Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Shadowdweller]

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

And that of a fair number of others I've known. Why?

Really, a "fair trial" is beyond the means of the party to administer, whether or not they had the authority to do so--

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.

 

[Chupacabra]

Some wondered what my PC's motivations for killing the sleeping bandit was: revenge, tactics, self-defense, etc. I would say more tactics than anything else.

Again, thinking we were outnumbered around 2-1, I figured that if I did not dispatch the sleeping bandit now (who had suffered no damage so far in the fight) he would wake up in a minute (10 rounds) fresh and ready to kick our now-wounded or now-dying tails.

It was simply a case of kill him before he kills me or my comrades.

As for the bandits demanding "only" my gold, in this particular scenario my PC's mentor had entrusted quite a tidy sum of gold to him to take to a nearby town. If the bandits "only" took my PC's gold -- they might as well have taken his life also, seeing that loosing all that gold would have meant utter failure of his mission.

BTW the first spell I was attempting to cast (when I got a crossbow bolt thru my chest) was Prestidigitaion -- NOT an attack spell. I was going to make strange colors rise up from my hands and try to bluff the bandits into thinking I was a mighty spellcaster rather than a feeble apprentice wizard; i.e. a NONVIOLENT solution to the bandit problem. Once they shot me a new blowhole, I figured it was time to break out what little offense I had available.

 

[Jhulae]

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

Um, not if the PC started as *Good*. Moving a PC to Neutral for just one infraction would be assinine, but that would require moving the PC two spots on the Alignment chart.

 

[Crothian]

Um, not if the PC started as *Good*. Moving a PC to Neutral for just one infraction would be assinine, but that would require moving the PC two spots on the Alignment chart.

Too many what ifs...I'm just saying that could be one of the consiquences of it, but there is a lot of unknown information. Hecxk, if the character was already evil, it also wouldn't matter

 

[Jhulae]

Too many what ifs...I'm just saying that could be one of the consiquences of it, but there is a lot of unknown information. Hecxk, if the character was already evil, it also wouldn't matter

True. But, then, I don't think the OP would have even had to post about it...

 

[Hejdun]

This argument is absurd. If you believe that CDGing an evil, sleeping opponent is evil, then all these other things must also be evil:

1 - Attacking with anything other than subdual attacks (What if you crit and kill the demon? Oh, can't kill anything, that'd be evil).

2 - Letting a dying evil enemy die while you loot him (or do anything else). Oh, now you not only killed him, you killed him while he was helpless. Definately evil, right there. That's like infecting-the-local-metropolis-with-vampirism class evil right there.

I could go on, but I won't.

Two misconceptions here: a) the enemy was helpless, b) killing is evil.

a) The enemy was not helpless. Given that he still had comrades in arms still fighting who could've easily woken him back up (doubly so because you were outnumbered 2:1), the enemy was still a very real and tangible threat to the party. Secondly, it's not like you could spare the resources to babysit him while you were still fighting bad guys. What if the battle lasted more than a minute, and he woke up and either attacked you again, or ran away only to rob/kill innocents because of your mercy? If you have an opportunity to stop an evil person from committing evil deeds, but conciously don't prevent him from doing so, how is that anything but an evil act? Even if you snap his bowstring or something, if he wakes up and runs away, he can easily get another weapon (club or sling, anyone?) and continue on his evil ways.

By the way, even if this were the last person to fall, I wouldn't call it evil to CDG him. The guy's evil, he lost, too bad. It's not a particularly lawful thing to do (depending on if you actually have an honest source of official justice nearby), but it's certainly not evil.

b) In my (3.0) PH, the first thing is says is that good characters preserve innocent life while evil people kill innocent people for fun or profit. It doesn't say that killing in itself is an evil act (which would be absurd, is preserving a demon's life a good act? I think not). Killing an evil person who is still a threat to you/your friends/other innocents is a neutral act at worst, or a good act most of the time.

I don't understand why the helpless part matters so much to so many people. If anything, it would matter more for Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. The idea being that taking the role of judge/jury/executioner is, in effect, disrespectful towards legitimate (assuming it exists) law that could honestly try the evil person for his crimes. If there doesn't happen to be a legitimate (and honest) authority in that part of town, then I would hope that the party would take it upon themselves to be the judge and jury. If you witness an evil person doing evil things and there is no one else around to do anything about it, good characters SHOULD perform a reasonable punishment or take some other step to prevent him from continuing to be evil.

In other words, if this was a lawless land, then I would call the act neutral good. If this was in a civilized land with a reasonable expectation for justice, then it would be chaotic neutral at worst, and certainly not something that would instantly change your alignment.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

And that of a fair number of others I've known. Why?

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.

Did he really do the bad things we think he did? Well, he did shoot the wizard in the chest with a crossbow. That's good enough, really.

A chance to defend himself? "I didn't shoot you. That was my [evil] twin." Or maybe, "sorry about shooting you, buddy. My bad."

Reasons behind his actions? Does the law care why he became a bandit and tried to kill the wizard? Should the wizard care, as long as there's a chance that the bandit is still a real threat to his life?

Not giving a trial is just frontier justice. A trial is what you get when you're caught by the legitimate law enforcement, if the law even protects you anymore. Bandits are usually outlaws, which is to say they don't get the same rights as everyone else. If you're killed by one of your victims, that's just tough luck. You shouldn't have been there. It's probably illegal to bury your body, too.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Too many what ifs...I'm just saying that could be one of the consiquences of it, but there is a lot of unknown information. Hecxk, if the character was already evil, it also wouldn't matter

Hence my earlier post. Nobody ever got pushed up into Neutral or Good for failing to kick puppies. You can do as much good as you like when you're evil and the DM won't care. Do one questionable act (apparently, judging from some of these posts) when you're good, and *wham*, you're paladin bait. Might as well just cut to the chase.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Did he really do the bad things we think he did? Well, he did shoot the wizard in the chest with a crossbow. That's good enough, really. A chance to defend himself? "I didn't shoot you. That was my [evil] twin." Or maybe, "sorry about shooting you, buddy. My bad."

After being given good reason to expect attack. Even so, I was speaking hypothetically about trials. I certainly would never penalize PCs alignment-wise for the CdG (or even consider it an evil act) in this case, but in a generalized scenario WHERE the enemy was rendered helpless AFTER a battle which started from itchy trigger-fingers....I might.

Whether you are aware of this or not, in the US if a thief breaks into your house and you shoot/kill him, YOU get charged with manslaughter. If a thief visibly steals something from your house and you shoot or attack him while he's trying to escape, YOU get charged with assault. (Though maybe I have the specific charges mixed up).

Granted in the former case at least as I understand it, it's a pretty easy thing to establish a credible threat...which makes proving self-defense simple.

 

[Ringmereth]

Not evil. Certainly a not-nice thing to do, but really, killing anyone isn't very nice. Within D&D morality, I'd say that it, while dishonorable, isn't evil if you had a legitimate concern that he might get back on his feet and pose a threat again. As said above, it's more about motivation. If a character makes a habit of CdGing foes when they're down and not posing a threat, then it's time to start shifting alignments towards chaos and evil. As a one-time thing, it should not have been prohibited, and should not be considered evil: you thought the bandit posed a threat, and had good cause to think that. Not being capable of fully neutralizing him nonlethally during battle, you covered yourself by finishing him off. As a DM, I wouldn't take issue with anyone but a paladin or exalted character doing that.