The reference to demons and devils earlier was a key point. Some races (such as these two) are inherently evil, with no redeeming characteristics -- genocide against demons or devils would be fine.
I would argue the same for mind flayers -- since they must kill members of humanlike races in order to survive and reproduce, the situation is literally "us or them" -- and who wouldn't pick "us" regardless of alignment? A paladin in my game adopted a similar idea about trolls in a game where the DM altered them to reproduce like digger wasps using humanoids for hosts.
In the case of dwarves deciding to kill every ogre they come across -- I don't see a problem here at all. The only ogres they have met have been really evil, so the issue of genocide would only become relevant if (a) They come across evidence that ogres can be something other than evil monsters, and (b) They have a realistic chance of driving ogres to extinction. Neither of these will occur unless the DM decides that they do.
So far it seems like this DM is looking at monsters as stat blocks. Now that I think about it, pursuing something like this for RP reasons would probably be a waste of time as it's been hack and slay since I started with this group. It's a good thought for my family game though, I know they would jump all over an Ogre Orphanage.
Obviously you know your groups better than we do, but I think this kind of thing can be more about how a given DM views the nature/nurture balance of alignments than "RP" or "Not RP".
For example, my view as a DM tends to be that monsters that are "usually evil" have an inherent/biological piece to it; that you can try, for example, to raise Ogres to be good but you mostly will fail. Maybe they're missing the part of a brain that gives humans empathy. Maybe they have bad tempers and despite their best efforts will occasionally murder something innocent in a rage. Maybe their instincts are predatory in a way that makes not seizing upon another's weakness as hard for them, in the long term, as hard as not sleeping is for a human. Etc.
Or, maybe you can take an ogre baby and it's perfectly easy to raise it to be a paladin. It all depends on the specifics of the DM and the world.
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.
Uhm,
Sorry, but not quite. The Rachni Queen has all the memories of all her ancestors. The Rachni weren't evil, Sovereign used them as his first attack on the galaxy races, he perverted their song and drove them insane. It's all in her speech about how the songs of the queens were warped, one by one, into insanity. She escaped because she was still unhatched, so she heard them, but wasn't part of the song, and Sovereign missed her.Back on Topic :
It depends on the GM and the game world. In my own, if you committed genocide, or just did your best to do so, it would be evil. In my own game, gods are the major influence for good/neutral/evil. So, drow are evil because their god is, although there are exceptions. Same with duerger (dwarves lured away from the Dwarven god to worship the Drow god), and svirnefblin (same thing). In fact, most evil underground races follow the same evil god. Gnolls are usually evil because their god is. Etc, etc, etc. So trying to kill the race for the evil of their god would be evil in turn.
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?
What's bad for the ogre is good for the dwarf.
I'm going to guess that the suggestion was this specific tribe, not the entire race. Human skin couches = a dead tribe. Any dwarf worth his tankard will tell you that. Trying for the entire race is just impractical.
|
It depends on the GM and the game world. In my own, if you committed genocide, or just did your best to do so, it would be evil. In my own game, gods are the major influence for good/neutral/evil. So, drow are evil because their god is, although there are exceptions. Same with duerger (dwarves lured away from the Dwarven god to worship the Drow god), and svirnefblin (same thing). In fact, most evil underground races follow the same evil god. Gnolls are usually evil because their god is. Etc, etc, etc. So trying to kill the race for the evil of their god would be evil in turn.
I think that only makes sense if you as a GM provide racial exemplars that either don't follow their god or are ambivalent about their god, which allows the PCs to redeem those creatures from evil. Also, are the vast majority of humans and elves "good" because of the gods they worship in your campaign? If you have lots of evil exemplars of the core races, then you should likewise include lots of good exemplars of the monstrous humanoids. In a world such as you describe above, a "good" character should probably ALWAYS be trying to convert their enemy rather than kill them.
