Killing Orcs toddlers is evil?

[thejeff]

Jeven wrote:

doc the grey wrote:

you can always present the option for them to give them to someone they can trust like a good church they are friends with, a friendly orphanage, or a family they are particularly close with.

What if that completely backfires and the players return to the find the infant orcs were true to their nature and while the caregivers and orphan humans were sleeping ripped out their throats in a bloodbath?

What if 99% orcs are born psycopaths? and introducing infant ones into human society is like throwing a serpent into a nursery?

Then your GM really is a dick and you should quit the game. Seriously.

At the very least it should be well known from previous attempts to do so and the orphanage would refuse the orcs and tell you why.

[Dave Justus]

Setting matters a lot. In Tolkien's Middle Earth Orcs were a created race with corruption built into them. Killing their babies would be absolutely moral. Golarion is a bit more grey, where it seems while they have a strong tendency to evil they do have some choice. In the 3.5 Ebberon setting, orcs are people too. A custom GM setting could be any of these.

A default orc tribe is effectively in a permanent state of war with civilized people. They are barbarian marauders, akin to pirates, a death on sight for any combatants is reasonable and most likely moral. Flavor seems to indicate that nearly all adults are combatants, and as such killing off all adults would not be beyond the pale. Exigencies of war may well make the capture and containment of any orphans impracticable, and it is reasonable that in that case killing them mercifully rather than leaving them to the elements would be the lesser evil.

A good person though would do everything they could to mitigate such a situation. They would try to find a way to save the innocents, they would probably accept quarter and try to arrange for peaceful coexistence, although any such coexistence would have to be from a position of considerable strength to insure innocents wouldn't be harmed. Even caring for a handful of young humanoid children can take considerable time and resources, and might be beyond many marginal communities.

All of this means that 'goblin babies' can really derail a campaign, and a wise GM should consider carefully whether to introduce this element. Far easier to have the non-combatants distant, hidden and safe while the warrior raiding parties sally forth to war and the goodly peoples.

[thejeff]

Oakbreaker wrote:

@ Secret Wizard

But the game has to be Horde/Alliance = Good/Evil lest we all have to meta-game. If I play a Dwarven paladin and in the course of our adventure decimate an Orc tribe leaving no survivors must I atone and lose my class features despite my worship of a diety who is against orcs and being raised in Dwarven society where due to a history of war we are taught how to take them down specifically? With this genre of game the goal is to be someone else. It is not to play through your morality but your character. To say it is an evil act despite a character upbringing saying it was the right thing to do is to force us all to play through the game not as our characters, but as 3rd person overseers.

Yes. You should atone. Or maybe not even be able to.

There is nothing in any of the Dwarven writeups saying all orcs must be killed on sight. Yeah, you don't like orcs. You won't trust them. You're good at killing them when they attack, as they always do. You still don't have to kill all of them. Even your dwarven god doesn't command killing every orc. I know that, because he's not an evil deity. Which I know because you're a paladin.

[doc the grey]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Thing is, there is good chance that there is no "good church, or friendly orphanage" that would take them in.

Orcs are naturally strong, dim, and their culture promotes violence.

So, selling them into slavery, or raising them yourself, are usually the only options, outside of mercy killing them.

Giving them to an Orc tribe, means they will grow up, and kill innocents, and if you meet them again, you will likely have to kill them.

Umm who said no church or orphanage is around? If I'm GM'ing it's my story to tell giving my players an option is my prerogative and if I'm a player and it's what I and my cohorts want the gm is going to have a hell of a time keeping us should this be an important issue for us.

Now if you want to talk golarion it seems rather narrow minded considering we have barbarians in the north who raise hill giant babies as members of their tribe, orcs that have converted up near the worldwound, a whole race that is half of these evil hellspawn who still get enough love to work as a core 7 race, and we have a whole town in Belkzen who's primary hero and many of its inhabitants are or have relationships with full blooded orcs.

As for the whole strong and stupid thing so are A LOT of humans especially if you are playing in a middle ages europe style setting where most people are illiterate and uneducated. You know what farmers love? Strong arms and focused minds, something an orc could do well. Hell I'd give the kid to the local butcher if he would take it. The kids strong and can carry heavy cuts and if aggression is a worry his literal trade is killing and processing animals (sometimes even involving the use of a sledge hammer). Now that ferocity might be an issue (if you assume that that whole ferocity thing is inherent, constant, and not something that only kicks on when they start hitting -hp by mechanics) but again the players are heroes, if they are going to truly try to help these kids they are likely going to look for people who can actually handle these kids as they grow rather than just dumping them on some random person's doorstep and going, "Ehh these strangers will do the right thing".

