Should CE monsters always Coup de grace?

[NewJeffCT]

I'd agree with Mach 2.5 as well - if there is a reason for a C/E being to keep a downed foe alive, they will do it... if there is a huge reward for the just captured princess, they'll keep her alive... if keeping the merchant alive means the C/E can find his treasure, then the merchant will be kept alive.... if the C/E vampire thinks a downed foe reminds him of a former lover, the downed foe may be kept alive...

 

[Umbran]

Ultimately, it's not a question of whether a downed combatant 'might be' a hazard- he almost certainly *will* become a hazard. Party clerics almost always heal downed party members first before attending to wounded but standing ones, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Party clerics will generally heal downed party members first, yes, if they heal anybody. Clerics are powerful spellcasters, and they have many options. In a middle of a fight, they have hard choices to make. They don't always choose to run aroudn the battlefield healing people. Sometimes they choose to support friends currently active. Sometimes they choose to be front line fighters themselves, etc.

In other words, the downed opponent will be come a hazard, eventually, if the clerics survive. Therein lies the tactical decision - if the enemy can kill off or keep the clerics otherwise engaged, there's no need to worry about the downed enemy. Thus, what should be done is dependant on the situation, rather than being a clear cut case of only one action being optimal.

 

[takyris]

Yup, my evil bad guys had to change strategies when my mid-level PCs showed me that a character at -1 hit points was two rounds away from being a serious threat again (Cleric casts heal, PC gets up and grabs weapon, then they're back.)

It's tactically smart to ensure that any spellcaster is DEAD, not just down, since a wizard cured to 2 hit points can still sling that fireball just as well as a fully healed wizard. It's tactically smart to ensure that any tank is DEAD, not just down, since if a heal spell brings them back to full hit points, that's a LOT of damage you have to do all over again.

It all comes down to tactics.

Now, from a cultural viewpoint, people have made great points. CE could want to enslave, torture, leave alive to bully later or as a sign of arrogance -- "He so weak, he not even worth being trophy head on me belt." Or CE could leave someone alive to go help finish off an active opponent. OR CE could finish them off INSTEAD of going to help finish off an active opponent, since active opponents are DANGEROUS, and CdGing the down & dying guy is MUCH safer.

I believe that I had a Lawful Neutral order of warriors who would fight until someone was down and dying and then allow clerics to heal those people. If the healed person then surrendered, it was considered an honorable victory over an honorable opponent. If the healed person continued to fight, though, they were considered uncivilized savages who had to be exterminated fully.

 

[Planesdragon]

As a DM, I'm constantly faced with how often to Coup de Grace characters > Should Chaotic Evil monsters/npc's always coup de grace characters as a rule?

You mean, once they've fought and been defeated?

EVERYONE should coup de grace fallen and bleeding dying opponents once the battle is over, unless they have other plans--prisoners, captives, "living warnings", etc.

Giving warriors clean deaths is almost a Good act, after all.

 

[Mach2.5]

Giving warriors clean deaths is almost a Good act, after all

Ahh, here we come down to the fundamental problems of the D&D cut and dry alignment system itself: interpretation. Since this topic has been discussed to the point of undeath since the mid 70's, I won't bother repeating it yet again.

All I will say is to develope the personality first, then assign an alignment that is the closest match. Due to D&D's inhierent dependance on alignment, its easy to fall back on 'alignment cliche's' when determining the actions of an NPC (or for some players, their own PC). Instead, define for the individual what their moral stance is for a given situation and their reactions using terms outside of the nine alignments. If it contradicts what the rule books say about a particular alignment's behavior, then assign that individual a three part alignment, the first two being the common or prominent alignment, and the second being that individual's tendencies in some situations. In this way, you could have a CE warlord who seeks the death and destruction of all (boring) or a CE(CG) warlord who seeks the death and destruction of his enemies but will not tolerate harm to children and women (hence the second art, a particular tendency in certain situations).

As for the coup de grace issue, define that (essentially being either murder or mercy killing depending on your own view) as a special case senario that may warrent its own type of tendency from a particular NPC if it crops up so often.

