A Question of Alignment

[Lord]

Hi, Lord here.
So I have this character concept, and I’m not sure where to put him in the alignment system.
Let me start again.
I’ve written a character who is at first glance a noble prince, commanding a war against the forces of darkness against overwhelming odds. He is polite, honorable, cares about his men and generally is well beloved by his nation, which he loves with a passion. He is nationalistic and firmly believes his nation is the greatest in the world.
Here’s the catch.
He is utterly ruthless in his war with the forces of darkness. Because he is facing overwhelming odds he chooses to make himself feared in the hopes of intimidating the orcs he is fighting a neverending war with. So when he defeats an orc clan he doesn’t just kill the warriors. He crucifies them to die slowly along the roadside. He kills the woman and children and puts the children on stakes with the heads of their parents at their feet. He burns the entire village and steals everything of value, leaving only a burnt out monument to the brutality with which he treats the enemies of his kingdom.
However, he only does it to orcs and other traditionally “evil” races. He prefers to avoid fighting humans, elves and other traditionally “good” races and treats them with respect when they are defeated by his hand, obeying all the rules of war. He also never violates parley, even when interacting with monstrous races.
Moreover the enemy forces he is facing really is overwhelming and one could argue that his methods are the best chance his nation has for an actual victory, as opposed to being a doomed moral victor, like Gondor before Aragorn got back.

So my question is:
What alignment would you place him at?
I definitely would call him lawful since he is a firm believer in the laws and the system. That isn’t really the question here. It’s the good vs evil axis where things get tricky.
Ordinarily, I would discount good entirely, but D&D morality regards killing monster races as almost always a morally neutral act. If orcs are always chaotic evil, does it really matter if he goes out of his way to slaughter the next generation?
Or if the matter of evil comes up, keep in mind that his status as a brutal warlord exists only for the traditionally evil races. He conducts himself as a noble and honorable knight with his own people and the non monster races and it isn't an act. He simply regards the traditionally evil races as little more than animals.
Personally I’m leaning towards neutral since he has effectively two entirely different sides to him which are respectively good and evil. Eventually balancing out. However this is only a tenative idea and I’d like to get everyone else’s views.

So what do you think?
Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil? Or do you think another alignment would fit better?

[InvisibleBison]

Definitely Lawful Evil. It doesn't matter how he justifies it, he's committing either mass murder or outright genocide.

[Lord Torath]

Also, torture (crucifying his foes, impaling children - yeah, that's torture. and EVIL).

[Lord]

Yes, but orcs are always chaotic evil. And killing evil creatures is supposed to be a neutral act. Combined with the fact that plenty of adventurers do exactly the same thing on a daily basis, and I'm compelled to ask what the difference is?

Also the orcs routinely do the same thing to his people when they get the chance. I forgot to mention that.

[Tinkerer]

Funny enough in another thread recently I had mentioned that as a gaming community we hadn't decided yet if killing infants was evil and was faced with incredulity. Thank you so very much for illustrating my point :smallwink:

It partially depends on the world you are playing in. If orcs are always evil I can see a pretty good point being made for Lawful Neutral (haven't decided if I agree but I can see the point). But they've definitely been softening that over the years, first to almost always evil then to usually evil. In which case definitely Lawful Evil.

[Satinavian]

Killing Orcs might be neutral, murdering them is evil.

There are many guidelines about under which circumstances killing can be justified. Some of those are agued about. But "Offing captured noncombatants/civillians including children to spread terror under your enemies" is never put into the "justified" category.

And then we have the torture thing. Which also serves no purpose beside spreading fear and terror.



Jupp, clearly evil. Not only the commander, but also most of his fighting force.

[Lord]

Funny enough in another thread recently I had mentioned that as a gaming community we hadn't decided yet if killing infants was evil and was faced with incredulity. Thank you so very much for illustrating my point :smallwink:

It partially depends on the world you are playing in. If orcs are always evil I can see a pretty good point being made for Lawful Neutral (haven't decided if I agree but I can see the point). But they've definitely been softening that over the years, first to almost always evil then to usually evil. In which case definitely Lawful Evil.

The world in question is actually the World of Warcraft. The character is a sort of OC in a fanfic series of mine, Aiden Wrynn, a bastard son of King Llane who takes the role of the player character in Warcraft 1. He regards orcs as always chaotic evil and acts accordingly in order to save a nation on the brink of collapse.

Part of the point of his character is to set him up as an example of an evil Alliance figure who is regarded as a hero by the people he fought for. A sort of human Grom Hellscream. The orcs absolutely loath him, whereas he has a very high reputation among the alliance, though he falls out of favor after the Second War for being in favor of destroying the entire orc species rather than putting them in internment camps. He is also the person who threw the spear that killed Orgrim Doomhammer.

