PDA

View Full Version : Is it better do die IC or to live OOC?



Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 05:00 PM
Just a bit of roleplaying philosophy I've been mulling over. To elaborate the title question, say you're in a situation where you, as a player, can see a way out, but it's one that your character, as he's been characterized, would never do.

My question is, in this situation would you rather compromise your character's personality in the name of survival, or allow them to die because that's simply how the character would react to that scenario?

FirebirdFlying
2010-08-27, 05:03 PM
Probably die. It depends, really - I don't want to fall into the trap of 'that's what my character would do, so I'm going to throw aside all practicality now' - but deaths can be good stories in their own right.

Mystic Muse
2010-08-27, 05:03 PM
I'd allow them to die because that's simply how they would react.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 05:04 PM
For most RPGs, you follow the character; the character doesn't follow you. Certainly if all that is at risk is your character's survival, let him die if that is how the character would go; who knows, maybe you'll survive despite it :smallbiggrin:

Now, if it comes down to "do I doom my party and/or ruin everyone's fun by being in character" then you need to do what's best for the game, not just what your character "should" do.

nyarlathotep
2010-08-27, 05:04 PM
Well it depends on how much it is that you consider comprising your character. If it is something that it is possible your character could learn on the fly I see no problem with it, but if it's really really out there for your character to know take it like a man and die true to your concept.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-27, 05:05 PM
Will my character's death be awesome? If so then yes, I'll let the character die. If it'd be something plain and anti-climatic, I'd rather live another day.

The White Knight
2010-08-27, 05:05 PM
It is quite common for one to act in a fashion very contrary to their typical moral adjustment in a situation where their life is at stake. Asking "how would my character react to this certainly lethal situation" is a pretty tough call.

Saph
2010-08-27, 05:09 PM
It depends. In the short term you want your character to live. In the long term, though, having a character die an appropriate death can be more satisfying than having them survive in an uninteresting way.

Being cautious and not putting your character at risk means that your character will be longer-lived, but the players who are willing to put their characters' lives on the line often seem to have more fun.

I think in the end it comes down to what kind of compromise we're talking about. If it's just something that your character wouldn't have thought of, then I'd probably say to keep them alive. If the only way to keep the character alive is to go against the core of their personality, though, I think I'd stick with it. You might get a last-second reprieve, and heroic last stands always make for good stories.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 05:15 PM
It is quite common for one to act in a fashion very contrary to their typical moral adjustment in a situation where their life is at stake. Asking "how would my character react to this certainly lethal situation" is a pretty tough call.

Well, the question wasn't nessicarily a matter of moral compromise. It could also be a matter of temperment. For example, I play a character who's a Grade-A Blood Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight), and will almost certaintly get himself killed one day for picking a fight with someone he really shouldn't have. And though I, as a player, know full well not to mess with the dude in shiny armor covered in glowing runes, my character would probably punch him in the face for giving him lip, because that's simply how he rolls.

Of course, there are other matters to consider. For example, there's a high-level ranger that's been our guide for the last few sessions, and my character wouldn't mess with him because he's learned through personal experience that said ranger could easily curb stomp him. (He's one-shotted my character in the past, and got in a fight with a mountain-sized Earth Elemental and WON.) The hypothetical glowy rune-guy, however, has yet to prove to my character that he's someone worth taking seriously, and hence is a valid target for face-punching.

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-27, 05:15 PM
Depends on several criteria.

1. If the character's death would be awesome and epic, kill.

2. If I've spent lots of time and effort on the character and have become attached to it, live.

3. If it's an extreme situation (like someone with 6-7 int or wis), kill.

4. If I am interested in seeing everyone's reactions, kill.

Etc. etc.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-08-27, 05:16 PM
Live to fight another day, I always play my characters with a survivor mindset, so this hasn't arised yet.

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-27, 05:17 PM
It's rare for me to design a character that would run into this delimma. The only way I can see doing it is if the character knows he would be able to accomplish his objective with his death. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs as he has to be able to justify the fact that he will never know for sure if he actually has succeeded in his objective.

For instance said Paladin is willing to sacrifice himself to save an orphanage by taking out the BBEG. Now to do this he takes the wizard's staff of the magi and runs into the room with the BBEG and breaks it (having been told by the wizard that it will create a huge explosion that will probably kill said BBEG). Now, paladin knows very little about magic and has to take the wizard's word that is how things will work. Although the paladin is familiar to working with faith alone to guide him, he knows that if this doesn't work the way the wizard states, the BBEG is just going to destroy the orphanage anyway. Thus, his death would've been for nothing.

It's easier for me to play a character that has failed than one that has sacrificed himself for nothing.

oxybe
2010-08-27, 05:23 PM
i could care less, it all depends on which would lead to a more fun game overall.

i am more then willing to break character if it means a more fun game overall for those sitting around the table. then again, i don't think i've ever been in a scenario where my only options were "break character or die"

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 05:24 PM
Better to die than break character.

That being said, most individuals have a very strong aversion to death, and require extraordinary circumstances to deliberately sacrifice their life. In most cases, "don't die" is very much *in* character.

jiriku
2010-08-27, 06:13 PM
Yeah, unless you're playing a character who's either suicidal or a bone-headed idiot (and admittedly, people do play those sorts of characters), it's hard to imagine a situation in which keeping yourself alive is "out of character". For example, the hot-headed knight faced with rudeness from a clearly superior opponent might seeth with anger but take no immediate action, instead plotting revenge upon the fellow who insulted him -- but at a time and place that favors him, rather than his opponent.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 06:23 PM
Perhaps I should widen the criteria a bit. I just use life vs. death because exaggerating the stakes often helps get the point across. Often, but not always.

To rephrase the question: Is it better to stick to character, even when it gives you the disadvantage, or simply grab at every opportunity that comes by?

Playing a Lawful character is a good example here. There are many, MANY cases where being Lawful is highly inconvienient to the PC's stereotypical goal of killing everything in sight and stealing everything that isn't both nailed down and on fire.

But again, it doesn't need to be a matter of morals. Take my Blood Knight again. Say, hypothetically, that he comes across a character with whom allying himself would be greatly advantagous. However, said character is an obnoxious prick waving around authority he hasn't earned. As such, my character tells this fellow to shove his allegience where the sun don't shine. Because as inconvienent in the long term as it is, my character would simply never put up with such a person.

Jolly
2010-08-27, 06:23 PM
Huh, for some reason I read the OP as "would you meta-game to save your character's life" not "would you act in a way seemingly opposed to your alignment/backstory etc if the character knew that to remain constant would cause death."

