PDA

View Full Version : Kill teh Orcs?



Pages : [1] 2

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 03:36 PM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

Solo
2008-02-10, 03:38 PM
Orcs are usually, but not always, Chaotic Evil.

Most of them are some sort of Evil.

Rarely, you will find non-Evil Orcs.


There are several ways for you to win this argument.

1. Have him debate with me.
2. Have him debate with one of the other well respected forum goers.
3. Ask him if his paladin approves of genocide.

That's it off the top of my head.

squishycube
2008-02-10, 03:41 PM
I promised myself not to post in these threads any more because they end up as alignment debates always. But still...

In D&D ethics is absolute. Killing an something that is irredeemably evil is a good thing to do. However, orcs do not qualify: they are only 'often chaotic evil', so a paladin is obliged to give each orc a chance. Killing an orc on sight is not a good act.

I would like to note here that RAW is not consequent about this, subjective elements have been introduced to the ethics of D&D worlds, notably by the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Zenos
2008-02-10, 03:41 PM
The thing about Orcs being Always Chaotic Evil is kind of stupid. Anyways, if you ever DM for these types, have them pass some Orc merchants or something who try to be friendly and sell some of their stuff, food and healing potions and the like.
As a PC, make a Good Orc PC.

squishycube
2008-02-10, 03:43 PM
...orcs do not qualify: they are only 'often chaotic evil'...


The thing about Orcs being Always Chaotic Evil is kind of stupid.

d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm)
'Nuff said.

Zincorium
2008-02-10, 03:45 PM
Presuming you can, at some point, get access to the MM, there is an explanation on page 105.

Always x: Exceptions to the indicated alignment are unique
Usually x: More than 50% are X, but not all
Often x: Less than 50% but still a large minority are alignment x.

Orcs are only 'often'.

Essentially, unless something has the (evil) subtype, they're not universally evil.

squishycube
2008-02-10, 03:48 PM
Presuming you can, at some point, get access to the MM, there is an explanation on page 105.

Always x: Exceptions to the indicated alignment are unique
Usually x: More than 50% are X, but not all
Often x: Less than 50% but still a large minority are alignment x.

Orcs are only 'often'.

Essentially, unless something has the (evil) subtype, they're not universally evil.
You know, the funny thing is that creatures with the evil subtype are listed as "always evil", which means that it is possible for them to be good. They would still detect as evil though (and good, isn't that nice :smallsmile: )

Wooter
2008-02-10, 03:53 PM
If you're in a game with him, convince the DM to add in a Good Orc NPC doing something non threatening, like picking berries. See how he reacts to it.

Spiryt
2008-02-10, 03:53 PM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

Well, I guess it's all depends on setting and that things.

If you however want to have even halfway serious game, killing orc on sight would be instant fall.




In D&D ethics is absolute. Killing an something that is irredeemably evil is a good thing to do.

Still, logical thinking doesn't hurt. If evil creature is only evil, and you don't know if it actually have done something evil, killing it is wrong anyway.

Yes, I know that I'm helping this thread to become just another beast.

Zincorium
2008-02-10, 03:54 PM
You know, the funny thing is that creatures with the evil subtype are listed as "always evil", which means that it is possible for them to be good. They would still detect as evil though (and good, isn't that nice :smallsmile: )

Since it says all exceptions are unique, and said exceptions might be, I dunno, neutral evil or lawful evil rather than chaotic evil for a demon, I'm comfortable with that.

RTGoodman
2008-02-10, 03:57 PM
You know, Paladins have a nifty tool for situations like this - Detect Evil. And, they just happen to pick it up at 1st level, so you know he has it.

puppyavenger
2008-02-10, 05:42 PM
Since it says all exceptions are unique, and said exceptions might be, I dunno, neutral evil or lawful evil rather than chaotic evil for a demon, I'm comfortable with that.

didn't Wizards make a succubus palidan sometime back?

Dervag
2008-02-10, 05:51 PM
Well, I guess it's all depends on setting and that things.

If you however want to have even halfway serious game, killing orc on sight would be instant fall.I'd say it depends on circumstances. I mean, if you're dealing with a party of orcs who snuck into the kingdom through the forest and have been burning out farming hamlets, then yeah, "kill on sight" would likely be reasonable. Those orcs may or may not all be evil aligned, but they're all trying to commit evil acts and aren't likely to stop unless opposed with deadly force.

On the other hand, if you encounter orcs in Orcland, where orcs just live and wander around being green, "kill on sight" would likely be unreasonable. Because even if that particular orc is evil, he isn't doing anything that Must Be Stopped.

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-10, 05:51 PM
didn't Wizards make a succubus palidan sometime back?

Yes, though she's not very good at paladining and as a paladin can't get away with using her nifty abilities. I find the character deep and interesting, but mechanically poor. omgroleplayingoveroptimization

This is an excellent example of 'exceptions to the rule are unique. I mean, you don't expect there to be a whole order of succubus paladins.

I think your argument can be settled just by showing the monster entry reads 'usually evil'. Tell him that he'd be racial profiling. Killing ANYTHING without just cause is kind of outside the bounds of a paladin's code as far as I'm concerned. Now, if you are in a dungeon crawling with orcs that have been raiding a nearby village and they try to kill you, I don't think wiping them all out is going to make a paladin fall, especially if he shouts out an offer to accept surrender first.

Rigon
2008-02-10, 06:10 PM
i say: detect evil.
Belkar's lawyer had an argument against that but i think we can ignore that.

EDIT: OH, NINJAED

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 06:10 PM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

Well orcs are usually evil, not always so your paladin is i'm afraid, a fantasy racist
from
EE

Grug
2008-02-10, 07:21 PM
Its actually more dependant on fluff. If the Paladin was trained or brought up to think that orcs are malicious scum, they probably won't have a problem killing one on sight (as long as it's armed of course). Lets say the countries or Ayland and Beeland have a history of war. If you are a knight in service of Ayland and you see an armed soldier from Beeland openly wearing a uniform, you are free to automatically assume they are up to no good. Same with orcs, although instead of being from Beeland the offense is being an orc.

What I'm trying to say is that if the orcs in your game have a well known history of killing and looting, there's no problem. Being paranoid never caused Miko to lose her powers. Only by going against the popular opinion that you shouldn't kill your leader caused her to lose her powers.

Querzis
2008-02-10, 07:56 PM
Its actually more dependant on fluff. If the Paladin was trained or brought up to think that orcs are malicious scum, they probably won't have a problem killing one on sight (as long as it's armed of course). Lets say the countries or Ayland and Beeland have a history of war. If you are a knight in service of Ayland and you see an armed soldier from Beeland openly wearing a uniform, you are free to automatically assume they are up to no good. Same with orcs, although instead of being from Beeland the offense is being an orc.

What I'm trying to say is that if the orcs in your game have a well known history of killing and looting, there's no problem. Being paranoid never caused Miko to lose her powers. Only by going against the popular opinion that you shouldn't kill your leader caused her to lose her powers.

The big problem is that Miko always actually USED her detect evil. The only time she didnt, she fell. And even then I personnaly would have made her fall before. Even if something is evil, as long as its not a threat to anyone then you shoudnt kill it.

Anyway, orcs are just 'often' chaotic evil. That means more then half of them arent and, since I cant see an orc as anything else then chaotic, chaotic neutral orcs really shoudnt be rare at all. He saw an orc, he killed it for no reason, he fall. Thats all. And if hes not happy just show him the orcs alignement (often chaotic evil) and explain to him that often mean about half of the orcs arent. Or just tell him that you cant kill someone if hes not a threat (like an evil farmer, yeah he is evil so what?)

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 08:01 PM
Its actually more dependant on fluff. If the Paladin was trained or brought up to think that orcs are malicious scum, they probably won't have a problem killing one on sight (as long as it's armed of course). Lets say the countries or Ayland and Beeland have a history of war. If you are a knight in service of Ayland and you see an armed soldier from Beeland openly wearing a uniform, you are free to automatically assume they are up to no good. Same with orcs, although instead of being from Beeland the offense is being an orc.

What I'm trying to say is that if the orcs in your game have a well known history of killing and looting, there's no problem. Being paranoid never caused Miko to lose her powers. Only by going against the popular opinion that you shouldn't kill your leader caused her to lose her powers.

No that isn't true, using racial or regional prejuices to justify murder doesn't work in D&D
from
EE

Leon
2008-02-10, 08:02 PM
Your pally would have been strife had he had a go at the orcs we encounted on the last session - neutral/good, smart, eager to learn more (like ship building and trade)

We met the Demi Lich that has been refining this civilisation for the past few hundred years, they want us to go back and send representatives of the gods they'd like to worship back (we were there for that reason, but they are not that interested in ours - Torm, Helm, Moradin and Akadi)

They want Mystra, Lathander and a couple of others

We have 2 dwarfs in the party who had to change the typical attitude on orcs after meeting them

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-10, 08:13 PM
I love messing with my players. The vast majority of things in my game are neutral or so. Sure, they want to kill the players, but not out of any particular love of causing pain, or hatred for their kind... its just they've gotta feed the children SOMEHOW, and bounty hunting pays the rent.

Swordguy
2008-02-10, 08:41 PM
Nastier question: can a Dwarven Paladin of Moradin fall for killing Orcs on sight? One of things Moradin stands for involves the death of the Orc race, after all. Eons of racial eminity, anyone? So much so that every member of their race gets an attack bonus against them?

BRC
2008-02-10, 08:48 PM
Nastier question: can a Dwarven Paladin of Moradin fall for killing Orcs on sight? One of things Moradin stands for involves the death of the Orc race, after all. Eons of racial eminity, anyone? So much so that every member of their race gets an attack bonus against them?
I would say that, since in that case the paladin gains his powers from a god who has made his views on the subject clear, he could not fall.

Swordguy
2008-02-10, 08:50 PM
I would say that, since in that case the paladin gains his powers from a god who has made his views on the subject clear, he could not fall.

While that's how I'd figure the RAI worked, doesn't the RAW state that a paladin who commits an evil act (like killing Orcs on sight, for example) falls regardless? There's no exception for "unless your god says to do that specific 'evil' thing".

I agree, it's a stupid distinction. Unfortunately, there's a lot of stupid players out there...

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 08:59 PM
I would say that, since in that case the paladin gains his powers from a god who has made his views on the subject clear, he could not fall.

sign, Paladins don't gain their powers from gods, read the PHB religion section

also any paladin who kill orcs on site even when they aren't doing anything hostile will fall. Evil or no, you can't kill an innocent
from
EE

BRC
2008-02-10, 09:03 PM
While that's how I'd figure the RAI worked, doesn't the RAW state that a paladin who commits an evil act (like killing Orcs on sight, for example) falls regardless? There's no exception for "unless your god says to do that specific 'evil' thing".

I agree, it's a stupid distinction. Unfortunately, there's a lot of stupid players out there...
Well it depends where paladins are getting their powers. The standard definition has some sort of omnipresent force of good that gives it to them.

However, if you define that it's a god giving them their powers, then good and evil become good and evil from a god's point of view, I was actually going to write somthing up on modifying the alignment system to become relative. If the definition of "Good" is dependent on a god, then theoretically you could have two paladins of the same god fighting each other without falling. Let's say the god in question is very lawful, and see's supporting your nation as a good thing, it's not Good in terms of alignment, it's what the god agrees with.

Therefore, two nations are at war, two paladins, both of which get their powers from that god, fight each other. They are both supporting thier nation, which, according to the definition of the god granting them there powers, is a good thing.

However, under the Omnipresent force of good definition, one of the paladins (proably the first one to attack) would fall.

Zincorium
2008-02-10, 09:09 PM
sign, Paladins don't gain their powers from gods, read the PHB religion section


I would suggest reading it again yourself. They don't NEED to have gods in greyhawk, but in other settings they do, Forgotten Realms being the biggest example. In Ravenloft they're even rumored to get them from the Dark Powers themselves.

Not worshipping a specific god is not the same as not getting powers from the gods, the fact that they have divine spellcasting means the source of it stems from something outside of them, and it's not only possible but perfectly reasonable to assume that something is a god.

ChaosDefender24
2008-02-10, 09:12 PM
stuff

No, she lost her powers because she did something that was evil. Evil is objective in D&D. Killing an orc on sight is objectively evil, because orcs are NOT always evil, especially since the paladin can detect evil beforehand.

Let's use your example. The orcs have a history of killing and looting, and the Orc version of Driz'zt is walking around seeking to do good things. A paladin, without even stopping to detect evil, kills the Orc. It's obviously an evil act.

kpenguin
2008-02-10, 09:12 PM
Nastier question: can a Dwarven Paladin of Moradin fall for killing Orcs on sight? One of things Moradin stands for involves the death of the Orc race, after all. Eons of racial eminity, anyone? So much so that every member of their race gets an attack bonus against them?

I'm not sure if Moradin endorses the wholesale slaughter of orcs. One need only look to the Forgotten Realms to see a strong peace between orcs and dwarves.

comicshorse
2008-02-10, 09:12 PM
Really I'm not sure either would fall. They are both doing their duty, they both are their to support their lawful authorities and both are fighting a well armed and prepared opponent who is trying to kill them right back.
I see those two meeting on the battle-field, bowing formally to each other to acknowledge the other as a noble opponent and then fighting. Fighting with honour and chivalry but still doing their duty by fighting their enenmy.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 09:13 PM
I would suggest reading it again yourself. They don't NEED to have gods in greyhawk, but in other settings they do, Forgotten Realms being the biggest example. In Ravenloft they're even rumored to get them from the Dark Powers themselves.

But this isn't a world specific question, and even in FR the paladin code is still the same (gods can't make exceptions)


Not worshipping a specific god is not the same as not getting powers from the gods, the fact that they have divine spellcasting means the source of it stems from something outside of them, and it's not only possible but perfectly reasonable to assume that something is a god.
Their powers are not drawn from gods, they are drawn form the raw powers of Law and Goodness. Imagine it as worshiping a cause
from
EE

Vexxation
2008-02-10, 09:14 PM
I would suggest reading it again yourself. They don't NEED to have gods in greyhawk, but in other settings they do, Forgotten Realms being the biggest example. In Ravenloft they're even rumored to get them from the Dark Powers themselves.

Eberron, also, has no Deity-worshiping prerequisite for divine casters, including paladins. They draw their power from their conviction about an idea, such as the Silver Flame, or the Undying Court. Because of this, you can have some real fun with evil characters, such as believing strongly enough in punching the elderly that you draw divine power from it. Man, that cleric was a blast.

Not that anyone really plays Eberron. Just adding that idea.

BRC
2008-02-10, 09:15 PM
But this isn't a world specific question, and even in FR the paladin code is still the same (gods can't make exceptions)

There is no canon in DnD. I generally assume that unless a setting is specified, it's homebrewed (Even if thats just a map and some place names), and therefore perhaps in this world paladins DO gain their powers from gods who can make exceptions.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 09:21 PM
There is no canon in DnD. I generally assume that unless a setting is specified, it's homebrewed (Even if thats just a map and some place names), and therefore perhaps in this world paladins DO gain their powers from gods who can make exceptions.

Um, no. In D&D core paladins don't drawn powers from gods, and thus any game where paladins draw powers from gods is an exception to the rule. Even in such a world, the paladin code would need to be different as well (which is not the case for FR) for that to work, and then they aren't truly paladins anymore
from
EE

BRC
2008-02-10, 09:23 PM
Um, no. In D&D core paladins don't drawn powers from gods, and thus any game where paladins draw powers from gods is an exception to the rule. Even in such a world, the paladin code would need to be different as well (which is not the case for FR) for that to work, and then they aren't truly paladins anymore
from
EE
Except that in the example, it was specified we were talking about a paladin of Moradin (it was italicized, go check yourself), it was implied that this paladin drew his powers from Moradin, not from the omnipresent force of good.

Zincorium
2008-02-10, 09:28 PM
Um, no. In D&D core paladins don't drawn powers from gods,

Again, they don't have to, but they might. There is no hard DO NOT anywhere in the rules that I'm aware of.


and thus any game where paladins draw powers from gods is an exception to the rule. Even in such a world, the paladin code would need to be different as well (which is not the case for FR) for that to work, and then they aren't truly paladins anymore
from
EE

The paladin code has absolutely nothing to do with where they get their powers from, it's changed not one iota if they have a divine authority granting them abilities.

Also, the paladin code is not writ in stone. Claiming adding stuff on to a general list negates the entire point of the class is standing on extremely shaky ground.



Also, for the record, the 'general powers of good' is just an excuse for the DM to decide what does or does not cause paladin's to lose their powers. Notice that those same vague forces exist only when it comes to paladins and are mentioned nowhere else.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 09:37 PM
Again, they don't have to, but they might. There is no hard DO NOT anywhere in the rules that I'm aware of.

A paladin who worships no god and a paladin who does are exactly the same




Except that in the example, it was specified we were talking about a paladin of Moradin (it was italicized, go check yourself), it was implied that this paladin drew his powers from Moradin, not from the omnipresent force of good.
Or that could mean the paladin happened to worship Moradin.


The paladin code has absolutely nothing to do with where they get their powers from, it's changed not one iota if they have a divine authority granting them abilities.
Yes it does, in a world where the paladins get their powers drawn from the gods might mean the gods can choose if a paladin falls or not


Also, the paladin code is not writ in stone. Claiming adding stuff on to a general list negates the entire point of the class is standing on extremely shaky ground.
Um, no. The general idea of the paladin code is that it isn't flexible, though not stupid
[QUOTE]
Also, for the record, the 'general powers of good' is just an excuse for the DM to decide what does or does not cause paladin's to lose their powers. Notice that those same vague forces exist only when it comes to paladins and are mentioned nowhere else.
CoughBoEDcough
from
EE

brian c
2008-02-10, 09:39 PM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

It's not okay to kill an orc just for being an orc.

However, you're a paladin: you get Detect Evil at will. If you detect him anything as being evil, orcs included, then as a Paladin you're completely justified as killing them right away.


Course, this is obviously a D&D black-and-white-morality argument that cannot and should not be carried over into anything real world.

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 09:39 PM
I generally play it by reasonable logic. Being evil means you're a bad person deep down, nothing more. It doesn't mean you do evil things, it doesn't mean you can't lead a functional life, and it even doesn't mean you can't have friends, family, and loved ones. Killing a person for being "evil" is murder, just as much as killing someone for wearing white socks with black shoes. They have less scruples, yes, but they can have any number of reasons not to act accordingly.

BRC
2008-02-10, 09:41 PM
A paladin who worships no god and a paladin who does are exactly the same
Once again, depends on the setting. If it was irrelevant, why would he have specified it in his question.


Um, no. The general idea of the paladin code is that it isn't flexible, though not stupid

I agree, The code should be set in stone. However, that dosn't mean that every setting uses the exact same code, you can proably find as many different variations of the Paladin's code as you can find DM's.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 09:41 PM
It's not okay to kill an orc just for being an orc.

However, you're a paladin: you get Detect Evil at will. If you detect him anything as being evil, orcs included, then as a Paladin you're completely justified as killing them right away.


Course, this is obviously a D&D black-and-white-morality argument that cannot and should not be carried over into anything real world.

Being evil is not a crime, killing evil people simple for being evil is in fact evil. Evil people can still be innocent of crimes deserving death.


Once again, depends on the setting. If it was irrelevant, why would he have specified it in his question.

Has a setting been named yet?



I agree, The code should be set in stone. However, that dosn't mean that every setting uses the exact same code, you can proably find as many different variations of the Paladin's code as you can find DM's.
In published settings? FR, Ebberon and Greyhawk have the same code, though something else might not
from
EE



from
EE

Swordguy
2008-02-10, 09:45 PM
Or that could mean the paladin happened to worship Moradin.


No, I meant of Moradin. As in drawing their powers from the favor of his god, in the same manner as a cleric. The way paladins used to be before their flavor was compromised by 3.0. The same way D&D can be run if the DM in question decides to do so (since the option is there in the rules).

Or, again, as found in Forgotten Realms. Drizz't as a ranger draws his divinely-powered Ranger spells from the favor of Mielikki. A Paladin in that setting draws their spells from their god in the exact same bloody way. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Paragon Badger
2008-02-10, 09:48 PM
D&D needs more holy wars where both sides are wrong, and both sides think their right.

(We all know that Earth has plenty of those situations to spare.)

Also...

Good and Evil is stupid. :smallamused:

Like any concept of time, it's a human fabrication.

-And any attempt to make it otherwise in a work of fiction utterly fails. :smalltongue:

In fact, Good and Evil is even more absurd than time!

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 09:49 PM
I actually didn't specify a setting in my question. However, if one did have to be named it would probably be FR. That said, I think it'd be better to keep this world generic.

EagleWiz
2008-02-10, 09:49 PM
Is it an evil act for a orc to kill palidins on sight?

BRC
2008-02-10, 09:51 PM
In published settings? FR, Ebberon and Greyhawk have the same code, though something else might not
from
EE
according to the SRD, the code is


Never commit an evil act.
Respect legitimate authority.
Act with honor (don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t use poison, and so on).
Help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends).
Punish those that harm or threaten innocents.
Right, so, lets take the first thing on there, Never commit an evil act, how evil does an act need to be. Walking into a town wearing full plate and with a sword could be considered evil, being so heavily armed you are scaring people, making them unhappy and reducing their quality of life. Now no sane DM would cause a paladin to fall for somthing like that, I'm just pointing it out as an extreme. On the other end, walking into a village that experiencing a famine and killing somebody could be considered a good act, thats one less person eating the villages meager supplies of food. Once again, no sane DM would let a paladin get away with that, but it's just another extreme.

If a paladin see's an orc attacking a merchantman, he can saftly assume that orc is evil and kill it, correct?
What if a paladin hears about orcish bandits terrorizing the roadways, and has seen evidence to prove it. If that paladin then spots an armed orc hiding near the side of the road can he assume that orc is one of those bandits? or would he have to wait for it to actually attack somebody before he was able to do anything.

Swordguy
2008-02-10, 09:51 PM
Is it an evil act for a orc to kill palidins on sight?

No. They're always simply defending themselves. Orcs never do anything to deserve a paladin coming after them. They can't help it that they're misunderstood by pinkskin society.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 10:11 PM
according to the SRD, the code is

Right, so, lets take the first thing on there, Never commit an evil act, how evil does an act need to be. Walking into a town wearing full plate and with a sword could be considered evil, being so heavily armed you are scaring people, making them unhappy and reducing their quality of life.

Good and evil are absolute in D&D if you recall. Walking into a town like that isn't an evil act via the laws of good and evil, but it might be a moral concern to the guys in the town. That would be a neutral act


Now no sane DM would cause a paladin to fall for somthing like that, I'm just pointing it out as an extreme. On the other end, walking into a village that experiencing a famine and killing somebody could be considered a good act, thats one less person eating the villages meager supplies of food. Once again, no sane DM would let a paladin get away with that, but it's just another extreme.

Um, not it wouldn't, it would be murder and evil act.




If a paladin see's an orc attacking a merchantman, he can saftly assume that orc is evil and kill it, correct?
He can assume, but he should use his free action to demand a surrender first from both sides. He might not fall if he accidently kills the orc out of a misunderstanding, but he certainly would be in trouble


What if a paladin hears about orcish bandits terrorizing the roadways, and has seen evidence to prove it. If that paladin then spots an armed orc hiding near the side of the road can he assume that orc is one of those bandits? or would he have to wait for it to actually attack somebody before he was able to do anything.

