Can pacifism be MORE evil than mass slaughter?

[the_brazenburn]

First, this isn't one of those ridiculous Ivor and Brazenburn screw-up threads. It does involve some stuff from our campaign, but it isn't a disagreement, I'm just a little intrigued by this question.

So, our party recently started the Nightstone portion of Storm King's Thunder. My character is a goblin rights activist (he's a goblin), and so he naturally refused to kill the goblins looting Nightstone. Instead, he tried to organize them into an army to "fight for their rights", which actually worked. We didn't know that the villagers were being held prisoner by the goblin leaders, but didn't exactly try hard to find out.

Later, a tribe of orcs attacked the village, and we weren't able to raise the drawbridge in time. We could have tried to take out their leader, since all the orcs were seriously wounded, but instead we negotiated. (There was almost some violence when I thought the orc was using a racial slur: "wimpy goblins", but luckily it was averted.) We found out that the orcs weren't there to raid, they just wanted to shelter in the village because they were being pursued by a bunch of elves that they'd gotten into an "altercation" with, and we agreed to give them sanctuary.

When the elves showed up later, asking for us to hand over the orcs, I refused, saying that the orcs were under our protection and that I didn't like elves anyway: they kill goblins all the time. The elf leader responded that if we'd hand over the orcs, he'd never again kill a goblin without reason, and I shouted back that his "reason" was that he was a racist. Insults were exchanged, but no bloodshed (yet).

The DM claims that our party has irrefutably gone down the path toward an "evil" campaign, because we prioritized the lives of "evil" marauders over that of innocent villagers and "good" elves. There isn't a big argument about this, but I would like to know your opinions. Can going through a session without a single sentient life being lost still count as evil, under these circumstances?

[ShadowSandbag]

I wouldn't say what you did was evil at all. The GM then self said the orca weren't there to pillage but just for shelter. The only way the GM' comment makes sense is if in this world all orcs are automatically evil and all elves are automatically good, which is a pretty boring black and white morality system.

[Aett_Thorn]

I wouldn't say what you did was evil at all. The GM then self said the orca weren't there to pillage but just for shelter. The only way the GM' comment makes sense is if in this world all orcs are automatically evil and all elves are automatically good, which is a pretty boring black and white morality system.

Agreed. The orcs were being pursued and slaughtered. They were weakened and sought shelter, which you provided. Even if 99% of all Orcs are evil and cruel, this group gave you no reason to hurt them or turn them over to the Elves, who were the aggressor in this case. I would say that handing over the Orcs would have been the evil act here, and that the Elves, if they really were good, should have just left well enough alone. The Orcs were no longer a threat, and maybe they'd work with the townsfolk and realize there's a better way. After all, Half-Orcs need to come from somewhere, right?

[the_brazenburn]

Agreed. The orcs were being pursued and slaughtered. They were weakened and sought shelter, which you provided. Even if 99% of all Orcs are evil and cruel, this group gave you no reason to hurt them or turn them over to the Elves, who were the aggressor in this case. I would say that handing over the Orcs would have been the evil act here, and that the Elves, if they really were good, should have just left well enough alone. The Orcs were no longer a threat, and maybe they'd work with the townsfolk and realize there's a better way. After all, Half-Orcs need to come from somewhere, right?

My thoughts exactly.

On the other hand, the elves did notify us that they were chasing the orcs because the orcs had just performed a mass raid that culminated in the deaths of several noncombatant elves, but by that point I'd given up on the negotiations and just started trolling the elves (from the safety of the city walls, or course).

[KorvinStarmast]

My thoughts exactly.

On the other hand, the elves did notify us that they were chasing the orcs because the orcs had just performed a mass raid that culminated in the deaths of several noncombatant elves, but

... you didn't care because to you (or to your PC) elves lives don't matter.

How does it feel to play a racist?

Hope you enjoy the RP.

[Laserlight]

Your thread title is a bit misleading, since the question is more "is it evil to prevent elves from attacking orcs?"

Does your goblin have reason to believe that orcs are always evil and elves are always good? Presumably the answer to that is "no" because you're playing a goblin and the DM doesn't think that in itself turned things evil.

Does he have reason to believe these orcs are evil and elves are good? I don't remember anything from that part of the campaign except "They're orcs." (Not that it would have mattered to our party, several of whom were Chaotic Violent).

I will also note that if the elves are deterred by a few goblins "protecting" the orcs, the elves can't be all that determined.

[Aett_Thorn]

My thoughts exactly.

On the other hand, the elves did notify us that they were chasing the orcs because the orcs had just performed a mass raid that culminated in the deaths of several noncombatant elves, but by that point I'd given up on the negotiations and just started trolling the elves (from the safety of the city walls, or course).

Okay, did you do any Insight checks to see if the Elves were telling the truth? If so and they were telling the truth, why didn't you offer to turn the Orcs over to the Elves if they promised not to kill them? If they were lying then you had your answer. It really seems like there were other ways out of this, and that your characters again are just being ***** again because that's what you prefer to play.

Your actions might not have been evil, but they don't sound like they were good, either.

[Lunali]

"It's not like I'm an innocent. I've taken lives. And I got worse, I got clever. Manipulated people into taking their own. " -The Doctor

[the_brazenburn]

Your thread title is a bit misleading, since the question is more "is it evil to prevent elves from attacking orcs?"

Does your goblin have reason to believe that orcs are always evil and elves are always good? Presumably the answer to that is "no" because you're playing a goblin and the DM doesn't think that in itself turned things evil.

Does he have reason to believe these orcs are evil and elves are good? I don't remember anything from that part of the campaign except "They're orcs." (Not that it would have mattered to our party, several of whom were Chaotic Violent).

I will also note that if the elves are deterred by a few goblins "protecting" the orcs, the elves can't be all that determined.

They haven't been deterred, actually. We had to switch to a cutscene (because one of the party members went to investigate the keep and didn't notice the elves.

And KorvinStarmast? It's not a question of racism at all. The reason wasn't because I didn't care about elf lives, it was because the orcs had asked us for protection, while the elves had knocked on our door and demanded that we hand over our guests, to whom we had extended right of hospitality protection.

Or because my character is extremely sensitive towards anti-goblin racism and took offense that the elf asked to parlay with somebody other than a goblin.

Or because I had no connection to the elf deaths, but by handing over the orcs, I would have been directly responsible for their deaths.

Or because the orcs outnumbered us two-to-one and were in the village, whereas we outnumbered the elves four-to-one and had defensive perimeters.

Those are all perfectly decent reasons tat have nothing to do with my character being a racist, and I don't appreciate the allegations.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The way I see it, your group was giving shelter to criminals namely the orc raiders. If some humans had attacked your village then ran to the elves for shelter wouldn’t you demand the elves hand over the humans.

[terodil]

Edit: Terribly sword-saged. Gah. 99% of this post still stands.

Several things... (caveat: I'm not familiar with Storm King's Thunder.)


My character is a goblin rights activist (he's a goblin), and so he naturally refused to kill the goblins looting Nightstone. Instead, he tried to organize them into an army to "fight for their rights", which actually worked. We didn't know that the villagers were being held prisoner by the goblin leaders, but didn't exactly try hard to find out.

Are the goblins continuing to hold the villagers? Did they harm anybody? As I said I'm not familiar with the module, but unless the goblins were actually maltreated before they took prisoners, I would consider not just not stopping, but actually galvanising them a slightly evil act, whether you knew about the villagers or not (ignorance doesn't mean innocence).


We found out that the orcs weren't there to raid, they just wanted to shelter in the village because they were being pursued by a bunch of elves that they'd gotten into an "altercation" with, and we agreed to give them sanctuary.

Who was the instigator of that altercation? In the case of the elves, did they have cause? You said the orcs didn't want to raid *you*, which seems to be a terribly convenient thing for them to say if they're all heavily wounded and have a band of angry elf hunters on their heels. Had they just raided somebody else (the keyword 'marauder' seems to give it away somewhat, unless it's a deliberate misnomer)?


When the elves showed up later, asking for us to hand over the orcs, I refused, saying that the orcs were under our protection and that I didn't like elves anyway: they kill goblins all the time. The elf leader responded that if we'd hand over the orcs, he'd never again kill a goblin without reason, and I shouted back that his "reason" was that he was a racist. Insults were exchanged, but no bloodshed (yet).

Did the elves say what they wanted to do with the orcs? Put them on trial? Wholesale slaughter? Take them prisoners to exchange for their poor elf toddlers who are crying their eyes out because they were incarcerated by the cruelly cackling orcs' matron in a dark, damp dungeon without so much as a crumb of bread?


[... ICly] I didn't like elves anyway: they kill goblins all the time [...]

Plus I note that your character has no compunction about being a racist themself.


The DM claims that our party has irrefutably gone down the path toward an "evil" campaign, because we prioritized the lives of "evil" marauders over that of innocent villagers and "good" elves. There isn't a big argument about this, but I would like to know your opinions. Can going through a session without a single sentient life being lost still count as evil, under these circumstances?

"a session without a single sentient life being lost" -- yeah, on-screen. What about off-screen, yesterday or tomorrow?

If the goblins are up to no good and if the orcs have blood on their hands already (and will shed more blood once the elves are gone and they're free to go, like marauders are kinda wont to do) then I'd definitely peg your actions as somewhat evil and consider this a shot over the bow. Not enough to cause an alignment change yet, of course, but... you know. A few inches down.

In the case of the orcs (assuming they are marauders): if they leave your camp the next morning, happily rested and recovered thanks to your hospitality, to pillage the next village they come across, despite the elves revealing what they knew to you, you have not just aided murderers escape, the lives of their future victims are partly on your hands. That's not pacifism, in my book, that's apathy in the best case, collaboration in the worst. If you want to pick a way more deserving of a 'good' label, you should at the very least try to find ways to stop them from continuing their rampage, and ideally hold them until they can be justly dealt with after a thorough investigation. Treat their wounds, by all means, but put some strong sleeping poison into their ale if need be.

