PDA

View Full Version : Innately evil or just misunderstood- Evil Races in D&D



Pages : [1] 2

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 07:39 AM
Yes, once more the Old Orc and Goblin argument is trotted out for people's perusal and discussion. There's merits to both sides with some preferring Orcs to be pretty much like the creatures from Aliens. They're less people than a living magical plague on the land and an army of monstrously programmed horrors twisted and evil.

Then, somewhat down the scale is the treatment that there are evil races only in the sense they come from evil cultures. Kobols worshiping evil gods, enslaving others, and genuinely acting like Mankind for the vast majority of its existence.

And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

What's your preferred way to handle it?

Morty
2007-10-08, 07:43 AM
As for question in title- however you like it. I personally prefer making orcs and goblinoids real people, with culture, civilization and motivation, equal to elves or humans. Of course, I scratch the "Alignment" part in their description in Monster Manual, but it applies even if I didn't- in such case they're unpleasant, but they still aren't some horrible, black mass of destruction.

Miles Invictus
2007-10-08, 07:47 AM
I think the only races that should be inherently evil are the ones that have a reason to be -- demons and devils have pure physical evil running through their veins (that whole "evil outsider" thing), so they're innately evil.

Grummsh may be a jerk, on the other hand, but that only influences his worshipers -- it doesn't define the race as a whole.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-10-08, 07:49 AM
Even Always Chaotic Evil races have the one in 10 million CN or NE member. Usually Evil just means if you're looking for evil ones you'll find them.

The Neoclassic
2007-10-08, 07:55 AM
I detest the portrayal of orcs and goblinoids as usually evil, barbaric, rampaging sub-humans. In my campaign, I don't argue that they are "just different" (some races have more evil tendencies than others, if only because of their patron deity), but all cultures have some merits and some downfalls. Many goblins and kobolds (I don't use orcs in my current setting) are neutral or good; they may be met with distrust or even blatant racism if they attempt to mingle with other races, but they are common enough.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 08:04 AM
In my games:

Orcs generally have much more testosterone than other humanoids. This makes them aggressive, impulsive and mildly hyperactive. As most orcs tend to live in small tribes where "Might Makes Right", they also tend to be violent. But, unlike vanilla orcs, they're "Often Chaotic Neutral". Hobgoblins are similar, except they're "Often Lawful Neutral", and live in highly structured city-fortress societies much of the time. They're also incredibly anal and pedantic when it comes to legal matters.

Goblins are generally slaves to hobgoblins. Not all goblins are mistreated (after all, some hobgoblins are Lawful Good!), but most tend to resent it. Free goblins tend to live in small tribal societies, like orcs do. Slaves tend towards neutrality and even Law, with free goblins tending towards Chaos.

Kobolds can be anything, depending on the type of dragon they live closest to. In my games, kobolds aren't hated for no reason (although gnomes tend not to trust them, due to the fact that most Evil kobolds hate gnomes with a genocidal ferocity). When the rare Dragonwrought kobold is born/hatched, this often prompts at least some of the warren to go out in search of a dragon who matches their new 'godlike' cheiftan.


Then again, in my games, the traditionally Good races are more often neutral, too. :smallsmile:

Except Outsiders. They're made up of about 95% of their listed alignment, with about 4% one step away and less than 1% the direct opposite.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-10-08, 08:09 AM
Depends on the setting, naturally.

My personal preference falls toward the "orcs are people too" mindset, though. "Monster" races simply tends toward societies that are inherently violent, oppressive, or otherwise harmful to the more friendly "player" races, much like historical Mongolians under Genghis Khan or Imperial Romans, when I choose to have a say in the matter.

KillianHawkeye
2007-10-08, 08:19 AM
Well, according to the descriptions of alignment in the Monster Manual, goblins and kobolds "Usually" have the listed alignment, which means that at least 51% of them mostly probably hold to that alignment. Orcs are actually a little more mainstream, since they are only "Often" CE (meaning that only 40 to 50% of them have that alignment).

Now, granted, that when you consider that there are 8 other alignments that a particular individual of one of these races could be, the listed alignment (even at 40% of the populace) is clearly dominant. However, it's certainly taking it a bit too far to generalize the entire race in that manner. That's called a stereotype, but it's a fact that exceptions to such over-generalized stereotypes are fairly common.

Of course, it's also a matter of perspective combined with the geo-political distribution of the alignment within a particular race. So while the majority of orcs are not actually chaotic evil, it's entirely possible that the majority of orcs who perform raids into human settlements are.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-08, 08:24 AM
And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd say. Orcs have a different culture which, by human standards, is overly aggressive. But I have a few cities in my campaign where every race is (more or less) welcome as long as they behave (which does not preclude some back-alley throatslitting at night). Then again, I don't use alignment period, but aside from that I find the "one race = one culture" thing rather silly (viz. Star Trek, where every planet has a single monolithic culture... :smalltongue: )

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 08:38 AM
Of course you need antagonists in your game and pillaging evil orcs look shallow. But it's really not far fetched, if you create them right.

- Physis: Orcs' dominant trait is their brutish strength, while their mental capabilities are sub-par. When dealing with other races, it is plausible for them to use the abilities in which they are superior. Why should they negotiate trade contracts when they have been duped more than once by the local Gnomes.

- Stereotypes: People think of you as selfish, cruel and evil. Why not act appropriately? If the other races refuse to treat Orcs as anything but mindless fighting machines, it just is not worth the effort to prove them wrong. Orcs will face racial biases because of the way their ancestors behaved. However, they will find it easier to adapt to these stereotypes than try to change them. After all it still is easier to pillage a farm than try to get employed as a farmhand. Nobody trusts an Orc, right?

- Culture: Orcs are encountered usually in small groups. Packs, Clans or Tribes. These kinds of groups always have one dominant male (Yes, Male. You can't deny Testoterone's qualities for these matters), be it the pack leader, alpha male, patriarch or whatever. This Leader will have first pick among bounty and females and - most likely - father most of the children. This will lead to internal struggle and fights between juvenile Orcs. As a whole, it will make the Orcs stronger and more aggressive, since the Orcs with more Testosterone will survive longer and create more offspring. It also means that moral codices are less likely to develop, since they just are not rewarded.

- Landscape: Orcs are usually encountered in Hills, Mountains or other barren, infertile landscape. Also, they are usually strong and musclebound which means that they have a high energy consumption. It's likely most of the tribes won't be able to feed themselves by means of farming and hunting alone. Plundering and/or conquering the planes is the easiest alternative.


Almost forgot the most important part: Lifespan. Orcs have the shortest lifespan of all common races of D&D. Of course this will lead to a different culture and philosophy. Orcs will value life (including their own) pretty low and instead aim for short-lived prosperity which equals the aim to quickly produce offspring. They just won't be able to develop a need for long-term plans if they aren't neigh-immortal as the Elves are.

Alex12
2007-10-08, 08:49 AM
The way I see it, if they're sentient, they have a choice. If they're not, then by definition they can't be evil or good. I'd like to see, for instance, a Chaotic Evil unicorn. Just because it's funny.

Extraplanar beings from planes of good or evil (like devils and such) are different, because the good or evil is literally in their blood, but even then, I could see the (very) rare one who rebels. Those, though, would probably get killed or imprisoned as soon as they were found out, though.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 09:12 AM
The way I see it, if they're sentient, they have a choice. If they're not, then by definition they can't be evil or good. I'd like to see, for instance, a Chaotic Evil unicorn. Just because it's funny.

Extraplanar beings from planes of good or evil (like devils and such) are different, because the good or evil is literally in their blood, but even then, I could see the (very) rare one who rebels. Those, though, would probably get killed or imprisoned as soon as they were found out, though.

This line of thinking is actually supported by the original Lawful outsider exemplars (and their reappearance in a Manual of the Planes web enhancement), Modrons, as Modrons who become Chaotic is an actual problem for them.

Also, I seriously doubt an Archon who became Chaotic Good, or an Eladrin who became Lawful Good, would be imprisoned or executed. Booted to a different Upper Plane, possibly.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 09:19 AM
In my games, I tend to go with the idea that:

* Orcs are naturally a vicious and violent race due to thousands of years of selective breeding.

* Orc culture is forced to survive in pretty inhospitable territory.

* The religion of Gruumsh is a compilation of Sparta with Vikings.

* Humans don't usually give Orcs much of a chance to explain themselves.

Then again, I've always liked portraying Elves as Genuinely Good and something that humans should emanate and Orcs as everything worst about mankind. One particularly crazy Forgotten Realms game had the players trapped in Zhentil Keep country. I went a little crazy in describing Bane worshipping Orcs.

* They wore Nazi uniforms and were fascists. I also had them routinely put on Black Robes with hoods and go "Elf Bashing" Their interpretation of Bane's religion was to slowly breed out humans and wipe out the elf and dwarf members with their superior stock.

There was just something fun about throwing Orcs and White Supremacy together.

I also had a Cthulhu-esque bit of fun with Masque of the Red Death. The Laumer Family of Deliverance style Rednecks. They secretly bred with the True Orcs below them while letting the Half-Orcs up on the surface. Conducting dread rites to Gruumsh inbetween playing Banjo.

Of course, oddly, in Eberron. Goblins and Orcs are just people too but in other campaign settings, I tend to make them the most vicious degenerates imaginable. I guess if I had more evil elves, I'd probably have more Good Orcs.

Green Bean
2007-10-08, 09:20 AM
In my old group, the DM sticks to the 'usually Evil' part of the Monster Manual. That being said, he never handeds us the motivation-free, 'go out and kill that tribe of orcs before they raid anyone' quest. When we went after an orc tribe, it was because they burned a village to the ground and killed everyone. When we delve into a dungeon, we're attacked by monsters who were permanently turned evil/driven berserk by the tomb's former owner. Of course, that means that if we don't know why we're killing them, our group immediately goes into negotiation/investigation mode, so the whole thing seems to work out pretty well.

Ralfarius
2007-10-08, 09:32 AM
I generally keeps orcs well within their stereotypes. For most games, they're encountered at low-ish levels, where the PCs know good is right and evil must be purged. It's not until they start getting a little higher in level that I'll begin throwing wrenches into their collective works.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-08, 09:48 AM
In my games, I tend to go with the idea that:

* Orcs are naturally a vicious and violent race due to thousands of years of selective breeding.

* Orc culture is forced to survive in pretty inhospitable territory.

* The religion of Gruumsh is a compilation of Sparta with Vikings.

* Humans don't usually give Orcs much of a chance to explain themselves.


Most of this is pretty funky, except I have a friend who is a Norse Pagan who might take issue with his religion being portrayed in that manner. I think points two and four are the most important and clever. I personally don't like to think of any sentient being as "naturally vicious and violent"...their culture might drive them viciousness and violence, but I'm not sure about genetics.



Then again, I've always liked portraying Elves as Genuinely Good and something that humans should emanate and Orcs as everything worst about mankind. <*snip*>

There was just something fun about throwing Orcs and White Supremacy together.


While this is cool, I have a tendency to make some beloved, like the elves, the evil fascists. That's just personal preference, though :smallsmile:, so don't be intimidated by it.

I usually use a race considered beloved by many to sort of illustrate that not everything is at might seem, or perhaps to make the vileness hit hard. If you think elves rock, and in my game they're calculating, long-game villains, it's going to hit you that much harder.

Saph
2007-10-08, 09:57 AM
We play it by the book - Orcs are listed as 'often Chaotic Evil', so they're often Chaotic Evil.

Note that 'often' is not the same as 'always'. There are neutral orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins (lots of them in fact) and some good ones as well. So you can't make too many assumptions.

That said, I prefer games where different races have different tendencies towards good or evil. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a campaign setting can have hundreds of intelligent races, yet somehow every race has exactly the same balance of good, neutral, and evil individuals.

- Saph

Roderick_BR
2007-10-08, 09:58 AM
While the book says that they are innately evil, you can make non-evil groups as you will.
This one game I played had a whole subculture of goblins that lived in a city, working as low rent workers, doing all the dirty stuff.
At the same time, the goblins from another country, that were party of an invading army where as evil as your typical goblin.
That manga based on WoW also suggests that on it's history line, that the "horde vs alliance" thing doesn't work much anymore, so you have groups with dwarfs, elfs, orcs and trolls working together (in fact, one of the main groups has a dwarf leading a group of orcs and trolls)

gaymer_seattle
2007-10-08, 10:37 AM
I think it is important to remember that the D&D definitions of orcs, troll and goblins have a foot about thigh deep in Tolkein mythology. His orcs were elves that had been twisted by pure evil. Goblins were race of millions in the dark competing for limited resources.

One of the great things about D&D is that you can selective choose what you want to apply and how you want to apply it. I think that the growing philosophy is that the alignment system is somewhat meaningless under most circumstances. If your orc worships an evil entity and is known to make baby-kebobs then it is fair to say it is some variant of evil. If your orc is a rogue merchant selling you snake oil, you can say that he is opportunistic, not entirely truthful, but deceit for personal gain and deceit for the sake of deceit are two different categories. I'd say he is neutral greedy

CrazedGoblin
2007-10-08, 10:47 AM
i know it isent goblin or rocs related but when i play a Tiefling i play them as an outsider not as pure evil walking the earth

SoD
2007-10-08, 10:53 AM
I must admit that I like to go in for the 'orcs are people too' attitude, and I put that onto the other sentient races as well. Most of them. Demons and Devils are, essentially, purely, evil. Orcs can be essentially, purely evil as well. But they can be not essentially, purely evil. I create a lot of characters using those rules. They all have their reasons for differing from their alignments though.

Angels and archons, etc. are always good. Elves are not always good.

And so on and so forth. But I think, they're sentient beings, they have the choice. Of course, there are the beings that just ooze goodness or evilness without fail, however.

And that's my 2 cp worth.

Yeril
2007-10-08, 10:57 AM
I like having Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds as Neutral

A orc is Chaotic neutral, sure he pillages, rapes and kills, not because hes evil, but because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive, He in CN in the same way as a dire bear who will maul and eat anyone within 100ft is TN.

As for creatures who are "Always" I tend to deviate from that too.

Ive had Lich's who were Lawful Neutral, sure they were made for power but theres no reason to be barbaric about it.

Ive even had a LG Marilith demon paladin who was a "Minor deity of repention"
Because she was LG she wasn't all red and demony she was beautiful and angelic.. with six arms and a snake taaail

I'd love to play a Aaimmar rogue, who uses his "Angelic ancestry" to gain trust and such, I mean who expects the guy with angel blood to be the one who slit the mayors throat.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 11:04 AM
I like having Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds as Neutral

A orc is Chaotic neutral, sure he pillages, rapes and kills, not because hes evil, but because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive, He in CN in the same way as a dire bear who will maul and eat anyone within 100ft is TN.

Dire bears have an average Intelligence score of 2, and therefpre cannot make moral or ethical decisions, and are True Neutral for the same reason creatures from the Far Realm are True Neutral. The alignment system can't quantify them.

Orcs have an average Intelligence score of 8. They can make moral and ethical decisions. If an orc is Chaotic Neutral, he doesn't go around killing and pillaging 'just because that's what his culture is'. Doing it just because of peer pressure makes you Chaotic Evil.

Now, if he does it because his tribe has no resources and no other way to get them... sure, make him Chaotic Neutral. If he does it just because, he's Eeeebil. :smalltongue:

Fhaolan
2007-10-08, 11:29 AM
For mortal creatures, I set cultures and individuals having alignments, but not races.

For example: The culture of orcs in my campaign world (in the area the current party is wandering around in) is Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic, as the culture prizes individuality. While they do have chieftans (it's a tribal culture), the chieftains rule because that individual has the strength and wit to take control of the tribe, not because some arcane ritual or tradition dictates who gets to wear the iron crown. The orcs don't do well in war situations, as they are great believers in having two heroes fight to determine the outcome of the battle, the rest of the battle is just there for something to do while waiting. The other races don't understand this, and have put no effort into figuring out why things go sideways so quickly.

Evil, as the culture is needlessly violent and cruel. There is no charity in this culture, and pity is a discouraged trait. Every moment is an exercise in dominance, and if you submit too often you die.

Individuals also have alignments. They may or may not agree with the culture.

Non-mortal creatures, however, have a different issue. Demons are Chaotic Evil because they are incarnations of Chaotic Evil. They can't be any other alignment in the same way a Water Elemental can't be dry, and a Fire Elemental can't be cold. They not biological flesh and blood. They are not mortal, they are not 'born', grow up, and die of old age. They are created fully formed from the material of their plane by powerful members of their 'race' or gods or something. [Note, they can 'breed' with mortal creatures but it's more like the elemental-whatever is adding a piece of elemental essence to the mortal 'child'. It's not 'breeding' in the normal sense.]

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 11:32 AM
Now, if he does it because his tribe has no resources and no other way to get them... sure, make him Chaotic Neutral. If he does it just because, he's Eeeebil. :smalltongue:

The problem is...there is always a better way than pillaging and killing. You could try to work as a farmhand. Or hired muscle. Or try to mine ore and bargain it for food. Unfortunately, pillaging is the easiest option for the Orcs and it rarely has immediate conseuqences. Hey, most of the time, adventurers are sent, they are just going to slay a similar looking tribe anyway.

Humans, Elves and Dwarves are not Evil by nature, because it doesn't pay, not because they are genuinely more "good". OK, maybe they are genuinely more "good" but only because it evolved that way. They live in fertile regions, they have longer lifespans and they live in large communities, where one doesn't have to defend his life by teeth and claw at all times. Also they are monogamous, which I can't imagine for the tribal Orcs. All these factors will lead to less aggression and better grounds for developing moral codices.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 11:34 AM
...What does monogamy have to do with being Good? :smallconfused:

Morty
2007-10-08, 11:42 AM
That said, I prefer games where different races have different tendencies towards good or evil. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a campaign setting can have hundreds of intelligent races, yet somehow every race has exactly the same balance of good, neutral, and evil individuals.
- Saph

Why?:smallconfused: I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.


Of course, oddly, in Eberron. Goblins and Orcs are just people

And all campaign settigns should follow that example. Of course, there's no correlation between "should" and "will"...

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 11:43 AM
Easy. In a polygamous society, it is easier for the patriarch/alpha-male/chief or however you want to call the dude-in-charge to assemble a massive harem and father most - if not all of the tribes offspring. If the tribe consists of monogamous pairs, most males will father an equal amount of children. In a polygamous tribe, usually the most aggressive testosterone-packed male can reproduce effectively. Let a few generations pass and the polygamous society as a whole will have become more vicious and aggressive.

Think of the Lions as an example. Lion tribes always have an Alpha-Male who fathers all children of the tribe. As soon as a new male becomes Alpha, he starts killing all cubs of the former Alpha male, just to have the females of the tribe available sooner. (And for a good reason, too. After all the next Alpha male will do the same to his children) I know that morales don't apply to animals, but it should suffice as an example how polygamy encourages vicious behaviour.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 11:45 AM
Most of this is pretty funky, except I have a friend who is a Norse Pagan who might take issue with his religion being portrayed in that manner. I think points two and four are the most important and clever. I personally don't like to think of any sentient being as "naturally vicious and violent"...their culture might drive them viciousness and violence, but I'm not sure about genetics.

Note, I'm using Viking as shorthand for "Raiding" rather than "Farmers" and "Traders" who do Rain rites to Thor and burning boats of their chieftains.


While this is cool, I have a tendency to make some beloved, like the elves, the evil fascists. That's just personal preference, though , so don't be intimidated by it.

Yeah, I guess a part of me got sick of Elves being pretty and snooty beings being transformed into the bad guys in so many fantasy setting. I just liked the idea that the racists were degenerates.

One thing I'm considering doing for my favorite mini-adventure "The Swarthy Hog Inn" (named after the King's Quest sidequest), is basing it a bit on House of a 1000 Corpses this time around. There's something wrong with these set of Orcs.

But biologically, I'm considering Orcs may have just crapped out evolutionarily. They are a carnivorously sentient race and other races smell like food. They can season their meat but they need like 10 pounds of it every day.

When you have a tribe or more of it, well....those damn elves look awfully tasty.


Why?:smallconfused: I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.

That depends how you define their role in the setting. In Tolkien, Orcs are literally magically-genetically engineered weapons for fighting Morgoth's wars. They're elves warped bent and twisted so they're creatures of pure killing machine.

Likewise, take the Daleks from Doctor Who. They're the best argument for "races should all have the same potential for good or evil" The Daleks wouldn't be nearly so fun (or the Borg or Cybermen) if they could be reasoned with or bargained with.

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 11:49 AM
Why?:smallconfused: I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.

Sorry, but no. There are countless ways in which genetic disposition can have an influence on the development of morale. Hormone production, natural lifespan, time of reaching physical maturity, food selection, food availability, natural weapons, length of pregnancy, reproduction style, natural habitat, litter size, size difference between males and females, size variance between members of the species, length of reproductive period in the lifespan....

All of these can (and will) influence how easily morals can formed in a given group of the race. It is naive to assume that large genetic discrepancies wouldn't have any influence whatsoever.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 11:54 AM
They're evil. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Maybe, just maybe, amoung all the orcs in all the world, you might find ONE who's good. But I doubt it.

I absolutely hate the idea that "nobody's REALLY evil, they're just misunderstood", or "they were mistreated/abused/dropped on the head/bullied in school" explainations for why creatures do bad things. (Note: this extends to the real world as well - I'm all about people taking responsibility for their own actions rather than pawning the responsibility for what THEY chose to do off on someone else.)

Orcs and goblinoind races are evil. That means they can occasionally perform a good act, if it benefits them. This is how they differ from races that are actual manifestations of the concept of Evil (demons, et al), which literally CANNOT perform a good act, any more than the halfling can reach the box of Trix on the top shelf unaided. However, Orcs and goblinoids are in fact born that way. It's this that is the most insidious of the "tricks" of Evil in the world. There are lots of races that are born evil, or pure manifested Evil, and there are lots of races that have the choice to be evil (PC races). There are no races that are inherently good. That deck is stacked in the favor of Evil from the start, which makes a Good victory all the sweeter.

This is also a personal conceit derives solely to avoid this sort of discussion around the gaming table. Since everyone has a different and strongly held opinion on it, I'd prefer to set a blanket ruling and avoid the inevitable arguments. I'm willing to do a LOT of DM Fiat to avoid my table becoming a 4-hour-a-week Living Miko Thread.

NOTE: My games are homebrew, heavily Tolkein-themed and low-power/magic. The above may not comply with "official" WOTC material, and I frankly don't care.

Morty
2007-10-08, 11:57 AM
That depends how you define their role in the setting. In Tolkien, Orcs are literally magically-genetically engineered weapons for fighting Morgoth's wars. They're elves warped bent and twisted so they're creatures of pure killing machine.

Tolkien orcs, as you said, are products of black magic and twisted being created for sole purpose of killing and maiming others. However, nothing implies it's the same way in D&D worlds. Of course, Tolkien's way of presenting orcs is very bad storytelling on his part.


Likewise, take the Daleks from Doctor Who. They're the best argument for "races should all have the same potential for good or evil" The Daleks wouldn't be nearly so fun (or the Borg or Cybermen) if they could be reasoned with or bargained with.

I'm not familiar with Daleks or this Doctor Who, so I can't comment here.



Sorry, but no. There are countless ways in which genetic disposition can have an influence on the development of morale. Hormone production, natural lifespan, time of reaching physical maturity, food selection, food availability, natural weapons, length of pregnancy, reproduction style, natural habitat, litter size, size difference between males and females, size variance between members of the species, length of reproductive period in the lifespan....

All of these can (and will) influence how easily morals can formed in a given group of the race. It is naive to assume that large genetic discrepancies wouldn't have any influence whatsoever.

Thoe are true, but these aren't really well-represented by alignment. Race raised in harsh habit with limited resource will probably be quite ruthless, but it'd be natural for them; they won't find anything wrong with it. And D&D alignment system tends to have problems with such behavior. That said, I'm no fan of alignment, so I may be biased.

Dausuul
2007-10-08, 12:03 PM
I'm something of a traditionalist, so I prefer to have orcs and goblin-types be generally evil. I approach it as a question of species-specific behavior patterns. It's like wolves and dogs; you can domesticate a wolf, but it will never be as obedient as a dog and is much more likely to attack people, even if you raise it from a pup and it never sees another wolf in its life. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to live in human society, and their instincts and innate behavior patterns reflect that. Wolves haven't.

So, when I use them, orcs have different instincts from humans. They have very little compassion, an intensely competitive and aggressive nature, and less of an instinct to play by the rules and get along with others than humans have. Translated into alignment terms, this results in a tendency toward chaotic evil. You can argue that it isn't really evil because they lack the mental equipment to be good (and so do not possess the free will to make the choice), but good and evil are measured on a human standard for all sapient beings in the D&Dverse. And presumably there are a few orcs who are born with a less brutish nature. They just don't tend to last very long in the murderous free-for-all of orcish society.

Goblins are somewhat similar, but they're both smarter and smaller than orcs, and also better at working together. They instinctively shy away from head-to-head combat, instead turning their aggression into more intellectual forms of competition like trap-making and trickery. When they do attack, a swarming instinct takes over and they charge en masse, overwhelming their foes with sheer numbers, like a murder of crows taking down a hawk.

I've never used hobgoblins, but if I did, they would probably be a race with little instinct for compassion but a lot for getting along with others; hobgoblins presented with any sort of organization would instinctively fall in line, and while they would retain the aggressive tendencies of other goblinoids, these would be channelled through strict forms and protocols. Hobgoblins would thus make excellent slaves as long as they perceived their masters to be following a clear set of rules, and to be dealing properly with challenges to their power. Hobgoblin revolts would be rare but terrifying.

Et cetera.

Arakune
2007-10-08, 12:20 PM
They're evil. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Maybe, just maybe, amoung all the orcs in all the world, you might find ONE who's good. But I doubt it.

I absolutely hate the idea that "nobody's REALLY evil, they're just misunderstood", or "they were mistreated/abused/dropped on the head/bullied in school" explainations for why creatures do bad things. (Note: this extends to the real world as well - I'm all about people taking responsibility for their own actions rather than pawning the responsibility for what THEY chose to do off on someone else.)

Orcs and goblinoind races are evil. That means they can occasionally perform a good act, if it benefits them. This is how they differ from races that are actual manifestations of the concept of Evil (demons, et al), which literally CANNOT perform a good act, any more than the halfling can reach the box of Trix on the top shelf unaided. However, Orcs and goblinoids are in fact born that way. It's this that is the most insidious of the "tricks" of Evil in the world. There are lots of races that are born evil, or pure manifested Evil, and there are lots of races that have the choice to be evil (PC races). There are no races that are inherently good. That deck is stacked in the favor of Evil from the start, which makes a Good victory all the sweeter.

This is also a personal conceit derives solely to avoid this sort of discussion around the gaming table. Since everyone has a different and strongly held opinion on it, I'd prefer to set a blanket ruling and avoid the inevitable arguments. I'm willing to do a LOT of DM Fiat to avoid my table becoming a 4-hour-a-week Living Miko Thread.

NOTE: My games are homebrew, heavily Tolkein-themed and low-power/magic. The above may not comply with "official" WOTC material, and I frankly don't care.

WOW! I sense wrath in those words somehow...

Well, I don't like too much the manichaeism approach and use the "misunderstood" type orcs/goblins, tough "misunderstood" is a little bit too much. For me they can be as evil as anyone else, but their cultures encourage what we would call 'evil'. Of course there are innately evils individuals (like our real life human society), but I don't see anything that pushes then forward evil. They are evil because they simply see it as a convenient life style and doesn't know/don't care about change (like there are evil people in the world that just see 'evil' as a convenient tool/lifestyle).

