Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[Rel]

I think we're gonna have to chalk up another Agree to Disagree, Riga. We're both being kinda intractable in our stances on the subject.


Enjoyed the discussion, though. See ya in another thread.

I'm utterly appalled to see that you are rejecting my eVil-R-Us compromise. Same for RigaMortus.

 

[Pielorinho]

Funny, I think the opposite of you. That your constant assumption is there is no other place to bring them and that death is the only way for them. Personally, I wouldn't want to take the chance in killing them if there WAS a place to take these evil doers instead. You seem to not care. If there is a place to take them, who cares? Just doesn't seem right to me. Different play styles I guess.

Absolutely different play styles, and if you can see that that's all it comes down to (i.e., it's not that we're narrowminded, lack creativity, etc.), we have no disagreement.

I will say that if I play in a world in which there are adequate prisons for dealing with the bad guys, and if taking the time to transport the bad guys to prison isn't going to endanger the lives of innocents, I'd consider it a borderline evil act not to take the bad guys to prison.

However, I've never once played in such a campaign: on the contrary, unless I were playing a member of law enforcement, I wouldn't have much fun in such a campaign. Why, after all, bother bringing villains to justice if the established law enforcement is more efficient at doing so?

See, we just have different views. I would give them the benefit of the doubt and and hope they learned their lessen. That crime doesn't pay. They should be lucky they are alive, because they were at my mercy. Were I some twisted villain, they would not be alive now. Maybe they will think of this next time they try and jump an unsuspecting adventurer.

If I ever encounter a bad guy who I think will reason this way, then (assuming I'm playing a good character), I'll do my damnedest not to kill them.

A character in one game I play in has just signed away her autonomy in a desperate effort to save the lives of two demon-possessed villains: she can't accept that the humans were responsible for the deaths they caused, so she can't kill them, and instead found a powerful group that will attempt an exorcism in exchange for her lifelong loyalty to the group. Believe me, I know the fun of playing a character who pursues redemption.

However, there are plenty of bad guys who aren't going to reason like you suggest, and indeed it'd be folly to expect them to do so. Instead, they'll think, "Sucker who humiliated me is gonna go down!" and get their revenge on you at the next possible occasion.

Good guys aren't the only ones who know how to slit the throats of sleeping enemies.

Faced with the standard stupid-sadist mentality of a hill giant, I would certainly not let the giant free on the assumption that it saw the error of its ways. Once it's attacked me (or worse, attacked an innocent), unless it demonstrates its epiphany tout de suite, it's gonna go down.

It's just a different way of looking at it I suppose. Pessimist vs. Optimist. I think the safer route (safer for your "soul" or you alignment) is to be optimistic and give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they see the error of their ways. You believe they won't see the error of their ways, so you might as well kill them.

And that's what I was trying to get at before. It may be safer for your soul to let them go free, but it'll be a lot safer for everyone else if you kill them. (Again, I'm assuming that they've committed heinous acts in the past, and that you have no reason to believe they'll change their ways -- if you think there's a good chance for them to reform, that's different).

IMC, a character so concerned with her soul's purity that she'd risk the lives of innocent people to protect her purity would not be considered very good; instead, she'd be considered dangerously naive and selfish, narcissistic. Borderline evil.

"An enemy deserves no mercy. Mercy is for the weak. A man confronts you on the street, in competition, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy." - Sense Kreese, "The Karate Kid"

Cute quote. If the quote applied, it would say, "An enemy WHO WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE deserves no mercy. Mercy is for the INNOCENT. A man KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE, he is the enemy. An enemy WHO WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE deserves no mercy."

Daniel

 

[Shalewind]

Ah! I just have to get in on this one. To state right off

1) DnD seems to favor absolute morality. You don't have to play like this and it is worth mentioning that the core books ARE VAUGE on what is evil and what is not.

2) I think we have established the CdG is not the issue, but rather killing is.

Let me put out a couple of situations here that are short and simple and carry a point.

A soldier on the field of battle kills one trooper and then moves on, it is the way of combat. People might view war as evil, but it is common consenus that the actions of a soilder are not. In field combat if you cripple a foe, you kill him. Why? Because if you don't he will likely get up and kill you. This is were Mercy Blow actually makes sense. If you knock a man down or unconsious, you run him through. This isn't evil, it's war... and CdG...