Other good options are the military. If we are talking a midevil world you join pretty young and train early (hell by pf standards they have to starting your training at at least 12 for orcs) so you can hand them off to the local forces that you might be working for or find to be good and able to handle it and there you go. Hell in a few years you might come back and find a small force of orc berzerker patrolmen in town who help break up the rowdiest of encounters and can face away other orc threats and they can thank you for letting that happen.

The point is, it ain't hard and the values are many. Now the bigger issue seems to be that you're not into it, which is something I cannot change on my own but it is not something that insane.

[Oakbreaker]

@thejeff
so despite how he came to be and despite the possibility that allowing the orcs to live could have disastrous consequences for his people with him having personal accountability for it he should spare those that could grow to kill his people? Why then? What motive would he have to spare them? None. He has no reason to. His choice to wipe that tribe off the face of the earth would be seen by him and his people as simple removing a plague on the land. He did so to protect future generations by wiping out one of their foes. He served his role as protector. The only argument you can present is that we see it as evil due to modern morality. Again we are playing a game where we pretend to be someone else. Our morality is nute. To force morality as so overarching that it is the same everywhere takes out the diversity of the world we play in or makes developing our charactes backstory worthless because then we must look at the choices not as the character but as someone outside of it. if that is how you handle your tables that is your choice. I, however, will continue to stress that character development is important and encourage that the choices in character creation not just be numbers on paper.

[thejeff]

Oakbreaker wrote:

@thejeff

so despite how he came to be and despite the possibility that allowing the orcs to live could have disastrous consequences for his people with him having personal accountability for it he should spare those that could grow to kill his people? Why then? What motive would he have to spare them? None. He has no reason to. His choice to wipe that tribe off the face of the earth would be seen by him and his people as simple removing a plague on the land. He did so to protect future generations by wiping out one of their foes. He served his role as protector. The only argument you can present is that we see it as evil due to modern morality. Again we are playing a game where we pretend to be someone else. Our morality is nute. To force morality as so overarching that it is the same everywhere takes out the diversity of the world we play in or makes developing our charactes backstory worthless because then we must look at the choices not as the character but as someone outside of it. if that is how you handle your tables that is your choice. I, however, will continue to stress that character development is important and encourage that the choices in character creation not just be numbers on paper.

Then he's not a Paladin. Good and evil are real objective things in the PF world. Genocide is not a good thing. Killing babies and non-combatants and surrendering opponents is not a good thing. Not just because of his own racial hatred.

Now, you could house rule all of that away. Then you could have paladins of whatever any group thought was Lawful Good. Orc paladins dedicated to slaying every last dwarven baby they could find, for example.
But you're going to have to do something will all of the objective alignment magic and stuff.

[Losobal]

Old school response? We generally found the action Evil, an evil action of the GM/DM for bringing such anvilicious tactics of "Oh, he wants us to have an afterschool special moment with the morality and nature of creatures when they're young."

Especially if we weren't playing murderhobos at the time.

But if a player group is cool with it, more power to them.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Roger Corbera wrote:

Hello, once my players killed an orcs clans. After clawing through the barbarian chieftain his witch wife and his warrior concubines, they found three orcs toddlers. And the PC barbarian simply killed them.

Considering orcs are naturaly evil, that's not an evil act, but they were small kids, anyway.
So it was plague control or terrible crime?

The answer to your thesis question would be no; regardless of race, toddlers are pure Evil.

[Oakbreaker]

@thejeff
So I should talk to demons instead of trying to ride the world of them because universally genocide is an evil act? I should try to redeem the red dragon young instead of killing them and protecting a nearby village because judging based on what they are would strip me of my paladin powers? The moment someone disarms big orc chieftain I should switch to nonlethal and subdue him because he is now unarmed and going for the kill is evil? In Pathfinder there is a lawful good deity of vengeance, does following that god and seeking out revenge on the tribe that decimated my homeland cause me to lose my class because despite a lawful good god with that template it is universally evil to seek out and destroy? Alignment is a grey area and should be treated as such.

[Gorbacz]

Jeven wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.

There should be a general rule against complaining about the presence of threads which you are not interested in but other people are.

