way, but that is a gamer decision, not a game mandate.
The only PCs I play that "aren't much different" than a bandit, pirate or thug" are the bandits, pirates or thugs I play.
Mercenary is a different thing, mercenaries can, and frequently do, have strict codes and can be quite honorable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the deeds a PC performs aren't much different than those of a bandit, pirate, mercenary, or thug.Umbriere, don't take this the wrong way, but that is a gamer decision, not a game mandate.
The only PCs I play that "aren't much different" than a bandit, pirate or thug" are the bandits, pirates or thugs I play.
Mercenary is a different thing, mercenaries can, and frequently do, have strict codes and can be quite honorable.
to the beneficiaries of your slaughter, you have a reputation as a hero, amongst the various "monstrous" beings you slay, you are no better to them but a bandit responsible for many atrocities against their people
it's racism that somehow gets excused because it's a fantasy game, don't the families of the various kobolds, gnolls, orcs, lizardfolk, sahuagins, dragons, demons, and drow the PCs have slaughtered like little more than sheep have the right to declare the PCs a group of racist bandits with an irrational hatred towards their kin?
for some reason, slaughtering humans, elves, or dwarves is a bad thing, but we can slaughter all the above mentioned kobolds, gnolls, orcs, lizardfolk, sahuagins, dragons, demons and drow, and their families don't get a chance to speak up, because they are less than human.
banditry is still bandrity, pillaging orcs instead of dwarves doesn't change the fact you are still pillaging.
Umbriere the number of assumptions you are making about how my group games is quite stunning.
Maybe a murderhobo ate your baby!
Umbriere the number of assumptions you are making about how my group games is quite stunning.
sorry for the assumptions
they were more like generalizations
but a lot of groups involve combat with members of a particular culture or species in their campaign that the majority of the disposable foes come from, and to the groups they are slaughtering, the groups would see them through the lense of banditry.
in fact, it is generally guaranteed to be the case when you attack an "Always Evil" tag to a given race.
if you play with more flexible alignments than the bestiary entry entails, such as a frequency of nonevil or noncombatant members of stock villain races that aren't simply bags of XP with loot attached, then you would be a first in my book.
most people i have heard of who play default pathfinder or default golarion is generally going to assume the orcs are evil and deserve to be slaughtered like sheep
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The base argument is that 'murderhobo' has certain connotations tied to it due to its base words - the primary of which is the idea that role-players regularly portray characters who engage in random and pointless killing and violence - and that those connotations would be taken negatively to deter people from taking up tabletop gaming as a hobby.
So I disagree that no one has made that argument. In fact, the whole argument is rooted in the idea that the connotation of mindless violence will negatively reflect on the gaming community.
Actually, the base argument, that is the premise upon which the thread was begun, can be summed up nicely with the following quote from the OP:
But since then the meme has become so pervasive that the idea that adventurers are "murder hobos" has come so far that it actually has spawned a thread about creating a profession for "murderhobo", and in that thread the concept that most, if not all, adventurers are really just loot-grubbing, shoot-first, wandering killers seems to be accepted at face value.
Well, I think it's time to stand up and defend my hobby.
This seems to be more an argument that the term is being used as a blanket term amongst gamers to describe PCs and it really should not be as the description as a blanket term for all PCs is patently false.
Additionally, if you will note, the argument that Vivianne was making was not that it would not deter folks from playing (as I think all will agree there will be some folks who would do so), but rather that (emphasis mine):
A focus on violence hasn't stopped a lot of video games from being violent. Whatever it is that keeps tabletop games from being more popular, it isn't violence.
This makes the argument against the thought that violence, and solely violence, is what is keeping tabletop RPGs from from being more than niche. NO ONE TOOK THAT STANCE. I did take the stance that the actions of players in regards to terminology thrown around a public game could cause issues in that some would take offense and there would be the potential for loss of additions to the player base. Which is clearly different from the point Vivianne was making in that section.
That said, your initial analogy is misleading and false. The point that you were referring to initially was the concern that should a parent observe a game and hear reference to the term "murderhobo" being bandied about in reference to the players, not the "bad guys", then it could result in a loss of a potential player. A more accurate comparison would be a parent observing a PvP match of Counterstrike, Call of Duty or any other FPS and hearing the player banter and making the call based on that. It is not about the violence in the game, it is about the behavior of the people playing the game.Her initial analogy is wholly accurate. The inaccuracy lies in how you're portraying the point to which she was responding.
