D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[GameOgre]

I would have a LF Paladin love a CE Necromancer and betray a CG Bard to the Kobold King if THAT was the only route to fun at the game table.

Any since of fake realism, character/background/story motivation goes out the window if it leads to unfun. No amount of role playing, morality or anything else is worth siting at a game table not having fun.

If anyone at the game table tries to do otherwise it's time for a talk and if it doesn't stop, a walk.

 

[Mirtek]

You don't get to glue the coin down or use any other method of affixing it to the victim.

What? Why not?

 

[Shendorion]

Yes, but that wasn't what was said. What was said was that the existence of an afterlife in D&D is reason enough to be okay with murdering someone.

Is that really what was said? I think it was something a little less sensational, like, "the afterlife is a matter of confirmed fact and not a final destination, and thus material life is less precious in the game world."

Anyway, if the "evil act" in this case is them slaying the body by their own hands, can they not arm the vegetable, give it a supply of food and water and set it up in a good hiding place? Since we're boiling morality down to black and white and assigning moral absolutes to individual actions regardless of circumstances and intent, it's impossible to argue that saying goodbye and going for a walk is an evil act.

It's almost an interesting story, forcing the heroes to choose between adhering to their divine mandates and being able to face themselves in the mirror.

 

[Maxperson]

What? Why not?

Because English language. When you place something on something else, it's loose. If you glue it down, you don't say you placed it on something, you say you glued it down or affixed it. That's how the language works and 5e has been told to us to be written with the common usages of language in mind. That means that as written, the coins are placed on top of the eye with nothing affixing them...............like they did with the dead in the real world where that idea came from.

If you affix the coins, you are not following the spell as written and it should fail without a house rule by the DM allowing it to work.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

None of that has been in any PHB or DMG I have ever read. In your home game, you are welcome to do what you want, I agree. But good and evil as overt cosmological dichotomies hasn't been in since 3e, and even then it wasn't as you describe.

Well, not in so many words, I suppose. But the definition of good and evil is in the alignment system itself. Lawful good isn't a question of what society decides it is (despite the wording in the PHB, yes I read it). Lawful good has a specific definition in the D&D game. It may not be well defined, and it might matter less in the game today, but from a broad general sense people know what is good and what is evil.

My point is that despite the cosmological (game system) definition, in the mortal world, there is a lot of gray. And that is exactly what makes for an interesting role playing opportunity. Their deity may not see it that way, because it is against alignment.

There is very little mechanical effect in the game regarding alignment, which is the way I like it. I use it more as a yardstick to measure the deeds of the PCs. For extraplanar creatures such as demons, devils, etc. alignment is far more binding and part of their very nature.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Because English language. When you place something on something else, it's loose. If you glue it down, you don't say you placed it on something, you say you glued it down or affixed it. That's how the language works and 5e has been told to us to be written with the common usages of language in mind. That means that as written, the coins are placed on top of the eye with nothing affixing them...............like they did with the dead in the real world where that idea came from.

If you affix the coins, you are not following the spell as written and it should fail without a house rule by the DM allowing it to work.

OK, I think this can be put to rest. Ha, ha.

Yes, as I and others have pointed out the coins need to stay there. Some mummies have been found with coins on their eyes, after which they were wrapped in bandages. So I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of wrapping the head or body to keep the coins there. I'd also expect the party to treat the body with respect for its journey back home.

In the 3rd edition, it did not mention that the coins needed to be there, and also specifically said that it makes the transportation of the fallen comrade more pleasant.

However, I still do not like the idea of killing somebody because you'll raise them later. It hasn't come to that in any of my games, but I can't guarantee it would work. In the past, high level spells cast on behalf of the party are usually reserved for either situations that the given temple finds worthy or for their own faithful.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

OK, I think this can be put to rest. Ha, ha.

Yes, as I and others have pointed out the coins need to stay there. Some mummies have been found with coins on their eyes, after which they were wrapped in bandages. So I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of wrapping the head or body to keep the coins there. I'd also expect the party to treat the body with respect for its journey back home.

In the 3rd edition, it did not mention that the coins needed to be there, and also specifically said that it makes the transportation of the fallen comrade more pleasant.

However, I still do not like the idea of killing somebody because you'll raise them later. It hasn't come to that in any of my games, but I can't guarantee it would work. In the past, high level spells cast on behalf of the party are usually reserved for either situations that the given temple finds worthy or for their own faithful.

Ilbranteloth

Yes, some of the real world mummies/dead had coins affixed instead of placed on their eyes. However, the 5e spell specifically says placed, not affixed. Would I allow the coins to be affixed in my game? Probably. It would depend on the situation.

 

[n00b f00]

I was thinking about this today. In real life if you're trying to save a drowning person, and they are thrashing too much they can drown you. They tell lifeguards to let them go if they think it'll get them killed.

It's hard for me to find a practical difference between that and leaving behind a 0 int character in the Underdark. And leaving them behind is leaving them to a much crueler fate than a knife to the throat.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yes, some of the real world mummies/dead had coins affixed instead of placed on their eyes. However, the 5e spell specifically says placed, not affixed. Would I allow the coins to be affixed in my game? Probably. It would depend on the situation.

So your objection here is just you pretending to be a pedantic jerk?

 

[KahlessNestor]

I was thinking about this today. In real life if you're trying to save a drowning person, and they are thrashing too much they can drown you. They tell lifeguards to let them go if they think it'll get them killed.

It's hard for me to find a practical difference between that and leaving behind a 0 int character in the Underdark. And leaving them behind is leaving them to a much crueler fate than a knife to the throat.

The difference is one is an actual danger (the drowning ). The case of the 0 Int is a case of fear projection and wanting the easy way out. Intil the actual dangerous situation is in your face, you are not justified in murdering your friend, if there is such a justification.

There is a reason we don't make stories and movies about soldiers that leave their companions behind. We are supposed to be heroes. In the face of immediate danger, "no man left behind" might need to be abandoned for survival, but until you are certain, one is just being a coward and a louse. Especially in this case where there is no certainty of death. The character ISN'T dying. They are merely incapacitated.