Killing in Glorantha and Pavis

[Loz]

Hospitality is taken very seriously in Glorantha, irrespective of culture. Most pantheons have myths that reinforce the laws of hospitality and the ramifications for breaking it.

For these particular characters, I would be tempted to give them a very tough time. The Zebras are there to enforce Pavis's order and harmony; any accusation of murder will be taken seriously. Killing in self-defence is one thing, but slitting the throat of a befuddled character is going to be treated as murder and punished appropriately.

Interestingly, my Elric campaign has just seen a double murder that provoked quite a lot of very intense debate before they were committed. The circumstances were quite different to in this game though, and committed far out to sea, with no witnesses. However, the characters, just to be on the safe side, have still gone on the run...

 

[Vortigern]

Meh.

I think people are getting overly fixated on the befuddle+throat-slitting method of dealing with the second NPC, and not simply looking at the motivation for the violence. Why it was all happening.

As Philhibbs said...

It wasn't cold-blooded, his friend had attacked them in their own home. They were under attack. The guy could have been waiting for his moment to strike. I don't think people understand nowadays how brutal the world used to be - how brutal it still is in places like Mexico and Somalia. Really, I don't see anything wrong.

If you and I were friends and were guests in any pseudo-medieval fantasy world, and you attacked our hosts, I would be in mortal fear and would consider myself extremely fortunate to escape with my life.

To my point of view there is a lot of modern liberal mindset and desire to simply not see blood shed being injected into the evaluation of events. Rather than evaluation purely from the perspective of characters of the perspective and mindset of the culture in question.

I could be wrong...

But it seems like a bunch of fluffy-bunny flower-hippy worrying over what... really is rather par for the course IMO.

Essentially this seems to come down to a game-tone issue and something that should be worked out by each group individually. I would however say I wouldn't agree at all with a group that I was a part of that tried for the fluffy-bunny approach. Then... I'm just not 'into' fluffy-bunny play.

Brutality and Violence are not necessarily something that the viewpoint of such people condemns. While I'm not familiar with Glorantha... to me this seems like a very understandable flow of events.

If NPC#2 wanted to really distance himself from the guy doing the foolish attacking, he should have come in on the side of his hosts, as hospitality would expect.

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

Where the PCs acting on the belief that the second NPC was going to attack as well?

 

[dryn]

It all happened in about two rounds or so. People were mostly focussed on the one who was actually attacking.

Before he got befuddled the other guy didn't act. I forget the words used but tax boy described him as being taken aback by the initial attack. Afterwards his death was justified as he could have been a threat if only as a witness.

 

[Mixster]

It all happened in about two rounds or so. People were mostly focussed on the one who was actually attacking.

Before he got befuddled the other guy didn't act. I forget the words used but tax boy described him as being taken aback by the initial attack. Afterwards his death was justified as he could have been a threat if only as a witness.

Having him as a witness that could testify that your guests attacked you first might have been a good idea.

The law enforcement could be looking at this as the NPCs inviting in two unsuspecting guests into their home, then killing them in cold blood. The one who attacked you could have been merely fighting for his life after he saw you slit the throat of his friend.

I'm very much with Phil and Vortigern on this. But I still think the GM should think about what the law enforcement would reasonably do. Have you been in trouble with them before? Would there be a motive as to why you would want these guests dead? Even though the killing is warranted, how are they to know? All they have is the story of the suspects. Which counts for very little unless you are nobility.

So IMO, no OOC penance. but there could easily be IC problems for killing two people in your own home while ganging up on them with 6 guys.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

To my point of view there is a lot of modern liberal mindset and desire to simply not see blood shed being injected into the evaluation of events. Rather than evaluation purely from the perspective of characters of the perspective and mindset of the culture in question.

Actually I think the modern mindset has been influenced by media entertainment that killing is as simple and impersonal as pulling a trigger. This is very, very, far from the truth. A non-psychopath has to be pushed to extremes to be able to kill in the first place, usually due to unconscious self preservation or the protection of loved ones. Most humans will subdue or flee an opponent in preference to cold-blooded killing, even to the point where it actually endangers their own life.