I should specify a second reading shows that is inaccurate, but that was my initial impression.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 06:25 PM
Huh, for some reason I read the OP as "would you meta-game to save your character's life" not "would you act in a way seemingly opposed to your alignment/backstory etc if the character knew that to remain constant would cause death."

I should specify a second reading shows that is inaccurate, but that was my initial impression.

Well, it's an equally valid concern, just not the one I was contemplating.

Caphi
2010-08-27, 06:27 PM
Die, but only if it's awesome. Dying like the most in-character dog in history is stupid; better to live to play another scene. But I'll gladly give my character's life if it's an epic scene that everyone will be talking about for months.

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 06:32 PM
Playing a Lawful character is a good example here. There are many, MANY cases where being Lawful is highly inconvienient to the PC's stereotypical goal of killing everything in sight and stealing everything that isn't both nailed down and on fire.:smallconfused:


Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 06:46 PM
:smallconfused:

I don't see what's so confusing. If you're somehow under the belief that having a personal code means you can just rearrange it whenever it's convienient, then I think you're kinda missing the point.

I didn't say "Lawful character can't do X because it's against the law." It could just as easily mean "Lawful character can't do X because it violates their standards."

Zaydos
2010-08-27, 06:50 PM
I have seen LG characters who literally did steal everything that wasn't nailed down and on fire (we lit the building on fire, and decided to loot as we left). I was CG, with the stated trait of Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor, and wondering why they were letting me get away with it. I gave 40% to the poor... they kept it all. The DM said I infringed my good alignment... my jaw still drops when I think about it (I pointed out the other character was LG and he wasn't saying anything to them, and that I had in fact given money to the poor like my character was supposed to and he backed off). Actually that part is on topic, it was better OOC to take all the loot for myself, but it wasn't what my character would do so he kept some (because he would need it to continue his quest for good) and gave away the rest.

I have a bit of a blood knight character right now and he wouldn't pick a fight with someone who was obviously much stronger than him (he got owned by an old man in his back story and learned his lesson). He wants to fight a worthy opponent, not get himself killed at random.

I usually play characters with a strong will to survive and above average Int and Wis so my base assumption is that I'm playing a character smarter than myself. Although I'm actually making more characters with low mental stats now (because I stopped using rolled abilities and I'm now using Point Buy) so that might change.

Ultimately I'd say do what your character would do, you'll be the better gamer for it.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 06:58 PM
That's one thing that's actually kind of interesting about my Blood Knight fellow. He's actually got fairly goot INT and WIS despite being a Gnoll, which are stereotypically not all that bright. (13 and 15 respectively.) Thing is, the dude's so utterly psychotic that he often willfully ignores the fact that he's well aware that X is a very bad idea, just because he thinks it'll be fun.

Though he is "vaguely" realistic about what he's capable of. Punch your way up a cliff? Sure, no problem. Go Shadow of the Colossus on the mountain-sized Earth Elemental that just swatted the mountainside next to you into nonexistance? Are you kidding? I'll be squashed like a bug!

(Though in honesty it was because he felt that his inevitable death wouldn't be cool enough. Being killed in a battle royale against a dozen men after killing one or two of them looks badass just because it's ballsy. Getting squished offhandedly by a several-hundred foot tall monster just looks embarrassing.)

Zaydos
2010-08-27, 07:02 PM
That's one thing that's actually kind of interesting about my Blood Knight fellow. He's actually got fairly goot INT and WIS despite being a Gnoll, which are stereotypically not all that bright. (13 and 15 respectively.) Thing is, the dude's so utterly psychotic that he often willfully ignores the fact that he's well aware that X is a very bad idea, just because he thinks it'll be fun.

Though he is "vaguely" realistic about what he's capable of. Punch your way up a cliff? Sure, no problem. Go Shadow of the Colossus on the mountain-sized Earth Elemental that just swatted the mountainside next to you into nonexistance? Are you kidding? I'll be squashed like a bug!

(Though in honesty it was because he felt that his inevitable death wouldn't be cool enough. Being killed in a battle royale against a dozen men after killing one or two of them looks badass just because it's ballsy. Getting squished offhandedly by a several-hundred foot tall monster just looks embarrassing.)

Does he think it's worth it? In character; would he think it was worth going up against this guy who he thinks could probably kill him? Would it look bad ass enough for him? If yes, then you have your answer; if no, then that's an answer too.

FelixG
2010-08-27, 07:02 PM
Well, as i generally play characters who are as smart if not smarter than me....and i see a way out with the information i am given (which generally should be in character things i can make out) and knowing my characters abilities as i do (i am him after all) then i see no reason to let myself die when the the character would know he has ways out.

My groups do a fairly good job of keeping OOC information to a minimum though!

El Dorado
2010-08-27, 07:05 PM
I'd do whatever's appropriate and/or interesting for the character. For example, I played a proud, confident drow fighter-mage. The party halfling got dumped into a nearby mountain river and was in danger of drowning. The drow jumped in, confident that she could rescue him. She pulled him to a piece of floating debris but in the process, she succumbed to the cold and drowned. The other players later remarked that this stands out as the first time the drow performed a genuinely heroic deed. I (and the DM) know that my character's decision was more a matter of overconfidence than self-sacrifice but I was nevertheless satisfied with her actions and how they resonated with the rest of the party.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 07:05 PM
Well, as i generally play characters who are as smart if not smarter than me....and i see a way out with the information i am given (which generally should be in character things i can make out) and knowing my characters abilities as i do (i am him after all) then i see no reason to let myself die when the the character would know he has ways out.

My groups do a fairly good job of keeping OOC information to a minimum though!

I think you misinterpreted the question the same way Jolly did. I'm not talking about the absence of presence of information that would allow him to know the way out. I'm talking about situations where he sees a way out, but wouldn't take it because doing so would be out of character for him. (I.E. telling a Paladin "eat this baby or die.")

FelixG
2010-08-27, 07:09 PM
I think you misinterpreted the question the same way Jolly did. I'm not talking about the absence of presence of information that would allow him to know the way out. I'm talking about situations where he sees a way out, but wouldn't take it because doing so would be out of character for him. (I.E. telling a Paladin "eat this baby or die.")

Ohhh i see, that is a more interesting conundrum! In that case I would likely let the character die, but maybe ask a concession from the GM on the following character, such as letting the new character be born with the same XP as i died with as i followed th character concept through to its logical end.

If i am going to be Penalized for being put in a loose loose situation however i may take the less character way out and justify it with RP and pennance. (live to fight another day even if the characters morals are broken for a single instance.)