So far it seems like this DM is looking at monsters as stat blocks. Now that I think about it, pursuing something like this for RP reasons would probably be a waste of time as it's been hack and slay since I started with this group. It's a good thought for my family game though, I know they would jump all over an Ogre Orphanage.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit. They came across a wrecked wagon with unconscious or dead merchants and guards. A group of four orcs were going through the wreckage with a fifth one leaning over one of the bodies, a bloody knife lying next to him. The party attack immediately and slaughtered the orcs before they could react.
They then discovered that the orc with the bloody knife had cut two arrows out of a wounded merchant and treat his wounds. She was also the daughter of of the local orc shaman. The other orcs were looking for pots to fill with water to clean wounds and clean cloth to use as bandages. Their tribe was allied with the village the merchants were from.
The players ended up in a political mess, being branded murderers by the orcs and having no support from the local humans. They eventually convinced the shaman to let them seek a means to resort those they had killed to life. They also had to get rid of the remaining bandits (with no reward for doing so).
The end result of all of that was that my players stopped judging monsters by their stats.
It depends on the GM and the game world. In my own, if you committed genocide, or just did your best to do so, it would be evil. In my own game, gods are the major influence for good/neutral/evil. So, drow are evil because their god is, although there are exceptions. Same with duerger (dwarves lured away from the Dwarven god to worship the Drow god), and svirnefblin (same thing). In fact, most evil underground races follow the same evil god. Gnolls are usually evil because their god is. Etc, etc, etc. So trying to kill the race for the evil of their god would be evil in turn.I think that only makes sense if you as a GM provide racial exemplars that either don't follow their god or are ambivalent about their god, which allows the PCs to redeem those creatures from evil. Also, are the vast majority of humans and elves "good" because of the gods they worship in your campaign? If you have lots of evil exemplars of the core races, then you should likewise include lots of good exemplars of the monstrous humanoids. In a world such as you describe above, a "good" character should probably ALWAYS be trying to convert their enemy rather than kill them.
Humans have the most gods, and they have good, evil, and neutral. And there are very obvious representatives of all.
As to the monstrous humanoids, most of the 'evil' ones don't have good examples, but, it's not unheard of to have some neutrals in various areas. So I give examples, such as Orcs working as guards, or Goblins working as sewer workers, or Hobgoblin mercenaries.
Only a jerk would bushwack new players, I always try to let the players know how I see the world. And yeah, I agree about the good character. Now, that doesn't mean he's not going to defend himself if attacked, but a Good character in my world doesn't go out of his way to slaughter people. If people survive attacking him, a good character would probably stabilize them, and either turn them over to the local law, or remove their weapons and armor and send them on their way.
Outsiders are much more likely to be hard aligned, but even then, in my world, an outsider that is gated to the material plane has to build themselves a body of material plane matter to get here, it's part of the gating spells, and wrapping themselves in mortality (which is why they can be permakilled) also wraps them in the ability to change. So there are great ballads about fallen angels and fallen demons (obviously, a fallen demon has turned good). But nobody expects that to happen, and it's a one in a million occurrence.
I just don't like the idea of 'Hey, I can kill every orc I see, even babies, because they is [evil]!'. It offends my sense of heroism.
|
@#$% genocide. Unlike orcs and goblins, it's always evil. If one's course of action leads to baby-butchering, well that should set off some alarms.
So far it seems like this DM is looking at monsters as stat blocks. Now that I think about it, pursuing something like this for RP reasons would probably be a waste of time as it's been hack and slay since I started with this group. It's a good thought for my family game though, I know they would jump all over an Ogre Orphanage.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.
Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
It's the kind of encounter you build because you KNOW your players see orcs as inherently evil, even though all the other people in the area, apparently, don't see them that way.
As the DM, it's always within your power to make sure the players have made the wrong choice or will make the wrong choice, and then to punish them for making that choice. I just don't think it's what a good DM generally will do.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
I believe thats technically entrapment, right?
|
|
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
I use alignment.
Some orcs act like monsters and some act like people. They cover the full spectrum. My players haven't had any problems being morally consistant, because their morality isn't based on judging by race. They go by deeds.
After all, some humans act like monsters as well.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
I believe thats technically entrapment, right?
