Death Saving Throws and Ethical Dilemmas

[MaxWilson]

Monsters don't get death saving throws per the PHB, they just die when they go to 0 HP.

This is interesting because it removes a possible moral dilemma: what do you do with an unconscious-and-dying orc or goblin? Do you finish him off by cutting his throat, or leave him for dead, or stabilize him and write him a nice note exhorting him to be less eager next time to kill "helpless" travelers?

I think it might be fun to houserule death saving throws for monsters back into the game, except for the obvious types like Gas Spores which obviously should not have them.

Thoughts? Objections?

Edit: typo fix.

[lianightdemon]

I agree, that makes more sense. Monsters espiescally humanoid ones should be no different then a PC.

[Slipperychicken]

Monsters don't get death saving throws per the PHB, they just die when they go to 0 HP.

That's not true. It says:


PHB 198; Monsters and Death
Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to
0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and
make death saving throws.
Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters
are common exceptions; the DM might have them
fall unconscious and follow the same rules as
player characters.

So you, as a DM, can totally do it. You don't even need to invoke a variant rule. Core, explicit, in the very first book of the edition; that's about as as RAW as it gets.

[Hytheter]

IIRC there is a rule that allows players to knock enemies unconcious instead of killing them. So players can choose if they want to be murderous or merciful.

[Eslin]

It's a time saving method. When the creature is important, the DM gives them death saving throws - it's one of those trades of verisimilitude for gameplay.

[Valefor Rathan]

I'd bet that the monster death save-throw will become a pretty standard house rule or at the very least a DM-discretion one. Great way to screw with players when an lowly mob comes back a couple times.

[MaxWilson]

So you, as a DM, can totally do it. You don't even need to invoke a variant rule. Core, explicit, in the very first book of the edition; that's about as as RAW as it gets.

(Sorry, I'm AFB and could only remember the gist and not the details.) Okay, granted, RAW doesn't forbid it, it just assumes that you won't do it except in very special cases. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing. Rather than discussing whether changing the status quo is a variant house rule or just a DM style thing, I'm more interested in discussing the implications, if anyone has anything to say about it.

I charge that by making monsters automatically die, you are encouraging murderhoboism.


It's a time saving method. When the creature is important, the DM gives them death saving throws - it's one of those trades of verisimilitude for gameplay.

I don't see how it saves time at all, in the common case. You don't even have to roll the saving throws at all unless somebody checks them to see if they're dead, and then you just roll 5d20 and count the successes/failures. If someone is checking to see if the orc is dead, that makes his vital status interesting by definition, so rolling a single set of dice to determine it shouldn't be a big deal. If the PCs go around checking every single orc, you can just fiat that about half of them are dead and the other half are stable. No one will object because it's perfectly plausible.


IIRC there is a rule that allows players to knock enemies unconcious instead of killing them. So players can choose if they want to be murderous or merciful.

...and isn't it interesting that the default is "murderous"? A new player who doesn't know anything about the game will automatically be killing everything unless he specifically realizes that leaving them alive works exactly as well. I've seen paladins get very upset at other party members for killing the enemies who surrendered, without those paladins ever becoming aware that the enemies they personally killed could just as easily have been knocked out. The game rules encourage murder because it's simpler, and I find that... interesting.

I'm not trying to imply anything sinister, BTW. I'm quite sure that the reason death is the default is specifically because the designers are trying to keep moral dilemmas out of D&D, because they are too interesting and detract from kill-the-monsters-and-take-their-stuff vibe that is easily accessible to new players. I do think it's an interesting design decision though, and one that might be fun to reverse.

"No melee damage is lethal damage unless you say it is" would also be an interesting house rule, bound to cause angst, in spite of having absolutely zero mechanical impact.

[Finieous]

I charge that by making monsters automatically die, you are encouraging murderhoboism.


By contrast, I'm always somewhat bemused that some folks want to apply modern Western ethical norms to game milieus typically rooted in the Middle Ages. I would ordinarily assume that a coup de grace was the accepted norm for a fallen foe, and judging by archaeology of medieval battlefields, stripping the body of anything of value would be customary as well.

For that matter, most Classical heroes were murderhobos. Murderhoboism is good roleplaying.

