The ethics of ... death

[Nagol]

Is it? My mistake. Easy to confuse those things. Either way, an easy check.

The CR-11 32-hit dice colossal spider begs to differ or even the CR-8 16-hit dice dire tiger.

"It looks like a tiger, but it's so much bigger! I can't imagine what that creature could be or what it could do!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

The CR-11 32-hit dice colossal spider begs to differ or even the CR-8 16-hit dice dire tiger.

"It looks like a tiger, but it's so much bigger! I can't imagine what that creature could be or what it could do!"

True, that's stupid. The monsters with powerful special abilities like SoDs are not likely to have high HD though.

 

[LostSoul]

The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information. That kobold in front of you? He could be a 30th-level wizard. He could be a regular kobold. Without Arcane Sight, you don't have a way of knowing.

In my 3E campaign I've told the players that I'm running with AD&D-ish level assumptions - characters below level 10 are not that uncommon, but those above "name" level are extremely rare. We're playing in Greyhawk, so Mordenkainen may be the only wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells. Tenser, Otiluke, Rary, and the rest - they're probably between 13th and 17th level.

I'd like to incorporate a skill check to tell the players that sort of information. I know that Oriental Adventures has something about that for Sense Motive, but considering how important that information is, I don't want to place it in any one skill. And how do you know how powerful a wizard is, before they cast a spell?

The way I deal with this issue is that I tell the players the level of the area they're heading into. Which is pretty metagame, and I don't like it, but I don't see a way out.

Any tips?

 

[Hussar]

True, that's stupid. The monsters with powerful special abilities like SoDs are not likely to have high HD though.

You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?

I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago. I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.

 

[Nagol]

The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information. That kobold in front of you? He could be a 30th-level wizard. He could be a regular kobold. Without Arcane Sight, you don't have a way of knowing.

In my 3E campaign I've told the players that I'm running with AD&D-ish level assumptions - characters below level 10 are not that uncommon, but those above "name" level are extremely rare. We're playing in Greyhawk, so Mordenkainen may be the only wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells. Tenser, Otiluke, Rary, and the rest - they're probably between 13th and 17th level.

I'd like to incorporate a skill check to tell the players that sort of information. I know that Oriental Adventures has something about that for Sense Motive, but considering how important that information is, I don't want to place it in any one skill. And how do you know how powerful a wizard is, before they cast a spell?

The way I deal with this issue is that I tell the players the level of the area they're heading into. Which is pretty metagame, and I don't like it, but I don't see a way out.

Any tips?

Knowledge: Local should give them reputations of the inhabitants with histories -- including a power range. "That's not a kobold; that's Relnick the Capricious. It's said he killed a griffon mid-flight with but a single word. With him is Kulc the orc. Three years ago, he took down an entire company of Knights of the Golden Rose by himself."

 

[Nagol]

You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?

I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago. I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.

Advancement isn't such a big deal since I based the Knowledge check on the original unless there were blatant morphological differences -- that is the most common variety, after all. Rumours and first-hand accounts were valuable to determine if the critter had any special oomph.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Any tips?

There is a fairly detailed application of Sense Motive, in Complete Adventurer with a nice feat to back it up. It's not trained only. Even in the core rules, there's the DC 20 "hunch" for SM, which you could easily say gives the player a guess about whether an opponent's level is higher or lower than his own.

That seems the most reasonable venue to me. Knowledge (Local) or (Geography) to get a less metagame-y sense of the danger in an area is also reasonable.

You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?

I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago. I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.

Of course. And if you made the players make a DC 23 Knowledge check to identify it, that would be an example of why the rule is, to coin a phrase, bad game design. As stated above, there's no good reason taking the same thing and making it bigger should make it harder to identify.

Of course, the rules aren't really clear whether the DC is based on the advanced version or not.

And even a 13 HD cockatrice does not have a huge amount of HD for its CR and is still very identifiable to a trained character (if unlikely for the nontrained folks).

 

[N'raac]

I would say that most parties know some information about most monsters they are likely to encounter. Remove those qualifiers, and it becomes a ridiculous overstatement.

First off, the discussion had trailed to “any given local yokel”, which also seems to overstate the case.

Given core rules, a party of four characters, and an on-CR monster, one party member is fairly likely to have the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed. If the DM does not allow untrained Knowledge, the players likely have taken one rank in every worthwhile Knowledge, as min/max guides recommend, to circumvent that. The odds of a character failing a trained skill check against a DC of 10 + CR are small. If the characters' level and CR are the same, the three skill points over their level, their Int mod, any other bonuses they have, and their die roll put together merely need to equal 10. If the trained character fails or if no one is trained, the party has three or four chances to roll well. I assume that if the check is made, a death attack will be part of the first level of information revealed regardless of how you parse it. I assume that if one character makes this conclusion, he can quickly relay it to others as a free action.

