D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[NewbyGM]

In the game I'm running, the fighter was hit by an Intellect Devourer's Devour Intellect ability, so she now has an Int of 0 (though the rest of the party managed to kill it before it could do anything more). The party is currently level three. The players are arguing that they should kill her character or let her die naturally, since they won't be able to restore her until they hit level nine and can cast greater restoration, and they won't be able to reach a settlement to hire an NPC caster for at least a few months in-game (probably eight to ten sessions). I'm arguing that that would be an irredeemably evil act (killing a helpless ally), and would cause the Paladin to fall and the cleric to have to choose a new deity.

I'm not against any mercy killing, but the character is just effectively stunned until they reach level nine or get to a settlement, so I can't see any justification for them killing the character.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This sounds like a pretty serious case of meta-gaming, if they only want to kill the character so that the player can bring in a new one. If that's the case, then just let the player bring in a new character, because the intellect-devoured character is essentially a helpless NPC at this point. If you expect the player to keep showing up, even though her character can't do anything, then that's an unreasonable expectation on your part.

If they're arguing from an in-game perspective, and they know that they won't be able to keep this character alive long enough to get help, then that's just a mercy-killing and a good-aligned character could reasonably be okay with it. Can a stunned character even eat?

 

[iserith]

In the game I'm running, the fighter was hit by an Intellect Devourer's Devour Intellect ability, so she now has an Int of 0 (though the rest of the party managed to kill it before it could do anything more). The party is currently level three. The players are arguing that they should kill her character or let her die naturally, since they won't be able to restore her until they hit level nine and can cast greater restoration, and they won't be able to reach a settlement to hire an NPC caster for at least a few months in-game (probably eight to ten sessions). I'm arguing that that would be an irredeemably evil act (killing a helpless ally), and would cause the Paladin to fall and the cleric to have to choose a new deity.

I'm not against any mercy killing, but the character is just effectively stunned until they reach level nine or get to a settlement, so I can't see any justification for them killing the character.

As DM, I would ask myself what I stand to gain by taking that particular (bolded) stance. Since it appears to be nothing, I'd relent on that position, especially if the player of that character is okay with it. (If the player is not okay with it, the other PCs killing the character would be a nonstarter anyway.)

It would also be trivial to introduce an NPC in the wilds as it were that can help - for a price. Just come up with a good reason for such an NPC to be where the PCs are and have him, her, or it want something that only the PCs have or can acquire.

 

[Jester David]

Having to hire an NPC is just one solution.
Perhaps there's a magical spring or fountain that restores the bodies of those who bathe there. At which point the condition becomes an adventuring hook.
Perhaps a fiend or fey being offers to restore the adventurer for a future favour or in exchange for some service. At which point the cost comes into play: how much are they willing to do to bring back the PC.
Maybe there's a remote temple in the area where they can receive the spell, or a shrine or holy site where anyone can be blessed by the gods.

I agree with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] that their response is metagamey. There's no reason for them to know they'll find a new companion (especially if they're that far from a settlement). Or that their new companion will start at their level. (In 5e, a level 3 PC can work just well with a level 9 party. And they'll quickly gain experience and close the gap.) They're advocating murdering their friend because they'd be an inconvenience for a short period. That's like euthanizing someone in a coma knowing they'd wake up in a few months. It is a pretty horrible thing to consider.
However... if they're in a dangerous place and don't even think it's possible to keep the person alive then the mercy of a quick death might be permissible; some place the Underdark is dangerous enough without leading along an ally that can't think for themselves. It's better than letting them suffer or be eaten. But from what we've heard, that doesn't seem to be the position they're arguing.

Would it cause the paladin to fall and the cleric to choose a new gods? Maybe.
D&D is about having fun, but that doesn't mean things have to be easy or always go the player's way. Choices have consequences. Especially if there can be an interesting story or narrative consequence. Losing class features is hard, but falling out of favour with your god and being on divine probation is interesting, generates future adventure hooks, and causes potential character growth. If, suddenly, the cleric loses their domain powers or creatures make saving throws against spells with advantage until some measure of atonement is performed.
A hard moral choice is interesting and I wouldn't make it easy for them by reducing the potential consequences. Heck, if my players killed a character like that I'd make them feel the choice later, introducing the dead PC's family or other loved ones.

 

[NewbyGM]

Having to hire an NPC is just one solution.
Perhaps there's a magical spring or fountain that restores the bodies of those who bathe there. At which point the condition becomes an adventuring hook.
Perhaps a fiend or fey being offers to restore the adventurer for a future favour or in exchange for some service. At which point the cost comes into play: how much are they willing to do to bring back the PC.
Maybe there's a remote temple in the area where they can receive the spell, or a shrine or holy site where anyone can be blessed by the gods.

It feels like it would be a little too weirdly convenient to just happen to find something like that right when they need it. Wouldn't that seem metagamey in itself? They're currently in the Underdark, so I can't think of a good reason anything there would be helpful.

My problem is that her character's still alive, so she shouldn't be making a new character. I don't think it's unreasonable to only allow a player to have one character at a time. I mean, it kind of sucks for her, but that's the consequence of failing the saving throw. Letting her character die feels kind of the same as letting a character die because you rolled bad stats. It's not trusting the dice to make a good story.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

They shouldn't just kill the fighter.

Loot the body, then cook it and make field rations. We're going for optimum efficiency here. No more healing, no more resting, no raising the dead. Just make a new character, grab a sword and CHARGGGGGGGGGGGE!

