So, this is an issue that almost every single one of us takes for granted, and I want to break it wide open. I want to explore options besides the one I have been defaulting to using, and I wonder if some of the rest of you might be feeling the same thing. So! Without further ado:
Imma Kill Yo' Face
What attitudes about killing prevail in your game, and in your game world? (Note the distinction!) Do players tend to solve problems with rivals and villains via fights to the death? Do you sometimes find yourself or others bending over backwards to try to avoid the default solution of death? (i.e., bullshitting a dramatic escape for a defeated villain that you want to use as a recurring nemesis-- something that's harder to do with a dead character.) Are there ways in which you encourage other solutions? If so, what are they?
The way I see it, attitudes about death and killing (or other substitutes) need to be consciously implemented in both the crunch and the fluff of your game, if you intend to take it by the reins and steer it in one direction or another.
Setting Attitudes: Crime, Justice, and Other Stuff
It's easy to imagine ways to alter attitudes about killing with fluff, by affecting laws, criminal punishments, and social attitudes. Maybe it's legal to kill all outlaws in Nation A, and the government awards hefty bounties to those who deliver deadly justice, and local gossip essentially turns successful brigand-slayers into celebrities and folk heroes. Meanwhile, in Nation B, perhaps deadly force is only justified in self defense, and each such incident is thoroughly investigated by the justice system and wrongful slayings are punished stringently. Perhaps both nations exist in a world with a strong mystical flavor, and that anyone who takes a life actually weakens his connection to the spiritual magic that permeates the world.
Enough with my lame examples. I want to hear how you address this.
Mechanics: How To Avoid Killing (or not?)
So, to make non-lethal options viable, there needs to be a way to K.O. somebody without killing them. Either combat needs to be designed without death in mind as an inevitable result, or the game (and the system) need to be designed to easily accommodate types of conflict that aren't combat (perhaps leading to a more socially-focused game.) I think it's charming when a movie or book or game includes the type of combat where, while a victor may be clear, the loser isn't necessarily killed or captured or incapacitated. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to set that up for my own use.
Essentially, I am more interested in what you have to say on the subject than I am in continuing to type all this business, so enlighten me, please.
My players have felled NPCs through extortion, blackmail, sacked their castles without spilling a drop of blood, waged financial wars, held hostages and even bought the loyalty of their foe's allies. However, they have also used the blade for a quick resolution. What they generally find though is that killing someone isn't always the best solution, and face the repercussions if they're caught. The same goes for walking around with weapons in a civilized city. They incur not only the fear of locals, but also heat from the law and find that their level of social influence can potentially go down the toilet.
Basically, violence rarely resolves the issues that they face in the game. It is not always the best means to an end of a problem.
As for combat, I rule that anytime a foe goes below 1 HP, they're KOed unless they intentionally choose to kill. For players, they're KOed at 0 HP and must a successful save (10 or higher) on a d20 to not die. If they fail three times, they're dead. I don't even mess with negative HP whatsoever.
edit - I should clarify that the majority of the foes in the game are NOT out of the Monster Manual, but are Human.
In my D&D games, the default attitude towards random goblin or kobold mooks is kill them all and The Gods will sort things out. The setting reinforces this attitude because there is a war on most of the time.
In super hero games, the system tends to encourage non-lethal measures, but I somteimes tweek that a bit.
In my current campaign, death has kinda become the standard. Most of the combat takes place either in war time or in hostile wilderness, with lots of undead and outsiders involved.
One problem I've encountered is that it's really hard to run away in 3.5, unless you've got long range teleportation. My PCs have enough long range firepower and high speed characters that nothing they fight can get away, and enough slow plate wearers that just about everything they fight can outrun half the party.
Unfortunately having enough fight or die encounters has made that the default mindset for most situations, making it really difficult to have encounters where the opponent should be captured instead. Not that there aren't exceptions, it's just that I feel that in my later games I'll try to make lethal combat more of a last resort.
Speaking of later stuff, for my in develop campaign I'm going to be making it much harder for people to be killed. If anybody's seen Claymore, I'm going to be trying to emulate that combat feel to a certain extent. Lots of badass attacks which cause grievous wounds which the main characters are just able to push through and keep fighting.
Also I do really like the idea of having a lot of gameplay elements which are not overcomeable by violence. I'll need to put more thought into that.
This is really a function of game system, I think. In my D&D campaigns, the general rule is to eliminate obstacles in a swift and deadly fashion. In my Rolemaster campaigns, the rule is to avoid fighting unless you absolutely have to, and then try to make sure you have some overwhelming advantage first.
These are the same players, mind you, so it's not a question of temperment.
