Corvas's page

So, to answer my own question: No, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether or not coup de grace is inherently evil. It depends too much on the characters, the situation they are placed into, and the GM and Players in general. There is just too many variables to say one way or the other. But I think we can all agree that it is something not done by just anyone for the fun of it with no thought of morality/honour/good/evil/whatever?

~Corvas

I could see poisoning weapons being illegal in a civilized nation, while on a frontier, it might be a standard practice.

The best I ever heard for poisoning was a house rule(obvious I guess, sorry). It dealt loosely with what the poison was, how it was created, and what it's intent was, and dealt firmly on how it did the job. There are some poisons that do obvious pain while paralyzing the target, and some just paralyze the target(found in the description of the individual poisons with GM interpretation). Two different poisons, same effect, one is evil and one is not. I know, it's still not formulaically perfect, but I think it works better. Especially if you look at a strict interpretation of the definition of poison and find that medicine falls into that category as well.

~Corvas

And then there is the abomination that is the "Sanctified Creature" template... Yuck...

(corvas->clears throat)Um, yea, through the spell Sanctify the Wicked which I brought up earlier?

and there are such things as "always CE" creatures

What about an NPC that became CE, didn't start as such but through the campaign became. Wouldn't even a lot of crusading dieties offer a chance of redemption. Some wouldn't, I know, but I think a lot more would than say your standard CE marauding NPC.

~Corvas

Let us be generous and give them a Longsword attack of... well, how about +3 total? Our hypothetical paladin has an AC in the middling 30s, and about 200 HP, and a DR of 10/magic. That means he handily absorbs even the average critical hit without so much as a scratch. It is as likely (if not more) that our priest rolls low on the CdG-damage and the opponent survives, breaks out of the spell, and proceeds to fine-mince the priest on his next turn.

But with you bringing up honour, which I think is very tied in with the alignment system(but I also think is oddly seperate from it all), shouldn't or wouldn't the paladin go for non-leathal damage and not kill obviously too weak of opponents. Which I think would be the same sort of situation for the cleric and Hold Person. Honour binds them to not kill obviously too weak of opponents(low level or helpless).

But my particular situation deals more with exalted characters. Wouldn't they be even more honour bound to not kill, but to try to "save" the NPC; even at a great personal sacrifice?

And BTW, TerraNova, I really enjoy your point of view and understanding of the situation. It's helping me a lot, thank you.

~Corvas

I've never understood where the notion of CdG being inherently evil is coming from.

So it is perfectly morally justifiable to skewer grunts of the opposing army by the dozens, even though they are 1st Level Warriors, and you are a 20th Level paladin, and they could not hit you were it not for natural 20s. But woe is you if you ever as a priest use "Hold Person" on an otherwise superior foe, and kill him cleanly and quickly?

I completely understand where you are coming from. But the thing is: the warriors did have a chance to do something, whereas the Hold Person, or more specifically my problem with a bound person, it just seems like murder. In the case of justice, with the law directing, no questions; but right after combat, with no more worries or immediate threats, to simply kill bound or helpless enemies...that's where my question comes into play.

As far as I know, there are no judgemental rules about any maneuver in D&D being inherently evil. It becomes a DM's call.

You know what's probably most likely is that I had a GM in the past make some ruling as it being evil, and I took it so much to heart that I believe I read it somewhere, not heard it somewhere.

~Corvas

Still, if you know that someone you just rendered unconscious is going to get up later and track you down and try to kill you, the tactic seems justified.

Yes, for the standard character perhaps, but with exalted characters, especially with spells like atonement or sanctify the wicked(BoED pg. 106), the line gets fuzzy again.

~Corvas

I thought that I read somewhere in an official book(i.e. wotc published) that a coup de grace was always and irrovecably evil. In all cases, against all foes, and in any situation. The trouble that I'm having now is that I can't find anything at all that seems to corroborate or contradict this.

I found a website that has a brief mention of this, and it seems to confirm my original thinking, almost.
Check here under J3 (question 3 under For Player's Eyes section.)

Does anyone know of a reference to help with this, and does anyone have any personal feelings or house rules on this?

~Corvas

Very nice, Quandary, I like your explanation. It cleans up the matter rather nicely I think, thank you. And you're right, when I go back now a re-read the spell, it does say once per round. I guess that's what I get for reading a spell at 4 in the morning.

Thank you,
~Corvas

I don't play with the psionics any, but one of my friends is really into all that, and I think he can do some funky time stuff which might hook me up with another standard action...maybe, I think. :p

~Corvas

Heh, yes, that would have made it just a little bit clearer and nicer.

~Corvas

That does make sense, KnightErrantJR, and that seems to be interpreting the intent of the spell to mean one bolt per round. Which in fact was what one of the arguments was the other night.
~Corvas

In retrospect, I am more inclined to follow Vegypygmy's ruling, as it negates the odd 2/round dilemna, and makes sense from a mechanics perspective, in that the first round of a spell is the round it takes effect, not when it is cast. Similar to how the round spent casting a spell does not count against its duration.

Yes, but there's still the part I noticed in that there is no mention of one bolt per round in the spell description. The only restriction is that you must concentrate for a standard action to call down a bolt, and in general(maybe always)you get one standard action per round anyways.

~Corvas

PHB glossary wrote:

round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant may make at least one action every round.

-
turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances.

The round belongs to everybody. Your turn is your own.

Okay, I know I have trouble distinguishing between rounds and turns, but I think you've helped a lot here.