Check for more orcs, ready yourself, and demand for it to explain itself



o, I meant of Moradin. As in drawing their powers from the favor of his god, in the same manner as a cleric. The way paladins used to be before their flavor was compromised by 3.0. The same way D&D can be run if the DM in question decides to do so (since the option is there in the rules).

If this is in FR, it doesn't make a difference really, but if you make paladin without the code, then you've entered the realm of homebrew and its your rules, your code


Or, again, as found in Forgotten Realms. Drizz't as a ranger draws his divinely-powered Ranger spells from the favor of Mielikki. A Paladin in that setting draws their spells from their god in the exact same bloody way. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Have you read the FR setting book? A paladin has a the same code. Even if the drawing is different (the OP question wasn't in FR) the code is the same



D&D needs more holy wars where both sides are wrong, and both sides think their right.

(We all know that Earth has plenty of those situations to spare.)

Also...

Good and Evil is stupid.

Like any concept of time, it's a human fabrication.

-And any attempt to make it otherwise in a work of fiction utterly fails.

In fact, Good and Evil is even more absurd than time!

You can do that in D&D, remember just because you are evil doesn't mean your are morally wrong. Kore thinks what he is doing is wrong, even through he is evil. Good does not =morally right, it is just one of the powers in the game

from
EE

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 10:14 PM
Well, the assumption that Good != Morally Right is just a POV thing. I take the view that even in DnD, Good is morally Right.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-10, 10:17 PM
Is it an evil act for a orc to kill palidins on sight?

I'd say because alignment is such a farce, it's an evil act, but not a wrong one. Paladins are the ultimate in lawfullness and goodness. And when they want you to die, you better die without putting up too much of a fuss.

But then again, being evil isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you follow your dark gods sufficiently, you likely won't have a horrible afterlife.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Orcs would make more sense if they were like Vikings.


As to the original post...

It depends on how the game is run. If all the Orcs the Paladin has met have been evil, and evil is a sufficient reason to murder, and the Orc happened to not be evil? He'd fall, but the gods would be depressingly forgiving and help him along the way to atonement. All the while that poor Orc is in some equivalent of Nifelheim(I probably spelled that wrong) because he turned his back on his Warrior heritage.

Now, if an Orc is evil but hasn't been doing much beyond kicking puppies and stealing sugar, killing them would definitely be wrong. Even if the Paladin's job is a Holy Warrior who cuts the head off of evil? That's supernatural evil. Evil that has a choice should be convinced otherwise. And if it chooses to stay evil? Then they need to accept that until it steps over the line. Whatever that line is. Good is also about forgiveness and tolerance.

Paragon Badger
2008-02-10, 10:28 PM
Good and evil are absolute in D&D if you recall.


He can assume, but he should use his free action to demand a surrender first from both sides. He might not fall if he accidently kills the orc out of a misunderstanding, but he certainly would be in trouble

...But if good and evil are absolute, then the paladin should fall...

If you make right and wrong absolute, then moral perception of the events shoulden't make any difference in the 'goodness' of your actions.

For example, A paladin murders an orphan, and in doing so, he banishes the big bad demon who would otherwise kill a million other orphans and their pet kittens.

The paladin committed an evil act, but simultaneously produced a greater act of virtue.

He still loses his paladinhood... For committing one evil act.

'Told you Good and Evil were stupid. It's all light and dark shades of gray, man.

toysailor
2008-02-10, 10:35 PM
It depends on how the game is run. If all the Orcs the Paladin has met have been evil, and evil is a sufficient reason to murder, and the Orc happened to not be evil? He'd fall, but the gods would be depressingly forgiving and help him along the way to atonement. All the while that poor Orc is in some equivalent of Nifelheim(I probably spelled that wrong) because he turned his back on his Warrior heritage.

Now, if an Orc is evil but hasn't been doing much beyond kicking puppies and stealing sugar, killing them would definitely be wrong. Even if the Paladin's job is a Holy Warrior who cuts the head off of evil? That's supernatural evil. Evil that has a choice should be convinced otherwise. And if it chooses to stay evil? Then they need to accept that until it steps over the line. Whatever that line is. Good is also about forgiveness and tolerance.

My sentiments exactly. I think smiting-on-sight everytime the detect evil alarm goes off is lazy roleplaying. Unless you're playing a psychotic, genocidal pally of course.

Dervag
2008-02-10, 11:02 PM
No that isn't true, using racial or regional prejuices to justify murder doesn't work in D&D
from
EEProve it.


also any paladin who kill orcs on site even when they aren't doing anything hostile will fall. Evil or no, you can't kill an innocent
from
EEWhat if the orc isn't innocent? A band of orc raiders sitting around the campfire isn't doing anything hostile now, but they were doing something hostile last night and they're planning a big raid next week. Why would it be wrong for the paladin to do something drastic like start shooting arrows at them in that situation?


But this isn't a world specific question, and even in FR the paladin code is still the same (gods can't make exceptions)

Their powers are not drawn from gods, they are drawn form the raw powers of Law and Goodness. Imagine it as worshiping a cause
from
EEHas this DM chosen to use the standard paladin code? If yes, then your argument is relevant. If not, then you're trying to apply inapplicable dogma to the situation.


Or that could mean the paladin happened to worship Moradin. Y'know, it's pretty clear that's not what the original questioner meant.


Um, no. The general idea of the paladin code is that it isn't flexible, though not stupidOnce again: a DM can change the paladin code. Indeed, there might be very good reasons for them to do so. If so, they still have a "paladin." They may not have an "exactly like the paladins you're used to" paladin, but they really do still have a paladin. And if the modifications to the paladin code are small, the modified paladin will be easy to recognize as a paladin to anyone who isn't being mindlessly dogmatic.

Therefore, the question "is this DM modifying the code?" is very relevant. It is not clear that in every conceivable universe it is always an evil act to kill something on sight simply because it is a member of group X.


Good and Evil is stupid. :smallamused: And, apparently, singular.


Like any concept of time, it's a human fabrication.Au contraire; time is not a fabrication. In fact, the nature of time is very well defined as a natural thing by a simple fact:

We see eggs breaking when they fall and hit the floor. We do not see smears of egg on the floor spontaneously reassembling and falling up into the air. This proves that there is indeed a one-directional factor involved in the situation, and time is that factor.

Now, the perception of 'before' and 'after' is the product of human consciousness. On the other hand, any other consciousness living in the same universe as we do and abiding by the observed laws of physics would end up producing the same idea, so that's kind of a wash.


-And any attempt to make it otherwise in a work of fiction utterly fails. :smalltongue:I must respectfully disagree.


In fact, Good and Evil is even more absurd than time!Even though I believe what I said above, I think you may be right, but only because time has zero absurdity. The notion that it is absurd comes from learning just enough physics to think of it as just another dimension without learning enough to learn that it really is special compared to the three spatial dimensions. Unfortunately, this is a common level of learning in developed societies.


according to the SRD, the code is

Right, so, lets take the first thing on there, Never commit an evil act, how evil does an act need to be. Walking into a town wearing full plate and with a sword could be considered evil, being so heavily armed you are scaring people, making them unhappy and reducing their quality of life. Now no sane DM would cause a paladin to fall for somthing like that, I'm just pointing it out as an extreme.It's an important example. Very important, and I'm glad you mentioned it- I never would have thought of it.

What I think this proves is that walking into town dressed for battle is not an intrinsically evil act, even if it might frighten someone. Because if you aren't doing it to scare someone on purpose, it isn't really your fault that they are afraid of you. They'd probably be afraid if you walked into town unarmed while being seven feet tall. But that doesn't make being seven feet tall an evil act. They might afraid of you if you were hideously ugly, but that wouldn't make being hideously ugly an evil act.

You are not morally responsible for how they feel about you, but only for your own personal actions. If your personal actions are aimed at good or neutral results, and some third party acts unreasonably or without thinking and does something bad, it isn't your fault.


On the other end, walking into a village that experiencing a famine and killing somebody could be considered a good act, thats one less person eating the villages meager supplies of food. Once again, no sane DM would let a paladin get away with that, but it's just another extreme.This is also a good example, because it suggests to me that killing the villager really is an evil act. It may be a justified act under the circumstances, but it is not the action a good person would embrace except in the grimmest of circumstances- say, when they had no food to feed that person and no way to bring more food in from outside.

A paladin, who has sworn to uphold good always and in every possible condition of things, would simply not act in that situation, or act in a way other than by killing off random villagers. Because they are not performing this bad act to avert some dire emergency far more dangerous (killing one peasant in a famine will not save hundreds or thousands of other peasants), it cannot be justified by appeals to a "greater good" for a person who has sworn to honestly and with no weaselling uphold good.


No. They're always simply defending themselves. Orcs never do anything to deserve a paladin coming after them. They can't help it that they're misunderstood by pinkskin society.That's the Warcraft III "noble savage" approach to orcs. It is legitimate, but not the only possible approach. What if orcs are in fact understood very well by pinkskins, brownskins, and othernongreenskins? What if orcs really are a bunch of violent types who, whenever you see them away from their native range, are almost certainly up to no good?


'Told you Good and Evil were stupid. It's all light and dark shades of gray, man.I believe that there is no gray, only white that's gotten grubby.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-02-10, 11:16 PM
So, something of a question I have to ask myself every time I read an alignment thread. Finally going to arbitrarily choose this one to post it in:

When did alignment in D&D become absolute?

Because I just read back over the alignment section in the SRD, and it looked pretty relative to me. Just about every paragraph talks about alignment indicating general tendencies, different alignments potentially meaning different things to different characters, use alignment as a tool not a straightjacket, and so on.

This all in addition to the fact that the alignment section included no hard and fast rules about maintaining an alignment. The strictest interpretation of alignment in core RAW that I know of, the paladin code, is itself rather ambiguous with regard to rules. The paladin "cannot commit an evil act." And yet, despite having lists for a variety of game rules and specifications from feats and spells to abilities and conditions to the sorts of things people can study, I don't recall any concrete list of acts by alignment.

And to top it all off, even if these rules did exist (maybe they're in the 3.5 DMG somewhere but not in the SRD?), we're talking about a game where the rules are inherently subject to unlimited change and significant interpretation. I mean, consider that this is a game where people have discussed (albeit, not very seriously...one hopes...) the notion that "death" could cause no actual reduction in a character's capability, that leaping on and off the saddle of a line of horses could instantaneously transport you to the end of that line, that an unlimited number of people can fit into a five foot square if they all grab hold of each other, that a person can be healed from a dying state by having its head dunked into a barrel of water (and if it did, it would thereafter continue to drown even after its head had been removed and there would be no way to prevent such from happening). And yet, alignment, which is listed from the start as a guideline to aid description, with no stats or numbers or rolls attached, is supposed to be completely absolute?

On the main topic of the paladin and orc, my answer would be: it depends on the game world. If evil means kinda mean-spirited and orcs are just another society, then yeah, the paladin falls for killing an orc just as it would for killing a miserly merchant. Likewise, if we're talking about an Angband-style campaign setting where the only people who are not your sworn foes to the death are the storekeepers and killing a singing happy drunk for its copper (while avoiding battle-scarred veterans and scrawny cats as if they were manifestations of Asmodeous himself) is not only accepted but encouraged (by the copper, you see), then slaughtering every orc you see and some you don't is the only real option. Chances are, things fall somewhere in the middle, so your paladin should talk with the DM about how the code and the alignments will be interpreted in this game, and go from there.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 11:19 PM
Prove it.

Look up murder. Nice try Kore


What if the orc isn't innocent? A band of orc raiders sitting around the campfire isn't doing anything hostile now, but they were doing something hostile last night and they're planning a big raid next week. Why would it be wrong for the paladin to do something drastic like start shooting arrows at them in that situation?

as a paladin? If you know they are raiders, then give them to chance to surrender. If they don't, well kill the bastards, you gave them a chance its their fault if they didn't listen) though a paladin needs to accept any plea for mercy (provided they mean it)


Has this DM chosen to use the standard paladin code? If yes, then your argument is relevant. If not, then you're trying to apply inapplicable dogma to the situation.
um, yes, ether that or FR. VanBuren hasn't made any statement he isn't using a different paladin code, and so we have to assume it is RAW


Y'know, it's pretty clear that's not what the original questioner meant.

Depends, a paladin can say they are a paladin of Moradin but that doesn't mean that they draw power from the god unless the situation is said to be in FR


Once again: a DM can change the paladin code. Indeed, there might be very good reasons for them to do so. If so, they still have a "paladin." They may not have an "exactly like the paladins you're used to" paladin, but they really do still have a paladin.
and in doing so you are leaving the moral vitues of Paladins via WOTC and thus that is irrelevant. I could say that in my world killing babies is good, but that doesn't make it true via RAW. Homebrews are homebrew, left to personal choice


And if the modifications to the paladin code are small, the modified paladin will be easy to recognize as a paladin to anyone who isn't being mindlessly dogmatic.
In your world maybe, but your just replacing one dogma with another. However your world isn't the one published by WOTC and that is the only one i care about for the purpose of this discussion. What you do in your world is your business


Therefore, the question "is this DM modifying the code?" is very relevant. It is not clear that in every conceivable universe it is always an evil act to kill something on sight simply because it is a member of group X.

this is the gaming thread, the question is concerning alignments via the standards of WOTC. Modifications to the code enters the realm of homebrew which it nothing but personal taste

It's an important example. Very important, and I'm glad you mentioned it- I never would have thought of it.

What I think this proves is that walking into town dressed for battle is not an intrinsically evil act, even if it might frighten someone. Because if you aren't doing it to scare someone on purpose, it isn't really your fault that they are afraid of you. They'd probably be afraid if you walked into town unarmed while being seven feet tall. But that doesn't make being seven feet tall an evil act. They might afraid of you if you were hideously ugly, but that wouldn't make being hideously ugly an evil act.

You are not morally responsible for how they feel about you, but only for your own personal actions. If your personal actions are aimed at good or neutral results, and some third party acts unreasonably or without thinking and does something bad, it isn't your fault.
nothing made by WOTC says walking through town with a sword drawn is evil, and thus it isn't so by WOTC. Walking through town nude would upset people but that isn't evil



This is also a good example, because it suggests to me that killing the villager really is an evil act. It may be a justified act under the circumstances, but it is not the action a good person would embrace except in the grimmest of circumstances- say, when they had no food to feed that person and no way to bring more food in from outside.

Justified doesn't mean good, it is still murder and brings us to ends justifies the means


A paladin, who has sworn to uphold good always and in every possible condition of things, would simply not act in that situation, or act in a way other than by killing off random villagers. Because they are not performing this bad act to avert some dire emergency far more dangerous (killing one peasant in a famine will not save hundreds or thousands of other peasants), it cannot be justified by appeals to a "greater good" for a person who has sworn to honestly and with no weaselling uphold good.

pretty much yeah



Well, the assumption that Good != Morally Right is just a POV thing. I take the view that even in DnD, Good is morally Right
no, the creatures of good think that good is right, that doesn't make it so. Redcloak thinks what he is doing is right, well right and wrong are debatable, but he certainly isn't good
from
EE

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 11:51 PM
Meh, better to be safe than to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH'ed. Wrong orc/k(s) I know, but genocide makes for a nice story hook.

Voyager_I
2008-02-11, 12:05 AM
Au contraire; time is not a fabrication. In fact, the nature of time is very well defined as a natural thing by a simple fact:

We see eggs breaking when they fall and hit the floor. We do not see smears of egg on the floor spontaneously reassembling and falling up into the air. This proves that there is indeed a one-directional factor involved in the situation, and time is that factor.

Actually, that's entropy.

New example?

Khanderas
2008-02-11, 02:27 AM
Good and evil are absolute in D&D if you recall. Walking into a town like that isn't an evil act via the laws of good and evil, but it might be a moral concern to the guys in the town. That would be a neutral act

Only to you EE :smallamused:
You are the sir Giacomo of alignments, waging your crusade of what above-neutral is (überexalted to the rest of us)
:smallwink:

SoD
2008-02-11, 02:57 AM
No, no, no! A pally who kills an orc for ''being an orc, because we all know that orcs are always evil'' is not a good thing! Yeah, they're usually chaotic evil. Just the way that Gnomes are usually Netreul good, and dwarves are usually lawful good, and teiflings are usually evil, I mean evil (any). There are exceptions to that, so unless he has proof that said orc is evil, it's murder. Admitedly, even if it was found out to be evil, it's still murder, but then it's murder in a good cause. Anyway, just how there can be good aligned teiflings, or chaotic dwarves, or lawful evil gnomes, there can be good orcs. Hell, there can be orcs who worship Pelor and want to become paladins themselves so that they can do their utmost to uphold the values of :miko: lawfulness and goodness! No, they are not common, but there's still that tiny percent who are paladins. Unless the paladins killed them when they went to apply for 'being orcs'.

:thog: ''Uh, hi. I, uh, want to become a paladin.''
:miko: ''Are you an orc?''
:thog: ''No...I'm a half...human, with some slight orcish ancestory a long way in my background.''
:miko: ''You don't look very human...''
:thog: ''I am. Honest.''
:miko: ''Hmm............'' *rolls spot check* ''AH! ORC! KILLITKILLITKILLIT!!!! SMITE EVIL!''

edit: wow. I don't know how the miko smily got into the main part of my post...sneaky miko.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-02-11, 03:27 AM
The growing problems with absolute alingment and the questionable morality of wars with creatures labled as 'evil' have cause the new edition to take measures. In the beginning of DnD, while things were starting to grey a bit, morality and the concept of good vs. evil were more black and white. 'monsters' were evil...even if there were tribes of them which inclued women and children (which in the first edition monster manuals it listed how many would be present).

As times moved on, attitudes in the public changed...people liked more ambiguity in their stories and in games. Characters found moral dillemas that seemed so easy before to be vexing...hings became more complicated. As things moved into 3.0 and 3.5 these complexities led people to question the role of 'good' and 'evil' as defined by the system. To question the use of alignment at all when it seems that the capacity for any deed is within anyone at any time.

As such, for 4th ed, they have removed alingment and just about everything that deals with 'good' and 'evil' has also been removed. In the forgotten realms, they have shown this new ambiguity in the new books...how the Kingdom of Dark Arrows, an orc kingdom, is trying to establish permanent peace/trade/whatever with the humans and dwarves and elves of the surrounding regions. How the drow have been crushed and whole societies of 'evil' displaced during the spellplague and other catastrophies have given up their old ways and have evolved new ethos that mix good/evil/law/chaos more freely. Likewise, they make it a point to show 'good' and misguided people doing evil things for their own 'good' reasons...elves and dwarves killing orcs for being orcs are now terrorists where as before they would just be 'normal' adventurers...(of course, their acts are meant to start a war...but that is because orcs are evil and there should be no peace with such vile evil creatures).

In the new edition...things might not be so cut and dry...but until then...an orc should be treated thusly...

Be wary...an orc raised by orcs typically is raised to hate humans/elves/dwarves and will brutalize any they find. Their main source of provinder is to steal it from neighbors and kill for it. Know that most orcs travel in packs and rarely travel alone...as such, any orc should be treated as a threat though not necessarily killed on sight. While any group of orcs is a potential threat...so is any band of humans or any other race you might encounter on a road...If their intentions can be deemed hostile, it is within the code to dispatch any and all orcs of that band.

Also, if bands of orcs have been marauding and raiding, if they can be traced back to a camp/villiage then the paladin has the duty to safeguard the people by destroying the orc camp and driving them off. It is up to the paladin ad their knowledge of the situation to deem if the women and children deserve the same fate as the fighting men...a quick death might be merciful compared to forcing them to survive without their providers and displaced...also, if the camp would just breed more of the same warlike orcs...is it right to let them live only to force the next generation to fight the battle you did not feel was right to finish then? How do you weigh the lives of the potential victims of those orcs against wiping out the band here and now. The meat is in how the paladin justifys the killing...just because they are orcs is not reason alone...but the destruction of the villiage that has and would continue to produce a threat to the surrounding land is just to most pallies.

So...farming villiages of orcs that may practice war but are otherwise as peacible as humans...no killing unless provoked and treat honorably (no genocide)...Followers of Gruumsh who actively seek destruction of everyone who is not orc...Kill them all...the culture of the destroyer must not be allowed to flourish...those irrevocably tainted with the evil of Gruumsh and instilled with irredemable hatred purged for the good of the land.

More or less...

Shademan
2008-02-11, 03:35 AM
have the paladin fall into a orcish kindergardn and ask him if he will smite the children.
thats gotta be interesting!

VanBuren
2008-02-11, 03:38 AM
The discussion was on another board and it got closed because the person also began to argue that a Paladin would be perfectly justified in torturing an evil creature, be it adult or child of either gender.

He also wondered why it didn't happen more often.

Paragon Badger
2008-02-11, 03:53 AM
The discussion was on another board and it got closed because the person also began to argue that a Paladin would be perfectly justified in torturing an evil creature, be it adult or child of either gender.

He also wondered why it didn't happen more often.

Oh my god...

Miko has transubstantiated into the real world! :smalleek:

Leon
2008-02-11, 05:09 AM
Nastier question: can a Dwarven Paladin of Moradin fall for killing Orcs on sight? One of things Moradin stands for involves the death of the Orc race, after all. Eons of racial eminity, anyone? So much so that every member of their race gets an attack bonus against them?

Yes, you as a paladin cannot attack innocents blithly and expect to get away with it with no penalty - regardless of what race those innocents are and what your view of them is

Leon
2008-02-11, 05:17 AM
Is it an evil act for a orc to kill palidins on sight?

No, the orc is performing a public service

Rigon
2008-02-11, 06:46 AM
so...
is it okay to smoke (read "burn") weed because drugs are bad?

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 06:54 AM
Yes, you as a paladin cannot attack innocents blithly and expect to get away with it with no penalty - regardless of what race those innocents are and what your view of them is

...and whether or not one of the central tenets of your god's dogma is doing exactly that.

Yet Moradin is still a Lawful Good deity. Since one of his primary goals as a deity is the extinction (read: genocide) of the orcish race, and he remains LG. QED, genocide can be a Lawful Good act. :smallamused:

And if your GOD can do it, why shouldn't his paladins?

Nero24200
2008-02-11, 07:17 AM
The mentalitiy of "It's an member of X race, it is therefore acceptable to kill them" is a LN veiwpoint -at best-, possibly LE. No paladin shouldever act in this way. You -can- get good orcs, that alone, should be reason enough to not "smite on sight"

Leon
2008-02-11, 07:33 AM
...and whether or not one of the central tenets of your god's dogma is doing exactly that.


Your gods dogma has nothing to do with the code that being a paladin is part of - Code over rules Dogma

Dont like that, well stop being a Pally and start being a Fighter or a Cleric

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 07:51 AM
Your gods dogma has nothing to do with the code that being a paladin is part of - Code over rules Dogma

Dont like that, well stop being a Pally and start being a Fighter or a Cleric

Fine. A LG Dwarf Cleric can then kill as many orc kids as he wants, right?

Oh wait. You can still change alignments for doing lots of evil acts. It STILL hurts the cleric (he'd no longer be LG). Clearly, it's not evil for a Dwarf Cleric to pursue the genocide of the orcish race.

