One, 'Default' doesn't mean 'everybody uses it'. Even if they do, they're free to change whatever they like about it.
Two, that's purely fluff, not rules anyway.
One, "default" allows everyone an equal starting point for discussion that allows all of us to discuss it with the same knowledge base as well as come up with alterations from the default that address any problems. Not using default means we need probably another ten pages just to established a shared knowledge base outside of default, and by then it's possible most people who comment wouldn't read it.
Two, the majority of the write-up about alignment, including the definitions of what each alignment is like, is pure fluff. If we ignore the fluff, we pretty much have no basis for discussion of alignment at all.
I feel it should be pointed out that what op is talking about is not racism per say. See technically two populations that are not sufficiently different by a number of criteria to be considered separate species or sub-species are considered races. Orcs vs humans these are not races of a species, they are sub-species (sub because they can interbreed). Thus it may not really be viewed in the same way we view racism. Allow me to explain my point. Considering the size of the human population on earth the genetic diversity of humanity is startlingly low, we are practically clones of one another. On the other hand we do not expect people from different ethnicities to act the same. This however is nuture not nature. After all if you raise two human children exactly the same way you will get very simmilar results regardless of parentage.
Lets look at dogs and cats for a minute, they are quite different, and no matter what you do you will not be able to raise a cat to act like a dog, or a dog to act like a cat. Why? They are completely seperate species.
All the populations you can play are either separate species, or sub-species, thus they will develop differently and noticeably so regardless of environment. Yes sentience will soften the difference, as they can all reason and logic is universal, an emergent property of sentience, however it will not completely cancel out animal instincts.
I have no idea what those differences would be precisely as these are fictional species, however you know that your average elf is smart (+2 intelligence), and you know gnomes are zany (+2 cha) and those are things that are legitamate to assume just as much as you can assume that humans are easily corrupted by power (irl). So orc perhaps are biologically violent, who's to say? (the GM) and killing one may be justifiable as perhaps it has been shown that 99% of all attempts to reform an orc fail, or some such.
Whatever
I feel it should be pointed out that what op is talking about is not racism per say. See technically two populations that are not sufficiently different by a number of criteria to be considered separate species or sub-species are considered races.
The term "race" was originally created to describe what were thought to be different species of humans. That's why "species" is one of the definitions of the word and why it's still used to describe different intelligent species in both science fiction and fantasy.
Note that, while some racism did fuel that issue, the majority of what caused it was human stupidity and a massive misunderstanding of the emerging theory of evolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it should be pointed out that what op is talking about is not racism per say.
What's the point of quibbling over word choice like this? The thing is, the real world lacks an analogous situation. Fantasy settings can have different sentient species who are fully persons, but we don't have something like that in the real world. Hence, we don't have words for this kind of prejudice. We don't have a word for bigotry against dragons in the real world because dragons aren't real. The word "racism" is an appropriate choice here given the language available to us. The fact that the differences are real (as seen in the mechanics) doesn't change that.
If you say that in the setting, orcs are biologically violent or whatever, you run into the issue I raised earlier: how does someone in the setting come to know this truth about orcs? People in the setting don't have access to rulebooks or stat blocks.
hmmm, fair enough
If you say that in the setting, orcs are biologically violent or whatever, you run into the issue I raised earlier: how does someone in the setting come to know this truth about orcs? People in the setting don't have access to rulebooks or stat blocks.
Well, i guess they know it because of their prior experiences with orcs over the last thousand years?
If you say that in the setting, orcs are biologically violent or whatever, you run into the issue I raised earlier: how does someone in the setting come to know this truth about orcs? People in the setting don't have access to rulebooks or stat blocks.Well, i guess they know it because of their prior experiences with orcs over the last thousand years?
Hoow does that show orcs are inherently, irredeemably evil?
Well then, maybe a god told em?
Absolute possible if you have a cleric of an god of lore or the like who likes to know this kind of stuff and has a commune at hand.
Also, could be written down in the creation-story of the orcish race.
