Why is being a murderhobo bad?

[roko10]

Honestly, I hear this term often, and most of the time, it says that something(most often the playstyle) is bad. Why exactly is it used as some kind of slur?

[Scowling Dragon]

Its used as a derogatory of kinda simple but stupid play.

Its fun, but often does not involve a more complex plot and everybody devolves to CE and just slaughters everything in sight.

[Spore]

Because the solution "kill it and take its stuff" is better suited for Diablo 2/3 than actual roleplaying.

[roko10]

Because the solution "kill it and take its stuff" is better suited for Diablo 2/3 than actual roleplaying.

Its used as a derogatory of kinda simple but stupid play.

Its fun, but often does not involve a more complex plot and everybody devolves to CE and just slaughters everything in sight.

Yes, I get that, but my actual question is: why do some people use it as some kind of weird slur for adventurers?

[Knaight]

Yes, I get that, but my actual question is: why do some people use it as some kind of weird slur for adventurers?

It's not adventurers in general. It's used to describe a particular type, and each word gets brought in individually.
1) Murder. This particular term was selected for the propensity of the adventurers to kill and kill easily. It connotes violence being the primary if not the only tactic of the group, when it being further down the list is somewhat more preferable. This gets particularly true when the adventure is just killing someone for their stuff, as that particular behavior is obviously problematic.
2) Hobo. This was selected more for catchiness than accuracy, but the point is that the adventurers are often disconnected from the world. It's not just that they don't have permanent homes, it's that they don't seem to have much in the way of contacts, knowledge of the world, associations, or really anything else consistent with them actually having lived in the world for however long rather than just appearing on it fully grown, fully trained, and fully ready to commence murder.

So, in combination murderhobo refers to a shallow character with next to no connection to the setting and a disturbing propensity for violence. This describes a lot of RPG characters, particularly in more adventuring focused games.

[Eldan]

Because that's what a lot of peoeple think of when they hear "D&D adventurers". Hobo because you spend all your money on magical gear, instead of clothing, hygiene or a home, because you track through the wilderness and dank underground tunnels, instead of having a house and a job. Murder because, well, as we all know, D&D adventures consist of going into dungeons, killing anything you meet that isn't one of the six core races and then taking its stuff.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Because that's what a lot of peoeple think of when they hear "D&D adventurers". Hobo because you spend all your money on magical gear, instead of clothing, hygiene or a home, because you track through the wilderness and dank underground tunnels, instead of having a house and a job. Murder because, well, as we all know, D&D adventures consist of going into dungeons, killing anything you meet that isn't one of the six core races and then taking its stuff.

Or is one of the six core races and is trying to kill you, or you think they'll try and kill you, or seriously injure you, or, well, I think Jayne Cobb's opinions about Reavers cover the murderhobo-style of play from pretty much all aspects:

I just don't get it. How's a man get so wrong? Cuttin' on his own face, rapin' and murdering — Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight. Or if he bothers me. Or if there's a woman. Or if I'm gettin' paid. Mostly only when I'm gettin' paid. But these Reavers... last ten years they show up like the bogeyman from stories. Eating people alive? Where's that get fun?

[Slipperychicken]

Because murderhobo roleplay can often lead to less-satisfying games, as many PCs act like unsophisticated versions of Homo Economicus, caring only for the numbers on their character sheets. In D&D and many other systems, improving your character's game statistics at any cost often involves behaviors* which, when taken to extremes, are often at-odds with a satisfying and immersive roleplay experience.

*(such as kleptomania-like theft to gain gold, living in squalor to avoid spending money, backstab NPCs for any benefit whatsoever, committing indiscriminate slaughter for XP, display apathy toward any character or information which is not relevant to game statistics, argue tirelessly to leverage anything said by the DM to benefit game-statistics)



"Murderhobo" is often slang for adventurers because many PCs display murderhobo behaviors, whether opportunistically or for their entire careers. It is often despised, partly because it occurs to the point that it has seems trite, and some gamers are sick of seeing many PCs roleplayed exactly the same. The term is a quick description of this collection of traits and behaviors, often used to convey the assumption that PCs will generally display these traits instead of acting like "real" characters.

