D&D 5E Killing a Teammate

[iserith]

The OP asked about the CHARACTER, and my gut reaction based on how my group would react is ...... Do the characters know about restoration magics? If so they wouldn't just up and kill a friend. Though they'd also try and find a way to 'stash' ( aka he'd be safe and fed) til they could. Doing otherwise would mean killing a friend that they believe they can cure

What a character "would" do is whatever the player controlling the character says he or she will do. The character may kill the fellow PC or the character might not. Assigning personal judgment to what characters not under our control would or should do is part of the issue here, especially as it relates to the DM telling the players of the cleric and paladin that serious character-changing repercussions will result from the actions they are considering. I see no benefit to taking this position. It's punitive and for no reason other than what appears to be a belief that a player should only have one character at a time, regardless to the impact of fun. Which, in my view, is a failure to focus on and achieve one of the goals of play: everyone having a good time playing the game together.

You cannot address one without the other. But the problem here is more the fact Abiliy Scores reduced to 0 are handled very poorly, with Constitution deemed "important to live" but "remembering to breathe because it's not a reflex like some believe, but learned behaviour" is not.

The description of the intellect devourer's action and the stunned condition is sufficient to tell us what state the character is in with an Intelligence score of zero: A stunned creature is incapacitated, can’t move, and can speak only falteringly. This leaves the PC with the ability to sort of communicate verbally, but that's about it until restored.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Maybe I missed it, but how did you as GM plan to deal with this? After all, you set up the encounter.

Absolutely. It's important to know what you're really throwing at the characters. Having said that, I think that this is also partially the result of poor game design. It says they are stunned until the regain at least 1 point of Intelligence, but doesn't give mechanics on how to do that. Compound that to the fact that it either causes no Intelligence damage or you're reduced to 0.

I haven't dealt with the intellect devourer directly, but I'd change the attack to 1d4 Intelligence lost per failed save. In addition, in my campaign ability damage is regained by making a 'death' save at the end of a long rest. Three non-consecutive losses before 3 non-consecutive successes means 1 point of the loss is permanent.

It takes a long time to recover ability damage, but I also reduce the amount of ability damage a creature can cause in a single attack to no more than 1d4, if that. Creatures that can cause ability damage should be terrifying, and the threat of a permanent loss should be significant. But recovering from being drained to '0' is much tougher.

So now that you're in this situation, how do you get out? Well, first and foremost you can't exclude somebody from the game for an extended period of time. That's entirely against the point of the game itself, and more importantly is taking the 'that's what the dice said' thing way too far.

A mercy killing is not going to be enough to lose class abilities. A single act is (very) rarely enough. That doesn't mean it's not evil, but it's really a pattern of behavior that matters more than a single act. Think of Anakin Skywalker and the path to the dark side if you will.

The game doesn't actually have any rules at this point about losing class abilities, although in the DMG it talks about atonement for an Oathbreaker Paladin. Regardless, it would have to be much more than this for a God to take notice in my book.

But quite frankly, I think the mercy killing is a red herring.

If the cleric and paladin aren't doing everything in their power to help a fallen comrade, then they probably should lose their class abilities. I'm sorry, but this is a situation where the quest is a failure, you retreat, recover and return. There shouldn't be a moment's hesitation or debate.

Think about it, you're on some grand quest, miles from civilization and your friend suffers a traumatic head injury and is unable to do anything on their own - and your first reaction isn't, 'we've got to get them help, and now?'

Huh?

HELLO! Cleric and Paladin critical failure on common sense and compassion.

In the meantime she absolutely should be able to roll up a second character. It could be anything you want, either one that is helpful, or if you want to play off of the misfortune, a hindrance. A defenseless and unarmed slave escaped from duergar. Now the clueless and heartless cleric and paladin have somebody who can speak to save and get to the surface unharmed.

If they can't turn back for whatever reason (they don't have a way to go back because it's blocked, or the greater good demands they continue) then their primary focus should still be on their fallen comrade, and the player should still be allowed to play another character. There is nothing in the rules that would even suggest that a player cannot have a second character, especially when their primary one is incapacitated indefinitely.

