"You and your party of adventurers encounter a group of orcs traveling through the wilderness." What do you do?
One thing that continues to bother me about "Tolkien inspired" Fantasy RPG is the presence of "evil" races such as orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. Yet, supposedly “good” races receive hatred based combat bonuses against these creatures, in the case of D&D/Pathfinder these would be Dwarves and Gnomes.
That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?
Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?
Not in my game; the only evil races are demons and devils and other evil outsiders (and even then you could have the rare exception).
On the other hand, if you have a country where orcs and dwarves are at war with each other, it wouldn't be out of character to shoot first and ask questions later.
"You and your party of adventurers encounter a group of orcs traveling through the wilderness." What do you do?
One thing that continues to bother me about "Tolkien inspired" Fantasy RPG is the presence of "evil" races such as orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. Yet, supposedly “good” races receive hatred based combat bonuses against these creatures, in the case of D&D/Pathfinder these would be Dwarves and Gnomes.
That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?
Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?
I really feel part of the draw of fantasy RPGs is the good vs. evil aspect. If everything is shades of grey as it often times is in real life, it's just not as much fun. Orcs and other classically evil races are definitely evil in my campaigns.
Okay but would not Racism be defined as "Lawful Evil"?
Creative Director
|
Okay but would not Racism be defined as "Lawful Evil"?
Depends on who you're arguing with.
It is kind of hard to argue for racial or cultural relativism in a world/campaign/game that has absolute evil and absolute good -- and presumably concrete definitions of both.
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Running campaigns without alignments can be a lot of fun, but it does take some re-tooling if you are using D&D as your base system.
CJ
|
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Not necessarily. My homebrew definitely has objective good and evil, but the "always evil" or even "often evil" descriptors for all mortal races have been kicked to the curb. And there have been official D&D settings with non-evil orc civilizations. Heck, Planescape was all about subverting ones expectations, and the alignments were in full play there.
I know it's a sacred cow for many, but inherently evil races have always rubbed me the wrong way. I have no problem with inherently evil cultures(sup drow and orcs of Belkzen), but the idea of people being condemned or getting a mostly free walk to the upper planes due to genetics just doesn't sit well with me. I also can't say I'm fond of many of the situations that arise from Always Chaotic Evil either, like good PCs seriously considering acts of genocide as "good".
I should point out I'm not a fan of Humans Are Special and Can't Argue With Elves/Our Elves Are Better either.
I think I'm in the same, or at least a similar, boat as Hogarth. No hard-coded alignments for mortal races, keep them for the appropriate outsiders(and even then there will be exceptions).
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Not necessarily. My homebrew definitely has objective good and evil, but the "always evil" or even "often evil" descriptors for all mortal races have been kicked to the curb. And there have been official D&D settings with non-evil orc civilizations. Heck, Planescape was all about subverting ones expectations, and the alignments were in full play there.
I know it's a sacred cow for many, but inherently evil races have always rubbed me the wrong way. I have no problem with inherently evil cultures(sup drow and orcs of Belkzen), but the idea of people being condemned or getting a mostly free walk to the upper planes due to genetics just doesn't sit well with me. I also can't say I'm fond of many of the situations that arise from Always Chaotic Evil either, like good PCs seriously considering acts of genocide as "good".
I should point out I'm not a fan of Humans Are Special and Can't Argue With Elves/Our Elves Are Better either.
I think I'm in the same, or at least a similar, boat as Hogarth. No hard-coded alignments for mortal races, keep them for the appropriate outsiders(and even then there will be exceptions).
And I think that this is also where I am walking to myself. :/
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Not necessarily. My homebrew definitely has objective good and evil, but the "always evil" or even "often evil" descriptors for all mortal races have been kicked to the curb. And there have been official D&D settings with non-evil orc civilizations. Heck, Planescape was all about subverting ones expectations, and the alignments were in full play there.
You are correct I should not have come out quite so absolutist on this issue.
Homebrews are a great place to twist the old memes of orcs are evil. And some published settings have put forth things that differ from the norm (as Planescape was all about multiple planes of existence, I'm not sure it is a fair example to hold up).
If one was playing a campaign setting based upon the SRD...then orcs as a race are pretty much relegated to being the bad guys. I would say that there could be individuals who break the mold. But generally speaking, unless the GM is twisting the standards, slaying orc babies is perfectly acceptable act for good characters to engage in (though the moral relativist in me cringes at this).
