Racism and Alignment

[Addem Up]

I was wondering how racism fits in with alignments, specifically in a scenario. Is it always considered an evil act, or is it more of a gray area?

In the first scenario, there was a group of mostly CG adventurers attacking an orc camp. The orcs were known to have attacked stolen from a nearby town, and their leader was rumored to be a demon. After killing most of the group and interrogating another, the party began to deliberate whether or not to let him go. As they argued, the CG cleric killed the bound prisoner. His reasoning was partly so that the orcs wouldn't gain information about them, and partly because the prisoner was an orc.

Since the cleric's motivations for his actions were partially based on keeping his companions safe, I don't see that as an evil act. But what about the other part of his argument?

[Eltacolibre]

What is considered evil? It's all about the intent really. The way I keep it simple, if someone is being malicious in their intent, it's an evil act. If you on the other hand, you are doing an act for the greater good, its good act maybe with a slight penalty to your alignment but not by a lot.

Some acts tho are evil without questions, like a good character summoning Pazuzu to get a wish...yeah switch that alignment.

[Jeven]

In your example, it was an orc. An orc is not human, so its not racism.

You could have a campaign where orcs are just odd-looking humans (with the same variation in character as humans), but they are usually depicted in fantasy as bloodthirsty, evil monsters.
As evil monsters you don't have to philosophize about them. They are simply villainous things to be killed.

[Drannor Hawksley]

A facet of chaotic characters would not stand for imprisonment, it was either let evil go, to possibly do more evil, or to put it out of its misery. I'd say the cleric made the right call, they freed the orc from continued evil and imprisonment (by killing them).

What is the cleric's Faith? Their God's/Goddess' tenants likely would determine what to do as well.

[Cao Phen]

Here is an excerpt from Champions of Purity, which would sort of go with something like this:

Spoiler:

Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem [of dead goblins leaving babies].

One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young one to take them to a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, might decide to raise them himself!

Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature-either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not.

Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

[Banjoman87]

I think these sort of Alignment issues, especially for Divine spellcasters, need to be thought of in the context of the Deity that the character is a follower of.

Some gods are all about redemption and forgiveness. Shelyn, for example, dictates that her followers not take a life unless absolutely necessary to prevent further loss of life. Sarenrae preaches redemption for those willing to accept it. If the Cleric followed a deity of redemption, his/her actions may not be viewed very favorably by their deity.

Other gods take the more stern view of Judgement, Justice, and Vengeance. Iomedae comes to mind as a god which would probably not mind when a cleric in her service slays a known evil-doer, and may even applaud such a follower for exacting punishment/vengeance/justice.

Other deities just have their own agendas which may come into play. Desna has a long-standing grudge against Lamashtu, "the Mother of Monsters". It seems reasonable that a Cleric of Desna would have little moral trouble with the idea of ridding the world of another misshapen fiend, whether it was helpless or not.

And still other deities might just not care at all, one way or another. Gorum, the god of War, for instance, would likely not mind, and if the killing was for the greater good, I'd imagine that the character could reconcile it to him/her self.

So was it an Evil act? Maybe, but maybe not. I think the better question is, "Was the act within the realm of what a deity might find acceptable for their clergy?"

[Captain Wacky]

Here's the kicker. Most Orcs are vile, evil monsters. Killing one so it can't continue its life of evil deeds is a good thing. Although evil in nature it's still a sentient being. It can still, technically be reasoned with. Killing in the heat of battle is one thing. Killing a bound and helpless prisoner, even if it is an Orc is Murder. Evil for the sake of "the greater good" is still evil. That makes you an anti-hero, not a hero. It's the differance between Punisher and Superman.

It was the right call in general, but the wrong call for his alignment. You have to look at your alignment as a whole not one part or the other. Chaotic prizes freedom, and good will kill in the heat of battle, but shouldn't murder prisoners. given his alignment, if he doesn't want a penalty, he shoulda let the orc go.

That doesn't mean you can't occationally step out of alignmment, but he should have to atone now.

If you wanna kill the helpless even if they are evil, be neutral or evil yourself. Or leave it to a neutral or evil member of the party. The good aligned can walk away and have no part in it although they know it has to be done. The neutral and evil will do what they need to do.

Also, good rule of thumb.
If you have to ask if a particular act is "evil"... 99% it probably is.
If you have to ask if a particular act is "good"... 99% it probably isn't.

