ShaneMRoth
2015-06-30, 07:25 PM
The Short Version
No experience points for acting like a murderhobo.
Frampton Comes Alive Version
House Rule
This rule is in the nature of a house rule. It is specific to this campaign and is in no way presented as official or authoritative. The author's ability to reconcile this house rule with the core rules of D&D 3.5 is in no sense a guarantee that it will function in other campaigns for other DMs.
Reasonable Expectations
This rule establishes an expectation of how the DM will generally exercise discretion. It shall in no way guarantee mindless consistency from the DM.
This rule is designed to manage the expectations of players in ostensibly civilized settings.
Players are conditioned to run their characters as conflict-seeking problem solvers who routinely apply lethal force to resolve conflict in settings which place them in constant mortal danger. The notion that this conditioning can be simply turned off when the characters find themselves in an urban settlement seems naive.
When characters apply this same conflict-seeking problem solving application of lethal force in places where they are not in constant mortal danger, like a city, these player characters are referred to as Murderhoboes.
The DM shall refrain from using this house rule in a manner that sets a player character up to fail. A DM's decision to bring this rule into play shall be understood to mean that the use of lethal force is inherently inappropriate for the encounter and that the encounter is more likely than not to be resolved satisfactorily without the use of lethal force.
Sanctions Against Killing
The DM may bring a sanction against killing into play, as deemed necessary.
The standard impact this sanction has on an encounter is as follows:
If a character applies a Lethal Use of Force, then that character gets no experience points for that encounter.
If a character applies any Use of Force (including Non-Lethal Force), then that character is eligible for no more than half of the standard Experience Point award for that encounter.
If a character uses non-violent conflict resolution, then that character is eligible for a full Experience Point award for that encounter.
The DM may adjust these impacts as necessary, provided the adjustments fall within the following parameters:
Use of non-violent conflict resolution shall always yield more Experience Points than Use of Force.
Under no circumstances shall a Use of Lethal Force yield a Larger XP award than any other form of conflict resolution.
When this house rule is in play, refraining from use of force is considered to be the most desirable option on the table. An experience point award should only attach to the use of Lethal Force under unusual circumstances, and use of Lethal Force during an encounter should only be worth a standard experience point award under exigent circumstances or when this house rule is suspended entirely.
Under no circumstances shall a DM bring this rule into play after an encounter has already begun. If the encounter takes place in a setting with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, the rule is assumed to be in play, even if the DM failed to mention that fact at the beginning of the encounter.
Use of Force by Proxy Prohibited
Under no circumstances shall a character be allowed to use force by proxy to avoid an Experience Point award penalty.
Actions taken by a Character Asset shall be deemed to be actions taken by that character for the purpose of this rule.
The DM is obliged to routinely rule against any effort to cause an NPC Cast Member to use lethal force while this rule is in play. Self-defense shall be the minimum threshold for an NPC Cast Member to resort to the use of Lethal Force when a Sanction Against Killing is in effect. The DM will be informed by this when making rulings on the actions of NPC Cast members.
Standing Sanctions Against Killing
A standing sanction against killing shall be deemed in effect in any humanoid settlement or society in which the prevailing attitude towards Playable Humanoids is 'Indifferent', regardless of the society's prevailing alignment.
For a standing sanction against killing to come into play, it must offer some measure of protection to the entire Cast. Bringing this rule into play becomes counterproductive otherwise. At the very minimum, the Cast shouldn’t qualify as either a Fair Target or an Existential Threat by virtue of their creature type alone. (Illustrative example: an encounter involving a tribe of orcs with a "standing sanction against killing" that is restricted only to other orcs shouldn't fall under this house rule unless the entire adventuring party were half-orcs, or passed for half-orcs.)
A standing sanction against killing is so blatantly obvious that any humanoid with a Wisdom score of 3 can tell when it's in effect. In game terms, the Wisdom DC for determining the presence or absence of a Standing Sanction Against Killing is 5. (Are people murdering each other in the streets? No? Then there you go.)
This sanction is not routinely extended to non-humanoids, other than domesticated animals, and non-humanoid Character Assets.
The DM has the discretion to deem a Standing Sanction Against Killing playable humanoids in effect for any settlement or society, including non-humanoid populations.
Mayhem
In places with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, player characters are expected to refrain from destroying property and injuring bystanders.
If property is destroyed or bystanders are injured during an encounter, then the following modifications to Experience Point awards shall be applied after initial effects have been established:
If a bystander suffers an economic hardship (including, but not limited to, property damage) as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, then all Experience Point awards shall be reduced, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the hardship.
If the Cast offers timely compensation to the bystander, and the bystander accepts, then the Experience Point Award will be cut in half. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If the Cast choses not to compensate the bystander for the hardship, or if the bystander refuses the compensation, then the Experience Point Award shall be cut in fourth. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If public property is damaged to the degree that it imposes an Economic Hardship on the society, then the XP award for that encounter shall be cut in half, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the damage. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties. This would require, at a minimum, structural damage to a public building, or enough damage to a public road that it no longer functions as a road.
If a bystander is injured (suffers any of the effects described under Lethal Force or Non-Lethal Force) as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, all Experience Point awards shall be cut in half, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the injury. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If a bystander is disabled (reduced to 0 hit points), killed, or suffers Catastrophic Loss as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, there will be no Experience Point award for any character, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the injury. Restoring the bystander to health after the fact will have no bearing on this rule, as the bystander would have never needed healing if the encounter hadn't gotten out of hand in the first place.
The Mayhem clauses of this house rule shall only be suspended when this house rule is suspended entirely.
The Better Part of Valor
The DM may, from time to time, determine that withdrawing completely from an encounter is so appropriate that a standard XP award should attach to withdrawal.
Players have been conditioned to assume that withdrawing from an encounter is reserved for when the tide of battle has turned against them. This expectation is as old as the hobby itself. The notion that withdrawal from an encounter might provide an experience point award at all is counter-intuitive. The notion that a preemptive withdrawal might provide a substantially larger experience point award as compared to initiating combat is profoundly counter-intuitive. Therefore, The DM is obliged to inform the players at the beginning of the encounter that withdrawing is worth a full XP point award. Many players are unlikely to exercise this option even if they are aware of it, but without a prompt from the DM, it might not even occur to the players that withdrawal is a viable option.
