Is a pregnant creature considered a single entity for spells such as Banishment?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Using the D&D 5e RPG system. We'll use a Brown Bear and the spell Banishment as an example. What, if anything, occurs when you attempt to cast such a spell on a creature that is currently pregnant?
The spell specifies the following:
You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to
another plane of existence. The target must succeed on a Charisma
saving throw or be banished. If the target is native to the plane of
existence you’re on, you banish the target to a harmless demiplane.
While there, the target is incapacitated
Does the spell take effect and if so does it bring the as yet unborn creature(s) with the mother? Possible complications include, beyond the spell only targeting a single creature, that it must also be a creature that you can see. The supposition is that being inside another creature would provide those inside with Total Cover.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a
spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in
an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely
concealed by an obstacle
dnd-5e spells magic targeting
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Using the D&D 5e RPG system. We'll use a Brown Bear and the spell Banishment as an example. What, if anything, occurs when you attempt to cast such a spell on a creature that is currently pregnant?
The spell specifies the following:
You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to
another plane of existence. The target must succeed on a Charisma
saving throw or be banished. If the target is native to the plane of
existence you’re on, you banish the target to a harmless demiplane.
While there, the target is incapacitated
Does the spell take effect and if so does it bring the as yet unborn creature(s) with the mother? Possible complications include, beyond the spell only targeting a single creature, that it must also be a creature that you can see. The supposition is that being inside another creature would provide those inside with Total Cover.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a
spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in
an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely
concealed by an obstacle
dnd-5e spells magic targeting
New contributor
7
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
4
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
5
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Using the D&D 5e RPG system. We'll use a Brown Bear and the spell Banishment as an example. What, if anything, occurs when you attempt to cast such a spell on a creature that is currently pregnant?
The spell specifies the following:
You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to
another plane of existence. The target must succeed on a Charisma
saving throw or be banished. If the target is native to the plane of
existence you’re on, you banish the target to a harmless demiplane.
While there, the target is incapacitated
Does the spell take effect and if so does it bring the as yet unborn creature(s) with the mother? Possible complications include, beyond the spell only targeting a single creature, that it must also be a creature that you can see. The supposition is that being inside another creature would provide those inside with Total Cover.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a
spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in
an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely
concealed by an obstacle
dnd-5e spells magic targeting
New contributor
Using the D&D 5e RPG system. We'll use a Brown Bear and the spell Banishment as an example. What, if anything, occurs when you attempt to cast such a spell on a creature that is currently pregnant?
The spell specifies the following:
You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to
another plane of existence. The target must succeed on a Charisma
saving throw or be banished. If the target is native to the plane of
existence you’re on, you banish the target to a harmless demiplane.
While there, the target is incapacitated
Does the spell take effect and if so does it bring the as yet unborn creature(s) with the mother? Possible complications include, beyond the spell only targeting a single creature, that it must also be a creature that you can see. The supposition is that being inside another creature would provide those inside with Total Cover.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a
spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in
an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely
concealed by an obstacle
dnd-5e spells magic targeting
dnd-5e spells magic targeting
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
doppelgreener♦
31.8k11136228
31.8k11136228
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
Mimics Everywhere
453
453
New contributor
New contributor
7
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
4
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
5
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
7
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
4
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
5
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago
7
7
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
4
4
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
5
5
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
This kind of situation is up to the DM.
D&D 5E isn't designed to handle these sort of situations. The system doesn't have any built-in mechanics for pregnancy, or whether pregnant creatures can be individually targeted by spells. The system simply doesn't have the rules to address it. So by Rule Zero, the DM should make the call.
Note that the DM should be really careful about approaching these topics, as they tend to be sensitive and controversial. Even if players overlook the ethics regarding a pregnant dragon or monstrosity, this could set an unpleasant precedent for similar scenarios with humanoid creatures.
The DM's decision should respect the table's social contract. Some players may accept the grotesque horror style you're considering, whereas others may consider it seriously offensive. And making the players uncomfortable generally results in a poor gameplay experience.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The pregnant creature and its unborn progeny remain together because as DMs, we strive to keep our games Humane
There are a number of questions that we would be forced to ask and resolve if we attempted to make a purely RAW interpretation of this question—questions I have no intention of resolving. These questions include
- Is the unborn child considered its own creature?
- Does the age of the unborn child matter?
- Do the intentions of the pregnant creature matter?
