The ethics of ... death

[Greenfield]

I recently started a thread on the ethics of using an enemy with a Save or Die attack as their opening shot, in that case a Banshee (DC26 Fort save or die).

In that situation, I had to question the use of the monster and that attack.

Looking on a broader scale, though, there are a lot of "Save or you're dead" effects out there, from the 1st level Sleep spell right on up the line.

Then there are things like Vorpal weapons where death is a nat-20 away and you'll never know until it happens.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but let's see what develops: Thinking about this sort of thing on a broader basis: Is "Zap, you're dead" a problem in the game?

If the answer is "sometimes", then at what odds does it go from "not a problem" to "something of a problem" to "That's just wrong."?

Using a Banshee as a sample point: It's a CR 17 monster from MMII (some take that to mean a CR18).

An 18th level Fighter has a +11 Fort Save, plus CON of probably 3 or 4 more. That's close to a 50/50 on the Save, better if they have any Resistance items at all.

An 18th level Druid is about the same, as is the Cleric. Classes that don't have good Fort Saves are five points lower at +6, plus CON (Probably +2 to +3) and Resistance items. Presuming +5 items by that level, they're looking at a 40% survival rate per attack.

On average, the Banshee can scream every 3 rounds.

By comparison a Symbol of Death (8th level spell) will have a minimum Save DC of 22. Similar area (60 foot burst). That 22 Fort save presumes a minimum casing stat for the spell, at 18. You'd need a 26 casting stat to match the Save DC of the Banshee. Not unheard of.

The Banshee scream can be directed, and can be repeated. The Symbol can't be directed, but lasts two and a half hours, minimum.

The Symbol becomes available at 15th level, so it's not unreasonable if it's a shade weaker. (It also won't chase you down, but that's another story. )

Finger of Death is lower level (7th instead of 8th), with a correspondingly easier Save, is single target and with a comparable range (Close : 25 + 5 per 2 levels, or 55 feet minimum v 60 feet for the others.)

As the Saves for characters that are level-appropriate for these spells and effects are correspondingly lower, they seem about as fair/unfair as the Banshee wail.

Attacks like the Vorpal blade have a 95% survival rate at every level (It decapitates on a Natural 20, otherwise does normal damage), yet can be used several times per round.

Not sure how to it fits in on with the spell and supernatural Death effects, but I think it belongs in the discussion anyway.

What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons? Acceptable? Tolerable? Problems?

 

[billd91]

They're acceptable. If they're problems for your group, you can always choose to not use them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First off...whoa. I was just doing some reading on end-of-life care (i.e. the actual ethics of death, among other things). You totally threw me with that thread title. That said, I now can see what your question is.

What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons? Acceptable? Tolerable? Problems?

I think they have a really positive effect on the game, in general. It's one of the reasons I do vp/wp.

The realistic possibility of character death just makes combat so much more immersive and tactically engaging. Resource management gets boring real fast. High stakes rolls alleviate boredom real fast. The longer you've played your character, the more you've invested in him, the higher the stakes.

I also think that instant death puts wonderful pressure on the DM. If you play it straight as a DM (meaning no "DM cheating" to save characters), every time you throw in the possibility of instant death, you run the risk of derailing your campaign. Character death is arguably worse for the DM than the player! (Though I imagine my players feel differently). This incentivizes DMs away from frequent combat or "filler battles" and makes each battle that does happen carry more weight.

I do think it's important that instant death should not be the sole province of magic or of high level characters or of monsters with special abilities (which is one of the reasons I use vp/wp, among other house rules to this effect). I also think that plot protection, either partial (such as action points) or total (no rules required) can be helpful in creating certain styles of game (such as "fated heroes"). But overall, I think that the positives of instant character death far outweigh the positives of invincible characters.

 

[Hussar]

Instant death effects are poor game design.

The biggest problem with SoD effects is any effect which has an area effect such as a bodak's gaze. Given a 4 PC party and a 4 round combat, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least 1 PC regardless of the level of the PC. ((Within reason of course))

Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.

 

[Libramarian]

Of course it matters what death means in the game.

I think a really interesting house rule is to have 'death' cause you to lose a level rather than lose the character forever.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Instant death effects are poor game design.

In your opinion. This is not snark, but clarity for others. I've had enough conversations to know this, I think.

The biggest problem with SoD effects is any effect which has an area effect such as a bodak's gaze. Given a 4 PC party and a 4 round combat, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least 1 PC regardless of the level of the PC. ((Within reason of course))

I had a party of 5 run into a bodak once. Two people died. That session is remembered amazingly fondly (a long, 13 hour session, packed full of encounters, a long trial through Elysium, and ending in a fight with an incarnation of Vecna). But yes, it was kinda shocking to the players when two died suddenly. They got resurrected by the Cleric of Pelor not long after, but they were very surprised by it.

Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.

I see where you're coming from. To me, it depends on what the goal is. Is the goal, essentially, to kill someone? Then it's good design in the game (or, "good game design"). Is that a game that everyone will enjoy? Certainly not, as evidenced by the many "are save or die effects good?" debates people have had over the years.

Personally, I don't mind them, but I want them to be used sparingly, and I want them to have a less-than-average chance of working. That's not necessarily less than 50% chance, but I think a save or die effect should be 25% (or more) less likely to work than a lesser effect (like a damaging effect). But that's just my personal preference, obviously. As always, play what you like

 

[Morrus]

"Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience.

For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.

Of course, there are ways around it. Backup characters; have 'em play NPCs; and so on.

 

[Imaro]

Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.

Sorry but that's a pretty wide reaching statement and I'm going to have to disagree... with spells like raise dead and resurrection in D&D (as well as the simplicity of character creation in older editions and/or with electronic tools) I don't think death is all that serious and can actually be a viable (and usually temporary unless you're ready for a new character) failure condition for certain play styles. Now I might say any mechanic that guarantees a TPK is a bad game mechanic... maybe.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons? Acceptable? Tolerable? Problems?

I think we need to separate discussion of "risk of death" and "rick of *instant* death". Lack of save-or-die does not mean you have no chance of death. Save-or-die is a pretty specific thing, with some rather specific effects on the game and player mentality that other death doesn't have. At least, in my opinion.

I'm fine with death in games. I'm not a big fan of save-or-die. If save-or-die death really is so rare I shouldn't worry about it, then I shouldn't have it in the game at all. And if it is not so rare, well, I would rather that my players fight for their lives, struggle, and lose in a way they can at least be proud of their attempt, than just "Bang, you're dead. Next character."

Yes, some folks like the dynamic "Bang, you're dead," brings to a game. I think, rather than make life valuable, it makes it feel cheap, in the "I'm not going to invest much in this, because it may not last long," sort of way.

None of this, to me, is about "ethics". It is about preferred playstyle and game feel.

 

[Argyle King]

Save or Die effects are an area in which I feel early 4th Edition had the right idea with multiple saving throws. However, I'd change it so that something akin to the 4E disease/condition track should be used for them. In my opinion, this makes things more dramatic by having the hero try to shrug off the effect, and it also reduces the prominence of "rocket tag" in D&D. Low level effects would have more steps on the track; higher ones would have less; godlike and epic abilities would function pretty close to the traditional SoD.