Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[green slime]

posted by Rel
Look, I was sort of halfway kidding about the "Kill em' all" notion. I don't really play that way most of the time. I was just positing it as a bit of a "moral safety net" when the party must make an unpleasant decision under less than optimal circumstances.

Fine, That is exactly what I ended up misinterpreting then.

I wasn't suggesting you were morally inferior if you defended yourself. My suggestion was that there are other ways to handle the situation than slaughtering the offenders. Pay a little sum (bridge toll), show of arms, discuss/diplomacy/negotiation. I have no qualms about the killing in battle of a foe. I have qualms about characters that attack everything on site because of a perceived evil. When in fact they are facing something else altogether entirely. Those "bandits" could be Robin Hood.

As an aside, full-time bandits by tradition will not be found in the remotest outreaches of wilderness. They tend to stay relatively close to civilised areas. More prey, more chances to divvy loot and spend it.

And as to bleeding and dying foes after a battle, noone ever bothers IMC to ask about the dying unless they are seeking information. So we sort of gloss over their final breaths. I don't think anyone in my group would take great relish in masacring foes after the fact. We just mostly assume that they are dead. We don't want to roleplay the messy bits of mass murder, just the heroism of defeating worthy opponents.

There is no question about how to respond against an attack. The question arises if you come across a helpless "other". Then the player has to go on other information. If the DM has made it clear that those "others" are always nasty evil do-no-gooders, and offing them is doing the world a power of good, then they should be shown no mercy and given the "blow of mercy"... Should there be any doubt as to the morality of the slaughter, then the good creature creature (IMHO) is more likely to stay their hand and seek further information. The evil creature will do what it perceives as most advantageous to itself. That isn't to say it is always so clear cut.

 

[LokiDR]

I think Pielorinho makes a good point about society. If you killing them is the only way they will be brought to justice, then that is what is best.

I also agree that killing downed foes is something that should be more or less ignored. Assume they die, and don't bother with the messy details. That is what is done in almost every game I run or play.

One last note: punishment should fit the crime. CdG a person for j-walking? No. For attempted robery? Probably not. Only if they end up trying to kill you.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Oh please, this isn't brain surgery here. This is trying to bind wounds so someone doesn't bleed to death. Even a dog knows how to lick his own wounds. The INTENT is to save this person's life, not to harm him further or to preserve him as long as possible so that he continues to feel pain, which is what would equate to torture. By that rule, simply plunging your sword into an opponents flesh as you try and fend him off would also be considered torture.

 

[Pielorinho]

Oh please, this isn't brain surgery here. This is trying to bind wounds so someone doesn't bleed to death. Even a dog knows how to lick his own wounds.

Perhaps not brain surgery, but also not easy, either. A DC 15 heal check cannot be accomplished easily by your average schmoe; without either a Wisdom of 20 or a Heal check of +5, you're likely to fail on any given attempt. You can try multiple times, sure, but you may well fail.

And this is as it should be: if I came across somebody dying of a gut wound, I'm pretty darn sure that I couldn't save their life.

I will grant, however, that this is a red herring: if you're trying to save someone's life, it's silly to call that torture. In a D&D universe, you're correct that CdG is very rarely an act of mercy, but rather is a means of making sure that someone you violently disagree with doesn't have the chance to continue the argument. The morality of the CdG depends on whether you're on the right side of that violent argument.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

The morality of the CdG depends on whether you're on the right side of that violent argument.

A CDG isn't defined as [Evil]. Summoning a Greater Barghest to eat someone's soul, however, is, by the rules, [Evil]

It's so hard to make people stay dead if they have determined friends...

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Hyp,

You only need to take extreem measures if they have 9th level spells, which just throw a whole lot out the window.

A strange question: could a CdG be considered a death effect and prevent people from comming back via raise dead?

 

[Sejs]

A strange question: could a CdG be considered a death effect and prevent people from comming back via raise dead?

Nope.

CdG isn't magical in any way. You could prevent raise dead in other ways though. Like removing the head, or cremation both prevent the spell from working quite handily.

 

[LokiDR]

Nope.

CdG isn't magical in any way. You could prevent raise dead in other ways though. Like removing the head, or cremation both prevent the spell from working quite handily.

I suppose a CdG that deal enough damage to kill would be sufficient to say you have chopped off their head. Thanks.

 

[Pielorinho]

I suppose a CdG that deal enough damage to kill would be sufficient to say you have chopped off their head. Thanks.

We're playing a game now that involves fighting lots of evil cultists. It's become SOP for our party to decapitate all our fallen enemies, to prevent their being raised as zombies or skeletons; when fighting higher muckety-mucks, we try to burn the bodies and scatter the ashes, to prevent raise dead or resurrection.

Grisly work, but there's only so many times you want to face the same guy you killed last week.

Daniel

 

[RigaMortus2]

I am willing to concede to the following. In the "standard" DnD world, CdG is inherently a "neutral" act, that is more often (like 95% of the time) used for Evil purposes/intentions and rarely (like 5% of the time) used for Good purposes/intentions.

(Of course those are just my personal rough estimates. I really can't think of an example/situation where, in a standard DnD world, a CdG is the best recourse. There may be some situations that exist, and if you can think of any, please feel free to list them. I personally can't atm.)

I think the person who feels their only recourse to a situation (ie sleeping fire giants) is to CdG someone, then they are committing a willfully evil act.