Not really. I think what it was was over reaction. I have no issue with changing the plot if the player has shown he's going to cheat. Sending him straight to hell for it was over-reaction, and probably did not fit with the power level at that point of the AP.
Personally, if I thought someone was monkeying around and cheating, I'd make sufficient changes that I could tell, and also make enough of them that rushing head long into it with forbidden knowledge would hurt, but not instadeath them. If it persisted, I'd ask the player to leave my game. I put up with a guy for a long time because he was a friend to the group, but I finally gave up and kicked him out for 2 years. Only after he all but begged to come back and swore up and down he wouldn't cheat anymore (actually offered to let other people roll for him if I wanted) was he allowed back in. Behaved himself from then on.
So far it seems like this DM is looking at monsters as stat blocks. Now that I think about it, pursuing something like this for RP reasons would probably be a waste of time as it's been hack and slay since I started with this group. It's a good thought for my family game though, I know they would jump all over an Ogre Orphanage.Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit. They came across a wrecked wagon with unconscious or dead merchants and guards. A group of four orcs were going through the wreckage with a fifth one leaning over one of the bodies, a bloody knife lying next to him. The party attack immediately and slaughtered the orcs before they could react.
They then discovered that the orc with the bloody knife had cut two arrows out of a wounded merchant and treat his wounds. She was also the daughter of of the local orc shaman. The other orcs were looking for pots to fill with water to clean wounds and clean cloth to use as bandages. Their tribe was allied with the village the merchants were from.
The players ended up in a political mess, being branded murderers by the orcs and having no support from the local humans. They eventually convinced the shaman to let them seek a means to resort those they had killed to life. They also had to get rid of the remaining bandits (with no reward for doing so).
The end result of all of that was that my players stopped judging monsters by their stats.
Wow man, great stuff!
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
It's the kind of encounter you build because you KNOW your players see orcs as inherently evil, even though all the other people in the area, apparently, don't see them that way.
As the DM, it's always within your power to make sure the players have made the wrong choice or will make the wrong choice, and then to punish them for making that choice. I just don't think it's what a good DM generally will do.
He was an Awesome DM in my opnion. The players didn't stop to think, or analize the situation. I would only do this if there was a Lawful Good character though, so they would at least have the decency to say "Stop there evildoer, or face the consequences" if he didn't well... too bad.
I loved that idea, really did.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
I believe thats technically entrapment, right?
Not really. I think what it was was over reaction. I have no issue with changing the plot if the player has shown he's going to cheat. Sending him straight to hell for it was over-reaction, and probably did not fit with the power level at that point of the AP.
Personally, if I thought someone was monkeying around and cheating, I'd make sufficient changes that I could tell, and also make enough of them that rushing head long into it with forbidden knowledge would hurt, but not instadeath them. If it persisted, I'd ask the player to leave my game. I put up with a guy for a long time because he was a friend to the group, but I finally gave up and kicked him out for 2 years. Only after he all but begged to come back and swore up and down he wouldn't cheat anymore (actually offered to let other people roll for him if I wanted) was he allowed back in. Behaved himself from then on.
Was this post intended for the cheating thread. It seems some post have been sent to the incorrect threads by accident lately.
|
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
I believe thats technically entrapment, right?
I don't know, I kind of like it. I would have no problems using it, since I tell my players ahead of time that there are no alignments, and no all-evil races. Only outsiders can be considered all-whatever, and even then there are fallen individuals of both sides.
If a group did that in one of my games, they'd get much the same handed to them.
Back in 2E, I screwed with my players a bit.Yeah, I think what you did there is kind of a dick move.
I believe thats technically entrapment, right?
I don't know, I kind of like it. I would have no problems using it, since I tell my players ahead of time that there are no alignments, and no all-evil races. Only outsiders can be considered all-whatever, and even then there are fallen individuals of both sides.
If a group did that in one of my games, they'd get much the same handed to them.
Its a matter of what information you actually give the party. Do you allow them a chance to perceive that the orcs have actually been trying to heal the wounded (Perception or Heal checks... impossible in 2E though right?)? Do you allow the players a chance at Sense Motive?