That doesn't mean it's impossible to have entire tribes or cities of orc/goblins that can't be neutral or good or have friendly relationship with other communities.

Fhaolan
2007-10-08, 12:28 PM
I absolutely hate the idea that "nobody's REALLY evil, they're just misunderstood", or "they were mistreated/abused/dropped on the head/bullied in school" explainations for why creatures do bad things. (Note: this extends to the real world as well - I'm all about people taking responsibility for their own actions rather than pawning the responsibility for what THEY chose to do off on someone else.)


Oh, absolutely. They can make whatever excuses they want, but they're still evil. The difference in my campaign is that orcs don't have to be evil. There's nothing that is making them evil.

In my campaign orcs are evil because they *choose* to be evil. And in my mind that makes it worse than if there was some genetic imperative forcing them to that alignment. For some reason it feels even more evil when someone consciously chooses to be evil.

Also, by making it a racial imperative, it throws half-orcs into a weird place. Did the mixed blood remove the imperative? Or do we house-rule that half-orcs cannot be Good (Neutral being as 'Good' as a half-orc can get)? Why do half-orcs get the ability to choose, but orcs don't? Because they're PCs rather than NPCs? Maybe we just remove half-orcs from the campaign world completely and say that humans and orcs can't breed? [Yes, I know that's being somewhat extremist, but it's a valid path of reasoning.]

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:35 PM
Oh, absolutely. They can make whatever excuses they want, but they're still evil. The difference in my campaign is that orcs don't have to be evil. There's nothing that is making them evil.

In my campaign orcs are evil because they *choose* to be evil. And in my mind that makes it worse than if there was some genetic imperative forcing them to that alignment. For some reason it feels even more evil when someone consciously chooses to be evil.


Agreed.

Once upon a time, when I was a younger and much less cynical game master, I did something similar. However, when the PCs realized that the Orcs were choosing to be evil, they started diplomancy-ing the orcs into choosing to renounce evil (because if they chose to be evil, they could choose not to be). Like using the whole "I have to hit a DC40 Diplomacy check against the orc swinging an axe at me and he'll instantly see the light" crap. Or using mind control magic on Orcish infants to force them over to not be evil. Which started arguments about whether what the PCs were doing was evil.

I just got sick of it. it was distracting from the game, and pissing everybody at the table off, because everyone had a different opinion and nobody was willing to change how they viewed good and evil. Ergot, orcs are evil and in statistically every case unredeemable. Problem solved. Now the game can go on.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 12:38 PM
I like having Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds as Neutral

A orc is Chaotic neutral, sure he pillages, rapes and kills, not because hes evil, but because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive, He in CN in the same way as a dire bear who will maul and eat anyone within 100ft is TN.

Can I just stop you for a sec? :smallsmile: Last time I checked, "pillages, rapes and kills ... because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive." is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.

If your going to pull the culture/survival card, then Mind Flayers, who need brains to survive, are Lawful Neutral. And I don't quite think many people are willing to go down that road. :smallwink:

Look, I realize it's difficult to define just what is Good or Evil (or Neither). Philosophers have been debating that for literally millennia. So, I wouldn't expect all of us to agree on it's interpretation in a game. But I would think that "kill, loot, rape, enslave, and pillage" because it's the easiest way for them to survive should be considered at least slightly evil.

In fact, DnD from it's very beginning, has said that cultures that embrace that sort of philosophy as a way of life are evil. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, of course. But it is something to keep in mind.

Course, if you think that sort of society is CN, I'd hate to think what you think of the Drow. :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-10-08, 12:44 PM
Agreed.

Once upon a time, when I was a younger and much less cynical game master, I did something similar. However, when the PCs realized that the Orcs were choosing to be evil, they started diplomancy-ing the orcs into choosing to renounce evil (because if they chose to be evil, they could choose not to be). Like using the whole "I have to hit a DC40 Diplomacy check against the orc swinging an axe at me and he'll instantly see the light" crap. Or using mind control magic on Orcish infants to force them over to not be evil. Which started arguments about whether what the PCs were doing was evil.

I just got sick of it. it was distracting from the game, and pissing everybody at the table off, because everyone had a different opinion and nobody was willing to change how they viewed good and evil. Ergot, orcs are evil and in statistically every case unredeemable. Problem solved. Now the game can go on.

So convincing orcs not to be killing, frenzied monsters is evil? Player making Diplomacy check to convince someone in the middle of the battle is wrong in all cases. But good-aligned cleric showing orcs errors of their ways and showing them benefits of peaceful society is perfectly right and far more good than killing those orcs.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 12:45 PM
So convincing orcs not to be killing, frenzied monsters is evil?

No, but mind-controlling infants is.

(It's also lazy. You want a Good-aligned orc child? Raise him yourself, then. Or give them to a church that won't kill them on sight, at least.)

I also love the notion that DMs who follow Wizards' official stance (and, you know, the logical one, too) on the "usually Evil" races is naive. :smallsigh:

Morty
2007-10-08, 12:47 PM
No, but mind-controlling infants is.

(It's also lazy. You want a Good-aligned orc child? Raise ihm yourself, then. Or give them to a church that won't kill them on sight, at least.)

I also love the notion that DMs who follow Wizards' official stance on the "usually Evil" races is naive. :smallsigh:

Yeah, that's lazy and wrong. But that's the problem with players, and making orcs irredeemably evil is hardly a good solution.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:50 PM
So convincing orcs not to be killing, frenzied monsters is evil? Player making Diplomacy check to convince someone in the middle of the battle is wrong in all cases. But good-aligned cleric showing orcs errors of their ways and showing them benefits of peaceful society is perfectly right and far more good than killing those orcs.

Yes. Yes it is. The orcs aren't being given a choice, though either means. Diplomacy checks FORCE them to think the way you want them (the rules don't give the orc a say in the matter), to say nothing of kidnapping and mind-controlling infants in Pavlov-style experiments to condition them to be good (or just researching spells that make mind-control spells permanent and using THOSE on the infants).

Zombie_Love
2007-10-08, 12:52 PM
Would this be a good time to say that I'm playing a CG home-brewed lesser Tannar'ri in a new campaign? :smalltongue:
Oh, and also a NG bugbear wizard in another?

I believe in "Sentience = choice." It just happens that more often than not, habitat and culture dictate things... but every so often, a rebel pops up.
Granted, I'm not saying that every campaign should have a good aligned demon or devil... but sometimes it's nice to shake things up.:smallwink:

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 12:52 PM
Yeah, that's lazy and wrong. But that's the problem with players, and making orcs irredeemably evil is hardly a good solution.


What it is is a solution to is fighting (like the discussions in this very thread) that derails the game and cause bad feelings OUT of game.

I'm more than willing to make orcs and goblinoid irredeemably evil to keep the game on track.

Morty
2007-10-08, 12:53 PM
Yes. Yes it is. The orcs aren't being given a choice, though either means. Diplomacy checks FORCE them to think the way you want them (the rules don't give the orc a say in the matter), to say nothing of kidnapping and mind-controlling infants in Pavlov-style experiments to condition them to be good (or just researching spells that make mind-control spells permanent and using THOSE on the infants).

Since when diplomacy is about forcing anyone to do something? Succesful Diplomacy check should mean that you managed to convince the orcs that what they do is wrong. To make it hard, just give some very hard DC. Mind-controlling infants is wrong, but I never claimed otherwise.


What it is is a solution to is fighting (like the discussions in this very thread) that derails the game and cause bad feelings OUT of game.

I'm more than willing to make orcs and goblinoid irredeemably evil to keep the game on track.

I fail to see how is it better than telling players that mind-controlling infants is wrong and that they have to come up with convincing arguments if they want to make Diplomacy check to convert orcs into goodness.
The problems you've had seem more like problems with Diplomacy rules that are quite bad, rather than evil races.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-08, 12:53 PM
It's not as if raising an orc would even take a long time! They're adults at about ten, aren't they?

And I think, Swordguy, you're just discovering the problem with Diplomacy as written. :smallwink:

Porthos
2007-10-08, 12:59 PM
I actually want to expand on my point slightly.... :smallsmile:

If, and it's a big if, the hypothetical "rape, pillage, steal" culture had some counterbalancing traits, like it was extremely forthright and honest with it's own people. Or if they were willing to deal with others fairly, if given the chance. Or even if they had a highly moralistic code within its own society, then perhaps I could see the CN moniker. It's the old "treats itself and allies Good, treats everyone else evilly = fairly Neutral" debate. Although I know people who disagree with that as well. :smallwink:

However, Orcish (and other similar hominids) tribes are usually portrayed as cut-throat, I'll stab my buddy in the back to get ahead, oppress my own people, type societies. In those cases, there pretty much is no choice but to slap the Evil tag on them.

So, if there are redeeming features, and depending on the level of the crimes of the culture there might have to be a lot of them, I could see how someone could justify Orcs or Goblins as Neutral-ish. But, at least in standard DnD, those cultures don't have the redeeming features that one finds in a lot of homebrewed settings. They brutalize themselves, their allies, and their enemies. Therefore they're Evil.

And, yes, if you had a Human (or Elven, Dwarven, etc) society that raped, pillaged, and generally behaved badly to everyone around it, they'd be Evil too. Thankfully, we have no shortage of Evil Human Societies in baseline DnD. :smalltongue:

....
2007-10-08, 01:02 PM
I hate the new trend of making every evil, ugly, cruel race into one thats misunderstood and has years of peaceful co-exstance with nature and a strong nomadic lifestyle full of honor and peace and blah blah blah.

In my main home-brew world, orcs, goblins, kobolds, ect.. are evil because they were made to be evil by evil gods. Kobolds like seeing children fall into their traps and eating babies. Goblins like torturing gnomes and dwarves. Orcs like raping and pillaging.

Its nice to have bad-guys in a heroic fantasy setting. Yall can keep the 'shades of gray' thing for WoD and Shadowrun.

Fhaolan
2007-10-08, 01:04 PM
I've never really run into situations where a party has enough magical power to mind-control entire tribes of orcs into being Good, while simultaneously not having the power to just wipe them out. The groups I deal with tend to either be lower-power, or tend to be a bit bloodthirsty themselves.

I have houseruled that mind control is evil. I don't care how you manage to justify it to yourself, mind control is evil the same way that torture is evil. Clockwork Orange.

And I just don't like the way the diplomacy skill is presented in RAW. I don't like any part of the rules that don't get applied consistantly to both PCs and NPCs. If you can 'diplomance' the orcs into being good, then an drow bard should have the same ability to 'diplomance' the PCs into being evil. If the PCs are immune to something, then there should be NPCs running around with that same immunity as well.

EDIT: Re ...; I also find the redefining of evil cultures as 'noble nature-lovers' that are only evil because the horrible civilized races misundertood them as being repellant. The whole 'noble savage' thing was overdone in the Victorian era. We should have gotten over that by now. Orc culture is *evil*. They may have a sense of honor and all that but honor =/= good. Nature =/= good. Honor and nature have *nothing* to do with the good/evil axis of the alignment system. Honor is part of the law/chaos axis, and nature is Neutral by definition. Freaking daisy-dancing fairy-folk and their veggie-sucking ways =/= good... ... ... sorry. Hit a bit of sore spot there.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 01:04 PM
Since when diplomacy is about forcing anyone to do something?

Because, with the RAW, the orc has no say in the matter. The PC rolls the die, and the orc is forced into a course of action.

(Oh, Yuki_Akuma? I've known about it for some time. This was, however, the situation that clued me in to Diplomancy Cheese.)



I fail to see how is it better than telling players that mind-controlling infants is wrong and that they have to come up with convincing arguments if they want to make Diplomacy check to convert orcs into goodness.
The problems you've had seem more like problems with Diplomacy rules that are quite bad, rather than evil races.

Because I can't dictate to my players how they are to feel about the situation. I CAN dictate how the game world works in such a way as to cause minimal friction at the table.

That, and I truly do believe some people are just bad. I've had experience to justify it. Therefore, I don't have a problem denoting a race in D&D as bad, especially when it has the added benefit of stopping fights amoung my players.

Morty
2007-10-08, 01:09 PM
Its nice to have bad-guys in a heroic fantasy setting. Yall can keep the 'shades of gray' thing for WoD and Shadowrun.

Yeah, it's absolutely necessary for heroic setting to be utterly unrealistic with black-and-white moralty. :smallsigh: And it's completelyt impossible to have bad guys without delegating whole races into that role.


Because, with the RAW, the orc has no say in the matter. The PC rolls the die, and the orc is forced into a course of action.

That's a problem with Diplomacy rules. It applies to many situations, but is possible to work out. My group managed to make Diplomacy reasonable.



Because I can't dictate to my players how they are to feel about the situation. I CAN dictate how the game world works in such a way as to cause minimal friction at the table.

But you don't have to do this. All you need to do is make players try to convince orcs in other way than just Dimplomacy check.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-08, 01:19 PM
OK. "The Selfish Gene" aside, I think the decision should be made on a play-style basis, not on a pseudoscience basis.

What's more fun: having humanoid encounters be uncomplicated, guilt-free bash-em-ups, or nuanced explorations of racism and motivation?

I think different tables will come up with different answers. I'd be happy playing either way, or preferably a mix. Maybe 80/20.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-08, 01:26 PM
There's something to be said for various viewpoints. Orcs as bloodthirsty brutal savages fills a nice role.

But it also makes things far too cut and dry. And there's the fact that it comes uncomfortably close to real life racism. Of course, if people are aware of this rather than just discounting it as "the natural order of things" it can make the game nice and dark. Evil being something that can be bred into things and is completely inescapable if you're one of the evil races. And conversely being a good race robs you of the ability to be good. Because you didn't have a choice to be that way.

I don't like saying that races are evil, but they might have a brutal and violent culture with very different ideas. Orcs as Vikings isn't that much of a stretch. I mean, Gruumsh is already kind of close to Odin to begin with (one eye, uses a spear). I can see it working. Orc Wanderer carrying a giant axe looking to find worthy opponents to fight to the death. Honoring the people they've killed rather than just looking down on them.

They could still have grim and dark gods. To other cultures they might apear to be demons. But they just have an existence defined by violence.


Really though, every race should have several cultures. Variety should hardly be a human only trait.

Wolfwood2
2007-10-08, 01:26 PM
I am in a group playing through Pathfinder, and I am enjoying that setting's portrayal of goblins.

Goblins in Pathfinder are monsters. They're sometimes amusing, sometimes silly, but they're monsters. They view all other beings as potential food sources, and they have little to no regard even for other goblins. They're little better than intelligent, vaguely human-shaped, rats.

At least such has been the experience of my group so far. We've had no OOC setting statements saying, "All goblins are innately evil," and we don't happen to have any paladins in the group, but all the one's we've found act monstrous.

After some experience with settings that have goblins just as basically different-looking humans, it's somewhat refreshing to deal with them as alien beings who do not think or act like humans. At all.

fendrin
2007-10-08, 01:38 PM
OK, I have to say:
I tend not to use orcs in my games. That's not to say they don't exist (as I dislike taking away options from my characters, and half-orcs have to come from somewhere), but rather they are rarely encountered or interacted with as a culture. The stereotypes about them are just too firmly rooted in some player's minds (thanks to Tolkein and a slew of game designers & authors with Manichean views of good & evil).

When they do appear (often just in a player's backstory), I portray them as 'uncivilized' tribes. Not evil, per se, any more so than various tribes of Native Americans, Africans, Australian Aboriginals, etc are/were evil. Some individual orcs and orcish cultures are evil, but not all. Unfortunately, there is an ancient stereotype about such cultures as well, so the two together make it REALLY hard for some people to break away from the 'orcs are evil' perspective.

Goblinoids, on the other hand, are a completely different story. Like in Eberron, I have them be the remains of a much degraded ancient empire (I'm not claiming that K.Baker stole my idea or anything, I see it as coincidence that they are so similar). In fact, I have always liked having goblinoids (predominantly hobgoblins) representing an ancient oriental style culture. Typically, the 'western' style cultures settled the campaign lands long before, slowly but surely pushing the traditional goblinoids to the fringes. Again, some goblinoid groups are evil, others are not.

My players seem to like this better. Yes it causes friction at the gaming table. It's called drama. And roleplaying. And it has caused a lot of character downfalls. Like the Goblin-hating paladin. So utterly convinced that all goblinoids were evil, he killed a few innocent goblinoids without much thought. He didn't even react when his Smite Evil failed to do much.

Needless to say, the paladin's alignment shifted to LN and he lost his powers. Eventually (after much traveling in goblinoid lands) the paladin redeemed himself (selflessly throwing himself into what should have been an unsurvivable situation to save a goblinoid village from destruction) and became a paladin again.

The player later stated that (despite his character being tormented and significantly weakened for most of the campaign), it was one of his favorite ever.

EDIT: and to be clear, my players and I do enjoy some good ol' fashioned beat 'em up play, too. I usually use demon or devil hordes for that, though (Or non-humanoids, like giant bugs or magically twisted animals). although, even then some of my players have ways of throwing in moral uncertainty into those, too :smallamused:

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 01:41 PM
They could still have grim and dark gods. To other cultures they might apear to be demons. But they just have an existence defined by violence.



As has been pointed out, this is often enough to make you evil, as per the RAW.

Ignore the RAW, and you're fine. Just be aware you're doing so.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 01:43 PM
I'm not familiar with Daleks or this Doctor Who, so I can't comment here.

*paraphrased tremendously* Daleks were once Space NazisTM on their home planet before nuclear war devastated their home planet and mutated them into twisted things. One of their last remaining scientists re-engineered the surviving race to be able to survive the new environment. The new race, Daleks, would be possessed of genetically inherited qualities; totally obedient to their hierarchy, they would hate instinctively with psychotic revulsion all life in the universe but Dalek life (they even burn plants and insects away), and they would be hyperintelligent.

Daleks are, repeatedly shown to be the show's best villains. Partially because they rarely Job. The Doctor on Doctor Who is usually the only survivor when the Daleks are through with a storyline.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-08, 01:54 PM
As has been pointed out, this is often enough to make you evil, as per the RAW.

Ignore the RAW, and you're fine. Just be aware you're doing so.

Yeah, but I do that a lot.

As far as the PCs go, don't they also (usaully) have an existence defined by violence as well?

psychoticbarber
2007-10-08, 01:56 PM
Partially because they rarely Job. The Doctor on Doctor Who is usually the only survivor when the Daleks are through with a storyline.

Not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence there. I'm rather familiar with Doctor Who, though, so I can also attest to the fact that the Daleks are quite possibly the scariest thing in the Doctor Who Universe. Excepting, of course, the Doctor when he's angry. :smallwink:

Rex Blunder
2007-10-08, 02:04 PM
There's a lot of real-world definitions of goodness which PC's rarely meet.

Even the paladin code, the ultimate expression of lawful good, involves seeking out situations where you can get all worked up about the evil Other, and commit self-righteous violence. There are some real-life versions of morality which would not fully condone this.

If you compare a paladin to, say, the priest from Hugo's Les Miserables, or even Mr. Rogers, the paladin looks a little morally questionable. But this has always been something I've been willing to overlook in D&D, because I want to kill monsters, darn it, and not give away candlesticks or change my cardigan.

Swordguy
2007-10-08, 02:05 PM
Yeah, but I do that a lot.

As far as the PCs go, don't they also (usaully) have an existence defined by violence as well?

Why yes. Yes they do.

The difference is that in a culture as described (one by choice focused on violence), violence brings pleasure to those who practice it. That's what makes it evil. One should not take pleasure in it. If PCs do so, they lean towards evil as well.

(Granted, I'm just arguing semantics at this point - it's this kind of discussion that make me say "they're all evil, end of story, let's get on with the game and worry about sticky moral situations for when you deal with other folks".)

Alex12
2007-10-08, 02:11 PM
Frankly, I don't see that any race (excluding ones formed out of the very essence of Good/evil, like demons, devils, etc.) has to be inherently evil. Even Illithids can be Good if you put your mind to the details on exactly how.

Wolfwood2
2007-10-08, 02:14 PM
I think there is an essential question to be asked with humanoids. "What is it about the way this humanoid thinks that makes them fundamentally different from humans?"

If a savage tribe of orcs is no better or no worse than a savage tribe of humans, then what is the point of having orcs in the first place? You might as well use humans. Some stat modifiers and darkvision doesn't cut it. If a group of hobgoblins are no different than a group of humans, use humans.

So if we can agree that an orc should not think like a human, then it follows that orcs could not think like humans in a way that predisposes them to evil.

Porthos
2007-10-08, 02:15 PM
But you don't have to do this. All you need to do is make players try to convince orcs in other way than just Diplomacy check.

Now you see, I don't have a real problem with Diplomacy Checks for a very simple reason. Let's say that someone is playing a Highly Charismatic, and Influential Person. You know, the type that could sell ice to the eskimos. But the player themselves isn't that charismatic or witty.

Why the blue blazes should they be penalized if they aren't witty/charming/persuading in real life, although their character is?

It's a huge double standard in DnD that is only (with Third Edition) now being addressed. Players aren't punished for playing characters that are stronger than they are, but they were being punished for playing characters that were smarter/wiser/more charismatic than they were.

Now maybe the Diplomacy Rules could use a few (or a lot) of tweaks (and they are getting tweaked in 4e from what I understand). But the reason they are there is a fundamentally good one. It's to allow people with the social graces of a toad to be able to (in theory) play the Dashing Swordsman. It's to allow some to live out a fantasy that they might not otherwise be able to pull off.

Now, just to forestall the inevitable counterarguing, I'm not saying that the Diplomacy Check should replace all role-playing. That's silly. But I am suggesting that it should be used if the player is trying to be suave and charming but just can't pull it off in real life. In other words, the dice roll reflects the fact that although Player A might say something that doesn't go over well with the crowd, Character A says something very similar that actually is witty.

We're not all Mark Antony from Julius Caesar, after all. :smallwink:

Course, if he or she is deliberately acting like a jerk to the King, no amount of Diplomacy is going to save his butt. But that's a 'hole nudder argument. :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-10-08, 02:22 PM
Now you see, I don't have a real problemn with Diplomacy Checks for a very simple reason. Let's say that someone is playing a Highly Charasmatic, and Influential Person. You know, the type that could sell ice to the eskimos. But the player themselves isn't that charasmatic or witty.

This is big problem, and I don't think no rules can prevent that. It's just the matter of how DM and players decide to work that out.


Why the blue blazes should they be penalized if they aren't witty/charming/persuading in real life, although their character is?

They shouldn't. But they probably will, no matter what system we use.


It's a huge double standard in DnD that is only (with Third Edition) now being addressed. Players aren't punished for playing characters that are stronger than they are, but they were being punished for playing characters that were smarter/wiser/charismatic than they were.

I don't really think it's exculsive for D&D. I've seen discussions like that of Warhammer boards.


Now maybe the Diplomacy Rules could use a few (or a lot) of tweaks (and they are getting tweaked in 4e from what I understand). But the reason they are there is a fundamently good one. It's to allow people with the social graces of a toad to be able to (in theory) play the Dashing Swordsman. It's to allow some to live out a fantasy that they might not otherwise be able to pull off.

While Diplomacy rules need tweaking, I don't think any tinkering can solve the problem with non-charismatic players having troubles with playing charming characters.


Now, just to forestall the inevitable counterarguing, I'm not saying that the Diplomacy Check should replace all role-playing. That's silly. But I am suggesting that it should be used if the player is trying to be suave and charming but just can't pull it off in real life. In other words, the dice roll reflects the fact that although Player A might say something that doesn't go over well with the crowd, Character A says something very similar that actually is witty.
:

I think that could be solved by DM giving hints to player who tries to rally the crowd, he's just no public speaker.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-08, 02:24 PM
You got your diplomancy in my moral relativism! :smallsmile:

Porthos
2007-10-08, 02:35 PM
While Diplomacy rules need tweaking, I don't think any tinkering can solve the problem with non-charismatic players having troubles with playing charming characters.

True dat. But I think that anything that address the problem in a positive way is a step in the right direction. And I have seen Diplomacy Checks help at the table I used to belly up at, so I can speak from at least a little personal experience. Not that my experience would necessarily be applicable elsewhere, of course. :smallwink:


You got your diplomancy in my moral relativism! :smallsmile:

It's the two great tastes debates that go great together! :smallbiggrin:

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 06:19 PM
Not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence there. I'm rather familiar with Doctor Who, though, so I can also attest to the fact that the Daleks are quite possibly the scariest thing in the Doctor Who Universe. Excepting, of course, the Doctor when he's angry.

Sorry, "To Job" meaning that Daleks are never easilly defeated villains or humorous characters depsite their many appearances (unlike the Borg).


Even the paladin code, the ultimate expression of lawful good, involves seeking out situations where you can get all worked up about the evil Other, and commit self-righteous violence. There are some real-life versions of morality which would not fully condone this.

Yes, quite a few religions in the world are based on peace and understanding. This is part of the reason D&D Paladins are one of the hardest classes to play. I always stick with Old Obi Wan Kenobi or Luke Skywalker in making sure that I'm either kinda enigmatic (so I don't have to be "genuinely" wise) or a little naive so I can justify screw ups.


If you compare a paladin to, say, the priest from Hugo's Les Miserables, or even Mr. Rogers, the paladin looks a little morally questionable. But this has always been something I've been willing to overlook in D&D, because I want to kill monsters, darn it, and not give away candlesticks or change my cardigan.

Oddly, I once based a paladin on Reverend Fred Rogers. It was based on the untrue urban legend that he used to be a sniper. Basically, the character was this pleasant Sunday children's school teacher in Toril and having used to be a warrior in the past. While protecting the village against some raiders (a mixture of human barbarians and goblinoids), some got through and the players were sure that he survived.

Then they found Fred had barely managed to hold off a half dozen barbarians in the school room. He asked them to help clean up the mess so the children wouldn't have to see it afterwards. Then went down into the root cellar then to entertain the tykes with puppets.

Fhaolan
2007-10-08, 06:30 PM
Sorry, "To Job" meaning that Daleks are never easilly defeated villains or humorous characters depsite their many appearances (unlike the Borg).

Well... except for the Tom Baker era when he was daring them to climb ladders or go up stairs. Then they did look a bit silly.


Then they found Fred had barely managed to hold off a half dozen barbarians in the school room. He asked them to help clean up the mess so the children wouldn't have to see it afterwards. Then went down into the root cellar then to entertain the tykes with puppets.

I've tried something similar as a PC. Didn't work so well because over longer periods of time you really get this psychotic air. The character starts to feel like a serial killer instead of a paladin.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-10-08, 07:26 PM
Yes, once more the Old Orc and Goblin argument is trotted out for people's perusal and discussion. There's merits to both sides with some preferring Orcs to be pretty much like the creatures from Aliens. They're less people than a living magical plague on the land and an army of monstrously programmed horrors twisted and evil.

Then, somewhat down the scale is the treatment that there are evil races only in the sense they come from evil cultures. Kobols worshiping evil gods, enslaving others, and genuinely acting like Mankind for the vast majority of its existence.

And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

What's your preferred way to handle it?

If a race or creature has the Evil subtype, then it's innately evil. There may be exceedingly rare individual specimens who are not evil, butthey should only exist at the whim of the DM.

If a race or creature lacks the Evil subtype but is described as evil, I say "it comes from an evil culture, specimens raised in other cultures will adopt those cultures' values."

psychoticbarber
2007-10-08, 07:29 PM
If a race or creature has the Evil subtype, then it's innately evil. There may be exceedingly rare individual specimens who are not evil, butthey should only exist at the whim of the DM.

