On politics, paladins and alignments

[Hederoth]

I had written in a huge thread covering the 406 comic that a paladin cannot be a ruler of a country or a huge city like Waterdeep. I stand by that, even though one pointed out that Waterdeep is infact run by a paladin.

This post is an attempt to discuss the paladin's difficulties when ruling a city as well as other shady areas of inter-racial politics and alignment. I will start with the easier part.

In the world of Birthright (excellect setting, too bad it died too soon) the elves HATE and I am putting as much emphasis to the word as possible, they absolutely hate most other races. They had enslaved goblins, before humans came to the continent and they look down on dwarves (even though they never fought each other, cos dwarves live secluded inside their mountains), They fought against the humans in a dreaded war called Ghealie Siedhe or Hunt of the Elves in their tongue, and the sole goal of that war was practically the genocide of all humans. They sided with THE evil god (there was only one evil god in the setting) in order to defeat the humans and only changed sides at the very last moment. Since then, there is a minority of elves trying to coexist with humans (Cwmmbh Bhein for those who know the setting) there are several elves who have isolated themselves magically and ignore humans trying to outlive them (elves are immortal) (Coullabhie or Tuarhievel till recently) and there are some elves who have continued the Ghealie Siedhe till this very day (Rhuobhe the Manslayer aka the Elf, depends on point of view and Llaeddra of Lluabright)

Llaeddra in particular is NOT evil in alignment, even though she advocates the total annihilation of the human race. (she hates the goblins too)

International or interracial politics are much much more complicated than alignment. Yes, Llaeddra could be easily compared with Hitler, but unlike him, she has seen the death of many of her oldest friends by the hands of men. It should be noted that Llaeddra is about 2000 years old and has witnessed the arrival of men on the continent and the war since it first started etc. Should she be evil?

Birthright is a realistic world, a real-politik world if you want. It has intrigues, plots, real emotions, racism and situations that are very very infrequent in other settings. In Eberron, as far as I know, there is racism, but there is clear-cut evil undead using empire vs the good ones. In Birthright, there is no such thing. Nobody can be easily labeled.

Another example from that setting. The realm of Talinie is a small "kingdom" (perhaps dukedom or barony might be more appropriate) and a theocracy led by a paladin who does not feel it is a bad idea to begin a hunt against those that do not adhere to her faith and follow a different god. Mind you, her deity if LG and the "opponent" in this case is a CG god who happens to be the acutal son of her own deity!

Now, let's go to the paladins. A paladin needs to juggle between responsibilities. Moreso if he rules a country. First of all, he has to obey the edicts of his religion and by extension of the authorities of his religion. A ruler needs to serve his people. A paladin is forced to do what is lawful and good. A paladin needs to obey the laws. A ruler forms the laws.

Would the laws in this state be formed by the Church then? Would this state be ruled by the Church? Would 10% of the taxes collected be tithed to the Church?

If the State has 10Gold Bars (currency used in Birthright) and the poor need 20 to be fed. Would he choose whom to feed and leave the rest to starve? How is that compatible with his alignment? This is a no-win situation, but for a paladin and his strict ethos, it is not easy to cope with.

In international politics, if nation A invades nation B for resources, but nation A is led by this good and benevolent king who treats his people nicely and nation B is led by a tyrant, what would the neighbouring paladin do? A war without just cause, simply made for profit, is certainly not good or lawful and if nation B is weaker militarily than nation A, there is the "defend the weak" clause of the oath as well. But then, nation A has a good man in charge and nation B has a tyrant who occasionally tortures and executes people for his own amusement. But then, the people of nation B DO fight out of fear of what their leader would do to them (or because they are magically compelled, or whatever) and they DO die under the swords of nation A's stronger military. What to do, what to do?!

I can find a dozen more scenarios where a paladin had no "good" way to do something but only has to choose between the lesser of two evils and choosing an "evil" even if it is the lesser, would strip him of his paladin status.

A paladin, cannot rule a nation in a setting that has realism when dealing with nations. If there is no realism, then yes, it's quite possible. I like realism tho.

I have no idea what Waterdeep is like mind you. I've only played FR a couple of times.

[Justinian]

In international politics, if nation A invades nation B for resources, but nation A is led by this good and benevolent king who treats his people nicely and nation B is led by a tyrant, what would the neighbouring paladin do? A war without just cause, simply made for profit, is certainly not good or lawful and if nation B is weaker militarily than nation A, there is the "defend the weak" clause of the oath as well. But then, nation A has a good man in charge and nation B has a tyrant who occasionally tortures and executes people for his own amusement. But then, the people of nation B DO fight out of fear of what their leader would do to them (or because they are magically compelled, or whatever) and they DO die under the swords of nation A's stronger military. What to do, what to do?!

Hrm. *Puts on the Paladin-Lord hat.*

Nation B has a king that tortures and executes for his own amusement?! Why haven't we already gone to war with them?!

Seize the opportunity that nation A has presented, ally with nation A, and depose the king of nation B. Handle the issue of division of natural resources once the war is done.


If the State has 10Gold Bars (currency used in Birthright) and the poor need 20 to be fed. Would he choose whom to feed and leave the rest to starve? How is that compatible with his alignment? This is a no-win situation, but for a paladin and his strict ethos, it is not easy to cope with.Quest to find a solution (perhaps literally), divert funds and food from other places, and bide time by dividing the available food equally. Arrange for some form of foreign aid. Request private aid from the citizenry, i.e. donations, perhaps to the church.

This is a plan, not a solution, but then the problem you presented doesn't have a solution, so the best a Paladin or really any character class for that matter could do is to try their best, sacrifice themselves, and help as many people as they can.

[eof]

Llaeddra in particular is NOT evil in alignment, even though she advocates the total annihilation of the human race. (she hates the goblins too) [...] Should she be evil?

IMO... yes.

The problem with D&D alignment is that it is a crooked system. On the one hand, it speaks of objective good. So what is objective good? Most campaigns and adventures certainly don't have any moral or ethic problems with the good-aligned party going to the monsters' dungeon and slaughtering them all. In very simplistic adventures, this is technically done for loot. Even paladins can join in on the fun. But what have the monsters done to deserve it? They might be evil, right, but by virtue of what? Most adventures don't spell out all the evil deeds of every monster encountered in the adventure, so what's left? An entry in the MM that says so? Ignoring that for a moment, there are monsters that are neutral rather than evil, but that is rarely an issue against invading their lairs and killing them all. Yet of course, when orcs raid human villages and kill and steal, that's evil. For the D&D game to be exciting, the alignment system is crooked in favor of the PC races---they can do stuff that brands other races as evil, and still be considered good.