[LazarX]

Addem Up wrote:

I was wondering how racism fits in with alignments, specifically in a scenario. Is it always considered an evil act, or is it more of a gray area?

With questions as grey, subtle, and loaded as this one will be, I will go by my usual fallback, and say it has to be judged on a case by case basis.

It's extremely dangerous to try to postulate a general rule for something as variable as this would be.

[Captain Wacky]

Cao Phen wrote:

Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

^ That is not only Murder, but delusional if you think killing the babies of a sentient race is an act of "good". You are Murdering Babies! you are Chaotic Evil. Will they grow up to be evil! 99.9% yes... as a "good" person it is your duty to show compassion and mercy, that's what makes you morally superior to your enemies. That's what makes you "good"!

Again... if you want to take the "greater good" route... be neutral or evil. You can THINK your "good" and justify the murder of the helpless all you want in your head. But an act of evil is an act of evil.

[Drachasor]

Captain Wacky wrote:

Cao Phen wrote:

Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

^ That is not only Murder, but delusional if you think killing the babies of a sentient race is an act of "good". You are Murdering Babies! you are Chaotic Evil. Will they grow up to be evil! 99.9% yes... as a "good" person it is your duty to show compassion and mercy, that's what makes you morally superior to your enemies. That's what makes you "good"!

Again... if you want to take the "greater good" route... be neutral or evil. You can THINK your "good" and justify the murder of the helpless all you want in your head. But an act of evil is an act of evil.

Yeah, for all the flaws of the Book of Exalted Deeds, it never said anything that crazy.

Baby killing is bad.

Orcs aren't inherently evil. If you kill one because you think "Orcs are evil monsters", then yeah, that's racism. It's also evil (and there's a difference).

You could have a Paladin that's racist. Say an Elf that looks down on all the other races as immature, foolish, etc, etc. He might roll his eyes at their antics, judge them, find them lacking, and say mean things. However, as a Paladin, he'd still sacrifice his life to save their foolish lives, defend them from slavery, death, etc. There's no inherent contradiction there (and probably he'd choose Elf lives if he was given a no-win scenario with no third option). Don't get me wrong though, the Elf here is a total jerk. A LG Paladin total jerk, but still a total jerk. Good need not be nice.

However, using racism to justify murder of helpless prisoners is evil. "Killing if doing so is convenient" is part of the definition of evil. I think sometimes the Pathfinder books forget that, especially ones in the default setting.

[Cao Phen]

Captain Wacky wrote:

Cao Phen wrote:

Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

^ That is not only Murder, but delusional if you think killing the babies of a sentient race is an act of "good". You are Murdering Babies! you are Chaotic Evil. Will they grow up to be evil! 99.9% yes... as a "good" person it is your duty to show compassion and mercy, that's what makes you morally superior to your enemies. That's what makes you "good"!

Again... if you want to take the "greater good" route... be neutral or evil. You can THINK your "good" and justify the murder of the helpless all you want in your head. But an act of evil is an act of evil.

I was just restating what was inside the official Paizo/Pathfinder book aimed at characters of the Good alignment. It also had situations where your party paladin is joined by an evil wizard. They have a whole two pages of text depicting good characters in bad situations (Which is the actual header of that specific subject)

So if you really want to discuss why killing goblins for a just cause is an evil act, you can try and talk to Jessica Blomstrom, Adam Diagle, Shaun Hocking, Daniel Marthaler, Tork Shaw, and Christina Stiles, aka the authors of Champions of Purity.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

I could see a bunch of rangers from Gondor burning a nest of orcs to the ground, babies and all. But then again Tolkien seems to cleverly avoid the issue of baby monsters, and his monsters seem to sprout from the ground fully grown (as per Two Towers movie).

Rangers from Lawful societies like Gondor would see it a duty to eradicate all monsters from their land. Not sure if it would be "good" or "evil", but certainly along the line of lawful along the lines of animal population control, bear relocation or deer hunting quotas...

[Captain Wacky]

Cao Phen wrote:

I was just restating what was inside the official Paizo/Pathfinder book aimed at characters of the Good alignment. It also had situations where your party paladin is joined by an evil wizard. They have a whole two pages of text depicting good characters in bad situations (Which is the actual header of that specific subject)

So if you really want to discuss why killing goblins for a just cause is an evil act, you can try and talk to Jessica Blomstrom, Adam Diagle, Shaun Hocking, Daniel Marthaler, Tork Shaw, and Christina Stiles, aka the authors of Champions of Purity.

