Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[Pielorinho]

This quesiton has come up in several threads, hijacking other interesting conversations. I'm starting a dedicated thread to this topic, so that it can stay here.

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. If anyone has any RULES-BASED evidence (considering that this is the rules forum) for arguing that it's an evil act, please post it below.

Daniel

edit: coup de gras? what the heck are you talking about, kid? I'd NEVER make such an embarrassing mistake in my foreign language!

Estoy embarasado.

 

[andargor]

Coup de gras? ("Blow of fat"?)

Oh. You mean coup de grâce! ("Blow of Mercy")

Well, I guess it is very dependent on the context. In my latest "party tactics" thread, I asked if our LN cleric performed an evil act when he killed an unconscious enemy sentinel.

In his case, he was our leader, he had lawful authority by the government, and the situation called for stealth. So, in that specific case, it was judged that it wasn't.

Andargor

 

[Alchemist]

Is killing something that dosen't have a fighting chance inherently evil? If so, what about that fly you smooshed earlier? It certainly didn't have a chance...

Are snipers inherently evil?

It may not be honourable to CDG an opponent, but I don't think it's evil.

 

[Drawmack]

I would argue that it depends on the situation and actually simply deals with killing in general and is not related to the means of execusion.

If you would view what the character is doing as evil, without the CdG added in then it is evil. For example:

You are just strolling through the woods with your band of hearty adventurers when you hear a huge ruccous coming down the path. You all hide and see 2 fire giants, 4 ogres and 2 dire wolves march by giving the appearance of a military party. You decide to stalk them and kill the fire giants when the first opportunity presents itself.

This is an evil act, because the characters do not know what the fire giants are up to. There are any number of reasons for those giants to be there that do not deserve retaliation on the part of the PCs. By stalking and killing these fire giants the PCs are showing nothing short of cold-blooded racism.

If we add into this equation that the local human populace is currently at war with fire giants then we have a situation that has changed dramatically.

Since the (demi-)humans are at war with the fire giants and the PCs, presumably, belong to this group then they are killing the enemy in an act of war which is not in an of itself an evil act.

If, instead, we state that the fire giants are marching through the frozen wastes of a mountain range the situation changes drastically again.

What has happened now is that the fire giants, ogres and wolves are all removed from the natural habitat, we must assume that there is some reason for this removal. That reason could likely be that this group did not fit in with their civilization and therefor struck out on their own to create a new civilization. Maybe these are peace loving, poetry writting fire giants and ogres. OTOH these could also be a scouting group taking a letter of alegiance to the frost giants so that the frost and fire giants can team up on the (demi-)humans to wage war. However, since the PCs do not have enough information to know what is going on then killing the fire giants is an act of cold blooded racism.

 

[Pielorinho]

Drawmack, I think that's an excellent analysis, with one caveat: different campaigns interpret the "usually" alignments differently.

IMC, characters who engage in indiscriminate killing of other creatures based on their species are in for a world of angst. But other campaigns take the "usually evil" to mean, "most tribes of these creatures are evil."

Furthermore, a group may not be engaged in a formal war, but rather may have a centuries-old history of hostilities. If since time immemorial giants have been coming out of the hills to pick up a few villagers for their stewpots, and if there are no recorded cases of giants coming out of the hills to play pattycake with villagers, then adventurers might be justified in killing the fire giants in a sneaky raid. Especially if the adventurers are much less powerful than the giants, and especially if the giants are very close to being able to kill innocent people.

In closing, I'll point out that our fictional accounts of giant-killers generally rely on using trickiness to off the brutes: Jack the Giant-Killer would dig pits, disguise himself, perform lethal pranks, or slit the giant's throats as they slept. He was certainly a folk-hero. Not a King Arthur, but I don't think the storytellers would've considered him as evil.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

If coup de grace is french for "merciful blow", then how can it be evil? Then again, I think the meaning has changed since it first came into being.

As for what the action being evil in D&D, I would look at the circumstances, as others have said. A good character tries stop injustice. Legally, the local athorities should deal with the matter. If you can't bring them into the local athorities (or just perfer to deal with it yourself), then the punishment should fit the crime. If they attacked you unprovoked and failed, death is an appropriate punishment for attempted murder.

Justice and honor are not the same thing, however. CdG is not honorable unless the person will not survive (merciful blow). Since D&D magic can cure anything, CdG isn't a honorable thing to. If you wanted them out of your way, you could just knock them unconcious, after beating them down.

In other words, CdG seems to be a choatic act in most cases, taking matters into your own hands. Good and evil are more reserved for why you are killing them in first place. It could just be an execution of a criminal.

 

[Rel]

In closing, I'll point out that our fictional accounts of giant-killers generally rely on using trickiness to off the brutes: Jack the Giant-Killer would dig pits, disguise himself, perform lethal pranks, or slit the giant's throats as they slept. He was certainly a folk-hero. Not a King Arthur, but I don't think the storytellers would've considered him as evil.

Daniel

Likewise: David -> Goliath (Not coup de grace of course, but not honorable either.)

 

[niteshade6]

To address the original question, I don't think there is any way to argue that there is any rules based evidence that CDG is an evil act. The actual definition of good and evil acts are usualy left fairly open by the core rules, with a few exceptions such as channeling negative energy. CDG is not one of these exceptions, so there is no rules based evidence indicating it as an evil act.

On the flip side there is no rules based evidence that it's NOT an evil act as well. The same logic applies, and it's really up to the individual DM. While I would strongly disagree with somebody who did make it an evil act, my disagreement would not be based on the rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Are snipers inherently evil?

Good question. According to WotC, it looks like Assassins are inherently evil.

PS - I am refering to their Prestige Class, which you must be EVIL to qualify for.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If coup de grace is french for "merciful blow", then how can it be evil? Then again, I think the meaning has changed since it first came into being.

Because a coup de grace was generally given to an enemy who was mortally wounded. Rather than have them suffer and die a painful death, they would be put out of their misery. Thus, a coup de grace.

However, in a world where magic can heal any wound, regenerate any limb and flat out bring someone back from the dead, it is hard to justify a coup de grace.

The actual definition of good and evil acts are usualy left fairly open by the core rules, with a few exceptions such as channeling negative energy.

I am pretty sure that the act of chanelling negative energy is not an evil act. Inflict Wounds uses negative energy, but it does not have an [evil] descriptor.