PDA

View Full Version : Am I in the wrong here?



CoffeeIncluded
2012-11-03, 10:01 PM
So the group I'm in just tracked a tribe of orcs raiding a village we're hired to protect back to their mountain caves. We think the orcs are going to attack the village again soon and my character (a rogue/swashbuckler), along with the cleric, suggested going into the caves and investigating. Then I learned that the other job was to kill the orcs once we're in their caves and for a while I misunderstood that as "kill ALL the orcs, not just the ones who fight."

I'll admit that I broke character here, but I flat-out refused to go into the orcs' caves--their homes--and kill everyone. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of going in there for the explicit and primary purpose of killing them anyway. The DM, along with the person playing the cleric, said that my character was acting out of character for suddenly being so against going into the caverns and killing the orcs--after all, she fought the orcs before, and fought ogres, and attacked a choker while screaming for it to die. I replied that my character wasn't okay with killing the orcs after the fact, attacked the orcs and ogres because they attacked first, and the choker had knocked the wizard down to -8 HP by the time she got to it. In every single time, it was in self-defense.

The other, main thing, is that the DM has been saying the whole time that I shouldn't be so torn up about killing the orcs because, as he says:

The DM:

"It's an odd time for Natalia [my character] to develop such a conscience especially for a race of murdering rapists and thieves. Granted not all orcs are evil, but it is in their base nature to be. It is the exceptions which are non evil, not the norm...And I doubt anyone in the party will be killing innocents. The truth still is that any adult Orc fighter in there has been bred and raised to be evil and has likely done many unspeakably evil acts, or at the least dreams of such acts fondly.

It has been the parties decision that has led them to this point. I'm not forcing anyone's hand.

Don't forget that most Orcs are evil, and their race has done much to earn that reputation including killing people in Linwood. Given the chance they will rape and kill Natalia whether she pities them or not.
Not every Orc is evil, but that does not change the fact that most are. They, as a race, are evil. That does not mean that as individuals they are.

In their eyes, they are doing what they feel is right and just. It is their culture to be barbaric, warlike, and in conflict with intelligent beings near them. That will not change."

I ****ing hate this part of the alignment system. I hate hate hate hate hate HATE it. It morally justifies wholesale slaughter; in fact, it basically says that the best possible moral outcome is to ping and slay--Even if the orcs aren't actually doing anything at the moment, just because the Monster Manual said they're evil. I hate the racism that it enables and justifies; if it were up to me I'd scrap the whole thing and say that no race is good or evil; it's all up to the individual.

Am I in the wrong for asking the other players how they feel about the alignment system and asking the DM if he can change, for example, the orc's "often chaotic evil" to "Orcish tribal society prides physical might and is often quite aggressive, but that's not the same thing as evil."? Because, honestly, this is making me extremely upset and uncomfortable and less able to enjoy the game if this nudging towards killing orcs because they're evil because the Monster Manual says so continues.

Almaseti
2012-11-03, 10:17 PM
I don't think you're actually wrong here. The whole "helpless/defenseless categorically evil creature" issue seems to be a problem that a lot of groups try to deal with.

I guess in a way it's sort of a suspension of disbelief thing, too. The fun of the game is going around kicking butt. Having creatures that it's okay to kill is, or can be, part of the fantasy.

But you're not wrong to have, or play a character who has, a more nuanced idea of morality. I mean, if humans just kill orcs on sight, regardless of whether they've done anything to deserve it, of course orcs are going to kill humans right back. Kind of a vicious cycle.

And there's nothing contradictory with being willing to kill in self defense but not in cold blood.

ReaderAt2046
2012-11-03, 10:22 PM
For what it's worth, here's my opinion on the matter.

No sentient race is completely evil. Even demons, in my opinion, are technically not an evil race because they aren't a whole race. {Scrubbed}The DM may justly say that the Orcish culture makes them evil, the same way human cultures often do.

I would also note two other relevant facts. 1. The adults (possibly only the adult males, unsure on orcish gender roles) of that tribe have attacked the villiage, which would probably be a crime desrving of death. 2. The young orcs have presumably done nothing worthy of death.

In conclusion, I think you are right in disagreeing with the D&D alignment grid, but I also think the orcs that attacked the villiage have demonstrated their evil (or at least hostility, which isn't the same thing but still may require death). I haven't the faintest idea what you can do for the women and children, but I'm sure killing them is the wrong answer. Maybe take them back to the villiage and try to raise them rightly?

Gamer Girl
2012-11-03, 10:46 PM
Your not ''wrong'', but I fail to see how this is a problem. Even if your character is Super Good and the orcs were Super Evil that does not equal that you must commit wholesale slaughter. Just as a race is 'evil', does not say you must kill everyone of them.


But why is any time an 'odd' time to develop anything? Anyone can develop anything any time. You could have a Super Good Guy who slaughtered evil orcs everyday for 25 years, who wakes up one morning and says ''hum, wait''.

navar100
2012-11-03, 10:49 PM
Your DM is wrong for telling you how you should play your character.

Good is capable of killing. The act of killing is not Evil. It is unaligned. The purpose of the killing makes all the difference. Certain ways of how the killing is done are evil, though.

The orcs have already attacked the village. They will attack again. Killing the orcs is not Evil. It's not necessarily Good, just not Evil. Not wanting to commit genocide is Good. What you could have done is engage the orcs, killing enough of them to show your party is much stronger than they, then demand terms for their surrender such as stop attacking the village. Some villagers may argue the orcs will just repopulate in a generation or two and start attacking the village again. How you respond depends on how much you care. At the very least you can try to persuade the villagers to learn to defend themselves while the orc threat is gone, so if the orcs do attack again in the future the villagers can deal with it themselves.

Deophaun
2012-11-03, 10:54 PM
You're "wrong" in the sense that this is the DM's campaign and he has the say of how good and evil works in it. I don't know if you're right or wrong with regards to individual sentient creatures being able to choose good or evil, because I have only encountered a single sentient race in my lifetime, and know of no one else who has encountered more or done a study across sentient species to look at the breadth of their morality. If you know differently, please share.

CoffeeIncluded
2012-11-03, 11:01 PM
Your DM is wrong for telling you how you should play your character.

Good is capable of killing. The act of killing is not Evil. It is unaligned. The purpose of the killing makes all the difference. Certain ways of how the killing is done are evil, though.

