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

[kreynolds]

RigaMortus, take a breath man. It's cool. I didn't say you said anything about anyone regarding any particular subject that you said you heard from someone else that said they knew this. I was just pointing out the misconception, that's all. Actually, it's a rare event that I don't award full XP. Instead of rewarding less XP for an act that might be against your alignment, no matter how trivial, I'd rather keep notes about your behavior, and one day, just shift your alignment without telling you. In truth though, I tend to warn my players when they are bordering on an alignment shift.

 

[mikebr99]

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

we don't use Morale rules. Basically, we just use common sense. We try to put ourselves into the shoes of the monsters or npcs, and unless the monster or npc is really that stupid, they're probably not gonna stick around, knowing they are gonna die. This, of course, only matters if escape is even possible. You're better off fighting a wolf out in the open, because just maybe, he'll give up and take off. Back him into a corner and he doesn't have any other choice, meaning he'll do whatever it takes to go around you, or through you for that matter.

Thanks k...
My thoughts exactly.

 

[RigaMortus]

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

I put it to you that the fun of combat (the whole point of having it in a game, in fact) lies in kicking the sh*t out of bad guys, not in rescuing them.

Well if we are just talking about combat, then I would agree. But I am talking about the game as a whole. Unless you don't go for any of that role-play character development garbage (yes, that was sarcasim, did I succeed in my check?). Believe it or not, not every person plays a blood thursty character. Some people get enjoyment out of "doing the right thing" such as turning enemies into the authorities, rather then dispensing their own justice. Of course, other people are just as happy rampantly killing and asking questions later, or no questions at all.

Not everyone in my campaign plays the same alignment. Some people could care less if their enemies bleed to death, others are more merciful. What happens if one person wants someone alive and another person wants them dead.

Player 1: Is anyone alive to question?

DM: Yes, one person is, but they are fading fast.

Player 1: I try and stabilize them.

Player 2: No, I want to kill them.

Some arguing may or may not ensue. But the end result is that everyone (except Player 2) agrees it is in the parties best interest to talk with this chap. Player 2 wants nothing of it and makes a stink saying "Well I would have coup de graced them all, but the DM didn't give me a chance to, he just automatically said there was a person alive and I could have easily finished him off. He insulted my honor and he should be dead."

Again an extreme example of what *might* happen. And you could argue that this is the type of person you don't want to play with. But it is the circumstance that created the situaiton. The circumstance of having someone alive or dead whenever a PC wants to question someone.

If you insist on being stupid, there are no guarantees.

That is how you presented it to me. The players get to dictate who they want alive or dead. However, in your last post you cleared that up a bit for me. I still disagree as letting the DM decide if there are any survivors can cause it's own problems seperate from the moral ones.

 

[frog]

In a recent game, we were attacked by several humans. We knocked one unconscious and killed the others. We tied him up and woke him to begin questioning. It turns out that he and the others were hired to stop poaching in this area and had been told that we were poachers. So far I feel we were justified in killing them by reason of self defense.

While we are debating what to do with the captive, our "chaotic neutral" druid walked up and calmly gutted the prisoner, even after knowing that he was hired to "protect" the forest wildlife from poachers. His justification? "He attacked us and so he deserves it."

Our dm feels that the druid, while being a bit extreme, played his alignment. I feel that he crossed the line. Who is right? Does it really matter at this point? Is there a "right" and a "wrong"?

In the end it doesn't really matter, Moradin will "tell" me to whack the druid as an infidel before too long anyway

 

[Shalewind]

Guys, this is a Campaign specific question. One answer will not solve all fields.

In the heat of battle this isn't ever an issue. Coup de Grace doesn't always seem slitting the throat. Its a death blow. If you drop your opponent to helpless and are in a life or death battle, you can kill him. Its a simple mechanic and it even has cinematic value. Imagine the knight fighting through a number of skilled badies with his friends. He drops on to the ground in some fashion while the thing still has most of its hp. He runs it through and kills it. That's a coup de grace.

Now if your rogue is running around coup de gracing people left and right just to get some spare change. Evil, plain and simple.