- Should the unborn child make its own Saving Throws?
- Do the intentions of the spellcaster matter?
So, ignoring all of those questions, we'll address the question: does the unborn progeny get banished the same as its parent, or remain behind the same as its parent, or not?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes, it does. Either they both get banished, or neither are banished, contingent on the results of the parent's Saving Throw.
You know why?
Because Dungeons and Dragons is a game, and games are about having fun. Dealing with the sociopolitical and metaphysical questions about conception and personhood, or reckoning with the biological consequences of an unborn child being forcibly and unnaturally separated from its parent are grotesque, and are things that will interfere with the capacity of the game you are playing to be fun.
Having said that...
If you as DM have affirmatively agreed with your players that you are willing to play in such a manner that all of those previously mentioned questions are open season and deserving of itemized responses AND that you and all of your players are comfortable dealing with the grotesque results of whatever rulings result, then you may make whatever ruling you deem fit, based on those criterion I mentioned previously and how you choose to answer them.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The rules don't handle pregnancy so it's up to you.
Should I have pregnancy and fetus rules in my game?
As others have pointed out, this is something that gets very complicated and thus might be better to be left alone. The rules don't say explicitly how a fetus is to be handled. We need not get into the reasoning behind why it isn't handled, but why you have pregnancy rules might matter a lot to your setting and your players.
Whether or not you handle pregnant creatures as differently from other creatures has serious implications for your setting. When is a fetus alive? Do they have stat blocks? Can they be targeted? Is this the type of thing that NPCs regularly worry about? Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Think long and hard about that last one, because that is the can of worms you are opening up. I'll ask it again, because it's very important. Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Make sure your players are okay with that type of thing, but I think you ought to avoid surprising them with a fetus left behind after banishment. Is the shock value really worth darkening the tone?
Additionally, it might raise questions from your players you might want to avoid that could be distracting. Morality is something that can easily distract a group of players and often does. Arguments are fun but you might be biting off more than you can chew here. Be aware of the minefield that is the debate of whether or not a fetus is life. That is not to say that this should bar you from inviting that discussion to your table if that's what you want to do. Very often the characters in our setting have a very different set of morals than our players do. What is acceptable in one city might be taboo in another. One tribe might consider a fetus life, another might consider it not. Just like real life, huh?
Talk to your players first
Because of the implications behind this whole thing, you should ask your players if this is something they'd like to explore. It's your job as DM to ensure the party is having a good time, and while you may want to explore the darker, more complicated side of pregnancy and spells, your players might feel differently. You can already tell it's made many of us uncomfortable already. Imagine how your players feel. If they all agree that this would be the type of thing they want to deal with, then you need to decide how and why it's handled. Again, there are no rules for pregnancy.
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
This is an unnecessary complication
You're opening a Supreme Court sized can of worms here. There is nothing in the rules to support an answer because pregnancy is not addressed in 5e in anyway. Any solution must therefore be a homebrew one.
That said, Roe vs. Wade established the third trimester of pregnancy as the point at which a fetus could become a viable life in the United States. From a D&D rules standpoint, a fetus before this point would not qualify as an independent creature and therefore would be banished along with the mother.
However, it's incredibly messy (figuratively and literally) to use this metric to determine what happens to an unborn child in such a situation so prudence dictates that a fetus should be banished with the mother to keep things simple.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
protected by doppelgreener♦ 2 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
This kind of situation is up to the DM.
D&D 5E isn't designed to handle these sort of situations. The system doesn't have any built-in mechanics for pregnancy, or whether pregnant creatures can be individually targeted by spells. The system simply doesn't have the rules to address it. So by Rule Zero, the DM should make the call.
Note that the DM should be really careful about approaching these topics, as they tend to be sensitive and controversial. Even if players overlook the ethics regarding a pregnant dragon or monstrosity, this could set an unpleasant precedent for similar scenarios with humanoid creatures.
The DM's decision should respect the table's social contract. Some players may accept the grotesque horror style you're considering, whereas others may consider it seriously offensive. And making the players uncomfortable generally results in a poor gameplay experience.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
This kind of situation is up to the DM.
D&D 5E isn't designed to handle these sort of situations. The system doesn't have any built-in mechanics for pregnancy, or whether pregnant creatures can be individually targeted by spells. The system simply doesn't have the rules to address it. So by Rule Zero, the DM should make the call.
