"At least we'll die with harness on our back"

[hymer]

It recently struck me that I never really thought about this, so I'd like anyone's opinions and thoughts.

It's often declared that it is somehow a better death to die fighting. The Macbeth quote in the title, "At least s/he went down swinging", or "I'd rather die with my boots on".
This seems slightly to the side of Horace's "it is sweet and proper to die for one's country", where the death (which is pointedly inevitable) is given a special meaning, in that the life was given for something good and grand.

So what do you think your PCs and NPCs think about this? Does the villain take comfort that at least s/he will die fighting? Why would that be?

[Millstone85]

Does the villain take comfort that at least s/he will die fighting? Why would that be?Tarquin demonstrates (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html).

A true artist of evil doesn't want to die choking on a pea. They want to mock the hero with their last breath.

[Tiri]

The PC I'm playing currently would definitely prefer to die comfortably, in a non-violent situation, as he is afraid of and dislikes pain, among many other things.

The only recurring villain in the campaign I'm DM for would prefer to go down fighting, but only because it is an undead creature and the only way for it to be destroyed without a fight would be if someone sneaked up on it and destroyed it without a chance of resistance.

[Knaight]

I doubt any of the PCs in any of my current games would prefer to die violently - some of them are technically warriors, but the groups overall can be summed up as nomads traveling the world to bring advancements to civilization and the crew of a fishing balloon looking to cross the world to sell a treasure and retire rich. Both settings have this to some extent, inasmuch as it's an attitude that is cultivated in the fighting classes, but it doesn't fit the major antagonists. In the case of the nomads the antagonists are the environment itself, then an incredibly rich miners guild that is also one of the centers of magical power, then one warrior that they have a beef with over the time he shot them all with arrows and left them to die. It kind of fits that warrior, and that's about it. In the other, the antagonists are generally fleeting and local, with the notable exception of one noble that the PCs have really pissed off. Said noble has other people to do the dying for him.

[hymer]

it's an attitude that is cultivated in the fighting classes

Which makes sense from a purely cynical point of view. But are there any who would cultivate this (perhaps in themselves?), not as a means, but an end? Or for a different end than the purely practical?

[Knaight]

Which makes sense from a purely cynical point of view. But are there any who would cultivate this (perhaps in themselves?), not as a means, but an end? Or for a different end than the purely practical?

Once you get the fighting classes self cultivating, then the bulk of said classes are doing this for an end that isn't practical (not to them anyways). In terms of big antagonists though, there's a definite tendency towards those that have others die for them.

[Chijinda]

Most of my characters would certainly at LEAST prefer a death in battle, to dying of some disease or through tripping a falling down a flight of stairs. A comfortable death in bed is fair enough, but if you can't have that, you may as well go down fighting for what you believe in, and defying someone who would oppress those beliefs to your last breath.

[daniel_ream]

Pre-industrial societies with a warrior class depend not on wandering bands of mercenaries for their defense, but massed ranks of infantry whose effectiveness depends on maintaining formation. Any such society is going to quickly evolve a warrior's code that says you go down fighting rather than break and run, because (paradoxically) you're more likely to die if your unit breaks and routs and gets cut down by pursuing enemies.

That spills over into other contexts, like preferring to take to the field against a pretender to the throne rather than sit in your keep starving to death under siege. A Hail Mary pass is better than the surety of a slow, ignominiuous death.

[BWR]

It depends on the characters, the culture they come from and their situation.

Some people are doers and thrill-seekers and need to test themselves constantly, putting themselves in dangerous situations where they risk death because they get a rush from it. Rotting away quietly is the worst thing they can think of. Some baddies will fall into this category, preferring to gamble everything to make their plans come true rather than run and hide if things seem tough.
Then you have the people who are in a situation where they feel they must fight. Against a BBEG, enemy invasion or whatever, they will risk give their lives to stop their opponents. Sure, most might prefer to die a quiet, peaceful death but it is better to die fighting the enemy than to let the enemy advance unopposed.
Sometimes you have cultures with ingrained warrior ideals of duty, honor and glory, and while many people are probably scared witless during combat, they will still fight because of their ingrained values.

Since most of the RPGs I play have a strong element of combat, most of my PCs and NPCs do not shy away from it, Exactly how happy they are to go into a situation where they know they will probably die varies, but most will at least try to think of an alternative strategy than 'rush in and die'

[Mastikator]

It's more difficult to coerce someone who would rather fight and die than comply, if you can cultivate a reputation that you are such a person then someone else will be less likely to attempt to control you. (unless they have overwhelming power, in which case it doesn't matter)

[Stealth Marmot]

My most cynical of characters once said he wanted to die on his feet. He was actually a coward, the trait was rolled for him, so he wanted to die with conviction. He didn't necessarily want to die a hero, but he wanted to die without begging.

Sadly his final death was him broken, beaten, and utterly destroyed mentally and physically, having committed atrocities to barely manage to save the soul (and not even the life) of the one he loved by sacrificing his own (body and soul). He did so by attacking a group that was committing atrocities by taking out his crimes against them on his homeland, killing innocents (think how drug cartels murder innocents in response to any action against them). My character knew this and did it anyway, living only to destroy them and getting the worst revenge possible. By the end, thousands had died because of his actions, and he still barely got her soul released at the cost of his own, and he didn't even stop the organization.

