|
I think it's hard to make that comparison to real world genocide.
In a fantasy world, evil races are near 100% evil all of the time, throughout all history. They will always cause strife to the civilized races.
In the real world, genocide is a clear cut evil, not matter how wrong or bad someone might think their enemy to be, simply because human beings are not evil as a race, but because of upbringings, their environment, and poor choices.
That being said, genocide is evil no matter how you look at it, so if their desire is to kill all ogres in existance, yes I would say it would shift their alignment.
If their goal is to eliminate a specific tribe completely, I don't necessarily consider that evil, though the killing of young child ogres may constitute as such.
Either way it's your campaign and your version of whatever world you're using, so you have the final say.
No.
Ooooh, popcorn time.
*munch munch*
If they exterminate all ogres no questions asked, then yes it's evil. Sure, fantasy races say "evil" so most are evil, but especially in Pathfinder I think there can be exceptions. So, to just go "It's an ogre, it MUST be evil" is wrong.
Now, that tribe? Wipe em out. But to go on a crusade of Ogre Genocide would be evil.
Take Mass Effect for example. Within the game's history the Rachni insects nearly destroyed the galaxy before they were wiped out by the Krogan. Well, turns out one egg survived on a derelict ship(kind of an Alien thing there i think lol) and a group hatches it not realizing its' a Rachni (as the "war" was over 2000 years ago, nobody remembers what a Rachni is except a few very old Asari). SO, the Rachni have a chance to return. Your character has the option to let this new Racnhi (who claims she has no idea why the Rachni tried to conquer the galaxy, she's peaceful and will go home and make sure it never happens again) go in peace, or kill her mercilessly making the genocide of the Rachni 100% complete. The Paragon (Good) thing is to let her live, the Renegade (Evil) thing is to kill her. All your character knows is the Rachni cut a bloody swath across the galaxy 2000 years ago before they were stopped... this Rachni Queen could be lying through her mandibles... or she could be telling the truth... taking the risk in letting her live is dangerous, but killing her, that's still evil.
The Paragon (Good) thing is to let her live, the Renegade (Evil) thing is to kill her.
Kind of a tangent, but Renegade doesn't really equate to evil in the context of the game. It more often equates to "Doing a big-picture right thing, but in a pragmatic or ruthless way."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the campaign style.
Beer and Pretzels: Not evil.
Political Immersive: Eventually, yes.
Horror: Maybe, but you'll definitely go insane.
In my weekly campaign we came across a clan of ogres. Exploring the house led to a scene from a horror film with skin couches, lamps, etc. These Ogres were a pretty sick bunch. Now, my dwarves are considering killing every single ogre we come across, no quarter. They are Lawful Neutral, would this affect their alignment?
No, but Ogres are not inherently evil so genocide against them would be evil. They just have strong tendencies toward evil like drow do. Whether it is because it is in their nature or the way they were raised is up to the GM. Evil outsiders like demons and devils are a different story.
Is it more evil to exterminate a race that has a strong innate bias toward Evil, or to not exterminate them and allow them to continue their predations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it more evil to exterminate a race that has a strong innate bias toward Evil, or to not exterminate them and allow them to continue their predations?
That's pretty much where I am.
At some point, in the context of a game, you have to let Good take reasonable actions to fight Evil. Otherwise you're playing the Spaceballs RPG, in which Evil Always Wins Because Good Is Dumb.
(And, typically, your players are inexorably driven to make Neutral characters in the future so they aren't dealing with these issues, and you end up frustrated because no one wants to play a heroic character who ever tries to do the right thing.)
In D&D land, no. But be wary of that stray Ogre that breaks from the norm. The DM will hopefully make it painfully obvious so that you don't kill it before realizing that it was not evil. I know that if I were DMing, I would pull something like that just to keep these characters on their toes.
The Paragon (Good) thing is to let her live, the Renegade (Evil) thing is to kill her.Kind of a tangent, but Renegade doesn't really equate to evil in the context of the game. It more often equates to "Doing a big-picture right thing, but in a pragmatic or ruthless way."
Well, true but still... can be kind of evil in some of the decisions, especially committing genocide. That was kinda my point, that decision is evil no matter how you try to look at it, because in context neither you nor your character has any idea if this Rachni is good or evil, just assumptions based on something that happened when humans still thought the earth was flat and the only planet in the universe.
In D&D land, no. But be wary of that stray Ogre that breaks from the norm. The DM will hopefully make it painfully obvious so that you don't kill it before realizing that it was not evil. I know that if I were DMing, I would pull something like that just to keep these characters on their toes.