For the Better Part of Valor clause to come into play, the decision to withdraw from an encounter must credibly resolve a potentially violent conflict. At a minimum, a creature who is Hostile or Unfriendly to the Cast must be present and must be in obvious conflict with the Cast.
The DM shall never grant Experience Point awards for withdrawing from an encounter with an Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful creature.
The Brave Sir Robin Clause
A character who abandons the Cast during an encounter shall be awarded nothing. The DM shall never offer an experience point award for simple cowardice.
Exceptions
The DM shall refrain from taking into account any of the following when allowing exceptions to this rule:
Character Alignment; Roleplaying Style; Actions taken in a Secret or Private setting.
Appropriate Use of Force
If an adventure takes place in a setting with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, it may be entirely appropriate to allow Use of Lethal Force during some encounters.
When this clause plays, the house rule shall be modified as follows:
If a character applies a Lethal Use of Force, then that character gets no more that one-fourth of the Standard XP award for that encounter.
If a character applies any Use of Force (including Non-Lethal Force), then that character is eligible for no more than half of the standard Experience Point award for that encounter.
If a character uses non-violent conflict resolution, then that character is eligible for a full Experience Point award for that encounter.
The DM owes an affirmative obligation to let the players know what the Rules of Engagement are before such an encounter begins.
Use of Force is always appropriate in cases of Self Defense.
Mayhem is never appropriate in cases of Self Defense.
Characters are expected to exercise reasonable restraint when using Lethal Force in places with a Standing Sanction Against Killing. Characters are expected to defend themselves in a manner that doesn't place an undue burden on society at large. A player character should be able to defend himself without causing mayhem.
Assassins
An assassin shall be entitled to an experience point bonus for applying lethal force in the context of fulfilling a contractual obligation to a third party, provided the contract was negotiated before the beginning of the encounter. The Assassin is being awarded Experience Points for fulfilling the terms of the contract, and is not awarded experience points for the Use of Lethal Force itself.
An Assassin shall in no way be awarded experience points for any freelance application of lethal force while this rule is in effect. (As the Joker said in The Dark Knight, “If you’re good at something, never do it for free.”)
Outside of the context of a contractual obligation, Assassins shall be held to the same Use of Force standards as any other character class under this house rule.
Under no circumstances shall the Mayhem clauses of this house rule be suspended for a player character assassin.
Delegated Authority
Most characters are assumed to lack the standing authority to use lethal force in a settlement or society.
In the event that a character is formally vested with the authority to use force (deputized), then the Appropriate Use of Force clauses come into play unless the DM explicitly rules otherwise.
Under no circumstances shall this delegated authority be assumed to be permanent or apply to any other settlement or society.
Existential Threats/Exigent Circumstances/Emergencies
Under circumstances of extreme emergency, a Standard XP award might be appropriate for resolving an encounter with Use of Lethal Force.
Use of Lethal Force against a creature that qualifies as an Existential Threat is an example of an extreme emergency. Use of Lethal Force against an Existential Threat is the only durable exception in this rule that allows for a full XP award for the direct use of Lethal Force.
If the PCs can somehow neutralize an Existential Threat without use of force, then the entire Cast shall be eligible for an XP award that is double the standard XP award that would otherwise attach to that encounter.
Under no circumstances shall an emergency be understood to suspend or rescind a Standing Sanction Against Killing. In the face of an emergency, such as a city being attacked by a purple worm, characters who use lethal force as part of the emergency response shall be eligible for experience point awards for responding to the emergency, not for the use of lethal force itself.
The Mayhem Clauses of this house rule remain in effect. Under no circumstances shall characters be allowed to “destroy the village in order to save it.”
Under no circumstances shall self-defense alone be deemed a valid reason for an emergency exception.
Uncanny Village/Town With A Dark Secret
Many societies harbor Dark Secrets.
A case could be made that in a high fantasy setting, it is unusual for a settlement to lack a Dark Secret.
A Hamlet, Town or City with a Dark Secret still operates under a Standing Sanction Against Killing.
If a society's Dark Secret comes into play in a manner that causes the prevailing attitude of the society toward the Cast to deteriorate to Unfriendly or Hostile, then the Appropriate Use of Force clauses shall come into play.
Warzone/Mass Insurrection/Societal Collapse/Apocalypse
If a community is rendered incapable of sustaining a standing sanction against killing, then the DM is obliged to suspend this rule entirely.
This should be an extreme and temporary circumstance.
Playable Humanoids will not willingly live in a community without some form of social contract in place. The desire to not be murdered in one's sleep is enough of a basis for a standing sanction against killing among humanoids. Humanoids, regardless of alignment, are inherently social and will inevitably form into stable groups with some form of standing sanction against killing, if for no other reason than to facilitate the humanoid need to eat, breathe, and sleep.
Suspension of the Rule
The DM may suspend this rule entirely.
Definitions
Blatantly Obvious:
Any information that the DM deems to be available to any Playable Humanoid. The Wisdom DC for the Blatantly Obvious is 5. A person of ordinary prudence (possessing a Wisdom of 10) would not even need to make a Wisdom check unless he were distracted. A Humanoid with a Wisdom of 3 can figure out the Blatantly Obvious with one minute of undistracted observation.
Bystander:
A non-belligerent creature who is entitled to protection under a standing sanction against killing. A hostage is an illustrative example.
Cast:
The adventuring party as a whole, including Player Characters, NPCs, Familiars, and Animal Companions.
Catastrophic Loss:
A consequence of use of force that is so severe that a person of ordinary prudence would consider it to be equivalent to, or worse than, death. Catastrophic Loss usually involves supernatural phenomena. A consequence or condition that would take a character completely out of play and cause that character to remain out of play without magical intervention qualfies as Catastrophic Loss. (Flesh to Stone, Soul Bind, and Baleful Polymorph are all illustrative examples.)
Character Asset:
Those creatures (including constructs) to which a Character is entitled peculiar and reliable access. For a creature to qualify as an Asset, the Death or Catastrophic Loss of that creature must materially interfere with a character's ability to benefit from a durable game mechanic such as a Class Feature or a Feat. (Illustrative examples include: Familiars; Animal Companions; Paladin's Mounts; Blackguard's Fiendish Servants; Cohorts and Followers from the Leadership Feat.) Creatures that can be replaced without mechanical penalty (including Commanded undead and Summoned creatures) are not considered Assets for the purpose of this rule.