If you do not, then its definitely a trap.
Was this post intended for the cheating thread. It seems some post have been sent to the incorrect threads by accident lately.
Blech,
Sorry folks, my bad, got my threads mixed up when replying. :)I still don't think it was necessarily entrapment, it depends on the details. If the GM planned on having them trying screaming 'The Bandits are back!' on seeing the PCs, and the PCs toasted them all in the surprise round before they could talk, then no, the PCs did it to themselves. If he was bound and determined to stack the deck against the PCs until they got in trouble, then yeah, it's entrapment.
I would have no problems using it, since I tell my players ahead of time that there are no alignments, and no all-evil races.
That being the case, I think it's fair.
In the example given, apparently everyone around knows that orcs might be good, except somehow the PCs have no idea. Unless the players are extremely stupid, to get to that place requires some kind of dirty pool on the DM's part.
I have never cared for the "all (typically evil humanoid) must die because they are inherently evil" argument. As a DM I have always enjoyed offering up a few exceptions to the rule, and my players have (mostly) learned that to make universal assumptions about an npc could be to their later detriment.
One of the most fun rp moments we had was in Undermountain when the PC's ran into a group of adventuring orcs. They wound up sharing a camp in the middle of the dungeon due to the dangers all around and the next "morning" the orc adventurers bid the PC's goodbye with a fondly remembered (and often quoted) "gud luks to yas!"
In general, I like my npc's to have motives and play them accordingly. Their alignment definitely plays a role, but it doesn't have to be the driving factor. If you assume that all (evil humanoid race) are evil and want to exterminate them in my game, you may miss out on a valuable ally down the road.
Was this post intended for the cheating thread. It seems some post have been sent to the incorrect threads by accident lately.Blech,
Sorry folks, my bad, got my threads mixed up when replying. :)I still don't think it was necessarily entrapment, it depends on the details. If the GM planned on having them trying screaming 'The Bandits are back!' on seeing the PCs, and the PCs toasted them all in the surprise round before they could talk, then no, the PCs did it to themselves. If he was bound and determined to stack the deck against the PCs until they got in trouble, then yeah, it's entrapment.
Most people play according to a GM's style of running a game. If a GM is going to switch things up then there should be some notification. If the players were new to the GM, then it is better to observe things or ask before the game starts.
Consistency is important for many gamers.|
|
I just don't like the idea of 'Hey, I can kill every orc I see, even babies, because they is [evil]!'. It offends my sense of heroism.
As a GM, when I present a race of demi-humans as Monsters rather than People, part of that is making sure that the party never encounters children or non-combatants of that race. Either I retcon the race to reproduce asexually (like the Orks in 40K or Saruman's Uruk-Hai in the Movie version of Lord of the Rings), or I make the young just as dangerous and violent as the adults (just more animalistic) or else the party just never encounters non-combatants.
I just don't like the idea of 'Hey, I can kill every orc I see, even babies, because they is [evil]!'. It offends my sense of heroism.As a GM, when I present a race of demi-humans as Monsters rather than People, part of that is making sure that the party never encounters children or non-combatants of that race. Either I retcon the race to reproduce asexually (like the Orks in 40K or Saruman's Uruk-Hai in the Movie version of Lord of the Rings), or I make the young just as dangerous and violent as the adults (just more animalistic) or else the party just never encounters non-combatants.
I'm mildly OCD, and that would completely and utterly drive me insane. :) How do they survive if they have no non-combatants? :) Somebody has to make some of their stuff, at least the babies. :)
|
I don't think that it would affect their alignment. As a dwarf the whole concept of race war is ingrained in their society in most cases. Even the paladin code of Torag states:
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
If that is how a paladin acts towards their sworn enemies how then would someone without as stringent a code as a paladin act? Maybe slaughtering defenseless children could be considered evil but I don't think that attacking the adults and scattering the children would make a dwarf evil, it would just make him a dwarf.
ew, ew my turn at relevant game story-time!