Ah, but what is his intent? Does he prefer his meals medium rare, so he's saving the children from becoming well done? Some parties would assume this and kill him cause remember, ogres are ALWAYS evil, right?
I'd say its certainly not Good, and that its probably not evil until you are presented with evidence that not all Ogre's are necessarily evil.
As soon as you have any evidence of that however, proceeding with your unmitigated genocide would definately be an Evil act. If they can be saved, and you make no effort to do so...
That said, its certainly not the least justified evil act ever; Ogres are horrifying.
Is it more evil to exterminate a race that has a strong innate bias toward Evil, or to not exterminate them and allow them to continue their predations?
Why is this even the question? Why not get rid of those who are encroaching upon others, make friends with who you can, and leave the rest alone. If you can civilize the Orges you can have strong allies. Of course I am sure some Ogres are less approachable than others so this is not always an option.
By friends I mean a treaty of sorts, assuming you can trust them.
PS:What I think it comes down to is are monsters just "monsters" in a GM's game or are they actually sentient creatures capable of change and reason.
I think that is the key. If they are just monsters then kill zem all. If they are more than just a statblock then I would not go for genecide.
PS2:In short it really depends on how a GM runs his games, but I can only give answers based on my games.
Is it more evil to exterminate a race that has a strong innate bias toward Evil, or to not exterminate them and allow them to continue their predations?This is where I am as well. I'd give more context to my character's situation, but there isn't really any. We're on our way to a giant fort to take it back, and this ogre farm was on the way. We check out the house and find the parties sent before us being prepped for upholstery. The whole thing was straight out of House of 1000 Corpses. We dispatched the ogres and the Dwarves are pretty upset that beings could do this. No honor in defiling the dead.
Oh boy. I know the adventure that youre playing in and in THAT context...KILL 'EM ALL.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooooh, popcorn time.
*munch munch*
Is the popcorn evil?
This question comes down to how your GM runs his or her game. There are two alternatives for any particular "race" or species of bad guy:
These Bad Guys are Monsters
These Bad Guys are People
Monsters are not core races or playable races, their alignments are fixed (i.e., "Always Chaotic Evil"), though they may have societies or tribes or social groups they do not have a real civilization of their own, and even though they may be listed as intelligent and have language, they cannot actually be reasoned with or bargained with. They exist solely as foils for the PCs, usually as sources of motivating danger and as obstacles to be overcome. They always attack the party on sight (unless they flee). They do not surrender, and any taken prisoner will use the first opportunity to escape and/or kill and injure the PCs. They are irredeemable. Given that they are inimical to civilized life and are always mortal enemies of the party, killing them on sight should not shift a PC's alignment to evil.
People are any intelligent creatures who have flexible alignments and who can be reasoned with and bargained with. People as opponents are morally ambiguous, and may have good motives for doing evil acts. People have the ability to be redeemed. They have motives and goals of their own outside of their adversarial relationship with the PCs. Killing them is always a morally ambiguous act.
Committing Genocide against Monsters is not Evil. Genocide against people is.
A good GM should be very clear on which bad guys in the campaign are Monsters and which are People. The key is consistency. If some orcs behave like monsters and some orcs behave like people, then the players cannot make morally consistent choices for their PCs where orcs are concerned and you might as well throw out the alignment rules altogether (as many do), or just embrace the "murderous hobo" playstyle. Sometimes you can get away with "This one exemplar is the only non-evil Orc" or "This one exemplar is the party's housebroken kobold who won't slay you in your sleep" but you've got to be careful with that kind of thing or it just muddies the waters and prevents the players from making informed decisions.
Of course, if you don't mind running or playing a morally ambiguous or downright evil party, then there's no problems at all. However, if your players do want to be the "Good Guys" then you need to structure the campaign so that Good and Evil are very clearly defined and starkly differentiated.
Personally, I prefer the vast majority of "Monstrous Humanoids" (Orcs, kobolds, trolls, gnolls, etc) in my campaigns to be Monsters, because using the struggle of Good vs Evil as the major theme of conflict is easier and requires less preparation and thought on my part. I like to include the occasional moral challenge to the party, but I don't use monstrous humanoids for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the race. If you were to attempt to exterminate demons, devils, daemons, or the like, then no. Those races are literally composed of evil. There's literally no chance for them to become good.
Humanoid races such as orcs, ogres, goblins, etc; I would count it as an evil act. They are not composed of evil, even if their race has a tendancy towards it. If you indiscriminately kill a goblin that wasn't doing anything to threaten anyone at the time, it's just as much murder as if you killed a human in similar circumstances.
