Coup de grace... A moral stand point...

[RigaMortus]

I just wanted to get everyone's consenus on the moral aspects of coup de gracing a helpless foe. Specifically, if they are unconcious or bleeding to death. Does anyone see this as an evil act?

A few of my fellow gamers believe that people (players) generally take life for granted in DnD. Killing is very rampant, and you get rewarded for a creatures death. However, there are some classes and alignments that might go out of the way to help a fallen foe not die.

If a battle is one or a foe is defeated, would it be considered an "evil" act to let your enemies bleed to death or to finish them off by coup de gracing when you have the means to stabilize them? Perhaps turn them into the authorities rather then let them die.

Just curious how you all view this.

 

[Crothian]

Did the helpless foe become helpless through your actions? If yes, were you're actions trying to kill him? More then likely yes to both question. So, it's okay to kill a bad guy, but if you happen to fail and make him helpless it's no longer okay to kill him? I think you're splitting hairs here. Characters who have problems with this should probably have problems with killing the foes in general. There are many ways to defeat an oponent. Perhaps they should be trying from the get go to subdue or some other means besides killing.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I agree. Drawing the line at killing a helpless opponent (in the specific case when he is helpless due to the actions you and your allies took in the very act of attempting to kill him) is hypocricy.

 

[Prince Atom]

In the last session I played, the group came around a corner and bumped into four or five albino bugbears. We didn't get to find out if being albino meant they were some special DM creation because our psion, a 10 year old boy named William, won initiative, moved into position, and mind blasted them all. They were stunned and helpless for 3d4 rounds, he rolled an 11.... Oy.

So then the paladin gets out his flaying knife... oh, sorry, he doesn't have a flaying knife, but the entire group decided it was coup de grace time. The only dissenting voice heard was my character's, who refused to kill a helpless foe. He didn't object to killing them (the paladin detected evil in them), he objected to killing them while they were helpless. When I saw that I couldn't stop them, I refused to have anything to do with it and kept watch in the tunnel. Besides, it was the first time William had gotten to mind blast anything; I didn't really think it was worth it to prevent them because that would have made it less fun for William's player.

The DM gave me 50 bonus XP. I imagine I was somewhat unbearable for a bit after that

The point of this anecdote is that I think couping a helpless foe is definitely not a good act. It's not an evil act - I can think of several situations in which killing a helpless foe is the most expedient method of accomplishing one's goals - but it's definitely not something that a paladin should be a proponent of.

They were arguing that you have to have done evil to detect as evil, and so justice was served. I was not convinced. I guess even in a situation in which life is cheap I want a swift and fair trial for people.

Of course, self-defense is another matter.


Arg... it's my day to ramble.

TWK
You are unwise to lower your defenses!

 

[Zenon]

Oh boy..

Ok, I'll put my 2 cents in. Remember all of the following is strictly IMHO and IMC:

All the following assumes a party with Good alignment.

First, you would need to clarify a point - the situation.

If the PC's have won the battle, but have their own wounded to treat, these come first. If by the time they're done enemies have bled to death that would have lived with treatment, that to me is morally acceptable (ie - not evil).

If the PC's have won, and then stand around the downed enemies and watch them bleed to death, that's a little morally shaky (cruel & unusual punishment type). Either they should be bound to stop the bleeding or put out of their misery & pain.

Another point would have to be considered - do the PC's have the authority to dispense justice? (ie - like having a Paladin along?). If they have a Paladin, it could still go either way. If the PC's have no means to transport the fallen foes, are in the middle of a quest and truly cannot afford the burden that the capture enemies would place on their party, then the Paladin (or other authorized person) could pronounce judgement over the fallen. A coup de grac would then be acceptable, because if there was a question later, the person would approved the executions would stand accountable.

However, simply cutting the throats of the fallen without party agreement or judgement pronounce is again a little morally shaky, as is expressing glee while doing it, etc. IMHO, even good characters should feel remorse when this has to be done.

