D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[Maxperson]

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

Yes they were. If the group doesn't metagame, then there's no point in discussing things the group doesn't know. If they do metagame, then the PCs know everything that the players know. That they were discussing it means that the party was aware of it one way or another.

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.

One lone good drow survived it for years all by himself. If you're making it more than it is, that's on you. It's more dangerous than the surface, but not by so much that the group couldn't easily survive with a comatose companion.

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.

Eh, no. I just understand that the group is fully capable of survival with my PC's comatose body there. There is a large probability that the group will not TPK because of the PC's presence, and if they do beat the odds and come across a foe so dangerous that the comatose PC is going to get them killed, then and ONLY then are they justified in leaving the PC to die. Murdering the PC because they might, maybe, possible come across such a foe is a murder of expedience and evil.

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.

Then she's and you are evil. If she and you weren't, you'd take him with you and only leave him behind if you actually encountered cultists, and maybe not even then depending on circumstances.

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.

Sophistry. The odds are not much worse with the PC than without. If they are even worse at all given that you can abandon that PC at any time.

 

[n00b f00]

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.

This is my main point. In real life life guards let go of thrashing drowners, rescuers call off searches if it's too dangerous, sailors seal in their own to flooding compartments, climbers will cut a line if it's suddenly too heavy, officers will call in ordnance on close to their own position, doctors in triage will decide who lives and who dies. All of those are situations in which someone trying to save people, will make the calculated decision to let one person die, for some mission goal. Generally saving even more lives. In all of those situations the person making the decision may be wrong, and also if they so chose could try to keep everyone alive no matter the cost.

We can argue how virtuous or heroic the decision is to not close the door for another 30 seconds and drown your best friend is. But the facts are that this happens in real life, these people are almost never charged. And no one ever goes up to them and says "Hey Bob you murdered your friend John cause you're a lazy bum." Which is what Maxperson is saying. That someone should risk infinite lives to save 1, and any other action is one of selfishness and personal laziness.

Which may indeed be true, that an action that is not Good and Heroic is Evil, a neccesary evil but evil all the same. I've seen lots of people argue this point, and it's not one I'm willing to argue over myself. But in real life people do this and are never publicly looked down upon. Our society seems to be okay with this behavior if it seems justified. So if you want to say it's morally wrong that's totally fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But don't say it's the mentally of a few deviants, because it certainly is not.

 

[Maxperson]

This is my main point. In real life life guards let go of thrashing drowners, rescuers call off searches if it's too dangerous, sailors seal in their own to flooding compartments, climbers will cut a line if it's suddenly too heavy, officers will call in ordnance on close to their own position, doctors in triage will decide who lives and who dies. All of those are situations in which someone trying to save people, will make the calculated decision to let one person die, for some mission goal. Generally saving even more lives. In all of those situations the person making the decision may be wrong, and also if they so chose could try to keep everyone alive no matter the cost.

This is what they don't do. Life guards don't watch someone drown just in case a rogue wave might come later on. Rescuers don't call of searches because an earthquake might hit. Sailors don't seal off that compartment 30 hours before a storm hits on the off chance that during the storm the compartment might flood. And so on.

The situation in the underdark is not as dire as your examples. Especially since you can always leave the comatose PC behind if you do encounter that sort of dire situation.

 

[n00b f00]

Well it seems we agree more than we disagree. Likely the main point of contention would be, when is the moment where it's crossed the danger line. Since we're talking about a general situation in a fantastic setting. There's not too much of a point in debating when they should cut the line. Since we likely have different assumptions about the lethality of the Underdark(not more dangerous than real life places to a step away from Hell), the abilities of the PCs to deal with them (clowns who can barely clear out mundane rats from a cellar to god killers), and most importantly the tone of the table and the campaign.

Keep in mind the possibility of killing her came about for the meta reason that the PC was unplayable, and the DM wouldn't let the player reroll. At most tables in this same situation it likely wouldn't be a big deal since it would come down to the table. If you're playing an ultra dangerous gritty horror campaign, she's as likely to be killed out of mercy instantly as she is to be fed to chasing monsters though maybe the party tries desperately and futiley to save her slowly being picked off. All good horror tropes. If you're playing something more heroic, it's likely to be handwaved away. The players hide her before they pick fights, and when they can't monsters generally ignore her, when they do go for her they are either easily repelled or she is easily rescued from their lair.

