Is a coup de grace an evil act?

[Scion]

maybe that is the true reason that they keep making sleep a worse spell.. soon it will only be able to effect willing targets, that way there is no confusion about what is going on

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

On the * - Then tie him up first.

What, in combat? Taking a round to dig out the rope, attracting attention from other combatants, and not having rope use as a class skill, meaning chances are probably about even that he'll just slip the bonds with a standard action when he wakes up? In a life-or-death situation, you simply do not stop to tie up someone who might momentarily wake up and stab you. That's ridiculous. Again, maybe if all his buddies are already dead.

--edit: Checking the Use Rope entry, tying up someone takes one minute, so if he's asleep for one minute, you simply cannot tie him up before he wakes.

As I said, read the Song of Roland, and for that matter read Le Morte de Artur - the primary sources regarding Paladins, a paladin may well believe that if the other person was justified in his actions then the paladin would lose the combat, having been judged by the gods. (This is the whole rationale for ordeal by combat. Rationale, not reason...) We are talking about a medieval paradigm, which is a different code of ethics than that practised today.

So why are we bringing modern ethics into this discussion elsewhere then? Besides, there is no reason why one would assume that the gods would intervene to change the outcome of a staged "trial by combat" if they hadn't intervened in the fight proper? Why not just say that the gods ordained that the bandit would fail his Will save vs. sleep and be done with it. It's an equivalently compelling rationalization.

And how does 'kill him while he is sleeping' not equal might is right? The helpless opponent is by default rather less mighty than the one who is awake.

You're not killing him because he's helpless. You're killing him because he's evil, or for self-defense, or some other reason why adventurers kill bad guys. His being helpless only makes it easier (and adds an imperative to be quick about it before the spell wears off.

The difference between killing him after a sleep spell and with a Phantasmal Killer is 'Heat of Combat' Even today shooting an enemy soldier is acceptable, shooting prisoners is not.

In the given example the character was still in the "heat of combat" and the downed foe was not a prisoner, but a momentarily stalled threat to the wizard's life. The only difference between phantasmal killer and sleep is that sleep, being a lower level spell, requires a follow-up full-round action to cash out the "save-or-die" effect that both provide, allowing another enemy the opportunity to foil the lower-level spell.

At the beginning of the combat, both parties set out to kill the other. At the end of combat, one group lay dead. That's combat for you, and an illustration of why being a bandit is a poor choice of profession, especially in a medieval fantasy world.

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.

 

[tarchon]

I hate to be obvious, but illegal and evil are hardly equivalent. Otherwise, every minor traffic violation would quality as "evil."

In a D&D world, paladin traffic cops merely observe the auras of drivers in passing vehicles.

 

[DonTadow]

I hate to be obvious, but illegal and evil are hardly equivalent. Otherwise, every minor traffic violation would quality as "evil."

I know, but in our society, in particular violence, we make them equivilent. American rules are set up to equal violent illegal acts as evil.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I know, but in our society, in particular violence, we make them equivilent. American rules are set up to equal violent illegal acts as evil.

That's not exactly the way the justice system is supposed to work. Originally, the law is supposed to be inspired by popular (perhaps moralistic) sentiment as to what should and should not be allowed, but overall laws are simply an agreement that if a certain act is permitted, it would harm society, and so should not be allowed. The law doesn't deal with good and evil. It deals with, "did you break the rules and can we prove it?". Even though the rules may have been inspired by a moral judgement, they are no longer attached to that judgement, and the law doesn't care what the rationale behind itself is (barring entities like the supreme courts, which are established in order to interpret things like rationale). So there's at least one large step in between moral judgement and legal judgement. This is why laws and morality have no real point of intersection, and are difficult to commensurate. They might relate to one another, but they exist in two different worlds of discourse. It's a leap to get from one to the other.

 

[DonTadow]

That's not exactly the way the justice system is supposed to work. Originally, the law is supposed to be inspired by popular (perhaps moralistic) sentiment as to what should and should not be allowed, but overall laws are simply an agreement that if a certain act is permitted, it would harm society, and so should not be allowed. The law doesn't deal with good and evil. It deals with, "did you break the rules and can we prove it?". Even though the rules may have been inspired by a moral judgement, they are no longer attached to that judgement, and the law doesn't care what the rationale behind itself is (barring entities like the supreme courts, which are established in order to interpret things like rationale). So there's at least one large step in between moral judgement and legal judgement. This is why laws and morality have no real point of intersection, and are difficult to commensurate. They might relate to one another, but they exist in two different worlds of discourse. It's a leap to get from one to the other.

I see what youre saying, and understand that fully, but if you read your own statement, you specifiy the way it is "supposed to work" and unfortantaely it doesnt and hasn't for a long time. Lets remember that a number of our basic laws are based on religious rules which deem those acts evil or good.

 

[Hejdun]

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.

Be prepared to wait a long time.

 

[FireLance]

Another vote for not evil. How many would consider it evil to CDG the bandit if he was hit by a hold person spell? He's helpless, but he could make his saving throw and come back into the fight at any time. I would consider it good tactics to take him out of the fight permanently. Similarly, with the sleeping bandit, any of his comrades could have taken a standard action to automatically wake him up and turn him into a threat again. Even after the fight, killing a helpless opponent is not good, but I wouldn't call it evil.

 

[Chupacabra]

WooHoo! My first thread to go to 3 pages....

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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

Showing deference to proprieties, even though it's inconvenient. Hauling him in for a trial is more Lawful in the same way that using a healing potion on him is more Good.

Doesn't mean that cutting his throat is unLawful or that letting him bleed out (if mortally wounded) is unGood. Just means there were more Lawful or more Good options available.

Personally, I think as long as there were other active combatants, and our sleeping victim could've been reactivated by a good kick from one of his allies, CDGing him is a neutral act and basic common sense.

If Sleeping Beauty were the last enemy on the field, it gets sticky. Some pretty common codes of honor wouldn't allow it, but not everyone (not even all Lawful characters) are bound by those codes. There might be an issue of whether or not the bandit falls under the law's protection, and whether or not the characters had legal authority to kill him in other than self-defense-- but that's still not Chaotic enough to really shift his alignment much.

Morally, the character's on a bit of rough ground, killing him in his sleep. Sure, he suffered a potentially lethal attack, but the enemy was already incapacitated. Best argument I can see here is that killing him prevented him from preying on others-- but that's more of an LE argument than any kind of Good. I'd call it a Neutral act, or maybe mildly Evil-- it won't make the character any better of a person, but his eyes aren't going to start turning yellow any time soon if that's the worst he's got.

Giving the guy a chance to make his peace, and at least letting him know who's killing him and why-- that makes it a Neutral act, without a trace of Evil. Simple, clean, and probably for the best.

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.

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.

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.