I can say that I had not heard the exact term until the last few years, although the idea has been around for a while. I've been playing since '77 or there about. I imagine that my lack of familiarity with the term comes from not going to a lot of conventions and avoiding message boards for a long time.
That said, I still dislike the term. But then, I dislike twerk and selfie and dozens of other terms and I doubt they'll go away. Instead, I work to educate those I play with that it is indeed a play style, one among many, and that you can choose what to do in the game. There is no One True Way.
I said months ago that this dumb "murder hobo" crap is a meme which needs to die quickly. But instead it seems to have become common parlance for a number of people when referring to adventurers.The terms been around since at least the late 80s. It's not gonna disappear because you just discovered it last week and don't like it.My searches have shown that the term wasn't common until 2012. And I never heard it applied to adventurers until recently on this board, and I have been playing since 1974.
So yeah, it's pretty new. And, we need to stop using it.
Well, dude, I dunno what to say. I literally heard the exact term with my own ears quite a few times as far back as the late 80s when I first began playing.
It doesn't really matter if you started playing in 1974, if Gygax and Areneson ran all their stuff past you before they published it, if you invented the thief class, or whatever. That doesn't change what I myself have heard.
You having played the game since 1974 doesn't automatically always make you right.
And it doesn’t matter whether or not you heard it, nor am I disputing that (altho memory is a funny thing)- BUT the Term was not common (at least as applied to D&D) until around 2012. So, your point of Might as well get used to it, it's been around for a long time is not true.
My anecdotal evidence can beat your anecdotal evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering I like DrDeth more than Kthulhu, the former is correct.
I'd like DrDeath a lot more if he didn't feel the need to remind everyone that he's been playing the game since the 1700s every time he posts.
Pfft, back in my day we played with stone tablets. That was rough. Sometimes coarse. They came in all kinds! Also we rode dinosaurs uphill both ways through the snow of the ice age. That was rough... sometimes course.
But then, I dislike twerk and selfie and dozens of other terms and I doubt they'll go away.
3edgy5me
And it doesn’t matter whether or not you heard it, nor am I disputing that (altho memory is a funny thing)- BUT the Term was not common (at least as applied to D&D) until around 2012. So, your point of Might as well get used to it, it's been around for a long time is not true.
Does it matter how long the term has been around? For those who dislike it, would you like it if it had been used for decades? If your objection to the word is not how long it's been used, then why bring it up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like DrDeath a lot more if he didn't feel the need to remind everyone that he's been playing the game since the 1700s every time he posts.Pfft, back in my day we played with stone tablets. That was rough. Sometimes coarse. They came in all kinds! Also we rode dinosaurs uphill both ways through the snow of the ice age. That was rough... sometimes course.
You were allowed stone tablets?
I guess that was a 2nd edition rules change...
But then, I dislike twerk and selfie and dozens of other terms and I doubt they'll go away.3edgy5me
I do not know that term, sorry. Please tell me it is not another thing Miley did this week.
My anecdotal evidence can beat your anecdotal evidence.
I am not only quoting anecdotal evidence, I did a Google search and checked every reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like DrDeath a lot more if he didn't feel the need to remind everyone that he's been playing the game since the 1700s every time he posts.
Get off my lawn you darn kid! ;-)
Yay! I finally found it! Not officially a use of the term Murderhobo but an official identification of the playstyle.
Check out Dragon magazine 144's article pages 12-18... The article 'A Field Guide to Game Convention Ornithology' by Skip Williams in April 1989.
Here this playstyle is referred to as the Bullheaded Slasher (Anarchistus desperadus)
It was the originator of my favorite phrase for the playstyle:
They don't tilt their heads at windmills because windmills don't bleed.
And other great quotes about the playstyle as well:
Slasher can make do with anything that requires a die roll instead of thought.
Essentially they are wargamers somehow trapped in an rpg instead and the article mentions that specifically.
The article also covers the full gamut of other gaming styles that are prevalent even today and is well worth the read and hillariously relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GROGNARD FIIIIGGGHHHHTTT!
5 gold on it ending in a draw due to beard entanglement.