Coercive Action:
Action that forces a creature to act in an involuntary manner. (Illustrative examples include: The Intimidate Skill; Spells that require a Will Save, except for spells that are inherently non-violent; Bardic Fascinate, Suggestion, and Mass Suggestion.) Spells from the Charm sub-school are considered non-coercive in nature, and by that virtue they are excluded from the in-game definition of Coercive Action.
Refusal to administer life-saving aid (healing spells are an illustrative example) to a creature in the context of resolving a conflict constitutes Coercive Action.
Economic Hardship:
Any condition that would impose an undue burden on a bystander's ability to earn a living.
Subject to substantial discretion of the DM.
Killing an aristocrat’s horse might be an inconvenience. Killing a farmer’s horse could wipe him out.
A DM is well within his discretion to rule that destruction of any private property that costs at least one gold piece is more likely than not to constitute an economic hardship to someone.
In the special case of the private property of a commoner, the DM is well within his discretion to rule that destruction of private property that costs at least one silver piece constitutes an economic hardship to that commoner.
Existential Threat:
The presence of an unacceptable and unmanageable risk to the safety and security of a society as a whole. A creature or object that is an Existential Threat is routinely attacked on sight with Lethal Force. Aberrations, Undead, Oozes, Constructs, and Vermin are virtually always deemed Existential Threats.
An Existential Threat under player character control is Weaponized Property.
An Existential Threat that can pass for a humanoid, such as a vampire, can easily infiltrate a society.
Fair Target:
A creature that is not entitled to protection under a Standing Sanction Against Killing.
Use of Force against a Fair Target is not considered a violation of the social contract. Usually, Non-Lethal Force is preferred against Fair Targets, if for no other reason than a dead body is a nuisance.
In societies populated with Playable Humanoids, it is common for the following creature types to be deemed Fair Targets: Dragons, Giants, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, Elementals, Fey, Magical Beasts, Plants.
Fair Targets vary widely from one society to the next, but social contracts are inherently Obvious so the DM is obliged to give players a reasonable account of what is, and is not, a Fair Target for an encounter.
Animals call for DM discretion. Domesticated animals are not normally Fair Targets, unless they somehow become a nuisance. Domesticated animals are assumed to be someone’s property. Wild animals are generally fair targets, provided that they are capable of causing death. Wild animals that are ostensibly harmless, such as most birds, are not normally Fair Targets. Societies may place totemic value on specific Wild Animals, in which case those Animals are unlikely to qualify as Fair Targets. All Animals that are any size category above Large are generally such a nuisance that it is considered acceptable to use Non-Lethal Force to control their movement.
Fair Target creatures can serve as Character Assets. (Familiars, Animal Companions are illustrative examples). Character Assets are common enough that they enjoy the same protection under a Sanction that a Character enjoys. Societies are assumed to have found a way to reconcile this.
A Fair Target that can pass for a humanoid, such as a doppelganger, can easily infiltrate a humanoid society.
Individuals, regardless of creature type, can become Fair Targets by virtue of infamy and reputation alone. (Omar, from the HBO series The Wire.)
Lethal Force:
A use of force that is capable of resulting in Death or Catastrophic Loss. Actions capable of causing the following conditions: Ability Drain; Ability Damage (Constitution Only); Dead; Disabled; Dying; Energy Drained; Petrified.
Placing Weaponized Property in striking reach of another creature is so provocative that it qualifies as a Use of Lethal Force.
Non-Lethal Force:
A use of force that is not capable of resulting in Death or Catastrophic Loss. Actions capable of causing the following conditions: Ability Damage (except Constitution); Blinded; Checked; Confused; Cowering; Dazed; Deafened; Entangled; Exhausted; Fascinated; Fatigued; Frightened; Helpless; Knocked Down; Nauseated; Panicked; Paralyzed; Pinned; Prone; Shaken; Sickened; Staggered; Stunned; Unconscious.
Coercive actions fall under the category of Non-Lethal Force even if those actions don't cause physical damage.
Non-violent Conflict Resolution:
The absence of the use of force. Persuasive actions fall under this category. Spells that require willing targets are inherently non-violent. Spells that are deemed Harmless are inherently non-violent. Spells from the Charm sub-school, being non-coercive in nature, qualify as inherently non-violent.
Obvious:
Any information that the DM deems is available to an undistracted person of ordinary prudence. A person of ordinary prudence is assumed to have a Wisdom of 10. In game terms, the Obvious calls for a Wisdom Check with a DC of 10.
Playable Humanoids:
The humanoid races that players may routinely select during character creation in the campaign. (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Tieflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs.) Any humanoid creature type that is subject to DM approval before it can be selected as a player character may not fall under this definition. Under no circumstances shall any non-humanoid creature type fall under this definition.
Sanction Against Killing:
A blatantly obvious incentive to resolve an encounter without lethal use of force. An encounter that occurs under a flag of truce is an illustrative example.
Standing Sanction Against Killing:
A persistent sanction that normally attaches to encounters that take place within any stable society, outside of the context of conditions approximating open warfare. This sanction infers the presence of a durable social contract that strongly favors non-violent conflict resolution over lethal use of force. (A city populated by Playable Humanoids is an illustrative example.)
Standing Sanctions Against Killing are routine even within societies that consider use of Lethal Force to be a cultural norm. (A ship with a crew consisting entirely of Chaotic Evil pirates is an illustrative example.)
Reliable access to nourishing food, drinkable water, and rudimentary shelter are prerequisites for a Standing Sanction Against Killing to be sustained.
Weaponized Property:
Property that is so inherently dangerous that a person of ordinary prudence would consider mere proximity to that property to be life-threatening. (Illustrative examples include: Oozes; Constructs; Vermin; Commanded Undead; a Sphere of Annihilation.) The mere appearance of Weaponized Property may qualify as coercive to the uninitiated.
Placing a person in reach of Weaponized Property qualifies as Use of Lethal Force.
FAQ
What is the point of this house rule?