CJ
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Not necessarily. My homebrew definitely has objective good and evil, but the "always evil" or even "often evil" descriptors for all mortal races have been kicked to the curb. And there have been official D&D settings with non-evil orc civilizations. Heck, Planescape was all about subverting ones expectations, and the alignments were in full play there.
You are correct I should not have come out quite so absolutist on this issue.
Homebrews are a great place to twist the old memes of orcs are evil. And some published settings have put forth things that differ from the norm (as Planescape was all about multiple planes of existence, I'm not sure it is a fair example to hold up).
If one was playing a campaign setting based upon the SRD...then orcs as a race are pretty much relegated to being the bad guys. I would say that there could be individuals who break the mold. But generally speaking, unless the GM is twisting the standards, slaying orc babies is perfectly acceptable act for good characters to engage in (though the moral relativist in me cringes at this).
CJ
But it is not just D&D/Pathfinder that is subject to this trope. Almost all Fantasy RPGs fall into the "Always Chaotic Evil" trap.
While it seems to be most problematic in the Fantasy genre in general (RPG or otherwise), but Sci-Fi settings are not immune.
|
One thing that continues to bother me about "Tolkien inspired" Fantasy RPG is the presence of "evil" races such as orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. Yet, supposedly “good” races receive hatred based combat bonuses against these creatures, in the case of D&D/Pathfinder these would be Dwarves and Gnomes.That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?
Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?
Well, I must say that I like my Orcs evil. Beasts of fairy tales trying to kill you takes one away to wonderland.
However, Eberron did introduce orcs into a functionary role within the world. Orcs actually had real status above humans in some places. As in, Humans rather deal with competent orcs versus knucklehead humans. In this world, I think Orcs had a place of their own.
Blizzard's Warcraft also portrayed orcs as tribal and proud. It would almost seem that Orcs had dodged their darker side and were on a more neutral path, occasionally helping all the races of warcraft benignly.
I guess what your subtext is hinting at is the nature of real people in our world. Are the North Koreans all doomed to be mindless propaganda puppets? Should we see them as irretrievably brainwashed militaristic fodder? The stigma of fantasy evil races creates a cut and dry view of what one should do. The scary thing is when one takes it out of the game and applies it to real life.
I think it is for this reason that I am writing a story about Goblins. If you take Goblins for instance, they are even less retrievable/redeemable than orcs. Goblins have a shorter lifespan giving them less time to introspect their lives. By the time they decide to change things for the better, some new eagerly ruthless youngin' comes along and takes control and the old Goblins are tossed out like used tissue paper. I do not have the Harry Potter/Hellboy take on Goblins, but I do use the Tolkien/D&D variety. If Goblins did exist, what would one say to their existence being blasted from the earth? That is the heart of the question I am creating in this story. Does extinction of one race lead to the peace of another?
Anyhow, nice to see that someone is looking at the game from both sides.
Cheers,
Zuxius
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Even though this is not necessarily true (as pointed out by Mikaze), I do play with moral relativism and have deep dislike for detect alignment spell, "evil" descriptor etc.
I too have issues about always-good and always-evil races (and this racism is one of my biggest problems with Lord of the Rings...other Tolkien books were less black-and-white) and like to play with them, and I have noted I am not the only one.
It is actually starting to turn into a bit of a cliche to represent elves as hubristic quasi-fascists who view other races as little more than animals, and similarly orcs and others have got bit better pr...just look at orcs in Eberron for example, they are more or less the good guys there.
|
I always look for the "why" when employing the Always Evil routine. So in the case of Drow, it is because of the nature of their society - raised evil, most likely evil. In the case of kobolds, being kicked around by tougher races makes them very territorial and survivalistic.
It's really easy for elves to develop the societal structures to be good - they practically live forever and all their racial deities are nice.
For example, in my homebrew the orcs caught between the dwarves and elves for a millenia of warfare. They became the scapegoats and were forced to form their own isolated empire, which unfortunately suffered under poor leadership. Eventually their "strongest is best" mentality allowed a CE demi-god to usurp the throne, and rule the empire with even more brutality. Needless to say, orcs are "Usually Evil" and are also "usually killed on sight" in Dwarven or Elven lands. But the fun thing is that my players actually hate the Elves more than anything, because they are aggressive expansionists (similar to Spain at the height of its power).
