Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[anon]

I'm with Coredump on this one.

CDG in the situation as first described was indeed EVIL.

CDG in the clarified situation (12 opponents, long fight, etc..) is much more ambiguous because there is an element of self-defense to it. But, even a neutral character, IMHO, ought look for a less lethal was to take the sleeper out of the battle (ie tie him up, steal his weapons, etc.).

There have been many comments which describe in lovely detail other imagined evil acts. These are brought up, I presume, to try to make the CDG seem less evil. But the comparisons are largely irrelevant. The choice wasn't between a CDG and another more evil act. The choice was between a CDG and doing either nothing or doing something appropriate towards a helpless opponent. In this light the CDG was evil.

The comments attempting to show that the mage attempting the CDG and mace-weilding cleric (for example) are doing the same thing only at different speeds are also, IMO, off track. The fundamental difference is the opponent's status. The cleric's opponent has the ability to defend, to surrender, to flee, and furthermore is actively attempting to hurt the cleric and the cleric's friends. These two factors inherently change the nature of the action, from justifiable self-defence to an EVIL act.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Coup d Grace evil? Alighment is always a bit sticky.

Personally, depending on what happened... and your motives... I'd rule it as Evil. However this was combat, and the bastard (or his friends) tried to rob and murder you. So whether or not it is an Evil action is very debatable. It diffinately would get you punished if you were trying to play Exalted though.

Some DMs just don't get the difference between Good and Exalted Good.

Chaotic evil is the best alignment to play because you can perform any act and nobody is going to tell you you're playing against alignment. You will never hear "you're chaotic and that's a lawful act" the way you would hear the reverse if you are lawful. You will never hear "your alignment just shifted one point toward good" if you happen to kill an evil foe or perform an act of questionable villainy. You can act like a perfectly normal Joe Adventurer who goes into dungeons, rescues townsfolk, kills monsters, takes their stuff, and spends the spoils on ale at the tavern, and never need to worry about alignment again. All you need to do is write CE on your character sheet. Or, if you're afraid of paladins, CN works in a pinch.

Law and Good are constantly being persecuted by obnoxious DMs who don't hold the other alignments to the same unbearably strict standards. If someone is trying to kill you, you owe them nothing. NOTHING. No mercy, no quarter, no surrender, no fair trial back in town. Just because today in our non-martial society we are very careful to write our laws to prohibit killing if at all possible doesn't mean that the same will be true in a society where people with swords are running around trying to take people's money away. And hell, this was technically self-defense. They were going to kill the mage, guaranteed, if they had been given a chance. They would strip down his lifeless body, sell his shoes for the coppers, and laugh while they did it.

They knew what they were getting into when they attacked: a life or death situation. They shouldn't have been there.

And yeah, how is killing someone quietly in his sleep (on the field of battle) worse than searing off the top inch of his flesh with a fireball, leaving him to twitch and scream as he dies not from injuries, since his wounds are cauterized, but from shock as his nervous system goes into spasm, or from infection several hours later? Or how about phantasmal killer, that not only kills the victim, but rapes his mind first? Or baleful polymorph, which traps the victim in a small, squirming prison until he lives out his days or gets eaten by some predator? Given a choice, I'd take "death by sleep spell" over the alternatives. Seriously, if sleep is evil, give it the [evil] descriptor so there will be no ambiguity.

 

[atom crash]

I say the coup de grace is not inherently evil.

However, in the example provided, it is hard to argue that it was NOT an evil act. Or at least cruel and heartless.

There are other options for dealing with sleeping foes. As a full round action, rather than killing them, you could disarm them. Or just cut their bowstring.

Another option: you could tie them up. To adequately bind a sleeping opponent you'd need a minute, and you may not have that time, but what about just making a hasty knot around the hands? Or put a burlap bag over his head? That way, you'd have some warning when they come to and attempt to free themselves, and also an opportunity to do something about it.

If you're defending yourself and there are no other options, you can argue that it's not evil. If you're out for revenge or there are other options, it's harder to make that case.

 

[Coredump]

Careful there.... while this is still 'self defense', it was the characters that started the actual fighting. The bandits just asked for gold. Not even their weapons. If the bandits wanted to kill them and "sell their shoes" they would have attacked on the surprise round.

The wizard started the 'fight' by trying to cast a spell.

And yes, there is a big difference between *purposely* killing a *helpless* opponent, as opposed to accidently killing one because you had to fireball someone else, or as opposed to killing a awake aware person.

