Monsters and Organization

As has been stressed herein, you will find that it is necessary to assume the various roles and personae of all creatures not represented by players. This can be particularly difficult in combat situations. You must be able to quickly determine what the monsters involved will do in any given situation, and this can be particularly difficult in combat situations.

It is necessary that you make a rule to decide what course of action the monsters will follow BEFORE the party states what they are going to do. This can be noted on the area key or jotted down on paper. Having such notes will save you from later arguments, as it is a simple matter to show disgruntled players these ”orders” when they express dissatisfaction with the results of such an encounter. The intelligence and wisdom of concerned monsters are principal determinants of their actions and/or  reactions. Consider also cunning and instinct. It is also important to remember that lawful indicates an organized and ordered approach, while chaotic means a tendency towards random, individual action and disorganization; but these modifiers must also be judged in light of the monsters concerned, of course.

Examples of the responses of six different types of monsters follow. The situation will be the same in each example: The ’party” (whose composition and levels are unimportant for the example and would obviously vary in each situation anyway) will be attacking the monsters in the examples in two situations. 

SITUATION 1 (S-1) is where encounter occurs for the first time, and while the party inflicts casualties upon the monsters, victory is denied; the party then leaves with its wounded, regroups, and returns one full week later to finish the job. 

SITUATION 2 (S-2) is where the party, rested, healed, and ready for action, has now re-encountered the monsters in question. In both situations the response of the monsters concerned will be detailed so you can use the examples in handling actual play.

EXAMPLE I: The party has entered a crypt under an old temple and attacked skeletons and zombies encountered there.

EXAMPLE II: The party has located and attacked a colony of giant ants. 

EXAMPLE III: The party has found a cave complex which is the lair of an orc band.

EXAMPLE IV: The party comes upon a small town and openly assaults the place. 

EXAMPLE V: The party encounters a bandit camp and engages in combat.

EXAMPLE VI: The party discovers a fortress and attacks.

As DM you must base actions and responses upon what the logical activities possible to the monsters encountered would be when attacked first and then later. You assume the part of the creatures involved and act accordingly. If the attacking party does not have the savoir-faire to assess and properly handle the encounter - and this could well mean leaving as quickly as possible and not returning to get a second bloody nose - then they deserve whatever befalls them. 

It is absolutely necessary that the Dungeon Master remember that a seriously threatened person will reply with the strongest possible attack/defense measure in order to assure his or her well-being. (This could, of course, indicate a feigned surrender, pretended friendliness, fighting to the death or dozens of other reactions according to the circumstances and Intelligence/Wisdom of the individual involved.) The best course might actually be running away - something which intelligent creatures and many not-so-intelligent animals will be prone to do when there is no other choice save useless death. 

So, then, does a threatened cleric cast a know alignment spell upon an aggressor? Or a hold person? Obviously, the latter choice is far more logical in 99% of the cases, and so you should have monsters behave. 

Skeletons and zombies will mindlessly be slaughtered. Giant ants will march to destruction in behalf of their colony, but more intelligent creatures will react with a greater variety of defenses, counterattacks, and so on in order to assure their safety.