But evil subtypes? Yup, definitely pure evil there.
I run alignment as a slider grid, going from 0 (neutral) to 5 (good, chaos, law, evil). Mortals barely ever clear 3 in any direction. Ethically aligned outsiders rarely ever drop below 3 in their respective alignment, and often stay firmly at 5.
Which often makes them seem like utter psychopaths, even the good aligned ones. Slaad are downright disturbing. And lets not even talk about devils.
So I guess this is how I run morality in regards to most critters. Morality is generally a learned state in my perception, so I have most creatures start as zero N. For creatures with biological precedence, they veer a bit. An archon starts at 3 Good, but quickly rises from there, based on learned behaviors. Humans rise towards the example behavior of the community they live in. Same with others. So dwarves generally move towards L1G1. Elves C1G1. Drow to C1E1. And then it continues as the creatures age and embed themselves in their society. Most will embed themselves deeper, but this is where rebels also begin to form. Spells affect creatures of a certain alignment if they are at least effectively a "3" on the scale. Most mortals arent.
Long story short, this sort of "scaling" alignment solves a lot of issues at my table, and keeps the threat of things like Angels against good PCs, because they have a different view of good in mind.
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.
Huh? My campaign has non-evil orcs (not many, but some) and I still have Detect Evil spells. Does that mean I'm going to cease to exist?
Orcs are only non-evil in campaigns where there is no defined good and evil and no detect alignment spells.Huh? My campaign has non-evil orcs (not many, but some) and I still have Detect Evil spells. Does that mean I'm going to cease to exist?
Yes, I'm afraid it is true. The internet has the power to make you cease to exist.
Now that is evil.
CJ
|
|
Okay but would not Racism be defined as "Lawful Evil"?Depends on who you're arguing with.
"If you are not my friend, then you are my frenemy."
Why are orcs so constantly portrayed as evil? Mimicry, I do believe.
Tolkien invented what we now call orcs, and they were evil. Tolkien had a reason. Morgoth was evil. Morgoth created orcs. Orcs are evil. They are held completely in thrall to the Dark Lord (whether that be Morgoth or Sauron) and have no reasonable means for learning anything but evil tendencies. Thus, orcs are always evil.
Moreover, Tolkien wrote his stories with a very specific purpose in mind, as testafied to in "On Fairy-Stories." In the real world, everything exists in shades of gray. It can thus be difficult to recognize things for what they are; to figure out what it is we should do in response to moral challenges. Casting the world in tones far starker brings things back into perspective, to allow us a new angle which can refresh us. Then, coming away from the literature, we can make those decisions more easily. This doesn't mean we should see the world as black and white; that wasn't professor Tolkien's intent. Rather, when we see people acting like orcs, or Sauron, or Saruman, or Denethor, or any other of the "bad guys" in his books, we can recognize that action for what it is and respond accordingly.
Further, having races of pure good and pure evil appeal to basic and inherent human psychology. Tolkien's elves are better than humans because it gives the reader a focus in which one can observe all that is good. This has an innate attractiveness, especially when utilized in a story pitting that good against evil (i.e., Lord of the Rings).
So, Tolkien had his reasons. But most other authors don't. They just think "Wow, Tolkien is awesome! I want to be just like him and do what he did!" So orcs (or some other substitute) are there and all evil. Of course, certain authors don't fall into this trap even when they have homogenously evil races; they have valid reasons, too. But base mimicry, I believe, is the most common cause of the improper use of these themes.
Now the question one must ask is "What kind of game do you wish to run?" Do you want to run a game which is mimetic of real life, where the world exists largely in shades of gray? Or perhaps a world that simply changes convention for changing convention's sake? This isn't necessarily wrong; it's a use of the imagination. Rather than low mimicry (the adjective low is important there, because mimicry itself is not a vice and is, in fact, impossible to avoid as a human being) in which a set of assumptions is taken up blindly, changing the convention for no other reason than the change itself allows once more for the emergence of a new perspective, of intellectual growth through imaginative work.
Or do you want to run a world in which the themes of good vs. evil are in place in a classical manner? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad; the challenge is simply to keep it from getting staid and stale (which is where most people come up short).
The latter is my personal preference. I am most attracted to fantasy which has real good and real evil. Note that this in no way means abandoning subtlety; but the core principles underneath are reaffirming and uplifting. There is evil, yes; but there is also good, which has the strength to fight back and make this world a better place, and ultimately make life worth living.
