Thoughts on Character Death

[Hammer]

Two player characters. 8th level. Been played for a year or so. Paladin is at -10 hp (dead at -14). Ranger (favored enemy orcs) is at nearly full hit points and faced off against an enemy cleric. Both separated from the rest of the party. The cleric's ally, a severely injured half-orc blackguard and old enemy of the party, picks up the paladin's body and says, "Back off or the paladin gets it." The ranger can't tell if the paladin is alive or dead, so attacks the cleric, sentencing the paladin character to certain death, and indeed, the blackguard kills the paladin.

What do you think? Am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at my buddy who plays the ranger. I mean, its just a game, but it also takes some of the fun out of the game when a character is killed by another player's actions versus the DMs actions. We even had a discussion, "Look you have no idea if he's alive or dead, and you're going to basically sentence him to death by attacking the cleric?" "Yeah, he responded. I don't know if he's alive." "But there's a very good possibility that he is alive." "But I'm not sure, so I'm attacking."

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it depends on the situation. Sometimes you might need to sacriface a character to save the party or take a chance that the character could live.

We were in this situation one the characters was down with several wererats on him with knives to their throats they told us to surrender or they would kill him. Our druid said no and charged in. Luckily for the dwarf he lived through the attacks and we got to him. Surrend was not an option at that point or we all would have been dead.

 

[Sanackranib]

did he wheel the cleric and blackguard? if so its a moot point as long as the paladin can be brought back.

 

[hong]

Dying in D&D is a character-building experience. The first few times it hurts a bit, but after that, you kinda get used to it.

 

[Steverooo]

Did the HO Heal you? If not, then you would have died in three or four rounds, anyway...

I've always wondered WHY having PCs die at -10 HP was "desirable", anyway... I have always wanted to institute a rule saying "Your PC is dead when they have a number of negative HP equal to their full normal HP", and see how that worked...

 

[Cybern]

It happened in our campaign, but it was against drows (the ranger's fav en).

The captive died, even though he was at full hp (but held, so coup de grace), and both players were pissed off. It just looked as "Can't think, favored ennemies in my reticle".

Then again, as a DM, I thought that interferring was not my place, since the whole scene was roleplayed well.

My NPCs are always so wicked, so the guy was thinking that he was gonna be killed anyway.

 

[Numion]

As a DM I wouldn't really care. Players get PCs killed all the time.

As a player of the pally I would be a bit annoyed at the ranger. Maybe at his player too. Mostly I would settle it ingame, if my character was raised.

It can be a valid policy that you don't negotiate with the enemy. If every PC is aware that they won't be bargained for it's all good. A ranger wouldn't be too inclined to negotiate with his enemy race, alignment notwithstanding, of course.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd negotiate with the half-orc any day even if I (as a player) knew the paladin was dead. It's moments like those that make the game worth playing. If all I wanted to do was roll dice I'd stay at home and not bother with other players in the first place.

This is why: If the DM takes the trouble to set up a role-playing encounter in the middle of a (prolonged) fight I know he does it for a good reason. I'd trust him not to use it as a trap to kill off my character but instead to bring some life and color to the session.

 

[Numion]

This is why: If the DM takes the trouble to set up a role-playing encounter in the middle of a (prolonged) fight I know he does it for a good reason. I'd trust him not to use it as a trap to kill off my character but instead to bring some life and color to the session.

Isn't that pretty blatant metagaming? Just rolling dice for the sake of it isn't good, I agree, but negotiating with Orcs just because there's a DM sitting behind them isn't very entertaining either.

 

[hong]

Isn't that pretty blatant metagaming? Just rolling dice for the sake of it isn't good, I agree, but negotiating with Orcs just because there's a DM sitting behind them isn't very entertaining either.

There's nothing wrong with metagaming if it leads to something that both sides want. In fact, you can't avoid metagaming of this nature ("what do the other people in the group want out of this campaign?") if you want any sort of long-lived campaign.

The point is to keep it in the background, so that it doesn't spoil disbelief during the session itself. What's annoying is OVERT metagaming, where the player says out loud "well, we might as well start negotiating, since that's what the DM wants us to do".