Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[LokiDR]

As I said, it is subjective.

Killing is always evil to me. But if I kill someone in self-defense, then I accept this evil as justifiable. Just as I accept government killing McVeigh for his crime as justifiable.

The act of taking a life is not evil in itself, which is what you said originally, it is subjective.

This isn't about politics, it is pure philosophy. Philosophers throughout the ages have agknowledged the use of deadly force is acceptable in certain circumstances, and not evil. Killing is not evil, unless the intention behind it is. If it is justified, it isn't evil. This doesn't mean it is good by any means.

 

[Sejs]

Killing, in and of itself is not evil. It is neutral. 100% balance of nature, great wheel of existance neutral.

If a lion kills a gazelle, it's not evil. It's survival.

If a hunter kills a deer, it's not evil. It's providing for others.

If a guardsman kills a bear that's attacking a caravan, it's not evil. It's protecting the weak.

If I kill the man who raped my sister, it's not evil. It's righteous retribution.

If I kill a tyrant that's ground the bones of his people under his iron bootheel, it's not evil. It's liberation.

If I kill a man who's been lung shot and will die a slow, agonizing death drowing in his own blood, it's not evil. It's mercy.

If I inadvertantly insult a nobleman, and he calls me to a duel and one of us ends up dying, it's not evil. It's satisfying your honor.

If I get into a tavern brawl, something goes wrong and a person accidentally ends up dead, it's not evil. It's a mistake.

If I sneak into a man's house and drizzle poison into his ear while he slumbers simply because I've been payed to do so by one of his buisness partners, it is evil. It's an assassination motivated solely by greed.

If I kill my wife because I want to run off with another woman, it is evil. It's adulterous murder.

If I kill every person of a particular race, religeon or nationality simply because I think they're 'lesser' than I am, and they're just filth infesting my otherwise 'perfect world', it is evil. It's racist genocide.


Killing itself isn't evil, it's neutral. It's the motivation behind WHY you're killing that makes it good or makes it bad.

Coup de Grace is a rule to handle an expediant way of killing people or creatures. It's not the killing that is evil, it's the motivations that could make it or keep it from being so.

 

[RigaMortus]

No, members of that particular prestige class are evil. It says nothing about assassins with a small "a".

I never claimed it did. I was using it as an example since it is a Core Rules WotC thing.

And has nothing to do with the issue of whether a coup de grace is an inherently evil act or not.

Again, I never claimed it did. I wasn't even trying to defend this point at this particular time. I was comparing an assassin with a sniper and how WotC views their specific Assassin class. It could be grounds for measuring if sniping is an evil act or not, since the two are pretty much identical. An assassin that kills his target at range is a sniper by default. A sniper that attacks someone at range with the intent to kill their target is an assassin by default. Again, I was just showing how WotC portrays Assassins.

It's also a world that rarely contains prisons adequate for confining powerful evildoers -- I know in my campaign world, if there are any prisons adequate for holding fire giants, the PCs have never heard of them.

Daniel

Just because there is no place to imprision them doesn't mean that is the only way to "deal" with them. Neither is foolishly waking them up and challenging them to a "proper" duel for the sake of fairness. People who use these arguements are just being narrow-minded. I don't intend that as an insult. What I mean by it is, they can't think of any other creative way to deal with them so they try to make the only other obvious decision appear stupid (which it is) and the ONLY other decision there is (which it is not). There ARE other ways of dealing with these creatures besides killing them in their sleep (which I feel is evil) or waking them up and challening them to a duel (which I feel is stupid).

Also, just because there is no known place to imprision these creatures doesn't give someone the right to blatantly kill them. Killing something for "convience sake" does not a Good person make. Being Good isn't something you do only when it is convienient to do so.

I have never considered a Coup De Grace an Evil Act as a DM or as a Player and it does not say anything in any Rule Book D20 or otherwise that iis considered an Evil act. I think it would be more of a morality issue and up to the particular individual as to whether or not to dispatch a seemingly helpless enemy. It would certainly open up a debate amoungst the player characters and could generate some good role playing.

Hope this helps.

Casting a Cure spell is also not an evil act. It doesn't say it is in the D20 rule book either. But you can be sure, if someone casts cure on an evil person with the intent to keep them alive so that they can continue their evil ways, it would be an evil act. I'm not talking about healing an evil person to try and question them, imprision them, or rehabilitate them either. Intent has a lot to do with Good and Evil actions. So, when you CdG someone, what is the intent? Is it to put them out of their misery, or is it to kill them because you can't come up with any better non-lethal means to deal with them? I'll say it again, in a world that can heal any ailment or wound, I find it hard to justify "putting someone out of their misery".

