Murder Hobos

I read an essay by Tracy Hickman that really struck me regarding D&D play styles.

I often think about an experience I shared with the players in one of my own games. I was the 'dungeonmaster' for a D&D game. We were playing 'Ravenloft', an adventure written by my wife and I about a vampire.
On the surface, this seemed like a typical old movie plot; Eerie eastern European location with lots of fog and fallen leaves. There was the obligatory castle high on the craggy cliff with the wolves howling in the woods. Sure enough, the vampire was up there in the castle.
To most of the players it seemed like a straight forward task: find the vampire and kill him.
However, Ravenloft had more to it than that. The plot of the story behind the game dealt with why Strahd von Zarovich, the Count of Barovia had fallen from grace to become the first vampire. As the game progressed, one of the players began discovering this background.
The vampire had once been a great and noble warrior. When he conquered Barovia and established the castle there he sent for his family to join him. There was a particular girl in the town that he wished to marry. In the end, however, the girl fell in love with the Count's younger brother. Strahd blamed his age for the girls rejection and vowed to live forever through the dark arts. He believed if he could rid himself of death that the girl would somehow find him attractive.
Of course, the brother was killed by Strahd. The girl threw herself from the cliffs of the castle but her body was never found. Strahd found that his pact with darkness had caused that he should not die but that he should not live either. Thus did he become a vampire.
At the end of the game, my friend held the sword which could destroy Strahd. As his companions fell upon the vampire, my friend found that he couldn't kill the monster. He saw all the sadness and tragedy which the mans life had once been. Ultimately his companions in the game were forced to finish the job.
After the game, we spoke. "He deserved to die better than that," my friend said.
"Yes," I replied, "But that is how it is with people who fall from greatness. He chose his end when he first chose to kill his brother. How could it be any different?"

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722122149/http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic3.html

How indeed. In my opinion, this was a rather poor way for Hickman to address the player's decision. The strength of this hobby is that players can explore for themselves what is good and what is bad. That player was justified in showing mercy to Strahd. Just as another player would be justified in striking Strahd down right away. Both would have a point, and the GM, favoring one interpretation or the other is, again IMO, bad form. This is a great oppportunity to examine morals and ethics within an RPG framework. Having the GM come down with a moral proclimation of what is good and what is bad robs the player characters of their agency. Why bulid up an interesting and potentially sympathetic villain if the GM is only going to expect a certain outcome? I will say that at least Hickman brought it up post-game with the player, instead of forcing a certain moral choice on the character in the moment.