The pursuit of the genocide of the orc race HAS to be an LG act - or at worst neutral - if Moradin's CLERICS are able to pursue it as part of their divine mandate and not be forced into switching alignments to evil (and thus no longer being able to worship Moradin). And since it HAS to be LG (or neutral) for them, then it's a good/neutral act for Moradin's paladins. The act itself doesn't change. Therefore, they don't fall, since a good/neutral act =/= an evil act.

Kioran
2008-02-11, 08:07 AM
Fine. A LG Dwarf Cleric can then kill as many orc kids as he wants, right?

Oh wait. You can still change alignments for doing lots of evil acts. It STILL hurts the cleric (he'd no longer be LG). Clearly, it's not evil for a Dwarf Cleric to pursue the genocide of the orcish race.

The pursuit of the genocide of the orc race HAS to be an LG act - or at worst neutral - if Moradin's CLERICS are able to pursue it as part of their divine mandate and not be forced into switching alignments to evil (and thus no longer being able to worship Moradin). And since it HAS to be LG (or neutral) for them, then it's a good/neutral act for Moradin's paladins. The act itself doesn't change. Therefore, they don't fall, since a good/neutral act =/= an evil act.

Sad but true. You could label it as "racial self defense", thus neutral I guess. Regardless, a Paladin shouldn´t do it.

But D&D gods are borked anyway. Corellon and Moradin shouldn´t be good deities, and Vecna as the god of spier should have the friggin Trickery Domain [/rant]

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 08:46 AM
Actually, I just thought of this.

It's a reasonable assumption that any given member of a race pays at least lip service to the tenets of their particular racial god. Since Gruumush's goals for his people are for eradication of all elves, and the subjugation and enslavement of all lands that they don't already have (which is why the Dwarves want them wiped out), is it not reasonable to assume that any given Orc is or has pursued those goals (ie, evil)? Especially in such a specifically shamanistic culture as Orcs are portrayed, where their god's will is a central theme in their life.

In short, at worst, any Orc in the presence of an Orc priest or following the orders of such can be assumed to be following the tenets of the Orc God - which is an evil of a high order. Any Orc appearing as though part of the "standard" Orc culture (clothing, behavior, etc.) can also be assumed to be part of this. The Orc race was created by Grummush to wipe out other races and take the Prime Material in is name...

MorkaisChosen
2008-02-11, 09:00 AM
What if Generic Orc Clothing is just some beast skins? How do you know they aren't on the run from the rest of the Orcs for the heresy of liking puppies and flowers and pretty Elf girls?

I know Liking Puppies doesn't mean you aren't evil, but you get what I mean.

I agree that any Orc showing OBVIOUS DEVOTION to Gruumsh is (probably) an evil murdering genocide-supporter, because the God is an evil murdering genocide-supporter, but Orcs aren't like Fiends- they're not pure evil, they just have an evil society and an inherent tendency to violence and destruction (which can't be inherently evil- crossref. just about every Paladin ever).

EDIT:


It's a reasonable assumption that any given member of a race pays at least lip service to the tenets of their particular racial god. Since Gruumush's goals for his people are for eradication of all elves, and the subjugation and enslavement of all lands that they don't already have (which is why the Dwarves want them wiped out), is it not reasonable to assume that any given Orc is or has pursued those goals (ie, evil)?

Not if it's lip service. Lip service means saying it but not meaning it. If the Orc has said "Oh yes, I agree with killing everyone else," just to avoid being ripped to pieces and used as bedding by the rest of the Orc tribe, is that enough to kill him? He's guilty of the crime of not resisting, but not the (much greater) crime of being evil and homicidal.

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-11, 09:11 AM
A question for you all: How much is too much?
How strong does a races tendency towards evil have to be before it's ok to kill them on sight?
Do they have to have a higher probability of being evil than not? Or just a higher probability than you?

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 09:12 AM
What if Generic Orc Clothing is just some beast skins? How do you know they aren't on the run from the rest of the Orcs for the heresy of liking puppies and flowers and pretty Elf girls?

I know Liking Puppies doesn't mean you aren't evil, but you get what I mean.

I agree that any Orc showing OBVIOUS DEVOTION to Gruumsh is (probably) an evil murdering genocide-supporter, because the God is an evil murdering genocide-supporter, but Orcs aren't like Fiends- they're not pure evil, they just have an evil society and an inherent tendency to violence and destruction (which can't be inherently evil- crossref. just about every Paladin ever).

And how can you tell? Wait until the Orc stabs somebody? Congrats, you've let someone else die. That's committing an evil act through inaction. Had you stabbed the Orc (like 30 years of D&D has told you to do), you might have committed an evil act...oh...1% of the time. That's why the atonement spell exists. By NOT stabbing him, and waiting until there was proof of the evilness-ness, you're going to have committed evil by not stepping in and doing the thing you're going to be right in doing the other 99% of the time.

(It's evil because you could have stopped it, but chose not to. You're killing them through inaction.)

Think about it. If you've seen 99 Orcs, and watched each one choose to kill an innocent, are you or are you not committing an evil act by pre-emptively killing the last one in order to potentially save the last innocent victim? it's always possible that the Orc in question is really a Chaotic Good Ranger yearning to throw off the reputation of his evil kin...but it's not bloody likely. It's entirely possible, by the way, to commit an evil act by both choosing to act and not choosing to act - and simply serves as another nail in the lid of the argument that the paladin's code is stupid. (Every god should have their paladins have a separate code, and paladins without gods should choose from a list of strictures.)

Newtkeeper
2008-02-11, 09:32 AM
And how can you tell?

Umm... Detect Evil?

Or, if you play where Evil Alignment != Evil Actions (I say that if you think naughty thoughts, but master them, you aren't naughty), learn Orcish and listen to his plans? Or else offer the orcs a chance to surrender and receive a trial by impartial jury,+if you like that sort of thing.

EDIT: BTW, liking puppies doesn't make you good. Asmodeus loves puppies... deep fried and served with ketchup.

Kesnit
2008-02-11, 09:53 AM
The discussion was on another board and it got closed because the person also began to argue that a Paladin would be perfectly justified in torturing an evil creature, be it adult or child of either gender.

He also wondered why it didn't happen more often.

Yes, I saw that thread. (I suspected when I read your OP where you got the question from. After seeing comments here that were quoted to the other thread, I knew I was right.) I was going to say that this thread is doing much better than the other because no one has come out and endorsed torture yet. :smalleek:

Just to let everyone else know, Detect Evil is NOT an option in the world this question relates to.

BRC
2008-02-11, 09:57 AM
What if the paladin goes around with a merciful weapon, and knocks out all orcs he see's, then questions them as to thier motivations before deciding whether to turn off his mercifulness and smite them.

Morty
2008-02-11, 10:19 AM
And how can you tell? Wait until the Orc stabs somebody? Congrats, you've let someone else die. That's committing an evil act through inaction. Had you stabbed the Orc (like 30 years of D&D has told you to do), you might have committed an evil act...oh...1% of the time. That's why the atonement spell exists. By NOT stabbing him, and waiting until there was proof of the evilness-ness, you're going to have committed evil by not stepping in and doing the thing you're going to be right in doing the other 99% of the time.

(It's evil because you could have stopped it, but chose not to. You're killing them through inaction.)

Think about it. If you've seen 99 Orcs, and watched each one choose to kill an innocent, are you or are you not committing an evil act by pre-emptively killing the last one in order to potentially save the last innocent victim? it's always possible that the Orc in question is really a Chaotic Good Ranger yearning to throw off the reputation of his evil kin...but it's not bloody likely. It's entirely possible, by the way, to commit an evil act by both choosing to act and not choosing to act - and simply serves as another nail in the lid of the argument that the paladin's code is stupid. (Every god should have their paladins have a separate code, and paladins without gods should choose from a list of strictures.)

Yeah, very nice, except for the fact that orcs are Often Chaotic Evil, which means that there are way more non-evil orcs than 1% of the population. In fact, there may very well be more non-evil orcs than evil ones. Also, being evil =/= deserving to die.
It's strange how people claim that 99% of orcs/goblins/drow are Eeevil to their cores, yet they don't blink when they see non-good elf or dwarf.

VanBuren
2008-02-11, 10:20 AM
Yes, I saw that thread. (I suspected when I read your OP where you got the question from. After seeing comments here that were quoted to the other thread, I knew I was right.) I was going to say that this thread is doing much better than the other because no one has come out and endorsed torture yet. :smalleek:

Just to let everyone else know, Detect Evil is NOT an option in the world this question relates to.

I assumed that the question had transcended beyond NWN and was stretching into generic DnD by that point. But yes, much of the discussion was based on not having Detect Evil.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-11, 10:26 AM
Stuff about a Paladin falling for an ends justify the means decision.

This is why there are atonement spells.


Actually, that's entropy.

New example?

Er, entropy entails forward directionality of time, at least as it is understood using the second law of theormodynamics.


The mentalitiy of "It's an member of X race, it is therefore acceptable to kill them" is a LN veiwpoint -at best-, possibly LE. No paladin shouldever act in this way. You -can- get good orcs, that alone, should be reason enough to not "smite on sight"

Agreed. Also, just smiting an orc, that is otherwise minding it's own business and pings evil would imho cause a Paladin to fall just as hard for 2 reasons:
1. Detect Evil by itself is not enough to prove guilt. It can be fooled many ways and does not actually prove that you have committed a crime.

2. Even if you did commit a crime, not all crimes are worthy of death. If the evil orc stole some sheep that is probably not a capital offence. If it ate a baby, it is.


A question for you all: How much is too much?
How strong does a races tendency towards evil have to be before it's ok to kill them on sight?
Do they have to have a higher probability of being evil than not? Or just a higher probability than you?

I would say they at least must be always (___) evil and possibly need to be an outsider.


What if the paladin goes around with a merciful weapon, and knocks out all orcs he see's, then questions them as to thier motivations before deciding whether to turn off his mercifulness and smite them.

That's a much tricker one. I think it would depend upon what the Paladin does if it turns out the orc was just out for a sunday stroll. If the orc was innocent the Paladin would have to make an apology and some sort or recompense for assaulting him.

puppyavenger
2008-02-11, 10:27 AM
Prove it.

.

Dwarf prince is a royal idiot, and blows up your capital city, you understanibly, declare war, would it be safe to assume that all dwareves you meet are soldiers and should be killed on sight?

BRC
2008-02-11, 10:29 AM
That's a much tricker one. I think it would depend upon what the Paladin does if it turns out the orc was just out for a sunday stroll. If the orc was innocent the Paladin would have to make an apology and some sort or recompense for assaulting him.
I can picture it
"oh, sorry about beating you over the head with my mace, I'm really terribly sorry about all this, you see there have been problems with orcs recently, oh sorry, I have a healing potion here if you want it"

AKA_Bait
2008-02-11, 10:34 AM
I can picture it
"oh, sorry about beating you over the head with my mace, I'm really terribly sorry about all this, you see there have been problems with orcs recently, oh sorry, I have a healing potion here if you want it"

Yes. Sort of an amusing scene. It would clearly be a pretty odd strategy on the part of the Paladin but I'm not sure that it would be enough to fall, given the genuine offer of recompense (otherwise they fall for not acting honorably). Also, recompense would have to be more than just a healing potion to get the orc back to full health but some additional payment or service beyond that to make up for beating the stuffing out of them.

puppyavenger
2008-02-11, 10:40 AM
But D&D gods are borked anyway. Corellon and Moradin shouldn´t be good deities, and Vecna as the god of spier should have the friggin Trickery Domain [/rant]

don't forget the alignments they gave the greek gods
ZEUS IS NOT GOOD! THE GREEK GODS ARE CN AT BEST!

comicshorse
2008-02-11, 11:40 AM
And how can you tell? Wait until the Orc stabs somebody? Congrats, you've let someone else die. That's committing an evil act through inaction. Had you stabbed the Orc (like 30 years of D&D has told you to do), you might have committed an evil act...oh...1% of the time. That's why the atonement spell exists. By NOT stabbing him, and waiting until there was proof of the evilness-ness, you're going to have committed evil by not stepping in and doing the thing you're going to be right in doing the other 99% of the time.

No you're not. The preson commiting the murder is performing the evil act, the Paladin is not doing anything wrong by not chopping down a n orc for just being there.
By this argument the natural result of a Paladin would be to kill everything before it commits a crime.
Hey Judge Death is a Paladin ! :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2008-02-11, 12:59 PM
Fact is, there is no absolute ruling in D&D for every possible act, as to whether it's good or evil. What constitutes Good and Evil is in the end up to the DM to say. Besides, if it were clear cut then half the point of being a Paladin would disappear. Good Characters are meant to struggle with morality, Evil Characters don't give a crap.

I bet Moradin's Paladins and Clerics constantly worry about the morality of waging a perpetual war against 'evil' races when they know it to be a proven fact that not all are evil. I bet they write treatises on whether Orcs are the result of nature or nurture. I bet every time a Paladin raises his hand to strike down an enemy in a morally ambiguous situation he wonders whether he has gone too far and will fall.

In short, it's meant to be hard to be a Paladin.

[edit]


don't forget the alignments they gave the greek gods
ZEUS IS NOT GOOD! THE GREEK GODS ARE CN AT BEST!

Actually, that depends on which Ancient Pagan Philosopher you speak to. Those who believed the Greek Deities to be 'good' regarded stories of ther misdeeds to be apocryphal. The versions of the Greek Deities that have come down to us are composites, which is why they seem Chaotic.

Yakk
2008-02-11, 01:22 PM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Orc's aren't always evil. Tell him "it is OK for your character to believe that. However, note that the moment you do something evil through negligence, your powers will be stripped away. Back in Paladin School, this was drilled into you."

Second, killing an evil being can be an evil act. Someone is greedy, steals from his employer and spits on beggers, but doesn't have the balls to do anything really vile: probably CE. Yet killing this person for doing nothing other than tripping "detect evil alignment" is an evil act, as his children (who he beats sometimes: but his wife is larger than him, and he's afraid of her) are then reduced to starving on the street due to the lack of his income.

A Paladin without Wisdom will fall.

On top of that, someone who develops a spell to hide people in a glamor of evil will cause the Paladin to kill the wrong people.

On top of that, killing people just because they trigger the Paladin's evil-dar is not a Lawful act. That's an intensely Chaotic act. There may be situations where it is justified by circumstances, but doing it in general would sow chaos.


Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

d20 srd!

MorkaisChosen
2008-02-11, 01:40 PM
So your average Chaotic Evil orc is just going to be walking round with a neutral expression until it stabs someone in the head?

You watch its attitude. Have your weapons ready? Fine. If the Orc looks like it's just about to do something evil, beat seven flavours of the Elemental Chaos out of it. But if it's minding its own business, keep an eye on it but don't attack it.

NB. Attacking a Paladin is not an acceptable reason to kill something if the Paladin attacked it first (just to head off any blatant sophistry!).

Idea Man
2008-02-11, 02:42 PM
Wouldn't the question boil down to "How are orcs portrayed in this world?". If they are a scourge upon the land, only ever used as a monster to kill, then, yes, a paladin can kill any orc he comes across. Exceptions to this status would be if an orc attempts to surrender (opportunity to redeem evil), if they offer a peaceful discussion (obligation to listen, possible gain information), or if they have proven, or wish to prove, themselves as non-evil (must allow them a chance).

If orcs are portrayed as a malign race with some exceptions of non-violent, or even good/social behavior, then the paladin may not indescriminately kill every orc. There would be occasions where determining the alignment of a particular orc would not be necessary, such as hunting down a group of orcish raiders/marauders. Seeing an orc on the edge of town could be good grounds for suspicion, but paladins get detect evil for a reason.

I find most people think of orcs as the book definition of occassionally evil, so finding orcs does not justify killing them. If they deserve to be destroyed, they usually give an ample reason right away. :smallamused:

puppyavenger
2008-02-11, 08:03 PM
Actually, that depends on which Ancient Pagan Philosopher you speak to. Those who believed the Greek Deities to be 'good' regarded stories of ther misdeeds to be apocryphal. The versions of the Greek Deities that have come down to us are composites, which is why they seem Chaotic.

Examples of Greek gods being good please? The only times I remember them doing anything remotely benevolent is trying to undo stuff they did(i.e. Zeus trying to save his affairs from Hera), or to help people who they fell in love with.

Matthew
2008-02-11, 08:27 PM
Examples of Greek gods being good please? The only times I remember them doing anything remotely benevolent is trying to undo stuff they did(i.e. Zeus trying to save his affairs from Hera), or to help people who they fell in love with.

Well, first of all you need to define 'good' before I can answer that question. If you mean consistant and helpful within one version of one legend, there are plenty of examples, such as Athena's support of Odysseus or Hera's support of Jason. However, the assertion does not really rest on mythological examples, especially since 'good' and 'evil' are not universally agreed. Unfortunately, I cannot really say much about it here without starting to get into 'real world religion'.

Basically, ancient mythology, religious practice and philosophy/theology do not form a homogenous whole. If you take only the mythology at face value, which is a jumbled mass of contradictory stories, you will get a skewed view of ancient religion.

To put it another way, the Zeus of Homer is not the Zeus of Apollodorus, nor the Zeus of Ovid, let alone are any of these Zeus as he was understood by Alexander or Aristotle.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 09:13 PM
No, I meant of Moradin. As in drawing their powers from the favor of his god, in the same manner as a cleric. The way paladins used to be before their flavor was compromised by 3.0. The same way D&D can be run if the DM in question decides to do so (since the option is there in the rules).Wellllll....not to nit pick, but being a paladin of "good" instead of [insert god here] goes back to Spelljammer and I think Complete Cleric & Paladin. Of course, they also stated you could worship a diety/philosophy/or ideal, instead of just lumping paladins under "philosophy."

This used to be the default concept for D&D. I know back when I first started playing with Red Box when I introduced the concept of a "good" orc my players completely baulked at the idea. It wasn't until Drizzit that the concept of non-evil evil race even came into the collective conscious of gamers. Probably the only thing I'm appreciative of him for. Even now a days, with more ambiguity, you still see posts regarding "How do I keep my players from killing every member of 'X'?" on the internet. It takes A LOT of deprogramming to get them out of that mindset.

EvilElitest
2008-02-11, 09:52 PM
...and whether or not one of the central tenets of your god's dogma is doing exactly that.

Yet Moradin is still a Lawful Good deity. Since one of his primary goals as a deity is the extinction (read: genocide) of the orcish race, and he remains LG. QED, genocide can be a Lawful Good act. :smallamused:

And if your GOD can do it, why shouldn't his paladins?

BS, genocide involes lots of murder which is evil. If Moradin would do this (he doesn't condone Genocide by the way) he wouldn't be LG. Genocide against Always evil creatures doesn't count


Fine. A LG Dwarf Cleric can then kill as many orc kids as he wants, right?

Oh wait. You can still change alignments for doing lots of evil acts. It STILL hurts the cleric (he'd no longer be LG). Clearly, it's not evil for a Dwarf Cleric to pursue the genocide of the orcish race.

Yeah, but he'd lose access to any LG powers and his god would renouce him has he goes against the dogma of his lord

T
he pursuit of the genocide of the orc race HAS to be an LG act - or at worst neutral - if Moradin's CLERICS are able to pursue it as part of their divine mandate and not be forced into switching alignments to evil (and thus no longer being able to worship Moradin). And since it HAS to be LG (or neutral) for them, then it's a good/neutral act for Moradin's paladins. The act itself doesn't change. Therefore, they don't fall, since a good/neutral act =/= an evil act.


Except genocide isn't a LG act, nor netural, it is murder which falls squarly under evil

I agree that any Orc showing OBVIOUS DEVOTION to Gruumsh is (probably) an evil murdering genocide-supporter, because the God is an evil murdering genocide-supporter, but Orcs aren't like Fiends- they're not pure evil, they just have an evil society and an inherent tendency to violence and destruction (which can't be inherently evil- crossref. just about every Paladin ever).

Wearing a symbol of Grumish or praying in his name isn't evil, but doing evil things or furthering his evil goals is
agree that any Orc showing OBVIOUS DEVOTION to Gruumsh is (probably) an evil murdering genocide-supporter, because the God is an evil murdering genocide-supporter, but Orcs aren't like Fiends- they're not pure evil, they just have an evil society and an inherent tendency to violence and destruction (which can't be inherently evil- crossref. just about every Paladin ever).


And how can you tell? Wait until the Orc stabs somebody? Congrats, you've let someone else die. That's committing an evil act through inaction. Had you stabbed the Orc (like 30 years of D&D has told you to do), you might have committed an evil act...oh...1% of the time. That's why the atonement spell exists. By NOT stabbing him, and waiting until there was proof of the evilness-ness, you're going to have committed evil by not stepping in and doing the thing you're going to be right in doing the other 99% of the time.
So murder first ask questions later? Yeah, because nothing says good like murder. Nothing prevents you from protecting the innocent, and if the orc tries to be hostile you can stop it. Also, 99% of the time would require that orc women and children also went out and killed people. They are often CE, that doesn't mean they are all deserving of death
It is also possible for humans to commit evil deeds and murder people, racism isn't justification for murder


from
EE

horseboy
2008-02-11, 10:12 PM
So murder first ask questions later? Yeah, because nothing says good like murder. Nothing prevents you from protecting the innocent, and if the orc tries to be hostile you can stop it. Also, 99% of the time would require that orc women and children also went out and killed people. They are often CE, that doesn't mean they are all deserving of death
It is also possible for humans to commit evil deeds and murder people, racism isn't justification for murder

EEhhh, back then the question was: "Okay, we've killed off all the able bodied hunters/protectors of this village, do we now condemn them to a slow, painful death to starvation or a quick, merciful blow with our swords? Ahw, screw it. Suffer not the wicked to live."

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 10:34 PM
<stuff>

from
EE

I envy you the idealism and naivete of youth.



If Moradin would do this (he doesn't condone Genocide by the way)

Prove he doesn't. Prove that neither Moradin or the elven God set upon their followers the destruction of the Orc race, without resorting to the "Good wouldn't do that" fallacy. Sources included.

I've got a good chuck of older stuff saying precisely the opposite - and it hasn't, to my knowledge, been directly contradicted by newer product, so it's still canon.

VanBuren
2008-02-11, 10:37 PM
Prove he doesn't. Prove that neither Moradin or the elven God set upon their followers the destruction of the Orc race, without resorting to the "Good wouldn't do that" fallacy. Sources included.

Er... isn't the burden of proof on the one arguing the positive?

EvilElitest
2008-02-11, 11:13 PM
I envy you the idealism and naivete of youth.


No i'm cynical, because anyone who attempts to justify zelotry and absolutism is in fact naive and idealistic themselves. Reign of Terror anyones. A cynical person realizes that any attempt to simplify things like that is foolish and naive in and of itself, and leds to far more problems then it solves.



Prove he doesn't. Prove that neither Moradin or the elven God set upon their followers the destruction of the Orc race, without resorting to the "Good wouldn't do that" fallacy. Sources included.

Well going by both his FR and PHB article, the fact he is LG, the races of stone and the nature of LG, no


I've got a good chuck of older stuff saying precisely the opposite - and it hasn't, to my knowledge, been directly contradicted by newer product, so it's still canon.
What olderstuff. Where? Because he is LG and to get away with that he needs to not break the BoED code

Also proving something is true is a lot more effective then proving it isn't true.

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 11:24 PM
I'll take that as "I can't find a source, so I'll throw it back at you."

Seriously, "the fact he is LG" isn't a reason. Don't make an inference. Find an actual source. Both TSR and WOTC have detailed the motivations of Gods in quite a bit of detail. Surely SOMEWHERE in there you can find something at disproves what I'm saying.

