Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6795899" data-attributes="member: 6778044">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</blockquote>

Verification