I found a lovely spell...

[Amechra]

Painless Death, a 1st level Cleric spell from Ghostwalk.

It can only be cast on a willing living creature, but it automatically kills them, no save, no SR, no nothing.

And it is not a [Death] effect.

If I remember correctly, you should be able to use Ocular Spell with this (to bypass the Target line of the spell.), or alternatively Charm an opponent, or, hell, use the False Theurgy skill trick, combo'd with a bluff check, to make someone believe that you are casting a Cure Light Wounds or something.

It is also a Touch Range spell, so there is always the fun of delivering it with a familiar.

[Garryl]

Ocular Spell mostly mucks with the range of the spell rather than targeting. The only way it tweaks the targeting is restricting the spell to a single target.

[Amechra]

Thanks for the reminder; haven't read that feat in ages.

Still, tricking them into accepting the spell is pretty damn hilarious.

Wait... I think you can put it into a potion... and there are ways to compel a person to drink a potion...

I now have a favorite "poison".

[Tr011]

Now THAT is how an evil cloistered cleric can combine his massive amount of skill points with his spells.

[Agita]

You can also cast it on someone who's sleeping.

[SneeR]

Yes, sleeping targets are considered willing... but seems like the job of a coup de grace...

Unfortunately, you cannot make a charmed person do something against their nature. So unless you charmed yourself an emo, they can't be compelled to let you kill them.

[Tr011]

Are stunned people willing too?

[Amechra]

Yes, sleeping targets are considered willing... but seems like the job of a coup de grace...

Unfortunately, you cannot make a charmed person do something against their nature. So unless you charmed yourself an emo, they can't be compelled to let you kill them.

Why are you telling them the truth about what you are casting on them?

"Oh Mr. BBEG, I'm totally defecting over to your side; here, let me heal up the damage my former comrades did to you. "

Alternatively, you are Helpless, and thus willing, if you are being Held. So... at early levels, you have Hold Person, and at later levels, you have Hold Monster...

And this is better than a coup de grace; you can Reach and Chain it for maximum fun.

[Tr011]

A first level spell is much better than a regular Coup De Grace for two reasons:
1. Mostly you Coup De Grace a stunned guy in a battle. Coup De Grace is fullroundaction and thus mostly needs some trick to get to ur enemy (like Hustle) while casting the spell is a standard action (you go to him and kill him).
2. Coup De Grace doesn't work against crit-immunes or concealment (with concealment it needs two fullround actions which are much too much).

[ariasderros]

Plus you can't use a Glibness+bluff check combo to elicit a coup-de-grace.
Plus you cant deliver a coup-de-grace with love bite (out of CoV), for the effect of blowing them a kiss... of death.

[Empirate]

A first level spell is much better than a regular Coup De Grace for two reasons:
1. Mostly you Coup De Grace a stunned guy in a battle. Coup De Grace is fullroundaction and thus mostly needs some trick to get to ur enemy (like Hustle) while casting the spell is a standard action (you go to him and kill him).
2. Coup De Grace doesn't work against crit-immunes or concealment (with concealment it needs two fullround actions which are much too much).

You can't use CdG (or this stupid spell, for that matter) on a stunned target. Stunned =/= helpless.

[ariasderros]

A first level spell is much better than a regular Coup De Grace for two reasons:
1. Mostly you Coup De Grace a stunned guy in a battle. Coup De Grace is fullroundaction and thus mostly needs some trick to get to ur enemy (like Hustle) while casting the spell is a standard action (you go to him and kill him).
2. Coup De Grace doesn't work against crit-immunes or concealment (with concealment it needs two fullround actions which are much too much).

You can't use CdG (or this stupid spell, for that matter) on a stunned target. Stunned =/= helpless.

No one said you could, Tr011 asked a question, and everyone moved on w/o answering.
I'm not sure if you're trying to take an attitude as you: quoted an analysis of the strategem and not the question asked; commented that the spell was stupid with no further support for the dissension.
Unfortunately, the internet obliviates tone from our sentences.

Personally, I like this spell. Much as Trap the Soul set to a trigger object which can be devastating if you can con the person into willingly taking the object; with this all you need to do is make them willingly accept a touch spell.

[SneeR]

Actually, my DM let me practically cast this spell spontaneously with one cleric! He thought it was a very appropriate ability for a cleric of Ehlonna to grant a painless death without raising a sword. I only ended up using it twice, though.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, sleeping targets are considered willing... but seems like the job of a coup de grace...

I've always been against this interpretation for the insane things it ushers in, but I'm in the minority there... *sigh*

[Empirate]

1. Judging by his statement Tr011 seemed to assume you could CdG stunned opponents. That faulty opinion was what I stepped in to ameliorate.

2. The spell is stupid in that it gives rise to all manner of cheesy attempts to come up with "willing" targets which are not the intended recipients of the spell. That is what giving a low-level very harmful spell the "Target: 1 willing X" line will do. This is not optimization, it is an attempt at DM conning, which would not stand in any game I have played in. Tricking somebody into accepting a touch spell? Is not the same as granting a person wishing for a painless death their request.

[Empirate]

To elaborate: I've always found it helpful to imagine that if a spell works only on willing targets, part of a target's unconscious WILL realize that bad stuff is going on, and WILL resist, even if the target is unaware of being the target of a harmful spell. Otherwise, the "willing target" concept simply makes no sense to me.

What's more, IS a sleeping or otherwise helpless target always considered willing? Rules quotation (not Sage or CustServ)?

[Agita]

Yes, sleeping targets are considered willing... but seems like the job of a coup de grace...

I've always been against this interpretation for the insane things it ushers in, but I'm in the minority there... *sigh*

It ushers in a lot of insane things indeed, and should probably be common-sense houseruled in many cases, but it's not an interpretation. It's stated explicitly in the PHB.

What's more, IS a sleeping or otherwise helpless target always considered willing? Rules quotation (not Sage or CustServ)?

From the SRD and PHB, page 175:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Emphasis mine.

[NiteCyper]

A priori: Unconscious = willing. Common-sense argument: willing...to die. Premise: Willing is non-specific. Willing isn't: willing to be specifically affected by an X spell. It's willing to be affected by...the spell. Else, unconscious wants to be affected by every existing spell effect.
Solution: People are cautious of accepting spells. IRL, one is cautious of accepting drugs.

[ariasderros]

Solution: People are cautious of accepting spells. IRL, one is cautious of accepting drugs.

Until you pass out at the party and are injected with something. Which is basically what we are doing with this spell.
The other IRL comparison: Bluff + Glibness to convince them to accept the spell and they fail their Sense Motive; a girl offered a roofied drink and she fails her wisdom check.

[caelic]

Could I maybe request that we steer away from those particular analogies?  You never know when there might be someone on the board who's had bad experiences of that sort IRL.