If stealth of importance, killing a downed foe or killing via a CdG is not neccessarily evil. Take special forces operatives for instance. Are all SF guys evil simply because they kill people in unfair combat? The answer is of course no. SEALS moving in to save a hostage that kill terrorists in their sleep are not evil.

So all things gets mixed up with fantasy. Pursuing and killing a foe via effective and deadly means is not always an evil act. A good person is well within his rights to kill a helpless and powerful foe if it is the only way to proceed with the safety of his comrades and country on the line.

And the most important thing of all to remember is that DnD doesn't WANT to focus on the alignment issue. If they did you would hear far more about it in the core books. DnD is about adventure, killing monsters, and saving people. The game looses some flare (especially to the younger people) if it is a morale deliema everytime someone encounters "evil" creatures.

And one final note: If you say that adeventures are not the enforcers I disagree entirely... PCs are THE means of order and right in the order. They "set right what once went wrong", they fix the evil problems and deal with the bad guys. That is their job. They are the highest form of marshalls and such. In the TYPICAL campaign. Warning: Results may vary with your own DM and setting.

 

[LokiDR]

And the most important thing of all to remember is that DnD doesn't WANT to focus on the alignment issue. If they did you would hear far more about it in the core books. DnD is about adventure, killing monsters, and saving people. The game looses some flare (especially to the younger people) if it is a morale deliema everytime someone encounters "evil" creatures.

On that, I think we can all agree.

But I think the game does make sort of provision for a "punisher" kind of character. Not good, not all that heroic, but not evil. Role playing the confilict not to just slaughter a person you susspect but have no real evidence on (turn to the dark side as it were) can be interesting.

 

[Rel]

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.

With your permission, RigaMortus, I'm stealing this idea for my next campaign. I haven't decided yet, but I'm calling it either:

Tattle-Tales of the Forgotten Realms

or

Snitches of the Purple Sage

 

[Azlan]

A coup de grace is not necessarily evil, but it is viewed as shamefully or even criminally dishonerable by those cultures, creeds, or professions that hold honor in utmost regard. (I'm using generalizations, here. The true morality of a coup de grace, of course, depends on the current situation and the mitigating circumstances.)

But, then, what is honor? One culture's honor might be another's disgrace. And, anway, you don't have to be good to be honorable. Lawful evil villains can be honorable.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Rigamortus, my whoopsie widdle snugglemuffin, I'm not going to compare ages with you. Except to tell you, junior, that I'd have a lot more respect for both your attitude and your (in my view excluded-middle) morality if you were fourteen years old. If you've reached 27 without understanding the subtleties and no-win nature of formulating an ethos, it's a lot harder for me to respect that.

Just as you're in no position to pretend that you're just returning pomposity where you found it, you're in no position to complain about other people twisting your words around. You keep depicting your opponents' campaigns as simple hackenslash, in which PCs kill first and ask questions later. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in my case.

Furthermore, your calls for civility in this discussion are as laudable as they are laughable. Throughout this discussion, you've mocked people for playing evil campaigns, called them narrow-minded and uncreative, and generally insulted the bejeesus out of folks from up on your high horse. If you want the discussion to be civil, you owe us an apology, and then you need to knock it off with the condescension and holier-than-thou attitude. Laying into me with a post full of sneers and putdowns, and then saying, "Let's try to keep this civil," is just a wee little bit hypocritical.

That said, I'll lay off further insults if you will.

Well. There were a lot of big words in there, so I'm not sure if an insult was snuck in there or not. Anyway... Things you took as insults honestly were not (until the point I felt I was being insulted). They were meant jokingly at best, and sarcastic at worst. The only apology I will give is that I am sorry you took what I said as an insult, when I didn't intend it to be. I will also apologize for my lack of "thinking up something better" to say. For example, instead of using the word "narrow-minded" in my post (which I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone in particular) I could have phrased it better than that with a less insulting word (insulting as you took it, not as I meant it). I tried to explain what I meant by that. That people seemed to take the easy way out (kill stuff) rather than take time to think of other alternatives. I basically wanted to say that sentenace in 1 or 2 words, what I came up with was "narrow-minded". My bad if you took it as an insult, it was meant that way.

" in which PCs kill first and ask questions later"

Now this I want to bring special attention to. I don't see how this could be taken as an insult. This was my observation, and I stand by it 100% ONLY from the descriptions people have been posting here. To ME, it seems that people who are in favor of killing "evil" just because they are evil and deserve to die are killing first and asking questions later. That is just how I see it. Sorry if you disagree.