Basically, unless a race has the [evil] subtype, I would consider a campaign to perform genocide on them an evil act. After all, it can be a slippery slope. If you wipe out all the goblins for not conforming to the idealized norms of human society, then it's not as big of a stretch to do so to gnomes as well (they're weird little guys, after all). After the gnomes, you might as well get rid of those creepy elves...their eyes are monochromatic, that's just unnatural.
This would constitute an alignment shift, but not an evil shift. The extermination of the Ogres based on the sight of a lair and the judgment passed would be a Chaotic act. I would shift the party members that participate from Lawful Neutral to either True Neutral of straight to Chaotic Neutral, depending on the intensity of the response.
Why is this even the question?
It's not the question, but in a world where Good and Evil are objectively quantifiable and some races are (nearly) always Evil, it is a question worth asking and answering. If you are presented a situation wherein 99% of [a given race] are remorselessly and irredeemably violent sociopaths who want nothing more than to kill and eat everyone in their path, is it more or less evil to simply slaughter them all and let Pharasma sort them out, or to let the overall status quo continue? I'm not coming down on one side or the other because I don't know the answer, but it is something that ought to be at least considered by anyone who takes their character's moral compass seriously.
Why is this even the question?It's not the question, but in a world where Good and Evil are objectively quantifiable and some races are (nearly) always Evil, it is a question worth asking and answering. If you are presented a situation wherein 99% of [a given race] are remorselessly and irredeemably violent sociopaths who want nothing more than to kill and eat everyone in their path, is it more or less evil to simply slaughter them all and let Pharasma sort them out, or to let the overall status quo continue? I'm not coming down on one side or the other because I don't know the answer, but it is something that ought to be at least considered by anyone who takes their character's moral compass seriously.
You're presenting a falacy here; there are more options than killing them all OR just letting them be.
You could otherwise render them a non-threat; they are not inherently evil, so it is possible. Difficult and improbable? Maybe. But you do have more than two options.
That said, letting them just have their way is definately evil if you could do anything about it.
EDIT: I suppose my actual point here is that its not really relevant which of those two options is 'more' evil.
...just embrace the "murderous hobo" playstyle.
If I embrace the murderous hobo lifestyle, can I have a shotgun?
...just embrace the "murderous hobo" playstyle.If I embrace the murderous hobo lifestyle, can I have a shotgun?
I guess you saw that movie also. I have a feeling it will be a cult classic one day.
With the game set up where evil and good are black and white and it is the job of good people to eradicate evil then no genocide in this instance is not evil. It's what you do in game like this, kill monsters.
Now if you want to change things up and you could strip alignments from all monsters and apply alignments on case by case basis. Now in this case the Ogres might not be evil but because they high up the food chain than the PC races that presents a moral dilemma. Exterminating all ogres would be evil in this case. It would be like killing all sharks because sharks tend to eat people.
demons, devils, daemons, or the like, then no. Those races are literally composed of evil. There's literally no chance for them to become good.
That's inacurate, but I do see your point, and mostly concur. I wouldn't shift a player alignment if he killed a good demon. Food for thought there.
I see what you guys are saying in terms of generalizing the race as all members are evil and killing them. You've mentioned trying to change their ways. How would you go about that? Ogres would make powerful allies, and I don't want to let any of those that do surrender to run off on their own.
I honestly can't think of any effective or good ways of doing so which aren't evil :)
Kill all the adults, raise the children who aren't old enough to absorbed the horrendous culture/habits from their parents in good aligned temples?
Either that or magic; powerful spells like Wish, or Opposite Alignment items applied in mass.
I'd consider both of the above Evil acts however; not to say that they are necessarily wrong or I wouldn't go through with the above plans before genocide though.
I wouldn't sugarcoat it and pretend they weren't Evil though.
You're presenting a falacy here; there are more options than killing them all OR just letting them be.You could otherwise render them a non-threat; they are not inherently evil, so it is possible. Difficult and improbable? Maybe. But you do have more than two options.
That said, letting them just have their way is definately evil if you could do anything about it.
EDIT: I suppose my actual point here is that its not really relevant which of those two options is 'more' evil.
Perhaps I should amplify. The status quo is that these creatures (in the vast majority of instances they currently or ever in all of history) wreak havoc and act in a terrible fashion whenever they have the opportunity to, because the inherent tendency in the race is to Evil. One can look at that data and make the reasonable inference that they will continue to do so in the future. Yes, they will be opposed by Good sorts when this happens and (perhaps) ultimately be stopped, but countless Good people will die in the course of that.
