Is kicking a helpless offender unconscious brutal?

[Pielorinho]

Yeah, well, a high-level assassin doesn't go down to a couple kicks to the head in D&D. Even a high level mage doesn't. Too many hit points. Either the assassin wasn't as threatening as you thought, or you got the wrong guy. Anything that falls to a couple shots from a boot isnt "the most lethal thing he came across".

This is a fair point. Note, though, that if the DM was (mis)ruling that a pinned character is helpless, he may have been allowing a nonlethal coup de grace, which may be reasonably attempted against even high-level enemies.

However, if you're right--if the PCs didn't really believe that they were facing a dangerous foe, and if the PCs believed they could safely subdue their opponent without the use of nonlethal force--then I'd consider the action to fall a lot closer to the evil end of the scale. That hadn't really occurred to me.

Sellars?

Daniel

 

[Arnwyn]

Sure it was brutal. But with the population carrying a myriad of weapons surrounded by hungry monsters of all sorts, well... it's a brutal world.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

The question is: Was the head kicking brutal?

The Answer is: Yes, it was.

But I think anyone with blood in his/her veins would be a very scared and tense when someone try to kill you with a basket of scorpions, specially when you have a good reason to think this person is a highly skilled assassin. Therefore, such action( brutal kicking until the menace is inert) is perfectly understandable. Not the rightest thing to do, but only a very judgemental( this word exist?) person would call a person evil for using this method when his live was in danger.

And thinking about hit points and "two kicks would not subdue a high-level assassin" is metagaming.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, well, a high-level assassin doesn't go down to a couple kicks to the head in D&D. Even a high level mage doesn't. Too many hit points. Either the assassin wasn't as threatening as you thought, or you got the wrong guy. Anything that falls to a couple shots from a boot isnt "the most lethal thing he came across".

The ting that gets me is this - you actually believed he might be that dangerous, and you only used your boot as a weapon? Your belief in the potential danger is not matched by your actions.

I completely disagree. I think grappling and beating a would-be assassin, even a dangerous one, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Stabbing the assassin to death in a shop is guaranteed to bring the local constables down on the PCs' heads even if the assassin tossed in a basket of scorpions. There will be some kind of investigation that the PCs might not want for a variety of reasons.
It's also perfectly reasonable, outside of town, to do so assuming you want to question the perp. Dead perps aren't all that easy to interrogate.
Now that he's unconscious, maybe the PCs will think "Hey, he's not so tough." Or at least that he has a glass jaw and is probably not the main assassin. But thinking that he can't be the main villain just because it took only a couple of blows based on assumptions about hit points? Definitely metagaming and should be avoided.

 

[takyris]

I think, as others have said, that the only reason it sounds brutal is that righteously slaying the assassin makes it pretty obvious that this is a fantasy game, while kicking him in the head is something we can imagine happening in real-life police videos.

Doing what you did, especially after your DM said, "No, this is how you should do it nonlethally," isn't particularly brutal. He tried to kill you, and you knocked him out. Hey, if you've got him pinned, kicking is smarter than punching, anyway -- you don't have to bend down, and you can put a good stomp into it. And I wouldn't trust that anyone who can get his hands on a box full of scorpions isn't going to able to wriggle out of some ropes -- the dude might well have a poisoned dagger secreted on his person.

If you were a paladin, I'd tell you to use different flavor text, but I'd still fundamentally support your actions. "We apologize for the necessity (whack) of rendering you unconscious (whack), but your actions have (swat) led us to believe that you may have hidden (thud) assassin's tools about your person."

 

[sellars]

Wow! I had no idea that people would react so heated in a discussion like this. I remember a fair amount of discussions (for instance the paladin thread in which he was taken away his powers).

So I thought that this would make a nice dicussion. Sorry if it didn't.

