The ethics of killing

Community Larp discussion
#1

More and more I’m thinking about the challenges of giving players opportunities for lots of combat without reducing the gravity of killing someone.

In big battles I feel there’s an appropriate mood. That sort of combat is scary and intense and I feel like players are presented with a genuine reason to take another life and the fear/adrenaline is usually at a level that’s quite immersive - particularly when you have to keep fighting even though your friends are dropping on the field.

In contrast to this is the casual ‘Oh let’s go kill some bandits’ combat that’s almost light-hearted at times. Sometimes it’s almost done with a casualness that could be interpreted as ‘whee, killing bandits is fun!’

I don’t think most characters would think ‘killing is fun’. I know many characters DO feel justified in killing bandits (or anyone that’s attacking them/their friends), and a few MAY even genuinely enjoy killing jsut for the sake of it. However, I’m also guessing this is an area where the line between OOC and IC blurs a little - because players think larp combat is fun.

I think it presents an interesting challenge for both GMs and players. In the weekend games there will always be some random greeblie attacks to keep people active and engaged and provide an opportunity for combat. So how does one do that while keeping players engaged enough to be thinking and acting ICly in regards to killing?

Note: I appreciate I’m probably in the minority here as many will equate LARP killing with video game killing, which is fair enough! I just thought it an interesting point for discussion. :smiley:

#2

Are you perhaps applying modern ways of thinking (akin to democracy cf nobility) that death as a punishment is the last resort. We are told that in archaic times (and perhaps scholars of the era can say if it is true) that life was cheaper, life expectancies were shorter, that killing as punishment was more widespread.

What are the alternatives?
Having the bandits put in prison, and have the NPC roleplay being in prison?
Have them allocated to a character to supervise their re-habilitation into society, and give them a house and a job? Sounds rather mundane, not very heroic fantasy, which is an expectation of larp, isn’t it?

</devils advocate>
an interesting topic for discussion.
(I’ll let some else talk about how apparently there needs to actually be death of player characters to make the fear of death real.)

#3

I think the “LARP combat is fun” thing is a major influencer - the tournament at last Teonn was a great way of allowing for this, I felt.

Perhaps a contributor to this (and I am talking small combats here, not huge rolling battles) is that bandits etc… tend to, when killed, just fall over, than jump up and head back to the GMs.

Which kind of equates to waving a sword at things, and they disappear like smoke! Success!

What would it be like if “slain bandits”, considered themselves “mortally wounded bandits”, and once cut down pleaded for their lives, tried to hold in their guts, moaned in agony etc…? (although one downside is that this would need to be seriously moderated in loudness, or else the number of concerned neighbours could skyrocket )

#4

I remember Heartless Jack once got a visit from a … sizable group of women, reminding him of consequences. What would it be like for a PC to suddenly be visited by the ghosts of every bandit they had killed?

#5

Looks over at Magni’s PILE of defeated enemies
Looks over at Cornerlius’ PAIR of defeated enemies

I’d be more ok with it than some.

#6

If anything I’d say it was the opposite: we are much more humanitarian than medieval (or even Victorian) society actually was in dealing with criminals.

I do think we underrate the possibility of our own pain and death when hunting bandits and the ilk. There are no personal repercussions to being hit by a larp weapon when you will be fully healed after a little time passes. Unless there is another fight you can generally just ignore the fact you were injured once the fight is done. Hunting bandits would be a much more serious thing to do if the risks were higher, and the consequences real.

#7

I think it comes down to a personal roleplaying matter. I personally put a lot of thought into my characters’ attitude to killing and roleplaying it as appropriate. Frankly, if all the people Captain Kate has killed were to turn up as a ghost mob, her response would be along the lines of, “Screw you, I’d kill you all again.” But you can’t make people put that kind of thought into their roleplaying, same as you can’t make them roleplay any other aspect they aren’t interested in. I trust that people have put the same thought into their characters’ moralities and respond appropriately in character (“By Traktat’s left nut, XYZ sure is raging psychopath!” or “Spirits dammit all, if I’m stuck on another mission with that cursed halfwit who doesn’t have the balls to finish them when they’re down…” etc)

Part of it is that not all roleplaying encounters are in Teonn are an opportunity to engage in a moral socio-econo-political debate. When the bandits are tearing down the road waving weapons and screaming themselves hoarse (with the NPCs grinning), well, it’s a pretty clear indicator of the direction that encounter is meant to take. Not every encounter is a roleplaying one. I’ve seen characters offer bandits choices other than death - jobs, prison, etc. The bandits are sometimes suicidally insane. I know several characters (including mine) and the Cormere council have taken actions to reduce the socio-economic circumstances that lead to banditry.

At the end of the day, in Teonn, we are playing a frontier town and its population is significantly comprised of (ex-)soldiers, mercenaries and other fighter types - these are characters that would be used to be killing. There are characters that have issues with killing, they stand behind the people that don’t, get killed or rethink their philosophies after the first couple of near death experiences.