In the campaign I'm starting up, everybody is rolling up 3 characters to have some ready for future sessions. Granted, I'm designing the campaign for a public game at a store where I won't know from week to week who might show up. So I'm expecting drop-ins and no-shows and accommodating that. But there are an endless number of scenarios to come across a new character in the Underdark.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Endur]

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.

The Intellect Devourer's ability doesn't say how long the intelligence points are gone, whether its permanent or whether they come back after time. I think you could easily rule that one point of intelligence is returned after a long rest or a week or whatever.

You could also have a wandering potion seller sell a potion of greater restoration to the party.

 

[akr71]

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.

I think it is unreasonable not to allow another character. The player does not currently have a character, she has an NPC with 0 INT and does not control her characters actions.

She wanders aimlessly off a cliff/into a pit/away from the rest of the party while they discuss what to do with her...

Also movies TV and books are rife with things that are a little too weirdly convenient, so why not in a game?

 

[Lanliss]

Everyone seems to be assuming the party is friends. I understand that some people only allow a party if they all have close connections, but I personally don't, and doubt I am the only one like that. Maybe it is a mercenary group, that has a code against letting an honored warrior live as a useless vegetable. Maybe they are escaped slaves, and have no idea they can trust each other, beyond the fact that they are trying to escape together.

Another point of view I see coming up is that killing this vegetable is ABSOLUTELY evil, no doubt about it. I feel like those who say this do not consider mercy killing a thing. If I were a useless vegetable, a husk of my former glory, and did not have the intelligence to know I could be saved, I would be begging for death. Now, if the party says "we kill the vegetable, because we don't want to drag the body around for months" That is most definitely a cruel thing. But what if the party said "I feel horrible seeing my old friend this way, and cannot guarantee I can get to a settlement in time. Maybe a dagger through the heart will be better than being mauled by trolls, when the poor guy can't do anything to defend himself." That paints a very different picture, and does not read like an evil act at all, IMO anyway. Yes, a quest could be made for this, and it could be made into an interesting story, but I don't think morality is simple enough that one could say "yes, that is evil, you should lose support of your God" and be fair about it. Even a life cleric could argue the killing side, on the basis that this is no life at all. It is a twisted perversion, one that should be removed from suffering.

Of course, this all assumes they do not know when the next settlement is. If they KNOW they will hit a settlement in a little while, I can see issue with killing the vegetable, but if all they know is that they are stranded in the underdark, I can understand the choice to kill. As I said morality is not simple, and this falls into a very grey area.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

A lot of good advice here.

What's the most fun?

Seriously, what is the most fun for your PLAYERS.

Fun > Story > Rules

If it is more fun to just kill the character, and have someone else show up, then do that; if its more fun to haul around a meat-sack, then your players will do that.

 

[hejtmane]

What they said. There's lots of ways to introduce new PCs (runaway slaves) or restore her (ruined temple with anti mind flayer artifact, it is the underdark). A mercy killing in the underdark on a 0 int character seems reasonable, worst things than a dagger to the heart. Being months away in game seems insanely impossible to survive. If the PC doesn't want it case closed, but in setting I see it as a maybe questionable, but certainly not evil. There's in setting basically no chance for her to survive. Them assuming it's a given is meta gaming.


Either way I can't stress enough how bad an idea making her play a brain dead character is. She can't play a character who has no agency, thoughts ,words. A character who is effectively dead for 10 sessions.

Is the player supposed to show up and sit on their hands for months doing nothing in game. That seems like the premise to a dnd horror story.

"The time I played a coma victim for months because I couldn't reroll "

If I was that person i quit and go find another game talk about boring hell why even show up. To watch other people have fun while I do nothing; no thanks I would pass. That is the worse kind of DM one that would have you do nothing for months; why does everyone worry about meta gaming most over used over reaction imo; it is the biggest cop out ever you are the DM you are in control.

