Timeline for Is Coup de Grace on sleeping and bound opponents an evil act?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2013 at 23:00 | comment | added | lushness-deplete-gallantly | @TimLymington What were the incentives for historical pirates not to kill those who surrendered? Is it likely that a person traveling somewhere beyond the reach of law being fully capable of defending themselves likely to surrender, considering they would have no guarantee to be spared? Especially if they were tasked with protecting some thing/one. Few adventurers would surrender, opting instead to fight to the death. Even if the pirates would be willing to spare someone who surrendered, that person would need to surrender first. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 22:30 | comment | added | KRyan | @TimLymington It's not like following an enemy into the street at all. They are still on your ship. They are still active enemy combatants; at the levels sleep functions, it lasts a minute or two. Again, why do the morals change if the Wizard casts sleep rather than weird? Would weird have been immoral? | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 21:22 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | Since you ask; the vital difference between shooting an armed burglar in your house and following him into the street after he drops his weapon and shooting him in the back. I take your point (which is presumably why the GM made his ruling), but this is still killing helpless enemies without giving them a chance to surrender. The act may not be Evil, depending on the situation, but doing it "gleefully" without justification almost certainly is. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 19:29 | comment | added | KRyan | @TimLymington Yes, but in this case they are magically compelled to sleep for a very limited amount of time, not sleeping in their own beds on their own ship. If sleep lasted longer/was less prone to waking, I could see an argument for sticking them on their own ship and leaving, but sleep does not give that option. Would you have felt differently if the spell cast by the Wizard had simply killed them outright? What difference is there between weird and sleep + coup de grace here? | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 18:06 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | Can't disagree with your first sentence, but the question is explicitly about the difference between 'Kill all those who don't surrender' and 'Cut their throats while they're asleep'. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 15:13 | comment | added | KRyan | @TimLymington "Anyone who attacks me with violence and potentially lethal force of their own prerogative and for their own selfish gain is not someone whose life I need to worry about protecting," is very Neutral. "Looking out for myself" is a Neutral attitude. It's only Evil when you have no problem harming those who never threatened you. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 14:38 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | Where does 'every intent to kill you' come from? Historical pirates had every incentive not to kill those who surrendered. Granted, there may be a reason why these particular pirates should not be spared; but the mindset 'anyone who opposes me should be killed in any way possible' is closer to Evil than Neutral. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 13:07 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 25, 2013 at 13:23 | |||||
| Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 | comment | added | aslum | For what it's worth, I more interested in general D&D answers then PFS, but PFS specifically is nice too! | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 5:05 | comment | added | KRyan | @Lord_Gareth All 3.5 books rather than Pathfinder books, so I'm not sure that the Pathfinder Society cares. Still, alignment didn't change much to my knowledge between the two, so they may be useful if only for the reasons why. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 4:57 | comment | added | Lord_Gareth | Additional information supporting this answer can be found in Heroes of Horror, Champions of Valor, and Champions of Ruin, which supersede information on the subject found in the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 4:51 | history | edited | KRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
a bit more discussion
|
| Feb 25, 2013 at 4:24 | history | answered | KRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |