PDA

View Full Version : Killing off loved ones



Khi'Khi
2016-09-15, 04:00 PM
Greetings, Playground! Long time stalker of the forums, first time poster.

We all know the common trope of "kill a loved one to generate some angst for our heroes" or "kill a love one to make the villain seem really eeeviiil." But what happens when a player invests time and thought into making a sibling/significant other NPC into a fully developed character in their own right, only to have the GM pull a "rocks fall, your sister/husband/child dies?"

On one hand, an NPC is an NPC, fully subject to GM control. On the other hand, if a player creates a side character, should they have some say in what happens to them? Are NPC's mere fodder for the story, created by the character then controlled by the GM? What say you all?

NRSASD
2016-09-15, 04:28 PM
In that case, where the PCs have interacted with a family member NPC (or any other NPC they really care about), I wouldn't kill them off without the PCs having achance to thwart it. They should at least have a chance to try to save the NPC, because A. that makes the death even more meaningful and B. you aren't being a jerk. Generally speaking, I'm more in favor of abducting those NPCs rather than just straight up murdering them, because then the party has a chance to intervene. Granted, if the PCs screw up, or even moderately succeed, the NPC might still die if the plot demands it. But at least they know they had a shot at preventing it.

If the NPC in question is very dear to one of my more emotionally invested players (not PC, the player), I'll try to avoid killing that NPC. If I have to, then I'll try to do so tactfully.

Strigon
2016-09-15, 04:48 PM
If they're that invested, they should realize that person is a valid target for your enemies, and take suitable measures to protect them.
Besides, in most cases, having the leverage of captive loved one is more valuable than killing them.

Green Elf
2016-09-15, 07:18 PM
Loved ones are great to build but TAKE YOUR TIME (and don't make it creepy (obviously)). Use them for captives or be extremely cautious killing them. I hate losing the leverage over PCs by killing the character to fast. (Female works better 99.99999999999999% of the time).

OracleofSilence
2016-09-15, 07:28 PM
Looking at this in a sense other then a table manners one, killing NPC's is really tricky. This is for a simple reason.

NPC's aren't real. Why does D&D tend to motivate with loot? Because character sheet are real, and loot can be added to them. Why do more roleplay oriented games tend to include ways of mechanizing social ties? Because character sheets are real, and these mechanized relationships can be written on them.

There's nothing wrong with killing player created characters, there's a problem when killing them provokes no player motivation. As long as the death is for dramatically appropriate, and happens for a good reason, no one has a reason to complain because it drives the game forward.

Example of good NPC deaths: Boromir (LoTR). Boromir died in redemptive fashion, finishing his character arc, motivating the PC's, and providing a dramatic climax the session. His death was preventable, both on his part, and the part of the players, but felt inevitable in the context of the story. It was affecting, dramatic and enabled other characters to progress along their own story arc in a way that would have been more difficult had he survived.

Example of Bad PC death: Jonathon Kent (Man of Steel). This death was meaningless. It was unnecessary, unaffecting, and poorly constructed. This scene happened for no other reason then to... say something? Maybe? Actually, when you consider it, all it does is muddy the waters, confusing the character of Pa Kent, and Superman. It serves no real purpose in the narrative of the film. This scene could have outright NOT HAPPENED, and the story would not have changed in a substantial manner at all.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-09-15, 07:31 PM
I can sympathize with not wanting to cross the line but it's easy enough to cut this off at the pass. When a player begins making such an NPC, make it clear to them that yours is a dangerous world and that PC's can expect to make enemies. Such an NPC -may- be used as leverage to make a good story either by capture, harm, or death. If that's unacceptable, they shouldn't write the character into their background and if they're okay with it up to a point, you need to talk for a few minutes and find out where that point is.

I loathe treating players and PC's with kid gloves but straying too far out of someone's comfort zone makes the game not fun. The point of the game is for everyone involved to have fun. There's no way out of this being a subjective balancing act.

TheFurith
2016-09-15, 08:28 PM
If done well, it's great. It something that a lot of DMs never really do, they don't get the players or characters motivated to want to stop whoever it is. It's just "that guy is evil because he is and that means you should stop them". They don't get the antagonists over.

On the other hand, if you kill off a well made NPC that's very important to a PC just to give them a reason to go kill some minor NPC for doing it. Well that's just really lame.

In a world of easy resurrection the whole thing could be rendered pointless. So there's that too.

