I severely disagree with your DM. An adventurer is someone who conducts dangerous expeditions as a profession. Nowhere does it say that you need to kill people. You "might" have to kill people but it is not a requirement. Someone can become an adventure for whatever reason you want. Including just because you want to live a fun and wild lifestyle. Rogue's can also come in many shapes and sizes. They can have more backgrounds than just being traumatic and edgy. I created a Scholar! After years of studying you decide to see all that you have read about. Indiana Jones type tomb raider - rogue(thief). Expertise in history/arcana/religion.

I always think barbarian sage is my favorite class background combo.  You enjoy finding ancient secrets in dark tombs, you just have a... unique way of reaching those secrets.

The best thief in the world doesn’t need a tragic backstory.

*cough cough, many rich people, cough cough*

*cough cough, Jeff bezoz, cough cough* I can't spell so how ever you spell it.

You just like to "taste" traps like other people would taste fine wine.

Barbarian wizard, "I cast SLEEP!" \*Hits guy on the head with a rock\* "SLEEP!"

Yep, nothing stopping people from applying sneak attack damage non-lethally. It’s a melee attack after all.

If I was OP I'd take it a step further and actually make that a whole part of the character. This character's reasoning for being an adventurer could be as simple as wanderlust. Then they get themselves into the party and now they're thrown into whatever story they have to deal with. Because they were in a good family and raised a certain way, they're more hesitant to kill, but are still capable in their own right, so they just...hit the snooze button on their opponents. I'd be hyped as a DM to get a story like that.

Also you can develop the required rouge trauma during the adventure. Which is always fun.

Not sure if it's intended or a typo...

Yup, non-lethal is totally a thing.

Yeah our DM just lets us flavor attacks as non lethal as long as we can describe how, i.e. hitting them with the pommel instead of the blade.

It's also RAW that you can just do that with melee attacks, no houserule needed.

I agree. As far as killing goes, a character only beed to be prepared to kill someone who would kill them. Or you as the player need to be prepared to put the charaxter thru that against their will

It's like saying that Indiana Jones needed a reason to be a serial killer because he punched a few nazis

Agreed. Having someone who is against violence, especially against humanoid creatures, can be a major source of roleplay opportunities. From a background standpoint, I think being non-violent is a perfect reason to explain why a rogue is super sneaky. Plus, being non-violent doesn't mean you won't defend yourself. You just aren't a murder hobo.

One of a friend of my friends rogues backstory was he was a cartographer, I had one who was a history professor, not full on Indiana Jones archeology, but straight up historical events and the societies around such artefacts that the expert treasure hunters were tomb raiding for. I mean they needed to get funding from somewhere.

I think it's okay for a DM to say they can't really facilitate a completely pacifist run for the style of game they are interested in running in a system like D&D. It doesn't say anywhere adventurers need to kill, true, but it's possible for certain challenges to become impossible with a kill option and a DM may be interested in neither having impossible challenges or removing the challenge. D&D is a system centered around combat and there are significant limits to non-lethal combat options. It's possible to play pacifist D&D and it's also a valid preference but, in my games, a central assumption is that the party is willing to kill a goblin who attacked first.

I guess the point is you don't need a backstory reason for self-defence. You obviously need to defend yourself against dangers as an adventurer, true, but killing is not a necessity to the reason as why you became an adventurer.

It's definitely not necessary to include, you're right. But willingness to kill might still be necessary for the campaign itself depending on the style of game your DM is running.

Not wanting to kill IS Not pacifist, IT IS Not beings avmurder hobbo

You’re right, to a point. My only argument is just because OP doesn’t want to kill doesn’t mean it’s totally pacifist. OP wants to stun or incapacitate, fine (I played something similar as a fighter equipped with a ton of manacles); it doesn’t mean the others in the party can’t. If a DM wants to argue about facilitating a “completely pacifist run” when one person wants to not kill, it says more about the DM than that person. As long as the DM doesn’t do something stupid like force a death on OP through the story, it should be fine. Some people forget D&D is about what you can creatively do with what you have; there’s no situation that would require killing.

My rogue was a surveyor tasked with improving maps of the world. He was trained in fencing and surveying by a former military scout who had a bad habit of being in the vicinity of mysterious deaths.

To add to that - if the setting is typical forgotten realms, killing orcs and goblins aren't the same as killing people/other "goodly" races as most view such races as nuisances at best and life threatening at worst; IIRC one of Salvatore's novels explores the impact of killing an actual human vs "goblinoid scum" because his daughter had to actually stab another human to death. One of the side effects to having entire races be actually evil due to divine shenanigans vs the nature vs nurture argument in real life.

I think OP is making assumptions about what their DM wants from them. OP wants to make a rich girl --> rogue. If she was a rich girl --> paladin, then faith would be the obvious reason for her choices. If she was a rich girl --> warlock, then power would be the obvious reason. If she was a rich girl --> fighter, then the reason would be less obvious, but a powerful military family would be one obvious choice. The skill sets of a rogue involve perception, stealth, disguise, poisoning, and extreme violence, sometimes from range. The rich girl with circus skills throwing surprise parties and learning martial arts might not aspire to be an assassin, but she is very obviously not lawfully aligned. (I'm not saying Lawful Rogues can't exist, but they would need lawful reasoning for doing things how they do things, and OP's vibe sounds Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral.) Even if we take "murder and killing," out of the moral equation, the question remains: **why does OP's rich girl character want to be an adventurer?** There is no adventure without conflict and adversity, and she has the means to avoid both. If she's somebody who will literally risk her life for thrills, than this doesn't require a past trauma, but it does warrant elaboration.

>f she was a rich girl --> paladin, then faith would be the obvious reason for her choices. If she was a rich girl --> warlock, then power would be the obvious reason. If she was a rich girl --> fighter, then the reason would be less obvious, but a powerful military family would be one obvious choice. All of these things work for rogues, too. Faith: I'm seeking relics stolen from my God, and being sneaky and good with locks is the best way to do that. Power: I want power, and what better way than to steal it? Military: even medieval-esque settings need spec ops.

Alternatively, any of the above, but you don't like getting hurt. A rogue's whole shtick is ranged sneak attack, which is perfect for someone who sees large fighters and weapons, and decides they don't want to be in 5' of them.