First off, there is the issue of CR vs Hit Dice, already discussed below. Pathfinder modified the rule from HD to CR – that may be where the error comes in, if you’ve also played Pathfinder. The question of advanced creatures also comes in – especially for advanced creatures that may have new abilities. The Medusa’s CR is actually greater than its HD (7 and 6), while the basilisk reverses that (5 and 6), with the abyssal greater basilisk (which has a lot of new special abilities) having 18 HD and CR 12. Bodaks have 9 HD and CR 8. The Banshee (Pathfinder, as it’s not in the 3.5 SRD) has 19 HD and CR 13. As CR enhances, HD seem to grow faster than CR.

So if we assume the party has every knowledge skill maxed out, that’s 9 skills. Leave out architecture, geography, history and nobility/royalty (the ones with no linked monster types) and we’re down to only 5, which seems manageable.

At L6, that’s 9 ranks + INT bonus. Wizards tip the scales high on INT bonus, and can have every Knowledge, but even a 20 INT Wizard has only 7 skill points to spread around. Make our Arcane caster a sorcerer both skill points and INT bonuses drop off. Wizards tend away from Local, Nature and Religion, in my experience, letting someone else cover those bases. Our group likes skills, so INT 12 – 14 is pretty common. Let’s assume a +2 to err on the side of generosity, but not assume a wizard. One character on the team probably dumped INT (8 or 10) too.

Our current Pathfinder team has a Cleric with Spellcraft and a Sorcerer with Kn Arcana (and the latter doesn’t cast Detect Magic), and I think no one with Planes. That’s a bit off topic, but one anecdote of a 4 character group where no one has a stellar INT, and at least one Knowledge is missing. The Cleric is INT 14, mainly due to a plan to be an item crafter.

So an average roll will be +11 (9 ranks and +2 INT) at 6^th level. That’s a 5+, so 80% likely. If we’re L13 facing that Greater Basilisk, now it’s +17 versus CR 19, so only 45% likely and those untrained rolls aren’t going to cut it. +18 on that 19 HD banshee is 50/50.

So we have a shot at recognizing its abilities. Much more helpful if rumours tip us off to what may be in there than if we have to get within light source range to ID the creature – most common sources (light spells, everburning torches) get 20’ good light and 40’ shadowy light. That’s only 10’ out of that 30’ range if we assume dim light is enough and the front guy has the light source. And this ignores doors. I think the CR’s also assume we’ll be close enough – that’s one reason why SoD monsters have low HD for their CR’s.

You keep using the medusa, where averting one’s eyes and keeping your distance allows her to fire her short bow effectively, or close for that rather nasty poison attack. Meanwhile, since you can’t see, you get a 50/50 miss chance and can’t target properly.

Still, the odds of having at least some knowledge are pretty good. Full knowledge is less so, but making the Medusa check by 5 (and getting both the petrification and poison) is reasonably likely, and you can see the shortbow.

Overall, though, I think the party has a decent chance of knowing a bit about the typical creature encountered, but often only when they are already in pretty close proximity.

In general, players should do that. I see no problem, however, with a player doing something clever on occasion. If the roll justifies it, he gets rewarded. If not...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In any case, I think it's for the player himself to decide what his character could reasonably think. How many great stories have unimpressive people making one key insight or saying one trenchant phrase? Heck, that's a JRR Tolkien special!

Very few Tolkein characters are min/max’ed combat machines. They tend to make friends easily and be pretty quick on the update. They aren’t 8 INT, 8 CHA min/maxed meat grinders. And I don’t discount the possibility that the 8 CHA character will get lucky and happen to strike the right phrasing with the right target to get a success (20 – 1 = 19 Diplomacy check, after all). But I don’t believe that the player being a good speechmaker should move him from a -1 penalty to a +3 bonus on a regular basis. If you want to play a persuasive, smooth talking character, then don’t dump CHA and put no ranks in social skills. Your character doesn’t deliver the message as smoothly as the player if he lacks the skills and stats to back it up and, by the same token, a stuttering player with no social graces does not translate into the PC with 16 CHA and 8 ranks in Diplomacy suffering similar drawbacks to the player, calling the king “that dude with the crown” and spitting when he talks.

I think it's simply a consistent enforcement of the heart of the d20 system: your bonus is how good you are, the DC is how hard the task is. If you beat the DC, you accomplish the task. The bonus and DC numbers determine the chance of that happening. I think that is perfectly adequate and does not need an exception for trained only skills. Even given the conceit of trained only skills, I think Knowledge skills are some of the least appropriate skills. As any ENWorlder knows, people can recall a lot of random factoids even outside of their expertise.

I see no issue with trained only skills – there are lots of other areas where some characters can succeed and others can’t. The d20 system (like most/all game systems) abstracts a lot, and that takes out many statistical outliers. PC’s don’t slip, hit their heads and die, and they don’t get that random smattering of odd factoids.