That being said, I'll stop (at least try to) with the insults as well. But be warned, I fully plan to joke when I want to make a funny, or be sarcastic with no ill-intent in mind.

***********

SNIP

Daniel

I see where you are coming from. The cultist fall into the second category of evil, as in "actively seeking it". So there is no question that they aren't evil. The question then becomes, "how do we, the good guys, deal with them." I won't give any critisim because (a) I don't want you to think I am insulting you and (b) there really isn't any. You said you try other methods (negotions) and you mentioned how you don't kill those that surrendered. The fact of the matter is, these are evil beings and you KNOW they are up to no good. You mention that taking them to a dungeon or what not is no plausable. So what other recourse do you have? If you don't think you have any other recourse, then you got to do what you got to do.

The only thing I am iffy about is when you say you execute the cultist. As a "Good" person I don't know if I would do that. But as you said, what else can you do? Tie them up and leave them? How many times will you have to do this? Eventually you'll run out of rope.

As far as the barghest and what not. This falls under my "usually evil or always evil" category. In this case, it happens to be true. They are evil, and you know why they are evil (they are working with cultist). You've given very good background. Now these sleeping fire giants. There are just too many questions unanswered to go up to them and CdG them.

What race are these cultists? Human? Let's say they are. Let's say you come up to a camp of sleeping humans in black robes that bear unholy symbols and marks. You do not KNOW if they are cultists or not (although they are dressed like it). Do you just go up and CdG them? I would say not. The sleeping giants are the same. They appear evil (because they are fire giants and by default people think they are all evil, just as the humans appear evil because they are wearing unholy marks), but you do not know if they are fire giant cultist or fire giants sent out to make a new life for themselves because they didn't share the same views as their brethern. They may still be evil, but are trying and willing to turn over a new leaf (Good to Evil, and Evil to Good don't happen over night, it may take them some time to realize all the wrong they caused in the past. "I am sorry for killing indiscriminently, but are you sure it is wrong of me to own slaves?"). Just as you don't know if the humans are really evil cultist, or people Good adventurers who are using this disguise to infiltrate their stronghold (just like you).

 

[LokiDR]

A coup de grace is not neccasrily evil, but it is often viewed as shamefully or even criminally dishonerable by cultures, creeds, or professions that hold honor in utmost regard. (I'm using generalizations, here. The true morality of a coup de grace, of course, depends on the current situation and the mitigating circumstances.)

But, then, what is honor? One culture's honor might be another's disgrace. And, anway, you don't have to be good to be honorable. Lawful evil villains can be honorable.

Honor is a matter of Law vs Chaos on the D&D alignment. CdG means taking matters into your own hands. It ignores, in most cases, any concept of honor. It is a chaotic, and neutral thing to do. This is not the same as evil.

 

[Gizzard]

OK, let me head off in a different direction and see if it goes anywhere. ;-)

There's an Asian philosophy which teaches that if you save a man's life you are responsible for him. His life would have ended at a certain point, but meddlesome ol' you stepped in and took an action that you cannot see the consequences of. If the saved man does a good thing in the future, you brought that good thing about by your action. But if he does evil, you also brought that about.

The point here is that both action and inaction have their consequences.

So, if I turn the Held Assassin over to the authorities instead of CdG'ing him, am I responsible for the evil he will commit in the future? I feel like I have to weigh the possibilities carefully because there will be repercussions from my actions whichever I choose.

But it seems that the meaning of the act follows from the intent of the one who does it. If I am a Paladin of Tyr why can't I simply judge the Assassin and execute him with a CdG while remaining LG? The Paladin does not kill for his own benefit, he looks at the Assassin as a proven force for evil which must be removed. And as a servant of Tyr, the Paladin is just the man to dispense justice in that form.

Sure, you can concoct a nutty scenario where the Paladin is wrong, but for everyone one of those I can turn it around and add on something that makes him right. Like I said at the beginning, to not slay an evildoer carries as many repercussions as slaying him.

 

[LokiDR]

I am starting to feel ignored.

The only thing I am iffy about is when you say you execute the cultist. As a "Good" person I don't know if I would do that. But as you said, what else can you do? Tie them up and leave them? How many times will you have to do this? Eventually you'll run out of rope.

A person can not be "Good" and also not be "Evil".

I keep repeating this, but I don't think you are listening.