What if they attack, and then all surrender? From the above logic, once they attack, they are dead men.... so if they surrender it would also be okay to kill them. Afterall, they "knew what they were getting into".


And I would imagine that killing a dragon "just for the treasure" could also be an evil act. Now, if it is an evil dragon (color coded for your benefit) then it has done evil things, and that is different. And before you compare, a sleeping dragon is *still* a threat, as opposed to a sleeping bandit.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

So what's your thought? Is a coup de grace an evil act? Sometimes? Never? All the time? Lemme know.

Cdg is the 'kindest' way to kill something but it is nothing more than a method. D&d does have aligned actions but nothing in the rules suggest that a cdg is an evil act in itself like, say torture or animating the dead.

So the question is not really is the cdg method an evil act but rather, is killing so & so an evil act?

Strictly speaking the bandit was of little threat asleep but may have become one if awakened by his companions. So the question is: were you motivated by tactical considerations or did you act in vengeance? However, given that the bandit showed utterly no regard for your life, the act of vengeance would be largely justified by frontier law; because he was guilty of banditry & attempted murder, was he not?

If I was the dm, I'd tell the other players to shush & concentrate on their own characters; if they want to adjudicate they have to read all 3 core books cover to cover as I have done.

 

[farscapesg1]

And I would imagine that killing a dragon "just for the treasure" could also be an evil act. Now, if it is an evil dragon (color coded for your benefit) then it has done evil things, and that is different. And before you compare, a sleeping dragon is *still* a threat, as opposed to a sleeping bandit.

But they are bandits. Bandits murder and rob travelers. Are these not evil acts? By the idea that a dragon being evil making a difference for determining whether killing it is an evil act, then the same should hold true for the bandits. If they have been committing evil acts in the past, then they are evil and that should make a difference in the outlook of whether it is evil to kill them.

 

[green slime]

....yawn....

(post count = post count +1)

 

[sfedi]

I don't think CdG is evil.
But it would have been an evil act in that situation (in the OP).

I think your DM ruled right.

Note that the Bandit didn't attacked you, they offered surrender.
Even under threat you nevertheless ruined any hope of parlay by unilateraly casting a spell (I would have been really pissed off if I were a party member).

They weren't cold blood assasins, they were bandits.

 

[Ranger REG]

This example seems to be a clear reason why following the alligment rules to the T can counteractive good role playing.

Characters are way more complex than, he comited an evil act kill him.

That's because some gamers use the alignment as a straitjacket or ball-and-chain rather than a benchmark to their PC's behavior and actions, like you would applied all of the values your parents taught you in your daily life. Sometimes even the good people in all of us deviate. Who hear haven't tried to go a little bit faster than the posted speed limit. Or may have littered something as tiny as a piece of gum wrapper (or stuck a gum under a table)?

IOW, it's not counteractive but it pose a challenge as when (forgive the Trek analogy) a starship captain tries resolve a situation that may or may not involved violating the Prime Directive.

 

[Jacen]

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 ......"

Hhhmmm... So this wasn't D&D but real life? In D&D everyone fights untill 0 or less hit points. -> move to kill. With bad DM no one ever tries to escape -> fight to death. In real world inflict enough pain and he might be out of fight long enough for you to run away and thus survive. In D&D running away from possible win doesn't have any benefits. Character is going to start adventuring untill he dies. After that he might get resurrected. But if you don't kill and winn encounter you haven't achieved nothing. So not to CDG might mean that you don't get XP and "learn something". In RL I would trhy to run away, even if I could kill them. Break the arm or elbow. Kick into the nuts. Be it man or woman that place hurts. and when it is possible run away, DO IT. But in real life I woldn't start to track burglars and then kill them.

Okay, the "there was 12 of them" *does* change things. (actually it is just like the example I gave earlier.) But otherwise lets look at the question.
Is it okay to kill a helpless person?
And we are debating this?

In D&D depending on situation it is. In RL NO. Are we really debating this D&D vs. Real life?

It is no longer 'self defense' when you are no longer defending yourself. If they are helpless, you are NOT defending yourself. (again, the outnumbered thing may change this.) But I am amazed at the number of people saying it is okay to kill a helpless person.

Unless he awakes or in case of 0 HP gets one hitpoint back. He is then fully capable of inficing full damage. In real life break ones arn and he won't use that arem anymore in that fight. Most likely he won't be using it properly in copule of months.

Are there certain situations....sure. Certain characters...maybe. But in general, I would hope we could agree that killing a helpless person is generally considered a no-no.

But the problem is that in D&D they aren't helpless they are just temporaly out of fight and in worst case back to action after one round.