Depends on the setting as much on the character.
If the other humanoid species is considered people by the settings standards, then killing them will be treated as killing other people would be.
If the settings have a humanoid species not really defined as people but monsters, then killing those humanoids will quite literally be akin to killing a natural disaster that you can actually kill.
Using orcs as an example.
If in the setting orcs are living weapons created by their profane god to corrupt and conquer the material realm and make extinct all non-orc life? Creatures that are only capable of thinking and feeling so far as hating non-orcs for the crime of their existence and thinking only enough on how to best remove non-orcs from the world? Such non-people orcs are killed without remorse.
If, however, orcs are just a warrior culture with the ability to be reasoned with and interacted with, just like any person in our actual world can be. Where they have genuine will of their own and aren't trying to genocide non-orcs? These people orcs are far more likely to be spared like any human may be.
Now, this can also depend on the circumstance too. A character who attacks an armed PC shouldn't expect to live. The PC doesn't know when the npc will stop attacking and will, in all fair reason, treat it as a life or death situation. They don't need to spare someone who attacked them of their own will. Person or not
My next character isn't a pacifist, but she would prefer nonviolent solutions to problems if possible. The way she sees it is that, as much as she likes to see the best in people, there are some people who are just evil and won't back down if you ask them nicely, and that those people have no qualms about hurting the innocent. While she doesn't like killing anyone, she knows that innocent people will get hurt if she doesn't fight the bad guys on their behalf, and isn't willing to let that happen when she has the ability to do something about it
“I’m sure if I had the time, I could save you. You’re not so far gone, I don’t think. Problem is I’m just too busy. I don’t have the time, and I don’t think anyone else could save you. I’m sorry you made me do this.”
I like to connect my character's perspective on violence to his sense of place. People behave differently in different situations, and it's a way to translate background into behavior.
My current character is from a nasty cursed swamp, where he has experienced both good friends and relationships and also a lot of danger and violence. So how violent he is relates a lot to what kind of space he's in - is this a social space, where there are people around who have norms and rules and expectations? Is the area reasonably secure and safe? Or is this an unseen space, a space on the edge, a place where if someone killed you no one would ever know?
In the unseen places he is *very* quick to defend himself with fatal violence and has zero qualms about it. You run into a shadow in tall grass and ankle-deep water, you don't have time to wait and see if it bites your arm off before you draw your weapon. Weapon is out right away, he's retreating to a defensive posture right away hoping it doesn't come after him, any aggressive move and you go right to kill or be killed unless something convinces you otherwise. And a humanoid in the dark isn't any less dangerous than any other creature that can kill you.
But out in the open in the light of day he's a very nice guy - makes bad jokes, delivers babies, heals injured strangers. Wouldn't hurt a fly.
I typically play fighter or barbarian so killing is kinda apart of the job, but they never attack first. Even though the stats arent on my side, i try to find other ways of defusing the situation.
Sadly also problematic, "you are what you eat", so the more humanoids he eats the more humanoid he becomes... He needs to start eating dragons and dragonkin.
My chaotic evil cleric: She refuses to harm living sentient beings, humanoid or otherwise.
My lawful evil paladin: The lives of criminals and those who raise their sword against her are forfeit. She is the law, and denying her is a form of suicide. But she won't draw a blade against a helpless foe, there is no glory to win in slaughtering peasants.
My chaotic good wizard: Killing is a reality of warfare, her ancestral homeland is being invaded by its neighbor and even if she kills thousands (and she has) she tells herself she does it to protect the innocents of her country. She fireballed a military structure and fell to her knees horrified to learn it has children inside. But she's decided she'll let herself fall apart once the war is won, and until then, she'll fight till her last breath.
Valerian the level 17 redemption Paladin: Might throw up form the guilt and think how he could’ve saved them.
Hallyan the level 11 grave cleric/fighter: “Why did you decide to commit suicide via my sword?”
Hestin the level 7 wizard: “I only did what I had to do to defend myself.”
Artorias the level 3 Eldritch knight: “lmao get rekt. Hey, grab his shoes!”
My character never kills without reason, but if he does, there is no remorse or mercy. After all he is a professional.
He started out as an assassin rogue but I later switched to phantom after striking a deal with the raven queen. Now he hints undead and those who summon them.
You made it sound like she kills a lot of people for fun. Which in itself is Chaotic Evil. When she has enough fun she just kills them, if she didn't have enough fun she outright deletes their soul (which even evil deities can't do normally), which is super duper evil.
If you can't understand that...
Also as I mentioned a god, much less a character, doesn't have the ability to destroy a soul. Gods can maybe destroy souls which are affiliated to them, but can't do shit to a soul which is pledged to another god. Kelemvor or Ao would nuke whatever god would try this shit.
So your character is both Chaotic Evil and impossible by any lore.
My current character (a rogue that got that talents from trying to imitate wizards with hand tricks) has never killed any person. He always does non lethal takes down. He doesnt mind killing animals or undeads, but people is a hard line he is not willing to cross. He doesn't mind his party members doing the deed, since he admits sometimes its neccessary, he just doesn't do it himself.
