TL:DR, is killing a sleeping enemy by slitting their throat and evil act? I say no.
So we started a new campaign 2 weekends ago. Last night, our 2nd level party was tailing a group of 8 people that we needed information from to a warehouse building. Our party originally wanted to grab (2) of the 8 members in the group we were tailing if they had split up going to different locations. Not to be. All 8 went to a warehouse and entered. Our party followed. Little did we know that on the other side of the warehouse entrance were additional sentries that took their numbers from 8 to 12. My wizard, neutral (good), grabbed the first initiative and cast sleep immediately putting 4 targets to sleep. Surviving to the second round, my wizard again cast sleep to thin the enemy ranks from 8 down to 6 sleeping and 6 awake. Our party of (1) fighter, (1) paladin, (2) clerics, (1) wizard, (1) monk made short work of the remaining awake targets as well as 2 of the sleeping targets that had been awakened during combat.
After, the combat we proceeded to tie up 2 of the sleeping targets for movement to another location for "aggressive" interrogation. My wizard went to the other two sleeping targets and slit their throats killing them. Little did our party know that there had actually been a 13th enemy in the room that slipped out a back door and called for reinforcements. After another, more difficult and extensive battle, we survived.
Then, at the end of the evening, the DM said he wanted to give my wizard negative role-playing points for killing the sleeping enemy as he said it was an evil act. I say no. My reasoning is (1) consider it a mercy killing, they died in their sleep; (2) was I supposed to wake them up and then beat them to death as we could not have witnesses about our actions at the warehouse; and (3) in what history of combat throughout the ages has an army crept into the camp of another army and woke up their enemy saying "hey, wake up, get your armor on, get your weapon... we want to fight." NEVER! Killing sleeping enemies has historically been how armies won fights against opposing forces and it is not evil but how advantages of combat are exploited.
There are no Gods anymore. So there is little to worry about in the afterlife. The civilians did not see it so you didn't do it. Unless your personal (characters) morals and ethos says all your enemies must be killed in some type of specific way (face to face equally armed) then your good to go.
If the DM wants to play a morals game he is severely limiting the players in their actions. Theft and grave robbing is immoral and huge amounts of games rely on that for the characters income.
Murder the dragon and take his hoard. Now you can no longer do any tricky stuff and have to wake him up before you rob him.
If you are in a fight, make them fall asleep, then kill them, that is not evil as per my personal definition.
Sneaking into someone's room and killing someone asleep however is evil per my definition.
Note, a Lawful person or God might consider it dishonorable and refuse to do it, or be angry about it, particularly if they have some kind of Oath.
This also reminds me of my personal favorite version of the Trolley Problem, as this version makes it clear why people have problems with so many other versions. The details matter in cases like this:
You come across a trolley at a switch. The switch is currently set in the middle, meaning it will probably crash. On one track are four people tied and gagged. On the other is the Mayor of the town, tied and gagged. I ask you: "What do you do?"
As you touch the trolley switch you are electrocuted. I gag you and tie you up next to the four other people.
I mean seriously, you just blindly accepted the fact that there were people on a trolley track, let alone tied to it? Even if I swore I didn't tie them up, you should be questioning everything I said, rather than just going with the flow as if this was an every day situation!
Not evil but potentially cowardly. Definitely not honorable. So unless the character that did the throat slitting is "honorable" or "brave" I would not see it as causing any negative impact.
I think it's basically amoral in D&D because in most cases the players would probably be killing these creatures if they were awake anyway. Put another way, I wouldn't use killing a sleeping mook as a justification to strip a paladin of their oath benefits if done rarely.
FYI, the second paragraph of the paladin description reads:
A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently, he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there.
Not much sunlight between that and killing a sleeping enemy. Of course, paladins need not be good in 5e.
I wouldn’t say it’s evil, but was it lawful? Are you the bad people?
it’s very much a murder hobo style and it sounds like the DM might have ongoing issues with the style of play
I'm pretty sure that breaking into the warehouse isn't lawful. Nor is killing people in general.
In general, it's not considered terribly good to execute helpless foes, but the Sleep spell has a short enough duration that finishing off someone downed by it is really still "in combat" and that's typically acceptable. The real question I have is why the GM allowed an auto-kill: 5E doesn't have rules for coup de grace attacks, a melee attack against a helpless target is simply an automatic crit, and a wizard with I'm assuming a dagger is unlikely to be able to kill even standard CR 1/8 guard in one blow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I wouldn’t say it’s evil, but was it lawful? Are you the bad people?
it’s very much a murder hobo style and it sounds like the DM might have ongoing issues with the style of play
I'm pretty sure that breaking into the warehouse isn't lawful. Nor is killing people in general.