Well then, maybe a god told em?
Absolute possible if you have a cleric of an god of lore or the like who likes to know this kind of stuff and has a commune at hand.Also, could be written down in the creation-story of the orcish race.
How do you know the creation story is accurate? The commune thing is only possible if you're high enough level in the appropriate class. If you lack direct access to commune, you could ask someone else who's done it, but how do you know what they are telling you is accurate? If you commune yourself, how do you know you can trust what you are told? How do you know the god of lore's information is accurate? How do you know that your commune wasn't intercepted by a tricksy devil who lied to you?
Remember, what you're asking is whether it's justified to wantonly kill a certain group of intelligent, sentient humanoids. You should be extremely skeptical of anyone telling you genocide is okay. Especially since half-orcs, who aren't always CE, are strong evidence that orcs are not biologically evil. It's also worth pointing out that an orc cleric can ask their deity whether humans are innately evil and learn that it's okay to kill humans. Just appealing to a deity isn't enough to justify genocide. I suppose you could believe both that orcs are justified in killing arbitrary humans and that humans are justified in killing arbitrary orcs. But that's a rather unusual view to take.
Even if a creature was always CE, that wouldn't necessarily mean they always need to be destroyed. In fact, good societies could use such beings as useful tools. The key is to point them at other worse evil creatures. It is entirely possible for a human society to have a deal with an orc tribe, that the tribe attacks gnoll invaders and the humans help arm them and supply them. There is a difference between CE and stupid evil.
Earth exists on an alternate plane in the Golarion cosmology. Pathfinder is a rules set, not a campaign setting.Actually....Earth does exist as a separate entity in Pathfinder. You travel there in Reign of Winter. Baba Yaga was actually born on Earth for instance.
Incidentally..."Modern day" Golarion is actually time wise equal to 1918 on our planet.
So, basically, an alternate material plane... which, in the rules set, is discussed as being essentially an alternate timeline or alternate dimension.
So, it pretty much goes back to Golarion being an alternate version of Earth, while at the same time established in the rules set as the default setting of Pathfinder.
No. I'm not sure it's been established in print, but James Jacobs has been quite clear that Earth (In particular visited in Reign of Winter) exists in the same infinite Prime Material plane as Golarion. It's not an alternate dimension or alternate timeline. I'm not even sure there are alternate material planes in the setting's cosmology.
Obviously PF is a rules set and everyone is free to use or invent whatever setting they please, but in Paizo's setting Golarion is very much not Earth. Alternate or otherwise.
Okay, I've got two contradicting pieces of information on this.
Do you have a link to James Jacob talking about that? It will be awhile before I get ahold of the module that deals with it. I'm asking so I can read for myself and get a clearer picture of what's going on with this.
Even if a creature was always CE, that wouldn't necessarily mean they always need to be destroyed. In fact, good societies could use such beings as useful tools. The key is to point them at other worse evil creatures. It is entirely possible for a human society to have a deal with an orc tribe, that the tribe attacks gnoll invaders and the humans help arm them and supply them. There is a difference between CE and stupid evil.Here's the thing though... they're chaotic, now that the gnolls arn't a threat anymore and they're armed and supplied to the teeth, those human lands are looking pretty good.
Or, "Those stupid humans gave us weapons and food, lets bribe the Gnolls with some of it and let them through our lands and take over once they're softened up".
If you want to make at least a semi-reliable pact with an evil race, make sure they're Lawful. Chaotic can and Will screw you the first chance they get.
There is a difference between CE and stupid evil.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm gonna say is Blizzard Orcs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>> Tolkien OrcsNot joking: just moments ago my boyfriend and I were discussing how after Blizzard decided to make orcs something more than just "monsters," it required them to retcon in demons and induced blood-lust to make orc history not one of inherent violence.
The cool thing about this, is that it suddenly gives demons some real agency and 'heft.'