#8

[quote=“Anna K”]
At the end of the day, in Teonn, we are playing a frontier town and its population is significantly comprised of (ex-)soldiers, mercenaries and other fighter types - these are characters that would be used to be killing. There are characters that have issues with killing, they stand behind the people that don’t, get killed or rethink their philosophies after the first couple of near death experiences.[/quote]

This. This explains much of Shard.

#9

Agreed on pretty much most of what has been said.

Trying not to stair the conversation purely to Teonn, but being that it IS the biggest game atm, i think it would be tough.

A lot of the fighters have the appropriate background to callously kill and slaughter… well basically anyone, but i think if every bandit we came across had finishing blow, combat would be an entirely different story.

I would be a minority who would want that, because i know a lot of people put time and effort in to their backgrounds, costumes, character relationships etc but then you’re drawing some hazy lines regardless.

Where do you draw the line between: player death/player killing npc/costume and background prep vs when it is ok to throw in the amount of killing and killing blows npcs have. How realistic do we wanna get? Because if it were for realism it would be that every NPC has a killing blow if they have a sharp weapon.

Again i personally would LOVE this type of combat, so that people wouldn’t storm off and go bandit hunting, but its not for everyone - and at the end of the day if the majority prefer to just kill hapless bandits, then thats the way the game will go.

Although i do remember having a brilliant scene from the Knightshade we went to, with a bandit that we reformed by letting him borrow my chars families farm and become a farmer - this was awesome, and my less than capable character much preferred the idea of a chat over a fight.

Again, at the end of the day we can’t really tell people how to rp - if they wanna go boff stuff for the sake of boffing stuff, they paid and its their right.

/pointless post.

#10

I disagree, not pointless, you kinda Tahariel’d the main issue there. (Ie, fired a ton of bullets at the target and hit, thanks to probability. Ok, enough jesting.)

The mentioned issue is the consequence. There’s been a discussion on this recently in some of the circles I roll in, and it’s consequence of actions, specifically, killing.
As Jackie rightly puts it, it’s a little bit of the OOC/IC blur when we as players go a-bandit-hunting, but I would suggest that that blur happens more often than that. We can’t help but think, on some level, that ‘we are the players, they are the NPCs’, and as such a part of our mindset views them as expendable. This is regardless of whether they are actually a long term NPC or random gribble monster, our perception of their value means that we treat them as someone we can kill.
Jordan’s desire for a combat in which every sharp-weapon wielding, clawed, poison-tentacled, vicious adversary has the ability to permanently kill is difficult to implement. It does however solve the issue of we the player’s perception of those we deal with - the consequences of going fighting are potentially much more dire. The NPC, regardless of who/what, is now a threat to our well being, and as such we now think more carefully before dismissing them as expendable, or killable.
The ‘us versus them’ is a mentality that can’t be completely shaken off in my opinion, but it, like all facets of roleplaying, is something found in varying degrees from larper to larper. Anna’s right in that you can’t force anyone to roleplay something they aren’t interested in, but as her cat herder senses no doubt suggest, there are some ways to guide the general atmosphere of a game to the morality/ethics you want. Even then…

As a general rule, for myself, in whatever game, death, and by extension murder, are themes I often find my characters exploring. As such, most of the time in game, the ethics of killing are something on my mind, something I use larp to explore, hopefully challenging not only my preconceptions, but the conceptions of others as well.

#11

Mid fantasy larps such as teonn and knightshade can be compaired to books and films in the same genre.

See also: Game of thrones.

#12

While I understand Jackie’s musings, I think for many people it’s nice to role play situations that are a bit more black and white than real life. To have a problem that can be solved with a sword without over thinking it.

I’d like to see the way we deal with PC and NPC death get a little closer together though…

#13

Personally, I think its largely a combination of what people have already mentioned, a lack of consequences (as in, the worst that can happen to a player is that they end up having to wait for a healing character to come along), and the us-vs-them mentality (and the perception of all NPCs as expendable). I also think Derek and Xcerus make good points, namely that at some games, particularly fantasy games, it is perhaps to be expected and maybe even appropriate that there is a more cavalier attitude towards the subject. And I entirely expect a bunch of basically mindless monsters that seem to just be attacking without any obvious reason would be slaughtered without a second thought.

The only thing I think I can really contribute to the conversation is the suggestion of an idea, which I imagine has probably already floated around before, that perhaps a handful of experienced crew members should be issued a killing blow at the start of the weekend, that last across characters, which are to be used only when appropriate. As in, if someone does decide they’re going to go hunt some bandits in the woods at night by themselves for the fun of it, there’s a bit more of a chance of it backfiring really badly, but if the town/fort/whatever gets attacked by rampaging crew and there’s a full-on battle raging and someone is unlucky enough to be the first player dropped, they’re highly unlikely to be bumped off (because you wouldn’t stop to finish someone off when their friend is standing there with a sword). I’m not really sure if this is a good idea or not.

#14

Are we talking care more about npc death or care less about pc death… or both? > X <

I must confess the attachment to characters thing still confuses me greatly. I guess the only comparison I can draw is to a beloved character from a book dying? Even then I expect it 90% of the time. So perhaps a long running character in a tv series or fiction anthology?

