Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[Storm Raven]

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.

It only takes a single round to tie someone up?

 

[Pielorinho]

It only takes a single round to tie someone up?

It's also worth pointing out that a tied and gagged wizard, unlike a dead wizard, can cast a stilled, silenced charm person spell.

Daniel

 

[Storm Raven]

Now: why didn't I imprison him?

Here is another reason: in midaevil (and ancient, and renaissance) societies, prison wasn't somewhere that was used for punishment. It was where people were housed who were waiting for punishment.

We think of prison as a place where you put criminals for several years so that they are punished for their cirmes. However, traditionally, prison was just a convenient place to house someone while they were waiting for their actual punishment was being prepared (usually torture or death, mostly death). It was just a place to keep people from running away.

To someone living in 1500 (for example, or 1300, or 1700), the idea that puttuing someone in prison for 20 years would be considered appropriate punishment would have been almost ludicrous. People were put in prison for a week while the boiling oil was shipped in in order to fry them up.

Justice "on the fly", if performed by those with reasonable authority (which was often constituted of locally appointed authority, such as soldiers hired by a town or village to hunt down troublesome bandits) was considered to be a normal part of everyday life.

 

[Pielorinho]

Here is another reason: in midaevil (and ancient, and renaissance) societies, prison wasn't somewhere that was used for punishment. It was where people were housed who were waiting for punishment.

This is a very good point. Folks interested in the history of the penal code (shut up, Hong) should check out Discipline and Punish, a gorily fascinating history.

Very briefly, the book details the move in the West from punishment inflicted on the body to punishment inflicted on the soul. Old-style punishments, it was believed, left the soul unaffected, left the soul free to pursue its course in the eternal world, but punished the earthly form through gruesome torture or execution. New-style punishments, the book claims, are just the opposite: they leave the body unscarred, but work to change and alter (and in some cases destroy) the convict's soul. The book seems to suggest in places that a life sentence is a far crueller punishment than drawing and quartering.

It's an interesting, if controversial, read, and can help DMs looking to establish nonmodern penal systems.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

Hmm, if I had time to read another book, I might take a look at that, thanks Pielorinho.

I think it bears repeating, though, that most adventurers are not duely appointed officiers of the courts, so dispencing justice as they see fit is more likely a chaotic act than a lawful one.

Also, doling out punishment only keeps you from being evil if you do it judiciously. If you CdG a person for trying to pick you pocket, you are being cruel, and starting on the road to evil. I think even medeval legal systems would recognize that, and the Good vs Evil system of D&D definately should.

 

[Darklone]

It's also worth pointing out that a tied and gagged wizard, unlike a dead wizard, can cast a stilled, silenced charm person spell.

Daniel

Ask a psion.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think it bears repeating, though, that most adventurers are not duely appointed officiers of the courts, so dispencing justice as they see fit is more likely a chaotic act than a lawful one.

Only if you consider the law of the courts to be the highest law.

If you believe the Law of the Gods is the highest law (e.g., you're a paladin of St. Cuthbert), then the law of the land is correct only inasmuch as it coheres to Divine Law.

In that case, you may be lawful good and still CdG villains even when the courts haven't appointed you to do so. God, after all, appointed you.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

Only if you consider the law of the courts to be the highest law.

If you believe the Law of the Gods is the highest law (e.g., you're a paladin of St. Cuthbert), then the law of the land is correct only inasmuch as it coheres to Divine Law.

In that case, you may be lawful good and still CdG villains even when the courts haven't appointed you to do so. God, after all, appointed you.

Daniel

I question that.

Even if God appointed you, complete disrespect for a society does not suggest Lawful. Unless you know the athorities won't deal with it, I would say taking them to the athorites would be best. Since it is a paladin, you always try for the best.

I would say RigaMortus's arguement applies here. Also, letting the athorites handle this means you are fostering justice in others. Since justice is your ultimate goal, that would be best.

Of couse, if the athorities won't do anything, it's retribution time

 

[Pielorinho]

Even if God appointed you, complete disrespect for a society does not suggest Lawful. Unless you know the athorities won't deal with it, I would say taking them to the athorites would be best. Since it is a paladin, you always try for the best.

As I mentioned before, you may be in a society that's evil (e.g., invading a drow kingdom). Certainly a paladin is under no stricture to obey the laws of an evil society -- that's not what "lawful" means.

From the SRD:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

Note that it's respect and obedience to authority, not to the courts. As I said, a paladin may very well consider their patron God to be the highest authority, and show respect and obedience to that authority over respect and obedience to the laws established by fallible mortals.

Sure, you can design a lawful character whose respected authority is the courts, the king, or Cartman. The alignment doesn't specify which authority you gotta respect.

But a character who respects the authority of a mercilessly just God (e.g., Cuthbert) can lawfully CdG by following that god's dictates.

Daniel

 

[Storm Raven]

I think it bears repeating, though, that most adventurers are not duely appointed officiers of the courts, so dispencing justice as they see fit is more likely a chaotic act than a lawful one.

It depends. Many adventurers are acting on the request of the leaders of villages, towns or other petty authority to deal with some problem. In many cases, under pre-modern law, it was accepted that responsible (or merely wealthy) individuals could mete out on the spot justice to those who they saw committing crimes.

Applying modern ideas of legal authority to a midaevil legal system is a silly thing to do.