[Laserlight]

By the way, Brazenburn, I was a Neutral Evil warlock whose patron was Shar, goddess of Darkness, Deception and Death...and by comparison with the other PCs. I was the party conscience. By this point in the campaign, our party had committed (or were planning to commit): murder, fraud, forgery, lots of theft, joining the equivalent of the Mafia, conspiracy, subversion of government officials, practice of an outlawed religion, stealing government records, assault on a town guard, attempted murder ditto, and probably a few others. I don't recall any arson, for instance, but since we were player characters, I kind of assume that was in there somewhere.

So if you're going to be Evil, you need to pick up the pace. :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

No you're not evil and your DM is wrong.

[Lunali]

If the goblins are up to no good and if the orcs have blood on their hands already (and will shed more blood once the elves are gone and they're free to go, like marauders are kinda wont to do) then I'd definitely peg your actions as somewhat evil and consider this a shot over the bow. Not enough to cause an alignment change yet, of course, but... you know. A few inches down.

In the case of the orcs (assuming they are marauders): if they leave your camp the next morning, happily rested and recovered thanks to your hospitality, to pillage the next village they come across, despite the elves revealing what they knew to you, you have not just aided murderers escape, the lives of their future victims are partly on your hands. That's not pacifism, in my book, that's apathy in the best case, collaboration in the worst. If you want to pick a way more deserving of a 'good' label, you should at the very least try to find ways to stop them from continuing their rampage, and ideally hold them until they can be justly dealt with after a thorough investigation. Treat their wounds, by all means, but put some strong sleeping poison into their ale if need be.

The question isn't whether the goblins and orcs were up to no good, but rather whether the PCs believed they were evil. Unless they were aware that they were helping evil, I would call them naive and idealistic rather than evil.

[terodil]

The question isn't whether the goblins and orcs were up to no good, but rather whether the PCs believed they were evil. Unless they were aware that they were helping evil, I would call them naive and idealistic rather than evil.
It's a fine line, I guess, what 'believing' means here. Does it mean 'truly believe' or 'want to believe'?

Because to be honest, from the conversation the OP reproduced, I would have my doubts that the PCs were truly trying their best to understand the situation. He was pissed at elves in general and trying to at least troll them, if not actually to pick a fight, simply for them being elves and thereby conforming to his pattern of 'this elf = all elves = kill goblins = no like'. I'd call it a deliberate decision to summarily write everything the elves say off as lies and to conversely immediately consider the poor orcs victims and bestest friends ever because also downtrodden by evil elfs.

And in my book, a deliberate decision to quite likely believe a falsehood because you simply do not want to consider any counter-evidence is not enough to claim naivete or idealism as a defense.

[B0nes]

From what I've read it seems your character is very willing to turn a blind eye in the favor of goblin and orc misdeeds (kidnapping and raiding in this case). Did he ever consider there might be a valid reason the elves or society to hate goblins/orcs? It seems pretty ironic to be pushing for goblin rights while ignoring the cause for hatred against them, and seeming pretty racist himself (disregarding innocents killed by orcs).

As terodil said, ignorance doesn't mean innocence. If you defend criminals while ignoring their crimes then I believe that is an evil act. If the goblins (i.e. your character) want rights then it is their responsibility to prove they aren't evil, rather than put the blame on others.

[bid]

Because to be honest, from the conversation the OP reproduced, I would have my doubts that the PCs were truly trying their best to understand the situation.
I don't know, I haven't read a single thing that'd make me believe those pansy tree-huggers weren't doing ethnic cleansing for fun and profit. Maybe they told the characters the orcs had raided their village, but it isn't explicitly stated here.

If they defused the situation in Nightstone, making the goblins cooperate with the villagers, how can that not be good?

[Unoriginal]

If you're playing Storm King's Thunder, then you're presumably in FR.

Goblins aren't misunderstood victims of humanoid oppression who lash out against an unjust system. Humans have no issue with goblins when they meet for trading or the like.

Those goblins you helped? They're raiders. They kill innocents and steal stuff whenever they can. The only oppression they're under is the one of other goblins or goblinoids higher on the hierarchy, including their nasty, nasty god.

For the orcs, it's the same. They're raiders who killed innocents, then fled when overwhelmed.

Oh, and by the way, orcs who follow Gruumsh hate goblins with a passion, and kill them whenever they can too, so it seems you have no problem sheltering racist killers.

Elf societies don't go around killing orcs or goblins for sport, pleasure, hatred or "ethnic cleansing". Most of them cannot be assed to get out of their realms, and they're not the kind to kill for any reason but protection. Individual elves who would do that would be branded pariahs and banished pretty quick.

So yeah, you're protecting and organizing a bunch of raiders, some of them known to kill your species out of religion-fueled hatred and the others still holding hostages, then are calling the armed force sent after they killed innocents "racist".

And you wonder if your group are the good guys?

[Malifice]

If you're playing Storm King's Thunder, then you're presumably in FR.

Goblins aren't misunderstood victims of humanoid oppression who lash out against an unjust system. Humans have no issue with goblins when they meet for trading or the like.

Those goblins you helped? They're raiders. They kill innocents and steal stuff whenever they can. The only oppression they're under is the one of other goblins or goblinoids higher on the hierarchy, including their nasty, nasty god.

For the orcs, it's the same. They're raiders who killed innocents, then fled when overwhelmed.

Oh, and by the way, orcs who follow Gruumsh hate goblins with a passion, and kill them whenever they can too, so it seems you have no problem sheltering racist killers.

Elf societies don't go around killing orcs or goblins for sport, pleasure, hatred or "ethnic cleansing". Most of them cannot be assed to get out of their realms, and they're not the kind to kill for any reason but protection. Individual elves who would do that would be branded pariahs and banished pretty quick.

So yeah, you're protecting and organizing a bunch of raiders, some of them known to kill your species out of religion-fueled hatred and the others still holding hostages, then are calling the armed force sent after they killed innocents "racist".

And you wonder if your group are the good guys?

What bizarre reasoning.

[Unoriginal]

What bizarre reasoning.

How is "protecting two groups of raiders who kidnapped/killed innocents, with one of the groups being composed of people who are hateful to the point of murder-on-sight against the people of which you claim to advocate the civil rights does not make you the good guys" bizarre?

[JellyPooga]

And you wonder if your group are the good guys?

One thing decides the moral outcome of this scenario more than any other, for me; the fact that violence has been averted in favour of discussion.

- Had the OP not turned up at Nightstone (I don't know the module at all; I'm assuming from other posters' comments that Nightstone is a humanoid village), the Goblins there would have raided it and moved on. OP Party presence turned a raid into an occupation, potentially saving lives (after all, in a raid, you don't need to leave survivors; at least in an occupation, you want someone to push around once you're done occupying).

- Had the OP not let the Orcs in, there would have been further bloodshed. By allowing the Orcs through the gates, lives have been saved in the short term at least. Compassion for the wounded is a check in the "Good" box, too.

- The Elves turn up and demand violence. OP denies them their vegeance in favour of negotiation. This is certainly not Evil.

Now, being complicit in aiding and abetting known murderers ain't exactly being "The Good Guy", but standing back and letting things take their course in this scenario isn't exactly Good Guy material either. Nor is aiding any one faction involved (even the Elves, who seem to be on a murderous quest for vengeance, rather than truly seeking justice). What is telling of Good action here is that the OP has averted bloodshed in favour of negotiation; no, it's not Good to be complicit in installing a tyrannical regime (which is one way this could go), no, it's not Good to aid and abet criminals trying to escape justice and equally, no, it's not Good to help vigilantes carry out their lynch-mob brand of justice. What is Good is getting the tyrants, the criminals and the vigilantes to sit around a table and talk about A) Cease-fire, B) Reparation and C) Peace.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Have to agree that the answers to these questions are very much setting-dependent.

In a setting where goblins, orcs, and elves are natural creatures that have variable alignments, then you're judging the groups by their actions, and you can argue that the elves were being bad. However, the kidnapping of villagers by the goblins isn't helping your situation, and if you're not trying to free those hostages, you're at least collaborating with evil.

In a setting where goblins, orcs, and elves are supernatural exemplars of chaos, evil, good or whatever, then you've been duped into helping evil monsters against the forces of good.

It seems likely that by letting you play a good aligned goblin, the DM is aiming for a nuanced alignment system for these races. But if the DM wants all goblins and orcs to be evil, then you're justified in being surprised about that, given that your PC goblin isn't.

Actions to take: confirm the DM's expectations for alignment of these races, and proceed from there.

(I'm at work, doing Quality Assurance stuff, so sorry if I've written this like a Corrective Action Report!)

[Unoriginal]

One thing decides the moral outcome of this scenario more than any other, for me; the fact that violence has been averted in favour of discussion.

- Had the OP not turned up at Nightstone (I don't know the module at all; I'm assuming from other posters' comments that Nightstone is a humanoid village), the Goblins there would have raided it and moved on. OP Party presence turned a raid into an occupation, potentially saving lives (after all, in a raid, you don't need to leave survivors; at least in an occupation, you want someone to push around once you're done occupying).

I doubt "helping people to invade the town of innocents who did nothing to them and occupying the place, with hostages" would earn the PCs a "good guys" point.



- Had the OP not let the Orcs in, there would have been further bloodshed. By allowing the Orcs through the gates, lives have been saved in the short term at least. Compassion for the wounded is a check in the "Good" box, too.

Arguably, yes. But compassion does not mean turning a blind eye to the person's actions and allowing them to continue their malevolence.



- The Elves turn up and demand violence. OP denies them their vegeance in favour of negotiation. This is certainly not Evil.