In general, it's not considered terribly good to execute helpless foes, but the Sleep spell has a short enough duration that finishing off someone downed by it is really still "in combat" and that's typically acceptable. The real question I have is why the GM allowed an auto-kill: 5E doesn't have rules for coup de grace attacks, a melee attack against a helpless target is simply an automatic crit, and a wizard with I'm assuming a dagger is unlikely to be able to kill even standard CR 1/8 guard in one blow.
This is something D&D needs.
By saying that you have to chop through all of a characters HP before death happens is like saying a guillotine would never work even if they willingly put their head into it. You can not remove an arm or a leg without hacking through all the hit points first.
We also need rules for knocking out an opponent. How many times would it have been 'nicer' to knock out that guard and tie him up instead of killing him? A blackjack could be a rogues best friend.
I would say a sleeping enemy is functionally a captive, and summary execution of a captive is a war crime. Also that "aggressive" interrogation y'all are planning is probably torture, which is also a war crime.
We also need rules for knocking out an opponent. How many times would it have been 'nicer' to knock out that guard and tie him up instead of killing him? A blackjack could be a rogues best friend.
Those rules are in the "Damage and Healing" section of the Player's Handbook (2014 Edition). They read:
When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.
By saying that you have to chop through all of a characters HP before death happens is like saying a guillotine would never work even if they willingly put their head into it. You can not remove an arm or a leg without hacking through all the hit points first.
We also need rules for knocking out an opponent. How many times would it have been 'nicer' to knock out that guard and tie him up instead of killing him? A blackjack could be a rogues best friend.
(a) if the game was realistic hit points either wouldn't exist, or would be largely invariant for all creatures of similar size.
I wouldn’t say it’s evil, but was it lawful? Are you the bad people?
it’s very much a murder hobo style and it sounds like the DM might have ongoing issues with the style of play
I'm pretty sure that breaking into the warehouse isn't lawful. Nor is killing people in general.
In general, it's not considered terribly good to execute helpless foes, but the Sleep spell has a short enough duration that finishing off someone downed by it is really still "in combat" and that's typically acceptable. The real question I have is why the GM allowed an auto-kill: 5E doesn't have rules for coup de grace attacks, a melee attack against a helpless target is simply an automatic crit, and a wizard with I'm assuming a dagger is unlikely to be able to kill even standard CR 1/8 guard in one blow.
This is something D&D needs.
Those rules existed in previous editions. They were rather broken since it made effects like paralysis even deadlier.
If a target is truly helpless and there's no time limit, the GM can just rule that you automatically kill the target without forcing you to roll for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TL:DR, is killing a sleeping enemy by slitting their throat and evil act? I say no.
So we started a new campaign 2 weekends ago. Last night, our 2nd level party was tailing a group of 8 people that we needed information from to a warehouse building. Our party originally wanted to grab (2) of the 8 members in the group we were tailing if they had split up going to different locations. Not to be. All 8 went to a warehouse and entered. Our party followed. Little did we know that on the other side of the warehouse entrance were additional sentries that took their numbers from 8 to 12. My wizard, neutral (good), grabbed the first initiative and cast sleep immediately putting 4 targets to sleep. Surviving to the second round, my wizard again cast sleep to thin the enemy ranks from 8 down to 6 sleeping and 6 awake. Our party of (1) fighter, (1) paladin, (2) clerics, (1) wizard, (1) monk made short work of the remaining awake targets as well as 2 of the sleeping targets that had been awakened during combat.
After, the combat we proceeded to tie up 2 of the sleeping targets for movement to another location for "aggressive" interrogation. My wizard went to the other two sleeping targets and slit their throats killing them. Little did our party know that there had actually been a 13th enemy in the room that slipped out a back door and called for reinforcements. After another, more difficult and extensive battle, we survived.
Then, at the end of the evening, the DM said he wanted to give my wizard negative role-playing points for killing the sleeping enemy as he said it was an evil act. I say no. My reasoning is (1) consider it a mercy killing, they died in their sleep; (2) was I supposed to wake them up and then beat them to death as we could not have witnesses about our actions at the warehouse; and (3) in what history of combat throughout the ages has an army crept into the camp of another army and woke up their enemy saying "hey, wake up, get your armor on, get your weapon... we want to fight." NEVER! Killing sleeping enemies has historically been how armies won fights against opposing forces and it is not evil but how advantages of combat are exploited.