Quite a few years back, out DM decided to put us through an old 1st Edition D&D module who's name I've long since forgot. We were all handed pre-built characters in the 15th to 20th level range, including a wizard, ranger, paladin, monk, rogue/wizard, and cleric. We are trying to get somewhere in the underdark or whatever it was called in the module and we came upon a civilization of Duegar, all blissfully unaware of the party and just going about their little duegar lives. Well they detect as evil to all of our spells and what not and as a group we decide that we cannot have such a large number of evil foes at our backside, so instead of just sneaking past their city, we decide they need to be dealt with. This is when we all decended into depths of horrible horrible murder.
their city was setup in several caverns all connected by a series of connected passages. So we decide it is best to divide and conquer. Setting up in one corridor, our cleric casts a Blade Barrier, followed by a Wall of Stone angled at a 45 degree angle to block the passage, we then cast Grease on the wall and then turn the whole thing invisible with an Invisibility Sphere, then the Rogue/Wizard (played by yours truly) goes down the tunnel and pops off a Cloud Kill spell, forcing the gathered warriors, women, children and various pets to run screaming for the tunnel. The few who made it through the Blade Barrier on the initial charge hit the invisible greased wall and promptly slid back into the garbage disposal, while those who kept presence of mind enough to not run through the blood cloud in front of them were pushed onward anyway by the mob behind them trying to flee the killing gas. The job of finishing off stragglers came to me, which I gleefully took to with my high backstab multiplier and immunity to the gas due to level. Oh and to make sure the other caverns didn't hear the screaming of their fellows, we blocked off the intersections of the passages with Silence spells.
The plan went off without a hitch, and the DM tood particular delight in describing the chunky salsa our spell combo had created. The table was silent for a few moments as the unsettling knowledge of what we had just done became apparent. In game and out of game, we felt dirty. Finally the Paladin's player spoke up; "We never talk about this day" is all he said, and then we left to continue on below on our "holy" mission.
good times, good times...
|
|
I use alignment.
Some orcs act like monsters and some act like people. They cover the full spectrum. My players haven't had any problems being morally consistant, because their morality isn't based on judging by race. They go by deeds.
After all, some humans act like monsters as well.
I would say then that you as a GM prefer to present your demi-humans as People. For me, it comes down to whether a creature of a particular type is redeemable or not. Some of them might not be, but if a significant portion are then those creatures are People.
Personally, I prefer orcs as less of a race and more as a force of nature - a seething tide of war and violence that occasionally rises and needs to be put down. I admit that situation gives itself more towards a type of Iron Age kind of us vs. them heroism which is not particularly realistic. It's a different play style.
|
|
I'm mildly OCD, and that would completely and utterly drive me insane. :) How do they survive if they have no non-combatants? :) Somebody has to make some of their stuff, at least the babies. :)
I'm very influenced in this by Games Workshop's Space Ork ecology, where the Orks and Gretchin and Squigs and all of the other related creatures reproduce by spores, grow in the ground, have several genetically, hard-wired castes that do different functions in the war effort, and every one of them is dangerous and ready to fight the minute it claws it's way out of the soil.
|
|
And thus the question of this thread.
Good outsiders are known to wipe out Evil races. Good outsiders abhor Evil acts, and arguably cannot perform Evil acts. Thus, we can say that if this is true, exterminating Evil races is not an Evil act.
Now we just need proof that it is a Good act instead of a Neutral act. Since Good outsiders have no problems performing Neutral acts.
I will state that killing is an Evil act, and Good outsiders do kill, thus they can perform Evil acts.
And thus the question of this thread.
Good outsiders are known to wipe out Evil races. Good outsiders abhor Evil acts, and arguably cannot perform Evil acts. Thus, we can say that if this is true, exterminating Evil races is not an Evil act.
Now we just need proof that it is a Good act instead of a Neutral act. Since Good outsiders have no problems performing Neutral acts.
I will state that killing is an Evil act, and Good outsiders do kill, thus they can perform Evil acts.
I always looked on outsiders as forms of antimatter. So, Good destroying Evil (and vise versa) isn't inherently good or evil in and of itself. It's just a hardwired natural force built into them at the cosmic level. A Good outsider who kills an evil creature in the planes is the same as an anti-hydrogen atom detonating a chunk of steel. Law/Chaos works similarly.