[MaxWilson]

By contrast, I'm always somewhat bemused that some folks want to apply modern Western ethical norms to game milieus typically rooted in the Middle Ages. I would ordinarily assume that a coup de grace was the accepted norm for a fallen foe, and judging by archaeology of medieval battlefields, stripping the body of anything of value would be customary as well.

For that matter, most Classical heroes were murderhobos. Murderhoboism is good roleplaying.

I agree. Maybe the reason for making murder the default is to make the game more realistic without imposing the psychic stress of causing modern Western players to explicitly violate their beliefs? Implicit violation is easier.

You've been a game designer, Finieous, so your opinion on this topic is particularly of interest here.

[Finieous]

I agree. Maybe the reason for making murder the default is to make the game more realistic without imposing the psychic stress of causing modern Western players to explicitly violate their beliefs? Implicit violation is easier.

You've been a game designer, Finieous, so your opinion on this topic is particularly of interest here.

I don't personally believe the kind of pretend violence we're talking about (whether in fiction, film, video games, boardgames, RPGs, or any other entertainment) inflicts psychic stress on the vast majority of folks. I imagine, though, that these things fall on a spectrum and that there are some lines (e.g. violence against innocents, children) that the vast majority of folks (including game designers) don't want to cross.

[MaxWilson]

I don't personally believe the kind of pretend violence we're talking about (whether in fiction, film, video games, boardgames, RPGs, or any other entertainment) inflicts psychic stress on the vast majority of folks. I imagine, though, that these things fall on a spectrum and that there are some lines (e.g. violence against innocents, children) that the vast majority of folks (including game designers) don't want to cross.

I also imagine that "I go back and kill the unconscious orc" would cross a lot of people's lines, at least enough to make them uncomfortable.

BTW, I'm talking about "cognitive dissonance" level of stress here, not "I'm being conditioned on realistic pop-up targets to kill people and I feel really conflicted about that" kind of stress.

[Finieous]

I also imagine that "I go back and kill the unconscious orc" would cross a lot of people's lines, at least enough to make them uncomfortable.


Treating the fallen as Sleeping Beauty is sort of cheating, though, isn't it? If the mortally wounded were writhing, screaming and crying out for their mothers, it would make for a more disturbing game, no doubt, but delivering the mercy stroke would be the least of it.

Maybe I'm desensitized or out of touch, but I do enjoy playing characters with different ethical norms. I'm playing HotDQ in AL, and my lawful good justice cleric passed sentence upon and hanged a captured kobold raider. Some of the players were shocked. Then they were double shocked when I performed a short ceremony and gave the kobold a proper burial. In real life, I'm morally opposed to indefinite detention and military tribunals for enemy combatants, let alone the rough justice of a bygone age, but these actions didn't cause me any psychic discomfort in the game.

[Slipperychicken]

I also imagine that "I go back and kill the unconscious orc" would cross a lot of people's lines, at least enough to make them uncomfortable.


That's funny. My groups have zero qualms about killing them. I'm pretty much the only guy there who advocates taking prisoners, and that's mostly because all of the SJW "orcs are people too" stuff started to get to me. Even when I do guilt them into taking prisoners, they usually wind up torturing them all to death anyway.

It never even works because the DM plays the greenskins as monsters instead of people, having zero useful information, and charging no matter how many hostages we have. He sometimes teases us for being the real monsters when we do stuff like murder them in their sleep, but at the end of the day, they're monsters and deserve to die.

[MadBear]

I'd say that having read through the Monster Manual, that the default assumption with most mosters is": It's evil, and deserves death".

I'm perfectly fine with this. Most people I game with aren't looking for a moral dillema when we roll into an enemy camp full of prisoners that we're trying to free. We're looking to be the stereotypical hero's who fight the orc's, kill the kobolds, get the loot, and increase our fame. That type of style fall apart when you add in the moral dilemma's, and while it's not my cup of tea, it's a perfectly valid way to play. It just seems that WOTC is catering to the side of, Moster=Evil=ok to kill. That way you're characters not just a psychopath who kills people in their sleep.

That said, it's an easy thing to change to bring the game more in line with the type of play you want.

If I had to guess I just figure WOTC thinks going from: have fun by murdering monsters--> Moral quanderies of being an adventurer

That scenario is easier then: Moral quanderies of being an adventurer-->have fun by murdering monsters, considering that the barrier people who first pick up the book generally are not thinking about how to play a moral agent. (and people who want that are more likely to think it through, and implement it better then the reverse).