So. With the alignment system being what it is, yes, I'd say she's evil, but then I'm conditioned to look at humans as a PC race. Are they? If the setting presents humans as orc substitutes, then in that setting, she isn't. As a further test, substitute "goblins" with "halflings," and see what your gut tells you. Evil or not? Then, instead substitute "humans" with "orcs," and see what your gut tells you then.

However, in my games I would rule her as evil for her genocidal tendencies, regardless of who she targets, goblins or humans alike. Then again, I intensely dislike the alignment system. It's easy to run with, and has some functionality, but the mapping to actual morals and especially ethics is awful. I typically care quite little about what the MM says; monsters with non-typical alignment are commonplace, and when I do put in MM-evil monsters as evil monsters in the adventure, I also give some thought to what they have done to have their evil alignment.

See the Goblins comic (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) for an interesting (and entertaining) alternate point of view.

[eof]

Another example from that setting. The realm of Talinie is a small "kingdom" (perhaps dukedom or barony might be more appropriate) and a theocracy led by a paladin who does not feel it is a bad idea to begin a hunt against those that do not adhere to her faith and follow a different god. Mind you, her deity if LG and the "opponent" in this case is a CG god who happens to be the acutal son of her own deity!

In my game, the paladin of Talinie would so not be a paladin, or even LG, and his deity would not be LG, either.


In international politics, if nation A invades nation B for resources, but nation A is led by this good and benevolent king who treats his people nicely and nation B is led by a tyrant, what would the neighbouring paladin do? A war without just cause, simply made for profit, is certainly not good or lawful and if nation B is weaker militarily than nation A, there is the "defend the weak" clause of the oath as well. But then, nation A has a good man in charge and nation B has a tyrant who occasionally tortures and executes people for his own amusement. But then, the people of nation B DO fight out of fear of what their leader would do to them (or because they are magically compelled, or whatever) and they DO die under the swords of nation A's stronger military. What to do, what to do?!

It is, IMO, questionable if either a) nation A would invade nation B for resources, seeing as nation A is led by a good and benevolent king (assuming the king is in charge), or b) nation A actually is led by a good king. IMO, it does not compute. If it is a war of liberation, the king can be both good (doing it for the sake of nation B's people) and non-good (with ulterior motives of different types), but if it is a war for resources, the king can't be good, IMO. Let me point out that a non-good king can still be seen as a good and benevolent king, and can even be benevolent---it's easier to rule a content people, after all.

[TheNovak]

Excellent post, and I agree with the assertion that a paladin couldn't function as an effective political leader in a realistic setting. Just wanted to correct one thing, because I'm a fan of Eberron and have used Karnath extensively in my campaigns.


In Eberron, as far as I know, there is racism, but there is clear-cut evil undead using empire vs the good ones.

Nope, it's definitely not clear-cut. Karnath is a Lawful Neutral nation leanin' perhaps a bit heavily towards Evil, but the majority of the populace and leadership are LN. The undead soldiers that they used are fallen heroes and respected veterans; to become a Karnathi Skeleton or Zombie is a huge honor. Now, during the Great War they did have a king of questionable morals who created the Emerald Claw and became a vampire, but they're constantly trying to squelch 'em. Honestly, Karnath reminds me of post-WW2-era Germany.

Plus, they're allied with the dwarves. You can't be evil and be friends with dwarves, because dwarves are awesome.

Anyway, that's my input :smalltongue:

[Iuris]

The essential element to making the D/D allignment system is to make sure evewryone is aware of his limitations. A paladin doesn't fall for failing to achieve utopia. He fails for not trying to achieve peace.

A paladin ruler will make sure to establish a good court system, a good guard contingent, prohibit slavery and similar. And he will show mercy in the execution of his duties. He will work for peace with the neighbours, and will content himself with well guarded borders against goblins, not push for extermination.

[Renegade Paladin]

I had written in a huge thread covering the 406 comic that a paladin cannot be a ruler of a country or a huge city like Waterdeep. I stand by that, even though one pointed out that Waterdeep is infact run by a paladin.
That would be me.

This post is an attempt to discuss the paladin's difficulties when ruling a city as well as other shady areas of inter-racial politics and alignment. I will start with the easier part.

In the world of Birthright (excellect setting, too bad it died too soon) the elves HATE and I am putting as much emphasis to the word as possible, they absolutely hate most other races. They had enslaved goblins, before humans came to the continent and they look down on dwarves (even though they never fought each other, cos dwarves live secluded inside their mountains), They fought against the humans in a dreaded war called Ghealie Siedhe or Hunt of the Elves in their tongue, and the sole goal of that war was practically the genocide of all humans. They sided with THE evil god (there was only one evil god in the setting) in order to defeat the humans and only changed sides at the very last moment. Since then, there is a minority of elves trying to coexist with humans (Cwmmbh Bhein for those who know the setting) there are several elves who have isolated themselves magically and ignore humans trying to outlive them (elves are immortal) (Coullabhie or Tuarhievel till recently) and there are some elves who have continued the Ghealie Siedhe till this very day (Rhuobhe the Manslayer aka the Elf, depends on point of view and Llaeddra of Lluabright)
Okay, so the setting has evil elves. Could have just said that. Check.

Llaeddra in particular is NOT evil in alignment, even though she advocates the total annihilation of the human race. (she hates the goblins too)
Translation: Llaeddra advocates genocide. She's evil in alignment whether she thinks she is or not. Check.

International or interracial politics are much much more complicated than alignment. Yes, Llaeddra could be easily compared with Hitler, but unlike him, she has seen the death of many of her oldest friends by the hands of men. It should be noted that Llaeddra is about 2000 years old and has witnessed the arrival of men on the continent and the war since it first started etc. Should she be evil?
She saw the death of many of her oldest friends by the hands of men. The justice-seeking good/vengeful neutral solution: Kill the men that killed her friends and/or hunt down the warmongers and criminals among them. Reacting by attempting to wipe out the human race is an evil response.

Birthright is a realistic world, a real-politik world if you want. It has intrigues, plots, real emotions, racism and situations that are very very infrequent in other settings. In Eberron, as far as I know, there is racism, but there is clear-cut evil undead using empire vs the good ones. In Birthright, there is no such thing. Nobody can be easily labeled.
Nobody can be easily labeled, or it's just hard to tell who is worse? :smallamused: Warhammer 40k is like that.

Another example from that setting. The realm of Talinie is a small "kingdom" (perhaps dukedom or barony might be more appropriate) and a theocracy led by a paladin who does not feel it is a bad idea to begin a hunt against those that do not adhere to her faith and follow a different god. Mind you, her deity if LG and the "opponent" in this case is a CG god who happens to be the acutal son of her own deity!
Bam. Fallen. Right there.

