When should a hero die?

[Heliomance]

Something that comes up now and then is how willing should you be to kill your players? How important, and how easy, should death be?

There is one school of thought that declares alea jacta est, let the die fall as it pleases. If the dice say you're dead, then you're dead. But to me, that can be profoundly unsatisfying.

In some games, it's part of the tone, and it's expected. In Call of Cthulhu, for example, you are not heroes. You are mooks, meddling in things that you don't understand, and that can and will kill you. You are not expected to be heroic, you are expected to die like dogs. In a game like that, you can die to whatever kills you.

D&D, though, is a game about heroes. It's a game about epic fantasy quests, about saving the world, marrying the princess, and riding off into the sunset. Dying to a goblin who got a lucky crit is not heroic. Rolling a natural 1 against a Finger of Death before you get to act is not heroic.

In a heroic game, deaths should be heroic. I don't believe that a hero should die unless it's meaningful - or he screwed up. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in giving carte blanche to suicidal charges against insurmountable odds. If a player tries to kill a god at level 5, they are not going to come out of that looking good. (Although, that said, the god probably wouldn't care enough to put the effort in to kill them.)

I think that in a heroic game, character death should only occur due to one of two things: Player choice, or player stupidity. If a player knowingly goes into a lethal situation, for whatever reason - giving his party-mates time to get out, stalling until a ritual can be completed, or een just spitting his defiance into the teeth of oblivion - then it's fine to kill them. It's what the player wanted, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. There is nothing wrong - and many things right - with a heroic death.

If a character tries to take on a problem that is far too hard for them to manage, even after the dreaded "Are you sure?", then go ahead and kill them. It's not your job to coddle the players, and their characters are not all-powerful.

But death should never be random. Death should never hinge on a single roll - unless the player wants it to. Some players are happy to cast their fate to the whims of chance, and that's fine. Mostly, though, it's profoundly unsatisfying to die to bad luck.

And that brings me to resurrection. Some people say that you shouldn't be afraid of killing the PCs, because death is just a nuisance. I hate that even more. Death should be meaningful, and easy resurrection cheapens that so it loses all dramatic impact. I don't hate resurrection in and of itself, but I feel it shouldn't be easy. Bringing back a fallen ally should involve an epic quest, say to enter the underworld and steal their soul back, or perhaps to find a legendary artifact like the Black Cauldron. It shouldn't be a case of scratching some money of your character sheet and pressing a button.

A roleplaying game is, at its heart, collaborative storytelling. And to me, the biggest question that you have to keep in mind when playing is this: "Would this make a good story?"

If it wouldn't, maybe ask yourself why. And maybe ask yourself if you can make it a better one.

[Totally Guy]

A hero should have the chance to die when he cares about something so much that he'd risk his life for it.

[GungHo]

Sometimes giving a character a seemingly random/ignominous death (if the player is agreeable) is a great way to introduce a new villain or a new challenge to the group.

[Luka]

A hero should have the chance to die when he cares about something so much that he'd risk his life for it.

Pretty much this along a Dying moment of awesome

[Yora]

When he dared facing a danger that's too big for him to escape from. If he stumbles on it by accident, he should survive.

[Mystic Muse]

Before he lives long enough to see himself become the villain.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't really play DND, but I agree with the OP. Both of the death part and the resurrection part.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I feel the need to argue a primary assumption of this question. In particular, I question the assumption that being a PC in D&D means you're a hero. From my perspective (which is heavily filtered by 2nd edition) the PCs are not heroes. The PCs are adventurers and given time, effort and overcoming great challenges they may become heroes. Starting from this perspective, it feels much easier to kill off a PC every once in a while just because that's how things crunched out. Incidentally, this is where having access to recovery options goes from 'annoying' to 'important'.

Now if you're playing a game assuming characters are heroes, I see no problem with A) making death less random and B) making bringing the dead back harder as long as A and B are paired together. My point really is just, sometimes, PC does not mean hero.