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-27, 09:18 PM
A character is a vehicle for my amusement, and the amusement of my friends.

Only I decide what his personality is. Therefore, his personality can never fail to meet my goals.

Say I want to play a barbarian who gets very angry. He comes up against an opponent who is clearly trouncing him.

He *could* fight to the death, which would be in character, or he could scream in frustration, do whatever it took to survive, and swear revenge. That'd also let me play a seriously angry character.

Maybe he could even call in reinforcements to show that he's willing to let his hatred for this opponent overrule his commitment to single combat.

It'd all make for interesting development.

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-27, 09:47 PM
Well, normally, the personality that one assigns to one's character is the one that one wants to roleplay. And thus, if you gave your character things that he values more than his own survival and/or power, then you want him to choose those things over survival and/or power.

Normally. But there's always the possibility that a character could wind up working out differently in practice than one expected. In such a case, it's up to you whether your character changes his mind in response to these unexpected circumstances.

But generally, if you want to seize every advantage, then you roleplay an opportunistic character. The question is whether that's what's most satisfying. It might feel unchallenging and/or maybe a little bland.

Article! (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

drengnikrafe
2010-08-27, 10:18 PM
I feel like the question is less of what you have asked, and more of a "What do you value more than your life?" I'm reminded of countless video games, movies, books, and stories in which this very question was asked. Maybe a little differently, though. What do you value more than your son/daughters life? Are you willing to go through X event to save Y person? Are they really that important to you?
Some people will compromise a lot to stay alive, and then do their best to redeem their mistakes later.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-27, 10:23 PM
My first consideration is the party. I'm totally willing to sacrifice my IC principles (and then angst about my momentarily lapse in discipline later) if the alternative is causing a TPK or such drastic scenario. Not breaking character is one thing, but when doing so breaks other characters (literally) then you've stopped being a team player.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 10:23 PM
I feel like the question is less of what you have asked, and more of a "What do you value more than your life?" I'm reminded of countless video games, movies, books, and stories in which this very question was asked. Maybe a little differently, though. What do you value more than your son/daughters life? Are you willing to go through X event to save Y person? Are they really that important to you?
Some people will compromise a lot to stay alive, and then do their best to redeem their mistakes later.

That's partially why I changed the question to simply "Is it better to stay in character, even if it puts you at a disadvantage?" People will go to great lengths to stay alive, so the scenario becomes so extreme as to render the question invalid.

Gravious
2010-08-27, 10:36 PM
Well, in my skewed opinion (I usually play CN, saving a town and getting their reward for taking down X threat, then raiding the local bank) I'd say that Humans (And probably most other PC races) have a survival instinct that kicks in at some point, regardless of weather it's really life-or-death. For example, if I were a Fighter used to walking into the bar, knocking over somebody's drink, etc and I saw somebody walk in and start tearing people in half left and right, I'd probably run. I mean, VERY FEW people would risk being killed or seriously injured just to be a jerk.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 10:51 PM
Depends on the situation, and how much of a stretch it is for the character, as well as how awesome the results are. If it's "my characters kinda aggressive, so he should punch every guard he sees", well, consider having him learn at least a bit of caution. But there are times when you just have to dive in and take the hits.

DM: Damn DOMT. Looks like you lost all magical items. What do you have that's not magical in any way?
Me: Er, Im a paranoid wizard. Non-magical? What?
DM: What, would your character even wear magical underwear?
Me: Hell yes.

Thrawn183
2010-08-27, 11:47 PM
I interpreted this as being completely outside of the character's knowledge. An example: the DM has a certain kind of trap that he really likes to use. Your character doesn't know about it, but you recognize it from past campaigns. Do you walk your character into it and almost certain doom?

I would. :smallcool:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 12:50 AM
Ah, if a "certain doom" comes up repeatedly, I tend to make sure that future characters have some justifiable defense or options to take against it.

However, yes, I've taken actions knowing that they would result in horrible, horrible things. Last time I played a rogue, I went along with an elaborate con game in which my party sold me into slavery, thus making him an NPC. Not only was it really a stretch for my character to not take the bait, it lead to interesting results. No point playing if you're not going to try to make interesting things happen.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-28, 08:47 AM
A DM once told me to pray to a demon for help or die on the spot. I, playing a paladin, chose to die.
It was, sadly, a quite anticlimatic death, dying in the basement of a tavern one day before the climatic battle against the BBEG.
The vastly overpowered guy who did the deed also slaughtered half of the other PCs when they rushed to my help and seriously injured the other half.

The DM then accused me of having ruined the fun of everyone with my decision.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 08:50 AM
Ah, the old "you fall" situation. Always fun, that one.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-28, 08:57 AM
Well, he didn't fall from being a paladin, but on the other hand he fell in battle, so you could say that, yes^^

Serpentine
2010-08-28, 09:06 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable for a character to have a moment of uncharacteristic behaviour, or of unusual brilliance, especially in a matter of life-or-death. I would very much prefer it to be framed properly in-character, though.
On the other hand, I have a thing called "Cool Points" that I grant for, among other things, "roleplaying to your disadvantage", as well as extra roleplaying experience. If a character died doing something like that, I would (assuming I thought of it...) give their next character some significant boost. At the very least, I'd probably give them several Cool Points and have them all transfer over to the new character.
So... Die IC, unless you can justify OOC survival IC.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-28, 09:13 AM
You know, why should he even think of praying to a demon IC?!

Praying to his god, of course, did nothing. In that GMs games demons are always so helpful towards my LG characters... :P

FelixG
2010-08-28, 09:31 AM
You know, why should he even think of praying to a demon IC?!

Praying to his god, of course, did nothing. In that GMs games demons are always so helpful towards my LG characters... :P

"Hey mr Paladin! I happen to have this "get out of doom free card" stapled to a brochure to your local enclave of blackguards! Want to make a deal?" says the pit fiend with a smile

Kaww
2010-08-28, 09:36 AM
You should die in character. Resurrect is just a local cleric away...
Just like with Roy...

Evard
2010-08-28, 09:37 AM
I got around this in one game :smallbiggrin:

The DM said we could add 3 skills to our list that we would like to have (he didn't say from other class lists or from any certain thing... one guy had underwater kazoo making)... I just happen to choose "metagaming" so when I came to a situation like this I promptly said "I roll a metagaming check" and when they realized I was serious I showed them my paper... The DM allowed it once haha

aberratio ictus
2010-08-28, 09:42 AM
"Hey mr Paladin! I happen to have this "get out of doom free card" stapled to a brochure to your local enclave of blackguards! Want to make a deal?" says the pit fiend with a smile

Indeed, it is kind of like this quite often.