The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information. That kobold in front of you? He could be a 30th-level wizard. He could be a regular kobold. Without Arcane Sight, you don't have a way of knowing.

I'd like to incorporate a skill check to tell the players that sort of information. I know that Oriental Adventures has something about that for Sense Motive, but considering how important that information is, I don't want to place it in any one skill. And how do you know how powerful a wizard is, before they cast a spell?

Knowledge: Local should give them reputations of the inhabitants with histories -- including a power range. "That's not a kobold; that's Relnick the Capricious. It's said he killed a griffon mid-flight with but a single word. With him is Kulc the orc. Three years ago, he took down an entire company of Knights of the Golden Rose by himself."

I like the idea of removing Humanoids from Local Knowledge and moving them to, say, Nature, then making the Local Knowledge skill provide intel on creatures that are prominent locally, and the specific local residents of note. The problem with “local knowledge” is that players travel around a lot, but it seems fair to interpret this skill as including the ability to pick up a lot from local gossip, tavern talk, etc., so it doesn’t take long to acclimatize to a new locale. Geography also seems plausible for residents of note. History could be appropriate for long-lived entities, and Nobles for persons of both rank and special note.

 

[N'raac]

It's never come up that I can recall. Not a lot of PC deaths since I instituted this policy. If it did, it would be interesting.

All fair points. I am a pacifist and my players know this, so they likely interpret the rule in that context. I would describe capital punishment as evil, period, in a D&D context. A paladin can kill an opponent in combat who represents an active threat, but I would never consider it a permissible act to kill a sentient creature that cannot defend itself.

So that moves the Paladin to “well, if we’re losing, just surrender – he won’t kill us or let anyone else kill us”. The same should apply to any Good character. Why don’t those Good characters strike with the flat of their blade, at least in some strikes (especially when the battle is pretty much won anyway), take feats that allow non-lethal instead of lethal damage, etc. to minimize loss of life? What do L1 Good characters do with those three Orcs that failed their Sleep save? They’re helpless now. Where does the line get drawn? As you note, all characters can perform evil acts (presumably for good reasons if they are good).

However, all characters can perform evil acts. Some people might indeed be willing to justify the restoration of a great hero, even at great cost, if they believe it serves the greater good. Sacrificing a mindless or evil creature to restore such a hero is arguably less evil than your typical evil cultist sacrificing someone for personal power or something. That's where I'm waffling.

That’s where the line starts getting grey. A forced sacrifice to achieve your own ends above his sounds pretty evil, no matter who the sacrifice or what the goals. If there is great need to restore that great hero, would a truly Good character sacrifice someone else, or offer his own life?

Some will, some won't. I could imagine that if a good character was the one being resurrected, he might refuse to come back. I could also imagine the party sacrificing a bear and moving on. (Though I place a lot higher value of the life of an animal than most people, and druids are a large part of my world).

Why not sacrifice a cow or a horse? A black bear has 3 HD just like a heavy horse. I was avoiding animals on the assumption the sacrifice must be sentient. Why not use a Giant Insect spell to create a sacrifice from household vermin?

How many cows, pigs, fish and chickens has the PC already “sacrificed” to maintain his own life? We were going to kill it for steaks anyway – if we can Raise a dead family member, or other member of the community. at the same time, why not?

I assume I can’t use Undead or Outsiders, so a straight Summoning is out, although Summon Nature’s Ally gets some pretty tough animals.

Another DM wants to do this with willing sacrifices only, that's great for him.

As noted above, I don’t think being willing to kill an evil being, an enemy soldier (to raise “one of our boys” that he killed), much less an animal, to raise a person from the dead is going to be that big a moral dilemma for many people. Deciding that a human prisoner (a criminal, as your Noble was described) is a preferable sacrifice to a beast of burden seems much more a moral issue (well, horses are more useful than this guy is).

You initially mentioned making return from the dead much more a momentous occasion, not a commonplace spell PC’s can access. Willing sacrifices would do that. Unwilling sacrifices let anyone with wealth pull it off, especially once we allow animals to be used.

Leaving animals out, what's "willing"? Does it count if he's charmed? If he's blackmailed (you agree, or I kill your family) or coerced (a life of luxury for 20 years in exchange for use as a Raise Sacrifice after; I'll pay enough that your family will want for nothing when you are gone)? Does it fail if the sacrifice has any doubts or regrets? I think there's lots to explore under either approach. However, given D&D is largely focused on using violence to solve your problems, I question how taking a life to return a fallen person is more evil than taking a life to prevent him falling in the first place. I can't imagine how our own society would have evolved if that were possible.

I say it limits the willingness of non-evil persons to use it. Which is most people.