Again, there isn't really a definition in the rules for this, so all of the above are House Rules. These will be different from campaign to campaign and from player group to player group. The hardest thing to do as the DM is to judge them in an objective way, and remember to point out to the player before they make decisions if there might be ramifications from their acts.

 

[hong]

If a battle is one or a foe is defeated, would it be considered an "evil" act to let your enemies bleed to death or to finish them off by coup de gracing when you have the means to stabilize them? Perhaps turn them into the authorities rather then let them die.

Just curious how you all view this.

The best solution is to avoid the problem altogether, by having mooks die as soon as they hit 0 hp.

Think of movies like Star Wars, FOTR, Conan, Indiana Jones, The Magnificent Seven, or six million other action flicks. Nowhere do you get people groaning and moaning in pain as they bleed to death from wounds. When the bad guys hit the dirt, they're done for, and you can get on with the derring-do stuff.

Now think of movies like Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, and so on. In these movies, you _do_ get confronted with Teh Horror Of War [tm]. If you want to play a game that dives into these messy moral questions, good for you, but by the same token, asking for neat solutions on a messageboard isn't going to achieve much. There _are_ no neat solutions to problems like these, except not to get into a war in the first place. But that isn't a very practical solution, especially in an RPG situation.

 

[Prince Atom]

I agree. Drawing the line at killing a helpless opponent (in the specific case when he is helpless due to the actions you and your allies took in the very act of attempting to kill him) is hypocricy.

Is it hypocrisy if you've sworn not to harm the helpless? My character is a knight; they take oaths. One of the oaths Conor has taken is not to harm the helpless.

It's a grey area. We assume the bugbears would try to harm us if they could (they didn't get a chance), so the party wanted to do unto them before they could do unto us. I was all for tying them up, but no....

Great! Conor has just developed. Now he's not sure if he did the right thing in distancing himself from them in this action. Maybe he could have done more to prevent the harm....

And no, I'm not going to drop this character, so don't suggest it.

TWK

 

[hong]

They were stunned and helpless for 3d4 rounds, he rolled an 11.... Oy.

Stunned != helpless.

 

[KarinsDad]

Did the helpless foe become helpless through your actions? If yes, were you're actions trying to kill him? More then likely yes to both question. So, it's okay to kill a bad guy, but if you happen to fail and make him helpless it's no longer okay to kill him?

Like all alignment issues, nothing in life is black and white. Everything is situational dependent.

Example: PC walking down a dark alleyway. He gets jumped by three opponents with daggers (it's dark, so he really doesn't know if they are kid gang members, assassins, downtrodden slaves out for revenge against the wrong guy or whatever). If the PC is not a Monk with the ability to do subdual damage, he may just have to resort to killing damage. However, after killing 2 of the 3 assailants, he notices that he has downed the 3rd and he is still alive, but dying. Does he:

a) coup de grace the assailant
b) just swing at the assailant without doing a coup de grace
c) walk away
d) bind the assailants wounds and leave him there
e) bind the assailants wounds, heal him a little and leave question him
f) bind the assailants wounds and take him to justice
g) none of the above

Well, it depends on the PC. But, in this circumstance, I would consider it typically a vengeful act to do a) or b), a callous act to do c), a neutral leaning towards good act to do d) and a reasonable act to do e) or f).

If the PC is good aligned and doesn't know why he was attacked, then I would consider a) and b) evil acts. He is killing without knowing the true reason for the attack and is not making an attempt to find out. Even c) is a bit questionable for a good PC in this circumstance if the PC is totally "in the dark" as to why he got attacked. If the PC knew that assassins were after him on the other hand, then a) and b) might be considered acts of justice.

It's all situational dependent

 

[Ferret]

Coup de grace= Blow of mercy

If that knocked out goblin is around when the ogres come looking for food, it will be less painfull to instakill him then let them much on him.