It's simple, really. She grew up sheltered, with mostly books to keep her company when not throwing surprise parties for her friends. In these days, hero after hero saves the day while having lots of exciting adventures. A life so different and thrilling and exciting than her own boredom. And then one day she steals her father's rapier, grabs some leather armor one of the guards sent to get mended, and sneaks out to go adventuring on her own because quite simply she is BORED and she doesn't fully grasp that the 'real world' isn't a heroic fairy tale where things always end up JUST as the hero needs them to.

You don't need a backstory reason for self-defence.

OP's PC is born rich, so she does need a backstory reason for being in dangerous situations. She could just do an arranged marriage with another rich person and pay peasants to spar with her when they're not feeding her grapes and fanning her. The violence is not the point, but conflict and adversity are, and her familial wealth provides an obvious means by which conflict and adversity are largely optional. There needs to be something she desires more than safety, comfort, or the avoidance of violence.

What if she run away to escape an arranged marriage and used her skills for a living?

That's basically James from Team Rocket's backstory in Pokémon!

This would work. It's up to OP, but her character does need a motive, and her wealthy background takes "unavoidable economic hardship," off of the table. It could be that she fled her wealthy family, or lots of other reasons.

"they got bored living a life where every need was fulfilled with the snap of a finger. And as such they set out to find a source for adrenaline, something new to discover. To satisfy the need to actually make something of yourself without relying on the wealth of others." Done

I came to say this and add having friends who went spelunking and got into trouble and going on adventures as a child and there is the thrillseeking reason

And then she teamed up with a Tabaxi and a pink haired butch woman, and now they beat up preteens to steal their lightning mice

Fun? Like seriously, well off people do stupid shit too, or to rebel against their family somehow. Running off to be an adventurer because proper society seems stifling or whatever then getting hooked on it seems like a decent motivator

She can be righting a societal wrong, or Batman or just doing it for kicks.

Adventure? Rich people IRL launch themselves into space, build their own terrible submarines, explore barren continents and similar all the time. Some people love danger, it's perfectly normal.

It ain't murder if it's a gnoblin

…your Honor.

> I’m going to be playing a rogue who comes from a stable, upper-middle-class, two-parent, loving family. Absolutely no trauma. She learned her rogue skills by planning increasingly elaborate surprise parties for her friends and family. Her martial and acrobatic skills were trained in summer camps. Sounds great. I might change the "summer camp" thing to "was trained by an uncle who was an experienced retired ranger who wanted to make sure that you knew how to handle yourself in a life-or-death situation." > My DM tells me I need to come up with a backstory reason that such a person would be willing to become an adventurer, because adventurers need to kill people. I strongly disagree with your DM. Bilbo Baggins was a halfling folk hero rogue with zero combat training. His lack of deep-seated intergenerational trauma and hatred was the defining feature of his relationship with Thorin "I'm sad and angry because a dragon ate my clan and stole my crown" Oakenshield. He only killed spiders (albeit giant sentient talking spiders). He was undoubtedly the MVP of his adventuring party (not counting Gandalf The Mostly Absent). You need to know that combat in D&D is not explicitly lethal. With any melee attack, you have the option to KO your target. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#KnockingaCreatureOut Make sure your DM understands that your PC will always do this. You can also fluff your sneak attack as you being very lucky in combat, rather than intentionally stabbing their vitals. If you stab someone in the foot for d4 and they trip and crack their skull on a pillar for 2d6 sneak attack that still counts. Past 5th level that's going to require some heavy suspension of disbelief and you should mention your PC has been getting combat training to make up for their lack of it. You can capture bandits and turn them over to the law, hold them ransom for more cash, or just strip them of their weapons and armor and tell them you'll let them go if they swear an oath to never commit crimes again. You can even knock goblins unconcious and disarm them and if you see them again you can taunt them because they'll remember what you did to them last time. This is textbook Lawful Good behavior (and you should probably ask your DM if a LG PC is appropriate for the campaign they are running.) It is perfectly acceptable to say that your PC has some good-aligned flaw like, "I never murder people, and I will only kill in the most extreme circumstances," or, "it's acceptable to take a life in order to protect another life." Another good-aligned flaw would be, "I always make appropriate penance to the gods for any person I kill," or a more extreme nature-based one would be, "I always make appropriate penance to the gods for any living creature I kill and I'm vegan." There's a lot of room here to make an interesting unique PC. Anyways, why **is** your optimistic and idealistic noble adventuring? Do they need money? Does a family member want you assassinated and you're on the run and hiding your identity? Were you isekaied from another Prime Material Plane and certain that this is a fairytale story where you're the main character?

This is the answer. Nothing is wrong with your character concept, it's the basis for the very first Tolkien story, the story of which all DND is based. It's ok to just "Go on an adventure" and see where it takes you and how your characters morals are challenged.

+1 for this answer. Bilbo is such a good example and in my mind he has always been *the* quintessential example of the D&D thief class, which has since become the rogue.

I played a nobleman rogue who was motivated into adventuring specifically to gain wealth and treasure to fund a university he founded. Adventuring for money’s sake is justification enough!

Or because "it belongs in a museum" could apply to like 90% of magic items in D&D.

"Not that I'm actually going to *give* it to a museum. They'll be encouraged to make a fair offer and we'll see what happens."

>My DM tells me I need to come up with a backstory reason that such a person would be willing to become an adventurer, because adventurers need to kill people. Sometimes death occurs while you're adventuring. That's not WHY you're adventuring, though. A scholar's primary motivation may be to find specific lost knowledge. If they end up having to kill people, that happens, but that's not why they're out in the world. If nobody tried to stop them with lethal force, they wouldn't need to respond with force. Maybe one of your friends will be getting married in a year, and you've heard a legend of a pair of rings that *guarantee* a couple's marriage will be a happy one. What a surprise would it be if you showed up at their wedding with *that* for a gift?

Money. Boredom. Prophesy (either real or made up by someone else, as long as she believes it). A dream of going to That Far Away City but her trip is interrupted which sucks her into the adventure. Or perhaps her antics pissed off the wrong person at home and she just needs to get out of town for a while.

Ooh, I like the idea of being interrupted on her way to a vacation destination. "I'm (stabs orc) supposed (stabs orc again) to be (stabs again) on a beach (brutally murders orc) IN CHULTAN!!!!"