That's where consistently evil orcs come in. Others are looking for something different, or a different mode of expressing the same thing. Thus, diversity (another very good thing).
My point, if one can be dredged from this, is that both modes of narrative have value and meaning, depending on what one is looking for in the game (or literature, etc.).
For the record, my orcs are not one of the "evil" races; they are one of the "common" races, though they tend towards evil more than any other simply because of their harsh lives and warlike nature. Goblins, ogres, and dark elves, on the other hand... now that's a different story!
|
|
Saern: I think it goes beyond mimicry of Tolkein. Humans tend to associate beauty with decency and ugliness with sinistry. This is pretty deeply ingrained in most cultures, so it is natural that in a fantasy setting the creatures that appear the "least human" are going to be the bad guys. The "beautiful villain" is a subversion of this, as it is intentionally unconvention - "Oh my, that pretty person was actually evil!"
Of course, the dark side of this is when a culture decides what "looks human".
Saern: I think it goes beyond mimicry of Tolkein. Humans tend to associate beauty with decency and ugliness with sinistry. This is pretty deeply ingrained in most cultures, so it is natural that in a fantasy setting the creatures that appear the "least human" are going to be the bad guys. The "beautiful villain" is a subversion of this, as it is intentionally unconvention - "Oh my, that pretty person was actually evil!"
Of course, the dark side of this is when a culture decides what "looks human".
Tolkien himself actually commented on this in his essay "On Fairy-Stories." He pointed out that, long ago when people believed more fully in Faerie, it was commonly accepted that beautiful things may be dangerous, and ugly things benign. He lamented that such a mentality had been lost in the modern age.
In response to the link "Humans are Special;" I fail to see the point of this commentary. Is it any wonder that we, humans, would make most of our tales about ourselves, even when they include other races; and further, is it any wonder that those tales typically portray humanity with a certain positive bent? I would expect any such tale to have a point somewhere within it about what it means to be a human being; otherwise, I lose interest. Writing which explores "what ifs..." focused on worlds in which humans are not just the only "intelligent" race, but actually a totally inferior races in every signficant way, without seeking to make a point but rather just some strange type of imaginative simulation... that may be interesting, even thought provoking, but I would hesitate to call such a work "literature."
Having been born to evil parents as a member of an evil tribe or band replete with evil acts, evil traditions and evil rituals, there is little hope for your "average" orc to grow up anything but. Since it is in my opinion (and myths, faerie tales, moral philosophers, psychologists and most world religions tend to support me on this) much easier to "go bad" than "go good," you'll likely see more evil dwarfs and elves than good orcs. In my opinion on this fictional subject (which everybody is equally right about considering we're ALL IMAGINING 'ORCS' AND EVERYTHING ELSE D&D/PATHFINDER), you can pretty much blame the Evil Orc Village for raising the Evil Orc Child. Seen that way, it's probably a bad idea to put those orc babies to the sword. However, the more common problem is an imminent attack by armed and dangerous orcs - and killing THAT sort of orc isn't so much a moral quandry.
Alignment-based Outsiders are something else entirely. A demon is NOT a free-willed mortal being. There's a pic/caption in the BoED that drives me nuts as it implies a succubus (or whatever, I don't have the book on me) is in love. As the last bastion of moral absolutes, there is no room in a demon for love, or anything else that isn't evil incarnate. (Unless, of course, you imagine things different.) However, I am for some reason willing to accept that Angels are able to fall from grace, even if demons can never obtain it.
Having been born to evil parents as a member of an evil tribe or band replete with evil acts, evil traditions and evil rituals, there is little hope for your "average" orc to grow up anything but. Since it is in my opinion (and myths, faerie tales, moral philosophers, psychologists and most world religions tend to support me on this) much easier to "go bad" than "go good," you'll likely see more evil dwarfs and elves than good orcs. In my opinion on this fictional subject (which everybody is equally right about considering we're ALL IMAGINING 'ORCS' AND EVERYTHING ELSE D&D/PATHFINDER), you can pretty much blame the Evil Orc Village for raising the Evil Orc Child. Seen that way, it's probably a bad idea to put those orc babies to the sword. However, the more common problem is an imminent attack by armed and dangerous orcs - and killing THAT sort of orc isn't so much a moral quandry.