[Tavor]

It really depends on the kind of campaign and game you run. In a low-mid level 3.5 campaign death is a serious threat and your group needs to agree on the deadliness.
In high level DnD your life is a resource. If you can assure victory for your team even though you die that is a perfectly valid choice to make. You will come back to life afterwards. It is still meaningful because you sacrifice alot - your group is down one member for at least the rest of the combat and of course there is the pricetag of gold and worse: XP (until True Ressourection becomes available anyway).
But remember that if your group can't win the encounter the game is over for the whole group anyway since 3.5 lacks functioning retreat options (with a few exeptions). And everyone hates those "being imprisoned by the enemy" sessions because the DM took pity or wants to wave around his mighty DM-stick.

A quest to bring your fallen ally back to life is a cool idea, but in 3.5 this is at max a mid-level adventure. The only way to have this kind of quest at high level would be a villan who stole the soul preventing ressourection.
But while this is a cool idea, it should stay an idea and never make it into actual play. Why?
Because the dead characters player has nothing to do! Giving him some NPC or having him roll up a new character for the next 5 sessions is not a satisfying solution.

[Cookiemobsta]

Agree wholeheartedly with the OP. If a player does not choose their character's death (either through wholehearted stupidly or deliberate dramatic choice), then characters dying are not fun. And since the point of role-playing is to have fun, then characters dying for no reason should be avoided at all costs.

The one caveat to this (as other people have pointed out) is that in a game like call of cthulu, characters dying is just part of the game. If that's the case, that's fine, because by choosing to play a game like call of cthulu, the players are well aware that their characters are likely to die and chose it anyway. Ditto for playing tomb of horrors or something like that. But if it's a character that the players have invested months into and aren't ready for him/her to die, then dying should be avoided at all costs.

[MukkTB]

I personally feel that players should have a clear chance. If they die they should be able to trace their deaths back to a mistake they made. At worst they should be able to trace their death back to the actions of the other PCs. Maybe the mistake happened in character design, but it shouldn't be arbitrary

So as DM I let the dice fall as they may. If I feel the characters shouldn't die because the criteria above aren't met, I have the bad guys capture them or have the cavalry come in. As a last result I fudge the dice.

[some guy]

I feel the need to argue a primary assumption of this question. In particular, I question the assumption that being a PC in D&D means you're a hero. From my perspective (which is heavily filtered by 2nd edition) the PCs are not heroes. The PCs are adventurers and given time, effort and overcoming great challenges they may become heroes. Starting from this perspective, it feels much easier to kill off a PC every once in a while just because that's how things crunched out. Incidentally, this is where having access to recovery options goes from 'annoying' to 'important'.

Now if you're playing a game assuming characters are heroes, I see no problem with A) making death less random and B) making bringing the dead back harder as long as A and B are paired together. My point really is just, sometimes, PC does not mean hero.

I'm with Belril Duskwalk. In my games the pc's are no heroes, they are adventurers. Even if they were heroes, I would think random death could be meaningful. A reminder that what they are doing is meaningful; if an hero could die at the hands of a mere goblin, that means that goblins are a real threat and that the world needs heroes to deal with goblins.
Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that being lenient with life and death could make a good game for some people. But not for me. And you know what? It's fine. It's fine because I can play my game where death comes up a bit more and other people can play games in which they know their character won't die because of an unlucky die.

[Saph]

I think that in a heroic game, character death should only occur due to one of two things: Player choice, or player stupidity.

Players always have a choice. For example, they can choose not to get into fights with lethal monsters. If they pick a fight and lose, it's their own damn fault.

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the "We should be able to kill everything we meet, but no-one's allowed to kill us because that's unheroic" attitude. The point of being a hero is supposed to be that you know something's dangerous and do it anyway.

[Raum]

Something that comes up now and then is how willing should you be to kill your players?

Don't kill players! It ruins the game and leads to spending a lot of quality time in close proximity to someone named Bubba.

Ok, you meant characters...

How important, and how easy, should death be?

It's entirely dependent on the style of game. A four colors super hero game may not have death at all. In some fantasy games it may be common and permanent while in others it's merely a bump in the road or seldom occurs. In games like Paranoia, you aren't playing until you're on your third clone...

[Wiwaxia]

I'm perfectly okay with both sides of the issue, but I feel that the DM should make it absolutely clear what kind of game s/he is planning before anyone even starts making characters. What's not fun is dying an ignoble death when you were expecting to be given a heroic one, or having your DM protect your characters from death in a survival horror game.

[Solaris]

PCs die when their hit points run out. Heroes die when their villain is defeated and the world no longer needs them. Let's not confuse the two.

