Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why you can't CdG an opponent who falls to a spell, but you can allow opponents downed by violence (now "prisoners," by your logic) to bleed to death until they hit -10 HP.

Well, I don't see the problem with slitting the throats of magically incapacitated opponents during combat-- and I'm pretty forgiving about doing it after combat, even if I do consider it mildly evil-- but I can see the difference between cutting someone's throat after incapacitating them non-violently and letting them bleed out after incapacitating them violently.

In the former case, you've ended the fight and can walk away; cutting their throat might be expedient, but it's not really necessary. In the latter case, you've ended the fight and can walk away; just because you didn't kill him instantly doesn't impart upon you any obligation towards his well-being.

If you've dealt someone a mortal injury, you've already "killed" him-- all that's left is to determine whether or not you're willing to stabilize and/or heal him. You can choose to do so, and it might be more Good than letting him bleed out, but you're under no moral obligation to do so, any more than you're morally obligated to resurrect him if you dropped him with a clean cut.

The captor's obligation doesn't apply until either the captive willingly surrenders or the captor decides specifically to take an incapacitated enemy prisoner. Even if the "captive" surrenders, you're not obligated to his care unless you take him prisoner-- you're well within moral boundaries to walk away.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ah. I see the problem here. When I said this:

What exactly is a trial, if not an opportunity to wonder "Did this guy REALLY do the bad things we think he did?" and to give the person in question a chance to defend themselves / explain possible reasons behind bad actions (if they admit to them). Seems much more of a moral concern than a question of law/chaos to me at least. Because NOT giving a trial is killing negligently.

What I meant to do was raise the issue of what exactly constitutes a "trial". What I was trying to get at was the concept of an inquest into motivations and deeds RATHER THAN a formal, legal trial. Something that even a character who decides to act as judge, jury, and executioner might consider. Something like: "You've been observed conducting banditry and stealing at crossbow-point. You've shot and attacked another while doing this. Do you have anything to say in your defense?" Apologies if my statements were confusing.

Why might this be important? In this particular case we have bandits using lethal force after threatening for gold. In another, however, we might have the PCs encountering a group of suspected bandits or generally evil humanoids (orcs, drow, take your pick) and degenerate into violence from a situation in which a theft/a crime was NOT being committed. In this latter, hypothetical situation, would it still be an issue of Law/Chaos if the PCs failed to give some chance for the others to defend themselves in arguments/words?

@Korimyr the Rat: The quote of mine that you were originally responding to was in turn originally responding to this statement:

More Lawful here, than Good. Just because you are given the proverbial "Fair trial, followed by a first class hanging", doesn't imply any degree of Goodness- merely a token attempt at following the Law.

Once again, I was speaking purely on a THEORETICAL level, not about this specific case. You link it to this specific case by saying "holding him for trial", while I continue speaking theoretically. Oy!

Problem is, the bad things they think he did, he did right in front of them. Matter of fact, he did one of those bad things directly to his executioner. A trial would be pure formality-- and pure formality is an aspect of Law.

As for this, however:

Morally, there's no difference between killing a man after a fair trial and killing him without one. Ethically, it makes all the difference in the world

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL

What distinction are you trying to make?

 

[FireLance]

As for this, however:

Morally, there's no difference between killing a man after a fair trial and killing him without one. Ethically, it makes all the difference in the world

What distinction are you trying to make?

Korimyr was using terminology developed for the 2e Ravenloft campaign setting to distinguish the good-evil (moral) and law-chaos (ethical) axes of alignment. Admittedly, it's not commonly used, and may not make intuitive sense to those new to the game or unfamiliar with the Ravenloft setting.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ah, interesting. I've played D&D for approximately fifteen (?) years. Never played Ravenloft though.

 

[Belbarid]

Headline: Mugger killed in Indy

At the GenCon festival of nerds, a man was attacked by a knife weilding mugger. The mugger stabbed his victim and was going in for the kill when the victim got in a lucky punch and knocked the mugger out cold.
The victim then bashed in the muggers skull with a rock. Luckily, his jury was made up of EnWorld subscribers and they said "the mugger started it.... who cares if he was helpless, kill kill kill ......"

Go back only a hundred years, and this wouldn't have even made headlines. We've decided that this is wrong now, and even convinced ourselves that we're now morally superior, but the reality is that the environments are seriously different.

We have all sort of social saftey nets- laws, cops, courts, etc that deal with these problems. Not so true in the world of "D&D random encounter", where it's up to you to survive. Or not.

 

[Lamoni]

Sorry if this was mentioned before as I didn't read the entire thread.

I just have to ask, why does it matter? You are a wizard. There are no consequences to an alignment change like there are for a Paladin. My recommendation would be to play your character the way you want him to act. The next time your DM tries to tell you, "but that is an evil act!" I'd respond with, "I didn't think so, but would you like me to change my alignment to neutral now?" and then continue.

If the DM did ever change my alignment to neutral then I would be asking if I should change it back to good after every good act I performed. "I just protected this family, that is a good act, should I change my alignment to good?"

I would just try to get the point across that I am playing my character the way I want to. I assign the alignment based on how I think I'll play them, and not the other way around. If the DM assigns every act you do to be evil, so be it. You could be a Neutral evil wizard who walks around helping the innocent and smiting the evil thieves on the sides of roads.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Sorry if this was mentioned before as I didn't read the entire thread.

I just have to ask, why does it matter? You are a wizard. There are no consequences to an alignment change like there are for a Paladin. My recommendation would be to play your character the way you want him to act. The next time your DM tries to tell you, "but that is an evil act!" I'd respond with, "I didn't think so, but would you like me to change my alignment to neutral now?" and then continue.

If the DM did ever change my alignment to neutral then I would be asking if I should change it back to good after every good act I performed. "I just protected this family, that is a good act, should I change my alignment to good?"

I would just try to get the point across that I am playing my character the way I want to. I assign the alignment based on how I think I'll play them, and not the other way around. If the DM assigns every act you do to be evil, so be it. You could be a Neutral evil wizard who walks around helping the innocent and smiting the evil thieves on the sides of roads.

if the group has agreed to play a good/mostly good party, the consequence is that you are breaking with the guidelines the group has agreed to for all of your mutual enjoyment.

Also, if you are trying to play a good character, and let a tactical consideration rule the moment, a reminder of the moral/ethical consequences of those tactics is completely reasonable. saying "so what, now I'm nuetral" isn't playing your character the way you want, its not playing a character at all.

 

[nharwell]

if the group has agreed to play a good/mostly good party, the consequence is that you are breaking with the guidelines the group has agreed to for all of your mutual enjoyment.

Also, if you are trying to play a good character, and let a tactical consideration rule the moment, a reminder of the moral/ethical consequences of those tactics is completely reasonable. saying "so what, now I'm nuetral" isn't playing your character the way you want, its not playing a character at all.

Actually, following Lamoni's suggestion sounds alot more like playing a "real character" to me ...

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Korimyr was using terminology developed for the 2e Ravenloft campaign setting to distinguish the good-evil (moral) and law-chaos (ethical) axes of alignment. Admittedly, it's not commonly used, and may not make intuitive sense to those new to the game or unfamiliar with the Ravenloft setting.

You're absolutely correct about my intended meaning.

Curiously... I'm only remotely familiar with Ravenloft and had no idea that the setting made that distinction. I've just always used the terms "moral" and "ethical" to distinguish between the Good-Evil alignment axis and the Law-Chaos alignment axis.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Actually, following Lamoni's suggestion sounds alot more like playing a "real character" to me ...

ymmv, it sounds more to me like playing yourself (and a tactical gamepeice).