The orcs have already attacked the village. They will attack again. Killing the orcs is not Evil. It's not necessarily Good, just not Evil. Not wanting to commit genocide is Good. What you could have done is engage the orcs, killing enough of them to show your party is much stronger than they, then demand terms for their surrender such as stop attacking the village. Some villagers may argue the orcs will just repopulate in a generation or two and start attacking the village again. How you respond depends on how much you care. At the very least you can try to persuade the villagers to learn to defend themselves while the orc threat is gone, so if the orcs do attack again in the future the villagers can deal with it themselves.

I think I need to go into the background a little more. So our characters have been hired by a little frontier town to protect them against orcs. We managed to arrive on the evening of the attack and help drive them off. We took a couple prisoner and managed to get some information out of them, including the knowledge that a half-orc arcane spellcaster was working with the cleric and barbarian leaders of the orc tribe to make peace with the gnolls, ogres, and giants in the area so they can fight the humans. My character is also convinced that there's someone else bigger pulling those strings. We went to Hulburg (We're in what the DM calls a Forgotten-Realms-lite setting) to ask for aid since they were having an ogre and giant problem, and returned with a dozen troops. We also ran into ogres there on the way back, and had a couple of tense yet exciting fights. Now we returned to the frontier town and are scouting the orcs' caves to see what else we can find. Taking out the leaders would be the easiest and least violent way to stop this, and it's the one I'd personally prefer.

prufock
2012-11-04, 12:19 AM
If your character is uncomfortable with invading the home of the orcs and slaughtering them, even those for which you have no evidence did anything wrong, that's your prerogative. If your party is powerful enough to wade in and take them all on, surely you're powerful enough to charge them to surrender and return for judgment from the townsfolk. "Kill 'em all" is not the only possible response to evil.

Veet
2012-11-04, 12:27 AM
Even if good and evil in the world you are playing in works absolutely the way your GM defines it (and by definition it does) it is not unreasonable for your character to have these views. In a role playing game you are acting out a story not all problems in a story can be clubbed to death, some are moral quandaries like the heroes asking if a certain course of action is right or wrong.

EtherianBlade
2012-11-04, 01:04 AM
Even if good and evil in the world you are playing in works absolutely the way your GM defines it (and by definition it does) it is not unreasonable for your character to have these views. In a role playing game you are acting out a story not all problems in a story can be clubbed to death, some are moral quandaries like the heroes asking if a certain course of action is right or wrong.

It is often a foregone conclusion in fantasy literature and role-playing games in general that certain types of creatures are always good, and certain types are always evil. That is a baseline concept that most players don't need spelled out for them, or even explained. What it boils down to is a basic Tarzanian philosophy of "Me good. Me kill evil guys." And most players which I have gamed with are content with that.

When you start interjecting questions of morality into a game, one of two things will happen: One, the play will get bogged down and at least one person will feel slighted because they are "messing it up" for everyone else. Two, arguments will ensue and someone will end up leaving the game. It's sort of like starting a conversation about politics and religion on a first date. It rarely ends well.

Personally, I agree with you about the alignment system. When it was originally conceived, and brought into the d20 system, I don't think much thought was put into how a character's ethical and moral alignment could lead to game conflict. The alignments system in D&D is used primarily for the classification of spells and items and in general terms, people.

Unfortunately, it is also often used as a catch-all rationale for behavior. How many times have I heard "But I'm chaotic neutral. That's what my character would have done." If ever there was a patent cop-out for bad role-playing, that's it.

Currently, I am running a fairly run-of-the-mill D&D campaign. I do not use the alignment system in my game. This means I have removed some spells, features, and other mechanics that depend on the absoluteness of alignments, such as a Paladin's detect evil ability. I consider such removals a minor thing when compared to the trouble alignments can cause.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-11-04, 01:14 AM
And I sigh at such a waste of a goldmine of roleplaying and gaming material. I find these sorts of dilemmas fascinating to watch unfold.

Medic!
2012-11-04, 01:23 AM
Obviously what you should do is tell your DM that his view on orcs is racist and stereotypical racial profiling, and that it is a Lawful Evil behavior. Then give him the stink-eye and shout "IN THE NAME OF HEIRONEOUS I SHALL SMITE THEE WITH MY MIGHTY BLADE!"

The Random NPC
2012-11-04, 01:29 AM
I get the vibe that you, personally, are uncomfortable with the situation. If that is the case, you are never in the wrong to ask the DM to stop. No one should feel threatened while playing a game.

EtherianBlade
2012-11-04, 01:32 AM
And I sigh at such a waste of a goldmine of roleplaying and gaming material. I find these sorts of dilemmas fascinating to watch unfold.

It's all about preference and style. Some people want to get into the intricacies of character, others want to keep the role-playing ball rolling.

I played with a guy once who was all about the history, motivation, and rationale of his character. It was like playing with a high school actor who thought he was a Shakespearean. Sometimes, intricacy is just a step away from boring.

Sidmen
2012-11-04, 01:41 AM
The reason you're having difficulty is that you're seeing through the paper thin excuse of "they're EVUL!". All you have to do to demonstrate this is replace the word Orc with the name of any Human racial group. I won't do such, because it'd immediately be flagged as a racist rant about Arabs, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, what-have-you. And I've been warned about writing such things (even to demonstrate how absurd they are) on these forums.

So, tell your DM that your character doesn't have a binary morality system, and that she'll be acting how she deems best. If that means that she won't charge into a cave system and strangle baby orcs, then that's what it means. By all means, infiltrate the caves and take any information you need - maybe force the orcish leaders to surrender - but don't compromise because your party wants to be genocidal murderers.

JustPlayItLoud
2012-11-04, 01:44 AM
Personally, I am of the opinion that you are in the wrong, not that I want to say you should quit the group or anything.

Self-defense is a great justification from a legal standpoint, but I feel it's morally a weak justification for screaming for something to die and then seeking its death. To me, suddenly having reservations about attacking orcs unprovoked even though they've already attacked humans unprovoked is hard character development to believe. War isn't evil. It's war. There isn't anything wrong with attacking an opposing force unprovoked, especially if they've already attacked. Even if they hadn't attacked, a preemptive strike would be justified so long as credible intelligence had been obtained indicating they were planning an attack. Just be willing and able to give quarter, don't make an effort to dispatch downed foes instead of capturing them, and don't take any offensive action against noncombatants.

I'm not saying playing a character in such a way isn't possible, I just don't find it very believable. Your character acting in such a way would hurt my suspension of disbelief as much as a "scan 'n' smite" philosophy hurts yours. The biggest difference I see there being that a "scan 'n' smite" philosophy is applicable to this game. By all means talk to your GM and group at length about this and discuss your points of view, but ultimately it isn't just your game. This is the kind of game the GM has put forth, and if everyone else is totally fine with the situation then you're the odd one out.