Noted. And I should have been a bit clearer in my rant. I wasn't saying You specifically were delusional, it was more a general statement.

I may do that. I can see killing them as neutral IF and only IF goblins were evil in the same way demons and devils are evil. Evil by the nature of their existance. But still never a good act.

[137ben]

By the core rules description of alignment, racism falls under Lawful Evil.

Beyond that? Argue away!

[Captain Wacky]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I could see a bunch of rangers from Gondor burning a nest of orcs to the ground, babies and all. But then again Tolkien seems to cleverly avoid the issue of baby monsters, and his monsters seem to sprout from the ground fully grown (as per Two Towers movie).

Rangers from Lawful societies like Gondor would see it a duty to eradicate all monsters from their land. Not sure if it would be "good" or "evil", but certainly along the line of lawful along the lines of animal population control, bear relocation or deer hunting quotas...

That seems to be more LN than good or evil, as it is the very nature of orcs in that setting to be corrupted and twisted.

I play my own world and I'm not up on Golorian(sp?) goblin lore in depth enough to make an assurtion as to their complete nature. But from what I've seen they don't seem to be evil in the same way demons and devils are. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT:
Let me be a little clearer on this math. Orcs in Tolkien=evil 100%.
Killing babies=evil
Ridding the world of evil=good
So G+E+L(duty)=LN
This might change a bit if you add... Taking pleasure in killing babies=Evil
Then it's G+E+E+L=LE

[Mikaze]

Captain Wacky wrote:

I play my own world and I'm not up on Golorian(sp?) goblin lore in depth enough to make an assurtion as to their complete nature. But from what I've seen they don't seem to be evil in the same way demons and devils are. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

They aren't. In fact, multiple non-evil goblin NPCs have shown up by now. A heroic, good orc is the father of a popular half-orc NPC. Kobolds of Golarion has a feat specifically for good kobold heroes. There's a feat for aasimar born from orcs, goblins, etc that is all about leading their parent race towards better directions.

Personally, baby murder and genocide are the domain of the bad guys.

[Drachasor]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I could see a bunch of rangers from Gondor burning a nest of orcs to the ground, babies and all. But then again Tolkien seems to cleverly avoid the issue of baby monsters, and his monsters seem to sprout from the ground fully grown (as per Two Towers movie).

Rangers from Lawful societies like Gondor would see it a duty to eradicate all monsters from their land. Not sure if it would be "good" or "evil", but certainly along the line of lawful along the lines of animal population control, bear relocation or deer hunting quotas...

Tolkien wrestled a great deal with the issue of redemption and whether Orcs and Goblins in the Middle Earth setting were irredeemably evil. He was very uncomfortable with the idea that they were. That's probably why we don't ever seem them surrender or anything like that. He avoided the issue in his books.

Gollum was about as twisted by evil as they come, and Tolkien showed that he was redeemable (even if that process got screwed up).

In any case, killing because it is more convenient is Evil by definition in the D&D setting (and I think Tolkien would agree with that principle). For whatever it is worth, I don't think he'd ever have Aragorn kill a prisoner, even a goblin or orc one. Not unless there was some legal proceeding.

[awp832]

Killing a helpless and bound prisoner is an Evil act, regardless of whether it was motivated by racism or not. If motivated by racism it's murder and a hate crime. If not, it's just murder.

In your players case, if even part of the reason was "because he is an orc" then it's murder and a hate crime.

[Dukal]

As the DM for my group, I do like to have moral questions and situations for my players to be in. However, there are some things that I avoid simply because you can drive yourself and your players crazy trying to figure them out. The alignment system has always had a lot of issues and different interpretations, and so I like to try and have situations that are difficult but not clear-cut. I would probably not have my players find a group of goblin babies after killing all of the combative adults because it puts the group in a situation that is almost impossible to resolve due to the alignment system. However, I would totally have adult goblin prisoners and see where they take it. There is a big difference between killing adults who recently threatened you (though it may still be evil) and murdering children, regardless of their races.

[Zhayne]

awp832 wrote:

Killing a helpless and bound prisoner is an Evil act, regardless of whether it was motivated by racism or not. If motivated by racism it's murder and a hate crime. If not, it's just murder.

In your players case, if even part of the reason was "because he is an orc" then it's murder and a hate crime.

This.