Demons as instigators / ultimate cause of orcish raids changes them from being what they've pretty much always been, high level encounters that have *zero* impact on 99% of the game world and it's inhabitants, to being the driving force behind orc or goblin raids, and therefore huge and life-affecting even to a 1st level commoner who will never see a demon, but does indeed have to worry about goblins or orcs attacking their farm or village.
Demons and *evil,* suddenly become more relevant, just as the Tolkein orcs (or Trollocs, from Wheel of Time) weren't evil because they were 'born that way,' but because a force of great supernatural malevolence made them that way, and is actively driving them on to greater acts in it's name.
I could go either way, and either way could make for an interesting game setting, one in which orcs, etc. are just people we don't particularly like, with different beliefs and values than our own, or one in which orcs, etc. are indeed in the grip of something terrible and monstrous, like Golarion's Drow, almost incapable of defying the raw destructive evil that has been soaking into them for generations.
The middle ground 'I want my cake and to eat it too' of 'they're just people, but we can totally curb-stomp their babies because it would be terribly inconvenient if we had to actually role-play our good alignment and display even a modicum of mercy or compassion or kindness or caring' doesn't so much appeal to me. It's morally lazy, IMO, and does a disservice to the concept of 'good.'
It's a two-way street. If being evil means you have no agency and can be nothing other than evil, why does being good mean you can murderdeathkill anyone who isn't square-jawed and clean-skinned and steal their stuff? I'd rather that good be held to higher standards than that. I'd rather that good sometimes involve hard choices, or not taking the easiest path, or, heaven forfend, *avoiding doing evil things.*
This isn't what I was thinking of, but it's a direct answer to the question.
Okay, I've got two contradicting pieces of information on this.
Do you have a link to James Jacob talking about that? It will be awhile before I get ahold of the module that deals with it. I'm asking so I can read for myself and get a clearer picture of what's going on with this.
Ah! Thank you!
Well, that causes me to toss an entire working campaign I had in mind out the window. Ah, well. Not the first time that's happened; gives me good material to separate into pieces for other campaigns.
pres man> So you have a society of blood raging, xenophobic, psycopaths, and you think you can make a reliable peace treaty with them?
no that is what you have, I don't run entire groups of sentient creatures as stupid evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Earth, racism just means discrimination against visible subsets of one race: the human race. This is Evil because while we are not all equal in many, many regards, our strengths and weaknesses generally do not originate from ethnic background.
On Golarion, racism is discriminating against actual different species which have actual measurable differences in their abilities, attitudes, capabilities, and mindsets. There is nothing wrong about refusing to hire a Balor as your daughter's babysitter.
On Earth it's okay to discriminate against different species. Dogs don't get to vote, dolphins can't get licenses to fly commercial airliners, and there's nothing wrong with keeping parrots in cages. On Golarion as far as I'm concerned it's okay to do the apply the same restrictions to gnomes.
On Earth it's okay to discriminate against different species. Dogs don't get to vote, dolphins can't get licenses to fly commercial airliners, and there's nothing wrong with keeping parrots in cages. On Golarion as far as I'm concerned it's okay to do the apply the same restrictions to gnomes.
Is this thread going to go back to talking about sentience and personhood?
|
On alignment and executions:
The cleric follows Cayden Cailean, with the Strength and Travel domains. I can see it as justified due to Cayden being a god of liberation. The world's Feudal East-style, and the Orc actually had asked the party to kill him rather than let him live having betrayed his clan. The party'd intimidated information out of him earlier.
As it stands now, I see the decision as two parts good, one part evil. The racism against orcs isn't exactly a good act, but the cleric was within reason with his deity.
As a side note, I don't like having players fall for technicalities or gray areas, and allow quite a bit of interpretation of the Paladin's Code. But that's just me.
Thumbs up to you and I revise my earlier statement that this seemed like a disproportionate, evil act. If the orc asked the cleric to kill him, the cleric as a follower of a deity of personal liberty is not just allowed but maybe even encouraged to grant his request, especially if the alternative is imprisonment for the orc.
