Am I in the wrong here?

[CoffeeIncluded]

So the group I'm in just tracked a tribe of orcs raiding a village we're hired to protect back to their mountain caves. We think the orcs are going to attack the village again soon and my character (a rogue/swashbuckler), along with the cleric, suggested going into the caves and investigating. Then I learned that the other job was to kill the orcs once we're in their caves and for a while I misunderstood that as "kill ALL the orcs, not just the ones who fight."

I'll admit that I broke character here, but I flat-out refused to go into the orcs' caves--their homes--and kill everyone. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of going in there for the explicit and primary purpose of killing them anyway. The DM, along with the person playing the cleric, said that my character was acting out of character for suddenly being so against going into the caverns and killing the orcs--after all, she fought the orcs before, and fought ogres, and attacked a choker while screaming for it to die. I replied that my character wasn't okay with killing the orcs after the fact, attacked the orcs and ogres because they attacked first, and the choker had knocked the wizard down to -8 HP by the time she got to it. In every single time, it was in self-defense.

The other, main thing, is that the DM has been saying the whole time that I shouldn't be so torn up about killing the orcs because, as he says:

The DM:

Spoiler

Show

"It's an odd time for Natalia [my character] to develop such a conscience especially for a race of murdering rapists and thieves. Granted not all orcs are evil, but it is in their base nature to be. It is the exceptions which are non evil, not the norm...And I doubt anyone in the party will be killing innocents. The truth still is that any adult Orc fighter in there has been bred and raised to be evil and has likely done many unspeakably evil acts, or at the least dreams of such acts fondly.

It has been the parties decision that has led them to this point. I'm not forcing anyone's hand.

Don't forget that most Orcs are evil, and their race has done much to earn that reputation including killing people in Linwood. Given the chance they will rape and kill Natalia whether she pities them or not.
Not every Orc is evil, but that does not change the fact that most are. They, as a race, are evil. That does not mean that as individuals they are.

In their eyes, they are doing what they feel is right and just. It is their culture to be barbaric, warlike, and in conflict with intelligent beings near them. That will not change."

I ****ing hate this part of the alignment system. I hate hate hate hate hate HATE it. It morally justifies wholesale slaughter; in fact, it basically says that the best possible moral outcome is to ping and slay--Even if the orcs aren't actually doing anything at the moment, just because the Monster Manual said they're evil. I hate the racism that it enables and justifies; if it were up to me I'd scrap the whole thing and say that no race is good or evil; it's all up to the individual.

Am I in the wrong for asking the other players how they feel about the alignment system and asking the DM if he can change, for example, the orc's "often chaotic evil" to "Orcish tribal society prides physical might and is often quite aggressive, but that's not the same thing as evil."? Because, honestly, this is making me extremely upset and uncomfortable and less able to enjoy the game if this nudging towards killing orcs because they're evil because the Monster Manual says so continues.

[Almaseti]

I don't think you're actually wrong here. The whole "helpless/defenseless categorically evil creature" issue seems to be a problem that a lot of groups try to deal with.

I guess in a way it's sort of a suspension of disbelief thing, too. The fun of the game is going around kicking butt. Having creatures that it's okay to kill is, or can be, part of the fantasy.

But you're not wrong to have, or play a character who has, a more nuanced idea of morality. I mean, if humans just kill orcs on sight, regardless of whether they've done anything to deserve it, of course orcs are going to kill humans right back. Kind of a vicious cycle.

And there's nothing contradictory with being willing to kill in self defense but not in cold blood.

[ReaderAt2046]

For what it's worth, here's my opinion on the matter.

No sentient race is completely evil. Even demons, in my opinion, are technically not an evil race because they aren't a whole race. {Scrubbed}The DM may justly say that the Orcish culture makes them evil, the same way human cultures often do.

I would also note two other relevant facts. 1. The adults (possibly only the adult males, unsure on orcish gender roles) of that tribe have attacked the villiage, which would probably be a crime desrving of death. 2. The young orcs have presumably done nothing worthy of death.