If a race or creature lacks the Evil subtype but is described as evil, I say "it comes from an evil culture, specimens raised in other cultures will adopt those cultures' values."

Congratulations, that has just become my definition. I tip my hat to you sir (or madam...though Iames looks to me to be a Romanization of "James").

Edit: Saw the gender symbol. Gotta wake up. I still tip my hat to you.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 10:23 PM
I think part of it has to do with what is the role of adventurers in a storyline and what is the importance of evil as a race. It was as early as Keep on the Borderlands that Gary Gygax had Half-Dice Kobold Pups swarm and attack our heroes when they broke into the Caverns of Chaos.

That was, always, one of the better moments of the story. On the other hand, I very much liked the Dungeon Crawl in the 13th warrior where they kill the Great Mother and try and kill as many of the enemy as possible.

There's no real room for debate even as not killing as many as possible means they'll just replenish their numbers and kill again.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-08, 11:23 PM
Evil's a human conceit.
Humans worship human gods; the universe spins to who watches it.


I like to run my orcs and goblinoids evil. Not super-duper-buahahaha-evil, but certainly enough of an outsider to be considered evil; enough of an outsider not warrant mercy.

Zincorium
2007-10-08, 11:39 PM
In a universe where an entity like Sauron exists, it makes sense to have it's servitor races (orcs/goblins) be unequivocally evil. Those followers are rewarded for being vicious, self-preserving, and following orders in the manner that causes the most damage.

But then you have D&D, where such an entity does not always exist, and the cause/effect relationship breaks down. Out of anything other than racism, the orcs as an innately evil race does not make complete sense. Of course there are going to be good orcs, or those who only care about what they themselves do (neutral). The same follows for any other intelligent (to any level) species: morality is chosen, not inherited.

In my homebrew games, I don't present alignment as universal or even present sometimes, so the issue rarely comes up, but the standard D&D world makes little sense to me anyway.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-08, 11:45 PM
Morality could be, and likely is, an inherited trait.
Genetic disposition to 'immoral' behavior that was selected for would lead to an 'evil' population.

If orcs' reproductive fitness was enhanced by being evil, you can bet your buckets that they'd have alleles for evilness. Of course, since behavior is controlled by genes, they already have alleles for wickedness. In spades.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 01:00 AM
But then you have D&D, where such an entity does not always exist, and the cause/effect relationship breaks down. Out of anything other than racism, the orcs as an innately evil race does not make complete sense. Of course there are going to be good orcs, or those who only care about what they themselves do (neutral). The same follows for any other intelligent (to any level) species: morality is chosen, not inherited.

I dunno, it depends on your campaign setting. I mean Gruumsh isn't going to sit by as his church stomps all over his clergy. He's going to bless the tribes that eat the most elves and harvest the most mana to build the greatest Orc Horde that overwhelms this stage of the giant Multiplayer we know as life.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-09, 02:04 AM
I don't like saying that races are evil, but they might have a brutal and violent culture with very different ideas. Orcs as Vikings isn't that much of a stretch. I mean, Gruumsh is already kind of close to Odin to begin with (one eye, uses a spear). I can see it working. Orc Wanderer carrying a giant axe looking to find worthy opponents to fight to the death. Honoring the people they've killed rather than just looking down on them.

They could still have grim and dark gods. To other cultures they might apear to be demons. But they just have an existence defined by violence.


In Irish mythology the god Balor the One Eyed, leader of the Fomorians could kill hundreds of men, women and children with his lethal right-eye. Balor weilded a longspear in battle and tried to enslave the Tuatha Dé Danann (Irish for the Children of the Goddess). He was later killed by his Fomorian/Tuatha Dé Danann grandson Lugh using a sling. The rock from Lugh's sling hit Balor in the eye as the Fomorian kings honor guard was pulling his right-eye open, forcing it out the back of his head, killing the Fomorian troops. That's another way of thinking about orc and elven relations.

fendrin
2007-10-09, 07:53 AM
Morality could be, and likely is, an inherited trait.
Genetic disposition to 'immoral' behavior that was selected for would lead to an 'evil' population.

If orcs' reproductive fitness was enhanced by being evil, you can bet your buckets that they'd have alleles for evilness. Of course, since behavior is controlled by genes, they already have alleles for wickedness. In spades.

Wow. I recently saw the play Good by C.P. Taylor. This reminds me of it.

It's a play about Nazis.

Fhaolan
2007-10-09, 08:44 AM
In Irish mythology the god Balor the One Eyed, leader of the Fomorians could kill hundreds of men, women and children with his lethal right-eye. Balor weilded a longspear in battle and tried to enslave the Tuatha Dé Danann (Irish for the Children of the Goddess). He was later killed by his Fomorian/Tuatha Dé Danann grandson Lugh using a sling. The rock from Lugh's sling hit Balor in the eye as the Fomorian kings honor guard was pulling his right-eye open, forcing it out the back of his head, killing the Fomorian troops. That's another way of thinking about orc and elven relations.

I recently read something... somewhere... blast if I can find it... that suggested that the Fomorians *were* Norse, and that Balor was the Irish interpretation/translation of Odin taken from captured Norsemen.

Gilead
2007-10-09, 09:17 AM
The way I see it, if they're sentient, they have a choice. If they're not, then by definition they can't be evil or good. I'd like to see, for instance, a Chaotic Evil unicorn. Just because it's funny.

There's actually a CN neutral unicorn creature who basically acts CE in an issue of dragon, they're created when hunters cut off a unicorn's horn but leave the unicorn alive.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-09, 10:27 AM
Agreed.

Once upon a time, when I was a younger and much less cynical game master, I did something similar. However, when the PCs realized that the Orcs were choosing to be evil, they started diplomancy-ing the orcs into choosing to renounce evil (because if they chose to be evil, they could choose not to be). Like using the whole "I have to hit a DC40 Diplomacy check against the orc swinging an axe at me and he'll instantly see the light" crap. Or using mind control magic on Orcish infants to force them over to not be evil. Which started arguments about whether what the PCs were doing was evil.

I just got sick of it. it was distracting from the game, and pissing everybody at the table off, because everyone had a different opinion and nobody was willing to change how they viewed good and evil. Ergot, orcs are evil and in statistically every case unredeemable. Problem solved. Now the game can go on.
Well, it doesn't work like that, but I see your point.
The problem is that both you and your group are trying extremes. A diplomacy check would be enough only for the orc to not chop the PC's head open. After that, it would need a lot of rolls and a prolonged talk to convince a orc to "see the light". I don' t care for the DC, it can't be done in a couple rounds.
Then, there's the rest of the orcs, let's say, in a warband. When they see the first orc listening close to the PCs, they'll charge the PCs, slap the orc and say "stop being an idiot", and then get back to standard game.
I did have a game where the players, after killing an orc, convinced the other to surrender. If they had the time to go through a length and unsafe process to convince that orc to become their ally, I'd allow it. But as I said, a lenght and costly process. No one says "I'll be good now" in one round and one dice roll.
Imagine an evil bard rolling his Diplomacy and convincing the party's paladin to become evil, because it brings "better benefits"? Or, if you claim a PC can't be affected by diplomacy, any npc paladin?
Sir Howard, the leader of the Sacred Flame, wielder of the Lightning of Justice, the most sacred sword in all the realm, vanquisher of evil, and rescuer of whole kingdoms.
Dee, the wanderer, rolls diplomacy and bluff against DC 40, passes, and Sir Howard throws down his holy weapon and declares "ya know what? F*ck this 'lawful good' stuff. I'm gonna seek a demon and become a blackguard. Laters."

And if the players to rise child orcs to make them become a village of good orcs... heh, let them try.

Tengu
2007-10-09, 11:14 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, so there might be some relevant points I missed.

In my non-DND, Final Fantasy games, goblins are primitive, sadistic creatures - they do not craft much, and prefer to take what they need from others. They also like torturing, causing pain and fear (though it's rather hard to fear something that's 4 feet tall at most, unless there's a whole lot of these somethings). Good goblins are almost nonexistant.

Orcs, on the other hand, vary from tribe to tribe. My PCs encountered two tribes so far - the first one was sharing a large island with a human settlement, and they hated the humans with passion, being extremely xenophobic and, despite having most of the island on their own, wanting to see the humans dead and constantly trying to raid their settlement and destroy it - though their raids became more organized only after a warlock took mind control over them (in a subtle, LotR-like way, not a "living puppet on strings" way).
The other tribe lived in a mountain village, at a savanna's edge. They had little contact with outsiders (the only other humanoids living nearby was a tribe of fox-people, who were cunning, independent and didn't let the orcs know of their presence), but, while a bit suspicious, they generally accepted guests and were quite open to them - as long as the guests were showing no ill intent, at which point they'd become violent. This tribe was more Warcraft orcs than DND orcs, though they were quite primitive (no metal, for example).

By the way, it's strange nobody mentioned Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) yet. So I am now. The cynic inside me would say that it's a webcomic where several humans killing lots of goblins are murderers, but several goblins killing lots of humans are heroes - except that I won't, because those goblins have good reasons while those humans don't.

Zim
2007-10-09, 12:31 PM
Great discussion everyone, this is a real page turner!:smallcool. Here's my thoughts on the matter.

There are varying degrees of good and evil IMO:
Personification of Good/Evil -Outsiders that represent ideas like devils and devas. They are inherently that alignment since they were begotten, represent the ideal state for their alignment, and are unlikely to change except by extreme measures.
Good/Evil by Nature -Hereditary predisposition towards a certain alignment. Creatures like this are hardwired towards this behaviour but can be swayed towards other alignments through example and alternative upbringing. Dragons are a good example of this.
Good/Evil by Nescessity -Some cultures and races tend towards a certain alignment based on internal and external pressures on their survival. Some creatures must routinely perform evil acts in order to survive. Kobolds, for example, are physically frail, so they partially compensate for that by adopting a ruthless LE lifestyle. If survival does not nescessitate evil behaviour, then the individual is less likely to adopt that alignment. Most savage humanoids fall into this category. It is rare to find a good by nescessity species.
Good/Evil by Culture-This is where most culturally advanced humanoid civilizations come in. Behaviour is dictated by custom. Cultures that have a foundation based on respect for life and freedom are usually good, while those that are based on hatred and fear are evil.

I have intentionally left racial or cultural gods off the list because the disposition of a people tends to dictate the type of religion followed. A race that is evil by nescessity will have gods that encourage this behaviour and consider it pious, while one that is peaceful and good by nature will have gods that reflect this bias.

It's kinda like what Frank Herbert said about religion being a tool of statecraft. If a state law is also a commandment, then transgression is also a sin and has religious implications too (damnation beyond this life etc...).

All IMO YMMV etc...:smallwink:

Blanks
2007-10-09, 12:51 PM
In my role as a DM i clearly choose between this beforehand, and make it explicit to the players before playing starts:

1)
Either orcs are evil, no discussion and you can butcher them at will.

2)
They can be good or evil and you have to find out.

I usually go for number 1 as this makes the game easier on a lot of points. If you go for number 2 your players can never encounter orcs in a dungeon and ambush them - for all they know the orcs could be paladins ;)
If i want moral ambiguity ill just use humans. Or dwarves. Or something else. Theres plenty to choose from in the monster manual.

and congratulations to me on my first post ;)

Morty
2007-10-09, 01:11 PM
1)
Either orcs are evil, no discussion and you can butcher them at will.

Except you can't, as being evil does not automatically condemn you for death sentence.


I usually go for number 1 as this makes the game easier on a lot of points. If you go for number 2 your players can never encounter orcs in a dungeon and ambush them - for all they know the orcs could be paladins ;)

Yeah, it's completely wrong when players can't just barge into the room and kill everyone because they're green and have fangs.


If i want moral ambiguity ill just use humans. Or dwarves. Or something else. Theres plenty to choose from in the monster manual.


Yes, for example many monsters that aren't sentinent races.
Of course, that's your way to play and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just I never really understood the need to have universally evil race so it can be slaughtered. I understand when people don't care about it, but when they deem it as good, I'm lost.

Zim
2007-10-09, 01:42 PM
The approach taken with respect to the disposition (or disposal :smallwink: ) of evil bings in D&D is a matter of player maturity, the desired tone of the campaign and DMing style.

If you want to run a game where the badguys are bad and wear black hats and you know they're bad because of their hats, then fine. It makes for gameplay uncomplicated by moral dilemmas. If, OTOH your players worry about what to do once they've killed all the adults in a goblin camp (do you kill the young or leave them to starve?), then a more flexible view is required.

It's all a matter of what you and your players consider to be important and fun in your game.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 02:22 PM
Of course, that's your way to play and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just I never really understood the need to have universally evil race so it can be slaughtered. I understand when people don't care about it, but when they deem it as good, I'm lost.

I think it's mostly an issue that Orcs as a universally evil race presents a situation where you know immediately the threat and it removes a lot of the bogging down to a story. If you have a human army then it's entirely possible you have to try diplomacy, some trace of moral ambiguity, and maybe examining their motives (Unless they're worshipers of an EVIL GODTM).

With Orcs or "Purely Evil Humanoids" then the idea crystalizes to "You have to figure a way to wipe out the majority of this force as quickly as possible."


By the way, it's strange nobody mentioned Goblins yet. So I am now. The cynic inside me would say that it's a webcomic where several humans killing lots of goblins are murderers, but several goblins killing lots of humans are heroes - except that I won't, because those goblins have good reasons while those humans don't.

In the end, my main problem with Goblins is that its not very funny as a web comic. Something about racism and genocide just doesn't bring out the chuckles unless it's Black Mage doing it.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-09, 02:28 PM
Why exactly do webcomics have to be all funny, all the time?

Even comedies on TV aren't all about the funny.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-09, 02:28 PM
Yeah, it's completely wrong when players can't just barge into the room and kill everyone because they're green and have fangs.

Hey now, he never said it was wrong to play another way, just that he didn't because it was easier for him to play his way. I play the other way, but I have no problem with his statement.

Indon
2007-10-09, 02:50 PM
I think that evil races are characterized as such by (in)ability to coexist peacefully with other races.

Both Elves and Illithids are haughty, intelligent, and steeped in power. But Elves don't eat the brains of their neighbors, making Elves non-evil and Illithids evil.

Now, a community of Illithids which somehow survived without eating the brains of other sentient creatures is unlikely to be an evil community (It goes both ways, even; A non-evil community of Illithid isn't likely to bother maintaining another way of life, and an Illithid who doesn't eat sentient beings simply performs less evil deeds). Similarly, a community of Elves who thrive by raiding and pillaging their neighbors is likely to be evil (Drow come to mind).

Morty
2007-10-09, 02:55 PM
I think it's mostly an issue that Orcs as a universally evil race presents a situation where you know immediately the threat and it removes a lot of the bogging down to a story. If you have a human army then it's entirely possible you have to try diplomacy, some trace of moral ambiguity, and maybe examining their motives (Unless they're worshipers of an EVIL GODTM).

With Orcs or "Purely Evil Humanoids" then the idea crystalizes to "You have to figure a way to wipe out the majority of this force as quickly as possible."

I understand the need to crystalize good and evil unambigously. But really, it can be done without dedicating whole races to be villains and thus making setting less belivable. This applies to nations and cultures as well- in Edding's books for example there are no non-human races, but instead some human nations serve role usually held by some orc-like monsters.


In the end, my main problem with Goblins is that its not very funny as a web comic. Something about racism and genocide just doesn't bring out the chuckles unless it's Black Mage doing it.

That's because some parts of Goblins aren't meant to be funny. Like Kore killing children or Minmax massacring defenceless goblins.


Hey now, he never said it was wrong to play another way, just that he didn't because it was easier for him to play his way. I play the other way, but I have no problem with his statement.

What I meant is I don't understand why people have problems with not attacking everything on sight. Perhaps I came out to harsh.

Alex12
2007-10-09, 03:01 PM
Now, a community of Illithids which somehow survived without eating the brains of other sentient creatures is unlikely to be an evil community (It goes both ways, even; A non-evil community of Illithid isn't likely to bother maintaining another way of life, and an Illithid who doesn't eat sentient beings simply performs less evil deeds). Similarly, a community of Elves who thrive by raiding and pillaging their neighbors is likely to be evil (Drow come to mind).

http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?t=61603

I humbly submit this, my idea on how Illithids could survive without needing to eat the brains of sentient creatures, and ultimately be in a Lawful Good society.

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:07 PM
http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?t=61603

I humbly submit this, my idea on how Illithids could survive without needing to eat the brains of sentient creatures, and ultimately be in a Lawful Good society.

That's outstanding.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-10-09, 03:08 PM
I can see the appeal of having orcs (and many other creatures) innately and irrideemably evil. Sometimes, dealing with moral ambiquity just isn't fun. This approach is somewhat core to beer-and-pretzels, kick-in-the-door DnD, I believe.

Myself, I prefer to avoid innate evilness in my games. Moral ambiquity is the name of the game, and only evil outsiders are immune to questions of morality. Orcs can be good or neutral, even if they are culturally and possibly biologically (aggression, lack of empathy, whatever) inclined towards evil behavior.

When it comes to fighting orcs and the like, with them not being evil as a rule, it ends up pretty much the same as real-world warfare, and war is usually neither pretty nor morally straightforward, and only so much effort can be afforded to check the morality of fighting a particular group of orcs when this is the case - even if you are supposed to be a paragon of goodness or whatever.



*sip* for example many monsters that aren't sentinent races.

... I was under the impression that there weren't all that many non-sentient monsters in DnD. A disgustingly large number are intelligent, and an alarming number of those have higher Int than the average human.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:08 PM
Elves kill the Illithids, Illithids kill the elves. Does it really matter who eats or does not eat what? Really?

Sure, brain-eating is more gross, perhaps, but dead is dead.

Also; The 'Good' Elves are much more likely to whipe-out the Illithids given the chance, than the other way round. Genocide and pointy ears go together so well, I think. ;)

Alex12
2007-10-09, 03:12 PM
That's outstanding.

Really? You like it?

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:15 PM
Elves kill the Illithids, Illithids kill the elves. Does it really matter who eats or does not eat what? Really?


But if you introduce a neutral third party; say, Gnomes.

Elves can coexist peacefully with gnomes. Illithids, on the other hand, will find them delicious.

Alex; One thing I enjoy doing in campaigns is broadening my players' horizons by showing them things they'd maybe never thought of before. Hydra-farming Illithids definitely qualify.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-10-09, 03:17 PM
Elves kill the Illithids, Illithids kill the elves. Does it really matter who eats or does not eat what? Really?

Sure, brain-eating is more gross, perhaps, but dead is dead.

Also; The 'Good' Elves are much more likely to whipe-out the Illithids given the chance, than the other way round. Genocide and pointy ears go together so well, I think. ;)

It isn't the act, but the reason for it. Assuming no prior conflict, the illithids think elven brains are tasty and will probably try to kill and eat them. The elves, on the other hand, would have no reason to attack or kill illithids (assuming no prior knowledge or bias). Knowing that illithids are murderous brain-eating mosters, however, the elves are somewhat more justified in killing than the illithids are. I don't feel like working out the complicated blood-feud logic that builds from there, but that's the basics.

Also, the illithids wouldn't want to wipe out the elves any more than we'd want to wipe out cattle... Orcs and elves is another story, and think the inclination towards genocide is probably about equal there.



Edit: Also, hydra-farming illithids is AWSOME.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:18 PM
But if you introduce a neutral third party; say, Gnomes.

Elves can coexist peacefully with gnomes. Illithids, on the other hand, will find them delicious.

Alex; One thing I enjoy doing in campaigns is broadening my players' horizons by showing them things they'd maybe never thought of before. Hydra-farming Illithids definitely qualify.

So, gnomes wouldn't fight the Illithids? Seek them out if they thought they could destroy them? They aren't really neutral in this scenario, to be fair.

More importantly, killing for food isn't Evil either.. :)

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 03:18 PM
I do gotta ask how the whole "Mein Alf" thing started. I've been alarmed by the racist treatment that Elves have been getting in a lot of fantasy for a very long time. When did they become the hypocrites of choice?


Myself, I prefer to avoid innate evilness in my games. Moral ambiquity is the name of the game, and only evil outsiders are immune to questions of morality. Orcs can be good or neutral, even if they are culturally and possibly biologically (aggression, lack of empathy, whatever) inclined towards evil behavior.

I rarely do morally ambigious games anymore. My last one was Star Wars where the player characters were a LG Imperial Captain, a LE Sith Lord, and a LN Stormtrooper. All three of them wanted to make a better galaxy but were convinced of different ways to do it. The LE Sith Lord was especially fun as he was the one who constantly pointed out that sometimes the best way to achieve results for the greatest many is to leave the biggest pile of corpses.

But the lack of moral ambiguity in Forgotten Realms just makes the games more fun.

Morty
2007-10-09, 03:20 PM
... I was under the impression that there weren't all that many non-sentient monsters in DnD. A disgustingly large number are intelligent, and an alarming number of those have higher Int than the average human.

True dat. In fact, when I think about it now, magical beasts with Int of 12 attacking adventurers on sight doesn't make much sense either. They aren't demons, animals or undead after all. Still, it makes more sense than civilized humanoids just waiting there to be killed.
That, and I have honestly no idea why are people talking about moral ambiguity. It's not the matter of moral ambiguity or lack of it, it's about semi-realistic world design. You can have black-and-white happy hack and slash story with Generic Green Race being race equal to elves or humans instead of cannon fodder. Or just without any orc or goblin-like race.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:21 PM
When Tolkein set them up as a kind of flawless, angelic 'Master Race' that all the others should look up to in awe and wonder, i guess, really.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 03:25 PM
True dat. In fact, when I think about it now, magical beasts with Int of 12 attacking adventurers on sight doesn't make much sense either. They aren't demons, animals or undead after all.

I think their alignment determines a lot of that. In the case of a Manticore, humans are food and a lot of them just absolutely despise human beings on principle being they're weak creatures that pose a threat in vast numbers. So when you see a Manticore and it attacks a village randomly, you don't ask yourself "Why did it slaughter everyone? Was it threatened?"

You say "The guy gets off on murder and the sport of the kill."

Oddly, I think H.P. Lovecraft and Sevitor races help out the matter as well. Orc mindsets aren't EVIL in the same way that Lovecraft's Deep One's aren't. They're just alien in a way that is utterly hostile to human kind. They have no morality identifiable to us and will destroy us as a matter of evolution.


When Tolkein set them up as a kind of flawless, angelic 'Master Race' that all the others should look up to in awe and wonder, i guess, really.

So....jealousy? I mean that's part of the idea. They're good people and they live up to what they claim they are. Is it just easier to make them hypocrites than people who are actually wise and noble?

Of course, I've used a lot of elfpocracy in my games as well. So I'm not one to talk.

Indon
2007-10-09, 03:27 PM
So, gnomes wouldn't fight the Illithids? Seek them out if they thought they could destroy them? They aren't really neutral in this scenario, to be fair.

More importantly, killing for food isn't Evil either.. :)

Sure, gnomes would start fighting the Illithids after the Illithids started eating them.

And killing an innocent being is an evil act. See how long an Illithid Paladin lasts while he's munching on nonevil gnome brains (That would be one meal).

Morty
2007-10-09, 03:30 PM
I think their alignment determines a lot of that. In the case of a Manticore, humans are food and a lot of them just absolutely despise human beings on principle being they're weak creatures that pose a threat in vast numbers. So when you see a Manticore and it attacks a village randomly, you don't ask yourself "Why did it slaughter everyone? Was it threatened?"

You say "The guy gets off on murder and the sport of the kill."


Thing is, Manticores have Int score of 7. So they're still intelligent, even if quite thick. They aren't mindless animals acting on instinct. And they're only usually lawful evil. Which is kind of strange to me- why did they portray it as typical man-eating monster while giving it intellect and free will?


Oddly, I think H.P. Lovecraft and Sevitor races help out the matter as well. Orc mindsets aren't EVIL in the same way that Lovecraft's Deep One's aren't. They're just alien in a way that is utterly hostile to human kind. They have no morality identifiable to us and will destroy us as a matter of evolution.

They can. But mind you, some of us prefer gameworlds that at least try to be belivable and leave being utterly hostile and immoral to demons and the like. In fact, in my setting demons aren't really "evil", but that's another story.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:42 PM
No, it's not really anything to do with Jealousy. The impossible and quite arrogant idealism of the concept of Tolkein's elves is just kind of...creepy? Really, just a little.

Thing is, when you look at his elves without looking through his eyes, without accepting that they are, infact, perfect, there are a lot of standard elf things that just kind of feel...off, somehow. And if you translate Tolkein's opinion of his elves onto the elves themselves... you really do end up with Das Elf quite easily.

Also; Illithids, who have no more prior knowledge of the Gnomes than vica versa, stalk them as any predator stalks it's prey species. They eat some gnome brains. Is that, in and of itself, truly evil? Is the Wolf evil, because he eats the rabbit?

*shrug*

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 03:46 PM
They can. But mind you, some of us prefer gameworlds that at least try to be belivable and leave being utterly hostile and immoral to demons and the like. In fact, in my setting demons aren't really "evil", but that's another story.

Actually, to be honest, I didn't want to bring it up but your use of "believable" is pretty silly to me. In any setting that doesn't explicitely establish Orcs as seperate from the worship of Gruumsh and other evil gods, I walk when they try and make them normal. Seriously, to me its a sign the DM can't make a fantasy setting that works. I do not believe in Good Orcs or even largely neutral ones. I can believe in magic, dragons, and Warforged but the above is kinda stupid.

Like Vegetarian Vampires or Happy Hippie Werewolves (I don't believe in Children of Gaia either from W:TA). It's against the very concept of what they are. By "believability" you have asked me to enter into a fantasy setting and that requires you to abide by the rules. It's unbelievable for Orcs to be good in the same way that Vampires are unbelievable to be good.

You could rename Orcs, Gammoreans, and they'd be otherwise identical in everyway but the name "Orc" implies something. It implies that it crawled out of it's black amino fluid with its umbillical chord in hand and fangs developing for the express purpose of murder in this world. Raise an orc to be good and noble and it will sense you SMELL DIFFERENT. You are *WRONG* and in your heart, you know your purpose on the Earth is to end the lives of humans.

We have lunatics on the real world, why is it harder to believe orcs are a race of genetically engineered ones by their gods?

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 03:54 PM
Personally I'd say simply because that's got nothing to do with DnD orcs, really. Tolkein's orcs, perhaps, but not so much with DnD's, that I can remember. Give or take some of Gruumsh's fluff.

Morty
2007-10-09, 03:55 PM
Actually, to be honest, I didn't want to bring it up but your use of "believable" is pretty silly to me. In any setting that doesn't explicitely establish Orcs as seperate from the worship of Gruumsh and other evil gods, I walk when they try and make them normal. Seriously, to me its a sign the DM can't make a fantasy setting that works. I do not believe in Good Orcs or even largely neutral ones. I can believe in magic, dragons, and Warforged but the above is kinda stupid.

:smallconfused: How are orcs even remotely different from, say, dwarves in that matter? They're fantasy race, they're what author wants them to be. And I don't really know why you keep using Grummsh as an example. Grummsh is D&D god, and I was talking about fantasy settings in general, not D&D.


Like Vegetarian Vampires or Happy Hippie Werewolves (I don't believe in Children of Gaia either from W:TA). It's against the very concept of what they are. By "believability" you have asked me to enter into a fantasy setting and that requires you to abide by the rules. It's unbelievable for Orcs to be good in the same way that Vampires are unbelievable to be good.