Avilan the Grey
2010-08-28, 09:57 AM
I usually don't end up in this situation, because my characters tend to have a bit of me in them. This means they are not "way out there". I have only being killed by either bad luck with dice, heroic sacrifices or when most of us died because of stupid decisions on the group as a whole.

I have sometimes caused a ruckus though, even if my character didn't die. One was in a campaign for "Chock", a rather bad Swedish Classic Horror RPG in the 80ies, where we were hunting Dracula in England. One NPC had decided to rig a trap for him in a mansion without telling the staff (of which Mina Harker was one, and the one that according to the campaign was going to get killed). My character blew a gasket when he found out that we were supposed to put the entire innocent staff at risk, without telling them what was going on. He threatened to leave the whole endeavor, until the GM agreed to let us send the staff away and pretend to be staff ourselves.

darkpuppy
2010-08-28, 12:09 PM
What a good topic, thanks to the OP for bringing this up! I've actually both been in this situation and adjudicated it, mainly because I played and ran a fair bit of Dragonlance, and, to be honest, I am amazed that Knights of Solamnia live to grow such long tasches and get silvery hair! Let's see, the Solamnic knight who died challenging a green dragon... the one who IC left the party in a huff, ne'er to return, because we took things from a temple (never mind that we needed them, he wouldn't countennance it, and even tried to attack us... after we'd knocked him senseless, his player declared that the character was going off to tell the Knights of Solamnia, ne'er to return. He did, rolled up a new character, and we all had great fun with the fact that the Knights never trusted us again...) The list, obviously, goes on...

But, as has already been noted, there are limits. For example, people have already mentioned (in other threads), those Vows in the BoED... Vow of pacifism? good luck with that one! If it's fun, and everyone's okay with it, I quite happily disadvantage both myself and the party for the character's principles... but if it's going to TPK, or kill my character needlessly, obviously, they have a crisis moment, go against their personal code, and then do their utmost to atone for their transgression. If it kills my character in a way that furthers the story, I'll take the hit, and happily, safe in the knowledge that the fun continues, and my character will be remembered fondly around the table for "taking one for the team."

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 12:25 PM
A DM once told me to pray to a demon for help or die on the spot. I, playing a paladin, chose to die.
It was, sadly, a quite anticlimatic death, dying in the basement of a tavern one day before the climatic battle against the BBEG.
The vastly overpowered guy who did the deed also slaughtered half of the other PCs when they rushed to my help and seriously injured the other half.

The DM then accused me of having ruined the fun of everyone with my decision.

Durrr. Bad DM. Any paladin worth his salt would refuse that deal. The deal you offer is "pray to me for help, or I'll wipe out the rest of the party/your family/this innocent orphanage". Paladins are hardwired to sacrifice themselves for others (the wiring runs through the surgically-installed stick - I think the other end is USB).

And if he doesn't take the demon's offer - hey, he let an entire orphanage die so that he could maintain his power. Sounds awfully selfish to me!

aberratio ictus
2010-08-28, 12:59 PM
Funnily enough, the same DM pulled that one on me once, too. I think I even posted it somewhere on here...

It was a small village, no orphanage back then, though. And I fell for not associating with the demon :smalltongue:

Fortunately, the DM doesn't get to choose the reason the PCs have to act in a specific way, so my character didn't refuse the demons offer because he wanted to maintain his power, but because he knew demons couldn't be trusted and even if the demon really helped him, it would somehow strenghen the evil powers in his world. Which most assuredly was true.

Of course, he tried to defend the village on his own, praying to his god for assistance. (Who, of course, did nothing. Do you notice a certain trend here?)

Thiyr
2010-08-28, 03:18 PM
I find this thread funny, because I have a character concept I've been tossing around that fits my stance on this fairly well. Ex dragon-slayer who was cursed by a dragon just a -few- leagues ahead of him. One of a number of parts (considsering this curse is the reason for a number of mechanical choices as well) was that he would be forced to continue living by all means until he could fall in (somewhat) honorable combat. This leads to the personality going dramatically to the "What? Only ten of you to fight me? Bring all you have, I can wait", deathwish-y kind of personality. Kinda amusing 'cause I first thought of it for a party full of stealth-oriented characters. "Okay guys, get over to the other entrance and wait for the signal. You'll know it when you see it. -five minutes later they hear him screaming a battle cry and trying to draw attention to himself instead of the other entrance-".

So yea, better to die while playing your character well than to live while making a personality 180. Though for most situations, I'd argue personalities are mutable enough that characters can find a way to live.

Waylor
2010-08-28, 03:28 PM
Die - I found myself in that situation, i was playing a Bodyguard Fighter of our group priest, we where in a temple of Shar and then a gelatinous cube appeared (it was a especial one that could smite law and i was LE and a couple extra powers), i knew the monster powers but my character didnt, so i decided to stay there to protect (and actually save) the priest altought i already knew that would make me die.

And i think that was one of the best scenes i have roleplayed, dont regret it.

Fallbot
2010-08-28, 03:44 PM
If it was only about my choice, death. But it's a cooperative game, and I'm prepared to be flexible to make sure everyone keeps having fun.

As it is, I've come dangerously close to breaking the (relatively new) DM's plot for the sake of staying in character, simply by insisting on getting rid of a magic sword my character would have been too suspicious to keep (we agreed to compromise - I ditch the sword, but it's going to reappear in a couple of sessions to keep us from leaving the tracks). I'm not sure the plot could handle anything more extreme.

hamishspence
2010-08-28, 04:31 PM
The Giant's article

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

does suggest that if reacting in the way you think is "in character" will disrupt the game, - it might be better to try and think of other plausible ways to react.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 04:40 PM
The Giant's article

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

does suggest that if reacting in the way you think is "in character" will disrupt the game, - it might be better to try and think of other plausible ways to react.

Well, that article points out that there isn't nessicarily just one course of action that would be "in character." The question here is, would you still take a course of action if it was one that your character would never do, if the alternative was death? (Again as an extreme example, "Paladin must eat a live baby or die.")

darkpuppy
2010-08-28, 04:45 PM
(Again as an extreme example, "Paladin must eat a live baby or die.")

Dunno why, but I just randomly remembered what I like to call the "Dork Tower" defense for doing such a thing as a paladin... Which can basically be summed up as "If it's a baby of an evil race, then it must die!"

Of course, it doesn't apply here, but just one of those random things that do crop up in games sometimes... personally, when I see it, I smack that player down mercilessly.

Another_Poet
2010-08-28, 04:51 PM
I think it's largely a false question.

