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.
jaime summing up the truth abt the majority of spn monsters who try to act like they're the poor oppressed victims instead of the literal predators and supernatural stand-ins for real life serial killers and rapists:
"you ever think maybe you're lonely because you kill people?"
and then the shapeshifter rebutting with "or i kill people because i'm lonely" bc yea that's such a valid reason *eye rolls* newsflash idiot, there are lots of lonely people with sad childhoods who don't turn into serial killers preying on innocent people! your sad backstory doesn't justify your actions! and you've literally become a monster by doing these things. it wasn't your fault for being born different, you weren't monstrous for that, and shifters are literally one of the few monster that do not have any impulses to harm others. they just have a genetic mutation that allows them to change form. every shapeshifter we see on this show is actively choosing to be a killer and predator. nothing abt their biology makes them inherently harmful.
ruby upping the ante with sam + killings in 3x12. first it was shoot demons don't worry abt their human vessels they were probs already dead anyway in 3x04 and 3x05. then it was sam being okay with killing witches in 3x09 (which yea they were the monsters) but sam frames this sudden shift in mentality as trying to be More Like Dean when really this mentality is exactly what ruby has been seeding in him since their talk at the end of 3x04--having to become okay with doing worse and worse things to be able to carry on and fight the demon war. And now in 3x12 she wants him to kill a regular innocent human civilian ~for the greater good~ further walking him down the road to hell paved with all those "good intentions". and the thing is, she is manufacturing all these scenarios and conflicts, specifically to manipulate sam into doing her bidding and furthering her agenda / end goal. it's just so very convenient that the only way to save everyone is a spell requiring the sacrifice of an innocent human. it's literally deliberate. she wanted sam to fold, to follow her lead, but dean refuses to let them go down that path. and for all sam cited "trying to be more like dean" as his reasoning for suddenly being ok with killing witches in 3x09 and having to be more ruthless "like dean", here we see dean is still the shining beacon of morality, holding the line on their moral code. they don't kill innocent people. they kill monsters (aka anyone human or otherwise who has killed innocent people). and so sam doesn't follow ruby's path, and ruby makes sure there are consequences so then she can turn around and be like "you see? you see why you should've listened to ME!" truly a master manipulator lol
the vampires (and other monsters) on buffy talk abt humans the same way monsters on spn do (treat them as inferior, nothing but meat / prey) and buffy doesn't get any grief for killing them. she kills them to protect humanity from supernatural threats. she is the first / often only line of defense against these supernatural predators. thee exact same set up as spn. and buffy doesn't get any grief for doing what she does. yet every other surface level spn take will try to frame the winchesters as "cops" or "serial killers" for doing the exact same thing, protecting humanity from supernatural predators. like literally the majority of the time if the winchesters are rolling into town it's because a monster has already hurt or killed a human. monsters in both buffy and supernatural are not, primarily, victims (there are exceptions of course). they are largely the predators. humans (including hunters / slayers) are still prey. for all their strengths they are still mortal and human and very easy to kill compared to most monsters who usually require a very specific method of killing. that is usually not known to the general public. thus making them largely invulnerable and formidable predators.
The thing abt Dean saying "if I didn't know you I'd want to hunt you" is that it isn't abt the psychic powers.
1st of all, Dean's personal code of ethics (aka the one he develops separate from John's "a monster is a monster / shoot first ask questions later) is that a monster is anyone (human or otherwise) who preys on / hurts / kills innocent people. Back in s1 when Sam was first getting his psychic powers Dean continuously insisted that these abilities didn't make Sam bad or evil when Sam compared himself to Max in 1x14 Dean was quick to point out that Sam had never used his powers to hurt anyone. (We can argue that Max's father and uncle deserved what they got, but his step-mom is a gray area and she was a likely victim herself too). ANYWAYS. point is, Dean doesn't have an issue with the powers themselves. It's the secrecy + working with demons that's what Dean is worried about and finds dangerous. Because Ruby is manipulating him and Dean's been right abt that since day one despite Sam refusing to see the truth. And Dean has always been scared and worried abt what demons will try to use Sam to do. It's why Azazel was a threat and why Ruby is now dangerous too.