This is a mechanical incentive to prevent violence from escalating in settings where escalating violence is inherently problematic.
An Experience Point Award is a motivating factor that is difficult to overstate. Under this house rule, the only players who are going to continue running Murderhoboes are those who have deeply committed to the murderhobo as a character concept. Like the Daniel Day-Lewis of Murderhoboes, or something. Everyone else is going to try and find a non-lethal solution to problems in the big city, if only for the experience point award.
How can you be so sure it works?
Judicious and clear application of this rule has proven absurdly effective at dissuading murderhobo behavior in my campaign. Once I put this rule into place and the players understood what it meant , it enforced itself.
As it turns out, if there are no experience points to be had for killing a person then players are, by and large, just not that into killing that person.
Even if it works, at what cost? Can't murderhobo problems be addressed with good roleplaying and trust?
Absolutely.
Good role-playing and trust are entirely capable of preventing murderhobo problems. Right up to the moment that they can't.
This rule assumes that the best way to address a problem is to employ a coping mechanism, rather than relying upon denial, good intentions and unicorn farts. This house rule is one method of addressing murderhobo issues. This is a framework that describes DM discretion in a clear way. It isn't the only way. It isn't a perfect way. But it does work.
Don't your players hate this rule?
They don't love it. But they don't hate it, either. They are okay with beating the crap out of people (and by people, I mean thugs) who cross them in the big city, as long as they get some XP for it.
Isn't this a form of railroading?
Yes. Yes it is.
I am railroading the bejeezus out of my players with this house rule.
And I'm fine with it.
This house rule strongly reinforces the use of non-lethal and non-violent means of resolving encounters in and around humanoid settlements. The players are at full liberty to use lethal force in these scenarios, provided they don't want the XP.
Turns out, they really want the XP.
This house rule is supposed to directly influence character decision making on weapon selection, spell selection, and equipment loadouts in the context of scenarios generally set in an urban environment full of people who don't have a beef with the Cast.
In this author's opinion, enabling players to view every living thing in the campaign as Pinatas filled with Experience Points is a form of railroading players into playing murderhoboes.
Why does this rule apply to Evil characters?
For this sanction to be fair, it must be applied to all characters. Also a sanction against killing that doesn't apply to Evil characters really doesn't make sense. If lethal force will clearly make things worse, then the presence of a sociopath won't make things better.
Why doesn't my Evil character get XP awards for roleplaying an evil act?
Because acting like a Murderhobo isn't roleplaying. It's just treating every living creature in the campaign setting like a Pinata full of Experience Points.
Why would Evil characters care about a sanction against killing?
Because they place value on their time. Because they don't want to be killed in their sleep. Because they don't want to go to prison. Because killing is not a trivial matter. Because killing is something that most Evil people refuse to take lightly.
What if my Evil character is a serial killer?
If your character is a serial killer like Jason Vorhees from Friday the 13th franchise, then it might make sense to award an XP bonus everytime he kills someone, regardless of context. (I'm still not going to do that.) But on the off-chance that your serial killer is not a mindless indestructable killing machine, he probably takes killing seriously and doesn't want to get caught.
What if my evil character doesn't care if he gets caught? What if he's in it For The Evulz?
Then he's the Daniel Day-Lewis of Murderhoboes. Congratulations. But I'm still not giving him any XP awards for it.
What's the deal with "secret or private settings"?
The sanction against killing doesn't go away because no one is looking. Evil people who want to kill someone have a tendency to take those victims far away from populated places. Preferably to remote places in the wilderness. People who dispose of bodies in their own backyard tend to be clinically insane.
But, what if my character is clinically insane?
Again, Daniel Day-Lewis is The Murderhobo in Murderhobo 2: The Hoboening. You might get an Academy Award for the performance, but you get no Experience Points from me.
Why doesn't my character get full XP for self-defense?
The sanction against killing is that important and runs that deep.
This is a mechanical incentive to prevent violence from escalating in settings where escalating violence is inherently problematic.
Even among Evil characters. Even in self-defense.
It's understandable that a player would chose to respond to lethal force with lethal force, but if there are more XP to be had for refraining from use of lethal force, that might prove persuasive to a player. It assumes that a person might want to know why they are being attacked. An Evil character might refrain from killing an attacker to perform torture on that attacker. (Think Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction.)
The same sensibility applies to deputization. Lethal force is supposed to be a last resort, even when someone is vested with the authority to use lethal force. It's supposed to be the last club out of the bag.
How does a Standing Sanction Against Killing make sense for a Chaotic Evil society or settlement?
At a minimum, to facilitate trade and commerce.
Unsanctioned killing is bad for business for any society. Escalating violence is inherently problematic even within a Chaotic Evil den of iniquity. Dead bodies stink up the place. They cause health issues. In fantasy settings, they sometimes get up and walk around and then there's that to deal with. Chaotic Evil societies aren't run by creatures who like having someone else make more work for them.
More to the point, the population at-large of any given society, even a Chaotic Evil society, the default attitude is Indifference. They are just not that into the player characters.
If these NPCs took the time to get to know the Cast, perhaps they might come to be Unfriendly, or even Hostile. But they don't have the time.
Bottom line, even Chaotic Evil societies have to take a break from the killing and mayhem. Even if it's just to tap a new keg of ale before the start of the business day.
An illustrative example may prove useful:
Imagine a pirate ship with a Chaotic Evil crew.
Pirate A comes into conflict with Pirate B.
Being Chaotic Evil, Pirate A straight-up murders Pirate B.
This is a problem for Pirates C through Z. The work necessary to keep the ship running is the same, the only difference is that now the labor pool is smaller. Pirate A has just created more work for everyone on board. Being Chaotic Evil, Pirates C through Z are not okay with that.
And Pirate Z is the Captain. He didn’t give Pirate A permission to kill anyone. So, now Pirate A has a problem.
The Pirate Ship is a society of Chaotic Evil humanoids and lethal use of force is a social norm in this society. But going murderhobo on each other is just not a viable opening strategy for conflict resolution.
Pirates A through Z are expected to resolve their conflicts in a without things coming to blood on grounds of practicality alone.
A Standing Sanction Against Killing is appropriate for this Chaotic Evil society. And it doesn’t make them any less Chaotic Evil.
No experience points for acting like a murderhobo.
