If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.
A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.
100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.
in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.
Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are times when a climb check will be evil.
I can remember one.
I was GMing, there was a catastrophe onboard a refugee vessel, think Titanic, but with people fleeing a terrible foe. The party's Chaotic Neutral Rogue decided that he had to get onboard one of the life rafts, so he attempted to push his way through the crowd. I ruled that he caused a chain reaction of people falling, and that he would have to climb over the still living women and children to reach the vessel.
He rolled a climb check. Stepping on the heads and bodies of these refugees to save themselves.
In contrast, our party was once investigating a mysterious plague that was raving a series of communities in area. It turned out to be magical in nature and was being spread by an evil cult. We caught a member, but as soon as one of our other characters touched him, they had to roll a fortitude check (DC 25 if I remember correctly) to avoid being infected. So I was left to deal with him (due to my immunity).
I found out he was going into the village to spread the disease further. Any physical interaction with him would lead to exposure and the insanely high Fortitude check (which no NPC could have passed without a nat 20).
We discovered the nature of the disease was such that if the carrier was dead, then they could no longer infect those who came into contact with them. So we were faced with a decision: Tie this evil (he detected evil) cultist up and hope that no one found him or touched him, take him with us and risk him escaping and warning his cult of our approach or kill him (the village had no prison, just stockades in the middle of the village square).
I chose to coup d'grace this tied up NPC and end the threat to the community. I refuse to acknowledge that this was an evil act.
|
I chose to coup d'grace this tied up NPC and end the threat to the community. I refuse to acknowledge that this was an evil act.
I dunno, I think that might be a good example of "necessary evil" actually. Eh, I've player a lot of Vampire, I'm comfortable with occasional necessary evils as a thing that happens in games :P
---
Anyway, about the subject of "when is CdG evil". Some observations.
"Coup de Grace" means something like The Hand (Clutch) Of Mercy, basically putting someone out of their misery. It's based on the idea that if you got brutally hacked up in a medieval battle, you were probably going to die, so someone's just saving you from a slow death through a quick one. In PF, stabilizing someone isn't all that hard...
There's a Class element at work here. Some classes fight in ways that are questionable from an Honor standpoint. Like the Slumber-Witch.
Also, hitting someone for X, killing them. Or for X-5, putting them into Dying but not yet Dead. Is finishing the job more evil than killing them in one blow? If all enemies are defeated, is there an obligation to stabilize them and start saving lives? Even people you just tried to kill? It seems a bit insane, and you'd be trying to kill someone completely or be really kind and gentle...
I keep coming back to a Conan-esque morality: it's okay to kill people who are trying to kill you. If someone attacks you, you beat them down, but they're not dead, it's okay to finish it. After all, if you were willing to kill them, you should be willing to complete that action; it doesn't suddenly carry a wholly different ethical load.
Intent is important. If they attack you in a credible way, lethal response is justified. If they never raised arms against you, CdG is probably evil.
---
Regarding Z-K and evil and PFS: Z-K strikes me as much less of a team player than Asmodeus. Asmodeus appears to be built in such a way to really permit non-evil worship to function around him. It's really nice game design; he's a dependable quality. Z-K seems a lot more insane.
If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.
A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.
100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.
in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.
Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.
A better phrase would have been 'Coup de grace is no more inherently evil than killing them any other way...'
If it was morally ok to hit them with an ax six seconds ago... it's ok now.
If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.
A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.
100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.
in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.
Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.
A better phrase would have been 'Coup de grace is no more inherently evil than killing them any other way...'
If it was morally ok to hit them with an ax six seconds ago... it's ok now.
but's thats not really true is it. for example let's say the combantant was under a spell and it ended 4 seconds ago. however being that the person is now stunned they can't articulate that. if you kill without no knowledge of this, its fine. but lets say the cleric say's hey he's not crazy anymore, then the killing is wrong.
My point is that the 6 seconds means nothing, that more often than not in these cases, it's the nature of the person being killed and the intent of the person doing the killing that usually makes the difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The party's Chaotic Neutral Rogue decided that he had to get onboard one of the life rafts, so he attempted to push his way through the crowd. I ruled that he caused a chain reaction of people falling, and that he would have to climb over the still living women and children to reach the vessel.
He rolled a climb check. Stepping on the heads and bodies of these refugees to save themselves.
But was he using crampons for the +2 bonus?
So we get in a fist fight and there is the potential for you to fall and die--if that happened --even accidentally I'd be a murderer. But I knock you out and then cut your throat and this isn't an evil act? Is that the idea? Right--i don'tagree with the actual words you used but it is close.."it Is no more inherently evil"...even if I argued the point--you have indicated that the act of killing another person with intent is inherently evil.
