Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[RigaMortus]

With your permission, RigaMortus, I'm stealing this idea for my next campaign. I haven't decided yet, but I'm calling it either:

Tattle-Tales of the Forgotten Realms

or

Snitches of the Purple Sage

How about:

We may be low level, but we're still alive!

or

We who oppose suicide missions

 

[RigaMortus]

OK, let me head off in a different direction and see if it goes anywhere. ;-)

There's an Asian philosophy which teaches that if you save a man's life you are responsible for him. His life would have ended at a certain point, but meddlesome ol' you stepped in and took an action that you cannot see the consequences of. If the saved man does a good thing in the future, you brought that good thing about by your action. But if he does evil, you also brought that about.

The point here is that both action and inaction have their consequences.

So, if I turn the Held Assassin over to the authorities instead of CdG'ing him, am I responsible for the evil he will commit in the future? I feel like I have to weigh the possibilities carefully because there will be repercussions from my actions whichever I choose.

Yes you would be responsible, assuming you are using this asian philosophy instead of the standard alignment system.

But it seems that the meaning of the act follows from the intent of the one who does it. If I am a Paladin of Tyr why can't I simply judge the Assassin and execute him with a CdG while remaining LG?

Depends. Who gives you this authority? You give it to yourself? Your king? Your God? Even if you were "legally" given this authority, that is an aweful lot of responsibility at your fingertips, to determine who dies and who lives. I'd say you would be acting Lawfully, but not Good. Also depends on all those other factors, such as was killing them the only recourse?

The Paladin does not kill for his own benefit, he looks at the Assassin as a proven force for evil which must be removed. And as a servant of Tyr, the Paladin is just the man to dispense justice in that form.

It has nothing to do with it benefitting him or not. It has to do with compassion, altruism, respect for anothers life, and all the other things I listed previously. I guess you could further argue that, if the Paladin feels bad about having to kill him, then he isn't in danger of turning evil.

We tend to hold Paladins to higher standards in our games. They are people to look up to. If I see a Paladin executing "evil doers" day in and day out, I'm gonna think that is the way to deal will evil doers.

Sure, you can concoct a nutty scenario where the Paladin is wrong, but for everyone one of those I can turn it around and add on something that makes him right. Like I said at the beginning, to not slay an evildoer carries as many repercussions as slaying him.

Yup. Looks like it's a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't kinda thing.

 

[LokiDR]

Some mentioned in a previous post that I am mixing up Evil with Neutrality or something of that nature. So I wanted to share with you my views on Neutrality.

I beleive a Neutral person would not go out of their way to kill someone if they could help it, just as they would not go out of their way to save someone if they could help it.

The battle is over and the heroes win. Some enemies lie slain, others are bleeding to death. The Neutral person would try and heal/stabalize them if he could. He isn't going out of his way to do so, he's right there. If, on the other hand, he is in the midst of battle, he won't stop defending himself to heal a fallen enemy. He may not even stop defending himself to heal a fallen ally.

By the same token. If the battle is over and the Evil Mage is unconcious but stabalized (say he made his 10% check on his own) the Neutral person wouldn't just go up to him and CdG him.

I see now you do not understand neutrality.

You have described a neutral person, with strong good tendencies. A neutral person may ignore those bleeding to death. If they fought you, they knew the consequences, and their deaths are for fate to decide. A neutral person may kill unprovoked attackers, as they may recover and attack again. He is not interested in killing for killing's sake, just pure utility.

That is difference between evil and neutral. Evil will enjoy the act. Neutral will simply do it to get it done. They may slip later into evil, seeking out others to fight and kill. But if we are talking about random bandit attacks, it isn't evil.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why are you attacking a helpless opponent who is no longer an immediate threat to you when you can just as easily disarm, knock out or tie him up?

'cos it's a 3.5 Hold Person, and before you're even halfway through tying him up, he'll make his next Save and Death Attack you...

-Hyp.

 

[Azlan]

Again, this is a non-Dnd based story with no predefined alignments. As stories go, it was already predefined what was gonna happen. In other words, it's not like you had a person playing the part of Beowulf to make those sorts of decisions. The author did that for us. So in his non-DnD aligned universe, Beowulf was the hero. I should say, in any non-DnD aligned universe he was a hero, because even I could see that.

At any rate, Beowulf is NOT a morality play. That is to say, it doesn't lend itself well to deep discussions of morals and ethics, and good versus evil. Better to use Shakespeare's Macbeth for that. (Or if you must, Tolkien's LotR).

As for the autobiography, Grendel, I haven't read that one. But it sure sounds like revisionist history to me.

 

[Gizzard]

Even in Grendel's Autobiography (written with the assistance of John Gardner), he admits to being an evil monster.

The more I find out about it, the more I find that Pielorinho's library looks just like mine. ;-)

Sidetrack: I think Gardner's Grendel admits to a lot of things, but then he's quite insane so you don't want to trust his word too completely. Grendel muses on several different theories about what he is, why he is and what it all means.

It's a good book and especially if you've picked up the (somewhat) recent Beowulf re-translation it's a nice counterpoint. Caveat: Easily offended people will not enjoy viewing the world through the eyes of the monster. ;-)

-added on topic content-

If I see a Paladin executing "evil doers" day in and day out, I'm gonna think that is the way to deal will evil doers.