Umm... no, it's not? Orcs are fantasy race, they're what you make them. And good vampires are perfectly belivable. I've encountered them in some books, in fact.


You could rename Orcs, Gammoreans, and they'd be otherwise identical in everyway but the name "Orc" implies something. It implies that it crawled out of it's black amino fluid with its umbillical chord in hand and fangs developing for the express purpose of murder in this world. Raise an orc to be good and noble and it will sense you SMELL DIFFERENT. You are *WRONG* and in your heart, you know your purpose on the Earth is to end the lives of humans.

*sigh* That's one vision of orc race in fantasy. Perfectly valid vision, but by far not the only one.


We have lunatics on the real world, why is it harder to believe orcs are a race of genetically engineered ones by their gods?

Because whole race of lunatics somehow doesn't match my vision of belivable world.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 03:59 PM
Because whole race of lunatics somehow doesn't match my vision of belivable world.

And magic and monsters do?

Like I said, you're making assumptions that would ruin my enjoyment of the game. It's why I don't like most "Elf" variants because if you turn Elves into super tall nomadic cannibals, they're not elves anymore (see Dark Sun).

Take Predators for instance, honestly, I could find much to admire about Predator culture. If you wanted to make Predator culture into the culture of Orcs in collecting skulls, hunting humans for sport (and aliens), etc then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

and....you actually are suggesting there can be good vampires?

:confused:

And I consider Orcs not a fantasy race, they're Fantasy MONSTERS.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 04:02 PM
Personally I'd say simply because that's got nothing to do with DnD orcs, really. Tolkein's orcs, perhaps, but not so much with DnD's, that I can remember. Give or take some of Gruumsh's fluff.

There hasn't been much in the way on Orcs except that they're Always Chaotic Evil, are tribal raiding society, hate elves/humans/dwarves with a burning passion, and interbreed with other goblinoids.

Morty
2007-10-09, 04:05 PM
And magic and monsters do?

Yes.


Like I said, you're making assumptions that would ruin my enjoyment of the game. It's why I don't like most "Elf" variants because if you turn Elves into super tall nomadic cannibals, they're not elves anymore (see Dark Sun).

Well, no offense, but it looks like you have preety narrow view of races in fantasy. For me, elves is what you call elves. And I don't see how the fact that I have much different view of how orcs can look like is ruining your enjoyment of the game.


Take Predators for instance, honestly, I could find much to admire about Predator culture. If you wanted to make Predator culture into the culture of Orcs in collecting skulls, hunting humans for sport (and aliens), etc then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As the pont of fact, I portray orcish culture as honor-bound and focused on hunting and fighting. But they don't go on attacking everything they see.


and....you actually are suggesting there can be good vampires?

:smallconfused: :confused:

Sure there can. I've seen one in one fantasy series, actually. Of course, that hugely depends on how you portray vampires.


There hasn't been much in the way on Orcs except that they're Always Chaotic Evil, are tribal raiding society, hate elves/humans/dwarves with a burning passion, and interbreed with other goblinoids.

Errr... orcs aren't Always CE. They're Often chaotic evil.

Belteshazzar
2007-10-09, 04:23 PM
Tolkien Elves were indeed the definition of ubermeinsch (and nazis are the reason the German spelling of superman is EVIL), but why does that bother you? Elves believed themselves more capable than humans because it was the truth. They would be hypocritical to believe otherwise.

Elves simply rocked hard no matter if it was for good or evil (and yes elves did some of the most disturbing things in the Simerillion.) They were designed to be so far beyond mortal kin as to have, in game terms, an intrinsic level adjustment. But then this idea of being 'inferior' does not bother me at all.

The idea of corruption and power is a theme from Tolkien that defined the orcs. The idea that they had grand potential as as both elves and orcs. The orcs trade their longevity for numbers, accuracy for magnitude, perception for passion. They went from being lasting candles to momentary fireworks of fury. It is for this reason that I cause goblinization to occur spontaneously among those exposed to tainted powers. Sure you gain power, but you must loose something in return. And sometimes the loss is more internal than disfigurement or sun weakness.

Indon
2007-10-09, 04:38 PM
Also; Illithids, who have no more prior knowledge of the Gnomes than vica versa, stalk them as any predator stalks it's prey species. They eat some gnome brains. Is that, in and of itself, truly evil? Is the Wolf evil, because he eats the rabbit?


I do believe Illithids exclusively devour sentient brains. If an Illithid wants to eat it, it's by definition capable of being innocent and thus an evil act to kill.

Tiki Snakes
2007-10-09, 04:50 PM
I do believe Illithids exclusively devour sentient brains. If an Illithid wants to eat it, it's by definition capable of being innocent and thus an evil act to kill.

Well, if it's evil to kill sentient creatures, then it's evil to kill Orcs. That argument doesn't hold water, really, on it's own.

Besides, the idea that Animals aren't capable of Sentience really annoys me, to be honest, in the real world and otherwise. (I mean, come on. Chimps are capable of learning and using sign language!)

Indon
2007-10-09, 04:59 PM
Well, if it's evil to kill sentient creatures, then it's evil to kill Orcs. That argument doesn't hold water, really, on it's own.

Besides, the idea that Animals aren't capable of Sentience really annoys me, to be honest, in the real world and otherwise. (I mean, come on. Chimps are capable of learning and using sign language!)

Not sentient. Innocent. A sentient creature can be innocent; for instance, killing orc babies is probably not a good act.

And teaching a chimp sign language is the modern-day equivalent of casting Awaken. :smallwink:

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 05:03 PM
Well, no offense, but it looks like you have preety narrow view of races in fantasy. For me, elves is what you call elves. And I don't see how the fact that I have much different view of how orcs can look like is ruining your enjoyment of the game.

For me, I guess it's a point of what an Orc is.

But dealing with the issues in game is an interesting one. Let's say I wanted to adapt my current game to the idea that Orcs aren't intristically evil (and be a less realistic setting because of it---in my opinion this is the case). We throw out the idea and history of the setting for the past 30,000 years in my Forgotten Realms of Orcs being THE ENEMY.

How does the setting adapt and gaming as a result?

1-] Do I still maintain tensions as high as they used to be?

2-] Are Orcs, Humans, Elves, etc still prejudiced?

3-] What should Orc culture really be like?

4-] What race/culture/whatever replaces Orcs as the "scare the **** out of the players people?" The horde that will destroy your way of life?

Or is the very assumption you need something utterly beyond the pale evil something that cannot be done with a morally ambigious Orc setting?

5-] Should the Orc gods remain Evil?

Morty
2007-10-09, 05:06 PM
For me, I guess it's a point of what an Orc is.

But dealing with the issues in game is an interesting one. Let's say I wanted to adapt my current game to the idea that Orcs aren't intristically evil (and be a less realistic setting because of it---in my opinion this is the case). We throw out the idea and history of the setting for the past 30,000 years in my Forgotten Realms of Orcs being THE ENEMY.

How does the setting adapt and gaming as a result?


You seem to assume that the only way to have non-evil orcs is to make them non-evil in existing setting, instead of, you know, making them non-evil in entirely new one. Which is funny, since I don't recall anyone talking about redesigning old settings to have non-evil orcs.


1-] Do I still maintain tensions as high as they used to be?

Nothing stops orcs from disliking elves and vice versa.


2-] Are Orcs, Humans, Elves, etc still prejudiced?

Sure. They don't like eache other. Races not liking each other have nothing to do with their evilness or goodness.


3-] What should Orc culture really be like?

Whatever you like.


4-] What race/culture/whatever replaces Orcs as the "scare the **** out of the players people?" The horde that will destroy your way of life?

I fail to see why there needs to be a culture dedicated to be "scary".


5-] Should the Orc gods remain Evil?

Every race should have good, neutral and evil gods.
Of course, the above apply only to making a new setting. Applying this to FR would cause a mess, but, y'know, noone was suggesting that.

Arakune
2007-10-09, 05:09 PM
Just a little bit on the diplomacy cheese: it was difficult enough for WotC to make it a opposed sense motive/wis check that can be used only outside of a combat? I mean:

Fighter: We are being attacked!
Half-Elf Diplomatic Cheese Guy/Girl/Thing: I will persuade then :smallbiggrin: ! Fellow 'people', please let's talk th... :smalleek: -stabbed by enemy.
After the fight, some of the enemies that surrendered are being interrogated:
Fighter: Why you didn't listened to he H.E.D.C.G/G/T, your allies could have survived and we could avoid all this mess :smallannoyed: !?
Enemy: Ahm... because I didn't want to :smallconfused: ? Or you stop attacking every time someone ask you to stop, even if it's YOU that want to attack him, not the contrary?
Fighter: Ahm... Erm... Ok, you got me this time :smallannoyed: .

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-09, 05:21 PM
Wow. I recently saw the play Good by C.P. Taylor. This reminds me of it.

It's a play about Nazis.

What are you trying to say?

Prophaniti
2007-10-09, 05:25 PM
Most of this is pretty funky, except I have a friend who is a Norse Pagan who might take issue with his religion being portrayed in that manner.


Note, I'm using Viking as shorthand for "Raiding" rather than "Farmers" and "Traders" who do Rain rites to Thor and burning boats of their chieftains.

Charles has a perfectly valid point. It should be noted that anyone who is serious about norse paganism knows that the term Viking isn't truly related to Nordic religion. The word viking itself is directly taken from norse and means 'raiders' or 'sea-pirates' and did not apply to the vast majority of the people. Indeed most of their cities were fortified against attacks by these same 'vikings'. Its just one of those historical mix-ups that has an entire people with a very rich and facsinating culture remembered for the actions of a few. Norse DOES NOT equal Viking.

Sorry, I know that's kinda back there in the thread... just a favorite subject of mine.

EDIT: And, as far as the actual subject matter of this thread goes... Are orcs, goblins etc innately evil? No. No more than Hitler was innately evil, or any of the other mass-murdering psychos in our sordid history. Many of thier actions were evil and they can be viewed as evil people, but this is by no means innate. It is a product of choice, learning, culture and many other factors. At least, this is the case in most of the settings I read/play in. Sometimes they are natural paragons of evilness, but that is entirely up to the maker.

The 'scare the ***t out of people horde threatening everyones way of life' is by no means neccesary in a setting. Therefore, if you wish to use orcs as a more dynamic culture there is no 'need' to replace them. Another thing to note is that orcs, while they may or may not be evil in a given setting, they are different. Psychologically, physically, culturally, they are nothing like other races.

Orcs do not (normally) suffer moral dilemas when faced with the prospect of raiding a village, or going to war. They have a mindset and a way of approaching things that is altogether different from ours. The same is true of all sentient races in most settings. That's why they're different RACES instead of sub-creeds of humans. (though redcloak does make a good point. they should be referred to as 'species' instead of 'races' but hey, you cant make sense all the time. that would be boring:smallwink:)

Anyway, I think that they simply have a culture that values different things than most human/elven/etc ones do, and thus they come into conflict frequently. No sentient race from the Material Plane should be innately anything. That's the whole point of being a sentient race, the ability to make choices. If you remove the responsibility from a choice, you remove all value from it and both the choice and the person/being/orc who made it become irrelevant.

And thats my 2cp (more like 5, sorry...) worth.

Murderous Hobo
2007-10-09, 05:33 PM
If your going to pull the culture/survival card, then Mind Flayers, who need brains to survive, are Lawful Neutral. And I don't quite think many people are willing to go down that road. :smallwink:


Most people don't have a problem with killing cows and pigs for meat even though they don't have too and only very few people consider it evil.

A Mindflayers actually has need for brains, making it even less evil.

The problem here however is that the good-evil axis seems to be centered on humans, on our experience. Killing humans for food is evil, killing animals for food isn't.
This is ofcourse a necessity due to the game being played by humans but it's also the flaw of the alignment system being based on morality and morality depends on your cultural out-look.

As such it's an imperfect system used by imperfect people, which is really all that can be said about it.

---

Edit: I wrote all that before reading about Hydra farming Flayers. :smalleek:

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 05:47 PM
Every race should have good, neutral and evil gods.
Of course, the above apply only to making a new setting. Applying this to FR would cause a mess, but, y'know, noone was suggesting that.

Aside from me, my questions were related to the possibility of changing my realms with non-evil orcs.

You see....I play in the Forgotten Realms and have no interest in migrating. But as the DM, I could change it.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-10-09, 05:56 PM
... In standard Forgotten Realms, I believe that orcs are not, in fact, innately evil. In fact, there are a few places (names ellude me) where non-evil orc populations live alongside humans. The North and its Orc Horde threat is just the more well-known and stereotypical example of them, which is, in fact, mostly evil.

Granted, your realms may differ due to being played in for a while and your own perspective and handling as a DM.

Fiery Justice
2007-10-09, 07:09 PM
As an example in real life, there are people who develop to be monstrous killers. They have some pretty standard traits: Low empathy, high aggression. These are in born and can't be done away with, but they don't make you evil in and of themselves (I know a really Good, and I mean that as a moral absolute, high aggression low empathy girl for instance, she tries to act good. But you'd be hard pressed to call her nice.). Then they have standard environment: Parental neglect/abuse, lack of friendship in youth. Fairly quickly, they grow up to be mad butchers, of course some people are born seriously, deeply, wrong (sociopaths), but most serial killers are massively screwed up. Of course, nothing in this set makes it inevitable, but probability does work.

Now suppose there were a society where serial killers won out (murder your way to the top is standard). Now they raise just as twisted and screwed up kids, and they raise twisted and screwed up kids and so on. If at some point someone is abnormal (high empathy or low aggression, or both), their stomped on as weak and spend their whole lives with no status or mates. If, somehow, some alien race were to come in and wipe out everything but the wee ones, then they might grow up and produce a productive society where children are raised to treat each other justly because the heavens/the society/the parents demand it of them. But that would require mass mind control and/or

Basically, I believe evil people are evil, but that given a better environment they might have grown up to be better people. They might not too, free will being what it is.

Gilead
2007-10-09, 07:28 PM
Guys, Illithids are not evil just because they eat brains, they're evil because they're malevolent lovecraft style beings with totally alien thought processes that care nothing for morality and wantonly enslave, torture and steal people's bodies to reproduce.

Woland
2007-10-09, 07:30 PM
I usually go with this general rule -

If it's sentient, it can't be treated in black-and-white terms.

That goes for demons and devils too.

I'll stick culture around the whole alignment thing, and possibly attribute certain base mannerisms of a race to what basic survival instincts evolved with them.

In my opinion, it's just stupid to make something sentient "pure evil." Mindless things, there's no moral issue in hacking them to bits, they're just dangerous, and can be given the big ol' "this is a horrible, destructive creature, have fun wiping them out" tag. But aside from that, I really don't like to use the alignment system much.

Cosmically defined good and evil, yuck.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 08:01 PM
I usually go with this general rule -

If it's sentient, it can't be treated in black-and-white terms.

That goes for demons and devils too.

I'll stick culture around the whole alignment thing, and possibly attribute certain base mannerisms of a race to what basic survival instincts evolved with them.

That depends on your definition of sentient. Are A.I. Sentient if they can process data, interact with people, and so on but absolutely cannot violate their strictures of programming? Rob the Demon is programmed with "kill humans" and "enjoy it." Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a fun depiction of the process with Demons being naturally drawn to evil while humans were ostenibly drawn to goodness. The difference was, of course, both could defy it if they chose to.

Plus, there's the issue of instincts. The whole point of Vampires and Werewolves is they're human beings but they get off on killing. Vampires have a Hunger for blood and people are food to them. This is something they need and it's something that's physically painful for them not to indulge. Werewolves are the same way except people are food to them as a whole and they have urges to mate that are irregardless of a person's desire to mate back with them. Are they still sentient? Being, essentially, on a permanent influence of drugs.


In my opinion, it's just stupid to make something sentient "pure evil." Mindless things, there's no moral issue in hacking them to bits, they're just dangerous, and can be given the big ol' "this is a horrible, destructive creature, have fun wiping them out" tag. But aside from that, I really don't like to use the alignment system much.

Cosmically defined good and evil, yuck.

I always use this as my rebuttal. "So, you're flat out saying that everyone who believes in absolute good and evil is wrong and their value system is wrong. Congradulations, you understand how Neutral Good and Neutral work. Others aren't so simple."

Belteshazzar
2007-10-09, 08:31 PM
It amuses me that in a world of spirits, fey, goblins, undead, deamons and deities some find the most imposable thing could be that we are not just products of our environment?

That is the entire purpose of Adventuring. Perhaps some of us prefer to live in a world where men were men, women were women and evil was evil. Perhaps we have an innate desire for such a black and white universe, but all reality offers are the smog and dust of postmodern relativism. Perhaps redemption and salvation from evil is possible but until that time such evil must be guarded against and destroyed if unredeemable. As much as I would like to suggest to the Cthuluan monstrosity that we simply go out for Pizza, sometimes we all can't live happily ever after.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-09, 08:46 PM
I'm rather surprised that the undead have been mentioned only once or twice, and even then, only in passing. The rules offer only the rarest opportunities for neutral undead, and none for good ones, and that doesn't make sense to me. What is it about undeath that makes you evil? Is it the link to the negative energy plane? No, that doesn't make sense; the negative energy plane isn't eveil, just harmful to life; streptococci are harmful, but could hardly be called evil; the same can be said for electricity, or fire, or big pointy rocks. Suffice to say, that as a DM, my worlds always include TRULY sentient undead; ones capable of making choices as to their alignment. A good or neutral lich is just a spellcaster who didn't like the inconvenience of dying; a ghoul is just rather dusty person with a taste for meat; zombies are automotons that till fields, milk cows, and perform other unpleasant-but-unavoidable tasks. Admittedly, things like mummies created through specific rituals not requiring the corpse's consent can change alignment, but that's not to say either that a man can't decide his future includes mummy-hood. In fact, several of my characters have lich-hood or necropolitan aspirations.

Towards the 'what's up with intelligent random encounters? And airline food?' discussion, well, that's what we call thinking on our feet. In my campaign Rienserieux, I created custom random encounter tables, including humans, humanoids, and magical beasts. One of them (the first [and so far only] one I rolled) was '1 human cleric and 1d4 ghouls'; why, in a world where ghouls aren't evil and humans can be whatever they want, would my party be attacked? Because they can; however, I still need a reason to tell my players. So, on the fly, I made him a cleric of Nerull; any-one with a few ranks in knowledge(religion) knows that murder is a sacrament to Nerull, so it's not unreasonable to find him and his enthralled ghouls where they were: a few miles out from town(so he could waylay any stray small groups without being noticed by the constabulary, but was still close enough to get goods and services there should he need to), lurking in the hopes of surprising travelers; maybe he's on a mission from his church, maybe he's particularly pious. My point is, it's not hard to on-the-fly quickie back-stories, for monsters as well as people; maybe the monster's young were killed by a hunting party, and it's on its way to seek revenge; maybe it's been driven mad by hunger; maybe it's just in a particularly foul mood. This kind of stuff is child's play and adds a lot to the depth and realism of a campaign. Then again, maybe it's just me; I'm one of those DMs that, instead of saying 'you hit the ghoul. It takes four damage.' says 'your knife strikes true, plunging deep into the monster's flesh. You swiftly drag the blade across its stomach before withdrawing it.'. And I do that for EVERY roll. I feel it stops the game becoming too mechanical.

The diplomacy cheese argument... The people arguing the 'grossness/brokenness/unbalancedness/whatever' of diplomacy CLEARLY did not read the rules. Ahem: 'Action: Changing others' attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least one minute[my bold] (10 consecutive full round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase[MB]. A rushed Diplomacy check (such as one made to head off a fight between two angry warriors) may be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty[MB] on the check." Aditionally, even if the check succeeds, let's say by a 20th-level bard with an 18 charisma and 24 ranks in diplomacy (24+5+d20-10), the best it could be expected to do was make ONE OR TWO ORCS 'indifferent' to you. The rest of the orcs would kill you, eat you, and pick their teeth with your bones; with you dead, the orc or two you influenced would enjoy a nice ragoût de diplomate avec le bouillon d'aventurier with their chums, and probably laugh at the puny human with his talky words.

Alex12
2007-10-09, 08:51 PM
Guys, Illithids are not evil just because they eat brains, they're evil because they're malevolent lovecraft style beings with totally alien thought processes that care nothing for morality and wantonly enslave, torture and steal people's bodies to reproduce.
I would argue that that's actually more because of the culture they live in. What about the ones that choose to flee? That choose to reject that? They need bodies to reproduce, but that's biology, not morality. And why do they have to enslave and torture people? I'm actually curious as to your reasoning behind this.

As for your "totally alien thought processes" idea-they're smarter than us. Fine. But just the ability to comprehend someone else's language implies that there are parallels with their thought processes. Can you give an example of these "totally alien thought processes?"

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I just go with the whole idea that Negative Material Energy screws with your soul.

It's a funny joke that people who use it feel the need to drain lifeforce out of others.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-09, 09:32 PM
Yes, but that's because your fantasy ideas and perceptions are dangerously calcified:smallwink:.

As to your second comment, that's just ignorant. Not that many undead creatures (especially those that I mentioned) have an 'inescapable craving' or 'dependant diet'(a la Libris Mortis) that couldn't be satisfied within polite society. Yes, allips are evil. Shadows are evil. Ghosts? Base creature alignment. Liches? Why can't they be good? Vampires? You just don't keep up with pop culture enough. Read Pratchett, blast you. Ghouls? One word: beef. As for abberations? Hydra-farming.:smalltongue:

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 09:45 PM
Yes, but that's because your fantasy ideas and perceptions are dangerously calcified:smallwink:.

I prefer to treat fantasy seriously, actually. It's weird but I can mock heroes all that I want, my PCs often come out like the cast of the fantasy anime Slayers but I do my best to make sure that there's nothing particularly funny or silly about the monsters or bad guys.

Here's a quick view from a traditionalist.

Liches: You cannot feel lust, fear, happy, or sad. They are intellectual abstractions to you. A Lich can only feel emotion in the context of intellectualization. This is in addition to permanently sentencing themselves to total sensory deprivation in terms of smell, taste, and touch. A man who takes the road of the undead does so fully aware that he gives up everything for power and the ability to indulge only in intellectual abstractions. All human connections are completely dead since pheremones and instinct to protect others are gone. There, is, however the single pleasure left when you drain the life out of the living and...for a very brief moment...you feel alive again.

Vampires: I love vampires but it loses all poignance if your hero doesn't have to fight his nature at every extent. Vampires live a damned and horrible existence that only becomes enjoyable if you are willing to abandon your morality. Let's face it, what do you do when you see an attractive girl and your first thought is how wonderful it would be to rip her open and eat her?

Ghouls: I always view them more from the perspective of cannibalistic animals. They want food and the only food that feeds them is life force. Meat is immaterial to them, they want to feast on some part of the essence of what was a human being at some point. It's why Zombies in the evil dead films ignore dogs and animals.

Ghosts: It's actually still 80-90% evil for ghosts. Basically, you need to be tremendously ****ed off to literally want to CRAWL OUT OF THE GRAVE to deal with what is keeping you from sleeping at peace. Love for your family won't do it, you need something so utterly outrageous that it goes beyond all rationality and purpose. It's not a healthy person whose a ghost to begin with. Ironically, I think most good ghosts are probably short-lived with only a rare few living "eternal quests."

But, I'm ironic in this, as I don't actually use Demons and Angels as embodiments of Good/Evil. Is a Balor a creature of flame, hell, and damnation that has probably existed on the flesh of the living in the worst environment imaginable for 10,000 years? Yes. Was he probably a bad person? Yes. However, there's nothing that keeps a demon newly formed from a Mane or Larvae from rebelling against its darker nature in my games. Thus Angels fall pretty regularly and you have Fiends on the run from Hell or living as bright versions of themselves.

Fhaolan
2007-10-09, 09:59 PM
Wait... so you have good demons and evil angels running around... but good and neutral orcs would destroy your campaign setting?

Wow.

We obviously have completely different ideas as to what composes 'reasonable' and 'believable'. Ah well. It was an interesting conversation up until that point.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-09, 10:07 PM
1: There was a wink after the word calcified for a reason; it was a mild jest.

2: Good/Neutrality are no more inherantly 'funny' than Evil

3: Your views=/=my views or the views of the rule-books; liches HAVE no life-draining abilities; Ghouls are carnivores, not biovores or soulovores; ghosts actually tend to lean(rule-wise) more towards the 'righteous fury/life-long obsession' than the 'yeargh, I evil, I beat death'; vampires? well, vampires have so many different 'traditions' through-out the world(seriously, look into non-contemporary-non-Western mythology. Wierd stuff.), games, movies, and books that this one's up to taste. Plus, I don't really like hematophages on the whole.

4: Ahaha! As DM, I can make it so all the living are evil and only undeath brings virtue! Doesn't that just eat you up? Ahem... I mean, it all comes down to DMing style.

I guess what I'm saying is, i wouldn't call you a traditionalist, just a rigid adherent to 'stereo-typical' monsters; there's nothing wrong with that, I just wouldn't want you to be my DM. Additionally, calcified just meant 'unbending', not 'too serious'.

Oh, and while I was trying not to be antagonistic... But Fhaolan's kind voicing what was going through my head.

fendrin
2007-10-09, 10:38 PM
What are you trying to say?

I said exactly what I meant; your post reminded me of a play.

The association is likely because your explanation for Orcs being evil is similar to the thought processes that led the Nazis to the Holocaust.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 10:59 PM
I said exactly what I meant; your post reminded me of a play.

The association is likely because your explanation for Orcs being evil is similar to the thought processes that led the Nazis to the Holocaust.

*strawman argument* Funny, cause Orcs are believers in genocide and racial purity. So you sound like you're defending Nazis.

:smallyuk:

Seriously, anyone who remotely thinks there's an equivalency for a fictional race is being really silly. Also, it's kinda blindingly racist and bigoted to compare a race of pure evil, ugliness, and horror to a real life people.

That's clearly not what you're going for but it's why I'm annoyed with player characters who bring up the argument that racism against orcs is similiar to racism against blacks.

My response says "Isn't that really insulting to blacks to compare them to the vile creatures in creation?"

They then get really uncomfortable and with good reason. Equivlency is meaningless in fantasy. Ann Rand's Objectivism is right in Atlas Shrugged because SHE WROTE THE FRICKIN STORY.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 11:04 PM
We obviously have completely different ideas as to what composes 'reasonable' and 'believable'. Ah well. It was an interesting conversation up until that point.

I don't like "Planar Constructs" Angels and Devils are of Petitioner transformation in my campaign. They're made from the souls of living beings so they have the same free will as a living beings. At some point, Joe Balor might have been Hitler or he might have been a guy who was really annoying at a Grocery store.

Orcs are living creatures, not spiritual beings. Thus they're affected by genetics.

Thus 99.99999999999999% of all Angels and Devils are their respective alignments. However, you might have Morrigan the Succubus from Darkstalkers.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-09, 11:34 PM
It's kind of tempting to run a game with good orcs, then follow that one up where they're evil again.


I tend not to like running games where people are simple. I suppose one could make an argument that if it's a "monster" it's not a "person". I kind of like using monsters to represent aspects of humanity. Which is pretty often exactly what they were supposed to be (I believe Dracula was ment as a metaphor for the aristocracy "feeding off of" the peasants).

To call something evil all too often an excuse not to think. Which no one really is denying. And in a game it's generally pretty harmless, but it happens a lot in the real world too. People not wanting to have to think.

The Mayans practiced human sacrifice, and Rome gathered in large crowds to watch people kill each other. Yet society (in general) doesn't view them as evil.