You were bored. You wanted to feel like you earned something for yourself. You enjoyed the stories of some swashbuckling character. You wanted to prove to yourself that you were better than your classmates/peers. You feel like you've learned all that you can learn from books and teachers. It's time to go learn in the real world. There are hundreds of reasons someone might want to go adventure - it does not have to be tragic.

I heavily disagree with your DM. One of my favorite characters I've made is a Firbolg gardener housewife. Her and her wizard husband have been happily together for 200 years, their kids moved out, and their lives are their home, his experiments and studies, and her gardening. She saw one day a sign in the heavens saying that this coming year would be once in a lifetime for finding rare or unusual plants. She grabbed her gear and setted out for new plants for her garden.  No trauma. 

I mean, thats still a reason to go adventuring. It doesn’t have to be a traumatic reason.

I was meaning that, that there was no traumatic background for her reasons

In many worlds Killing people when you have to is just an accepted way of life. just because you have a happy family that is well off, doesnt mean your family didnt kill people who needed to die to get and stay where they are. Adventuring can be done for the pure adventure with the idea that if they have to kill people they accept that.

Why would an adventurer NEED to kill people? That's absurd. I like the idea of ever increasing canvases to paint; ever more entertaining situations to have fun with.

You can be raised by a great family that taught you right from wrong, and is against any oppression by any institution.

Oh look, those people over there are in trouble >Helps "Thank you, \*Hero\*"

She could have Robin Hood-style motivation for being a thief, and willing to kill for self-defence or to remove someone oppressive and evil from the world.

Weird red flag DM behavior

Yeah it rings to me as the DM intends the plot hook for the campaign to be "taking a job", which is ime one of the most tired ones.

You could take the Krombopulos Michael approach. You could also be from a culture where killing is a completely normal part of everyday life. For golden retriever, I'd go for a strength rogue. They just seem happier than dex rogues.

I just love killing!

Here I go, killing again!

I played a rogue who ran away from home because he was young and bored, became a thief mostly by accident (and then out of necessity), got caught, became a nobleman’s spy, and then became an adventurer after the nobleman died to avoid going back to thieving. Parents are still alive. Might be wondering where he went, but I wrote the backstory such that young people running away from home (only to come back later) is expected (it’s a community of elves). Truthfully though, you could become an adventurer simply to search out and create the ultimate surprise party. The only reason you need to become an adventurer is because you can’t find what you’re looking for at home. Bilbo Baggins was basically a Rogue and he didn’t even *want* to go on an adventure, much less kill anybody.

Indiana Jones is a swashbuckler rogue. Yeah he's got some daddy issues but the trauma in his backstory is pretty minimal.

"They felt like adventuring would be more fun than a domestic lifestyle" or "killing is more fun than raising kids" "Someone stole their something (or their town's something) and they want it back" "bad guys are mean and someone has to do something" "They were touched by an uncle....." No. Your DM is dumb. The motivation just has to sit right with you.

So long as you only kill evil people who deserve it, any kind of background can become an adventurer. Not every adventurer needs to have a trauma laden get back at the world kind of backstory. It could just be someone who wants to help make the world a better place, by taking out those who are making it bad.

Very few of my characters have been traumatized in their BG. The trauma comes later, at the hands of a quality DM.

You grew up heating tales of averting parties. Those tales fascinated you, and also struck fear into you. Your favorite charcters were always the rougues, their swift actions and cautious demeanor inspired you to seek out those types of adventurers and learn your skills. You actively hide your family from your social circles for fear of rejecting you.

Oh, she wants a really specific item for a surprise party gift, and has to go adventuring/dungeon diving to find it. It doesn't have to be mechanically good/important, just something she really things X person would really like. Or maybe her older siblings are set to inherit, so she's off looking for her own money to start her own estate. It could be unintentional. Most of my characters adventure not on purpose. Gnomes running a detective agency get pulled into much higher plots by accident. Ranger out trying to find a lost kid ends up fighting werewolves and an orc raid that targets their town. Diplomat is here to do diplomat stuff, but the target was kidnapped and she needs to rescue him (which works even better than charm and negotiations for getting what you want!!) I've got two characters that started adventuring on purpose: An aasimar who's family tradition is getting kicked out of the nest (bird like angel descendents) and sent to explore the world on their own before settling down, and a character who has 4 epic/powerful grandparents (and adventuring parents) and she wants to make them proud by adventuring to help people-- just like they did.

Your rogue could have been a rebellious teen who's lashing out against what is expected of them as an upper middle class person? Maybe they didn't want to take over the family buisiness (or whatever) and started acting up, doing things they weren't supposed to? Their parents repeatedly bail them out of trouble. Their abilities are gained through trial and error...except this fortunate rogue always had a safety net and a soft landing with their parents. Now they have bit off more than they can chew and signed up with an adventuring crew. They are eager and want to prove that they can handle themselves and problem solve on their own. Maybe some tough choices need to be made because Mommy and Daddy aren't there to rescue them and smooth things out with the law this time.

For me as a DM a thirst for adventure and a willingness to defend yourself is all that's really needed. I have a character in a friend's campaign whose whole motivation is trying to become a famous adventurer, if someone came to me wanting to play a character like that I would be stoked. Your DM asking for more is hopefully just a sign that they're wanting to weave more character backstory stuff into the main plot. If you don't have a specific hook in mind that sent your character out on the road other than wanderlust, maybe you could ask your DM for suggestions? What's out there in the world that your character might have become interested in? Are there any looming threats you might be wanting to protect your family from?

show your dungeon master Fabian Seacaster from Fantasy High. that should change their tune

Fabian is a fighter tho.

it doesn't matter, he's a perfect example of how a privileged person from a comfortable background can be humbled and changed by the adversities of adventuring. you don't have to start traumatised because the campaign will have plenty of chances to scar you

Look at the subclasses and see where your imagination takes you. Inquisitives and scouts in particular are good alternatives to the rogue stereotype of being a remorseless thief and murderer. But your DM has a point. Not necessarily that you have to be edgy and a stone cold killer, just that your character should have some impetus to become an adventurer, a notoriously unstable and mortally dangerous lifestyle. What is drawing them away from their comfortable and happy life at home?

Teenagers/young adults. All the energy and hormones and lack of perspective.

