Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Chupacabra]

Here's the situation:
My party (all good-aligned) sees a wounded traveler on the roadside. He tells us that he was beset by bandits. A short time later, we encounter the same said bandits. The bandits get the drop on us and basically tell us to "stand and deliver" i.e. surrender and give up your gold. My neutral good level 1 wizard starts to cast a spell and gets a crossbow bolt in the side for his troubles from the spokeman/leader of the bandits. So I get tagged with the first blood.

Next round, combat begins in earnest. I get off a sleep spell which KO's one bad guys who has wounded one of my comrades.

Next round (still in the middle of combat) I go up to the sleeping bad guy and I declare a coup de grace. The DM as well as half of the players at the party say that this is an evil act: killing a defenseless opponent instead of taking him prisoner. Am I missing something?
The guy's buddy just shot me in the lungs and the guy himself just tagged my companion in the head with an axe and now I have to take him prisoner just because I managed to put him to sleep?

So what's your thought? Is a coup de grace an evil act? Sometimes? Never? All the time? Lemme know.

 

[Crothian]

it depends but if the rest of the party and DM think its evil, then in your group its evil.

 

[mrtauntaun]

If you were LG, I would say this would be a problem. Dishonorable and certainly frowned upon, but evil? I don't see a problem with a good person performing a coup de grace. Typically, when people talk about 'killing an unarmed and defenseless prisoner', this is in reference to a code of conduct or personal code of honor. Much like a Paladin, for example.
It's not going win you any points with many, but as the alignment rules are laid out, I don't think I'd qualify that as 'evil' per se. But, as with other aspects of the alignment system, it's a grey area.
Just one more reason I don't play with alignment anymore

 

[Chupacabra]

Well, yes, the DM did not allow me to follow through with my declared act we did eventually end up capturing my opponent. So yes, the DM said it was evil and thus, lo, it was, is and shall be an evil act.

But outside of that, do you think that it is an inherently evil action: like say, using women and children as cover against a missle attack. Now THATS evil.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Just because you didn't kill him doesn't mean you're under any obligation to take him as a prisoner.

Take his gear and his clothes and let the bastard sleep it off.

edit: Yeah, I think the coup de grace would be an evil act-- while you were justified in using lethal force, you had already defeated him without it. Killing him in his sleep isn't necessary, and it isn't even good form for a summary execution.

If you wanted to give him field justice, you'd be at least obligated to wake him up and at least give him a chance to say some last words and make his peace with the gods.

 

[Belbarid]

Well, yes, the DM did not allow me to follow through with my declared act we did eventually end up capturing my opponent. So yes, the DM said it was evil and thus, lo, it was, is and shall be an evil act.

But outside of that, do you think that it is an inherently evil action: like say, using women and children as cover against a missle attack. Now THATS evil.

Two things, both IMO, of course.

First of all, *any* DM who won't allow a player to follow through on an intended act that is not in violation of published/house rules is to be avoided like the plague. Especially if it's for something like alignment- a horrible concept anyway that I generally ignore.

Secondly, no, a Coup De Grace isn't inherantly evil. It's not real honorable, but one might point out that honor doesn't win fights.

Why did you Coup De Grace him? To punish him for his crimes? To make sure that he didn't seek revenge on you? Because it's easier than killing him while he's awake? To watch the pretty blood spray? To save him the ignoble fate of capture?

All valid reasons, covering a wide variety of alignments, points of view, and degrees of sanity.

 

[Belbarid]

edit: Yeah, I think the coup de grace would be an evil act-- while you were justified in using lethal force, you had already defeated him without it. Killing him in his sleep isn't necessary, and it isn't even good form for a summary execution.

If you wanted to give him field justice, you'd be at least obligated to wake him up and at least give him a chance to say some last words and make his peace with the gods.

More Lawful here, than Good. Just because you are given the proverbial "Fair trial, followed by a first class hanging", doesn't imply any degree of Goodness- merely a token attempt at following the Law.

 

[Bastoche]

I think it depends on the flavor of D&D you play. Typically, killing an evil dude/monster/whatever is a good act in a D&D context. Some like to play in a setting were murder/killing in any form is basically evil. It's not when both in self-defense AND unavoidable (like being dropped at -9 and dying the next round because meanwhile you still have to save girl Y from being wronged).

 

[Coredump]

I would say it is evil. Now, neutral folks do some evil occasionally also... but for a good party... it should be a no-no.

I could see situations where it was a 'necessary evil'**; but this guy didn't seem to pose much of a threat, and others did, and you chose to kill someone instead of dealing with the other threats.

So, how can you justify killing a helpless human as a good act? Isn't your character good?



**example: party is outgunned, and the bad guys go down for a few rounds. There is no time to restrain enough of them, and if they get back up you are dead meat. Only choice left is to CdG a number of them. (of course, even a Paladin may have trouble with that....)

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm with Crothian. It seems like it's evil in your group and you might just have to live with that. Being Good is sometimes just hard to do. IMC, I would say it's evil, but I tend to view things in degrees. In this case, it's not a hugely evil thing and it would take many such occurrence to sway your alignment. Although I consider it evil, it's a moment of passion thing and therefore less evil than purposefully murdering someone. The US justice system has a similar view, offering degrees of murder.

I'm also with Belbarid that your DM should not have restricted your actions. A DM should only do that if the player is purposefully disrupting the group and the game. On that hand, though, the DM (and the other players) should take out-of-game actions and pause for a little while to talk it through. That's a whole other thread, though.