One of the things about the Orc stereotypes is that it's pretty boring. You hardly feel like you've accomplished anything after you've killed some of those. But if the thing is holding this giant black axe covered in red runes, the guy is covered in tattoos, and the guy says he's going to offer your blood to the god of thunder for his favor before screaming with laughter? That's something at least you'll remember a few minutes later. (Not that original, but it's better than "Gwa ha ha. Me is smoosh youse puny hummies")

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-09, 11:34 PM
I said exactly what I meant; your post reminded me of a play.

The association is likely because your explanation for Orcs being evil is similar to the thought processes that led the Nazis to the Holocaust.

Actually Tolkien was compairing his orcs to WWI Germans and by extension WWII Germans.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 12:01 AM
Yeah, "Boring Orcs" are always a bit of a problem for me. I've tried and create a great variety of them.

+ "The Garden of Peace" Orcs. A Well provides a large group of LG Orcs with peace and tranquility. It's actually a Fountain of Imposed Alignment. They actually attempt to kidnap Orcs and subdue them to "show them the way." The Player characters have the choice of either destroying the Fountain and allowing the Orcs to revert to their natural alignments or allow them to carry on the deranged practice.

+ "The Swarthy Hog Inn" I mentioned the idea that a bunch of Orcs build an inn over their caverns and breed with regular folk to man it. I even dropped hints by having a Pig Farm behind it and everyone slightly "off" with piggish features.

+ "The Orc Factor" An Evil Wizard (sometimes that seems like all that exists) wants to figure out the nature of the Orchish soul. Ergo, he's started switching around them with his Apparatus like machine. He believes this will allow him to create Orcs with the intelligence of human beings plus the ability to think innovatively or Humans with the Brutal Savagery of Orcs.

One terrible thing is they keep their bodies memories so Longstrider their Companion who wants to help his people has the Soul of a LG Cleric whom is a psychotic killing machine now (but has a family back home)

+ "Jubilee" A human Kingdom is celebrating its 100 year anniversary over the Orcs by slaughtering the surrounding villages around them, killing them, and torturing them. They've adopted Orc sign and teach Orchish studies to their military leaders (i.e. "use fear tactics" and "don't worry about casualties if you win"). The Orcs imprisoned are genuinely evil and want to slaughter the entire city when they wake up for their horrible tortures. But can such a sick society be allowed to continue?

+ "The New Orc" A Cleric whom hates the Orcs live in horror and poverty has been experimenting with his God's Blessings and a Wizard Companion in trying to civilize Orcs. The result are articulent, cultured, and intelligent Orcs whom he intends to unveil to the rest of the world society as an example that they can be tamed with a mixture of magic as well as good parenting. The "Veterans of The Long Fang" want to slaughter them all as an abomination for the atrocities commited against them while at least one Nurse thinks the Orcs intend to carry out the process on their fellows...and turn Orcs into a hyper-intelligent hostile race.

Who is right?

Yes, basically, I use the innate evil of Orcs as a springboard for telling stories ABOUT the nature of evil that are pretty complex but couldn't be told with a non-evil species.

Dervag
2007-10-10, 12:11 AM
Most people don't have a problem with killing cows and pigs for meat even though they don't have too and only very few people consider it evil.

A Mindflayers actually has need for brains, making it even less evil.

The problem here however is that the good-evil axis seems to be centered on humans, on our experience. Killing humans for food is evil, killing animals for food isn't.Actually, there's a large and systematic cluster of philosophies which holds that actions taken against a moral agent or an intelligent being are fundamentally different from those taken against nonintelligent beings or inanimate objects, and this cluster has some fairly solid justification going for it.

So it is not necessarily the case that the only difference there can be between killing cows and killing humans is that we're humans and not cows and that we think killing humans must necessarily be wrong. It may in fact be that this is the case.


This is ofcourse a necessity due to the game being played by humans but it's also the flaw of the alignment system being based on morality and morality depends on your cultural out-look.Is that a demonstrable truth, or a nondemonstrable claim? It's something that gets said a lot, but I've always wondered about the reasoning that underlies it.


It amuses me that in a world of spirits, fey, goblins, undead, deamons and deities some find the most imposable thing could be that we are not just products of our environment?We can imagine the merely impossible; but since we generally expect human nature to be the same in the fantasy world (so we can relate to it), we generally expect human nature to be the same. And it is not human nature to be a strict, pure product of one's environment.


I would argue that that's actually more because of the culture they live in. What about the ones that choose to flee? That choose to reject that? They need bodies to reproduce, but that's biology, not morality. And why do they have to enslave and torture people? I'm actually curious as to your reasoning behind this.They don't have to. They do anyway. That's the evil part.


As for your "totally alien thought processes" idea-they're smarter than us. Fine."alien" doesn't mean smarter; it means incommensurable.


Liches? Why can't they be good? Umm... because the process by which they are created involves a deeply and profoundly evil ritual that the lich must participate in voluntarily?


I said exactly what I meant; your post reminded me of a play.

The association is likely because your explanation for Orcs being evil is similar to the thought processes that led the Nazis to the Holocaust.In a fantasy world it is in fact quite possible that there really is a humanoid species born with an intense instinctive tendency to commit evil acts and little or no countervailing tendency to commit good acts. Humans have both tendencies, and all people on Earth are the same species, so that's not true in real life.


The Mayans practiced human sacrifice, and Rome gathered in large crowds to watch people kill each other. Yet society (in general) doesn't view them as evil.Part of the reason, I think, is that we know those people were human. We know that they must have had many or all the same benevolent impulses that occur in us. We know that even if they thought it was OK to kill people to appease the gods, or to set up swordfights in which people were killed and watch them as if they were boxing matches, they weren't "evil to the core" in the way that fictional demons or orcs would be.

Woland
2007-10-10, 12:13 AM
I don't agree with people who believe in absolute good and evil, no. I think it's more complex than that.

Doesn't mean that other people can't use it. It's just my view.

Forrester
2007-10-10, 12:14 AM
Yes, once more the Old Orc and Goblin argument is trotted out for people's perusal and discussion. There's merits to both sides with some preferring Orcs to be pretty much like the creatures from Aliens. They're less people than a living magical plague on the land and an army of monstrously programmed horrors twisted and evil.

Then, somewhat down the scale is the treatment that there are evil races only in the sense they come from evil cultures. Kobols worshiping evil gods, enslaving others, and genuinely acting like Mankind for the vast majority of its existence.

And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

What's your preferred way to handle it?

This one's easy.

www.goblindefensefund.org

Cybren
2007-10-10, 12:28 AM
Guys, Illithids are not evil just because they eat brains, they're evil because they're malevolent lovecraft style beings with totally alien thought processes that care nothing for morality and wantonly enslave, torture and steal people's bodies to reproduce.

Of course, to apply morality to Lovecrafts works and ideas is silly and misses his point, that humanity is not special or sacred, and that Cthulu and his ilk look to humans as we would an insect.


Basically, morality may or may no be subjective, but the way we interpret someones morality is. What's Zeus's alignment in Deities and Demigods? It's not evil, right? And yet, he goes around raping women, killing people out of petty vengeance, and chaining other gods to rocks so that vultures can eat their livers perpetually just because he loaned some guy some matches.

Jannex
2007-10-10, 12:30 AM
Seriously, anyone who remotely thinks there's an equivalency for a fictional race is being really silly. Also, it's kinda blindingly racist and bigoted to compare a race of pure evil, ugliness, and horror to a real life people.

That's clearly not what you're going for but it's why I'm annoyed with player characters who bring up the argument that racism against orcs is similiar to racism against blacks.

My response says "Isn't that really insulting to blacks to compare them to the vile creatures in creation?"

Only if you assume, a priori, that orcs are and must be "a race of pure evil, ugliness, and horror" and "vile creatures." Since the very topic of this thread is a discussion of whether or not people use that assumption, and its validity, I'd say that's sort of begging the question, just a touch. So, your PC in that example might consider orcs to be sapient, free-willed individuals with the capacity to exist anywhere along the spectrum of moral alignment--in whch case, the analogy would hold and would not be an insult to the real-life demographic.


They then get really uncomfortable and with good reason. Equivlency is meaningless in fantasy. Ann Rand's Objectivism is right in Atlas Shrugged because SHE WROTE THE FRICKIN STORY.

I guess that depends on the particular fantasy setting in question; all fantasy is not created equal, after all. Some people like allegory painted in broad strokes, while others enjoy a more nuanced approach. Both can be fun. D&D can easily support either, with the source-materials-as-written. What's true when you DM is not the same as what's true when I DM, and each can be just as valid and believable as the other.

And it's Ayn Rand.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 12:30 AM
Basically, morality may or may no be subjective, but the way we interpret someones morality is. What's Zeus's alignment in Deities and Demigods? It's not evil, right? And yet, he goes around raping women, killing people out of petty vengeance, and chaining other gods to rocks so that vultures can eat their livers perpetually just because he loaned some guy some matches.

It's important to remember the Greeks actually had problems with this the same way that scholars do today. It really cheesed Aristotle off that people worshiped these eccentric and bizarre characters. Most Temples to Jupiter and Greece also tended to emphasize Zeus as a giver of law and embodiment of justice.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 12:34 AM
Only if you assume, a priori, that orcs are and must be "a race of pure evil, ugliness, and horror" and "vile creatures." Since the very topic of this thread is a discussion of whether or not people use that assumption, and its validity, I'd say that's sort of begging the question, just a touch.

I'm just making a point. If I create the sentence:

"I believe every _______ should be killed without hesitation."

Substituting Jews is awful.

But we'd have a very different reaction if we substituted "Nazi" or "Rapist"

Albeit, it's still pretty damn extreme.

The equivalence of Orcs is whether they're a people or a radically different species.

Jannex
2007-10-10, 12:37 AM
The equivalence of Orcs is whether they're a people or a radically different species.

And whether these options are mutually exclusive.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 12:43 AM
Umm... because the process by which they are created involves a deeply and profoundly evil ritual that the lich must participate in voluntarily?
Says who? The MM alludes to it, but only provides concrete details for the mechnical aspects (cost, time), not the flavor ones. Does it involve eating foetuses from immaculately conceived mothers, or is it a lengthy ritual ivolving chanting, sigils, and other non-objectionable activities? The MM certainly leans towards evil, but that's becuase that lich-version is meant to be an enemy, and evil makes good enemies. There's nothing to say a little home-brewin' can make a neutral or even good lich; think about it: a good character decides that his responsibility to provide aegis to his flock/followers/family/friends shouldn't end because of the fallibility of his mortal flesh; he becomes a lich, and protects the church/nation/homestead/community forever. The same works for other undeadlings, especially mummies.

Actually, home-brewing aside, the Libris Mortis (one of my most favorite supplements EVAR) provides rules FOR good and neutral liches.

And, of course, it all comes down to the DM. Mr. Phipps would certainly house-rule out my dear little necromages, but one a bit more flexible wouldn't. I, as a rule, let undead be good or evil as much as I let human NPCs be good or evil, especially if they're human undead.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 12:46 AM
Actually, you may be surprised but I actually adjust my preferences for player's enjoyment.

* One of the players is a Half-Orc whose parents were happily married and the former was a Druid.

* A frequent guest star is the Ravenloft NG "Bardic Lich" that freaks the player characters out and The Skull Knight (LG Death Knight) whose based on the character from Berserk.

and my 2nd favorite setting after the Realms is Eberron where the rules are completely different to how I run it.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 12:47 AM
Additionally, (man, I use that adverb way too much...)

Ahh, Jannex... Rhetoric. Hearing some-one actually use argumentation terms is rather refreshing.

Phipps: It's difficult to glean that particular idiosyncracy of yours from the rather rigid and un-bending comments you initially made. Frankly, though, any-one who lets me PC undead can't be too bad. I guess I'm just a necrophile(that's necrophile, not necrophiliac. Don't be disgusting. Maybe for clarity's sake, I should just call myself a necrobiophile[dead life lover].).

Jannex
2007-10-10, 12:57 AM
Ahh, Jannex... Rhetoric. Hearing some-one actually use argumentation terms is rather refreshing.

I try. I figure I oughta get some mileage out of those classes I took. It's not like formal logic is a marketable skill... :smallwink:

Fhaolan
2007-10-10, 01:10 AM
I try. I figure I oughta get some mileage out of those classes I took. It's not like formal logic is a marketable skill... :smallwink:

And yet somehow informal (or just plain bad) logic *is*. The weirdness that is life, yes? :smallbiggrin:

Khanderas
2007-10-10, 02:11 AM
And killing an innocent being is an evil act. See how long an Illithid Paladin lasts while he's munching on nonevil gnome brains (That would be one meal).
Is it really evil to eat another being to survive ? Then humans would be evil too for hunting a deer and eat it.
Ofcourse the prey think its evil, Zebras think that Lions are bastards. But seen from a biological perspective...

Now for that illithid paladin to go on a killing spree when he really didnt have to eat, no question.

Jannex
2007-10-10, 02:27 AM
Is it really evil to eat another being to survive ? Then humans would be evil too for hunting a deer and eat it.
Ofcourse the prey think its evil, Zebras think that Lions are bastards. But seen from a biological perspective...

It really depends on how one conceptualizes "evil." I've heard some approaches that draw a distinction between the acts of moral agents (beings capable of understanding moral ideas and making decisions based on those ideas) and the acts of beings which are not moral agents. With such a distinction in place, the lion is incapable of acting in an evil manner, since it doesn't have the ability to grasp the notion of "evil." Were you to Awaken the lion, that might change. But if you accept that premise, then the lion = illithid analogy doesn't completely map.


And yet somehow informal (or just plain bad) logic *is*. The weirdness that is life, yes? :smallbiggrin:

Sad but true. :smallamused:

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 02:39 AM
As to the illithid conundrum, there's nothing in the rules stating they HAVE to eat sentient brains; they could do what many of Pratchett's vampires do: they can't produce their own hemoglobin, and thus must drink blood; the molecule's the same be it from cow or human, so they replace human blood (or b-vord for fellow Pratchettites) with that from live-stock. An illithid could well eat sheep, pig, or cow brain. It probably wouldn't be that pleasant, though, but good is never too easy. To quote the vampire Lady Margalotta (when consulted about her diet):

"And all that really replaces human blood?"
"Like lemonade replaces viskey."

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 02:45 AM
I suppose that could definitely be done. But I think they, being psionic parasites, probably need sentient brains.

But there's nothing stating you can't run LG Illithids.

Alex12
2007-10-10, 07:48 AM
As to the illithid conundrum, there's nothing in the rules stating they HAVE to eat sentient brains; they could do what many of Pratchett's vampires do: they can't produce their own hemoglobin, and thus must drink blood; the molecule's the same be it from cow or human, so they replace human blood (or b-vord for fellow Pratchettites) with that from live-stock. An illithid could well eat sheep, pig, or cow brain. It probably wouldn't be that pleasant, though, but good is never too easy. To quote the vampire Lady Margalotta (when consulted about her diet):

"And all that really replaces human blood?"
"Like lemonade replaces viskey."

Exactly! I was using hydras because they can produce heads (and thus brains) far faster and more easily than something like sheep or cattle, but they could eat those too. It doesn't taste good, it's like tofu compared to steak, but if you want to be good, it's a lot easier when you're not actively trying to kill and eat sentient beings.

In fact, that would probably be a good way to get Flayers to go adventuring-in the wilderness, if someone tries to rob you, it's perfectly within your rights to kill him and do what you want with his body and belongings, right? Most people would take the gear and leave the body there to rot. An Illithid adventurer would just have a quick snack after looting.

The idea was actually inspired by Dan's Hydra-head BBQ from OotS, Mind Flayed, and a streak of Pratchett. It all just sort of clicked together.

Ragna
2007-10-10, 08:09 AM
I'm unsure if this has been brought up, but in DnD, much unlike our real world, patron deities exist. A deity for a specific race, who intervenes semi-directly, would seem to shape it's people's attitude quite a bit won't it?

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 09:05 AM
I'm unsure if this has been brought up, but in DnD, much unlike our real world, patron deities exist. A deity for a specific race, who intervenes semi-directly, would seem to shape it's people's attitude quite a bit won't it?

Yeah, it's a difference between racial worship and human worship though. Basically, I'm arguing that the use of monsters isn't necessarilly a bad thing vs. the use of villains.

I suppose D&D actually makes an interesting commentary about human character. If there was a confirmed afterlife in this world and confirmed gods, how many people would be attracted to the Gods that offered supernatural powers and Paradise to humans that were commanded to go forth and :censored: over your fellow man?

Morty
2007-10-10, 09:14 AM
Yeah, it's a difference between racial worship and human worship though. Basically, I'm arguing that the use of monsters isn't necessarilly a bad thing vs. the use of villains.

And other people are arguing that it's perfectly possible to have villains without delegating whole races to that role. And that there's nothing illogical or wrong with orcs not being 100% murderous thugs.


I suppose D&D actually makes an interesting commentary about human character. If there was a confirmed afterlife in this world and confirmed gods, how many people would be attracted to the Gods that offered supernatural powers and Paradise to humans that were commanded to go forth and :censored: over your fellow man?

Probably none. That's one of numerous problems with objective moralty, confirmed afterlife and active gods.
On a side note, your view on undead is preety interesting, SleepingOrange. I personally lean towards making zombies and skeletons True Neutral, as they just follow the will of their masters.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 09:42 AM
And other people are arguing that it's perfectly possible to have villains without delegating whole races to that role. And that there's nothing illogical or wrong with orcs not being 100% murderous thugs.

Villains are different from monsters. Villains can be monsters but basically monsters are evil or bad because they're that way naturally. Villains usually have some motive.


Probably none.

Weird, I think huge numbers of people would be raising the standard of Bane to rape and pillage. Then again, I'm a horrible cynical person about most human beings.

Morty
2007-10-10, 09:50 AM
Villains are different from monsters. Villains can be monsters but basically monsters are evil or bad because they're that way naturally. Villains usually have some motive.

Yes. Villains usually have some motive besides "kill for fun/loot". That makes them realistic, as opposed to monsters who despite being intelligent are "naturally evil".


Weird, I think huge numbers of people would be raising the standard of Bane to rape and pillage. Then again, I'm a horrible cynical person about most human beings.

If they knew that they'll be transformed into lowly lemurs and used by Baatezu as cannon fodder for this, I doubt it.

fendrin
2007-10-10, 10:19 AM
Um, sorry for the uber-long post. I'm just that opinionated. :smallamused:


*strawman argument* Funny, cause Orcs are believers in genocide and racial purity. So you sound like you're defending Nazis.

:smallyuk:

Seriously, anyone who remotely thinks there's an equivalency for a fictional race is being really silly. Also, it's kinda blindingly racist and bigoted to compare a race of pure evil, ugliness, and horror to a real life people.

That's clearly not what you're going for but it's why I'm annoyed with player characters who bring up the argument that racism against orcs is similiar to racism against blacks.

My response says "Isn't that really insulting to blacks to compare them to the vile creatures in creation?"

They then get really uncomfortable and with good reason. Equivlency is meaningless in fantasy.
Well, yes, equivalence is of limited meaning, in fantasy or reality.
However, it is of SOME meaning. I think that a major problem with this thread is that you presented the question as not being restricted to a particular setting or interpretation (in fact, asking for ours), but have since then primarily argued from the perspective of your own interpretation, from which many people on the thread inferred that you were stating that orcs are irredeemably evil. In my games, orcs aren't (always) believers in genocide or racial purity. In yours, they are. Both are valid interpretations, but when stating a fact about a particular interpretation, it is very important to state what interpretation you are referring to, otherwise your statements will be inferred as applying to all interpretations.
Basically what Jannex said (and so much more eloquently than me).


It's kind of tempting to run a game with good orcs, then follow that one up where they're evil again.
I like to mix it up in one game. It keeps the players on their toes (different orc cultures, no difference in biology).


Actually Tolkien was compairing his orcs to WWI Germans and by extension WWII Germans.
While that is the 'accepted allegoric interpretation', Tolkein stated numerous times that LOTR was non-allegorical.


Yes, basically, I use the innate evil of Orcs as a springboard for telling stories ABOUT the nature of evil that are pretty complex but couldn't be told with a non-evil species.
None of those are any different if the Orcs are inherently evil or just societally evil. Really, when dealing with a single orc culture, there is no effective difference between a biological tendency towards evil and a societal tendency towards evil.


Actually, there's a large and systematic cluster of philosophies which holds that actions taken against a moral agent or an intelligent being are fundamentally different from those taken against nonintelligent beings or inanimate objects, and this cluster has some fairly solid justification going for it.
There is also some fairly solid justification going for a non-moral outlook, or for only applying morality within one's own family/tribe. The great wonder and great frustration of philosophy is that there are no conclusive answers.


Basically, morality may or may no be subjective, but the way we interpret someones morality is. What's Zeus's alignment in Deities and Demigods? It's not evil, right? And yet, he goes around raping women, killing people out of petty vengeance, and chaining other gods to rocks so that vultures can eat their livers perpetually just because he loaned some guy some matches.

It's important to remember the Greeks actually had problems with this the same way that scholars do today. It really cheesed Aristotle off that people worshiped these eccentric and bizarre characters. Most Temples to Jupiter and Greece also tended to emphasize Zeus as a giver of law and embodiment of justice.
Ah, ancient Greek religion. I'm taking a class on it right now (I love being able to take classes for credit for free... best job perq ever!)

Something to remember is that Aristotle and other such commentators (Plato, etc.) were writing from a later time period from the authors of the various myths we have available to us. In fact, contemporary research indicates that even the Archaic Greeks viewed the myths as largely allegorical/symbolic. In fact, the ancient poets & playwrights would re-write myths to emphasize certain themes. Thats why there are so many variations of the myths even when just looking at primary sources.


I'm just making a point. If I create the sentence:

"I believe every _______ should be killed without hesitation."

Substituting Jews is awful.

But we'd have a very different reaction if we substituted "Nazi" or "Rapist"

Albeit, it's still pretty damn extreme.

The equivalence of Orcs is whether they're a people or a radically different species.

I think putting anything into that blank is awful. That includes non-sentient beings.


I try. I figure I oughta get some mileage out of those classes I took. It's not like formal logic is a marketable skill... :smallwink:
Logic is an intrinsic part of many jobs. Mine is one. My only 'formal education' in logic comes not from philosophy (next semester, hopefully), but first in electronics and then in computer science. It's not 'formal' per se, but the logic is the same, whether you say 'True and False' or '1 and 0' or '+5v and ground'


And yet somehow informal (or just plain bad) logic *is*. The weirdness that is life, yes? :smallbiggrin:
Unfortunately, most people don't want Truth. They want a falsehood that is accepted as truth.


I suppose D&D actually makes an interesting commentary about human character. If there was a confirmed afterlife in this world and confirmed gods, how many people would be attracted to the Gods that offered supernatural powers and Paradise to humans that were commanded to go forth and :censored: over your fellow man?
Reminds me of a common analysis of the use of aliens in science fiction: they typically represent or highlight certain aspects of humanity.

In my games, I typically use the various races as a way to highlight the 'otherness' that is experienced when a person interacts with a culture that is radically different from their own. Unfortunately, this doesn't always come through with the PCs, but that's what make it a game, not a written story.

Indon
2007-10-10, 10:30 AM
Is it really evil to eat another being to survive ? Then humans would be evil too for hunting a deer and eat it.
Ofcourse the prey think its evil, Zebras think that Lions are bastards. But seen from a biological perspective...

Now for that illithid paladin to go on a killing spree when he really didnt have to eat, no question.

Animals, in D&D, are not part of the moral system.

They possess an alignment of Neutral, and it largely requires magic to change this. Thus you can't kill a Lawful Good deer.

But an Illithid's food can be Lawful Good.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 10:38 AM
Yes. Villains usually have some motive besides "kill for fun/loot". That makes them realistic, as opposed to monsters who despite being intelligent are "naturally evil".

I don't know, in the real world it seems evil is mostly genetic as opposed to an outside factor.


If they knew that they'll be transformed into lowly lemurs and used by Baatezu as cannon fodder for this, I doubt it.

I play the Realms, so its not a problem. You go to Set's Realm and have a mai-tai.


None of those are any different if the Orcs are inherently evil or just societally evil. Really, when dealing with a single orc culture, there is no effective difference between a biological tendency towards evil and a societal tendency towards evil.

Actually, if they're socially evil, none of those work. In fact, the moral ambiguity is utterly destroyed with all those trying to FORCE a change on orcs being instantly made to be evil. Because, the fact is that if Orcs have a CHOICE then there's no moral question about it. Trying to Force Good on them is evil.

Of course, this is about Orcs as the IDEA of evil. The point of these stories is less about what the Orcs do but what effect genuine evil (unambigious and inate) would have on the humans who had to deal with it.

Morty
2007-10-10, 10:42 AM
I don't know, in the real world it seems evil is mostly genetic as opposed to an outside factor.

:smallconfused: Care to elaborate? I was under the impression that "evil" however you define it is a result of upbringing and personalty.


I play the Realms, so its not a problem. You go to Set's Realm and have a mai-tai.


It's not? Hm, apparently I know less about Realms than I thought.

Alex12
2007-10-10, 10:47 AM
Animals, in D&D, are not part of the moral system.

They possess an alignment of Neutral, and it largely requires magic to change this. Thus you can't kill a Lawful Good deer.

But an Illithid's food can be Lawful Good.

Can be. That doesn't mean it is. They are intelligent. Therefore, they can choose. They can choose to eat brains from only non-intelligent or evil creatures. That is why a Lawful Good Illithid is actually more respectable than a Lawful Good human (or Elf, or Dwarf, or whatever)-It's harder to survive as a Lawful Good Illithid, because your food sources are much harder to get than if you are a human.

Indon
2007-10-10, 10:50 AM
Can be. That doesn't mean it is. They are intelligent. Therefore, they can choose. They can choose to eat brains from only non-intelligent or evil creatures. That is why a Lawful Good Illithid is actually more respectable than a Lawful Good human (or Elf, or Dwarf, or whatever)-It's harder to survive as a Lawful Good Illithid, because your food sources are much harder to get than if you are a human.

Oh, certainly.

Which goes back to my point about racial evilness being defined and reinforced by inability to coexist peacefully with neighboring races.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 10:55 AM
It's not? Hm, apparently I know less about Realms than I thought.

Since at least the 3E, you go to your God's realm depending on how faithfully you followed that God's teachings. While Lolth treats her faithful like crap, Cyric ostenibly promoted them all to fiends to torture the souls he captured. In Mask's case, Mask outright takes you to a Vice City Paradise where everyone gets to play the game of one-upmanship forever.

But, surprisingly, I'm going to say you've mostly convinced me and I'm going to dial down the Orc evil about 90% in my next campaign.

Morty
2007-10-10, 10:58 AM
Since at least the 3E, you go to your God's realm depending on how faithfully you followed that God's teachings. While Lolth treats her faithful like crap, Cyric ostenibly promoted them all to fiends to torture the souls he captured. In Mask's case, Mask outright takes you to a Vice City Paradise where everyone gets to play the game of one-upmanship forever.

Hm. I guess I messed it up with Planescape.



But, surprisingly, I'm going to say you've mostly convinced me and I'm going to dial down the Orc evil about 90% in my next campaign.

"Dial back" would be maybe better term, since orcs are already only "often" evil. I'm not sure if it means that there are more evil orcs than there are "usually NE" goblins, or not.

Alex12
2007-10-10, 10:59 AM
Oh, certainly.

Which goes back to my point about racial evilness being defined and reinforced by inability to coexist peacefully with neighboring races.