Let me guess, you're a new one here.

*checks*

Yup. 2013. Fresh kid, new to the block. I can see the acne on your face.

See, I am a grizzled old dog, I fought in a flame war, or two. I took two termp bans on my chest and I watched in glorious joy as people got permabanned because I've managed to trip them over into frenzy.

But I digress.

There have been dozens of these threads already, and they usually end in tears, Paladin questions, Icyshadow and Mikaze going on their usual "always Evil is terribad, let's have some villages of Good orcs who could raise these kids, Paizo why won't you give us any?" tangents, somebody going off in a totally opposite direction (likely just to argue with these two), somebody likening killing goblin babies to whatever is currently happening in Palestine, somebody saying how alignment is a retarded idea to begin with, somebody saying how alignment is good because Gary Was Right, somebody linking his/her 'monster orphanage' thread and somebody asking why the hell is killing children any different from killing adults, then somebody saying that killing children is basically like killing puppies since children aren't really full human beings and then some lone mother walks into the thread and imagines somebody saying that to her IRL and oh dear, is my coffee ready?

"Is killing orc kids evil?" sits right next to "Why some people consider rogues weak", "Caster/Martial disparity - truth or myth?" and "Did my Paladin just fail?" in the Inevitable Mod Lock Material category.

[Icyshadow]

Hahah, you make it sound like what me and Mikaze like is a bad thing.

I play the way I like, you play the way you like. And to answer those questions...

- People consider Rogues weak because they kind of are.

- The Caster / Martial disparity is true, and the truth hurts.

- Did your Paladin just fall? I don't know, check it with your DM. No use asking us about it since we can't decide those things.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Icyshadow wrote:

If you want to be a Good character, you should at least try to convince the villain to give up evil before shoving a sword through his / her chest. Otherwise you aren't much of a hero, you're just a glorified murderer, unless the DM decided that the only type of evil in that world is the irredeemable kind. Then hack away!

So - we shouldn't punish criminals if we can make them feel bad instead?

[Icyshadow]

I am not sure of what you're getting at with that question.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Icyshadow wrote:

I am not sure of what you're getting at with that question.

You basically said that to be good - a character needs to try to redeem every villain instead of punishing them. I'd argue that a standard big-bad (murderer etc) would need to be executed as punishment even if he did feel bad about it.

Confinement as punishment is a relatively modern convention. Historically jail/prison was generally just where you went to wait for punishment. (Execution / flogging etc)

[thejeff]

Oakbreaker wrote:

@thejeff

So I should talk to demons instead of trying to ride the world of them because universally genocide is an evil act? I should try to redeem the red dragon young instead of killing them and protecting a nearby village because judging based on what they are would strip me of my paladin powers? The moment someone disarms big orc chieftain I should switch to nonlethal and subdue him because he is now unarmed and going for the kill is evil? In Pathfinder there is a lawful good deity of vengeance, does following that god and seeking out revenge on the tribe that decimated my homeland cause me to lose my class because despite a lawful good god with that template it is universally evil to seek out and destroy? Alignment is a grey area and should be treated as such.

Except Alignment isn't a grey area. Your paladin can look at many things and go "He's evil. I don't know anything about his upbringing or what he's done, but he's evil." What happens when he detects evil on the Orc intent on dwarven genocide? Or when the Orc Paladin looks on him? Do they both show as evil? Neither?

Demons don't qualify. They're adult willed creatures of evil. If one does change alignment, which is rare but possible, your paladin shouldn't kill it.
Even young red dragons are a serious threat (the youngest baby stage can easily kill people) and quite capable of living independently - completely unlike humanoid babies. Still, deal with them as independent threats based on their actions.
There's a difference between unarmed and either noncombatant or surrendering.

Righteous vengeance is one thing. Slaughtering those who weren't themselves involved in the initial wrong in the name of vengeance is not righteous. Hunting down and killing the villain who killed your child is righteous vengeance. Hunting down and killing his child because he killed yours is not.

[Icyshadow]

Where does the line between good and neutral come to play, not to mention good and evil?

[Azten]

Let's change then jest ion a bit. Okay, a lot.

Let's say a ground of Orcs attacked a group of marauding Humans! They cut down the Chieften and his wife, and the. Find their three toddlers. The orc kills them.

Is it evil? Why?

[Icyshadow]

Of course it's evil because the victims are human! /Sarcasm

They still killed innocent, defenseless babies.