Given that status quo -- the inevitable deaths of a smaller number of Good creatures in prosecuting genocide, or the inevitable deaths of a much larger number of Good creatures if genocide is not pursued -- it is very reasonable, IMO, to pose the question of which course places more onus on characters with the ability to do one thing or the other.
...just embrace the "murderous hobo" playstyle.If I embrace the murderous hobo lifestyle, can I have a shotgun?
One thing's for sure -- I'm absconding with the phrase "murderous hobo playstyle" for my own future use.
I see what you guys are saying in terms of generalizing the race as all members are evil and killing them. You've mentioned trying to change their ways. How would you go about that? Ogres would make powerful allies, and I don't want to let any of those that do surrender to run off on their own.
I was saying make the entire tribe of Ogres an ally to nearby humans, not on an individual basis, but how to handle things depends on how your GM does things. Are they just monsters(stat blocks) or are they just really big people with a bad attitude?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I with there were a harp-glissando sound effect possible for me to trigger when I write "In My Home Campaign..."
In My Home Campaign...
Infants of all races are christened / baptized / dedicated to a particular deity. In Golarion, many dwarves are dedicated to Torag. Most gnolls are dedicated to Lamashtu. The game-mechnic result of this is the alignment the character has as a child and adolescent. Anyone can, somewhere along the line, make a decision to atone, switch faith, and continue on in life, but that's going against the grain.
So, in Wolfsnap's terminology, most of the bad guys are people, but people who have elected to remain committed to evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a Lawful Evil act anytime you judge others based on their race and not their actions.
Lawful Evil
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to RACE, religion, homeland, or social rank.
It is a Lawful Evil act anytime you judge others based on their race and not their actions.
Lawful Evil
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to RACE, religion, homeland, or social rank.
Damn those pesky paladins Smiting those Demons anywhere and becoming a Lawfull Evil.
Damn those pesky paladins Smiting those Demons anywhere and becoming a Lawfull Evil.
Well sure. Worse, in some places, that'd be chaotic too!
For example, lets say your hypothetical paladin is walking down a street in a city where your evil-outsider is, I dont know, on an errand for a spell caster. Legally, lawfully, etc. (Cheliax?)
If your paladin hauls off and smites it without it having done a Evil act, he's not only done something Evil, he's violated the law of the land!
Damn those pesky paladins Smiting those Demons anywhere and becoming a Lawfull Evil.Well sure. Worse, in some places, that'd be chaotic too!
For example, lets say your hypothetical paladin is walking down a street in a city where your evil-outsider is, I dont know, on an errand for a spell caster. Legally, lawfully, etc. (Cheliax?)
If your paladin hauls off and smites it without it having done a Evil act, he's not only done something Evil, he's violated the law of the land!
DEAR GOD! WE ARE DOOMED!!! No more Pallies!!!!
It all depends on your game world. In the pre-eberron days it seemed to me there were no 'against the grain' members of evil races, drow and orcs and ogres and such where irredemable baby eaters. You killed them took their stuff and never batted an eye.
Nowadays people seem to like moral choices in their games, and they like to add shades of grey to the alignment scale. Personally I wouldn't mind that, its about time we shed this damned alignment system completely. But for a moment I think in a world where there are walking evil detectors this is a pretty simple situation. Herd enemies into a 60ft cone, cast detect evil, concentrate, start picking off enemies until the paladin's evil meter eases up.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd classify it as a neutral act, leaning evil, depending on the nature of the race. If you're talking about killing all demons/devils, that's a pure good act in my book (also, good luck with that).
There's no correct answer to the question though. Just consider what's best for the story, the characters, etc. and play off that. I'm not sure if you're DMing, but one nice thing about being in that role is the ability to manufacture facts that support your conclusion. So, if you want this to be a good act, have the PCs learn that all members of the species are evil, that they pose a constant threat to innocent creatures, and cannot be reasoned with or trusted. If you want them to have a hard time committing genocide, through in some adorable baby evil creatures and maybe a handful of good members.
Alignment questions don't typically have an objective, correct answer, which is why I focus more on the group and the fun of the game than making an absolute determination of good or evil. The reason humans have dieties to begin with is to outsource that crap to them.
Well sure. Worse, in some places, that'd be chaotic too!
For example, lets say your hypothetical paladin is walking down a street in a city where your evil-outsider is, I dont know, on an errand for a spell caster. Legally, lawfully, etc. (Cheliax?)