Alignment-based Outsiders are something else entirely. A demon is NOT a free-willed mortal being. There's a pic/caption in the BoED that drives me nuts as it implies a succubus (or whatever, I don't have the book on me) is in love. As the last bastion of moral absolutes, there is no room in a demon for love, or anything else that isn't evil incarnate. (Unless, of course, you imagine things different.) However, I am for some reason willing to accept that Angels are able to fall from grace, even if demons can never obtain it.
This post strikes closer to my own view of the game than just about any other I've read, including the perspective on the succubus in the BoED! I, too, am not inclined towards the notion of demons "rising" though I have no problem with angels "falling." But even if fiends can rise, any fiend which would be in a position to be smitten by a paladin would be one that is still evil; and when we're talking about evil on the level of the fiends, there is literally no room for such emotions as love. A fiend is a spirit of evil incarnate into physical form. Its hatred and debasement is as much a part of its being as its blood and bone.
|
|
It is actually starting to turn into a bit of a cliche to represent elves as hubristic quasi-fascists who view other races as little more than animals
Yeah, now the complaints for many about elves have moved from "They're always a race of Mary Sues" to "They're only either a race of Mary-Sues or a race of ethnocentric fascists with no in-between." It's not really that bad, but damn I wish some people would dial it back a bit. It's even worse when people combine the two and never call them out on it.
In response to the link "Humans are Special;" I fail to see the point of this commentary. Is it any wonder that we, humans, would make most of our tales about ourselves, even when they include other races; and further, is it any wonder that those tales typically portray humanity with a certain positive bent?
Most peoples' problem with it isn't so much in portraying humanity in a positive way, but when humanity, or rather humans(more on that in a bit), are portrayed as being inherently better or as a fully-fledged people rather than a people who all wear the same hats. That is, humans often get diverse cultures and are lauded for their adaptability. Other races often just get cast as homogenous. Mass Effect plays into it a bit(humans have burst onto the galactic scene in a big way that worries some of the other races), but also kicks it down pretty hard(one character gets called out for voicing surprise that a member of one alien race wasn't what they expected: "Yeah, because humans are all different, but every krogan is exactly alike.")
I would expect any such tale to have a point somewhere within it about what it means to be a human being; otherwise, I lose interest. Writing which explores "what ifs..." focused on worlds in which humans are not just the only "intelligent" race, but actually a totally inferior races in every signficant way, without seeking to make a point but rather just some strange type of imaginative simulation... that may be interesting, even thought provoking, but I would hesitate to call such a work "literature."
I think "humans being portrayed as an inferior race" as oppposed to "Humans Are Special" is a bit of a false dichotomy. Taking that approach steps sideways into tropes similar to Our Elves Are Better/Can't Argue With Elves, which also annoy.
As for the literary worth of any work dealing with non-humans equally or exclusively, I'm sure some of our sci-fi and fantasy greats have pulled that off. And these stories can still be about "humanity", as many of them are observations on humanity anyway through a different lens. Take Terry Pratchett's Discworld for example: It's all about humanity, but the best and worst traits of humanity are hardly exclusive to humans. As he says, "People are people, no matter what they are."
Alignment-based Outsiders are something else entirely. A demon is NOT a free-willed mortal being. There's a pic/caption in the BoED that drives me nuts as it implies a succubus (or whatever, I don't have the book on me) is in love. As the last bastion of moral absolutes, there is no room in a demon for love, or anything else that isn't evil incarnate. (Unless, of course, you imagine things different.) However, I am for some reason willing to accept that Angels are able to fall from grace, even if demons can never obtain it.
I imagine things differently I suppose. With fiends, which include those made from innocent souls taken unjustly by the Lower Planes, and most outsiders, I do see free will, albiet will heavily weighted in a particular direction. I think fiends can love, but it gets twisted. I'd say they're not typically capable of healthy love. But sometimes you get a flicker of their former mortal existence that slips by and lets such a thing take root. While this could act as a redemptive force though, I'd say it more often just leads to more inner conflict and torment for the fiend(which might be the idea to begin with), which it then takes out on others. Still, the possibility is there. That and I would really hope the Upper Planar beings have free will, since good mortal souls have a chance of becoming them.
As for angels being able to fall but fiends not being able to rise, why? I agree that it's easier to go evil than good, but why this absolute? After all, there have been canonical risen fiends(and accepted into the Upper Planes at that). Heck, the Pathfinder setting has gods attempting to redeem their evil brethren. Why make moral shifts an absolute one-way street rather than a two-way street on a steep hill?