Frampton Comes Alive Version
House Rule
This rule is in the nature of a house rule. It is specific to this campaign and is in no way presented as official or authoritative. The author's ability to reconcile this house rule with the core rules of D&D 3.5 is in no sense a guarantee that it will function in other campaigns for other DMs.
Reasonable Expectations
This rule establishes an expectation of how the DM will generally exercise discretion. It shall in no way guarantee mindless consistency from the DM.
This rule is designed to manage the expectations of players in ostensibly civilized settings.
Players are conditioned to run their characters as conflict-seeking problem solvers who routinely apply lethal force to resolve conflict in settings which place them in constant mortal danger. The notion that this conditioning can be simply turned off when the characters find themselves in an urban settlement seems naive.
When characters apply this same conflict-seeking problem solving application of lethal force in places where they are not in constant mortal danger, like a city, these player characters are referred to as Murderhoboes.
The DM shall refrain from using this house rule in a manner that sets a player character up to fail. A DM's decision to bring this rule into play shall be understood to mean that the use of lethal force is inherently inappropriate for the encounter and that the encounter is more likely than not to be resolved satisfactorily without the use of lethal force.
Sanctions Against Killing
The DM may bring a sanction against killing into play, as deemed necessary.
The standard impact this sanction has on an encounter is as follows:
If a character applies a Lethal Use of Force, then that character gets no experience points for that encounter.
If a character applies any Use of Force (including Non-Lethal Force), then that character is eligible for no more than half of the standard Experience Point award for that encounter.
If a character uses non-violent conflict resolution, then that character is eligible for a full Experience Point award for that encounter.
The DM may adjust these impacts as necessary, provided the adjustments fall within the following parameters:
Use of non-violent conflict resolution shall always yield more Experience Points than Use of Force.
Under no circumstances shall a Use of Lethal Force yield a Larger XP award than any other form of conflict resolution.
When this house rule is in play, refraining from use of force is considered to be the most desirable option on the table. An experience point award should only attach to the use of Lethal Force under unusual circumstances, and use of Lethal Force during an encounter should only be worth a standard experience point award under exigent circumstances or when this house rule is suspended entirely.
Under no circumstances shall a DM bring this rule into play after an encounter has already begun. If the encounter takes place in a setting with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, the rule is assumed to be in play, even if the DM failed to mention that fact at the beginning of the encounter.
Use of Force by Proxy Prohibited
Under no circumstances shall a character be allowed to use force by proxy to avoid an Experience Point award penalty.
Actions taken by a Character Asset shall be deemed to be actions taken by that character for the purpose of this rule.
The DM is obliged to routinely rule against any effort to cause an NPC Cast Member to use lethal force while this rule is in play. Self-defense shall be the minimum threshold for an NPC Cast Member to resort to the use of Lethal Force when a Sanction Against Killing is in effect. The DM will be informed by this when making rulings on the actions of NPC Cast members.
Standing Sanctions Against Killing
A standing sanction against killing shall be deemed in effect in any humanoid settlement or society in which the prevailing attitude towards Playable Humanoids is 'Indifferent', regardless of the society's prevailing alignment.
For a standing sanction against killing to come into play, it must offer some measure of protection to the entire Cast. Bringing this rule into play becomes counterproductive otherwise. At the very minimum, the Cast shouldn’t qualify as either a Fair Target or an Existential Threat by virtue of their creature type alone. (Illustrative example: an encounter involving a tribe of orcs with a "standing sanction against killing" that is restricted only to other orcs shouldn't fall under this house rule unless the entire adventuring party were half-orcs, or passed for half-orcs.)
A standing sanction against killing is so blatantly obvious that any humanoid with a Wisdom score of 3 can tell when it's in effect. In game terms, the Wisdom DC for determining the presence or absence of a Standing Sanction Against Killing is 5. (Are people murdering each other in the streets? No? Then there you go.)
This sanction is not routinely extended to non-humanoids, other than domesticated animals, and non-humanoid Character Assets.
The DM has the discretion to deem a Standing Sanction Against Killing playable humanoids in effect for any settlement or society, including non-humanoid populations.
Mayhem
In places with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, player characters are expected to refrain from destroying property and injuring bystanders.
If property is destroyed or bystanders are injured during an encounter, then the following modifications to Experience Point awards shall be applied after initial effects have been established:
If a bystander suffers an economic hardship (including, but not limited to, property damage) as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, then all Experience Point awards shall be reduced, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the hardship.
If the Cast offers timely compensation to the bystander, and the bystander accepts, then the Experience Point Award will be cut in half. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If the Cast choses not to compensate the bystander for the hardship, or if the bystander refuses the compensation, then the Experience Point Award shall be cut in fourth. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If public property is damaged to the degree that it imposes an Economic Hardship on the society, then the XP award for that encounter shall be cut in half, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the damage. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties. This would require, at a minimum, structural damage to a public building, or enough damage to a public road that it no longer functions as a road.
If a bystander is injured (suffers any of the effects described under Lethal Force or Non-Lethal Force) as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, all Experience Point awards shall be cut in half, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the injury. This penalty stacks with all other XP penalties.
If a bystander is disabled (reduced to 0 hit points), killed, or suffers Catastrophic Loss as a direct consequence of actions taken during an encounter, there will be no Experience Point award for any character, regardless of who which Cast Member inflicted the injury. Restoring the bystander to health after the fact will have no bearing on this rule, as the bystander would have never needed healing if the encounter hadn't gotten out of hand in the first place.
The Mayhem clauses of this house rule shall only be suspended when this house rule is suspended entirely.
The Better Part of Valor
The DM may, from time to time, determine that withdrawing completely from an encounter is so appropriate that a standard XP award should attach to withdrawal.
Players have been conditioned to assume that withdrawing from an encounter is reserved for when the tide of battle has turned against them. This expectation is as old as the hobby itself. The notion that withdrawal from an encounter might provide an experience point award at all is counter-intuitive. The notion that a preemptive withdrawal might provide a substantially larger experience point award as compared to initiating combat is profoundly counter-intuitive. Therefore, The DM is obliged to inform the players at the beginning of the encounter that withdrawing is worth a full XP point award. Many players are unlikely to exercise this option even if they are aware of it, but without a prompt from the DM, it might not even occur to the players that withdrawal is a viable option.