Varian later sends him to be the ambassador to the New Horde, just to make a point about how seriously he is taking the peace process.

[Douche]

Man would you look at these bleeding heart orc sympathizers in this thread. jk

First off, the notion that orcs have children and families is kind of flawed in the first place which is what introduces this moral ambiguity. That's why orcs in LotR have ambiguous origins. The Uruk-hai apparently are made from mud. Other forms of media have Dwarves that are literally crafted from stone and made flesh through enchantments.

Once you give Orcs a family and all that crap, then you humanize them and they are no longer all chaotic evil. In short, Orcs were originally treated as if they are demons - spontaneously created from nothing, so their only character feature is that they love to kill and make war. Give them anything resembling an actual culture and they become noble savages, and then wantonly killing them becomes an evil act - even if you do it for good purposes.

Aside from that, psychological warfare is not something a good person would do. A good man would show compassion to his enemies and allow them to honor their dead, rather than mutilating corpses and leaving them as a message for anyone else who dares oppose him. If you're going to go all Colonel Kurtz, you can justify whatever you want to yourself, but everyone else is going to label you as crazy or evil.

EDIT: didn't see your WoW comment earlier.

If you're going by WoW lore, then the orcs are in fact noble savages - who have been corrupted by demon blood/fel to make them mindlessly bloodlusted monsters. In that case, your psychological warfare doesn't even have any purpose because they are all essentially mind controlled anyway... which you would probably know if you even interrogated one of them.

Aside from that, they didn't even bring their children through the Dark Portal. Why would they? They came strictly for warfare, at least in the first waves. They wouldn't bother bringing the caretakers and children. So the notion that you're going around slaughtering children is kind of lorebreaking.

[-̗̀ (ↀωↀ) -̖́]

Its a question of Machiavelli (or whatever), do the ends justify the means? Will killing all the orcs in the world truly make the world a better place? If the world is rough and tumble does pre-emptive intervention a justified process. I would say lawful nuetral. Is Miko (pre-killing Shojo), evil? Its never answered really (as far as im aware) so I would say the alignment thing is up for grabs.

[braveheart]

I think the answer would stem from how you are getting his alignment, if you asked him I’m sure he’d say that he is lawful good. But if you are using magic to ascertain his alignment, then his alignment is determined by the measures that your magic uses. Does the magic use what he genuinely believes he is? Does the magic go by a net sum of good vs evil acts? Does the magic consider orcs soulless beasts that must be destroyed, or as a race of proud warriors that while aggressive should be respected. You need to determine why it matters because if his alignment only ever shows up on his stat block then it doesn’t matter as you already understand his motivations and desires.

[Aliquid]

Funny enough in another thread recently I had mentioned that as a gaming community we hadn't decided yet if killing infants was evil and was faced with incredulity. Thank you so very much for illustrating my point :smallwink:

It partially depends on the world you are playing in. If orcs are always evil I can see a pretty good point being made for Lawful Neutral (haven't decided if I agree but I can see the point). But they've definitely been softening that over the years, first to almost always evil then to usually evil. In which case definitely Lawful Evil.After reading threads like this, I have decided that in any of my worlds, if "always evil" creatures exist, they don't have babies and have no gender or sex... They emerge full grown out of pods, or spontaneously manifest, or something like that. Solves the baby murder issue.

[Tinkerer]

After reading threads like this, I have decided that in any of my worlds, if "always evil" creatures exist, they don't have babies and have no gender or sex... They emerge full grown out of pods, or spontaneously manifest, or something like that. Solves the baby murder issue.

I grab the worst of both worlds. Orcs do emerge (mostly) fully grown from pods however they aren't always evil :smalltongue:

And don't even get me started on baby Cthulus who can wipe out entire planets just by passing nearby.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Are the orcs, in fact, always evil, and not in a D&D sense? If an orc baby is raised by a loving human family will it 100% of the time at some point try to kill them?

If they're really actually always evil, Lawful Good. If not, Lawful Evil.

[hamishspence]

If you're going by WoW lore, then the orcs are in fact noble savages - who have been corrupted by demon blood/fel to make them mindlessly bloodlusted monsters. In that case, your psychological warfare doesn't even have any purpose because they are all essentially mind controlled anyway... which you would probably know if you even interrogated one of them.

Aside from that, they didn't even bring their children through the Dark Portal.

The world in question is actually the World of Warcraft.

A setting in which orcs are not Always Evil. In fact, the Warcraft series (3 especially?) was a big contributor to the "noble savage" orc archetype.

