D&D 5E Next session a character might die. Am I being a jerk?

[Maxperson]

Well, we've been playing together for 30+ years, so that helps!

For sure. The newest player in my main group is my friend's son. He started playing when he was 17. He just turned 30. His father and I have been playing since we were both 14.

 

[Tonguez]

One act isn't enough(generally) to change alignment. I had a CG ranger once engage in cold blooder murder. From his history he had a passionate hatred of slavers. One day he was scouting up ahead with the gladiator from the party who was an abused former slave. We came across a slave caravan stopped for lunch. We both looked at each and then descended. We gave no warning. We accepted no surrender. After we cleared away the bodies, we freed the slaves and went back to the group.

My character's personality did not change. Nor did his alignment. People snap and do bad things. That doesn't make them evil. It takes more than a one off to change someone to evil.

that’s not murder though, the character had a well established hatred of slavery and I assume knew he was attacking slavers - freeing slaves was justification for his chaotic act. Bonus xp for role playing in character.

using vampiric touch on an unconscious person who isn’t offending you is a deliberate act of murder however

 

[billd91]

that’s not murder though, the character had a well established hatred of slavery and I assume knew he was attacking slavers - freeing slaves was justification for his chaotic act. Bonus xp for role playing in character.

using vampiric touch on an unconscious person who isn’t offending you is a deliberate act of murder however

Sure, it's murder. Did the PC have the legal right to execute someone in this situation? Was it self defense? If those are no, then it's murder - certainly from a legal sense. Was it just from a moral standpoint is another question.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, it's murder. Did the PC have the legal right to execute someone in this situation? Was it self defense? If those are no, then it's murder - certainly from a legal sense. Was it just from a moral standpoint is another question.

Yep. That's how I see it, too.

 

[Flamestrike]

Chaotic Good,(in my experience), encompasses individuals whom consider their personal code of ethics to be more binding than a traditional societal code. Chaotic Good is often the alignment assigned to social reformers, in games I have played in.

A chaotic good wizard could, reasonably, have no moral qualms about using Vampiric Touch on a devil in Avernus,for example.

I have no issue with that. We're not talking about someone who is morally good, following their own code of ethics, and fighting devils in Hell (who are actively trying to kill them).

In the OPs case there were 3 badly wounded people, lying unconscious and helpless. They posed no threat to anyone, and one was simply murdered flat out by a PC.

If you walked around a corner and came on 3 helpless and unconscious hobos, and put a bullet in one of their heads murdering him, you're not morally good.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Having a villain created by a player's actions try to kill that player's character isn't mean--it's DRAMA. Great stories require heroes, villains, stakes, and drama. Plus, if anyone can come back from the dead, it's a necromancer!

 

[Todd Roybark]

Bonus xp for role playing in character.

This tickles me. Not only can the characters use lethal violence, proactively, if you kill what the DM determines to be an undesirable, in an approved way, you get a cookie.

In the OPs case there were 3 badly wounded people, lying unconscious and helpless. They posed no threat to anyone, and one was simply murdered flat out by a PC.

Yes, this is not in dispute. I am not sure what others are misreading in my words. I stated a character can use Vampiric Touch against an evil thing and still be Chaotic Good/ Neutral Good.

What is not clear, by the inclusion of the word, “Evil”?

I don’t think the act as described, in the original post, is justifiable as good at all.

If I had a situation as, described in the original post, I would handle just like the person that wrote the following:

Man, as DM I would have stepped in and clearly and unambiguously told the player that murdering a helpless person is evil, before they did what they did. Hit the pause button pre murder, and stated it outright.

I think what is clear from the content of the post of Tonguez, is that a large cohort of D&D players are fine with Charles Bronson, extreme frontier justice.

What if the three acolytes were priests of Bane, or Demogorgon? Is murdering three unconscious priest of an unabashedly, unquestionably evil force in the multiverse, held to the same conclusion of moral condemnation?

What if the Paladin detected them as unconscious evil outsiders? Does the same moral condemnation apply?

The answer, likely, is, in some campaigns: No.

The game has a long history of operating in the moral space where it is considered righteous, or at least normal, for the forces of good, to kill , with nigh impunity, evil things.

