Coup de grace - Evil act?

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Just how cheezey can you get?

Hi. My current character is a Fighter-4 / Ranger-1 / Rogue-4 / Cleric-5 / Sorcerer-3 / Arcane Archer-3.

Yes, I think so. 1 level of ranger for the feats, 4 levels of fighter for the WS, 5 levels of cleric for level 3 spells, sorcerer for AA qualification, and AA for the massive archer bennies...

Not thst there's anything intrinsically wrong with being "munchkin".

 

[Numion]

Re: Just how cheezey can you get?

Hi. My current character is a Fighter-4 / Ranger-1 / Rogue-4 / Cleric-5 / Sorcerer-3 / Arcane Archer-3.

Am I a munchkin cheezeball, too?

No, munchkin cheezeballs don't have exp penalties

 

[KDLadage]

It was just a joke...

In my campaigns, I generally dfo not allow more than 2 core classes and a prestige class.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Just how cheezey can you get?

No, munchkin cheezeballs don't have exp penalties

Well, it would only be -20%... they're stacked pretty well.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Just how cheezey can you get?

No, munchkin cheezeballs don't have exp penalties

It would only be -20%... the classes are stacked well (assuming the character's not an elf).

 

[Artoomis]

Back on Topic

Back to the original topic.

I am a surprised that so many of you have issue with Coup de Grace, but so few have issues with the good PC teaming up with evil characters - and doing so intentionally.

How is it even remotely "good" to knowingly team up with evil characters, even if it is to do damage control (body recovery, etc.)? To have a temporary truce is one thing - to make them your allies (even temporarily) is another thing all together. It seems to me that this sort of behavior is far more evil than a Coup de Grace. This takes one right down the road of "the end justifies the means." And THAT is pretty much an evil outlook - the idea that the end state is what is important, not how you got there.

This sort of behavior is, at best, "neutral". Not even remotely "good."

 

[SamB]

I think some people are confusing "good" with "honorable." Honor is really a cultural trait, and definitions of honor are not universal.

Sneak attacks, striking first, setting traps, and other items of "unconventional warfare" are not inherently evil. If you are going to define that sort of thing as evil, then you are essentailly saying that characters like Robin Hood or anyone else who uses guerilla tactics are evil people.

Attacking stronger foes head-on and or always giving someone the first shot is honorable (and perhaps suicidal), not "good."

The CDG in this case is questionable, but may not have been consciously evil. Rash and impuslive acts are part and parcel of a chaotic character, IMO.

I would be much more bothered by the fact that a good character knowingly teamed up with a bunch of known bad guys who then stole a bunch of magic items. Unless the character has a very low Wisdom score, he should have forseen the posiblity that he'd be betrayed. That character is responsible for an evil group of NPC's becoming vastly more powerful.

I would have bestowed a minor penalty for the CDG, and a BIG one for teaming up with the bad guys:

1) Either partial or no XP for the Elves, because of the coupe de grace.

2) Some sort of major penalty for bad judgement with the evil band. Maybe suspension of divine powers or a furter XP penalty until he makes some sort of restitution (preferably by getting those stolen magic items back!).

 

[Gez]

Yes, it was evil. Killing someone painlessly is evil. Slowly ripping them in piece with at least a dozen axe blows is the only good behavior possible.

Sarcasm, of course. In a fantasy world, it is hard to consider execution evil, because in a fantasy world, you have unredeemable villains that must be killed (in the real world too, unless you're willing to spend a huge amount of the taxpayers' money in psychiatric help). So, killing people that have commited a wrong is not evil in itself, if the wrong was bad enough. However, respect for life (a definition of good, you remember) requires you to slay the most painlessly possible when you have to slay. So, the coup de grâce is the least evil way of killing. Simple. (Etymologically, coup de grâce is French for "merciful blow". You kill with mercy. The main purpose of a CdG is to finish a dying opponent so he don't suffer.)

However, allying with evil people is neutral at best, not good. Although you may make the "luck" part of Tymora kick in and consider that She allowed you to use these bad guys against the other bad guys.


Forrester Mode On
And, finally, slaying elves is an inherently good act that cannot be evil, whatever the way used.

 

[Hejdun]

Hehehe

You know what this thread immediately made me think of? Something like this:

"Well, I was drunk and high, and going driving down a busy street. I accidently ran over an old lady and forced a loaded school bus to fall into a ravine. I also forced a cop car off the road. And... finally... I yelled **** when I missed the "bump" sign on the side of hte road. I feel horrible, I'm having trouble sleeping. I mean, what got a hold of me? I've NEVER cursed before in my life! Do you think I'm going to hell because I said ****?"

Coup de Gracing is not evil in my opinion. It's chaotic perhaps, but it's battle. A smart opponent doens't give free shots. Look at the U.S. army. We sneak, we kill in silence, we hit them from behind, we'll use any and all tactics in combat if it is effective in subduing (and most of the time killing) our enemies. Does that make U.S. soldiers evil?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Hehehe

Look at the U.S. army. We sneak, we kill in silence, we hit them from behind, we'll use any and all tactics in combat if it is effective in subduing (and most of the time killing) our enemies. Does that make U.S. soldiers evil?

I'm just curious...

If we said "yes"... would you sneak up, hit us from behind, and subdue and kill us in silence?



-Hyp.