I'd say probably the best way to do it would be to tease the possibility for a while. Somebody is out to get them. The town might come under siege. They've received threats. The NPC has gotten in over their head with something. Just don't make it too obvious. Have it seem preventable in some way, even if it's not. Have them thinking of what they could have done to stop it. Have it all suddenly fall into place when they find the NPC dead. That's the kind of thing that starts off a good revenge story.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-15, 08:41 PM
Tread carefully when threatening/harming/killing NPCs who are important to the PCs/protagonists.

It can easily slip into cliche/trope territory, where as soon as you know that a character is important to the "main characters" that character will be threatened, harmed, or killed, at some point... it's only a matter of time. It's a really bad problem in fiction, and it can slide into eyeroll territory in an RPG very easily.

Knaight
2016-09-18, 02:57 AM
I have no issue with killing of major NPCs. With that said, some reasons for that are much stronger than others and fridging them to generate PC centered drama or emphasize how dangerous a villain is going to feel some variety of cheap and/or like a tired trope in all but a few cases.

Vinyadan
2016-09-18, 03:31 AM
The problem is if the death of the NPC doesn't cause anger in the PC against that the BBEG, and instead causes anger in the player against the DM for a perceived unfair treatment. So I'd keep a safety hatch open (finding her alive in the villain's lair?)

tensai_oni
2016-09-18, 07:29 AM
I play systems where relationships between players and characters tend to be distinguished in some way depending on what role they are supposed to have.

For example, if I have a beloved one who is a Complication or a Disadvantage? The game master is allowed, expected even to abduct them, keep hostage by the villain, etc.

If they're a Feat? Hands off. If they're neither - that signals to the GM that the NPC is just there for flavor or so I can have cooldown (between adventures) scenes with them. Also hands off.

Generally if a player introduces a plot element through their character's backstory or buying things on the sheet - not just an NPC, it could be a hometown or something, messing with it is in poor taste and will make you look petty and vindicative. That is, unless you have permission from the player to mess with it, either because it's a Disadvantage that is expected to be messed with as stated earlier, or you talked to the player and they're fine with it, or you even gave your players explicit advance warning that your setting is deadly and this may happen. If they accept that, it's fine. Just make sure they actually accept it first.

Also an important thing here is to be able to distinguish between elements introduced by the players, and elements introduced by the game master. If you yourself introduce an NPC, the players like them but then the NPC dies dramatically or is captured by the enemy? That is fair game.

Note that in general I am talking about abducting/taking NPCs hostage, not killing them off. There is a reason for that. Killing an NPC off is very hard to pull off without making it it look like a stupid and overdone cliche. Double points if the NPC is female. Double points if they were proven capable to kick ass before but now die like a dog just so the GM can have the drama.

Jay R
2016-09-18, 10:03 AM
In general, if you can avoid taking away something the player has spent time developing, then you probably should.

For one thing, a DM should measure the value of the continuing character vs. the value of the plot device of the character dying. The more well-developed the NPC, the less reasonable it is to kill it. If you can get the same plot device and motivation out of killing a character the PC is less invested in, then avoid causing the problem. (Hint: killing a child always works, even if the child is a complete stranger.)

Besides, the motivation for rescuing a captured relative is far more urgent and immediate than avenging the death of one.

No character can be invulnerable, or eventually some PC will start hiding behind her.

But a related character back at home should probably be left alone. Put the dangers out where the PCs get to face them.

Khi'Khi
2016-09-19, 01:31 PM
Another collary to that is the matter of pets/familiars. Not animal companions, those are directly involved in combat and thus fair game. But should a DM ever target the Raven on the spellcaster's shoulder?

Segev
2016-09-19, 02:35 PM
One key thing is to make sure that, if you're going to do it, it stems from something in the game setting, not from "GM trying to get at the player's heartstrings." If a BBEG is taking hostages, then taking the paladin's love interest or baby brother or mother should be because he wants to hold something specifically over the paladin. While possible to have "grabbed all the women from Village X" make sense enough, even if it's mere coincidence that Village X is where that paladin's mother lives, you have to be careful to be sure it isn't contrived. Why Village X? Who is the villain's target, and why?

It's possible for the player to have given you that reason. His girlfriend who's the fairest in the land? The Evil Emperor is building his harem and has had agents out scouring the land for the most beautiful women to add to it...and they found her. In fact, that's perfect build-up to it, if the PCs have encountered these agents and know what they've been up to. It's only a matter of time before they find the player's beloved.

His mother is a brilliant alchemist who taught him his craft and maybe is occasionally useful as a place to buy or get identified some items? The BBEG needs something specific and has sought her for her aid in accomplishing the alchemy required.


But unless the BBEG is deliberately trying to HURT the PC(s), he probably won't go after their loved ones without reason. It being random and just happening to include their loved ones does tend to feel like unfair targeting.