[Vitruviansquid]

What people derisively label murderhoboism is part of a long and glorious tradition in history and literature, though. Odysseus was basically a murderhobo, the Beowulf was a murderhobo, the Fellowship of the Ring were murderhobos, Vikings were murderhobos, conquistadors were murderhobos, ronin were murderhobos, and the list goes on and on. It's really only the imposition of a cocktail of modern norms of how war, justice, and day-to-day living should be done that makes murderhoboism a non-legitimate thing in fantasy settings.

[Red Fel]

What people derisively label murderhoboism is part of a long and glorious tradition in history and literature, though. Odysseus was basically a murderhobo, the Beowulf was a murderhobo, the Fellowship of the Ring were murderhobos, Vikings were murderhobos, conquistadors were murderhobos, ronin were murderhobos, and the list goes on and on. It's really only the imposition of a cocktail of modern norms of how war, justice, and day-to-day living should be done that makes murderhoboism a non-legitimate thing in fantasy settings.

I like the cut of your literary jib, but all humor aside, I must disagree.

Odysseus was a soldier. He went off to fight in a war he didn't want to be in, for a cause he only somewhat believed in, and then spent the equivalent of a lifetime struggling against impossible odds and literal divine will to make his way home. Beowulf was a warrior, a man of his people who slew a monster to protect them. The members of the Fellowship were crusaders, on a quest to save their homes and the world from an all-consuming darkness. Vikings... were not hobos. They had homes, and families, and lives. You've got me on the murder bit, though.

The point is that each of these figures had a reason - a reason for adventuring, a reason for killing - and something to which they wanted to return. Odysseus wanted a homecoming. Beowulf wanted his people to be safe from Grendel. The Fellowship wanted peace for Middle Earth. The Vikings wanted to bring their loot home and sleep with their wives, repeatedly and with gusto.

What makes adventurers "murderhobos" isn't just the fact that they kill. Nor that they do so with remarkable comfort and ease. Honestly it's a little horrifying some of them keep the G in their alignment entries. It's the fact that, as others have mentioned, so many of them do so with seemingly minimal overarching purpose.

Some people write a backstory. Goodness knows I do. But of those, how many use their backstory for more than plot hooks? How many characters want, throughout the campaign, to get back to the farm, to find that lost love, to finish their theses? For some characters, backstory becomes window dressing. What the character actually does is kill. Tell them what to kill and they'll do it. Point them in the right direction and they'll do it. Reward them and they'll do it faster, and with style. They have no actual connection to the world, or even to their own stories.

I'm not saying all PCs are like this, or even most. But there are many PCs who are essentially inserted into the game world for the sole purpose of moving from place to place and facilitating face-to-face meetings between myriad creatures and their patron deities. These are the murderhobos. And these are their stories.

[SaintRidley]

What Fel said, and the addition that Beowulf was a big gloryhound who sought fame and story through battle. He very well might have been something close to a murderhobo, since he showed up at Hrothgar's door and was like "I hear you have a monster problem. Mind if I take a crack at it?", but it is by no means clear that it's presented as a good thing in the poem. Dude dies an old man fighting a dragon for one more shot of glory, and he has no heir because he always put himself above his people. There's plenty of room to read Beowulf as being exactly the opposite of an admirable guy to the Anglo-Saxons, someone who took the "glory in battle" part of the warrior ethos way too far at the expense of the "care for your kin and kingdom" part.

[BRC]

The term "Murderhobo" is used in two ways, at least in my experience.

1: To point out the absurdity of the standard DnD Adventuring Party. They wander from place to place with no real attachments, killing things, and getting money so they can kill things better. Their livelihood revolves around the casual murder of other sentient beings. In real life, such people would be considered at best morally bankrupt, and at worst monsters. But within the context of the game they're hailed as heroes. Calling them "Murderhobos" rather than Adventurers points out the absurdity that we take for granted in these situations. Adventurers makes them sound heroic, Murderhobo makes them sound like deranged, blood-soaked maniacs.