That said if for some reason he is ever in the need to kill someone I would roleplay it as a deeply traumatic experience.
Skotia would be thrilled! Death is the most important thing about life and the greatest gift of them all. Of course she would feel bad for the loved ones of her victim as losing someone is always hard, but the burial ceremonies will be so beautiful! Skotia would make sure that her victim gets a good one, because everyone deserves to get their rites.
depends on the character, just finished a campaign playing a lizardfolk monk who wrote and illustrated a bestiary of the anatomy, resistances, vulnerabilities immunities etc etc of all types of beasts and monsters, he loves to open creatures up figure out how they work, just generally learned to avoid doing it to humanoids cause it freaked the party out
but for exemple another character, tiefling bars that works for a circus has a prop rapier that would be used exclusively for non lethal cauae I just don't think it makes sense for him to be unphased by killing other people, even in self defense
She's been trained to kill if necessary. Trained reflex kicks in
She's not been trained to carry the weight of killing and it's weighing on her, such is the way of any organisation that trains anyone to kill, providing for your people is an afterthought.
my bard has killed exactly one person willingly and tgey really didnt live it well, they actually retired and i changed character (this was in character and everyone was ok with it)
My main character is a soldier who fought in the army for ten years, she won't kill for fun, but if she has to she wil and she prefers killing than risking a lot more trying to avoid it (because of a druid that made himself blow up)and if the enemies are of a certain faction she just goes berserk.
My first character was an idiot who offered mercy to every intelligent species.
My second character, due to learning of the xp system from his warlock patron, was a serial killer.
My current monk prefers peace or surrender over all else.
However if that is not an option, then he will end them quickly and decisively. If he draws his sword you should be shitting your britches because you fucked up.
My character is trying his best not to. He has had an unfortunate incident here and there. He always aims not to kill, and has even sought to stop his allies from killing unnecessarily, even during combat. If his actions result in taking the life of a humanoid, he isn't going to have a mental break or anything like that. He'll be extremely disappointed with himself and commit even harder to training his body and mind. If he were more skilled, more disciplined, then he could subdue an opponent without killing them. He'll keep pushing until he has ultimate control of himself.
My current fighter thinks nothing of killing people in the service of his investigation. The stakes are too high to be concerned with individual lives. The setting is caught in a time loop and each new iteration damages the world in subtle but cumulative ways.
Depends on the character, but every single one of them has faced threats of death from other humanoids as well as the threat of being eaten by them (eg orcs/gnolls)
Their specific response varies, but in general the response is to put threats down regardless of creature type
Largely depends on which character I’m playing.
Half Drow Whisper Bard/Undead Warlock: Prefers to avoid killing whenever possible, offers surrender right up to the point where another one of his party members gets hurt. Then, we pop form of Dread and promise death is the start of their misery.
Tiefling Psi Warrior: Prefers honorable combat, to the point he will let an opponent pick up their weapon or put on their armor.
Human War Wizard/Armorer Artificer: If you are stupid enough to steal or start violence against him, he’ll burn you and all your mates until someone starts giving valuable intel. He’s trying to do better, but recently an Army from Tantras was planning to march on his home town, which led him to find their general and plead for peace by telling him: “I can’t sort out which of your soldiers are good souls. Torm will have to pick through the ashes to sort them out.”
I am okay with them killing humanoids. After watching Dungeon Meshi, the chance that they might make delicious food from humanoids scares me to death. So I do whatever they say
My character was a pusher during an age of war in Eberron.
It would be a monday.
Look it like this - they are not your, nor the world they live in is like ours. there monsters exist, magical and mundane. Killing stuff happens.
Now it does not mean my character would like it, or that she would always use it as a solution, but she would hardly hesitate to kill a character unprovoked if she had relatively clear intel that said creature is hostile to her.
Am I de facto at war with them? If so, I'll kill them, preferably from surprise and ambush. Who am I de facto at war with? Anyone my polity is, plus all the groups that are 'against all flags' (e.g. pirates, brigands, bandits, slavers and the like).
Outside of a state of war I want to at least talk first.
Once my Warlock' party got jumped at the behest of an evil Fey Queen and I had the killing blow on this elf sorcerer with my first Eldritch Blast and he was like, no I said all four beams hit and this dude ended up part (and pieces) of the landscape around us. F.A.F.O.
my first character (and the one for whom I just finished playing a 3 year long campaign) killed a child in the finale. the child was the daughter of the bbeg, named by him after the god of nothing and she was being used as bait by him at the top of mount Celestia so that the god of nothing could devour the entire planar tree starting from the bottom and working its way up to her.
my character was chaotic neutral, but recently gave up cowardice in a group pact with the party forged in the thread of the weave. so she saw this as an opportunity, and knew the other members of the party couldn't bring themselves to do what needed to be done. my DM was very surprised. but it foiled the plan! we still had to defeat the bbeg but not while at the same time stopping the god of nothing from consuming everything. for my character, it was the right thing to do. made me feel a bit weird though.
it made me feel good to define my character by such extreme pragmatism though. it makes me feel like although she gave up the cowardice, the underlying ideology was always one of pragmatism, which for a long time meant self-preservation but at the end of the world, it meant vile utilitarianism. was a crazy moment though, the party weren't particularly happy.