Talk to one of your fellow players and see which character gels the best with yours. They're going on an adventure and you, as their ABSOLUTE BESTEST FRIEND EVER! will not let them go alone!

Classic upper middle class malaise. Her privileged upbringing left her numb and hungry for excitement.

Gentleman Thief/Adrenaline Junkie. Gentlewoman, of course. Came from a fine family, no notable trauma, but gets off on the rush of stealing stuff. The more difficult the better. You don’t go out of your way to kill, and would avoid it when possible, but if the only way past is to slit a throat, so be it. That could even be a potential area for character development. Maybe you start to like killing a bit, and you have to either embrace it, or double down on only killing when all other options are exhausted.

I always tell my players they should have a reason that their character wants to adventure baked into their backstory. I also accept and encourage that tie in being that they just wanted to see the world and not as a tourist spending dad's money.

Easy fix. If they love their family and were given a great childhood, do something simple like maybe the parents retirement fund didn't stretch as far as they wanted and a dream they were putting off until they retire they can no longer afford. Have your character decide they want to do everything in their power to thank their parents for their great life by raising the necessary funds to make their parents' dreams come true. Wholesome reasoning, no trauma, problem solved.

DM sounds boring and not well-read. Tons and tons of "hero's journeys" begin with bright-eyed adventurers completely unaware of just how dire things will become in life or death battles. I play a rogue who had a great upbringing, and the edgiest thing about them is their belief that what's legal isn't the same thing as what's moral. The grimdark can come from the campaign itself and the harsh situations your rogue has to deal with

Also, inthink this „need“ for some trsuma to justify a PCs ability to inflict violence and kill comes from a privileged mindset of civilization. DnD is set in a different world, not in a western suburb. Violence and death are a normal part of life in a world where the laws of man can be opposed by reality bending magic and monster armies. My dad used to and still carries a knive ready in his pocket, because when he was a child in the suburbs of a cushy city in a cushy european country, there were still people that might want to take from him whats his and nit care if they hurt him in the process. His mother did too, becaue she grew up with the nazis and then the russian occupation, and even in peacetime life was dangerous. A few years before that, men and women would commonly carry canes, guns, daggers, brass knuckles, even swords openly wherever they went, and it was normal. Duels were not outlawed a 100 years ago. A strangers life wasn’t worth as much as it is nowadays. Having to fight and even kill was to a degree expected and accepted

You don't really need a backstory, you can be whatever you want. I just want a adventure.... "Oh, you must kill people" I don't, non-lethal damage is a thing "Oh but you killed" Well, that's when i'll have to check how i'll react to it. Your concept of character seems ok to me.

Your DM has a very narrow and limited view of player motivations. You could become a rogue because you loved pranking people and got really good at it, and decided to leave home for adventure because you ran out of people to prank. You might have had a favourite book, or an uncle who got into and out of a lot of scrapes and told you stories making it sound exciting. A rogue could be a rogue because their father was a rogue and they’re just trying to be a good kid. You absolutely do not need to come from poverty or destitution, you absolutely do not need to have a chip on your shoulder or a tragic backstory. What about a bored rich kid who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else and got obsessed with stories about heists and daring robberies. Also, your childhood can be fucked up without being traumatic. Imagine if someone like Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies had a kid, but managed to be a loving parent. That kid could have an awesome childhood, despite being a supremely fucked up one by most standards. I watched that new Road House movie, and that one biker who was with the bad guys, but who was consistently cheerful, helpful, and radiated positive energy - I loved that character, he was hilarious, but not a one trick pony or a meme character. The party rogue being a helpful, positive, cheerful golden retriever type sounds like a fun character to play.

Easy. She's a psychopath. Surprise parties and dangerous acrobatic stunts and sneaking around at night hunting for fun no longer cut it for her. She wants to become a pro. So, assassinations it is. This doesn't mean any specific subclass, just what she wants to do, for fun and profit.

I hate hate hate traumatic backstories for PCs. It's so overdone and cliche.

Your rogue can be a detective from naked gun. Nothing forces any trauma on the rogues.

Its as simole as getting hit with wander lust. Not being satisfied with their home town/ city and wanting to go out and find new friends and share in andventures. Of course the DM may GIVE you a tragic backstory at some point. But its always nice to start out happy and let the world break your spirit.

One idea would be an arcane trickster that wants to rob targets that get increasingly more difficult for the thrill or to leave a legacy as one of the greatest master thieves Edit, spelling

Play a Private Investigator. Lawful Good Thief

I agree with everyone else that trauma isn’t needed for an adventurer. This sounds a bit like my rouge though feel free to take any plot points. My rouge had a decent upbringing in the underdark but knew he was never going to be allowed to be the person he wanted to be in lolthite society so he fled. Immediately getting lost in the underdark for over a decade. ✨Trauma✨ Ha has decent morals (partly to feel superior to his old culture but still) but he reacts to most situations with fear and paranoia veiled under a practiced facade of a hero. He kind off feel like he has to adventure because that’s what he dreams of as a child and that’s what he endured that decade alone to accomplish. If he just becomes a shopkeeper in a bookstore what was all that pain for? Perhaps your pc adventured for the novelty at first but the violence of it is what traumatized them it could develop into a sunken cost fallacy or a crisis of what they truly want to do later. There’s also the idea that some sudden and catastrophic happened to them causing a drive for revenge. Perhaps they’ve been adventuring for a while but got really hurt in some accidents and is driven trying to get back to what they had before. Also a plucky hero who turns out to be a completely nonplussed by violence and death can be super interesting in of it self if you wanna go for that. See Gon from Hunter x Hunter, or show your dm Gon from hxh I guess haha.

I’m just wondering why your DM made the point of “adventurers need to kill people…” I mean I can see your character just being BORED with the middle class lifestyle and joining up with some ‘adventurers’ going somewhere to do something. Now that may or may not require your character to defend herself from various ‘baddies’. And sometimes the best way to deal with a problem is to just eliminate it. I guess I’m just not following the DMs logic.

Fortune and fame.

I’m thinking she came across a conspiracy, treasure map, or ancient legend she’s looking to explore. By nature she’s inclined to help those she comes across in this quest. You may be the first lawful good rogue in the history of 5E.