OP ended the negotiation, with people' lives at stake, because according to his PC, the elves are just racists. That's certainly not good.



Now, being complicit in aiding and abetting known murderers ain't exactly being "The Good Guy", but standing back and letting things take their course in this scenario isn't exactly Good Guy material either. Nor is aiding any one faction involved (even the Elves, who seem to be on a murderous quest for vengeance, rather than truly seeking justice).

The elves seem to be pursuing a bunch of fleeing raiders who risk to come back if left to their own device.



What is telling of Good action here is that the OP has averted bloodshed in favour of negotiation; no, it's not Good to be complicit in installing a tyrannical regime (which is one way this could go), no, it's not Good to aid and abet criminals trying to escape justice and equally, no, it's not Good to help vigilantes carry out their lynch-mob brand of justice. What is Good is getting the tyrants, the criminals and the vigilantes to sit around a table and talk about A) Cease-fire, B) Reparation and C) Peace.

Well, if OP re-start the negotiations and get everyone to leave this place without further bloodshed, it'd be good. So far, though, it's not how OP presented the situation.


Have to agree that the answers to these questions are very much setting-dependent.

In a setting where goblins, orcs, and elves are natural creatures that have variable alignments, then you're judging the groups by their actions, and you can argue that the elves were being bad. However, the kidnapping of villagers by the goblins isn't helping your situation, and if you're not trying to free those hostages, you're at least collaborating with evil.

In a setting where goblins, orcs, and elves are supernatural exemplars of chaos, evil, good or whatever, then you've been duped into helping evil monsters against the forces of good.

It seems likely that by letting you play a good aligned goblin, the DM is aiming for a nuanced alignment system for these races. But if the DM wants all goblins and orcs to be evil, then you're justified in being surprised about that, given that your PC goblin isn't.

Actions to take: confirm the DM's expectations for alignment of these races, and proceed from there.

(I'm at work, doing Quality Assurance stuff, so sorry if I've written this like a Corrective Action Report!)

In Default Setting 5e, and in Forgotten Realms, goblins', orcs' and elves' alignments are mostly due to culture (and divine influence on their society and sometime how the beings' bodies work).

It doesn't matter if the guys in OP's examples are orcs or goblins. They're raiders, that's what make them evil.

Arguably the DM muddied the issue by having the orcs beg for shelter rather than doing what their culture and society judges as the correct thing to do.

[the_brazenburn]

Did the elves say what they wanted to do with the orcs? Put them on trial? Wholesale slaughter? Take them prisoners to exchange for their poor elf toddlers who are crying their eyes out because they were incarcerated by the cruelly cackling orcs' matron in a dark, damp dungeon without so much as a crumb of bread?

Since they'd clearly been willing to kill us to get to the orcs (they'd been shouting: "Give us the orcs or die!"), I'd thought it seemed likely they wanted their heads on a stake.


No you're not evil and your DM is wrong.

How come?

Just wondering what your reasoning is.




OP ended the negotiation, with people' lives at stake, because according to his PC, the elves are just racists. That's certainly not good.

Well, if OP re-start the negotiations and get everyone to leave this place without further bloodshed, it'd be good. So far, though, it's not how OP presented the situation.

The negotiations haven't broken down yet. Both sides are pretty pissed at each other, and the elves are calling for backup, but there's still a possibility of coming to a peaceful conclusion.

And my character has a reason for hating elves. His bond is that the entirety of his tribe was slaughtered and eaten by rampaging frost giants, who'd used elves (that only cooperated with them because they hated our tribe of goblins to an extreme) as scouts and trackers to trap the goblins in their camp, where they were butchered. That's the reason my PC considers elves "goblin-killing racists".

[JellyPooga]

I doubt "helping people to invade the town of innocents who did nothing to them and occupying the place, with hostages" would earn the PCs a "good guys" point.

The lesser of two evils may not strictly be "good", but it's all a moral agent can do in some cases.


Arguably, yes. But compassion does not mean turning a blind eye to the person's actions and allowing them to continue their malevolence.

I didn't get the impression from the OP that they've overlooked the actions of the orcs, so much as they"ve postponed a summary execution at the hands of the Elves.


OP ended the negotiation, with people' lives at stake, because according to his PC, the elves are just racists. That's certainly not good.

Which lives? The Goblins for being Goblins in the presence of Elves? The Orcs for being subject to a kangaroo court at the hands of the Elves? The Elves for threatening violence which may result in their own death? The innocent villagers for being embroiled in a skirmish that's none of their doing, that if negotiations fail may result in widescale slaughter on all sides?


The elves seem to be pursuing a bunch of fleeing raiders who risk to come back if left to their own device.

That doesn't make them the good guys. Vengeance is not a morally upright motive, regardless of previous events or possible futures.

In the arena of war, the peacemaker is rarely one of those who are clamouring for blood. The negotiator is the one with the moral highground and from what I can tell, the OP has made all the right moves to preserve peace, rather than encourage violence. That is Good.

Who knows, perhaps whatever treaty is made here is the first step in bringing these ancient enemies closer together. Perhaps the "Nightstone Concord" is the example by which these three races learn that old feuds and archaic traditions are no reason to bicker and war. Perhaps, even, as a result of the OPs actions and regardless of his intentions at the outset, Nightstone could become a beacon of cooperation; human, elf, goblin and orc living side by side in mutual cooperation and stable, if not easy, peace. These possibilities do not exist with the OP having taken any other action along this path. In and of itself, this possible end result makes the path taken at least worth trying for, from a moral point of view.

[ThatOneGuy1224]

In my opinion, it simply shows a lack of foresight and wisdom. The goblin has allowed potential enemies inside the village, while turning potential allies into potential enemies for the sake of personal views.

[Unoriginal]

Well, OP, at this point it sounds like the DM is trying to force you into a good ol' "lol the Paladin falls" bs dilemma.

They decided to make FR elves into hateful, my-way-or-the-highway slaughterers who gladly help evil beings kill your village, while the orcs, who hate showing weakness and avoiding fights as much as they hate elves and goblins, are willing to talk things out, yet apparently supporting the elves was the "good" choice.

Given what you've now said, all the factions seems equaly evil. Except the town your group helped occupy.

I think you should have a talk with your DM and have them explain their reasoning.

[the_brazenburn]

I might do that.

I think that when he said "evil", he meant that it would be difficult to continue on the traditional "Against the Giants" campaign route that the adventure is built around, since we are consorting with creatures that are usually aligned with the giants. I don't think it occurred to him that it would be possible to come to a peaceful resolution with some of the giants rather than just fighting them, or fighting with them. As I said, though, there's not been a disagreement with the DM, and he's just being forced to adapt a little bit.

[Unoriginal]

Neither orcs nor goblins are traditionaly allied with the Giants, though. Ogres, Ettins and Trolls sometime do, but those are more mercenaries who'd work for anyone provided they're payed and coerced the right way.

[hamishspence]

Well, OP, at this point it sounds like the DM is trying to force you into a good ol' "lol the Paladin falls" bs dilemma.

They decided to make FR elves into hateful, my-way-or-the-highway slaughterers

There's a certain amount of precedent for elves being like that in D&D fiction, in previous editions, etc.

So, the elves aren't necessarily acting "out-of-character" for Forgotten Realms Elves.

[the_brazenburn]

Neither orcs nor goblins are traditionaly allied with the Giants, though. Ogres, Ettins and Trolls sometime do, but those are more mercenaries who'd work for anyone provided they're payed and coerced the right way.

I'm talking about campaign specifically. Duke Zalto keeps a staff of orcs as grunts, and I think Guh has some goblinoid servants.

[Rhunder]

Couple issues I have with the morality of this thread.

Why is fighting and bloodshed evil? Why is raiding evil? Why is one culture evil vs good? I wouldn't say all Vikings were evil even when raiding the British isles. Spartans could be depicted as evil for raising children in such a violent fashion. Two sides at odds doesn't mean one is evil and the other is good. Typically, the Victor of a war gets to paint the enemy in an evil light but this isn't always true.

Not in any way helping this thread. I just love a good morality conversation.

[ZorroGames]

This comes across as a racial activist adventure more than pacifism itself. Edit: Despite my personal politics, that is not an inherently Evil thing in D&D.

I like Black and White Evil in games but more in the “individual choice” vein rather than group stereotypes demand rigid roleplay vein.

My latest Gnome has a criminal background and is my first Zhentarim character but is more chaotic and Neutral than Evil. My Mountain Dwarves pretty much distrust Goblin and Orc players (and just roll their eyes at Elvish Foolishness) but have not committed any atrocities in combat based on that.

[Wardog]

The goblin and orc forces have been doing bad things (raiding the village, and raiding the elves, respectively).

But that doesn't necessarily mean they are all bad people.

So without more context (details of the raids, background of every group involved, laws of the land, what are the likely consequeces of letting them go free) I don't see how you can reasonably say "attacking the goblins / handing the orcs over to the elves is the only Good option - negotiating for peace is Evil".

Okay, maybe they are all horrible monsters, and not killing them on sight means dooming countless innocents - but that hasn't been established. If we changed all the groups involved to different tribes of humans, I don't think people would say "obviously you should side with X over Y".

[dejarnjc]

I'm talking about campaign specifically. Duke Zalto keeps a staff of orcs as grunts, and I think Guh has some goblinoid servants.

Are you playing in this campaign or DMing it?

[Rhunder]

The goblin and orc forces have been doing bad things (raiding the village, and raiding the elves, respectively).

But that doesn't necessarily mean they are all bad people.

So without more context (details of the raids, background of every group involved, laws of the land, what are the likely consequeces of letting them go free) I don't see how you can reasonably say "attacking the goblins / handing the orcs over to the elves is the only Good option - negotiating for peace is Evil".