I'm pretty sure that the "fel" didn't corrupt them completely. Hence the whole "peace process" thing. Plus, aren't WoW orc warriors a mix of males and females, rather than an all-male army?

[Kaptin Keen]

He's Strahd von Zarovich. Ergo, he's lawful evil.

[SirSlicksAlot]

Killing always evil creatures may be a neutral act. Murdering and torturing them are Evil acts regardless of their alignment, murdering and torturing their children is absolutely evil. Also Orcs in WoW are not an "always evil" race...:smallconfused:

[Douche]

A setting in which orcs are not Always Evil. In fact, the Warcraft series (3 especially?) was a big contributor to the "noble savage" orc archetype.

I'm pretty sure that the "fel" didn't corrupt them completely. Hence the whole "peace process" thing. Plus, aren't WoW orc warriors a mix of males and females, rather than an all-male army?

I didn't say that orcs are always evil in Warcraft. And the fel wore off after Gul'Dan was killed, I think. Or something like that. Anyway, the demon influence wore off between 2 & 3. There are also a few characters (like Thralls father) that refused the demon influence altogether and are now revered by the Horde for doing so.

The males & females was sort of retconned. In the RTS there aren't any female units or anything. Wasn't until the MMO came out that they retroactively integrated females as equals in their society or whatever, which is cool with me (as well as female druids in night elf society) There is also one notable female half-orc in the books - Garona.

Anyway, I don't think this is a discussion about gender equality. The point is, they had families but they were only always evil because of outside influence which they overcame, and now they're good guys. Also, I'm fairly certain there aren't any alliance characters who are revered for genocide and torture, so there's that.

[KillianHawkeye]

Most of the points have been covered quite well already, so I'll just comment on this:


Also the orcs routinely do the same thing to his people when they get the chance. I forgot to mention that.

This is totally, 100% irrelevant. What you have here is two Evil forces at war with each other. The Lawful Evil humans exterminators versus the Chaotic Evil orc horde. It's like a mortal version of the Blood War between demons and devils in D&D.

One side being Evil does not make it okay for the other side to do Evil things.

[Lord Torath]

Yes, but orcs are always chaotic evil. And killing evil creatures is supposed to be a neutral act. Combined with the fact that plenty of adventurers do exactly the same thing on a daily basis, and I'm compelled to ask what the difference is?

Also the orcs routinely do the same thing to his people when they get the chance. I forgot to mention that.As noted above, orcs are not always chaotic evil in Blizzard world. Thrall, I would argue, is Neutral Good.

Capitol-G Good adventurers kill orcs that are threatening or killing others. They don't exterminate orcs that aren't. If you are at war with the orcs, you can engage their armies. Surrendering orcs should be captured, not killed. Warriors families should be left alone. Thrall came to be who he is because one of the human warriors was a Good man, and took a baby/toddler orc in and raised him as his own son (if I understand the lore correctly). That Thrall is Good is proof that orcs can be Good if given the chance.

If your enemy does an evil thing to you, doing it back to him is still evil. "He did it to me, first!" is a preschool-level excuse, and is unacceptable to anyone over the age of four.

Torture is always evil. Crucifiction is torture. Impalement is torture. Doing these to anyone is Capitol-E Evil.

[Tinkerer]

Torture is always evil. Crucifiction is torture. Impalement is torture. Doing these to anyone is Capitol-E Evil.

"My, what fine yet rustic architecture. I think I will examine it more closely."

Sorry, I can never resist a good reference. But it really depends on how alignment works in this world. It's possible that it may edge into LN territory but on the whole yeah LE seems more and more like it's fitting.

[Jay R]

Nobody is evil to everyone.

Slaveholders are only evil to their slaves.
Genocidal tyrants are only evil to certain races.
Burglars are only evil to to houseowners.
Loan sharks are only evil to their debtors.
etc.

If the action is evil, then it DOES NOT MATTER that you are only evil to some people; ALL evil people are only evil to some people. Nobody has time to get around to everyone.

[Lord]

As noted above, orcs are not always chaotic evil in Blizzard world. Thrall, I would argue, is Neutral Good.

Capitol-G Good adventurers kill orcs that are threatening or killing others. They don't exterminate orcs that aren't. If you are at war with the orcs, you can engage their armies. Surrendering orcs should be captured, not killed. Warriors families should be left alone. Thrall came to be who he is because one of the human warriors was a Good man, and took a baby/toddler orc in and raised him as his own son (if I understand the lore correctly). That Thrall is Good is proof that orcs can be Good if given the chance.

If your enemy does an evil thing to you, doing it back to him is still evil. "He did it to me, first!" is a preschool-level excuse, and is unacceptable to anyone over the age of four.

Torture is always evil. Crucifiction is torture. Impalement is torture. Doing these to anyone is Capitol-E Evil.