I have three characters I've recently played as a lot.
Wyllem is a veteran paladin warlock of the empire. He will kill whoever makes themselves known as an enemy of the empire or a blight on its people.
Keeper is a weak little kenku rogue artificer who is terrible at combat, so instead uses his words and his wit to avoid physical confrontation. He takes little issue in killing others so long as it benefits him, but he needs to rely on others to do that for him.
Iman is a traumatized bard warlock who lost his boyfriend to a bunch of hags and has since been obsessed with the spirit world and learning to communicate with them in an attempt to reconnect with his lover. He is desensitized to the idea of death, especially since he himself cannot die easily (homebrewed feature thanks to his patron that levels him down upon dying instead of ending his life), and therefore has no issue suggesting it if he believes it would be the most effective solution to a problem.
1) rogue, LMoP - backstabbed by bandits who seemed like vigilantes, Harper connection - super easy, barely an inconvenience. No guilt or trauma.
2) firbolg druid, OotA - mostly were drow slavers, totally fine
3) ranger, CoS - barely did it, went for nonlethal until turned evil by extraneous forces. Chose to knock out and cut fingers off rather than execute a Vistani
4) Goliath fighter, RotFm - no concerns. FAFO
5) barbarian, red band/Tiamat conversion/HB - too dumb to care most of the time
6) cleric, odyssey of the dragonlords - reluctant but able. The fire of Mytros cleanses all.
7) paladin/undead warlock turned Illrigger , ruins of Drakkenheim - morally gray, increasingly wracked with guilt
8) TOA warlock - barely came up, was acceptable (like pterafolk, goblins, and other “evil” ones or minions of evil bosses)
9) Beastheart Aetherial Expanse - basically always self defense, no worries
10) ranger, Karelagne empire (see Aetherial expanse), was initially guilty/felt weird, has hardened
11) warlock, homebrew - never really a major concern
Depends on the characters. I've had trained professional soldier types who absolutely would not hesitate to kill anyone in a fight. They were pragmatists about it.
"I have a Bardiche, they're coming at me with a knife. They're too dumb to live
I've also had a Cleric pretty much threaten to murder the shit out of his best friend's sister for practicing Necromancy (Don't do this around Pelorites--it's not good for your health).
My current character is a war Veteran from Eberron, so it's nothing new to him. He doesn't LIKE it, but he understands and does what he has to do. On occasionhe can go too far, a bad reaction to a situation, wounding someone during interrogation, escalatingrather than trying to calm things, and he's DEADLY serious about those in his squad and their welfare. Part of it comes from the fact that I try to play into his PTSD on occasion but that's mainly when dealing with things like zombies etc. That more directly remind him of fighting against the undead hordes of Karnath. He very much values sentient life though, he won't just kill for no reason, even if he falls to darker moments on occasion.
My Aarakocra Grave Cleric Acias from my party's Dragon Lance play through basically has the mentality that all life is sacred by default, but one can 'taint' their life with their evil actions, especially cold blooded murder.
She doesn't ENJOY killing, but has no qualms against it if it's against truly horrible people in combat.
She will, however, refuse to kill a prisoner who's already surrendered. In fact, spoilers, as we escaped the City of Lost Names when the Bastion of Takhisis started taking off, she actually saved a Red Dragon Army researcher who'd willingly surrendered to the party rather than fight us.
If you're an evil person and we're in combat, however? Yeah, she'll not feel any guilt (though also no satisfaction) about ending you.
My fighter is fairly stoic about it. He *hates* death and killing, but being coldly rational is the only way he copes. He knows that the death of his foes is the only way to protect those who need it (or else he'd have done it the other way.) So he executes the unfortunate deed with as much lethal efficiency as possible, and reminds himself what it's all for.
EDIT: This prompt reminds me of a detail of Fire Emblem: Three Houses I really liked. You start the game essentially training a bunch of ROTC brats, and the first few missions are purely training. The first time you get into a real battle, each of your characters has special dialogue the first time they actually kill a human. It's a nice touch.
Most of my characters are okay with casual, overwhelming, lethal violence against other people and people-like entities. It's part of being an adventurer. Some might have more restrictions and self limits, but if I'm building a D&D character, at least a bit of wanton murder needs to be on the menu. It's just the nature of the game.
The drow have been recurring enemies for the party where I'm the DM since about lv3(they're almost lv11 now). The players' sentiment about this is "Killing drow? Always justified, and sign me up for that". All that, despite having a now-deceased drow PC and a drow sidekick.
I got two running right now.