But it isn't inherently evil.

You are correct, it isn't. It depends on the intent. See my response about intent in the reply to the above quote.

But fire giants and ogres? They're usually evil, the party might even have heard of no good ogres and fire giants to that day. I think it depends on the type of creature in question and on the campaign.

Usually evil isn't ALWAYS evil. If the party had more background, then perhaps killing them may be justified. Without such information known, it is hard to rule. As it stands, from a third party perspective, CdGing sleeping enemies appears to be an evil act IMO.

If they would just let them go, they wouldn't behave very heroically, either: they'd be cowards not to inspect the matter. And again, it depends on the reputation of the race in question.

It may not fall under the category of heroic, but it also wouldn't fall under the category of unheroic (as slitting their throats in their sleep would). If they knew that they were ill-equiped, ill-prepared and out-skilled with dealing with these foes (party of 4 level 3's vs fire giants, ogres and dire wolves remember) then it would not be cowardly to leave them be, it would be smart. If you are traveling in the jungle and come upon a lion snacking on some prey, would you be a coward if you didn't attack it? No, you'd have no reason to attack it. Same here. Unless we add into the equation that there IS a reason to attack/subdue/question/capture these fire giants, and that they were just not "happened" upon.

It's not because they go on vacation, that's for sure

No they probably were not on vacation. Of course, maybe they got lost and want nothing more but to find their way back home? They don't want any trouble, they just want to leave this unfamilair terrain. That's what you get when you investigate magic portals. Sometimes you end up in places you don't want to be. Guess we'll never know now. Congradulations for CdGing the "usually evil", but in this case good, fire giants that lost their way.

Yes, and Assassin is evil, but an assassin doesn't have to be.

So what alignment would you categorize someone in who has no respect for another's life and they would have no compunctions with taking that life? Need help? There are some hints in the PHB under pages 88 - 89.

Killing people for money may not be a charity job, but it depends on what people you kill: Do you take every assignment or do you only kill the evil bastards?

As I stated above.

A sniper is no assassin, either: assassination is about the why, while sniping is about the how. A sniper kills from far away, unseen, without waring. Elves and halflings both use many snipers, and they aren't evil. Once again, it's about the why.

All a sniper is is someone who attacks at range, with the intent to kill. An assassin is someone who attacks, with the intent to kill. So by definition, an assassin is a sniper when they attack by range, and a sniper is an assassin because they intend to kill.

Killing is not, has not, nor ever will be evil. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in self defense, is that evil? Is killing an animal for food evil? Is the state executing a prisoner it can not hold evil? Just becuause you are killing them does not make the act evil. If you kill them because they are criminals, attacking you unproked, then you executing them.

I never said killing was an evil act. I said a CdG is, in most situations, an evil act. Why put someone out of their misery when you can just get them healed, regenerated or brought back to life? I would argue that killing someone in self-defense IS an evil act IF there isn't any other viable way to defend yourself (such as doing subdual damage or otherwise incapacitating them by non-lethal means). However, if you are out numbered, it is clearly kill or be killed. Sometimes s**t happens and people die in fights, but to make that a goal of yours would be an evil act. Clearly the goal of CdGing the sleeping fire giants was to kill them.

Is killing an animal for food evil? Depends on the animal. If it was an awakened animal who was sent to protect the other forest animals from poachers, then I'd say yes. If it is a deer sipping water from a stream, then I'd say no.

Is the state executing a prisoner it can not hold evil? Depends on a lot of factors. First and foremost this would be a Law/Chaos debate. Once you get into, was the prisioner evil? Was he redeemable? What was his crime? Etc. Then you can make a determination if the death penalty is Good or not.

I think the intent of why you are killing them largely reflects if the act is evil or not.

Good and evil are a question of the greater good. If you know the creatures will kill again (werewolves, wererats) and you do not have the power to change this, then killing them may server the greater good. Whether you have the right is a matter of law or chaos.

I'd agree with you here. I think the question is, are they inherently evil? This is something that should be defined and told to the players BEFORE the game even begins. Our current rule is that, demons, devils and undead are inherently evil. So if we find one that is evil, we are freely allowed to kill them without alignment consequence. However, we still need to determine if they are evil. Even then, the Paladin may ROLEPLAY pity on them and let them go under some extreme circumstances. It may be a stupid move out of game, but it can only add to the drama and roleplay value later on (a re-occuring villian if you will).