My inner misanthrope (which is usually awakened by "Humans rule, all other races suck" threads) is saying what they did was good, but that's not important.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Icyshadow wrote:

Where does the line between good and neutral come to play, not to mention good and evil?

Justice - such as killing a murderer - is always good. In fact - it's pretty much the epitome of LG.

Is it always the only good choice? No. But it's certainly always A good choice when dealing with murderers etc.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Azten wrote:

Let's change then jest ion a bit. Okay, a lot.

Let's say a ground of Orcs attacked a group of marauding Humans! They cut down the Chieften and his wife, and the. Find their three toddlers. The orc kills them.

Is it evil? Why?

Assuming that the humans in question weren't infected with some sort of evil bloodlust - yes it's evil.

Pretty much the only argument anyone is making where the OP isn't an evil act is in a potential setting where orcs are inherently and unredeemably evil. (Not Golarion)

[Icyshadow]

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

Most of the Paizo staff here has said that killing (not murder) is neutral. It's not good, but it's not evil either.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

1. Yes. They may die as a good guy (yay) but justice still needs to be done.

2. That's to do with issues of life in prison vs death penalty and that our justice system not being 100% perfect. This is in a scenario where life in prison isn't an option and you 100% DO know.

[PrinceRaven]

Of course, kiling toddlers can't possibly be justice because they haven't committed any crimes. You're just slaughtering the innocent,which I'm pretty sure is on the list of "Things Really Evil People Do."

[Charon's Little Helper]

PrinceRaven wrote:

Of course, kiling toddlers can't possibly be justice becuase haven't committed any crimes.

I agree - my statement was in reference to a later post about needing to try to redeem villains in order to be good.

[thejeff]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

1. Yes. They may die as a good guy (yay) but justice still needs to be done.

2. That's to do with issues of life in prison vs death penalty and that our justice system not being 100% perfect. This is in a scenario where life in prison isn't an option and you 100% DO know.

OTOH, is Good about punishment? If you could 100% know the murderer had truly repented and become Good is it still Good to punish him, much less kill him?

In the real world, we can't know that kind of thing, but in fantasy it's possible. And in theoretical arguments it's certainly possible.

[Icyshadow]

So what do you call Shelyn's and Sarenrae's followers, if being good is less about redemption and more about murdering villains?

[DominusMegadeus]

Did he commit crimes? y/n?

Yes.

Then he needs to face justice. Or does it no longer matter because he's a good guy now?

[Icyshadow]

What happened to forgiveness? Was that not a virtue?

[Faelyn]

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

Most of the Paizo staff here has said that killing (not murder) is neutral. It's not good, but it's not evil either.

Icyshadow, some people do not believe in redemption as strongly as you do. Personally, I do not. I have seen too many "redeemed" people go on to commit the same terrible crimes they did before they were offered their chance at redemption.

Is that saying your opinion is wrong? No. On the same vein though, do not say I am not a good person because I personally feel that murderers should pay the ultimate penalty for their crimes that they decided to commit. I'm not taking about a deterrent, I am talking about straight punishment.

[thejeff]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:

Of course, kiling toddlers can't possibly be justice becuase haven't committed any crimes.

I agree - my statement was in reference to a later post about needing to try to redeem villains in order to be good.

Personally I'd say that trying to redeem villains is always a higher good, but it's not always practical or even possible to try.

Most of the time, adventurers aren't trying to punish evil anyway, they're trying to stop it.

[PrinceRaven]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Did he commit crimes? y/n?

Yes.

Then he needs to face justice. Or does it no longer matter because he's a good guy now?

That's a Lawful point of view, it has nothing to do with Good.

[Mystic_Snowfang]

I generally rule that if it doesn't have the (evil) subtype, it's not born evil. Even for the dragon egg (no one's sure if it's a white dragon, or a silver dragon or another sort of northern dwelling dragon yet) that they found. I reminded the PCs (who are all but one good) that even evil dragons can be redeemed.

As for this barbarian, was he raging? Because if he was raging, then it might not be as punishable as if it were someone not raging. Because rage...

[Icyshadow]

Faelyn wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

Most of the Paizo staff here has said that killing (not murder) is neutral. It's not good, but it's not evil either.

Icyshadow, some people do not believe in redemption as strongly as you do. Personally, I do not. I have seen too many "redeemed" people go on to commit the same terrible crimes they did before they were offered their chance at redemption.