Most of this board is steeped in D&D lore, we know an acolyte of Demogogon is different from an acolyte of Lathander.

If you had no understanding of this context, and observed that some things in the game are Kill on Sight, it is conceivable, that parsing the difference between what is KOS and what is not, might be difficult.

Clearly, the Necromancer had no idea what Chaotic Good meant. Presuming, no deception or malice on the part of the player, they needed to be taught.

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I'd be curious to know how the unconscious Lathanderite knew it was the Necromancer who killed him? I mean, its not as if the Lathanderite was a witness to who performed the act. And If a deity imparted this knowledge, how did the Lathanderite garner such attention? Would he also not be suspicious of the who in the group was involved? This could provide some reasoning for the hesitation of the revenant to outright strike - he/she wants to know who all in the group was in on his death - and perhaps why. It may even have believed that its looking for the Big Bad and is confused who the object of its revenge should be.

Overall though, this moreso strikes me as DM's Revenge for not following the plot. Sure, the Necromancer's act wasn't good, but there's a lack of passion to drive revenge against the PC - after all, it was the BBEG who put the person unconsious in the first place - I'd think they'd be more unhappy at that person - who is now gone.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, this is not in dispute. I am not sure what others are misreading in my words. I stated a character can use Vampiric Touch against an evil thing and still be Chaotic Good/ Neutral Good.

It doesn't matter if your victim is evilly aligned, good aligned or neutrally aligned. Their alignment has nothing to do with it.

The question is 'does the intended victim pose me (or someone else) an immediate threat of violence, and is the force I am using proportionate to that threat?'

In this case, the victim was lying on the ground badly wounded and unconscious. Hitting them with vampiric touch, shooting them in the head with a gun, or bashing their skull in with a hammer was clearly evil, regardless of the alignment of the victim.

I think what is clear from the content of the post of Tonguez, is that a large cohort of D&D players are fine with Charles Bronson, extreme frontier justice.

Good on them. They can be LE aligned like Bronson was in that movie. Or like the Punisher is.

What if the three acolytes were priests of Bane, or Demogorgon? Is murdering three unconscious priest of an unabashedly, unquestionably evil force in the multiverse, held to the same conclusion of moral condemnation?

I would unequivocally say yes. There are no Good aligned deities of Murder that I know of. The only Good deities that advocate violence (Torm, Tyr, Moradin, Corellion etc) certainly dont advocate murdering a helpless person, even if they are 'evil'.

What if the Paladin detected them as unconscious evil outsiders? Does the same moral condemnation apply?

You cant kill an outsider on the material plane. You simply banish it back to its own plane. If the outsider is not dead, it's not murder. You're just sending it home.

 

[Todd Roybark]

The question is 'does the intended victim pose me (or someone else) an immediate threat of violence, and is the force I am using proportionate to that threat?'

Note I said “ Use” in reference to Vampiric Touch, NOT, use on unconscious opponents, as it seems, you are presuming.

I, substantially agree, personally, with the moral positions, you have advocated, in this thread.

If, however, I was fighting a Darth Sidious type villain, and knocked the Villian to zero hit points. Depending, on my role play choices for the character. I could see making the same choice as a Mace Windu, in performing a coup de grace.

Also, while the criteria I quoted above, from you, is admirable, some will value tactical advantage as serving the greater good, more effectively than ‘fair fights’.

Military and Police units use ‘night raids’, precisely so the raiders catch the raid targets unaware, hopefully unconscious, and unable to defend themselves, effectively.

As a point of history, either a US Navy Corpman or Navy Seal executed a young prisoner of the battlefield of Afghanistan. Large swaths of the US population, including some notable leaders, had no moral qualms, about this.

Which, is again to say, some may not see the issue as starkly, as you have detailed.

Good on them. They can be LE aligned like Bronson was in that movie. Or like the Punisher is.

Except, in their game, and view they are not LE.

Beside..
.....Outside, Once Upon a Time in the West, Charles Bronson characters strike me
as Chaotic Evil. .
No regard for the law, never forswears vengeance, and is often sadistic.

The ‘good’ assassin, with extreme body counts is an American Trope, at this point.
There is no math, nor amortization loan calculations in The Accountant.