I would argue that the orcs are always evil in Warcraft. Their just liars and hypocrites as well. They waged a war of extermination on the Drenai even in timelines where they were never corrupted. Their 'redemption' consisted of them helping to somewhat make up for the damage they caused by killing Cenarius. Hell, they don't even fight the Legion in their campaign.

And as for the truce... it took them all of a few years before they went back to trying to exterminate the humans under orc hitler.

So yeah... not really buying that the orcs aren't always evil. Just better at hiding it.

[InvisibleBison]

I would argue that the orcs are always evil in Warcraft. Their just liars and hypocrites as well. They waged a war of extermination on the Drenai even in timelines where they were never corrupted. Their 'redemption' consisted of them helping to somewhat make up for the damage they caused by killing Cenarius. Hell, they don't even fight the Legion in their campaign.

And as for the truce... it took them all of a few years before they went back to trying to exterminate the humans under orc hitler.

So yeah... not really buying that the orcs aren't always evil. Just better at hiding it.

I don't know anything about Warcraft lore, but based on what you've said here I don't see anything that suggests orcs are inherently evil in that setting. "Sometimes orcs do bad things" does not mean "all orcs are evil".

[Cazero]

Thrall came to be who he is because one of the human warriors was a Good man, and took a baby/toddler orc in and raised him as his own son (if I understand the lore correctly). That Thrall is Good is proof that orcs can be Good if given the chance.
Technicaly, the human was an Evil bastard who wanted to raise Thrall as a supersoldier or something. But he hired a babysitter who was Good and made a difference.


I would argue that the orcs are always evil in Warcraft. Their just liars and hypocrites as well. They waged a war of extermination on the Drenai even in timelines where they were never corrupted. Their 'redemption' consisted of them helping to somewhat make up for the damage they caused by killing Cenarius. Hell, they don't even fight the Legion in their campaign.

And as for the truce... it took them all of a few years before they went back to trying to exterminate the humans under orc hitler.

So yeah... not really buying that the orcs aren't always evil. Just better at hiding it.
So I take it you know nothing about Warcraft lore. The Warcraft Orcs have been ruled by Evil tyrants pretty much forever, only allowing new rulers to take over by force, thus ensuring they'd be tyrants too. Thrall broke that cycle of tyranny only to pick the wrong successor. This doesn't make the race inherently Evil. It can at most mean that their culture tends to breed a majority of Evil people.
Many Warcraft Humans rulers waged wars of extermination on Orcs. One even jumped on the first opportunity to do the same on their Elven allies in the Blood Elf campaign. The only apparent difference between Orcs and Humans is how the less egalitarian Human society make it harder for tyrants to rise to power unless the tyrants have the right lineage.

[Frozen_Feet]

If you're a player, just leave it up to your GM to worry about.

If you're the GM, it all boils down to a single question:

Is what he's doing actually necessary?

If it's not, then he's engaging in brutal murder, torture and mutilation due to his own warped perceptions of the world, and he's Evil.

If it is, he lives in an amoral world where doing horrible things is the only way to stay alive, and is Neutral.

Whether the orcs are good or evil doesn't actually matter. I mean, if the orcs are Evil, then of course they would do the same to him. But this doesn't excuse the Prince, because the Prince is not an orc.

[Lord]

Technicaly, the human was an Evil bastard who wanted to raise Thrall as a supersoldier or something. But he hired a babysitter who was Good and made a difference.


So I take it you know nothing about Warcraft lore. The Warcraft Orcs have been ruled by Evil tyrants pretty much forever, only allowing new rulers to take over by force, thus ensuring they'd be tyrants too. Thrall broke that cycle of tyranny only to pick the wrong successor. This doesn't make the race inherently Evil. It can at most mean that their culture tends to breed a majority of Evil people.
Many Warcraft Humans rulers waged wars of extermination on Orcs. One even jumped on the first opportunity to do the same on their Elven allies in the Blood Elf campaign. The only apparent difference between Orcs and Humans is how the less egalitarian Human society make it harder for tyrants to rise to power unless the tyrants have the right lineage.

On the contrary I know all about Warcraft Lore. And for the record I am rooting for the Undead Scourge. Because I find all the factions so monstrous and unsympathetic that I think having them all get killed by the mega cool Arthas and Kel'thuzad combo would be much more satisfying than any of them getting happy endings.

I hate both the Alliance and the Horde. At least the scourge rewards competance and punishes failure, which is more can be said for any of the 'good guy' factions.