What so you think.. evil or neutral?
I was going to say wow, unanimous not evil...
Then I saw I was the only one who voted so far... did i just call myself out I wonder :D
Thanks for your feedback. I didn't see it as evil either. I saw it as necessary.
There are no Gods anymore. So there is little to worry about in the afterlife.
The civilians did not see it so you didn't do it.
Unless your personal (characters) morals and ethos says all your enemies must be killed in some type of specific way (face to face equally armed) then your good to go.
If the DM wants to play a morals game he is severely limiting the players in their actions. Theft and grave robbing is immoral and huge amounts of games rely on that for the characters income.
Murder the dragon and take his hoard. Now you can no longer do any tricky stuff and have to wake him up before you rob him.
Exactly. I am morally ambivalent to killing an enemy while he is sleeping or awake. But it's much easier while he's asleep.
If you are in a fight, make them fall asleep, then kill them, that is not evil as per my personal definition.
Sneaking into someone's room and killing someone asleep however is evil per my definition.
Note, a Lawful person or God might consider it dishonorable and refuse to do it, or be angry about it, particularly if they have some kind of Oath.
This also reminds me of my personal favorite version of the Trolley Problem, as this version makes it clear why people have problems with so many other versions. The details matter in cases like this:
You come across a trolley at a switch. The switch is currently set in the middle, meaning it will probably crash. On one track are four people tied and gagged. On the other is the Mayor of the town, tied and gagged. I ask you: "What do you do?"
As you touch the trolley switch you are electrocuted. I gag you and tie you up next to the four other people.
I mean seriously, you just blindly accepted the fact that there were people on a trolley track, let alone tied to it? Even if I swore I didn't tie them up, you should be questioning everything I said, rather than just going with the flow as if this was an every day situation!
Agree completely. That is why the Paladin in the party did not kill them as that would not have been a lawful act.
Not evil but potentially cowardly. Definitely not honorable. So unless the character that did the throat slitting is "honorable" or "brave" I would not see it as causing any negative impact.
I think it's basically amoral in D&D because in most cases the players would probably be killing these creatures if they were awake anyway. Put another way, I wouldn't use killing a sleeping mook as a justification to strip a paladin of their oath benefits if done rarely.
I wouldn’t say it’s evil, but was it lawful? Are you the bad people?
it’s very much a murder hobo style and it sounds like the DM might have ongoing issues with the style of play
Can't really say if it's lawful or not. Depends on the code of the individual in question.
The evil part isn't with them being sleeping, it's with them being defeated.
FYI, the second paragraph of the paladin description reads:
Not much sunlight between that and killing a sleeping enemy. Of course, paladins need not be good in 5e.
I'm pretty sure that breaking into the warehouse isn't lawful. Nor is killing people in general.
In general, it's not considered terribly good to execute helpless foes, but the Sleep spell has a short enough duration that finishing off someone downed by it is really still "in combat" and that's typically acceptable. The real question I have is why the GM allowed an auto-kill: 5E doesn't have rules for coup de grace attacks, a melee attack against a helpless target is simply an automatic crit, and a wizard with I'm assuming a dagger is unlikely to be able to kill even standard CR 1/8 guard in one blow.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Would you kill Joffrey Baratheon to save innocent lifes?
It wouldn't be honorable or glorious but if the goal is to protect innocents then you shouldn't worry so much about fair play.
This is something D&D needs.
By saying that you have to chop through all of a characters HP before death happens is like saying a guillotine would never work even if they willingly put their head into it.
You can not remove an arm or a leg without hacking through all the hit points first.
We also need rules for knocking out an opponent. How many times would it have been 'nicer' to knock out that guard and tie him up instead of killing him? A blackjack could be a rogues best friend.
I would say a sleeping enemy is functionally a captive, and summary execution of a captive is a war crime. Also that "aggressive" interrogation y'all are planning is probably torture, which is also a war crime.
Those rules are in the "Damage and Healing" section of the Player's Handbook (2014 Edition). They read:
(a) if the game was realistic hit points either wouldn't exist, or would be largely invariant for all creatures of similar size.
(b) we have rules for knocking a creature out.
And you still have to beat 150 hp out of someone before you get that chance.
Those rules existed in previous editions. They were rather broken since it made effects like paralysis even deadlier.
If a target is truly helpless and there's no time limit, the GM can just rule that you automatically kill the target without forcing you to roll for it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.