Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Shadowdweller]

I don't understand why the helpless part matters so much to so many people. If anything, it would matter more for Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. The idea being that taking the role of judge/jury/executioner is, in effect, disrespectful towards legitimate (assuming it exists) law that could honestly try the evil person for his crimes.

Because once the enemy is helpless it ceases to be self-defense and becomes murder. Even if the enemy in question tried to take your belongings.

It's not evil/murder in this case because, as you mention, I) it hasn't been established that the enemy was helpless and II) the enemy themselves are using lethal force ("Your money or your life" ) to acquire said belongings.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Evil? Depends on the society that you were raised in. But certainly not good. Almost certainly not lawful (high justice being reserved for the nobility).

However, depending on the character, even a paladin, if justly accorded the right of high justice in that jurisdiction, may kill an opponent, but would be obligated to wake him and give him a field trial, possibly an ordeal by combat (may the gods uphold the right!), and following the trial may well kill him without losing a moment's sleep. (Read the Song of Roland, the source of much of the Paladin class...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Ogre Mage]

CdG is NOT always evil, but I would say in this particular case, the PCs actions were evil based on the information that was given. Good demands respect for life, even the life of opponents and/or evil creatures. This does not mean you always have to stay your hand, but good tries to avoid killing unless necessary. The individual was sleeping and presumably presented no imminent danger. While there are some creatures who are so powerful and irredeemably evil that killing them in their sleep would be perfectly justified (evil dragons and demons come to mind), that does not appear to be relevant in this instance.

In terms of how Good, Neutral and Evil view the sanctity of life, I would say:

Good: respects life, even the lives of opponents or evil individuals.
Neutral: respects the lives of others so long as those others do likewise.
Evil: doesn't respect life.

Notably, the conflict occured in this instance because the bandits initiated violence against the PCs. It would, in my view, take several repetitions of this action to shift a PCs alignment from Good to Neutral. While the action was a violation of the general ethos of good, it does not violate the less burdensome standard of neutrality.

 

[DonTadow]

CdG is NOT always evil, but I would say in this particular case, the PCs actions were evil based on the information that was given. Good demands respect for life, even the life of opponents and/or evil creatures. This does not mean you always have to stay your hand, but good tries to avoid killing unless necessary. The individual was sleeping and presumably presented no imminent danger. While there are some creatures who are so powerful and irredeemably evil that killing them in their sleep would be perfectly justified (evil dragons and demons come to mind), that does not appear to be relevant in this instance.

Notably, however, the conflict occured in this instance because the bandits initiated violence against the PCs. Given that, this was a minor act of evil. It would, in my view, take several repetitions of this action to shift a PCs alignment from Good to Neutral. A Neutral PC could justify the act as "self defense" although it is morally sticky.

Given this logic though, PCs at ALL times should deal non-lethal damage if they wish to be good. Non-lethal spells should be done as well.

Violence is neither good or evil. The reasons behind violence are good or evil. His reasons was that he feared the person would get back up and he needed to protect his other familes.

 

[Jhulae]

Because once the enemy is helpless it ceases to be self-defense and becomes murder. Even if the enemy in question tried to take your belongings.

It's not evil/murder in this case because, as you mention, I) it hasn't been established that the enemy was helpless and II) the enemy themselves are using lethal force ("Your money or your life" ) to acquire said belongings.

So, you wouldn't CDG humans. What if they were goblins? What about gnolls? What about Drow? What about Illithid?

What you're saying is that you would *not* CDG any of those foes if you knocked them out?

 

[Ogre Mage]

Given this logic though, PCs at ALL times should deal non-lethal damage if they wish to be good. Non-lethal spells should be done as well.

Not correct, respect for life does not mean you have to fight with a sap if your opponent is using deadly force. There is a huge difference between slaying a foe during mortal combat (perfectly justifiable under any standard) and killing one who is asleep.

 

[tarchon]

But is a coup de mal a good act if performed on an evil creature?

 

[The Grackle]

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

It totally depends on your facial expression as you do it. Solemn, determined, and maybe tinged w/regret? Not evil. Gleeful and laughing? Evil.

 

[Hejdun]

Because once the enemy is helpless it ceases to be self-defense and becomes murder.

So, according to that logic, hacking a demon into negative hit points wouldn't be an evil act (in fact, it would probably be a good act), but then watching him bleed to death would be evil, causing an instant alignment change to evil. After all, he's helpless while he's bleeding, and you caused the bleeding. You could easily stop the bleeding.

Which means, in order to remain good, adventurers must always heal their enemies right after they hack them into negative hit points, otherwise they get an alignment change to evil.

A criminal risked his life in the process of committing a crime. There's no doubt that he committed the crime, and there's very good reason to suspect that he's committed at least one other crime, has tried to kill innocents, and will continue to endanger the lives of innocents if left to roam free. Call if vigilante justice if you like, which is neither good nor lawful, but it sure isn't evil when you're sure you have the criminal.

Good: respects life, even the lives of opponents or evil individuals.
Neutral: respects the lives of others so long as those others do likewise.
Evil: doesn't respect life.

Negative, Good respects innocent life. They are under no obligation to respect the lives of demons, red dragons, mind flayers, murderers, or mad clerics with an obsession for destroying the world.

This is a game where you kill evil people and take their stuff. There are a thousand and one ways to kill someone in this game, are you telling me that all 1001 are evil if used to kill an evil opponent? It's rediculous.

On the helpless thing: if you disarm an opponent, is it evil to attack him (AoO) when he goes to pick it up? After all, without his weapon, he can't really harm you, so it sure is mean to attack him while he's weaponless, right? Oh, and forget about surprise round attacks, after all, it's not nice to attack someone when they haven't drawn their weapon. And it's really not nice to attack enemies with fireballs when you're invisible and flying and they can't hit you back, eh?

You could maybe prohibit those things if you had a strict code of honor (i.e. you are having an honorable duel with strict rules), but otherwise, tough luck sucker. Particularly if you initiate hostilities, you have no reason to complain when your opponent defeats you.

 

[Bauglir]

IMO killing another sentient being is always an evil act but to varying degree.

The measuring stick I use for the good/evil alignment is based on the importance the character places on himself and on others:

A totally evil person is therefore completely self serving, and cares nothing for others.
A totally good person is entirely selfless, always placing the wellbeing of others before his own.

Therefore a totally good character would always fight with the minimum force required (subdual damage), and only when absolutely necessary to protect life.

However a totally good character is a logical extreme, and would not represent any realistic character, even a paladin.

Good characters routinely kill evil characters in any D&D setting, usually in mortal combat, and while this is an evil act, it is an extremely mild evil and not likely to result in an alignment shift unless this is all they do. If you do nothing but kill in the name of good then eventually it becomes more about the killing and less about the good..

Deliberately killing a helpless opponnent when you have an alternative is IMO a significantly stronger evil. The decision is essentially to take his life, because it improves your chances (note: desirable: yes, necessary: no) which is selfish. You could have disarmed him and/or tied him up. The coup de grace is simply more convenient.

Hence if a good character were to do this IMC I'd tell them they feel a bit guilty about it afterwards. If they made a policy of doing such things they would slip to neutral faily quickly.

What would superman do?