A PC should have a sense of self-preservation. And, considering that they are above average and have gained combat experience, they should be fairly good at it.

Therefore, neither "my character wants to die" nor "my character can't figure out how not to die" seem like reasonable characterisations for most PC's. Even if the character has low Int or low Wis, they probably don't have both, and even an Int 2 monkey has a sense of self-preservation. If there's a way to survive that you, the player can see - saying your PC can't see it is frankly contrived. At that point I'd ask why the player is sabotaging the party, since it clearly is not in-character for their PC to fail to see basic escape/survival possibilities.

There are a few exceptions. If you are playing a character who is suicidal, well, alright, but that is crappy for the party since you've written in that they can't count on you. On the other hand, if your character has a chance to sacrifice their own life to save someone else or accomplish something great, then follow the character's alignment. Good characters probably will make the sacrifice, others probably won't unless it is very important to them.

But other than the two kinds of suicide - altruistic sacrifice and selfish bastard who no one should work with - PC's who fail to see or use survival strategies are already not being played right.

ap

urbanpirate
2010-08-28, 04:54 PM
Just a bit of roleplaying philosophy I've been mulling over. To elaborate the title question, say you're in a situation where you, as a player, can see a way out, but it's one that your character, as he's been characterized, would never do.

My question is, in this situation would you rather compromise your character's personality in the name of survival, or allow them to die because that's simply how the character would react to that scenario?

either let them die or have them do somthing totaly out of character and use that action to give them some kind of emotional baggage to add depth to the character further along in the game.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 05:01 PM
Therefore, neither "my character wants to die" nor "my character can't figure out how not to die" seem like reasonable characterisations for most PC's. Even if the character has low Int or low Wis, they probably don't have both, and even an Int 2 monkey has a sense of self-preservation. If there's a way to survive that you, the player can see - saying your PC can't see it is frankly contrived. At that point I'd ask why the player is sabotaging the party, since it clearly is not in-character for their PC to fail to see basic escape/survival possibilities.

I didn't say they can't see it. I said they CAN see it and WON'T do it. And if you'd read the rest of the topic, you'd see I amended the question to be not nessicarily life-or-death, specifically BECAUSE most people will happily compromise their morals in the name of self preservation. I.e., a character with strong compunctions against killing innocents refusing to kill a bound prisoner to keep up his charade as a member of the Evil Cult of Evil Doom.

Knaight
2010-08-28, 05:15 PM
As a rule, I would go with die, however most characters won't find their way into those situations. Sure, ocassionally you play a cocky, arrogant prick who is inevitably going to get killed, or get a very close ally killed in their stead (which practically mandates learning caution in the future), but most characters have enough of a sense of self preservation and caution to get out of this kind of horrible situation.

Satyr
2010-08-29, 05:15 AM
I personally find breaking character in any situation highly annoying, completely independent of the stakes and circumstances. And, as a result, I'd always prefer a character's death to a break of the character - and I explicitly expects this from any player in my groups.
I also find the notion that a player character death could be anticlimactic rather amusing - the way I see it, the death of an important character creates a climax in itself, completely independent of the surrounding events.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-29, 06:19 AM
I would always stay in character. Of course, there's several ways a given character could react to most situations, and I don't see anything wrong with leaning on the better one dramatically. Both of the times I've lost characters with my current group has been when they've been in situations where there was no argument as to how they'd act. The fiery religious crusader type was shot through the head drawing fire from his friend to the last breath, and the cocky acrobatic thief ended up being captured and killed because he wouldn't back down from a challenge.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-29, 07:33 AM
I also find the notion that a player character death could be anticlimactic rather amusing - the way I see it, the death of an important character creates a climax in itself, completely independent of the surrounding events.

The group is a team of high level adventurers bent on eradicating all evil.
They get ready to invade hell next, but as they leave their holy fortress with their vast army, one of them falls down a flight of stairs and dies.

True, there will be a lot of mourning if the character was well-liked by the other members of the party, but you're not honestly telling me his death was climatic?
One could, of course, argue that there is a difference between a climatic death and a death which is a climax, but in the case above, none of them is true, at least that's how I see it.

742
2010-08-29, 07:52 AM
there are two rules that apply here:
the rule of funny
the rule of cool
check both on TVtropes*
edit: also the rule of nintendo, which modifies the situation based on what else there happens to be available to do and ive made it a policy not to cook after a character death so my characters arent DM sniped.

*at first i thought i was being lazy not putting links, but i think its good for a TVtropes link.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-08-29, 01:30 PM
Just a bit of roleplaying philosophy I've been mulling over. To elaborate the title question, say you're in a situation where you, as a player, can see a way out, but it's one that your character, as he's been characterized, would never do.

Die. Definitely. Not even a concern for me: D&D is a game of chance and you can die at any time. I also love roleplaying my characters to the hilt, and I'd rather go down a distinct character than play a bland, colorless survivalist.

EDIT: Even if it's "lame" like falling downstairs, or if you fall off while the party's scaling a mountain-face, or drown when they're trying to swim into a dungeon-level, that just adds to the general feeling of danger. There's nothing "lame" about getting killed by a harsh environment.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-29, 01:44 PM
Well, really... a dangerous mountainface or underwater caverns are a very different kind of "harsh environment" to a flight of stairs. One kind is a bit more interesting than the other and makes for a less 'lame' death.

Just to be perfectly clear, if my first posts didn't show it appropriately - I'm really on your side, it is better to die IC than to live OOC, but that doesn't change the fact that anticlimatic or, in your words, lame deaths exist.

Satyr
2010-08-30, 12:02 AM
The group is a team of high level adventurers bent on eradicating all evil.
They get ready to invade hell next, but as they leave their holy fortress with their vast army, one of them falls down a flight of stairs and dies.

True, there will be a lot of mourning if the character was well-liked by the other members of the party, but you're not honestly telling me his death was climatic?

In a heavily stereotyped campaign, a break from the cliché like this would definitely be the highlight of the campaign, at least for me.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 05:21 AM
Ah well, it was just an example. I'm sorry, I should of course have catered more to your personal tastes.

What about this: In this dystopian world, the characters have been a pawn in the hands of powerful, morally highly ambiguous factions for the whole of the campaign for quite a while now. After losing most of the ideals he once held high, everything that keeps the blackguard from degenerating to a murderous animal is his relationship with his sister. Now the party receives evidence that she betrayed him more than once and is currently plotting to kill him in order to cause an all-out war between the remaining factions.
He is not really sure if he can trust the evidence, but his jadedness prevents him from dismissing the evidence outright.
Just before he is about to confront her, he falls down the stairs and dies.

