Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[andargor]

Khaaaaaa-an!

-Hyp.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold..."

Does that mean he's evil?

Andargor

 

[LokiDR]

What concerns me is that a character who does anything to punish the wicked is seen as evil. How can a character who is wicked be the same alignment as a character who only cares about punishing the wicked?

 

[RigaMortus2]

*sigh*

You are defining the lack of Good.

Evil != lack of Good.

Giving a entity exactly what they deserve is not evil. If a god came down and smote the sleeping giant with holy fire, would you call it evil? This god could do any one of other things. Any divine retribution is evil? The God is the Israelites must be one of the most evil entities you have ever heard of.

Our characters tend to hold gods in a higher regard. After all, gods MUST know what they are doing. So if a god did this, then he was in the right. Unless it was obviously an evil god... Not sure what campaign setting the Israelite god is in. Forgotten Realms maybe?

A adventurer acting in exactly the same manor is also not evil. All the adventurer needs to do is ensure that their actions fit with the creatures they meet them out on. If they are not sure of that, they are acting evil.

What does the adventurer know of these "evil" beasts? As much information about them that a god knows? Slavery is evil, is the ONLY way to deal with slave owners death? And if ALL you do is kill every slave owner you meet (as opposed to teaching them the error of their ways OR some other feasible method towards redemption that doesn't involve death), wouldn't that make you the slightest bit evil? You know, disrespecting life and all that? I say it would.

One last time, learn what "neutral" means in D&D.

I think I do, and I already gave you my interpretation of how a Neutral person would act in certain situations.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I see now you do not understand neutrality.

I don't see that. Guess it's all in how you interpret it.

You have described a neutral person, with strong good tendencies.

AFAIK, there is no Core Rule or game mechanic which defines "strong good tendencies". This would be a house rule kind of thing here. By the book a person is either Good, Evil or Neutral. There is no measurement for "tendencies". Therefore, as you have stated, I have described a neutral person... (with strong good tendencies IF you are using a secondary alignment measurement).

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.

I am kind of confused on your usage of unprovoked here. You say he may kill unprovoked attackers. Isn't that an oxymoron? If someone is attacking they are either doing the provoking (such as you getting jumped by bandits) or are being provoked (such as your party picking a fight with someone). If they are being provoked, then they aren't really attackers, but defenders, aren't they?

What is an example of an unprovoked attacker?

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.

Administering a lethal attack to someone with the intent that they die from it and then giving your reason that it was just a "utility" does not give you a safety net to proclaim your Neutrality. Either people kill out of necessity (defending themselves or an innocent) or out of pleasure (I killed a man once, just to watch him die). I don't think there is a third "neutral" reason to kill someone.

What would the reason be for this "Neutral" person to go ahead and kill an unprovoked attacker? Either he is doing so because it is necessary to do so (in which case, he isn't unprovoked to begin with) or he is doing it because he likes it (re: evil).

 

[Rel]

RigaMortus, I had a rather sizable message typed up about the futility of continuing this conversation. But I just deleted it because I'm having too much fun. Lemme ask you another one:

A band of goblins has been attacking various towns in the area and killing the inhabitants for food. Each night, the goblins (let's say there are several dozen of them) gather close around the fire where they keep the big cookpot and feast on the dismembered bodies of the innocent townsfolk while swapping funny stories about how this townsperson or that one struggled while they were disemboweled.

What alignment consequences, if any, would you ascribe to a Chaotic Good Wizard who, without preamble or warning, dropped a Fireball right in the center of the goblin camp at supper time, in such a way as to engulf pretty much all of them?

 

[Artoomis]

I've been reading bit of this thread off and on, and I'm not sure if anyone posted the 3e alignment rules.

From the SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil.

Within those guidlines it seem to me pretty clear that a CdG is not, in and of itself, and evil act. It depends upon the circumstances.

Let's assume we are not talking about "innocent life," for then it would be evil, clearly.

"Good" implies respect for life - and, by implication, innocent life above others. Thus, using a CdG to end a threat to innocent life would not be an evil act, normally.

Of course, a "good" character should never actually enjoy taking a life, but rather see it as a regretable necessity.

That's how I see it within the 3e rules for alignment.

 

[LokiDR]

Our characters tend to hold gods in a higher regard. After all, gods MUST know what they are doing. So if a god did this, then he was in the right. Unless it was obviously an evil god... Not sure what campaign setting the Israelite god is in. Forgotten Realms maybe?