Okay, maybe they are all horrible monsters, and not killing them on sight means dooming countless innocents - but that hasn't been established. If we changed all the groups involved to different tribes of humans, I don't think people would say "obviously you should side with X over Y".

Agreeing with this. And that's why I kinda don't mention alignments in my game. I ask it what they are at the beginning to get an idea of how they will be roleplaying and then never ask again.

[the_brazenburn]

Are you playing in this campaign or DMing it?

Playing, but I've DM'd it in the past.

I've been trying not to let my meta-knowledge screw the campaign up.

[Willie the Duck]

I think that when he said "evil", he meant that it would be difficult to continue on the traditional "Against the Giants" campaign route that the adventure is built around, since we are consorting with creatures that are usually aligned with the giants.

So more 'team bad guy' than clearly 'the bad guys?' That's kind of where I prefer to keep things, especially in situations where boarder raids and revenge for other groups previous raids (which might well have been for revenge) means it's really hard to declare any actual bad or good guys (they each will want to kill the others, and have a somewhat reasonable justification involving the others routinely wanting to kill THEM).


I don't think it occurred to him that it would be possible to come to a peaceful resolution with some of the giants rather than just fighting them, or fighting with them. As I said, though, there's not been a disagreement with the DM, and he's just being forced to adapt a little bit.

That seems odd, but it fits the rest of what we've heard. I guess just expect them to keep using the terminology of the team elegance (goblins are one of the 'evil races' and keep pointing out that your character would disagree).

[KorvinStarmast]

I've been trying not to let my meta-knowledge screw the campaign up. I see that you chose not to take my advice on "is this evil" as your style in brazenburn threads. I repeat it to you; go back and maybe read the thread where you were asking about were people interested in the various zany antics of yours and Ivors games.

"is this really evil" is trolling. Please cut it out. You've been asked to fix the title to fit your question/OP. Please do so. There is some interesting RP stuff going on in your situation, for sure, but you poisoned your own well with your title.

As before, I hope you all are having fun with the STK ....

[the_brazenburn]

I see that you chose not to take my advice on "is this evil" as your style in brazenburn threads. I repeat it to you; go back and maybe read the thread where you were asking about were people interested in the various zany antics of yours and Ivors games.

"is this really evil" is trolling. Please cut it out. You've been asked to fix the title to fit your question/OP. Please do so. There is some interesting RP stuff going on in your situation, for sure, but you poisoned your own well with your title.

As before, I hope you all are having fun with the STK ....

Literally the first thing I said at the beginning of this thread was that this wasn't an "Is this Evil?" thread. I'm asking about the relative merits of aiding raiders versus keeping people from dying. Just because it uses an example from my campaign doesn't make it related to it.

It's a mere hypothetical, nothing more.

[KorvinStarmast]

Literally the first thing I said at the beginning of this thread was that this wasn't an "Is this Evil?" thread. I'm asking about the relative merits of aiding raiders versus keeping people from dying. Just because it uses an example from my campaign doesn't make it related to it. Read your title. These are your exact words.
Can pacifism be MORE evil than mass slaughter
This time, for comprehension. Self awareness needs a few more points on your next ASI point allocation.
It's not a question of racism at all. Where have I heard that before? Methinks the poster protesteth overly much. The elves doubtless disagree with you and your goblin. Where you sit determines what you see.

Or because my character is extremely sensitive towards anti-goblin racism and took offense that the elf asked to parlay with somebody other than a goblin. Racism is a two way street, particularly your adventure's setting -- given that it is the FR! It's almost structured into the system to have visceral antipathy built into the relationships between various humanoid races. Your character is easily and validly accused of racism against elves in this case, based on your own words and actions as described in your posts.

As I said, hope you are enjoying the RP. I mean that sincerely. The situation has some interesting possibilities for more role play.

You'd be better off spending more time discussing this with your DM than asking internet strangers whether you are right or not; we aren't at your table.

And I am going to say it again: get out of the habit of including "is this evil" style language in your thread titles, because that's trolling. And it's willful. You don't get to try and play innocent on this. you have previous form on this.

You have poisoned the well of your own question.

[the_brazenburn]

And I am going to say it again: get out of the habit of including "is this evil" style language in your thread titles, because that's trolling. And it's willful. You don't get to try and play innocent on this. you have previous form on this.

Actually, I don't have previous form on this. I looked up all the threads that you refer to as "is this evil". The titles are below.

Please Help Me With an Annoying Player!
I need some help (In-party issues).
Consequences for selling a party member's soul.
Anti-Rogue Tactics for a Bard
Running an alignment-ambiguous campaign: please help me not to screw up!

Notice what word is missing from all of those titles? Evil.

Not one of those previous threads has the word "evil" in it, so you can throw your self-rightousness out the window.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, I don't have previous form on this.
You and Ivor are part of the same play group, your bring your issues here: you get to accrue guilt by association. Because of that I offered you the previous advice on what to avoid. You ignored my previous advice; and so you poisoned your own well.

As you have gotten some other responses that address some of your RP questions, I'll not waste further time assisting you in cleaning your table's laundry.

Go have fun.

[the_brazenburn]

You and Ivor are part of the same play group, your bring your issues here: you get to accrue guilt by association. Because of that I offered you the previous advice on what to avoid. You ignored my previous advice; and so you poisoned your own well.

As you have gotten some other responses that address some of your RP questions, I'll not waste further time assisting you in cleaning your table's laundry.

Go have fun.

You are sidestepping the error in your statistics that I brought up.

Just pointing this out.

Yes, I accrue guilt by association. Yes, I gained good advice from other people. Yes, I'm going to have fun.

We don't need to follow this irrelevant advice to have it.

Good day to you, KorvinStarmast. We can disagree on this topic, but I don't want to hold a grudge.

[KorvinStarmast]

Good day to you, KorvinStarmast. We can disagree on this topic, but I don't want to hold a grudge. Yeah, let's not. Enjoy the SKT. :smallsmile:

[Chaosmancer]

Personally I've developed an almost visceral hate for these scenarios. I like paying good characters, but in one of my current groups there is a fellow player who constantly makes these a no-win scenario.

Enemies surrender, were raiding due to hunger and agree to try and find a better path? "You are allowing murders to go free for your own evil agenda, leading to the slaughter of hundreds if not thousands of innocents" Besides, the guy plays a rogue and often sneaks away to follow people we released and murder them anyways off-screen.

Fine, we kill them in combat or execute them for their crimes? "You mass murdering monster, how can you claim to be good when all you do is kill"

So, hyprocrit or monster, pick your poison.

These catch-22 scenarios aren't fun, especially when you are trying to play a morally upstanding soldier of fortune.

Your DM declared something, and they aren't wrong that harboring murders and working with kidnappers is evil. Of course, then you go back and show how little choice they had in those scenarios and how society weighs on them forcing them to fight and steal to survive.

And go round and round. But at some point, you've got to put aside the philosophy and just have fun without struggling with problems that have plagued society for thousands of years with no good solutions.

[mephnick]

But at some point, you've got to put aside the philosophy and just have fun

Yep. My answer to this question, if posed by a DM, would be "I don't care. Can I kill monsters now? That's why we're playing D&D, right?"

[DeadMech]

This makes me rethink my actions when my party chanced upon a horde of undead attacking a pair of soldiers at a fort gate. Clearly the soldiers were bullying the ghouls and they were merely defending themselves. And then we broke into that poor necromancer's tomb and assaulted an innocent man in his home.

In seriousness though. When my elf wizard found an elf magician flanked by spoopy skelington guards I didn't assume that the dude was some innocent poor boy with a sob story and an ends justify the means moral justification involving centuries of tit-for-tat reprisals against his people just because they shared race and specialization.

You walk into a village. A presumably human sized village, mind you. Possibly on fire. Possibly with piles of dead bodies. And you find goblins who you found actively looting the place and didn't even try to find out about the previous inhabitants. Getting tricked by bad guys doesn't make you one of the bad guys. Just naive. But naive and willful ignorance aren't the same thing.

[MoiMagnus]

Opposing the good guys, even violently, does not make you a bad guy (cf Chaotic Good vs Lawful Good)

If you have given your words on protecting the Orcs, protecting them is neither Good nor Evil, it is Neutral.
The question is, does giving your words on giving shelter to the Orcs Evil ?
They are murderer (and I doubt your character was not aware of that), so it could be Evil.
Would you have given shelter to anybody (elves?)? If yes, then you still stand as a Neutral (possibly Good) character.
The Neutral Good that will offer shelter and protect everyone on their land whatever what they've done before is a classical trope.

If you only promised them shelter because they were too strong, then the question is "Does your character consider oath made under constraint as binding?". It is very unlikely if your character isn't Lawful.

Finally, does you character made this choice because he consider it as a morally right choice? Or because it serve its interest?

Oh, and question to your DM: "Are alignment objective or subjective?".
Edition prior to 5e, alignment was something absolute determined by the universe, meaning that your character could be evil even if he was sure he was doing the good-aligned choices.
In 5e, the alignment isn't binding, and is not forced by the rules to be objective. If the alignment is subjective (as in real life), there is no problems with you considering yourself as a good guy while other peoples (here the elves) consider you as evil.

[Chaosmancer]

Yep. My answer to this question, if posed by a DM, would be "I don't care. Can I kill monsters now? That's why we're playing D&D, right?"

Well, yes and no.

I don't mind doing things other than killing monsters. Heck, I do enjoy the occasional non-violent resolution. It's when it gets dragged into complex multi-faceted discussions involving free will over societal pressures and crminality spirals that I just want to throw up my hands and say "Yes, its more complicated than that in the real world, but I don't want to fix society tonight, I want to spare the honorable hobgoblin soldier who surrendered to us after a good fight because it makes a good story for my character."