Now, let's go to the paladins. A paladin needs to juggle between responsibilities. Moreso if he rules a country. First of all, he has to obey the edicts of his religion and by extension of the authorities of his religion. A ruler needs to serve his people. A paladin is forced to do what is lawful and good. A paladin needs to obey the laws. A ruler forms the laws.
All granted. These don't have to be in conflict, however.

Would the laws in this state be formed by the Church then? Would this state be ruled by the Church? Would 10% of the taxes collected be tithed to the Church?
The laws of the state would be formed by the paladin in his separate capacity as ruler of the state, in an ideal situation. In Waterdeep, as I said, the Open Lord is a paladin of Tyr, but he doesn't act on behalf of the church in that capacity. The same goes for the city's collector of fees, a Tyrran cleric; Mulgor of Tyr officiates at Tyrran ceremonies at the Palace, but specifically refuses to serve at or hold rank in the temple of Tyr because he feels it would compromise his position as tax collector.

If the State has 10Gold Bars (currency used in Birthright) and the poor need 20 to be fed. Would he choose whom to feed and leave the rest to starve? How is that compatible with his alignment? This is a no-win situation, but for a paladin and his strict ethos, it is not easy to cope with.
Simple: The state has more than ten gold bars; such a low treasury is ludicrous. :smalltongue: But seriously, this dilemma is faced by paladins who are not rulers as well; after all, how many poor and hungry could be fed if the average high-level adventurer sold off all his equipment and set up soup kitchens instead? But providing for every need of every person/citizen is not the paladin's role, and incidentally it isn't the government's either. In fact, it would be grossly irresponsible of a paladin ruler to abuse the city's resources on a personal crusade and a level-headed paladin lord would understand that.

In international politics, if nation A invades nation B for resources, but nation A is led by this good and benevolent king who treats his people nicely and nation B is led by a tyrant, what would the neighbouring paladin do? A war without just cause, simply made for profit, is certainly not good or lawful and if nation B is weaker militarily than nation A, there is the "defend the weak" clause of the oath as well. But then, nation A has a good man in charge and nation B has a tyrant who occasionally tortures and executes people for his own amusement. But then, the people of nation B DO fight out of fear of what their leader would do to them (or because they are magically compelled, or whatever) and they DO die under the swords of nation A's stronger military. What to do, what to do?!
What to do? Well first, slap himself on the head for apparently failing so many Sense Motive rolls against the king of Nation A and then do so again for not doing something about Nation B earlier. A king who would look at a neighboring nation and say "Hey, we're a little short on cash. Mind if we kill you all and take your stuff?" obviously isn't good-aligned, even if he's been benevolent to his people for practical reasons. As for Nation B, frankly something should have been done about it's ruler sooner if practical. Sponsoring adventurers to remove that threat to your nation's security would be right in line.

I can find a dozen more scenarios where a paladin had no "good" way to do something but only has to choose between the lesser of two evils and choosing an "evil" even if it is the lesser, would strip him of his paladin status.
Not really.

A paladin, cannot rule a nation in a setting that has realism when dealing with nations. If there is no realism, then yes, it's quite possible. I like realism tho.
You have yet to adequately explain why it's unrealistic. If there's one person who's guaranteed to make a benevolent and just ruler, that person is a paladin. Not every paladin has the right stuff, of course, but one that does makes a nearly ideal ruler.

I have no idea what Waterdeep is like mind you. I've only played FR a couple of times.
Waterdeep is the largest city on the continent and also the most diverse, hosting creatures of all alignments and almost all races. It's government is composed of a self-electing council of Masked Lords whose identities are kept as a state secret; revealing the identity of a Lord is punishable by death, as is impersonating a Lord or falsely claiming to be one. The Lords, when not on state business, continue living their normal lives in the city. They are chosen from all walks of life to ensure that every non-criminal aspect of the city has a voice; there are members of several PC races, every standard base class (and NPC classes), and every non-evil alignment besides chaotic neutral. There is at least one other paladin among the Masked Lords (several slots on the council are intentionally undescribed in sourcebooks to let the DM fill it out as he sees fit). The titular head of government is the Open Lord, who is not masked and resides in the Palace of Waterdeep, but in practice he has little more lawmaking power than any other Lord.

Piergeiron has been ruling Waterdeep for 60 years in game now, and seems to be doing just fine with his alignment and paladinhood. Now, paladinhood in the Forgotten Realms works a little differently than what it does in Greyhawk; paladins, like all other divine casters, have to worship a patron deity; abstract concepts and causes cannot grant divine magic or paladin powers. Piergeiron's patron is Tyr, god of justice, whose clerics often hold positions in government and administer justice out of hand in anarchic or wild areas. It's entirely possible that a different god would have found fault with him and caused him to fall from grace before now, but as a Tyrran he's actually doing his god's work by administering the city justly.

[spectheintro]

IMO... yes.

The problem with D&D alignment is that it is a crooked system. On the one hand, it speaks of objective good. So what is objective good? Most campaigns and adventures certainly don't have any moral or ethic problems with the good-aligned party going to the monsters' dungeon and slaughtering them all. In very simplistic adventures, this is technically done for loot. Even paladins can join in on the fun. But what have the monsters done to deserve it? They might be evil, right, but by virtue of what? Most adventures don't spell out all the evil deeds of every monster encountered in the adventure, so what's left? An entry in the MM that says so?

I think you are asking for a level of nuance that would be impractical in any game setting, and is almost as impractical in a real-world setting. The monsters were created to be evil, so that we would not need to examine ethical issues or moral implications when slaughtering them. We invented these monsters to kill them. If you really want to introduce moral equivalence in this setting, feel free--it's your right as a DM--but I don't think it will make for good questing if, every time your party is asked to clear a cursed tomb or retrieve a lost artifact, they have to interrogate every critter they find to assure themselves of its nature.


Ignoring that for a moment, there are monsters that are neutral rather than evil, but that is rarely an issue against invading their lairs and killing them all. Yet of course, when orcs raid human villages and kill and steal, that's evil. For the D&D game to be exciting, the alignment system is crooked in favor of the PC races---they can do stuff that brands other races as evil, and still be considered good.

Not really. You're practicing a brand of moral relativity here--that any individual act can be considered on purely subjective grounds--and that philosophical position has no weight. (Read The Last Word for the definitive rejection of moral relativism.) There are some acts that PCs simply cannot do and still be considered good, but if it involves killing fictional monsters, this just doesn't apply. (See the above paragraph for why.)


So. With the alignment system being what it is, yes, I'd say she's evil, but then I'm conditioned to look at humans as a PC race. Are they? If the setting presents humans as orc substitutes, then in that setting, she isn't. As a further test, substitute "goblins" with "halflings," and see what your gut tells you. Evil or not? Then, instead substitute "humans" with "orcs," and see what your gut tells you then.