2: It's also used to describe a certain playstyle. Players with no interest in establishing connections for their characters, or pursuing a plot beyond wandering to the next town, finding what needs to be killed, and killing it, are said to be "Interested only in playing Murderhobos". Here it can indicate that the players have no interest in moving beyond the "Default" campaign format. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, plenty of groups have lots of fun without deviating from the Murderhobo playstyle, but it can be frustrating, especially if part of the group wants a deeper roleplaying experience, while others just want to find the nearest thing that needs killing.

[Telok]

Things murder hobo's say:

"The king is useless, he doesn't have any magic items to give us." Said in front of one of the king's councillors.

"The old wizard insulted us, we must kill him." Said after they told the wizard that they had discarded part of an artifact in a demon portal because it 'wasn't useful'.

"Let's not stop the arch-demon from taking over the country. Let's go murder an emperor instead."

"Let's stop and rest here for the night. We don't need to regain spells or anything, but let's stop anyways. If the lizard man raid destroys the fort we'll just mop up the survivors and take all the loot from everybody."

[Mike_G]

Histoy aside, since this isn;t a history RPG but a fantasy one, Conan is pretty much a murder hobo. He's a homeless mercenary/thief/adventurer. he becomes a king, but in the most murderous hobo-y way possible. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are proudly admitted thieves and sellswords.

It's a trope of fantasy literature.

And real world adventurers, like the Conquistadors and, yes, the Vikings, may have had a home base, but acted pretty much like murder hobos. And ask a Native American if the Europeans from Leif Erikson through Columbus to Custer and company acted a bit murder-hobo-y.

Travel the world. See exotic sights. Meet interesting people. And kill them and take their stuff.

It's a time honored tradition.

[cobaltstarfire]

It's not bad, but it can sure be boring.

It also makes me mildly uncomfortable, I know it's just a game but I don't much like slaughtering and looting things unless they've at least attacked me first, it just feels wrong. (well also against character since I just about always play good characters)

I do enjoy combat and doing well at it, but I also enjoy having role play opportunities, and working together with others. It's really annoying to not get to do any of that because Thiefhands Mcstabbers and Jerkass Elf Man are constantly yelling about how they want to loot/kill/sneak their way into glory, even if that happens to include turnin on party members, or the civilians we are trying to save.

[Morty]

I think it's one of those cases where people take a tongue-in-cheek label far too seriously.

[Sartharina]

What people derisively label murderhoboism is part of a long and glorious tradition in history and literature, though. Odysseus was basically a murderhobo, the Beowulf was a murderhobo, the Fellowship of the Ring were murderhobos, Vikings were murderhobos, conquistadors were murderhobos, ronin were murderhobos, and the list goes on and on. It's really only the imposition of a cocktail of modern norms of how war, justice, and day-to-day living should be done that makes murderhoboism a non-legitimate thing in fantasy settings.

The fellowship of the Ring were not Murderhobos, because they usually ran from their problems, and only fought when they were attacked - and then, it was usually military action. Odysseus wasn't a murderhobo - he had a home that he lived in and family he lived with (And spent his life trying to return to). During the war, he didn't have an extraordinary Personal Killcount, and after the war, on his voyage home...
Lets see -
He simply leaves the Lotus-Eaters to their drug-induced oblivion after reclaiming the crew that tried to stay with them, instead of murdering the bunch before hitting the sea.
Instead of killing Polyphemus the Cyclops in a battle (Before or after stabbing his eye out), he leaves the one-eyed giant in his misery, but still able to go on with life.
Instead of avenging his destroyed fleet against the Laestrygonians and killing them all, he simply sailed away again.

In fact, the only people Odysseus actually killed, instead of just desperately ran from, were his wife's 'suitors'.

The Vikings were not Murderhobos, even though they were marauders. They had homes, and moved in large numbers. Also - they were only a small fraction of their actual culture, which was full of 'normal' people. The average Level 3 adventurer has killed more people than all but the most accomplished historic vikings.
The Conquistators are historically reviled because of their senseless slaughters - but even then, they still usually settled down or at least moved in large groups with a persistent camp they could call their own.

