People worried about saving everyone else

[klamo]

You evil evil person there are some good people out there who show compassion for their fellow man!!! Just because you want everyone to die in the first 5 minutes of play, doesn't mean others do!!!

 

[palleomortis]

Palleo, am I to take it you and dicechild know one another?

The big jerk.

 

[gizmo33]

You evil evil person there are some good people out there who show compassion for their fellow man!!! Just because you want everyone to die in the first 5 minutes of play, doesn't mean others do!!!

Wait just a minute! For one thing, I'm Chaotic Neutral, not evil, and certainly not Evil Evil. For another thing, you're right, there are people out there who show compassion for their fellow man, I call them "the other players". Thirdly, I don't want everyone to die. When I DM, I'm like the rain. The rain doesn't WANT people to get wet - the rain is just rain.

 

[Victim]

If there are people worthy of protection that you want to ensure their escape, or if the enemy you're facing is something very dangerous that you don't want to let escape the dungeon and wreak havoc on the outside world (like the Balrog of Khazad-Dum in Fellowship of the Ring), then you are definitely justified in laying down your life so that the others have a chance to escape.

Yeah, but there's a certain point where heroism just becomes stupid. Merry doesn't sacrifice himself to hold off the Balrog; it has to be Gandalf. If your sacrifice won't achieve anything, then don't do it.

And then other factors can make meaningful sacrifice tough in DnD. Most parties don't have the same power disparity as the Fellowship. Usually, if one character will at least slow someone down, the whole party together has a shot at winning. Not to mention that many DnD monsters have incredible mobility. Most outsiders have teleport at will - no holding off a Balor as easily as the Balrog. Big dragons have around twice the fly speed of other fast flyers and have spells as well. If the super tough monsters could be contained easily, then one guy could "hold them off" while the others nail it with ranged attacks for an eventual win.

Sure, sacrificing yourself to save hundreds of people is a heroic deed. But if you can save the 100s of people WITHOUT sacrificing yourself...

 

[focallength]

of course a heroic sacrifice is just that, a condition where one must sacrifice oneself so others may live. holding a corridor for just one more round as hundreds of orcs charge your position, or holding the narrow bridge so your friends. Or standing in front of a pair of children who are being attacked by ogres and your friends are still a round or two away. the situation has to be just right for it to be a sacrifice other than that its a waste. Theres a difference between being stupid and being a hero.

 

[DonTadow]

There's a thin line between heroism and stupidity and several people touched on it earlier ( i meant touched on the subject of differences between heroism and stupidity not stupidity) . If you're in a corridor and a 100 orcs are coming charging towards it and you need to hold it open for your comrades you could have two choices, tie arope to a pole to hold it open and yank it away when the last comrade comes through or, you can stay there until the last comrade comes through and the orcs reach you and kill you.

If you're fishing to be a hero, there's nothing heroic about that. That's more of a gloryhound than a hero. Heroism is not something you seek. Plus this is a game, and I know we all play for different reasons, but one of those reasons should be living.

Your PCs are slowing down your campaign. The more they die the more you have to replan and replan to the point you cant include them into long term campaign decisions. I'd let them know that their constant "bravery" is really getting in the way of the campaign's progression.

I know this is one of those D and D long term arguments, but i require my players to have alignments around the same scope. Right now my pcs are neutral to neutral good.

And definatly inact the losing of the level if death occurs. And don't be afraid to be stern and let them know that if their level drops too much you won't be able to keep their character in the campaign because they would be too low for this party.

 

[sfedi]

Why is it that there is always some hero in a group that believes he should stay behind and fight of the pack of winter wolves, town guards, or other group of monsters out to kill them. Doesn't this person realize that the only end is inevitable death. Can't he just run like everyone else.
I noticed in the campaign I'm running there are 2 such characters, and everyone else is saving their own asses. How do I regulate this so they can stay in the game and not die every time. And then for another thing, the other people in their party are selfish and do not see any point in resurrecting them. Although for some reason, it is hilarious
KP

Teh times this happened to me were when Good Characters (with not-so-bright players) saved Neutral or even Evil characters (and players? )
Right on the spot, or afterwards I aske them to justify their act.
Suicide is not a good act.
And Sacrifice without a good reason is almost suicide.

The cause for your sacrifice must be a good one, to the sacrifice be worth, or even conceivable.

 

[DonTadow]

I think sometimes, the pc's do not know that they can not take the beings. In situations where i feel my pcs are leaning towards fighting something that is CLEARLY something they can not take, I use the Sense motive use from the Complete Adventurere by rolling a secret roll for them based on that. I then use flavor description so they know that this thing is way above there level.

 

[dicechild]

There is a difference between sacrifice and suicide.
KP

 

[palleomortis]

So learn it, ya' big oaf!! JK, let the stupid ones die. HE HE HE.