[Foxydono]

Whether or not your act was good/evil/neutral would depend on a couple of things:

- Did the orcs raid, pillage or kill anyone and is that the reason the elves were chasing them?
- Would the elves have killed the orcs or would they have been given a trial and is their potential punishment considered to be fair in your d&d world?

If the orcs did commit a crime and you knew about this, you would be harboring wanted persons and that in itself could be considered a crime, and thus semi evil. Assuming the elves told you this, you should have rolled an insight check or ask for prove. You could also question the orcs about this and see what they know. If you are convinced the orcs committed a crime, you should of handed them to the elves.

Unless the elves would have killed them without a fair trial. If that is the case, than you can argue that handing the orcs over would be inhumane and that you will not hand them over. You could let the local authorities deal with them instead so they get locked up instead of killed if found guilty.

If you are convinced the orcs are innocent, you could still hand them over to the elves if they are given a fair trial. If you are unsure about whether they would have gotten a fair trial, you could have offered to be their defense lawyer.

There is also the scenario were you believe the orcs to be innocent and you also believe that they would have no chance of a fair defense if you hand them over. In this case your actions would be good of course.

So it really depend on the situation on whether you did something good or bad.

[Dalebert]

When I saw the title, I thought op might be taking about vegetarianism, but this would be an odd place for it.

[Amdy_vill]

Evil is being selfish so yes.

edit: form the sounds of it you are evil and the party is mostly neutral and going along with you

[KorvinStarmast]

You walk into a village. A presumably human sized village, mind you. Possibly on fire. Possibly with piles of dead bodies. And you find goblins who you found actively looting the place and didn't even try to find out about the previous inhabitants. Getting tricked by bad guys doesn't make you one of the bad guys. Just naive. But naive and willful ignorance aren't the same thing. Yeah. The protestations of innocence are what tend to get the conversations to go off the rails ...

[krugaan]

Yeah. The protestations of innocence are what tend to get the conversations to go off the rails ...

Also difficult to claim innocence when one has literally DMed the campaign, or was that an addition by OP's current DM?

[bid]

Also difficult to claim innocence when one has literally DMed the campaign, or was that an addition by OP's current DM?
Someone is confusing IC with OOC.

Or did you mean the player is evil for doing this to his DM?:smallbiggrin:

[Draken]

There are a lot of very weird arguments being made here, so I will give a few based on principles of (extremely simplified) international law.

First: On the matter of goblin and orcish raiders.

The simple fact is thus: inter-tribal/inter-species raiding is not a crime. It is an act of war. A crime only happens when you break a law you are beholden to and you are only beholden to the laws of another tribe/species if:

1. You are incapable of resisting their police power to impose their laws on you (aka: they impose unilateral violence on you if you try).

2. If there are international treaties between your tribe/nation/species and theirs.

So you have taken a side in an internecine conflict (goblins vs humans, orcs vs elves), possibly established a unified leadership and must now wage your war. Which can and (if your plan is to pursue peace) should ultimately result in diplomatic talks. Proceed to put the war into a stalemate and force the involved leaderships into a negotiation table rather than continued attempts at mutual genocide.

If your DM says you have entered the path of evil in doing so, congratulations to him, he's made evil a relatively meaningless political label.

Second: On the matter of questioning the prioritization of the lives of goblins and orcs over humans and elves when you are a goblin.

This is bizarre. You should prioritize goblins, and orcs are probably less hostile than humans and elves.

Yes, all of those species are constantly engaged in internecine warfare. An empty promise with a caveat will not stop this any more than a boundary line marked in urine would. Without proper mutual agreements "good reasons" would arise on meeting most likely, and arguably would arise inherently if we treat good and evil as political labels as has been established previously ("Good" reasons).

[Unoriginal]

This is bizarre. You should prioritize goblins

There is no reason he "should" do that. It's something that can happen, but not everyone is interested with defending members of their species even if they're initiating hostile actions against other people.



and orcs are probably less hostile than humans and elves.

That's not true.

The setting of SKT is Forgotten Realms. In FR as well as in the default 5e setting, not only orcs are far more hostile than humans and elves in general, in particular orcs are permanently at war with the goblinoids and would normally kill goblins on sight. Meanwhile, trade relationships are known to exist between humans and goblins.

OP's DM has changed things to make the elves more evil, however, so who know.

[Draken]

This will sound judgmental, but believe me when I say this, it is not. Well it is, just not in the way it at first appears.

Breaking free of tribalism is aberrant behavior.

Being insular, mistrusting what is different (specially when it comes to whole other species) and displaying hostility towards outside elements is the standard. We live in an enlightened age where we can all look at those traits and dismiss them as ignorance and barbarism, sadly, our characters don't live in such a world. They can't subscribe to those ideals.

They have to shed an ungainly quantity of blood to get to that point. Until enough is enough. Until everyone involved understands that the Blood God will never be sated.

Then they can start talking about peace.

[Millstone85]

They have to shed an ungainly quantity of blood to get to that point. Until enough is enough. Until everyone involved understands that the Blood God will never be sated.You mean this guy?

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/8/8c/Symbol-of-Bhaal.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/240

He will not be so easily denied.

[Unoriginal]

Breaking free of tribalism is aberrant behavior.

Being insular, mistrusting what is different (specially when it comes to whole other species) and displaying hostility towards outside elements is the standard.


OP's goblin is just as much an outsider to the the raider goblin's community than any random adventurer is.

Traveling with a bunch of other humanoids is already aberrant behavior by those standards.



They have to shed an ungainly quantity of blood to get to that point. Until enough is enough. Until everyone involved understands that the Blood God will never be sated.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. There is no set amount of death people have to see before accepting others.

Plenty of species live in peace and even together, in 5e's default setting. The FR are arguably even more cosmopolite and tolerant than other settings.

Of course mistrust and prejudices still happen, but there is no reason why a group of goblins would trust a goblin from a different community more than, say, the human from the next town over.

[Lord Vukodlak]

OP's DM has changed things to make the elves more evil, however, so who know.
Did he? Sounds more like the OP changed things with his own characters bias.

He sided with the goblins against Nightstone essentially taking it over with said Goblins. He then sided with Orcish raiders over the Elves.
I think the Elves hostility is quite justified. And the OP’s goblin would behave the exact same way in his position.

[krugaan]

This will sound judgmental, but believe me when I say this, it is not. Well it is, just not in the way it at first appears.

Breaking free of tribalism is aberrant behavior.

Being insular, mistrusting what is different (specially when it comes to whole other species) and displaying hostility towards outside elements is the standard. We live in an enlightened age where we can all look at those traits and dismiss them as ignorance and barbarism, sadly, our characters don't live in such a world. They can't subscribe to those ideals.

They have to shed an ungainly quantity of blood to get to that point. Until enough is enough. Until everyone involved understands that the Blood God will never be sated.

Then they can start talking about peace.

While in general, I agree with this, there's a few things to note:

- all new behavior is basically aberrant until it becomes the norm (see: civilization)
- our own enlightened age is becoming regressive (ironically thanks to technology)
- as anthropomophic as FR is, lets not forget that these are imaginary races in an imaginary world

[Unoriginal]

Did he? Sounds more like the OP changed things with his own characters bias.

He sided with the goblins against Nightstone essentially taking it over with said Goblins. He then sided with Orcish raiders over the Elves.
I think the Elves hostility is quite justified. And the OP’s goblin would behave the exact same way in his position.

According to OP, other elves guided evil Giants to his goblin's village because they wanted the goblins slaughtered.

[Draken]

While in general, I agree with this, there's a few things to note:

- all new behavior is basically aberrant until it becomes the norm (see: civilization)
- our own enlightened age is becoming regressive (ironically thanks to technology)
- as anthropomophic as FR is, lets not forget that these are imaginary races in an imaginary world

All of that is true. The regression as well, although not relevant to this context. Tell the story of the rise before you talk about the fall.

Mostly saying that it takes a while for people to stop treating violence and revenge as the default modus operandi (and even then, it never really goes away), and fantasy settings are very, very, very far from that point. Pacifism in them is aberrant, and adventurers are aberrant, mainly because all the notions players have of morality are out of whack with the realities of the age (of a fantasy world, plus people like to talk about notions of international law that simply cannot apply).

But practical lines have to be drawn, steps have to be taken in order. The OP's goblin PC is never going to achieve anything by throwing away his own kind and the only other group with a vague shot at forming a power base for him, in favor of those who are already hostile. Preventing the elves from getting the orcs gives him a pack of friendly orcs. Handing the orcs over gives him a meaningless promise from one elf. Denying the elves their quarry keeps them hostile. Giving them what they want at most makes them leave, at worst causes them to make more demands in favor of the humans and to the detriment of the goblin tribe he is now sort of leading.

OP's character is in the process of building a small nation, presumably he will not lead it into burning and pillaging, and that would be great. He's chosen the traditional aggressors to do this work with, great! Nothing is gonna change if he builds human/elf/dwarf nation number 20.517 in the Forgotten Realms.

[Unoriginal]

But practical lines have to be drawn, steps have to be taken in order. The OP's goblin PC is never going to achieve anything by throwing away his own kind and the only other group with a vague shot at forming a power base for him, in favor of those who are already hostile.

They're hostile because they've been attacked.



Preventing the elves from getting the orcs gives him a pack of friendly orcs. Handing the orcs over gives him a meaningless promise from one elf. Denying the elves their quarry keeps them hostile. Giving them what they want at most makes them leave, at worst causes them to make more demands in favor of the humans and to the detriment of the goblin tribe he is now sort of leading.

OP's character is in the process of building a small nation, presumably he will not lead it into burning and pillaging, and that would be great. He's chosen the traditional aggressors to do this work with, great! Nothing is gonna change if he builds human/elf/dwarf nation number 20.517 in the Forgotten Realms.

The OP has been enabling the goblins' invasion and hostage taking, and those orcs have no reason to displease their god by becoming allies with goblins.