The original argument presented was that (to paraphrase) the meme regarding 'murderhobo' had become pervasive in society and could negatively impact the gaming community.
Please point out where it was indicated the term was pervasive in society. Seriously. If I missed it I would like to know where the claim was made. AD did state:
But since then the meme has become so pervasive that the idea that adventurers are "murder hobos" has come so far that it actually has spawned a thread about creating a profession for "murderhobo", and in that thread the concept that most, if not all, adventurers are really just loot-grubbing, shoot-first, wandering killers seems to be accepted at face value.
No mention of pervasive through society. It instead refers back to a thread being created on these boards. I don't know about you, but I view society as being a bit bigger than that.
There was no mention of parents attending and observing a gaming session. In fact, I'd go so far as to propose that attending and observing is exactly what AD would like to see happen - I see no way that someone could object to an adult or parent who actually investigates a potential entertainment, observes it, and then makes a decision based on that.
Um ... you mean except for:
People looking in from the outside to determine if this is a game they want to play or to allow their kids to play and who find these threads, or who are observing a public game (yes, we have folks who come in and watch for a bit on any given game day) will most likely not get your "joke" and will either turn away from PF or not allow their kids to play.
That's from page 2, btw ... before Vivianne's initial post.
In fact, if it's true that most roleplayers aren't murderhobos, I'd propose that if an adult or parent actually did what you suggested then there would be no worry because what they observe should lead to no concerns of mindless violence.
The fear, the proposed concern, was that someone might hear the term 'murderhobo' related to a gaming group in passing and, without observing the actual gameplay itself and without bothering to learn anything about it, would be deterred from giving it a try.
First, role-players aren't murderhobos (or at least I hope they are not), but some PCs are. And this is what is the basis for this entire debate. It is some, not all. But the term is being bandied about as if it is a catch all term for adventurers. And if it is kicked around at an open table as a description of the players' PCs and heard in passing, it could cause issues, especially if the person hearing it does a Google search and comes up with the same description as DrDeth.
I see no inaccuracy in her analogy. An adult whose 15-year old son wants to play GTA, and who refuses to allow her son to try it because the only information she has about it is that it is a filthy game filled with mindless violence, is exactly the appropriate comparison. Your presentation of the argument is moving the goalposts to invalidate the comparison.
The inaccuracy with her analogy that I pointed out and which you failed to quote, is that one is not comparing video games to tabletop games in this sense. One should be comparing the actions and attitudes of the players. In order to do so, the accurate analogy would be to compare the table talk at a table top RPG game and that of the banter between players in an online video game.
The comparison then becomes invalid because of the differing nature of the two mediums and access to that content. The tabletop game requires one to be within earshot to overhear the table talk, while the other requires a copy of the game and the individual to be logged in and in a game.
This is not moving the goalposts. This is making the comparison apples to apples instead of apples to pygmy goats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a murderhobo ate your baby!
The union kindly requests that you recant and apologize for this slander.
We all know that murderhoboes, adventurer or otherwise, are a goodly people who do not deign to eat babies. We just kill, abduct, sell, or conscript them. Cannibalism is immoral and wrong and as such is solely the purview of the evil and insane, not murderhoboes.
Please apologize in a timely fashion, it would be quite unfortunate if something untimely were to happen to you in a secluded gutter of the city streets...
Sincerely yours,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representative
P.S. Banditry is only banditry when you don't get a cut of the loot, otherwise it is like collecting taxes or borrowing property indefinitely-- perfectly legal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umbriere, this is a "general defense" and isn't really related to how my group games, but is relevant to the assumptions you appear to be making.
I don't play a lot of modules or APs, but the ones I've seen where the PCs are expected to go "slaughter" a bunch of orcs or goblins or lizardfolk, the scenario has always been that the PC's town has been attacked by them and they have to defend the town. I've never seen any module or adventure path that simply sends out adventurers with a blanket mission to slaughter green people. Perhaps something like that exists, but I've never seen it.
You list "demons" on your list of things that would be racist to attack. I'm not buying that in even the most PC-crazed approach to gaming. Demons are frickin' DEMONS Umbriere, not misunderstood differently colored people.
Are you willing to acknowledge the concept that in some worlds there might be sentient beings who are essentially racist and genocidal themselves? And if so, do you feel that defending against their racist, genocidal attacks makes the townspeople racist and genocidal themselves?