While you have every right to have your character act a certain way, you also have the right to choose not to. You can choose to change your character's outlook for the benefit of the game. Your character could choose to put aside moral compunctions for the case of the greater good. Perhaps she occasionally gives into her baser instincts and justifies it by saying she did more good than harm. After all no matter how well you roleplay a paragon of virtue, you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a flawed, believable, human-like character.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-04, 02:59 AM
Don't hate the alignment system, hate your DM for either misinterpreting it, or disregarding it.

Under the default rules, he's dead wrong. Orcs are often evil, not always evil, not even usually evil, just often evil. It's entirely cultural. Seriously, look up alignment in the MM glossary. Unless he's made a housrule or homebrewed new orcs, then wantonly slaughtering them for being orcs is Evil; especially in the case of non-combatants.

Defense of the system out of the way; No, you're not wrong to feel the way you do. Your DM shouldn't be telling you (or any other player) how to play your character. Your sudden attack of conscience may be inconvenient for him, but it's his job to work around that inconvenience. No other factors matter.

Djibriel
2012-11-04, 04:20 AM
Orcs don't really exist. They were created to act as Evil cannon fodder for the game, barring exceptions. Your DM has introduced these Orcs and reinforced the notion that their narrative purpose is being an opponent. By refusing to act, you are refusing to play the game the DM has planned for the players.

This can be interesting and fun if the rest of the group is okay with introducing this kind of moral debate into their world. Judging from your post however, they are not.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-04, 04:27 AM
You're "wrong" in the sense that this is the DM's campaign and he has the say of how good and evil works in it. I don't know if you're right or wrong with regards to individual sentient creatures being able to choose good or evil, because I have only encountered a single sentient race in my lifetime, and know of no one else who has encountered more or done a study across sentient species to look at the breadth of their morality. If you know differently, please share.

I'd agree, though I'd say you're both right in a way. This is the DM's world, and his rules. If he states that Orcs are Evil, and will always be, that's the truth of it, if you like it or not. As your DM has said, the mercy you're showing the Orcs will in all likelyhood just ensure that a future generation of killers survives, and the Orcs have already shown that they actually DO attack, plunder and pillage. It's not like they're just misunderstood. So, whether you like it or not, if your DM says Orcs are Evil and killing and pillaging is in their nature, that's the way it is, and there's no arguing with that. So from a purely ingame point of view, as sad as it is, exterminating the Orcs might be the "best" way here.

However, even if it is true and proven that Orcs are always Evil, it does not mean that a character can't have problems with killing children and noncombatants. Maybe he even should. I know I would never punish somebody for having second thoughts about killing noncombatants. So in the end, it's a roleplaying question.


HOWEVER: if you as a player are uncomfortable with the situation, you have every right to go up to the DM and talk to him, and tell him that you, as a player, don't really want to do this, which I understand. A player should never be forced to do something that he is personally not comfortable with.

Further, you could also talk to your DM about the whole concept of "Always Evil" races.

willpell
2012-11-04, 04:43 AM
Perhaps ask the DM what would happen if you decided to kill all the adult orcs and then adopt one or more orc babies, with the intent of raising them to be Good. Don't actually do it unless he's willing to work with you on this - some will say it works just fine, some will have the orc babies grow up to have evil in their blood and will play it for drama as long as you're cool with that, and some will have the orc babies grow up to have evil in their blood even though you make it explicitly clear that you're not cool with that.

Ultimately, while your GM has the right to decide he wants to run the game his way, you have a right to decide you don't want to play in such a game, and he gets to decide whether he values your playership more or less than his own preferences. If the rest of the party is actively in favor of his method, or even if they're neutral to it, he might be in the right to cut you loose (especially if your area is populous enough that you can fairly easily find another game). However it's also possible he's just not that great a DM, and you'd be right to call him on it.

Zerter
2012-11-04, 05:03 AM
You're not wrong. What your DM is basically saying, "There's a status quo, no point trying to change it." But there is a point to ask questions in regards to this status quo, not just from your perspective, but also from that of the DM.

If it is true that the best way to act morally is to slaughter Orcs, than that should be the result from the questions you're asking. It will confirm the DM's views.

If there is a way to break the status quo, good for you, you were right, and your DM is great for giving you this rewarding experience. And then kill you for threatening the status quo.

Analytica
2012-11-04, 06:15 AM
You are not wrong - the Order of the Stick webcomic itself does touch on a lot of these issues. You may have different expectations on the game than those you play with, but both playstyles exist and bring the greatest happiness to those who prefer them.

(Myself, I like situations where there is no real right choice, both alternatives are bad. In these cases, rather than ignore this fact, emotionally dealing with it as the character can enrich the game experience. What's it like being a paragon of virtue, perhaps also inconsistent and emotional, in such a situation?)

Technically though... your character lives in this world where there exists rampaging barbarian peoples (like orcs) that generation upon generation cause unhappiness. She probably thought about this before - is there a least bad alternative in dealing with a situation like this? I guess my advice is, don't shy away from the moral questions, but also don't break out of character, or prevent the others from playing mostly the game they intended. Seek the least bad solution in-character. If that solution involves orc genocide, have the character do it, or not do it, break down from the stress or angst or emerge on the other side with a new outlook, whichever seems most fun and works with the other players. Maybe stay on the sidelines, or help but refuse to kill. Maybe leaving the group and bringing in a new character. Maybe act genocidally and then afterwards have qualms about it.

If they really just want to be Red Team killing Blue Team members, and you cannot find a way within the resulting story to play a character that you can identify with, then leave that particular game and raise this for discussion beforehand before starting the next game with them.

Additionally, I am getting this great idea about an evil Sauron-like mage with orc minions... only the mage actually got them to keep them away from pillaging and plunder without having to kill them. :smallbiggrin:

Fallbot
2012-11-04, 07:53 AM
I don't think anyone is wrong, but it sounds like you're both trying to play two different games and something has to give if you want to keep playing with this group.

Refusing to profile races by alignment or use it as a justification for killing them is a valid and interesting style of play (for the record it's my preferred one), but playing a kick the door in game where orcs are the bad guys because they're orcs is also a valid way to play (even if there are some uncomfortable implications).

You want to play the former, your group wants to play the latter, and it's not going to be fun for anyone until you sit down and work out what you're all going to get from the game. Otherwise they'll find your character's refusal to kill to be whiny and annoying, getting in the way of their fun, you'll find their actions monstrous and uncomfortable.

