Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision making in embodied agents, yet existing safety evaluations often rely on coarse success rates and domain-specific setups, making it difficult to diagnose why and where these models fail. This obscures our understanding of embodied safety and limits the selective deployment of LLMs in high-risk physical environments. We introduce SAFEL, the framework for systematically evaluating the physical safety of LLMs in embodied decision making. SAFEL assesses two key competencies: (1) rejecting unsafe commands via the Command Refusal Test, and (2) generating safe and executable plans via the Plan Safety Test. Critically, the latter is decomposed into functional modules, goal interpretation, transition modeling, action sequencing enabling fine-grained diagnosis of safety failures. To support this framework, we introduce EMBODYGUARD, a PDDL-grounded benchmark containing 942 LLM-generated scenarios covering both overtly malicious and contextually hazardous instructions. Evaluation across 13 state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that while models often reject clearly unsafe commands, they struggle to anticipate and mitigate subtle, situational risks. Our results highlight critical limitations in current LLMs and provide a foundation for more targeted, modular improvements in safe embodied reasoning.

Commonsense norms are defeasible by context: reading books is usually great, but not when driving a car. While contexts can be explicitly described in language, in embodied scenarios, contexts are often provided visually. This type of visually grounded reasoning about defeasible commonsense norms is generally easy for humans, but (as we show) poses a challenge for machines, as it necessitates both visual understanding and reasoning about commonsense norms. We construct a new multimodal benchmark for studying commonsense norms: NormLens. NormLens consists of 10K human judgments accompanied by free-form explanations covering 2K multimodal situations, and serves as a probe to address two questions: (1) to what extent can models align with average human judgment? and (2) how well can models explain their predicted judgments? We find that state-of-the-art model judgments and explanations are not well-aligned with human annotation. Additionally, we present a simple yet effective approach to better align models with humans by distilling social commonsense knowledge from large language models. The data and code will be released.