I agree that biology and geography definitely affects evilness, but it's not insurmountable. Not by a long shot.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 11:42 AM
Back to the udead! I really won't let this die. (no pun intended.)

M0rt, zombies and skeletons are true nuetral... well, zombies. I said this about them in my first(?) post in this thread:


zombies are automotons that till fields, milk cows, and perform other unpleasant-but-unavoidable tasks.


In a world where your friendly neighborhood cleric of Wee Jas(best goddess evar) can lease zombie labor to his villagers, zombies become like machines, only more affordable and less subject to mechanical breakdown.

HOWever, I keep considering doing up a template called True Zombie or Natural Zombie; for those of you who read Pratchett, they'd be like Mr. Slant or Reg Shoe; for those of you who don't, they're like ghosts in that they came back to life of their own volition, but unlike ghosts in that 1) they're physical, 2) they're not 'haunters', and 3) they don't need to have some horrible purpose, just a strong will; the mechanisms of True Zombiehood aren't really understood.

I suppose the reason for my 'interesting outlook' is this (and the fact that I just think the undead are cool, and would probably become a lich myself given the opportunity). This is an excerpt from the Libris Mortis:

[Chapter 7: Campaigns, section: undead-themed campaigns, subsection: World of Shadows]
"In a world of this type, udead creatures exist alongside other races (sometimes secretly, sometimes not so secretly) within normal society. Vampires attend gala events (always after dark, of course), mummies work as night-watchmen, and zombie platoons go into combats too brutal for living soldiers. Depending on the tone of the campaign, society might treat undead as oddities, celebrities, or even just like normal people.
For this campaign formula, you'll need to answer the following sorts of questions.
Are all undead inherently evil, or are the norma alignment restriction relaxed, or even absent? If the character knows the lich attending tonight's opera is automatically evil, that can liminate many interesting role-playing opportunities. If undead aren't necessarily evil, what about spells that create undead?
Is there any stigma to returning from the dead as an undead creature? Is a newly risen wight shunned by his old friends?"

Morty
2007-10-10, 11:50 AM
M0rt, zombies and skeletons are true nuetral... well, zombies. I said this about them in my first(?) post in this thread:

Yes, I know. My post was to imply that I make them TN as well.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 11:53 AM
Oh. Whoops. Well, I've always enjoyed the taste of foot.

pendell
2007-10-10, 11:54 AM
But biologically, I'm considering Orcs may have just crapped out evolutionarily. They are a carnivorously sentient race and other races smell like food. They can season their meat but they need like 10 pounds of it every day.

When you have a tribe or more of it, well....those damn elves look awfully tasty.



Totally OT, but do the orcs in your world ever "farm" elves? I mean, why bother hunting them down in the wild when you can capture a few younglings, breed 'em, and raise 'em for food?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Saph
2007-10-10, 12:10 PM
Well, the first question is: "Are non-human races allowed to have different moral tendencies than humans?"

I always answer "yes" to that question, because it makes zero sense to me that you can have 985 intelligent races on the same planet, with different biology, mentality, and evolutionary/religious origin, and yet every single one has exactly the same predisposition towards good, evil, and neutrality as humans do. I've noticed a lot of people have problems with this concept - they're okay with evil societies, but not often-evil races. Eh, whatever works for you, but this seems more like an article of faith to me than anything else.

So if you're answering yes, some races are going to tend evil, and some are going to tend good. You can use the standards that are normal in Tolkein/D&D, or you can make up your own. Most people do the first, because it's less work and draws on the shared context. Of course, you can reverse the names and say that in your world the evil race is called 'elves' and the good race is called 'orcs' - but what's the point? All you're really doing is calling them by different names.

So I stick with often-Chaotic-Good elves, and often-Chaotic-Evil orcs, and get the benefit of shared fantasy context. Note once again: 'often' does not mean 'always'. Those of you who treat the two as the same: read the Alignment section of your Monster Manuals more carefully.

- Saph

Morty
2007-10-10, 12:19 PM
I always answer "yes" to that question, because it makes zero sense to me that you can have 985 intelligent races on the same planet, with different biology, mentality, and evolutionary/religious origin, and yet every single one has exactly the same predisposition towards good, evil, and neutrality as humans do. I've noticed a lot of people have problems with this concept - they're okay with evil societies, but not often-evil races. Eh, whatever works for you, but this seems more like an article of faith to me than anything else.
- Saph

Having dozens of different species is entire another problem. And otherwise, I disagree. Evil races in D&D are described as despicable monsters, which is what irks people or at least me, not the very fact they're evil. They're described so that only thing they're good for is to provide cheap XP for adventurers. And besides, you can have different racial mindsets without defining them with arbitrary "good", "neutral" and "evil" labels. Those three are even worse than usual when used to describe to whole race, culture or society. Adding alignments to whole societies is bad idea.

fendrin
2007-10-10, 12:38 PM
I don't know, in the real world it seems evil is mostly genetic as opposed to an outside factor.
Um, examples, please? Rationale? Anything?? Please explain what 'genetic groups' are evil?


Actually, if they're socially evil, none of those work. In fact, the moral ambiguity is utterly destroyed with all those trying to FORCE a change on orcs being instantly made to be evil. Because, the fact is that if Orcs have a CHOICE then there's no moral question about it. Trying to Force Good on them is evil.
Respectfully, I disagree.
1) If the only orc culture presented is evil, there is no way to tell if orcs are inherently or societally evil.
2) By making orcs inherently evil, there is no moral dilemma about forcing them to be good, unless you mix in the idea of 'natural' as good and 'unnatural' as evil, which is another debate entirely.
3) If they have a choice, then forcing them to be good brings about moral ambiguity in the form of whether or not the ends justify the means.


Of course, this is about Orcs as the IDEA of evil. The point of these stories is less about what the Orcs do but what effect genuine evil (unambigious and inate) would have on the humans who had to deal with it.
There is only one thing to do with unredeemable evil. Destroy it, or if it cannot be destroyed, contain it. Where is the moral ambiguity in that? If the evil cannot be redeemed, why even bother to think of trying to redeem it?

Yes, it's easier on the players, but then again so is this:

Player: "I push the 'you win' button!"
DM: "You win. Wow, that campaign was the shortest I've ever run!"

Easy != fun.

Zim
2007-10-10, 01:19 PM
Totally OT, but do the orcs in your world ever "farm" elves? I mean, why bother hunting them down in the wild when you can capture a few younglings, breed 'em, and raise 'em for food?


Don't you think that elves breed and mature too slowly to be considered a good domestically-raised food source. The typical orcish tribe strikes me as being more of a hunter-gatherer society than one that practices animal (or elf!) husbandry.

Again all, nice discussion! Very enjoyable read with some well thought out arguments.:smallcool:

Question for discussion: Do you think that orcs and other typically evil humanoids are evil because their gods tell them to be that way, or are their gods evil because the race is evil? Which is a reflection of which?

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 01:52 PM
Orcs already farm humans.

You just don't kill them all and in forty years, they'll be towns of the size before your last raid!

;-)

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 01:54 PM
Um, examples, please? Rationale? Anything?? Please explain what 'genetic groups' are evil?

Uhhh psychopaths? People who think the voices in their head told them to kill. Not exactly people created by society.


There is only one thing to do with unredeemable evil. Destroy it, or if it cannot be destroyed, contain it. Where is the moral ambiguity in that? If the evil cannot be redeemed, why even bother to think of trying to redeem it?

The moral ambiguity is that to contain or destroy an evil might make you into evil yourself. To what levels does a person sink in order to end the threat of the Orc?

Blanks
2007-10-10, 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoticbarber
Hey now, he never said it was wrong to play another way, just that he didn't because it was easier for him to play his way. I play the other way, but I have no problem with his statement.
Actually I dont "play this way", as a general rule :)
Sometimes we go for long streaks without rolling a single dice, but sometimes, just sometimes something needs to die :D


What I meant is I don't understand why people have problems with not attacking everything on sight. Perhaps I came out to harsh.
I dont have a problem with that, but eliminating any chance of the players ever ambushing people they dont know seems limiting to me.

Orcs are evil
humans can be anything
Angels are good

If I want a good ambush scenario, a group of orcs come marching. If not, it will be humans.

Like the saying goes:
"Dragons, color coded for your conveince" :)

Saph
2007-10-10, 05:15 PM
Having dozens of different species is entire another problem. And otherwise, I disagree. Evil races in D&D are described as despicable monsters, which is what irks people or at least me, not the very fact they're evil.

Honestly, Mort, did you even read the Monster Manual section on alignments? Orcs are OFTEN chaotic evil. This means some are neutral, and some are good. Hence, by definition, Orcs in D&D are NOT all despicable monsters. You can choose to houserule all D&D orcs to be evil, but that's YOUR decision, not anyone else's.

- Saph

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 10:41 PM
Uhhh psychopaths? People who think the voices in their head told them to kill. Not exactly people created by society.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, up until now, you've been making arguments that, while I don't universally agree with, were sound; however, lumping all psychopaths into one 'genetically evil' group, or one group at all, is foolish. First, many people with horrible mental problems ARE the result of their up-bringing; raped children, abused and neglected babies, etc. Some, of course, are genetic, and that's unfortunate.

But, in addition to lumping all people with disorders into a false taxonomy, this argument implies that ONLY PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS ARE EVIL, AND ALL MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE ARE EVIL. And that's just not true. Consider the businessman who carefully bankrupts his competition through use of illegal trusts, hiring illegal workers, and outsourcing to countries with unsafe labour laws; in addition to all that, he cunningly turns his father and brother against each other as his father gets older, so that his brother is written out of the will; plus, he kicks puppies. Is he evil? Almost certainly. Deranged? Hardly. Consider also the man who lives in the town I do; we call him Helmet Man. He's a rather old hobo who always wears a motorcycle helmet, and pushes around a cart full of mysterious adds and ends; he lives on a different frquency than the rest of us, and trying to have a conversation with him is... an experience. One Christmas, I gave him a bag of candy and bought him lunch at a local pizza joint; he was very nice, albeit a bit smelly and wierd. Is he crazy? Without a doubt. Evil? Not in the least.

fendrin
2007-10-10, 10:54 PM
Question for discussion: Do you think that orcs and other typically evil humanoids are evil because their gods tell them to be that way, or are their gods evil because the race is evil? Which is a reflection of which?

Chicken or Egg.

I would say that any given culture of sentient beings will develop/adopt a pantheon supporting all possible alignments. However, if one particular alignment becomes dominant, the corresponding deity(s) will become dominant, even to the point of the other deities in the pantheon becoming 'forgotten', 'lost', 'dead', etc.

As a relevant example, according to Wikipedia, Gruumsh is not the only orcish deity in Forgotten Realms. (see the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Forgotten_Realms_deities#Orc_deities))


Uhhh psychopaths? People who think the voices in their head told them to kill. Not exactly people created by society.
1) psychopaths do not "hear voices" any more than an average person. That is psychosis, which is a separate condition altogether.
2) 'psychopath' is generally considered to be a synonym for 'sociopath'. While there is some evidence of genetic predisposition to the condition, the same studies point to societal factors playing a significant role as well.

I refreshed my (non-expert) knowledge of psychopathy with a 2 minute web search. You might want to consider doing something similar before you post about something you are not an expert on.


The moral ambiguity is that to contain or destroy an evil might make you into evil yourself. To what levels does a person sink in order to end the threat of the Orc?
Is it evil to destroy unredeemable evil? If so the Paladin's 'Smite Evil' ability might as well be renamed 'Fall from Grace'. Again, there is no moral dilemma here. If orcs are born unredeemably evil, is it wrong to butcher orc babies? If so, why? It's a no brainer: if killing one unredeemable orc child is guaranteed to save innocent lives, how can it be an evil act?

Generally, killing(or otherwise harming) children is considered to be more heinous that doing the same to an adult for the simple reason that children are considered to be generally be more innocent than adults. An unredeemably evil orc child is, by definition, not innocent in any way. So how is it evil to kill them?

Similarly, if the only way to 'redeem' an orc is to magically alter it's alignment, which it could not choose for itself, is it still evil?

The morality issue regarding mind control is that you are taking away the subjects free will. If an orc has no choice to be evil, they had no will about the subject anyway. How is magically altering their alignment to good anything but a god act? Did it hurt anyone, or even impinge upon their free will? no. Did it benefit the subject? yes, in that they are less likely to get hurt either while raiding or when a group of adventurers comes to wipe out the 'evil' orcs.

Oh wait, if orcs can be magically compelled to be good, that means you still have to stop and make sure the orcs are evil before you can slaughter them in the name of 'good'. Suddenly you are back to the same sticky situation that you claim caused friction at the gaming table (or was it somebody else in the thread? I've lost track). Of course, killing a good orc (even if it is only good because of magical persuasion) is an evil act, just like killing any other good creature.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-10, 11:39 PM
1) psychopaths do not "hear voices" any more than an average person. That is psychosis, which is a separate condition altogether.

Yes, separated by a sentence.

Two different conditions.

:smallannoyed:

SleepingOrange
2007-10-10, 11:48 PM
Well now you're just being surly.

fendrin
2007-10-10, 11:54 PM
Yes, separated by a sentence.

Two different conditions.

:smallannoyed:

Your post was written in such a way that I inferred that you were elaborating on psychopathy.

That aside, what about point 2?

Or my points about the morality (or rather amorality) of killing/magically changing the alignment of an inherently evil orc?

Jannex
2007-10-11, 12:15 AM
Just to add an interesting bit of complexity, I've got a question: If an orc has no capacity to choose not to commit evil acts, is it even logically valid to consider him a moral agent? If he has no free will in the matter, how is the orc any different than a golem or other construct, given orders to go out into the world and engage in slaughter and rapine? In other words, to quote a Nick Cave song, "If I have no free will, then how can I be morally culpable, I wonder?"

In such a case, is it really even fair to call them evil?

That, to me, is another argument in favor of the orcs-as-people approach; if someone can't help but do evil things, killing him is like shooting a rabid dog--it has to be done, but you kind of feel sorry for the necessity. On the other hand, if someone actively chooses to do evil when he could have done otherwise, then it's much easier to get worked up about it, and much more satisfying to defeat him.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 12:43 AM
Sorry.

That depends if you view evil as a philosophical choice or a substantial. If it's the former, you can have "A weave of evil washes over you and causes crops to blight."


Is it evil to destroy unredeemable evil? If so the Paladin's 'Smite Evil' ability might as well be renamed 'Fall from Grace'. Again, there is no moral dilemma here. If orcs are born unredeemably evil, is it wrong to butcher orc babies? If so, why? It's a no brainer: if killing one unredeemable orc child is guaranteed to save innocent lives, how can it be an evil act?

At heart, the creatures are fundamentally drawn to destroy and kill by their nature. They were made that way and cannot escape that destiny, however as Doctor Who showed, the more you immure yourself to any violence against a thinking and intelligent creature (even if it cannot help being a creature of pure hostility) you run the risk of becoming what you hate.

Because snapping Orc babies necks, is a small step from human children.


Generally, killing(or otherwise harming) children is considered to be more heinous that doing the same to an adult for the simple reason that children are considered to be generally be more innocent than adults. An unredeemably evil orc child is, by definition, not innocent in any way. So how is it evil to kill them?

One of my favorite descriptions for "pure evil" orcs came when a Wizard explained an Orc child laughs, plays, and loves just like a normal person. However, when faced with a human child will happilly cut it to pieces. Because they cannot feel empathy, friendship, or love innately for other beings than orcs.

I found that concept terrifying and very appropriate for game. A fundamental inability to see another race has value no matter what similarities.

"The orc is a weapon against the peoples of the world. One that will only know peace and happiness when all unlike itself have been driven from the universe."

Jannex
2007-10-11, 01:05 AM
That depends if you view evil as a philosophical choice or a substantial. If it's the former, you can have "A weave of evil washes over you and causes crops to blight."

I think that approach sort of turns "evil" into just another elemental force, impersonal and without motivation. Characters can try to stop it, or just get the heck out of its way, but I think it's harder for them to get emotionally engaged with it; it would be as pointless as railing against a thunderstorm or a brushfire. And I think that emotionally engaging the characters is an important part of a good game. Things just get more interesting when the characters are worked up about their enemy, when they're invested in the situation. So I think that treating evil like an impersonal, elemental force loses something important.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 02:31 AM
I may be impacted by player experience. Bluntly, a campaign completely fell through when my players just didn't care about a villain's motivations.

I think it went something like this.

"Just...shut up. I don't care whether your mother was raped by Bane or that you're damned from birth because you're a half-fiend. You're a pathetic whining little weasal and all I care about is driving my sword through your black heart."

It was a nice bit of roleplaying but they explained I'd spent too much time trying to justify a monster. He's bad, isn't that enough?

One really nasty comment was

"I have to deal with people trying to explain away their problems all day. D&D is my refuse from having to be artificially sympathetic to scumbags. In this world, the Blade is the Law and the Blade protects by killing."

SleepingOrange
2007-10-11, 03:33 AM
Just a minor semantic quibble, that's refuGe. Refuse is trash.

As to that, well, maybe you need beter PCs. If they're not willing to appreciate the nuances of campaigns you create, A) create more straight-forward, less detailed (read as less believable and fun) campaigns, or B) find new players. Fantasy isn't fun if it's totally unreal.

Jannex
2007-10-11, 03:52 AM
I may be impacted by player experience. Bluntly, a campaign completely fell through when my players just didn't care about a villain's motivations.

I think it went something like this.

"Just...shut up. I don't care whether your mother was raped by Bane or that you're damned from birth because you're a half-fiend. You're a pathetic whining little weasal and all I care about is driving my sword through your black heart."

It was a nice bit of roleplaying but they explained I'd spent too much time trying to justify a monster. He's bad, isn't that enough?

One really nasty comment was

"I have to deal with people trying to explain away their problems all day. D&D is my refuse from having to be artificially sympathetic to scumbags. In this world, the Blade is the Law and the Blade protects by killing."

...Wow. :smalleek:

I mean, it's certainly not my place to say that anybody is having badwrongfun, but that's an attitude and a play-style that would simply never have occured to me. I don't think I'd enjoy the sort of game your players seem to want. So... yeah. I got nothin'.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 07:05 AM
...Wow. :smalleek:

I mean, it's certainly not my place to say that anybody is having badwrongfun, but that's an attitude and a play-style that would simply never have occured to me. I don't think I'd enjoy the sort of game your players seem to want. So... yeah. I got nothin'.

To be fair, actually, it's only happened once or twice. I've had plenty of nuanced villains in my games but my players are big fans of Pulp stories and like to suggest to me (usually gently) that motivations don't have to be terribly complex. Guy wants to be rich, guy wants world domination, and so on.

Oddly, our most effective villains have been avatars of ultimate evil (Bane, Orcus, and Cyric pulling the strings) or individuals whom don't have terribly complex motivations (Manshoon wants to rule the world, Fzoul is a fanatic) but whom have very well realized personalities.


Fantasy isn't fun if it's totally unreal.

My players have this attitude only in D&D. In Star Wars, we have moral ambiguity after moral ambiguity with only the Emperor truly a rotting cesspool of evil (and even then I loved having him send the PCs to go fetch Darth Maul's corpse for his tomb and imply Palpatine was degenerating mentally while originally just wanting to 'reform' the galaxy through force).

But weirdly, their favorite villain out of all of our games was the homebrewed Tithian. Which I, honestly, don't get. Tithian was created as an anti-villain and a one shot that I kept using because I needed the occasional subplot. He was one of the PC's little brother and meant to be utterly pathetic.

Guy tortured animals as a child and had delusions of being a great wizard (murdering his way up left and right through other magicians---usually through being a toadey then betraying them). Whenever the PCs actually got to him, he'd either play the brother card or pretty much beg not to be killed or running away. I think the guy had almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

However, the players could never quite bring themselves to finish him off. So I don't know what I did right there.

Morty
2007-10-11, 08:13 AM
Honestly, Mort, did you even read the Monster Manual section on alignments? Orcs are OFTEN chaotic evil. This means some are neutral, and some are good. Hence, by definition, Orcs in D&D are NOT all despicable monsters. You can choose to houserule all D&D orcs to be evil, but that's YOUR decision, not anyone else's.

- Saph

Oh, I don't know, goblins, orcs and other "monstrous" races may be described only as Usually/Often xEvil, but for example goblin description in MM is quite detailed as to why goblins are despicable bastards. In a way suggesting that all of them are like that. Their entry in Races of Faerun isn't any different. Gnolls are even worse. "They prefer living prey because it screams more". What the hell is that? Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never seen orcs, goblinoids or any other monster race in any role other than low-level antagonists. Which I really don't like. If a race has no purpose, it shouldn't exist; otherwise world is only crowded.
Of course, this goes both ways. Describing dwarves as "often LG" or elves as "usually CG" doesn't make much sense. Although it's certainly more sensible than in evil races' case, as good societies don't stretch belivability as to how are they still functioning.

Leicontis
2007-10-11, 09:06 AM
I'm actually looking at running an exalted D&D campaign based around goblinoids and other "savage" races being not innately evil, and the PCs trying to get the "civilized" races to treat them fairly. I'm drawing on the webcomic "Goblins: Life Through Their Eyes" for inspiration.

fendrin
2007-10-11, 09:16 AM
At heart, the creatures are fundamentally drawn to destroy and kill by their nature. They were made that way and cannot escape that destiny, however as Doctor Who showed, the more you immure yourself to any violence against a thinking and intelligent creature (even if it cannot help being a creature of pure hostility) you run the risk of becoming what you hate.

Well, first off, I would argue that a creature of 'pure hostility' is not necessarily intrinsically evil. Look at the Klingons in Star Trek. Extremely violent and aggressive, but not inherently evil. I imagine that a Good race of pure hostility would make excellent demon slayers.

Second, how 'thinking and intelligent' can a being with no free will be? Ok, they can be intelligent in the way a computer is, able to make deductions and calculations, without ever having any emotional (or long term rational) reaction to it. They can be thinking in that they have thoughts, even if they cannot choose the outcome of those thoughts (kind of defeats Descarte, neh?) I would more say they are cunning than intelligent. In the same way a predatory animal can be cunning, but magnified by 4 or so. Not that many [NPC/Enemy] orcs get played with an appropriate level of intelligence, but that is a different matter altogether.

Third, killing an intrinsically evil being would be like disarming a carbomb. They have no choice but to be dangerous, and performing that action is not a moral matter, it is sheer practicality. You don't hate a carbomb. You hate who made the carbomb, if anyone. It is an amoral (not to be confused with immoral) action.


Because snapping Orc babies necks, is a small step from human children.

With a non-intrinsically-evil orc baby, I would say it is less than a small step. With an intrinsically evil orc baby, I would say that it is comparing apples and oranges. No, actually, they are both fruits. More like comparing apples and poison ivy.


One of my favorite descriptions for "pure evil" orcs came when a Wizard explained an Orc child laughs, plays, and loves just like a normal person. However, when faced with a human child will happilly cut it to pieces. Because they cannot feel empathy, friendship, or love innately for other beings than orcs.

What you are describing is a racist (or as pointed out elsewhere, actually speciesist) issue. A purely evil being would be as likely to slaughter their own children/mates/village as the neighboring human children/mates/village if it served their purposes. Think about FR Drow: they kill each other to further themselves. That is evil.

When you start getting into interspecies murder, the morality issues get much more complex. It's not an area that has been delved much philosophically (though that is what many scifi and fantasy authors do). From some perspectives, all sentient beings should be treated as 'human' for the purposes of determining morality. This is what I would consider the 'default' point of view. Non-human sentience is treated as a variation of human sentience.

However, when you look at the historic reasons for human-on-human violence from our own past, they also still apply. For instance, the crusades, while ostensibly religious wars, were actually largely fueled by socioeconomic pressures in Europe. In fact, Saladin, the Muslim leader who recaptured Jerusalem from the crusaders, was held in high regard in Europe. Dante even included him as one of the 'virtuous pagans' in his Inferno.

Tunred around, and you see that Orcs raiding humans, while perhaps an evil act, does not make the entire species intrinsically evil any more than humans are intrinsically evil (which some people do think).


I found that concept terrifying and very appropriate for game. A fundamental inability to see another race has value no matter what similarities.

"The orc is a weapon against the peoples of the world. One that will only know peace and happiness when all unlike itself have been driven from the universe."

Sounds like a description of certain real world groups that it would be very impolitic of me to mention. While I despise such groups, I do not consider them to be 'intrinsically evil', just misguided. Same thing with your orcs, actually.


I may be impacted by player experience. Bluntly, a campaign completely fell through when my players just didn't care about a villain's motivations.

I think it went something like this.

"Just...shut up. I don't care whether your mother was raped by Bane or that you're damned from birth because you're a half-fiend. You're a pathetic whining little weasal and all I care about is driving my sword through your black heart."

It was a nice bit of roleplaying but they explained I'd spent too much time trying to justify a monster. He's bad, isn't that enough?

One really nasty comment was

"I have to deal with people trying to explain away their problems all day. D&D is my refuse from having to be artificially sympathetic to scumbags. In this world, the Blade is the Law and the Blade protects by killing."

Wow. I think somebody needs to be in therapy, or at least a different career. You know, actually, that sounds a lot like "A fundamental inability to see another race has value no matter what similarities." Yup, your own statement about intrinsically evil orcs. Wow. I don't think your player is evil, just very cynical.


But weirdly, their favorite villain out of all of our games was the homebrewed Tithian. Which I, honestly, don't get. Tithian was created as an anti-villain and a one shot that I kept using because I needed the occasional subplot. He was one of the PC's little brother and meant to be utterly pathetic.

Guy tortured animals as a child and had delusions of being a great wizard (murdering his way up left and right through other magicians---usually through being a toadey then betraying them). Whenever the PCs actually got to him, he'd either play the brother card or pretty much beg not to be killed or running away. I think the guy had almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

However, the players could never quite bring themselves to finish him off. So I don't know what I did right there. Simple. the characters developed an emotional attachment. The Villain was a person not just a monster.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 09:18 AM
Going with usually Evil.

WHY are Orcs, Goblins, and so on usually such a bunch of scumbags? Why is that believable that 99% of them are rotten bastards?

I don't think that Evil Societies tend to be self-destructive as a rule. They just need to vent it on other groups than them.

SoD
2007-10-11, 09:22 AM
I often question killing 'evil' races. I was quite happy in the latest campaign I was part of, so far we've gone through a few sessions...and we haven't killed a single goblin, orc, kobald, etc. Just a bunch of hopeless humans. Oh, and we accidentally let a warforged die while trying to protect it...we spent too much time beating up the commoners, and not enough time trying to get it to stabalize. Oh, and one elan died. As did a wild elf. Actually, the wild elf (evil PC) killed the elan (me) shortly before the rest of the party turned on him. Anyway, I digress. They're people too.

That's my 2 cp worth.

Blanks
2007-10-11, 09:32 AM
There is a problem with this thread. Half of the people here are talking about "what is the nature of evil" and "are orcs genetically evil" while the other half is talking "does it provide a better gameplay and does it give more possibilities if orcs are defined as evil".

Both important and interesting topics, but they should have been in seperate threads.

Alas, too late now :)

fendrin
2007-10-11, 10:06 AM
Oh, and we accidentally let a warforged die while trying to protect it...we spent too much time beating up the commoners, and not enough time trying to get it to stabalize.
Uh, I may be wrong about this because I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm fairly certain that Warforged stabilize automatically...


There is a problem with this thread. Half of the people here are talking about "what is the nature of evil" and "are orcs genetically evil" while the other half is talking "does it provide a better gameplay and does it give more possibilities if orcs are defined as evil".