Note that the DM should be really careful about approaching these topics, as they tend to be sensitive and controversial. Even if players overlook the ethics regarding a pregnant dragon or monstrosity, this could set an unpleasant precedent for similar scenarios with humanoid creatures.
The DM's decision should respect the table's social contract. Some players may accept the grotesque horror style you're considering, whereas others may consider it seriously offensive. And making the players uncomfortable generally results in a poor gameplay experience.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
This kind of situation is up to the DM.
D&D 5E isn't designed to handle these sort of situations. The system doesn't have any built-in mechanics for pregnancy, or whether pregnant creatures can be individually targeted by spells. The system simply doesn't have the rules to address it. So by Rule Zero, the DM should make the call.
Note that the DM should be really careful about approaching these topics, as they tend to be sensitive and controversial. Even if players overlook the ethics regarding a pregnant dragon or monstrosity, this could set an unpleasant precedent for similar scenarios with humanoid creatures.
The DM's decision should respect the table's social contract. Some players may accept the grotesque horror style you're considering, whereas others may consider it seriously offensive. And making the players uncomfortable generally results in a poor gameplay experience.
This kind of situation is up to the DM.
D&D 5E isn't designed to handle these sort of situations. The system doesn't have any built-in mechanics for pregnancy, or whether pregnant creatures can be individually targeted by spells. The system simply doesn't have the rules to address it. So by Rule Zero, the DM should make the call.
Note that the DM should be really careful about approaching these topics, as they tend to be sensitive and controversial. Even if players overlook the ethics regarding a pregnant dragon or monstrosity, this could set an unpleasant precedent for similar scenarios with humanoid creatures.
The DM's decision should respect the table's social contract. Some players may accept the grotesque horror style you're considering, whereas others may consider it seriously offensive. And making the players uncomfortable generally results in a poor gameplay experience.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
MikeQ
11k42270
11k42270
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The pregnant creature and its unborn progeny remain together because as DMs, we strive to keep our games Humane
There are a number of questions that we would be forced to ask and resolve if we attempted to make a purely RAW interpretation of this question—questions I have no intention of resolving. These questions include
- Is the unborn child considered its own creature?
- Does the age of the unborn child matter?
- Do the intentions of the pregnant creature matter?
- Should the unborn child make its own Saving Throws?
- Do the intentions of the spellcaster matter?
So, ignoring all of those questions, we'll address the question: does the unborn progeny get banished the same as its parent, or remain behind the same as its parent, or not?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes, it does. Either they both get banished, or neither are banished, contingent on the results of the parent's Saving Throw.
You know why?
Because Dungeons and Dragons is a game, and games are about having fun. Dealing with the sociopolitical and metaphysical questions about conception and personhood, or reckoning with the biological consequences of an unborn child being forcibly and unnaturally separated from its parent are grotesque, and are things that will interfere with the capacity of the game you are playing to be fun.
Having said that...
If you as DM have affirmatively agreed with your players that you are willing to play in such a manner that all of those previously mentioned questions are open season and deserving of itemized responses AND that you and all of your players are comfortable dealing with the grotesque results of whatever rulings result, then you may make whatever ruling you deem fit, based on those criterion I mentioned previously and how you choose to answer them.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
The pregnant creature and its unborn progeny remain together because as DMs, we strive to keep our games Humane
There are a number of questions that we would be forced to ask and resolve if we attempted to make a purely RAW interpretation of this question—questions I have no intention of resolving. These questions include
- Is the unborn child considered its own creature?
- Does the age of the unborn child matter?
- Do the intentions of the pregnant creature matter?
- Should the unborn child make its own Saving Throws?
- Do the intentions of the spellcaster matter?
So, ignoring all of those questions, we'll address the question: does the unborn progeny get banished the same as its parent, or remain behind the same as its parent, or not?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes, it does. Either they both get banished, or neither are banished, contingent on the results of the parent's Saving Throw.
You know why?
Because Dungeons and Dragons is a game, and games are about having fun. Dealing with the sociopolitical and metaphysical questions about conception and personhood, or reckoning with the biological consequences of an unborn child being forcibly and unnaturally separated from its parent are grotesque, and are things that will interfere with the capacity of the game you are playing to be fun.
Having said that...
