Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[Gizzard]

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.

Yes, this is one of the (hidden?) assumptions I had when talking about Paladins in this thread. A Paladin can take strong action and then stand before the local Lord - if it even comes to that - and say, "I meted out the Justice of Tyr on an evildoer." He can do this because he is a respected figure. Unless the Lord is having some sort of political struggle with the Temple of Tyr he'd be generally pleased, and unless he wanted to have conflict with Tyr now he'd at least nod grudgingly and find the Paladin to be in the right. Maybe it's a bit of a Catch-22, but it would be a rare local Lord who would risk judging a Paladin to be "unlawful." ;-)

Anyway, this is obviously a digression about how to define Lawful and I'll throw this thought out -- being Lawful doesn't mean that you have to obey the laws of the city you are in. Otherwise, I'd have a hard time being Lawful Evil. ;-) Being Lawful means that you believe in some structure and organization; some set of rules and code of conduct. A Paladin gets this from his God; he doesn't need to get authority from mere mortals. (Though his God probably teaches that it is respectful to do so in order to avoid strife.)

 

[LokiDR]

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.

That would make them "officers of the court" or the older equivelant. I know that the rich could get away with it, but that doesn't make it a lawful thing to do.

To take matters into your own hands seems to undermine local athority. Maybe it needs to be undermined, but if it doesn't, I don't see this as being a Lawful Good kind of thing. Cuthbert isn't LG, after all.

Besides that, killing any creature who attacks you doesn't seem to live up to the paladin-ly code. Truth, justice, and death to all who attack me just doesn't sound right.

 

[Pielorinho]

To take matters into your own hands seems to undermine local athority. Maybe it needs to be undermined, but if it doesn't, I don't see this as being a Lawful Good kind of thing. Cuthbert isn't LG, after all.

At this point, I was just arguing that it's not necessarily chaotic. Sure, CdGing can be lawful evil, lawful good, or lawful neutral -- my position is that its morality is dependent on circumstances, and is not innate to the act.

If local authority doesn't need to be undermined, and if local authority forbids CdGing unconscious enemies, then sure, it's not lawful good to do so. But I wasn't addressing that: I was addressing the argument that it was an inherently chaotic act by giving an example wherein it's not chaotic.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

Here is a situation, let's see where it sits on Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil.


A paladin of St. Cuthbert (Pally) is on his way to a great city where justice is practiced for the most part and the people are fairly good folk. A day away from city, is attacked by bandits who are trying to kill him for his money. Pally downs one and kills the other in the strugle. The bandit who fell (Bandy) has stabalized by himself. Pally discovers Bandy might wake up later and come back to this road to terrorize others.

Pally, without another thought, crushes the man's skull (CdG).


Here are my thoughts:
Good vs Evil: Good, maybe neutral. The local athorities would most likely senticed this bandit to death anyway. This presumes an older style of prisions where they only hold you untill you are sentenced. He could have tried more to help this person, rehabilitate them, but that is not what his god teaches. Then again, his god is neutral to Good vs Evil. If every one took his example, innocent people might die, as some people started taking vengence for old slights.

Law vs Chaos: Neutral to chaotic. If ever person followed his example, the local athorites would not be useful, and there would be less governence. The paladin should bring the man to trial so that others see justice at work. Maybe this man was being magically compelled. Pally doesn't know, he just knows the man attacked and seemed to want his money. A trial would serve the greater justice of waning others against such crime, support the local government against criminals, increase the prestiege of the church, and ensure there are no mitigating factors (like magical compulsion).

All in all, a paladin who acts this way all the time shouldn't be a paladin for long. It is just to easy to resort to killing.

What do you think?

 

[LokiDR]

At this point, I was just arguing that it's not necessarily chaotic. Sure, CdGing can be lawful evil, lawful good, or lawful neutral -- my position is that its morality is dependent on circumstances, and is not innate to the act.

Daniel

Ok, you make a good point. Try the other situation I posted.

 

[Pielorinho]

Here is a situation, let's see where it sits on Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil.


A paladin of St. Cuthbert (Pally) is on his way to a great city where justice is practiced for the most part and the people are fairly good folk. A day away from city, is attacked by bandits who are trying to kill him for his money. Pally downs one and kills the other in the strugle. The bandit who fell (Bandy) has stabalized by himself. Pally discovers Bandy might wake up later and come back to this road to terrorize others.

Pally, without another thought, crushes the man's skull (CdG).

My thoughts: what does St. Cuthbert teach? The paladin should follow Cuthbert's teachings if he wants to stay a paladin: to do otherwise will be to succumb to chaotic tendencies.

Cuthbert might teach that showing mercy to criminals is to contribute to their future misdeeds, that the just (e.g., paladins) are obligated to dispense justice and not to abnegate that duty to potentially fallible courts. If the paladin then shows mercy to the bandit, the paladin, by valuing his own sensibilities over tradition and the church's authority, is behaving chaotically.

Cuthbert might teach that true justice is never found in the heat of battle, that whenever possible, justice should be handed down in the cold light of reason. If that's Cuthbert's teaching, then the paladin who kills the unconscious bandit is behaving chaotically, by ignoring his church's teachings.

Cuthbert might be freaky in your campaign, and teach that true justice is best served by seeking redemption and restitution from all creatures -- that whenever possible, an evil creature should be given the chance to repent. If that's Cuthbert's teaching, then the paladin who kills the unconscious bandit is behaving chaotically by ignoring his church's teachings.

But it's all about the paladin's authority figure, here. If the paladin respect that authority and the traditions that stand behind it, he might be behaving neutrally or even evilly, but he'll be behaving lawfully.

Daniel

 

[Tantra]

CDG

Enough of this folks.

Stop looking for a rule that lets you (player or DM) off the hook, and role play it out.

The fact that there are 5 pages of Examples of is / is not pretty much means what everyone is saying, That it's all Situational Ethics.

So no cop-outs folks, don't try and figure out what the community feels about it, decide what your Character feels about it, and role play accordingly; Or DM's determine what it is in your campaign, and we'll save ourselves from threads like this in the long run.

Well, My 3 copper. (inflation)

Aethramyr
Wizardru's SSOM storyhour...Read it to your children, today!

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: CDG

Enough of this folks.

Stop looking for a rule that lets you (player or DM) off the hook, and role play it out.

??? Nobody's looking to get off the hook, or for a copout. Instead, we're discussing the ways morality can come up in game.

Since I enjoy morally ambiguous games, I enjoy conversations like this. I'm not sure why you're trying to put a stop to the conversation; if you don't like it, there's a bajillion other threads to read.

My apologies if I misconstrue what you're saying.

Daniel

 

[Tantra]

True

Fair enough, and I do apologize if I sound a bit heavy handed in that as well.

This is more in terms of trying to keep this thread from getting a little too out of hand. It's been turning over scenarios for a few pages now, and thought I'd try and give people an out, before we end up with a thread rivalling some of the story hour threads.

So for those who like to, keep reading. maybe find a good adventure hook in here. But fair warning: Don't continue if you're looking for a yes or no answer.

But by now, you should have realized this ;-)

Aeth

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: True

So for those who like to, keep reading. maybe find a good adventure hook in here. But fair warning: Don't continue if you're looking for a yes or no answer.

Oh, I see what you're saying -- sorry to have misunderstood. I do think that Spider provided the only yes/no answer available, back on the first page of the thread (i.e., that there's no reason, strictly within the rules, to consider CdG an evil act). But yeah, if that answer didn't satisfy a reader, there's unlikely to be a satisfying yes/no answer.

Still, I think that the rest of the discussion is interesting, and that there are some interesting ideas in the thread.

Daniel