D&D 5E Banishment and swallowed creatures

[Imaculata]

I would probably have the paladin stay behind, all covered in goo. It's just funnier that way.

 

[smcc360]

Oh God, I had the most horrible thought. If banishment only targets one creature, what would happen if you banish a pregnant creature?

A reverse Cesarean section?

And you're right--that is the most horrible thought!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

A fetus isn't a creature by the rules, so I'd rule its gets banished along with mum.

 

[lall]

If she is alive, she stays. If dead, she”s a carried object and goes with.

 

[jgsugden]

We have a lot of precedent about how teleportation and travel spells handle creatures. Most spells spell it out, but this one declines to do so. However, I'd follow precedent.

Every living creature is separate. Based upon this, I'd have the paladin left behind. We do treat the paladin and the ham sandwich differently. Unless the paladin already died and then he is not a living creature and would follow the ham sandwich.

As for the pregnancy question - I would say that the life forces of the creatures are still literally connected and have them count as one creature. I'd do the same for things that are physically interconnected, such as intellect devourers and parasites.

 

[aco175]

I would likely think that I would rule the paladin gets left behind since he is an active combatant, but I may rule the other way if the PCs are all on a boat and it gets teleported. It is contradictory, but plot overides some of this. Now if I needed to have the PCs go to the home plane of the banished creature I may let hte paladin go there, but this leaves some of the players not playing.

 

[MarkB]

Now if I needed to have the PCs go to the home plane of the banished creature I may let hte paladin go there, but this leaves some of the players not playing.

"We're gonna need a bigger worm."

 

[jgsugden]

As an aside - when I'm a DM, and someone throws something at me, and I don't think I have a good ruling to cover whether it works or not, I usually boil it down to an ability check. Here, if I did not have a strong leaning, I might say, "You're trying to banish the worm but leave behind the paladin, right? You're not sure if you can do that. If that is what you want to try, roll a proficient (charisma/intelligence) check. If it is above XX, the paladin stays. If not, he goes."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh God, I had the most horrible thought. If banishment only targets one creature, what would happen if you banish a pregnant creature?
Why do I even think these things?
I'm inclined to rule creatures "inside" a banished creature are banished as well.

Because as long as the umbilical cord is attached you treat it as one thing?

I'd leave the Paladin behind. I think that otherwise it breaks the 'one creature' spec.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I love it when the latest XKCD just happens to be relevant (even if just barely so) to a forum discussion...