Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[LokiDR]

My party ended up fighting the same woman more than 5 times and killed her twice. Once she came back as a Crypt Spawn (FR) and the next time as a vampire. They eventually let her join their flying ship, just so she wouldn't keep trying to kill them.

Silly PC's, not burning the body.

 

[Pielorinho]

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.

Please quote rules to support this definition of evil, and please feel free to respond to my previous question: namely, what good, effective, and sound alternatives would Tom's party of third-level characters have had when faced with a (stipulated malevolent) party of ogres and giants?

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

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.

If you CdG a foe who attacked you unprovoked, it is NOT evil.

If you CdG a sleeping entity who is known to have committed a grievous crime, it is NOT evil.

If you CdG an entity because they are a member of "always evil" race, it is NOT evil.

If you CdG an enemy in the middle of combat to prevent them from standing up and continuing the fight, it is NOT evil.

If you CdG a sleeping giant that could well be perfectly innocent, even if unlikely, it is racism and IS evil.

I see 1-4 happening a lot more often than 5.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If you CdG a foe who attacked you unprovoked, it is NOT evil.

Using this logic: A known Thief is walking down the street. The authorities spot him and give chase, telling him to stop. He runs, because he doesn't want to go to jail. The authorities catch up to him and tackle (ie grapple) him to keep him from escaping. Since the authorities "attacked" the Thief, he is now within his rights to defend himself, knock out the authorities and then CdG them?

If you CdG a sleeping entity who is known to have committed a grievous crime, it is NOT evil.

Owning slaves is a grevous crime. Should all slave owners be killed? Is there no other "justice" for them other than death? This also assumes you KNOW that they committed the crime, that they willfully did it (wasn't under a Geas), and a whole bunch of other factors.

If you CdG an entity because they are a member of "always evil" race, it is NOT evil.

IMC there is no such thing as an "always evil" race. That is the great thing about originallity and creativity. You can shy away from the oh-so-strict rules in the Core Books and happen upon that CG demon or LE celestial.

If you CdG an enemy in the middle of combat to prevent them from standing up and continuing the fight, it is NOT evil.

*sigh* sure it is. They were no longer a threat, that is just overkill. You had no reason to do it other than to end it's life. A Good course of action would be to bind their wounds and tie them up. An Evil course would be to do just as you described.

If you CdG a sleeping giant that could well be perfectly innocent, even if unlikely, it is racism and IS evil.

Wow, found something we agree on. Of course the same goes with this as well. You may not KNOW if they are innocent. I think it's better to be safe and give the benefit of the doubt, rather than to act rashly and often evily.

I see 1-4 happening a lot more often than 5.

Yup, and those actions are all just as "evil".

Please take a look again at the PHB descriptions of Good and Evil, and tell me which alignment is the one that promotes killing, and which one shys away from it because they respect life.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Please quote rules to support this definition of evil, and please feel free to respond to my previous question: namely, what good, effective, and sound alternatives would Tom's party of third-level characters have had when faced with a (stipulated malevolent) party of ogres and giants?

Daniel

I was in the middle of answering this yesterday when the boards took a dump. Luckily I saved what I wrote on my home PC. So when I get home, I'll reply.

 

[Sejs]

If you get jumped by an assassin, Hold Person them, and CdG them the next round - it's not evil.

^_^

 

[Sejs]

Using this logic: A known Thief is walking down the street. The authorities spot him and give chase, telling him to stop. He runs, because he doesn't want to go to jail. The authorities catch up to him and tackle (ie grapple) him to keep him from escaping. Since the authorities "attacked" the Thief, he is now within his rights to defend himself, knock out the authorities and then CdG them?

You're mixing up Law/Chaos with Good/Evil. It wouldn't be Lawful of him to do so necessarily, but good and evil don't enter into the example you've posted - could go either way depending on the thief. It could be Robin Hood killing some of the Sherrif's guardsmen who've been known to burn down villiages that didn't pay their exhorbitant taxes, or gang-rape barmaids. It just as eaily could be a mass murderer that the guardsmen captured. Even the law/chaos thing is shaky - just because someone is currently in power doesn't make everything they do or enforce lawful.