Whilst the 1st attacker mentioned above could have been killed by unwitting reflex during the sword fight, it is a completely different matter to cut the throat of the helpless (and non engaging 2nd protagonist) in cold blood.

Humans are not mentally wired to be able to kill other humans. We'd be an extinct species if this was so. Conditioning, training or mental instability can partially overcome this biological safety-valve, but there are always psychological problems which follow.

I could be wrong...

As could I.

But it seems like a bunch of fluffy-bunny flower-hippy worrying over what... really is rather par for the course IMO.

Beyond basic psychology there are social consequences to such acts too. Its not being fluffy-bunny to seriously consider the retribution which will occur after a death. Blood feuds and similar social 'equilibrium' conventions are there to prevent this sort of thing from happening and force those considering violence to re-think their actions. Allowing those transgressed against the liberty to immediately kill their provokers has rarely been permitted in societies; such paths lead to social disintegration or the ostracisation of those who kill out of hand - this is why legal systems exist.

Give me a culture which permits such killing and I'll show you a society which didn't actually permit that kind of behaviour (the glorified killer being a fraction of a percent of the normal population) or surrounded it with multiple levels of restrictive ritual to prevent it from getting out of hand.

Of course this is a very gloomy subject when it comes to action movies or roleplaying games. We tend to idolise the hero who cuts or shoots his way through bad guys to save the day. The truth is far different. This is why MRQ2's combat system has been set up to allow foes to be defeated in non-lethal ways, for GMs who favour more realistic violence and social consequence.

Personally I left my mindless in-game killing behind when I stopped playing AD&D. However even though that game made slaughter par for the course I don't believe it necessarily should be so. I think a more mature approach allows for a far deeper game, but of course not everyone has the same perspective.

 

[taxboy]

Maybe this comes come back to something a good friend said to me...


The no characters thing was a burning wheel thing. All there is are
some guys with dice sitting around a table eating junk food wanting to
have a fun evening. Those fours things are what is important over
anything like characters and setting or rules.

They justified their actions as being in character, which is beside
the point given that it annoyed people and hampered fun

 

[taxboy]

Also, I pretty much agree with everything Mongoose Pete said....

 

[Vortigern]

Note I didn't advocate freedom from IC fallout/repercussions. I would consider that a rather extreme mischaracterization of my comments.

I fully -expect- that a good GM would have the game world react accordingly to -any- act that PCs undertake. That is kind of the job description IMO.

What I was drawing up on was more the OOC rancor and moral hand-wringing over the whole affair, as if killing the NPC were OOCly morally wrong to have done, in the game. This I found a bit much.

Mmm. Also, perhaps I'm an aberration in your scheme of things either as a military member with the aforementioned training... or simply a disposition that is more bellicose, yet... I don't find that your statement 'a non-psychopath has to be pushed to extremes to be able to kill in the first place' to be all that true at all.

Very few military members are 'psychopaths'... and they do their jobs just fine, including killing people when necessary or their objective. Some seek counseling treatment afterwards, yet, that is 'not' the majority. Hence why many/most militaries only started offering such services on large scale within the modern era.

Personally I have long ago come to the ( admittedly unscientifically tested ) conclusion that among the many other personality types amongst people that some of sub-strata have to do with how people handle/cope with violence. Some people handle it better than others, and then again... you can learn coping skills.

Some people can handle it just fine, and sleep like a baby the same night. And they aren't 'crazy' or ill-adjusted folks.

I think that people who don't have those better coping mechanisms/skills, and thus more of a comfort level with violence, prefer to 'think' that there is something 'wrong' with others who aren't likewise. Because of how uncomfortable -they- are with the subject material. But that doesn't make it true.

Anyway.

I'm not a fan of 'mindless killing', and I don't see how you would get that from my post. I am however a fan of more 'grit' in the atmosphere of my games, rather than 'Oh Noes! He killed him!' going on at the table.

By all means let the relatives/friends/allies of the killed pair of NPCs come looking for them, if it is reasonable for them to do so. But acting like the guy was simply psychotic for deciding to kill that NPC says more about the squeamishness of the speaker than anything else to me.