If your group likes murdering inconvenient characters so much, play Call of Cthulu. You'll never have inconvenient character troubles again. Or better yet, playCthulu Dark. Kill ALL THE PLAYER CHARACTERS!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It feels like it would be a little too weirdly convenient to just happen to find something like that right when they need it. Wouldn't that seem metagamey in itself? They're currently in the Underdark, so I can't think of a good reason anything there would be helpful.

It would seem somewhat meta-gamey, and meta-gaming is bad. You know what else is bad, though, is one player sitting on the sidelines for 8-10 sessions because her character is stunned. This is a case where meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, just like if you'd contrived a way to bring in a new character because the old character had died.

My problem is that her character's still alive, so she shouldn't be making a new character. I don't think it's unreasonable to only allow a player to have one character at a time. I mean, it kind of sucks for her, but that's the consequence of failing the saving throw. Letting her character die feels kind of the same as letting a character die because you rolled bad stats. It's not trusting the dice to make a good story.

If your character is stunned, then you're essentially not playing the character for the duration of the stun. Not playing the game for 8-10 sessions is way more severe of a punishment than was ever intended for a single saving throw. It's bad game design if a single die roll takes you out of the game for even an hour.

Bringing in a new character because the old character is intellect-devoured is no more meta-gamey than bringing in a new character because the old character is dead. Neither state of the old character should have any impact on the existence of the new character. If you've already accepted that she could bring in a new character if the old character dies, then you can no longer claim meta-gaming as a defense against letting her bring in a new character in this scenario.

 

[Noctem]

As DM, I would ask myself what I stand to gain by taking that particular (bolded) stance. Since it appears to be nothing, I'd relent on that position, especially if the player of that character is okay with it. (If the player is not okay with it, the other PCs killing the character would be a nonstarter anyway.)

It would also be trivial to introduce an NPC in the wilds as it were that can help - for a price. Just come up with a good reason for such an NPC to be where the PCs are and have him, her, or it want something that only the PCs have or can acquire.

You should really give this post a solid read OP. If the player of the character is not ok with the party killing it, that's the end of the discussion. This is a team game. No act like that should EVER be done without the express permission of the player. However, in the same vein, if the player is ok with it and the party doesn't want to spend the next 6 levels having to deal with a character effectively perma stunned that's also not something you should be acting like a stick in the mud about. You have nothing to gain from doing that if everyone is ok with it. Let the players move on and a new character jump in asap and keep going. Or leave the perma stunned character somewhere relatively safe, with an NPC ally for example, and then let the player make a new character. The perma stunned character becomes a plot hook for later or just a "we have to save the perma stunned character when we have the means". Keep things moving, don't be a stick in the mud.

 

[Jester David]

It feels like it would be a little too weirdly convenient to just happen to find something like that right when they need it. Wouldn't that seem metagamey in itself?

Convenient yes, but not necessarily metagamey. The life of an adventurer is pretty convenient in many ways. Fortune tends to favour adventurers.
Heck, just being able to find a level 9 cleric anywhere but a capital city would be pretty darn convenient. That's pretty high level.

They're currently in the Underdark, so I can't think of a good reason anything there would be helpful.

Selflessly helpful? Probably not.
Helpful for a cost? Possibly. Lots of favours that might need doing, especially by outsiders.
And, again, there could be fiendish or fey forces involved. A formorian from the Underdark of the feywild might need something done on the down low and be willing to trade the (seeming) restoration of a character.

Think of it like a TV show. If a character in a show gets hit by some kind of magical malady, there's usually a way discovered that will solve the problem. That's just the plot. That's how the story goes. If it's super easy then it becomes a dodge. If it's a challenge or has a quest involved, it's interesting.

My problem is that her character's still alive, so she shouldn't be making a new character. I don't think it's unreasonable to only allow a player to have one character at a time. I mean, it kind of sucks for her, but that's the consequence of failing the saving throw. Letting her character die feels kind of the same as letting a character die because you rolled bad stats. It's not trusting the dice to make a good story.

What if she had failed a save against a fireball? Same effect: a character that can't do anything. It's not actually dead but effectively dead. They still have a character unable to take any actions.
A player should expect to just sit out the game for 8-10 sessions or not participate until the party hits civilization.
There could be a temporary character or NPC they could play.

There's other ways to not make it a reward. Starting at level 1 would discourage it as an option, or limiting races to those found in the Underdark. But preventing someone from playing seems harsh.

 

[MG.0]

My problem is that her character's still alive, so she shouldn't be making a new character. I don't think it's unreasonable to only allow a player to have one character at a time.

I think it is totally unreasonable to limit a player to one character. My players regularly have multiple characters and they switch between them when they want to, subject to story constraints. Essentially the entire adventuring group is far larger than what is present in any given session. It allows for easy transitions when a character dies or becomes unavailable for other reasons such as downtime, healing, research, etc. It also lets players experiment with different characters and seems to reduce burnout and boredom when playing the same character for an extended time.

I also would not let the other players kill the character if the character's owner doesn't wish it. I do not let players make those kinds of choices for other players. I'd have something step in and take the choice away, perhaps the stunned character is accidentally dropped into a chasm, only to reappear fully healed sometime later. It happens all the time to superheroes and soap opera characters. The in-between time and the character's mysterious rescue can become a future adventure hook.