But tying their loved ones in with a reason? That can also help get at the player's sense of investment. Paladin Bob's alchemist mother may well be their source of below-market-value potions...and the BBEG has taken that from them.

tensai_oni
2016-09-19, 04:12 PM
Another collary to that is the matter of pets/familiars. Not animal companions, those are directly involved in combat and thus fair game. But should a DM ever target the Raven on the spellcaster's shoulder?

Personally I judge deliberate targetting of player characters' non-combat pets on the same level as letting someone play a Paladin and then immediately setting up scenarios that force the Paladin to fall.

Harsh? Maybe. But pets is where the line is crossed and in-character pettiness turns into the game master just being a jerk. Unless of course, you have the player's permission. As usual.

Arbane
2016-09-19, 05:24 PM
It can easily slip into cliche/trope territory, where as soon as you know that a character is important to the "main characters" that character will be threatened, harmed, or killed, at some point... it's only a matter of time. It's a really bad problem in fiction, and it can slide into eyeroll territory in an RPG very easily.

There's a reason the stereotypical murderhobo player character is a rootless drifter orphan, possibly with amnesia. Because GMs get what they reward, and fridging characters' dependents looks like an easy way to generate cheap Drama(tm).

Contrast
2016-09-19, 06:33 PM
I can sympathize with not wanting to cross the line but it's easy enough to cut this off at the pass. When a player begins making such an NPC, make it clear to them that yours is a dangerous world and that PC's can expect to make enemies. Such an NPC -may- be used as leverage to make a good story either by capture, harm, or death. If that's unacceptable, they shouldn't write the character into their background and if they're okay with it up to a point, you need to talk for a few minutes and find out where that point is.

I loathe treating players and PC's with kid gloves but straying too far out of someone's comfort zone makes the game not fun. The point of the game is for everyone involved to have fun. There's no way out of this being a subjective balancing act.

I see what you're saying but I think the emphasis if maybe off slightly. I worry this approach would encourage players to include an asterisk after every and any person mentioned in their backstory saying *This individual later died of natural causes an interdeterminate time prior to the campaign starting, with the PC character having now mourned their death and accepted their passing.

The last thing you want someone to hear is 'well you should have known better than to not write yourself as a single, friendless, childless orphan if you didn't want them leveraged against you'. My experience is that a lot of players already need a lot of cajoling to come up with a backstory that actually presents them as a real person with links and connections to the world around them. I think it definately needs to be a two-way street so that the players and the DM are both on the same page. I would definately rule out any surprise events unless you're certain the player will be ok with it. Say the plot involves roving bands of orcs pillaging at will - the PC receives word that their home village is under threat. Now if they rush back or not, if the player isn't on board I wouldn't kill off their loved ones. Now, not dead doesn't mean consequence free of course - maybe the family home got destroyed and their family are now amidst the refugees flooding into the capital. Maybe a rival kingdom/local bandit used the excuse to sieze that bit of territory so they are now safe but under the oppressive thumb of an unworthy leader who the PC can challenge when they do get home. Point being there are lots of interesting things you can do with characters from a players backstory which spur the plot on without killing them off.

I say this as someone who's more than happy to throw my backstory characters to the wolves OOC if its interesting in game.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-19, 06:38 PM
There's a reason the stereotypical murderhobo player character is a rootless drifter orphan, possibly with amnesia. Because GMs get what they reward, and fridging characters' dependents looks like an easy way to generate cheap Drama (tm).

Very true.

Somewhere, previously, I can across a discussion thread with several GMs lamenting the way their players shied away from their PCs developing any connections to NPCs, and largely not having parents or siblings or "SOs" or children or hometowns or NPC friends. It was clearly from many of the posts that the GMs were disappointed that this reduced their "openings for drama" and that they'd have been putting these NPCs under threat.

I finally posted "If you want to know why are your players don't let their PCs form NPC connections, go look in the mirror".

Vitruviansquid
2016-09-19, 07:49 PM
Killing a loved one has long been considered a cheap way to drive the plot.

As you have also pointed out, OP, killing a loved one is also undesirable because it negates the player's investment.

So it's a win-win if you don't kill a player's loved ones. Easy as that.

LudicSavant
2016-09-19, 07:56 PM
Tread carefully when threatening/harming/killing NPCs who are important to the PCs/protagonists.

It can easily slip into cliche/trope territory, where as soon as you know that a character is important to the "main characters" that character will be threatened, harmed, or killed, at some point... it's only a matter of time. It's a really bad problem in fiction, and it can slide into eyeroll territory in an RPG very easily.

