Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[reveal]

What would superman do?

Kill them and take their stuff.

 

[entr0py]

Call it euthanasia, to stop additional suffering, and it becomes an act of good. However, if followed with a "MUHAHAHAHA!" some suspicion may result.

 

[green slime]

Call it euthanasia, to stop additional suffering, and it becomes an act of good. However, if followed with a "MUHAHAHAHA!" some suspicion may result.

LOL

 

[DonTadow]

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.

That's absolutely wrong. Just about every weapon in dungeons and dragons deals non-lethal damage and if the PCs respected life and had the choice (right there in front of them) according to you they are only not evil if they do this.

Again, I chalk it up to logic. If someone comes into my house, I have a gun. I can either shoot them in the hip or shoot them in the head. I have the option of dealing non lethal damage. I know for a fact that I'd be looking at manslaughter 2 if I had a free choice and did not shoot them in the hip.

Then again I could always shoot them in the stomach if i feel like some torture but I'm pretty sure thats definately evil.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Whether you are aware of this or not, in the US if a thief breaks into your house and you shoot/kill him, YOU get charged with manslaughter. If a thief visibly steals something from your house and you shoot or attack him while he's trying to escape, YOU get charged with assault. (Though maybe I have the specific charges mixed up).

Since when is D&D set in the U.S.?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

I can see waking up the guy and letting him make peace with his god before you kill him.* But trial by combat? Isn't that just shorthand for "making him suffer before he dies"? If he's weaker than the character conducting the trial, it's cruel. If he's stronger, it's suicide.** If they're about even, it's a coin toss, and a coin toss is hardly justice. Killing him after a sleep spell is pretty much even to killing him with a phantasmal killer spell, but it might be a little more honourable to wake him before you kill him so he can make peace and maybe a last request. He shouldn't have been a bandit, and he went into banditry knowing what happens to failed bandits.

*...in a situation in which, unlike this one, it is not imperative to remove the combatant from the combat before he can resume being a mortal danger. One kick from his buddy is all it would take to rouse him, and failing that, he's only going to sleep for one minute. The danger has not been eliminated, only forestalled.
**...and either of these outcomes sound suspiciously like "might makes right", since the winner gets to live regardless of which one was the attempted murderer.

 

[DonTadow]

Since when is D&D set in the U.S.?

By saying you get charged for manslaughter i believe he is implying that our culture deems the act evil.

 

[nharwell]

By saying you get charged for manslaughter i believe he is implying that our culture deems the act evil.

I hate to be obvious, but illegal and evil are hardly equivalent. Otherwise, every minor traffic violation would quality as "evil."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Whether you are aware of this or not, in the US if a thief breaks into your house and you shoot/kill him, YOU get charged with manslaughter. If a thief visibly steals something from your house and you shoot or attack him while he's trying to escape, YOU get charged with assault. (Though maybe I have the specific charges mixed up).

Granted in the former case at least as I understand it, it's a pretty easy thing to establish a credible threat...which makes proving self-defense simple.

Credible threat is pretty easy to prove. In some cases, you don't even have to see a weapon. There was a case in Texas where a criminal tried to break into a house when only an 12 and 10 year old boy were home. The older boy went into his father's study (as his father had instructed him), got his dad's shotgun, and shot and killed the criminal through the front door as the man was trying to pick the lock to get inside. Verdict? Justifiable self-defense. Because if the man had gotten into the house, he would have easily over powered the children. The crook didn't have any kind of weapon on him.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I can see waking up the guy and letting him make peace with his god before you kill him.* But trial by combat? Isn't that just shorthand for "making him suffer before he dies"? If he's weaker than the character conducting the trial, it's cruel. If he's stronger, it's suicide.** If they're about even, it's a coin toss, and a coin toss is hardly justice. Killing him after a sleep spell is pretty much even to killing him with a phantasmal killer spell, but it might be a little more honourable to wake him before you kill him so he can make peace and maybe a last request. He shouldn't have been a bandit, and he went into banditry knowing what happens to failed bandits.

*...in a situation in which, unlike this one, it is not imperative to remove the combatant from the combat before he can resume being a mortal danger. One kick from his buddy is all it would take to rouse him, and failing that, he's only going to sleep for one minute. The danger has not been eliminated, only forestalled.
**...and either of these outcomes sound suspiciously like "might makes right", since the winner gets to live regardless of which one was the attempted murderer.

On the * - Then tie him up first.

As I said, read the Song of Roland, and for that matter read Le Morte de Artur - the primary sources regarding Paladins, a paladin may well believe that if the other person was justified in his actions then the paladin would lose the combat, having been judged by the gods. (This is the whole rationale for ordeal by combat. Rationale, not reason...) We are talking about a medieval paradigm, which is a different code of ethics than that practised today.

And how does 'kill him while he is sleeping' not equal might is right? The helpless opponent is by default rather less mighty than the one who is awake.

The difference between killing him after a sleep spell and with a Phantasmal Killer is 'Heat of Combat' Even today shooting an enemy soldier is acceptable, shooting prisoners is not. One is perhaps regretable, the other is an atrocity. In this regard the sleep spell takes him prisoner, the Phantasmal Killer is the equivelant of shooting him with a gun.

The Auld Grump