Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[RigaMortus2]

'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.

Then he was foolish for casting the 3.5 Hold Person spell instead of the 3.0 Hold Person spell

But really (assuming he knew how Hold Person worked) why would he cast Hold Person knowing that it is no longer a set duration and that it could "wear off" at any time? The spell could wear off the next round anyway, right as he gets in position to do his CdG. If he was confident enough that the spell would hold until he could move up and perform a CdG, then he should also be confident enough that it will last until he finishes tieing him up. It would take the same amount of time.

 

[Rel]

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.

I think you should change your username.

You're not dumb.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

I'm not sure who you are addressing this to, but I agree with what you are saying here. However, there is a difference between "punishing someone who is wicked" and "always killing anyone you deem as wicked".

 

[RigaMortus2]

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 am taking into account his life, his crimes and if there are means for him to be redeemed. Him going free is not a concern because I would never let him simply go free.

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.


Daniel

My question would be. Why did you let him go free?

 

[LokiDR]

I'm not sure who you are addressing this to, but I agree with what you are saying here. However, there is a difference between "punishing someone who is wicked" and "always killing anyone you deem as wicked".

It is a simple matter to observe that a person is wicked.

 

[Pielorinho]

My question would be. Why did you let him go free?

I hope you don't mind if I answer the converse of this question: why would I not imprison him? Otherwise, my answer is, I didn't let him go free: I killed his skanky butt.

Now: why didn't I imprison him?

Because there's no prison nearby.

Because I'm Mr Chaotic-Good, Tom "Give me liberty or give me death" Paine, who believes it's a greater cruelty to imprison someone than to lock them up.

Because he's demonstrated a Joker-like ability to break free from any prison.

Because his buddies are still busy killing people, and if I take the time to transport him to prison, his buddies will use that time to kill more innocent people.

Because I am a duly appointed representative of a god who believes in bloody, eye-for-an-eye justice.

Because a duly-appointed representative of such a god (e.g., my party cleric) has told me that killing evildoers constitutes justice.

There are plenty of reasons that would apply, some of which are commonplace in the games I play in.

Daniel

 

[AuraSeer]

However, there is a difference between "punishing someone who is wicked" and "always killing anyone you deem as wicked".

In a D&D world, why would killing be considered any worse than any other form of punishment?

When you kill an enemy, you haven't ended their existence, you've just moved it to a different place. It's inconvenient surely, but no more so than prison or exile. A death sentence might even be considered less serious than, say, Siberian exile, since a wrongly-executed innocent will find himself in a better place than he left.

Consider these two possible fates for an evil, plundering giant:
1) Wake up bound hand and foot, captive to an adventuring party. Get convicted at trial, and sentenced to life in prison. Sit in a jail cell for decades, living on bread and water, until finally dying of old age.
2) Wake up dead. Find yourself in the Feast Hall of the Giant Gods, where you are hailed as a mighty warrior. Immediately start drinking mead and partying with your evil, plundering, dead giant buddies.

Which of these is worse punishment? Remember, the characters know for a fact that an afterlife exists; many of them will even have visited it.

 

[LokiDR]

I am taking into account his life, his crimes and if there are means for him to be redeemed. Him going free is not a concern because I would never let him simply go free.

Ah, so you are willing to SACRIFICE your time and effort for another. That makes you good, not the action evil.

 

[Rel]

Which of these is worse punishment? Remember, the characters know for a fact that an afterlife exists; many of them will even have visited it.

Which takes us right back to my "Kill em' all and let the gods sort it out" idea. The opposition objected to this on the grounds that it was callous and lacked respect for "life".

 

[med stud]

I will (I suppose) be an echoe of many others, but if a CdG is evil or not depends on the situation; if you come across a band of bandits (who are killing people in the region) the Good thing to do is to kill them; its harsh, but they have brought the punishment down on themselves by their own actions, as opposed to the situation their victims are facing when the bandits are killing them just because they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. And then, if you are to kill them, you can as well kill them in their sleep as wake them up and then kill them.

Killing is killing, no matter if someone is defenseless or not; if you have good reasons for killing anyone, I cant see the reasons why it all of a sudden became so horrible to kill just because the person is sleeping or paralyzed. It's like getting up to a roof; whatever you use a ladder or a rope, you still end up on the roof. It's the reason why you are climbing that is important.