[Draken]

They're hostile because they've been attacked.

Yes? And? Should that mean anything to OP's character?


The OP has been enabling the goblins' invasion and hostage taking, and those orcs have no reason to displease their god by becoming allies with goblins.

Gods in FR are a dime a dozen, if the reason is good enough they can probably find a workable one under a rock somewhere.

As for the aggression and invasion. Well, it's happened, nobody is denying that.

It will also keep happening. The PC handing over the orcs won't change that. The PC standing his ground and maybe assuming control (PCs have a knack for that) could change that.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Yes? And? Should that mean anything to OP's Character.
If he doesn’t want his friends annihilated for allying with raiders it should matter. He can either make enemies of the three most powerful humanoid races on faerun(humans elves and dwarves) or he can make them his friends. Which one is the most beneficial?

The elves want the orcs because the orcs raided their village. The goblin OP can either allied with the orange and continue down the path goblin have always been Orcs using them as meat shields. Or we can do with no goblins have done and Ally with Elves.

Kill the orcs while they sleep and turn the heads over to the elves. That’s assuming the non goblin townsfolk don’t do it first.

[Tetrasodium]

Full disclosure: It's almopst 2am, I have insomnia and have not read the entire thread

First, this isn't one of those ridiculous Ivor and Brazenburn screw-up threads. It does involve some stuff from our campaign, but it isn't a disagreement, I'm just a little intrigued by this question.

So, our party recently started the Nightstone portion of Storm King's Thunder. My character is a goblin rights activist (he's a goblin), and so he naturally refused to kill the goblins looting Nightstone. Instead, he tried to organize them into an army to "fight for their rights", which actually worked. We didn't know that the villagers were being held prisoner by the goblin leaders, but didn't exactly try hard to find out.

Later, a tribe of orcs attacked the village, and we weren't able to raise the drawbridge in time. We could have tried to take out their leader, since all the orcs were seriously wounded, but instead we negotiated. (There was almost some violence when I thought the orc was using a racial slur: "wimpy goblins", but luckily it was averted.) We found out that the orcs weren't there to raid, they just wanted to shelter in the village because they were being pursued by a bunch of elves that they'd gotten into an "altercation" with, and we agreed to give them sanctuary.

When the elves showed up later, asking for us to hand over the orcs, I refused, saying that the orcs were under our protection and that I didn't like elves anyway: they kill goblins all the time. The elf leader responded that if we'd hand over the orcs, he'd never again kill a goblin without reason, and I shouted back that his "reason" was that he was a racist. Insults were exchanged, but no bloodshed (yet).

The DM claims that our party has irrefutably gone down the path toward an "evil" campaign, because we prioritized the lives of "evil" marauders over that of innocent villagers and "good" elves. There isn't a big argument about this, but I would like to know your opinions. Can going through a session without a single sentient life being lost still count as evil, under these circumstances?


There are a couple parts to your question. On the simple can pacifism be more evil than slaughter question... yes, but not in your situation. Christopher Paolini gets into that in The Inheritance Cycle where an immortal near sauron type emperor does horrible things to his people for his own power & stopping him would require crossing some lines (war is war) but not stopping him would result in far more death & suffering over time.


On the question of what happened in that game though, first you have to know if absolute or relative morality is a thing in your GM's game. If the orcs are going to recover & go rape/kill/plunder some other village then it's probably a bad thing. If the orcs can pivot into functional townspeople then killing them would have been bad. I suggest looking to eberron for some examples of functional monsters (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmark-926-what-makes-a-monster/) & orcs (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-orcs-and-the-ghaashkala/) specifically (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmark-31914-orcs-mean-streets-and-more/). if you can do something (like an awesome series of quests) to sever their bond with orcus or shift that bond to something more constructive, then they should shift more towards eberron style orcs

[JellyPooga]

If he doesn’t want his friends annihilated for allying with raiders it should matter. He can either make enemies of the three most powerful humanoid races on faerun(humans elves and dwarves) or he can make them his friends. Which one is the most beneficial?

The elves want the orcs because the orcs raided their village. The goblin OP can either allied with the orange and continue down the path goblin have always been Orcs using them as meat shields. Or we can do with no goblins have done and Ally with Elves.

Kill the orcs while they sleep and turn the heads over to the elves. That’s assuming the non goblin townsfolk don’t do it first.

If it's a choice between advocating fear-mongering, genocide and betrayal OR living with the uncertainty of allying with the so-called "evil" races and their comparatively petty bickering, minor raids and casual attitude toward violence, I'm fair certain I know which is the morally right course (hint: it's not the genocide and betrayal one). At least the orcs and goblins tend to leave some survivors and are (usually) honest about their intentions to pillage and raid.

Fear the righteous man, for his intentions are subject not to his own conscience, but to a higher power whose agenda is unknowable. The moral man listens to his own heart and to those of his community, not the strictures of tradition, religion (in the repetitive, unthinking sense, rather than the spiritual one) or vendetta.

[Unoriginal]

If it's a choice between advocating fear-mongering, genocide and betrayal OR living with the uncertainty of allying with the so-called "evil" races and their comparatively petty bickering, minor raids and casual attitude toward violence, I'm fair certain I know which is the morally right course (hint: it's not the genocide and betrayal one). At least the orcs and goblins tend to leave some survivors and are (usually) honest about their intentions to pillage and raid.

Fear the righteous man, for his intentions are subject not to his own conscience, but to a higher power whose agenda is unknowable. The moral man listens to his own heart and to those of his community, not the strictures of tradition, religion (in the repetitive, unthinking sense, rather than the spiritual one) or vendetta.

That only happens when DMs go for a "actually the good guys are evil!" bastardization of the concept.

In the actual 5e FR, the elves as a society would never go for genocide.

Also, orcs don't leave survivors when they fight elves or goblins. Out of religious-motivated hatred.

[JellyPooga]

That only happens when DMs go for a "actually the good guys are evil!" bastardization of the concept.

In the actual 5e FR, the elves as a society would never go for genocide.

Also, orcs don't leave survivors when they fight elves or goblins. Out of religious-motivated hatred.

Note that my post was in direct response to Lord Vukodlak, who was talking about the players performing genocide and betraying the orcs while they slept because otherwise they risk alienating the (apparently) three most powerful races of humans, elves and dwarves (an unsubstantiated claim IMO).

[hamishspence]

That only happens when DMs go for a "actually the good guys are evil!" bastardization of the concept.

In the actual 5e FR, the elves as a society would never go for genocide.


In previous editions, elves have committed genocide, country-level massacres, etc. more than once in the past. Not "elves destined to become dark elves" either - regular elves.

So, in that sense, "it's canon" that D&D elves have very bloody histories with other races, or with infighting.

those orcs have no reason to displease their god by becoming allies with goblins.


Conversely, in the Realms, goblins and orcs have never been especially at-odds. In fact, orcs used to be classified as "goblinoids", until more recent editions. It was common for warlords to include both goblins and orcs in their armies. Like Akar Kessel, in the The Crystal Shard novel.

[Unoriginal]

In previous editions, elves have committed genocide, country-level massacres, etc. more than once in the past. Not "elves destined to become dark elves" either - regular elves.

So, in that sense, "it's canon" that D&D elves have very bloody histories with other races, or with infighting.

That was past editions. They retconned that out, and frankly good riddance.

Doesn't mean the elves don't have bloody histories with other species, though, just look at the Elf-Quaggoth war. But there is a difference between "those peoples are at war for territorial or economic reasons" and "this people will genocide your people given the chance."




Conversely, in the Realms, goblins and orcs have never been especially at-odds. In fact, orcs used to be classified as "goblinoids", until more recent editions. It was common for warlords to include both goblins and orcs in their armies. Like Akar Kessel, in the The Crystal Shard novel.

The Volo's quite clear on the orc-goblinoid relationship. Though FR is different from the default setting the book talk about, so maybe you're right and how it was in the past has not been changed.

[hamishspence]

That was past editions. They retconned that out, and frankly good riddance.

"Elves are trying not to be like that any more" is different from "Elves were never like that".

[Unoriginal]

"Elves are trying not to be like that any more" is different from "Elves were never like that".

No, elves were never like that, in-universe.

That was retconed. Same as many of the the dumb alignment things.

Out of universe, it changed, but the various changes the species were subjected by the different writers through the years and editions did not happen in-universe.

[hamishspence]

No, elves were never like that, in-universe.

The basics of Realms history still happened.

Gold elves still cast the Killing Storm spell, wiping out an entire kingdom of mixed dark elves and green elves (Miyritar) and leaving behind wreckage which eventually became the High Moor. The human kingdom of Jhaamdath was still drowned by tidal waves. The Eldath Veluuthra (an elven-supremacist organisation seeking to genocide humanity) was still founded. And so forth.

[KorvinStarmast]

Note that my post was in direct response to Lord Vukodlak, who was talking about the players performing genocide and betraying the orcs while they slept because otherwise they risk alienating the (apparently) three most powerful races of humans, elves and dwarves (an unsubstantiated claim IMO).Killing that small group of orcs is not genocide. That usage is a horrible abuse of the term. Murder? Sure, a far more apt and accurate description.

[hamishspence]

Killing that small group of orcs is not genocide. That usage is a horrible abuse of the term.

That small group is a tribe. A tribe can count as a "group" for the purposes of the term.

[JackPhoenix]

That small group is a tribe. A tribe can count as a "group" for the purposes of the term.

That small group is raiding warband. Not a tribe.

[hamishspence]

That small group is raiding warband. Not a tribe.