You need to sit down together and discuss whether either your DM can say "Orcish tribal society prides physical might and is often quite aggressive, but that's not the same thing as evil." and provide your character with good reason to fight orcs beyond them having green skin and being 'evil', or whether you can accept that this isn't a deep campaign and you shouldn't try to look into things further than necessary and just have fun kicking ass. If no compromise can be reached and the direction the game is taking is making you genuinely uncomfortable, maybe you should think about sitting out of this campaign until you can fight the undead or constructs or something that won't interfere with your enjoyment of the game.

ReaderAt2046
2012-11-04, 08:12 AM
After all no matter how well you roleplay a paragon of virtue, you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a flawed, believable, human-like character.

This is one of the things that really confuses and annoys me about some critics. Why is it always assumed that evil characters are somehow more "realistic" than good characters?

Stubbazubba
2012-11-04, 08:50 AM
You're not wrong whatsoever. Your character has acted in self-defense or in reaction to another creature's attack. While screaming about the choker dying while you attacked would be questionable in a modern court of law, it's totally not a big deal in D&D-land. You are still absolutely within your rights to say that your character doesn't like killing non-combatants.

Your DM is within his rights to say that Orcs have genes which make them all psychotic, violent killers who cannot be reasoned with or taught anything otherwise from birth. He has no right, however, to tell you what your character feels in this situation. If you as a player see the choker and this as different scenarios, then your character absolutely does, even if it objectively isn't. No matter the real reason behind the Orcs' evil, your character might not believe that explanation and thus believe that they shouldn't be killed indiscriminately.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-04, 09:33 AM
Your character has acted in self-defense or in reaction to another creature's attack. While screaming about the choker dying while you attacked would be questionable in a modern court of law, it's totally not a big deal in D&D-land

A choker also has Int 4, so he's barely sentient, and likely could not be reasoned with.

What others said is very good. React ingame, in character. As fasr as I understood, your character wouldn't have a problem with attacking Orcs that fight and raid, but even if Orcs are generally Evil, it's a valid question to ask "Hey, guys, I understand killing adult Orcs, they're a threat. But what about their women (assuming Orc women don't fight) and children? We should talk about this!"

CoffeeIncluded
2012-11-04, 09:38 AM
I don't want to leave this group. I get along really well with the players and DM. There's excellent group synergy and it's a lot of fun.

We weren't going in there to kill every single orc; I misunderstood the situation. Still, it does upset me when the DM says that the orcish tendency to be evil is partly cultural and partly innate, and both he and one of the players says I'm mistaken in "applying 21st century enlightenment into a medieval survival of the fittest setting." Never mind the fact that three of our characters are female and my character's also gay and nobody's given them a hard time for that.

Water_Bear
2012-11-04, 09:39 AM
From a factual RAW standpoint you are correct. Orcs (and most other Monstrous Humanoids) are "Usually Chaotic Evil" which means that about 40% are CE, with the majority of the rest being NE CN or TN. Furthermore, every alignment supplement I've ever seen makes it clear that killing defenseless people / innocents is Evil except under the most exceptional of circumstances. I would go so far as to say that indiscriminate slaughter will, by RAW, almost certainly count as an Evil act and potentially be grounds for an alignment shift.

Aside from that, my 2cp on the matter is that your character is in a sticky situation. The Orcs are an immediate threat to the less-evil humanoid community nearby, and that needs to be dealt with. But they are also a long-term problem as long as they are living there. If you just kill their leaders, or even all of their adult warriors, you are kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Plus, rather than being marauding bandits, they'll be vengeful and desperate marauding bandits; perfect servants for whatever BBEG du jour shows up next.

Obviously you can't (or rather, you won't) just kill them all, but something needs to happen to make them less of a threat. My best guess would be that they need to be relocated somewhere where they can't easily menace travelers or outlying villages, somewhere where they could pick up a less Evil culture without being made into a slave race. If you know any non-Elven Druids, ones in the deep wilderness somewhere, you could arrange for the survivors to live under their care. That way they can be Orky and awesome in a way which actually contributes to the stability of the region, without starting a blood feud.

CoffeeIncluded
2012-11-04, 09:52 AM
Obviously you can't (or rather, you won't) just kill them all, but something needs to happen to make them less of a threat. My best guess would be that they need to be relocated somewhere where they can't easily menace travelers or outlying villages, somewhere where they could pick up a less Evil culture without being made into a slave race. If you know any non-Elven Druids, ones in the deep wilderness somewhere, you could arrange for the survivors to live under their care. That way they can be Orky and awesome in a way which actually contributes to the stability of the region, without starting a blood feud.

Hm, we're only level 3 at the moment but that's a really, really good idea.

Urslingen
2012-11-04, 10:04 AM
I don't really see the problem here.

That is pure RP-gold, right there! An excellent time for some character development and inter-party conflict. What DM could possibly see anything problematic about that? :smallsmile:

Isn't this what RPG:s are all about? Isn't this what sets them apart from a game of Dungeonquest?

What you have described shouldn't be viewed as a problem - It's a great opportunity for some good ol' RP:ing.

Peace Out.

/Urslingen

Water_Bear
2012-11-04, 10:15 AM
Hm, we're only level 3 at the moment but that's a really, really good idea.

I was just wracking my brains for non-Evil Orcs societies, and Eberron came to mind. They have a whole Good Orc Druid society (led by an Awakened Tree Druid with Epic levels) who fight aberrations from the center of the earth, which manage to be very Orky and very Good.

Other than that, you could try to see if a Warcraft 3 kind of situation might be better; if they could be convinced to ditch Gruumsh and pick up a new philosophy in a new place, they could be less gigantic pricks while still being Orcs. Look at how different WoW Orcs are from Warcraft 2 Orcs, that's a pretty big change in a few generations. Be the Creepy Raven Guy (forgot the dude's name) and lead them to a less massacre-y way of life.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-04, 10:18 AM
Medivh's the name. Excellent idea, but very large-scale.

The Dark Fiddler
2012-11-04, 10:41 AM
I'm going to go against the grain and say that yes, you're wrong. The GM has said that in this setting, orcs are evil enough as a whole that it can be used as a justification to kill them, so it is. That's not the case in all games (and while some people disdain the D&D alignment system for this, it's why I enjoy it, personally), but it is in this game, which is the important part. Now, if you wanted to get into roleplaying a debate on the morality on the matter, and make that a focus of the game... bring it up with the GM and the other players, and see if they want to (in general, that is, because it seems like you already have).