-

Since you already called down one bolt in Round Two (upon completing the casting), and you only get one per round thereafter, you cannot actually call another bolt on your turn in Round Two.

Why? As I read the spell description it says each round after the first I may spend a standard action and call down a bolt. As I read it, the first round would be the round that I spent my full turn, so the second round would be the first round thereafter. Also, there is no wording in the spell description that says I only get one bolt per round, just that I have to spend a standard action to call a bolt. So if I somehow get a second standard action, or even more, I can call more than one bolt per round. I personally don't know of anyway to get more than one standard action in a round (haste only gives you a partial action, as do the other speeding up spells and abilities that I know), but if I could get another standard action, it looks like I could get a second bolt.

~Corvas

Your first option is correct (essentially 2 bolts in one round).

I thought this too, but like I said, barring the interrupting possiblity, on this second round, I basically get two lightning bolts with the creature getting no opportunity to act between them. Seems a little broken to me. Although at that point it's a max of 10D6, which is no more greater than a lightning bolt from a Wizard. And for the Druid, there's two saving throws, whereas for the Wizard there's just one. I guess it can work out.

~Corvas

Okay, so I haven't really ever played a druid so I decided to try it out, and I'm encountering some problems, specifically right now with the Call Lightning spell.

Here's a copy of the spell text, minus the parts I have no questions about:
Call Lightning
Casting Time: 1 round

Immediately upon completion of the spell, and once per round
thereafter, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long,
vertical bolt of lightning that deals 3d6 points of electricity
damage. The bolt of lightning flashes down in a vertical stroke at
whatever target point you choose within the spell’s range
(measured from your position at the time). Any creature in the
target square or in the path of the bolt is affected.

You need not call a bolt of lightning immediately; other actions,
even spellcasting, can be performed. However, each round after the
first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell)
to call a bolt. You may call a total number of bolts equal to your
caster level (maximum 10 bolts).

So this is it: The casting time is 1 round, so according to the rules the spell completes just before the beginning of my next round, and at that time the first bolt hits. Page 174 of PHB, which then goes on to say that I can act normally for that round, which means that on that round I can spend a standard action and bring down another bolt. Not quite two in one round because the first one hit before my round started, but still, two bolts before any other creature can act. Or the way I read it is that because the words "Immediately upon completion of the spell" are there, it means in effect at the end of that round of casting, much the way a sorcerer metamagic spell goes off, as on page 143 talking about a full round casting, not a 1 round casting. And then on the second round after that the druid can then decide to bring down a bolt or not.

To put it into combat:
Round one:
Druid starts to cast Call Lightning.
Round two:
Before Druid's round, Lightning Bolt 1 hits.
On Druid's round, Lightning Bolt 2 hits.

Or:

Round one:
Druid starts to cast Call Lightning.
End of Druid's turn, Lightning Bolt 1 hits.
Round two:
On Druid's round, Lighting Bolt 2 hits.

Or:

Round one:
Druid starts to cast Call Lightning.
Round two:
Before Druid's turn, Lightning Bolt 1 hits.
On Druid's turn, can't bring bolt down because one has already hit
this round.
Round three:
On Druid's turn, Lightning Bolt 2 hits.

All three of these interpretations was brought up and discussed during my latest gaming session, and we really couldn't come to a solid answer as to how the spell is in fact supposed to work. We got an answer for at least this game, but what about other games?

Any help or discussion would be much appreciated.

~Corvas

Okay, so I got unlazy. Yes the spells are called Shadow____(enter spell school here), they are weaker and have additional saves that might not allow the spell to work the way it's needed, but still, these spells add a lot to a sorcerer 's abilities.

Also, I just had to check, that thing with open spell slots for wizzys is kinda cool. Still, you do need a quiet 15 minutes, but being able to memorize, more or less, on the spot for that needed spell; that is really nice. This brings the wizzys up a lot closer to the perfected form of the sorcerer :P:P:P:P:P:P

Hello all, I'm new here. I've read this post, and just had to enter my two cents.

My vote:
Sorcerer

Just one thing, and I'd appreciate some feedback. My books are too far away and I'm lazy right now so I can't give the proper names, but I know that there are some mid to high lvl spells, I think called shadow conjuration and shadow evocation, and so on like that. If I remember right, these spells have the ability to copy lower lvl spells of that school. So therefore, a sorcerer with shadow evocation essentially has every lower lvl evocation spell. Now I know that wizzys can take this spell too, but with the versitility of a sorcerers casting, these are much better spells for a sorcerer than a wizzy. Now this doesn't give the sorcerer as many low lvl evocations as a wizzy will have, but if the wizzy memorizes wrong...

Also, talking about prestige classes, I believe it is in Dragon #280(might be wrong, but got to be close to that)there is a prestige class that requires the char. to be able to spontaneously cast(no wizzys here) that at the higher lvls, 7 and 10 I belive, allow that caster to now choose from an very expanded spell list: Eldricht Master. At these lvls you have the option to pick another classes spell list that you can now cast from. So now you have a sorcerer/eldricht master that is choosing the spells from the sorcerer/wizzy list, and the cleric list, and the druid list, or the assasin list, or the warmage list, or the wunshi list, or any other class list. These spells are then cast still arcanely, not divine or otherwise. In my opinion this is much better than the feat scibe scoll, because how many wizzys out there can scribe cure and fireball???

Just my opinions, feel free to rip me up if you so choose.