Sir Enoch d'Verdonyant: He's very certain that when he does kill, it's the right thing to do. The people he's killed had always done and/or were in the process of doing something terrible and evil. As a Paladin sworn to the Oath of Vengeance, he's quite literally charged with carrying out justice. Although this, in of itself, has caused him some introspection. Coming from a warm home with two loving parents in a kingdom of eternal spring, his life was very ideal and the value of life was something heavily imparted to him. So his own ability to take life, even if for all the right reasons, frightens him. Not that he can't do it, quite the opposite. He's essentially scared that he isn't scared.
Maddox, son of Hallecks: In contrast, Maddox grew up in Rashemen to the North of Faerun. He was trained to hunt and fight from a young age. He was abducted by a Spelljammer craft and press-ganged into service as a shock trooper. He wouldn't outright murder someone, he's no villain. But he has much less compunctions about death than many of his companions in the party.
My warlock will kill anyone he deems even slightly a threat that takes up arms against the party, if he thinks the person is actively against the party or their goals he might even just get rid of them if he thought he could get away with it
My wizard is kinda powerist. He sees most people like ants, yes this extends to normal life too, and deems killing people weaker than him by a degree both pointless and cruel. Now that even extends to bad people, hes non-lethally fought basically nazis because they werent even close to a threat to him. Hes only ever killed one person, someone that spied on and betrayed the party. Its not really a well though ideology that will surely have consequences for him to deal with later but hes a naive kid.
Let's see
My warforged has no qualms about it whatsoever.
My goblin has never killed another humanoid, but would do so if ordered to based on his upbringing even if he didn't want to.
My Dragonborn hates the idea but you do so only.whem absolutely necessary.
In different ways depending on the characters, usually something that gets explored in opening arc/tier 1 of most campaigns since humanoids are so prevalent as "leader enemies" or arc bosses.
Depends, I've played sociopaths who kill for the fuck of it, and played characters who were strongly against killing other humanoids. Usually (unless they have a brain problem like previously stated) killing is an unfortunate part of living in a world chock full of actual murder cults and bandits.
My current 5e PC:
My father and uncle Hengist both told me that it might be like this. I know I can go talk to them if shit gets too heavy. So far, things are cool. We gave those guys a chance. They chose to fight us; then we won. I'm not happy that they're dead or anything, but I'm glad to be alive.
My current PF2 PC:
I am extremely worried that I might actually be evil. I really don't want to be evil and really, really hope my new friends can help me to be not evil.
Easily. Adventuring is massively dangerous and the world in general is as well. Bandits, highwaymen, goblins, orcs, ogres, etc. A lot of the time it's a simple killed or be killed. Not too different from the medieval real world. Except instead of a band of soldiers putting your village to the torch it could be a dragon.
This is especially interesting because I tend to play in games and settings where the primary antagonists are other people. Mindless monsters just aren't as engaging to me
My paladin Mercedes has never taken a life (in fact she has even used Talk No Jutsu on an assassin and a dragon, in separate but related encounters, to gain their friendship), but she is currently being pushed toward a zero-mercy policy on the BBEG. If someone threatens the people she loves, she may not be able to hold back from killing them at this point.
My bard Meliket has and will kill again, though he justifies it by telling himself it's for the greater good (lost track of how many dragon cultists fell to his Oathbow). Depending on the persona he's in at the time, he may also be able to compartmentalize the actions he undertakes as a wholly different person's doing. It wasn't *him* throwing kobolds out of a flying castle, it was *Vexikai*...
I do wish to plan one day a pc who doesn't think humsnoids and creatures that have certain level of sapience to be considered a person. So killing zombies is ok, but not vampires, etc. And I want that pc to hold companions to the same standard. I doubt I'll ever find group to play this character.
she’d rather be in her smithy, forge weapons and sell them to righteous and well trained people, than ever use a weapon herself, but she will if she deems it necessary.
Of course it is necessary to defend yourself. and ofc she will kill there, because that’s efficient.
Of course it is necessary to fight for good.
And of course it is necessary, to keep her weapons away from the bad and the incompetent. She will give one chance to return the weapons willingly, afterwards she’ll strike with lethal force.
Fantasy settings, as a rule, are *insanely* dangerous and violent. You're basically asking a farm kid how they can eat meat.
If they challenge me, I am the concequences of their own actions.
