Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Shadowdweller]

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.

You know, despite that people say this sort of thing all the time and despite that D&D makes a distinction between Goodness versus Lawfulness (which still isn't the same thing as laws), real world (criminal) laws have a GREAT deal to do with morality.

I actually think the idea of a trial...maybe not necessarily a LEGALLY VALID trial, has more to do with morality (Good/Evil axis) than the Law/Chaos axis.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Infiniti, I think a lot of what you said is right on the money, but this comment:...is untrue. Alignment in real life is highly subjective. Our real life interpretations of in-game scenarios are highly subjective. But in standard D&D, alignment is exactly the opposite. It's objective. It exists regardless of whether people believe in it, it is defined concretely regardless of what culture is defining it.

Of course, because players have a subjective sense of morality, it's very important for the DM to define what the objective morality is for his world.

Good point and I agree totally. I just poorly worded my sentence. Would you agree if instead I had worded it, "Categorizing actions into alignments is highly subjective"? That's more along the lines I was thinking. But, yes, [Good] and [Evil] are definitely objective.

post_count++;

 

[BluWolf]

Not evil. Not even close.
Now if you all had wandered upon them in the woods sleeping and they looked like bandits and you decided to summarliy execute them, yes, evil and just a skosh chaotic.

But these guys provoked with the intent to kill.

If your party cleric is a cleric of some laful deity I can see his charater taking umbrage with your wizard's course of action. But given the speed of combat, that would have been an after the fact conversation.

The player of said cleric should keep his metagaming advise out fo the scenario.

I dont' even think this is a close call.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Good point and I agree totally. I just poorly worded my sentence. Would you agree if instead I had worded it, "Categorizing actions into alignments is highly subjective"? That's more along the lines I was thinking. But, yes, [Good] and [Evil] are definitely objective.

Yes, this I would absolutely agree with. The fact that we have one of these threads every couple of weeks proves your point here, actually.

It seems clear to me that the player and DM in question have different views of Good and Evil. I'd suggest that the player talk with the DM and try to get a clear idea of what the morality is in the game world, so the player can roleplay accordingly.

I don't necessarily think that every DM has to go through his moral paradigm point-for-point at the start of a game (unless he's got someone playing a paladin,) but now that a bit of conflict has arisen, it's definitely time for him to clear things up. I'd suggest the DM not penalize the PC for this instance, explain the moral terrain, then hold the PC responsible for his actions from here on out.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I actually think the idea of a trial...maybe not necessarily a LEGALLY VALID trial, has more to do with morality (Good/Evil axis) than the Law/Chaos axis.

Holding him for trial would be more Lawful, in my opinion.

The reason I suggested it would be more Good to bind him and rouse him before killing him was to give him an opportunity to prepare himself for death, make a last request, and square himself with the gods. It's an act of mercy, which is why I say it would be more Good than shanking him in his sleep.

Really, a "fair trial" is beyond the means of the party to administer, whether or not they had the authority to do so-- and by any stretch of the imagination, they would have had legal authority to kill him on the spot, trial or not. I have a hard time picturing anything that the characters could do that would specifically indicate Chaotic behavior.

 

[Wormwood]

Good guys are allowed to kill bad guys.

/HATES alignment

 

[DonTadow]

Yes, this I would absolutely agree with. The fact that we have one of these threads every couple of weeks proves your point here, actually.

It seems clear to me that the player and DM in question have different views of Good and Evil. I'd suggest that the player talk with the DM and try to get a clear idea of what the morality is in the game world, so the player can roleplay accordingly.

I don't necessarily think that every DM has to go through his moral paradigm point-for-point at the start of a game (unless he's got someone playing a paladin,) but now that a bit of conflict has arisen, it's definitely time for him to clear things up. I'd suggest the DM not penalize the PC for this instance, explain the moral terrain, then hold the PC responsible for his actions from here on out.

Asking the DM what is evil or good to him just doesn't seem right. It feels like one of those things that is in the player's characterization. I also don't like going to the DM and asking him if you're playing your character right. So long as your character is not annoying and is following his background then I don't see how you can play it wrong.

I think the DM can say what is law and what is not law, but a PC's moral compass is his own. A DM can play out consequences if there are any, but for a DM to say to a PC whom killed a bandit in the middle of the woods in a battle with just him, the pcs and the bandits that there will be "consequineces" is one of those "YOU play the character the way I want you to do it threats".

 

[Crothian]

A DM can play out consequences if there are any, but for a DM to say to a PC whom killed a bandit in the middle of the woods in a battle with just him, the pcs and the bandits that there will be "consequineces" is one of those "YOU play the character the way I want you to do it threats".

And of of those consequinces can be the PC is now seen as evil under detect evil spells.

 

[DonTadow]

And of of those consequinces can be the PC is now seen as evil under detect evil spells.

Wait, one act and all of a sudden he's evil. Does that make sense? lets look at this logically. You're in a fight. The guy punches your girlfriend. You go off and wail on him, evil after the fact. He's badly beaten.

Are you evil?

 

[Crothian]

Wait, one act and all of a sudden he's evil. Does that make sense? lets look at this logically. You're in a fight. The guy punches your girlfriend. You go off and wail on him, evil after the fact. He's badly beaten.

Are you evil?

Different situation, but if you kill the guy then yes. The bottom line in this thread is the other players and DM said the act in their game is evil.

And how many evil acts it takes for someone to be evil is another thread all together.