Killing, in and of itself is not evil. It is neutral. 100% balance of nature, great wheel of existance neutral.

Depends on the intent. Killing CAN be evil, I fail to see where it can ever be Good. A Paladin killing a Chaotic Evil demon is certainly not an Evil act, but I don't see how it is a 100% Good one either.

If a lion kills a gazelle, it's not evil. It's survival.

Animals kill on instinct, they can not make rational or moral decisions between "right" and "wrong" (barring magical intervention here).

If a hunter kills a deer, it's not evil. It's providing for others.

I agree it is not evil, but I don't agree with your reasoning. A bandit killing a wandering merchant and taking his gold to distribute to his friends is also providing for others.

If a guardsman kills a bear that's attacking a caravan, it's not evil. It's protecting the weak.

I agree.

If I kill the man who raped my sister, it's not evil. It's righteous retribution.

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.

If I kill a tyrant that's ground the bones of his people under his iron bootheel, it's not evil. It's liberation.

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.

If I kill a man who's been lung shot and will die a slow, agonizing death drowing in his own blood, it's not evil. It's mercy.

When your other alternatives are Heal Skill, Cure Wounds, Regenerate and Raise Dead, this is a cruel, evil punishment to put on someone.

If I inadvertantly insult a nobleman, and he calls me to a duel and one of us ends up dying, it's not evil. It's satisfying your honor.

"Ends up dying" is slightly different than purposely trying to kill the other person, and succeeding.

If I get into a tavern brawl, something goes wrong and a person accidentally ends up dead, it's not evil. It's a mistake.

"Ends up dying" is slightly different than purposely trying to kill the other person, and succeeding.

If I sneak into a man's house and drizzle poison into his ear while he slumbers simply because I've been payed to do so by one of his buisness partners, it is evil. It's an assassination motivated solely by greed.

If I kill my wife because I want to run off with another woman, it is evil. It's adulterous murder.

If I kill every person of a particular race, religeon or nationality simply because I think they're 'lesser' than I am, and they're just filth infesting my otherwise 'perfect world', it is evil. It's racist genocide.

I agree with all these.

Killing itself isn't evil, it's neutral. It's the motivation behind WHY you're killing that makes it good or makes it bad.

Coup de Grace is a rule to handle an expediant way of killing people or creatures. It's not the killing that is evil, it's the motivations that could make it or keep it from being so.

I agree. Killing is not so much on trial here as CdG is. There are MANY reasons to justify killing someone. There is hardly any way to justify CdGing (remember, CdG = mercy killing = putting someone out of their misery) someone when you have access to the Heal Skill, Cure Spells, Regenerate, and Raise Dead.

Let me make this point. Say you are a Fighter with NO skill in Heal (in fact, you have a low Wisdom, so you have a -1 on your Heal Check). You have no access to healing spells or potions. You do not know any Clerics, and Regenerate and Raise Dead are extremely rare to come by in this campaign world. One day you are jumped in the wilderness by a bandit (Chaotic Neutral Rogue). You are all alone. It is a bitter battle, but you best the Rogue and he drops to -1 hit points (not that you would necessarily know this). Now, would you CdG him in this situation and put him out of his misery OR would it be better to try the -1 Heal check for the next 9 rounds in the hopes of saving him? Even if you fail all 9 times and he drops to -10 and dies, 27 seconds is NOT a long time of suffering. So to CdG him when you have the slightest CHANCE to stabilize him, would still be an evil act because you are making a concious decision to end his life, when you have the chance to possibly prevent the death.

 

[Nareau]

The act of taking a life is not evil in itself, which is what you said originally, it is subjective.

This isn't about politics, it is pure philosophy

I disagree. This is about neither politics nor philosophy. It is about rules. While I recognize that the rules about alignment aren't exactly comprehensive, they do exist. D&D does not (by the core rules) even recognize situational ethics, cultural bias, or mitigating factors. There isn't a spell called Protection From Malicious Intent. Illithids aren't [Evil; Unless You Understand The Complex Cultural Factors That Combine To Form Such An Alien Mindset]. Assassins aren't [Evil, But You Gotta Remember That A Lot Of Them Were Abused As Children]. Evil is Evil in D&D.

Of course I would never want to actually play in a campaign world like that. My personal beliefs are that Good and Evil just aren't that cut and dry. But I'm doing my darndest to keep this thread in the Rules Forum, instead of it getting shoved over to General RPG Discussion.