VanBuren
2008-02-11, 11:28 PM
No i'm cynical, because anyone who attempts to justify zelotry and absolutism is in fact naive and idealistic themselves. Reign of Terror anyones. A cynical person realizes that any attempt to simplify things like that is foolish and naive in and of itself, and leds to far more problems then it solves.

Wrong. A Cynic lives a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. Unless you're calling Antisthenes a liar, in which case this may come to fisticuffs.

EvilElitest
2008-02-11, 11:35 PM
I'll take that as "I can't find a source, so I'll throw it back at you."

I just told you, look up moradin in PHB, Races of Stone, and FR good book, nothing condoning genocide


Seriously, "the fact he is LG" isn't a reason. Don't make an inference. Find an actual source. Both TSR and WOTC have detailed the motivations of Gods in quite a bit of detail. Surely SOMEWHERE in there you can find something at disproves what I'm saying.
1. Yeah, BoED, BoVD and any thing regarding LG natures, you can't pull that even for a LG god
2. you do realize proving something is the more important case here. Because you haven't proven you justification for zealotry




Wrong. A Cynic lives a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. Unless you're calling Antisthenes a liar, in which case this may come to fisticuffs

call me me a modern cynic
fisticuffs it is /central hook
from

Swordguy
2008-02-11, 11:52 PM
1. Yeah, BoED, BoVD and any thing regarding LG natures, you can't pull that even for a LG god


You're arguing from the wrong direction. One's alignment doesn't determine what actions they may take. One's actions determine the alignment. And if those actions don't synch up to the listed alignment, then the only possible conclusions must be:

1) the listed alignment is wrong
2) the listed alignment is right and the observed behavior must not change the alignment of the entity in question.

On the direct orders of Moradin, LG clerics of Moradin pursue the destruction of the "orc threat". It's been shown multiple times that the only way to beat the Orcs long-term is to wipe them out, because they keep coming back (Bruenor's priest buddy makes a reference to this in Hunter's Blades). Because clerics in D&D commune DIRECTLY with their god, the actions they take MUST be in line with what their god wants, yes? Especially when you look at a macro scale - a few dwarves pursuing genocide could be excused as a misconception of Moradin's wishes. But essentially ALL of them doing so? Without Moradin correcting ANY of them? I don't think so. No, the observed actions are the dwarves, under Moradin's blessing, moving toward the destruction of the Orcish race. Moradin remains LG. Therefore, this action cannot be evil.

Regardless of whether you like it, that's the way the facts play out.

Really, the issue is people and their insistence of multi-dimensional bad guys. Vader was so much more awesome when he was just an evil badass. Add in his backstory (prequels) and I can't see him without thinking of him as a *****. Bad guys are there to be defeated. That's epic storytelling. Beowulf doesn't sit down with Grendel over tea and crumpets and discuss his upbringing. He goes out and kills the whole lineage to make sure the problem doesn't come back. Absolutes make good stories.

If you want bad guys to be empathetic, great. Just understand that you're moving away from makes epic stories great. Make sure it's an informed choice.

Dervag
2008-02-12, 12:05 AM
Actually, that's entropy.

New example?Entropy doesn't make sense without unidirectional time. It can explain why things aren't likely to go from a randomized state (smear on the floor) to an ordered state (egg), but without a clearly defined direction in which everything is going, that doesn't let us tell the difference between
egg --> smear
and
smear --> egg.

In bidirectional time, all we have is the two-way interaction
smear <--> egg,
with no way to answer the question "which came first, the smear or the egg?" In which case entropy is a much less relevant concept.


Oh my god...

Miko has transubstantiated into the real world! :smalleek:I suspect that would have turned Miko's stomach. She wasn't actually ruthless, just deranged.


Dwarf prince is a royal idiot, and blows up your capital city, you understanibly, declare war, would it be safe to assume that all dwareves you meet are soldiers and should be killed on sight?If the dwarves rally to their prince en masse, and if the overwhelming majority of dwarves in the area you are actually in are hostile warriors who neither ask nor give quarter, then yes.


Look up murder. Nice try KoreI don't think you understand my point.

In a fantasy universe, it really is possible for there to be entire species of humanoids who are bad-to-the-bone vicious murdering thugs. Or entire regions where the population has been possessed by malevolent ghosts who wish to destroy the entire cosmos. And if you run into people like that, "kill on sight" would actually be appropriate.

Now, that doesn't mean this orc is such a person. He may just be a big hairy green guy who likes an occasional brawl. I don't know. But there are valid campaign universes in which the orcs are a swarm of vicious marauding monsters from Hell, and in such a universe it would be quite reasonable to kill them on sight.


as a paladin? If you know they are raiders, then give them to chance to surrender. If they don't, well kill the bastards, you gave them a chance its their fault if they didn't listen) though a paladin needs to accept any plea for mercy (provided they mean it)Can a paladin ambush someone?


um, yes, ether that or FR. VanBuren hasn't made any statement he isn't using a different paladin code, and so we have to assume it is RAWWell, the RAW paladin code prohibits paladins from committing an "evil act" without doing a good job of defining "evil." We can refer to noncore sources for that, but in the final analysis noncore is noncore and I don't have to accept it as an ironclad final law if I don't want to.


and in doing so you are leaving the moral vitues of Paladins via WOTC and thus that is irrelevant. I could say that in my world killing babies is good, but that doesn't make it true via RAW. Homebrews are homebrew, left to personal choiceWhether orcs are automatically just big hairy green people who like an occasional brawl, as opposed to being vicious marauding monsters, is not an issue reliably nailed down by the core rules as written.

Let me put it to you this way: would it be OK for a D&D paladin to kill an Uruk-hai on sight? Given the behavior of Uruk-hai?


In your world maybe, but your just replacing one dogma with another. However your world isn't the one published by WOTC and that is the only one i care about for the purpose of this discussion. What you do in your world is your businessWhat about the situation in the original poster's world? Since you're discussing his situation, that situation becomes your business, as well as his.


nothing made by WOTC says walking through town with a sword drawn is evil, and thus it isn't so by WOTC. Walking through town nude would upset people but that isn't evilAre we to assume then that Wizards has come up with a reliable mechanism that covers 100% of all possible evil acts? While making no mistakes and not defining any 'gray area' acts as evil?


Justified doesn't mean good, it is still murder and brings us to ends justifies the meansWhich in turn brings us to the question of whether it's OK for a paladin to ever kill anything. Since the answer is clearly yes in a D&D context, justifications must matter.


no, the creatures of good think that good is right, that doesn't make it so. Redcloak thinks what he is doing is right, well right and wrong are debatable, but he certainly isn't good
from
EEThinking your right doesn't make you right. Being right does. And I can draw on a lot of philosophy to argue that D&D good is, if nothing else, more right (or less wrong) than D&D evil.

Paragon Badger
2008-02-12, 03:20 AM
Stuff about a Paladin falling for an ends justify the means decision.

This is why there are atonement spells.

But 'Atonement' implies that said paladin did something they should not have.

The 'Preform one evil act and you're now just a fighter without bonus feats' absolutism of the paladin code leaves no room for gray. For a paladin, there is 'just' good and evil actions, and one evil act that brings about a hundred good consequences is still an evil act.

The paladin shoulden't fall in the first place, but because of the code, they must.

Atoning for an action is essentially saying, "If I was given the choice, I would not do it again."

So go back in time; had the paladin not killed the orphan to banish the demon that would have killed a million orphans (and their pet kittens)... he would lose his powers, because his inaction was evil.

So, to atone for the evil act that had a million good consequences... They have to genuinely desire that they had allowed the demon lord kill those millions of orphans... which is a pretty evil though.

Alignment does not work when you have to desire for the deaths of a million orphans (and their pet kittens) in order to become a paladin again.

The only way to solve this paradox, is to have the DM say, "You've lost your paladinhood forever, no spell can ever change that...but you still did the right thing. ...Sucks to be you!"

The fact that atonement works on someone who was forced to do evil under compulsion means that paladins can fall for committing evil unwillingly.

Apparantly, there's no insanity defense in D&D- Off to the electric chair with you! :smallwink:

Silly code... inconsistent with itself.

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-12, 06:38 AM
I was thinking, recently, about the different ways of handling the usually/often/always Evil races in DnD. I framed my thoughts in terms of goblins, but I guess it applies to orcs too...

There are three types of goblins that can be seen in DnD:

1) Consistently Monstrous: These goblins are evil. They live in armed camps from which they raid nearby humans for everything they need. Their hobbies include killing and torture and eating small animals alive. They have no motivations or desires beyond this. Killing these goblins is morally equivalent to shooting a rabid dog.
The presence of these goblins is most commonly found in games, as they are the simplest to work with.
See also: Most fantasy literature.

2) Inconsistent: These goblins are evil. They live in quiet farming villages. They can often be found eating breakfast, washing their babies and other acts of aggression. All PCs and NPCs are aware the goblins are Chaotic Evil on an "everybody knows that" level rather than on the basis of observed evidence. No questions are ever asked as to how this information was obtained. Killing these has no alignment impact as everybody knows they're evil.
The presence of these goblins is most commonly in internet alignment debates and player-GM arguments (especially where paladins are involved).
See also: The Goblins webcomic and (apparently) Start of Darkness.

3) Consistently Human (a.k.a. Mythical): These goblins may be good, evil or neutral. They have a range of cultures, societies, relationships and interests as broad and deep as those of mankind (or elfkind or whatever). Killing these goblins may be evil, neutral or occasionally good, depending on the nature of the goblin in question.
The presence of these goblins is found nowhere in the known universe.They are included in this list for speculative purposes only.
See also: Mendeleev predictions in the periodic table.

kamikasei
2008-02-12, 06:45 AM
3) Consistently Human (a.k.a. Mythical): These goblins may be good, evil or neutral. They have a range of cultures, societies, relationships and interests as broad and deep as those of mankind (or elfkind or whatever). Killing these goblins may be evil, neutral or occasionally good, depending on the nature of the goblin in question.
The presence of these goblins is found nowhere in the known universe.They are included in this list for speculative purposes only.
See also: Mendeleev predictions in the periodic table.

Aren't Eberron goblins much like this?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 06:47 AM
So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

It depends on the assumptions of the game. In a Lord of the Rings style game, where Orcs are nothing but bloodthirsty embodiments of a black corruption, then killing them is perfectly okay. In a game where Orcs are just another race of people killing them is not okay.

Dervag
2008-02-12, 07:46 AM
But 'Atonement' implies that said paladin did something they should not have.

The 'Preform one evil act and you're now just a fighter without bonus feats' absolutism of the paladin code leaves no room for gray. For a paladin, there is 'just' good and evil actions, and one evil act that brings about a hundred good consequences is still an evil act.

The paladin shoulden't fall in the first place, but because of the code, they must.

Atoning for an action is essentially saying, "If I was given the choice, I would not do it again."

So go back in time; had the paladin not killed the orphan to banish the demon that would have killed a million orphans (and their pet kittens)... he would lose his powers, because his inaction was evil.

So, to atone for the evil act that had a million good consequences... They have to genuinely desire that they had allowed the demon lord kill those millions of orphans... which is a pretty evil though.

Alignment does not work when you have to desire for the deaths of a million orphans (and their pet kittens) in order to become a paladin again.

The only way to solve this paradox, is to have the DM say, "You've lost your paladinhood forever, no spell can ever change that...but you still did the right thing. ...Sucks to be you!"

The fact that atonement works on someone who was forced to do evil under compulsion means that paladins can fall for committing evil unwillingly.

Apparantly, there's no insanity defense in D&D- Off to the electric chair with you! :smallwink:

Silly code... inconsistent with itself.Maybe the problem is that we're misinterpreting what an evil act is. Or that Wizards is being internally inconsistent again, in which case the right answer is to simply reject the inconsistency. This is what we do for the fact that 'death' isn't technically defined as doing anything. We don't sit around and mope and argue about how the definition of 'death' allows rotting corpses of adventurers past to keep doing their stuff as if nothing had happened. We simply conclude that "dead" pretty clearly means you can't do anything, and that this is simply an oversight on Wizards' part. Possibly because they don't expect us to be so bloody daft that we sit around for days arguing about whether or not "dead" impairs the dead person.

I suspect that paladin code questions should fall into the same category. By interpreting the rules literally in this particular way, we come to a very stupid conclusion. The right thing to do in this situation is to back up and figure out where our assumptions went wrong.


It depends on the assumptions of the game. In a Lord of the Rings style game, where Orcs are nothing but bloodthirsty embodiments of a black corruption, then killing them is perfectly okay. In a game where Orcs are just another race of people killing them is not okay.This is essentially the point I've been making all along, albeit less succinctly. Whether or not it's OK to kill X on sight depends heavily on the definition of X.

Morty
2008-02-12, 08:04 AM
Really, the issue is people and their insistence of multi-dimensional bad guys. Vader was so much more awesome when he was just an evil badass. Add in his backstory (prequels) and I can't see him without thinking of him as a *****. Bad guys are there to be defeated. That's epic storytelling. Beowulf doesn't sit down with Grendel over tea and crumpets and discuss his upbringing. He goes out and kills the whole lineage to make sure the problem doesn't come back. Absolutes make good stories.

If you want bad guys to be empathetic, great. Just understand that you're moving away from makes epic stories great. Make sure it's an informed choice.

I find it plainly wonderful how you're equating "angsty, whiny emokid" with "a villain with a motivation that isn't evil to the core". There's whole lot of options between them, you know. Also, I wish people stopped using the "if your villains aren't one-dimensional utterly evil bastards and moralty isn't absolute, you're doing it WRONG", followed with an assumption that D&D for some reason needs to emulate myths and legends to be played right.


3) Consistently Human (a.k.a. Mythical): These goblins may be good, evil or neutral. They have a range of cultures, societies, relationships and interests as broad and deep as those of mankind (or elfkind or whatever). Killing these goblins may be evil, neutral or occasionally good, depending on the nature of the goblin in question.
The presence of these goblins is found nowhere in the known universe.They are included in this list for speculative purposes only.
See also: Mendeleev predictions in the periodic table.

How about Eberron's single redeeming value, i.e goblins that aren't cannon fodder? Or multiple homebrewed campaign settings?

Swordguy
2008-02-12, 08:17 AM
... followed with an assumption that D&D for some reason needs to emulate myths and legends to be played right.


Not "right" - just in line with 2000+ years of successful stories. No wonder people are so often disappointed in their GM's storytelling abilities if they follow your advice and throw out the tools that history has proven exists to make stories memorable.

Just because you're telling stories differently from the way they've been told doesn't mean your stories are good. Absolute evil makes a better dramatic foil then misguided villains who mean well but just "go too far".

Morty
2008-02-12, 08:27 AM
Not "right" - just in line with 2000+ years of successful stories. No wonder people are so often disappointed in their GM's storytelling abilities if they follow your advice and throw out the tools that history has proven exists to make stories memorable.

It's 21th century now. Maybe those stories worked for people in middle ages, but not necessarily now, if only because, as you said, stories have been told that way for over 2000 years now.


Just because you're telling stories differently from the way they've been told doesn't mean your stories are good. Absolute evil makes a better dramatic foil then misguided villains who mean well but just "go too far".

Once more, you're operating in absolutes without noticing huge area in between. Not having whole sentient races or nations dedicated to be villains doesn't automatically mean that every villain is evil because his parents didn't love him/her. That's one thing, second being that I don't see how absolute evil makes for a better dramatic foil than multi-dimensional villains. Absoulte evil bad guys are predictable and unoriginal, not to mention that game doesn't need "villains" in traditional sense anyway. Finally, a gaming session isn't the same as a story written in a book or told by someone.

Spiryt
2008-02-12, 09:00 AM
No wonder people are so often disappointed in their GM's storytelling abilities if they follow your advice and throw out the tools that history has proven exists to make stories memorable.



Personally I'am more dissapointed if story is another " blah blah, evil lich, blah,"
cliche.

Talya
2008-02-12, 09:34 AM
In D&D ethics is absolute.

True. Although ethics are more of a law/chaos thing. Morality is also absolute, so your point stands.


Killing an something that is irredeemably evil is a good thing to do.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Killing evil is not in itself good. Redeeming evil is good. Killing evil is at best neutral. That act of killing may accomplish some good (saving other lives) making it a good act. However, if it's killing another sentient "just because they are evil," that is itself, murder. Which is an evil act. A good third of the people walking the streets are "evil." They've never killed anyone, they've maybe never committed a crime. They are wholly selfish and amoral, held in check by their own self interest (they don't kill people for their money so they don't get caught by the law, for instance.) Merely being evil is not grounds for execution, even in D&D.

And I've never found BoED to be conflicting with RAW, it more elaborates on and explains it.

EvilElitest
2008-02-12, 11:07 AM
You're arguing from the wrong direction. One's alignment doesn't determine what actions they may take. One's actions determine the alignment. And if those actions don't synch up to the listed alignment, then the only possible conclusions must be:

1) the listed alignment is wrong
2) the listed alignment is right and the observed behavior must not change the alignment of the entity in question.

Explain in more detal


On the direct orders of Moradin, LG clerics of Moradin pursue the destruction of the "orc threat". It's been shown multiple times that the only way to beat the Orcs long-term is to wipe them out, because they keep coming back (Bruenor's priest buddy makes a reference to this in Hunter's Blades).
Their is a difference between orcis threat and calls for orcish genocide, a very big different


Because clerics in D&D commune DIRECTLY with their god, the actions they take MUST be in line with what their god wants, yes? Especially when you look at a macro scale - a few dwarves pursuing genocide could be excused as a misconception of Moradin's wishes. But essentially ALL of them doing so? Without Moradin correcting ANY of them? I don't think so. No, the observed actions are the dwarves, under Moradin's blessing, moving toward the destruction of the Orcish race. Moradin remains LG. Therefore, this action cannot be evil.
1. What dwarves have commited genocide and gotten away with it? As in real proof?
2. Maradin isn't advocating that, you still having provided one iota of evidence



Regardless of whether you like it, that's the way the facts play out.

Provide proof then


Really, the issue is people and their insistence of multi-dimensional bad guys. Vader was so much more awesome when he was just an evil badass. Add in his backstory (prequels) and I can't see him without thinking of him as a *****. Bad guys are there to be defeated. That's epic storytelling. Beowulf doesn't sit down with Grendel over tea and crumpets and discuss his upbringing. He goes out and kills the whole lineage to make sure the problem doesn't come back. Absolutes make good stories.

If you want bad guys to be empathetic, great. Just understand that you're moving away from makes epic stories great. Make sure it's an informed choice.

And i'm pissed off at self rightous and zealous advocates of genocide and absolutist PCs who use ends justifies the means as if we are in the Reign of Terror and don't provide proof
from
EE

Hecatonchires
2008-02-12, 01:23 PM
Detect Evil as Standard Action, at Will.

The Paladin detects evil, if the orc in question is in fact evil ("often chaotic evil" means some are CN or just not straight up evil) than the paladin is almost obligated to slay the orc, UNLESS a greater evil would be done by killing the orc, like say a house was burning and the paladin could save orphans inside or something. Or if killing the orc requires slaying non-evil people.

But yeah, paladins are part of a game where there is an absolute good and absolute evil, so typically a paladin is justified to slay evil things left and right.

Solution? Not all orcs are evil so include plenty that are neutral and non-threatening so that he learns he can't run around and slay the hell out of things. Depends on what you want for your game. I've read of DM's avoiding these things by not allowing paladins in their games.

Whatever works.

kamikasei
2008-02-12, 02:04 PM
But yeah, paladins are part of a game where there is an absolute good and absolute evil, so typically a paladin is justified to slay evil things left and right.

Many (myself included) disagree with this.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 02:29 PM
And how can you tell? Wait until the Orc stabs somebody? Congrats, you've let someone else die. That's committing an evil act through inaction.

So hypothetically, let's say there are several fanatical groups claiming to worship a deity, and the members of said group are usually males of race X. The members of those fanatical groups interpret the teachings of said deity as go forth and do horrible evil things to non-believers, while most other worshippers of said deity interpret the teachers much different, and do not commit evil acts more often than standard (i.e compared to members of other religions).

People who do not worship said deity are suspicious about the teachings because the fanatics have gained notoriety and really give that deity a bad name.

According to you, would one be committing evil by not killing a worshipper of said deity on sight? Would you support killing every person who worships/claims to worship that deity? Would you only support killing all males who worships said deity? Would you support deporting all worshippers of said deity or perhaps closing the border to them in the name of security assuming you live in a NG society?

Talya
2008-02-12, 04:16 PM
But yeah, paladins are part of a game where there is an absolute good and absolute evil, so typically a paladin is justified to slay evil things left and right.


Killing evil that has done nothing to merit an execution would be an immediate fall for a paladin.

Now, orc tribes are typically the aggressor, or threatening a village, etc. That makes the act one of defense. But killing evil just because it is evil is, in itself, evil. If a paladin walked down a city street using "Detect Evil" on every person he looked at, he'd be an ex-paladin after the first evil person (of which a good third of humanity would qualify, and most of them have never committed a crime) he executed.

Swordguy
2008-02-12, 05:15 PM
So hypothetically, let's say there are several fanatical groups claiming to worship a deity, and the members of said group are usually males of race X. The members of those fanatical groups interpret the teachings of said deity as go forth and do horrible evil things to non-believers, while most other worshippers of said deity interpret the teachers much different, and do not commit evil acts more often than standard (i.e compared to members of other religions).

People who do not worship said deity are suspicious about the teachings because the fanatics have gained notoriety and really give that deity a bad name.

According to you, would one be committing evil by not killing a worshipper of said deity on sight? Would you support killing every person who worships/claims to worship that deity? Would you only support killing all males who worships said deity? Would you support deporting all worshippers of said deity or perhaps closing the border to them in the name of security assuming you live in a NG society?


Cute.

The difference between D&D and your thinly-veiled reference to a real-life religion is that in D&D the God actually exists and tells people directly what he wants. There's not room for misinterpretation, and if the priests thereof try to do so the God can step in directly and "correct" them. As I sen posted here before, how can you NOT do what that Gods want when they've been known to walk around on your soil and talk to people face-to-face?

In the event that a racial society exists that worships an god that really exists devoted to killing and/or enslaving everybody else, you're dammed right I'd support killing the people devoted to that deity. As long as people exist who follow the orders of a god devoted to enslavement/killing they're going to keep trying to enslave/kill everyone else. The only way around that is to a) kill them all, or b) kill the god. I know which one I'd have better luck with.


But since that deity has proven himself to appear in person every once in a while, and faith is no longer a prerequisite for religion, I think I'd be back in church rather often.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 05:51 PM
On the flip side, not every orc worships Gruumsh. you can't assume that any particular orc does and just smite on sight.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 05:51 PM
In the event that a racial society exists that worships an god that really exists devoted to killing and/or enslaving everybody else, you're dammed right I'd support killing the people devoted to that deity. As long as people exist who follow the orders of a god devoted to enslavement/killing they're going to keep trying to enslave/kill everyone else. The only way around that is to a) kill them all, or b) kill the god. I know which one I'd have better luck with.


Another difference between D&D and real life is the fact that in D&D an evil religion is just that, an EVIL religion. In the real world, terrible things have been done in the name of religions, but they have been done in the name of what that religion considered to be "good". A D&D evil religion is just out and out evil. The Inquisition burned witches to stop them corrupting innocent souls. The Cult of Bhaal slaughters people because their god is really into slaughtering people. It's not the same thing.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 05:58 PM
In the real world, terrible things have been done in the name of religions, but they have been done in the name of what that religion considered to be "good".