By extension the article admitting that this playstyle is simply a renaming of what was previously called a wargamer, we know that the term wargamer was in use as early as 1971 to refer to people who played wargames. I have found at least one link to a web page where the wargamers formed a wargaming club in september of 1971...
At this time the term was used to refer to gamers who gamed purely as a 'theater of war' tabletop combat simulator (obviously historical tabletop battle recreation games with little to no 'role playing element') but a person who's tenets of gaming adhere to these pursuits despite the game itself (in this case pathfinder) encapsulating so many other possible explorations and interactions is referred to as a wargamer even outside the wargaming community by the end of 1971 for sure.
So tell me, what've you been up to as of late?
Well, I was pulling some hours in Thistletop, down by Sandpoint. You know, strictly journeyman stuff, raid the town, head back to the castle, wait for some murderhobos to stop by. Anyway, they were rank amateurs and we totally kicked their asses and were going to sacrifice them to Malfeshnekor, but the Dungeon Master stepped in and was, like, "oh, we're going to give them another chance..." We've been on furlough since then, but the contract covers this type of situation and if they want to pay me to just hang around and milk it, that's fine with me.
Anyway, I thank you and the mrs. for the kind offer, but I've gotta stay here in Varisia for a while. Happy holidays and the union forever!
In solidarity,
Comrade Anklebiter,
Secretary-Treasure of International Brotherhood of NPCs and Sentient Monsters, Local 25
Yeah, its not just the youngins. The last few weeks I've been playing with a few gamers older than I am and they all had the murderhobo outlook that found subdual damage and not finishing off fallen foes baffling.
Yeah, its not just the youngins. The last few weeks I've been playing with a few gamers older than I am and they all had the murderhobo outlook that found subdual damage and not finishing off fallen foes baffling.
Hmm... How far did the foes fall? If its over 100 feet its probably not worth chasing after them.
Vincent, great searching there. Yes, I certainly agree, the old "kick down the door and kill it" style of dungeon crashing was certainly not rare back in the old days. We tended to look down on that style a bit as "immature" (since we were all of maybe 20), but no doubt, it was a play style.
However, if you look back, you'll find a post from me where I made it clear that a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined "murderhobo" and I found a common internet definition of "murderhobo":
I“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".
Thus "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo". Nor is Dungeon crawling or Dungeon crashing, etc.
So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.
The line is drawn at killing more or less friendly villagers I think.
Likely people have different definitions of murderhobo. I've never seen murderhobo as a women and child slayer. More like that traveling nut just looking to kill and loot things, which hack/slash gameplay does just fine.
Vincent, great searching there. Yes, I certainly agree, the old "kick down the door and kill it" style of dungeon crashing was certainly not rare back in the old days. We tended to look down on that style a bit as "immature" (since we were all of maybe 20), but no doubt, it was a play style.
However, if you look back, you'll find a post from me where I made it clear that a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined "murderhobo" and I found a common internet definition of "murderhobo":
I“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".Thus "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo". Nor is Dungeon crawling or Dungeon crashing, etc.
So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.
The line is drawn at killing more or less friendly villagers I think.
That makes me question... what about parties of tighter morals for whom massive collateral damage is regarded as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions?
I've played a couple characters where the (accidental!) collateral damage was occasionally measured in city blocks irreversibly destroyed. It turns out casting fireball into a sewer room without checking to see if that hissing noise is a monster or the old magical plumbing leaking methane isn't so smart...
Chainmail/D&D contributed significantly in 'creating' the rift, because the wargaming interest began to transition from controling large armies and groups, to controlling a single person. Still a combat simulator plotting soldier against soldier, but it became more visceral and engaging because instead of representing some panopaly of faceless grunts, the battle unit was an individual. It was easier to identify with the one man unit and so that became popular. Then tolkien comes out and we start adding fantastic creatures and gods and magic and suddenly it's not a war simulation game but a fantasy game. We all know this. But when it became a role playing game where we explored other facets and activities of the one person character unit, some people embraced the idea that the activity of being an explorer/adventurer as well as a fighting man, or a spellcaster or a priest or a thief or a dwarf or an elf was an even richer context than they'd been playing before and creating collaborative stories was 'better' than what they'd previously been up to.