Owning slaves is a grevous crime. Should all slave owners be killed? Is there no other "justice" for them other than death? This also assumes you KNOW that they committed the crime, that they willfully did it (wasn't under a Geas), and a whole bunch of other factors.

Law/Chaos again. Also depends heavily on the society and the indivual owner. Say we live in a roman style civilization where slave ownership is legal. It is then not a crime. Heck, if I treat my slaves like valued employees, with respect and difference and maintain them in a comfortable environment because I believe in maintaining my slaves in better conditions than they would have if left to their own devices it may well not even be an -evil- act. It could be good.

IMC there is no such thing as an "always evil" race. That is the great thing about originallity and creativity. You can shy away from the oh-so-strict rules in the Core Books and happen upon that CG demon or LE celestial.

Different strokes for different folks. In my campaign outsiders are made of the belief that spawned them - anthropomorphic personification - their alignment is inherrant to their form. If a celestial were to fall, they'd stop being a celestial. They'd lose their [good] tag, their powers would mutate, and they would undergo physical changes to reflect their new state. Similarly with a devil that ascended to grace. In my games, 99% of outsiders wear their alignment on their sleeve so to speak.

*sigh* sure it is. They were no longer a threat, that is just overkill. You had no reason to do it other than to end it's life. A Good course of action would be to bind their wounds and tie them up. An Evil course would be to do just as you described.

I disagree with you. Would it be evil to Hold Person then CdG them? They're not a threat while held and I had no reason to CdG them other than to end their life. Do good people when they Hold an opponent have to wait around until the spell wears off to respond? Or do they just have to tie people up and deposit them to the 'proper authorities'? What if there -are- no proper authorities?

 

[RigaMortus]

When you say you don't intend that as an insult -- well, sure you do. Else
you're doing a piss-poor job of not being insulting. At least live up to
your own self-righteousness, man.

I am so glad you are here to read my mind and intentions I didn't
intend for it to be an insult, but I didn't know how to word what I was
trying to say.

As I recall, last time I asked you to enumerate the alternatives to slaying
the evildoers or imprisoning them, you bizarrely listed a bunch of tricky
ways to slay the evildoers.

You recall incorrectly. That was another poster. If my position was
against out-right killing them if at all possible, why would I try and come
up with some convuluted other way to kill them?

Not, in my book, an alternative to slaying them. So I ask you again: using
the fire giants as an example, and assuming the party has solid reasons to
believe the fire giants are evil, what sound strategies does a third level
party have for dealing with the giants that don't result in their death or
imprisonment?

Show us that vaunted creativity of yours; help those of us that aren't
creative enough.

Daniel

I never gave a clear answer because the original poster (and now you) never
gave any other specifics? So since you failed to do so, I am going to have
to make some assumptions here on my own to adequately answer you.

1) The third level party knows that they are out matched and out class with
these fire giants. Instead of doing something evil (killing them in their
sleep) or stupid (waking them up, and challening them to a dual), they try
and track down people who CAN deal with these things. That would be, higher
level adventurers (NPCs most likely). Since I have no further background
information, I will assume level 20 NPCs do exist in this campaign world.

2) They could watch them, take notes, and then warn the surrounding villages
of the dangers so that they can make preparations for a possible fire giant
invasion. Since I have no other background information, I will assume there
is a local populance to warn.

3) If they are feeling extremely brave, they could try and create a
diversion and lead the fire giants AWAY from the local populance.

4) If they are confident in their negotations abilities, they can try to
reason with them or barter with them. Of course, if your DM is the kind of
person who plays evil NPCs as "kill first, ask questions later" then this
might not be viable. If, on the other hand, they play that even the most
vile person will give you a chance to speak before they cut your throat, you
might be able to get away with this. Only you know your DMs play style when
it comes to these things.