I understand that there are situations and game tables where the killing of goblins, kobolds or orcs is encouraged. At those tables though, at least as far as I have ever seen, those kobolds, orcs or goblins are not "differently colored people", they are actual MONSTERS. Sure that's not very subtle or sophisticated, but it's not OUR WORLD is it? Do you completely reject the notion that a world could exist with intelligent monsters who seek to kill human beings for food and fun, and in that world the only way to defend against them is to kill them?
Because those worlds aren't, you know, our world Umbriere. And those creatures aren't misunderstood, oppressed minorities.
They are MONSTERS.
What you seem to be saying is that playing a game where actual MONSTERS are in play is badwrongfun. Is that what you are saying?
P.S. Banditry is only banditry when you don't get a cut of the loot, otherwise it is like collecting taxes or borrowing property indefinitely-- perfectly legal.
says a representative of a Union of Wanderers whose primary profession involves slaughtering intelligent creatures like they were sheep and robbing valuable possessions from their corpses with little more than their own pursuit of wealth and power as a motivation
what does your organization do?
abduction for Ransom, your organization kidnapped 3 of my 8 younger sisters
conscription of the desperate, your organization abducted poor Rin and conscripted her, telling her promises of freedom, you turned her into a lowly sylph trapspringer for a random group of murder hobos
attempting to murder for loot and wealth without provocation. look at what you did to my Cousin Nera. he was simply playing the role of a worthy Nymph Blooded Female Calistrian Courtesan but because he was wearing nobles clothes, had a magic saber, and some of your representatives wanted his wealth and sabre, mistaking him for a woman, they pretended to hire his services, just so they could ambush him, leave him bleeding out and take his stuff. i barely made it in time to save him. not only did your people rob him, they horrible defaced his clothing and Etched "i am really male" upon his forehead in marvelous pigments. the poor actor had a major hit to his screen time, commonly used to portray wealthy female roles.
Umbriere, this is a "general defense" and isn't really related to how my group games, but is relevant to the assumptions you appear to be making.
I don't play a lot of modules or APs, but the ones I've seen where the PCs are expected to go "slaughter" a bunch of orcs or goblins or lizardfolk, the scenario has always been that the PC's town has been attacked by them and they have to defend the town. I've never seen any module or adventure path that simply sends out adventurers with a blanket mission to slaughter green people. Perhaps something like that exists, but I've never seen it.
You list "demons" on your list of things that would be racist to attack. I'm not buying that in even the most PC-crazed approach to gaming. Demons are frickin' DEMONS Umbriere, not misunderstood differently colored people.
Are you willing to acknowledge the concept that in some worlds there might be sentient beings who are essentially racist and genocidal themselves? And if so, do you feel that defending against their racist, genocidal attacks makes the townspeople racist and genocidal themselves?
I understand that there are situations and game tables where the killing of goblins, kobolds or orcs is encouraged. At those tables though, at least as far as I have ever seen, those kobolds, orcs or goblins are not "differently colored people", they are actual MONSTERS. Sure that's not very subtle or sophisticated, but it's not OUR WORLD is it? Do you completely reject the notion that a world could exist with intelligent monsters who seek to kill human beings for food and fun, and in that world the only way to defend against them is to kill them?
Because those worlds aren't, you know, our world Umbriere. And those creatures aren't misunderstood, oppressed minorities.
They are MONSTERS.
What you seem to be saying is that playing a game where actual MONSTERS are in play is badwrongfun. Is that what you are saying?
i accept those beings may have some genocidal and racist members, but i won't accept that an entire race is genocidal or racist.
yes, the majority of orcs, demons and such might be racist and genocidal, but there would be a handful of exceptions that aren't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i accept those beings may have some genocidal and racist members, but i won't accept that an entire race is genocidal or racist.
yes, the majority of orcs, demons and such might be racist and genocidal, but there would be a handful of exceptions that aren't.
Then this is a major problem Umbriere. Your entire analysis is an apples vs piston rods argument.
Because you are rejecting out of hand a fundamental premise of the game these people are playing. In other words you are asserting that in THEIR WORLDS, that THEY MADE UP, creatures MUST conform to your expectations, and that races of wholly irredeemable monsters can't exist. Period.
That's a problem Umbriere, not because those people are gaming wrong, but because you won't accept a fundamental premise of the way they game.
Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.