I don't want to leave this group. I get along really well with the players and DM. There's excellent group synergy and it's a lot of fun.

We weren't going in there to kill every single orc; I misunderstood the situation. Still, it does upset me when the DM says that the orcish tendency to be evil is partly cultural and partly innate, and both he and one of the players says I'm mistaken in "applying 21st century enlightenment into a medieval survival of the fittest setting." Never mind the fact that three of our characters are female and my character's also gay and nobody's given them a hard time for that.

Nobody gives your characters a hard time for being female and gay because they're the characters you want to play; they're allowed because it's fun. The orcs are evil because it gives an easy antagonist, theoretically allowing fun. If this is really upsetting you, though, then it may be a problem, just as it would be a problem if your characters we being prejudiced against for their genders and sexuality but you didn't want to deal with that in a game. In short, it's all about what themes you do and don't want to deal with in the game and what ones you just don't feel comfortable with dealing with (or ignoring).

It can be a difficult thing to get past, but honestly, if the rest of the group is having fun with the way the game is, and doesn't want to bother with theme of morality*, then your best option is to accept that it's simply not a theme of the game and get over it.

*This is assuming that you've tried to get them to deal with the theme and they've denied, which is something I inferred from your posts but may have done so incorrectly. If so, then do try it, or at least explain that it does make you uncomfortable. It's also important to note that this is not a wrong way to play the game; sometimes you want deep morality debates, sometimes you want hack and slash, and sometimes you want something in between.

nedz
2012-11-04, 10:46 AM
And I sigh at such a waste of a goldmine of roleplaying and gaming material. I find these sorts of dilemmas fascinating to watch unfold.

this,
Also your DM is wrong in telling you what your character thinks on a moral issue.

Some of the most memorable sessions I have run have all been based around moral questions.

As to your question: you are neither right nor wrong, at least not in absolute terms.

Strawberries
2012-11-04, 01:11 PM
I'm going to echo the sentiment that you are neither right not wrong, in absolute, but I think the situation is a bit more complicated than some people are making it out to be. From what I understand, you are uncomfortable both IC and OOC, or better, you are uncomfortable OOC and that influences your IC roleplaying (I'm gathering that because of this bit of your post):



I'll admit that I broke character here, but I flat-out refused to go into the orcs' caves--their homes--and kill everyone. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of going in there for the explicit and primary purpose of killing them anyway.

Now, if you can get past your OOC uncomfortableness, that's perfect. That's a great RP opportunity, as people have said. If you can't... you've got a big problem. Because it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong (I happen to agree with you on "always chaotic evil races", by the way), but if the world is shaped that way, you are going to find yourself in that situation quite often. It's perfectly fine if you can separate IC and OOC sentiments, and even if you want to fight against that belief IC (accepting that you and the other players see things differently OOC, so you may end up getting outvoted or forced to go along with something you don't want to do), but if it's something that causes you considerable OOC distress, as I'm gathering from your post... I'd say just leave the group.

I know you said you don't want to, but if you and the other players aren't on the same page, and if you can't see any way of getting on the same page in a way that doesn't cause a)you to be distressed or b)other people to stop having fun, then probably that isn't the group for you.

the_david
2012-11-04, 01:37 PM
{Scrubbed}

Roland St. Jude
2012-11-04, 03:31 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep in mind that real world religion is an Inappropriate Topic on this forum. This is true even when it intersects a gaming or other allowed topic. Please steer clear of such comparisons and comments, no matter how obvious or seemingly relevant they might be.

endoperez
2012-11-04, 03:50 PM
Your character's opinions are being colored by your personal opinions. This is fine, it's your character, and you shouldn't feel forced to play a character you hate.


However, from the DM's point of view, your personal opinions are sidetracking the game. It's not "OOC", but still, it's something he hadn't considered.

I suggest that you talk with the DM what kind of a character would fit into his game, but still wouldn't want to go in and kill all of these orcs.

In best case ( for you), he would come to see your point of view. If that isn't working out for whatever reason (his grand plot requires that there's an irredeemably evil army), you have to give in on some points. For example, even if orcs in that world are expected to be evil, your character might have to argue that another plan is better for tactical reasons.

Perhaps it's better to drive them out than fight them in their own territory, or perhaps an assassination of their leaders would bring back the status quo.

Also, having talked with the DM about your problems will help ensure that this won't come up again (without giving you another way out), since the DM now knows your stance on it.

CoffeeIncluded
2012-11-04, 04:04 PM
So it's looking like we came to a consensus: I misinterpreted the situation and we're back to our original plan of spying on the orcs but not actually looking for a fight.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-04, 04:21 PM
That's great. Because it's an opportunity for the other players/characters to learn that maybe not all Orcs need to be killed. Or, if you want it, for your character to learn that, yes, Orcs are beyond saving.

Killer Angel
2012-11-05, 04:02 AM
So it's looking like we came to a consensus: I misinterpreted the situation and we're back to our original plan of spying on the orcs but not actually looking for a fight.

I'm happy that the situation was successfully settled.
That said...



Still, it does upset me when the DM says that the orcish tendency to be evil is partly cultural and partly innate, and both he and one of the players says I'm mistaken in "applying 21st century enlightenment into a medieval survival of the fittest setting."

Well, D&D applies exactly our current moral pov to a medieval settings. Paladins act following the idea of Good, and guess what? they don't practise torture, which was largely accepted (and approved) in medieval era. A "real" medieval paladin, wouldn't stop the torture to extort informations, the D&D paladin will.



Technically though... your character lives in this world where there exists rampaging barbarian peoples (like orcs) that generation upon generation cause unhappiness.

As said, we usually apply our moral pov to a medieval settings, and good people tend to avoid killing the family of the thief that robbed our house.



Your DM is within his rights to say that Orcs have genes which make them all psychotic, violent killers who cannot be reasoned with or taught anything otherwise from birth.

That's true. A DM can create a particular setting where orc are the Evil made flesh and they are all beyond salvation, thus rendering "easier" their slaughter, even for a good character.

Delwugor
2012-11-05, 09:59 AM
When these issues crop up people start asking (as you did) "Am I right or wrong?" This is actually the wrong question because the game is a group effort. The question everyone needs to ask is "How do we resolve this and get back to good gaming?"