If you as DM have affirmatively agreed with your players that you are willing to play in such a manner that all of those previously mentioned questions are open season and deserving of itemized responses AND that you and all of your players are comfortable dealing with the grotesque results of whatever rulings result, then you may make whatever ruling you deem fit, based on those criterion I mentioned previously and how you choose to answer them.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
The pregnant creature and its unborn progeny remain together because as DMs, we strive to keep our games Humane
There are a number of questions that we would be forced to ask and resolve if we attempted to make a purely RAW interpretation of this question—questions I have no intention of resolving. These questions include
- Is the unborn child considered its own creature?
- Does the age of the unborn child matter?
- Do the intentions of the pregnant creature matter?
- Should the unborn child make its own Saving Throws?
- Do the intentions of the spellcaster matter?
So, ignoring all of those questions, we'll address the question: does the unborn progeny get banished the same as its parent, or remain behind the same as its parent, or not?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes, it does. Either they both get banished, or neither are banished, contingent on the results of the parent's Saving Throw.
You know why?
Because Dungeons and Dragons is a game, and games are about having fun. Dealing with the sociopolitical and metaphysical questions about conception and personhood, or reckoning with the biological consequences of an unborn child being forcibly and unnaturally separated from its parent are grotesque, and are things that will interfere with the capacity of the game you are playing to be fun.
Having said that...
If you as DM have affirmatively agreed with your players that you are willing to play in such a manner that all of those previously mentioned questions are open season and deserving of itemized responses AND that you and all of your players are comfortable dealing with the grotesque results of whatever rulings result, then you may make whatever ruling you deem fit, based on those criterion I mentioned previously and how you choose to answer them.
The pregnant creature and its unborn progeny remain together because as DMs, we strive to keep our games Humane
There are a number of questions that we would be forced to ask and resolve if we attempted to make a purely RAW interpretation of this question—questions I have no intention of resolving. These questions include
- Is the unborn child considered its own creature?
- Does the age of the unborn child matter?
- Do the intentions of the pregnant creature matter?
- Should the unborn child make its own Saving Throws?
- Do the intentions of the spellcaster matter?
So, ignoring all of those questions, we'll address the question: does the unborn progeny get banished the same as its parent, or remain behind the same as its parent, or not?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes, it does. Either they both get banished, or neither are banished, contingent on the results of the parent's Saving Throw.
You know why?
Because Dungeons and Dragons is a game, and games are about having fun. Dealing with the sociopolitical and metaphysical questions about conception and personhood, or reckoning with the biological consequences of an unborn child being forcibly and unnaturally separated from its parent are grotesque, and are things that will interfere with the capacity of the game you are playing to be fun.
Having said that...
If you as DM have affirmatively agreed with your players that you are willing to play in such a manner that all of those previously mentioned questions are open season and deserving of itemized responses AND that you and all of your players are comfortable dealing with the grotesque results of whatever rulings result, then you may make whatever ruling you deem fit, based on those criterion I mentioned previously and how you choose to answer them.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Xirema
14.3k24188
14.3k24188
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The rules don't handle pregnancy so it's up to you.
Should I have pregnancy and fetus rules in my game?
As others have pointed out, this is something that gets very complicated and thus might be better to be left alone. The rules don't say explicitly how a fetus is to be handled. We need not get into the reasoning behind why it isn't handled, but why you have pregnancy rules might matter a lot to your setting and your players.
Whether or not you handle pregnant creatures as differently from other creatures has serious implications for your setting. When is a fetus alive? Do they have stat blocks? Can they be targeted? Is this the type of thing that NPCs regularly worry about? Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Think long and hard about that last one, because that is the can of worms you are opening up. I'll ask it again, because it's very important. Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Make sure your players are okay with that type of thing, but I think you ought to avoid surprising them with a fetus left behind after banishment. Is the shock value really worth darkening the tone?
Additionally, it might raise questions from your players you might want to avoid that could be distracting. Morality is something that can easily distract a group of players and often does. Arguments are fun but you might be biting off more than you can chew here. Be aware of the minefield that is the debate of whether or not a fetus is life. That is not to say that this should bar you from inviting that discussion to your table if that's what you want to do. Very often the characters in our setting have a very different set of morals than our players do. What is acceptable in one city might be taboo in another. One tribe might consider a fetus life, another might consider it not. Just like real life, huh?
Talk to your players first
Because of the implications behind this whole thing, you should ask your players if this is something they'd like to explore. It's your job as DM to ensure the party is having a good time, and while you may want to explore the darker, more complicated side of pregnancy and spells, your players might feel differently. You can already tell it's made many of us uncomfortable already. Imagine how your players feel. If they all agree that this would be the type of thing they want to deal with, then you need to decide how and why it's handled. Again, there are no rules for pregnancy.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The rules don't handle pregnancy so it's up to you.