In conclusion, I think you are right in disagreeing with the D&D alignment grid, but I also think the orcs that attacked the villiage have demonstrated their evil (or at least hostility, which isn't the same thing but still may require death). I haven't the faintest idea what you can do for the women and children, but I'm sure killing them is the wrong answer. Maybe take them back to the villiage and try to raise them rightly?

[Gamer Girl]

Your not ''wrong'', but I fail to see how this is a problem. Even if your character is Super Good and the orcs were Super Evil that does not equal that you must commit wholesale slaughter. Just as a race is 'evil', does not say you must kill everyone of them.


But why is any time an 'odd' time to develop anything? Anyone can develop anything any time. You could have a Super Good Guy who slaughtered evil orcs everyday for 25 years, who wakes up one morning and says ''hum, wait''.

[navar100]

Your DM is wrong for telling you how you should play your character.

Good is capable of killing. The act of killing is not Evil. It is unaligned. The purpose of the killing makes all the difference. Certain ways of how the killing is done are evil, though.

The orcs have already attacked the village. They will attack again. Killing the orcs is not Evil. It's not necessarily Good, just not Evil. Not wanting to commit genocide is Good. What you could have done is engage the orcs, killing enough of them to show your party is much stronger than they, then demand terms for their surrender such as stop attacking the village. Some villagers may argue the orcs will just repopulate in a generation or two and start attacking the village again. How you respond depends on how much you care. At the very least you can try to persuade the villagers to learn to defend themselves while the orc threat is gone, so if the orcs do attack again in the future the villagers can deal with it themselves.

[Deophaun]

You're "wrong" in the sense that this is the DM's campaign and he has the say of how good and evil works in it. I don't know if you're right or wrong with regards to individual sentient creatures being able to choose good or evil, because I have only encountered a single sentient race in my lifetime, and know of no one else who has encountered more or done a study across sentient species to look at the breadth of their morality. If you know differently, please share.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Your DM is wrong for telling you how you should play your character.

Good is capable of killing. The act of killing is not Evil. It is unaligned. The purpose of the killing makes all the difference. Certain ways of how the killing is done are evil, though.

The orcs have already attacked the village. They will attack again. Killing the orcs is not Evil. It's not necessarily Good, just not Evil. Not wanting to commit genocide is Good. What you could have done is engage the orcs, killing enough of them to show your party is much stronger than they, then demand terms for their surrender such as stop attacking the village. Some villagers may argue the orcs will just repopulate in a generation or two and start attacking the village again. How you respond depends on how much you care. At the very least you can try to persuade the villagers to learn to defend themselves while the orc threat is gone, so if the orcs do attack again in the future the villagers can deal with it themselves.

I think I need to go into the background a little more. So our characters have been hired by a little frontier town to protect them against orcs. We managed to arrive on the evening of the attack and help drive them off. We took a couple prisoner and managed to get some information out of them, including the knowledge that a half-orc arcane spellcaster was working with the cleric and barbarian leaders of the orc tribe to make peace with the gnolls, ogres, and giants in the area so they can fight the humans. My character is also convinced that there's someone else bigger pulling those strings. We went to Hulburg (We're in what the DM calls a Forgotten-Realms-lite setting) to ask for aid since they were having an ogre and giant problem, and returned with a dozen troops. We also ran into ogres there on the way back, and had a couple of tense yet exciting fights. Now we returned to the frontier town and are scouting the orcs' caves to see what else we can find. Taking out the leaders would be the easiest and least violent way to stop this, and it's the one I'd personally prefer.

[prufock]

If your character is uncomfortable with invading the home of the orcs and slaughtering them, even those for which you have no evidence did anything wrong, that's your prerogative. If your party is powerful enough to wade in and take them all on, surely you're powerful enough to charge them to surrender and return for judgment from the townsfolk. "Kill 'em all" is not the only possible response to evil.