Any playable orc or goblin is the exception to their race. The genocide of monsters is the same as the genocide of a particularly harmful bacteria--it has no moral question attached to it. While it may have unintended consequences (and those may indeed be ethical in nature) the act itself is amoral or good, depending on how you feel about preserving human life. (Are you being "good" when you take penicillin to kill bacteria that, if contracted by an infant or an elderly person, could kill them?)


However, in my games I would rule her as evil for her genocidal tendencies, regardless of who she targets, goblins or humans alike.

I would agree with her classification as evil. Genocide against a race (see above for why goblins/orcs/etc don't qualify) is always evil, regardless of your experiences.


Then again, I intensely dislike the alignment system. It's easy to run with, and has some functionality, but the mapping to actual morals and especially ethics is awful.

Necessarily so. If D&D really required us to make a series of complex ethical considerations every time we encountered an NPC or monster, it would not be a very fun game at all. The alignment system exists to make ethical considerations fairly painless for typical adventuring, and anything beyond it should be the DM's domain.


I typically care quite little about what the MM says; monsters with non-typical alignment are commonplace, and when I do put in MM-evil monsters as evil monsters in the adventure, I also give some thought to what they have done to have their evil alignment.

That's just your style as a DM, and in my opinion, how it should be done. If you want your PCs to face ethical considerations every now and then, more power to you. But from a foundational point of view, it adds unnecessary complexity to an already complex game.

[spectheintro]

Renegade: Brilliant response; couldn't have said it better myself. Have you posted in the "how should a paladin be played" yet? I tried to bring myself to do it but the thread left me so hopeless and full of despair that I couldn't manage. It's amazing how narrow and (frankly) childish the common view of paladins is.

[eof]

I think you are asking for a level of nuance that would be impractical in any game setting, and is almost as impractical in a real-world setting. The monsters were created to be evil, so that we would not need to examine ethical issues or moral implications when slaughtering them. We invented these monsters to kill them. If you really want to introduce moral equivalence in this setting, feel free--it's your right as a DM--but I don't think it will make for good questing if, every time your party is asked to clear a cursed tomb or retrieve a lost artifact, they have to interrogate every critter they find to assure themselves of its nature.
Impractical? Yes. That is why I touch very lightly upon it in my games. In short, although I dislike the alignment system and its consequences, I still use it to the extent one would typically expect, I think. I certainly don't expect the players to agonize over their every action; however, I also think the occasional moral dilemma adds spice to the setting. In general, gut feeling works, but sometimes you need to stop and think about your character's motivations, which I think is a good thing. Take the surrendered prisoners dilemma: will you be efficient and minimize further interference from them by slitting their throats, or will you let them live, and what do you do with them in that case? What do your choices tell you about your character?

"Inventing monsters to kill them?" That sounds like metagame thinking to me. Yeah sure, technically there is an unending horde of orcs just waiting to be rolled up by the DM, but in-game it seems like very sociopathic to view monsters as "hot bodies for me to kill." Depending on your own personal flavor, D&D can be very hack'n'slash... but it is still (for now, at least) called a roleplaying game. If you just want to trade blows, try Descent, or perhaps Chainmail (haven't tried that).

Some quests are obviously much more "moral" than others. Clear the cursed tomb to stop the evil from "leaking out?" All good. Quest for the artifact to wake up the princess from her coma? Good as well. Kill the predators that attack the local livestock? Sure. Raid the nearest monster settlement for loot and XP? Less so IMO, YMMV.

Not really. You're practicing a brand of moral relativity here--that any individual act can be considered on purely subjective grounds--and that philosophical position has no weight. (Read The Last Word for the definitive rejection of moral relativism.) There are some acts that PCs simply cannot do and still be considered good, but if it involves killing fictional monsters, this just doesn't apply. (See the above paragraph for why.)
Quite the contrary, I think, but maybe I misread you, getting late over here.

First, let me say that I didn't mean to imply that the PCs can do anything and still be considered good. I'm saying that the system is far more lenient to PCs than NPCs, though, and in particular to PC races (because you need a larger group than just the PCs for it to make sense). Orcs attack human settlements and kill and loot. That makes them evil, according to the system. PCs attack orc settlements and kill and loot. That makes them good, according to the system. I personally think that is a lot of crap, but I run with it since I don't want to bog down the game unnecessarily.

As for "fictional monsters," again, that's meta-game thinking. The players can of course have their characters do anything; no-one claims that how they play their characters brands the players. But to the characters, the monsters (whatever they may be) are real, and if you want to roleplay the character, then the character's moral choices matter to the character.

Any playable orc or goblin is the exception to their race. The genocide of monsters is the same as the genocide of a particularly harmful bacteria--it has no moral question attached to it. While it may have unintended consequences (and those may indeed be ethical in nature) the act itself is amoral or good, depending on how you feel about preserving human life. (Are you being "good" when you take penicillin to kill bacteria that, if contracted by an infant or an elderly person, could kill them?)
That is quite harsh. Consider that orcs, for instance, while stupid still are sentient and intelligent. Comparing it to bactaria is merely a way to distance yourself from the moral questions that arise from killing sentinent life. I see halflings are listed in the MM as neutral (in 3.0). Are they also suitable targets for genocide? I also imagine it is possible to draw parallels between orcs and primitive (pre-historical) humans; are pre-historical humans suitable?

You talk about preserving human life, which is all good and well in RL, where we are perhaps the only self-aware race on the planet. How about in the game, where there is an abundance of such races? Viewing every other such race (in-game, I suppose I need to add, if it isn't obvious), monster or not, or even some, as "bacteria" fit to be exterminated utterly, not only strikes me as immoral, but since every such race can harbor identical views, ethically unsupportable.

Necessarily so. If D&D really required us to make a series of complex ethical considerations every time we encountered an NPC or monster, it would not be a very fun game at all. The alignment system exists to make ethical considerations fairly painless for typical adventuring, and anything beyond it should be the DM's domain.

That's just your style as a DM, and in my opinion, how it should be done. If you want your PCs to face ethical considerations every now and then, more power to you. But from a foundational point of view, it adds unnecessary complexity to an already complex game.
True, which is why I keep it low-key, as I already mentioned. But for players interested in actually roleplaying (as opposed to rollplaying), moral considerations will come up, not least of all for paladins.

[Renegade Paladin]

Renegade: Brilliant response; couldn't have said it better myself. Have you posted in the "how should a paladin be played" yet? I tried to bring myself to do it but the thread left me so hopeless and full of despair that I couldn't manage. It's amazing how narrow and (frankly) childish the common view of paladins is.
I haven't looked at it because I'm pretty sure I know what I'll see, but I'll go poke my head in there for a second and see if anything catches my eye.