Should I have pregnancy and fetus rules in my game?
As others have pointed out, this is something that gets very complicated and thus might be better to be left alone. The rules don't say explicitly how a fetus is to be handled. We need not get into the reasoning behind why it isn't handled, but why you have pregnancy rules might matter a lot to your setting and your players.
Whether or not you handle pregnant creatures as differently from other creatures has serious implications for your setting. When is a fetus alive? Do they have stat blocks? Can they be targeted? Is this the type of thing that NPCs regularly worry about? Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Think long and hard about that last one, because that is the can of worms you are opening up. I'll ask it again, because it's very important. Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Make sure your players are okay with that type of thing, but I think you ought to avoid surprising them with a fetus left behind after banishment. Is the shock value really worth darkening the tone?
Additionally, it might raise questions from your players you might want to avoid that could be distracting. Morality is something that can easily distract a group of players and often does. Arguments are fun but you might be biting off more than you can chew here. Be aware of the minefield that is the debate of whether or not a fetus is life. That is not to say that this should bar you from inviting that discussion to your table if that's what you want to do. Very often the characters in our setting have a very different set of morals than our players do. What is acceptable in one city might be taboo in another. One tribe might consider a fetus life, another might consider it not. Just like real life, huh?
Talk to your players first
Because of the implications behind this whole thing, you should ask your players if this is something they'd like to explore. It's your job as DM to ensure the party is having a good time, and while you may want to explore the darker, more complicated side of pregnancy and spells, your players might feel differently. You can already tell it's made many of us uncomfortable already. Imagine how your players feel. If they all agree that this would be the type of thing they want to deal with, then you need to decide how and why it's handled. Again, there are no rules for pregnancy.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The rules don't handle pregnancy so it's up to you.
Should I have pregnancy and fetus rules in my game?
As others have pointed out, this is something that gets very complicated and thus might be better to be left alone. The rules don't say explicitly how a fetus is to be handled. We need not get into the reasoning behind why it isn't handled, but why you have pregnancy rules might matter a lot to your setting and your players.
Whether or not you handle pregnant creatures as differently from other creatures has serious implications for your setting. When is a fetus alive? Do they have stat blocks? Can they be targeted? Is this the type of thing that NPCs regularly worry about? Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Think long and hard about that last one, because that is the can of worms you are opening up. I'll ask it again, because it's very important. Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Make sure your players are okay with that type of thing, but I think you ought to avoid surprising them with a fetus left behind after banishment. Is the shock value really worth darkening the tone?
Additionally, it might raise questions from your players you might want to avoid that could be distracting. Morality is something that can easily distract a group of players and often does. Arguments are fun but you might be biting off more than you can chew here. Be aware of the minefield that is the debate of whether or not a fetus is life. That is not to say that this should bar you from inviting that discussion to your table if that's what you want to do. Very often the characters in our setting have a very different set of morals than our players do. What is acceptable in one city might be taboo in another. One tribe might consider a fetus life, another might consider it not. Just like real life, huh?
Talk to your players first
Because of the implications behind this whole thing, you should ask your players if this is something they'd like to explore. It's your job as DM to ensure the party is having a good time, and while you may want to explore the darker, more complicated side of pregnancy and spells, your players might feel differently. You can already tell it's made many of us uncomfortable already. Imagine how your players feel. If they all agree that this would be the type of thing they want to deal with, then you need to decide how and why it's handled. Again, there are no rules for pregnancy.
The rules don't handle pregnancy so it's up to you.
Should I have pregnancy and fetus rules in my game?
As others have pointed out, this is something that gets very complicated and thus might be better to be left alone. The rules don't say explicitly how a fetus is to be handled. We need not get into the reasoning behind why it isn't handled, but why you have pregnancy rules might matter a lot to your setting and your players.
Whether or not you handle pregnant creatures as differently from other creatures has serious implications for your setting. When is a fetus alive? Do they have stat blocks? Can they be targeted? Is this the type of thing that NPCs regularly worry about? Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Think long and hard about that last one, because that is the can of worms you are opening up. I'll ask it again, because it's very important. Is infanticide something you want in your setting? Make sure your players are okay with that type of thing, but I think you ought to avoid surprising them with a fetus left behind after banishment. Is the shock value really worth darkening the tone?
