Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[RigaMortus2]

So, you consider them to take an equivalent amount of time?

While you (1) pull out your rope, (2) move to the subject to be tied, and (3) spend five or six rounds to actually tie them up, for a total time of seven or eight rounds worth of time.

The other guy has (1) move into position, and (2) performed a coup de grace, for a total of two rounds of time.

From the SRD:

Most skill uses are standard actions, move-equivalent actions, or full-round actions.

and

Use Rope (DEX)

Check: Most tasks with a rope are relatively simple.

DC Task
-- ----
10 Tie a firm knot
15 Tie a special knot, such as one that slips, slides slowly, or loosens with a tug
15 Tie a rope around oneself one-handed
15 Splice two ropes together (takes 5 minutes)

When the character binds another character with a rope, any Escape Artist check that the bound character makes is opposed by the character's Use Rope check. The character gets a special +10 bonus on the check because it is easier to bind someone than to escape from being tied up.

The character doesn't make the character's Use Rope check until someone tries to escape.

Special: A silk rope gives a +2 circumstance bonus on Use Rope checks. If the character casts an animate rope spell on a rope, the character gets a +2 circumstance bonus to any Use Rope checks the character makes when using the rope. These bonuses stack.

If the character has 5 or more ranks in Escape Artist, the character gets a +2 synergy bonus on checks to bind someone.

I don't see anywhere in there where it states Use Rope is more than a Move-Equiv, Standard or Full Round action.

Worse case, Round 1) Move-Equiv to get Rope from Backpack + Move to opponent. Round 2) Full round to tie them up.

Best case, Round 1) Move-Equiv to get Rope from Backpack + Move to get to opponent. Round 2) Move-Equiv (or Standard) to tie up opponent.

Same amount of time as

Round 1) Move up to opponent, free action draw weapon (if you don't already have it out). Round 2) Full Round CdG.

In any case, it's all the same time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

First rule of CdG:

1) You don't talk about the morality of CdG.

Ooh... I think the next Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy that shows up in my game will be "The Coup de Grace".

Where the thieves, assassins, and all those other Lawful Good types hang out

-Hyp.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

A round is six seconds. You're not tying *anyone* up, cooperating or not, in just six seconds.

Not if you want them to stay tied up beyond that round. Even professional competing cowboys take that long to tie up calves which are not nearly as intelligent or resistant to the effort as the "evildoer who must be redeemed at all costs" would be. And they're not wearing armor, carrying weapons, and trying not to present a target to the other bad guys trying to stick a pointy sword into them.

It's just common sense that tying someone up securely must take longer than a full round. The number of rounds it would take could be impacted by your skill with the ropes, countered with the subject's escape artist skill if applicable.

 

[Rel]

And they're not wearing armor...

Well, other than leather of course.

 

[MarcoDelVespuchi]

So CdG is evil. Got it. How about other actions/objects?

Are swords evil? Yes. So very evil. They end life. As the snippet said Evil destroys life. Swords destroy life. Thus: Swords are Evil.

*blink*

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I'm not throwing any flames around here, but if anyone needed a concrete example about how conflict can arise between the various "good" alignments they need look no further than this thread.

RigaMortus (and RigaMortus2) has given a perfect example of the unyielding uncompromising stereotypical Lawful Good viewpoint, while many others have expressed viewpoints more aligned with Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Many people, all purportedly with good intent, all unwilling to accept that their own personal definition of "good" is not necessarily universally applicable. "If it isn't my type of 'good', it's not the right type of 'good' and by definition it's 'evil'"

As a discussion on the merits of CdG, this thread is acceptable. As a pointed example of the possibilities of the splintering effects of perspective upon a group of like-minded individuals, it's priceless.

 

[LokiDR]

RigaMortus (and RigaMortus2) has given a perfect example of the unyielding uncompromising stereotypical Lawful Good viewpoint, while many others have expressed viewpoints more aligned with Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Many people, all purportedly with good intent, all unwilling to accept that their own personal definition of "good" is not necessarily universally applicable. "If it isn't my type of 'good', it's not the right type of 'good' and by definition it's 'evil'"

As a DM, as many here are, there needs to be a consistant way to describe what evil vs good is, and law vs chaos. If it is all based on culture, things like protection from evil won't work on maurauding giants, because the giants believe they are in the right. These definitions do not need to be exactly the same from one DM to another, but should be at least consistant for the run of the campaign. This is where my absolutism on alignment comes from, just to keep the game running smothly.

Also, I think it valid to say two different personalities are different enough to warent different alignments, such as "Kill 'em all, let god sort it out" vs "Mercy for all, killing is only an extreem last resort". This doesn't mean that because I disagree with one, it must be Evil, just that they are different. The danger is, if very different moral scales can be the same alignment, alignment won't matter much, as I could make an arguement for nealy anything. I don't think alignment should be that worthless.

One thing is for sure, judging alignment is one of the harder elements of D&D.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

The more I read "is action X evil?" threads and see the gaping holes in many peoples understanding of the alignment system, the more I'm led to believe a publisher could make great hay with a game book dealing strictly with alignment, ethical questions, etc, all presented with a focus on how the different alignments would perceive the moral quandaries (if they even perceived a problem, that is). There could be lots of suggestions on how to create points of conflict between allied (or at least aligned) alignment groups, how to exploit alignment differences in a party for good drama-producing intra-party tension, all sorts of good stuff.

Even though by profession I'm trained to step back from an argument and see all sides in an abstract sense, I too occasionally find my interpretations colored by my personal Chaotic Neutral alignment (with good tendencies), so people who aren't used to treating moral questions abstractly would have a lot of trouble, I'd imagine.

It's obvious the alignment descriptions as presented in the current literature don't paint a clear enough picture for some folks, so a book on alignment (versus the occasional book of "good" or "evil") might be handy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are swords evil? Yes. So very evil. They end life. As the snippet said Evil destroys life. Swords destroy life. Thus: Swords are Evil.

"Swords don't kill people. Swords of Dancing kill people."

-Hyp.

 

[Gizzard]

RigaMortus (and RigaMortus2) has given a perfect example of the unyielding uncompromising stereotypical Lawful Good viewpoint, while many others have expressed viewpoints more aligned with Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

I don't think of RigaMortus as arguing for LG; he's arguing for a specific form of LG as practiced by a God of Mercy like Ilmater. Redemption for others at the risk of marytrdom for yourself.

Other people, including myself, have argued that there is a big range of LG actions - depending on who you worship. If I worship Tyr, I am all about Justice first and Mercy is necessarily far down on my list. This doesn't make me Evil, Neutral or Chaotic; it just means that I chose to emphasize a different aspect of Law and Good.

I think we can all agree that Justice is Good and its Lawful. I don't see any problem with a Paladin dishing out Justice as Tyr tells him it must be done - I don't even see any problem with using a CdG to do it. ;-)

Anyway, I think a recent Dragon mag mentioned 7 noble attributes as a counterpart to the 7 deadly sins. I glanced over them and didn't think they worked out all that well, but they might be an interesting starting point for further discussion. It seems to me that you could kill an evildoer in the name of Justice, while you'd almost never be able to do it in the name of Mercy. So, could you slay someone in the name of Humility? ;-)