If your paladin hauls off and smites it without it having done a Evil act, he's not only done something Evil, he's violated the law of the land!
Not to turn this into another paladin alignment thread, but I think there's pretty good precedent for saying that a paladin isn't obligated to obey all laws simply because they're Lawful -- that would be Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. A Lawful Good character, and especially a paladin, would be obligated to break evil laws or laws that tend to promote Evil.
Not to turn this into another paladin alignment thread, but I think there's pretty good precedent for saying that a paladin isn't obligated to obey all laws simply because they're Lawful -- that would be Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. A Lawful Good character, and especially a paladin, would be obligated to break evil laws or laws that tend to promote Evil.Well sure. Worse, in some places, that'd be chaotic too!
For example, lets say your hypothetical paladin is walking down a street in a city where your evil-outsider is, I dont know, on an errand for a spell caster. Legally, lawfully, etc. (Cheliax?)
If your paladin hauls off and smites it without it having done a Evil act, he's not only done something Evil, he's violated the law of the land!
Of course you are correct. Actually, no Lawful being is obligated to follow all laws. The alignment system is complicated, but there is a bend to it, and a very large one to be truthful, it's not black and white at all, but for some reason, most people believe it is, and what is worse, most people believe that anything you do makes you Chaotic and Evil (not necessarily both) but it doesn't happen the otherway around.... funny stuff...
Is it more evil to exterminate a race that has a strong innate bias toward Evil, or to not exterminate them and allow them to continue their predations?That's pretty much where I am.
At some point, in the context of a game, you have to let Good take reasonable actions to fight Evil. Otherwise you're playing the Spaceballs RPG, in which Evil Always Wins Because Good Is Dumb.
(And, typically, your players are inexorably driven to make Neutral characters in the future so they aren't dealing with these issues, and you end up frustrated because no one wants to play a heroic character who ever tries to do the right thing.)
The real question here is what constitutes reasonable. Exterminating an entire race- and keep in mind when you say exterminate, you mean well and truly to kill them ALL to the last man, pouring all possible resources into finding them literally wherever they are to kill them- would not strike me as very reasonable, and thereby more chaotic than lawful or good or even evil, despite the definition of lawful evil given.
I'd classify it as a neutral act, leaning evil, depending on the nature of the race. If you're talking about killing all demons/devils, that's a pure good act in my book (also, good luck with that).
I'd say that's more chaotic than good, though.
you mean well and truly to kill them ALL to the last man, pouring all possible resources into finding them literally wherever they are to kill them- would not strike me as very reasonable, and thereby more chaotic than lawful or good or even evil, despite the definition of lawful evil given.
Actually the Nazis where pretty damn Lawful.... didn't they do just that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends on your game world. In the pre-eberron days it seemed to me there were no 'against the grain' members of evil races, drow and orcs and ogres and such where irredemable baby eaters. You killed them took their stuff and never batted an eye.
Not to exalt Salvatore, but Drizzt would like to have a word with you from about 20 years before Eberron.
Actually, I think the short story Dark Mirror is kind of brilliant commentary on this very issue. It may be the only thing Salvatore wrote that I loved as a kid that I still like as an adult. In it, Drizzt meets a good goblin, who admits that not only would most people assume he was evil and try to kill him on sight, but that they probably should -- that it was fine for normal surface people to wrap their minds around the idea of a good drow and have that hesitation to assume whether drow were evil or not specificially because, to them, drow were exotic creatures that they probably would never encounter, whereas they encountered goblins all the time and to hesitate to kill one when they could would likely mean their death or the death of other innocent people.
It all depends on your game world. In the pre-eberron days it seemed to me there were no 'against the grain' members of evil races, drow and orcs and ogres and such where irredemable baby eaters. You killed them took their stuff and never batted an eye.
Not to exalt Salvatore, but Drizzt would like to have a word with you from about 20 years before Eberron.
Actually, I think the short story Dark Mirror is kind of brilliant commentary on this very issue. It may be the only thing Salvatore wrote that I loved as a kid that I still like as an adult. In it, Drizzt meets a good goblin, who admits that not only would most people assume he was evil and try to kill him on sight, but that they probably should -- that it was fine for normal surface people to wrap their minds around the idea of a good drow and have that hesitation to assume whether drow were evil or not specificially because, to them, drow were exotic creatures that they probably would never encounter, whereas they encountered goblins all the time and to hesitate to kill one when they could would likely mean their death or the death of other innocent people.
NICE!