As the does the game.
In real life, I'm against killing of any kind. In the GAME... Paladins kill all the time. Call it whatever you want, but he's beating a man to death with a sharp weapon. And he does not fall. Therefore Killing in the Pathfinder/D&D game system is itself not inherently evil.
If the person you are fist fighting is not a bad guy and deserving of death...and you are trying to kill him. That's evil Just as evil as killing him in his sleep.
If he falls and hits his head?? that's an ACCIDENT. Not evil. But still cutting his throat while he's down would be... since it was evil to TRY to kill him in the first place.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If there's no legitimate authority then there can't be murder. The word you're looking for is homicide.Just because there are no authorities to police an area does NOT mean that there are no laws there. There are large stretches of wilderness in Golarion that belong to kingdoms, but have no law enforcement presence.
The laws of the kingdom DO apply there, even in the absence of authority.
Paladin's will even enforce it :-)
you can use just as much force to your attacker as he puts to you.
if you get charged at with fist doing "non lethal damage" you can just the same hit this guy back with non lethal force. but if somebody comes at you trying to kill you. You can kill him just the same! this is NOT evil. coup the grace is just finishing the job already started.
If a man dying begged for his life and wants to repent and a chance to atone I would say a ruling for each specific case is in order. depending why and what he did. But if a paladin would rule this man his punishment for his actions should be death he can execute the sentence just the same! (coup the grace)
|
|
CdG after a fistfight does strike me as escalating things. Before it was nonlethal, now it's lethal. That seems very different to me than CdG after a swordfight, which was lethal to begin with.
There are some corner cases, such as a rogue with the Sap feats who intends to efficiently make someone unconscious before CdG; he's probably on the naughty list for intent to kill even during the nonlethal part.
A couple of observations:
-- Context is everything. While CDG frequently makes me a bit squeamish, sometimes it is justified. Who is being killed and whether they are irredeemably evil is an important consideration. Whether there are other viable options like capture or mercy is important. Whether this is in the heat of combat or after the combat has been won is important. The motives of the person committing the act are important. All of these factors and more could take the same basic act and place it in wildly different places on the good/evil spectrum. Thus I can't agree with anyone who says either it is always evil or who says it is never evil and no different than killing someone in combat.
-- Got to agree that the OP strikes me as someone who really wants to play an evil character, but isn't allowed to in PFS (nor would he be in games I GM), so has created a "neutral" character that worships a particularly loathesome evil god and pushes (and apparently sometimes steps over) the boundaries of neutrality with his actions.
My suggestion: Find a group of like-minded folks who want to run an evil campaign and enjoy yourself being a "bad boy".
You know from seeing the whole of this thread, I'd have to say CdG is not evil, but you mention HEY I'M KILLING YOU FOR AN EVIL GOD, it's evil. In my game that'd be evil. This is one of those reasons I'm happy that my players aren't fascinated by evil gods and need to worship them. Plus it allows me to make them really evil and there's no moral quandary about fighting cultist/priests/followers of these gods.
Sorry Sorin, I'd have ruled it was an evil act what you did; of course you would have been steered away from worshiping Zon in the first place (I would have thrown the Tian god of Darkness at you, as he's not evil).
|
100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.
in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.
Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.
A coup de grace is a combat action. Perhaps comparing it to a Climb check is too much of a stretch, but it is certainly no more inherently evil than a Full Attack action. If you argue that the intent or circumstances behind an act are what make the act evil, then you are agreeing with me. Killing a helpless opponent is not inherently evil. In a vacuum, killing an innocent in their sleep is evil but finishing off an unconscious combatant is a neutral act. If you have orders to take them alive it is also a chaotic act, but still not evil.
One of the problems with arguing alignment is people who forget that Neutral is an alignment, and that acts can be Neutral. Most actions taken by anyone ever are Neutral. Throw in some Law/Chaos confusion on top, and it's no wonder nobody can agree.
I personally hate terms like 'lesser Evil'. So would any paladin.
What about Neutral? Not every action or every alighment fits squarely in 'good' or 'evil.' We have THREE levels here to play with.
Wouldn't an action you consider as 'less than evil' start looking like neutral? Anything that half of us say is not evil... and the other half says 'well it's CERTAINLY not GOOD...
Paladins can commit Neutral acts. They can NOT commit an EVIL act. even a 'lesser evil'... but they can and do kill all the time. Many times with premeditation even!!