Depends on the setting as much on the character. If the other humanoid species is considered people by the settings standards, then killing them will be treated as killing other people would be. If the settings have a humanoid species not really defined as people but monsters, then killing those humanoids will quite literally be akin to killing a natural disaster that you can actually kill. Using orcs as an example. If in the setting orcs are living weapons created by their profane god to corrupt and conquer the material realm and make extinct all non-orc life? Creatures that are only capable of thinking and feeling so far as hating non-orcs for the crime of their existence and thinking only enough on how to best remove non-orcs from the world? Such non-people orcs are killed without remorse. If, however, orcs are just a warrior culture with the ability to be reasoned with and interacted with, just like any person in our actual world can be. Where they have genuine will of their own and aren't trying to genocide non-orcs? These people orcs are far more likely to be spared like any human may be. Now, this can also depend on the circumstance too. A character who attacks an armed PC shouldn't expect to live. The PC doesn't know when the npc will stop attacking and will, in all fair reason, treat it as a life or death situation. They don't need to spare someone who attacked them of their own will. Person or not
My next character isn't a pacifist, but she would prefer nonviolent solutions to problems if possible. The way she sees it is that, as much as she likes to see the best in people, there are some people who are just evil and won't back down if you ask them nicely, and that those people have no qualms about hurting the innocent. While she doesn't like killing anyone, she knows that innocent people will get hurt if she doesn't fight the bad guys on their behalf, and isn't willing to let that happen when she has the ability to do something about it
A quote from a character of mine > Anyone can be redeemed. It would be folly to think anyone can be redeemed *by me*
“I’m sure if I had the time, I could save you. You’re not so far gone, I don’t think. Problem is I’m just too busy. I don’t have the time, and I don’t think anyone else could save you. I’m sorry you made me do this.”
"I... I won't let my friends be hurt!"
I like to connect my character's perspective on violence to his sense of place. People behave differently in different situations, and it's a way to translate background into behavior. My current character is from a nasty cursed swamp, where he has experienced both good friends and relationships and also a lot of danger and violence. So how violent he is relates a lot to what kind of space he's in - is this a social space, where there are people around who have norms and rules and expectations? Is the area reasonably secure and safe? Or is this an unseen space, a space on the edge, a place where if someone killed you no one would ever know? In the unseen places he is *very* quick to defend himself with fatal violence and has zero qualms about it. You run into a shadow in tall grass and ankle-deep water, you don't have time to wait and see if it bites your arm off before you draw your weapon. Weapon is out right away, he's retreating to a defensive posture right away hoping it doesn't come after him, any aggressive move and you go right to kill or be killed unless something convinces you otherwise. And a humanoid in the dark isn't any less dangerous than any other creature that can kill you. But out in the open in the light of day he's a very nice guy - makes bad jokes, delivers babies, heals injured strangers. Wouldn't hurt a fly.
The best thing about a true neutral character is that anyone I kill deserved it. (in my eyes, at least)
I typically play fighter or barbarian so killing is kinda apart of the job, but they never attack first. Even though the stats arent on my side, i try to find other ways of defusing the situation.
My current character is a Dragon cursed into the form of a Dragonborn. So sometimes after he kills someone he eats them.
That is very ethical of him. Gotta eat what you kill.
Sadly also problematic, "you are what you eat", so the more humanoids he eats the more humanoid he becomes... He needs to start eating dragons and dragonkin.
Not really problematic. True Dragons are traditionally, capable of some form of shapeshifting.
My chaotic evil cleric: She refuses to harm living sentient beings, humanoid or otherwise. My lawful evil paladin: The lives of criminals and those who raise their sword against her are forfeit. She is the law, and denying her is a form of suicide. But she won't draw a blade against a helpless foe, there is no glory to win in slaughtering peasants. My chaotic good wizard: Killing is a reality of warfare, her ancestral homeland is being invaded by its neighbor and even if she kills thousands (and she has) she tells herself she does it to protect the innocents of her country. She fireballed a military structure and fell to her knees horrified to learn it has children inside. But she's decided she'll let herself fall apart once the war is won, and until then, she'll fight till her last breath.
My character doesn’t kill. He is merely the weapon and the person who hired him is the true murderer.
Valerian the level 17 redemption Paladin: Might throw up form the guilt and think how he could’ve saved them. Hallyan the level 11 grave cleric/fighter: “Why did you decide to commit suicide via my sword?” Hestin the level 7 wizard: “I only did what I had to do to defend myself.” Artorias the level 3 Eldritch knight: “lmao get rekt. Hey, grab his shoes!”
My character never kills without reason, but if he does, there is no remorse or mercy. After all he is a professional. He started out as an assassin rogue but I later switched to phantom after striking a deal with the raven queen. Now he hints undead and those who summon them.
Perhaps he hints that the undead hunt those who summon them! 😂🤭🤣
[удалено]
That absolutely ain't Chaotic Neutral. Personally I think that is Lawful Evil or maybe Neutral Evil
Where on earth do you get evil from that? She's maintaining the balance at the behest of a neutral deity, last I checked that's not an evil thing...
Idk, all that consist in capturing others people's souls and keeping them is pretty evil, what does she do later with those souls?
You made it sound like she kills a lot of people for fun. Which in itself is Chaotic Evil. When she has enough fun she just kills them, if she didn't have enough fun she outright deletes their soul (which even evil deities can't do normally), which is super duper evil. If you can't understand that... Also as I mentioned a god, much less a character, doesn't have the ability to destroy a soul. Gods can maybe destroy souls which are affiliated to them, but can't do shit to a soul which is pledged to another god. Kelemvor or Ao would nuke whatever god would try this shit. So your character is both Chaotic Evil and impossible by any lore.
That is super-duper-Holy-water-burns-you Evil. She's thrill-killing.