You grossly overestimate the frequency, social acceptance, and accomplishment of history's closest answer to D&D adventurers.

I like how BRC put it.

1: To point out the absurdity of the standard DnD Adventuring Party. They wander from place to place with no real attachments, killing things, and getting money so they can kill things better. Their livelihood revolves around the casual murder of other sentient beings. In real life, such people would be considered at best morally bankrupt, and at worst monsters. But within the context of the game they're hailed as heroes. Calling them "Murderhobos" rather than Adventurers points out the absurdity that we take for granted in these situations. Adventurers makes them sound heroic, Murderhobo makes them sound like deranged, blood-soaked maniacs.

If you've killed more people than you've lived years, and have no persistent address that you live at more than 30 days a year over the past 2 years, you're a murderhobo.

[Vitruviansquid]

Dudes have stints as murderhobos. You can't be a temporary murderhobo?

[Sartharina]

Dudes have stints as murderhobos. You can't be a temporary murderhobo?

You can be. But if murderhoboing dominates your living, you're a Murderhobo, just as a guy who writes for a living is an author.

[Raine_Sage]

There's also that some players don't seem to know what it means. I had one guy in our group constantly refer to the PCs as murderhobos despite the fact that they all:

A. Actually owned land just outside of town (a tower they all shared) and had several strong connections to NPCs in town.
B. Almost never initiated a fight. Not even when the GM made explicitly clear that an npc was probably working for the enemy. They even tried to take goblins alive as prisoners.

As far as I can tell the guy just liked the way the word "murderhobo" sounded and/or just thought it was a cute way to refer to adventurers. But I always rankled a little when he said it. Like, excuse you but can you not?

[VoxRationis]

I think that's a poor definition, Sartharina. You can have well-established connections to the world and the people in it while wandering around, particularly in a setting without quick means of transportation: that two years of not spending time at home could simply be a long journey from point A to point B all for a very good in-character reason like "I heard my father is being held at X place" or "Yonder lies my love, who journeyed abroad before I could confess my feelings."
Not to mention that making a D&D character who does not have a higher kill count than their age is extremely difficult above low levels, even for an elf, and that is not relevant to their role-playing at all.
I find that people use the term to power the following cycle:
1) Point out frequency of poorly-roleplayed, kill-and-loot behavior among PCs.
2) Use this to accuse [system; particularly D&D] of being intrinsically focused on this behavior.
3) Use the above to justify their poorly-roleplayed, kill-and-loot behavior.
4) Repeat from step 1.
The key issue of being a "murderhobo" is not actually frequency of killing or even frequency of killing and looting. The issue is what those acts look like in context (I know, a hackneyed line, but true). RPG characters as a matter of course are forced into survival situations where killing their enemies is the best way to continue, for both the characters and their respective societies. Even in situations where the characters are not personally attacked, they are often in scenarios where by virtue of their personal power, they have a duty to protect a group of people under attack. These characters are usually, furthermore, possessed of abilities which make lethal combat feasible on a repeated basis. They are also in situations where their enemies frequently are accompanied by valuable and useful items that would be rather silly to just leave lying there (if you were fighting your way through a battle with a knife and a dead enemy had a sword—or even a gun—wouldn't you take it?). Therefore, in most RPG scenarios, killing your enemies and taking the more valuable of their possessions is a reasonable affair. True "murderhobo" behavior comes from:
-Killing without provocation (what constitutes "provocation" depends on the setting, particularly when it intersects with "Always Chaotic Evil" sorts of creatures—in some settings, that band of orcs might be peaceful nomads, while in others, that they have or are planning to rape, loot, and burn is an empirical fact)
-Acting without concern for what makes sense as citizens of the setting
-Killing expressly for the acquisition of loot without good in-universe reasons besides financial gain

[Sartharina]