I don't know if I would have done the same, yet, I'm not going to second-guess his on-the-spot decision. From the other comments made so far it wasn't a 'mindless killing' example either. Especially since they didn't start the fight at all.

 

[Vortigern]

Maybe this comes come back to something a good friend said to me...


The no characters thing was a burning wheel thing. All there is are
some guys with dice sitting around a table eating junk food wanting to
have a fun evening. Those fours things are what is important over
anything like characters and setting or rules.

They justified their actions as being in character, which is beside
the point given that it annoyed people and hampered fun

This brings me back to my point about game tone. That the group should sit down and discuss this and where they would like to see the game go etc. That the tone made some people in the group uncomfortable and/or ruined their fun.

This is a more valid/pressing matter IMO than saying that the decision was a non-roleplaying hack/slash moment or that they were acting psychotic.

Game tone and consensus thereof is essential for a healthy group/game... so I would encourage a robust discussion thereof where all members talk about not just this event, but thematically what they like in a game and how they would like to see the game go forward... as well as what they dislike in a game.

I suspect that your two PCs that were in the fight and killed your two NPCs have a different expectation/perception of game tone than some of the others.

 

[Jujitsudave]

Give me a culture which permits such killing and I'll show you a society which didn't actually permit that kind of behaviour

Sub-saharan Africa. For every peaceful tribe, there is a wandering group that is little more then animals.

 

[Dan True]

I don't know Glorantha, but since it's society is based on the ancient world, I will try to fit the morals into the ancient world.

To me this behaviour would not be entirely wrong in Rome. If the two NPCs are strongly connected, such as being in family, then their actions fall back on each other - as the actions of the groups is weighted higher than that of the individual.

In my mind there's nothing wrong with what the NPCs did, from an ancient point of view. But of course there's something wrong with it from a modern/medieval point of view.
So I guess it all comes down to tone of the game you wish.

Although I must say, I would probably not have done the same - I would at least have asked him what was going on and perhaps tried to ransom him to his family. But I can see the validity of killing him. He may be a witness clarifying that the other NPC attacked first, but he may also just as easy tell the Town Watch that they murdered him in cold blood and he himself only survived because he offered the PCs money, or some such. Him surviving can quickly become more trouble than his life is worth... in an ancient-inspired world where life has no innate value (unlike later christian-inspired moral backgrounds).

- Dan

 

[DamonJynx]

Where in the original post does it mention the two guest were allies or friends or even knew each other? You're making an assumption based on incomplete information. Though I grant it's a reasonable assumption to make.

Sorry m'lud. I'll try to stick to the evidence presented.

So you should. You need more exercise than just jumping to conclusions! :lol:

 

[DamonJynx]

Just to clear something up. I'm not for or against what the PC's did to the second NPC. They did what they did in a game and to them it was justified or seemed like a good idea at the time. All I'm saying is that killing someone incapable of defending themselves is murder pure and simple.

 

[Mixster]

Just to clear something up. I'm not for or against what the PC's did to the second NPC. They did what they did in a game and to them it was justified or seemed like a good idea at the time. All I'm saying is that killing someone incapable of defending themselves is murder pure and simple.

Isn't killing someone capable of defending themselves murder as well?

I seem to agree totally with Vortigern (except for the note on coping, but that is a theoretical discussion about coping patterns). These players could be wanting to play a sort of deranged killer, which is IMO fine. Some decisions may seem a little rash but if they are just remotely justified IC, then the only reason to do something OOC against it is if it really ruined everybody's fun.

Although I must say, I would probably not have done the same - I would at least have asked him what was going on and perhaps tried to ransom him to his family. But I can see the validity of killing him. He may be a witness clarifying that the other NPC attacked first, but he may also just as easy tell the Town Watch that they murdered him in cold blood and he himself only survived because he offered the PCs money, or some such. Him surviving can quickly become more trouble than his life is worth... in an ancient-inspired world where life has no innate value (unlike later christian-inspired moral backgrounds).