Additionally, it might raise questions from your players you might want to avoid that could be distracting. Morality is something that can easily distract a group of players and often does. Arguments are fun but you might be biting off more than you can chew here. Be aware of the minefield that is the debate of whether or not a fetus is life. That is not to say that this should bar you from inviting that discussion to your table if that's what you want to do. Very often the characters in our setting have a very different set of morals than our players do. What is acceptable in one city might be taboo in another. One tribe might consider a fetus life, another might consider it not. Just like real life, huh?
Talk to your players first
Because of the implications behind this whole thing, you should ask your players if this is something they'd like to explore. It's your job as DM to ensure the party is having a good time, and while you may want to explore the darker, more complicated side of pregnancy and spells, your players might feel differently. You can already tell it's made many of us uncomfortable already. Imagine how your players feel. If they all agree that this would be the type of thing they want to deal with, then you need to decide how and why it's handled. Again, there are no rules for pregnancy.
answered 2 hours ago
Premier Bromanov
11.4k539106
11.4k539106
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
This is an unnecessary complication
You're opening a Supreme Court sized can of worms here. There is nothing in the rules to support an answer because pregnancy is not addressed in 5e in anyway. Any solution must therefore be a homebrew one.
That said, Roe vs. Wade established the third trimester of pregnancy as the point at which a fetus could become a viable life in the United States. From a D&D rules standpoint, a fetus before this point would not qualify as an independent creature and therefore would be banished along with the mother.
However, it's incredibly messy (figuratively and literally) to use this metric to determine what happens to an unborn child in such a situation so prudence dictates that a fetus should be banished with the mother to keep things simple.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
This is an unnecessary complication
You're opening a Supreme Court sized can of worms here. There is nothing in the rules to support an answer because pregnancy is not addressed in 5e in anyway. Any solution must therefore be a homebrew one.
That said, Roe vs. Wade established the third trimester of pregnancy as the point at which a fetus could become a viable life in the United States. From a D&D rules standpoint, a fetus before this point would not qualify as an independent creature and therefore would be banished along with the mother.
However, it's incredibly messy (figuratively and literally) to use this metric to determine what happens to an unborn child in such a situation so prudence dictates that a fetus should be banished with the mother to keep things simple.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
This is an unnecessary complication
You're opening a Supreme Court sized can of worms here. There is nothing in the rules to support an answer because pregnancy is not addressed in 5e in anyway. Any solution must therefore be a homebrew one.
That said, Roe vs. Wade established the third trimester of pregnancy as the point at which a fetus could become a viable life in the United States. From a D&D rules standpoint, a fetus before this point would not qualify as an independent creature and therefore would be banished along with the mother.
However, it's incredibly messy (figuratively and literally) to use this metric to determine what happens to an unborn child in such a situation so prudence dictates that a fetus should be banished with the mother to keep things simple.
This is an unnecessary complication
You're opening a Supreme Court sized can of worms here. There is nothing in the rules to support an answer because pregnancy is not addressed in 5e in anyway. Any solution must therefore be a homebrew one.
That said, Roe vs. Wade established the third trimester of pregnancy as the point at which a fetus could become a viable life in the United States. From a D&D rules standpoint, a fetus before this point would not qualify as an independent creature and therefore would be banished along with the mother.
However, it's incredibly messy (figuratively and literally) to use this metric to determine what happens to an unborn child in such a situation so prudence dictates that a fetus should be banished with the mother to keep things simple.
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
46.5k6233354
46.5k6233354
answered 3 hours ago
Rykara
1,698317
1,698317
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– doppelgreener♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
protected by doppelgreener♦ 2 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
7
Related. Hopefully the answers aren't the same: How would Banishment on a gelatinous cube affect an engulfed creature?
– Daniel Zastoupil
3 hours ago
4
Related: What happens to swallowed creaturers when banishment is cast on the creature that swallowed them?, What objects travel with a creature affected by Banishment?
– MikeQ
3 hours ago
5
I am re-removing the starspawn scenario, given the question is dealing with already very sensitive subject matter and that scenario represents a major scope change. Please do not add that scenario back to this question. If you want to ask about that scenario specifically, please do so in a new, separate question. See in our FAQ: When a Question Changes Completely, Should it be a New Question?
– doppelgreener♦
2 hours ago