God smites a person for being evil. Player smites a person for being evil. Seems fine to me.

What does the adventurer know of these "evil" beasts? As much information about them that a god knows? Slavery is evil, is the ONLY way to deal with slave owners death? And if ALL you do is kill every slave owner you meet (as opposed to teaching them the error of their ways OR some other feasible method towards redemption that doesn't involve death), wouldn't that make you the slightest bit evil? You know, disrespecting life and all that? I say it would.

Slavery is a poor example. There are grossly evil slave owners and there are compassionate slave owners. Some deserve worse than others.

Take murderers, as a better example. If all I do is kill every murderer I meet, I think the world will be a better place, as others will be affraid to commit murder in the future for fear I will kill them. I respect the lives of every one else. There is a whole lot more people in the world than the murderer.

I think I do, and I already gave you my interpretation of how a Neutral person would act in certain situations.

Neutral means not caring about strangers. If a stranger attacks you and you kill them, it isn't something you will feel all that bad about. CdG them in or out of combat, doesn't matter. They attacked. The difference from evil is that you don't seek out people to kill.

 

[LokiDR]

I am kind of confused on your usage of unprovoked here. You say he may kill unprovoked attackers. Isn't that an oxymoron? If someone is attacking they are either doing the provoking (such as you getting jumped by bandits) or are being provoked (such as your party picking a fight with someone). If they are being provoked, then they aren't really attackers, but defenders, aren't they?

What is an example of an unprovoked attacker?

Unprovoked attacker: person who attacks you without you provoking them.
Provoking: attacking you or your allies, extreem insults, mental or physical violation, or other serious grievence.

Bandits who are known criminals have provoked a response by previous crimes. I have said this before. Bandits who jump you are provoking you but were not provoked. It's simple Legaleze

Administering a lethal attack to someone with the intent that they die from it and then giving your reason that it was just a "utility" does not give you a safety net to proclaim your Neutrality. Either people kill out of necessity (defending themselves or an innocent) or out of pleasure (I killed a man once, just to watch him die). I don't think there is a third "neutral" reason to kill someone.

What would the reason be for this "Neutral" person to go ahead and kill an unprovoked attacker? Either he is doing so because it is necessary to do so (in which case, he isn't unprovoked to begin with) or he is doing it because he likes it (re: evil).

Again you say there are only two options. There aren't two options, there are three: good, neutral, evil. Kill because you must, kill because it is appropriate, kill because you like it. You keep missing that middle one.

 

[LokiDR]

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Compunctions against killing innocent. Evil doers != innocent.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I realize the post I'm replying to is rather old at this point - my apologies for coming late to the thread, but it is indicative I feel of the poster's misunderstanding of the alignment system, and of a rather marked inability to extricate his own personal feelings from his analysis. Specifically, I refer to the interpretation of all acts through a strong Lawful Good mindset. It is not true that one corner of the alignment wheel gets the right to define absolute morality, and it is doubly true that one side of the Law-Chaos axis has no more claim to ethical righteousness than the other. To whit, these two quotes:

BZZZT. Wrong. Righteous retribution according to who? Maybe to a Lawful Evil god, but that is about it. This man deserves a fair trial, if trials exist in your world. If not, feel free to do the vigilante thing, but don't kill him. Bring him into the authorities and let them deal with him.

Wrong again, and you were doing so good (little "g") too. Seek change of his rulership, but not with the intent to kill. Exile and banishment are just punishments for this tyrant.

In both cases, poster has erroneously applied a Lawful interpretation of just punishments as support for his ethical interpretations. To reuse a phrase, "BZZZT. WRONG". Both replies assume some sort of higher order exists to deal 'legitimate' justice, and that an individual cannot dispense justice on his/her own. That certainly does not hold from a Chaotic viewpoint - even Chaotic Good, and not even from any of the Neutral viewpoints.

Don't cloud abstract Good-Evil discussions with Law-Chaos interpretations. They're not relevant.

The CdG feat is not any more evil or good than the context in which it is used. It may perhaps have a tinge of Chaos to it, assuming that some more lawful way of dealing with the target reasonably exists under the circumstances, but even that is questionable. Even if one were to stipulate a chaotic bent to CdQ, it would have no implication at all on its Evilness or Goodness.