Depends on what your god tells you to do. For a Paladin of Tyr, that is the way to deal with evil doers. Mete out the required justice, write it down in your Book of Judgements and don't look back. OTOH, this same attitude would be inappropriate for a Paladin of Illmater, who is about mercy and forgiveness first.

Both Paladins reflect aspects of LG, but they are fundamentally Good - despite the fact that they will generally make opposite decisions on the CdG issue. There are plenty of aspects of Good to focus your philosophy on and sometimes they will conflict -- mercy versus justice being a prime example. At this point you will have to choose which tenet to follow.

I'm not sure if that was clear, but basically if I choose slaughter over mercy, that is evil. If I chose justice over mercy that is still good. To the observer, slaughter and justice may appear to have the same result -- its only what is in the heart of the Paladin when he makes his judgement that makes it different.

 

[LordAO]

Is coup de grace an evil act? Is killing someone always evil? Is incinerating them with a fireball evil? Is hitting someone with your +2 quarterstaff evil? Is it evil to magic missile somebody to death? It all depends upon who you kill and why. I doubt anyone would go so far as to say that if you coup de grace somebody you're evil, though some self righteous, lawful good paladin or knight may find it "dishonorable." But then again, those same people think sneak attacks, magic, etc are dishonorable, so who cares what they think? Such people would also no doubt think it's better to accept a serial killer's surrender, despite the chance that he may escape to kill again.

Leave the distorted morals to the fools who value such things more than common sense or life.

(Yes, I'm chaotic Good, can you tell?)

 

[WattsHumphrey]

I'd like to mention that you've seemed to place them in a situation where there was no other alternative.

This was, of course, the objective. When placed in a circumstance where there is no right way, what should be done? I think they chose to act in a way they thought was good (or at least 'least evil') and therefore, I condone their acts.

 

[Pielorinho]

The more I find out about it, the more I find that Pielorinho's library looks just like mine. ;-)

Heh! Grendel's a great book (although it's been about a decade since I read it).

I kinda wonder whether it's my reading tastes that lead to my views on games. I tend to like books like Grendel (which is told from the point of view of a human-eating monster), like Perdido Street Station (in which none of the characters are really heroic), like A Song of Ice and Fire (good old rollicking fantasy with incredibly grim and bloody scenes scattered throughout). I enjoy lots of Orson Scott Card's novels, in which characters commit heinous acts in order to avoid greater evils. Stories with easy moral solutions don't really grab me all that much.

Rigamortus said,

It has to do with compassion, altruism, respect for anothers life, and all the other things I listed previously.

I wonder if this is part of the difference. When evaluating whether to commit a CdG, are you taking into account only the life of your CdG victim, or do you also take into account the lives of those that your victim might otherwise kill if he goes free?

I tend to think that "respect for life" means respect for everyone's life. If I decide to let Mr. Khan go free, knowing that he's likely to return to his horse-riding, city-pillaging ways, then sure, I'm showing respect for Genghis' life. But I'm NOT showing respect for the lives of those he's going to kill.

There are circumstances when death is the only option, which CdG accomplishes. It is situational, and not that common in my experiences. I don't often fight foes who are "invulnerable" by mortal standards (can regenerate, have higher level intervention to bring them back, etc.) At least not at a constant pace in the campaign.

Again, I think we use different standards. Where you're concerned about whether your enemy is going to get up and keep whaling on you (i.e., is immortal by normal standards), I'm more concerned about whether they're EVER going to get up and whale on any innocent person.

If, for example, I'm in a civilization (or just in an area) that lacks prisons, and if I don't have a means to convert a baby-eating hill-giant to the worship of the Fluffy BunnyGod of Mercy, then my options really are limited. I can engage in a course of action that results in the giant's death, or I can engage in a course of action that results in the giant continuing its babymunching ways. Unless the campaign has really bizarre circumstances (e.g., I can regularly and easily trick giants into believing that I've cursed their shadow such that next time they munch a baby, they'll die horribly), I've got an excluded middle. Kill the giant, or let babies get et.

Indeed, circumstances like this pop up all the time in my game. Kill the dragon, or the town gets enslaved. Kill the illithid, or the town gets sacrificed. Capture the assassins (resulting in their certain execution), or the evil noble gains control of the city council.

I don't think this is due to a lack of creativity on my part: on the contrary, coming up with interesting and complex villainous groups and motives is, I think, one of my strengths as a DM. And my players' tendency to resort to violence isn't a lack of creativity on their part: in fact, although they often try to avoid killing, I equally often throw them in desperate, live-or-die situations, in which they don't have the luxury of fighting with less than their full force.

Again, I can recognize that a less-violent game can be fun. In such a game, villains will need to have different sets of motives than in the games I run. But if it's your scene, it's a valid way to play.

However, what constitutes "good" behavior in that kind of game and what constitutes "good" behavior in my kind of game will necessarily be different.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I decide to let Mr. Khan go free, knowing that he's likely to return to his horse-riding, city-pillaging ways, then sure, I'm showing respect for Genghis' life. But I'm NOT showing respect for the lives of those he's going to kill.

Khaaaaaa-an!

-Hyp.