You're TOTALLY RIGHT. It's not morally wrong to arrest and execute someone who may or may not have murdered someone without a fair trial.
Respect for life is part of the "good" alignment. A good but nonlawful character will still respect life - they just won't see the need for a formal trial so long as they personally are convinced that someone has done something heinous enough to deserve death.
pres man> So you have a society of blood raging, xenophobic, psycopaths, and you think you can make a reliable peace treaty with them?no that is what you have, I don't run entire groups of sentient creatures as stupid evil.Is it possible to have entire groups of sentient creatures that are both stupid and evil? Because frankly, a lot of PF's tougher humanoid monsters take some serious int penalties.
Ogres really should qualify. Standard intelligence 6? If they're evil, they're pretty much stupid evil.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about being stupid AND evil, but instead being Stupid Evil.
EDIT: I do find it a bit strange that a cleric dedicated to personal liberty would be involved with forcing someone to speak against their own will (through the use of some form of intimidation), to the point where they would rather die than live with the betrayal they were forced to do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On differences in fantasy races:
Lets look at dogs and cats for a minute, they are quite different, and no matter what you do you will not be able to raise a cat to act like a dog, or a dog to act like a cat. Why? They are completely seperate species.
Wrong. Some individual cats act much like dogs, while some individual dogs (or breeds of dogs) act much like cats. And those animals aren't even in the same genus, let alone being capable of interbreeding like humans and orcs!
Even when there is a difference between average members of a group, variability between members means that there is often an area of overlap. The average man has more powerful muscles than the average woman, but some women are stronger than some men (or even the average man). The average orc has an intelligence of 8, but some orcs will have an int 12 and be smarter than the average human. About 1 in 6 humans using the basic NPC stat array will have an Int of 8 and be as dumb as the average orc (so not exactly Forrest Gump here).
Now this is NOT necesssarily the same as humans with a different skin of paint. An elf no matter how they're raised is going to have an inherent love of tree's and the natural world, wont be happy in the middle of a city working as a clerk and so on. A Dwarf is 9 times out of 10 going to solid, practical and have a very dry sense of humour. An orc even raised in the above example is going to have an inherent love of proving their strength and ability which will need to be channeled into a productive solution.
I feel like this didn't get enough attention in the discussion of whether RPG races ought to be inherently different.
Inherently different doesn't have to mean inferior or wrong. Dwarves are typically magic-resistant. Elves are typically good at using magic. Dwarves are more likely to be comfortable underground or surrounded by stone and metal, while elves are more likely to be comfortable in open spaces with a lot of natural life. Neither is better – though elves and dwarves likely both think that their way of life is superior.
Likewise, the average orc is much stronger than your average human, a little better at standing up to physical injury (ferocity), and mentally weaker. It makes sense that they'd value physical strength and tenacity over mental or magical abilities (and that they'd get along poorly with elves, which do the reverse).
However, this doesn't mean they have to be cast as morally valueless, pillaging brute savages. A neutral orcish culture could simply be one that values its athletes and athletic games particularly highly. They might have a strong sense of sportsmanship, but also be prone to riots if a game/contest doesn't go their way. They might believe that "right makes might" since the orc deity who gave them their marvelous strength obviously gives the best orcs the most strength. This would lead to a lot of trial by combat and possibly abuse on the part of stronger orcs, but could also enforce orcish morality because the orc gods might take the strength of any orcs who misbehave too badly. This culture would also be more likely to require their warmongers to actually go to war rather than just order their subjects to fight and die. A good orcish culture might be made up of noble warriors who believe it is the responsibility of those who are strong to defend those who are not - and that all members of the society should aspire to be strong defenders. Orcish heroes would be less Iron Man and more Thor.
And then you still have the occasional orc with an Int 14-16 and you need to be able to account for that in your "orcs are brawn not brains" worldview.
A CN deity that many non-evil orcs followed in my campaign setting had a philosophy much like Conan's:
"I have known gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria
On Earth, racism just means discrimination against visible subsets of one race: the human race. This is Evil because while we are not all equal in many, many regards, our strengths and weaknesses generally do not originate from ethnic background.