[spectheintro]

Impractical? Yes. That is why I touch very lightly upon it in my games. In short, although I dislike the alignment system and its consequences, I still use it to the extent one would typically expect, I think. I certainly don't expect the players to agonize over their every action; however, I also think the occasional moral dilemma adds spice to the setting. In general, gut feeling works, but sometimes you need to stop and think about your character's motivations, which I think is a good thing. Take the surrendered prisoners dilemma: will you be efficient and minimize further interference from them by slitting their throats, or will you let them live, and what do you do with them in that case? What do your choices tell you about your character?

Your example is a good one, but also quite situational. The LG thing to do would be to honor their surrender, period--unless you had explicit reason to believe that their surrender was insincere in some way. N or CG could simply weigh the pros and cons of taking prisoners and go from there, provided those that surrendered were evil.


"Inventing monsters to kill them?" That sounds like metagame thinking to me. Yeah sure, technically there is an unending horde of orcs just waiting to be rolled up by the DM, but in-game it seems like very sociopathic to view monsters as "hot bodies for me to kill." Depending on your own personal flavor, D&D can be very hack'n'slash... but it is still (for now, at least) called a roleplaying game. If you just want to trade blows, try Descent, or perhaps Chainmail (haven't tried that).

I'm not sure what meta-game refers to, but the only reason monsters exist in the D&D universe is to introduce dramatic tension (at best) and for bodies to kill (at worst.) Most were never meant to be sources of ethical conflict; the system produced them so the characters would have simple and clear-cut enemies. See a goblin? He's evil, and killing him is a good thing--end of story. That's why goblins exist in the fantasy setting. It goes similarly for around 95% of all monsters; they're just there as devices. The characters just aren't supposed to worry about it. To use an analogy to mathematics, 2+2=4, if we both agree on what the symbols "2" and "4" represent. In very rare cases, we will use "2" to refer to something other than what is commonly understood, but since a large body of additional, more complex math is based on the common definition, 2+2=4 is rarely something worth investigating. The same applies for monsters; under the system in place, in almost every given scenario, "monster" + "dead" = "good." You're arguing that this is not an accurate reflection of real morality, but I'm responding that those monsters just serve as the building blocks: we use them to gain experience, add flavor, etc., but it is not from them that the guts of roleplaying should arise.


Some quests are obviously much more "moral" than others. Clear the cursed tomb to stop the evil from "leaking out?" All good. Quest for the artifact to wake up the princess from her coma? Good as well. Kill the predators that attack the local livestock? Sure. Raid the nearest monster settlement for loot and XP? Less so IMO, YMMV.

Again, these monsters only exist in this setting to provide us with a cheap and easy way to progress the characters. That's why they're there. We made them precisely to avoid ethical issues.


Quite the contrary, I think, but maybe I misread you, getting late over here. First, let me say that I didn't mean to imply that the PCs can do anything and still be considered good. I'm saying that the system is far more lenient to PCs than NPCs, though, and in particular to PC races (because you need a larger group than just the PCs for it to make sense). Orcs attack human settlements and kill and loot. That makes them evil, according to the system.

See, I think this may be the root of our misunderstanding. I don't think it's because the orcs pillage and loot that they are evil--I think that the orcs are just evil, and therefore they pillage and loot. The system has spawned orcs because it needs simple, evil creatures to act as antagonists. There is no moral question here because they were created expressly to avoid questions of ethics. Orcs=bad, therefore they do bad things, therefore we kill them without (much) remorse. (Clearly any loss of life should be considered a tragedy, but I don't think many people grieve the deaths of those they consider truly evil.)


PCs attack orc settlements and kill and loot. That makes them good, according to the system. I personally think that is a lot of crap, but I run with it since I don't want to bog down the game unnecessarily.

Here I think you make a valid point. Raiding orc villages should not automatically be presumed to be good, especially if the orcs aren't causing any trouble. But since the orcs are by definition evil, it can't be considered a bad thing either.


As for "fictional monsters," again, that's meta-game thinking. The players can of course have their characters do anything; no-one claims that how they play their characters brands the players. But to the characters, the monsters (whatever they may be) are real, and if you want to roleplay the character, then the character's moral choices matter to the character.

Well to the characters, yes, they are real, but let me put it to you this way: if a demon of Hell rose from the earth in front of you, spitting flames, and you were a devout Christian, would you have ANY qualms striking it down? In these worlds, orcs/goblins/etc are just unequivocably evil. There is no evidence, in any society, that a settlement of greenskins can be good or neutral or anything but wholly destructive. The system has designed them that way. So asking moral questions about these monsters that were created just to be evil is a bit pointless, because in these worlds no one has any doubt: they're evil, and need to be eliminated.


That is quite harsh. Consider that orcs, for instance, while stupid still are sentient and intelligent. Comparing it to bactaria is merely a way to distance yourself from the moral questions that arise from killing sentinent life. I see halflings are listed in the MM as neutral (in 3.0). Are they also suitable targets for genocide? I also imagine it is possible to draw parallels between orcs and primitive (pre-historical) humans; are pre-historical humans suitable?

Whoa now, you're running away with my analogy. Orcs may be sentient, but the books make it painfully clear that the odds of your random orc being anything but "chaotic evil" are around 100,000:1. This reduces the question from: "should we kill sentient life" to "should we kill these things that will almost certainly do us or someone else harm?" Any race whose disposition falls the same way skips out on questions of morality, because there is an exceedingly small chance that killing a member of that race could be anything but good. Halflings aren't 99.999999% evil, so no, they don't qualify. They're just neutral. Pre-historic humans are the same, unless we can show that they are almost always evil, in which case they would be the functional equivalent of orcs.


You talk about preserving human life, which is all good and well in RL, where we are perhaps the only self-aware race on the planet. How about in the game, where there is an abundance of such races? Viewing every other such race (in-game, I suppose I need to add, if it isn't obvious), monster or not, or even some, as "bacteria" fit to be exterminated utterly, not only strikes me as immoral, but since every such race can harbor identical views, ethically unsupportable.

You're making the issue more complicated than it is. Orcs are evil. That's why they exist. It's just like death knights are evil. They just are, because we need simple conflicts in the game world. If every conflict brought along with it a moral dilemma, the game would be too complicated. So we invent creatures whose sole purpose is to be evil and, by extension, do evil things, so the PCs or NPCs can kill them without wondering if what they do is morally defensible. Any race that truly has the capacity for multiple alignments doesn't fall into the "just evil" category, so they aren't "fit for extermination," as you put it. I'm not arguing eugenics or elitism here; I'm just stating what the rulebooks make really clear: some monsters are just plain evil, and we put them in the game for easy, conscience-free killin'.