If you run a dungoen crawl / hack and slash / beat down the evil game, coup de grace questions should probably never come into play against monsters. The monsters are evil. If the evil dude is stunning, so much the better. In these types of games, combat is the essence and RP (however much some may disagree with me) is the second runner. Now I'm not saying you can't have good RP with combat. But in hack in slash, really, it isn't much of an issue.

Now if you are running a far more realistic campaign (NOT the traditional high fantasy go get em type D&D) then coup de grace becomes an issue. When engaging the town guards in a rival kingdom do you kill them or not? I would certainly rule that most "good" characters should "avoid" killing when possible. Sometimes it isn't possible. But, I don't think a knight is going to spend extra time to kill a person he isn't convinved is has blood enemy.

In the end, if you view combat as terms where death is acceptable, coup de gracing a helpless foe probably isn't going to have alignment problems. (unless circumstances are in place that state the purpose of the combat is not to kill). There are no game rules against coup de grace so in sum it is all on the DM's shoulders and his opinion of the situtation.

If you run a realistic game, alignment doesn't work anyway, so I would judge coup de grace case by case anyway.

just my thoughts.

 

[Corwin]

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

There are extreme cases.

And completely irrelevant and nonsensical (no offense intended). The same exact mind game can be played in reverse.

What if that very same orc, embittered by his defeat at the hands of humans, eventually amassed enough power and leads his people to war against the human race, committing massive atrocities and murdering thousands of innocent lives?

Oh no, we've just entered "Spider Man Origin" syndrome.

You can't play what if like this without ending up with nothing more than a headache, IMO.

 

[RigaMortus]

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

D00d, you are thinking WAY too hard about the game. Stop thinking.


Hong "who should put his 3rd law into his sig" Ooi

I'm just trying to make the point that you can't assume anything or take anything for granted. Killing an orc because an orc is evil isn't (IMHO) justification enough to kill him.

Not sure how this turned more into a general alignment debate rather then a coup de grace alignment debate. /ponder

 

[hong]

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

Again an extreme example of what *might* happen.

You're bored, aren't you? I can tell.

 

[Kai Lord]

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

And neither of those were mooks. Not only that, but Lurtz was still able to show aggression after being impaled.

Ah, I hadn't noticed that you originally qualified your statement as being limited to "mooks." I do love it when Boromir trips a charging Uruk-hai then when the orc is completely off-balance and trying to catch himself, Boromir stabs him through the back.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think it is very situational. If you are attacked in or near a city with some jsutice ssytem in the campaign, it would probably be not good to kill them when there is a viable less extreme alternative. If you are behind enemy lines, in so dep you need a 10' hollow tube to breathe not killing them is so stuipid I'd say it was perfectly justified good etc.

And by the way i don't think anything like this is remotely hypocritical. The thing is your end rarely will be too kill X, your end if to defeat X killing him happens to be the most reasonable means at our disposal. If you subdue him and he is defeated, you then are making the decision that even though I can defeat him now in a reaponable and practical manner without resorting to killing him I have decided to kill him, yes it now would be immoral.

Think of it this way Mr X had a bad year, and he slips the bonds of sanity and takes his family hostage. Police, swat, negotiators show up. They decide Mr. X is totally nuts, Mr swat team sniper you have the green light if you have a clear shot take it.

Situation 1 sniper gets a clear shot, bang he's dead. All on the up and up and moral.

situation 2 sniper gets a clear shot, bang he's not quite dead but unconscious. Police officer walks up, and puts another two into this guys head, and he is now dead. Yep immoral.

situation 3 the negotiators pull off a miracle and get Mr X to drop his guns and come out alone, the sniper then proceeds to take a shot, bang Mr X is dead. Again immoral. And in no way does this make the morality of situation 1 hypocritical.

Situation 4 Mr. X is a super villan who always escapes from prison to murder and ramapge upon society some more the negotiators get him to surrender, and the sniper still blows his head off. This would be illegal(as I understand the laws in the US) but not necessarily immoral in my mind. The end was protecting society from Mr. X and killing him was the only means possible at their dispossal in which to reach thier end.