"Coup-de-grace"

[paladinlady]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-grace' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

[Maryring]

Too little information to really make a good statement but... I'd say no. It is murder after all.

[Sebastian]

As long as he pays for the resurrection. :)

[Kiara LeSabre]

This again.

Classic, honorable, lawful good paladin?

HELL NO. Honorable, open challenge, my friend. Get that cowardly sneaky stuff out of here!

Newfangled "good" (which in 4e encompasses both chaotic good and neutral good) paladin?

Sure. The unlawfully inclined have no concept of honor, or they're aware that it exists as a concept but think it's silly, or for the more "neutral good" good-aligned, they're aware that honor exists, and they may sort of pay lip-service to it most of the time, but they'll ditch it when it gets really inconvenient to adhere to. So go nuts.

[nagora]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-gras' on a member of their party if it were for the greater good?

Is it a lawful act? Is it genuinely for the greater good or because that party member was "asking for it"?

Too little to go on.

[only1doug]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-gras' on a member of their party if it were for the greater good?

If the party member is under some kind of horrible death spell that would destroy their soul if they aren't killed first: Yes absolutely (if no other way of removing spell)

If the party member is under some kind of horrible death spell that is slowly killing them in utter agony: Yes absolutely (if no other way of removing spell)

If the Party Member is irrideamably Evil (in the paladin's opinion) and the paladin knocked them out in an honorable fight: Yes (never leave a wounded enemy)

If the Party Member is irrideamably Evil (in the paladin's opinion) and the paladin is on watch while the Party member sleeps: Absolutely not (code of honor)

it really depends upon the circumstances.

[Charity]

I'm not sure the idea of honour should be tied to good nessisarily.

Any how, I figure if you are going to be a paladin you might as well do the whole fighting fair thing, returning his sword, waiting till he gets up etc... stabbing them in face while they lie defenceless on the floor doesn't really figure in that code somehow.



I have news for you, I am not left handed either.

[Spiryt]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-gras' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

Since in D&D Paladins can instead lay hands of them or heal them in few other methods, it would be very retarted thing to do, in the first place.

[Tengu_temp]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-gras' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

Only if there's absolutely no way to save that party member from death, which is usually not the case.

Also, it's Coup De Grace.

[Charity]

Not talking about the 'blow of fat'?
Oh then I take back what I said.

[YPU]

This is dnd, you go on an epic quests for some macmuffin that will heal your friend.
A good role-player could of course pull it of quite nicely; killing his friend in the heed of the moment because he thinks it right then, living with the shame forever later on.

[Kiara LeSabre]

I'm not sure the idea of honour should be tied to good nessisarily.

I'm not really. It's perfectly possible for a person to be honorable without having particularly altruistic goals, and it's even possible for a person to be ruthless and completely heartless, perfectly willing to kill or otherwise victimize innocents without remorse, and yet nevertheless really, honestly adhere absolutely to the death to his or her honor.

Likewise, it's perfectly possible for a person to be a lying, cheating, underhanded, dirty little so-and-so and yet still have a heart of gold and really be doing it all in the hopes of serving the greater good.

(Okay, you can kind of see which I prefer, so maybe I write this with a little bias, but I'm trying to be fair and acknowledge that both types of person can still actually have altruistic goals.)

[Dragonmuncher]

I'm assuming you mean a "put him out of his misery" kind of way, like if they were in constant agony with no hope of a cure before their inevitable death.

If there's no possible way to save them, than I'd say it'd be up to the player. It's not really an inherently lawful or chaotic act- you could rationalize it either way, both on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis

Lawful Good: He was a great warrior! He should not die like this, mewing in a delirious agony, spittle dripping from his mouth, too weak to even raise himself from the dirt! I can do this one last favor for you, friend! You have lived in honor, and you shall die in honor!

Chaotic Good: Fight! Fight, damn you! But if you can't fight, I understand. I will do whatever I can to aid you, my friend. Goodbye, and may we meet again in another life.

Lawful Evil: We must press on. If you are too weak to keep up, then we must leave you. COUP DE GRACE You two- take anything of use from his possessions, and push his body off into the bushes over there. No use drawing undue attention.

Chaotic Evil: I always knew you were weak. SLASH! Sweet, a new magic ring.


Actually, both the Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Good examples I came up with seem more Neutral Evil and Good than Chaotic...

Anyway, my opinion: If there's ABSOLUTELY no way that you can somehow take care of him, whether because you have no magic, or if it's a "if you don't leave NOW, the universe will end," or some other extreme reason, I don't see anything wrong with the paladin providing a mercy killing.

(Of course, in a world with Lay on Hands, and Clerics, and Delay Poison, and all sorts of neat tricks, this will probably be a rare scenario)

[only1doug]

<snip>

I have news for you, I am not left handed either.

Shame on you Charity, Misquoting the PB

"there's something i ought to tell you"

"tell me..."

"i am not left handed either"

[Dausuul]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-gras' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

Whacking your fellow party members with pork rinds is not really encouraged by the paladin code, but I don't think it's forbidden.

Coup de grace, on the other hand...

[Mastikator]

If said party member explicitly asked for that as an honorable death and there are no ways to save him. Then sure.
Otherwise, very no.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Yeah, assuming that this is something that the paladin can physically do nothing to stop, then putting the friend out of misery seems to be the right thing to do.