Not trying to knock anyone's view of the game here, just seeing how differently all of us view the game and the whys and hows of our viewpoints.
Note that I'm a bit biased on this subject. The goddess of redemption in my setting used to be a marilith.(long story)
I suppose I see the transformation from a mortal soul into that of a fiend differently. Souls taken unjustly by the Lower Planes may suffer there, but I don't know if they would actually become the fiends which reside there. My interpretation is that happens more or less only to those who are in the Lower Planes for a reason. I think the mechanics provide a little support for this, too. Just about every creature that is created from another creature has a mention that they retain no knowledge of their former life (or something like that). Granted, this is most common in undead, who provide some of the clearest examples of one creature becoming another entirely. But I think it establishes a precedent for fiends as well.
As for the redemption of fiends, I suppose that I don't feel it is a complete absolute. But it is harder than the fall of an angel by many, many multiples. The implication of the illustration in the BoED is, IMO, either that unredeemed fiends have redeeming qualities (which I heartily disagree with) or that fiends are redeemed frequently enough that this paladin needs to stop and consider whether slaying the demon is right or not (which I also disagree with).
As for free will, an argument can be made that the good beings of the Upper Planes necessarily have free will, while the evil beings of the Lower Planes "don't." One could say that granting free will is necessary for a being to be truly good; otherwise it is simply going through motions with no moral component anywhere in the equation. Granted, free will means the ability to do wrong as well. But thus comes the "ease" with which an angel can fall relative to a demon rising.
Fiends, on the other hand, have "given up" their free will. They still have it, but they have blinded themselves to anything outside of the narrow view they have of the world(s). They have made themselves slaves to their own hatred. They have lessened and corrupted themselves, and this takes the form of an inability to effectively exercise that free will. Again, thus the relative ease by which an angel may fall and yet the extreme difficulty by which a fiend may rise.
I believe that good and evil are not mirror images of each other, but each have qualities and properties of their own. I also think that the game tends to ignore this and rather does present good and evil as mirror opposites, interchangeable and equal. But this denies what makes good Good, and what makes evil Evil.
That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?
Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?
I completely dislike having a simple black and white campaign world. I like having the shades of grey, try not to look at the whole alignment thing from afar and focus in. define evil and good in relative terms. an elf who would kill to protect the forest and an orc who must kill or raid to ensure the prosperity of his clan would both view themselves as "good" while any opposition would be defined by the elf/orc as "evil" Each race, kingdom, or even religion would define its ethics and morality by its own internal measures. While you could have detect law/chaos, i disallow detect alignment spell/abilities based on this. In my campaign, dwarves (dengar) and duergar are all dwarves. the differences are all in culture and religion like the whole Catholic/Protestant thing in Ireland or any of the different sects of Islam. I view dwarves (dengar) as more modern and liberal and the duergar more puritan and old fashioned using this method, i have no problems with rival nations/clans or even differing churches/cult with the same pantheon of dieties go to war with each other, allowing for deeper and more complex campaign plots i use moral ambiguity to force pcs to question themselves and their actions to fully immerse themselves in the game to make the game engaging and fun
|
"You and your party of adventurers encounter a group of orcs traveling through the wilderness." What do you do?
One thing that continues to bother me about "Tolkien inspired" Fantasy RPG is the presence of "evil" races such as orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. Yet, supposedly “good” races receive hatred based combat bonuses against these creatures, in the case of D&D/Pathfinder these would be Dwarves and Gnomes.
That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?
Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?
Let me ask you this then... are demons, and devils evil? Or just misunderstood? Is the entire race evil by virtue of being a demon or is it just the way they are raised?
Orcs are not humans. They think as closely to humans as little grey men from mars would think like humans. They think like humans as much as sharks think like humans or treants think like humans.
It makes no sense applying human ethics and thoughts of morality to Orcs. In fact the same applies to elves and dwarves and halflings and most especially gnomes.
Orcs are not humans. They think as closely to humans as little grey men from mars would think like humans. They think like humans as much as sharks think like humans or treants think like humans.It makes no sense applying human ethics and thoughts of morality to Orcs. In fact the same applies to elves and dwarves and halflings and most especially gnomes.