For the Better Part of Valor clause to come into play, the decision to withdraw from an encounter must credibly resolve a potentially violent conflict. At a minimum, a creature who is Hostile or Unfriendly to the Cast must be present and must be in obvious conflict with the Cast.
The DM shall never grant Experience Point awards for withdrawing from an encounter with an Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful creature.
The Brave Sir Robin Clause
A character who abandons the Cast during an encounter shall be awarded nothing. The DM shall never offer an experience point award for simple cowardice.
Exceptions
The DM shall refrain from taking into account any of the following when allowing exceptions to this rule:
Character Alignment; Roleplaying Style; Actions taken in a Secret or Private setting.
Appropriate Use of Force
If an adventure takes place in a setting with a Standing Sanction Against Killing, it may be entirely appropriate to allow Use of Lethal Force during some encounters.
When this clause plays, the house rule shall be modified as follows:
If a character applies a Lethal Use of Force, then that character gets no more that one-fourth of the Standard XP award for that encounter.
If a character applies any Use of Force (including Non-Lethal Force), then that character is eligible for no more than half of the standard Experience Point award for that encounter.
If a character uses non-violent conflict resolution, then that character is eligible for a full Experience Point award for that encounter.
The DM owes an affirmative obligation to let the players know what the Rules of Engagement are before such an encounter begins.
Use of Force is always appropriate in cases of Self Defense.
Mayhem is never appropriate in cases of Self Defense.
Characters are expected to exercise reasonable restraint when using Lethal Force in places with a Standing Sanction Against Killing. Characters are expected to defend themselves in a manner that doesn't place an undue burden on society at large. A player character should be able to defend himself without causing mayhem.
Assassins
An assassin shall be entitled to an experience point bonus for applying lethal force in the context of fulfilling a contractual obligation to a third party, provided the contract was negotiated before the beginning of the encounter. The Assassin is being awarded Experience Points for fulfilling the terms of the contract, and is not awarded experience points for the Use of Lethal Force itself.
An Assassin shall in no way be awarded experience points for any freelance application of lethal force while this rule is in effect. (As the Joker said in The Dark Knight, “If you’re good at something, never do it for free.”)
Outside of the context of a contractual obligation, Assassins shall be held to the same Use of Force standards as any other character class under this house rule.
Under no circumstances shall the Mayhem clauses of this house rule be suspended for a player character assassin.
Delegated Authority
Most characters are assumed to lack the standing authority to use lethal force in a settlement or society.
In the event that a character is formally vested with the authority to use force (deputized), then the Appropriate Use of Force clauses come into play unless the DM explicitly rules otherwise.
Under no circumstances shall this delegated authority be assumed to be permanent or apply to any other settlement or society.
Existential Threats/Exigent Circumstances/Emergencies
Under circumstances of extreme emergency, a Standard XP award might be appropriate for resolving an encounter with Use of Lethal Force.
Use of Lethal Force against a creature that qualifies as an Existential Threat is an example of an extreme emergency. Use of Lethal Force against an Existential Threat is the only durable exception in this rule that allows for a full XP award for the direct use of Lethal Force.
If the PCs can somehow neutralize an Existential Threat without use of force, then the entire Cast shall be eligible for an XP award that is double the standard XP award that would otherwise attach to that encounter.
Under no circumstances shall an emergency be understood to suspend or rescind a Standing Sanction Against Killing. In the face of an emergency, such as a city being attacked by a purple worm, characters who use lethal force as part of the emergency response shall be eligible for experience point awards for responding to the emergency, not for the use of lethal force itself.
The Mayhem Clauses of this house rule remain in effect. Under no circumstances shall characters be allowed to “destroy the village in order to save it.”
Under no circumstances shall self-defense alone be deemed a valid reason for an emergency exception.
Uncanny Village/Town With A Dark Secret
Many societies harbor Dark Secrets.
A case could be made that in a high fantasy setting, it is unusual for a settlement to lack a Dark Secret.
A Hamlet, Town or City with a Dark Secret still operates under a Standing Sanction Against Killing.
If a society's Dark Secret comes into play in a manner that causes the prevailing attitude of the society toward the Cast to deteriorate to Unfriendly or Hostile, then the Appropriate Use of Force clauses shall come into play.
Warzone/Mass Insurrection/Societal Collapse/Apocalypse
If a community is rendered incapable of sustaining a standing sanction against killing, then the DM is obliged to suspend this rule entirely.
This should be an extreme and temporary circumstance.
Playable Humanoids will not willingly live in a community without some form of social contract in place. The desire to not be murdered in one's sleep is enough of a basis for a standing sanction against killing among humanoids. Humanoids, regardless of alignment, are inherently social and will inevitably form into stable groups with some form of standing sanction against killing, if for no other reason than to facilitate the humanoid need to eat, breathe, and sleep.
Suspension of the Rule
The DM may suspend this rule entirely.
Definitions
Blatantly Obvious:
Any information that the DM deems to be available to any Playable Humanoid. The Wisdom DC for the Blatantly Obvious is 5. A person of ordinary prudence (possessing a Wisdom of 10) would not even need to make a Wisdom check unless he were distracted. A Humanoid with a Wisdom of 3 can figure out the Blatantly Obvious with one minute of undistracted observation.
Bystander:
A non-belligerent creature who is entitled to protection under a standing sanction against killing. A hostage is an illustrative example.
Cast:
The adventuring party as a whole, including Player Characters, NPCs, Familiars, and Animal Companions.
Catastrophic Loss:
A consequence of use of force that is so severe that a person of ordinary prudence would consider it to be equivalent to, or worse than, death. Catastrophic Loss usually involves supernatural phenomena. A consequence or condition that would take a character completely out of play and cause that character to remain out of play without magical intervention qualfies as Catastrophic Loss. (Flesh to Stone, Soul Bind, and Baleful Polymorph are all illustrative examples.)
Character Asset:
Those creatures (including constructs) to which a Character is entitled peculiar and reliable access. For a creature to qualify as an Asset, the Death or Catastrophic Loss of that creature must materially interfere with a character's ability to benefit from a durable game mechanic such as a Class Feature or a Feat. (Illustrative examples include: Familiars; Animal Companions; Paladin's Mounts; Blackguard's Fiendish Servants; Cohorts and Followers from the Leadership Feat.) Creatures that can be replaced without mechanical penalty (including Commanded undead and Summoned creatures) are not considered Assets for the purpose of this rule.