[Zhayne]

Dukal wrote:

I would probably not have my players find a group of goblin babies after killing all of the combative adults because it puts the group in a situation that is almost impossible to resolve due to the alignment system.

Another very good reason to throw out the alignment system.

[dwayne germaine]

Expect table variance?

Some DMs will call you out for evil if you kill the young goblins, some DMs will have the little orphan goblins murder the people who you convinced to try to raise them up to be good upstanding citizens, and make it perfectly clear that you are to blame (at least in the eyes of the community). The books in one place lead us to believe that it's perfectly acceptable to slay them as beasts, and in many others at least imply that you are horrible fiends for doing that.

This comes into the realm of things that you need to discuss with the people that you play with, and come to a consensus about how it will work in your game. No one can say that you are doing it wrong if your group agrees how it should be handled.

[MagusJanus]

The answer of racism versus alignment is... complicated.

Pretty much, racism indicated beliefs; it doesn't necessarily indicate actions. For example, let's take a look in the core rulebook and see how many of the core races are, according to their write-ups in the Core Rule Book, racist. Here's the list:

Dwarves
Elves
Halflings
Humans

Note I didn't list what each race is racist against; that's because, except for halflings, most of them have a rather long list of races they discriminate against. And this is just from write-ups intended to detail how they interact with each other. So if you consider racism to be a mark of an evil race, then you have to accept that most of the player races are evil.

That is why, in general, I don't believe this topic should really be addressed in-depth. Because you can't use modern morals to judge it as good or evil without running into the problem that the number of non-evil races quickly dwindles to nothing. It's far better to judge how they act upon it and treat each other; someone who believes orcs to be inferior but is still willing to give medical aid, food, and shelter to a wounded orc and treat them decently despite not liking them for what they are probably is, at heart, probably a good person. Someone who murders orc babies because they believe orcs are inferior definitely is definitely evil.

All in all, racism doesn't fit into the alignment system because it is purely grey morality and the alignment system wasn't actually set up to handle that and you can't address it using black and white morality without either judging racism to be a good thing or judging most of the player races to be inherently evil in alignment.

[Dukal]

I love playing other games without an alignment system, and a lot of my best role-playing experiences have been in those games. However, the idea of good, evil, law and chaos are not just a part of the system but a significant part of the rules as well. It would be incredibly difficult to change that.

I agree with dwayne, that you need to know your table. I also think that you can run difficult role-playing encounters without putting players in situations where they cannot really win, since there are a lot of different ways to view whatever course of action they choose.

[Ruggs]

In most cases, the murder of such things is an evil act.

However, in the specific case of: if the world you are playing in uses evil-by-nature and good-by-nature then it may potentially be arguable in fringe cases. If this is so, speak with your dm.

Note, this isn't saying I agree with it, it's more admitting that tables are going to vary sometimes.

As a caveat, a table may still use evil-by-nature and view the killing of small children as a negative thing...because even in settings such as these, there's that chance (however a longshot it is) of redemption.

In settings such as these, it tends to fall in the realm of epic taletelling.

As an aside, and I'm using a bit of strong language here, but only because it's descriptive: the "baby murder scenario" is an infamous Jerk DM tactic when it comes to messing with paladins. Work with your players, communicate, and...don't do things like that just "because paladin."

Or cleric.

[Captain Wacky]

awp832 wrote:

Killing a helpless and bound prisoner is an Evil act, regardless of whether it was motivated by racism or not. If motivated by racism it's murder and a hate crime. If not, it's just murder.

In your players case, if even part of the reason was "because he is an orc" then it's murder and a hate crime.

Well "hate crime" is a legal term and a relativly new one at that. I doubt most societies in most fantasy settings would make killing an Orc a crime and thus would not face a trial (unless you're playing Midnight). So unless there is a law in place this doesn't really apply.

Murder is murder no matter if you hate the person or not. In fact if you Don't hate the person it's even worse cause then you just like to kill. Then you're even More morally corrupt because you have No reason for your actions. "I don't hate Orcs, I just like how they bleed".

The issue here is what does his god think? Murdering an Orc is more of a moral issue(gods point of view) rather than a legal issue. If his god is a bad blood enemie of Orcs (s)he might just look the other way. If not...