"Vikings are not Christians. They think as closely to Christians as little grey men from Mars would think like Christians. They think like Christians as much as sharks think like Christians or leprechauns think like Christians.
It makes no sense applying Christian ethics and thoughts of morality to vikings. In fact the same applies to Muslims and Hindus and Jews and most especially heretics."
-Brother Seamus, an Irish monk circa 800 A.D.
Orcs are not humans. They think as closely to humans as little grey men from mars would think like humans. They think like humans as much as sharks think like humans or treants think like humans.It makes no sense applying human ethics and thoughts of morality to Orcs. In fact the same applies to elves and dwarves and halflings and most especially gnomes.
"Vikings are not Christians. They think as closely to Christians as little grey men from Mars would think like Christians. They think like Christians as much as sharks think like Christians or leprechauns think like Christians.
It makes no sense applying Christian ethics and thoughts of morality to vikings. In fact the same applies to Muslims and Hindus and Jews and most especially heretics."
-Brother Seamus, an Irish monk circa 800 A.D.
You're comparing cultural norms to genetic and physiological make-ups. Apples to oranges. If orcs and humans and elves don't have different innate mentalities about the world, then what's the point of having different races in the firt place aside from the cosmetics of having pointy ears or tusks?
At the same time, D&D has objective moral standards. If you suspend the alignment-dependent rules of the game, as K'Thal mentioned, you avoid this problem. That's fine, the decision is a matter of taste. But per the RAW, the elf protecting his forest and the orc fighting to stay alive are both held to the same moral standards. The standards are not so restrictive as to be a straight-jacket; the orc can struggle to stay alive in the wilderness and still be moral by the same standards as the elf protecting the grove. The alignments do not make this impossible. But if orcs are assumed to be a murderous lot as the basic game assumes, by innate disposition or cutlural conditioning or both, then yes, as a race, they are evil. Again, many would say one of the greatest appeals of at least classical fantasy (the word fantasy is important there) is that black and white which allows us to refocus and find clarity; at least, it's something that I search for in the genre. (Note that it doesn't automatically rule out subtlety, gray situations, and hard choices) That doesn't mean something can't be successful or great without that quality; or that everything which has it is an automatic masterpiece. But it is a quality that, I think, allows the possibility of a kind of power and a depth, rooted in the appeal to imagination and fundamental human nature, which more "realistic" narratives cannot attain. They have their own powers and virtues, but the two are different.
[/ramble]
|
|
Orcs are not humans. They think as closely to humans as little grey men from mars would think like humans. They think like humans as much as sharks think like humans or treants think like humans.It makes no sense applying human ethics and thoughts of morality to Orcs. In fact the same applies to elves and dwarves and halflings and most especially gnomes.
"Vikings are not Christians. They think as closely to Christians as little grey men from Mars would think like Christians. They think like Christians as much as sharks think like Christians or leprechauns think like Christians.
It makes no sense applying Christian ethics and thoughts of morality to vikings. In fact the same applies to Muslims and Hindus and Jews and most especially heretics."
-Brother Seamus, an Irish monk circa 800 A.D.
I'd like to think that in 1200 years we have learned a little something about humanity...
And ummmm.... are you saying that non-Christians are not human? That seems to me what you are saying. I would seriously ahve to disagree with that statement.
and ummm I do not think that is a real quote from 800 AD. They had no notion at all of little grey men from mars. That is a mythical creation of the 1950s...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It depends on the type of story you want to tell. If orcs exist to serve as fodder for the heroic PCs, to be killed indiscriminately and without quarter, then they should be wholly evil. If you prefer a morally ambiguous game where the PCs must balance thwarting the threat orcs pose to human civilization against inflicting unnecessary harm on them, they should be evil by choice/culture.
There's no objective answer to the question (well, except insofar as James speaks on behalf of Golarion canon - if you want to run a game that is as true to that canon as possible, which embraces the heroic view of orcs, then you've got your answer above).
|
|
I read a novel once, author and title escape me at the moment (so it must not have been that memorable a read), which was about a lost angel. The angel was being hunted by demons. Eventually, with the help of a mortal woman, the angel falls in love and becomes human.
The main antagonist, a demon, eventually helps the angel and the mortal woman escape danger. Due to his good actions over the course of the novel, a single white feather appears on the demon's wings. He doesn't notice, but the heroes do. This is supposed to point out that the demon has the potential for redemption.
