Coup de grace
- Thread starter BENINHB
- Start date
Vegepygmy
First Post
Against my better judgment, I'm going to take this question at face value.
(1) No one should ever receive an "alignment based XP penalty" for anything. Alignment isn't a commandment. If the DM decides that a character is consistently behaving "out of alignment," he should simply change that character's alignment, not try to punish him somehow.
(2) Unless your DM only allows PCs to kill monsters in self-defense (i.e., when they are faced with an imminent threat to their own lives), why would it matter whether the druid smashes their skulls while they sleep or wakes them up and then smashes their skulls?
vege is right slapping a PC with an XP penalty should only be for major transgressions/breaking the rules. Also no as stated you were fighting them the wizard put them to sleep and you took them out. That is not an evil act now had they already surrendered and you done that then yes you could consider it evil. While not exactly an honorable act it is not evil.
As others have said no and in 3.5 there is no alignment based xp awards or penalties.
Now having said that - some classes (and characters) may have a code of conduct that prevents such acts.
Paladins would have trouble with this and I believe knigts are forbidden from this type of behaviour (never trikes a flat-footed opponent).
And probably some of the "vows" will get you there too.
But other than that. . .
Now having said that - some classes (and characters) may have a code of conduct that prevents such acts.
Paladins would have trouble with this and I believe knigts are forbidden from this type of behaviour (never trikes a flat-footed opponent).
And probably some of the "vows" will get you there too.
But other than that. . .
In addition to what everyone else said, even if there were alignment penalties and coup d'grace was evil, a lawful neutral character would be expected to commit good and evil acts with roughly equal frequency.
You know what you call a lawful character that does good but not evil? Lawful good.
You know what you call a lawful character that does good but not evil? Lawful good.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
True. It is a part of the Knight Classes Code, but it isn't a part of the Paladin Classes Code, though probably within the spirit of the Paladins code. I do find it ironic that the code of the Knight class is actually more restrictive than the Paladin.
However, I have a problem with this view of coup de grace (not your post irdeggman, the RAW in the Knight class and in the game in general).
The historical coup de grace was an act of mercy performed by Knights (common soldiers simply didn't care, chivalry and honor was much less important to them than a Knight). It's literal translation is blow of mercy, and it was actually considered a Knightly/Chivalric virtue (Mercy). It was intended to end the suffering of a dying or extensively wounded opponent (especially when medical attention was inaccessable). Mostly, it was for other Knights and Nobles and not common soldiers, but a particularly honorable and empathetic Knight might extend the courtesy to a non-Knight/Noble. Typically, if a Knight or Noble wasn't dying (or severely injured with no chance of medical intervention), they would be taken hostage rather than being killed (for political or monetary advantage - ransom). The concept of not killing a defenseless foe was more to encourage the above behavior, it was not intended to stay the hand of a Knight from providing mercy to a dying opponent.
In the case of the OP's Goblins, and if the character was a Knight or Paladin, from a European standpoint they are monsters (not Knights or Nobles), and therefore not deserving of such considerations. However, a particularly empathetic Paladin or Knight may have a problem with this based on their own personal code. But, a typical Knight from the chivalric stories of the Middle Ages would probably just kill all of them. They are monsters. Chivalry does not apply.
However, since it is a D&D world we're talking about, I would say that if the Goblins were wounded or dying (and not able to recieve medical or magical attention, using highly valuable magical healing on the Goblins would not be expected nor required) then killing them with a coup de grace would be okay, and actually expected. If ,however, they were only asleep (due to the magic) and not dying (and therefore could wake up and live the rest of their life), then killing them would probably violate a Knights code (and probably the spirit of a Paladins code). A non-Knight/Paladin character however, has no such code - no such moral restrictions. If the character feels that it's okay (they're just monsters...) then I would rule that it's not an evil act. Also, as the name implies (blow of mercy), I would rule that killing them as they sleep would be much more merciful than the pain and suffering they would endure if killed during combat. Also, I don't necessarily consider them defenseless even though they are asleep. Once awake, they will be just as much of a threat as they were before. As far as PC's are concerned, Goblins are monsters that do nothing but kill without mercy. Killing them in their sleep is the most merciful way of accomplishing the necessary action of removing the threat they represent.
As for the codes (the Paladins and Knights codes), in my games I use them for what they were supposed to be: not as a set of black-and-white requrements, but as a set of guidelines that such characters use to make the value judgements and decisions that are integral to these characters ethos. If they are continuously and honestly evaluating their actions based on these codes, then I really have no problem with any of their choices. If they however, start using their interpretations of these codes to justify things (and you'll know the difference when your players do this), then they have violated their code and should suffer the consequences.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
First off, I'd like to point out that this was a LN character, and historically Samurai (which have GOT to be one of the biggest real life exemplars of lawfulness/honor) had absolutely no problem at all delivering coup de grace to a downed foe on the battlefield.
I don't see why it's within the spirit of the Paladin's code. You're right, it's not in the code. And as for spirit...the class's overriding theme is "kill evil." I may like the idea of a Paladin who looks ot redeem evil, but that's a roleplaying choice and most certainly not what the game expects a player to maintain in order to follow his code. The class's primary offensive ability is called "smite evil," after all.
Knight's code is more restrictive, but at least Knights can expend a daily resource they get in fair abundance (the knight's challenge) to tell their code to shove it for a round.
I find it ironic that the most powerful class with a code, the CLERIC, who has a far more intimate connection with his god/ideals than Paladin or Knight is frequently in games treated as having the LEAST restrictive code. That's just friggin' hilarious! Except for when it's crushingly depressing.
True. It is a part of the Knight Classes Code, but it isn't a part of the Paladin Classes Code, though probably within the spirit of the Paladins code. I do find it ironic that the code of the Knight class is actually more restrictive than the Paladin.
I don't see why it's within the spirit of the Paladin's code. You're right, it's not in the code. And as for spirit...the class's overriding theme is "kill evil." I may like the idea of a Paladin who looks ot redeem evil, but that's a roleplaying choice and most certainly not what the game expects a player to maintain in order to follow his code. The class's primary offensive ability is called "smite evil," after all.
Knight's code is more restrictive, but at least Knights can expend a daily resource they get in fair abundance (the knight's challenge) to tell their code to shove it for a round.
I find it ironic that the most powerful class with a code, the CLERIC, who has a far more intimate connection with his god/ideals than Paladin or Knight is frequently in games treated as having the LEAST restrictive code. That's just friggin' hilarious! Except for when it's crushingly depressing.
That is only because players and DM don't fully develop the code of conduct of the god and it is not prescribed in the PHB (due to the many alignments the class can have).
But clerics are supposed to follow the code of conduct of their deity or become ex-clerics.
See PHB pg 33.
Similar Threads