And therein lies the rub. Because there were still plenty of people who were still only in the game just to explore tactics and fight battles and slay monsters. Sure we can play dwarves and elves but we still want the game to be about the exploration of visceral combat. mano a (demi)mano. There is at this stage a new kind of gamer and an old kind of gamer trying to share the same gaming platform. A huge chunk of wargamers went to warhammer and a huge chunk of wargamers went to 1e...
Then 2e comes out and the battle mat could *go completely away*. Theater of the mind means you no longer have need of your little war figures and minis and dioramas as those physical constructs take too much time to create when we could just be getting down to the actual hobby which is playing the GAME! A wargamer's passion of mini soldiers and model train scale battles has been largely dropped from ostensibly half the people who still play. Games workshop says thank you and absorbs more of the disenfranchised wargamer community. The remaining 2e folks recognize the population of people who play the game simply to 'kick things in the teeth' is getting smaller. Not hard to slip in a little ridicule on their behalf now and then eh? We tried some larping to show that being interested in tolkein could be a healthy pursuit, but you thought arranging the schedules of 4 gamers to land on the same afternoon was tough... Try doing that with 40 people instead. So the second coming of the civil war live action reenactment group falls by the wayside... what's next?
3.0 brings the map and mini mechanic back and lo these wargamers return in droves and they've been back ever since. In fact they're the new vogue. Nobody was complaining about wargamers when 3.0 through pathfinder came out... But it's just another cultural sine wave that keeps coming and going. Whatever the last generation thought was cool, the new generation will think is old and unhip. We've been at the battle mat long enough to start thinking... Isn't running around killin stuff for killin stuffs sake getting a little old?
The wargamers are becoming yesterdays news again as a younger generation looks for a different way to play and Wizards of the Coast, just like 2e, once again tries to recapitalize on that hunger to create a system that can appeal to every kind of gamer at once. The wargamer and the non wargamer and the larper have all come and gone in popularity before... in constant rotations and cycles. Viva the revolution. And as Tommy Lee Jones aptly put it in Under Siege... The reason they call it revolution is because it keeps coming back around.
Larping and Wargaming and Adventuring all have strong points and weak points. Pathfinder does a good job of catering to wargamers and adventurers, but a wargamer will always have a hard time twiddling his thumbs while an adventurer explores, and an explorer is going to always have time feeling relevent when everything he meets gets chopped down by his adventuring partner before getting a word in edgewise. True that's an overgeneralization but the point stands. Different playstyles can be a tough thing to overcome.
My learning and familiarization phase was redbox. My core gaming passion came about during 2e... I was attracted to the hobby *because* it was theater of the mind... I saw 1e and thought 'thank goodness we're not stuck on those squares anymore... how... clunky and time consuming. So pathfinder is tough for me because its 'battle engine' caters more to the wargamer with its mechanics and to a guy who cut his teeth on and loved theater of the mind it's something I'll always not like. I'll still play with a wargamer but I roll my eyes when he's rolling initiative every time we find something within 100 feet of us that's 'breathing'. On the one hand, respect to the wargamer because theirs is the hobby from which mine was born... On the other hand I was never interested in the hobby the way they did it. I became interested in the hobby when it changed away from the way they did it. Tough stuff.
Zeb Cook may be the reason I'm in the hobby at all, but as the systems try harder and harder to homogenize the different goals and styles of play, what that means is that players have to be able to play well with others and get along with folks who 'joined the hobby' for other reasons and with different passions. Or else find tables where they don't have to.
** spoiler omitted **...
There was no "mat" from OD&D through the end of AD&D, i.e. 2nd ed. Sure, some DM had one, as it was easier to draw dungeons on it, but tactical movement wasn't a thing. Figures were nearly always used, but snot so much for precise tactical positioning, just to see if you were in the dragon's breath, etc.
That makes me question... what about parties of tighter morals for whom massive collateral damage is regarded as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions?I've played a couple characters where the (accidental!) collateral damage was occasionally measured in city blocks irreversibly destroyed. It turns out casting fireball into a sewer room without checking to see if that hissing noise is a monster or the old magical plumbing leaking methane isn't so smart...