And Thrall was a moron and supremely overrated even before his character derailment. He spent his entire campaign wiping out potential resistance to the Legion, and only in the last mission did he do anything helpful. And that helpful thing he did was help fix the problem he created by sending Grom Hellscream into Ashenvale in the first place to kill Cenarius. Frankly trading Mannaroth for Cenarius was probably worth the trade in Archimonde's book anyway.

Thrall talked a good game, but when you look at his results he did just as much damage as Arthas and didn't get called on it.

Not that I like the night elves any better. The only one I liked was Illidan Stormrage who, if it weren't for his incompetent halfwit of a brother, would have fixed literally every problem Azeroth had by now. Frozen Throne is only a downer ending because Malfurion stops him from destroying said Throne. And don't even get me started on Tyrande, whose first priority during a demonic invasion is to kill everyone else who could possibly resist it.

The only people in Warcraft III who actually did any damage to the Legion were Arthas, Illidan and early on Uther. Mount Hyjal was the only point where anyone else was at all useful.

So yeah, screw the living, go Lich King. At least he's honest about his intentions.

[Narmoth]

I'd say that doing evil for the greater good generally places one in the Lawful Evil category. However, he breaches so many notions of "laws" of war (be it a knights conduct or actuall laws) that I would consider making him chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is not evil for the sake of evil. Evil should stil have a motivation, and you have made a good one. So he's definitivively evil.
Now, at the law vs chaos axis, a chaotic good character isn't dishonorable. Thus respecting parley and thus being honorable doesn't prevent him from being chaotic.
How you describe him, he doesn't just kill, but kill in the worst way possible, and kills those that are not his opponents. That in my oppinion would make him chaotic evil. A lawful evil character would execute them, but in a "humane" way, and would more likely imprison the non-combatants or sell them as slaves

[Cazero]

On the contrary I know all about Warcraft Lore.You have a very warped reading of many situations. I'll grant you that there is plenty of idiocy around, but there is very little incompetence.


And Thrall was a moron and supremely overrated even before his character derailment. He spent his entire campaign wiping out potential resistance to the Legion, and only in the last mission did he do anything helpful.Thrall spent his entire campaign trying to found a new orc nation. Almost every battle he led were self defense, the one exception having Grom Hellscream deciding to charge humans without his approbation. Coincidentaly, this leads us to the next "issue".

And that helpful thing he did was help fix the problem he created by sending Grom Hellscream into Ashenvale in the first place to kill Cenarius.Thrall sent Grom to Ashenvale to cut wood and make buildings. Because Grom's thought process involves charging upon hearing scout reports mentioning human flags, so he can't be trusted to do anything even remotely related to diplomacy. If Thrall knew the Night Elves existed at all, he probably would have sent Grom elsewhere.
Then the Night Elves, being fanatics defending their sacred lands, attacked first without even considering diplomacy. Funnily enough, Grom acted in self-defense. Until he decided to slaughter every elf standing between him and trees because he's a prideful warmongering idiot tasked with cutting wood.
Then Cenarius kicked his ass. Then Grom decided than getting corrupted to kill Cenarius was better than running away because he's a prideful warmongering idiot.
Thrall spent half his campaign fixing the messes that Grom's prideful warmongering idiotic decisions put the Horde in, wich happens to involve killing potential Legion stoppers, but he doesn't start any of the wars he's forced to fight.


Thrall talked a good game, but when you look at his results he did just as much damage as Arthas and didn't get called on it.Number of nations interested in fighting the Legion that Thrall utterly destroyed : negative one. He created one in Durotar. Meanwhile, every nation fighting the Legion also have to waste resource fighting the Scourge.
There's also that thing about helping Archimonde himself set foot on Azeroth.


Not that I like the night elves any better. The only one I liked was Illidan Stormrage who, if it weren't for his incompetent halfwit of a brother, would have fixed literally every problem Azeroth had by now. Frozen Throne is only a downer ending because Malfurion stops him from destroying said Throne.If Illidan informed his brother of what he was planning instead of letting his naga allies pillage Night Elves lands while setting up their assault on the Throne, if Illidan didn't do it solely for the purpose of saving his own ass from Kil'Jaeden, and if the stupidity of the WotLK finale didn't retcon that assault as something that would have made everything worse, you would have a point.


And don't even get me started on Tyrande, whose first priority during a demonic invasion is to kill everyone else who could possibly resist it.Probably because as far as she's concerned, the Humans and Orcs defilers are already agents of the Legion. Wich is fanatism, not incompetence.

[Douche]

On the contrary I know all about Warcraft Lore. And for the record I am rooting for the Undead Scourge. Because I find all the factions so monstrous and unsympathetic that I think having them all get killed by the mega cool Arthas and Kel'thuzad combo would be much more satisfying than any of them getting happy endings.