Coercive Action:
Action that forces a creature to act in an involuntary manner. (Illustrative examples include: The Intimidate Skill; Spells that require a Will Save, except for spells that are inherently non-violent; Bardic Fascinate, Suggestion, and Mass Suggestion.) Spells from the Charm sub-school are considered non-coercive in nature, and by that virtue they are excluded from the in-game definition of Coercive Action.
Refusal to administer life-saving aid (healing spells are an illustrative example) to a creature in the context of resolving a conflict constitutes Coercive Action.
Economic Hardship:
Any condition that would impose an undue burden on a bystander's ability to earn a living.
Subject to substantial discretion of the DM.
Killing an aristocrat’s horse might be an inconvenience. Killing a farmer’s horse could wipe him out.
A DM is well within his discretion to rule that destruction of any private property that costs at least one gold piece is more likely than not to constitute an economic hardship to someone.
In the special case of the private property of a commoner, the DM is well within his discretion to rule that destruction of private property that costs at least one silver piece constitutes an economic hardship to that commoner.
Existential Threat:
The presence of an unacceptable and unmanageable risk to the safety and security of a society as a whole. A creature or object that is an Existential Threat is routinely attacked on sight with Lethal Force. Aberrations, Undead, Oozes, Constructs, and Vermin are virtually always deemed Existential Threats.
An Existential Threat under player character control is Weaponized Property.
An Existential Threat that can pass for a humanoid, such as a vampire, can easily infiltrate a society.
Fair Target:
A creature that is not entitled to protection under a Standing Sanction Against Killing.
Use of Force against a Fair Target is not considered a violation of the social contract. Usually, Non-Lethal Force is preferred against Fair Targets, if for no other reason than a dead body is a nuisance.
In societies populated with Playable Humanoids, it is common for the following creature types to be deemed Fair Targets: Dragons, Giants, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, Elementals, Fey, Magical Beasts, Plants.
Fair Targets vary widely from one society to the next, but social contracts are inherently Obvious so the DM is obliged to give players a reasonable account of what is, and is not, a Fair Target for an encounter.
Animals call for DM discretion. Domesticated animals are not normally Fair Targets, unless they somehow become a nuisance. Domesticated animals are assumed to be someone’s property. Wild animals are generally fair targets, provided that they are capable of causing death. Wild animals that are ostensibly harmless, such as most birds, are not normally Fair Targets. Societies may place totemic value on specific Wild Animals, in which case those Animals are unlikely to qualify as Fair Targets. All Animals that are any size category above Large are generally such a nuisance that it is considered acceptable to use Non-Lethal Force to control their movement.
Fair Target creatures can serve as Character Assets. (Familiars, Animal Companions are illustrative examples). Character Assets are common enough that they enjoy the same protection under a Sanction that a Character enjoys. Societies are assumed to have found a way to reconcile this.
A Fair Target that can pass for a humanoid, such as a doppelganger, can easily infiltrate a humanoid society.
Individuals, regardless of creature type, can become Fair Targets by virtue of infamy and reputation alone. (Omar, from the HBO series The Wire.)
Lethal Force:
A use of force that is capable of resulting in Death or Catastrophic Loss. Actions capable of causing the following conditions: Ability Drain; Ability Damage (Constitution Only); Dead; Disabled; Dying; Energy Drained; Petrified.
Placing Weaponized Property in striking reach of another creature is so provocative that it qualifies as a Use of Lethal Force.
Non-Lethal Force:
A use of force that is not capable of resulting in Death or Catastrophic Loss. Actions capable of causing the following conditions: Ability Damage (except Constitution); Blinded; Checked; Confused; Cowering; Dazed; Deafened; Entangled; Exhausted; Fascinated; Fatigued; Frightened; Helpless; Knocked Down; Nauseated; Panicked; Paralyzed; Pinned; Prone; Shaken; Sickened; Staggered; Stunned; Unconscious.
Coercive actions fall under the category of Non-Lethal Force even if those actions don't cause physical damage.
Non-violent Conflict Resolution:
The absence of the use of force. Persuasive actions fall under this category. Spells that require willing targets are inherently non-violent. Spells that are deemed Harmless are inherently non-violent. Spells from the Charm sub-school, being non-coercive in nature, qualify as inherently non-violent.
Obvious:
Any information that the DM deems is available to an undistracted person of ordinary prudence. A person of ordinary prudence is assumed to have a Wisdom of 10. In game terms, the Obvious calls for a Wisdom Check with a DC of 10.
Playable Humanoids:
The humanoid races that players may routinely select during character creation in the campaign. (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Tieflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs.) Any humanoid creature type that is subject to DM approval before it can be selected as a player character may not fall under this definition. Under no circumstances shall any non-humanoid creature type fall under this definition.
Sanction Against Killing:
A blatantly obvious incentive to resolve an encounter without lethal use of force. An encounter that occurs under a flag of truce is an illustrative example.
Standing Sanction Against Killing:
A persistent sanction that normally attaches to encounters that take place within any stable society, outside of the context of conditions approximating open warfare. This sanction infers the presence of a durable social contract that strongly favors non-violent conflict resolution over lethal use of force. (A city populated by Playable Humanoids is an illustrative example.)
Standing Sanctions Against Killing are routine even within societies that consider use of Lethal Force to be a cultural norm. (A ship with a crew consisting entirely of Chaotic Evil pirates is an illustrative example.)
Reliable access to nourishing food, drinkable water, and rudimentary shelter are prerequisites for a Standing Sanction Against Killing to be sustained.
Weaponized Property:
Property that is so inherently dangerous that a person of ordinary prudence would consider mere proximity to that property to be life-threatening. (Illustrative examples include: Oozes; Constructs; Vermin; Commanded Undead; a Sphere of Annihilation.) The mere appearance of Weaponized Property may qualify as coercive to the uninitiated.
Placing a person in reach of Weaponized Property qualifies as Use of Lethal Force.
FAQ
What is the point of this house rule?
