Is coup de grace a broken rule?

[RigaMortus2]

For a third level party? Name three.

This is hard to do, considering I don't know the background as to WHY the party felt the need to track them down. First off, I wouldn't have accepted such a mission to begin with (assuming they were sent to find the giants by someone else, maybe a king). To me, I'd see it as a suicidal journey. If "forced" to go after these giants, they could have brought reinforcements (local town guards, who have the authority to deal out death and punishment by order of the LAWFUL authority in charge). If I had more background, I could give better specifics. Otherwise, all points are moot at this time.

Of course, had they approached on white warhorses, blowing trumpets and challenging the Giants to single combat, and (somehow) slaughtered them all, they'd be comsidered heroes and champions of Good in the struggle against the depredations of the evil Giant overlords, yes?

-Hyp.

Possibly.

Suggestions, please, for how else the PCs could have stopped these giants from carrying out their presumably vicious evil mission?

I invite the OP to tell us here what the PCs knew about the giant's mission. Until then, let's imagine something fairly common: let's say that the fire giants are a scouting party looking for a good route for a giant invasion of human lands. Or let's say that they're carrying a message of peace from one giant king to another, potentially forming an alliance that will be an unstoppable force of evil. Or let's say that they're simply out for a good old-fashioned slay-and-pillage raid against human lands.

What could PCs do against any of these options that would prevent the giants from harming lots of innocent folks?

Daniel

All valid things an evil fire giant might do. However, until I know more of the background on the PC's, I can't answer the question. It would vary from situation to situation. Were they sent by the king to kill these things? If so, then they were only obeying the Law. Were they seeking out the Fire Giants for their own purposes, which might have been less-than-noble? If so, their actions on killing them lean them towards the dark side. I'll wait for the OP to give us more background.

Umm, yeah. Which version of D&D are you playing. Mine lists Fire Giants as "often lawful evil",

I'm sorry, you must be mixing up "often evil" with "always evil". Don't worry, it's a common mistake. I must have skipped over the part where the party Detected Evil on the giants. After all, Drow are "often" evil, but I know at least 1 exception.

and one can guess that in the context of the game in question, the giants were on their way to, or returning from performing evil acts.

Guessing is the same thing as assuming. And you know what happens when you assume, don't you? It's a good thing Drizt never ran into you early in his carreer.

"It's a Dark Elf, it's evil, kill it!"

Doing the sort of thing the PCs did is entirely in keeping with a good alignment. Note that the description of a "good" alignment says that good characters seek to protect innocent life. Not all life. You are implicitly assuming that the fire giants and ogres are "innocent".

I don't know. When someone is sleeping all comfy and cozy, and not harming, killing, raping, maiming, etc. that sounds like an innocent enough act to me. Evil people can be innocent too, at times. To suggest ALL Good people are ALWAYS innocent or that ALL Evil people are NEVER innocent, is ridiculous. You are basically making up a new alignment here called "Innocent". Evil people can be innocent at times, and Good people can be guilty at times.

Also remember, there is supposed to be a DIFFERENCE between Good and Evil. If the party was sleeping, and the Evil Fire Giants came upon them while they were all sleeping, do you think they would have killed them in their sleep? I would wager that they would. It is an evil act. So, what makes the "Good" party (or even Neutral) ANY different that the Evil one in their actions?

So again, why is killing a sleeping foe a Good thing?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Running away from them, dying to them, and smacking a GM upside the dead for putting frickin FIRE GIANTS up against a 3rd level party.

ALL viable ways as I see it =P

 

[Pielorinho]

1) Create an avalanche on the giants
2) Create a detour in the path that takes it accross a frozen lake. Ice which the fire giants melt just by walking on and then fall into the lake and drown.
3) Invisible characters slip poison into their food.
4) Passing false information turns large armies against this particular band of fire giants.

I'm sorry but it is a role-playing game.

You're assuming a lot: the presence of steep mountains nearby (and other natural conditions) that can be used to start an avalanche, the knowledge on the part of PCs on how to create an avalanche, and the inability of giants to survive an avalanche (FTR, most folks in avalanches die beneath a couple of feet of snow; Fire giants would be unlikely to be buried in an avalanche).

Or you're assuming a frozen lake nearby that's frozen deep enough for the giants to begin walking on, but not deep enough that they'd survive walking on it long enough to realize that they're melting the ice, and that the fire giants would be stupid enough to follow the PCs onto the ice.

Or you're assuming that the PCs have poisons good enough to overcome the tremendous constitution of a fire giant -- hardly a safe assumption for most 3rd-level PCs.

Or you're assuming that the PCs can mock up credible forgeries of information for the fire giants -- which would probably involve, at the minimum, knowing giantish.

Worst of all, however, you're forgetting the basic idea here, which was to come up with nonlethal methods for dealing with these giants. How are any of your solutions more ethical than just killing the giants in their sleep?

I'll give you one thing: your solutions are clever. Not, however, cleverer than the PCs, who did come up with a pretty good plan for killin' them two fire giants.