[Veet]

Even if good and evil in the world you are playing in works absolutely the way your GM defines it (and by definition it does) it is not unreasonable for your character to have these views. In a role playing game you are acting out a story not all problems in a story can be clubbed to death, some are moral quandaries like the heroes asking if a certain course of action is right or wrong.

[EtherianBlade]

Even if good and evil in the world you are playing in works absolutely the way your GM defines it (and by definition it does) it is not unreasonable for your character to have these views. In a role playing game you are acting out a story not all problems in a story can be clubbed to death, some are moral quandaries like the heroes asking if a certain course of action is right or wrong.

It is often a foregone conclusion in fantasy literature and role-playing games in general that certain types of creatures are always good, and certain types are always evil. That is a baseline concept that most players don't need spelled out for them, or even explained. What it boils down to is a basic Tarzanian philosophy of "Me good. Me kill evil guys." And most players which I have gamed with are content with that.

When you start interjecting questions of morality into a game, one of two things will happen: One, the play will get bogged down and at least one person will feel slighted because they are "messing it up" for everyone else. Two, arguments will ensue and someone will end up leaving the game. It's sort of like starting a conversation about politics and religion on a first date. It rarely ends well.

Personally, I agree with you about the alignment system. When it was originally conceived, and brought into the d20 system, I don't think much thought was put into how a character's ethical and moral alignment could lead to game conflict. The alignments system in D&D is used primarily for the classification of spells and items and in general terms, people.

Unfortunately, it is also often used as a catch-all rationale for behavior. How many times have I heard "But I'm chaotic neutral. That's what my character would have done." If ever there was a patent cop-out for bad role-playing, that's it.

Currently, I am running a fairly run-of-the-mill D&D campaign. I do not use the alignment system in my game. This means I have removed some spells, features, and other mechanics that depend on the absoluteness of alignments, such as a Paladin's detect evil ability. I consider such removals a minor thing when compared to the trouble alignments can cause.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

And I sigh at such a waste of a goldmine of roleplaying and gaming material. I find these sorts of dilemmas fascinating to watch unfold.

[Medic!]

Obviously what you should do is tell your DM that his view on orcs is racist and stereotypical racial profiling, and that it is a Lawful Evil behavior. Then give him the stink-eye and shout "IN THE NAME OF HEIRONEOUS I SHALL SMITE THEE WITH MY MIGHTY BLADE!"

[The Random NPC]

I get the vibe that you, personally, are uncomfortable with the situation. If that is the case, you are never in the wrong to ask the DM to stop. No one should feel threatened while playing a game.

[EtherianBlade]

And I sigh at such a waste of a goldmine of roleplaying and gaming material. I find these sorts of dilemmas fascinating to watch unfold.

It's all about preference and style. Some people want to get into the intricacies of character, others want to keep the role-playing ball rolling.

I played with a guy once who was all about the history, motivation, and rationale of his character. It was like playing with a high school actor who thought he was a Shakespearean. Sometimes, intricacy is just a step away from boring.

[Sidmen]

The reason you're having difficulty is that you're seeing through the paper thin excuse of "they're EVUL!". All you have to do to demonstrate this is replace the word Orc with the name of any Human racial group. I won't do such, because it'd immediately be flagged as a racist rant about Arabs, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, what-have-you. And I've been warned about writing such things (even to demonstrate how absurd they are) on these forums.

So, tell your DM that your character doesn't have a binary morality system, and that she'll be acting how she deems best. If that means that she won't charge into a cave system and strangle baby orcs, then that's what it means. By all means, infiltrate the caves and take any information you need - maybe force the orcish leaders to surrender - but don't compromise because your party wants to be genocidal murderers.

[JustPlayItLoud]

Personally, I am of the opinion that you are in the wrong, not that I want to say you should quit the group or anything.

Self-defense is a great justification from a legal standpoint, but I feel it's morally a weak justification for screaming for something to die and then seeking its death. To me, suddenly having reservations about attacking orcs unprovoked even though they've already attacked humans unprovoked is hard character development to believe. War isn't evil. It's war. There isn't anything wrong with attacking an opposing force unprovoked, especially if they've already attacked. Even if they hadn't attacked, a preemptive strike would be justified so long as credible intelligence had been obtained indicating they were planning an attack. Just be willing and able to give quarter, don't make an effort to dispatch downed foes instead of capturing them, and don't take any offensive action against noncombatants.