I think that's a poor definition, Sartharina. You can have well-established connections to the world and the people in it while wandering around, particularly in a setting without quick means of transportation: that two years of not spending time at home could simply be a long journey from point A to point B all for a very good in-character reason like "I heard my father is being held at X place" or "Yonder lies my love, who journeyed abroad before I could confess my feelings."
Not to mention that making a D&D character who does not have a higher kill count than their age is extremely difficult above low levels, even for an elf, and that is not relevant to their role-playing at all.
I find that people use the term to power the following cycle:
1) Point out frequency of poorly-roleplayed, kill-and-loot behavior among PCs.
2) Use this to accuse [system; particularly D&D] of being intrinsically focused on this behavior.
3) Use the above to justify their poorly-roleplayed, kill-and-loot behavior.
4) Repeat from step 1.
The key issue of being a "murderhobo" is not actually frequency of killing or even frequency of killing and looting. The issue is what those acts look like in context (I know, a hackneyed line, but true). RPG characters as a matter of course are forced into survival situations where killing their enemies is the best way to continue, for both the characters and their respective societies. Even in situations where the characters are not personally attacked, they are often in scenarios where by virtue of their personal power, they have a duty to protect a group of people under attack. These characters are usually, furthermore, possessed of abilities which make lethal combat feasible on a repeated basis. They are also in situations where their enemies frequently are accompanied by valuable and useful items that would be rather silly to just leave lying there (if you were fighting your way through a battle with a knife and a dead enemy had a sword—or even a gun—wouldn't you take it?). Therefore, in most RPG scenarios, killing your enemies and taking the more valuable of their possessions is a reasonable affair.

You're still a murderhobo. Murderhobos are not inherently evil, as the term has been twisted to refer only to those who play a certain way because people don't like the idea of their murderhobos being called murderhobos even though they are.

As far as being 2 years away from home - you probably have had that home for more than two years. I should have been clear that's a lifelong average-
Over the course of your adult life, you've owned a home for more than 2 years. (Maybe it should be lifelong average duration of address being 1 year)
AND
You spend an average of at least 30 days per year (If you spend 360 days one year in that home, you're good for the next 12 years)

What murderhobos do for a living is weird and absurd, and incredibly violent. Why the hell are they putting themselves in those situations in the first place? Normal people DON'T DO that sort of thing.

How to tell if you're a Murderhobo:
1. Your hometown was raided and destroyed when you were a child. How did you react?
a) Struggled to come to terms with your loss, moved in with a relative from another town and moved on with your life.
b) Struggled through the trauma, but stayed where you were, building your life back up from the ruins, and banding together with the survivors to ensure the raiders don't come back.
c) Either stay and rebuild or move in with a relative to move on with your life, swearing vengeance on the orcs and enlisting or forming a militia or enlisting in the army to eventually be able to hunt down and destroy the bandits and make your town and others safe.
Murderhobo) Find your father's sword in the wreckage, swear vengeance on the bandits, and immediately grab a few friends or swords-for-hire to destroy the bandits almost single-handedly, then go off hunting down more bandits and threats to the world.

2. You find yourself jumped by three thugs in a back alley demanding your money. How do you react?
A) Comply with the threats, reasoning your money's not worth your life.
B) Run from the thugs to escape with your life and money, fighting only as much as necessary as to discourage pursuit.
C) Fight them to incapacitation/death, then either run before the authorities show up, or wait and hand the case over to the authorities.
Murderhobo) Kill all three thugs in a fight, take their weapons, ammo, and pocket change, cufflinks, fancy jewelry, and any other valuable belongings they might have on their person. Then, find out who their gang is, and take your new weapons and anything that passes for armor and go in guns blazing, any gang members you come across. Full Murderhobo Bonus - Sell your home and quit your job to use your new money and free time to hunt down every gangster, mobster, thug, and crook in your entire city, then county, then state, then country, leaving a trail of bloody justice.

[Coidzor]

Honestly, I hear this term often, and most of the time, it says that something(most often the playstyle) is bad. Why exactly is it used as some kind of slur?

