D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[Maxperson]

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

No. My objection is clear. Murdering a PC because the party is too lazy to go through the effort to keep her alive is evil. The existence of an afterlife doesn't change that. The possibility of raising later doesn't change that. Relying on the DM to house rule a spell to increase that possibility doesn't change that.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No. My objection is clear. Murdering a PC because the party is too lazy to go through the effort to keep her alive is evil. The existence of an afterlife doesn't change that. The possibility of raising later doesn't change that. Relying on the DM to house rule a spell to increase that possibility doesn't change that.

I agree with your perspective except the part about house ruling a spell. I absolutely agree that any argument for the idea of killing somebody to raise them later is misguided and I don't think it would even be considered by the characters in the game world.

But in terms of the ruling on gentle repose - first and foremost, the ruling is up to the DM as designed. Your, um, fixation on a certain term is a bit much for me.

I would not consider placing coins on a corpse's eyes, then wrapping the body, including the head, in bandages 'affixing.' The coins are 'placed' - using your terminology - and simply held in place by the bandages not as a dodge to 'house rule' a spell, but by a traditional ritual to respect the body of the dead.

Your narrow interpretation based on a word feels like rules lawyering to me, and also prevents a party whose companion actually died from receiving the benefit of the spell as well. The idea of coins originated in Greek Culture to pay for crossing across the River Styx, but the original custom was to place a coin under the tongue of the body. In some regions it was later for St. Peter. It wasn't until later that other cultures used them, supposedly to simply keep the eyes closed until rigor mortis released. There were also superstitions about a dead body looking at you, so the eyes needed to remain closed. In modern practice, the eyes are kept closed not with pennies, but superglue.

In any event, part of why we know of these customs is because ancient bodies have been found with them. And even the simple process of moving the body from where it is prepared to its grave would probably dislodge the coins.

And yes, I'm the one that said 'gentle repose' meant lying down, a bad attempt at being clever. But I still think that in the event the spell is needed, they would still respect the body, and the process of transporting a fallen companion should be an interesting situation where they have to figure out how to deal with it as they travel. Easy if they are traveling with a wagon. Far more difficult wandering the underdark.

Ilbranteloth

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

No. My objection is clear. Murdering a PC because the party is too lazy to go through the effort to keep her alive is evil. The existence of an afterlife doesn't change that. The possibility of raising later doesn't change that. Relying on the DM to house rule a spell to increase that possibility doesn't change that.

Do the wishes of the disabled party member factor into this at all? Would she want to endanger her fellow party members due to her vegetative state? In actual life there are people who would rather be euthanized rather than be a burden on their families and friends, and they aren't endangering their loved ones lives. What if her fellow party members, who should know her well enough, believe that is what she would want. What if the player tells them that is what her character would want? The question of euthanasia is much to complex to be able to categorically state that such an act would be objectively morally evil in a fictional RPG situation.

 

[Maxperson]

Do the wishes of the disabled party member factor into this at all? Would she want to endanger her fellow party members due to her vegetative state? In actual life there are people who would rather be euthanized rather than be a burden on their families and friends, and they aren't endangering their loved ones lives. What if her fellow party members, who should know her well enough, believe that is what she would want. What if the player tells them that is what her character would want? The question of euthanasia is much to complex to be able to categorically state that such an act would be objectively morally evil in a fictional RPG situation.

Sure. I'm sure you could find a few crazy people to say that they'd rather die than be a burden for a month or two before making a full recovery. By and large, though, pretty much everyone is going to want to be cared for and make that recovery.

 

[n00b f00]

This was in response to Kahless

I guess it would then be okay to carry them until it becomes undeniable that doing so is a direct threat to the party. That's fair enough, though in this particular setting I guess that moment will vary .

I've seen a few stories, horror and otherwise, where people are left behind or mercy killed. In fact I just watched a movie named Bone Tomahawk that had a few variations of this sort of thing. But this ties directly to theme and tone. In some that sort of gritty tone, serious threats to life and limb at every corner.

Sacrifices being made to what's nominally in the best interest of the group. A no right choices only hard decisions moment. One where the Underdark threatens them all at all times. Where not only will she certainly get them killed, but in the worst unspeakable ways.

At the same time I've GMed games where a pc decided to carry a crippled NPC, that the players had just met and the was a valued but non critical employee, on their back as they had a marathon running gun battle in what should have been certain death. I never gave any rolls, just let it happen, because that was the tone of the game. But I wasn't going to bust them too bad if they didn't.

The players almost always win, and they certainly never die for real. The underdark is just another platform for High Adventure! Though in this campaign if a PC was brain eaten there would have been an instantly discovered out. Any talk of mercy kills would have been only IC and done for comedy "But Kurznark hungry!"

So know your table, you can handwave it (yeah she's still alive) or make it the focal point of the campaign or anything in between.

 

[GameOgre]

Mordred won! The Kingdom fell! 20,000 people of the Kingdom were put to the sword and their families sold into slavery and nothing could be done because Sir Greenlaid the fierce was laid low by a Intellect Devourer and placed in a coma and Sir Lancelot had to provide for him until help could be found.