Daniel

 

[Grog]

I most certainly do - 0 exp per person. If they don't fight back, or there's some risk involved, you don't learn anything from it. No exp. The benefit you gain from using those kinds of "gank 'em while they sleep while unnoticable via magic" tactics is that they're dead, and you're none the worse for wear.

You may not mean it this way, but this comes off as rather petty. Kind of like the DM saying, "Well, you ruined my setup, so I'm not giving you any XP just to spite you."

I think that, if the PCs come up with a clever idea that allows them to eliminate a group of foes with little or no risk to themselves, they should be rewarded for it. I mean, do you really want your players to develop the attitude of, "Well, we could think up an imaginative and creative plan to dispatch these giants, but if we do, we won't get any XP, so we'd better just charge in and fight them in a straight-up slugfest." That would take a lot of the fun out of the game, in my opinion.

Of course, you don't want the PCs to be able to kill everything they come across with no risk to themselves. That would get boring really fast. So there is a balance to be struck here.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'll give you one thing: your solutions are clever. Not, however, cleverer than the PCs, who did come up with a pretty good plan for killin' them two fire giants.

Daniel

No one debated the fact that evil PC's can't be clever

 

[RigaMortus2]

You may not mean it this way, but this comes off as rather petty. Kind of like the DM saying, "Well, you ruined my setup, so I'm not giving you any XP just to spite you."

I think that, if the PCs come up with a clever idea that allows them to eliminate a group of foes with little or no risk to themselves, they should be rewarded for it. I mean, do you really want your players to develop the attitude of, "Well, we could think up an imaginative and creative plan to dispatch these giants, but if we do, we won't get any XP, so we'd better just charge in and fight them in a straight-up slugfest." That would take a lot of the fun out of the game, in my opinion.

If their quest was, "Find the Fire Giants that destroyed our village and kill them" then I might be inclined on giving them XP for completing the quest, not for the actual deaths of the Fire Giants.

If, on the other hand, the party decided one day to go out looking for trouble, track it down, wait for it to sleep, then CDG it, I would give no exp and possibly change some alignments around (assuming they were not already evil to begin with).

 

[Pielorinho]

However, until I know more of the background on the PC's, I can't answer the question. It would vary from situation to situation. Were they sent by the king to kill these things? If so, then they were only obeying the Law. Were they seeking out the Fire Giants for their own purposes, which might have been less-than-noble? If so, their actions on killing them lean them towards the dark side. I'll wait for the OP to give us more background.

Y'know, if you'd said this to begin with, instead of snottily posting,

So, how is it running a game of evil characters such as these? I've never played in all evil campaign before. Must be nice to have the freedom to kill indiscriminately like this party seems to do.

There wouldn't be this big hijack.

I'm glad you see now that you didn't have nearly enough information to make such a snotty insult.

Also remember, there is supposed to be a DIFFERENCE between Good and Evil. If the party was sleeping, and the Evil Fire Giants came upon them while they were all sleeping, do you think they would have killed them in their sleep? I would wager that they would. It is an evil act. So, what makes the "Good" party (or even Neutral) ANY different that the Evil one in their actions?

So again, why is killing a sleeping foe a Good thing?

Huh? It's not, no more than killing an awake foe is a Good thing. If those Fire Giants had come upon the party awake, they would've tried to kill them as well; does that mean that killing an enemy while awake is an evil act?

Of course not. Its moral value is undefined. What defines it is the context.

Declaring a puppy dog to be your foe, charging it down on your white horse, and skewering it is an Evil act, I'd say. Declaring the same thing about Henry the Illithid Lich Lord (who just ate a maternity ward full of babies, simply because he was feeling peckish) is a Good act.

Declaring a puppy dog to be your foe and cutting its head off while it sleeps is an Evil act. Declaring the same thing about Henry the Illithid Lich Lord (who just ate a maternity ward full of babies, simply because he was feeling peckish) is a Good act.

In fact, in the latter example, waking Henry up, thereby giving him a chance to kill you and then continue on his reign of baby-munching terror, would be close to an Evil act.

Hope that clears some things up!
Daniel

 

[Storm Raven]

1) OFTEN lawful evil - this means that they are not always lawful evil. Maybe these two are not.

However, there is a great chance they are. Given that the PCs probably knew more about their actions than you, it is reasonable to assume that the giants had perpetrated one or more evil acts that caused the players to decide to follow them.

2) That information is in the MM. How do the characters know this? How much interaction have these third level PCs had with fire giants to know that they are LE? If their town has had a lot of action then how did they live to be third level? This is meta game information which deserve consequences.

This is stupid. You assume that people in a D&D world are all uneducated morons who don't know that giants are evil, trolls are vicious, and ogres are violent. This sort of thing would be as common knowledge as the fact that rattlesnakes are poisonous.

3) Define innocent life? Are innocent and good synonyms? Maybe those wolves and Orges were forced to work for the giants, so therefor they are innocent - but then the PCs have killed innocents which is not a good act.

Maybe they were, but then they got up and began trying to kill the PCs, which kind of makes your speculation less than persuasive.

4) Am I assuming they are innocent, no I'm just not assuming they are guilty. Is making the guilt assumption and worse then making the innocent assumption.