I think that the HP system of D&D encourages this sort of behavior -- people fight at 100% until they just go down. And that's the end of it. There's a simple, and more importantly, CLEAN finality to it. Throw some cure light wounds in at the end and bingo, you've got yourself a costless and permanent victory.
In Rolemaster, on the other hand, the combat system is nasty and leads to all sorts of permanent wounds and scars and even the kobold in the corner can kill your 20th level uberfighter with a lucky shot. (Actually, in my campaign it was a lowly orc and a 17th level warrior mage, but I digress...) The idea of losing a hand causes my players to go out of their way to seek alternative forms of conflict resolution. Suddenly going back to town and calling up a posse to deal with the bandits sounds like a good idea... and maybe we can snake the bauble of ultimate coolness **without** waking the dragon. And my favorite that I've seen...
Player 1: This is so not fair.
Me (DM): Life's not fair. THere's 12 guardsmen, 6 in the corridor, 1 in the doorway, 5 inside. And the captain is waiting for your answer.
Player 1: But...
Player 2: How about we surrender?
Player 1: What?
Player 3: Sounds good to me. My fighter drops my sword, hold up my hands, and say "I give up".
Player 1: What?
Player 2: My two characters do the same thing.
That led to some great adventures...
One other thing that RPGs don't see a lot of, and something that I try to encourage (and perhaps most of you all do as well) is having your *bad guys* give up. Have them throw down their weapons and ask for mercy. Let the players worry about how to handle prisoners and such.
Because really, there's no reason for your bad guys to fight to the last hit point either.
Yeah, I can see how a system that has the possibility for some good serious damage could definitely help to deter both sides from engaging in needless combat.
However the issue I'm running into is how to build a combat system that allows for this without stretching out the length of combat. Combat in RPGs is already a very time consuming process, and simply adding on an extra step for determining long lasting damage is going to slow things down further.
In Werewolf the Apocalypse, when a character has taken enough damage to be reduced below 0 but not killed, there is a battle scars table which you roll on. This delays the extra step to after combat, but doesn't allow a character to be seriously injured without going down (ie, losing a hand).
I'm trying to put together a system that has a lot of the elements of this thread with the abstract feel of this thread (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?50644). It's certainly not easy.
PS. our favourite story from Rolemaster (possibly a variant). The big tough guy in the party is driving on his motorbike down the road while the rest of the party followed in a car. A random encounter is rolled. A bee strikes the facemask on the Biker's helmet. Roll for damage on the small light projectile table. Critical hit, roll on higher damage table. Critical hit. This continues until they're rolling on the heavy energy weapon headshot table. Bee goes in one side and right out the other, killing him instantly.
What the Arimonious One said. At least to some degree.
He alludes to different systems resulting in different psychologies. And I support that.
Death comes quickly in Celtricia; so Players avoid fighting when they might be at risk. Permanent and major injury is a good deterrent.
Now, I have to ask you, LC, about who you are talking about killing? A number of the illustrious members have mentioned that due to the types of opponents, they have a lot more indescriminate killings.
I somehow picture (and it may be me) you speaking about real villains. NPC's that may linger, that type. And though there are players whichj go after death first, there are serious laws (and some spells to find out) against killing citizens of the Grey March or Trabler. It almost seems that the more powerful and well placed the NPC threat, the higher the chance of retaliation if the PC's kill them. I have had the PC's stand publicly in the same room (The Grounds of Dismissal (http://celtricia.pbwiki.com/The+Grounds+of+Dismissal), in fact) with the Son of a man they ruined and who has been trying to destroy them, and have dinner with two of the Igbarians.
Mechanics post later.
Well, my system (http://75.70.105.39:8080/gamewiki/GameSystemCombat) is still pretty rudimentary. It's designed to be a little different in its approach, but I'm not sure how it will play out in terms of killing.
On the one hand, heroic characters have resources (Vitality Points) they can use to avoid damage in combat. So fighting against mooks or lesser henchmen that don't have VP, they'll be pretty safe. That will obviously encourage a willingness to use combat (or threats at least) to overcome minor obstacles.
On the other hand, once the VP are exhausted the system tends to create a downhill slide. A lucky critical or tactical misstep might put your character at a disadvantage that would be hard to overcome. That only ends with a Mortal wound and begging for a quick death. So that would encourage characters to avoid straight up contests against evenly matched opponents. Of course, that's true in any system.
My goal would be to provide enough tactical options so that a well-prepared opponent will be able to find a way to flee, or at least foresee the inevitable end in time to surrender. At that point, it would be up to the fluff element to encourage mercy or provide constraints against brutality.