[Mellack]

I don't find it odd at all that a new player would assume killing is the standard way combat ends. Combat consists of players hitting baddies with weapons designed to kill. You usually don't hit someone with an axe and expect to just give them a headache.

[Pex]

There is no moral dilemma. If you were going to kill the orc, you kill the orc. The act of killing is not evil.

Having every monster have the possibility to recover is a waste of time. It just means after the combat the players say they slit the throats just to ensure that not only are they merely dead but really most sincerely dead. It's not the DM's job to play gotcha against his players.

[Vogonjeltz]

(Sorry, I'm AFB and could only remember the gist and not the details.) Okay, granted, RAW doesn't forbid it, it just assumes that you won't do it except in very special cases. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing. Rather than discussing whether changing the status quo is a variant house rule or just a DM style thing, I'm more interested in discussing the implications, if anyone has anything to say about it.

I charge that by making monsters automatically die, you are encouraging murderhoboism.



I don't see how it saves time at all, in the common case. You don't even have to roll the saving throws at all unless somebody checks them to see if they're dead, and then you just roll 5d20 and count the successes/failures. If someone is checking to see if the orc is dead, that makes his vital status interesting by definition, so rolling a single set of dice to determine it shouldn't be a big deal. If the PCs go around checking every single orc, you can just fiat that about half of them are dead and the other half are stable. No one will object because it's perfectly plausible.



...and isn't it interesting that the default is "murderous"? A new player who doesn't know anything about the game will automatically be killing everything unless he specifically realizes that leaving them alive works exactly as well. I've seen paladins get very upset at other party members for killing the enemies who surrendered, without those paladins ever becoming aware that the enemies they personally killed could just as easily have been knocked out. The game rules encourage murder because it's simpler, and I find that... interesting.

I'm not trying to imply anything sinister, BTW. I'm quite sure that the reason death is the default is specifically because the designers are trying to keep moral dilemmas out of D&D, because they are too interesting and detract from kill-the-monsters-and-take-their-stuff vibe that is easily accessible to new players. I do think it's an interesting design decision though, and one that might be fun to reverse.

"No melee damage is lethal damage unless you say it is" would also be an interesting house rule, bound to cause angst, in spite of having absolutely zero mechanical impact.

It's one thing to give quarter where asked, it's another to pull punches against someone actively seeking your death.

The rule on knocking someone unconscious is really there for when the players want to take prisoners/someone alive, it doesn't handicap them to do so. (Which is a step up from the 3.5 method)

[Slipperychicken]

The rule on knocking someone unconscious is really there for when the players want to take prisoners/someone alive, it doesn't handicap them to do so. (Which is a step up from the 3.5 method)

I still think it's a cop-out to discount the possibility of accidental death or injury from knockouts.


Actually, given the way death/dying works in 5e, one could probably bring back nonlethal damage (take disadvantage on melee attack roll = deal nonlethal damage?) and use a Mortal Wounds table (like the one from ACKS) to determine the fate of fallen combatants. That could have all kinds of grisly results, like scars, mangled eyes, broken spines, or crushed limbs, although the outcomes would be better when nonlethal damage and competent medical attention are involved.

[Valefor Rathan]

I've spent around...13 years or so playing different games with the same core group of players. We have one guy who regularly GMs for us when we play the old West End Games SW. He's notorious for making us scrounge every possible useful thing, burn CPs to save ourselves, and make sure mook baddies are dead, otherwise we fight them again in a few rounds. We've grown accustomed to a certain barbarity in our encounters.

A "proper burial" in our group involves a large rock to the NPCs head...

[MaxWilson]

Maybe I'm desensitized or out of touch, but I do enjoy playing characters with different ethical norms. I'm playing HotDQ in AL, and my lawful good justice cleric passed sentence upon and hanged a captured kobold raider. Some of the players were shocked. Then they were double shocked when I performed a short ceremony and gave the kobold a proper burial. In real life, I'm morally opposed to indefinite detention and military tribunals for enemy combatants, let alone the rough justice of a bygone age, but these actions didn't cause me any psychic discomfort in the game.

Heh. I'm just the opposite. In real life, I have no issue in principle with military tribunals and swift execution (though I oppose indefinite detention), but within the game I would be loathe to apply harsh justice in some of the situations my party ends up in. Half the time we're the aggressors!