[tensai_oni]

"It's a better death to die fighting" - the question is, better than what?

I think few would disagree that it's better to die when there's a fighting chance than to slowly succumb to starvation, incurable plague or some other horrible fate like that. But the question is, what would your character do when facing opposition and it's obvious further efforts are meaningless? Would they rather go down swinging in futile defiance, or accept what is to come with quiet dignity? The best way to add a noble streak to a villain (even a potentially vile one otherwise) is to have them recognize when odds are lost and accept the outcome, death or otherwise.

On the other hand, my heroic characters have a tendency to value life above all else - not just others', but theirs too. A notable example was introduced into the campaign as an actual enemy, who opposed the rest of players due to bad decisions in the past but, having been beaten by them, decided to yield and became their prisoner, and eventually ally. The same character proceeded to put her life in serious danger for sake of noble causes (or innocent lives) several times during the campaign, but because it was established she valued life foremost, it was never a decision that was made rashly or easily. Also of note is the fact the character came from a warrior culture that believed in throwing your life, death before disgrace, etc, and trying to live up to (and failing) to this impractical ideal is what caused her a lot of emotional turmoil. Yet if she was the embodiement of it, the character in question would be much less interesting - or even alive to begin with.

[daniel_ream]

"It's a better death to die fighting" - the question is, better than what?

I think few would disagree that it's better to die when there's a fighting chance than to slowly succumb to starvation, incurable plague or some other horrible fate like that. But the question is, what would your character do when facing opposition and it's obvious further efforts are meaningless? Would they rather go down swinging in futile defiance, or accept what is to come with quiet dignity?

In most pre-industrial societies, a high value target that couldn't expect to be ransomed could expect to be tortured to death, slowly. So there's that.

[tensai_oni]

In most pre-industrial societies, a high value target that couldn't expect to be ransomed could expect to be tortured to death, slowly. So there's that.

Yeah, I have strong doubts about validity of that statement. Historical accuracy (or lack thereof) aside, I'm not sure I'd like to play with a group of players whose default way of dealing with enemies they meet is "torture to death, slowly".

[veti]

"Fighting" is a very 'simple' thing. Simple in the sense that your objective is very clear, immediate, easy to focus on. There's not much ambiguity about what you're doing, and it's easy to tell yourself that you've got no choice - hence, no need (or indeed chance) to think carefully about all the other things you could be doing.

To people who are tormented by self-doubts and what-ifs - i.e. to approximately 93% of all humans - the thought of "going down fighting" can be quite comforting. Particularly if they've been under a lot of stress/doubt recently (as they generally have, by the time they come to make a decision like that). The alternative, in general - assuming you can't win the fight - is to make a conscious choice to give up something of value (often, very great value - such as your home or family). That's a very hard decision to make. Choosing to "go down fighting" absolves you of the need to live with it, even if the end result is much the same.

In the context of gaming: this last consideration still applies surprisingly strongly. The chief difference being that your motivation is modelled differently. An imaginary family means orders of magnitude less to the player than a real one, so games invent things like "alignment" or "disadvantages" to apply similar levels of motivation to a PC.

[raspberrybadger]

One of the PCs I GM for will go to nearly any lengths to avoid death. Unless it means he gets to take the world with him in some serious way. Then he'd be more ok with death.

A few of my own characters have been 'go down fighting' types. One out of pride, one out of simpleminded joy in fighting, one out of determination to protect, and one out of a sense of honour.

[Raimun]

If you have to go, go with dignity?

Of course, this mentality assumes that before you die, you first try your hardest to make the other side die for their cause.

Either way, live or die, indomitable spirit is one of the many things that can bring victory. Who knows, maybe you will even paradoxically survive because you accept death? If you don't fear death, you might fight better. If you fight better, you might conquer your enemies. And a conquered enemy is less likely to kill you in the process than an unconquered enemy. Of course, there are limits to everything and the will to fight is never the only factor that affects the outcome.

[daniel_ream]

Yeah, I have strong doubts about validity of that statement.

Several pre-Colombian North and Meso-American native tribes, and the British during both the Anarchy and the Reformation are four examples just off the top of my head. Making an example of your enemies was a common thing.

And nobody said your PCs have to be doing this. It is sufficient that they know it's a likely outcome to surrendering.

[tensai_oni]

Fair enough. In examples given it's more accurate to war scenarios as opposed to small scale, personal engagements which is what player characters are usually expected to engage in. However, a possibility of meeting adventurers with a grudge, or being taken prisoner and then trialed to torture before execution is still a possibility (the latter dependant on the culture of the setting but still).

Doesn't all of it as a possibility mean that a villain who knows when to give up comes off as even stronger in will and dignity? "You won, do with me as you may, be it death or worse", as opposed to trying to fight off the PCs even when it's clear you lost, when you barely have the strength to lift up your weapon. The latter just evokes a pathetic image, though sometimes that is also the point.