I'm not saying playing a character in such a way isn't possible, I just don't find it very believable. Your character acting in such a way would hurt my suspension of disbelief as much as a "scan 'n' smite" philosophy hurts yours. The biggest difference I see there being that a "scan 'n' smite" philosophy is applicable to this game. By all means talk to your GM and group at length about this and discuss your points of view, but ultimately it isn't just your game. This is the kind of game the GM has put forth, and if everyone else is totally fine with the situation then you're the odd one out.

While you have every right to have your character act a certain way, you also have the right to choose not to. You can choose to change your character's outlook for the benefit of the game. Your character could choose to put aside moral compunctions for the case of the greater good. Perhaps she occasionally gives into her baser instincts and justifies it by saying she did more good than harm. After all no matter how well you roleplay a paragon of virtue, you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a flawed, believable, human-like character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Don't hate the alignment system, hate your DM for either misinterpreting it, or disregarding it.

Under the default rules, he's dead wrong. Orcs are often evil, not always evil, not even usually evil, just often evil. It's entirely cultural. Seriously, look up alignment in the MM glossary. Unless he's made a housrule or homebrewed new orcs, then wantonly slaughtering them for being orcs is Evil; especially in the case of non-combatants.

Defense of the system out of the way; No, you're not wrong to feel the way you do. Your DM shouldn't be telling you (or any other player) how to play your character. Your sudden attack of conscience may be inconvenient for him, but it's his job to work around that inconvenience. No other factors matter.

[Djibriel]

Orcs don't really exist. They were created to act as Evil cannon fodder for the game, barring exceptions. Your DM has introduced these Orcs and reinforced the notion that their narrative purpose is being an opponent. By refusing to act, you are refusing to play the game the DM has planned for the players.

This can be interesting and fun if the rest of the group is okay with introducing this kind of moral debate into their world. Judging from your post however, they are not.

[GolemsVoice]

You're "wrong" in the sense that this is the DM's campaign and he has the say of how good and evil works in it. I don't know if you're right or wrong with regards to individual sentient creatures being able to choose good or evil, because I have only encountered a single sentient race in my lifetime, and know of no one else who has encountered more or done a study across sentient species to look at the breadth of their morality. If you know differently, please share.

I'd agree, though I'd say you're both right in a way. This is the DM's world, and his rules. If he states that Orcs are Evil, and will always be, that's the truth of it, if you like it or not. As your DM has said, the mercy you're showing the Orcs will in all likelyhood just ensure that a future generation of killers survives, and the Orcs have already shown that they actually DO attack, plunder and pillage. It's not like they're just misunderstood. So, whether you like it or not, if your DM says Orcs are Evil and killing and pillaging is in their nature, that's the way it is, and there's no arguing with that. So from a purely ingame point of view, as sad as it is, exterminating the Orcs might be the "best" way here.

However, even if it is true and proven that Orcs are always Evil, it does not mean that a character can't have problems with killing children and noncombatants. Maybe he even should. I know I would never punish somebody for having second thoughts about killing noncombatants. So in the end, it's a roleplaying question.


HOWEVER: if you as a player are uncomfortable with the situation, you have every right to go up to the DM and talk to him, and tell him that you, as a player, don't really want to do this, which I understand. A player should never be forced to do something that he is personally not comfortable with.

Further, you could also talk to your DM about the whole concept of "Always Evil" races.

[willpell]

Perhaps ask the DM what would happen if you decided to kill all the adult orcs and then adopt one or more orc babies, with the intent of raising them to be Good. Don't actually do it unless he's willing to work with you on this - some will say it works just fine, some will have the orc babies grow up to have evil in their blood and will play it for drama as long as you're cool with that, and some will have the orc babies grow up to have evil in their blood even though you make it explicitly clear that you're not cool with that.

