D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[Maxperson]

Do they? In-game, I mean. The OP was rather unclear as to what was player knowledge and what was character knowledge. Also, even if the characters know that a restorative spell exists, do they know if that spell works on that particular condition?

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).

From the OP, the players were arguing about things their PCs would be doing. waiting until level 9 or reaching an NPC caster. I suppose it could have all been OOC, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Maxperson]

And another thing, since when do Dragons and Bugbears make you think about modern law? We are talking about Arthurian times where they murdered people..literally...every..damn..day. Purely because of superstition, and not in a quick/painless way they murdered people by tying them to horses as they ran though town, lighting them on fire, or flattening their bodies with boulders.

I'm not the one who has been pulling modern arguments into this debate, but since modern is where it's at, modern is part of my reply.

In response to the rest of your post, that they murdered people every day didn't prevent those murders from being evil.

 

[Maxperson]

So if the only way for your party member to stay alive was for you to put your thumb up their bum till they could get magically healed (three months to two years later) it would be murder to not so it right? You would be evil to not have that thumb up that bum? If you were a pally, your god would be angry and you would fall for not having a brown thumb right?

I don't know about the Paladin issue as that would depend on the god and oath, but the rest is a yes. I'd stick my thumb up your bum if it would save your life. Then I'd get you to the hospital where the nurses could rotate thumbs for 3 months to two years. That's the right thing to do.

 

[Maxperson]

Life gets cheaper with a 100% confirmed afterlife and raise dead. It's sticking someone in Elysium for a few weeks while you get a better solution. Oh the horror.

First, an afterlife is irrelevant. Murder is still evil regardless. Second, raise dead is not guaranteed. If they can't get to town for 3 months, a 10 day time limit is well gone by the time they get there. The soul also has to be willing and able to return. Something the murderer can't guarantee, so raise dead is also irrelevant to whether the life is valuable and the murder evil.

 

[Dit464]

I'm not the one who has been pulling modern arguments into this debate, but since modern is where it's at, modern is part of my reply.

In response to the rest of your post, that they murdered people every day didn't prevent those murders from being evil.

Evil is a matter of perspective, just because something is morally wrong in your country/mind doesn't mean everyone that does what you think is immoral is evil.
I.E. In America sexual relations between adults and minors are wrong, however, in a tribe in Africa adult men and male children have sexual relations, and no one bats an eyelash, its socially accepted there because it keeps down birthrates and aggression in males in that tribe.

 

[MechaPilot]

I suppose it could have all been OOC, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

I don't know. The phrasing "the players are arguing" along with the level three and level nine part hint that it's out of game to me. But, like I said, the OP's quote was vague enough that I think people could easily construe it either way.

 

[Maxperson]

Evil is a matter of perspective, just because something is morally wrong in your country/mind doesn't mean everyone that does what you think is immoral is evil.

If is not just a matter of perspective, especially in D&D where it is deliberately objective.

I.E. In America sexual relations between adults and minors are wrong, however, in a tribe in Africa adult men and male children have sexual relations, and no one bats an eyelash, its socially accepted there because it keeps down birthrates and aggression in males in that tribe.

Morally wrong =/= evil, just like morally right =/= good. They just often line up. To go into good and evil, you have to step beyond simple right and wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know. The phrasing "the players are arguing" along with the level three and level nine part hint that it's out of game to me. But, like I said, the OP's quote was vague enough that I people could easily construe it either way.

No, I agree that they were discussing it out of character, but I know from experience that players tend not to discuss what their characters don't know or have access to. There's very little point in doing so. Out of character discussions tend to be about how the PCs are going to react when the game gets going again. That's all I'm saying.

 

[n00b f00]

I think the meat I'm trying to get at is not morality, and the nature of the greater good. My point is more that in real life people sometimes kill their comrades to either save themselves or others and are not criminally prosecuted or reviled. Such as cutting the someone loose during a climb when a line is going to snap or sealing a flooding chamber on a ship.

There are situations where people don't risk their lives for others and aren't viewed as evil. Some years back a man had a seizure and fell onto the train tracks from a subway platform. Dozens watched in horror as a trained rushed in. Only one was crazy enough to jump down there, lay on top of of him, and roll his ass over to the side while the trained rolled through. Certainly his was a heroic, perhaps foolhardy, act. But no one accused the others of being sociopaths and murderers for not risking almost certain death for another.

I think a lot of us here view this situation similarly, if you don't that's perfectly fine. But the courts will not be issuing murder warrants in real life for a similar situation.

 

[MechaPilot]

No, I agree that they were discussing it out of character, but I know from experience that players tend not to discuss what their characters don't know or have access to. There's very little point in doing so. Out of character discussions tend to be about how the PCs are going to react when the game gets going again. That's all I'm saying.

You know, I had a whole thing about in-game and out-of-game knowledge of character levels and gaining abilities at specific levels, but I'm just going to bow out of that unless something from this point on catches my eye (or my ire). Ultimately, I think the real concern about the OP's decision and the situation in question, having a character that one cannot truly play in any meaningful sense of the word, has been advised well (even if some people were more insulting to the OP than needs be) and often in this thread.

Regarding the second discussion about the morality of mercy-killing the character I will say that I don't see it as an evil act. However, I don't want to step into that argument. Instead, I will simply point out that if the party does decide to mercy kill the character and the DM decides that the deities of that world consider it evil then the paladin still shouldn't lose his/her powers because alignment is not supposed to be a single act, but an overall trend.