I hate both the Alliance and the Horde. At least the scourge rewards competance and punishes failure, which is more can be said for any of the 'good guy' factions.

And Thrall was a moron and supremely overrated even before his character derailment. He spent his entire campaign wiping out potential resistance to the Legion, and only in the last mission did he do anything helpful. And that helpful thing he did was help fix the problem he created by sending Grom Hellscream into Ashenvale in the first place to kill Cenarius. Frankly trading Mannaroth for Cenarius was probably worth the trade in Archimonde's book anyway.

Thrall talked a good game, but when you look at his results he did just as much damage as Arthas and didn't get called on it.

Not that I like the night elves any better. The only one I liked was Illidan Stormrage who, if it weren't for his incompetent halfwit of a brother, would have fixed literally every problem Azeroth had by now. Frozen Throne is only a downer ending because Malfurion stops him from destroying said Throne. And don't even get me started on Tyrande, whose first priority during a demonic invasion is to kill everyone else who could possibly resist it.

The only people in Warcraft III who actually did any damage to the Legion were Arthas, Illidan and early on Uther. Mount Hyjal was the only point where anyone else was at all useful.

So yeah, screw the living, go Lich King. At least he's honest about his intentions.

You wrote all this and still don't think of yourself as evil?

At best, you're pragmatic. But you're certainly not compassionate. You evil dawg

[Pleh]

If you're a player, just leave it up to your GM to worry about.

If you're the GM, it all boils down to a single question:

Is what he's doing actually necessary?

If it's not, then he's engaging in brutal murder, torture and mutilation due to his own warped perceptions of the world, and he's Evil.

If it is, he lives in an amoral world where doing horrible things is the only way to stay alive, and is Neutral.

Whether the orcs are good or evil doesn't actually matter. I mean, if the orcs are Evil, then of course they would do the same to him. But this doesn't excuse the Prince, because the Prince is not an orc.

This post is underappreciated.

While we've just about established in our world that torture is actually counter-productive to just about any purpose other than helping a sadist get their jollies, fantasy settings enjoy the freedom to explore the topic in hypothetical scenarios where torture may actually somehow be the only viable solution to a problem (because it's fiction and we can set the scenario however we want).

"Is what he's doing actually necessary?" This is a critical question. This is the power of the story behind Ender's Game. Was Genocide really necessary? If Genocide is the only solution, torture can't be far behind.

It's definitely never going to get a Good rating on the axis, but if there really is no better solution, it can ping as high as Neutral.

[Satinavian]

Even if it is necessary, i would still qualify it as evil. It would just be a world where only Evil can triumph and Good has lost long ago.

[Pleh]

Even if it is necessary, i would still qualify it as evil. It would just be a world where only Evil can triumph and Good has lost long ago.

Or a system that handles a grayer spectrum of morality.

If Good just doesn't exist in the first place, it kinda skews the results.

[KillianHawkeye]

Even if it is necessary, i would still qualify it as evil. It would just be a world where only Evil can triumph and Good has lost long ago.

Hey, it worked in Dragonlance! :smallwink:

[guileus]

Very interesting topic that keeps popping up in RPG circles. I remember reading a debate on this in the Forgotten Realms mailing list, and I'm talking... probably 18 years ago!

OP: here you get to play the role that moral philosophers throughout history have kept talking about. You are God. Not God as in puny fantasy world gods, like Greek gods with their human passions, drive to have sacrifices, whatever. You get to be God as the compass of absolute morality. What is "good"? What is "evil"? You get to define them, because otherwise, the alignment system is unworkable.
Something which actually makes me not really like the whole alignment system, I think it simplifies moral questions and makes for less interesting stories; a good premise of a plot is that any villain thinks he's doing good. It gets a bit dumber and less interesting when you can cast a detect alignment spell and tell him "No, see. You're evil. Like, no debating it, it says so on the spell".

As God, you get to decide what Good and Evil are, and that also depends on who the moral subjects are. Are orcs moral subjects? It depends on the perspective you take.

1) Orcs could be simple automatons. This was mostly the classic take on evil humanoids in fantasy works. Sure, they look humanoid to us, two legs and arms. But they don't reason, they don't make moral judgements. They simply act based on their nature, like animals. And that nature is harmful to humans and generates things we perceive as "evil" only because we get the illusion they are humanoid, but they are actually just harmful. Think about poison ivy. It harms you. If it could think and decide to harm you, it would be evil. But we know it doesn't decide anything, it's in its nature to poison you if it comes into contact with you. Or a hurricane might kill you or destroy your house, but it's not deciding so (in this case it's even more clear because it's not even a being!).