Yeah, Ok, well, most DM's ignored that, but there were some Ooops moments. Once in a while we'd be reminded we were in a city so Fireball out out of the question.
OTOH, collateral damage is the name of the game in Superhero comics and games, and do we call Superman a "murderhobo"?
Superman is actually a fantastic example. I don't know. It's been decades since I saw those.
He might have had large scale collateral environment damage, but thinking back on it I don't think a single person ever died in a superman movie. Except his earth parents I think... From old age...
Even the bad guys.
At least in the old movies. I haven't seen the new one. I heard it's 'darker'
Superman is actually a fantastic example. I don't know. It's been decades since I saw those.
He might have had large scale collateral environment damage, but thinking back on it I don't think a single person ever died in a superman movie. Except his earth parents I think... From old age...Even the bad guys.
At least in the old movies. I haven't seen the new one. I heard it's 'darker'
ooooh yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thus "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo". Nor is Dungeon crawling or Dungeon crashing, etc.
Sure it is. Its kind of the point.
You're an itinerant adventurer. You go into places (the dungeon) and kill the residents therein who are reacting reasonably to the presence of armed intruders in theirhome (the murder part)
DUDE... spoilers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the original comic run, before Batman shot someone in cold blood (this is why Batman hating guns is a character trait), Superman would kill even minor criminals on a regular basis. After the issue where Batman gunned someone down for no good reason, the DC editors decided their characters should be more "hero" and less "blood-thirsty mass murderer."
Note I said "less." Superman is still depicted killing people, Batman still occasionally kills people, and Batman is not entirely adverse to autocannons or using death traps. Plus, some of the things Superman has done to protect his identity border on supervillainy.
I would say Superman is an excellent example of a moral murderhobo.
Edit: Mixed up the companies. Oops >.>
In the original comic run, before Batman shot someone in cold blood (this is why Batman hating guns is a character trait), Superman would kill even minor criminals on a regular basis. After the issue where Batman gunned someone down for no good reason, the Marvel editors decided their characters should be more "hero" and less "blood-thirsty mass murderer."
One trait about many classic super heroes is they've been around for so long they've changed a lot and been through a lot of incarnations.
I'm sorry if I spoiled a movie that's closing in on its 35th anniversary.
In doing so you spoilered 1 that just hit DVD.
Also, thats probably murder for superman (pretty justified murder though)
Lois has a good case for self defense. The lady was up till that point holding her by the throat, and its one non powered person against another.
After the issue where Batman gunned someone down for no good reason, the Marvel editors decided their characters should be more "hero" and less "blood-thirsty mass murderer."You mean DC?
Corrected ^^
It's darker in that he shows remorse when he's forced to kill Zod. In Superman II, he murders a de-powered Zod, while Lois does the same to Ursula. And they seem pretty happy about it.
thank God someone remembers this.
Superman is still depicted killing people, ..
I would say Superman is an excellent example of a moral murderhobo.
And this is why such discussion can go no where. If Superman, who kills a mass murdering condemned but escaped prisoner who has shown that he will go back to his evil ways as soon as he gets a chance= "murder" than every act of killing is murder. My dad killing that "Jap Sniper" in WWII was murder, then? The prisoners at Auschwitz who turned on their Nazi guards after being freed by the Allies- murders. Etc, etc.
So, if Superman, who has dedicated his whole life to "Truth, justice and the American way" who is a "Defender of law and order. champion of equal rights, valiant, courageous fighter against the forces of hate and prejudice" and has saved the Earth more times than I can count, then every adventurer is a murderhobo, and the term has no meaning.
Superman is still depicted killing people, ..
I would say Superman is an excellent example of a moral murderhobo.And this is why such discussion can go no where. If Superman, who kills a mass murdering condemned but escaped prisoner who has shown that he will go back to his evil ways as soon as he gets a chance= "murder" than every act of killing is murder. My dad killing that "Jap Sniper" in WWII was murder, then? The prisoners at Auschwitz who turned on their Nazi guards after being freed by the Allies- murders. Etc, etc.
