I'd argue that it's a weak point. Even a barebones D&D game is a roleplaying game. It's assumed that you'll occasionally engage in actions that don't have hard mechanics. We certainly didn't just murder everything we met back in 2E-land, and I'm reasonably certain that preceding editions had non-combat interactions with NPCs.
I've been trying to "golden rule" for the game. I hold the players to the same standard as the NPCs. If a rude comment by an NPC is grounds for a beating by the PCs, then they should not be surprised that offensive actions by the PCs is met with violence.
Sheesh. Player actions aside, taking the OP at face value, I'm a little appalled at the ratio of "guilty by association therefore kill" posts in this thread. Are most Pathfinder players really that quick to resort to immediate execution? Reminds me of the "pings detect evil therefore kill" threads that I've had to start ignoring wholesale.
TL;DR: Glad my players aren't psychopaths.
Honestly, if my PC's killed a Good Cleric because of whatever reason they thought he/she was evil, they wouldn't be punished per se, but there would be consequences, especially depending on what level of influence/standing that the Good Cleric had with the deity. That church or deity would send assassins, other clerics would ask for miracles or form a posse, get the city watch involved, etc., or something.
But my group doesn't behave like murderhobos :P
I used to be part of a powergaming murderhobo group though. It was highly unrealistic, unsatisfying, and extremely boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, barebones D&D is a wargame, that's what it began as. It's had so many coats of paint slapped on it that it looks more like a role-playing game nowadays, but you can still see the original construction.
D&D derives from wargames, but it is not a wargame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, D&D originates from Chainmail - Gygax and the rest were playing a fantasy-based miniatures war-game and were looking for things for the leaders of their armies to do. (That's one version of the story at least.)
No, D&D (across the editions) is not a war-game as that term is commonly used. However it is a conflict game, in which physical (as opposed to social/verbal) violence is the most common type of conflict and the rules for which form the preponderance of the game system's documentation. The sheer volume of combat oriented rules (including 6 Bestiaries) encourages violence-based encounters and conflict resolution methods.
Yes, non-violent conflict resolution was possible in previous editions but there were almost no (2E) or absolutely no (1E) rules mechanics for how to resolve them. Social skills such as diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive, etc. along with set DC's for various outcomes were not introduced until 3E.
Pedantic history lesson over - please resume your regularly scheduled thread.
I mean, in D&D the rule generally is kill until given a reason not to.We play very different games.
Reminds me of the old Living Greyhawk campaign. Knew a guy with a mixmax elven archer.
GM: "With your massive Perception score, you hear a--" <interrupted>
Elf: "I fire into the darkness!"
...as far as I remember, he never killed an innocent. It was always monsters, and it was hilarious after awhile. He was a full-blown Murder McJones.
Yes, D&D originates from Chainmail - Gygax and the rest were playing a fantasy-based miniatures war-game and were looking for things for the leaders of their armies to do. (That's one version of the story at least.)
No, D&D (across the editions) is not a war-game as that term is commonly used. However it is a conflict game, in which physical (as opposed to social/verbal) violence is the most common type of conflict and the rules for which form the preponderance of the game system's documentation. The sheer volume of combat oriented rules (including 6 Bestiaries) encourages violence-based encounters and conflict resolution methods.
Yes, non-violent conflict resolution was possible in previous editions but there were almost no (2E) or absolutely no (1E) rules mechanics for how to resolve them. Social skills such as diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive, etc. along with set DC's for various outcomes were not introduced until 3E.
Pedantic history lesson over - please resume your regularly scheduled thread.
This is all true, save that I'd argue that (a) having lots of rules for combat need not encourage combat resolution; and (b) Bestiaries are not solely combat rules. Some people actually read the descriptions!
This is all true, save that I'd argue that (a) having lots of rules for combat need not encourage combat resolution; and (b) Bestiaries are not solely combat rules. Some people actually read the descriptions!
QFT
I've read monster manuals, bestiaries, etc, for entertainment value alone. I'm weird like that. It came in handy a few years ago though when I found myself in a jepoardy style quiz game based on D&D material. People were impressed when I not only recognized but gave a reasonable pronunciation for the Svirfneblin. :)