[Weirdo]

This is not a case of killing orcish babies. It's the case of killing a prisoner who has done bad things. To say that killing a helpless person is always evil is to say that the death penalty is always evil, and though I don't want to debate that IRL I feel that in most game worlds that is an unreasonable moral judgment. Killing for convenience is Evil, but killing to rid the world of evil is not. Otherwise good-aligned attacks like Smite Evil or Holy Word would deal nonlethal damage by default. And in some areas, particularly lawless wilderness, there is no higher authority than the PCs to which to appeal for this judgment.

I can also absolutely see a CG character who feels that it is more merciful to execute a prisoner than to imprison them.

In this particular circumstance I think the sentence was overly harsh. The OP says that the orcs were stealing, and even if their leader was a demon nonviolent crimes shouldn't deserve death. The fact that the killing was partly motivated by racial prejudice would definitely push this into the "evil act" camp for me. But not enough to change the cleric's alignment.

In general I'd say that racism is evil when it causes someone to harm members of a despised race. It doesn't necessarily make a character evil depending on the magnitude (refuse to help an orc vs kill/enslave orcs on sight) and I think it's possible for a good character to be racist as long as they try to temper it with a general respect for life and don't hurt innocents because of their race.

Captain Wacky wrote:

That doesn't mean you can't occationally step out of alignmment, but he should have to atone now.

Why? A single evil act isn't enough to change alignment unless it's very abhorrent and even if the cleric did drop down to CN they wouldn't lose their divine powers unless their god was NG. They'd only need to atone if their deity specifically preached redemption and mercy (eg Shelyn, Sarenrae).

Captain Wacky wrote:

If you wanna kill the helpless even if they are evil, be neutral or evil yourself. Or leave it to a neutral or evil member of the party. The good aligned can walk away and have no part in it although they know it has to be done. The neutral and evil will do what they need to do.

I fiercely disagree. Supporting or enabling an evil act is evil. Some good characters might even think it's their responsibility to take on any morally dubious but "necessary" actions. Ned Stark would be an example ("The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword"). A Jedi-like character might have a similar view in that Jedi believe it is only possible to kill morally when acting without aggression or anger , and might believe that allowing a neutral or evil character to perform an execution in anger would endanger their soul.

[Captain Wacky]

Weirdo wrote:

This is not a case of killing orcish babies.

Agreed, that's more of a side discussion.

Weirdo wrote:

To say that killing a helpless person is always evil is to say that the death penalty is always evil, and though I don't want to debate that IRL I feel that in most game worlds that is an unreasonable moral judgment. Killing for convenience is Evil, but killing to rid the world of evil is not. Otherwise good-aligned attacks like Smite Evil or Holy Word would deal nonlethal damage by default. And in some areas, particularly lawless wilderness, there is no higher authority than the PCs to which to appeal for this judgment.

The death penalty is not evil, it the end product of due process in wich an individual's crimes has been deemed by society to be "unforgivable". It is execution, not murder.

They took the Orc prisoner instead of killing him in battle or making sure he was dead afterwards. That moves this case from simply "removing an evil from the world" to "murdering a helpless prisoner".

Weirdo wrote:

In this particular circumstance I think the sentence was overly harsh. The OP says that the orcs were stealing, and even if their leader was a demon nonviolent crimes shouldn't deserve death. The fact that the killing was partly motivated by racial prejudice would definitely push this into the "evil act" camp for me. But not enough to change the cleric's alignment.

I'd have to disagree, when the Orc was taken as a prisoner it changed the story. If he had simply been killed in battle it wouldn't be an issue. But the -->"Good Cleric"<-- a man who has taken vows to be a good person... has commited murder against someone who his party had volentarily taken as a captive.

Captain Wacky wrote:

That doesn't mean you can't occationally step out of alignmment, but he should have to atone now.

Weirdo wrote:

Why? A single evil act isn't enough to change alignment unless it's very abhorrent and even if the cleric did drop down to CN they wouldn't lose their divine powers unless their god was NG. They'd only need to atone if their deity specifically preached redemption and mercy (eg Shelyn, Sarenrae).

Because murder Is abhorrant. Any religeon that is "good" will teach that. That being said, I realized I've opened the atonement issue w/o full knowledge of the character in question and said god he has devoted himself to. Unless I missed that somewhere in an earlier post.

OP, care to go into further detail? Who does this guy worship? That might clear up a few things and give some perspective.

[Marthkus]

Paladins should eat goblin babies.

[Captain Wacky]

Marthkus wrote:

Paladins should eat goblin babies.

Agreed.