On Golarion, racism is discriminating against actual different species which have actual measurable differences in their abilities, attitudes, capabilities, and mindsets. There is nothing wrong about refusing to hire a Balor as your daughter's babysitter.
On Earth it's okay to discriminate against different species. Dogs don't get to vote, dolphins can't get licenses to fly commercial airliners, and there's nothing wrong with keeping parrots in cages. On Golarion as far as I'm concerned it's okay to do the apply the same restrictions to gnomes.
But how do you measure it. I mean, it is not like there are many in this medieval style fantasy setting that use the scientific method. Most people would just use personal experience, in the same way that white explorers used their 'personal experience' to judge that Africans were an inferior race.
And even with scientific methods, it can be hard to make valid judgments when you are clouded with centuries of prejudice. For example, during the late 19th, early 20th centuries, there were countless studies that characterized African Americans as a dying race. But the relatively low life spans and high infant moralities that brought this conclusion about came from socioeconomic factors such as low wages, poor crowded housing, and little access to proper healthcare and diet.
Of course, I will admit that there are many races that have ecological niches that include using humans as prey. I can understand we are not going to discuss much about the personhood of a troll. But it is still not universal, and at times you need to take the chance to reexamine your world view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attempting to argue moral relativism in a system that's based on an objective (mostly) alignment system is not a great idea. Within the game (D&D and Pathfinder), it's useful to recall Aragorn's words to Eomer on the subject: "Good and [evil] have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among [other cultures/races] and another among [your own]. It is a[n] [adult's] part to discern them, as much in [other lands] as in [their] own house." (Actually, it's pretty good advice in the real world, IMO)
Yes, the game revolves around "killing monsters and taking their stuff" from it's inception. However, the game has also always had a strong moral underpinning in the "normal" motivation for the characters: They are usually rescuing someone or otherwise protecting innocents at risk from vicious marauders (bandits, etc. of various types, some human or "PC races" and some orcs or other "monster" races; rampaging beasts; supernatural threats such as undead); the PCs are cast as the story "heroes/good guys." Granted, some groups/individuals want to play "anti-heroes" or even play as the "bad guys" (because evil is so angsty and "cool;" or just as a power trip), but the game is still based on a fairly straightforward moral system.
Good and evil are not reduced to mean "what benefits me and mine" and "what hinders me and mine" in the game. Good requires a larger perspective than "me/us" and "the other:" in Golarion we have the son of one the Archdukes of Hell as one of the Empyreal Lords; in Wrath of the Righteous, one of the key NPCs is a succubus attempting to redeem herself and become good (among other NPCs that the party can possibly redeem; redemption is one of the prevalent themes of the adventure path). Good requires that each individual and the circumstances be weighed before making a decision to kill or not; in some cases, such as self-defense or defense of others, is can often be clear; other cases are more difficult, especially where killing is out of proportion for the harm done (i.e., an evil merchant who cheats buyers, deals in the black market, and owns slaves; the slaves are not abused, however, as it's less cost-effective, and the merchant has never killed or tortured anyone; evil, but not a menace deserving death). Evil, by the game system moral construct, at its heart reduces other people (i.e., beings that can reason/talk) to "lesser" status than "real people" ("me/us"); at it's extreme, other people become "things" that exist only to serve the "real people's" desires/orders/whims (classic psychopathy). "They shouldn't have gotten in my way," "I don't care if they die as long as the results are what I want," "the end justifies the means," etc.
Note, in extremely rare circumstances, the "greater good" may require an evil act (i.e., slaying a baby "doomed to betray the nation to the Abyss, causing the death and damnation of all in the realm" is a typical "no-win scenario" that some GMs like to use). However, a truly good individual (not just a sophist) will 1) ensure that this is indeed the only option (i.e., the baby's destiny is truly fixed and can't be changed) and 2) will accept the consequences of their actions (fall from paladinhood, sentenced to death for murder, etc.). Characters don't get a pass for conducting evil actions in the name of good.