Now, if we are working on a Judeo-Christian mythology for angels and demons, I would like to suggest this...
If demons are fallen angels, and God can be a forgiving deity, could there be the potential for redemption? May be a demon or devil is capable of redeeming itself with lots of hard work and personal sacrifice?
I once played a character who had an imp familiar. The only problem for the imp was that he had developed a conscience, making him far from the favourite with his evil friends in the Abyss.
It is too simplistic for something to be just "evil". If you want to keep it simple and have no surprises, then that's fine. If you want a mature game, and to make it hard on the party's paladin, allow for variety when it comes to alignment.
I do believe, and correct me on this, that some of the orcs in LotR do complain about the war and how good it will be when it is over. May be it is the influence, and fear, of Sauron that keeps the orcs evil?
It is possible to play it both ways simultaneously. It comes down to DM call, but those beings which are evil out of culture can have variance and those beings which are evil out of nature cannot. For example, an orc child reared away from its native people may become a paragon of good. A demon, however, is spawned out of the primal chaos and evil roiling in the Abyss and is beyond redemption (so essentially says the Fiendish Codex I). I have no problem with both redemable and non-redemable evil in my campaigns. I would typically draw the line at creatures with the Evil subtype (such as fiends).
Part of this comes from my own personal beliefs, but another part comes from the fact that the players have expectations and messing with them can be dangerous. An encounter with a redeemed fiend may be interesting, but it does set a precedent that not all fiends are evil, which can change the tone of every future encounter run with fiends. If the DM wants that, great! The players may or may not go for it; depends on their attitudes. I and my group prefer having at least one type of being in the world which we always, always know is evil. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, beyond hope of redemption. For me, it sort of represents the internal struggles ("fighting with your demons") that we all undergo. Others just like to know they can kick this thing's ass and know that it was the right thing to do.
Since Sauron was brought up, what about him? Was Sauron, or better yet, Morgoth/Melkor before him, redeemable? They, too, began as good; could their fall ever be undone?
|
|
As for the redemption of fiends, I suppose that I don't feel it is a complete absolute. But it is harder than the fall of an angel by many, many multiples.
Ideally, any 'redeemed' Fiend or 'fallen' Celestial should be a one of a kind deal, and very deliberately placed for effect.
Drizzt was a novel concept, and insanely popular. But the existence of entire factions of Eilistraee worshipping good Drow swordswomen makes his entire exile pointless and laughable. He is nearly killed by his own people, flees to the surface world, ends up picking a pretty much random human goddess to replace his drow faith, and then, a few years later, finds out that there was an entire sect of chaotic good drow who worshipped a goddess of *swordsmanship!*
Massive 'doh!' moment for the exile, there. "Hey 'Listri? Where the hell were you when I was all alone in the world, bemoaning my outcast state? Most famous freaking chaotic good drow swordsman *on the planet* (yes, I'm practically a one-man recruiting poster for your religion!) and you missed the boat, lady!"
In that vein, making something like a 'redeemed template' for fiends or whatever, codifying it as if this happens all the time, cheapens the entire concept, IMO. One 'risen' fiend is amazing, a testament to the power of hope and redemption. More than one suggests that *all* fiends are just misunderstood and need a hug and a second chance.
Another example would be on the show Buffy. A vampire character who had been cursed to retain a human soul, and so, over a *century* of outcast misery, *finally* chose to do some good and atone for his bad deeds. Two seasons later, some other demon and vampire characters ends up unable to do evil deeds, and become 'good-guys' by default, in less than a year. The whole redemption message was utterly destroyed by the portrayal of these later characters, and the message that the vampire slayer was utterly right in her actions to kill them on sight, despite the existence of a one-off specimen who wasn't evil, was turned into 'Buffy the Mass Murderer,' since they'd now established that every single demon or vampire that she'd slain on sight, whether it was doing anything evil or not, could have been a good guy if only he'd been given a chance!
Fiends and Celestials, IMO, exist to provide black and white moral examples. There *might* be some moral qualms about killing a bunch of non-combatant Goblins or Kobolds or whatever, but the players should never have to worry about whether or not that Quasit was secretly born-again and was only trying to atone for a life of wickedness by saving puppies that fell into wells and stealing money to support the local orphanage.
Dragons, on the other hand? Any darn alignment they feel like being. Make assumptions about that Brass Dragon's intentions at your peril...