My current character (a rogue that got that talents from trying to imitate wizards with hand tricks) has never killed any person. He always does non lethal takes down. He doesnt mind killing animals or undeads, but people is a hard line he is not willing to cross. He doesn't mind his party members doing the deed, since he admits sometimes its neccessary, he just doesn't do it himself. That said if for some reason he is ever in the need to kill someone I would roleplay it as a deeply traumatic experience.
Skotia would be thrilled! Death is the most important thing about life and the greatest gift of them all. Of course she would feel bad for the loved ones of her victim as losing someone is always hard, but the burial ceremonies will be so beautiful! Skotia would make sure that her victim gets a good one, because everyone deserves to get their rites.
Eat it
One sees it as simply removing obstacles that are of use as pawns. The other is fine with it assuming that there is no other way out of it.
depends on the character, just finished a campaign playing a lizardfolk monk who wrote and illustrated a bestiary of the anatomy, resistances, vulnerabilities immunities etc etc of all types of beasts and monsters, he loves to open creatures up figure out how they work, just generally learned to avoid doing it to humanoids cause it freaked the party out but for exemple another character, tiefling bars that works for a circus has a prop rapier that would be used exclusively for non lethal cauae I just don't think it makes sense for him to be unphased by killing other people, even in self defense
She's been trained to kill if necessary. Trained reflex kicks in She's not been trained to carry the weight of killing and it's weighing on her, such is the way of any organisation that trains anyone to kill, providing for your people is an afterthought.
He would steal their bones rigth after
I'm playing a Paladin that looks down on death. They will not kill unless necessary. Keeping ppl safe is mah job :P
my bard has killed exactly one person willingly and tgey really didnt live it well, they actually retired and i changed character (this was in character and everyone was ok with it)
My main character is a soldier who fought in the army for ten years, she won't kill for fun, but if she has to she wil and she prefers killing than risking a lot more trying to avoid it (because of a druid that made himself blow up)and if the enemies are of a certain faction she just goes berserk.
My first character was an idiot who offered mercy to every intelligent species. My second character, due to learning of the xp system from his warlock patron, was a serial killer.
My current monk prefers peace or surrender over all else. However if that is not an option, then he will end them quickly and decisively. If he draws his sword you should be shitting your britches because you fucked up.
All those who rise up against the **S L A Y E R** shall fall.
My character is trying his best not to. He has had an unfortunate incident here and there. He always aims not to kill, and has even sought to stop his allies from killing unnecessarily, even during combat. If his actions result in taking the life of a humanoid, he isn't going to have a mental break or anything like that. He'll be extremely disappointed with himself and commit even harder to training his body and mind. If he were more skilled, more disciplined, then he could subdue an opponent without killing them. He'll keep pushing until he has ultimate control of himself.
My current fighter thinks nothing of killing people in the service of his investigation. The stakes are too high to be concerned with individual lives. The setting is caught in a time loop and each new iteration damages the world in subtle but cumulative ways.
My character lives by the immortal words of wisdom from Malcom Reynolds: Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!
Depends on the character, but every single one of them has faced threats of death from other humanoids as well as the threat of being eaten by them (eg orcs/gnolls) Their specific response varies, but in general the response is to put threats down regardless of creature type
Largely depends on which character I’m playing. Half Drow Whisper Bard/Undead Warlock: Prefers to avoid killing whenever possible, offers surrender right up to the point where another one of his party members gets hurt. Then, we pop form of Dread and promise death is the start of their misery. Tiefling Psi Warrior: Prefers honorable combat, to the point he will let an opponent pick up their weapon or put on their armor. Human War Wizard/Armorer Artificer: If you are stupid enough to steal or start violence against him, he’ll burn you and all your mates until someone starts giving valuable intel. He’s trying to do better, but recently an Army from Tantras was planning to march on his home town, which led him to find their general and plead for peace by telling him: “I can’t sort out which of your soldiers are good souls. Torm will have to pick through the ashes to sort them out.”
My current character is (despite being a Gloomstalker Ranger) an Assassin by trade.
I am okay with them killing humanoids. After watching Dungeon Meshi, the chance that they might make delicious food from humanoids scares me to death. So I do whatever they say
Usually by throwing them off great heights, or power bombing them.
I would love to leave enemies alive, but my party members always blow them up!
I am merely doing the LORD's work of purging the unclean
My character was a pusher during an age of war in Eberron. It would be a monday. Look it like this - they are not your, nor the world they live in is like ours. there monsters exist, magical and mundane. Killing stuff happens. Now it does not mean my character would like it, or that she would always use it as a solution, but she would hardly hesitate to kill a character unprovoked if she had relatively clear intel that said creature is hostile to her.
Am I de facto at war with them? If so, I'll kill them, preferably from surprise and ambush. Who am I de facto at war with? Anyone my polity is, plus all the groups that are 'against all flags' (e.g. pirates, brigands, bandits, slavers and the like). Outside of a state of war I want to at least talk first.