I've spent around...13 years or so playing different games with the same core group of players. We have one guy who regularly GMs for us when we play the old West End Games SW. He's notorious for making us scrounge every possible useful thing, burn CPs to save ourselves, and make sure mook baddies are dead, otherwise we fight them again in a few rounds. We've grown accustomed to a certain barbarity in our encounters.

A "proper burial" in our group involves a large rock to the NPCs head...

A few rounds? Wow. I was thinking more like "a few weeks." Even just recovering their first HP should take several hours. I can imagine that a mook baddie might "drop" (faking it) without having genuinely lost all of its HP, but if so he's probably motivated by fear, and it seems unlikely that he would just give away his game a few seconds later by standing back up and resuming the fight.

[Heartspan]

My characters are usually on the deeper end of the alignment chart, so i don"t really worry about it, but there are a lot of instances where leaving an enemy knocked out will straight get you killed. My characters usually knock out one, kill the rest, interrogate the one we knocked out, then silence it. I was merciful once, then an orc that was somehow proficiently disguised as a human woman stabbed me in the back. So now usually, if you're on the battlefield, and i wasn't commissioned to save you and i don't recognize you, you're dead. :smalltongue:

[Valefor Rathan]

Heh. I'm just the opposite. In real life, I have no issue in principle with military tribunals and swift execution (though I oppose indefinite detention), but within the game I would be loathe to apply harsh justice in some of the situations my party ends up in. Half the time we're the aggressors!



A few rounds? Wow. I was thinking more like "a few weeks." Even just recovering their first HP should take several hours. I can imagine that a mook baddie might "drop" (faking it) without having genuinely lost all of its HP, but if so he's probably motivated by fear, and it seems unlikely that he would just give away his game a few seconds later by standing back up and resuming the fight.


Yeah. It's almost like zombies. We've become very proficient at extra-killing things on the run.

He actually got mad at us once because we wrecked what was obviously supposed to be a recurring villain (think Belkar with the chimaera). We were/are so used to constantly watching our backs that we turned starship-scale guns on the villain and his lackeys. The whole story goes into railroading plots/PCs, game balance, etc., and we've reached a much better ground now, but there was a time when we would seriously be followed/chased by groups of mooks out for revenge.

[joca4christ]

Great thread! So even though I've only read the Basic rules and skimmed the PHB, I'm going to chime in.

I have two perspectives about this: As a player, and as a GM.

As a GM, I tend to rule that the bad guys are dead at 0 hp unless I want them to be a nuisance and then the NPC has a chance to recover. (What? You are supposed to roll for those things? I just rule it behind the screen. *evil grin*) I also have had NPCs surrender if it makes sense for that given situation. For example, my players recently fought a bunch of goblins. The last couple were cornered so they threw down their weapons and begged for mercy...and my players granted it. But they have learned in my game that killing everything isn't always the best option.

This is the case not because I think killing monsters is unethical. I agree with the many who have posted before me here. The premise of the game is to beat the bad guys, grab the loot, and save the day. That is why the MM tends to lean most monsters towards the evil side of the street...so players don't have killer's remorse. The reason my players don't think killing is always the best way is because we've had scenarios where they didn't have to kill the NPC to solve the "puzzle", gain the XP, and/or continue with the plot. They have also learned that sometimes the best way to get info is to leave one alive and question it. I normally don't plague them with having to be saddled with prisoners, or having to decide whether to kill it or not, because I keep the monster true to it's nature, and usually it tries to deceive or backstab it's captors.

Now, as player...sometimes I get stuck with the healer role, and I try to make the best of it. My most recent character is an oracle who is Haunted. Part of his curse makes him feel compelled to help ANYTHING in need of aid. So I have to specifically ask my GM if the fallen NPC is dead, or dying. If it's dying, my character will feel compelled to save it. Which led to a pretty interesting encounter the last session I played. My character was honest with his party about the compulsion so they knew. The party was attacked by wolves, who managed to do a little damage before being brought down. I tried to stabilize and save one of them, and was kicked off by one party member while the other one put the wolf down for good. It was awesome!

But generally, I think having repercussions for wanton killing is good. And I think there is a big difference from hero PCs who fell every monster they encounter without guilt, and "chaotic neutral" PCs who burn down a town because the shopkeeper wouldn't sell them the item they wanted for the price requested.