Ultimately, while your GM has the right to decide he wants to run the game his way, you have a right to decide you don't want to play in such a game, and he gets to decide whether he values your playership more or less than his own preferences. If the rest of the party is actively in favor of his method, or even if they're neutral to it, he might be in the right to cut you loose (especially if your area is populous enough that you can fairly easily find another game). However it's also possible he's just not that great a DM, and you'd be right to call him on it.

[Zerter]

You're not wrong. What your DM is basically saying, "There's a status quo, no point trying to change it." But there is a point to ask questions in regards to this status quo, not just from your perspective, but also from that of the DM.

If it is true that the best way to act morally is to slaughter Orcs, than that should be the result from the questions you're asking. It will confirm the DM's views.

If there is a way to break the status quo, good for you, you were right, and your DM is great for giving you this rewarding experience. And then kill you for threatening the status quo.

[Analytica]

You are not wrong - the Order of the Stick webcomic itself does touch on a lot of these issues. You may have different expectations on the game than those you play with, but both playstyles exist and bring the greatest happiness to those who prefer them.

(Myself, I like situations where there is no real right choice, both alternatives are bad. In these cases, rather than ignore this fact, emotionally dealing with it as the character can enrich the game experience. What's it like being a paragon of virtue, perhaps also inconsistent and emotional, in such a situation?)

Technically though... your character lives in this world where there exists rampaging barbarian peoples (like orcs) that generation upon generation cause unhappiness. She probably thought about this before - is there a least bad alternative in dealing with a situation like this? I guess my advice is, don't shy away from the moral questions, but also don't break out of character, or prevent the others from playing mostly the game they intended. Seek the least bad solution in-character. If that solution involves orc genocide, have the character do it, or not do it, break down from the stress or angst or emerge on the other side with a new outlook, whichever seems most fun and works with the other players. Maybe stay on the sidelines, or help but refuse to kill. Maybe leaving the group and bringing in a new character. Maybe act genocidally and then afterwards have qualms about it.

If they really just want to be Red Team killing Blue Team members, and you cannot find a way within the resulting story to play a character that you can identify with, then leave that particular game and raise this for discussion beforehand before starting the next game with them.

Additionally, I am getting this great idea about an evil Sauron-like mage with orc minions... only the mage actually got them to keep them away from pillaging and plunder without having to kill them.

[Fallbot]

I don't think anyone is wrong, but it sounds like you're both trying to play two different games and something has to give if you want to keep playing with this group.

Refusing to profile races by alignment or use it as a justification for killing them is a valid and interesting style of play (for the record it's my preferred one), but playing a kick the door in game where orcs are the bad guys because they're orcs is also a valid way to play (even if there are some uncomfortable implications).

You want to play the former, your group wants to play the latter, and it's not going to be fun for anyone until you sit down and work out what you're all going to get from the game. Otherwise they'll find your character's refusal to kill to be whiny and annoying, getting in the way of their fun, you'll find their actions monstrous and uncomfortable.

You need to sit down together and discuss whether either your DM can say "Orcish tribal society prides physical might and is often quite aggressive, but that's not the same thing as evil." and provide your character with good reason to fight orcs beyond them having green skin and being 'evil', or whether you can accept that this isn't a deep campaign and you shouldn't try to look into things further than necessary and just have fun kicking ass. If no compromise can be reached and the direction the game is taking is making you genuinely uncomfortable, maybe you should think about sitting out of this campaign until you can fight the undead or constructs or something that won't interfere with your enjoyment of the game.

[ReaderAt2046]

After all no matter how well you roleplay a paragon of virtue, you're nothing compared to someone that can roleplay a flawed, believable, human-like character.

This is one of the things that really confuses and annoys me about some critics. Why is it always assumed that evil characters are somehow more "realistic" than good characters?