Even in the situation that started the topic, this seemed to be more a last ditch meta thing. There doesn't seem to be a big philosophical argument(what do we do with orc babies?), just players trying to salvage what seems to be a really crappy meta situation that the GM put them in. Us being the way we are arguing something for dozens and dozens of posts, where if we were honestly all playing at the same table, we'd probably settle pretty quickly without hurt feelings or raised voices.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes they were. If the group doesn't metagame, then there's no point in discussing things the group doesn't know. If they do metagame, then the PCs know everything that the players know. That they were discussing it means that the party was aware of it one way or another.

One lone good drow survived it for years all by himself. If you're making it more than it is, that's on you. It's more dangerous than the surface, but not by so much that the group couldn't easily survive with a comatose companion.

Eh, no. I just understand that the group is fully capable of survival with my PC's comatose body there. There is a large probability that the group will not TPK because of the PC's presence, and if they do beat the odds and come across a foe so dangerous that the comatose PC is going to get them killed, then and ONLY then are they justified in leaving the PC to die. Murdering the PC because they might, maybe, possible come across such a foe is a murder of expedience and evil.

Then she's and you are evil. If she and you weren't, you'd take him with you and only leave him behind if you actually encountered cultists, and maybe not even then depending on circumstances.

Sophistry. The odds are not much worse with the PC than without. If they are even worse at all given that you can abandon that PC at any time.

So, this particular discussion depends entirely on the circumstances and those involved. And it's exactly the sort of debate that I hope occurred in game, because those characters should be struggling with the options as well.

The greater discussion about what is good and what is evil would probably also factor into the in game discussion.

Out of game you'd think it's easy, but even then it's not. The alignment system defines cosmologically what is good and what's evil. But it's broad strokes and trying to turn something that has many shades of gray into black and white.

In the scenarios described, the concept of a mercy killing to me comes under the category of a necessary evil, or the lesser of two evils. This does not mean that bringing them with you and healing them is evil. It means that no matter what, a mercy killing is at least leaning toward evil, if not outright so. In which case, it's justifiable when it's the lesser of two evils.

Not saving or helping one person, even if you're fully capable of it, because your alternative saves many more people is the lesser of two evils. Under ideal situations it would be considered an evil act, but in this case the opportunity to save more people makes it the lesser evil. But if your choice is between good and slight evil, you have to go with the good.

Even if you accept that there's a point when a mercy killing is no longer evil, it would be only as a last resort. The scenario described with the trapped person opting to stay behind themselves is quite different than the original post of a character who is essentially in a coma. While the player can speak for them, the character themselves cannot, and thus can't be part of any in-game discussion.

So in the original situation, the character is in a coma. If they don't have a magical means to provide sustenance, it's a matter of time. So the choices are wait, or mercy killing. I believe waiting is the better option. The couple of days tending to their companion until they pass, then move on. If they could bring the body in the hopes of raising it, fine, but I think it would be perfectly acceptable to give them a proper funeral and move on.

If there is really a need to move on and they can't wait, then I think finding a place to leave them to die peacefully would still be the preferred choice over a mercy killing.

If they have a magical means of providing sustenance, then the reasons for the mercy killing or leaving them to die are that it's inconvenient, or because it increases the risk against the surviving PCs. I think that in many cases the second is really a way to justify it, but it really falls under inconvenient. Although it's ultimately up to the characters in game, I'd be considering what they think are increased risks, but I wouldn't be threatening to take away powers and such. They have to make their decisions based on what they think is right and what they think might happen then suffer the consequences, if any.

If the person is conscious, and for some reason they can't heal them, and waiting would be certain death for all of them, then it's really a question of what that character prefers. I think a significant portion of people would find it difficult to ask their companion to kill them, for what ever reason. I think it's more likely they'd ask for something to eat and drink, a couple of loaded crossbows if there are any, and wait to inflict their last revenge on whatever is making it impossible for the entire group to wait.