But how do you measure it. I mean, it is not like there are many in this medieval style fantasy setting that use the scientific method. Most people would just use personal experience, in the same way that white explorers used their 'personal experience' to judge that Africans were an inferior race.
And even with scientific methods, it can be hard to make valid judgments when you are clouded with centuries of prejudice. For example, during the late 19th, early 20th centuries, there were countless studies that characterized African Americans as a dying race. But the relatively low life spans and high infant moralities that brought this conclusion about came from socioeconomic factors such as low wages, poor crowded housing, and little access to proper healthcare and diet.
Of course, I will admit that there are many races that have ecological niches that include using humans as prey. I can understand we are not going to discuss much about the personhood of a troll. But it is still not universal, and at times you need to take the chance to reexamine your world view.
You don't. In a fantasy world like Golarion, racism is common sense, not evil. There is no reason for an elf to give an orc a "fair try" because in this world, all men are not created equally. Many, many of them monstrous. Literally.
You don't. In a fantasy world like Golarion, racism is common sense, not evil. There is no reason for an elf to give an orc a "fair try" because in this world, all men are not created equally. Many, many of them monstrous. Literally.
*sigh* Same question I've raised earlier in the thread: how does anyone in the setting come to know that orcs "are not created equally"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'd hesitate to say that a racist character is always LE by the rules. Their racism is LE, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person is.
Balors, incidentally are demons. They are not humanoids, they are outsiders. They are made of the very stuff of Evil. Orcs are a bit different, they are humanoids. Theoretically there is nothing that makes them more evil than an elf or a human, with which they share a similar genetic makeup. The reason they tend towards evil is somewhat of a mystery. Maybe it's a case of self-fufilling prophecy. If you were an orc who was trying to integrate into society and everywhere you went people were going "gaaargh! It's an orc! kill it!" how long would you maintain a pleasant disposition?
Technically it says LEs "condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, ... "
Now condemns is a bit of a strange word. It can mean to punish, so putting an orc to death merely for being an orc, would fit. But it also can mean to express disproval, so saying all orcs are worthless creatures would fit that. Basically active versus passive racism in this case.
I could see an argument that the way the word is used in the description could be limited to either definition or being applied to both. My personal view is that alignments should be based more on what characters do rather than what they think or say. Someone who sits at home and dreams of ways to murder innocent children, but never acted on such schemes, wouldn't necessarily have an evil alignment in my mind.
*sigh* Same question I've raised earlier in the thread: how does anyone in the setting come to know that orcs "are not created equally"?
Observation. Dozens of generations of marauding orc tribes who are virtually all very strong, very stupid, very cruel and destructive creatures gives pretty strong evidence that they're not like say... elves. It's not the same as on Earth observing that certain visible ethnicities tend to be criminals while ignoring their socioeconomic background. Adopted orcs and goblins and, and, and have a mysterious nearly universal tendency to grow up into evil bastards.
On Earth, nature versus nurture is debatable (with of course the answer being "a little of both") but on on Golarion nature is almost universally capable of overpowering nurture.
Adopted orcs and goblins and, and, and have a mysterious nearly universal tendency to grow up into evil bastards.
Possibly, if the GM so chooses that to be the case. Another GM may decide that it is not, and that those evil tendencies are actually culturally determined and well treated adopted orcs and goblins do not show those tendencies in greater numbers than other races. This is entirely the domain of the campaign setting in play.
Here's something everyone is missing on the whole race issue: The Beastiary entry about alignment.
What does that outright say? It's only among planar creatures that alignment outside of their norm is unusual.
Only among planar creatures.
Which means that this whole bit of playing a race as though it is always an alignment is not playing RAW. And given the bit brought up in the alignment section about where racism truly falls and the fact four of the races in the core rulebook are, according to their write-ups, racist...
All we've really come back around to is demonstrating that most of the player races are evil and that their racism is not as justified as they like to believe.