Under this perspective, killing orcs, even baby orcs, could be seen as good. You're avoiding harm to other people. The issue gets a bit complicated if you define "Good" (again, that is why it's so important to define it) a utilitarian philosophers did: increasing the net amount of well-being and reducing the highest amount of harm possible. Because if we understand that orcs suffer when we torture them, even if they are not deciding anything, it could be evil to, in order to avoid a harm of (quantifying it) 1,000 (humans being killed by orcs) we commit a harm of 1,100 (torturing AND killing orcs). The net result is you made more harm than well-being.

The issue of torture also complicates the "orcs are automatons" argument, because what sense does it make to employ psychological warfare with a being that doesn't decide anything? It will still act like that, it doesn't make sense to try to instill fear into it because that would somehow bring the idea that he can choose not to do something (and thus take a decision, a moral decision) out of fear: "I was going to kill them but now I won't because they are so cruel". This would mean orcs are capable of acting against what we perceive is their nature.

2) If your perspective is that orcs are entirely capable of making moral decisions, but it's just that their culture and society, from times immemorial, has made them cruel warmongers... then torturing and killing orc babies is wrong and evil. They didn't choose to be born into that society and nothing binds them to become cruel and evil when they grow up. You could kidnap them and raise them in another society and they would then turn to be like humans: some good, some bad. This take is quite common in (post)modern deconstructions of fantasy works and it parallels the criticisms of traditional narratives: what you thought were the good guys maybe are in fact evil, or at the very least, doing something wrong because they are brushing a different group of people as all evil, when there is a high degree of variation in them.

3) The third perspective is that orcs are not necessarily evil every single time, but something in their nature makes them inclined to evil. This is probably the most interesting take from a moral philosophy point of view, which is ironic considering that became more prevalent with the rise of the "anti-hero from evil race but who's good and is loved by 15 year old readers" (yeah, Drizzt, I'm looking at you).

I say this is the most interesting take since killing these orcs is good or evil, again, depending on what is Good and Evil under your philosophy. Utilitarians could say that the net well-being of the world is increased when you kill them because, sure, some might grow up to be Drizzt, but most won't and they will commit evil acts. Other moral philosophers (for example, Catholic ones) disagree with this and would find killing orcs just because they are orcs (and killing orc babies) as evil, because they understand that even the slight chance one of them turns out to be good, to be worthwhile of the effort and work done in order not to doom them. Sure, if they are dangerous (as they are likely to turn out evil) measures could be taken, but nothing irreversible like killing them.

These and other moral philosophers also value human dignity as a good in itself, which would preclude things that devalue it, such as torture. Utilitarians, on the other hand, would only care about the net amount of well-being. If torture achieves its increase, who's to oppose it? Sure, torture might increase "harm" by, for example, 1,000. So if you understood a killing of a human by an orc to increase "harm" by 500, just saving a human life wouldn't warrant the use of torture. However, saving the life of three humans... you get what I mean.

[Lord]

You wrote all this and still don't think of yourself as evil?

At best, you're pragmatic. But you're certainly not compassionate. You evil dawg

I regard Azeroth as Soddom and Gamora. A place where good only flourishes so that it can be crushed down by the overwhelmingly evil people who inhabit it. Also, no one as stupid as the Alliance and Horde leadership deserves to live.

Moreover, I don't appreciate being called evil by someone on an internet forum who has never met me in person simply because of how I view a work of fiction. I hope you were being sarcastic.

[Pleh]

Also, no one as stupid as the Alliance and Horde leadership deserves to live.

Moreover, I don't appreciate being called evil by someone on an internet forum who has never met me in person simply because of how I view a work of fiction. I hope you were being sarcastic.

Let's not confuse RPG morality with real world morality. You can be evil in your perspective with regards to RPG morality without being an evil person in real life practice.

Denying right to life based on a perceived lack of intelligence is a fantastic way to do that.

There's no (intrinsic) real world evil in belonging to a fictional RPG evil, thus no reason to consider such accusations to be a judgement upon your character.

[RazorChain]

Well to the OP, if your character is doing all this for the greater good then he must be in the right.....alignment be damned

[AMFV]

The thing is, in the World of Warcraft universe there is no alignment. So there's no objective alignment and therefore I wouldn't actually be meaningful in any way to know if your character would qualify as Big G good in the dungeons and dragons world.

[Frozen_Feet]

Even if it is necessary, i would still qualify it as evil. It would just be a world where only Evil can triumph and Good has lost long ago.

Oh the brutal murder, torture and mutilation of orcs (etc.) still are Evil.

It's just that the Prince is engaging in a Necessary Evil in order to do Good to non-orcs (etc.). When immoral things are required for moral actions to be viable, this suggests a cosmic balance of Good and Evil where the moral sum total is zero, that is, the universe is morally Nihilist, that is, the universe is amoral, that is, the universe is Neutral, neither Good nor Evil.