So it's looking like we came to a consensus: I misinterpreted the situation and we're back to our original plan of spying on the orcs but not actually looking for a fight.
Sounds like you discussed the problem, resolved your differences and got back to gaming!
You where not right or wrong, the GM was not right or wrong. But together you and the GM did the right thing!

GungHo
2012-11-05, 10:14 AM
I don't think you're wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're entirely right.

If the DM's world's orcs/goblins/whatever were objectively, always evil brutes due to supernatural or natural reasons, that'd be one thing. However, your DM says

Not every Orc is evil, but that does not change the fact that most are. They, as a race, are evil. That does not mean that as individuals they are.
which sets the stage that they're not objectively evil and that you should be concerned about the ramifications of putting their villages to the torch. You ask yourself "ok, since the DM just put up a Venn diagram for me, which side of the diagram am I killing and how would I feel justified about this?"

If your DM had said something like "you know, your characters would probably think that all orcs are evil because they've never heard of an orc that isn't malicious and thinking of orcs as 'people' would be an alien concept to them", that'd be a different conversation and is a bit more supportable than his premise. Those kinds of conversations can provide a lot of insight into figuring out what the group really enjoys. That can branch out into confronting the characters' world view and finding out whether or not the characters are really open to "orcs are people too" (and the answer might be no... it really depends on where the narrative goes).

Basically, I think your DM is wasting an opportunity here if he's just shushing you.

scurv
2012-11-05, 11:25 AM
you can alwase leave the campaign, I have done that once or twice when there was messy icly/oocly actions going on.

Darius Kane
2012-11-06, 05:08 AM
This is one of the things that really confuses and annoys me about some critics. Why is it always assumed that evil characters are somehow more "realistic" than good characters?
He didn't say "Evil" though. He said "flawed, believable, human-like".

Tantaburs
2012-11-06, 07:01 AM
I had this come up once in a session i was in.

I was a LN Samurai/Kensai that swore an oath "to protect the meek". The mayor of the town knew of various beast attacks and was doing nothing about it and turning villagers away. So I decided that he was failing to do his duty to uphold the saftey of the town which i found completly dishonorable so i challenged him to single combat. (was a terrible idea he was a werebear i lost. but that doesn't really matter) My DM thought that i wasn't acting withing my LN alignment as I was challenging authority with is not a Lawful act.

I told him that if he feels that I am not Lawful Neutral then change my alignment but actions should determine your alignment and not the other way around.

So basically if you are a CE Kill everything guy who decides that he wants to help someone then do that but expect your alignment to change slightly.

The Random NPC
2012-11-06, 07:38 AM
He didn't say "Evil" though. He said "flawed, believable, human-like".

He said
After all no matter how well you roleplay a paragon of virtue, you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a flawed, believable, human-like character.

It isn't unreasonable to read it
After all no matter how well you roleplay a [Good Person], you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a [Not Good Person i.e. Evil Person].

He is essentially saying that only evil is believable.

Darius Kane
2012-11-06, 07:43 AM
Again, I don't see "Evil" anywhere in his post. You can mis-construct what he said if you want, but that won't make it true.
What he is saying is that it is much harder to roleplay a believable person than to roleplay an incredibly good person.

ReaderAt2046
2012-11-06, 08:29 AM
What he is saying is that it is much harder to roleplay a believable person than to roleplay an incredibly good person.

Now, that I assert is simply not true. It is easy to play a person who is worse than you: simply imagine giving your sins more leash. And it is easy to play a person who is as good as you, because he is you. But to truly imagine what it would feel like to be better than you are is exceedingly difficult.

DigoDragon
2012-11-06, 08:47 AM
Something a DM can do to help ease the situation is to keep the caverns free of noncombatant orcs (i.e. children) so that if it does come to a fight, the morality wouldn't be as gray. Perhaps the younger members of the tribe are in another cave farther away.

Oh, another idea-- if this tribe has a central leader, perhaps challenging the leader to a fight can make the situation better. If you win, the tribe stops attacking villagers. I always like this classic option because it leads to RP opportunity.
See if your DM is amicable to the idea if it comes down to a fight.

The Random NPC
2012-11-06, 09:58 AM
Again, I don't see "Evil" anywhere in his post. You can mis-construct what he said if you want, but that won't make it true.
What he is saying is that it is much harder to roleplay a believable person than to roleplay an incredibly good person.

Just because he doesn't say the word Evil doesn't mean he didn't imply it. He sets up the sentence so that I infer that there are two types of characters, paragons of virtue and flawed, believable, and human-like characters, and they are never the same character. Since it looks like he is saying that there are only two types of characters, and we know that there are at least paragons of virtue and paragons of evil, it looks like he is equating evil characters with flawed, believable, and human-like characters.
EDIT: Since this is beginning to stray off topic, and I don't believe "what he meant vs. what he said" to be enough for another thread, I will refrain from replying to this conversation.

Darius Kane
2012-11-06, 10:21 AM
No, he's not saying that.

nedz
2012-11-06, 12:00 PM
Something a DM can do to help ease the situation is to keep the caverns free of noncombatant orcs (i.e. children) so that if it does come to a fight, the morality wouldn't be as gray. Perhaps the younger members of the tribe are in another cave farther away.

But some of us like our morality challenging encounters; because they give rise to discussions like this. If any thing, the problem in this case is that the DM isn't interested in the moral dilemma he set up.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-06, 06:51 PM
Now, that I assert is simply not true. It is easy to play a person who is worse than you: simply imagine giving your sins more leash. And it is easy to play a person who is as good as you, because he is you. But to truly imagine what it would feel like to be better than you are is exceedingly difficult.

But why? You can simply do evil in reverse, I.E. strip most of your faults and failings away. In real life, a 10000$ bribe might sound tempting, and you maybe think of your family, your children, or simply of the fun you could have with the money for a minor service that won't get noticed anyway, and besides, if you don't take it, somebody else will, so why lose out, it's not even harmful to anyone, right?

In a game, you can just utter a resounding "NO!" and stay on the straight and narrow.

Now, I sometimes think that being, or staying, evil is easier than being good, at least in D&D terms. Consider this: somebody holds people hostage, and wants you to do a job for him that might potentially harm others, like smuggling weapons or drugs. What does a good character do? Anyway he acts, he'll hurt somebody, somebody suffers. An evil character? He can just do the job, evil because he's working with evil poeple for evil ends, or he can ignore it and risk the lives of the hostages, evil because of lack of empathy for others.

Athanatos
2012-11-06, 08:23 PM
So it's looking like we came to a consensus: I misinterpreted the situation and we're back to our original plan of spying on the orcs but not actually looking for a fight.