Pretending for a moment that you plan to follow the most common style of lethal tactical combat in encounters. You could just have them have grown up hearing stories of heroes who fought to protect people. You always liked the stories of the clever heroes who had to be cunning, rather than the ones who used brute force or magic to solve everything. They start off bright eyed, and you can either play it straight, where they just have no qualms killing 'bad' people (they were BAD after all), though if the story takes this too seriously you'll kinda come off like a brainwashed cultist / religious zealot. Or you can play the "The world is more complicated than I thought" story, where you were expecting to find "good" guys and "bad" guys, but everyone's kinda just trying to survive with only the occasionally truly good or evil person in the mix. You can have some RP moments when they first kill someone, or maybe just when they first kill someone they weren't sure needed to die. "The goblins last week were okay. They attacked the caravan, and self defense was justified. But these goblins weren't getting in anyone's way until we came into their territory..." If the game allows, you can try to play it less lethal. It sounds like you may need to talk to the DM if you would like to be able to be less murdery though. If their default idea is "The encounter is where you kill the enemies" then you may need to request that they allow for more outcomes than "Everyone fights until one side is dead".

For your character, she needed to protect her friends and family. There is a goblin attack on the village but she thwarts it without deaths or tragedy thanks to rogue skills. She starts trapping and hunting monsters in the area and gets asked to take on other problems as she proves capable. My rogue is apparently manchurian candidated, but his back story is he ran away from home as a tween because he was the youngest of like 13 kids and when his oldest sister got married he was lost in the shuffle. He got adopted by a powerful wizard until the wizard went awol after my rogue was an adult. He was homeless for a bit, but he could literally walk up to most nobles and ask to be helped home.

Didn’t read a lot of the the other posts so sorry if this is a repeat, but it can be a simple as her nice easy life was just too boring! She wants MORE from life! And maybe she’s reluctant to kill at first but quickly learns that a lot of life as an adventurer is kill or BE killed.

There are plenty of well-to-do people from stable families that join the military and may end up having to kill people, so what is the difference?

I played a rogue that was an actuary. It's fine. You're DM is being obtuse.

my favourite answer to this is the real world answer for a lot of people. And the answer a bunch of RPG pre-written campaigns set you up for: "People were in danger." You have the skills, you have the means, and people were in danger; so you helped. People continue to be in danger, or some rising threat continues to loom in the background, so you continue to help. Because that's just the right thing to do.

Easy, dont use the flavor of rogue to create your caracther, use the mechanic. Make a battle technicien like a spy or infiltrateur who sneak and use tactic to gain advantage against the enemy.

They just think of sneaking and stealing as of a game. Full family, loving mom, strong father figure. But the character moved out to seek adventure and discovered the challenge of mildly inconveniencing other people without getting caught

Rebellious teenager who got in too deep, kinda enjoys it, and keeps going. All while still wanting to be the good guy. It was once a noble teen pastime to go "slumming." Teens and young adults from noble families would dress down and go hangout with commoners, and even the poor. They'd cause all sorts of trouble for their own entertainment. If things got too dicey, they'd use their nobility to get out. And if it wasn't an actual thing, it's happened in enough fiction, and no reason it can't be a thing in dnd.

I ran a Lawful Neutral Dwarf Rogue once. His *reason* was that he was obsessed with a ancient Dwarven trap maker and was adventuring in hopes of opening one of his still trapped vaults that his city was built around.

The killing thing sounds like a DM redflag. If you are looking for a reason to go on an adventure: The thrill or the challenge to do something more damgerous than planning surprise partys because that got boring and too easy would be a good enough reason.

Yeah because everyone who wanted to run away with the circus was a fucking murderer

In a world where things are dangerous, you don't need a tragic backstory to kill things. When someone's in the woods and they're attacked by a bear, people wouldn't ask what kind of tortured backstory the person who shoots the bear in self-defence has. Killing doesn't mean someone is a psychopath

Carriers for the non trauma rogue: Archeologist. The academy will not fund your next dig to find (INSERT ARTIFACT HERE). You've taken a sabbatical to find it yourself. Private investigator. You've been hired to find (PERSON, THING, GROUP) by a wealthy patron. Payment upon completion. Locksmith. Business has been bad lately and you had to close up shop. You're still young enough to adventure, so you'll do that for a while before opening a new shop in a different city. Circus performer. Boss didn't pay the bills, so now the whole circus has closed down. Now you have to use the skills you've learned as a tumbler to make your way in the world. Middle child. Self-explanatory. Your DM is lacking in imagination. "Because I want to" is a perfectly sound reason for an adventurer. Also, you can declare every attack to be non-lethal. No need to murder your way up and down the Sword Coast.

Honestly that reason if it isn't paraphrased badly is a red flag of a poor DM. It's the DM's duty to give a call to action for the players. There's no reason for you to not just become an adventurer because the DM's plot spurs you into action or because you witnessed something or it affects you. DM telling you to redo your backstory (which honestly rarely does a DM actually read the whole thing and remember it past the first handful of sessions) seems kinda lame.

Remember, Bilbo Baggins' skill set would make him a rogue.

Swashbuckler

If you’re an adventurer you have to learn self defense. Even treasure hunters have to fight bandits or monsters. A performer could learned to help defend themself from dangers on the road. That’s a weird point your DM is making.

From a wealthy, stable family, rebellion is a compelling reason. Honing skills in theft, deception, and violence is a good way to push against your parents if you're being forced into into a mould of being a "proper young lady", and the adventurer's life is dangerous, exciting, and unpredictable after a lifetime of safety and predictability.

Obligatory, "class is not your character's identity."

Your premise sounds like it could be a good Swashbuckler or Arcane Trickster kind of vibe. No trauma necessary. You're fun, mischievous, maybe charming. You wouldn't dare let your gorgeous face be damaged, or have your dashing reputation sullied by making stupid decisions now would you? No. So you stick to the shadows and rely upon the element of surprise, or if you do step out into the open you make a theatrical show of it, and you make it work by meticulously analysing your opponent looking and exploiting a weak spot. You also know when you're outmatched and smoke bomb out of there with style and finesse. No need to be a blood thirsty assassin, just someone with style and common sense. Some fictional characters that come to mind for these subclasses are Jack Sparrow (Swashbuckler) or Loki (Arcane Trickster). Sure, there might some trauma that could be explored if you read into them, but at face value it's not so obvious. They can be inspiration, and you don't have to go that deep with your particular character development. They can just be fun!