True, which is why I keep it low-key, as I already mentioned. But for players interested in actually roleplaying (as opposed to rollplaying), moral considerations will come up, not least of all for paladins.

Even paladins need some simple conflict, too. A good campaign shouldn't consist of just killing goblins or orcs, though. There should be suitable moral conflict for all characters involved, and a chance for true roleplay through the dramatic tension, but I've found that it's often custom NPCs or elaborate scenarios that provide those things, and that is always at the whim of the DM.

[eof]

Your example is a good one, but also quite situational. The LG thing to do would be to honor their surrender, period--unless you had explicit reason to believe that their surrender was insincere in some way. N or CG could simply weigh the pros and cons of taking prisoners and go from there, provided those that surrendered were evil.
I more or less agree with your conclusions, at least enough that I see no reason to argue. But my point was actually not "what would X do," but "what will X do?" If you're a DM (sounds like it), or can suggest it to a DM, run the scenario a few times. Heated battle with opponents of non-definitive alignment, and then the other side surrenders because it can't win or retreat efficiently. See what the PCs suggest, and how it relates to the breakdown you suggest.

I'm not sure what meta-game refers to, but the only reason monsters exist in the D&D universe is to introduce dramatic tension (at best) and for bodies to kill (at worst.) Most were never meant to be sources of ethical conflict; the system produced them so the characters would have simple and clear-cut enemies. See a goblin? He's evil, and killing him is a good thing--end of story. That's why goblins exist in the fantasy setting. It goes similarly for around 95% of all monsters; they're just there as devices. The characters just aren't supposed to worry about it. To use an analogy to mathematics, 2+2=4, if we both agree on what the symbols "2" and "4" represent. In very rare cases, we will use "2" to refer to something other than what is commonly understood, but since a large body of additional, more complex math is based on the common definition, 2+2=4 is rarely something worth investigating. The same applies for monsters; under the system in place, in almost every given scenario, "monster" + "dead" = "good." You're arguing that this is not an accurate reflection of real morality, but I'm responding that those monsters just serve as the building blocks: we use them to gain experience, add flavor, etc., but it is not from them that the guts of roleplaying should arise.

Again, these monsters only exist in this setting to provide us with a cheap and easy way to progress the characters. That's why they're there. We made them precisely to avoid ethical issues.
With meta-game thinking, I mean that you insert the players' understanding that this is a game into the game, so to speak, and use it to justify the characters' actions in-game. To the player, monsters exist to "get killed and let the character gain XP," but to the character, any entity encountered is "as real" as another person would be to you, the player, in RL. It's a rather vital part of a roleplaying game, IMO. Most games (and sports) don't have any roleplaying components (Descent, chess, poker, Scrabble, Magic the Gathering, tennis, whatever) and so you're free to use your understanding of the mechanics of the game as well as you can. D&D is an RPG, and so that freedom is more limited. In short, the characters do not know that (and should not be played as if) they are fictional characters in a game, and as such, you, the player, should not use your knowledge that they in fact are so, as justification for the characters' actions.

Consider the following, weak parallel:
You go to watch the latest Bruce Willis movie. In the opening scene, Bruce walks along a street, brushing against some other guy and walks on. That guy turns around a bit and sneeers knowingly at Bruce's back. Bruce then turns around and shoots the guy in the head. Everybody stops and stares. Bruce is all: "Hey, what? I know that is the bad guy. I read the script, for boop's sake. He's just there for me to kill in the end anyway, so I just hurried up the process a bit."
That's Bruce using his out-of-character knowledge to justify his character's actions. While there is a stronger case to be made for PCs killing monsters (such as, you can come up with in-game justification for it, like "they are always evil"), using out-of-game knowledge and understanding is in general a bad idea in an RPG.

Your reduction of a character to a one-dimensional number ("2"), IMO, has no place in an RPG. There are lots of games that reduce characters to a block of stats and nothing more, with game goals like "empty the map of monsters," or "defeat the opposing army in battle," but they are not RPGs, either. I'm sure you can play D&D in that manner too; many do, after all. However, in that case I don't see the need for a alignment system in the first place.

And no, I disagree that reactions to "monsters," and moral questions in general, should not generate the guts of the roleplaying experience and development. If not from that, then from what? PC2PC interactions only? Player choices, like "hey, I think my character just turned from LG to LN?" Does the PCs help the princess (xG) or not (xN-xE)? Reactions to monsters is one of the best chances to RP and develop your character, and that's not only because the opportunities are plentiful---after all, everyone treats their friends pretty much the same way, but how you deal with your enemies varies a lot. If you reduce monsters to "just something to be killed," then you lose out on all that.

See, I think this may be the root of our misunderstanding. I don't think it's because the orcs pillage and loot that they are evil--I think that the orcs are just evil, and therefore they pillage and loot. The system has spawned orcs because it needs simple, evil creatures to act as antagonists. There is no moral question here because they were created expressly to avoid questions of ethics. Orcs=bad, therefore they do bad things, therefore we kill them without (much) remorse. (Clearly any loss of life should be considered a tragedy, but I don't think many people grieve the deaths of those they consider truly evil.)
(Ignoring the "the system has spawned orcs" and "created expressly to avoid questions" justification, as I went into that above.)

I agree that you have a valid point about "evil, thus they pillage." You can play the game that way if you like. However, in most cases, I prefer to assume that even monsters have a choice in their alignment (and see below). For me, it pretty much falls apart at "I think that the orcs are just evil, and therefore they pillage and loot" vs "I think that the PCs are just good, and therefore they pillage and loot." Which is not to say that the PCs don't do other things as well, but then again, the same is true for the orcs (in-game perspective; from a player perspective, the orcs spring into existence when needed, but in-game, they are born and grow up just like everybody else).

Here I think you make a valid point. Raiding orc villages should not automatically be presumed to be good, especially if the orcs aren't causing any trouble. But since the orcs are by definition evil, it can't be considered a bad thing either.

Well to the characters, yes, they are real, but let me put it to you this way: if a demon of Hell rose from the earth in front of you, spitting flames, and you were a devout Christian, would you have ANY qualms striking it down? In these worlds, orcs/goblins/etc are just unequivocably evil. There is no evidence, in any society, that a settlement of greenskins can be good or neutral or anything but wholly destructive. The system has designed them that way. So asking moral questions about these monsters that were created just to be evil is a bit pointless, because in these worlds no one has any doubt: they're evil, and need to be eliminated.