This. Execution matters, and this is one of those tropes where bad execution is common enough that people are well-trained to spot it and roll their eyes at it.

Make sure if you do it, you're doing it right!

Cluedrew
2016-09-19, 08:02 PM
The last thing you want someone to hear is 'well you should have known better than to not write yourself as a single, friendless, childless orphan if you didn't want them leveraged against you'.Other solutions:
Uses the other PCs, maybe you have known each other for years instead of the better part of 15 minutes.
You are a traveller, your family is far away. Ideally you have a way of communicating with them but they out of immediate threat.
Social agreement between players and GM. (The practical boring solution.)
"I'm the least accomplished adventurer in my family."

The GM has to trust you one the last one, but I feel you could have some fun with it. I mean your character (depending on the game) is probably pretty exceptional, why not their family and their fellows as well.

Now I should mention about killing off loved ones... don't. Unless it is part of a rather large story ark that the player is OK with. Aside from the fact the player may not want that, the amount of story and role-play you can get out of a living character generally exceeds that you can get out of a dead one.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-09-19, 08:15 PM
I see what you're saying but I think the emphasis if maybe off slightly. I worry this approach would encourage players to include an asterisk after every and any person mentioned in their backstory saying *This individual later died of natural causes an interdeterminate time prior to the campaign starting, with the PC character having now mourned their death and accepted their passing.

The last thing you want someone to hear is 'well you should have known better than to not write yourself as a single, friendless, childless orphan if you didn't want them leveraged against you'. My experience is that a lot of players already need a lot of cajoling to come up with a backstory that actually presents them as a real person with links and connections to the world around them. I think it definately needs to be a two-way street so that the players and the DM are both on the same page. I would definately rule out any surprise events unless you're certain the player will be ok with it. Say the plot involves roving bands of orcs pillaging at will - the PC receives word that their home village is under threat. Now if they rush back or not, if the player isn't on board I wouldn't kill off their loved ones. Now, not dead doesn't mean consequence free of course - maybe the family home got destroyed and their family are now amidst the refugees flooding into the capital. Maybe a rival kingdom/local bandit used the excuse to sieze that bit of territory so they are now safe but under the oppressive thumb of an unworthy leader who the PC can challenge when they do get home. Point being there are lots of interesting things you can do with characters from a players backstory which spur the plot on without killing them off.

I say this as someone who's more than happy to throw my backstory characters to the wolves OOC if its interesting in game.

For me, it's a matter of versisimilitude. If you, as an adventurer, make enemies, particularly any evil enemies, and you don't take -some- effort to protect your loved ones from those enemies, it's utterly absurd to expect -all- of those enemies to just leave them alone because that's dirty pull (especially the evil ones).

It's certainly a tool to be used sparingly, of course, but to expect the DM to just not use this partiuclar trope at all just strikes me as completely unreasonable. If that leads a player to only ever make orphans rather than take that risk, so be it.

nyjastul69
2016-09-19, 08:31 PM
Killing off loved ones should be fair game. The DM should use this trope sparingly, appropriately and the player should be forewarned that this type of thing is a possibility.

RazorChain
2016-09-19, 09:33 PM
This. Execution matters, and this is one of those tropes where bad execution is common enough that people are well-trained to spot it and roll their eyes at it.

Make sure if you do it, you're doing it right!

I agree on this.

First you must ask yourself why you are killing the PC's loved ones. Is it necessary? If you are just doing it to show how evil the villain is and drum up some hate for him then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Last session with my group one of the PC's lost his girlfriend, she is not dead but her body has been taken over by a demigod and her soul is trapped in a large marble statue. The players know why this happened and they know how they made a wrong decision and they were there when it happened and failed to prevent it. The PC who lost his girlfriend decided that he could bargain his girlfriend out of a contract with no bargaining chips. He should have listened to a fellow PC who advised against it and suggested an alternative solution.

If you are going to take a loved one away from a PC then at least make it a price of failure or the price of choice. At least then the PC is involved and has a chance to save or prevent his loved one's death.

In one campaign I ran the PC's killed the main villains family during a fight, they went all in at his home to kill him and his family became collateral damage. The PC's forgot to check if he was home so instead they killed only his henchmen and wife and two children. The villain swore revenge and literally told the PC's that he would kill their loved ones, one by one. They had taken away from him everything he loved. In that campaign I killed three of the PC's loved ones. One for the villains wife and two for his children.
The Villains sole purpose became to destroy the PC's while the PC's made the mistake of focusing on foiling his power grabbing schemes.