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Evil often manages to justify to itself its actions. A certain leader of Germany thought his actions were for the good of people too. Yet he's still evil as all sin. Seriously, Gruumsh probably feels he actually *is* doing good...for the welfare of Orc-Kind. And yet he is evil.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 06:09 PM
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Evil often manages to justify to itself its actions. A certain leader of Germany thought his actions were for the good of people too. Yet he's still evil as all sin. Seriously, Gruumsh probably feels he actually *is* doing good...for the welfare of Orc-Kind. And yet he is evil.

That's the thing, though. In D&D the road to hell *isn't* paved with good intentions. It's paved with *evil* intentions. People in D&D *genuinely do* wake up one day and think "hmm, I think I'll be evil". Blackguards genuinely do swear alligence to evil in general, and really do go around trying to purge the world of Goodness with their Smite Good ability.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 06:14 PM
Sure. but not everyone. Some actually are misguided. Many souls are surprised when they end up in Baator.

I guess it'd depend on your game world, since each DM is different. For example, in my world, most orcs are neutral. 5% of them are good. 5% evil. All others neutral. My players learned quickly not to slaughter orcs on sight.

BRC
2008-02-12, 06:40 PM
I have a scenario. So a paladin can perform an act they believe to be good that is actually evil, and fall. Action matters, not intent.
Example: Mark Paladinguy is in a society where paladins are part of the police force (So he is the legitimate authority) and has been told to hunt down and kill a serial killer, he finds the guy and kills him. But oops, it was the wrong guy, Mark just commited an evil act and fell.

Now, lets say that Mark is in the same situation, only this time the guy accidentally caused the death of Marks family and has been found guilty of no crime, so Mark, knowing that he is performing an evil act but deciding to do it anyway, kills him. But it turns out that this guy Was a serial killer, and therefore killing him was a good act. Would Mark still fall for committing a good act by accident.

A third situation, Mark is going after the serial killer, finds him, kills him. Now this guy wasn't the serial killer, but he was the leader of a local cult of demon-worshippers (and was therefore evil). So Mark killed the wrong guy, but he killed another evil guy instead, just the wrong one. Would Mark have commited an evil act for killing somebody who was innocent of the crime he was killed for, but guilty of one just as bad?

Frosty
2008-02-12, 07:08 PM
I'm not sure if he should fall. but if he does, and his intent was good, and he is truly repentent, then he should be able to atone without too much difficulty.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 07:09 PM
I have a scenario. So a paladin can perform an act they believe to be good that is actually evil, and fall. Action matters, not intent.


(Examples excised)

There are two ways to judge Alignment, Action or Intent. The problem is that neither of these make *any* sense taken in isolation.

Intent: A Paladin kills 200 Innocent people "for the greater good"
Action: A Paladin kills somebody for no reason, the guy turns out to have been a serial killer.

Neither one should really be okay by the Code, but one always will be, whichever definition you pick.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 07:11 PM
Intent vs Action can probably fill a thread on its own.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 07:21 PM
Intent vs Action can probably fill a thread on its own.

A thread, and at least one major religious schism...

"When you say this wine is your blood - do you mean that literally or metaphorically, because I think people might have arguments about it"

AKA_Bait
2008-02-12, 10:20 PM
Intent vs Action can probably fill a thread on its own.

And has. I'm not sure if we have had one this week though.

Frosty
2008-02-13, 11:55 AM
The question is should we start another one.

Leon
2008-02-13, 05:58 PM
Check how far back the last one has gone

EvilElitest
2008-02-13, 06:27 PM
Cute.

The difference between D&D and your thinly-veiled reference to a real-life religion is that in D&D the God actually exists and tells people directly what he wants. There's not room for misinterpretation, and if the priests thereof try to do so the God can step in directly and "correct" them. As I sen posted here before, how can you NOT do what that Gods want when they've been known to walk around on your soil and talk to people face-to-face?

Cute

But in D&D the gods are not omipotent, they don't control the nature of good and evil and are held to the same standard as their followers. A god can't tell his paladins to kill innocents and have ether himself or his paladins remain good



In the event that a racial society exists that worships an god that really exists devoted to killing and/or enslaving everybody else, you're dammed right I'd support killing the people devoted to that deity. As long as people exist who follow the orders of a god devoted to enslavement/killing they're going to keep trying to enslave/kill everyone else. The only way around that is to a) kill them all, or b) kill the god. I know which one I'd have better luck with.
However belonging society that worships said god isn't a crime, it is commiting or planning to commit evil deeds that is
from
EE

Paragon Badger
2008-02-14, 12:28 AM
The difference between D&D and your thinly-veiled reference to a real-life religion is that in D&D the God actually exists and tells people directly what he wants. There's not room for misinterpretation, and if the priests thereof try to do so the God can step in directly and "correct" them. As I sen posted here before, how can you NOT do what that Gods want when they've been known to walk around on your soil and talk to people face-to-face?

Boy, would alot of people want to disagree with you on that. :smallwink:

Bible/Qur'an/Torah = Word of God. Period.

Unless you're protestant, but they're heretics anyway. :smallbiggrin:

(Yes, I am joking... on the last part, at least.)

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-14, 06:33 AM
Boy, would alot of people want to disagree with you on that. :smallwink:


When people say "in fantasy, the Gods really exist" what they usually mean is "in fantasy, the existence of the Gods is universally accepted."

Even a Christian would have to accept that not everybody believes in God - it's a fact. In fantasy settings, not everybody *worships* every God, but nobody ever questions their existence.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-14, 06:35 AM
However belonging society that worships said god isn't a crime, it is commiting or planning to commit evil deeds that is


What are you defining as "evil deeds"? Or for that matter "a crime"?

Arakune
2008-02-14, 08:13 AM
Boy, would alot of people want to disagree with you on that. :smallwink:

Bible/Qur'an/Torah = Word of God. Period.

Unless you're protestant, but they're heretics anyway. :smallbiggrin:

(Yes, I am joking... on the last part, at least.)

Wrong. The examples you cite have at best some handful people over thousands of years that actually (at least claimed) talked with Him. In DnD you have thousands of guys that do it for ages, request miracles on a daily basis and if you are (un)lucky enough you can see the god personally.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-14, 09:15 AM
Wrong. The examples you cite have at best some handful people over thousands of years that actually (at least claimed) talked with Him. In DnD you have thousands of guys that do it for ages, request miracles on a daily basis and if you are (un)lucky enough you can see the god personally.

I think what Paragon Badger was saying is that there are lots of people who would claim that in real life God actually exists and tells people what he wants. Now, given my philosophy of religioness, I'd love to discuss this more in depth, but I'm pretty sure that real world religions are a banned topic on these boards.

Arakune
2008-02-14, 09:22 AM
I think what Paragon Badger was saying is that there are lots of people who would claim that in real life God actually exists and tells people what he wants. Now, given my philosophy of religioness, I'd love to discuss this more in depth, but I'm pretty sure that real world religions are a banned topic on these boards.

We're not talking about real life (yet), but for comparison, in most campaign settings the gods talk with people much more frequently than any of our real life pseudo-counterparts.

And we are not talking about prophecies or metaphorical talk like dreams and such, but literally the god can come and say 'Hi' or invite someone to have some tea in his home plane.

In DnD they may argue that they are not worth worshiping or whatever, but they don't argue that they don't exist.

Frosty
2008-02-14, 11:37 AM
Right. So Gruumsh, for better or worse, exists. So what? Not every orc follows his precepts.

horseboy
2008-02-14, 12:26 PM
Right. So Gruumsh, for better or worse, exists. So what? Not every orc follows his precepts.Well, how do we know Gruumsh gave orcs enough free will to not worship him?

Frosty
2008-02-14, 12:53 PM
1) The moment someone has no free will, that person can no longer be classified as good or evil, since that person is no longer the one actively making the decision to act one way or another.

2) Because the DM specifically says so, that not all orcs worships Gruumsh, just like how not humans worship Pelor? Or, via in-game roleplay and discovery, the PCs find out that some Orcs maintain a shrine to Ehlonna or something.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 01:20 PM
1) The moment someone has no free will, that person can no longer be classified as good or evil, since that person is no longer the one actively making the decision to act one way or another.


Undead.



2) Because the DM specifically says so, that not all orcs worships Gruumsh, just like how not humans worship Pelor? Or, via in-game roleplay and discovery, the PCs find out that some Orcs maintain a shrine to Ehlonna or something.

My last DM specifically said that Orcs had no free-will. I prefer shades of gray, but that was how he ran it.

The Rose Dragon
2008-02-14, 01:30 PM
Undead.

Your point being?

If you're talking about skeletons and zombies... oh boy, that is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened. I recall an argument that involved undead and evil, and there were as many people that argued mindless undead being evil in 3.5 (and only 3.5) was an excuse for paladins being able to smite them as there were people that argued all undead should be evil - but wait, there were ghosts that weren't evil.

Me, I stay as far away from that end of things as I can. Gets too ugly too fast (then again, which alignment thread hasn't?).

Frosty
2008-02-14, 01:39 PM
mindless undead are tools. nothing more. They can be used for evil purposes (they usually are) but they can also be used for good. I'm playing in a campaign right now where undead are used for manual labor and other purposes in a peaceful town, controlled by a good necromancer. Tools can't be good or evil, and in my games undead are not automatically evil.

Even in a campaign where they are automaically evil, they are like demons. In this case they are powered by evil, just like demons.

Dervag
2008-02-14, 01:51 PM
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Evil often manages to justify to itself its actions. A certain leader of Germany thought his actions were for the good of people too. Yet he's still evil as all sin. Seriously, Gruumsh probably feels he actually *is* doing good...for the welfare of Orc-Kind. And yet he is evil.Yes, but the reason he's doing good for orcs is because doing good for orcs is good for him.

The key here is that evil supernatural entities in D&D don't necessarily care about doing good or helping people. They may in fact be selfish jerks who feel no obligation to justify their conduct to mortals (as opposed to altruistic jerks who feel no obligation to justify their conduct to mortals, the stereotypical good supernaturals). And they have enough power to control or manipulate events in the mortal world. So it's no wonder that there are genuinely bad religions in D&D. Because in the fictional world of D&D, there are actual demons who will make a deal like "fall down and worship me in gruesome fashions and I will give you all the kingdoms of the Earth."


(Examples excised)

There are two ways to judge Alignment, Action or Intent. The problem is that neither of these make *any* sense taken in isolation.Seconded.


Boy, would alot of people want to disagree with you on that. :smallwink:

Bible/Qur'an/Torah = Word of God. Period.

Unless you're protestant, but they're heretics anyway. :smallbiggrin:
Even among the many people who believe all this, it is generally agreed that God isn't giving you a steady stream of instructions. There may be a verse in the holy writ that says "thou shalt squint when it is really cool to do so" or something, but you can't necessarily phone God and ask him "but when is it really cool to squint?"

Whereas in D&D any cleric worth his salt can do that, or summon a spiritual servant of his deity to answer the question, or something like that. So the one thing you won't see in D&D are extended debates and holy wars fought over details of scriptural interpretation, because it's too easy to resolve those debates in a way that allows for no ambiguity.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 02:35 PM
Your point being?

If you're talking about skeletons and zombies... oh boy, that is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened. I recall an argument that involved undead and evil, and there were as many people that argued mindless undead being evil in 3.5 (and only 3.5) was an excuse for paladins being able to smite them as there were people that argued all undead should be evil - but wait, there were ghosts that weren't evil.

Me, I stay as far away from that end of things as I can. Gets too ugly too fast (then again, which alignment thread hasn't?).

The only point I want to make is that, within the game, evil creatures exist that lack free will. Morality is not necessarily tied to free will, as strange as that sounds. So if you want to run your setting that way, it's somewhat plausible for orcs to be completely sapient, inherently evil creatures without any free will. (I personally think it's ridiculous, but there is precedent.)

On a side note, I think that the developers should have described evil undead as "Innately Evil", just to clear things up. (My own personal cosmology gives outsiders Innate alignments, as well.)

Nero24200
2008-02-14, 02:44 PM
Cute.

The difference between D&D and your thinly-veiled reference to a real-life religion is that in D&D the God actually exists and tells people directly what he wants. There's not room for misinterpretation, and if the priests thereof try to do so the God can step in directly and "correct" them. As I sen posted here before, how can you NOT do what that Gods want when they've been known to walk around on your soil and talk to people face-to-face?

In the event that a racial society exists that worships an god that really exists devoted to killing and/or enslaving everybody else, you're dammed right I'd support killing the people devoted to that deity. As long as people exist who follow the orders of a god devoted to enslavement/killing they're going to keep trying to enslave/kill everyone else. The only way around that is to a) kill them all, or b) kill the god. I know which one I'd have better luck with.


But since that deity has proven himself to appear in person every once in a while, and faith is no longer a prerequisite for religion, I think I'd be back in church rather often.

It's not always easy to tell what a god wants. Firstly, to directly talk to a god, you need to use magic which not every preist, let alone every worshipper, is going to have. If a god appeared to every follower when they needed him/her, they'd have to slow time down just to be able to do it. And take into account that other gods can play tricks, in fact, worshippers of Inbrandul in FR do not recieve their powers from that god. They get them from Shar.

For the record, genocide is always evil, and for those who disagree, feel free to tell every historian in the world "by the way, Hitler was in the right!"

Charles Phipps
2008-02-14, 02:48 PM
Odd note, in The Sellswords Book 2, King Gareth the Paladin King is offering a bounty for the ears of Goblins and even those of Giant Children. In other words, King Gareth is practicing organized genocide. I asked if this was enough to make Gareth fall.

I talked to Ed Greenwood about the issue for the canon-answer and he said "Basically, we argue about this sorta stuff at my table all the time. I'm not going to be the guy to give the answer."

Frosty
2008-02-14, 03:47 PM
The only point I want to make is that, within the game, evil creatures exist that lack free will. Morality is not necessarily tied to free will, as strange as that sounds. So if you want to run your setting that way, it's somewhat plausible for orcs to be completely sapient, inherently evil creatures without any free will. (I personally think it's ridiculous, but there is precedent.)

I can almost accept that, if I use the "innately evil" thing for undead and evil outsiders. But definitely not for regular, living things residing in the material plane. It just doesn't make sense. That's like saying a Golem instructed to smash all intruders in evil.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 03:49 PM
I haven't read the books, but I would presume that the goblins and giants are dangers to the people of the kingdom. If that's the case, it's self-defense, akin to dispatching a pack of wolves circling around a village. If the goblins and giants mind their own business 99% of the time, then it becomes murder.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-14, 05:14 PM
For the record, genocide is always evil, and for those who disagree, feel free to tell every historian in the world "by the way, Hitler was in the right!"

Tell that to the people who eradicated smallpox.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-14, 05:37 PM
I haven't read the books, but I would presume that the goblins and giants are dangers to the people of the kingdom. If that's the case, it's self-defense, akin to dispatching a pack of wolves circling around a village. If the goblins and giants mind their own business 99% of the time, then it becomes murder.

I believe the implication is that Gareth believes they're a danger so he's wiping them out.

Which is still evil.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-14, 05:59 PM
Tell that to the people who eradicated smallpox.

Huh? :smallconfused: Are you equating the erradication of small pox primarily through widespread vaccination with genocide?

Charles Phipps
2008-02-14, 06:19 PM
Huh? :smallconfused: Are you equating the erradication of small pox primarily through widespread vaccination with genocide?

It depends if Orcs have any redeeming qualities whatsoever or are killing machines like a disease.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2008-02-14, 06:28 PM
I promised myself not to post in these threads any more because they end up as alignment debates always. But still...

In D&D ethics is absolute. Killing an something that is irredeemably evil is a good thing to do. However, orcs do not qualify: they are only 'often chaotic evil', so a paladin is obliged to give each orc a chance. Killing an orc on sight is not a good act.

I would like to note here that RAW is not consequent about this, subjective elements have been introduced to the ethics of D&D worlds, notably by the Book of Exalted Deeds.

But orcs are not irredeemably evil. As stated in the Book of Exalted Deeds, there is such a thing as a redeemed villain. The other thing, is that a paladin also has to uphold order and law. A paladin isn't going to go around in a city and kill everything he sees that's evil, as that would get him in a whole lot of trouble. Just because a paladin sees something evil, doesn't mean he's just going to charge and kill it on sight.

BRC
2008-02-14, 06:32 PM
Personally, depending on the circumstances, Killing an non-evil person is not an evil act, It's not a good act, but it's not evil.

Lets say there is a war between two nations, the soliders fight and kill each other, does that mean that every solider is evil? Even if one nation is evil, who says that their soliders are evil. Mind you, there is a difference between a battlefield and say, stabbing somebody for mispronouncing your name.


But "Absolute Alignments" make no distinction, which is why alignment needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Edit: Also, killing an evil thing isn't always a good act, otherwise abunch of demons and devils in the blood war would be good from killing so many of the enemy.

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 06:44 PM
What are you defining as "evil deeds"? Or for that matter "a crime"?

well i'm using the magical little source called the Book of Vile Darkness, the Book of Exalted deeds, and pretty much every description of alignments ever. A crime is determined by society, but in D&D good and evil are not

from
EE

Demented
2008-02-14, 06:49 PM
Personally, depending on the circumstances, Killing an non-evil person is not an evil act, It's not a good act, but it's not evil.

If the person's innocent, Good protects them, Evil kills them.
If the person's not innocent, Good kills them, Evil kills them too.

It's the adventurer's rule of thumb.

BRC
2008-02-14, 06:51 PM
If the person's innocent, Good protects them, Evil kills them.
If the person's not innocent, Good kills them, Evil kills them too.

It's the adventurer's rule of thumb.
Sorry, my post should have red, not Always evil. In many situations it is indeed an evil act, but not all.

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 06:54 PM
Well, how do we know Gruumsh gave orcs enough free will to not worship him?

um, because they are described as often evil? Because they are other orc gods and we know orcs don't have to worship him. Because they aren't mindless?
from
EE

Cuddly
2008-02-14, 07:06 PM
I'll take that as "I can't find a source, so I'll throw it back at you."

....uh....
You're the one with the claim of a positive. It's a little difficult (ahem, impossible) to prove a universal negative.

You're basically asking him to find where in the stuff it says "Moradin is not actively campaigning for the annihilation of the orc race."

And Pelor has ritualistic sex with Vecna. Find in the rules where it doesn't say that!!!!!!!

So you should probably take that as "your logic-fu is weak!"


Not "right" - just in line with 2000+ years of successful stories.

So Homer's unsuccessful? Shakespeare? Eh?


On the flip side, not every orc worships Gruumsh. you can't assume that any particular orc does and just smite on sight.

According to swordguy's (hilarious) logic; yes, yes you can. The burden of proof is on that orc to prove that he isn't evil.

Actually, I just thought of this.

It's a reasonable assumption that any given member of a race pays at least lip service to the tenets of their particular racial god. Since Gruumush's goals for his people are for eradication of all elves, and the subjugation and enslavement of all lands that they don't already have (which is why the Dwarves want them wiped out), is it not reasonable to assume that any given Orc is or has pursued those goals (ie, evil)? Especially in such a specifically shamanistic culture as Orcs are portrayed, where their god's will is a central theme in their life.

In short, at worst, any Orc in the presence of an Orc priest or following the orders of such can be assumed to be following the tenets of the Orc God - which is an evil of a high order. Any Orc appearing as though part of the "standard" Orc culture (clothing, behavior, etc.) can also be assumed to be part of this. The Orc race was created by Grummush to wipe out other races and take the Prime Material in is name...

The generic violent culture of orcs, regardless of some stupid take over the world in chaos and blood plot, would make them evil. They're primitive, ignorant savages, and by D&D morality, it's enough to make them deserving of death.

Which is sort of weird, considering that evil souls are the currency of the planes of evil. "Hey guys, let's kill these orcs so their souls can go to the abyss where they will exist forever, fueling the infinite hate engine of demonic corruption!!"

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 07:15 PM
Puts the paladin redeemption into perspective doesn't it
from
EE

monty
2008-02-14, 07:33 PM
But orcs are not irredeemably evil. As stated in the Book of Exalted Deeds, there is such a thing as a redeemed villain. The other thing, is that a paladin also has to uphold order and law. A paladin isn't going to go around in a city and kill everything he sees that's evil, as that would get him in a whole lot of trouble. Just because a paladin sees something evil, doesn't mean he's just going to charge and kill it on sight.

On the subject of redemption and BoED, there's a spell in there called Sanctify the Wicked, which basically makes anything besides an outsider (evil) good. If chromatic dragons and undead can become good, I don't see why orcs can't be, especially considering they're only often chaotic evil (that is, less than half).

horseboy
2008-02-14, 07:42 PM
Edit: Also, killing an evil thing isn't always a good act, otherwise a bunch of demons and devils in the blood war would be good from killing so many of the enemy.Or it could be the explanation for why demons and devils aren't mechanically allowed to hurt each other. Otherwise one plane would be dead, the other redeemed. :smallamused:

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 07:52 PM
Or it could be the explanation for why demons and devils aren't mechanically allowed to hurt each other. Otherwise one plane would be dead, the other redeemed. :smallamused:

Yeah, i've always wondered about that
from
EE

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 11:06 PM
I can almost accept that, if I use the "innately evil" thing for undead and evil outsiders. But definitely not for regular, living things residing in the material plane. It just doesn't make sense. That's like saying a Golem instructed to smash all intruders in evil.


I believe the implication is that Gareth believes they're a danger so he's wiping them out.

Which is still evil.

Everything in the rulebooks suggests that orcs are intended as enemies. Their low mental scores, fluff descriptions, and various other things (DMG2's "Avatar of the Horde" magical event, for one) suggest that they don't quite count as sapient, free-willed creatures. In the default setting, killing them on sight is a morally neutral act because they really are all at war with you.

That doesn't make it any less stupid.


So I'm having an argument with this guy. He says that it's OK for a Paladin to kill an Orc just for being an Orc because Orcs are always evil. I'm telling him he's wrong about that.

Since I don't have any books to help me out here, how do I win this one?

Treat the core books as anti-orcish propaganda. Equate their portrayal of orcs with the portrayals of "savages" from centuries back. Make him feel like a closet racist for his opinions. I recommend pulling some of the quotes from the Wikipedia article on racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Racism_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_during_the_Re naissance), replace the target race with "Orc", and then ask if he agrees with the statement. Then show him the original quote. :smallamused:

I say that tongue-in-cheek, but that's about what it'll take.

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 11:21 PM
it is worth noting that even the core books don't advocate Genocide
from
EE

monty
2008-02-14, 11:38 PM
Their low mental scores, fluff descriptions, and various other things (DMG2's "Avatar of the Horde" magical event, for one) suggest that they don't quite count as sapient, free-willed creatures.


A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

An orc with the standard stat block has 8 Int. As far as I can tell, anything with "humanlike intelligence" is capable of such things as considering nonviolent solutions and determining its own alignment, and an average orc is well above this threshold of sentience.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-14, 11:57 PM
it is worth noting that even the core books don't advocate Genocide
from
EE

Not explicitly, no. But the "us or them, kill or be killed" mentality is certainly encouraged.