So it doesn't seem like this is the particular angle your DM is gonna take, but keep in mind that going in here with these semi-peaceful intentions wherein you're still spying in their territory and still prepared to kill them in self-defense... isn't necessarily going to prevent any conflicts. It could be that a group of their warriors stumbles upon you and reacts to what seems like an act of aggression. They attack, you fight back (I'm imagining it'd be a little hard to reason with them once they're already convinced you're there with hostile intent, and with a potential language barrier, etc.), you kill them.

What happens next? Even if you've made sure to only kill direct combatants and not to strike the first blow, are the orcs going to know that? If they do, are they going to care? These humans (or whatever other races you got) came in here, killed my brother, killed one of the shaman's sons, and fled. It's an act of war, we have to respond in kind both for vengeance and to prevent our clan from getting wiped out by more attacks like these.

In particular, apply this to a real-world setting. Even if an invading army only kills active combatants and keeps casualties at of civilians and surrendering forces at 0, it's still not really going to endear them to the survivors. This isn't to say, of course, that the solution is to just wipe them all out. But it's a reminder that while your approach has the admirable goal of limiting wholesale slaughter, it's not always gonna work out perfectly.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-06, 08:56 PM
But why? You can simply do evil in reverse, I.E. strip most of your faults and failings away. In real life, a 10000$ bribe might sound tempting, and you maybe think of your family, your children, or simply of the fun you could have with the money for a minor service that won't get noticed anyway, and besides, if you don't take it, somebody else will, so why lose out, it's not even harmful to anyone, right?

In a game, you can just utter a resounding "NO!" and stay on the straight and narrow.

Now, I sometimes think that being, or staying, evil is easier than being good, at least in D&D terms. Consider this: somebody holds people hostage, and wants you to do a job for him that might potentially harm others, like smuggling weapons or drugs. What does a good character do? Anyway he acts, he'll hurt somebody, somebody suffers. An evil character? He can just do the job, evil because he's working with evil poeple for evil ends, or he can ignore it and risk the lives of the hostages, evil because of lack of empathy for others.

The good character takes option 3. He can pretend to go along with the hostage taker's demands or otherwise decieve him until the opportunity to overcome this foe with minimal harm presents itself.

Btw, your assertion that the good character hurts someone no matter what he does is wrong. That's holding him responsible for actions he had no control over. If the hostage taker harms the hostages, that's on him, not the guy he's trying to coerce. Nevermind that compliance could result in -everyone- getting hurt. How's a good character to know that the hostage taker is as good as his word? Hells, how's he to know that the hostage taker even has the stones to follow through on his threat? A judgement call is necessary, but a full frontal assault that ignores the hostage taker's demands altogether may not be unreasonable. Depending on details you didn't provide, it may even be the only reasonable course.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-07, 01:53 AM
Btw, your assertion that the good character hurts someone no matter what he does is wrong. That's holding him responsible for actions he had no control over. If the hostage taker harms the hostages, that's on him, not the guy he's trying to coerce. Nevermind that compliance could result in -everyone- getting hurt. How's a good character to know that the hostage taker is as good as his word? Hells, how's he to know that the hostage taker even has the stones to follow through on his threat? A judgement call is necessary, but a full frontal assault that ignores the hostage taker's demands altogether may not be unreasonable. Depending on details you didn't provide, it may even be the only reasonable course.

That's true, of course. It's not his fault, but he WILL hurt somebody, one way or another (even the third option isn't pleasant). What I'm saying is that it's easier for an evil character to do evil and good, than for a good character to do good and evil. I'd say. Of course, it depends on details, too.

SowZ
2012-11-07, 02:21 AM
You're "wrong" in the sense that this is the DM's campaign and he has the say of how good and evil works in it. I don't know if you're right or wrong with regards to individual sentient creatures being able to choose good or evil, because I have only encountered a single sentient race in my lifetime, and know of no one else who has encountered more or done a study across sentient species to look at the breadth of their morality. If you know differently, please share.

I disagree. If, within, a game, a DM says, "What is right is torture of innocents and that is just and good," I would not accept it because right and wrong aren't part of a game world or a book or a TV show, they are how the viewer/player/reader interprets the material in front of them.

A viewer of a movie has the right to say that the films protagonist was motivated by greed and not heroism, or that a side character was the true hero, etc. and even if the director disagrees one person isn't right or wrong here. Fiction cannot declare absolutes within itself on matters of interpretation. In the real world, I am not a moral relativist. But since I can't prove what is right and wrong, I can't declare that what is right for me in a work of fiction is right for all readers of that fiction.

Example:
DM- "Fair skin is more attractive in my game world than tan skin."
Player- "Oh, does everyone believe that in your world?"
DM- "Nah, lots of people in the world prefer tans but they are wrong."

That DM can't decide arbitrary things just for being a DM.

BTW, if Orcs are evil for slaughtering humans, humans are evil for slaughtering orcs. It is recursive. Now, here is what a DM can do. A DM can say that, in his setting, all orcs want to kill and rape. He can say that orcs have an innate tendency to commit such actions. He can say Orcs, overall, are destructive to human society. He can say that the gods reward Orc slaying. Just like in a work of fiction an author can state that his character prefers Jamba Juice to Starbucks. But that doesn't make Starbucks outright inferior.

In the same way, the DM can state the facts about what the Orcs do. He can't, however, make arguments as fact that, since Orcs commit action A, it is right to do action B.

So, for your game, the DM can say that Orcs channel some negative energy called evil and that they like to kill other races and have an innate draw towards what you agree is atrocity. But story crafters control the facts, not the interpretation. (Even an emotion of a character can be a fact of the story, but that characters rightness or wrongness isn't a fact.) So he shouldn't present an argument, (which is an abstraction,) ABOUT the facts and say it is part of the fiction. It isn't. Interpretations 'based' on the facts within the story
are equally valid from author and reader.

Further, even if you as a player think something is moral your 'character' doesn't have to. It isn't wrong of you if your character is uncomfortable with slaughtering Orcs in their home and no amount of meta-game explanation can convince a character.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-07, 03:11 AM
I disagree. If, within, a game, a DM says, "What is right is torture of innocents and that is just and good," I would not accept it because right and wrong aren't part of a game world or a book or a TV show, they are how the viewer/player/reader interprets the material in front of them.