I don't really think that would be close to a reasonable solution. These guys quite clearly spared your life. Why would you go and tell the town watch differently? Maybe I'm soft-hearted. But if I spared somebody's life, then I would assume them to rat on me and tell lies to the town watch.
Also claims that he promised them money for his escape can be shown to be untrue, either due to ignorance of the fact that he had money, or simply displaying that you are in no need of money from him. The witness can quite clearly be shown to have suffered no physical damage.
However this isn't what happened. What happened can quite clearly be said like this (based on our evidence this far):
Two men enter the PCs house.
There is heard noises of fighting from the house.
Later, either the two men wont exit the PCs house again. Or worse, their bodies are discovered, one of them dead in a fight, the other had his throat slit, while doing no resistance.

This doesn't look good at all to me. And almost any law-enforcement would be right on the neck of the PCs. Evidence points very strongly against them. Even claiming that one of the guests were the agressor would be silly. Why would one guy start a fight against 6?

So to sum it up: I think the killing was fair enough. But I think the PCs will be knee-deep in trouble soonly.

 

[Dan True]

I don't really think that would be close to a reasonable solution. These guys quite clearly spared your life. Why would you go and tell the town watch differently? Maybe I'm soft-hearted. But if I spared somebody's life, then I would assume them to rat on me and tell lies to the town watch.
Also claims that he promised them money for his escape can be shown to be untrue, either due to ignorance of the fact that he had money, or simply displaying that you are in no need of money from him. The witness can quite clearly be shown to have suffered no physical damage.

But if the NPC has powerful friends or a clan, then it doesn't matter what he thinks or what can be proven or not. The fact is that if two members of a clan, possible related, go into a house and one is killed - the clan will not care about who started the fight, but will try to avenge the murder... even though the one who's life was spared might think it wrong.

Besides, I think you are indeed to soft-hearted in this. There are countless historical examples of nobles being spared their life, only later to break their word and return to fighting. I see no reason why ordinary people should not do the same - he is spared, but he still wishes (or is forced to by his clan) to see his friend Avenged, and so alters the story to better fit.

This doesn't look good at all to me. And almost any law-enforcement would be right on the neck of the PCs. Evidence points very strongly against them. Even claiming that one of the guests were the agressor would be silly. Why would one guy start a fight against 6?

Well, you are assuming a modern-world way of handling law enforcements. I don't know Glorantha, but what if the law was upheld like in the Dark Ages? Party A says one thing, party B says another and then they see who can collect enough oath-sworn men to back them up... if both can collect 12 or more, they fight it out instead.
This kind of law enforcement system wouldn't give a rat's ass about neighbours hearing noises or some such, only the sworn word of the implicated parties.

But this depends hugely on how law enforcement is in Glorantha, which I know nothing of.

So to sum it up: I think the killing was fair enough. But I think the PCs will be knee-deep in trouble soonly.

oh, indeed, the player should feel consequence for their actions.

 

[Jujitsudave]

I agree with Vortigern and Phil Hibbs. Yes, this was cold bloded murder, but whether it was justified or not is irrelevant. The fun of this game will come from the characters dealing with the consequenses in a world where life is cheap. It was only when the Judeo-Christian ethic was introduced into European society where life actually seemed to gain some kind of value, and even then it wasn't much.
All too often we insert our own modernized values into games such as trial by jury, separation of church and state, equality, abhorring racism, women's rights, and non-adherence to ancient taboo and tradition. That is just naturally the way we are. The fun of these games is that you can step out of your own skin for a while and a skilled GM with halfway decent players can do that, giving you a chance to experience things with a new set of eyes.
Nobody in the gaming group should be upset about the events that traspired OOC. In fact, the players should totally own it and enjoy this experience. The consequences will be fun too and the characters will need to think twice. Now if this becomes a regular thing because the players are immature gits, you may want to find different players. Otherwise, enjoy this. It's just a game and a fun one at that.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I fully -expect- that a good GM would have the game world react accordingly to -any- act that PCs undertake. That is kind of the job description IMO.

Oh, absolutely.

What I was drawing up on was more the OOC rancor and moral hand-wringing over the whole affair, as if killing the NPC were OOCly morally wrong to have done, in the game. This I found a bit much.