Existence alone is not sufficient to make a PC a hero. It's so much more rewarding for the player to make his character a hero.

[Kiero]

When the player decides they would like it to happen.

[Morithias]

In my opinion a "hero's" death. Should only happen if one of three things is met.

Crowning moment of awesome: They go out swinging and nearly take out a creature 5 CR higher than them in an epic battle that lasts 12 rounds. The death has meeting, it has heart, it means dying for a cause you believe in. Watch Linkara's "top 15 worse things about countdown video" for a good explanation and two VERY good examples of "death done right".

It makes sense plot wise: If a PC is dying and on the ground and they're facing a pit fiend who can hit all the PC's including the dying one with it's fireball power. Let the fireball fly, pit fiends don't show mercy and at that level leads into our next topic....

Death is Cheap: If death is truly cheap, and resurrection is easy, don't be afraid to go all out. Don't go for a tpk, but a death maybe once every 3 level ups or something should be good. Don't try to force the death, but at this point, death can be reversed, and a villain that is willing to kill makes for a more epic story, than giving your heroes the equivalent of joker immunity.

These are how HEROES are suppose to meet the end. PC's however have two extra things.

The player is being an idiot. Going up to a great wyrm red dragon that is trying to give you a quest and attacking it at level 5 is not wise. In these cases, just kill the idiot. Also don't kill on the first time, only kill if he doesn't learn his lesson.

To end the campaign. Everyone hates "rocks fall everyone dies" but sometimes an epic final battle that ends with both sides TPKed except for maybe one character is the way to go. Not every hero comes out alive, and it often serves as a great capstone to an epic dungeon crawl.

[Wyntonian]

Just as an example, but I think Lord of the Rings pulls this off decently with Gandalf*. Could the fellowship have escaped? Eh, let's go with yes for this. But Gandalf, or his player, anyway, decided to name a trope and generally embody the most badass** example of the heroic sacrifice he could. Now, did this end the game for him?

Heck no.

Is it because the parties cleric had diamonds for a ressurection?

Nope.

It's because Gandalf had, essentially a side quest and planned with the DM on a suitably dramatic reentrance, while he played some former NPC for a lil while.

And it worked for them.


* The rest of the story may have been lacking if turned directly into a D&D adventure, but this part was ok.

** My own opinion, feel free to have your own.

Disclaimer: Not saying this is right for everyone, but it seemed cool and appropriate, or that every character needs a sidequest to come back, or really anything else. Just that having a crowning moment of awesome and generally laying down the cool can work in some cases.

[Kenneth]

Players always have a choice. For example, they can choose not to get into fights with lethal monsters. If they pick a fight and lose, it's their own damn fault.

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the "We should be able to kill everything we meet, but no-one's allowed to kill us because that's unheroic" attitude. The point of being a hero is supposed to be that you know something's dangerous and do it anyway.

I think i am love with you.

I wholeheartdedly agree with this satatment.

and I think this whole thread is a sub-thread of the '7 tips for being a great DM" herewhere never allowing a character to die unless the player wants said character to die is a very decisive point.


in the end I think it comes down to different beliefs and a newer versus older belif on what makes your character a 'hero' ..
in the older days you played to become a hero, start off barely surviving radnom occurance A) only to be called to undertake random occurance B) something that you full and well know is beyond your capabilits. but who else is even close to be as capable as you. now with MMOs and the introduction of crazy powerful litiaure 'heroes' most gamers today expect them to be doing the crazy things that previusly you only though one should be doing at the mid point in your particular game.

[Tengu_temp]

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the "We should be able to kill everything we meet, but no-one's allowed to kill us because that's unheroic" attitude.

Is anyone here showing this attitude? If you stupidly decide to take on something you know is beyond your ability, then the DM has all the right to kill your character.

The point of being a hero is supposed to be that you know something's dangerous and do it anyway.

From an IC perspective. From an OOC perspective, the fact that the player knows the DM will probably not kill his character does not diminish his heroics at all. Also, any decent DM should be able to put other stuff than just the PC's life at stake to make the situation more dramatic.
In fact, a very lethal game will usually discourage heroics - the PCs will become careful and overly prepared for everything, not willing to take any risks. That's not heroic at all.