Is that saying your opinion is wrong? No. On the same vein though, do not say I am not a good person because I personally feel that murderers should pay the ultimate penalty for their crimes that they decided to commit. I'm not taking about a deterrent, I am talking about straight punishment.

I don't know you on a personal level, but I tend to be skeptical about people who support the death penalty.

PrinceRaven wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Did he commit crimes? y/n?

Yes.

Then he needs to face justice. Or does it no longer matter because he's a good guy now?

That's a Lawful point of view, it has nothing to do with Good.

Agreed. Sounds more like Inspector Javert or a Hellknight than Jesus or a Paladin. That's not Justice, that's Judgement.

[thejeff]

Faelyn wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

Most of the Paizo staff here has said that killing (not murder) is neutral. It's not good, but it's not evil either.

Icyshadow, some people do not believe in redemption as strongly as you do. Personally, I do not. I have seen too many "redeemed" people go on to commit the same terrible crimes they did before they were offered their chance at redemption.

Is that saying your opinion is wrong? No. On the same vein though, do not say I am not a good person because I personally feel that murderers should pay the ultimate penalty for their crimes that they decided to commit. I'm not taking about a deterrent, I am talking about straight punishment.

Again, theoretical argument and fantasy world.

People can actually be redeemed and you can know they have been.

In the real world, we can only know such things in retrospect.

[DominusMegadeus]

PrinceRaven wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Did he commit crimes? y/n?

Yes.

Then he needs to face justice. Or does it no longer matter because he's a good guy now?

That's a Lawful point of view, it has nothing to do with Good.

Then does a Paladin redeem people before he executes them for their crimes?

Is that good?

[Faelyn]

Icyshadow wrote:

So what do you call Shelyn's and Sarenrae's followers, if being good is less about redemption and more about murdering villains?

Sarenrae's code specifies offering redemption to those who one believes is redeemable and swift death to those who refuse. Just food for thought...

[Evil Finnish Chaos Beast]

So much chaos, so much discord...

This thread is absolutely delicious!

[Faelyn]

Evil Finnish Chaos Beast wrote:

So much chaos, so much discord...

This thread is absolutely delicious!

NOM NOM!

[Faelyn]

Icyshadow wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Is it really justice if you could have turned that murderer into a good guy?

The death penalty has been shown to not work as intended in the real world for the most part.

Most of the Paizo staff here has said that killing (not murder) is neutral. It's not good, but it's not evil either.

Icyshadow, some people do not believe in redemption as strongly as you do. Personally, I do not. I have seen too many "redeemed" people go on to commit the same terrible crimes they did before they were offered their chance at redemption.

Is that saying your opinion is wrong? No. On the same vein though, do not say I am not a good person because I personally feel that murderers should pay the ultimate penalty for their crimes that they decided to commit. I'm not taking about a deterrent, I am talking about straight punishment.

I don't know you on a personal level, but I tend to be skeptical about people who support the death penalty.

I am okay with that, because it is your opinion. I do not have to agree with it, but I will respect it. You and I have very different life experiences. I do applaud that you have that much faith in humanity. I, however, do not.

Also, sorry to derail the conversation everyone!

[Charon's Little Helper]

Icyshadow wrote:

So what do you call Shelyn's and Sarenrae's followers, if being good is less about redemption and more about murdering villains?

Yes - forgiveness is good. But from Romans - "He does not bear the sword for nothing." - which is referecing punishment in the justice system. Basically that one should expect it, and that's their job.

I've always thought of adventurers as my LG adventurers being the justice system for criminals outside the norm. (Crazy dragons / evil wizards / bloodthirsty vampires etc for whom the normal justice system can't really apply.) Again - I'm not saying that redemption isn't a good act. But so is justice.

In real life I'm leery of the death penalty for the issues that I mentioned earlier - our justice system is far from 100% accurate. But that's generally a non-issue in Pathfinder.

[thejeff]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

So what do you call Shelyn's and Sarenrae's followers, if being good is less about redemption and more about murdering villains?

Yes - forgiveness is good. But from Romans - "He does not bear the sword for nothing." - which is referecing punishment in the justice system. Basically that one should expect it, and that's their job.

I've always thought of adventurers as my LG adventurers being the justice system for criminals outside the norm. (Crazy dragons / evil wizards / bloodthirsty vampires etc for whom the normal justice system can't really apply.) Again - I'm not saying that redemption isn't a good act. But so is justice.