BTW: This is also a chaotic action - the lawful would bring the to justice.

Unless, of course, they had been given authority by the local ruler. Or have been deputized by larger authority. Or have such authority derived from supernatural sources (such as divine authority).

The good would follow them until they had proof they were up to no good.

You assume they had no such proof already. Assuming a pair of fire giants with ogres and dire wolves in tow have not left a trail of death and destruction behind them seems to be a bit of a stretch on your part.

This action is CE unless:
1) It was a situation of kill or be killed.
2) The party knew, not assumed, the giants were up to evil.
3) There is no local law enforcement.

Hardly.

 

[RigaMortus2]

For what it's worth, here is a nice list of qualities that HEROES should possess (IMO). This is all assuming you are playing a "Heroic" campaign. Some people enjoy playing the shadier characters (The CN Rogue, the LE Necromancer, etc.) and that is alright. But if you want to encourage your players to play the Heroic characters in your games, I encourage you to read the following. This is pretty much take from the LotR RPG.


The Qualities of Heroes


Compassion


“Deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched.”

- The Return of the King

Heroes share the feelings of others, and they have pity on even the most wicked and wretched of creatures, such as Gollum. They do not wantonly slaughter their enemies, even when it might be prudent, for to do so would violate the hero’s code. Both Gandalf and Frodo spare Saruman, and though much evil might have been averted had they not, in the end both still recognize that their decision was the right one.

Responsible Free Will


“Were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine for your own profit as you desired.”

- Theoden, The Two Towers


Free will is one of the most important concepts. Everyone has a choice to do good or evil, and heroes choose the good. To exert control over the will of another is one of the ultimate evils, and heroes reject it utterly, knowing that true wisdom lies in allowing each person to pick his own path.

Generosity


“Then I say to you, Gimli son of Gloin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.”

- Galadriel, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes give generously, both of themselves and of their goods, as need warrants. For example, Theoden gives Shadowfax to Gandalf, prized though the great horse is, because Gandalf deserves him, needs him, and has developed a bond of friendship with him. Heroes often acquire riches and glory during their lives, but obtaining them is not their main motivation. Those who are evil and cowardly are grasping, greedy, and grudging, often seeking gold for gold’s sake alone.

Honesty and Fairness

“I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood.”

- Faramir, The Two Towers

Heroes deal with other folk honestly and fairly at all times. Though they may, like Gandalf, not reveal all they know, simply to satisfy the curiosity of others, a true hero neither avoids nor skirts the truth when the proper time comes.

Honor and Nobility

“We are truth-speakers, we me of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt.”

- Faramir, The Two Towers

From the highest lord of Gondor, to the lowliest Hobbit of the Shire, true heroes always display the classic qualities of nobility and honor. They abide by their word, treat others fairly and with the respect due them - regardless of station - and have that graciousness of spirit which marks the true noble.

Restraint

“Legolas is right,” said Aragorn quietly. “We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us.”

- The Two Towers

This point was touched on earlier, but it bears repeating: Heroes are not indiscriminate killers hacking down anyone who angers or threatens them, or spilling blood needlessly. They kill in battle and often accomplish great feats of arms, but that is a different thing that ruthlessly butchering anyone and anything that happens to cross their paths. They exercise restraint, slaying their foes only when they absolutely must.

Self-sacrifice

“It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.”

- Frodo, The Return of the King

Perhaps most importantly of all, heroes are self-sacrificing. They give of themselves, even unto death, to keep the world safe from evil. Frodo, a powerless Hobbit, willing walks into Mordor on a seemingly hopeless errand because it’s the right thing to do for the greater good. Aragorn puts off his own happiness for decades to help save the Free Peoples from the Shadow. Boromir sacrifices his own life to atone for his misdeeds and save two hobbits. These heroes care not for reward or glory. The accomplishment of the quest is reward enough.

Valor

“By our valor the wild folk of the East are still restrained, and the terror of Morgul kept at bay.”

- Boromir, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess great valor. They are brave, with the strength of will and spirit to meet fearsome servants of evil and stand against them. They do not shrink from danger, though it threatens their very lives.

Wisdom

“For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

- Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess wisdom and insight. They understand their own limitations and can judge the value and truth of things fairly, rather than through the lens of their own self-interest or foolish desires. They realize, for example, that they dare not use the Ring against Sauron, though its power might allow them to defeat him.

 

[Sejs]

You may not mean it this way, but this comes off as rather petty. Kind of like the DM saying, "Well, you ruined my setup, so I'm not giving you any XP just to spite you."

Fair enough, and no - not my intention to come across as petty.

I think that, if the PCs come up with a clever idea that allows them to eliminate a group of foes with little or no risk to themselves, they should be rewarded for it.

Reward for being discriminating, sure. Full exp for defeating the giants? Heck and no. The giants had to way to respond; personally I'd give the party 100, maybe 200 exp each for the above scenario, but in no way did they earn 6,000+ exp each. And as was posted by RigaMortus - if they're quest culminated in killing these giants, they'd be a reward for that too. But not the combat exp.