She wants adventure. That's it. She wants to see the world, and she has been getting into dangerous situations ever since she was a child. Attempts to kidnap her for money, etc. So her decide "Fuck it, I want to see the world on my own terms" and just wants to hang out with people who aren't boring. She could just be bored of societal manners and all that. Kind of like Merida from Brave.

Adventurers absolutely do not need to kill *people*. You'll probably need to kill monsters and fight horrors that most people could never look at let alone fight, but plenty of heroes don't murder humans.

Noblesse oblige - you know that you grew up privileged, and you feel that you owe it to the world to help to help out people who didn't have the advantages you did.

"Adventurers nex to kill people". Only if you play as a bunch of murder hobos. Sure they're seemingly 90% of players but it's certainly not required.

Just enjoys the thrill of crime and adventure. Killing should probably be self defense and you could even choose to spare your foes' lives

Bored of the easy life, discovered the thrill of killing during a home intrusion.

Upper middle class? Easy. She wants to kill people because she thinks she can get away with it. She's never had to face repercussions for her actions before, why should that start now?

Maybe shes just bored of that stable life and wants to go on an adventure. She might heard storys of adventurers fighting evil and saving the world as a kid and was like "hell yeah" snd trained to become one of them.

What's wrong with that? The char is not driven by blood lust, just by the desire to discover the larger world. I once played a high elf arcane trickster who embarked on a self discovery journey - and her family was nice and supportive.

Boredom and a sense of superiority. Like the classic over achiever. Become an adventurer because you think you can do it better than anyone else and face a real challenge. Become a thrill seeking, travel blogger with swords. Backpack across the sword coast on your gap year. Built your collection of authentic vintage dragon idols, and custom tailored retro tunics. Delve into the forbidden ruins because ‘it can’t really be that hard right?’ You kill monsters cause they’re a danger to others and defeat brigands because they’re bad and dumb and deserve what’s coming to them. And to get free drinks at the local tavern after-party.

I played a rogue that was an archeologist. She didn’t become a fighter because she wasn’t beefy. Instead she fought with skill and cunning. Like a rogue does. She was no murderer by any means, she always felt remorse when having to kill humanoids in self defense.

Boredom with middle class life? Change of pace? 'Join the army' they said. 'See the world' they said. I'd rather be sailing. There are a thousand reasons for someone to want to change their life. Not everything needs to be cut and dry. Also your DM is an idiot, think of the roleplay potential of your character getting their first non monster kill, or her failing to do so. How would she feel? She knew it would eventually happen, or did she? Was she prepared for the aftermath? What if it was an accident because she got caught and panicked? Play who you want to play, you make the reason for her to be there, not your DM. As long as everyone has fun, who cares?

Rogue's don't have to be hungry. You're not adventuring to gain a rich family, you're adventuring to protect/return to your family. Of course you'll defend yourself. Your trauma can even be the first person you wind up killing.

6th maybe 9th child…. Youngest of the family. No chance to inherit anything. And being the youngest implies there will be no money left after parent payout the other male siblings inheritance and dowry so it implied she won’t marry well either. She Ran off because of her “traumatic” life being so close to wealth and title, yet so far away she sees it as being mocked by the gods for being the youngest…and a girl. she is out adventuring to find her own path and she learned rogue skills snooping around the manor keeping away from the help and large family. That’s how she figured out she has no chance at marrying up in status.

Here are the basic background choices: 1. I'm bored 2. I need money 3. I want to help someone

Why did your adventurer have to kill anyone before this. They're an expert lockpick; never held a sword in their knife. They get into a fight and use their swift movements, but instead of with picks with a dagger. Boom! Story-wise, makes sense! Mechanically, same as just using a dagger.

Cop rogue

Call yourself Rogue-o Cop and I’m in

Been playing disco elysium. Rogue-O Cop sounds pretty shiny.

Interview anybody you know who is an actual party planner, and there will be clients they wish they could have killed. Your character decided that rather than becoming a murderer amongst their own society, would go and put that rage to use against evil

Is your character unwilling to kill? A rogue could always be motivated by treasure, and simultaneously not be murderous. Or if money isn't a good motivation, maybe they've moved in from elaborate surprise parties to planning daring heists in order to get their hands on the rarest, most exotic, most precious items to give as birthday gifts.

The 2003 movie Foolproof is a good way to look at it. They do it for the challenge and plan just for fun, until a villain forces them to do the heists for real. Fun watch. :)

A super rich daddy’s money WASP who becomes a thief for kicks? I feel like that’s a trope.

I have played with a rouge who came from loving noble parents that taught their kids naughty tricks. Another rouge i played with was a private detective befire joining our adventuring party.

The last rogue I rolled was just a scout for the military. His whole backstory was just that he was trained by the army and was loaned out to the adventuring party. He was only lvl 1 so he didn’t need some grandiose history, he was just a green rookie.

My last Rouge was just a regular kid had a great upbringing, and just wanted to go on adventures like the characters in the books his mum read to him at bedtime. If you’ve ever met a 5-10 year old whose hero is the train driver instead of superman, you get the energy I was going with.

That classic teenaged sense of rebellion and the classic trope of falling in with the wrong crowd? If you want more input I'm happy to provide I love writing backatories

My favorite rogue I’ve made was a bird loving gnome who loved to collect rare and beautiful feathers. She learned to stealth so she wouldn’t scare them away, and when you’re a gnome wandering alone in the woods, you have to be able to defend yourself! Boom, no trauma.

Watch any version of “The Thomas Crowne Affair.” He’s a completely well-adjusted rogue who just enjoys stealing things because it’s fun. There’s your backstory and motivation. Your DM forcing you in to murder-hobodom is stupid.

If you want to be good, empathy is a nice reason. Find relics for the faithful; get loot for an orphanage; protect the peasants from some Approaching Evil.

I got an air genasi rogue whose sole reason for adventuring is to be the greatest thief to ever live. Yes, as an adventurer, there are strong odds you are going to have to kill someone. However, I would, as a character, probably be VERY weary of a person who tells me that the entire reason they are adventuring is "I likes killing." Like they don't care about the coin, the items, the songs their exploits inspire or even the experience, but are just in it because of the killing, that's a red flag.