Whoa now, you're running away with my analogy. Orcs may be sentient, but the books make it painfully clear that the odds of your random orc being anything but "chaotic evil" are around 100,000:1. This reduces the question from: "should we kill sentient life" to "should we kill these things that will almost certainly do us or someone else harm?" Any race whose disposition falls the same way skips out on questions of morality, because there is an exceedingly small chance that killing a member of that race could be anything but good. Halflings aren't 99.999999% evil, so no, they don't qualify. They're just neutral. Pre-historic humans are the same, unless we can show that they are almost always evil, in which case they would be the functional equivalent of orcs.

You're making the issue more complicated than it is. Orcs are evil. That's why they exist. It's just like death knights are evil. They just are, because we need simple conflicts in the game world. If every conflict brought along with it a moral dilemma, the game would be too complicated. So we invent creatures whose sole purpose is to be evil and, by extension, do evil things, so the PCs or NPCs can kill them without wondering if what they do is morally defensible. Any race that truly has the capacity for multiple alignments doesn't fall into the "just evil" category, so they aren't "fit for extermination," as you put it. I'm not arguing eugenics or elitism here; I'm just stating what the rulebooks make really clear: some monsters are just plain evil, and we put them in the game for easy, conscience-free killin'.
Sorry to put it this bluntly, but here you are outright wrong.

Striking down a demon is always good. A demon is always evil (or at least as close to "always" as you get). That's because it is an outsider that comes from an evil plane. I'd go with the interpretion that the demon is a physical manifestation of the (evil) plane, but that really doesn't matter. According to the MM, exceptions are unique or 1:999,999. There is no moral issue with attacking a demon. There are other monsters that this applies to as well, most undead in particular. I don't see any moral issues arising from killing animal-intelligence-neutral monsters either, or (non-living) constructs. Defending yourself has never been an issue either. All IMO of course.

But orcs, contrary to your claims, are not always evil. In 3.0, they were listed as "usually CE," which meant that more than 50% had that alignment. Unfortunately, this doesn't give an upper bound of how many are CE, but it's obviously less than 999,999:1. It could be 51:49, it could be 3:1, it could be 9:1, it could be 99:1. In 3.5, they have been "downgraded" to "often CE," which means 40-50% of them. (Feel free to look up this if you don't believe me.) Now, this does not mean that 50-60% of them have to be non-evil obviously, but it could mean that; perhaps another 40-50% of the orcs are CN and just want to have their own settlements and be left in peace with no-one telling them what to do (leaving 0-20% to be other alignments). Regardless, in neither case (and less so in 3.5) can your character absolve himself (herself) and shrug it off with a "yeah, they're always evil." Or rather, of course he can, but those are empty words. Therefore, any society where "there is no doubt that orcs are evil and need to be eliminated" is wrong, and quite likely not good.

Finally, reducing the question from "should we kill sentient life" to "should we kill these things that will almost certainly do us or someone else harm" is hardly useful, since "harm" is highly subjective. I'm sure that the orcs can use exactly the same argument when killing humans. I mentioned the Goblins comic earlier in the thread; it's really worth checking out.

It sounds a bit to me like you want to shrug off all moral complications by simplifying the issue to game terms. That is a valid choice for a way to play, of course, but in that case I don't really see why you need the alignment system at all---a classification as good in a system that does not matter is useless, because it carries no meaning. If monsters "are there to be slaughtered," meta-game speakingly, then it matters little what their alignment is, except as a hollow excuse to make the characters "the good guys" of the story by default.

Even paladins need some simple conflict, too. A good campaign shouldn't consist of just killing goblins or orcs, though. There should be suitable moral conflict for all characters involved, and a chance for true roleplay through the dramatic tension, but I've found that it's often custom NPCs or elaborate scenarios that provide those things, and that is always at the whim of the DM.
Every monster is an NPC. All NPCs have motivations, simple or complicated. Halflings (and other neutral, and good, characters) aren't just backdrop, or shops where you can pay money to upgrade to a bigger sword. You can reduce an RPG to that, but it provides a richer experience if you don't. As a DM, you need to fit the game to the players, of course, so this might not be an option. Regardless, alignment is about moral choices, and if you are going to sidestep all that by declaring "orcs are always evil," you might as well drop the alignment system entirely (substituting alignment requirements for certain classes with specific guidelines---an evolved code, if you like---for that class).

(I'm not going to be able to read the boards for a while. If you want to continue this, I'd appreciate if you sent me a message with a link to your response (or a notice that you have responded). Otherwise, I might have forgot it entirely by the time I again can post. Thanks.)

[Charles Phipps]

Whether a Paladin can rule a nation or not is the same question as to whether a Cleric of a LG god can.

[spectheintro]

With meta-game thinking, I mean that you insert the players' understanding that this is a game into the game, so to speak, and use it to justify the characters' actions in-game. To the player, monsters exist to "get killed and let the character gain XP," but to the character, any entity encountered is "as real" as another person would be to you, the player, in RL. It's a rather vital part of a roleplaying game, IMO. Most games (and sports) don't have any roleplaying components (Descent, chess, poker, Scrabble, Magic the Gathering, tennis, whatever) and so you're free to use your understanding of the mechanics of the game as well as you can. D&D is an RPG, and so that freedom is more limited. In short, the characters do not know that (and should not be played as if) they are fictional characters in a game, and as such, you, the player, should not use your knowledge that they in fact are so, as justification for the characters' actions.

I see what meta-game means now, but I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. I think this essentially comes down to the intent of the creators of the game. I'll go into it more because you respond to my actual argument (and not the meta-game thing) below.


Your reduction of a character to a one-dimensional number ("2"), IMO, has no place in an RPG. There are lots of games that reduce characters to a block of stats and nothing more, with game goals like "empty the map of monsters," or "defeat the opposing army in battle," but they are not RPGs, either. I'm sure you can play D&D in that manner too; many do, after all. However, in that case I don't see the need for a alignment system in the first place.

But monsters aren't supposed to be characters unless they're unique; they're just supposed to be monsters. If you don't think simple evils should exist in an RPG, that's your prerogative, but in the creation of the D&D system, most monsters were imagined and then put on paper just to be sheep for slaughter. The worlds were set in motion with the simple understanding that 95% of monsters are just plain evil, no ifs, ands, or buts, and all of the good or neutral civilizations of the world acknowledge this. (Because, after all, we invented this world, just like we invented the number "2." I'm not reducing monsters to anything, I'm just telling you what I believe--and I think the core rulebooks support me in this--monsters are supposed to represent for the majority of the time. You would like "2" to represent more than the commonly accepted definition, and that's fine, but that does not invalidate the commonly accepted definition. Our disagreement is essentially axiomatic: you are questioning the axiom of "just evil" monsters, and I'm just trying to show that "just evil" monsters IS the axiom in question.)


