This springs out of a recent post I made where I argued against the idea that orcs changed from "monsters" to "humanoids" - in other words, from not-people to people - between the original D&D set and AD&D. In the comments I ended up posting some of my philosophy on "monsters" and "people."
In DF Felltower, there is not necessarily a sharp dividing line between "monsters" and "non-monsters," "people" and "not-people."
Instead, what I do is apply a combination of factors to determine how something acts. Encounters in Felltower run along a continuum of friendliness, from one end where the being encountered is certainly friendly to the group encountered, to the far end where the being encountered is certainly unfriendly with the group encountered. This, naturally, varies due to two main variables - the "being encounter" and the "group encountered." In simpler terms, how does that NPC being get along with the PCs?
How the PCs react is their own decision - limited, as always, by the disadvantages they chose and those of their companions. And their own needs based on the game - meaning a need for loot to grow, since the game is explicitly about gaining wealth by adventuring and nothing else.
Broadly - I don't decide if something is a "monster" or a "person." Demons, orcs, puddings, tigers, golems, whatever - they're all run from the same basic standard.
GURPS DF / DFRPG makes this relatively easy. The lack of a hard-coded pattern of belief and behavior (alignment) in DF is important, too. Races - and members of races - are defined by their disadvantages. These describe how they act, and what limits their options. A lot of beings have unpleasant traits that clash with those of player characters, or of most non-player characters who'd just be going about their lives. Others are generally easier to get along with. Some have very positive traits, from a get-along-with-others perspective.
Still others have Truly Evil. These beings serve either themselves or a higher, darker power bent on capital-E evil. It's that kind of universe. Some things just are inimical to other life forms, and even if you choose not to seek out conflict with them they'll seek it out with you, or cause you harm out of an active desire to do so. Their schemes and goals conflict with an ability to be peaceful and live and let live.
Even those, I'll run as if they are "people" - they have goals, wants, needs, and desires. They have interests. These may be limited, perverse, or self-destructive - and they may lead to hostile encounters with basically everyone or everything (Eyes of Death, classic example), and they are probably viewed as "monsters" by the PCs and by the society the PCs come from.
Some - such as a Social Stigma, describes how society views them. It's not always fair or nice, but in a fantasy game, it's often a reasonable reaction. Races with Social Stigma (Monster) usually has other traits to make them viewed that way - eating other sapient creatures, urges to murder, dependency on the life force or blood of other sapient creatures, the fact of being created out of other sapient creatures, and the usual rampant killing. Those types will act hostile because of their traits and society treats them according to those traits even if they are an exception to the usual of that race.
In all cases, though, the theme is the same - I run them with respect and care. An IQ 0 critter isn't going to be smart. A Bully with Bloodlust and Overconfidence is likely to pick a fight to the death that it can't win, while a being with Code of Honor (Soldier's) won't run away without breaking morale even if its IQ 13 tells it the fight can't be won. It's all just a matter of running them as they are - based on their traits, and their interests and goals, and their stats. Random elements like Reaction Rolls come into play to see how they feel about the PCs. And the PCs get their own decisions - most of the time, they revert immediately to violence.
But I don't explicitly decide something is a "monster" and therefore always okay to kill, and something is a "person" and therefore is not always (or is never) okay to kill. PCs are welcome to murder whoever or whatever they want. They'll get the consequences of that behavior based on how society and laws sees those actions. Generally, it's not a big deal - this is a violent world. It's a game of paper man vs. paper man (even when some of those paper men are "monsters") and it's all for the fun and the challenge.
This is way, way more complex to explain than to do. All I do is:
- run everything according to its traits,
- play them as if they were real,
- let the PCs do what they want,
- and reap the fun of seeing stuff happen.
It's not any deeper than that. It's really just a fun game.
Your take on creature motivations is basically mine, too. I have a feeling that this would not be a problem for most gamers if the most popular game did not have Alignment in it on an official level. The problem is alignment. Games without alignment are both morally more complex and morally more realistic, enabling players to make choices realistically and intuitively for the characters they play.
ReplyDeleteI think Alignment is the biggest part of it. It's been so long since I played with it on a regular basis.
DeleteIf it's an ork it is a monster. If it is a pudding it takes so long to kill maybe negotiation is better even if not a monster. Dragons are not monsters but as the living incarnation of loot kill them and take their hide and organs anyway
ReplyDeleteAnd if you speak manticore, that's a sign that you should definitely negotiate with them. "Lawful Evil" means "trustworthy," everyone knows that!
Delete