Granted, this type of complexity doesn't work for unintelligent beasts, but then, if they lack intelligence, they really shouldn't have much of an alignment to speak of anyhow.

[Edit]

Almost forgot.

As for the comment that Everyone should coup de grace if its tactically sound, that only holds true if every NPC is essentially a 2 dimensional character without personality, consisting more of stats and numbers than depth of thought, personal emotions, moral decision making, background, etc. Some NPCs may feel that a coup de grace is akin to murder, and quite different than a person slain in the midst of a fight. At the moment of a coup de grace, an individual is helpless. Most people with a conscience would feel that delivering that kind of killing blow would be a vile act of murder most heinous. Others may view it as a mercy killing, easing the suffering of a worthy opponent's last moments of life. Others, its simple battle tactics. And yet to others, its a chance to hold a living being completely within your dominance, being as God to that person by either giving life or taking it, reveling in the thrill of having that kind of control over someone. While still others my simpy leap at the chance to eviscerate someone and remove their still beating heart, most likely to then throw it ruthlessly at the fallen one's comrades.

 

[Czhorat]

I'm with Al on this one. In second edition this wasn't the same kind of issue because a downed character would be nearly incapacitated for days at the very least. A cleric could very easilly save his life, but he'd not be an actual threat for the remainder of the battle. Now that characters can come back to full fighting ability with all of their spells intact, it is certainly tactically sound to make sure that a fallen foe can not re-join the battle. I've been in a recent battle in which a PC cleric fell in battle, made his save against a Death Knell spell, and was eventually a major threat after being force-fed some potions. In retrospect, the party would have had a much harder time had one of the villains finished him off rather than concentrate on the still-standing characters.

 

[Al]

As for the comment that Everyone should coup de grace if its tactically sound, that only holds true if every NPC is essentially a 2 dimensional character without personality, consisting more of stats and numbers than depth of thought, personal emotions, moral decision making, background, etc

Possibly true, but I'd argue that most NPCs, even those with backgrounds etc. will take the tactical sound decision.

Evils are almost always in the game for themselves, so will take the most tactically sound option. Neutrals are gunning for themselves in preference to their opponents, and will generally take the tactically sound option. Goods might not take a tactically optimal solution if it goes against their 'principles', but there are a reasonable number of 'pragmatic goods' out there.

The reason is simple- those who make the tactical choices generally fare the best. It is perverse to argue that someone might take a suboptimal decision because of his 'principles' as a norm. Adventuring PCs and many enemy NPCs are career combatants, and have seen even combats to understand what happens if you don't take the best options. Few are so convinced of their beliefs (though there are some e.g. paladins) that they will deliberately save an opponent and jeopardise their own lives, for the simple reason that those that did so in the past are now dead. Even as a paladin, I realise that it's better to be ruthless with your enemies so *you* can live, rather than vice versa. In combat against evildoers, pull out all the stops. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Party clerics will generally heal downed party members first, yes, if they heal anybody. Clerics are powerful spellcasters, and they have many options.

My parties may be different to yours, but in my experience there is a sort of party bonding which means that the cleric will try to save his friends in character. In any case, the tactically optimised situation is usually to heal the downed comrade. Assuming that the comrade does not immediately fall, it greatly increases the number of 'actions' the party can take in the course of the combat: for example, if a downed comrade gets three actions before he is floored again or the combat ends, then the party has 'gained' two actions. In terms of long-term strategy, given the lethality of combat, having all the party survive the combat is definitely in strategic interest- only if the party is threatened with a multiple PK or TPK should clerical inaction allow a PC to die...and given tactically optimised opponents, they should usually finish off downed PCs. Even failing that, the prevalence of area blast spells make combat for a downed PC usually lethal. Only in a few cases should the party cleric not heal downed comrades...when he can finish off the enemies, in end-boss type battles, or when threatened with a multiple PK if he does not go on the aggressive. Usually, however, the cleric is best off doing the healing, particularly when PCs are down.