Besides, I really like imagining an ultra politically correct paladin (a PC PC) who runs around casting Detect Things That I Personally Think Are Evil, But That Are Probably Totally Reasonable To Do If You Were Brought Up In A Monster Village, Which Isn't Really Accurate, Because Who Am I To Call Trolls Monsters Anyways, Especially Considering All The Awful Things Humans Have Done In The Past.

 

[Norfleet]

Let me make this point. Say you are a Fighter with NO skill in Heal (in fact, you have a low Wisdom, so you have a -1 on your Heal Check). You have no access to healing spells or potions. You do not know any Clerics, and Regenerate and Raise Dead are extremely rare to come by in this campaign world. One day you are jumped in the wilderness by a bandit (Chaotic Neutral Rogue). You are all alone. It is a bitter battle, but you best the Rogue and he drops to -1 hit points (not that you would necessarily know this). Now, would you CdG him in this situation and put him out of his misery OR would it be better to try the -1 Heal check for the next 9 rounds in the hopes of saving him? Even if you fail all 9 times and he drops to -10 and dies, 27 seconds is NOT a long time of suffering. So to CdG him when you have the slightest CHANCE to stabilize him, would still be an evil act because you are making a concious decision to end his life, when you have the chance to possibly prevent the death.

Performing a failed heal check in such a manner would likely come pretty close to torture. Most medical procedures intended to save your life tend to hurt. That bandit is going to spend the last 27 seconds of his life in excrutiating agony. Torture is generally considered to be evil by D&D standards.

Not to mention that the fighter in question could potentially be guilty of practicing without a license, or, if he somehow managed to finagle a license, medical malpractice.

 

[Gizzard]

I've not yet seen any evidence that by the rules, a CdG should be considered an evil act (any more than it should be considered an evil act to kill a waking opponent...)

Maybe Pielorinho is just setting up a straw-man arguement, but he specifically mentions that he assumes CdG isn't any more evil than killing in the first place.

This should have headed off a lot of the discussion above about whether killing itself is right or wrong. But I suppose it would be short, boring thread in that case. ;-)

Anyway, to me, CdG is essentially a mercy killing. From a game mechanics point of view it doesn't always work out that well - but imagine if you had to hack that Held Blackgaurd to death 8 points at a time with your longsword. I think we can all agree that CdG is more merciful than that!

 

[Sejs]

Heh, we've actually had similar discussions about degrees of morality in the past, RigaMortus. If memory serves, we've yet to be able to see eye to eye on certain issues, but did agree to disagree, and left under quite amicable auspices. Amusingly enough, I think the last two were both concerning Fire Giants - but two totally different groups of them in different circumstances. Ain't life just wierd sometimes?



Anyway, I think we pretty much agree on the issue - that a Coup de Grace is no more inherrantly evil than killing someone in another way.

So uh, yeah. I'll just toss my chit in that pile then.

*tosses chit*

There.

^_^


Edit(additional): Oh, and in responce to the bandit example you posed: Personally, if I'm not playing a character with exceptional motivations either way, I'd probably neither CdG the bandit, -or- try to heal him. I made a conscious decision to end his life the moment I drew my sword and fought back rather than give up my possessions to this robber. I'd see no point in going back on my chosen course of action just because I ended up the better combatant. This man knew what he was potentially getting into when he attacked me, he gambled with his life, and came up poorly. His fault, not mine. I'd walk away.

 

[green slime]

begone foul post. carry on, nothing here at all.

 

[Sejs]

Green Slime - I agree with you 100%, there. Situation is quite central to morality.

And I will admit to making a mistake with the SS Officer thing - I was not aware of the doctor angle, for instance. Heh, most of my education about the workings of the nazi party come from bad movies. I assume that if I'm ever somehow transported back in time to world war 2, that I'll be able to slip past any german checkpoint with a smoothly delivered "Gutentag. Cigaretten? Ich bolen lien automeiten."

Hasty Edit to Stay On Track: And because situation is central to morality, CdG is not evil. Yeah. 'Cause, uh, you know, if you're CdGing someone for noble reasons it's good, and if you're doing for bad reasons it's bad. And stuff.

*wipes brow* There we go. Nick o' time.

 

[Gez]

How can a merciful act be evil ? It means "merciful blow", and the name come from the fact it was used to put an end to the suffering of agonizing people (who weren't going to be healed, anyway).

Of course, in D&D, any cleric may save the life of someone, even with the most cruel wounds, as long as neither poison nor disease is involved (cure minor wounds is all you need).

Anyway, if a coup de grâce is evil, then letting a defeated foe slowly and painfully agonize is then a good act.