An orc with the standard stat block has 8 Int. As far as I can tell, anything with "humanlike intelligence" is capable of such things as considering nonviolent solutions and determining its own alignment, and an average orc is well above this threshold of sentience.

I wasn't just talking about intelligence, I was talking about wisdom and charisma, too. The Orc has a penalty to all three.

BRC
2008-02-15, 08:03 AM
Not explicitly, no. But the "us or them, kill or be killed" mentality is certainly encouraged.



I wasn't just talking about intelligence, I was talking about wisdom and charisma, too. The Orc has a penalty to all three.

Irrelevant, Orcs are Free Willed, you know this because they HAVE an int score, and a wis score, and a Cha score. They may not be the brightest creatures around, but they are free willed. if they wernt free willed, then why would they have the rules for playing one as a character, my that would be boring, playing a character with no free will, just sit there while the DM controls your character.
edit: here are the attributes of a zombie, which does not have any free will
Str 8, Dex 11, Con Ø, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 1
as you can see, there is no INT score.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 01:00 PM
well i'm using the magical little source called the Book of Vile Darkness, the Book of Exalted deeds,

Ah, you mean the stupid, inconsistent, non-core texts which helpfully explain how the use of poisons is irrevocably Evil, but that the use of identically functioning substances called "banes" is intrinsically Good?

Frosty
2008-02-15, 01:53 PM
I agree with Bloddyredcommie. Orcs have slightly dumber than your average human...but even they're smarter than Forrest Gump, and Forrest definitely had free will.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 02:09 PM
I agree with Bloddyredcommie. Orcs have slightly dumber than your average human...but even they're smarter than Forrest Gump, and Forrest definitely had free will.

So do clinical psychopaths. Free will in and of itself does not prevent you being a hazard to yourself and others.

Frosty
2008-02-15, 02:13 PM
well duh. But it does mean genocide against them is wrong. You don't commit genocide on sentient creatures. Even if a lot of them are evil.

horseboy
2008-02-15, 02:20 PM
So do clinical psychopaths. Free will in and of itself does not prevent you being a hazard to yourself and others.Providing that you believe in free will to begin with. :smallamused:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 02:39 PM
Treat the core books as anti-orcish propaganda. Equate their portrayal of orcs with the portrayals of "savages" from centuries back. Make him feel like a closet racist for his opinions. I recommend pulling some of the quotes from the Wikipedia article on racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Racism_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_during_the_Re naissance), replace the target race with "Orc", and then ask if he agrees with the statement. Then show him the original quote. :smallamused:

I say that tongue-in-cheek, but that's about what it'll take.

There's a big huge enormous problem with the "racism" analogy. All the things people *said* about blacks, moors, Jews and the like are literally true of Orcs. That's why they have "Often Chaotic Evil" as their racial alignment.

Orcs, without the intervention of other species, inevitably form a society which is cruel, barbaric, and violent. Over on the "Why I hate 'Usually Evil'" thread, people made some extremely compelling arguments for why Orcs are the way they are, and yes those arguments did roughly go: "...the [Orc] nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Orcs) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals..."

The thing is, racism is only bad because it's *wrong*. If all the stereotypes about Black people had been *true*, the slave trade would have been totally justified.

Frosty
2008-02-15, 02:59 PM
But it's not that bad. They're a *little* dumber, a *little* less wise, and fairly ugly (but that's besides the point). That doesn't mean humans should enslave them. There are plenty of humans with 8 int. Should we enslave them as well? And would you try to enslave the 16 Cha orc Sorcerer who is the tribal shaman? Orcs are *not* animals. Their stats make them clearly very close mentally to that of humans.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-15, 02:59 PM
Irrelevant, Orcs are Free Willed, you know this because they HAVE an int score, and a wis score, and a Cha score. They may not be the brightest creatures around, but they are free willed. if they wernt free willed, then why would they have the rules for playing one as a character, my that would be boring, playing a character with no free will, just sit there while the DM controls your character.

It's not sufficient evidence on its own, but it is relevant. Creatures with lower mental scores are considered less sapient, right down to mindlessness at no mental scores. Orcs are inherently dumber, weaker-willed, and less charismatic than any player race. Throw on the "at war with everything" fluff, official magic events that force them to be antagonists, and you get a very strong case that orcs are intended to be barely sapient sub-humanoids.

Allow me to sum up my argument:
Orcs are intended as low-level foes for players to fight. Their fluff ("War with everyone!") is written so that players can shoot first, ask later, and still feel like good guys. The only way to justify this premise is to assume that orcs really are less-than-human, which is supported by the fluff.

As I've made clear, I don't like this -- I change it in my games, in fact -- but it is how orcs are defined in the default setting.


There's a big huge enormous problem with the "racism" analogy. All the things people *said* about blacks, moors, Jews and the like are literally true of Orcs. That's why they have "Often Chaotic Evil" as their racial alignment.

That's why I said he should paint the monster manual as anti-orc propaganda. If you take the core books as gospel, then the orcs deserve to be slaughtered to a man.

Frosty
2008-02-15, 03:02 PM
Regardless of fluff, the stats don't support orcs as "barely-sapient." Things with int 3 are barely sapient. Not int 8.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-15, 03:21 PM
Regardless of fluff, the stats don't support orcs as "barely-sapient." Things with int 3 are barely sapient. Not int 8.

I suggested this "Orcs are slightly dumber than your average human. Which means they've got guys slightly dumber than Einstein and an even higher perceptage of guys who say 'Y'all' while wearing Beer-hats."

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 03:54 PM
But it's not that bad. They're a *little* dumber, a *little* less wise, and fairly ugly (but that's besides the point). That doesn't mean humans should enslave them. There are plenty of humans with 8 int. Should we enslave them as well? And would you try to enslave the 16 Cha orc Sorcerer who is the tribal shaman? Orcs are *not* animals. Their stats make them clearly very close mentally to that of humans.

The thing is that "like humans, but not as good" is pretty much the definition of "sub-human".

When people described real-world races as "possessing attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals" they obviously don't mean it in the literal "Int 3" sense. That would imply that they believed that people of those races couldn't speak or understand complex instructions.

The average Orc is more violent, less intelligent, less capable of making decisions for itself than the average human. This is evidenced quite explicitly by their penalties to Int, Wis and Cha, and their "Often Chaotic Evil" racial Alignment. This does *actually* make them a bunch of subhuman savages who shouldn't be allowed to rule their own society.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 03:59 PM
That's why I said he should paint the monster manual as anti-orc propaganda. If you take the core books as gospel, then the orcs deserve to be slaughtered to a man.

I'm totally okay with GMs doing that: you clearly do it in your games, I don't do it in mine because I tend not to use the Tolkein races anyway. But it's something you have to do up front. It genuinely isn't the player's fault if he's been assuming that Orcs are the way they're described in the rules if the GM hasn't set him straight already.

Frosty
2008-02-15, 04:18 PM
The thing is that "like humans, but not as good" is pretty much the definition of "sub-human".

When people described real-world races as "possessing attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals" they obviously don't mean it in the literal "Int 3" sense. That would imply that they believed that people of those races couldn't speak or understand complex instructions.

The average Orc is more violent, less intelligent, less capable of making decisions for itself than the average human. This is evidenced quite explicitly by their penalties to Int, Wis and Cha, and their "Often Chaotic Evil" racial Alignment. This does *actually* make them a bunch of subhuman savages who shouldn't be allowed to rule their own society.

I believe it is morally wrong to enslave any sentient being, Sub-human or not. You are advocating that a race should be allowed to enslave any other race that it perceives as even slightly dumber and less wise. That is dangerous thinking. Would you be ok with an Sun elves (who has higher int) or another race with int/wis/cha bonus to enslave humanity?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-15, 05:48 PM
I believe it is morally wrong to enslave any sentient being, Sub-human or not. You are advocating that a race should be allowed to enslave any other race that it perceives as even slightly dumber and less wise. That is dangerous thinking. Would you be ok with an Sun elves (who has higher int) or another race with int/wis/cha bonus to enslave humanity?

It's not so much the stat boosts as the Alignment thing. The Sun Elves (Often Chaotic Good) would in fact be totally justified in taking over Humanity. Then we'd have the advantages of living in a Good society instead of a Neutral one.

This is the problem with treating Alignment as anything having any parallel with real-world morality. If a race has a tendency towards Evil (or even away from Goodness) then it actually is totally right and appropriate to forcibly prevent them from harming themselves and others. If a culture is objectively evil, there's nothing wrong with eradicating it. If a race will, when left to its own devices, inevitably create an Evil culture, that race should not be allowed to determine its own culture. It's irresponsible.

Now obviously in the real world this is insane fascist dogma. That's because in the real world societies aren't "good" or "evil" and there *aren't* any races who are inherently predisposed towards evil. This is exactly why I think you have to go one way or the other with Alignment: either embrace it utterly - Orcs are evil just because, and they raid because they love to kill - or else you ditch it completely - Orcs do what they do because of their circumstances, and humans would do the same thing if they lived in the badlands and had been persecuted for centuries.

EvilElitest
2008-02-15, 08:23 PM
That's why I said he should paint the monster manual as anti-orc propaganda. If you take the core books as gospel, then the orcs deserve to be slaughtered to a man

Except Genocide is evil and is never advocated in the core book



The thing is that "like humans, but not as good" is pretty much the definition of "sub-human".

In int? That just means that more of them will be more likely to hit before thinking, but that doesn't make the entire race worthy of being wiped out



When people described real-world races as "possessing attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals" they obviously don't mean it in the literal "Int 3" sense. That would imply that they believed that people of those races couldn't speak or understand complex instructions.

you'd be surprised how racists justify their actions, but the point remains, as long as orcs have the ability to reason and choose their alignment (which they do) they are not worthy of being wiped out via genocide



The average Orc is more violent, less intelligent, less capable of making decisions for itself than the average human. This is evidenced quite explicitly by their penalties to Int, Wis and Cha, and their "Often Chaotic Evil" racial Alignment. This does *actually* make them a bunch of subhuman savages who shouldn't be allowed to rule their own society.

you seem to be suffering from a severe case of Hubris and ethnocentrism, just because they tend to be less intelligent doesn't mean they can't run their own society, nor makes their culture bad (it is the fact that it is evil that makes it bad) and they are "often Chaotic Evil" not always, nether dictatorship nor genocide will solve that problem
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-02-15, 08:30 PM
It's not so much the stat boosts as the Alignment thing. The Sun Elves (Often Chaotic Good) would in fact be totally justified in taking over Humanity. Then we'd have the advantages of living in a Good society instead of a Neutral one.

Um, why? Sun elves are arrogant, racist and conservative generally, what gives them any right to oppress humans, or anyone to justify racial oppression for that matter



This is the problem with treating Alignment as anything having any parallel with real-world morality. If a race has a tendency towards Evil (or even away from Goodness) then it actually is totally right and appropriate to forcibly prevent them from harming themselves and others. If a culture is objectively evil, there's nothing wrong with eradicating it. If a race will, when left to its own devices, inevitably create an Evil culture, that race should not be allowed to determine its own culture. It's irresponsible.

1. We can't say that a race if left to their own devices will always make an evil culture, that is why they are "often" chaotic evil.
2. And good does not advocate, but in fact condemns genocide

from
EE

Frosty
2008-02-15, 08:45 PM
If Sun Elves forcefully took over humanity, not respecting the rights of self-determination, then they will cease to be Chaotic Good. By definition, chaotic good people believe firmly in the right of the individual, and not trampling the rights of others.

EvilElitest
2008-02-15, 08:55 PM
If Sun Elves forcefully took over humanity, not respecting the rights of self-determination, then they will cease to be Chaotic Good. By definition, chaotic good people believe firmly in the right of the individual, and not trampling the rights of others.

and on the same note, if humans started to use genocide to wipe out hte orcs, the humans in question will become Evil
from
EE

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 09:17 PM
That's one of the things I always wondered about from the its allright to wipe out orc women and children crowd. It means you have groups of agressive young warriors perfectly used to slaughtering anything that moves without mercy. I just can't help feeling these are not people wjho will then happilly integrate back into a LG human society

horseboy
2008-02-15, 10:28 PM
That's one of the things I always wondered about from the its allright to wipe out orc women and children crowd. It means you have groups of agressive young warriors perfectly used to slaughtering anything that moves without mercy. I just can't help feeling these are not people wjho will then happilly integrate back into a LG human society
Berlin was defended with 12 year old boys. Russia used women for snipers. Just because they're "women and children" doesn't make them defenseless.

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 10:32 PM
And if they have no weapons or are under twelve ?

EvilElitest
2008-02-15, 10:33 PM
Berlin was defended with 12 year old boys. Russia used women for snipers. Just because they're "women and children" doesn't make them defenseless.

Nor does it justify genocide or killing civilians, if innocent civilians defend themselves when you try to wipe them off the face of the earth, that isn't a justification to wipe them all out
from
EE

horseboy
2008-02-15, 10:39 PM
And if they have no weapons or are under twelve ?
Well, if they can walk under wagon axle, then usually they're young enough to retrain them. As to no weapon, well, everyone in a midevil society carry something that can be considered a weapon. :smallwink:

Nor does it justify genocide or killing civilians, if innocent civilians defend themselves when you try to wipe them off the face of the earth, that isn't a justification to wipe them all out
from
EE
If they still have the spirit to fight, then they have to be removed, because you haven't won yet.

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 10:41 PM
You are joking right ?

horseboy
2008-02-15, 10:43 PM
About which one?

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 10:44 PM
Just the justifying mass murder and genocide in general

EvilElitest
2008-02-15, 10:44 PM
Both, but mostly the second
from
EE

Charles Phipps
2008-02-15, 10:47 PM
Just the justifying mass murder and genocide in general

To be fair, it's not genocide if Orcs aren't people. If Orcs are say, Daleks, or Borg then it's an act of mercy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/images/2006/04/23/sladen_baker_genesis_bbc_400_400x300.jpg

Orcs might not be a race then but more a magical form of monster.

But most D&D books treat them as people.

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 10:50 PM
Monsters are people too.
And in that Dr. Who story the Doctor turned down the chance to stop the daleks existing. Not murder them all but just to prevent them ever happening because genocide is a totally evil act

horseboy
2008-02-15, 10:54 PM
Both, but mostly the second
from
EE

Well, if they can walk under wagon axle, then usually they're young enough to retrain them. As to no weapon, well, everyone in a midevil society carry something that can be considered a weapon. :smallwink: The first one is an historical representation of the type of thing they would use. If they were young enough that they could walk under the axle of a cart then they were spared the sword, as they wouldn't be able to remember a time before the conquerors reign. The second is pretty much spot on, as everyone carried at least a dagger equivalent.


If they still have the spirit to fight, then they have to be removed, because you haven't won yet.This is how wars are won. You kill people and break things until they stop fighting back. The people cry out for peace and will turn in their leaders so they can get on with their lives. If the people still want to fight you, you haven't won. It's one of the many reasons that war is Hell.

Fridesgerte
2008-02-15, 10:56 PM
That's one of the things I always wondered about from the its allright to wipe out orc women and children crowd. It means you have groups of agressive young warriors perfectly used to slaughtering anything that moves without mercy. I just can't help feeling these are not people wjho will then happilly integrate back into a LG human society

But what about a PC who learns and develops during the course of her adventuring career? My current PC has gone from being an unthinking orc slayer to having a more mature and nuanced understanding of the evils she fights. (See some of her story in the spoiler.)

Most of this thread has been about the player's thoughts and feelings. Has anyone else had their PC face these issues in character? Who's not a paladin?

My PC, (a LG Fighter) began the game with a backstory reason for hating orcs. Her beloved elder brother had been killed during an orc raid. In fact, when it happened (she was 14) she vowed to wipe every orc off the face of the earth. When she was old enough, she set out with her grandfather's greatsword and happily slew any orc she encountered.

At 4th level the party found a magic greatsword and gave it to my Fighter before anyone knew anything about it. Turned out it was an intelligent, dedicated orc-killing sword. It had a very high ego, and would routinely take control of my (WIS 8) Fighter when orcs were around.

This was fine with the rest of our party most of the time, because most of the orcs we encountered were obviously out to kill us if they could. It only became a problem if we were entering a town or city where there were orcs or half-orcs the party did not want to kill out of hand. In fact my Fighter agreed that the others could grapple and tie her up if necessary, after she unwillingly slaughtered an orc mage who was trying to surrender.

At 9th level, my Fighter was able to attune the sword, and gained abilities that made orc-killing even easier. We continued to kill orcs we encountered in our travels, but never had to deal with the "women and children" issue because we were never in orcish homelands.

At this point my PC began to wonder if this was all she was good for. She killed orcs very well, but didn't do much else. She was frustrated and I was getting bored. Especially since the party was getting involved in all sorts of other things.

Things came to a head when we had to go to the capital city to deal with a political situation. Riding through the city streets, the party spotted the orc guards outside the temple of Gruumsh before my Fighter did, and were able to get her away before she detected them. Then several PC's confronted her and made her give up the sword temporarily. They also began the conversation about why orcs were not all evil, and should not be killed out of hand. This was the first time my PC had had to think about this, and without the sword she was able to realize that they were right.

In the end, she decided she had to give up the sword and also her vow to eradicate orcs. She went to her temple (she's not a cleric or a paladin or anything, but she does worship Tyr and Odin) and gave up her attunement and prayed to be released from her childish oath.

Now she still fights and kills orcs when necessary (and the orcs tribes are gathering on the border, planning to invade, so she'll have plenty of opportunities), but she isn't compelled to do so. In fact, while she has a new (unintelligent) magic sword, she's decided that if she ever builds a sword for herself she wants one with special abilities against evil. That way she can fight on the side of good no matter what kind of creature she faces.

BTW, I finally figured how to make spoilers work!

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 11:06 PM
This is how wars are won. You kill people and break things until they stop fighting back. The people cry out for peace and will turn in their leaders so they can get on with their lives. If the people still want to fight you, you haven't won. It's one of the many reasons that war is Hell.

Well not always sometimes you can negotiate a peace without breaking the other nation but I take your point. Its the still killing them after they're broken that I was very much objecting to


The first one is an historical representation of the type of thing they would use. If they were young enough that they could walk under the axle of a cart then they were spared the sword, as they wouldn't be able to remember a time before the conquerors reign. The second is pretty much spot on, as everyone carried at least a dagger equivalent.

I'm not sure how true a historical representation that is. Raids would not kill anybody who weren't directly in their way and ieven in invasions the general feeling was that somebody would still be needed to till the fields, once the enemy warrior class was defeated teh killing pretty much stopped.

Fridesgerte that's exactly what I was talking about ( though in reverse) the effect the slaughter would have on the warriors doing it, some would be sickened by it but some who become numb and regard it as business as usual and some would come to like it

Dervag
2008-02-15, 11:28 PM
Allow me to sum up my argument:
Orcs are intended as low-level foes for players to fight. Their fluff ("War with everyone!") is written so that players can shoot first, ask later, and still feel like good guys. The only way to justify this premise is to assume that orcs really are less-than-human, which is supported by the fluff.

As I've made clear, I don't like this -- I change it in my games, in fact -- but it is how orcs are defined in the default setting.I am convinced that it can be explained by saying that orcs are simply different from humans, but that their culture is by no means outside the boundaries of real-life human cultures. The orcs are no more violent than the Yamomano, no more prone to raiding than the Vikings. The only thing the orcs have going against them that is really different from any human culture is the fact that they have the 'support' of powerful and malevolent supernatural beings who are using them as pawns toward evil ends.

In which case I don't feel at all bad about killing orc warriors I meet in the wilderness away from orc settlements or orc raiders attacking a town. But I would definitely think it was wrong to slaughter the orc "civilians" in their home territory en masse, because that would be the same kind of genocide I would condemn among humans.


The thing is that "like humans, but not as good" is pretty much the definition of "sub-human".

When people described real-world races as "possessing attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals" they obviously don't mean it in the literal "Int 3" sense. That would imply that they believed that people of those races couldn't speak or understand complex instructions.Actually, they really did mean to imply that those races were little better than trained apes. That they were so fundamentally stupid and ignorant and uneducable that they were honestly better off as slaves or drudges, because with only a few exceptions they were simply too stupid to manage their own affairs in civilized society.


The average Orc is more violent, less intelligent, less capable of making decisions for itself than the average human. This is evidenced quite explicitly by their penalties to Int, Wis and Cha, and their "Often Chaotic Evil" racial Alignment. This does *actually* make them a bunch of subhuman savages who shouldn't be allowed to rule their own society.The thing is, they're smart enough to get by. If it weren't for their warlike behavior, they'd live in societies without problems. And their warlike behavior is fueled in large part by the gods and demons of the setting, which is not their fault.


Well, if they can walk under wagon axle, then usually they're young enough to retrain them. As to no weapon, well, everyone in a midevil society carry something that can be considered a weapon. :smallwink: If orcs can be "retrained," then there's absolutely no justification for slaughtering them. Especially since the ones in the villages aren't the warriors who've been attacking you. The warriors are dangerous to your country. These orcs aren't. If they were dangerous, they'd already have attacked you.

Also, I do not see what basis you have for thinking that medievals routinely travelled armed. Most of them did not, being in a status of near-slavery and subject to those who did travel armed.

As for that bit about the wagon axle, that was the kind of thing that (rightly) got you a reputation as a homicidal savage. It was not anything like standard practice in the wars of that era.


This is how wars are won. You kill people and break things until they stop fighting back. The people cry out for peace and will turn in their leaders so they can get on with their lives. If the people still want to fight you, you haven't won. It's one of the many reasons that war is Hell.Actually, a lot of wars in the pre-industrial era ended when you beat the leaders, not when you beat the entire population until they forced their leaders to stop.

You're thinking in terms of total war, with leaders who stay away from the battle and order mass armies of conscripts supplied by large factories in the homeland into the battle. Medieval war doesn't work like that. If you beat the warlord and his troops, the peasants aren't a threat to you, especially if you annex their territory afterwards. The dangerous ones all went off to fight already. Governments aren't organized well enough to replace leaders easily; if you kill the orc warlord and all his immediate henchmen there are no potential orc warlord candidates left to take his place.

A future generation of orcs might arise willing to fight again, but you can't actually stop that from happening except by killing all the orcs. Or, for that matter, all the humans. Most attempts to conquer and annex human territories in the real world eventually fail, either because the rulers "go native" or because some other invader or local powerhouse displaces them.

horseboy
2008-02-15, 11:31 PM
Well not always sometimes you can negotiate a peace without breaking the other nation but I take your point. Its the still killing them after they're broken that I was very much objecting toAnd THAT is the difference between good and evil.


I'm not sure how true a historical representation that is. Raids would not kill anybody who weren't directly in their way and ieven in invasions the general feeling was that somebody would still be needed to till the fields, once the enemy warrior class was defeated teh killing pretty much stopped.

It depended on just how different the invading culture was.

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 11:36 PM
It depended on just how different the invading culture was

Could I have some historical precedents for that ?

horseboy
2008-02-15, 11:44 PM
I am convinced that it can be explained by saying that orcs are simply different from humans, but that their culture is by no means outside the boundaries of real-life human cultures. The orcs are no more violent than the Yamomano, no more prone to raiding than the Vikings. The only thing the orcs have going against them that is really different from any human culture is the fact that they have the 'support' of powerful and malevolent supernatural beings who are using them as pawns toward evil ends.Technically that's all speculation. Since there are really no orks, we're drawing from history of a human planet. This is okay if your orks are nothing more than human in funny suits.