On the other hand, when they come to the mortal plain, they can commit acts of Good/Evil/Neutrality since they've taken on the mantle of mortality. Which is one giant reason why few outsiders come to the mortal plain, it's dangerous for them not just on a physical level, but also on a metaphysical level as well.
Cuts down on all those 'killing evil, angel kills, angel evil' arguments. :)
|
Some take on the mantle of monster-slayers and hunt powerful fiends and undead such as devourers, night hags, night shades, and pit fiends, even making forays into the evil planes and the Negative Energy Plane to destroy these creatures at their source before they can bring harm to mortals. A few very old solars have succeeded at this task and bear slayer-names of dread creatures that are now extinct by the solar’s hand.
I think it's worth noting that all of the example creatures mentioned have the evil subtype, and do not have seperate souls. So it goes along with my earlier post...attempting the (rather fruitless) task of trying to wipe out demons, devils, and the like - not evil.
On the other hand, trying to wipe out mortal creatures that are not inherently evil, even if they do have a predisposition towards evil, is itself evil.
So killing Evil is a Neutral act. :)
Usually. :)
|
|
I always looked on outsiders as forms of antimatter. So, Good destroying Evil (and vise versa) isn't inherently good or evil in and of itself. It's just a hardwired natural force built into them at the cosmic level. A Good outsider who kills an evil creature in the planes is the same as an anti-hydrogen atom detonating a chunk of steel. Law/Chaos works similarly.
On the other hand, when they come to the mortal plain, they can commit acts of Good/Evil/Neutrality since they've taken on the mantle of mortality. Which is one giant reason why few outsiders come to the mortal plain, it's dangerous for them not just on a physical level, but also on a metaphysical level as well.
Cuts down on all those 'killing evil, angel kills, angel evil' arguments. :)
This was very well put. I will also add that most outsiders and undead do not technically count as "races".
I will state that killing is an Evil act, and Good outsiders do kill, thus they can perform Evil acts.
I disagree. I think killing can be a not even just Neutral but fully Good act.
I don't think killing can ever be considered a "good" act, even if the end result of said killing is objectively good. If you kill Hitler to prevent him from killing more Jews than you are aren't good, you're justified. But you are good for caring about the Jews.
I remember once I heard about a game run by a TSR employee at a convention. A player was playing a Paladin of Tyr, the Lawful Neutral God of Law in Forgotten Realms. They were in Calimport, where slavery is legal. The Paladin saw a wizard giving orders to an elf, quite obviously his slave. He proceeded to chastise the wizard and forced him to free the elf. Later, when they got into combat... he was a gimped fighter. Tyr, the God of Law, took away his Paladinhood because, wrong as he might think slavery is, it's LEGAL in Calimshan, so the Paladin broke the law in freeing the slave without compensating his owner for his value, an evil act for a Paladin of Tyr.
Also, Pathfinder doesn't do "always evil" "usually evil" and "often evil" like D&D always did. The alignments are suggestions based on the dominant alignment of most members, but there are always exceptions. The only ones that could be considered to be "always evil" is outsiders, and even then, there ARE exceptions.
As for killing being "good" it depends. If a succubus is going around seducing and killing men and she is immune to being banished or she's been banished but keeps returning... if the only thing to do is kill her to stop her, then killing her is good. If you go "Eeek a succubus! Kill it!" then that's evil, but if you have seen her evil works and there is no other way to stop her, you simply must kill her, then it's not evil to do so, it's your duty as a agent of good to stop her evil. In the case of Hitler (Godwin's Law btw), he's not able to teleport or seduce people into letting him go (at least not supernaturally... he definitely had Charisma 20), so lifetime in prison would work for him. So, just walking up to him and shooting him in the head, probably not a good act.
Someone simply having an evil alignment does not justify murdering them. Good people kill only in self defense or in the defense of others. Good people try to redeem evil people if they can. Good people will only kill as a last resort. You see it alot in movies and comic books. The hero will still offer the bad guy his hand when he's hanging on the ledge, even after all of his evil acts.