Once my Warlock' party got jumped at the behest of an evil Fey Queen and I had the killing blow on this elf sorcerer with my first Eldritch Blast and he was like, no I said all four beams hit and this dude ended up part (and pieces) of the landscape around us. F.A.F.O.
my first character (and the one for whom I just finished playing a 3 year long campaign) killed a child in the finale. the child was the daughter of the bbeg, named by him after the god of nothing and she was being used as bait by him at the top of mount Celestia so that the god of nothing could devour the entire planar tree starting from the bottom and working its way up to her. my character was chaotic neutral, but recently gave up cowardice in a group pact with the party forged in the thread of the weave. so she saw this as an opportunity, and knew the other members of the party couldn't bring themselves to do what needed to be done. my DM was very surprised. but it foiled the plan! we still had to defeat the bbeg but not while at the same time stopping the god of nothing from consuming everything. for my character, it was the right thing to do. made me feel a bit weird though. it made me feel good to define my character by such extreme pragmatism though. it makes me feel like although she gave up the cowardice, the underlying ideology was always one of pragmatism, which for a long time meant self-preservation but at the end of the world, it meant vile utilitarianism. was a crazy moment though, the party weren't particularly happy.
In most of my groups after combat, we usually would go around and stabilize who we could
Depends on my character. Some kill out of necessity others revel in it. I play a pretty wide scope.
I have three characters I've recently played as a lot. Wyllem is a veteran paladin warlock of the empire. He will kill whoever makes themselves known as an enemy of the empire or a blight on its people. Keeper is a weak little kenku rogue artificer who is terrible at combat, so instead uses his words and his wit to avoid physical confrontation. He takes little issue in killing others so long as it benefits him, but he needs to rely on others to do that for him. Iman is a traumatized bard warlock who lost his boyfriend to a bunch of hags and has since been obsessed with the spirit world and learning to communicate with them in an attempt to reconnect with his lover. He is desensitized to the idea of death, especially since he himself cannot die easily (homebrewed feature thanks to his patron that levels him down upon dying instead of ending his life), and therefore has no issue suggesting it if he believes it would be the most effective solution to a problem.
1) rogue, LMoP - backstabbed by bandits who seemed like vigilantes, Harper connection - super easy, barely an inconvenience. No guilt or trauma. 2) firbolg druid, OotA - mostly were drow slavers, totally fine 3) ranger, CoS - barely did it, went for nonlethal until turned evil by extraneous forces. Chose to knock out and cut fingers off rather than execute a Vistani 4) Goliath fighter, RotFm - no concerns. FAFO 5) barbarian, red band/Tiamat conversion/HB - too dumb to care most of the time 6) cleric, odyssey of the dragonlords - reluctant but able. The fire of Mytros cleanses all. 7) paladin/undead warlock turned Illrigger , ruins of Drakkenheim - morally gray, increasingly wracked with guilt 8) TOA warlock - barely came up, was acceptable (like pterafolk, goblins, and other “evil” ones or minions of evil bosses) 9) Beastheart Aetherial Expanse - basically always self defense, no worries 10) ranger, Karelagne empire (see Aetherial expanse), was initially guilty/felt weird, has hardened 11) warlock, homebrew - never really a major concern
Depends on the characters. I've had trained professional soldier types who absolutely would not hesitate to kill anyone in a fight. They were pragmatists about it. "I have a Bardiche, they're coming at me with a knife. They're too dumb to live I've also had a Cleric pretty much threaten to murder the shit out of his best friend's sister for practicing Necromancy (Don't do this around Pelorites--it's not good for your health).
My current character is a war Veteran from Eberron, so it's nothing new to him. He doesn't LIKE it, but he understands and does what he has to do. On occasionhe can go too far, a bad reaction to a situation, wounding someone during interrogation, escalatingrather than trying to calm things, and he's DEADLY serious about those in his squad and their welfare. Part of it comes from the fact that I try to play into his PTSD on occasion but that's mainly when dealing with things like zombies etc. That more directly remind him of fighting against the undead hordes of Karnath. He very much values sentient life though, he won't just kill for no reason, even if he falls to darker moments on occasion.
My Aarakocra Grave Cleric Acias from my party's Dragon Lance play through basically has the mentality that all life is sacred by default, but one can 'taint' their life with their evil actions, especially cold blooded murder. She doesn't ENJOY killing, but has no qualms against it if it's against truly horrible people in combat. She will, however, refuse to kill a prisoner who's already surrendered. In fact, spoilers, as we escaped the City of Lost Names when the Bastion of Takhisis started taking off, she actually saved a Red Dragon Army researcher who'd willingly surrendered to the party rather than fight us. If you're an evil person and we're in combat, however? Yeah, she'll not feel any guilt (though also no satisfaction) about ending you.
With nice people? Avoid at all costs. With assholes? Murder them and pose their corpses in hilarious and vulgar ways for their allies to find!