The OP used the word "tribe":


Later, a tribe of orcs attacked the village, and we weren't able to raise the drawbridge in time. We could have tried to take out their leader, since all the orcs were seriously wounded, but instead we negotiated. (There was almost some violence when I thought the orc was using a racial slur: "wimpy goblins", but luckily it was averted.) We found out that the orcs weren't there to raid, they just wanted to shelter in the village because they were being pursued by a bunch of elves that they'd gotten into an "altercation" with, and we agreed to give them sanctuary.

[KorvinStarmast]

That small group is a tribe. A tribe can count as a "group" for the purposes of the term.No, unless you want to torture the English language. It is really annoying to watch people trivialize genocide by using it out of its context. Cross cultural war is not by default genocide.

[hamishspence]

Any attempt to "destroy a people" is genocide, according to most definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Whether "a people" can be one tribe, may depend on who's doing the defining.

[JackPhoenix]

The OP used the word "tribe":

The OP also clarified that it was a group of raiders fleeing from retaliation after they attacked and killed innocent elven civilians. Nothing suggesting it was entire tribe with their own non-combatants.

They were tribe in the sense that they belonged to a single tribe, but it was still just a warband, in the same way "Terrorist positions were bombarded by Americans" doesn't mean that the entire USA population went to throw bombs at the enemy.

[hamishspence]

Elf societies don't go around killing orcs or goblins for sport, pleasure, hatred or "ethnic cleansing".


In 2nd edition's Complete Book of Elves, one of the yearly celebrations was Agelong:

On the night of the hunt, elves nick themselves with obsidian daggers and let their blood flow into the earth, simulating the bloodletting that made their existence possible. They then swoop down from their homes and kill as many orcs as they can find during this night.


Nothing suggesting it was entire tribe with their own non-combatants.

Maybe not - but it's still a valid conclusion to come to. Maybe the OP could clarify if it's the whole tribe, or just the soldiers?

[JackPhoenix]

In 2nd edition's Complete Book of Elves, one of the yearly celebrations was Agelong:

On the night of the hunt, elves nick themselves with obsidian daggers and let their blood flow into the earth, simulating the bloodletting that made their existence possible. They then swoop down from their homes and kill as many orcs as they can find during this night.

Irrelevant. 2e was different game, with different lore, and much of it was retconned. And CBoE was considered pretty bad even back then.


Maybe not - but it's still a valid conclusion to come to. Maybe the OP could clarify if it's the whole tribe, or just the soldiers?

He did.


On the other hand, the elves did notify us that they were chasing the orcs because the orcs had just performed a mass raid that culminated in the deaths of several noncombatant elves, but by that point I'd given up on the negotiations and just started trolling the elves (from the safety of the city walls, or course).

[hamishspence]

He did.
That doesn't actually say if the orcs are just the raiders, or if they're actually the whole tribe and the elves are simply treating them all as raiders.


And CBoE was considered pretty bad even back then.


It was bad - but it was also fairly consistent with the D&D novels of that period.


Irrelevant. 2e was different game, with different lore, and much of it was retconned.

I got the impression that 5e basically retconned the status quo back to 2e levels, in the way "monster races" are treated.

[Unoriginal]

In 2nd edition's Complete Book of Elves, one of the yearly celebrations was Agelong:

Which is a 2nd edition thing with no bearing on 5e, as the history and culture of elves presented in the core books and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes are explicit that things like that do no happen.



I got the impression that 5e basically retconned the status quo back to 2e levels, in the way "monster races" are treated.

Your impression is incorrect.

[hamishspence]

The whole "gnolls are demonic fiends that PCs must kill on sight" theme, is a bit more extreme even than 2e was.

And the stuff about how goblins and orcs don't have nearly as much free will to be nonevil as the "Good races" have free will to be nongood, also seemed somewhat 2e-ish.

[Lord Vukodlak]

That doesn't actually say if the orcs are just the raiders, or if they're actually the whole tribe and the elves are simply treating them all as raiders.
Given The OP’s clear bias against the Elves if their were children he’d have mentioned them.


Note that my post was in direct response to Lord Vukodlak, who was talking about the players performing genocide and betraying the orcs while they slept because otherwise they risk alienating the (apparently) three most powerful races of humans, elves and dwarves (an unsubstantiated claim IMO).
Name a major nation in Faerun not dominated by one of those three races. Allying with Orcish raiders has never worked out for goblins in the past why would it start now?

It’s also not betraying the Orcs they forced themselves on the town intending to use its defenders for their benefit. If they’d gotten the gates closed in time this mess wouldn’t have happened.
The Orcs are weaker allies, the allies most likely to betray them once it suited their purposes. And the allies who will bring the most enemies.

[hamishspence]

If they’d gotten the gates closed in time this mess wouldn’t have happened.

True, but:


Later, a tribe of orcs attacked the village, and we weren't able to raise the drawbridge in time. We could have tried to take out their leader, since all the orcs were seriously wounded, but instead we negotiated. (There was almost some violence when I thought the orc was using a racial slur: "wimpy goblins", but luckily it was averted.) We found out that the orcs weren't there to raid, they just wanted to shelter in the village because they were being pursued by a bunch of elves that they'd gotten into an "altercation" with, and we agreed to give them sanctuary.

they made an agreement. Going back on agreements is dangerous in fantasy settings like D&D.



When the elves showed up later, asking for us to hand over the orcs, I refused, saying that the orcs were under our protection and that I didn't like elves anyway: they kill goblins all the time. The elf leader responded that if we'd hand over the orcs, he'd never again kill a goblin without reason, and I shouted back that his "reason" was that he was a racist. Insults were exchanged, but no bloodshed (yet).

The "never again" implies that this elven leader has in the past, "killed goblins without reason".

[Lord Vukodlak]

I might do that.

I think that when he said "evil", he meant that it would be difficult to continue on the traditional "Against the Giants" campaign route that the adventure is built around, since we are consorting with creatures that are usually aligned with the giants. I don't think it occurred to him that it would be possible to come to a peaceful resolution with some of the giants rather than just fighting them, or fighting with them. As I said, though, there's not been a disagreement with the DM, and he's just being forced to adapt a little bit.

Given the giant leaders motivations... a peaceful resolution would be unrealistic I will say no more that subject.

A thought occurs to me, what if these Orcs turn out to work for the for the Frost Giants in "Storm King's Thunder" and what if those Frost Giants turn out to be the same Frost Giants who slaughtered your tribe. If I was the DM I would make those Frost Giants the same Frost Giants from your backstory.



they made an agreement. Going back on agreements is dangerous in fantasy settings like D&D.

The Orcs lied they claimed they got into an "altercation" when it was really as the OP described a mass raid. The Orcs already betrayed them by being deceitful over the whole situation. At a bare minimum he should throw them out over that deception. But given that they're Orc Raiders they'd far more likely murder everyone in town first then leave peacefully.



The "never again" implies that this elven leader has in the past, "killed goblins without reason".
Really hard to judge what the Elf actually said because its the character repeating it. And the OP's goblin seems to be going out of his way to justify kill on sight for goblins while claiming to fight for goblin rights.

If the Orcs had raided HIS village instead then ran off and to shelter from the Elves he'd be pounding at their gates demanding justice.

[hamishspence]

The Orcs lied they claimed they got into an "altercation" when it was really as the OP described a mass raid. The Orcs already betrayed them by being deceitful over the whole situation.

That's only if the elves are telling the truth. I suspect the OP's character will want to hear the orcs' side of the story before they make a decision. After all:


The negotiations haven't broken down yet. Both sides are pretty pissed at each other, and the elves are calling for backup, but there's still a possibility of coming to a peaceful conclusion.


Given that the OP's character's home village was massacred by giants with elves colluding in the massacre, I can why they wouldn't automatically take the elves' word for anything without further questioning.


If I was the DM I would make those Frost Giants the same Frost Giants from your backstory.

They could also make the elves the same elves that colluded with the Giants.


If the Orcs had raided HIS village instead then ran off and to shelter from the Elves he'd be pounding at their gates demanding justice.
Orcs hate elves much more than dwarves, humans, or goblins. And vice versa. "Orcs sheltering with elves" is much less plausible.


From these pieces of information:


my character is extremely sensitive towards anti-goblin racism and took offense that the elf asked to parlay with somebody other than a goblin.

the orcs outnumbered us two-to-one and were in the village, whereas we outnumbered the elves four-to-one and had defensive perimeters.

Since they'd clearly been willing to kill us to get to the orcs (they'd been shouting: "Give us the orcs or die!"), I'd thought it seemed likely they wanted their heads on a stake.

we have an elven party, pursuing orcs (which outnumber the elven party 8-1) who start negotations by "asking to parlay with somebody other than a goblin" and who are saying to an adventuring party that outnumber them 2-1 "Give us the orcs or die".

[the_brazenburn]

Whoa.

Whoa, this thread got huge. I was sick for a few days and didn't notice what was going on.

Okay, so to answer a few questions:

I misused the word "tribe" a bit. It was a raiding party; there were no noncombatants.
The humans aren't actually in the village right now. There are a few that a party member found nearby (and hasn't had a chance to tell us about yet) and we found a few corpses in the village, but they were killed by falling rock, not orcs or goblins.

And for those of you quibbling about FR lore, does this table really sound like the sort that gives a s*** about that sort of thing?:smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I misused the word "tribe" a bit. It was a raiding party; there were no noncombatants.

If it's a choice between advocating fear-mongering, genocide and betrayal OR living with the uncertainty of allying with the so-called "evil" races and their comparatively petty bickering, minor raids and casual attitude toward violence, I'm fair certain I know which is the morally right course (hint: it's not the genocide and betrayal one).

It would appear that, whatever happens to the orcs, "genocide" at least, is not applicable.




Kill the orcs while they sleep and turn the heads over to the elves. That’s assuming the non goblin townsfolk don’t do it first.


The humans aren't actually in the village right now.

It would appear there are no townsfolk to "do it first".