Someone simply having an evil alignment does not justify murdering them. Good people kill only in self defense or in the defense of others. Good people try to redeem evil people if they can. Good people will only kill as a last resort. You see it alot in movies and comic books. The hero will still offer the bad guy his hand when he's hanging on the ledge, even after all of his evil acts.
Yep, like I've been watching Charmed again lately, and I'm on season 4 now where Balthasor/Cole is still struggling with his demon half. Had they vanquished him last season, they would have been sorta justified, however the better thing is to let him try to be good, because being half-demon he's got a chance. At this point, killing Balthasor/Cole would be evil, as he's at least so far, TRYING to be good.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, as TriOmegaZero, says "killing is an evil act," then I got to say...the game really encourages players to be evil.
I think that the moral quagmire that is created when one suggests that there are such a thing as "good orcs" (or even the possibility of good orcs) is a primary cause of "murdering hobos." I think murdering hobos is a direct consequence of DM's forcing a Gray Vs Gray morality on players who want to play Black Vs White morality. Or more specifically, I think murdering hobos is what happens when DM's force the post-modern ethics of moral relativism onto a game that is implicitly welded to a pre-modern ethics of tribalism.
I want orcs to be the indians in old Westerns: evil, vicious savages who need to be killed to protect the gallant and heroic settlers who brave the wilds of the frontier. I want Orcs to be the constant threat to those humans living on the frontier, and I want players to feel like driving orcs from the face of the earth and making it safe for humankind makes them heroes.
What I don't want is orcs to be the Native Americans of Dances With Wolves. I don't want orcs to be The Other, because that complete alters the challenge of the story.
I want to be able to run Keep on the Borderlands as a story of heroes destroying a vile nest of evil humanoids and thus securing the frontier and allowing for the positive growth of the "human empire." A "human empire" in which they can eventually rise to a leadership position, founding their own kingdoms on lands cleared of orcs and other monstrous savages.
But as soon as you introduce the possibility that orcs could be good, then Keep on the Borderlands (as written) is a story about the genocidal conquerors -- imperialist swine! - who viciously provoke attacks from native species by invading their sovereign space and threatening their own communal stability. The Caves of Chaos become a beautiful interspecies community of thriving diversity, destroyed by the Klansmen-like "adventurers" in order to make a quick buck.
And frankly, that seems like a real dick move to pull on the average D&D players, who in my experience is not looking to be thrown into a morally ambiguous quagmire from which there is no escape.
Introduce gray vs gray morality and suddenly Keep on the Borderlands, the classic D&D adventure, becomes pure murdering hobo territory if the players engage in the roles the adventure expects them to engage in. Which isn't to say that there's no room at all for that kind of morally ambiguous theme. This is why lizardmen exist (in general and in KotB specifically). They're totally peaceful and not a threat...as long as you leave them in peace. Invade their territory, destroy their habitat, and you make an enemy of them.
Or, you know, if you really want to play up the moral ambiguity, make the bad guys other human beings.
But leave orcs and other evil humanoids to their role as guilt-free targets of slaughter and mayhem. Because that's what a lot of people want out of D&D, a chance to go out and solve a problem through the most direct means possible (i.e. with a sword), and that's what orcs are there for. To give those players something to work out their frustration on. What those players don't want is a DM who pulls the rug out from under their heroics by turning those heroics into the acts of an oppressor.
This is why I go with WH40K style orcs, mixed with a bit of Tolkien. My orcs spontaneously generate from bloodstained earth, and rise as full adult males who embody the most bestial aspects of man, untempered by any conscience or redeeming quality. They are pure and elemental rage and fury, and you cannot redeem them.
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?
Well, really, all you need to do is kill the warriors. Other evil opportunistic b@stards will take care of the rest. Maybe even their own type. As for attempted genocide, PCs will never have the power or reach to do it in anything except a small area. And yeah, that would be evil. Judge the PCs by what they do, not what others may or may not do. It's easier and, I think, more "just".