[hamishspence]

"putting someone out of their misery" when they are near death has large amounts of moral debate over it. Assuming its the right thing to do might be a bit of a stretch.

However, in medieval-type fantasy fiction (maybe real life), the warriors do slay the terminally wounded of both sides after a battle. Spartans are an example.

[Jimp]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-grace' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

If they ask him for it, yes. Otherwise, no.

[Tengu_temp]

However, in medieval-type fantasy fiction (maybe real life), the warriors do slay the terminally wounded of both sides after a battle. Spartans are an example.

Of course, Spartans didn't live in a world where cheap and efficient magical healing is widely available.

[Mushroom Ninja]

I don't see the problem with euthanasia if it has become perfectly and indisputably clear that there is no chance of survival and if the person being put out of their misery is aware and requests it. Under such circumstances, I could see a paladin putting their companion out of their misery. Under any other circumstances, I would say there is defiantly a question as to whether the paladin is upholding the pillars of their paladinly code by euthanizing their friend.

[hamishspence]

which is correct. Now if it was something hard to cure, with a time limit, and the choice is between kill now and transform into evil being later, that would be a moral dilemma.

[Mushroom Ninja]

which is correct. Now if it was something hard to cure, with a time limit, and the choice is between kill now and transform into evil being later, that would be a moral dilemma.

Fun! I've got to throw this one at the paladin in the party I'm DMing

[Gamebird]

For me it depends on whether the victim wants to die. Kevorkian *could* be a paladin - healing those he could, helping people live with dignity and assisting those who couldn't be helped with fulfilling THEIR desire to end it.

It has to be their desire. The paladin can't just say, "I think he's in pain, I'm going to kill him."

[AstralFire]

Fun! I've got to throw this one at the paladin in the party I'm DMing

One of my PCs, a CG Bard, just suddenly slashed a nearly dead man in the face and burned his corpse immediately upon realizing that he was about to turn into a Wendigo. Still freaked the rest of the party out. Was fun, though. :D

[hamishspence]

thing is, by D&D mechanics, few things have no chance of survival. Stabilization checks, Heal checks, etc.

If character was wounded by a Wounding weapon, of a sort which impossible to stop bleeding, and character WILL die is short period, and in serious pain throughout period. then case might apply. Evn then, exceptions to concept may exist.

In Silmarillion, Maedros is manacled to cliff by one hand, and his friend prepares to shoot him, and Eagle comes, stops him, brings him up close. Maedroes asks to be slain, but instead, friend frees him by severing hand, rescues him, ends fuel between sons of Feanor and Fingolfin.

Even if you're being ASKED to kill someone by them, that might not make it morally right. People have been tried and sentenced for doing so.

[AKA_Bait]

If they ask him for it, yes. Otherwise, no.

This is pretty much where I would fall on this. Even with the 'will become a ghoul' or some such thing, I'd think the Paladin should to their best to keep the transformation from happening and then, if they cannot prevent it, slay the newly risen evil creature then rather than offing their friend without permission now.

[Lissou]

Would it be correct for a Paladin to perform a 'coup-de-grace' on a member of their party, if they were near death and suffering greatly?

"Coup de grâce" means "mercy strike", so that's pretty much what it means, yes. It's supposed to be killing someone out of mercy so they don't suffer anymore. Whether they're your ally or an enemy isn't very relevant (unless you could yourself cure them instead, of course).

[AstralFire]

"Coup de grâce" means "mercy strike", so that's pretty much what it means, yes. It's supposed to be killing someone out of mercy so they don't suffer anymore. Whether they're your ally or an enemy isn't very relevant (unless you could yourself cure them instead, of course).

While you are (obviously! )correct on the French meaning, English (or at least American English) uses it more to mean "a final, decisive blow." Probably a development out of mockingly using the phrase to refer to a defeated party.

[Gamebird]

This is pretty much where I would fall on this. Even with the 'will become a ghoul' or some such thing, I'd think the Paladin should to their best to keep the transformation from happening and then, if they cannot prevent it, slay the newly risen evil creature then rather than offing their friend without permission now.

While I agree with your moral logic in a real-world framework, in the terms of the D&D game it might be better to kill them while living than to wait for their rise in undeath. Once undead, it becomes far more difficult to return them to a living state and under many explanations of undeath, the soul of the dead creature is eternally damned/tormented/trapped in an unredeemable evil state.

So if a paladin knew that their companion was about to be turned into an undead and the paladin could do nothing to stop this from happening except to kill the companion, and the companion requested to be killed, and the paladin's code did not prohibit it specifically (like a code that prohibits all killing under all circumstances), then the paladin would be okay in killing his companion.

I can easily see a situation where the party is fighting in a tight corridor and the paladin's companion is before him with the monster tearing into him. Some drain power of the monster has the companion 1 hp/stat point/level/etc. from undeath. The companion yells, "You kill me if he's gonna take me!" (ie, the player says, "Hey, ready an action to kill me if it looks like he's going to finish me off"). The paladin, for whatever reason, has no other useful actions he can take and in the heat of battle, goes along with this. Monster makes his attack roll and for dramatic purposes the DM allows the paladin to interrupt the attack after the attack roll and stab his friend before the monster sucks the last bit of life out of him, thus saving his soul from eternal torment.

That would be kind of cool.