More to your tastes? I can go on if you want.

Zen Master
2010-08-30, 05:22 AM
Just a bit of roleplaying philosophy I've been mulling over. To elaborate the title question, say you're in a situation where you, as a player, can see a way out, but it's one that your character, as he's been characterized, would never do.

My question is, in this situation would you rather compromise your character's personality in the name of survival, or allow them to die because that's simply how the character would react to that scenario?

I'd say that surprisingly often people do stuff they'd never do, in order to survive. So sometimes it might be good roleplaying to have the character realise he'd rather compromise than die.

On the other hand of course, there's a certain appeal to playing uncompromising characters.

Amphetryon
2010-08-30, 06:00 AM
There's an old Dragon magazine article called "Yes, My Character Would Do That!" It had some relevant discussion about how to stay true to your character without making him suicidal or forcing a wildly sandbox style on a group and DM that doesn't want that experience.

Killer Angel
2010-08-30, 06:31 AM
I personally find breaking character in any situation highly annoying, completely independent of the stakes and circumstances. And, as a result, I'd always prefer a character's death to a break of the character - and I explicitly expects this from any player in my groups.


While I can understand this, IMO it's not always true.
I would like (as an exception) to "break" my character and make him acting contrary to his personality, to save his life.
Then, I would immediately roleplay a contrived character, struggling for what he has done.
"Shame on me, I betrayed myself! I'm I really so coward? I wanna be better than this!"
Proceeding to annoy the other characters, waiting and searching for a way to redeem himself.
It's a sort of "character development", I think... :smallwink:

ClockShock
2010-08-30, 07:17 AM
snippage

Just before he is about to confront her, he falls down the stairs and dies.



I'm beginning to cultivate a fear or stairs...

Quietus
2010-08-30, 08:07 AM
Ah well, it was just an example. I'm sorry, I should of course have catered more to your personal tastes.

What about this: In this dystopian world, the characters have been a pawn in the hands of powerful, morally highly ambiguous factions for the whole of the campaign for quite a while now. After losing most of the ideals he once held high, everything that keeps the blackguard from degenerating to a murderous animal is his relationship with his sister. Now the party receives evidence that she betrayed him more than once and is currently plotting to kill him in order to cause an all-out war between the remaining factions.
He is not really sure if he can trust the evidence, but his jadedness prevents him from dismissing the evidence outright.
Just before he is about to confront her, he falls down the stairs and dies.

More to your tastes? I can go on if you want.

Clearly his sister has sent an assassin to push him down those stairs, yes? 'cause how else do you fail a "walk down the freaking stairs" check?

onthetown
2010-08-30, 08:13 AM
If it's with their character, I'd let them fall into the trap and die. My normal DM has a rule that, as long as you didn't just stupidly throw your life away, you can be res'd.

This takes a bit of the suspense away from dying IC, except that spells like Disintegrate and Soul Trap are still in effect and we don't have access to Wish or Miracle on a regular basis.

So really, it just gives him reason to come up with more sadistic traps...

However, the characters don't know about all of this metagaming knowledge, so they would still likely wander into the trap. I don't think people normally make decisions like, "I'm going to do it because I feel that I have to!... Actually, a strange force has come over me and I think I'm going to walk over here now."

Unless they're playing in OotS-verse, in which case they have all the metagaming they need. :smallbiggrin:

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 08:19 AM
I'm beginning to cultivate a fear or stairs...

You should, they are most perilous things.



Clearly his sister has sent an assassin to push him down those stairs, yes? 'cause how else do you fail a "walk down the freaking stairs" check?

DM fiat.

Satyr
2010-08-30, 11:01 AM
More to your tastes? I can go on if you want.

Yeah, but that is not likely to happen. Except for GM fiat, which is pretty much always problematic, because it is what it is, not because it is anticlimactic. It is just as bad if the GM starts to change the outcome to create a grand finale. That's railroading, and it is usually not seen as a particularly good form of gamemastering.

If you have a similar situation where the player character unfortunately dies in a minor combat and slowly bleeds to death after a nameless brigand stabbed him in the guts - that's fate. Without the chance of failure, the triumph is worthless.


While I can understand this, IMO it's not always true.
I would like (as an exception) to "break" my character and make him acting contrary to his personality, to save his life.

I don't mean 'breaking character' as in changing the personality to stay alive. Assuming that most people would do a lot of things to survive is not very far fetched. What annoys me is when players leave the character level and "break character" by switching to the meta-level or stop differentiating between player knowledge and character knowledge.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 11:39 AM
All right, I'm starting to see that my 'falling down stairs'-example, while fun, is terribly ill-suited to convey my point.

Let's say the aforementioned example takes place in a world where it is extremely cold. At the start of the game the DM implemented a series of rolls to determine how the characters deal with the cold, for added tension. It is quite easy to succeed, but if you fail, your character faces serious consequences that range from certain mali to immediate death.
So the Blackguard goes outside to confront his sister, he rolls extremely badly, and dies on the spot.

Of course, you could say that again, that's fate. But while this mechanic might have been interesting in the rest of the game, in this situation, the blackguards death just before a major plot point is also incredibly anticlimatic.

Again, I'm not saying that the GM should let him roll again in that case or something like this, that's personal taste.
I'm just saying that character deaths can be anticlimatic.

ericgrau
2010-08-30, 12:06 PM
If that's how he acts then that's how he acts and death is better. That said, most characters like living and making your character into a 1 dimensional stereotype even to the point of death is bad role-playing. There better be a very good reason (heroic, etc.) for sacrificing your life.

Serpentine
2010-08-30, 11:51 PM
I would probably (placing myself as DM and player) in this case have it go something like this:

DM: Okay, roll your save as you go out the door. Uh huh. It's really, REALLY cold. Do you keep going?
Player: Really, really cold, you say?
DM: Yeah. Deathly cold.
Player: Okay. I go back inside for a jumper and an Endure Elements spell from the Cleric. Oi, Cleric! It's cold out there! Gimme some sugar! By which I mean magic!