If orcs can be "retrained," then there's absolutely no justification for slaughtering them. Especially since the ones in the villages aren't the warriors who've been attacking you. The warriors are dangerous to your country. These orcs aren't. If they were dangerous, they'd already have attacked you.They're a part of the culture that created and glorified them. Is it worse to kill them or force them at sword point to change their beliefs?


Also, I do not see what basis you have for thinking that medievals routinely travelled armed. Most of them did not, being in a status of near-slavery and subject to those who did travel armed.Daggers, scythes, flails, axes all common tools that are also weapons.


As for that bit about the wagon axle, that was the kind of thing that (rightly) got you a reputation as a homicidal savage. It was not anything like standard practice in the wars of that era.

Actually, a lot of wars in the pre-industrial era ended when you beat the leaders, not when you beat the entire population until they forced their leaders to stop.

You're thinking in terms of total war, with leaders who stay away from the battle and order mass armies of conscripts supplied by large factories in the homeland into the battle. Medieval war doesn't work like that. If you beat the warlord and his troops, the peasants aren't a threat to you, especially if you annex their territory afterwards. The dangerous ones all went off to fight already. Governments aren't organized well enough to replace leaders easily; if you kill the orc warlord and all his immediate henchmen there are no potential orc warlord candidates left to take his place.Then where did Sherman get his idea? Oh wait, that's right the Romans.


A future generation of orcs might arise willing to fight again, but you can't actually stop that from happening except by killing all the orcs. Or, for that matter, all the humans. Most attempts to conquer and annex human territories in the real world eventually fail, either because the rulers "go native" or because some other invader or local powerhouse displaces them.And that's what your making good "stupid". They can never solve the problem, they're doomed to suffering and misery for all eternity.

horseboy
2008-02-15, 11:56 PM
Could I have some historical precedents for that ?IIRC that one was the Huns, though I vaguely recall some of the others having similar ideas in the Mediterranean. Can't remember if it was Hittite, Sumerian or what.

comicshorse
2008-02-15, 11:59 PM
They're a part of the culture that created and glorified them. Is it worse to kill them or force them at sword point to change their beliefs?

It's worse to kill them, definitely.
Even before you factor in those to young to be taught these beliefs and that most would have these beliefs forced on them at sword point by bigger, nastier orcs nd which they paid lip service to because of said orcs.


Then where did Sherman get his idea? Oh wait, that's right the Romans
O.K. my history isn't perfect, what does this refer to /

horseboy
2008-02-16, 12:09 AM
?
O.K. my history isn't perfect, what does this refer to /
Sherman's march to the Atlantic. Where he started in New Orleans, took everything his army could take and burned down everything else. He did it all the way across the South, destroying homes, crops, EVERYTHING.

comicshorse
2008-02-16, 12:20 AM
Ah, thanks


Sherman's march to the Atlantic. Where he started in New Orleans, took everything his army could take and burned down everything else. He did it all the way across the South, destroying homes, crops, EVERYTHING

Everything... but the people I bet.
Indeed Roman and other armies would do this but always the peasants would bve left alive to rebuild so they could work the land for their new overlords.

As for the Huns and the wagon ale as I remeber the Huns were interested in raiding not land occupation. Killing the people makes no sense as their will be nobody left to raid next year. I suspect this maybe propaganda intend to stir the natives in their war against the Huns our an example made of a particularlly resistent city to discourage others.

horseboy
2008-02-16, 12:30 AM
Everything... but the people I bet.
Indeed Roman and other armies would do this but always the peasants would bve left alive to rebuild so they could work the land for their new overlords.Depends. If they suspected you of aiding Confederate solders, everybody in your house got hung. The slaves, of course were freed, so no, there was nobody to tend the fields. That's A large part of what the Reconstruction Period was about, fixing the mortal wounds to the South inflicted by Sherman. And yet, if Sherman hadn't had done such a horrible thing then the war would have gone on much longer, causing even more misery.


As for the Huns and the wagon ale as I remeber the Huns were interested in raiding not land occupation. Killing the people makes no sense as their will be nobody left to raid next year. I suspect this maybe propaganda intend to stir the natives in their war against the Huns our an example made of a particularlly resistent city to discourage others.They're Empire went from Germany to central Asia. But now we're WAY off topic. :smallwink:

monty
2008-02-16, 12:39 AM
Everything... but the people I bet.
Indeed Roman and other armies would do this but always the peasants would bve left alive to rebuild so they could work the land for their new overlords.

Also, keep in mind that one large army fighting another is an entirely different scenario than a group of adventurers fighting a tribe of orcs. In the former case, both armies need lots of food to survive, and infrastructure (railroads, etc.) provide an enormous benefit to whoever can use them, so destroying or taking over significant resources provides a considerable advantage. In the latter case. In the latter case, they can live off the land almost indefinitely (if we're talking about D&D, it only takes a few good survival checks; in real life, a group of armed, trained combatants shouldn't have trouble hunting for food) and they aren't large enough to benefit from infrastructure. So, on a small scale, total war (even without killing civilians) has little direct effect on the enemy.

comicshorse
2008-02-16, 12:41 AM
We are indeed getting off topic so a final point :
This discussion has sparked a thought, rather than 'KILL TEH ORCS' why not conquer them ?
Why can't orc peasants work for human overlords like human peasants ?
Once the warrior class are defeated let the rest work their lands, as they undoudtedly did before but now for you. The tribute will be no worse than they're used to and will have the advantage of not having their daughters and wives stolen by the orc warrior class or offered up to Grumsh as a sacrifice.
Bring in priests to raise the orc children in your gods, so if some hear the call of the old gods there are priests to opposse them. Indeed encourage the young orcs to study the new gods and you may get orc priests who will oppose the old orc gods of blood and slaughter.
Granted the next generation of orcs will have the orcish propensity for violence. So channel it, create an orc unit from these lands ( historically there are dozens of examples of conquered lands providing their conquerers with elite units). This will enable you to channel the orc aggression into ways that are positively beneficial to you.
So why kill the orcs, why not recruit 'em ?

horseboy
2008-02-16, 12:43 AM
Also, keep in mind that one large army fighting another is an entirely different scenario than a group of adventurers fighting a tribe of orcs.
True, but the morality of the tactics used doesn't change.

horseboy
2008-02-16, 12:47 AM
So why kill the orcs, why not recruit 'em ?
Yup. That's why you don't kill them all completely. Of course, in far generations down the road you'll have people calling you a barbarous savage for completely destroying the indigenous ork culture, but yeah, that'd be what I would do with the orcs that surrendered. Take a zone of truth and some sense motive, find out which ones will and won't be able to adapt to the new culture. Kill the ones that can't, the rest you put to the fields.

Dervag
2008-02-16, 12:53 AM
Technically that's all speculation. Since there are really no orks, we're drawing from history of a human planet. This is okay if your orks are nothing more than human in funny suits.I find your sarcasm amusing.

Seriously, my point is that there's no reason to assume that D&D orcs must be a species of horrors that right thinking people would exterminate like so many plague bacilli. In fact, I find the notion absurd on top of being of being sick.

I have no problems with the idea of orcish warriors being morally acceptable cannon fodder while orcish villagers are not. I do not understand why other people do.


They're a part of the culture that created and glorified them.So what?

I'm not kidding. So what? You're thinking in the kind of absolutist total-war terms that characterized the World Wars. Those are the wrong terms to apply to a quasi-medieval setting; it's anachronistic by a factor of about a thousand years.

Orc villagers are part of a culture that creates and glorifies ferocious warriors and raiders. But only in the mindset of the kind of 20th century commanders who would throw nuclear bombs around like party favors given the chance does that justify killing them. This is not because medievals were merciful by modern standards. They were quite capable of being horrible to people they regarded as their enemies. It's because they came from a culture that did not see the peasantry as part of a coherent "nation" of which the warriors are only the fighting arm. This is a modern idea.

And there was a reason for this, a reason that is preserved in a D&D world. In medieval times, the average peasant did not have the wherewithal to pose a credible threat to the real warriors. This is equally true in D&D. Once you've killed the orcs' champions and scattered their warbands, they will give up. Sure, you could proceed to invade their core territories and massacre their weaker dependents. But there's no justification for doing so in the appropriate context (they aren't level-appropriate targets, if you will). And if you do, you'll get a richly deserved reputation as a homicidal savage who's even worse than the orcs.

To summarize, my point is that orc warriors don't actually do anything that a bunch of Vikings wouldn't do. As such, I see no reason why they would be treated differently from the way real world people regarded the Norse. Viking raiders were fair game for any warrior who could kill them, but that didn't mean that anybody was calling for a crusade to invade Scandinavia and slaughter everyone down to the babes in their cradles.


Is it worse to kill them or force them at sword point to change their beliefs?To kill them. And if all you're forcing them to at sword point is change their behavior, which is far more realistic, there isn't even a contest.


Daggers, scythes, flails, axes all common tools that are also weapons.Remember the common saying "there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people?"

This is the flip side. A scythe is a potentially dangerous weapon, but in the hands of a peasant who's accustomed to using it as a farm implement it's only a threat if the peasant is planning to fight to the death. Which they aren't, unless of course they know you plan to slaughter them all like animals. Which, come to think of it, you are.


Then where did Sherman get his idea? Oh wait, that's right the Romans.Except that the Romans didn't do that in most of their campaigns. The only times when they ever came close to the kind of destruction and slaughter you describe (which, I might point out, Sherman didn't do either) were occasions that did earn them a terrible reputation.

People still talk about how the Romans tore down Carthage and salted the soil, over 2000 years later. How many other atrocities have that kind of reputation?


And that's what your making good "stupid". They can never solve the problem, they're doomed to suffering and misery for all eternity.I do not think I am making good "stupid" here. I would expect evil people in the same setting would act the same way. If the orcs try to conquer a human land, they won't end up slaughtering all the peasants. Instead, they will try to rule those peasants. And, most likely, they will eventually be driven off by other conquerors ("mene mene tekel parsin"), by a local power bloc (Ming China), or they will go native (Manchu China). If you try to assimilate a population much larger than your own with a preestablished way of doing things, there's a very real chance that they will assimilate you first.

Moreover, by definition good-aligned people are going to be the ones not inclined towards mass slaughter of noncombatants. If they're willing to do it, they aren't good-aligned any more.


IIRC that one was the Huns, though I vaguely recall some of the others having similar ideas in the Mediterranean. Can't remember if it was Hittite, Sumerian or what.Most likely the Assyrians. The Assyrians were one of those people who got a (well deserved) reputation as homicidal savages because of how brutal they were to conquered peoples. And eventually they were thrown out by a new wave of conquerors (mene mene tekel parsin; it's all in the Book of Daniel).

Once this happened, the Assyrians were quickly destroyed by the vengeful remnants of the cultures they had conquered. Indeed, the only memory of them that survived prior to the modern age of archeology was in the holy books of one of the tribes they conquered.

A cautionary tale, if you will.


Sherman's march to the Atlantic. Where he started in New Orleans, took everything his army could take and burned down everything else. He did it all the way across the South, destroying homes, crops, EVERYTHING.You've got some of your facts wrong. For starters, you have Sherman's march beginning several hundred miles away from where it actually started (in Tennessee). Moreover, Sherman never did anything like a mass slaughter of civilians. In his general orders he explicitly stated that large-scale destruction of property was to be carried out only on orders from senior officers, and only in reaction to Confederate resistance- if Sherman's men were allowed to march unmolested, they weren't supposed to be burning down homes or crops.

Among other things, Sherman ordered that:
"In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance."

Hardly slaughtering everyone to tall to pass beneath a wagon axle.


Depends. If they suspected you of aiding Confederate solders, everybody in your house got hung.OK, cite that policy. Or I'll cheerfully settle for evidence that this happened on a large scale. I'd never heard of it. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you're going a long way out on a limb in light of the copy of his general orders I've seen.


The slaves, of course were freed, so no, there was nobody to tend the fields.No one to tend the cotton plantations, yes. No one to raise corn and hogs, no. That part of southern agriculture was never primarily slave operated in the first place, and the former slaves weren't stupid or incompetent. They weren't going to abandon the fields where they grew their own food, if they grew their own food.


That's A large part of what the Reconstruction Period was about, fixing the mortal wounds to the South inflicted by Sherman.Citation, please?

The reason I'm going over this is that I'm trying to point out that there are very few real world examples of conquerors being this brutal. Many of them are exaggerated from single atrocities. In the few cases where some nation had a policy like this, the nation in question was one with a reputation (richly deserved) for murderous savagery, like the Assyrians.

I can imagine a war of annihilation against the orcs in D&D, but I see no reason to expect one.


We are indeed getting off topic so a final point :
This discussion has sparked a thought, rather than 'KILL TEH ORCS' why not conquer them ?
Why can't orc peasants work for human overlords like human peasants ?
Once the warrior class are defeated let the rest work their lands, as they undoudtedly did before but now for you. The tribute will be no worse than they're used to and will have the advantage of not having their daughters and wives stolen by the orc warrior class or offered up to Grumsh as a sacrifice.
Bring in priests to raise the orc children in your gods, so if some hear the call of the old gods there are priests to opposse them. Indeed encourage the young orcs to study the new gods and you may get orc priests who will oppose the old orc gods of blood and slaughter.
Granted the next generation of orcs will have the orcish propensity for violence. So channel it, create an orc unit from these lands ( historically there are dozens of examples of conquered lands providing their conquerers with elite units). This will enable you to channel the orc aggression into ways that are positively beneficial to you.
So why kill the orcs, why not recruit 'em ?More or less what I had in mind.

horseboy
2008-02-16, 01:22 AM
I find your sarcasm amusing.Glad to hear. So we're all on the same page.


Seriously, my point is that there's no reason to assume that D&D orcs must be a species of horrors that right thinking people would exterminate like so many plague bacilli. In fact, I find the notion absurd on top of being of being sick.And if that's the view you hold of them, fine, then why are they listed as "evil". Why must something you disagree with have to be "evil." Pretty sure that's one of the root questions of the thread.


So what?

I'm not kidding. So what? You're thinking in the kind of absolutist total-war terms that characterized the World Wars. Those are the wrong terms to apply to a quasi-medieval setting; it's anachronistic by a factor of about a thousand years.But it does. Scorched Earth policies have been used all through out history. Now granted this isn't going to be one of the first things used, but for how long must the good village suffer through this before they've had enough and announce a "good" wide campaign to crush the evil out of the orks?


Orc villagers are part of a culture that creates and glorifies ferocious warriors and raiders. But only in the mindset of the kind of 20th century commanders who would throw nuclear bombs around like party favors given the chance does that justify killing them. This is not because medievals were merciful by modern standards. They were quite capable of being horrible to people they regarded as their enemies. It's because they came from a culture that did not see the peasantry as part of a coherent "nation" of which the warriors are only the fighting arm. This is a modern idea.
I didn't realize the Hundred Year war was modern, or Rome, or Greece or Scythians.

And there was a reason for this, a reason that is preserved in a D&D world. In medieval times, the average peasant did not have the wherewithal to pose a credible threat to the real warriors. This is equally true in D&D. Once you've killed the orcs' champions and scattered their warbands, they will give up. Sure, you could proceed to invade their core territories and massacre their weaker dependents. But there's no justification for doing so in the appropriate context (they aren't level-appropriate targets, if you will). And if you do, you'll get a richly deserved reputation as a homicidal savage who's even worse than the orcs.
If you'll note, I have several times pointed out that you can stop once they've completely surrendered.

To kill them. And if all you're forcing them to at sword point is change their behavior, which is far more realistic, there isn't even a contest. Okay, so we've established that it's more evil to kill than force your views on another through force. Can it be said that forcing your views on another is more GOOD than killing them?


Moreover, by definition good-aligned people are going to be the ones not inclined towards mass slaughter of noncombatants. If they're willing to do it, they aren't good-aligned any more.Right, because it's "good"er ( I know that's not a word) to force them to change their racial identity.


A cautionary tale, if you will.Most likely they did it too, but I'm pretty sure it was either Attila or Genghis, always get those two confused.


You've got some of your facts wrong. For starters, you have Sherman's march beginning several hundred miles away from where it actually started (in Tennessee). Moreover, Sherman never did anything like a mass slaughter of civilians. In his general orders he explicitly stated that large-scale destruction of property was to be carried out only on orders from senior officers, and only in reaction to Confederate resistance- if Sherman's men were allowed to march unmolested, they weren't supposed to be burning down homes or crops.They weren't supposed to, according to Lincolin's orders. Sherman on the other hand, had other ideas.


OK, cite that policy. Or I'll cheerfully settle for evidence that this happened on a large scale. I'd never heard of it. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you're going a long way out on a limb in light of the copy of his general orders I've seen.Mostly tales from Great grandpappy. There's a reason his name is still a profanity.


No one to tend the cotton plantations, yes. No one to raise corn and hogs, no. That part of southern agriculture was never primarily slave operated in the first place, and the former slaves weren't stupid or incompetent. They weren't going to abandon the fields where they grew their own food, if they grew their own food.No they weren't stupid, that's why so many fled the region. Those that didn't wound up getting their 40 acres in lower Mississippi. Why we have the Delta Blues. :smallsmile:


The reason I'm going over this is that I'm trying to point out that there are very few real world examples of conquerors being this brutal. Many of them are exaggerated from single atrocities. In the few cases where some nation had a policy like this, the nation in question was one with a reputation (richly deserved) for murderous savagery, like the Assyrians.
Scorched Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth) has been used through out history.

EvilElitest
2008-02-16, 01:26 AM
The first one is an historical representation of the type of thing they would use. If they were young enough that they could walk under the axle of a cart then they were spared the sword, as they wouldn't be able to remember a time before the conquerors reign. The second is pretty much spot on, as everyone carried at least a dagger equivalent.
This is how wars are won. You kill people and break things until they stop fighting back. The people cry out for peace and will turn in their leaders so they can get on with their lives. If the people still want to fight you, you haven't won. It's one of the many reasons that war is Hell.

That doesn't make genocide a good act via D&D morality



As for Sherman's march, after the Confederate Spirt was mortally wounded by Picket's charge, Sherman's march finished the job with a shotgun to the head. It was the Nuclear Bomb of the Civil War. That being said, Sherman (who was southern by the way) and Lincoln tried their best to avoid direct human casualties instead focusing upon destroying the railroads and burning the farms. Even the most die hard Southern States (like Georgia and South Carolina) had not cases of massacres or atrocities. Plenty of people dies after wards from the food shortage and the oppression that followed after Lincoln's assassination (ironically enough the worst thing that could have happened to the south at that time) but that isn't direct killing



from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-02-16, 01:48 AM
Glad to hear. So we're all on the same page.

Good to see that



And if that's the view you hold of them, fine, then why are they listed as "evil". Why must something you disagree with have to be "evil." Pretty sure that's one of the root questions of the thread.
Good and evil are absolute in D&D, morality is not. However, genocide and murder is evil by the way


But it does. Scorched Earth policies have been used all through out history. Now granted this isn't going to be one of the first things used, but for how long must the good village suffer through this before they've had enough and announce a "good" wide campaign to crush the evil out of the orks?
Not really, Scorched Earth Genocides are infamously wasteful and risky, as well as having little gain. And by a D&D perspective you are still doing evil in Genocide



I didn't realize the Hundred Year war was modern, or Rome, or Greece or Scythians.

non of which had large scale genocide i think, i know that the Hundred Year war didn't


If you'll note, I have several times pointed out that you can stop once they've completely surrendered.

Are orcs tribal? Thus getting race to surrender wouldn't work. You'd have to kill all of the orc gods and most powerful dudes. Also, in doing all of these evil things, you are in fact more evil then the orcs, because you are more effective at your evil deeds. Also, you know all of the orcs who aren't evil? They will ether be killed in the genocide, or seeing the massacre will join the other side


Okay, so we've established that it's more evil to kill than force your views on another through force. Can it be said that forcing your views on another is more GOOD than killing them?

If by good you mean slightly less evil. Your still being evil however



Right, because it's "good"er ( I know that's not a word) to force them to change their racial identity.
The term is more good. And the proper thing to do is simple wipe out any force they send to attack you until they eventually figure out that surrendering might be a good idea



They weren't supposed to, according to Lincolin's orders. Sherman on the other hand, had other ideas.
Sherman was southern dude? Lincolin, Sherman and Grant all wished to keep hte southern death toll as low as possible, because this is a civil war, when the war ends what do you have?



Mostly tales from Great grandpappy. There's a reason his name is still a profanity.
As a southern, i'd recommend being more trusting of Ken Burn's Documentary "The Civil War" as a source
from
EE

horseboy
2008-02-16, 02:04 AM
Good and evil are absolute in D&D, morality is not. However, genocide and murder is evil by the way If good and evil is absolute, and you stand by and do nothing while evil is being committed, then you have to be evil. Because good has to stop it. Therefor good and evil can NOT be absolute in D&D or all orcs that live in the arch typical orc settlement must be evil.


non of which had large scale genocide i think, i know that the Hundred Year war didn't

...in strait places gar keep all store,
And byrnen ye plainland them before,
That they shall pass away in haist
What that they find na thing but waist.
...This is the counsel and intent
Of gud King Robert's testiment


Are orcs tribal? Thus getting race to surrender wouldn't work. You'd have to kill all of the orc gods and most powerful dudes. Well, that depends on if in your settings gods can't exist without followers. A common theme. Also, for when it's not, that's when the dwarven and elven pantheon step in and finish the job.

Also, in doing all of these evil things, you are in fact more evil then the orcs, because you are more effective at your evil deeds. Also, you know all of the orcs who aren't evil? They will ether be killed in the genocide, or seeing the massacre will join the other side No, the orcs that aren't evil are now my minions.


If by good you mean slightly less evil. Your still being evil however
But I'm also being good.


The term is more good. And the proper thing to do is simple wipe out any force they send to attack you until they eventually figure out that surrendering might be a good ideaSadly that day wouldn't come unless you actually make them pay for their lifestyle. Just killing off a few here and there isn't going to drive home the point.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 05:04 AM
Monsters are people too.
And in that Dr. Who story the Doctor turned down the chance to stop the daleks existing. Not murder them all but just to prevent them ever happening because genocide is a totally evil act

Actually in that episode the Doctor turned down the chance to stop the Daleks existing because, if I recall correctly, he didn't want to tamper with history, and he worried that the very *fear* of the Daleks might have united cultures that would otherwise have been at war for centuries.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 05:17 AM
you'd be surprised how racists justify their actions, but the point remains, as long as orcs have the ability to reason and choose their alignment (which they do) they are not worthy of being wiped out via genocide

I wouldn't be surprised at *all* how racists justify their actions. In fact, that's my entire point.

The thing is that all the talk racists use to justify their actions actually *would* justify their actions if it were true. All of the things people said about black people, native Americans, aboriginal Australians and the like are literally true of Orcs.

In the real world, there was nothing wrong with Native American society, and the European Settlers should have left them alone and let them keep their land, instead of wiping them out like rats. In D&D, Orcish society is literally evil.


you seem to be suffering from a severe case of Hubris and ethnocentrism, just because they tend to be less intelligent doesn't mean they can't run their own society, nor makes their culture bad (it is the fact that it is evil that makes it bad) and they are "often Chaotic Evil" not always, nether dictatorship nor genocide will solve that problem

No, as you say, the fact that they are less intelligent doesn't make their culture bad. As you also say, the fact that their culture is *evil* makes it bad. And what makes their culture evil? We've discussed this in detail on another thread and the overall consensus was that Orcish culture is evil because Orcs, as a race, have a predisposition towards evil.