Choices let them die or and introduce a new character many ways to do this from the group killing her or a monster etc. Have that character follow them around while the other person plays the new introduced character and have them leave the dain bramage person in the village.

Have them fight a monster and come up on a potion of greater restoration; someone else pointed out a quest provided by completing some task to restore that person (do not drag it out for ever).

I would go along those lines as a DM myself

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

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.

A couple of things:
First and foremost, what does the player want? If she likes her character that should be good enough for the party to make the effort needed to protect her and get her restored. The fact that your party has jumped to "kill the character" speaks volumes about the type of players they are.
Secondly: you're the DM. You are the literal word of their gods in this game. If you say that killing this player would make the paladin lose his pallypowers, then it does. The end. It is not an argument and the matter is not up for debate. You have final say.
Thirdly: You can't stop your player from making a new character. If she wants to, that'd fine, the only thing you can do about it say "you can't replace your existing character".
Fourthly: What she has is not a character. It can take no actions, it can't participate in the game, it doesn't serve any purpose for the story. If you're not going to let them kill her and you're not going to let them trade her out and you're intent on taking 8-10 sessions to do so, then you need to tell that character's player that she ought to stay home for the next 10 sessions.
-As an aside, if this player were me, I'd flat out quit.
Fifthly: Yeah okay it's a little odd that a demon showed up out of nowhere offering to heal your wounded friend in exchange for someone's soul, or perhaps a you encountered a disgruntled drow cleric capable of casting the spell and she requests you perform some task. Who cares if its the underdark, Faerun or Mars.
Sixthly: The dice don't make the story. The players and DM does. What matters is that people have fun and enjoy their time together.

 

[Jester David]

For their experience they are powerless to help them. The character is effectively dead. A powerful spell is required to enable them to be more than just a body.

If the character died would they be obligated to carry the body around until they can get a raise spell cast?

The exact same argument could be made if the healer were reduced to 0 hp by a crit in the first encounter of the day but succeeded on three death saves.
The character is stable but cant do anything and is just a body until they get more powerful magic (i.e. any healing magic). Should the other players be permitted to mercy kill a character in that situation?

The character is still alive. It still has its soul. It can be brought back and restored, albeit some time down the way. It's not like a dead body where the person is dead and no longer part of the natural order. The character can't take actions or move, but they might still breathe and absolutely feel pain, and are even capable of rudimentary speech (albeit falteringly).

To players it's easy to say "just kill the character and make a new one. Release and reroll." To the characters things are different as they do have to murder their friend. The trick here is not to punish the players for their actions which make sense in the metagame, but you shouldn't let the characters off easy for such an act.

 

[akr71]

snip
Another point of view I see coming up is that killing this vegetable is ABSOLUTELY evil, no doubt about it. I feel like those who say this do not consider mercy killing a thing. If I were a useless vegetable, a husk of my former glory, and did not have the intelligence to know I could be saved, I would be begging for death. Now, if the party says "we kill the vegetable, because we don't want to drag the body around for months" That is most definitely a cruel thing. But what if the party said "I feel horrible seeing my old friend this way, and cannot guarantee I can get to a settlement in time. Maybe a dagger through the heart will be better than being mauled by trolls, when the poor guy can't do anything to defend himself." That paints a very different picture, and does not read like an evil act at all, IMO anyway. Yes, a quest could be made for this, and it could be made into an interesting story, but I don't think morality is simple enough that one could say "yes, that is evil, you should lose support of your God" and be fair about it. Even a life cleric could argue the killing side, on the basis that this is no life at all. It is a twisted perversion, one that should be removed from suffering.

I was wondering about this myself. I can't see that another knight or priest would consider a knight 'evil' if it put a fellow adventurer out of his/her misery. I mean, if they had a pact to stand by one another til the bitter end, no matter what... well, then OK - offing someone cuz they're an inconvenience is evil.

At the end of the day, everyone should be having fun playing and the player should a say whether or not they want to 'roll play' a vegetable.