Killing a group in their sleep who outnumber you two-to-one might be pragmatic - but it's also risky, both morally and physically (they might wake up after the first is slain). The gods might also regard it as murder, especially if the orcs' haven't had any kind of trial.

[Draken]

Whoa.

Whoa, this thread got huge. I was sick for a few days and didn't notice what was going on.

Okay, so to answer a few questions:

I misused the word "tribe" a bit. It was a raiding party; there were no noncombatants.
The humans aren't actually in the village right now. There are a few that a party member found nearby (and hasn't had a chance to tell us about yet) and we found a few corpses in the village, but they were killed by falling rock, not orcs or goblins.

And for those of you quibbling about FR lore, does this table really sound like the sort that gives a s*** about that sort of thing?:smalltongue:

My advice remains: Disregard alignment. Start Horde. Conquer territory. Defeat giants. Establish diplomacy on your own terms. Share a cup with king Obould Many-Arrows.

I mean, I guess I made that point very difficult to parse with my talk of philosophy and legalism and etc. But the above is the core of my position.

[hamishspence]

My advice remains: Disregard alignment. Start Horde. Conquer territory. Defeat giants. Establish diplomacy on your own terms. Share a cup with king Obould Many-Arrows.


Hasn't King Obould been dead for a century by this point? I think going by Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, the Kingdom of Many Arrows may have been wrecked by recent war - so there might not be a ruling descendant of Obould around to share a cup with either.

[JellyPooga]

It would appear that, whatever happens to the orcs, "genocide" at least, is not applicable.

Just to clarify; I wasn't referring to the Orcs when I mentioned genocide, but rather the Goblins. It was in response to a statement along the lines of "do away with all the Goblins and ally with the Elves" by Lord V. The Orcs were who I was talking about betraying; killing them in their sleep after granting them succour is pretty much a definitive betrayal, regardless of their former or future actions.

[hamishspence]

I've been rereading Volo's Guide to Monsters, and while it talks about goblins and orcs in the afterlife "waging endless war" it doesn't say anything about how goblins and orcs on the mortal plane treat each other.

It stresses that orcs hate elves far more than humans or dwarves (hence being likely to spare human noncombatants, and being far more interested in taking dwarf fortresses for themselves than killing dwarves)

- but it says little about how orcs and goblins treat one another.

One thing that stood out in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - because elves know they will be reincarnated, they see elf murder as a much less big deal than humans see human murder.

Their prime concern is for the bereaved.

This is why they tend to give elves who murder other elves exile, rather than the death penalty.

[terodil]

That's only if the elves are telling the truth. I suspect the OP's character will want to hear the orcs' side of the story before they make a decision.

Hold on a second. The OP's character did not want to hear the orcs' side of the story: he had already made the decision to grant them refuge the instant the orcs appeared at the gates claiming they were being pursued by evil elves. He did, however, refuse to listen to the elves because he hates elves, simply discarding anything they said as lies.

I still don't understand why holding the orcs is not an option if the point is to maintain a good alignment. If the orcs are as perfectly peaceful and innocent as the OP's character thinks they are, they will surely have no problem staying for half a week or so, since they can use the time to heal and are being lovingly cared for. That will give everybody ample time to clear the accused's names from those horrid, completely unfounded allegations of 'marauding'. I'm sure the OP's character will have nothing to fear from them. Everybody wins.

[hamishspence]

he had already made the decision to grant them refuge the instant the orcs appeared at the gates claiming they were being pursued by evil elves.

Strictly, the orcs were already across the drawbridge and through the gates when the party made the decision not to attack them but to negotiate and find out why they'd entered the village.

"We're being pursued by elves" came out during the negotiations.

[terodil]

Strictly, the orcs were already across the drawbridge and through the gates when the party made the decision not to attack them but to negotiate and find out why they'd entered the village.

"We're being pursued by elves" came out during the negotiations.
That's a bit of a semantic argument; the decision to grant asylum to the orcs was taken before the insult-slinging with the elves started. So I'm confused what you mean by


I suspect the OP's character will want to hear the orcs' side of the story before they make a decision.

What decision is there still to be taken, keeping in mind that the orcs have already been received as esteemed guests?

[hamishspence]

What decision is there still to be taken, keeping in mind that the orcs have already been received as esteemed guests?

They could ask them a few questions about the raid "Are the elves telling the truth about you raiding, and killing noncombatants"

They could say "Sanctuary only lasts 1 day - after that, you'll have to leave".

There's lots of things that could happen. Especially since the elves are apparently getting backup on the way.

"Orcs may have been wounded but they still outnumbered us two to one" appears to have been a factor in opening negotiations in the first place.

If the party does end up in trouble with more powerful factions, they can bring up this element, to partially excuse their decision to not be violent.

[terodil]

They could ask them a few questions [...]

Fair enough! Do you honestly believe the OP's character would ask those questions though? He was pretty damn set on disbelieving the elves from the get-go and was deliberately riling them up even in this already highly explosive situation. Somehow I doubt that he'd backpedal now; it would, after all, require him to admit that not all elves are lying bastards that go around seeking out innocent goblins and orcs to slaughter for funsies.

[hamishspence]

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. However, based on the info already established, it does seem like this elven leader is not wholly innocent.

Demanding to talk to a non-goblin,
making "hand over orcs or die" threats,
and making offers to "not kill goblins for no reason again" if the orcs are handed over,

do not speak as to a particularly good being.


It may be a case of "cycle of violence" - with the orc raid just being the latest iteration. If so, the cycle needs to be broken, as per Draken's suggestion:



So you have taken a side in an internecine conflict (goblins vs humans, orcs vs elves), possibly established a unified leadership and must now wage your war. Which can and (if your plan is to pursue peace) should ultimately result in diplomatic talks. Proceed to put the war into a stalemate and force the involved leaderships into a negotiation table rather than continued attempts at mutual genocide.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Just to clarify; I wasn't referring to the Orcs when I mentioned genocide, but rather the Goblins. It was in response to a statement along the lines of "do away with all the Orcsand ally with the Elves" by Lord V. The Orcs were who I was talking about betraying; killing them in their sleep after granting them succour is pretty much a definitive betrayal, regardless of their former or future actions.
Fixed the Orcs were the ones I was talking about killing. The only turned they are for goblins they’re there for the Orcs.

[JackPhoenix]

Demanding to talk to a non-goblin

Reasonable, considering they were in the human village. The elves couldn't have know that the goblins attacked and conquered the village, they wanted to talk to one in charge, propably mistaking the goblin for random inhabitant.


making "hand over orcs or die" threats,

You're putting too much trust that those were the GM's exact words after the OP proved himself unreliable and biased narrator already. Also, reasonable, considering the orcs attacked the elves, and when the elves caught up with them, they found human village occupied by *another* group of evil raiders. For all they knew, the orcs and goblins were in it together.


and making offers to "not kill goblins for no reason again" if the orcs are handed over,

Again, putting too much trust in OP's narration. Also, taking the sentence too literally and focusing on one word that supports your view.

[hamishspence]

You're putting too much trust that those were the GM's exact words after the OP proved himself unreliable and biased narrator already.

Again, putting too much trust in OP's narration.

The OP's character might be biased - but how has the OP "proven themselves" an unreliable narrator?


Aside from using "tribe" when they should have used "warband", that is.

[the_brazenburn]

The OP's character might be biased - but how has the OP "proven themselves" an unreliable narrator?


Aside from using "tribe" when they should have used "warband", that is.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

The “hand ‘em over or die” wasn’t just a miscommunication on my part. They said that pretty clearly, several times, and emphasized the point by blowing warrhorns, keeping arrows pointed at anyone who stuck their head above the wall, and by threatening to fetch reinforcements and storm the place.

[the_brazenburn]

My advice remains: Disregard alignment. Start Horde. Conquer territory. Defeat giants. Establish diplomacy on your own terms. Share a cup with king Obould Many-Arrows.

I mean, I guess I made that point very difficult to parse with my talk of philosophy and legalism and etc. But the above is the core of my position.

Nah, no problem. I have some grounding in social sciences and whatnot, so your advice seemed fairly understandable. That was sort of my objective all along: establish a goblin kingdom an equal for the human and dwarf around.

Although looking at the map, it seems most of the “nations” around are city-states of sorts.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

The “hand ‘em over or die” wasn’t just a miscommunication on my part. They said that pretty clearly, several times, and emphasized the point by blowing warrhorns, keeping arrows pointed at anyone who stuck their head above the wall, and by threatening to fetch reinforcements and storm the place.

Would you be any less hostile to a group shielding people who raided your village?
From the Elves perspective they came to a human village the humans are gone and a goblin is in control. Said goblin is protecting a band of of Orcish raiders. The elves threats are completely justified as so far as they can tell you slaughtered the humans who lived there.

[terodil]

Would you be any less hostile to a group shielding people who raided your village?
Slightly less hostile, possibly. I agree with your previous assessments, though.

Nevertheless I really don't see how this recent tangent in the discussion questioning the elves' moral alignment has any bearing on the original question. In that context, the elves are first and foremost just the messengers: The orcs are marauders, and they just finished raiding a village. That in itself is enough, in my opinion, to answer the original question: Yes, it's an evil act to shield the orcs and to let them continue marauding once they've healed up and recovered their strength. If the elf leader is slightly overzealous in his 'aggressive negotation' tactics or actually an evil-to-the-core warband leader, it doesn't matter; the decision to grant asylum to the orcs is probably going to cost a lot of people completely unrelated to the elves their lives. Ergo, evil.

[MoiMagnus]

the decision to grant asylum to the orcs is probably going to cost a lot of people completely unrelated to the elves their lives. Ergo, evil.

I don't think long term consequence should necessarily count for alignment.
"Counterproductive good" does not makes you evil.

"I save everyone I see, whatever it will cost latter" is a classic good aligned archetype, even if in the long run it causes more evil than good.