I hope 4 ideas will suffice for now, especialliy given the severe lack of
"background" information one needs to make such decisions. So, do you have
the other players "think" for you during game sessions also? If you detect
a pompus attitude, it is only because I am returning it back to you.

Cheers mate!
(And I'm not even Australian)

 

[Rel]

I'll just be honest with you RigaMortus, this last post of yours is making it extremely difficult to take your opinions on this matter seriously.

Using this logic: A known Thief is walking down the street. The authorities spot him and give chase, telling him to stop. He runs, because he doesn't want to go to jail. The authorities catch up to him and tackle (ie grapple) him to keep him from escaping. Since the authorities "attacked" the Thief, he is now within his rights to defend himself, knock out the authorities and then CdG them?

Don't be silly. The authorities in this case were acting in a rightful, legal manner. The are NOT analogous to bandits jumping out of the bushes and attacking you without provocation or warning in an attempt to rob you.

If the authorities managed to knock out the Thief during the scuffle and THEY CdG'd HIM then I think you could make a good case that they were acting in an Evil (or at least unlawful) manner.

Owning slaves is a grevous crime. Should all slave owners be killed? Is there no other "justice" for them other than death? This also assumes you KNOW that they committed the crime, that they willfully did it (wasn't under a Geas), and a whole bunch of other factors.

Nobody is suggesting that there aren't other factors to consider. Yes, contrived though it may be, your Geased slaveowner is perhaps entitled to a lesser punishment than death. So what. In general, depriving an innocent person of thier freedom for your own profit and benefit is Evil. Those who kill such slaveowners are NOT.

IMC there is no such thing as an "always evil" race. That is the great thing about originallity and creativity. You can shy away from the oh-so-strict rules in the Core Books and happen upon that CG demon or LE celestial.

Dandy. In the standard D&D game (the one that the Rules are built to support) the vast majority of creatures with the "always evil" descriptor in their alignment are of that alignment. Ergo, if you are on the 8th level of Hell and you "CdG first and ask questions later" you are probably not at risk of losing your Good alignment.

Nice backhanded insult about us not being original and creative though. Appreciate that.

*sigh* sure it is. They were no longer a threat, that is just overkill. You had no reason to do it other than to end it's life. A Good course of action would be to bind their wounds and tie them up. An Evil course would be to do just as you described.

As you were so quick to point out earlier, the vast prevalence of healing magic in the standard D&D world makes the "Blow of Mercy" a rather moot concept. It also means that if you put a dangerous foe out of the fight that it is relatively easy for one of his comerades to heal him enough to rejoin the fight in fairly short order. How would you feel if you forewent an opportunity to CdG a foe who was down who later got healed back up and killed a fellow party member or, worse yet, an innocent bystander?

All of this makes me wonder: Do you require that PC's be Good in your campaigns? Or are you just as happy if they make Neutral or even Evil characters. Because it seems that your standard for Good is almost impossibly high. If most of the characters are good, I can only imagine that they spend a great deal of time and resources healing their enemies and then debating on the proper punishment for them and ultimately dragging them off to some authorities who are hopefully not too distant.

In closing, I'll just say that if my various suppositions in the previous paragraph are true then I have absolutely no problem with it. Your game, your rules. But you seem determined to argue everybody else into agreeing with your version when the rules simply don't support it. I don't think that's going to work.

 

[CmdrSam]

(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.)

You're fighting the most powerful, evilest sorceror in the world. You know you have absolutely no chance -- you're a relatively inexperienced wizard who just cast his first fireball yesterday, and this sorceror has been slamming your town with meteor swarms left and right for the past month. You know he could kill you with one Power Word if he had the opportunity.

But you saw him strolling down the road, and with an awful lot of luck, got off a successful Hold spell on him. Now he's standing there, totally helpless for a few short seconds, and you have a knife at your belt. If he comes out of the Hold, he'll kill you and everyone in your town. You can end this war right here with one swift coup de grace.

--Sam L-L