The point I was trying to make is that humanity throughout history has possessed an inherent reluctance to kill. We would never have achieved urbanisation and civilisation if there wasn't. I don't see why it wouldn't be similar in most RPG settings.

Now it may just be my opinion but killing a helpless stranger, who at that point had not yet demonstrated any readable intentions, would indeed be morally wrong in almost every culture I can think of.

Mmm. Also, perhaps I'm an aberration in your scheme of things either as a military member with the aforementioned training... or simply a disposition that is more bellicose, yet... I don't find that your statement 'a non-psychopath has to be pushed to extremes to be able to kill in the first place' to be all that true at all.

As a member of the modern (post WWII) military you are indeed the recipient of specialised conditioning to overcome the difficulties of killing. The recent trend in media entertainment, especially that from the States has exacerbated a looser cultural attitude towards killing in general. Just look at the difference between TV crime shows from either side of the pond to see how stark it can be, and that even doesn't even account for the radical change in British attitudes in particular towards killing since the 50's.

Now I'm not saying that people can't be pushed to kill or perform horrendous acts, but lacking the right conditioning, they need to be placed under extreme stress to do so. Otherwise we'd see social trends such as paedophiles, drunk drivers, rapists and wife beaters being constantly murdered by their victims or victim's families. Of course it can happen but they are rare cases... why? Probably because of psychological wiring and social conventions.

Now those are pretty knee-jerk types of crimes which many sympathetic onlookers would consider worthy of the criminal's death, yet despite the strength of passion they evoke, those most directly affected rarely ever kill in self-justified revenge. Likewise those threatened with GBH or murder will tend to beg, flee or call the authorities rather than pre-emptively slay the antagonist.

Very few military members are 'psychopaths'... and they do their jobs just fine, including killing people when necessary or their objective. Some seek counseling treatment afterwards, yet, that is 'not' the majority. Hence why many/most militaries only started offering such services on large scale within the modern era.

True, most soldiers are not psychopaths. However they do undergo extensive training and mental conditioning so that they can fight without immediately thinking of the consequences. But as its often stated, there's a considerable difference between shooting someone at range and staring into their eyes as you stab them - hence the historical adoption of hoods or blindfolds for those about to be executed.

I have several ex-military friends, most from the Falklands war and whilst most might not have sought counselling (as it wasn't really a done thing in the British military back then) they still carry a huge amount of emotional baggage from their experiences.

Some people can handle it just fine, and sleep like a baby the same night. And they aren't 'crazy' or ill-adjusted folks.

Actually I would personally consider anyone who killed without remorse or psychological trauma to indeed be mentally ill. But that's just my own personal opinion.

I'm not a fan of 'mindless killing', and I don't see how you would get that from my post.

Oh that wasn't directed at you Vortigern, it was more a comment upon the ubiquitous nature of combat in most RPGs which seems to have planted the expectation that conflict should/must/will result in death.

From the other comments made so far it wasn't a 'mindless killing' example either. Especially since they didn't start the fight at all.

I agree that the first death was a reasonable consequence of being attacked, although the slayer could have disarmed the guy or administered first aid after wounding him. The second death though did seem rather mindless, although I will accept that could have been to-the-hilt roleplaying of ruthlessness. Yet I didn't get that impression myself from the OP.

 

[soltakss]

Oh, if they are Dara Happans then that's OK

Dara Happan hospitality is not the same as the Orlanthi version. Social rank is more important than being a host. If the PCs are nobles then they can pretty much do as they please to commoners.

But, there could still be consequences. If they killed Orlanthi then they have opened themselves up to being the targets of a HeroQuest (Orlanth kills Yelm, perhaps).

 

[PhilHibbs]

I have several ex-military friends, most from the Falklands war and whilst most might not have sought counselling (as it wasn't really a done thing in the British military back then) they still carry a huge amount of emotional baggage from their experiences.

Straying a little off topic here, but my uncle was a padre and he was a counsellor to Falklands vets, and was one of the pioneers of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so that's around when such counselling became more the norm. As you say, there was and still is some reluctance about it. He's written books on it and had a nice career out of going to companies that had been victims of armed robberies and other severely stressful situations.