2nd, I don't think Dean is actually being honest when he says this quote. He's shaken up by what he's just discovered. He's upset and angry at Sam for lying and breaking his trust. He also was just told by Cas that he must stop Sam from going down this path or the angels will (and it's pretty clear that Cas means they will use whatever force necessary, including killing Sam). Which is....eerily similar to what Dean just went through in s2 when John made him promise to either save Sam from going dark or kill him. So with all those emotions and fears running through him I'm not surprised that he would say something like this to try and shake Sam into rethinking his actions. But do I think Dean would rush in and kill someone like Sam were he working a regular case and presented with the information he knows? Not really. Because so far all Sam's doing is exorcising demons and saving people. Dean doesn't yet know abt the demon blood aspect either. If he came across someone doing exactly what Sam is doing at this point in time, I don't think he'd shoot. He might keep digging. He might try to understand what's really going on. He would definitely try to get rid of the demon helper (Ruby). But I don't think he'd hunt the psychic until said psychic actually hurt / killed an innocent person.
a nice little parallel where sam and dean both do the same things but sam is with a woman while dean is with a man. anyways, sam is tasked to watch over madison (he gets to stay with the "hot girl") and kill her if she turns, while dean is tasked with killing the og werewolf, who turns out to be glen, the cute nerdy neighbor dean was making flirty eyes at.
and dean is actually pretty torn up about the whole thing, despite previously saying "she’s a monster, and you’re feeling sorry for her?" (though his reasoning is less simply "monster bad" but prefaced by him pointing out "she’s killing people!" like that's the crux of the issue when it comes to monster for dean, they most often are killing innocent people!)
still, in the end dean also ends up "feeling sorry" for glen as he later tells sam, "It was sort of sad, actually. Glen had no clue what was going on." which is the exact same reason sam feels bad for madison, because madison doesn't appear to know what she's doing or be in control when she turns.
anyways, dean's face as he watches the life leave glen's eyes, after trying to comfort him when he comes to briefly, horrified abt what he's done, dean softly says, "All right, easy, Glen. Just take it easy."
like yes the guy was a monster and he unknowingly hurt people, yes dean still feels bad for him. just how sam feels bad madison. parallels. we love to see them.
Despite Sam's little outburst at Dean, that Dean doesn't care about Madison bc "part of her is evil" and that Dean isn't willing to kill Sam but will just "blow her away" -- Dean is broken up about Madison. He calls her a "sweet girl." He feels bad that she is unaware of her actions when she turns. But he's also being realistic. One of them has to be. If she can't control herself from killing people then there's only one way to stop her, unfortunately. It's not like he's against other options. There just aren't any. And Sam is naively holding out on some miraculous cure showing up but Dean has to be the realist and point out that no one has ever found a cure in all this time.
Then when Sam wants to keep the truth from Madison to keep her hoping, Dean again has to be the honest one, as much as it hurts, and tell her there aren't any other options, aside from locking her up at night, which isn't a foolproof solution.
DEAN: Well, we could lock you up at night, but … you bust out, and some night you will, someone else dies. [pause] I’m sorry. I am.
MADISON: [crying] [exhales] So, I guess that’s all there is to it, then.
What often gets overlooked in discussions about Dean and Monsters, is that the big issue for Dean is less about the fact that they're supernatural beings. The sticking point, the problem with most monsters they hunt, is the fact that they're hurting and killing people. If Sam and Dean are rolling into town that usually means the monster had killed someone. They're not going around preemptively killing monsters simply for being monsters (one of my big issues actually with Last Holiday and the "monster radar." They usually don't just go kill monsters for existing. They usually have to have hurt someone first. It's the (British) Men of Letters that seem more interested in eradicating all monsters simply for existing)
Anyways! Most of the time, the monsters they hunt are not simply killed for being Other (which is why many blanket metaphors about monsters on SPN leave me cold. No, every monster does not actually represent "minorities" or other groups society deems "undesirable"-- in fact many monsters on the show actively prey on real minorities and those on the fringes of society). Anyway, it's not the monsters being Other, or their mere status as monsters that is the issue. And for Dean especially, being supernatural is not a prerequisite for being a "monster." Dean has no trouble considering humans just as capable of monstrosity. It's about hurting / killing innocent people. That's what consistently is the sticking point for Dean. The "saving people" part of the phrase is Not incidental. It's the whole point.
And Dean wishes he could also save Madison here. But they can't. There's no cure. And Madison, too, is horrified by the possibility that she will continue to kill people. Dean even offers to do the hard part. To kill the sweet girl they can't save and spare Sam the hurt and trauma of it. The whole time Dean is taking the brunt of being the "bad guy" here. He had to deliver the harsh truths. He has to be the realistic one. And he'll be the killer too, to spare his brother from having to do it. But Sam insisting on doing it. And Dean?
[DEAN, now alone, lets a tear roll down his cheek. He flinches as he hears a single gunshot from the next room.]
He's not heartless. A monster is not always a monster. Not every monster deserves death. He cries for Madison. For Sam. For not being able to save her. He cries because it's not fair and their job is rarely easy.