And, on a world level, it limits the number of total resurrections. Every time someone dies, there's one less person living. Even if he gets raised, there's still one less person living. It's a sort of "Law of Conservation of Souls". This has important thematic implications in my world.

If any sacrifice would work, would it become common for an elder relative, who has limited time remaining and is confident of his place in the afterlife, being willing to sacrifice a few remaining months or years for a grandchild taken too soon? How frequently would a parent lay down their life for a child? Now we’re even into the realm of willing sacrifice. And “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” – your place in the afterlife is clearly secure.

Or would elves balk at sacrificing humans? Or would rich people balk at sacrificing poor people? So many social issues to explore!

If we allow animals, maybe not so much. Although the wealthy noble willing to sacrifice a subject rather than a horse, because the latter is more valuable than the former, certainly strikes at the heart of moral issues.

The ability to use non-sentient sacrifices changes the playing field a lot. How many L1 characters can be raised as we prepare for the Thanksgiving Day Feast? It seems we’re back to “finding a sufficiently skilled Cleric” being the tough part.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First off, this text is unreadable on a dark background.

Where does the line get drawn? As you note, all characters can perform evil acts (presumably for good reasons if they are good).

Personally, I draw that line in that killing to prevent an imminent threat is usually accepted, while doing so to prevent a non-immenent threat or for some other reason is not. An orc temporarily rendered helpless is still a threat if it wakes up a minute later. However, a captured prisoner is not.

Nothing I say will exactly remove gray areas here.

That’s where the line starts getting grey. A forced sacrifice to achieve your own ends above his sounds pretty evil, no matter who the sacrifice or what the goals. If there is great need to restore that great hero, would a truly Good character sacrifice someone else, or offer his own life?

Good question.

Why not sacrifice a cow or a horse? A black bear has 3 HD just like a heavy horse. I was avoiding animals on the assumption the sacrifice must be sentient. Why not use a Giant Insect spell to create a sacrifice from household vermin?

You can. However, I treat any creature (excepting certain extraplanar ones) with mental ability scores as having (in D&D terms) a soul, which carries moral implications. I don't think I'd allow a nonintelligent vermin in trade.

How many cows, pigs, fish and chickens has the PC already “sacrificed” to maintain his own life? We were going to kill it for steaks anyway – if we can Raise a dead family member, or other member of the community. at the same time, why not?

Remember, raise dead is a level 5 spell. Farm animals have very limited HD. Finding a higher-HD animal and sacrificing it is not a given and is highly likely to anger druids/rangers/fey creatures that protect nature. Subsistence hunting by humanoids is likely to be tolerated by nature's defenders (though not good-aligned ones), but sacrificing animals for unnatural magical rituals will likely anger even evil druids.

Incidentally, I do not require a life in trade for druidic reincarnation, but my reincarnation options are a little more colorful than the base table.

However, your point also assumes that slaughtering farm animals is acceptable for non-evil characters, which in my view it is not. Societies that do so are abetting evil, in my view, which carries another complex set of implications.

I assume I can’t use Undead or Outsiders, so a straight Summoning is out, although Summon Nature’s Ally gets some pretty tough animals.

IMC undead, outsiders, and elementals do not have souls and the gods will not accept them in trade. Summoned creatures do not actually die when killed and thus are likewise unacceptable. No shirking my requirement.

As noted above, I don’t think being willing to kill an evil being, an enemy soldier (to raise “one of our boys” that he killed), much less an animal, to raise a person from the dead is going to be that big a moral dilemma for many people.

Part of the point here is to create conflicts for good characters specifically. Evil characters are not worried about moral dilemmas like this. I want things so that the evil road is clearly the easier one sometimes, which creates dramatic conflict.

It sets the stage for questions of fairness. If this behavior is condoned, how do humans feel when their POWs are sacrificed to resurrect the enemy? The rules of war are largely about what one would consider acceptable given a reversal of circumstances.

If any sacrifice would work, would it become common for an elder relative, who has limited time remaining and is confident of his place in the afterlife, being willing to sacrifice a few remaining months or years for a grandchild taken too soon? How frequently would a parent lay down their life for a child? Now we’re even into the realm of willing sacrifice. And “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” – your place in the afterlife is clearly secure.

Yes, but then we're back to needing a 5000 gp diamond. Not within reach for many people. But I absolutely have considered the implications of the old sacrificing life for the young. Potentially a very noble act.

The ability to use non-sentient sacrifices changes the playing field a lot. How many L1 characters can be raised as we prepare for the Thanksgiving Day Feast? It seems we’re back to “finding a sufficiently skilled Cleric” being the tough part.

How many level 1 characters have 5000 gp? The gp limit and the spell level is what limits resurrection in the core rules.

Also, another IMC factor is that I use spontaneous divine casting, meaning that clerics actually have to select spells known. This makes finding a cleric or a scroll to actually cast the spell considerably more difficult.