[Andrew R]

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

[Marthkus]

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

Unfortunately they went the 4th ED route

[Captain Wacky]

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

I'm not sure if anyone is actually of that opinion.

[Drachasor]

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

There's a world of difference between thinking bad guys need a hug and treating prisoners properly (especially considering you accepted the surrender).

Behaving evilly towards Orcs doesn't make you much different than them.

[dwayne germaine]

Captain Wacky wrote:

The death penalty is not evil, it the end product of due process in be "unforgivable". It is execution, not murder.

I'd have to disagree, when the Orc was taken as a prisoner it changed the story. If he had simply been killed in battle it wouldn't be an issue. But the -->"Good Cleric"<-- a man who has taken vows to be a good person... has commited murder against someone who his party had volentarily taken as a captive.

I feel that it's important to point out here that even if we are assuming that this game is concerned with how redeemable orcs are, we don't have enough info to really cast judgement here. Often on the frontier, with no real military powers around and no "Law" beyond the edge of the village, the characters may have to take steps that even though they feel are distasteful, are certainly for the "good of the village" It's not really clear if this is the case but at least it seems like there was some dispute between members of the party about it.

It's up to them to decide if this was a case of overzealousness, or wanton cruelty, or justice, or something in between.

[Andrew R]

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

There's a world of difference between thinking bad guys need a hug and treating prisoners properly (especially considering you accepted the surrender).

Behaving evilly towards Orcs doesn't make you much different than them.

Execution for crimes is proper treatment.

[Drachasor]

Andrew R wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

There's a world of difference between thinking bad guys need a hug and treating prisoners properly (especially considering you accepted the surrender).

Behaving evilly towards Orcs doesn't make you much different than them.

Execution for crimes is proper treatment.

That requires a proper legal proceeding to be valid, really. There's a reason why there are court cases even when it seems like the case is a slam dunk. Note that not every slam dunk case ends up actually being made, since appearances can be deceiving. This is especially true in a world of illusions, summoned monsters, mind control, etc, etc.

But hey, if you don't care about evidence, justice, or whatnot, go ahead and kill your prisoners without trial. Still evil though, because you just don't want to deal with the hassle of doing it properly.

[Cao Phen]

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

There's a world of difference between thinking bad guys need a hug and treating prisoners properly (especially considering you accepted the surrender).

Behaving evilly towards Orcs doesn't make you much different than them.

Execution for crimes is proper treatment.

That requires a proper legal proceeding to be valid, really. There's a reason why there are court cases even when it seems like the case is a slam dunk. Note that not every slam dunk case ends up actually being made, since appearances can be deceiving. This is especially true in a world of illusions, summoned monsters, mind control, etc, etc.

But hey, if you don't care about evidence, justice, or whatnot, go ahead and kill your prisoners without trial. Still evil though, because you just don't want to deal with the hassle of doing it properly.

This is correct. Would the execution be proper if the trial or information is corrupt? If the Mob made the trial, would that be a proper proceeding? If a Paladin was raised up by a commander who has a vast hatred of orcs, would the mindset of the Paladin be corrupt, since that is the only thing they know?

[Roberta Yang]

What I'm learning from this thread is never even consider taking prisoners and just exterminate all the brutes.

[Andrew R]

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hug

There's a world of difference between thinking bad guys need a hug and treating prisoners properly (especially considering you accepted the surrender).

Behaving evilly towards Orcs doesn't make you much different than them.

Execution for crimes is proper treatment.

That requires a proper legal proceeding to be valid, really. There's a reason why there are court cases even when it seems like the case is a slam dunk. Note that not every slam dunk case ends up actually being made, since appearances can be deceiving. This is especially true in a world of illusions, summoned monsters, mind control, etc, etc.

But hey, if you don't care about evidence, justice, or whatnot, go ahead and kill your prisoners without trial. Still evil though, because you just don't want to deal with the hassle of doing it properly.

Why? if you have witnessed the acts you do what must be done. this is not modern america. Wild west at best.

[Roberta Yang]

Let's spend the next week carting these orcs back to the nearest place with an actual dungeon. It's a bit of a delay but I'm sure the orphans we were meant to be rescuing won't mind.

[Andrew R]

Roberta Yang wrote:

Let's spend the next week carting these orcs back to the nearest place with an actual dungeon. It's a bit of a delay but I'm sure the orphans we were meant to be rescuing won't mind.

Or let them go with a stern warning so they can return to the rape and pillage....