To throw something else out there: This usually comes up in cases of "a character's being a bastard and it's getting in the way, but the player claims to be just roleplaying", but to a reasonable extent it applies here, too. The player roleplays a character, according to its personality. However, it is the player who determines the character's personality. If something's not working with it, the player is fully able to change the way the character is roleplayed. Moreover, I do not think it is terribly unusual for people to do things "out of character" as it were. Sometimes people have an off day, or are in a funny mood, or are faced with a situation they've never had to deal with before, and they can do things not even they expect.
So, to put those together, for example, I would consider it totally in-character for a Paladin to have a weak moment of cowardice that results in their survival at the expense of their usual personality. I would also require the Paladin and other characters to respond and develop accordingly, and may, in this particular case, require a quest of atonement.
To give an even more specific example, the knight guy from one of Eddings' books comes to mind. Spoilers for the book, although it's been years since I read it so details are sketchy.The knight is the epitome of bravery and bravado and chivalry. Then, he - and the group - are faced with an inescapable danger. For the first time in his life, the knight experiences fear. Unfamiliar with this feeling, the knight goes from hero to coward. Ashamed, his self-esteem takes a serious blow. Eventually he discusses the problem with another character, and asks him how normal people handle fear. Upon being informed that they just sort of "laugh in the face of it", he proceeds to laugh maniacally every time he's faced with something scary.
So, the character has an established personality. Something happens, and the character does something in violation of this personality in favour of survival. Rather than breaking "IC/OOC verisimilitude" (sp?), the event leads to character development and realistic(ish) consequences.

To put it another way: for the Question As Interpreted, I would take "die IC" over "live OOC" pretty much every time. But for the Question As Written (i.e. only options are death or survival), I think it is rarely impossible to live IC.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-31, 12:09 AM
Ah well, it was just an example. I'm sorry, I should of course have catered more to your personal tastes.

What about this: In this dystopian world, the characters have been a pawn in the hands of powerful, morally highly ambiguous factions for the whole of the campaign for quite a while now. After losing most of the ideals he once held high, everything that keeps the blackguard from degenerating to a murderous animal is his relationship with his sister. Now the party receives evidence that she betrayed him more than once and is currently plotting to kill him in order to cause an all-out war between the remaining factions.
He is not really sure if he can trust the evidence, but his jadedness prevents him from dismissing the evidence outright.
Just before he is about to confront her, he falls down the stairs and dies.

More to your tastes? I can go on if you want.

I suspect all this proves is that a DM can use fiat to ruin the plot. It's not really a choice in any sense of the word, and the whole situation just seems...contrived.

Good DMs present interesting choices to their players. If done well, death can be an interesting choice.

Maeglin_Dubh
2010-08-31, 12:15 AM
Mutants and Masterminds. The party has been absolutely leveled by a specops team rappelling in through the ceiling and shooting us all to pieces. My character, the Clocktower Sniper, was the last one conscious. I had to roll a save to keep from starting to die, and since my Con was human norm, and I had already used up my normal-human allotment of hero points, I had to roll a twenty to keep on living. If I spent some of my accumulated experience on the feat Hero's Luck, I'd immediately get a point to spend on automatically surviving. But I'd also be superhuman.

Nothing about Clocktower was superhuman. He was, in some ways, the pinnacle of human training, but nothing about him was godlike or supernatural. And taking Hero's Luck would make him supernatural.

I really didn't want that to happen. Clocktower didn't put much stock in superheroes, didn't see them being any better than anyone else. Also, in the setting the very concept of superheroes was brand new, with the characters all having newly awakened powers (with the exception of Clocktower). And Clocktower wanted no part of that.

So I rolled.

Got the 20, and went on to take out the specops team one-by-one from a concealed position behind a pile of rubble, then run for help and get the entire team patched back up.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-31, 04:52 AM
I would probably (placing myself as DM and player) in this case have it go something like this:

DM: Okay, roll your save as you go out the door. Uh huh. It's really, REALLY cold. Do you keep going?
Player: Really, really cold, you say?
DM: Yeah. Deathly cold.
Player: Okay. I go back inside for a jumper and an Endure Elements spell from the Cleric. Oi, Cleric! It's cold out there! Gimme some sugar! By which I mean magic!

You know, it's always cold in this particular setting. And there's no cleric in your group. And while normally the cold isn't really dangerous to you any more, you just rolled really, really bad this time.

.... :smallyuk:

Come on, have the lot of you really never experienced an anitclimatic death?



I
Good DMs present interesting choices to their players. If done well, death can be an interesting choice.

Of course it can, I never denied that - I'm just arguing that a player character's death doesn't automatically create a climax in and of itself.

Serpentine
2010-08-31, 05:01 AM
You know, it's always cold in this particular setting. And there's no cleric in your group. And while normally the cold isn't really dangerous to you any more, you just rolled really, really bad this time.

.... :smallyuk:

Come on, have the lot of you really never experienced an anitclimatic death?Snap-freeze as soon as you step outside your door cold?
Okay okay, I get what you're trying to do. But I think what some of us are trying to say is that, I think, few DMs would have it that abrupt and unavoidable. To use your example, I would probably offer a "your toes are starting to go black from the cold. Are you sure you want to press on? What are the other characters doing? Would any of you, say, worry about him and follow him out to make sure he's okay?", at least.

And I haven't really had that many deaths at all. One of my DMPCs died from a bad roll to resist a Drowned's aura and because I forgot to give her a crossbow, and another time mid-battle. Someone else's character died because she was unconcious and invisible on the back of a dragon which was the target of the Witch's lightning spell. A centaur Ranger was killed by a bunch of posies - that was kinda anticlimactic. It just doesn't really come up, and I'd give plenty of options to avoid it if it did *shrug*

Drakevarg
2010-08-31, 05:03 AM
Come on, have the lot of you really never experienced an anitclimatic death?

Does being TPK'd by a(n until receantly sleeping) bear count as anticlimactic?
Or having your throat ripped out by a wolf that got a lucky crit in the first round?
Or being mobbed and skewered by half a dozen paladins?
Or being TPK'd in under six rounds when you're ambushed by a ghoul while heavily wounded?

If yes to any of these, my players have died anticlimactic deaths. As for myself...

It was simultaneously climactic and anticlimactic. I had just had a CMoA by single handedly carving my way through a heavily armed boarding party (full plate and tower shields), and was about to go look for their gunpowder stores (they had speargun-cannons for some reason) so I could take out the pirates in a suitably badass fashion. Unfortunately, I'd scared the pirates so bad when I cleaved through them like that, that they decided to abandon ship and light the gunpowder themselves.

With the party cleric and I still on board. Pissed. Me. Off. Convieniently, one of the passangers on our own ship was an epic-level cleric named Dan the Man, who true rezzed us.

Psyx
2010-08-31, 06:33 AM
Die.

It's called a roleplaying game.

And you can't always have an awesome death anyhow.


If I wanted to just win all the while regardless; I'd go play a computer game. That's what they're for.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-31, 08:43 AM
Someone's never played Dwarf Fortress

FelixG
2010-08-31, 08:46 AM
You know, it's always cold in this particular setting. And there's no cleric in your group. And while normally the cold isn't really dangerous to you any more, you just rolled really, really bad this time.