Both important and interesting topics, but they should have been in seperate threads.

Alas, too late now :)
There are many problems with this thread :smalltongue:

I think that the one conversation gave rise to the other.

If you only talk about the 'genetics', the conversation rapidly devolves into "well, in my world it's <insert description here>, but because there are infinitely possible worlds, my interpretation is no more right than yours". Ok, well, that's perhaps a bit too polite for what it would be, but it's the underlying truth. that is, in fact, how the thread started.

In order to explain WHY you make your choice about orc evilness, you have to talk about the gameplay. Honestly, the only valid reason to choose one interpretation of orcs over another is because of gameplay. Everything else washes out in the infinite variety of fantasy worlds.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 11:28 AM
I think it's important to examine the issue from multiple angles. I think Orcs are not just things that should be evil solely for the purpose of being killed without guilt. They should be evil because the evil should say something about the nature of good or the heroes.

Morty
2007-10-11, 11:33 AM
I think it's important to examine the issue from multiple angles. I think Orcs are not just things that should be evil solely for the purpose of being killed without guilt. They should be evil because the evil should say something about the nature of good or the heroes.

Except... it really doesn't. If orcs are universally evil it doesn't say anything about nature of good. They're just evil, and that's it. If you meet one, he'll try to kill you, so either you kill him or you're dead. There's nothing here except that. Being evil to show heroes in better light doesn't work either, as true good is good that comes with a price and against terrible odds, not because heroes aren't murderous beasts. Look at LoTR: Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo aren't good because they kill orcs and defend Middle-Earth from them, but because they reject using The One Ring despite the power it brings.

fendrin
2007-10-11, 11:59 AM
Except... it really doesn't. If orcs are universally evil it doesn't say anything about nature of good. They're just evil, and that's it. If you meet one, he'll try to kill you, so either you kill him or you're dead. There's nothing here except that. Being evil to show heroes in better light doesn't work either, as true good is good that comes with a price and against terrible odds, not because heroes aren't murderous beasts. Look at LoTR: Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo aren't good because they kill orcs and defend Middle-Earth from them, but because they reject using The One Ring despite the power it brings.

More importantly I would say, despite the pain that fighting for Good causes them.

Morty
2007-10-11, 12:12 PM
More importantly I would say, despite the pain that fighting for Good causes them.

That's also true; Frodo would most like to stay peacefully in Bag End without caring about saving the world. But he knows that he must go with the Ring, and he does. That's what makes him good.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 01:16 PM
Except... it really doesn't. If orcs are universally evil it doesn't say anything about nature of good. They're just evil, and that's it. If you meet one, he'll try to kill you, so either you kill him or you're dead. There's nothing here except that. Being evil to show heroes in better light doesn't work either, as true good is good that comes with a price and against terrible odds, not because heroes aren't murderous beasts. Look at LoTR: Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo aren't good because they kill orcs and defend Middle-Earth from them, but because they reject using The One Ring despite the power it brings.

Doctor Who and the Daleks has devoted dozens of episodes about the nature of evil and good thanks to their very nature as the embodiment of everything evil in the universe. Stories that cannot remotely be duplicated by people who choose to be evil.

I cannot think, exactly, how you think that Purely Evil beings cannot have something to say about good and evil. Or do you think that Demons cannot be used in any morality tale?

Here's a few ways Orcs can be used to talk about the nature of good and evil.

* As a Dramatic Foil: Orcs are the perfect representations of what humans can degenerate too. They are the lowest that one can sink to in reality and that means that they can be used as a measuring stick for evil.

"You would make a good orc!"

* As an embodiment of evil idealogy: Orcs as un-real individuals can take philosophies to their natural conclusions. Sticking with Godwin, Orcish Nazis can be used in place of Human Nazis in order to provide a buffer zone to the comfort of a group.

One can do stories on fascism, racism, and genocide much easier with an existing fantasy race than with humans.

* As an irresitable Force: Like the Borg, Orcs can be a threat much more terrifying than any human being army because they're one that cannot be reasoned with or stopped. Like an army of undead, they will keep coming.

They provide an excellent example for human reaction to an extreme disatrous force. Yes, you COULD have just a Mongol Horde or humans but why complicate the issue with humans? Orcs work much better.

* As a creature of Horror: Orcs as degenerate and unnatural things allow wonderfully Lovecraftian options for monstrous human beings to breed with and create new monsters. Why did humans choose to make this unholy pact and what horrors like underneath this town because of it?

* As a questioning of evil: Whether an Orc is purely evil or not is a question to be examined in game I'm sure by plenty of people. I think one would be silly to assume one's player characters would agree even if they are.

* As the ultimate test of human empathy: Can human beings show compassion and sympathy to a creature who absolutely cannot reciprocate. If you say that it doesn't matter and you torture or murder orcs, you're still eveil even if they are.

fendrin
2007-10-11, 02:55 PM
Doctor Who and the Daleks has devoted dozens of episodes about the nature of evil and good thanks to their very nature as the embodiment of everything evil in the universe.
Not having seen them, I cannot comment. That also means that they have no effect on my perspective.


I cannot think, exactly, how you think that Purely Evil beings cannot have something to say about good and evil. Or do you think that Demons cannot be used in any morality tale?
Sure: they are corrupters of the good and innocent, and punishment for those who do ill. That was the medieval conception of demons. What you do not see in medieval demons is the capacity to be redeemed, so there are no efforts to redeem them. they are destroyed/expelled as soon as possible. Modern representations that involve redeemed demons also state that they choose to be redeemed, which means they are not irredeemably evil, and thus are not the same as D&D demons.


Here's a few ways Orcs can be used to talk about the nature of good and evil.
Well, let's try this again, this time with responses on specific ideas.


* As a Dramatic Foil: Orcs are the perfect representations of what humans can degenerate too. They are the lowest that one can sink to in reality and that means that they can be used as a measuring stick for evil.

"You would make a good orc!"
This works whether or not the evil is inherent or societal.
"Were you raised by Orcs or something?"

Also, as Pure Evil, the only thing they can measure is whether or not something is also Pure Evil. Demon? Yep. Baby eating worshiper of the dark gods? Well, he helped an old lady across the street once when he was 12, which was a good act. Sure, it doesn't balance out the evil, but he's not as evil as an orc, because he's not Pure Evil. Got a choice between killing the baby eater or this orc baby? kill the orc, because it's pure unredeemable evil. the baby eater could be redeemed after all, then he would spend the rest of his days helping old ladies cross the street, eventually (given an infinite amount of time) he will do enough good to counterbalance the evil he has done. The orc baby might not have done anything yet, but being Pure Evil, you KNOW it will! and being unredeemable, there is no way it will ever do a single good deed, never mind enough good deeds to counterbalance the evil that comes with being an orc.

Ugh. That's disgusting thinking, but it's the logical conclusion. Now I need to floss my brain.


* As an embodiment of evil idealogy: Orcs as un-real individuals can take philosophies to their natural conclusions. Sticking with Godwin, Orcish Nazis can be used in place of Human Nazis in order to provide a buffer zone to the comfort of a group.

One can do stories on fascism, racism, and genocide much easier with an existing fantasy race than with humans.
Like with the Nazis you are basing them on, this can be a societal issue. Again, if it's evil because they choose to be evil, it drives the point better.

Also by definition ideology = societal


* As an irresitable Force: Like the Borg, Orcs can be a threat much more terrifying than any human being army because they're one that cannot be reasoned with or stopped. Like an army of undead, they will keep coming.

They provide an excellent example for human reaction to an extreme disatrous force. Yes, you COULD have just a Mongol Horde or humans but why complicate the issue with humans? Orcs work much better.
If you want them like an army of undead, why not use an army of undead? Further, and once again, this also works if the Horde is attacking because of societal reasons. Like the crusades.


* As a creature of Horror: Orcs as degenerate and unnatural things allow wonderfully Lovecraftian options for monstrous human beings to breed with and create new monsters. Why did humans choose to make this unholy pact and what horrors like underneath this town because of it? If there is an unholy pact involved, that sounds supernatural (as in demons, not orcs).

Alternatively, I would say this works BETTER with societally evil orcs, as then there is the grey area that maybe the humans can redeem the orcs, instead of just corrupting the humans. How do you deal with it? Do you just let it be, and maybe the orcs will corrupt the humans to evil, or do you interfere, which will prevent the orcs from ever reaching redemption?


* As a questioning of evil: Whether an Orc is purely evil or not is a question to be examined in game I'm sure by plenty of people. I think one would be silly to assume one's player characters would agree even if they are.
I don't know about your players, but my players will figure out pretty quick that every time they give an orc a chance, they regret it. Pretty soon they will come to the conclusion that orcs are always evil, and that trusting or trying to help one ALWAYS ends badly.


* As the ultimate test of human empathy: Can human beings show compassion and sympathy to a creature who absolutely cannot reciprocate. If you say that it doesn't matter and you torture or murder orcs, you're still eveil even if they are.
When you use a Manichean style of morality, anything that stops evil is good.
If you move away from it, there is ALWAYS the chance that a being assumed to be evil may in fact be good. Mixing the two is tricky at best, and is best left to obvious distinctions, such as only planar beings being absolute in their alignment. More specifically, that means Demons are Pure Evil, but orcs can be redeemed.

Fhaolan
2007-10-11, 02:59 PM
Doctor Who and the Daleks has devoted dozens of episodes about the nature of evil and good thanks to their very nature as the embodiment of everything evil in the universe. Stories that cannot remotely be duplicated by people who choose to be evil.

That's true. And I do have 'races' of creatures that fulfill that niche in my campaign. They're not orcs, mind you, because I have orcs filling a different niche.

The races I have in that niche are the mindflayers, beholders, cloakers, etc. They're slightly different from the versions in standard D&D because I don't have an Underdark in my campaign. I have these creatures as originating from the Far Realms, as alien and as horrible as you can possibly imagine. They don't view anyone else as 'people'. Heck, in some cases they don't think of anyone else as being 'real'. Humans, elves, orcs, gnolls, etc. are indistinguishable from plants and animals as far as these creatures are concerned. Food sources at best, speedbumps at worst.

But then, they don't trade, mate with, or even interact with the other races except through conquest and the like. I needed the Orcs, and the Gnolls, to be a more 'human' enemy to put in contrast with the unreasonable alien enemy of the Far Realms creatures.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 03:45 PM
Yeah, while I like the Cthulhuoid Illithids, I have always used Beholders as just another race in my campaigns. I often wonder if that wasn't making a mistake in the end.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 03:53 PM
Not having seen them, I cannot comment. That also means that they have no effect on my perspective.

Everything you need to know about the Daleks is in this scene. The difference is that the Daleks are replaced by Orcs. My Orcs act in pretty much a similiar fashion. Also, realize it's not a robot but a mutated man in a robotic suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YPsaHFD8w

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 04:25 PM
FYI- I get that people use Orcs as an example of barbarians and primitive savage man. The following, I need to point out, is the artistic benefits of a truly DARK campaign about monsters. Things meant to scare the players like Jason Voohees or the Cenobites. It is unlikely that many player characters would universally like the idea of "Orcs exist to scare the **** out of players" and I've already been persuaded to probably drop the idea of them as a universal evil.

However, the following will give a rebuttal. Note, this is the perspective of Orcs as Intelligent but fundamentally soulless killing machines.


Ugh. That's disgusting thinking, but it's the logical conclusion. Now I need to floss my brain.

Yeah, I've used that line of thinking several times. It's awesome. Players are horrified by people who use Orcs as a measure of evil and thus can justify just about anything in the pursuit of their destruction.


Sure: they are corrupters of the good and innocent, and punishment for those who do ill. That was the medieval conception of demons. What you do not see in medieval demons is the capacity to be redeemed, so there are no efforts to redeem them. they are destroyed/expelled as soon as possible. Modern representations that involve redeemed demons also state that they choose to be redeemed, which means they are not irredeemably evil, and thus are not the same as D&D demons.

That's actually the way I run Outsiders in D&D, which is something that I find rather strange. Where everyone says that Demons and Devils are "made of evil" I'm of the mind that they're people and can be redeemed.

The races that can't be redeemed in my works are Orcs and Illithids. I've used Neutral and Good Versions of both in my games but this is my default handling of the two races. Everyone else from Gnolls to Ogres to Goblins has a choice.

Orcs have always been "special" in my games.


This works whether or not the evil is inherent or societal. "Were you raised by Orcs or something?"

Let me explain my problem now that I examine it. Societal evil is perfect for civilized evil. Frankly, it's antiethical to what an Orc is. An Orc is primitive and instinctual. It's as much a creature as a man, a broken and debased creature rather than a person. An Orc isn't taught to hate humans. It just DOES. If you suggest they were taught to hate humans then exposure to them would presumably soften the blow, would allow interaction, or would be able to work.

That runs the risk of diminishing the terrifying threat they are. It runs the risk of ruining the relentlessness. I think a large part of Orcish appeal is the appeal to the fears that man is an instinctual creature rather than a thinking one. Like Werewolves in some respect.

It is rage and hatred personified.


If you want them like an army of undead, why not use an army of undead? Further, and once again, this also works if the Horde is attacking because of societal reasons. Like the crusades.

What do you mean? The Orc Horde has assembled to wipe out mankind. It is their purpose. It gives their lives meaning, it's what they are. Gold, land, title....all of it is meaningless. They want your children to die so you will cease to exist.

And I've used undead hordes myslef but they tend to be mindless and that diminishes the threat.


If there is an unholy pact involved, that sounds supernatural (as in demons, not orcs).

Humans allied with orcs isn't unholy? I was looking for a word to convey the revulsion and fear such an act would get. Honestly, a lot of my players have grown up in the Bible Belt so demons are old hat for them.

Orcs can generate a fear and loathing much more than say "And they're allied with DEMONS!"


Alternatively, I would say this works BETTER with societally evil orcs, as then there is the grey area that maybe the humans can redeem the orcs, instead of just corrupting the humans. How do you deal with it? Do you just let it be, and maybe the orcs will corrupt the humans to evil, or do you interfere, which will prevent the orcs from ever reaching redemption?

I don't think H.P. Lovecraft's Shadows over Innsmouth works with the protagionist saying "And now the humans can interbreed with the fish men in peace.


I don't know about your players, but my players will figure out pretty quick that every time they give an orc a chance, they regret it. Pretty soon they will come to the conclusion that orcs are always evil, and that trusting or trying to help one ALWAYS ends badly.

Yeah, and that would be a very interesting RPGing experience. I liked an "Interview with an Orc" that a player character once conducted in a cell. It went something like this....

Cleric: I've come to talk to you, Friend Orc.

Orc: RELEASE ME!

Cleric: I hope we can agree. I wish to discuss peace...

Orc: There is no word amongst for Peace!

Cleric: Surely you cannot be at war all the time.

Orc: As long as the enemy exists then there will be war! We are the Children of Gruumsh! We fight! We kill! We slay!

Cleric: And when there are no more humans or other races, what will you do?

Orc: Hunt your gods.

Cleric: *sighs* I see. How did you come to be like this?

Orc: I was born....in pain. A throbbing hunger in my belly. An agony in the back of my mind. The drums of war calling and the spirits of my ancestors calling for the blood of nameless things I did not understand. They demand your destruction!

Cleric: And you....kill because of this pain?

Orc: It brings me pleasure. It dulls the pain. It makes life.....bearable.

The next orc, one cell over was articulent and nice. It, of course, wanted to be released and was anxious to convince the Cleric that it could be befriended. The third orc was a favorite of my players.

Cleric: I understand you tried to commit suicide.

Orc: KILLLLLLL ME!

Cleric: I don't understand, why.

Orc: I am....TAINTED!

Cleric: I don't understand why.

Orc: The Witch Cast a spell upon me! I felt....things.....

Cleric: She cast a Charm spell on you to stop you from killing her.

Orc: I have betrayed my voice. I cannot enter the Halls of Gruumsh. I am.....CONTAMINATED!

Cleric: *disgusted* All because you felt friendship.

Orc: Friendship is....weakness!


When you use a Manichean style of morality, anything that stops evil is good.

A point that many CE, NE, and LE would agree on in our games.

fendrin
2007-10-11, 04:30 PM
Everything you need to know about the Daleks is in this scene. The difference is that the Daleks are replaced by Orcs. My Orcs act in pretty much a similiar fashion. Also, realize it's not a robot but a mutated man in a robotic suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YPsaHFD8w

Yeah, I was familiar with the general concept of Daleks, just not the specific story elements.

Now, if they are (underneath the metal) human, then I would say that the the Doctor felt remorse because he could not find a way to redeem the daleks. that doesn't mean they couldn't be redeemed. Also, even with that, he chose to 'exterminate' the last Dalek. Why? Because it was pure and total evil? No, because it was damaged, contained. No longer a threat. Destroying it would be unnecessary. Or was it? It's threat was not from what it could do itself, but what the scientists examining it could do with what they learned from it. Perhaps they would learn how to create new Daleks? Where would the world(s) be then?

So the point remains: his moral dilemma was that he committed genocide because he could think of no other way to stop them. However, he was left with the plaguing doubt: "what if I waited a little longer, tried something, else. Maybe i could have found a way to save them from themselves".

Just because one (absolute genious) person cannot find a way to redeem them does not make them unredeemable.

There was a similar plot in a recent episode of the spinoff series, Torchwood. There was a half-"upgraded" cyberman (Cyberwoman?). She was the girlfriend of one of the main characters. The moral dilemma was that he was trying to find a way to make her fully human again, but she kept losing control to the mechanoid portion and killing people. It was a sad thing when they killed her, but they couldn't redeem her without more deaths, because they couldn't contain her. And yet, she was still partially human, and had lengthy lucid periods where she genuinely wanted to be saved.

Now THAT is a grey area. Destroy something partially good because you are currently unable to contain it, or struggle longer, harder, to contain it until you figure out how to reverse the process?

If she was unredeemable, there would have been no question: destroy on sight.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 04:39 PM
Just because one (absolute genious) person cannot find a way to redeem them does not make them unredeemable.

Actually, the Doctor tried to redeem the Daleks by giving them a genetic boost of individuality as well as the ability to feel compassion. This episode reuses the plotline with the Dalek becoming infected with the "Human Factor" and realizing just how much it missed.

In the end there's two ways to read its final act (suicide)

1. It couldn't live on as a monster.

2. It couldn't live on a being who could feel.

Yes, if you go to extraordinary lengths then perhaps your player characters could find some way to allow Orcs the same free will and feelings that humans have.

Do you have that right? Is it actually BETTER? Or are you playing as one of the gods to tamper with what nature/the gods have produced?

Good gaming questions.

Okay, I'm officially out of Orcpsychosis. Seriously, I've defended the issue as much as possible and frankly think I've gone alittle too far too much in several cases so I'm going to drop out of being the Pro-Argument from this point on and mostly would be interested in discussing other elements of Orc culture, including from my non-evil and only societal evil campaigns.

The non-Tolkien or Dalek-esque.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-11, 04:57 PM
I don't think H.P. Lovecraft's Shadows over Innsmouth works with the protagionist saying "And now the humans can interbreed with the fish men in peace.

Which itself was written as a "warning" to the "horrors" of interracial breeding. Not neccesarily the best example to bring up.

But otherwise I get what you're saying.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-11, 05:02 PM
Which itself was written as a "warning" to the "horrors" of interracial breeding. Not neccesarily the best example to bring up.

But otherwise I get what you're saying.

It was also "The ocean is scary."

But the issue is, of course, a scary one. Humanity becoming something different and less than what it is.

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-11, 05:12 PM
I don't think even Tolkien went as far in characterising Orcs as true evil as you have, Charles Phipps. My reading of Orcs and Goblins in The Lord Of The Rings is that they are were a relatively weak, malevolent evil. Cowardly, using low cunning and overwhelming numbers to give them the advantage. And somewhat pitiable, despite all that.

Going back over the last few pages there have been quite a few posts complaining about the tendency to cast Orcs in a more sympathetic light; as tribes of noble warrior guys in Warcraft, for example. But that's just as valid a depiction as your idea of Orcs as an unstoppable force of evil. Both are examples of adaptation decay.

Comparing Orcs with Daleks doesn't really work. Orcs have been portrayed as all kinds of things since Tolkien first invented them. They've been everything from moronic berserkers to noble nature-loving tribesmen to outright comic relief. They're hard to take seriously as outright horror villains (which is what you seem to be suggesting). In D&D, they're little more than moving chunks of exp for low-level adventurers to partake of, and it's hard to make them scary. Why not just invent a new race to use as your example of pure evil, if you're going to twist them that far?

Whereas (in the actual Doctor Who canon, at least), Daleks have never been anything less than scary murderous little engines of death that rack up a huge body count every time they appear. The viewing public have got used to them over time, but they've always remained as brutally effective villains.



Right, back on to the actual topic...

I enjoy playing as counterstereotypes in many games. I'm playing as an NG Orc Ranger in a D&D campaign at the moment. The backstory to Orcs in the campaign is that their lands and tribes were conquered by humans a generation ago, and that they have been forcibly integrated into human society.

Most of the Orcs in the campaign world are embittered, thuggish renegades. The fact that humans are more intelligent and innovative than they are causes them great pain and not a little jealousy. So, they're usually evil, blaming the humans for their predicament, and so they've become raiders and mercenaries, and so they're often used as cheap mooks by the Little Bads of the campaign.

By contrast, my character's backstory is that he has a very rose-tinted view of the Orcs of the past, and he strives to follow their example, to be a paragon of a warrior tradition that probably never existed. He's thoughtful, insightful, and a very good person.

A minor plot point in the campaign is that many NPCs believe Orcs to be bestial, primitive creatures, unable to rise above their base instincts. My answer to this was that all sentient creatures are capable of rising above what they were born to be, and most people do this on a daily basis. :smallcool:

Yes, I enjoy subverting and playing with various tropes. And my GM is the best.

SleepingOrange
2007-10-11, 08:22 PM
If you want them like an army of undead, why not use an army of undead?

Because that's a thoroughly vitalist comment. Shame on you.

Townopolis
2007-10-11, 09:42 PM
I tend towards the misunderstood end of the spectrum, but in a "you'd never fully understand their point of view" kind of way. Basically, like some, I focus on the fact that orcs, and all sentient non-humans for that matter, are alien and have an alien psyche.

For example, orcs have a different emotional range than humans. The best way we can describe it would be to say that orcs feel the following emootions: anger, hatred, shame, and victory. These are the core, elemental, emotions that an orc can feel, there is no fear or sorrow, or even normal happiness. Similarly, orcs have no concept of friendship, only respect and ownership. The best one can hope for from an orc is the kind of respect that translates roughly as "I'd prefer to try and kill someone else, if possible." However, orcs' minds work differently from human minds, and they way to gain such respect wouldn't be intuitive to us at all.

However, English terminology doesn't adequately describe these feelings and concepts. We can get a rough idea, since orcs aren't as alien as other creatures, but we miss something important in the translation.

Jannex
2007-10-12, 01:46 AM
Sorry for the belated reply; I spent pretty much the entire day on airplanes and in airports. Yay travel.


Doctor Who and the Daleks has devoted dozens of episodes about the nature of evil and good thanks to their very nature as the embodiment of everything evil in the universe. Stories that cannot remotely be duplicated by people who choose to be evil.

I could be wrong on this (I'm not that familiar with Classic Who), but at some point in the past, weren't the Daleks originally a race of people, with emotions and choice just like most other species, but chose to be hateful and xenophobic and warlike, ultimately leading to the reinvention of their race via genetic engineering to wipe away all traces of, for want of a better word, humanity? So really, you could make the argument that Daleks, collectively, did choose evil.


I cannot think, exactly, how you think that Purely Evil beings cannot have something to say about good and evil. Or do you think that Demons cannot be used in any morality tale?

Only as a plot device.


Here's a few ways Orcs can be used to talk about the nature of good and evil.

* As a Dramatic Foil: Orcs are the perfect representations of what humans can degenerate too. They are the lowest that one can sink to in reality and that means that they can be used as a measuring stick for evil.

"You would make a good orc!"

Only if that degree of evil is actually attainable by humanity. Something that is made of Elemental Evil (TM) seems outside of human scope.



* As an embodiment of evil idealogy: Orcs as un-real individuals can take philosophies to their natural conclusions. Sticking with Godwin, Orcish Nazis can be used in place of Human Nazis in order to provide a buffer zone to the comfort of a group.

One can do stories on fascism, racism, and genocide much easier with an existing fantasy race than with humans.

I disagree. The campaign world in which I'm currently PCing contains a "human supremacist" nation modeled loosely on Nazi Germany, and I don't think the emotional and psychological impact of this on my character (a human who actively opposes the nation, to the point of participating in a sort of "underground railroad" to evacuate nonhumans from the country) would be nearly as intense if the "Nazi" country wasn't human. It would be all too easy to write them off and dismiss them as the "Other" if they were nonhumans; their humanity is a constant reminder to my character to be wary of her own prejudices, including against humans from that nation.


* As an irresitable Force: Like the Borg, Orcs can be a threat much more terrifying than any human being army because they're one that cannot be reasoned with or stopped. Like an army of undead, they will keep coming.

They provide an excellent example for human reaction to an extreme disatrous force. Yes, you COULD have just a Mongol Horde or humans but why complicate the issue with humans? Orcs work much better.

To my mind, that's what the undead are for. Or demons. The campaign I played in last spring set us against the hordes of the Abyss. I think it's only if you want something a bit more humanlike and relatable that you bring in orcs and such.


* As a creature of Horror: Orcs as degenerate and unnatural things allow wonderfully Lovecraftian options for monstrous human beings to breed with and create new monsters. Why did humans choose to make this unholy pact and what horrors like underneath this town because of it?

I'm actually not at all clear on what orcs have to do with Lovecraftian horror. (They don't have tentacles :smallwink: )


* As a questioning of evil: Whether an Orc is purely evil or not is a question to be examined in game I'm sure by plenty of people. I think one would be silly to assume one's player characters would agree even if they are.

I think that only works if you leave room for moral ambiguity.


* As the ultimate test of human empathy: Can human beings show compassion and sympathy to a creature who absolutely cannot reciprocate. If you say that it doesn't matter and you torture or murder orcs, you're still eveil even if they are.

Does one show compassion and sympathy for a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a tornado? If it is not a sapient, free-willed force, it's much easier to remove from moral consideration.


Actually, the Doctor tried to redeem the Daleks by giving them a genetic boost of individuality as well as the ability to feel compassion. This episode reuses the plotline with the Dalek becoming infected with the "Human Factor" and realizing just how much it missed.

In the end there's two ways to read its final act (suicide)

1. It couldn't live on as a monster.

2. It couldn't live on a being who could feel.

If that's the episode I'm thinking of (I haven't followed the link; I'm on a friend's laptop at the moment), "Dalek" from Season One of the current iteration of the show (9th Doctor), then I read its suicide as a sort of "death by cognitive dissonance." The Dalek was born, bred, and raised to hate everything in the universe that wasn't a Dalek, and to experience no other emotions than that hatred. Not only was it engineered to have these traits, but these values were inculcated into its psyche from its birth (or however it is Daleks reproduce... really don't want to think too hard about that). Suddenly it's experiencing something utterly contrary to everything it's been made to believe for its entire life, both through its genes and its upbringing. It couldn't resolve the conflict; it was an abomination to itself. That's how I intepreted it, at any rate.

Morty
2007-10-12, 07:58 AM
* As a Dramatic Foil: Orcs are the perfect representations of what humans can degenerate too. They are the lowest that one can sink to in reality and that means that they can be used as a measuring stick for evil.

"You would make a good orc!"

Except they don't sink to this level, it's just the way they are.