Don’t get me wrong - real world loss I get. Be it a pet fish or a parent I totally understand grief for a lost loved one.

But a character you made up to live in a dark fantasy world filled with dragons, angry monsters and backstabbing bandits… how are you suprised that your character died? If anything it’s the players own fault for putting it into that universe in the first place.

I for one would not put my pet mouse in a chainmail shirt and send her to war with the cat army in the forest and expect her to survive…

If I want her to live a long and happy life then she can stay nice and safe with her friends and eat tasty tasty litebread - that way the worst that can happen is she gets fat. However she does have a wheel to run in.

<< btw the above =/= trolling / flaming. It may be spelt bad an stuff but I have had no sleep + go go codene! so… sorry if I offend. I am going to bed now… I hope >>
Hopefully I will be back later with more productive stuff and things.

Need mouse armor! To Redwall!

#15

It’s all about the story. The players are the protagonists and even in the same setting we have a myriad of different stories. Some of our stories involve not wanting to kill anymore, others are more like crusaders, let God sort em out. I am a very firm believer that a player death should be a good finish to their story arc. Sometimes it is tragic, sometimes it is heroic. The death needs to be good. It is not just a character that dies, it’s a story. Granted some stories live beyond their death and make big impacts on other stories.

Most bandits and suchlike lack a story, or share just one collective story. In their own way they let the character define themselves on how they interact. Killing them heedlessly can turn a warrior into a cold hearted Crusader, into a monster or turn them more heroic. When we come to interact with the horde of screaming bandits we choose which way we take and how we react.

#16

I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s responses! Thanks very much :smiley: Though as Jordan pointed out this wasn’t meant to be exclusively about Teonn - I think it’s something that can come up in any game.

[quote=“Uncle Vanya”]
Most bandits and suchlike lack a story, or share just one collective story. In their own way they let the character define themselves on how they interact. Killing them heedlessly can turn a warrior into a cold hearted Crusader, into a monster or turn them more heroic. When we come to interact with the horde of screaming bandits we choose which way we take and how we react.[/quote]

This struck a chord. I think it’s a great opportunity for character development to reflect on how your character views killing and seeing if that changes their personality, world view, etc … If a pacifist type-character ends up in combat more than expected because the player ends up liking combat, then that’s a great opportunity to have that character re-define themselves and justify why they’ve taken to the sword (“They attacked my family - I’ll always defend my family”, etc …)

And it’s an opportunity for other characters to notice things about their commrades. Does character X seem to be a bit more over-eager to kill things as of late? Does character Y seem to be turning into a remorseless, cold-hearted killer?

Good stuff! Thanks again everyone. :smiley: :smiley:

#17

(Love the mouse analogy Adam, hit it on the head really well.)

#18

[quote=“Xcerus”]I must confess the attachment to characters thing still confuses me greatly. I guess the only comparison I can draw is to a beloved character from a book dying? Even then I expect it 90% of the time. So perhaps a long running character in a tv series or fiction anthology?
[/quote]

Personally, LARP is more than a book, video game or movie in that we have the opportunity to intimately shape and experience the character’s live and collectively shape and experience the wider story. I.e.; it’s much more personal and there’s much more of an emotional investment.

I think everyone can agree an epic death makes for a great story and we can appreciate what that adds to the game.

But it’s also entirely natural to think we’d not only mourn the opportunity to play a character we’ve grown attached to, but we also empathise with all the people who have relationships with that character and will be sad at the loss of a friend. And it’s natural to be sad to close a chapter on a story if you haven’t had a chance to explore/experience as much as you’d liked to with that particular character.

But that’s like RL as well, isn’t it? :smiley:

#19

Cool thread. I always go into battle assuming someone has killing blow. And since I don’t know who it is, I have to assume it could be the person hitting me now. I find it interesting that this doesn’t seem to be the general view. Derek, given that the bodies do that whole ‘poof, vanish!’ thing described by Ignifluous, it’s really hard to get worked up about them. Maybe if they did hang around requiring burning or burying to stop stinking up the place…

In Teonn, as the (hopefully) world-saving heroes of a fantasyland, the players should be less squishy than the hordes of enemies, otherwise we’re sort of sucky heroes. :smiley: I guess maybe in some other genres or styles of larp, death could be way more of a risk. I like the idea of the ‘everyone has killing blow’ larp but I probably wouldn’t spend nearly as much time or money developing my character’s story and look.

#20

The main campaign I’ve played in was St Wolfgangs. My character had a very specific ethics about killing. In short, killing pagans was unpleasant but often necessary to protect Christians. I tried to give them the option of converting, because my character considered that part of his duty as a merciful Christian. I regarded death as likely at all times, a sacrifice my character was more than willing to make.

In general, I think that if a game is intended to involve a lot of killing, then it’s a good idea for a rationalisation to be built into the setting. This will generally involve the type of characters involved and the nature of the things being killed, as well as the genre. If that’s not in place then you’re going to get cognitive dissonance, both IC and OOC.