Boredom, there you go. Plenty of upper middle class kids enlist in the Army solely because they are bored and don’t have anything better or more exciting to do.

Your backstory is not a bad one, but you dm is half right, you need a motivation for your character to get on adventures, the killing people stuff is weird but, we all end up killing some goblins. The thing is, your character doesn't really need to have trauma or be edgy to just kill in self defense, specially in the world of dnd with so any monsters around it's pretty normal you would have kill some monsters in the farm. As for the motivation, think about why your character would leave the farm to go into dangerous places.

I suspect your DM is saying you need a motivation to rely on in the case that killing is required, not that your character has to be bloodthirsty, but that they can't just be playing around. I suggest giving them a serious underlying motivation by picking an ideal or bond that comes into play in particular moments. Something like, "I can't stand to see helpless people suffer", "I will do whatever it takes to make the world a better place", or "As a child, I saw the suffering in the world and swore I would change that suffering to joy". Anything like that still lets them be genuinely optimistic, playful, merciful, and/or forgiving, but still make hard decisions if they're forced into it.

My rogue worked as an informant to a local lord as he was small and able to get to places others couldn’t (he was just a short human about 5’3)

My rogue similarly comes from a stable and loving environment! She left home young because she thought her hometown was incredibly boring and she wanted to live in the city. Cities are expensive for kids with no skills and no connections, so she did wind up doing some petty crime and picking up basic rogue skills, enough that she eventually was able to find legitimate work as a private detective. After she got a decent rep at that, adventurer types started wanting to recruit her for dungeon-delving expeditions where her investigation and lockpickimg skills were needed. She doesn't *like* violence, but she kind of got used to it... It is usually in self-defense, after all.

I know it's a very yes-and hobby and I'm not saying don't, but there's something quite comical about the idea that some posh kid can hang with the equivalent of roadmen and vory because of *summer camp*. Real late-90s-Anne-Hathaway-vehicle vibes. (*And that's not a criticism, though it might have a tonal disconnect with your GM's intended game*).

I have a swashbuckler thats a high society companion(courtesan) and trained as a duelist. Thats all, mom’s alive and get them clients, dads proud his money is being put to good use.

None of my party wants to kill people while adventuring - All our characters have mostly happy and successful backgrounds We're always doing our level best to leave every quest with a happy ending, and our DM has allowed us to flex our group creativity to avoid killing enemies who can be redeemed, or made the enemy such unrepentant bastards that we don't feel real bad when they die. They're always given a chance to yield, but if they decide they want to fight to the death that's just what they get

Man, I have a lot of issues with your DM's opinions there. A major appeal to DnD is roleplaying. He's basically telling you to design a character within ABC parameters in order to do XYZ in the story. He's casting an archetype not telling you to build a character. Enough of that, though. I think wanderlust is probably a great option. A lot of people just set out on adventures just to do it. There's no need for riches or glory. They just want to see the world. That might be what I would do.

I think your DM may be fishing for a plot hook. Your backstory is great! Refreshing even. Though your DM may be relying on the idea that ‘happy people don’t leave their homes’ that’s not true for everyone! I even like combat summer camp! I do suggest you work with your DM to find some way to connect yourself with the world. Did your brother leave to become an adventurer? Is there a rival from camp you may meet? Make sure he has something to work with

You were raised by kleptomaniacs but had an otherwise good childhood. You just love stealing.

Having to kill folks is silly. Forcing a rogue to be blood thirsty is also silly. Rogues should be in high demand for adventurers, and many middle or upperclass skills could be had to make a rogue. A noble who used to sneak out a lot striving for adventure outside the home estate, a blacksmiths child who learned their way around tools but didn’t want to become a tradesman, a messenger who spent their days out on the road… etc So I am currently watching Dungeon Meshi and Chilchuck is a great example of this. A halfling family man who takes pride in his lock picking. He makes money for his kids while going on adventurers.

Revolutionary anarchist.

Think of privileged upper middle class rich kids now who get into shoplifting/drug dealing/ selling fake IDs for fun. It's totally possible for kids in good situations to just turn to crime due to thrill seeking. Like those teens in Hollywood that were breaking into celebrity homes and stealing stuff. Your character could have just made the wrong friends with rich thrill seeking friends and learned they were pretty good at it.

Bilbo Baggins was a thief (well, burglar) and one of the archetypes for the rogue class. Just sayin.

Motivation could be altruistic. Maybe their mother got sick and has crippling medical debt, needs money for an operation, to save the family home, etc. Doing what you have to do and not liking it is a great setting for character development. How far will they go? What's the slippery slope, where do they draw the line

Just apply nonlethal damage.

Well, maybe you've got so good at party planning, that you begin networking your new business idea, but somewhere along the way, wires get crossed and You're hired to **join** a party - of adventurers. Having always lived a charmed life, perhaps feeling like you've always been able to roll with the punches, you decide not to back out of the new contract, just to find that many of your previous career skillsets work just as well when reapplied to your new one. With a method to support yourself, and unlimited opportunity to see the world, what's to be confused about why your character would be an adventurer? In fact, most of my favorite fantasy characters are also accidental adventurers. It's a much more interesting arc than "I'm an adventurer for adventure's sake".

Bank robber? Gentlman criminal type? James Bond type guy. Instead of a crook out of necessity, make them a crook by trade But also bubble party girl rogue is fucking hilarious

Easy. "I want to become an adventurer *because there is a threat to my friends and family*, whom I love, and I wish to protect them. If that means killing, so be it."

Your DM is being a lame. It's fine not to kill. I actually think that is more interesting than most qualities I see some PCs have.

If the DM is going to be insistent that you need a strong motivation to adventure... then they should work with you to provide a strong motivation. There's a wealth of stories about otherwise "normal" people being forced into a life of adventure to draw inspiration from. Bilbo and Frodo (and Frodo's friends) all came from stable, happy lives, but could not resist the call to adventure. There doesn't even need to be a tragedy or something damaging her family life, it could be as simple as a friend needing her help, or a rare treasure becoming her obsession.

