In TTRPGs the default standard mode of play is to fight monsters. In many ways this is thanks to D&D but this is replicated in many TTRPGs. I wanted to explore this common TTRPG, Video game and fictional trope of the "monster hunter" and really break down my thoughts on this topic.

The Reasons People Hunt Monsters

"Their Evil" is the most basic Lord Of The Rings ass reason for killing a monster. They are born evil, spawned of evil, they can never be anything but evil. These arguments count on you believing in the ability for something to be evil, to exist purely for malice. These both ask you to accept that an individual can be evil but also a whole race of people can be evil.

"Their Animals" is another approach taken for monster hunting media. A wild animal is dangerous so you are always justified with killing the animal just living it's life. Perhaps it's stricter and requires the use of it for food, cloths, etc in the way hunters might use an animal they have killed. This concept does require one to believe in killing animals and that animals are ultimately lesser life then the lives of your characters.

"Their Present Danger" Maybe these monsters evil or animal or neutral morally are simply a present danger to people. If they are people then they can't be reasoned with, there is no means of peace, you simply must enter a phase of violence against them even if you don't take issue with their wider existence. If they are animal then we must believe this land you are on did not belong to the animal, that it living it's natural life is unjustice and that protecting the lives of the people or yourself is more valuable then the life of the other living creature.

These three reasons take up the core logic behind monster hunters, monster slayers, adventuring parties, and more. I want to examine this and talk more in depth about the ways that these interactions with fictional life interact with the ways with think about real life.

The Dangers Of Minimizing Life

You may say that I am stretching when I say that to treat fictional monsters who have sentience as worthy of killing teaches us to feel the same way about humans, I don't think it is. We see this exactly mode of play replicated through many other TTRPGs. Games like Sentinels Of The Multiverse RPG and Mutants and Master Minds also work on treating people with lives and thoughts, families and friends as monsters. Their XP to be farmed, obstacles to be overcame. Maybe you don't kill the henchmen like you do a Goblin but mechanically you do functionally the same.

Sentinels Of The Multiverse RPG a fairly recent Super Hero TTRPG has fucking Rioters as a standard enemy they designed for you to kick the ass of. Any of the three core reasons people hunt monsters still lead to a mechanical similarity to this outlook. For instance it has been said by people smarter than me that the way we treat animals is the way we treat people we dehumanize. So it's easy for many to see a marginalized person lashing out at a world killing their people and see them as equal to a feral alligators let loose on the city. However, that person is justified at being angry and doing things to try and make the world better and the Alligator, it's just trying to live.

When We're Evil

If evil exists and it is in somethings nature, a simple core part of their function, unchangeable and unavoidable, their fate to be a piece of shit, can they really be blamed? Is a thing born of evil any different then any animal running on gut instinct? They can't help it right, it is who they are, who they will always be, then can they really be blamed for their sins? These questions basically move us back to "animal talk" and that's part of the point. Inherent evilness reduces people to animals, to beasts and those people have decided that being an animal is enough to justify your slaughter.

Inherit evilness is a tool of the racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist powers of be. From demonizing witches to Jewish people to trans people to queers even the word for what has been done to these communities implies it is making a monster out of them. In fact many monsters have their commonly coded traits from marginalized people's of their historical times. Those who were oppressed, they were turned into monsters, their stereotyped features enhanced into a fantasy version of the bigoted image of hate. So many of these things in fiction seen as inherently evil are also based on what the people through the years are based on these oppressed peoples.

Even the simple belief that a whole group of people connected only by birth could be evil is fuel in a fash fire. Even taking some "evil occupations" can be coding in these same stereotypes like many of witch stereotypes are taken from Black, Jewish, and Romani women. So in worlds where witches are always evil it is often taking religious and cultural practice's from these groups and declaring those to be the signifies of evil. Obviously there is real life jobs that are pretty evil but they actually require human suffering and they translate across cultures, sexualities, genders, etc as always being harmful to others.

That is to say that when we look at evil itself as a concept we need to challenge it. What is evil, who is evil, what about these people are evil, and is this so called evil based on stereotypes or bullying marginalized people?

We Can Change

We also have to ask what we are saying about the ability to change, about free will and our hearts. If someone is a danger, if someone is evil, if someone is an animal can we not find ways to work things out, to co-exist, to help them grow, to help them change? Their is obviously times where violence is needed, that is clear but when we are looking at monsters and what is "inherit" why are they not afforded the same consideration as those we consider to be "basically human".

I personally prefer to live in a world where people can change, where things can get better, where things aren't decided by the divine above us but instead we chose our own fates. An inherit dark nature, an inherent reason to end the life of something removes what makes life great, that free will. If you believe in change then why not believe in it when your blade is drawn at a monster?

Empathetic Models

This has all been to say that I believe we should be looking at ways to make more empathetic models and modes of play. Killing a hoard of Orcs isn't what an action game has to be let alone a game. We can look to all sorts of art to see these alternative structures. On one end we have something like Monster Hunter Stories 2 which takes a more indigenous approach to the monsters and the ways the characters relate to them. Then another we have a show like Steven Universe which believes in the kindness and ability to be redeemed in everything. We have plenty more examples of different approaches Pokemon, Digimon, Undertale, Deltarune, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Monster Care Squad, Wanderhome, and more to build from.

I want to see empathy and more thoughtful violence built on in the same ways the thoughtless violence of Lord Of The Rings and D&D were for so many years. We could have so many cool and amazing things if we managed to focus in and build more and more models for what engaging with the world.

If you enjoyed my thoughts maybe consider throwing me some money over on Patreon or Ko-fi.

I don’t play much D&D anymore, usually favoring systems with easier onboarding and less problematic histories (loving Monster of the Week, for example). But I started running a game recently specifically because I thought Descent into Avernus looked metal as hell. And it kind of is, but it falls into a classic Wizards of the Coast trap of there being lots of complex lore and intrigue up front, none of which is interesting to me or my players (we wanted to see the BLOOD WAR).

I opted to skip a biiiig portion of the early game by combining several encounters into one, so that the players could get the info/equipment they needed, and head to the outermost layer of capital-H Hell. This was all going well, until I read the paragraph in the book that started, “The players should be at least level 5 before this point.” So I sat there, looking at a group of level 2 characters, thinking, “I’ve made a huge mistake.”