In real life I'm leery of the death penalty for the issues that I mentioned earlier - our justice system is far from 100% accurate. But that's generally a non-issue in Pathfinder.

Murderhobos as judge, jury and executioner all in one. Yay!

As I said above, I generally prefer my groups to be stopping the BBEG's plans rather than just hunting him down after the fact. We're not punishing the orcs for their raid. We're stopping them from raiding again. If there's a better way to do that than just killing them all, then it would be good to do so.

[Rogar Stonebow]

Gorbacz wrote:

Jeven wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.

There should be a general rule against complaining about the presence of threads which you are not interested in but other people are.

Let me guess, you're a new one here.

*checks*

Yup. 2013. Fresh kid, new to the block. I can see the acne on your face.

See, I am a grizzled old dog, I fought in a flame war, or two. I took two termp bans on my chest and I watched in glorious joy as people got permabanned because I've managed to trip them over into frenzy.

But I digress.

Hey Old dog. Not everyone begins playing an RPG with an old dog's perspective. People (especially new people) come to forums to learn. If this kind of discussion is too much for your old bones, find a new thread.

[thegreenteagamer]

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Jeven wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.

There should be a general rule against complaining about the presence of threads which you are not interested in but other people are.

Let me guess, you're a new one here.

*checks*

Yup. 2013. Fresh kid, new to the block. I can see the acne on your face.

See, I am a grizzled old dog, I fought in a flame war, or two. I took two termp bans on my chest and I watched in glorious joy as people got permabanned because I've managed to trip them over into frenzy.

But I digress.

Hey Old dog. Not everyone begins playing an RPG with an old dog's perspective. People (especially new people) come to forums to learn. If this kind of discussion is too much for your old bones, find a new thread.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/26211

[Gorbacz]

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Jeven wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.

There should be a general rule against complaining about the presence of threads which you are not interested in but other people are.

Let me guess, you're a new one here.

*checks*

Yup. 2013. Fresh kid, new to the block. I can see the acne on your face.

See, I am a grizzled old dog, I fought in a flame war, or two. I took two termp bans on my chest and I watched in glorious joy as people got permabanned because I've managed to trip them over into frenzy.

But I digress.

Hey Old dog. Not everyone begins playing an RPG with an old dog's perspective. People (especially new people) come to forums to learn. If this kind of discussion is too much for your old bones, find a new thread.

About that finding thing ... there's a "search" function on the left, where you can suddenly discover that 99% of these arguments were done to death before. Or you can just necro an old thread to save everybody time :)

[TriOmegaZero]

But I don't want to repost the same argument over again in a thread I've already-

Okay yeah, I can't type that with a straight face. :P

[justaworm]

Secret Wizard wrote:

justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

ALSO: whoever said the alignment of the bebes didn't matter is right.

This is a game, of which the point is to have fun, and not real life.

[Secret Wizard]

justaworm wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

ALSO: whoever said the alignment of the bebes didn't matter is right.

This is a game, of which the point is to have fun, and not real life.

why are you arguing in this thread then

[Rogar Stonebow]

Secret Wizard wrote:

justaworm wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

ALSO: whoever said the alignment of the bebes didn't matter is right.

This is a game, of which the point is to have fun, and not real life.

why are you arguing in this thread then

Because this thread is not real life

[Gwen Smith]

thejeff wrote:

Oakbreaker wrote:

@ Secret Wizard

But the game has to be Horde/Alliance = Good/Evil lest we all have to meta-game. If I play a Dwarven paladin and in the course of our adventure decimate an Orc tribe leaving no survivors must I atone and lose my class features despite my worship of a diety who is against orcs and being raised in Dwarven society where due to a history of war we are taught how to take them down specifically? With this genre of game the goal is to be someone else. It is not to play through your morality but your character. To say it is an evil act despite a character upbringing saying it was the right thing to do is to force us all to play through the game not as our characters, but as 3rd person overseers.

Yes. You should atone. Or maybe not even be able to.

There is nothing in any of the Dwarven writeups saying all orcs must be killed on sight. Yeah, you don't like orcs. You won't trust them. You're good at killing them when they attack, as they always do. You still don't have to kill all of them. Even your dwarven god doesn't command killing every orc. I know that, because he's not an evil deity. Which I know because you're a paladin.

Unless that dwarven god is Torag:

Torag's Paladin Code wrote:

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.