Though I do agree that there are universes where the only possibility for Good people is to die. Not because Good is impractical. Not because Good is stupid. But because those universes are cosmically Evil, that is, horrifying enough to live in that pretending life in them has some sort of positive value would be insane.

[jk7275]

Another thing to consider is population growth. Orcs are going to breed faster. Dragon issue 89 has an article about this
Races such as Elves and dwarves may very well face extinction if they don't resort to killing Orc babies. If a thousand Orc warriors get killed so what they be replaced in 20 years if not sooner. If a single elf gets killed it might take over 100 years to replace him

The conflict between Orcs and other races goes beyond alignment its biology. A short lived but quickly maturing race vs the long lived but slowly maturing race living in the same area. Orcs thrive when there is natural disasters and war, they recover a lot quicker then anyone else does and by the time they do the Orcs will be well entrenched

[braveheart]

Another thing to consider is population growth. Orcs are going to breed faster. Dragon issue 89 has an article about this
Races such as Elves and dwarves may very well face extinction if they don't resort to killing Orc babies. If a thousand Orc warriors get killed so what they be replaced in 20 years if not sooner. If a single elf gets killed it might take over 100 years to replace him

The conflict between Orcs and other races goes beyond alignment its biology. A short lived but quickly maturing race vs the long lived but slowly maturing race living in the same area. Orcs thrive when there is natural disasters and war, they recover a lot quicker then anyone else does and by the time they do the Orcs will be well entrenched

That entire argument can be used on humans as well, and the character in question is stated to be human.

[AMFV]

Another thing to consider is population growth. Orcs are going to breed faster. Dragon issue 89 has an article about this
Races such as Elves and dwarves may very well face extinction if they don't resort to killing Orc babies. If a thousand Orc warriors get killed so what they be replaced in 20 years if not sooner. If a single elf gets killed it might take over 100 years to replace him

The conflict between Orcs and other races goes beyond alignment its biology. A short lived but quickly maturing race vs the long lived but slowly maturing race living in the same area. Orcs thrive when there is natural disasters and war, they recover a lot quicker then anyone else does and by the time they do the Orcs will be well entrenched

That's accurate to D&D, but not so much to Warcraft, where that particular thing has been less clearly spelled out.

[jk7275]

That entire argument can be used on humans as well, and the character in question is stated to be human.

That argument can be used to explain why humans tend to become the dominant species as they found the happy middle ground between Elf and Orc
Elves have a low population growth but produce exceptional beings while Ocrs breed like rabbits but rarely if at all produce exceptional beings, humans are somewhere in the middle. Humans breed almost as fast as Orcs and produce exceptional beings as fast as Elves

[Narmoth]

Another thing to consider is population growth. Orcs are going to breed faster. Dragon issue 89 has an article about this
Races such as Elves and dwarves may very well face extinction if they don't resort to killing Orc babies. If a thousand Orc warriors get killed so what they be replaced in 20 years if not sooner. If a single elf gets killed it might take over 100 years to replace him

The conflict between Orcs and other races goes beyond alignment its biology. A short lived but quickly maturing race vs the long lived but slowly maturing race living in the same area. Orcs thrive when there is natural disasters and war, they recover a lot quicker then anyone else does and by the time they do the Orcs will be well entrenched

Higher survival expectancy of ork babies would make the orcs want to plan for smaller amount of children. The solution is not to kill the orc babies, but planned parrenthood for orcs

[KillianHawkeye]

Higher survival expectancy of ork babies would make the orcs want to plan for smaller amount of children. The solution is not to kill the orc babies, but planned parrenthood for orcs

This assumes that the orcs have reached a post-expansionist society, which seems unlikely (I mean, they call it Warcraft for a reason). In olden times, when a population grew too big, it would just colonize or conquer some new territory. It's only in the modern world, where all of the territory has been claimed and not everyone is keen to fight over it, that we have any concern for population control.

[Squiddish]

First thing’s first, as of fifth editon orcs aren’t always evil, nor always chaotic: they tend towards both, but there are no guarantees. They have things that could be reasonably called villages, but those villages don’t much resemble human villages, being mostly in caves, but they do distinctly have children in them.

Second, if you are going by 5e lore, killing the women and children of a tribe would be difficult, since the women will fight more fiercely than the men, and the orogs who defended the children would fight even more fiercely than the women. Burning down an orc village would be a feat to behold, mainly because stone generally burns poorly.

If you aren’t using 5e lore, I can’t help you.

PS, since when is Drizzt an anti-hero? He’s consistently a goody-two-shoes, even compared to his normally-good allies.