* As an embodiment of evil idealogy: Orcs as un-real individuals can take philosophies to their natural conclusions. Sticking with Godwin, Orcish Nazis can be used in place of Human Nazis in order to provide a buffer zone to the comfort of a group.

One can do stories on fascism, racism, and genocide much easier with an existing fantasy race than with humans.

Racism and facism aren't supposed to be easy and comfortable, that's one thing. Other thing is, facism and racism works better when it's commited by humans or otherwise morally flexible beings, as protagonists know that they could very well be the same as them.


* As an irresitable Force: Like the Borg, Orcs can be a threat much more terrifying than any human being army because they're one that cannot be reasoned with or stopped. Like an army of undead, they will keep coming.

They provide an excellent example for human reaction to an extreme disatrous force. Yes, you COULD have just a Mongol Horde or humans but why complicate the issue with humans? Orcs work much better.

So why not use undead? Or demons?


* As a creature of Horror: Orcs as degenerate and unnatural things allow wonderfully Lovecraftian options for monstrous human beings to breed with and create new monsters. Why did humans choose to make this unholy pact and what horrors like underneath this town because of it?

Orcs resemble humans, they're just green and have fangs. So matching them with Lovecraftian horrors is missed.


* As a questioning of evil: Whether an Orc is purely evil or not is a question to be examined in game I'm sure by plenty of people. I think one would be silly to assume one's player characters would agree even if they are.

I'm confused. So should there be room for moral ambiguity or not?


* As the ultimate test of human empathy: Can human beings show compassion and sympathy to a creature who absolutely cannot reciprocate. If you say that it doesn't matter and you torture or murder orcs, you're still eveil even if they are.

Orcs as you described can't be really shown compassion, as they're little more than natural disaster.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 08:11 AM
Except they don't sink to this level, it's just the way they are.

Humans becoming as bad as Orcs is a persistant theme in my campaigns.


Racism and facism aren't supposed to be easy and comfortable, that's one thing. Other thing is, facism and racism works better when it's commited by humans or otherwise morally flexible beings, as protagonists know that they could very well be the same as them.

See above, the fact that Orcs practice such systematized evil makes the players very much more sensitive to the fact that they too could become like the Orcs. Making humans into the fascists and Orcs ruins the parallel because there's nothing to sink too other than "oh, look, Orcs can be fascists too."


So why not use undead? Or demons?

....Because I have Orcs?


Orcs resemble humans, they're just green and have fangs. So matching them with Lovecraftian horrors is missed.

I refer to "Pickman's Model" That pretty much describes Orcs to a T.


I'm confused. So should there be room for moral ambiguity or not?

Frankly, if you treat Orcs as people then there's no debate in game if they're monsters or not. I find that leaving the question unanswered but frequently displaying the absolute sickening aftermath and rampages makes the question worthwhile.

Some of our best RPGing was In-Game questioning whether Orcs could be people or not. Some players advocated outright extermination while others believed there were other ways to deal with them.

One of the best parts was the Redeemer was a Half-Orc....and the Ranger who advocated Extermination was also a Half-Orc.

Some great party tension there. If I ever said "Oh yes and Orcs are okay" then one of the PCs become a mass murderer, I'd prefer not to.


Orcs as you described can't be really shown compassion, as they're little more than natural disaster.

Weird, my players would not get along with you for grossly oversimplifying the issue.

:-)

How ironic.

Like I point out, a major part of the appeal of Orcs is the fact that human beings can totally lose what makes us human and turn ourselves into Orcs. They're what might happen to us. A race that is Damned Forever. Ironically, fighting the Orcs and treating them like monsters might well help speed them along even if they are unable to ever be made peace with.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 08:30 AM
Another great Dalek clip comes from The Evolution of the Daleks (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dC50eH7E3Zo). The background of the episode s a cult of Daleks instructed to imagine, and their leader decides that the only way the Daleks can win is to stop being killing machines and evolve. The other Daleks hijack this attempt, and the following happens at the end.

Pure evil always gives me the willies.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 09:09 AM
Another great Dalek clip comes from The Evolution of the Daleks (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dC50eH7E3Zo). The background of the episode s a cult of Daleks instructed to imagine, and their leader decides that the only way the Daleks can win is to stop being killing machines and evolve. The other Daleks hijack this attempt, and the following happens at the end.

Pure evil always gives me the willies.

Yeah, the Doctor's reaction is how I want my players to deal with them. It's a bit high minded that the GOOD thing to do with Pure evil is find SOME way to show it out of the darkness even when it's impossile through normal methods.

Destroying it out of hand will harm you even if its the logical thing to do.

fendrin
2007-10-12, 09:28 AM
Humans becoming as bad as Orcs is a persistant theme in my campaigns.
And I pointed out how no matter how evil a human is, they are infinitely LESS evil than an one of your orcs because humans contain the potential for redemption.


See above, the fact that Orcs practice such systematized evil makes the players very much more sensitive to the fact that they too could become like the Orcs. Making humans into the fascists and Orcs ruins the parallel because there's nothing to sink too other than "oh, look, Orcs can be fascists too."
'practice'? 'systematic'? Those imply societal.
Um, i would say htat having a culture of fascist orcs would make it easier to dehumanize the fascist, make then utterly other, and thus feel no worry of becoming like that. It would be like an awakened mouse being worried about turning into a cat. It just makes no sense.


Frankly, if you treat Orcs as people then there's no debate in game if they're monsters or not. I find that leaving the question unanswered but frequently displaying the absolute sickening aftermath and rampages makes the question worthwhile.
Oh I fully disagree with out here. 'people' and 'monsters' are not exclusive. Or history is full of people who were monsters (keeping in line with the Nazi theme of the thread, thenk about Mengele. If he wasn't a monster, I don;t know what is.

No, if you treat orcs as nothing but monsters, then there is no debate. They are what they are and cannot be otherwise. That is what you have described. Now, if orcs can be non-monstrous, then there is always the question: why are monstrous orcs monstrous? What made them that way? Could the same thing happen to me?


Some of our best RPGing was In-Game questioning whether Orcs could be people or not. Some players advocated outright extermination while others believed there were other ways to deal with them.

One of the best parts was the Redeemer was a Half-Orc....and the Ranger who advocated Extermination was also a Half-Orc.

Some great party tension there. If I ever said "Oh yes and Orcs are okay" then one of the PCs become a mass murderer, I'd prefer not to.
again, it's not that 'all orcs are evil' or 'all orcs are not evil'.
It is the capacity to be not evil that makes evil that much worse.

If you say to your players "not all orcs are evil" and one of them goes on an orc kiling spree, that player's character would be evil, and should suffer for it (like by having the other players turn on him, or by some celestial being smiting he heck out of him, or having him become enemy #1 of all the local paladins). Oh, and he is a paladin, or deity of a good god, he would lose his powers. Preferably at an opportune moment, like when a mob of commoners comes to deal with the monster that the PC had become.


Weird, my players would not get along with you for grossly oversimplifying the issue.
See, all throughout this thread, YOU have been the one simplifying matters. orcs with the potential for good is much more complex than 'all orcs are evil'. Now, maybe you haven't explicitly told your players that they are always evil, but that is what you have been saying in this thread. Maybe the 'kill them all' player has figured it out and the 'redeem them' player hasn't. Regardless, by making them ALWAYS evil, one player is right, the other is wrong. There is no question, no uncertainty. Now, sometime if you have an orc run into a burning building to save a baby (and then giving the baby to it's parents, before walking off into the sunset, with no payment or reward), maybe the 'kill them all' player would start to have some doubts.


Like I point out, a major part of the appeal of Orcs is the fact that human beings can totally lose what makes us human and turn ourselves into Orcs. They're what might happen to us. A race that is Damned Forever. Ironically, fighting the Orcs and treating them like monsters might well help speed them along even if they are unable to ever be made peace with.
And yet i can see a few selfless people(the so called heroes) putting their own humanity on the line to stop the orcs from ruining it for everybody else. A few people take the brunt of the evilness upon themselves, leaving the rest of the humans(and other sentient non-evil races of course) both free of the orc threat and uncontaminated by the evil of wiping them out.

Isn't that what the Doctor did? He took the evilness of genocide upon himself to save the universe from the Daleks. Do the other beings in the universe become evil becuae of what he did? No. But, they are free of the Dalek threat.

Saph
2007-10-12, 09:37 AM
I tend towards the misunderstood end of the spectrum, but in a "you'd never fully understand their point of view" kind of way. Basically, like some, I focus on the fact that orcs, and all sentient non-humans for that matter, are alien and have an alien psyche.

. . .

However, English terminology doesn't adequately describe these feelings and concepts. We can get a rough idea, since orcs aren't as alien as other creatures, but we miss something important in the translation.

I find this way of doing it the most interesting. The point is that orcs are different; they're not just people with green skin and fangs, they have a genuinely different way of looking at the world that you're never going to wholly understand and which by your standards is, yes, sometimes going to look pretty evil.

This is the best way to DM monster races, in my opinion, because it gives both the "Kill 'em all" players and the "They're people too" players difficult problems to deal with. The "Kill 'em all" players have to deal with the fact that their targets aren't necessarily evil and that some of the problems just stem from different viewpoints. The "They're people too" players have to deal with the fact that although monsters aren't always evil, they very often are, and treating them like ordinary people often leads to a knife through the ribs.

I always find it fascinating watching how players fall into one camp or the other, and watching them switch between the two - sometimes the "kill 'em alls" start to feel sympathetic for the creatures they're killing, and sometimes the "they're people toos" get sick of their niceness being taken as an invitation to walk all over them. Often it's very hard to guess which direction a player will go in until they're put in a situation that makes them choose.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-10-12, 09:44 AM
And I pointed out how no matter how evil a human is, they are infinitely LESS evil than an one of your orcs because humans contain the potential for redemption.



again, it's not that 'all orcs are evil' or 'all orcs are not evil'.
It is the capacity to be not evil that makes evil that much worse.

This sounds contradictory to me. Which is it? Worse to be evil when incapable of anything else or when capable of good?

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 09:55 AM
One thing that really bugs me about the idea of all Orcs being evil is the existence, no, the proliferation of Half-Orcs. I mean, an entire species descended from rape? That is really, really disturbing.

And since, Orcs and Humans are capable of interbreeding, that means they're not a separate species, right? Because all our definitions of species are based on the fact that different species cannot interbreed. So, Humans are Orcs. And vice versa.

So in canon D&D its probably a fault of Orcish society. I mean... the Orcs in Eberron (who are usually pretty neutral) have a different kind of society to those in Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, and that must have shaped their attitudes and values differently.

So it's all Gruumsh's fault. Heh.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 10:00 AM
So it's all Gruumsh's fault. Heh.

Isn't everything Gruumsh's fault? I know I blame Gruumsh when I stub my toe. :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-10-12, 10:03 AM
One thing that really bugs me about the idea of all Orcs being evil is the existence, no, the proliferation of Half-Orcs. I mean, an entire species descended from rape? That is really, really disturbing.

And since, Orcs and Humans are capable of interbreeding, that means they're not a separate species, right? Because all our definitions of species are based on the fact that different species cannot interbreed. So, Humans are Orcs. And vice versa.

So in canon D&D its probably a fault of Orcish society. I mean... the Orcs in Eberron (who are usually pretty neutral) have a different kind of society to those in Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, and that must have shaped their attitudes and values differently.

So it's all Gruumsh's fault. Heh.

Nah, you're thinking too literally. The fact that Elves, Orcs and Humans can interbreed doesn't make them the same species because real world biology doesn't apply. The fluff has all changed these days, but it used to be the case that the majority of Orc offspring were Orc, regardless of who the other parent was, with about 5-10% being categorised as Half Orc.

It's just part of our inheritance from LotRs that this is all glossed over. It's up to you how human you want your Orcs to be.

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 10:12 AM
Nah, you're thinking too literally. The fact that Elves, Orcs and Humans can interbreed doesn't make them the same species because real world biology doesn't apply. The fluff has all changed these days, but it used to be the case that the majority of Orc offspring were Orc, regardless of who the other parent was, with about 5-10% being categorised as Half Orc.

It's just part of our inheritance from LotRs that this is all glossed over. It's up to you how human you want your Orcs to be.


Hmm... if you can kill Catgirls by bringing real-world physics into a discussion of fantasy, then what do you kill if you bring real-world biology into it?

fendrin
2007-10-12, 10:25 AM
And I pointed out how no matter how evil a human is, they are infinitely LESS evil than an one of your orcs because humans contain the potential for redemption.

again, it's not that 'all orcs are evil' or 'all orcs are not evil'.
It is the capacity to be not evil that makes evil that much worse.


This sounds contradictory to me. Which is it? Worse to be evil when incapable of anything else or when capable of good?

It is a worse evil when evil is chosen, however, anyone who is evil by choice also has the ability to choose to be good.

By choosing to be good, they can (given sufficient time) redeem themselves.

To put it another way, which is more evil: an orc that eats babies because it has no choice but to eat babies, or an orc that eats babies simply because it wants to?

The one that chooses is more disturbing, more evil. However, that one is also the only one that can choose NOT to eat babies. Therefore it is the only baby eater that can redeem itself (by becoming a devoted defender of babies, for instance, selflessly risking itself to save helpless babies from otherwise certain doom).

So, if you had the choice of destroying one and imprisoning hte other, which would you chose? The logical choice is to kill the one that cannot be redeemed and imprison the other one.

EDIT: hey, i just noticed I'm an 'Orc in the Playground'. I must have a pro-orc bias. :smalltongue:

Fhaolan
2007-10-12, 10:35 AM
Hmm... if you can kill Catgirls by bringing real-world physics into a discussion of fantasy, then what do you kill if you bring real-world biology into it?

Owlbears...

Rex Blunder
2007-10-12, 10:51 AM
See above, the fact that Orcs practice such systematized evil makes the players very much more sensitive to the fact that they too could become like the Orcs. Making humans into the fascists and Orcs ruins the parallel because there's nothing to sink too other than "oh, look, Orcs can be fascists too."

If you're interested in telling stories which examine the evils of racism, it seems a little counterproductive to me to have a race which you can comfortably classify as universally racist. It's like a Phil **** story, before the twist.

I think the middle-of-the-road approach Lordsmoothe and Saph describe is a good one. Creatures which you can neither fully classify as evil nor trust make for a disturbing opponent.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-12, 10:54 AM
@ the Nazi talk and stuff:

Most of you seem to be assuming that we're blank slates; born with out any capacity for good or evil, but through choice and personal effort do we become one or the other.

That's bull****.

The very things we consider good and bad are, largely, wired into us. We just can't understand certain things or are loathe to act certain ways because of how our simian brains are wired. We're cerebral apes, not true neutral beings who choose good or evil. Even our ideas of good and evil are human constructs, used to govern human behavior.

Every other animal behavior ever investigated has been shown to be rooted in biology. Why should human behavior be any different? If you can breed for broodiness in hens, why wouldn't it be possible to breed for malevolence in orcs (or humans)?

Unless you're all dualists and are going to tell me it's the unique soul quality of sentient beings interfacing with the mind-body complex. In which case, you can keep your tabula rasa, because contemporary science says you're wrong.

Matthew
2007-10-12, 11:06 AM
It is a worse evil when evil is chosen, however, anyone who is evil by choice also has the ability to choose to be good.

By choosing to be good, they can (given sufficient time) redeem themselves.

Are you sure about that? Are not some acts so terrible that the actor is irredeemable? I think a lot depends on this sort of disconnect. Not everyone agrees that it is possible to erase bad deeds by good.


To put it another way, which is more evil: an orc that eats babies because it has no choice but to eat babies, or an orc that eats babies simply because it wants to?


The one that chooses is more disturbing, more evil. However, that one is also the only one that can choose NOT to eat babies. Therefore it is the only baby eater that can redeem itself (by becoming a devoted defender of babies, for instance, selflessly risking itself to save helpless babies from otherwise certain doom).


So, if you had the choice of destroying one and imprisoning hte other, which would you chose? The logical choice is to kill the one that cannot be redeemed and imprison the other one.

What if the Orc has no choice but to want to? The motives of the Orc do not have to be sourced in anything other than its nature and that does not make it any less terrible than an Orc whose nature can be changed. Redemption involves transformation, but it is not necessary to transform evil to discover if it is truly evil. To put it another way, there is no difference between an Orc with the potential for redemption and one without that potential during the period in which it is unredeemed. Both should be treated equally, whether we judge them to have the potential for redemption or not.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 11:07 AM
If you're interested in telling stories which examine the evils of racism, it seems a little counterproductive to me to have a race which you can comfortably classify as universally racist. It's like a Phil **** story, before the twist.

I think the middle-of-the-road approach Lordsmoothe and Saph describe is a good one. Creatures which you can neither fully classify as evil nor trust make for a disturbing opponent.

A race would be people. Orcs are not people. They are what humanity could become if they continue on a path of relentless destruction, avarice, and greed. They are, without a doubt, something that doesn't have any hope left. I wouldn't mind if the Orcs were once a bunch of pacifists that were nicer than hobbits.

The difference is now there is no hope for them. They're beyond redemption. Just like mankind can become.

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 11:11 AM
A race would be people. Orcs are not people. They are what humanity could become if they continue on a path of relentless destruction, avarice, and greed. They are, without a doubt, something that doesn't have any hope left. I wouldn't mind if the Orcs were once a bunch of pacifists that were nicer than hobbits.

The difference is now there is no hope for them. They're beyond redemption. Just like mankind can become.

Uh, like I've said before... Orcs are MOSTLY EVIL. So they are not beyond redemption. Not in standard D&D anyway.

Yeah, you may present them that way, but that's your interpretation, and your campaign world. That doesn't make it part of the official D&D Orc canon.



@ the Nazi talk and stuff:

Most of you seem to be assuming that we're blank slates; born with out any capacity for good or evil, but through choice and personal effort do we become one or the other.

That's bull****.

The very things we consider good and bad are, largely, wired into us. We just can't understand certain things or are loathe to act certain ways because of how our simian brains are wired. We're cerebral apes, not true neutral beings who choose good or evil. Even our ideas of good and evil are human constructs, used to govern human behavior.

Every other animal behavior ever investigated has been shown to be rooted in biology. Why should human behavior be any different? If you can breed for broodiness in hens, why wouldn't it be possible to breed for malevolence in orcs (or humans)?

Unless you're all dualists and are going to tell me it's the unique soul quality of sentient beings interfacing with the mind-body complex. In which case, you can keep your tabula rasa, because contemporary science says you're wrong.

And Tor the Fallen kills over 9000 owlbears with a single post!

I don't think anyone has argued that breeding plays no part in making an evil creature. In fact, the dominant viewpoint seems to be that Orcs are irredeemably evil and this is coded into their genes. Yes, I myself have argued that society plays a large part in making evil races evil, but I've never said that was the only reason. And nobody has said anything about dualism or tabula rasa. You're attacking a strawman.

Kompera
2007-10-12, 11:13 AM
Innately evil or just misunderstood - My GM has it both ways.

Orcs in his setting are pretty much mindless savages with no hope of redemption or any redeeming qualities. As he describes them it's difficult to comprehend how they could even have a modicum of a culture. They are driven to war, plunder, etc, and their are no individuals with any redeeming qualities within the race. Parley is useless with them, they understand only conflict and killing, even if it means certain death for them. Definitely "innately evil".

However, this is Orcs as they are now, with the complete "takeover" of the race by Beltar. They originally were as many portray them, disposed towards savagery and violence, yes, but not mindlessly so. There would be some individuals or groups which broke the CE mold. He labels these the Ancient Orcs. They would be "just misunderstood". Competitors of humanity and cast in a poor light due to this adversarial relationship, and also mostly CE, but not without any possible redeeming qualities or hope of non-violent interaction with other races.

I dunno if he had any plot hooks based around this back story planned, but after speaking to him about this I immediately crafted my character's history as having come from the last Ancient Orc and Human joint settlements, nearly wiped out by the Beltar Orcs due to the jealous rage of Beltar at his failure to control these Orcs also. With but a handful of survivors who went their separate ways, my character included, the survivors scattered. My goals as a character are to avenge myself on the Orcs, but also on Beltar himself. No, the campaign won't have any deity slaying in it, we'll likely end at about 6th level. But anything I can do to hurt the worship of Beltar I will do, and any chance I get to slay a Beltar Orc I will take. If the campaign goes further than I think it will, my long term goals will be to reunite the scattered survivors and reestablish the Ancient Orcs as Orcs free from the influence of Beltar.

Kiero
2007-10-12, 11:16 AM
Innately evil is just plain lame. Different cultural values and mores works much better for me.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 11:16 AM
And I pointed out how no matter how evil a human is, they are infinitely LESS evil than an one of your orcs because humans contain the potential for redemption.

Until they don't. Man can become like the Orc. It would take a few generations but after fighting for a century or two, I fully would introduce into my campaign that human beings would become innately evil.

That a human baby would be born without the potential for redemption because the evil of each generation is passed onto the next. Art, poetry, love, and friendship would disappear from our race and be replaced solely with hatred. We could become the Orc.

Then again, I love hopeless stories like that. I reverse the metaphor with elves that, YES, in the future it'd be possible to end war. That we would lose all conflict and become a race of peace and love.


Um, i would say htat having a culture of fascist orcs would make it easier to dehumanize the fascist, make then utterly other, and thus feel no worry of becoming like that. It would be like an awakened mouse being worried about turning into a cat. It just makes no sense.

I don't get your point.


See, all throughout this thread, YOU have been the one simplifying matters. orcs with the potential for good is much more complex than 'all orcs are evil'.

Really dude, you ruin orcs. You take the one thing that makes them interesting and you essentially make them humans with Tusks. If Orcs are just "aw gee whiz, just like us" then there's no point in anything but using humans.

I'm interested in Orcs as an embodiment of evil.


Now, maybe you haven't explicitly told your players that they are always evil, but that is what you have been saying in this thread.

I always mix it up a bit to help them worry about it. Basically, it's a story about humans struggling against the face of adversity while also wondering what the nature of evil is and free will. Also, what does it say about mankind if it's willing to descend to levels of becoming the Orc.


Oh I fully disagree with out here. 'people' and 'monsters' are not exclusive. Or history is full of people who were monsters (keeping in line with the Nazi theme of the thread, thenk about Mengele. If he wasn't a monster, I don;t know what is.

An evil human being. I'd rather not bring Nazis into this issue. It's why I prefer divorcing their analogues from humanity to a certain extent (though to make it uncomfortable, humans are always part of the Nazi-Orc Empires)


No, if you treat orcs as nothing but monsters, then there is no debate. They are what they are and cannot be otherwise. That is what you have described. Now, if orcs can be non-monstrous, then there is always the question: why are monstrous orcs monstrous? What made them that way? Could the same thing happen to me?

If Orcs can be non-monstrous then there's no reason to wonder about it happening to us.


Isn't that what the Doctor did? He took the evilness of genocide upon himself to save the universe from the Daleks. Do the other beings in the universe become evil becuae of what he did? No. But, they are free of the Dalek threat.

Actually, the whole point of the story is that the Doctor was wrong to destroy his own race even if it destroyed the Daleks. That it's better to die a man than live by destroying the Daleks and become like them.

That's a controversial but very powerful message.

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 11:28 AM
Where are you getting this "being the epitome of evil makes Orcs interesting" idea from? Because it doesn't come from Tolkien and it doesn't come from D&D (as I've stated repeatedly above).

Really, if you're just going to argue that your interpretation of Orcs is superior to everyone elses', then why did you start this thread?

Surely, the real appeal of Orcs in D&D is that they're a generic humanoid monster that can be slotted into any convenient antagonistic role?

And shouldn't we be talking about evil races in general? We've spent the last three or four pages talking about Orcs.

What about the Drow? They're twisted versions of elves (like Tolkien's Orcs). Would you say that they always must be cruel and sadistic? Or are they just misguided?

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-12, 11:36 AM
It is a worse evil when evil is chosen, however, anyone who is evil by choice also has the ability to choose to be good.

By choosing to be good, they can (given sufficient time) redeem themselves.

To put it another way, which is more evil: an orc that eats babies because it has no choice but to eat babies, or an orc that eats babies simply because it wants to?

The one that chooses is more disturbing, more evil. However, that one is also the only one that can choose NOT to eat babies. Therefore it is the only baby eater that can redeem itself (by becoming a devoted defender of babies, for instance, selflessly risking itself to save helpless babies from otherwise certain doom).

So, if you had the choice of destroying one and imprisoning hte other, which would you chose? The logical choice is to kill the one that cannot be redeemed and imprison the other one.

EDIT: hey, i just noticed I'm an 'Orc in the Playground'. I must have a pro-orc bias. :smalltongue:

What if the orc increases his fitness by eating babies, and so has more orclings to replace him? Wouldn't orcs that enjoy eating babies eventually replace those that don't?

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 11:42 AM
What if the orc increases his fitness by eating babies, and so has more orclings to replace him? Wouldn't orcs that enjoy eating babies eventually replace those that don't?

Unless you're saying that eating babies gives you nutrients that can't be easily gotten elsewhere, baby-eating Orcs wouldn't have any evolutionary advantage over non-baby-eating omnivorous Orcs.

(Yeuch. I can't believe I just wrote that.)

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 11:43 AM
Where are you getting this "being the epitome of evil makes Orcs interesting" idea from? Because it doesn't come from Tolkien and it doesn't come from D&D (as I've stated repeatedly above).

It's about talking about your takes on Orcs and what makes them interesting. Geebus, you have a problem with healthy debate and talking about what you like about your games?

I gave up on "Orcs are pure evil" 6 pages ago! I was convinced. People have kept messaging me about my argument.


What about the Drow? They're twisted versions of elves (like Tolkien's Orcs). Would you say that they always must be cruel and sadistic? Or are they just misguided?

No, I just go with the idea they're the Romulans to the regular Elves Vulcans. The guys who didn't forsake their darker natures despite becoming more advanced and philosophical than regular people.

I also make my Drow blue skinned so to cut down racist potential.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-12, 11:45 AM
Unless you're saying that eating babies gives you nutrients that can't be easily gotten elsewhere, baby-eating Orcs wouldn't have any evolutionary advantage over non-baby-eating omnivorous Orcs.

(Yeuch. I can't believe I just wrote that.)

That was exactly what I was saying; regardless of how you feel about a behavior, if it offers a net advantage over others, then it should become the norm.

Unless you don't think evolution is a real phenomena.

Manticorkscrew
2007-10-12, 11:46 AM
BTW, can I borrow some of your ideas on how to make pure evil interesting again? Probably not going to use them on Orcs, though. :smallwink:



That was exactly what I was saying; regardless of how you feel about a behavior, if it offers a net advantage over others, then it should become the norm.

Unless you don't think evolution is a real phenomena.


Uh... What?

Seriously... What?

You're attacking a strawman. Yet again.

I just stated that I don't think that behaviour would give them any net advantage over any other meat eater. So it wouldn't be an evolutionary factor. How much clearer can I get?

Eating babies isn't really very efficient behaviour for any intelligent predator. Why eat fried egg now when you can have chicken later?

(Ugh... this conversation is getting more and more depraved. Hitler! Hitler!)

Charles Phipps
2007-10-12, 11:52 AM
Sure, go ahead.

I think I choose to use Orcs as the embodiments of pure evil because they're close enough to man yet different enough to be horrifying. You guys are right in that I've probably been far too unfair to the gray skinned bad guys though.

I think I'll update my Realms for 4E to have Orcs walking the streets with Goblins and humans together to see how players react.

I just need a justification in the 100 year Time Skip we're doing between campaigns.