The point is, you have to go pretty far to find the line from an evil act to a mercy killing that is truly the 'least evil' option.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Eltab]

... because the party is too lazy ...

THIS may be the root of the problem.

Could you describe the Underdark in your campaign? It seems everybody else is having a more difficult time surviving in the place than you do.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this particular discussion depends entirely on the circumstances and those involved. And it's exactly the sort of debate that I hope occurred in game, because those characters should be struggling with the options as well.

The greater discussion about what is good and what is evil would probably also factor into the in game discussion.

Out of game you'd think it's easy, but even then it's not. The alignment system defines cosmologically what is good and what's evil. But it's broad strokes and trying to turn something that has many shades of gray into black and white.

In the scenarios described, the concept of a mercy killing to me comes under the category of a necessary evil, or the lesser of two evils. This does not mean that bringing them with you and healing them is evil. It means that no matter what, a mercy killing is at least leaning toward evil, if not outright so. In which case, it's justifiable when it's the lesser of two evils.

Not saving or helping one person, even if you're fully capable of it, because your alternative saves many more people is the lesser of two evils. Under ideal situations it would be considered an evil act, but in this case the opportunity to save more people makes it the lesser evil. But if your choice is between good and slight evil, you have to go with the good.

Even if you accept that there's a point when a mercy killing is no longer evil, it would be only as a last resort. The scenario described with the trapped person opting to stay behind themselves is quite different than the original post of a character who is essentially in a coma. While the player can speak for them, the character themselves cannot, and thus can't be part of any in-game discussion.

So in the original situation, the character is in a coma. If they don't have a magical means to provide sustenance, it's a matter of time. So the choices are wait, or mercy killing. I believe waiting is the better option. The couple of days tending to their companion until they pass, then move on. If they could bring the body in the hopes of raising it, fine, but I think it would be perfectly acceptable to give them a proper funeral and move on.

If there is really a need to move on and they can't wait, then I think finding a place to leave them to die peacefully would still be the preferred choice over a mercy killing.

If they have a magical means of providing sustenance, then the reasons for the mercy killing or leaving them to die are that it's inconvenient, or because it increases the risk against the surviving PCs. I think that in many cases the second is really a way to justify it, but it really falls under inconvenient. Although it's ultimately up to the characters in game, I'd be considering what they think are increased risks, but I wouldn't be threatening to take away powers and such. They have to make their decisions based on what they think is right and what they think might happen then suffer the consequences, if any.

If the person is conscious, and for some reason they can't heal them, and waiting would be certain death for all of them, then it's really a question of what that character prefers. I think a significant portion of people would find it difficult to ask their companion to kill them, for what ever reason. I think it's more likely they'd ask for something to eat and drink, a couple of loaded crossbows if there are any, and wait to inflict their last revenge on whatever is making it impossible for the entire group to wait.

The point is, you have to go pretty far to find the line from an evil act to a mercy killing that is truly the 'least evil' option.

Ilbranteloth

Well said.

 

[Maxperson]

THIS may be the root of the problem.

Could you describe the Underdark in your campaign? It seems everybody else is having a more difficult time surviving in the place than you do.

More dangerous than the surface, but not hugely so. Like it's described in underdark D&D books and novels. It's not the hell you guys are describing or Drizzt died years before he ever made it to the surface. If one lone drow can survive it for years, a group can survive it long enough to get their companion some help.

In any case, how dangerous it is is irrelevant. Keeping the PC around is either minimally or not at all more dangerous. They can always ditch the companion if they really need to.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

What about those who would rather die for a few weeks then get brought back? I'd rather spend some time in the Happy Hunting Grounds than in a vegetative state in the underdark, possibly getting my team killed and ruining my chances at recovery.

 

[Maxperson]

What about those who would rather die for a few weeks then get brought back?

Can't be guaranteed.

I'd rather spend some time in the Happy Hunting Grounds than in a vegetative state in the underdark, possibly getting my team killed and ruining my chances at recovery.

This can't be guaranteed in 5e, unlike the spell to restore your mind.