Mostly because it's doing stuff suited for a beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl in games where beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawling isn't appropriate.

Murdering everything in the dungeon is just fine, y'know, as long as you're in the dungeon.

[Sartharina]

Mostly because it's doing stuff suited for a beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl in games where beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawling isn't appropriate.

Murdering everything in the dungeon is just fine, y'know, as long as you're in the dungeon.

But why are you in the dungeon in the first place?

[Raine_Sage]

But why are you in the dungeon in the first place?

Well presumably because the DM put you there. If the DM did not direct you to the dungeon but rather your character sought out the dungeon specifically so you could kill all the things in the dungeon, while the DM was trying to...I don't know direct the party to an apple orchard or something, that would also be murderhoboing.

[huttj509]

But why are you in the dungeon in the first place?

Because funding an archaeological expidition is more expensive than going to a pub and offering a share of the loot.

Hey, it'll end up in a museum or something eventually.

[Coidzor]

But why are you in the dungeon in the first place?

Beer *and* pretzels. Very important. If you just try to have pretzels, the atmosphere's not nearly relaxed enough, and if you just try to have beer, well, the wick burns down too quickly and you can't even make it through the dungeon.

Plus, y'know, sometimes it's fun to just switch off the higher-order reasoning and engage in some mindless self-indulgence with some friends.

[Aedilred]

While killing people and taking their stuff is a well-established historical and fictional tradition, I think what distinguishes true murderhobos from (most of) those people is the ultimate objective.

The Vikings and Conquistadors killed and looted because they wanted to acquire more power and riches to make their lives and those of their families (contemporary or potential) more comfortable. Murderhobo adventurers kill and loot because they want to get better at killing and looting, and for no other real reason.

Real people (and most credible fictional characters) want to kill and loot as a means to an end. They envisage a time when they'll have killed and looted enough and all their killing and looting has earned them a position where they won't have to kill and loot any more, or at least where the killing and looting can be scaled back. The product is more important than the process. For murderhobo adventurers, the process is all there is. If a murderhobo reaches the position where he doesn't have to kill and loot any more, then that's either game over, or he'll go looking for more stuff to kill and loot anyway, because that's all that gives him purpose.

In that respect, murderhobos are less like historical raiders and barbarians, and more like pyschologically disturbed mass murderers and serial killers.

[Amaril]

What murderhobos do for a living is weird and absurd, and incredibly violent. Why the hell are they putting themselves in those situations in the first place? Normal people DON'T DO that sort of thing.

So, because I'm intrigued, what kinds of games do you play and/or run instead? I fully agree that the frequency with which most adventurers willingly rush into dungeon-crawling murder-fests is pretty implausible, but a certain amount of that stuff is deeply built into many types of games.

[VoxRationis]

Consider that your average player character is, by themselves or in a small group, much more capable of handling most threats and obstacles than the populace they are nearby. This is particularly true in "small village threatened by orcs" scenarios, but true in a large number generally. These characters also tend to be capable of pre-emptively engaging threats to that populace in a fashion which spares the community from harm, while having a surprisingly low chance of death (high, but low considering the task) from the process. That the party elects, under such circumstances, is to be considered laudable, Lawful Good in fact, for they put the needs of their community over their personal safety—that they usually take all the valuable things in the area is a side venture. (I mean, really: who in their right mind, after defeating a band of enemies and noticing a convenient pile of liquid assets nearby, would not take them? There's little question of returning the assets to their original owners in most cases; they're either dead by your hand or by the hands of your slain enemies generally. Unless people have specifically mentioned to you that they have been missing a particular item, not taking the coin for yourself simply means leaving it to gather dust.
The player character could elect to band together with the town militia—and I've done such a thing in my time as a player, when the threat appears too great to attack a la dungeon, so to speak—but the average militia member is delicate in comparison to the threat; many would likely die if they actually engaged to a measurable degree. You could spearhead the attack, and leave the militia to follow up, but that wouldn't be significantly different from just clearing the dungeon out yourself. So the dungeon crawl is a reasonable means of serving a community.