Should CE monsters always Coup de grace?

[bret]

I can see a CE doing a CDG to 'take someone with them.' That is different than always doing a CDG.

By my reading of the alignments, the Chaotic should be more concerned with who the individual is and their relationship with them than most other concerns. Even when it might make sense tactically to CDG them (the opposing cleric keeps using heal on downed foes), if all that the chaotic character wants is a one-on-one fight with a certain opponent ('Get out of my way, you flees! I've no time to deal with the likes of you, it is Sir Dunderhead I'm interested in!') then they are not going to take the CDG.

Notice that the above paragraph applies to CN or CG as well.

Personally, I would seldom have an NPC start CDGing opponents unless the other side has started taking extreme measures. Extreme measures could include things like beheading slain opponents and taking their heads (so they can't be raised), CDGing at every opportunity, or excessive Teleportation attacks and you've got a chance at the teleporting mage.

 

[clark411]

I wouldn't set it down that an Alignment always did a CDG... but the motives of some specific creatures in your world may suggest CDGs. I always had skeletons CDG people, as they were mindless harbingers of undeath's hatred of life (and a person at -1 is still alive.)

 

[Emirikol]

I'd say the chaotic evil villians would be more likely to keep the characters alive and gloat or torture them or what-have-you.

I think that torture of remaining characters (unconcious) would be more likely of a Lawful Evil character.

I see chaotic evil as pure berzerk malice. If they are going to fight to the death, they're going to take as many with them as possible. That doesn't mean knock out (to 0) a variety of party members, they would instead murder as many as possible.

Neutral evil npc's/monsters would be the most likely to just try to take people to unconcious indiscriminantly. He would be the one that would kill them later, rather than coup de grace early.

jh

 

[Creamsteak]

Cthulhu is Chaotic Evil I suppose. I think that after he removes something that could vaguely be considered threatening, he would just move on. So the answer to your True/False "Always CDG" question must be false...

 

[geezerjoe]

Personally I'd think that a CE person/creature would do whatever it felt like at the moment. Sometimes killing out right, sometimes letting a foe live to wallow in defeat, and sometimes leaving it to chance by summoning a couple of 1 HD small animals to finish the job ... or not. Who knows?

I really hate alignments. It seems like they are often confused with personalities to the point that the alignment is the personality. I really think that a character's take on his alignment should be shaped (but not defined) by that character's personality not the other way around (unless the character/monster was trying to reform or change alignment maybe).

So if a character/monster's personality is the type that likes to kill and torture and leave no living creature behind then a CE would probably always or almost always do just that. Granted some alignments are much more suited for certain personality types, but I don't think one rules / defines the other.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Joe2Old

 

[Mach2.5]

Not to derail this train, but I find it interesting to see how many people view the chaotic alignment. There are several people who have posted with a view that chaotic means randomness (the post above about rolling a die). Chaotic is not random acts of good/evil. Chaotic is a view about how an individual fits into society and how an individual views his or her place in it. Chaotic beings are still intelligent, still act within normal thinking boundaries. As others have already said, they'll do what they need to do to survive, just as a lawful being would. A chaotic evil slaver isn't going to coup de grace a potential bit of profit, nor would a die roll determine that he simply walk away. A chaotic evil wizard facing down intruders in his castle might very well do so since he has no reasons to keep the PCs alive (unless its for experimentation, in which case the PCs may wish they had been killed). A chaotic evil orc barbarian may leave a dying PC since a coup de grace (methodically bending over to slit a throat) interupts their heightened flow of battle. A chaotic evil dragon may leave a character to die since a coup de grace would . . . let out all the tasty juices from tonight's snack. A chaotic evil assassin may leave other PCs to sit while focusing on their target. Should it be their mark that is in question, they may risk an AO in order to make sure their mark is dead, then quickly leave once their task is finished. A chaotic evil mercenary may use the fallen PC as a tactical situation, guarding it from PCs who may be trying to revive their comrad rather than focus on the merceneary, leaving the merc the opprotunity to get in some AO himself on the cleric or other PC rushing in to help.