They are demonstrably incapable of living in a non-evil way without the guidance of a superior race, which is to say, a race that does not have a tendency towards Evil.

Does this sound a lot like what real-world racists said about black people and native Americans? Sure it does, the difference is that in the case of Orcs it's true. It's written down in the damned rulebooks.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 05:25 AM
I have no problems with the idea of orcish warriors being morally acceptable cannon fodder while orcish villagers are not. I do not understand why other people do.

Let me see if I can put it a different way.

Suppose you have this group of people who raid your lands for the resources they need to survive. You kill the raiders, great, that's self-defence. You now have a bunch of women and children who can't defend themselves and
don't have enough food.

I'm not saying it's somehow "okay" to kill them or enslave them. I'm saying that it's no *more* "okay" to let them starve to death.

In a violent, dangerous, medieval society, a culture pretty much can't survive without warriors. Particularly if those warriors are also the hunters and gatherers of their people. Killing Orcish *warriors* does, in fact, ultimately condemn their women and children to death *anyway*.

Now you could always conquer the Orcs, but what if they don't want to be ruled by you? If they rise up against you is it okay to kill them now? What if they want to carry on worshiping Grummsh, an objectively Evil deity? And how are you suddenly going to feed all these new subjects you have? Their land wasn't good enough to support them to begin with, that's why they were raiding you in the first place.

Which is why I so hate the "Orcish women and children" issue. It's not that people object to paladins killing civilians, it's that people *don't* object to them killing the people who keep those women and children fed. It *is* a double standard.

Demented
2008-02-16, 05:50 AM
It's the fault of the Hunters that they died, and thus the perils of their families are on their heads. It's the risk of trying to support your family in a way that is potentially dangerous to you, and one you implicitly accept by putting yourself into danger. It requires less effort than hoeing the land, and rewards more too... Which is counter-balanced by the danger. It's why they invented hazard pay.
But then, Dervag or Elitest could've told you that.

I'm here to post about what could happen after...
Now, suppose those families, now so totally bereft of warriors that they approach your well-defended outpost and plead for help... I wouldn't mind giving it. (Good: I'd be compelled to, in fact.) Orcs may be naturally prone to evil, but if you can get a tribe that likes you, in a few years you'll have a small army with an innate +2 to strength. That's as good as gold, and works out very well if you intend to expand your town's limits or have a problem with pirates. (Good: And it's the right thing to do.)

Alternately, and the more likely possibility, those families somehow make it without warriors... The women have the same stats, so they can gather just as effectively, though they may not be socially acceptable as warriors. Things will just be tougher for the tribe without phat lewts. Maybe some children will die if the tribe can't support them. That will leave the stronger children (or those with less insistent/capable mothers), happily to the benefit of orcish society. Then those children will grow up to be adult warriors who will end up bashing their skulls against my village again. Which is, of course, their fault, again.

But I can't complain. I'm stupid enough to stay in an area where there are tribes of orcs about, and adhere to Good principles at the same time. Anyone who doesn't want to deal with orcs can pack up and leave for all I care. (Good: But please, protect your caravan while doing so.) I'm here for a reason, whatever that reason is, and I'm going to put up with an unfriendly neighbourhood.

Maybe if I'm lucky, the orcs will die out.
As said before, it's not my fault. It's theirs.
Nobody asked for my help, and I'm not compelled to find out if they needed it. (Good: Actually, I am compelled, by my own curiosity and conscience. But not to the risk of those under my own protection, of course. Supposing I do find the orcs, and they turn on me... What to do with all these newly-orphaned infants? Ah, dilemmas. (Very Good: Mass adoption, of course! Trust me, that fuzzy feeling you get when you realize you're a paragon of virtue is worth it in the end.) ) The world will most likely be a better place, even if it means the orcish Mother Theresa now has a slightly lower chance of being born. Then again, maybe the orcs were keeping the local kobold population down. Oh well. Good doesn't always win.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 06:10 AM
Alignment is the most controversial and, for me, useless rule in Dungeons & Dragons. I am really happy they are reducing it's importance in 4E. If I had anything to say, there wouldn't be any alignments. The only thing alignment is good for is... I dare you to finish that statement! Because I honestly can't.

You want to know why I think it's bad instead of just complaining? Because I'm a roleplayer. That's why. And, as a roleplayer, I believe in versatile characters and complex morality. Alignment discourages that.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 06:10 AM
It's the fault of the Hunters that they died, and thus the perils of their families are on their heads. It's the risk of trying to support your family in a way that is potentially dangerous to you, and one you implicitly accept by putting yourself into danger. It requires less effort than hoeing the land, and rewards more too... Which is counter-balanced by the danger. It's why they invented hazard pay.
But then, Dervag or Elitest could've told you that.

You see, this is where I think things start getting too convenient. It's like that bit in the Simpsons: "I'm just going to walk forwards, swinging my fists like this...".

We're not talking about all the tribe's hunters going off and getting themselves killed. We're talking about you, personally, deliberately going out and killing the tribe's hunters. This is apparently okay because they're armed.

Also: Hunting doesn't require less effort than farming. Farming has massively, massively higher rewards than hunting. That's why people have farms. If you are *killing the people* who allow the Orcs to *feed themselves* then you are **condemning them to death**.


I'm here to post about what could happen after...
Now, suppose those families, now so totally bereft of warriors that they approach your well-defended outpost and plead for help... I wouldn't mind giving it.

So your people have enough resources to share with the Orcs, but you didn't consider letting them have anything until you'd already killed half of them?


Orcs may be naturally prone to evil, but if you can get a tribe that likes you, in a few years you'll have a small army with an innate +2 to strength. That's as good as gold, and works out very well if you intend to expand your town's limits or have a problem with pirates.

Again, it seems monstrously convenient to me that slaughtering half of their population will make them "like you".


Alternately, and the more likely possibility, those families somehow make it without warriors... The women have the same stats, so they can gather just as effectively, though they may not be socially acceptable as warriors. Things will just be tougher for the tribe without phat lewts. Maybe some children will die if the tribe can't support them. That will leave the stronger children (or those with less insistent/capable mothers), happily to the benefit of orcish society. Then those children will grow up to be adult warriors who will end up bashing their skulls against my village again. Which is, of course, their fault, again.

So let me see if I've got this right. The sequence of events you posit is this.

1) Orcs live in harsh, unforgiving land. They raid your village for the supplies they need to feed their people.

2) In order to stop the raids, you attack the orcs and kill everybody who takes up a weapon against you.

3) The Orcs now magically learn new ways to find food for themselves, despite the fact that they are just recovering from the decimation of their population, and despite the fact that you have made no effort to help them find a sustainable alternative to raiding. Alternatively they just starve to death, and this is their fault because they pissed you off.

4) If, eventually, the Orcs manage to rebuild their society to a level where they *might* be able to get themselves a better standard of living, you will again go and slaughter them back into the dark ages. This will again be *their* fault.


But I can't complain. I'm stupid enough to stay in an area where there are tribes of orcs about, and adhere to Good principles at the same time. Anyone who doesn't want to deal with orcs can pack up and leave for all I care. I'm here for a reason, whatever that reason is, and I'm going to put up with an unfriendly neighbourhood.

Since your "good" principles seem to involve slaughtering anybody that presents a threat to you, I would sincerely hate to see what you think "evil" principles look like.


Maybe if I'm lucky, the orcs will die out.
As said before, it's not my fault. It's theirs.
Nobody asked for my help, and I'm not compelled to find out if they needed it. The world will most likely be a better place, even if it means the orcish Mother Theresa now has a slightly lower chance of being born. Then again, maybe the orcs were keeping the local kobold population down. Oh well. Good doesn't always win.

So if you remove the means by which they feed themselves and they die out as a result this is their fault?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 06:15 AM
Alignment is the most controversial and, for me, useless rule in Dungeons & Dragons. I am really happy they are reducing it's importance in 4E. If I had anything to say, there wouldn't be any alignments. The only thing alignment is good for is... I dare you to finish that statement! Because I honestly can't.

Alignment is good for creating an archetypal setting in which the fantasy elements of the world are metaphors for wider concepts. In such a world "orcs" are not a race of beings, they're a metaphor for the hatred, violence, and barbarism implicit in the human spirit.


You want to know why I think it's bad instead of just complaining? Because I'm a roleplayer. That's why. And, as a roleplayer, I believe in versatile characters and complex morality. Alignment discourages that.

Alignment can do complex morality, so long as you play it right. It allows you to define explicitly "evil" methods and explicitly "good" ends and discuss, in detail, how to strike a balance between them.

Do you use Evil magic to fight an Evil enemy? How much risk is it reasonable to expect another man to take to fight Evil? How does Evil survive and flourish? Do those who fight Evil risk becoming Evil themselves.

All of these are interesting, complex ideas to explore. You can't do any of them easily if you get rid of the concept of "evil".

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 06:26 AM
Alignment is good for creating an archetypal setting in which the fantasy elements of the world are metaphors for wider concepts. In such a world "orcs" are not a race of beings, they're a metaphor for the hatred, violence, and barbarism implicit in the human spirit.
You have proven my point.


Alignment can do complex morality, so long as you play it right. It allows you to define explicitly "evil" methods and explicitly "good" ends and discuss, in detail, how to strike a balance between them.
You have once again proven my point.


Do you use Evil magic to fight an Evil enemy? How much risk is it reasonable to expect another man to take to fight Evil? How does Evil survive and flourish? Do those who fight Evil risk becoming Evil themselves.
That is what alignment hinders.


All of these are interesting, complex ideas to explore. You can't do any of them easily if you get rid of the concept of "evil".
Getting rid of the concept of evil? Most certainly not. Getting rid of the "set in stone" concept where people whose alignment is Evil are unredeemably evil? Most certainly yes.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 06:36 AM
You have proven my point.

How?


You have once again proven my point.

Once again, how?


That is what alignment hinders.

Third time's the charm: How?


Getting rid of the concept of evil? Most certainly not. Getting rid of the "set in stone" concept where people whose alignment is Evil are unredeemably evil? Most certainly yes.

I'm not talking about "people" I'm talking about metaphors-that-walk.

There are things you can't do with real people that you *can* do with metaphors.

For example: Kingdom A is being attacked by Orcs. Kingdom B does not want to intervene because they fear the Orcs (and their Dark Masters) will attack them if they do. The moral question here is "should a man be expected to stand up against evil, even if it could cause suffering to people he cares about".

If the Orcs aren't objectively evil, the whole situation goes away. The question is no longer "do you stand up against evil" but "do you interfere in the internal squabbles of two foreign nations". That's not the same question. One is a moral issue, the other is a question of realpolitik.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 06:45 AM
How do you prove my point, you say?

Because what I am trying to say is that walking archetypes are bad! Bad, bad, bad! There should be no absolute good or evil or law or chaos, there should be flexible morality.

:miko:OMG TEH ORC IZ TEH EVILZ0R KILL TEH ORC!!!1!
:thog:Hey, I know I'm kinda evil, but I'm trying to become a better person! Look, I'm a peaceful merchant! I'm on my way to good! AAAAH, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, NOOO!
:miko:LOL TEH ORC IZ TEH DEADZ0R!

Demented
2008-02-16, 06:52 AM
We're not talking about all the tribe's hunters going off and getting themselves killed. We're talking about you, personally, deliberately going out and killing the tribe's hunters. This is apparently okay because they're armed.
...
Also: Hunting doesn't require less effort than farming.
...
So your people have enough resources to share with the Orcs, but you didn't consider letting them have anything until you'd already killed half of them?
...
Again, it seems monstrously convenient to me that slaughtering half of their population will make them "like you".
...
So if you remove the means by which they feed themselves and they die out as a result this is their fault?

Oh, oops, sorry. I had thought we were talking about a bunch of orc raiders attacking my village. I suppose that makes a good portion of the relevance of my post moot. Then again, you did say they were raiding my lands... But that's only, what, Grand Theft Grain? That doesn't sound like it's worth expending lethal effort against. In fact, I could probably scare them off with a spooooky scarecrow....
Does this mean I'm going to hear an argument about intentionally starving the orcs to death because I won't allow them to steal the grain of my harvest?
...
If they're going to the trouble of running aroud my lands in the middle of the night trying to thresh grain with scythes, you're probably right, raiding does take more effort than normal farming. Hoeing and tilling is hard, of course, but the orcs are probably carrying their tools along with them every night, for nothing but small bags of raw grain.

You know what? If they're willing to go to that much trouble, I should probably hire them!

(Awkward silence.)

...
Since the orcs are already raiding my lands, it seems clear to me that we weren't already in peaceful contact. If they had just asked, sure... As mentioned, I could use some people with a positive strength modifier.
...
Hey, it could happen. *naivete*
...
That was before I realized we were talking about simple grain thieves. Now that I understand we're merely talking about theft, their means will only have to suffer with sore toes from stepping on mousetraps until they get the hint. :smallamused: Or until I start starving. :smallmad: 'Course, if their raiding is such a pittance, by the time I'm starving, they'll be starving, so it's all good. :smallyuk:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 06:52 AM
How do you prove my point, you say?

Because what I am trying to say is that walking archetypes are bad! Bad, bad, bad! There should be no absolute good or evil or law or chaos, there should be flexible morality.

But *why* are walking archetypes bad?


:miko:OMG TEH ORC IZ TEH EVILZ0R KILL TEH ORC!!!1!
:thog:Hey, I know I'm kinda evil, but I'm trying to become a better person! Look, I'm a peaceful merchant! I'm on my way to good! AAAAH, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, NOOO!
:miko:LOL TEH ORC IZ TEH DEADZ0R!

How is that any worse than:

:roy: Stab
:redcloak: *dies*
:roy: Stab
:redcloak: *dies*
:roy: Stab
:thog: *dies*
:roy: Stab
:redcloak: *dies*
:thog: Wait, unlike all the other people you have just cut down without a second thought, I have five seconds of screentime and a line!
:roy: Okay, you can go.
:roy: Stab
:redcloak: *dies*

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 06:58 AM
Oh, oops, sorry. I had thought we were talking about a bunch of orc raiders attacking my village. I suppose that makes a good portion of the relevance of my post moot. Then again, you did say they were raiding my lands... But that's only, what, Grand Theft Grain? That doesn't sound like it's worth expending lethal effort against. In fact, I could probably scare them off with a spooooky scarecrow....
Does this mean I'm going to hear an argument about intentionally starving the orcs to death because I won't allow them to steal the grain of my harvest?

They are attacking your village. They're doing it to get your supplies of food, which they need to stop themselves dying.

Is it okay to defend yourselves? Of course. Is it okay to hire a bunch of mercenaries to go and kill all their warriors so they don't come back? Probably. Does that condemn them to a slow miserable death? Yes.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:08 AM
What is it you don't understand about my post(s)? I am saying that walking archetypes are bad because they encourage one-sided pure good vs. pure evil play. And I don't like that.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:13 AM
What is it you don't understand about my post(s)? I am saying that walking archetypes are bad because they encourage one-sided pure good vs. pure evil play. And I don't like that.

But that isn't remotely true.

Lord of the Rings is all *about* the archetypes. It's not "pure good versus evil". The Elves are faded and ineffectual, most Good people are too weak to stand up against Evil, even though they should, and of course destroying Sauron also destroys most of the wonders in the world. When Boromir takes the ring, that is an objectively Evil act, even though he does it out of a desire to save Gondor.

You can have an *extremely* complex world with absolute evil in it. By comparison, most morally "grey" worlds tend to be extremely wishy-washy. It's not like most people actually *stop* having their PCs kill Orcs when they decide that those Orcs are "people".

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:31 AM
:sigh: And that's why I like Warcraft.

EDIT: I'm not saying Pure Evil/Good shouldn't exist, just that it should be reserved for the really corrupt big bad evil guys, like Sauron, Voldemort, or Kil'jaeden.

Morty
2008-02-16, 07:33 AM
The point is, though, you can have walking archetypes without rules that support them while hindering even remotely complex moralty. Would most of D&D worlds become less black-and-white if we removed alignment labels? Nope. If there are no alignments, you can still have archetypical "classic" characters but you can have moral complexity if you like.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:39 AM
The point is, though, you can have walking archetypes without rules that support them while hindering even remotely complex moralty.

That's exactly my point though, the Alignment rules *don't* hinder complex morality, they hinder *ambiguous* morality, and that's a different thing.

For example:

Your city is under attack by an army of Orcs. You discover The Great Book of Necromantic Magic. You have the option to raise an army of the undead to fight the Orcs.

In a world where there's no absolute morality, this is a no-brainer: you're under attack, you've got a weapon to defend yourself with minimal loss of life. You obviously use it.

In a world where there *is* an absolute morality, you have a dilemma, because Orcs and the Undead are both evil, and whether it is permissible to use one to fight the other is a meaningful question.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:42 AM
:sigh: And that's why I like Warcraft.

EDIT: I'm not saying Pure Evil/Good shouldn't exist, just that it should be reserved for the really corrupt big bad evil guys, like Sauron, Voldemort, or Kil'jaeden.

I find it interesting that you put Voldemort in that list. Voldemort is just a guy, but Rowling portrays him as being essentially damned from birth. I actually find it a lot *more* disturbing to say "some people are just evil" than to say "some creatures which exist in this fantasy setting are just evil".

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:44 AM
If we didn't have alignments, we wouldn't have this thread at all. Killing a creature because it registers as Evil is a Good act, no matter what the creature has done, according to the alignment system we have now. If someone, let's say a paladin who isn't a psychopath, kills a "Good" paladin slaying innocent orcs to protect the innocent orcs from being slain, is that an evil act?

EDIT: Some people are evil. An entire race cannot be evil. Heard of free will?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:47 AM
If we didn't have alignments, we wouldn't have this thread at all. Killing a creature because it registers as Evil is a Good act, no matter what the creature has done, according to the alignment system we have now. If someone, let's say a paladin who isn't a psychopath, kills a "Good" paladin slaying innocent orcs to protect the innocent orcs from being slain, is that an evil act?

Yes. Killing Good creatures is an Evil act. Killing Evil creatures is a Good act. That's how Alignment works.

Alignment (which was originally just Law/Chaos, for what it's worth) was introduced into D&D right back in the beginning as a way of telling you who you were supposed to talk to and who you were supposed to kill. Without alignment, you have to get rid of some of the basic assumptions of D&D, most notably the idea of regular, low-consequence combat encounters.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:50 AM
I
EDIT: Some people are evil. An entire race cannot be evil. Heard of free will?

No, no people are evil. Some people do things which some other people think are evil. Lord Voldemort is not a realistic portrayal of a person, any more than Orcs are a realistic portrayal of a race.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:53 AM
Yes. Killing Good creatures is an Evil act. Killing Evil creatures is a Good act. That's how Alignment works.

Alignment (which was originally just Law/Chaos, for what it's worth) was introduced into D&D right back in the beginning as a way of telling you who you were supposed to talk to and who you were supposed to kill. Without alignment, you have to get rid of some of the basic assumptions of D&D, most notably the idea of regular, low-consequence combat encounters.

Yes, that's how alignment works. And that's why I hate it.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 07:55 AM
Yes, that's how alignment works. And that's why I hate it.

So ditch it, but if you ditch it you kind of have to turn down the combat frequency in your game massively. Otherwise your PCs are just a bunch of mass murdering butchers.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:57 AM
No, no people are evil. Some people do things which some other people think are evil. Lord Voldemort is not a realistic portrayal of a person, any more than Orcs are a realistic portrayal of a race.

Yes, that's my point, orcs aren't a realistic portrayal of a race.

Is Voldemort not a realistic portrayal (asides from being a lich wizard)? He is a mass murderer and cult leader. It's not like we have those in real world, is it? In our world, people are always friendly and nice to each other.

Athaniar
2008-02-16, 07:59 AM
So ditch it, but if you ditch it you kind of have to turn down the combat frequency in your game massively. Otherwise your PCs are just a bunch of mass murdering butchers.

That makes for some interesting roleplaying. If you don't want that, say hello to the undead!

Morty
2008-02-16, 08:03 AM
That's exactly my point though, the Alignment rules *don't* hinder complex morality, they hinder *ambiguous* morality, and that's a different thing.

Moralty does have this unnerving tendency to be ambigous.


Your city is under attack by an army of Orcs. You discover The Great Book of Necromantic Magic. You have the option to raise an army of the undead to fight the Orcs.

In a world where there's no absolute morality, this is a no-brainer: you're under attack, you've got a weapon to defend yourself with minimal loss of life. You obviously use it.

Unless you're worshipper of the god who's against necromancy. Or some paladins decide that what you've done was evil and you must be punished. Or the undead horde gets out of control. Or if you are concerned that turning people into undead just isn't fair to them.


In a world where there *is* an absolute morality, you have a dilemma, because Orcs and the Undead are both evil, and whether it is permissible to use one to fight the other is a meaningful question.

See above. There's moral compexity even if there's no rules for it.


So ditch it, but if you ditch it you kind of have to turn down the combat frequency in your game massively. Otherwise your PCs are just a bunch of mass murdering butchers.

Two things wrong here. First, who says you can't have your PCs killing greenskins even if those greenskins aren't labeled as "evil"? Ever heard of Warhammer? If you absolutely need some mooks to be mindlessly killed that is, something I never really understood. Second, I don't see what's wrong in PCs actually having reasons to fight instead of killing random encounters because they detect on Evil Radar. You don't need moraly rules for your players to fight without being wandering murderers.


Killing a creature because it registers as Evil is a Good act, no matter what the creature has done, according to the alignment system we have now.

I don't really think rules say this. Alignment sucks, but it's not true.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 08:03 AM
Yes, that's my point, orcs aren't a realistic portrayal of a race.

Which isn't a problem if you don't treat them as one.


Is Voldemort not a realistic portrayal (asides from being a lich wizard)? He is a mass murderer and cult leader. It's not like we have those in real world, is it? In our world, people are always friendly and nice to each other.

No, he's not a realistic portrayal. Real mass murderers and cult leaders have an agenda, Voledmort's only agenda is to be totally eeeevillle and get himself killed. He *doesn't* act like a cult leader. He doesn't offer his followers anything, he doesn't have a plan or a vision or a goal. He just wants to get Harry.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 08:07 AM
Moralty does have this unnerving tendency to be ambigous.

Why "unnerving"?


Unless you're worshipper of the god who's against necromancy. Or some paladins decide that what you've done was evil and you must be punished. Or the undead horde gets out of control. Or if you are concerned that turning people into undead just isn't fair to them.

All of which have their basis in the Alignment system, which arbitrarily declares Necromancy to be Evil for no reason.


Two things wrong here. First, who says you can't have your PCs killing greenskins even if those greenskins aren't labeled as "evil"? Ever heard of Warhammer?

Firstly, Warhammer Orcs *are* evil, or at the very least so unremittingly violent that they're the functional equivalent.

Also, in Warhammer, as in 40K, Orcs literally *do* have no women and children. They grow from spores.


Second, I don't see what's wrong in PCs actually having reasons to fight instead of killing random encounters because they detect on Evil Radar. You don't need moraly rules for your players to fight without being wandering murderers.

Not if you don't mind them fighting an order of magnitude less than PCs in D&D games. Which I don't, but then I don't play D&D.