This is a mechanical incentive to prevent violence from escalating in settings where escalating violence is inherently problematic.
An Experience Point Award is a motivating factor that is difficult to overstate. Under this house rule, the only players who are going to continue running Murderhoboes are those who have deeply committed to the murderhobo as a character concept. Like the Daniel Day-Lewis of Murderhoboes, or something. Everyone else is going to try and find a non-lethal solution to problems in the big city, if only for the experience point award.
How can you be so sure it works?
Judicious and clear application of this rule has proven absurdly effective at dissuading murderhobo behavior in my campaign. Once I put this rule into place and the players understood what it meant , it enforced itself.
As it turns out, if there are no experience points to be had for killing a person then players are, by and large, just not that into killing that person.
Even if it works, at what cost? Can't murderhobo problems be addressed with good roleplaying and trust?
Absolutely.
Good role-playing and trust are entirely capable of preventing murderhobo problems. Right up to the moment that they can't.
This rule assumes that the best way to address a problem is to employ a coping mechanism, rather than relying upon denial, good intentions and unicorn farts. This house rule is one method of addressing murderhobo issues. This is a framework that describes DM discretion in a clear way. It isn't the only way. It isn't a perfect way. But it does work.
Don't your players hate this rule?
They don't love it. But they don't hate it, either. They are okay with beating the crap out of people (and by people, I mean thugs) who cross them in the big city, as long as they get some XP for it.
Isn't this a form of railroading?
Yes. Yes it is.
I am railroading the bejeezus out of my players with this house rule.
And I'm fine with it.
This house rule strongly reinforces the use of non-lethal and non-violent means of resolving encounters in and around humanoid settlements. The players are at full liberty to use lethal force in these scenarios, provided they don't want the XP.
Turns out, they really want the XP.
This house rule is supposed to directly influence character decision making on weapon selection, spell selection, and equipment loadouts in the context of scenarios generally set in an urban environment full of people who don't have a beef with the Cast.
In this author's opinion, enabling players to view every living thing in the campaign as Pinatas filled with Experience Points is a form of railroading players into playing murderhoboes.
Why does this rule apply to Evil characters?
For this sanction to be fair, it must be applied to all characters. Also a sanction against killing that doesn't apply to Evil characters really doesn't make sense. If lethal force will clearly make things worse, then the presence of a sociopath won't make things better.
Why doesn't my Evil character get XP awards for roleplaying an evil act?
Because acting like a Murderhobo isn't roleplaying. It's just treating every living creature in the campaign setting like a Pinata full of Experience Points.
Why would Evil characters care about a sanction against killing?
Because they place value on their time. Because they don't want to be killed in their sleep. Because they don't want to go to prison. Because killing is not a trivial matter. Because killing is something that most Evil people refuse to take lightly.
What if my Evil character is a serial killer?
If your character is a serial killer like Jason Vorhees from Friday the 13th franchise, then it might make sense to award an XP bonus everytime he kills someone, regardless of context. (I'm still not going to do that.) But on the off-chance that your serial killer is not a mindless indestructable killing machine, he probably takes killing seriously and doesn't want to get caught.
What if my evil character doesn't care if he gets caught? What if he's in it For The Evulz?
Then he's the Daniel Day-Lewis of Murderhoboes. Congratulations. But I'm still not giving him any XP awards for it.
What's the deal with "secret or private settings"?
The sanction against killing doesn't go away because no one is looking. Evil people who want to kill someone have a tendency to take those victims far away from populated places. Preferably to remote places in the wilderness. People who dispose of bodies in their own backyard tend to be clinically insane.
But, what if my character is clinically insane?
Again, Daniel Day-Lewis is The Murderhobo in Murderhobo 2: The Hoboening. You might get an Academy Award for the performance, but you get no Experience Points from me.
Why doesn't my character get full XP for self-defense?
The sanction against killing is that important and runs that deep.
This is a mechanical incentive to prevent violence from escalating in settings where escalating violence is inherently problematic.
Even among Evil characters. Even in self-defense.
It's understandable that a player would chose to respond to lethal force with lethal force, but if there are more XP to be had for refraining from use of lethal force, that might prove persuasive to a player. It assumes that a person might want to know why they are being attacked. An Evil character might refrain from killing an attacker to perform torture on that attacker. (Think Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction.)
The same sensibility applies to deputization. Lethal force is supposed to be a last resort, even when someone is vested with the authority to use lethal force. It's supposed to be the last club out of the bag.
How does a Standing Sanction Against Killing make sense for a Chaotic Evil society or settlement?
At a minimum, to facilitate trade and commerce.
Unsanctioned killing is bad for business for any society. Escalating violence is inherently problematic even within a Chaotic Evil den of iniquity. Dead bodies stink up the place. They cause health issues. In fantasy settings, they sometimes get up and walk around and then there's that to deal with. Chaotic Evil societies aren't run by creatures who like having someone else make more work for them.
More to the point, the population at-large of any given society, even a Chaotic Evil society, the default attitude is Indifference. They are just not that into the player characters.
If these NPCs took the time to get to know the Cast, perhaps they might come to be Unfriendly, or even Hostile. But they don't have the time.
Bottom line, even Chaotic Evil societies have to take a break from the killing and mayhem. Even if it's just to tap a new keg of ale before the start of the business day.
An illustrative example may prove useful:
Imagine a pirate ship with a Chaotic Evil crew.
Pirate A comes into conflict with Pirate B.
Being Chaotic Evil, Pirate A straight-up murders Pirate B.
This is a problem for Pirates C through Z. The work necessary to keep the ship running is the same, the only difference is that now the labor pool is smaller. Pirate A has just created more work for everyone on board. Being Chaotic Evil, Pirates C through Z are not okay with that.
And Pirate Z is the Captain. He didn’t give Pirate A permission to kill anyone. So, now Pirate A has a problem.
The Pirate Ship is a society of Chaotic Evil humanoids and lethal use of force is a social norm in this society. But going murderhobo on each other is just not a viable opening strategy for conflict resolution.
Pirates A through Z are expected to resolve their conflicts in a without things coming to blood on grounds of practicality alone.
A Standing Sanction Against Killing is appropriate for this Chaotic Evil society. And it doesn’t make them any less Chaotic Evil.