And that's my two cents.

[Pex]

If you don't want the players to be murdering hobos, then don't punish them for not being murdering hobos. If they do decide to let a captured/surrendered mook go, don't have the mook entrap them later with the BBEG. Don't have them set up an ambush. Don't have them seek revenge against the party. If you force players to regret letting an enemy live, don't blame them for killing every enemy they meet.

[Demonic Spoon]

If you don't want the players to be murdering hobos, then don't punish them for not being murdering hobos. If they do decide to let a captured/surrendered mook go, don't have the mook entrap them later with the BBEG. Don't have them set up an ambush. Don't have them seek revenge against the party. If you force players to regret letting an enemy live, don't blame them for killing every enemy they meet.

I don't think that's how alignment works. Being good is doing the altruistic or ethical thing at cost to yourself, even if that cost to yourself includes the chance of future betrayal. To do otherwise is to render the choice meaningless.

[MaxWilson]

If you don't want the players to be murdering hobos, then don't punish them for not being murdering hobos. If they do decide to let a captured/surrendered mook go, don't have the mook entrap them later with the BBEG. Don't have them set up an ambush. Don't have them seek revenge against the party. If you force players to regret letting an enemy live, don't blame them for killing every enemy they meet.

I agree to an extent. I certainly wouldn't expect PCs to leave deadly threats alive behind them. (Also, this thread isn't about wanting or not wanting them to be murderhobos so much as about requiring murder to be a deliberate decision. If they choose murderhobo, fine, and interesting.)

I would expect occasional bad ramifications from leaving defeated foes alive. If 20% of defeated foes appreciate the mercy and become nicer if ever re-encountered, 60% vanish never to be seen again, and 20% just try even harder to kill you next time... well, that makes killing vs. not killing an interesting choice, didn't it?

P.S. Also, "if we leave them alive we can fight them again for more experience on the way out!"

[Whammydill]

What if the enemy is only "mostly" dead?

/hide

[jkat718]

What if the enemy is only "mostly" dead?

/hide


There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead...With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do...Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

Fortunately, "mostly dead" allows for some wiggle room, including the classic "make a recurring enemy" (see Yikyik, Yokyok, Yukyuk, and Kilkil, bonus points for Yokyok's Princess Bride quote), the slightly dangerous "take prisoners and hope they don't escape they will escape," and "cross your fingers and hope they don't come back to kill you." Also, there's always "try to make an ally" but no one ever does that.

[Samuel Sturm]

Also, there's always "try to make an ally" but no one ever does that.

This actually will happen sometimes at my table. The DM likes throwing intelligent animals at us. (Usually Worgs). I usually manage to save one early in the campaign and convince it to be, if not a loyal ally, at least useful as a scout/spy. They usually respond well to "all the xyz you can eat".

[jkat718]

@Blade7

In the first campaign I ran, the Druid in the party used Charm Animal on the dungeon boss (a bear), named it Putin, and used it as his mount. Oh god, that bear... *shudders*

[Pex]

I don't think that's how alignment works. Being good is doing the altruistic or ethical thing at cost to yourself, even if that cost to yourself includes the chance of future betrayal. To do otherwise is to render the choice meaningless.

Alignment is irrelevant. If the DM keeps having enemies left to live coming back to make the PCs' lives miserable then PCs won't let enemies live. The DM should not then complain of murdering hobo syndrome.

[MaxWilson]

Alignment is irrelevant. If the DM keeps having enemies left to live coming back to make the PCs' lives miserable then PCs won't let enemies live. The DM should not then complain of murdering hobo syndrome.

There's a wide gap between "chance of future betrayal" and "make the PCs' lives miserable."

[Samuel Sturm]

@Blade7

In the first campaign I ran, the Druid in the party used Charm Animal on the dungeon boss (a bear), named it Putin, and used it as his mount. Oh god, that bear... *shudders*

Please tell me you had him dance on the roof of the inn at some point. Or stand on a cracker. (Putin on the Ritz.)


On topic, I feel that a lot of what 5e has done is streamline play, and in so doing made the game easier to get into. They then tried to allow deeper gameplay by being even more generous with examples of Rule 0. This is cool in a way, but it kind of feels patronizing to me when it keeps happening over and over.