It's not about things being right or wrong from a moral perspective, it's about whether a race can be universally, fundamentally evil. Keep in mind, Evil and Good are actual, sometimes even tangible things in most D&D universes. There are personifications of said alignments walking around, and gods regularly craft races, or at least individual things, in their likeness, including imbuing them with their alignment.
So yes, the DM CAN say: Orcs are always Evil and can't be good, because the very stuff of Evil lives within them.

He can NOT say: torture is always ok, because you can't imbue torture with the very essence of good, because torture is not a thing that physically exists. Orcs do.
Just as the DM can decide that, in his world, fair skin (or dark skin) is seen as more attractive, for whatever reason.

While he can't dictate the player's reaction, he CAN point out that he thinks a character's action are inconsistent with a) what the character has displayed so far and b) what is commonly accepted as a reaction. Since the DM seems to be reasonably enough not to force the player's decision, it's all good, no?

Deophaun
2012-11-07, 08:07 AM
We weren't going in there to kill every single orc; I misunderstood the situation. Still, it does upset me when the DM says that the orcish tendency to be evil is partly cultural and partly innate, and both he and one of the players says I'm mistaken in "applying 21st century enlightenment into a medieval survival of the fittest setting."
Yes, the medieval setting doesn't enter into it. The fantasy element of having multiple sentient species, however, completely undermines the enlightenment, which is based on the understanding of human nature. Orcs, along with elves, dwarves, kender, ghasts, dragons, and mindflayers, not being human, do not share that nature.

And it's not really a medieval setting, anyway, as everyone's pagan. Social morality is going to be better modeled by looking at the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or even Vikings rather than the Christianized Franks or Lombards.

DigoDragon
2012-11-07, 08:15 AM
But some of us like our morality challenging encounters; because they give rise to discussions like this. If any thing, the problem in this case is that the DM isn't interested in the moral dilemma he set up.

I love moral dilemma challenges too, but if the DM isn't interested in dealing with the one he set up then he may wish to adjust it accordingly. Otherwise such challenges can hang up the game for a while. :smallsmile:

GolemsVoice
2012-11-07, 08:42 AM
It also doesn't have to always be morally challenging, all the time.

Sidmen
2012-11-07, 09:35 AM
And it's not really a medieval setting, anyway, as everyone's pagan. Social morality is going to be better modeled by looking at the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or even Vikings rather than the Christianized Franks or Lombards.D&D religion has never been pagan, or even remotely related to paganism, It has some connection with polytheistic religions, but even then it is tentative at best.

No, D&D religion is closer to modern-day monotheistic religions, except with absolute proof that each religion's god exists and is a different entity. Since you choose one god to worship as a monotheistic deity and generally ignore all the others.

SowZ
2012-11-07, 12:36 PM
It's not about things being right or wrong from a moral perspective, it's about whether a race can be universally, fundamentally evil. Keep in mind, Evil and Good are actual, sometimes even tangible things in most D&D universes. There are personifications of said alignments walking around, and gods regularly craft races, or at least individual things, in their likeness, including imbuing them with their alignment.
So yes, the DM CAN say: Orcs are always Evil and can't be good, because the very stuff of Evil lives within them.

He can NOT say: torture is always ok, because you can't imbue torture with the very essence of good, because torture is not a thing that physically exists. Orcs do.
Just as the DM can decide that, in his world, fair skin (or dark skin) is seen as more attractive, for whatever reason.

While he can't dictate the player's reaction, he CAN point out that he thinks a character's action are inconsistent with a) what the character has displayed so far and b) what is commonly accepted as a reaction. Since the DM seems to be reasonably enough not to force the player's decision, it's all good, no?

My example with fair skin or a tan was that a DM can't say, "Most people prefer tans, but they are wrong, fair skin is more attractive because it is my world." Attractive is not a concrete thing, just like arguments for rightness or wrongness are not concrete things and a creator of fiction can't make abstract things like an argument definite, even within the context of his or her world, because they don't decide what is wrong for other people. They aren't above other people on issues not directly within their game world.

Again, the wrongness of an action is soley an interpretation of the concrete facts in a story and everyone has equal say on interpreting the story, viewers as much as directors or authors.

Saying evil is a fundamental force in the world and all orcs are evil is concrete. Saying that since orcs are evil it is wrong to let them live is an argument, abstract. I'm saying the player is not in the wrong and if the DM doesn't force it I won't say he is, either. But the player has every right to oppose slaughtering orcs both in and out of character. If no one else has an issue, though, he shouldn't make it some massive crusade to make everyone else uncomfortable and derail the plot but he can make everyone aware of what he feels.

nedz
2012-11-07, 01:34 PM
I love moral dilemma challenges too, but if the DM isn't interested in dealing with the one he set up then he may wish to adjust it accordingly. Otherwise such challenges can hang up the game for a while. :smallsmile:
Agreed.

It also doesn't have to always be morally challenging, all the time.
No - that would get old very quickly. But an occasional moral challenge is a good break from the more usual conflict resolution.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-07, 01:35 PM
Just as the DM has the right to inform him that his views on the topic could be considered outlandish by his fellow creatures. Playing a vegetarian in a world were consuming meat is seen as the greatest honor one can gain, to name a silly example.

I agree, however, aside from game-related reactions (a failed save against fear, for example) a DM should never determine how a character feels.

mishka_shaw
2012-11-07, 04:31 PM
In my campaign we have alignment but it has no use in role-play with the exception of discern alignment and bluff checks/diplomacy.

The reason is because any action can be justified by an alignment so in my campaign your alignment is just your characters personal view of themselves.

Chaotic Good = Someone who kills anyone for the slightest bit of wrong doing
Chaotic Good = Someone who gives everything away until they are penniless
Chaotic Good = Someone who has judged everyone else in the world to be impure and tainted by evil so they kill all living creatures
Chaotic Good = Someone who will do ANYTHING to bring a murderer to justice.

Pretty much everything can be justified given enough thought.

GolemsVoice
2012-11-07, 05:30 PM
Yeeeah, except not.


Chaotic Good = Someone who kills anyone for the slightest bit of wrong doing

Lack of moderation when meting out justice, especially by killing folks = not good.


Chaotic Good = Someone who gives everything away until they are penniless

Could be, but doesn't have to be.


Chaotic Good = Someone who has judged everyone else in the world to be impure and tainted by evil so they kill all living creatures

See the first quote.


Chaotic Good = Someone who will do ANYTHING to bring a murderer to justice.

See the first quote, or the entire thread.

ThiagoMartell
2012-11-07, 11:19 PM
To be fair, it looks like mishka snaw is pointing out his alignment house rules. It doesn't match the standard alignment rules, but that's how he does it in his game.