Alignment is less important than the personal interests of the being in question. Use alignment as a general guideline, but don't let alignment restrict the character's personality, motives, and interests. [Edit] Think in terms of personality first and foremost, then think in terms of alignment second.

 

[S'mon]

I would respectfully disagree on this point. I don't think that's an automatic. I could think of many reasons to keep them alive after the battle. Slavery, torture, etc. And it could be a good set up for the next step in a campaign.

For a DM looking to not kill a PC in this situation, I think it's easy. CE, IMO, doesn't mean a desire to see each and every think it doesn't like dead. There are worse fates than death...

IMC the PCs sometimes forget to finish off their wounded foes, especially in larger battles, so having PCs left for dead on the battlefield is possible, especially at lower levels. Important PCs may be captured and held for interrogation and torture, even for ransom. Some races are slave-takers - eg gnolls - but high level PCs may be too dangerous to enslave. Generally speaking though, IMO most enemy of any alignment will finish off downed PCs after the battle. Not during the battle - it's a waste of a full-round action - unless they've seen a healer restore downed PCs to the fray.

 

[Norfleet]

IMC the PCs sometimes forget to finish off their wounded foes, especially in larger battles, so having PCs left for dead on the battlefield is possible, especially at lower levels. Important PCs may be captured and held for interrogation and torture, even for ransom. Some races are slave-takers - eg gnolls - but high level PCs may be too dangerous to enslave. Generally speaking though, IMO most enemy of any alignment will finish off downed PCs after the battle. Not during the battle - it's a waste of a full-round action - unless they've seen a healer restore downed PCs to the fray.

Personally, the decision to CDG or not is really dependent on strategic and tactical concerns, generally without regard to the alignment of the characters doing the consideration: Unless the party is particularly impulsive, tactical and strategic concerns tend to dictate what is done.

Personally, I tend to operate on the following:
1. If opponents are likely to be able to return to battle soon, if not taken out permanently, then take them out permanently, CDGing if necessary.
2. If opponents are not likely to return to the battle soon, and the battle is close or favorable, then mop-up can wait.
3. If, on the other hand, the party is losing badly, with little or no hope of victory, then the tactics are no longer focussed on winning, but on maximizing the amount of permanent damage caused before either being killed off, or bugging out. This generally means CDGing as many available opponents as possible before falling back.

This is not so much alignment-dependent as it is tactically and strategically oriented. Tactically, the objective for all alignments tends to be the same: Survive the battle and preferrably win. Strategically, CE parties are more likely to be in for blood, so will likely kill everyone at the end of the battle, if not during, whereas lawful or good parties are more likely to want prisoners, but this all varies widely, as alignment is not the primary determinant of strategic objective.

 

[Darklone]

I agree with many of the above posters... I'd see LE dudes more likely to develop predictable habitudes such as "making sure" of fallen enemies.

 

[Al]

What many people forget is the prevalence of battlefield healing magics, which make a downed opponent potentially at least as dangerous (or more, if he was more dangerous standing) than his active colleagues.

In light of this, any villain (and even neutral pragmatic 'heroes') fighting against any group with access to significant field healing magic (which means practically any PC or NPC group and many outsiders) should make a practice of ensuring that downed foes are dead before moving on to another foe. There is nothing more demoralising than seeing a Heal spell take your archnemesis wizard from -8 to full health.

However, it's not necessarily advisable (or necessary) to coup de grace. Unless you do feeble base damage or face an obscene AC (which is going to have to be truly obscene given the effective Dex 0 on a prone opponent) you are better off simply making another attack, which is quite likely to finish them off, without drawing AoOs and without wasting a full round. Another straight attack or equivalent is fine- the best strategic use of Cleave, for example, is often on the opponent you've just downed... Spellcasters may instead simply wish to ensure that any downed bodies are within the area of effect of their next fireball...with no Reflex save, it's almost a dead-cert goner.