So, if Superman, who has dedicated his whole life to "Truth, justice and the American way" who is a "Defender of law and order. champion of equal rights, valiant, courageous fighter against the forces of hate and prejudice" and has saved the Earth more times than I can count, then every adventurer is a murderhobo, and the term has no meaning.
I was judging by the definition you provided, specifically in that Superman saving the day is not unknown for causing near-apocalyptic levels of destruction in the area he's in. Sometimes, he does take the law into his own hands when his own moral code, as expressed numerous times, specifically forbids that. And then there's the fact that some of the things he's pulled on his own allies while being in his right mind have spawned an entire meme about him being a jerk (not the actual word used, but close enough) and border on being outright evil. If he were a paladin, he would burn through atonements like an archer uses arrows.
Yes, he's saved the world multiple times... but so have some of those adventurers who break into a dungeon and kill everything with no compunctions about whether or not it's innocent. And Asmodeus, one of the gods of evil, saved the entire universe. So just because they save the world doesn't mean they're a paragon of good.
So, considering he violates his own moral code when it suits him, often causes wanton mass destruction on a level that rivals modern military arsenals, and shows absolutely no remorse or second thought about the level of sheer devastation he causes on a regular basis... In what way does Superman not meet the definition of "character of looser morals who tends to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions?"
The real reason why this conversation can get no where is that, even when using the same definition, people cannot even agree if it applies to a character or want to make exceptions. Just as you are for Superman.
My dad killing that "Jap Sniper" in WWII was murder, then?
Using a racial slur is always an excellent way to make your point.
Anyway, I'm not exactly an expert on Superman, but I'm pretty sure he's killed people who aren't mass murderers who have been found guilty by the justice system. "Murder" seems like an appropriate word to describe killing an alleged burglar or whatever. Superman may be champion who has saved the earth at least four times, but he can be a murderer at the same time.
And this is why such discussion can go no where. If Superman, who kills a mass murdering condemned but escaped prisoner who has shown that he will go back to his evil ways as soon as he gets a chance= "murder" than every act of killing is murder.
Murder is a legal distinction. In this case superman can't off zod because he doesn't have the legal authority.
Mind you, the fortress of solitude alone will keep him out of murderhobo...
The prisoners at Auschwitz who turned on their Nazi guards after being freed by the Allies- murders. Etc, etc.
War is legal killing, so not murder. (has almost as much chance of being an immoral killing though)
Auschwitz was the illegal invasion by a foreign power, so fair game.
So, if Superman, who has dedicated his whole life to "Truth, justice and the American way" who is a "Defender of law and order. champion of equal rights, valiant, courageous fighter against the forces of hate and prejudice" and has saved the Earth more times than I can count, then every adventurer is a murderhobo, and the term has no meaning.
Governments tend not to react well to individuals taking the power of life and death into their hands. If there's one thing that politicians of all stripe, monarchy and elected representative alike, can agree with its that that's THEIR job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see some examples of supermans wanton killing, please.
In addition to the movie example that Kthulhu posted...
Pick a Superman comic from the 1940s. Any of them. If he wasn't killing them, he was making it pretty clear he had no moral compunctions against torture.
Then there's the Superman 22 from the Post-Crisis era, where he confronts the Phantom Zone and kills them using Kryptonite from their universe. In fact, he's the one who judged them to be deserving death, so there was no legal basis at all for his actions.
Those are just the ones I found in a one minute Google search. The list of people Superman has killed is massively, massively longer.
if i ran into a mentally unbalanced figure whom wore spandex tights with a cape and a pair of exposed underwear, has a fancy symbol upon the chest of his outfit, whom caused massive amounts of military grade collateral damage to take down one mortal man, whom is seemingly invulnerable to the majority of our earthly weapons, can carry an entire airplane or cruise liner across his shoulder, and is responsible for more deaths than the guy he is detaining through vigilante work
i wouldn't be arresting the minor villain
i would be researching a means to take down the invulnerable mentally unbalanced spandex wearing juggernaught responsible for the damages, if i couldn't find a weakness in a little over a year and am still alive, i'd probably piss myself and cower in terror at the humanoid abomination every night before bed and every time i see him.