Unfortunately that never happened as the only Cleric that could have provided succor died undefended by Mordreds witch.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Sometimes doing the rigjt thing does entail such consequences, yes.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

Sure. I'm sure you could find a few crazy people to say that they'd rather die than be a burden for a month or two before making a full recovery. By and large, though, pretty much everyone is going to want to be cared for and make that recovery.

You are using your knowledge of the rules as a player to make a moral judgement in game, i.e. that recovery is guaranteed in a month or two. Also you did not answer the question of whether or not it would endanger her friends. Have you never watched a movie in which one of the characters was injured to the point they could not continue under their own power and chose to end their life rather than endanger their companion(s) by allowing them to carry them?

For example in the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot video game Laura Croft has gone to find out what has happened to a friend who went to get tools off of their crashed ship. She finds him with his leg broken and pinned under a pipe. He has the tools but they are surrounded by murderous Solarii cultists and they would both be in considerable danger should she try to carry him out. He tells her to take the tools and run as he shoots a gas pipe killing himself and the cultists.

Dragging a vegetative ally through the hostile underdark for several months endangers the entire party. No cure is guaranteed because the party is not guaranteed to get to their destination especially being hindered by an incapacitated party member.

 

[Maxperson]

You are using your knowledge of the rules as a player to make a moral judgement in game, i.e. that recovery is guaranteed in a month or two.

The party was aware of the time frame. In any case, guaranteed recovery, regardless of time precludes sane people from offering to die.

Also you did not answer the question of whether or not it would endanger her friends. Have you never watched a movie in which one of the characters was injured to the point they could not continue under their own power and chose to end their life rather than endanger their companion(s) by allowing them to carry them?

That situation is very, very different. 1) they pretty much never offer to just sit and die when there is no immanent danger. They all offer to stay and hold off the attackers who are rushing the group right then. 2) there is no magic recovery in those situations. They know it's hopeless for them, so better to stay and try to allow their friends to live. 3) they are making the choice, not the group.

Also, if being endangered mattered, the group wouldn't be adventurers in the underdark or anywhere else. That they are adventurers means that they accept being endangered on a daily basis. Were my PC in that group, I would expect them to try and keep my PC safe in the situation being described in this thread. They may not be able to keep my PC alive, but the attempt should be made.

For example in the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot video game Laura Croft has gone to find out what has happened to a friend who went to get tools off of their crashed ship. She finds him with his leg broken and pinned under a pipe. He has the tools but they are surrounded by murderous Solarii cultists and they would both be in considerable danger should she try to carry him out. He tells her to take the tools and run as he shoots a gas pipe killing himself and the cultists.

Now. Same situation with no cultists and time to get him out from under the pipe. Do you think he volunteers to die? Nope!

Dragging a vegetative ally through the hostile underdark for several months endangers the entire party. No cure is guaranteed because the party is not guaranteed to get to their destination especially being hindered by an incapacitated party member.

So what. Death is also not guaranteed for either the party or the victim. Murdering him because it's expedient (not wanting to risk it being a bit more dangerous) to do so is evil.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

The party was aware of the time frame. In any case, guaranteed recovery, regardless of time precludes sane people from offering to die.

The players were aware of the time frame, the party is not.

That situation is very, very different. 1) they pretty much never offer to just sit and die when there is no immanent danger. They all offer to stay and hold off the attackers who are rushing the group right then. 2) there is no magic recovery in those situations. They know it's hopeless for them, so better to stay and try to allow their friends to live. 3) they are making the choice, not the group.

I don't know what game you are playing but in the D&D world there is never a time in the underdark that danger is no emminent. Even above ground in wilderness settings it is far different than the real world. When I go backpacking, even in bear country, I don't generally fear that a grizzly is going to walk in and attack me in camp. In D&D that is a very real possibility every single evening.

Also, if being endangered mattered, the group wouldn't be adventurers in the underdark or anywhere else. That they are adventurers means that they accept being endangered on a daily basis. Were my PC in that group, I would expect them to try and keep my PC safe in the situation being described in this thread. They may not be able to keep my PC alive, but the attempt should be made.

Then you are playing a selfish PC who cares more about their own survival regardless of the consequences to others. Which is valid but you can't say someone playing a PC with a different point of view is incorrect or inherently evil. That is your subjective standard not an objective one.

Now. Same situation with no cultists and time to get him out from under the pipe. Do you think he volunteers to die? Nope!

Given that returning to camp would require the time it would take for Laura to somehow get him up cliffs, across ravines spanned only by ropes, through small tunnels filled with water with limited breathing space all while never knowing if the cultists were right around the corner. Yes very possibly he would choose to have her go on and give the party the best possible chance of survival. I would make that decision myself.

So what. Death is also not guaranteed for either the party or the victim. Murdering him because it's expedient (not wanting to risk it being a bit more dangerous) to do so is evil.

See you are arguing that if there is any chance at all that they can get everyone, including the incapacitated party member out, they are morally obligated to do so. What if there is only a 1% that everyone makes it back but a 99% that two party members will die in a manner that would have otherwise been avoided without the incapacitated party member. So your argument is that it would still be unjustifiable homicide and evil NOT to take the huge risk of killing two people on the long shot chance that one could be saved.

The fact is since the party can't possibly be expected to know the percentages they are going to have to go on their judgement of the dangers and difficulties that are presented but we could not possibly make an objective judgment that their decided course of action is objectively good or evil.