.... :smallyuk:

Come on, have the lot of you really never experienced an anitclimatic death?



My players fear my games because i dont pull punches like the other GMs in my RL group :smallamused:

I have personally never died an anticlimatic death before as, aforementioned DMs pull their punches so PCs dont die.

darkpuppy
2010-08-31, 10:01 AM
depends what you mean by anticlimactic. For example, I don't pull my punches as a DM after 3rd level, and tell players this. And players do make mistakes. But it would be plain uninteresting to give a character a 'do or die' option for no reason whatsoever. It always has to be at a dramatic point for me. As such, most "anticlimactic" deaths are due to the players themselves making dumb decisions or just rolling badly.

I was going to use the example of my bad luck with Bulettes, but I realised while I was writing that a cleric leaping off a coach, trying to smack a bulette, and then getting killed in one hit by a leaping rake is, in its own way, horrifically climactic. After all, he did connect... It's just the Bulette hit back, and harder.

A better example of anticlimactic death would be the time one player rolled badly on his balance check on the bridge in the first level of Return to Undermountain, and died from the fall. But this was due to a bad die roll. I've never had a situation where a death was deliberately anticlimactic without either some player stupidity or plain bad luck involved.

Remmirath
2010-08-31, 11:39 AM
I would always choose 'die in character'. Most characters, of course, would be willing to do things they would not normally do to survive. That tends to be how people are.

For the ones who wouldn't, though, they'll end up dying. I've had this happen many times, and expect to have it happen more. I'd much rather have a character die doing what they would've done than live doing something they would never have done.

I have played in games where the characters would do anything to survive, even things they would never have done before - and even where the players would actively complain if the character dies, try to come up with any meta-game knowledge they have, what have you. That bothers me. If one of my characters dies, well, depending on how it happened it might be anywhere from fitting and right to annoying and somewhat sad - but I'm not going to complain about it and try to get the DM to change things. That's just, in my opinion, very bad form. :smallannoyed:


If you have a similar situation where the player character unfortunately dies in a minor combat and slowly bleeds to death after a nameless brigand stabbed him in the guts - that's fate. Without the chance of failure, the triumph is worthless.

Your view on this reminds me very much of my brother's. :smallamused:

I always have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's true that victory is greatly diminished without a real chance of failure. On the other hand, I find things like that particular situation to be quite annoying as I prefer my campaigns on the more grand/epic/uplifting end and less on the gritty/realistic/dark end - the real world is enough of the second for me. In the end I usually err on the 'chance of failure = better' side.

The more is at stake the more I want the actual chance of failure to be there, though. To give an example - I wouldn't care too much if in the brigand example my character didn't actually have a real chance of failure (so long as it wasn't obvious at the time), but if I found out that after a difficult battle with the enemy we'd been going after for half the campaign that we couldn't really have lost - well, that would cheapen that victory to the point of worthlessness.

I'd say that all's solidly a matter of individual taste, though, while breaking character feels (to me) like it's going against the whole spirit of playing a roleplaying game in the first place.

Grifthin
2010-08-31, 12:00 PM
Better to die in character.

My guardsman who gave a rogue trader the finger so he could continue to serve the inquisition. Poisoned, stabbed, shot and finally tossed out a airlock.

My fighter who charged a rampaging hoard of Demons by himself managing to hold to hold them off for long enough so the rest of the party could evacuate the town. Almost every single towns person old enough signed up to the army, bards sang tales of my fall, Other cities united, the King post humously knighted my character and the final session was EPIC beyond belief. My death setting off a chain of events coming back to kick the enemy in the balls months later (real time).

My Paladin who committed suicide after being utterly broken by the enemy. Dying alone, faithless and tired.

I cherish these characters they all died at different levels, but they all died awesomely. Screw surviving - sometimes you just need to be awesome, so awesome so that the rest of your party just decides that they will go balls to the wall and utterly own anything in front of them. Hell a well played death can inspire nations to war and make even the nastiest BBEG crap himself in unholy terror of the hive of insects stirred up.

Newbieshoes
2010-08-31, 12:30 PM
Definitely IC. Had a good one that completely shut down the DM's campaign (4E) although the death was very anticlimatic.

Playing a homebrewed lizardfolk race Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker. Short version of his personality was, you humanoids (primarily eladrin) have no problems slaughtering whole villages of my people, why don't I do the same to you? Not bright but not stupid evil at the same time (traveled among the humanoids in a disguise after leaving his home island)

Rest of the party was a Bugbear Rogue/Daggermaster, Dwarf Warden/Firstborn of Moradin and a Kobold Avenger/Something. Party is 11th level

My character didn't speak common which was fun to play out for the first session until the rogue bought him and dwarf polyglot shards.

My character made his disdain for them very clear (primarily the Bugbear, the Dwarf earned some grudging respect proving himself powerful, the kobold generally backed off any arguements after instead opted to play off the fact he was smarter than me and could manipulate me instead of arguing with a creature big enough to use him as a melee weapon)

4 sessions in we're chasing our next lead on the current BBEG through the mountains, we get caught in a snow storm which my guy really does not like being out in the cold like this. While searching for a place to hole up until the storm passes we come across a dwarf farmer in the mountains (WTF?) He offers to put the party (your pets, me and the kobold can stay in the barn) not even understanding what he said I went in the house to warm myself by the fire. Lizardman head mounted on the wall among other trophies over the guy's fireplace. Take the head off the wall and stomp back over to the dwarf throw the head at him and started yelling at him about it. ("THIS IS ALL WE ARE TO YOU!? TROPHIES!?") Communication barrier between us (he doesn't speak draconic, I don't speak common) so I attack. Rest of the party comes to the dwarfs aid and I'm knocked out in 2 rounds.

The 4 of them are trying to decide what to do with me. The "farmer" (15th level brawler fighter) says toss me out in the storm that be the end of it (let him freeze to death). Warden was in favor of keeping my tied up but alive till we got out of the mountains. The other two were neutral on the matter. Farmer says if you don't deal him with him you ain't staying here. So the bugbear cuts my throat while I'm out cold.

Campaign ended up grinding to a halt since the Bugbear & Dwarf had no real incentive to continue on (Just wandering around looking for a good time) and the kobold avenger was going to go after the other lead his order provided on the our BBEG.

Best part was the DM told me the next day he put the lizardman head in the place because he felt the session was going slow and wanted to see what would happen.


Sorry if this is long winded, I'm trying to cut out as much of the extra details as I can.