If it helps, I don't usually play evil characters, since this is my first one. In another campaign I play a CG character, and the guy playing the bard plays a character with clear evil tendencies. In our groups this (usually) works, and leads to interesting discussion, both in character as out character. It is not about playing an evil campaign, or playing it "gritty", we have the 8 'o clock news for that. It is about putting yourself in moral dillemmas and debating about that. Call it a thought experiment, things philosophers have been toying with for centuries. I understand that that is not everybody's cup of tea, but there should be no hard feelings in the discussion.

This thread wasn't created to glorify violence or evil, quite on the contrary. It was intended to discuss the consequences of violence. In our campaign violence, (not only killing people/creatures) has consequences.

Telling in pretty words that you spill a foe's guts on the floor isn't going to make the act anymore better. And in our "gritty" campaign there is almost NO killing being done. Only when it is absolutely neccessary. Again, that is a different style of playing, but please don't get angry at other people for their style.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.

Peace,
Roel

 

[sellars]

This is a fair point. Note, though, that if the DM was (mis)ruling that a pinned character is helpless, he may have been allowing a nonlethal coup de grace, which may be reasonably attempted against even high-level enemies.

However, if you're right--if the PCs didn't really believe that they were facing a dangerous foe, and if the PCs believed they could safely subdue their opponent without the use of nonlethal force--then I'd consider the action to fall a lot closer to the evil end of the scale. That hadn't really occurred to me.

Sellars?

Daniel

At that time we were actually convinced we found the assassin that was sent after us. We were surprised he got unconscious after 2 rounds. It was but then that we realised it couln't have been the real deal. That's why I call the scorpion-guy helpless. He was pinned during the time he got knocked unconscious. Of course he could have broken the pin those 2 rounds, but he didn't.

 

[Henry]

Wow! I had no idea that people would react so heated in a discussion like this. I remember a fair amount of discussions (for instance the paladin thread in which he was taken away his powers).
So I thought that this would make a nice dicussion. Sorry if it didn't.

Actually, I think it made a great discussion. Look at it this way: Out of the scores of threads we moderators read every day, you got two of us interested in contributing to it. I don't see anyone being insulting, but it's an interesting topic and therefore takes may be a little heated. "Heated" is okay; "you are an expletive deleted for playing this character this way" is not.

I've read of Paladins who punched treacherous Dryads in the nose for their duplicity instead of hacking them to bits; this character's actions were actually quite tame to me. Were I playing a LE character, I would have at least broken his dominant arm before questioning him, and them dumping him in the street. IF I left him to be found at all.

 

[Zappo]

I recall lots of action movies where the hero whacks an opponent unconscious (typically a guard or other mook) with a swift blow to the head. D&D doesn't have a similar mechanic; in most cases, you need lots of hits to make someone unconscious. Unless the DM rules that the character can whack the assassin unconscious in one hit, a brutal beating sounds like the only choice.

 

[Umbran]

I completely disagree. I think grappling and beating a would-be assassin, even a dangerous one, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Well, so far you aren't disagreeing with me. I never said it was an unreasonable action. Reasonable and brutal are not necessarily mutually exclusive, depending upon your moral code.

the assassin to death in a shop is guaranteed to bring the local constables down on the PCs' heads even if the assassin tossed in a basket of scorpions. There will be some kind of investigation that the PCs might not want for a variety of reasons.

Avoidance of an awkward investigation isn't exactly a high moral stance

At that time we were actually convinced we found the assassin that was sent after us.

They why on earth did you kick him? Even assuming that you had no magical solution to hand - fists and feet do lousy damage, unless you happen to be a monk. If you really felt that he was that dangerous, but didn't want to kill him outright, you should have used your normal weapons to do nonlethal damage. You take a negative on your to-hit roll, but they guy is pinned down and not going to be dodging much. Hitting should be easy.

Even more smart would have been to take away some of his hit points first using a weapon normally, and after thus softening him up, you deal a nonlethal blow or two to take him down. This makes him far easier to take down later, if you need to.

So, you were using far less than optimal tactics against a supposedly dangerous foe. Why then shouldn't the bard figure you were doing it because it was fun to kick someone when they were down?