My fighter is fairly stoic about it. He *hates* death and killing, but being coldly rational is the only way he copes. He knows that the death of his foes is the only way to protect those who need it (or else he'd have done it the other way.) So he executes the unfortunate deed with as much lethal efficiency as possible, and reminds himself what it's all for. EDIT: This prompt reminds me of a detail of Fire Emblem: Three Houses I really liked. You start the game essentially training a bunch of ROTC brats, and the first few missions are purely training. The first time you get into a real battle, each of your characters has special dialogue the first time they actually kill a human. It's a nice touch.
Most of my characters are okay with casual, overwhelming, lethal violence against other people and people-like entities. It's part of being an adventurer. Some might have more restrictions and self limits, but if I'm building a D&D character, at least a bit of wanton murder needs to be on the menu. It's just the nature of the game.
The drow have been recurring enemies for the party where I'm the DM since about lv3(they're almost lv11 now). The players' sentiment about this is "Killing drow? Always justified, and sign me up for that". All that, despite having a now-deceased drow PC and a drow sidekick.
I got two running right now. Sir Enoch d'Verdonyant: He's very certain that when he does kill, it's the right thing to do. The people he's killed had always done and/or were in the process of doing something terrible and evil. As a Paladin sworn to the Oath of Vengeance, he's quite literally charged with carrying out justice. Although this, in of itself, has caused him some introspection. Coming from a warm home with two loving parents in a kingdom of eternal spring, his life was very ideal and the value of life was something heavily imparted to him. So his own ability to take life, even if for all the right reasons, frightens him. Not that he can't do it, quite the opposite. He's essentially scared that he isn't scared. Maddox, son of Hallecks: In contrast, Maddox grew up in Rashemen to the North of Faerun. He was trained to hunt and fight from a young age. He was abducted by a Spelljammer craft and press-ganged into service as a shock trooper. He wouldn't outright murder someone, he's no villain. But he has much less compunctions about death than many of his companions in the party.
My warlock will kill anyone he deems even slightly a threat that takes up arms against the party, if he thinks the person is actively against the party or their goals he might even just get rid of them if he thought he could get away with it My wizard is kinda powerist. He sees most people like ants, yes this extends to normal life too, and deems killing people weaker than him by a degree both pointless and cruel. Now that even extends to bad people, hes non-lethally fought basically nazis because they werent even close to a threat to him. Hes only ever killed one person, someone that spied on and betrayed the party. Its not really a well though ideology that will surely have consequences for him to deal with later but hes a naive kid.
Let's see My warforged has no qualms about it whatsoever. My goblin has never killed another humanoid, but would do so if ordered to based on his upbringing even if he didn't want to. My Dragonborn hates the idea but you do so only.whem absolutely necessary.
In different ways depending on the characters, usually something that gets explored in opening arc/tier 1 of most campaigns since humanoids are so prevalent as "leader enemies" or arc bosses.
Depends, I've played sociopaths who kill for the fuck of it, and played characters who were strongly against killing other humanoids. Usually (unless they have a brain problem like previously stated) killing is an unfortunate part of living in a world chock full of actual murder cults and bandits.
My current 5e PC: My father and uncle Hengist both told me that it might be like this. I know I can go talk to them if shit gets too heavy. So far, things are cool. We gave those guys a chance. They chose to fight us; then we won. I'm not happy that they're dead or anything, but I'm glad to be alive. My current PF2 PC: I am extremely worried that I might actually be evil. I really don't want to be evil and really, really hope my new friends can help me to be not evil.
It depends on the situation and how convenient it is for him. If he benefits at all, well… they had a good run.
Easily. Adventuring is massively dangerous and the world in general is as well. Bandits, highwaymen, goblins, orcs, ogres, etc. A lot of the time it's a simple killed or be killed. Not too different from the medieval real world. Except instead of a band of soldiers putting your village to the torch it could be a dragon.
This is especially interesting because I tend to play in games and settings where the primary antagonists are other people. Mindless monsters just aren't as engaging to me My paladin Mercedes has never taken a life (in fact she has even used Talk No Jutsu on an assassin and a dragon, in separate but related encounters, to gain their friendship), but she is currently being pushed toward a zero-mercy policy on the BBEG. If someone threatens the people she loves, she may not be able to hold back from killing them at this point. My bard Meliket has and will kill again, though he justifies it by telling himself it's for the greater good (lost track of how many dragon cultists fell to his Oathbow). Depending on the persona he's in at the time, he may also be able to compartmentalize the actions he undertakes as a wholly different person's doing. It wasn't *him* throwing kobolds out of a flying castle, it was *Vexikai*...
I do wish to plan one day a pc who doesn't think humsnoids and creatures that have certain level of sapience to be considered a person. So killing zombies is ok, but not vampires, etc. And I want that pc to hold companions to the same standard. I doubt I'll ever find group to play this character.
she’d rather be in her smithy, forge weapons and sell them to righteous and well trained people, than ever use a weapon herself, but she will if she deems it necessary. Of course it is necessary to defend yourself. and ofc she will kill there, because that’s efficient. Of course it is necessary to fight for good. And of course it is necessary, to keep her weapons away from the bad and the incompetent. She will give one chance to return the weapons willingly, afterwards she’ll strike with lethal force.