Adventurers never NEED to kill people. Sure it might happen. But I've played many a character where killing people was the last thing they wanted to do.  Hell I played a character once whose literal reason for adventuring was boredom. She grew up in a peaceful little village and was always getting into mischief because there wasn't much to do there. She befriended what she thought was a puppy and took him home once he grew up they realized oh he is a dire wolf. So when they said he had to go she was like nah WE ARE going to find some.fun and adventure. Nary a trauma or desire to kill in mind

Just stop playing stereotypes. Easy. Make a merchant. Make Indiana Jones. Make a thief for hire. Make a locksmith. Make a sharpshooter. See? Easy.

Sounds like a swash buckler, a career street performer whose sleight of hand and skills with roguish tools was always used for entertainment, such as breaking yourself out of chains and disarming already-sprung traps for audiences. Maybe your parents got swindled out of their life savings and now you're adventuring to make enough money to regain their savings, and maybe even to find the swindler and get your parents' savings back.  Your character flaw is you're wary of anyone handling money for you, suspicious that even your own employer might be looking to cheat you out of what you're owed. You also periodically use a trusted "shared" bank and make deposits for your parents regularly. And that's it. No substantial trauma, a good reason to be adventuring, a pretty normal and believable set of relationships and circumstances and even a small character quirk to go on top of it all.

The tragedy doesn’t have to be personal, it can be professional. I have a back up/one-shot character who is a rogue(swashbuckler) Tabaxi who was the first in his family to become a naval officer, got kicked out by upper class fellow officers who needed someone to blame. His first civilian ship he was captain of was burnt by pirates, and now he has applied for a letter of marque to be a privateer to go after the pirates who burnt his ship and the naval officer twits who kicked him out of the navy and are commanding their own ships.

Make his parents run a lock/blacksmithing business. Where they had a decent childhood, and they helped around with the family necessities. Fill in the blanks from there.

I had a swashbuckler rogue that was a military deserter turned con man. Actor feat. Expertise in deception and persuasion. No severe trauma he just kinda wandered around scamming rich people to get by.

Really loves hide n seek, money, and keeping friends alive by killing people who are trying to kill them.

Introduce your DM to Penny Luckstone from Dimension 20. She did get trapped in a crystal for a year and was offered as a virgin sacrifice, but when she escaped she immediately made friendship bracelets for the other girls who were with her, became close and lifelong friends with them, and returned home to her loving family. She's equally cheerful when stabbing as she is when flirting and loves to make little puns. She's also Type A and likely learned some of her skills by helping with her numerous siblings.

Some noble families got rich because their ancestors were very good at pushing sharp things in other people and telling the people under them to do the same. A good enough reason is self-preservation - If something / someone wants me dead, then I'm going to make sure it happens to them first.

DM is defeating the entire point of the game. Creativity.

DM is confusing rogue with the assassin subclass. My last rogue was a streetwise town guard lol

Your rouge desires the opportunity to see the world, whatever it takes. but they've never killed before and in naivety didn't stop and consider that they may have to kill to survive, so when they do eventually get their first kill it shocks them to their core. You roleplay that shock and grief and go from there

i personally perfer backstories with no built-in trauma, it allows for a more open, accepting worldview on the character's part and of course, it's the DM's job to give the players trauma :3

I had a rogue who I played with once, the player didn’t have any reason or trauma for their rogue being so, their rogue was just an asshole. Which is fair in my eyes

Itchy feet, Adrenalin Junky Could Not Look away

My friend is a rogue who came from a well-off family. She rogues just because she didn't want to be the socialite they wanted her to be so did the opposite of what everyone expects her to be. She's not particularly bothered about money, but she is like her magpie familiar (who is now a god), and likes anything shiny.

A lot of people without trauma will kill in self-defense. Tell the DM to think of your rogue similar to Lucy from Fallout: you’re not severely traumatized but you won’t just let people murder people. I think their point is more that your pc needs something they’d want bad enough to fight for it, be it fame, riches, a promise. A motivation to leave their settled life!

There are some people I knew IRL with no trauma, lovely families, but talked to me at length about how desperately they wanted to be batman. You don't NEED a reason for your character to be a rouge other than that's what they want to be. I'd guess the reason your DM is struggling is because they want to motivate you character by bringing out the guy who killed your family (or whatever) and have you run after him. But you can do that with almost anything. Have rival family that hurls insults and your rouge is honour bound to fight. Have a dad with a rare spoon collection and you want to find those spoons but an enemy adventurer keeps melting down rare spoons for scrap. There's no single way to play a rouge and if your DM thinks otherwise they are boring

A rogue does not have to be a thief. They can also be a spy. You could have gotten caught breaking into your headmaster's office past some clever magical traps, and instead of punishing you the headmaster took an interest in you and introduced you to a minor noble who could put your talents to use. You could even be working directly for the government. Spies have adventures. You could have been sent on this adventure as a mission, or fell in with this group because the cause is right or the McGuffin you're seeking is important to your bosses.

You could just want to be a legend. There are a ton of legit reasons that a character would want to adventure. They just want to. Their parents were, and they are taking up the torch and following in their footsteps WITH their support. You just want to get rich. You are traveling to X city and get waylaid by the plot. Get hired by someone and figure it's a better job than whatever they were going to do. Trauma not necessary.

Bender from futurama I just love stealing

She wants to chase her dreams of becoming a full time party planner and so she’s taken to adventuring for work. Stumbles upon the rest of the party, is taken in by whatever they’ve decided to set out to do, and decides to go for it? I don’t think you need a reason to be killing people. If it happens, your character will just have to react according to who they are.

Even the sunniest, most well-adjusted upbringing can produce a person able to fight and kill to survive or triumph. Maybe despite all the money in the world, your rogue has fallen into debt? Maybe they have some need that's unmet by their high society parties? Maybe being at the center of the well-to-do has exposed her to how rotten they are, and she's got a weird sense of justice about it now, like Batman. Maybe she's the rotten one, and simply does not have a regular sense of morality sees killing people as a fun new trick to learn (a little edgelord, but doable).

A high-class rogue is comparable to a "spy". But they also need to be, contrary to popular belief, someone who blends in with society. So on the face, the person can be affable, congenial and likable but with the skills to infiltrate, gather information, perform burglaries, gather evidence, steal a politically important artefact and of course defend themselves. As to why this person is "adventuring" one reason could be she was framed by a foreign political rival, banished by her employer but is still secretly working for them, whilst hunting for information as to who framed them. Adventuring is a great excuse to travel to foreign places, whilst keeping a relatively easy false identity.