[Stubbazubba]

You're not wrong whatsoever. Your character has acted in self-defense or in reaction to another creature's attack. While screaming about the choker dying while you attacked would be questionable in a modern court of law, it's totally not a big deal in D&D-land. You are still absolutely within your rights to say that your character doesn't like killing non-combatants.

Your DM is within his rights to say that Orcs have genes which make them all psychotic, violent killers who cannot be reasoned with or taught anything otherwise from birth. He has no right, however, to tell you what your character feels in this situation. If you as a player see the choker and this as different scenarios, then your character absolutely does, even if it objectively isn't. No matter the real reason behind the Orcs' evil, your character might not believe that explanation and thus believe that they shouldn't be killed indiscriminately.

[GolemsVoice]

Your character has acted in self-defense or in reaction to another creature's attack. While screaming about the choker dying while you attacked would be questionable in a modern court of law, it's totally not a big deal in D&D-land

A choker also has Int 4, so he's barely sentient, and likely could not be reasoned with.

What others said is very good. React ingame, in character. As fasr as I understood, your character wouldn't have a problem with attacking Orcs that fight and raid, but even if Orcs are generally Evil, it's a valid question to ask "Hey, guys, I understand killing adult Orcs, they're a threat. But what about their women (assuming Orc women don't fight) and children? We should talk about this!"

[CoffeeIncluded]

I don't want to leave this group. I get along really well with the players and DM. There's excellent group synergy and it's a lot of fun.

We weren't going in there to kill every single orc; I misunderstood the situation. Still, it does upset me when the DM says that the orcish tendency to be evil is partly cultural and partly innate, and both he and one of the players says I'm mistaken in "applying 21st century enlightenment into a medieval survival of the fittest setting." Never mind the fact that three of our characters are female and my character's also gay and nobody's given them a hard time for that.

[Water_Bear]

From a factual RAW standpoint you are correct. Orcs (and most other Monstrous Humanoids) are "Usually Chaotic Evil" which means that about 40% are CE, with the majority of the rest being NE CN or TN. Furthermore, every alignment supplement I've ever seen makes it clear that killing defenseless people / innocents is Evil except under the most exceptional of circumstances. I would go so far as to say that indiscriminate slaughter will, by RAW, almost certainly count as an Evil act and potentially be grounds for an alignment shift.

Aside from that, my 2cp on the matter is that your character is in a sticky situation. The Orcs are an immediate threat to the less-evil humanoid community nearby, and that needs to be dealt with. But they are also a long-term problem as long as they are living there. If you just kill their leaders, or even all of their adult warriors, you are kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Plus, rather than being marauding bandits, they'll be vengeful and desperate marauding bandits; perfect servants for whatever BBEG du jour shows up next.

Obviously you can't (or rather, you won't) just kill them all, but something needs to happen to make them less of a threat. My best guess would be that they need to be relocated somewhere where they can't easily menace travelers or outlying villages, somewhere where they could pick up a less Evil culture without being made into a slave race. If you know any non-Elven Druids, ones in the deep wilderness somewhere, you could arrange for the survivors to live under their care. That way they can be Orky and awesome in a way which actually contributes to the stability of the region, without starting a blood feud.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Obviously you can't (or rather, you won't) just kill them all, but something needs to happen to make them less of a threat. My best guess would be that they need to be relocated somewhere where they can't easily menace travelers or outlying villages, somewhere where they could pick up a less Evil culture without being made into a slave race. If you know any non-Elven Druids, ones in the deep wilderness somewhere, you could arrange for the survivors to live under their care. That way they can be Orky and awesome in a way which actually contributes to the stability of the region, without starting a blood feud.

Hm, we're only level 3 at the moment but that's a really, really good idea.

[Urslingen]

I don't really see the problem here.

That is pure RP-gold, right there! An excellent time for some character development and inter-party conflict. What DM could possibly see anything problematic about that?

Isn't this what RPG:s are all about? Isn't this what sets them apart from a game of Dungeonquest?

What you have described shouldn't be viewed as a problem - It's a great opportunity for some good ol' RP:ing.

Peace Out.

/Urslingen