And no, I disagree that reactions to "monsters," and moral questions in general, should not generate the guts of the roleplaying experience and development.

No, you misrepresent me here. I do not think run-of-the-mill monster encounters should generate the guts of a roleplaying experience, nor should those encounters be the source of moral dilemmas. I firmly believe, though, that ethical considerations are the meat and potatoes of any good RPG.


If you reduce monsters to "just something to be killed," then you lose out on all that.

95% of them just are. It's the other 5%, and the special scenarios crafted by a DM, that make up the true RP experience. If you want to create a band of CN orcs who just want to be left alone, that's great, but you need to realize that you are creating the exception to the norm. I think that would make for great RPing, personally, but I would never presume to have every orc encounter follow similarly.


I agree that you have a valid point about "evil, thus they pillage." You can play the game that way if you like. However, in most cases, I prefer to assume that even monsters have a choice in their alignment (and see below). For me, it pretty much falls apart at "I think that the orcs are just evil, and therefore they pillage and loot" vs "I think that the PCs are just good, and therefore they pillage and loot." Which is not to say that the PCs don't do other things as well, but then again, the same is true for the orcs (in-game perspective; from a player perspective, the orcs spring into existence when needed, but in-game, they are born and grow up just like everybody else).

But the axiom states that orcs are evil. The world was created with this understanding, and every PC growing up in that world instinctively understands this, just like you and I instinctively understand that, to a Christian, fallen angels or demons are just evil. There's no moral question to investigate here; they just are. The same vein follows for any PC or NPC in a D&D setting when referring to orcs: there is no question, because that's how the core rulebooks set it up. There aren't any sane societies in these worlds that believe orcs to be anything but evil. If you create a world where they do, then you are discarding the axiom of evil monsters. That's all I'm trying to show.


Sorry to put it this bluntly, but here you are outright wrong.

Don't be sorry. :) We're having a discussion; if you couldn't tell me I was wrong, it wouldn't be a very productive discussion.


Striking down a demon is always good. A demon is always evil (or at least as close to "always" as you get). That's because it is an outsider that comes from an evil plane. I'd go with the interpretion that the demon is a physical manifestation of the (evil) plane, but that really doesn't matter. According to the MM, exceptions are unique or 1:999,999. There is no moral issue with attacking a demon. There are other monsters that this applies to as well, most undead in particular. I don't see any moral issues arising from killing animal-intelligence-neutral monsters either, or (non-living) constructs. Defending yourself has never been an issue either.

But orcs, contrary to your claims, are not always evil. In 3.0, they were listed as "usually CE," which meant that more than 50% had that alignment. Unfortunately, this doesn't give an upper bound of how many are CE, but it's obviously less than 999,999:1. It could be 51:49, it could be 3:1, it could be 9:1, it could be 99:1. In 3.5, they have been "downgraded" to "often CE," which means 40-50% of them. (Feel free to look up this if you don't believe me.) Now, this does not mean that 50-60% of them have to be non-evil obviously, but it could mean that; perhaps another 40-50% of the orcs are CN and just want to have their own settlements and be left in peace with no-one telling them what to do (leaving 0-20% to be other alignments). Regardless, in neither case (and less so in 3.5) can your character absolve himself (herself) and shrug it off with a "yeah, they're always evil." Or rather, of course he can, but those are empty words. Therefore, any society where "there is no doubt that orcs are evil and need to be eliminated" is wrong, and quite likely not good.

Now that's an interesting point. I haven't played at all under 3 or 3.5--I'm going from 2nd edition, where they were just unequivocably evil, just like demons. Still, you haven't shown me that they aren't always evil, they're just not always chaotic evil. But if the rules have changed regarding orcs, then you're right, it would be more of a moral stretch to assume any random orc is worthy of elimination. But whether or not this is practical from a character standpoint ("well guys, the last 99 orcs we've met have all been evil, and one of them killed Bob... you think we should ask this one a few questions before we engage?") remains to be seen.


Finally, reducing the question from "should we kill sentient life" to "should we kill these things that will almost certainly do us or someone else harm" is hardly useful, since "harm" is highly subjective. I'm sure that the orcs can use exactly the same argument when killing humans. I mentioned the Goblins comic earlier in the thread; it's really worth checking out.

But this is why an objective alignment system is useful. "Harm" is subjective, maybe, but good and evil are not, and in these worlds, the orcs are evil, so unless they're "harming" other evil civilizations, any harm they do to another civilization can be classified as evil.


It sounds a bit to me like you want to shrug off all moral complications by simplifying the issue to game terms. That is a valid choice for a way to play, of course, but in that case I don't really see why you need the alignment system at all---a classification as good in a system that does not matter is useless, because it carries no meaning. If monsters "are there to be slaughtered," meta-game speakingly, then it matters little what their alignment is, except as a hollow excuse to make the characters "the good guys" of the story by default.

I don't want to shrug off moral complications all of the time; I just want to pick and choose where they occur. I have used neutral (and even good) orcs in the past to provide interesting dilemmas. (LG dwarven clerics with orcs as their ancestral enemies being forced to work alongside good orcs=fun) But most of the time, the monster encounters aren't what provide the moral issues. I use custom NPCs, and tend to prefer politics and intrigue over outright combat, to introduce most of my dramatic tension.


Every monster is an NPC. All NPCs have motivations, simple or complicated. Halflings (and other neutral, and good, characters) aren't just backdrop, or shops where you can pay money to upgrade to a bigger sword. You can reduce an RPG to that, but it provides a richer experience if you don't. As a DM, you need to fit the game to the players, of course, so this might not be an option. Regardless, alignment is about moral choices, and if you are going to sidestep all that by declaring "orcs are always evil," you might as well drop the alignment system entirely (substituting alignment requirements for certain classes with specific guidelines---an evolved code, if you like---for that class).

But every monster *isn't* a custom NPC. The alignment system is useful because it allows us to make generalizations so that the world follows an easily classifiable order. This isn't reflective of real life, but it dramatically simplifies things, which is necessary.

Is my stance getting any more clear? I think we're starting to get down to exactly what it is that we're arguing.

[elliott20]

the core of it is, Spectheintro is saying the D&D system is at it's heart, a game. The knowledge that we have about orcs, in this particular case, is absolute. If somebody were to insert "always evil" or "mostly evil" in their alignment entry, it's not because they don't know and is generalizing. It is because that is EXACTLY what they are because that is dictated by the writer.

It's not like in the real world how a racist might make an assumption about a racial group. The data we have written in the MM is not an assumption, it is the very nature of it.

Unlike the reality we live in, we are not using inductive reasoning to make assertions about a certain monstrous race in D&D.

At least, that is how the default method of writing. D&D is, no matter how you look at it, an exercise of moral reductionism with a purpose.