[Cao Phen]

So that would mean that in the "Wild West", you shoot anything that would threaten you, even kids?

[lemeres]

Well, over all I would try to separate the issue of racism (which, arguably, has some merit in a world were there are races like ogres and trolls, which are so physiologically different that they can represent a serious danger to the society), and instead focus on the act of killing a prisoner. Let's ignore the race and just look at the orc as a bandit, of any race.

Lets say that you captured almost every raider, of any race, you faced alive, and turned the, over the proper authorities (and that they do not immediately hang them). The criminals get put into prisons. But think of how many you face throughout your career. Hundreds. And that is just the ones you personally meet and capture. Think of how many there would have to be running around. The system cannot handle that many prisoners, and there would be massive threats of prison riots and escapes if it tried.

This in fact brings up the reason why there are even adventurers, as in armed mercenaries hired by civilians to fight various threats, in the first place. The typical setting for RPGs are wild lands where authority is relatively weak compared to modern society, and one must defend themselves by the sword. So ultimately, the authority and responsibility of what to do with bandits often comes down to the people who caught them.

So if you do not stop the raiders, who will? If you let them go, what stops them from coming back and raiding again? If you look at various historical tribal societies, the options of what to do with captured enemies were either to keep them under your watch as slaves, kill them, or allow them the chance to come back under the cover of night to slit your family's throats. So, if you are acting for the good of the community that is being victimized by these raiders, you only have two options, and imprisonment is not very feasible (unless the party and GM really go out of their way).

[Andrew R]

Cao Phen wrote:

So that would mean that in the "Wild West", you shoot anything that would threaten you, even kids?

Depends on the threat. Does a child with a bomb blow up any less than an adult? Will he make any less innocent casualties in a town full of innocents? Can you effectively stop him another way?

[Cao Phen]

Let us say you are searching for your compatriot that went missing after a fight with some orcs. You tracked the orcs' lair and slew the warriors guarding the area. You walk into the alcove and in your horror, your compatriot's body is being eaten by orcish children. They were raised up to eat the food given. They look at you and see that you want to take thier food away and ready to attack. You do not have enough resources to subdue the orc children, so what to do? It is a heinous crime for consuming you friend, but they are still only children.

[Andrew R]

Cao Phen wrote:

Let us say you are searching for your compatriot that went missing after a fight with some orcs. You tracked the orcs' lair and slew the warriors guarding the area. You walk into the alcove and in your horror, your compatriot's body is being eaten by orcish children. They were raised up to eat the food given. They look at you and see that you want to take thier food away and ready to attack. You do not have enough resources to subdue the orc children, so what to do? It is a heinous crime for consuming you friend, but they are still only children.

I kill them to put them out of their misery because otherwise they will be left for dead. What would you do? What would you do if too pressed for time to search for an orphanage to take them in?

[Captain Wacky]

Cao Phen wrote:

Let us say you are searching for your compatriot that went missing after a fight with some orcs. You tracked the orcs' lair and slew the warriors guarding the area. You walk into the alcove and in your horror, your compatriot's body is being eaten by orcish children. They were raised up to eat the food given. They look at you and see that you want to take thier food away and ready to attack. You do not have enough resources to subdue the orc children, so what to do? It is a heinous crime for consuming you friend, but they are still only children.

LG-Retreat (they're only kids)

LN-Kill, intimidate, subdue (whatever you have to do to get them to stop)
LE-Kill them (they're ganna frow up to be killers and rapists anyways)
NG-as LG
N- *however you wanna rationalize what you're going to do*
NE-Kill them (it'll be good practice)
CG-Intimidate, subdue (whatever you have to do to get them to stop other than kill)
CN-*flips a coin*
CE-"HAHAHA Listen to them SCREAM!!!"

[Mikaze]

Andrew R wrote:

Cao Phen wrote:

Let us say you are searching for your compatriot that went missing after a fight with some orcs. You tracked the orcs' lair and slew the warriors guarding the area. You walk into the alcove and in your horror, your compatriot's body is being eaten by orcish children. They were raised up to eat the food given. They look at you and see that you want to take thier food away and ready to attack. You do not have enough resources to subdue the orc children, so what to do? It is a heinous crime for consuming you friend, but they are still only children.

I kill them to put them out of their misery because otherwise they will be left for dead. What would you do? What would you do if too pressed for time to search for an orphanage to take them in?

Retire my character if necessary to raise and protect them.