[Dumbledore lives]

A hero should die when his story is done. My player's characters are not heroes, hell they're not even really good people, they don't make the best plans, and their execution often leaves much to be desired, so they die. I could be softer, I could save them more often, but sometimes a foolish decision leads you dead, like a wizard charging a mimic with only a dagger.

I should point out as well that in one party we have had 3 inter-party kills, one was kind of revenge for a previous one.

[Raum]

From an IC perspective. From an OOC perspective, the fact that the player knows the DM will probably not kill his character does not diminish his heroics at all.

Insofar as heroism involves courage and valor, removing danger certainly does diminish it.

In fact, a very lethal game will usually discourage heroics - the PCs will become careful and overly prepared for everything, not willing to take any risks. That's not heroic at all.

There's some truth to this...but why do you think that's bad? Take Shadowrun as an example...paranoid preparation is an expected part of the game! :)

[tensai_oni]

in the older days you played to become a hero, start off barely surviving radnom occurance A) only to be called to undertake random occurance B) something that you full and well know is beyond your capabilits. but who else is even close to be as capable as you. now with MMOs and the introduction of crazy powerful litiaure 'heroes' most gamers today expect them to be doing the crazy things that previusly you only though one should be doing at the mid point in your particular game.

Because it is such a great feeling to spend hours, days maybe creating your character - not rolling stats, but his description, personality, backstory. And then have him die in the first encounter because the goblin got a critical hit in or a you rolled a nat 1 on a save-or-die spell.

Now we have all these newfangled ideas that having a strong character that is actually fun to play is something a player deserves, rather than has to earn. This is obviously introduced by MMOs, not by players who just find different things enjoyable than you do.

In case anyone cannot tell, two paragraphs above are 100% sarcasm. Also I like how those who disagreed with the OP so far equated his stance to a player stupidly picking a fight he knows he cannot win and hoping he'll escape alive. As opposed to not dying to random encounters who the player should be able to handle, but didn't because he had a series of fail rolls. Please do not pick at strawmen.

[Tengu_temp]

I should add that my PCs are always the heroes of their own story. It might not always be an epic, world-changing story, it might be something small that most people won't care about or even notice - but it's always there. I don't find plotless dungeoncrawling, wide open sandboxes or the "here are the PCs, let's put them through a series of disconnected adventures" approach to be very fun.

[Terraoblivion]

Insofar as heroism involves courage and valor, removing danger certainly does diminish it.

It's not the player who is heroic, after all there isn't anything much heroic about sitting around a table rolling dice or sitting at your computer telling stories over irc, it's the character and from their perspective the danger was no less real.

[Raum]

It's not the player who is heroic, after all there isn't anything much heroic about sitting around a table rolling dice or sitting at your computer telling stories over irc, it's the character and from their perspective the danger was no less real.

Sounds like sophistry to me.

I'm not there so the character can play a game and have fun. The character is simply the token I'm using to play the game. And yes, playing may involve risking the token.

Shrug. As mentioned before, I think there is no single answer to when a character should be at risk. It depends on the game. But 'heroism' is a different story - it's defined by courage and valor, neither of which exists without risk.

[tensai_oni]

It's not sophistry, it's IC/OOC separation. An action does not have to be heroic OOCly to be heroic ICly. In fact no actions are heroic OOCly because all you do is sit around, talk and roll dice.

[RPGuru1331]

Sounds like sophistry to me.

In the immortal words of Dogbert, "Excuse me while I take a wicked wag."

I'm not there so the character can play a game and have fun. The character is simply the token I'm using to play the game. And yes, playing may involve risking the token.

Then you're not really heroic, are you? You're just playing a game XD

Shrug. As mentioned before, I think there is no single answer to when a character should be at risk. It depends on the game. But 'heroism' is a different story - it's defined by courage and valor, neither of which exists without risk.

The courage and valor of rolling dice at tables?
*Suppresses giggles*
Please, tell me of your heroism.

[Silus]

Just gonna chime in and say that I think a hero (particularly in a TTG) should, barring accidents or the like, be able to die in both a blaze of glory and on their own terms.

Holding the pass against the entire Orc army while the refugees escape.
Taunting the dragon while the party gets in position for the kill shot.
Standing atop the corpses of a million slain demons to give your allies enough time to shut down the hellrift.

That sort of thing.