Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.
-Eric Temple Bell
Let me see if I'm understand the argument here: in a fantasy setting, where some races and species are defined as being evil, assuming they are evil is now wrong? How does this make any sense?
I think the assumption that we are talking about "races and species are defined as being evil" is flawed in general. As pointed out in the bestiary, the race mostly under discussion, orcs, is not defined as being evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every campaign would benefit from the inclusion of this.I SHUDDER AT THAT LAST COMMENT - (i.e. some people would like Golarion to have that 'GOOD OLD VOYAGER FEEL'?????)
*vomits*
not just yeah - HELLS YEAH!!!!
One of my favorite actors. Loved him on jeopardy too.
I know voyager wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but the overreactions here are a bit much. If you want to kill every being with more limbs than a humanoid or greener than a blade of grass in your games on sight and without ceremony, fine. But that's not necessarily how thing work at my table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do love debates like this. Are orcs, and other "evil" monster races in general, evil at the core of their being as a result of their nature, or a result of their socialization?
But why is it framed as an either-or proposition? Why can't it be both nature AND nurture that drives so many orcs and other monster races to evil?
For example, the way I run orcs is that they are a species that is both instinctively aggressive as well as one whose society reinforces and rewards aggression. I do not run orcs as though they are simply green-skinned humans with sharp teeth and Chaotic Evil stamped on their foreheads. The first thing to remember is that while Orcs are indeed a race of humanoid people, they are NOT human. They are a separate species possessed of a much different psychology and instinctual makeup than humans would be familiar with.
Orcs evolved in the environment of the Darklands which harshly selected against the traits of peaceful collaboration and coexistence that humans developed and engendered. Instead, the traits most strongly selected for were brutality and viciousness. Generation after generation, orcs that were pre-disposed to docile and altruistic behavior were killed by orcish racial enemies or by their fellow orcs. Orcs that were more pre-disposed to putting an axe in the skull of a threatening creature (or a creature that could have been a potential threat) were more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes. Over hundreds of generations, orcs became more and more pre-disposed towards extreme aggression, viciousness and dominating behavior and less and less towards altruistic behavior. Orc society reinforced these instinctive principles in that the strong are meant to rule, the weak are meant to be dominated, and brutality equals survival and success.
Now, if one were to take an orc child and raise him/her in an accepting, good-aligned human society (or any other good-aligned society for that matter), that orc has just as much potential to become a good-aligned person as anyone else. However, an orc will still be very prone to aggressive confrontational behavior as a result of his/her instincts, and tend to have very poor impulse control when they get emotional. When put in a "fight-or-flight" situation, even the most demure human-raised orc is very likely to shatter a potential threat's jaw with a meaty green fist as a first recourse.
In human societies bordering orcish lands, there are many human-raised orcs who are productive members of those societies. However, even then, orcs need to be put to constant activity where they can channel their raw energy and aggression, lest they become bored and agitated. They either work hard in strenuous fields of labor such as being miners or lumberjacks, or they become members of local militias and militaries where they can brutalize their country's foes without fear of repercussion.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing to consider then would be a human raised in Orc society.
In a word: Frightening. Very frightening.
I actually like doing running orcs in that manner: They kidnap human children and raise them as their own in order to replenish their numbers. Human girls are kidnapped to be raised for the orc chief's harem and those of his/her lieutenants, although combative females who show themselves capable of fighting are admitted into the ranks of warriors as readily as orc females are. Human boys meanwhile are raised to be warriors and raiders. Now, whereas most orcish children have to rely on their brute strength and aggression to survive being raised in orcish society, human children have to rely on their intelligence and creativity, much like half-orcs.
Orc-raised humans tend to be prized by a tribe for being more intelligent, capable of strategic thinking, charismatic and endlessly creative in the forms of brutality that they can visit upon a tribe's enemies. Some orc-raised humans can actually attain positions of leadership, even becoming warlords and chieftains. To orcs, race doesn't usually factor into whether or not they accept someone as their leader. All that matters is strength and viciousness. Orc or human, man or woman, as long as you prove yourself to be the most brutal leader able to keep your throne of skulls by blood and iron alone, an orcish tribe will be united behind you.
Another reason that Orcs kidnap and raise human children is to put the children in the front lines. Humans are more hesitant to kill their own, and that hesitation costs them many a battle. Few things are more emotionally horrific for a human society than watching their kidnapped children leading an orcish horde's charge against the battle lines, thereby showing that no race is truly safe from being consumed by total savagery.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is the fixation of a large vocal minority in attempting to pin the "monsters are usually evil" debate on another parallel and not necessarily intersecting issue of racism.
Can't the debate be about "humanity / demihumans versus goblinoids / monsters"
At the root of all species in fantasy (back in FR anyway, not sure about Golarion) there is usually a divine interaction (in real life you may or may not believe in such an interaction)
Like Torag for dwarves. And Lamashtu for monsters.
Can't we not juxtapose a real life issue on a fantasy world issue, a world, one might say, where all monsters are made evil by an evil dog-headed pregnant goddess?
|
|
And instead of always focusing on the woes of humans always killing orcs on sight, why are we not talking about the woes of humans always paying more for dwarven goods?
(hint: it has to do about a game that rewards some actions with XPs and loot; hint 2: loot here being defined as tax-free capital gains, and/or incoming donations from warm monster corpses to a trust representing some kind of merriment or corporation)
|
|
Hint 3: it also has to do with the same game fostering assumptions (some will call it stereotypes) in order to provide a standardized basis for interactions between monsters and species.
LO and BEHOLD! these stereotypes are even CODIFIED in the form of racial and monster stats! complete with "racial traits" and all!!! GASP!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is the fixation of a large vocal minority in attempting to pin the "monsters are usually evil" debate on another parallel and not necessarily intersecting issue of racism.
Can't the debate be about "humanity / demihumans versus goblinoids / monsters"
At the root of all species in fantasy (back in FR anyway, not sure about Golarion) there is usually a divine interaction (in real life you may or may not believe in such an interaction)
Like Torag for dwarves. And Lamashtu for monsters.
Can't we not juxtapose a real life issue on a fantasy world issue, a world, one might say, where all monsters are made evil by an evil dog-headed pregnant goddess?
Actually, I think most of us agree that most monsters who are usually evil are just that: Usually evil. No reason for them to be usually evil, they just are because it's their nature.
The few others, like orcs? Potential reasons why they are... I think most of us agree those reasons don't matter when the orcs just raided your village. Plus, my argument pretty much has the orcs mostly doing it to themselves. So players under me can expect that most orcs they see are orcs they'll have to kill. After all, the good orcs don't raid villages; they're too busy minding their own business and starting farms, so you generally don't see them much unless you specifically look for them.
And instead of always focusing on the woes of humans always killing orcs on sight, why are we not talking about the woes of humans always paying more for dwarven goods?
(hint: it has to do about a game that rewards some actions with XPs and loot; hint 2: loot here being defined as tax-free capital gains, and/or incoming donations from warm monster corpses to a trust representing some kind of merriment or corporation)
Your hint has a minor problem. The XP rewards are for surviving the encounter, not for killing. If you encounter hostile orcs and negotiate them into being your best buddies... congrats, you survived the encounter.
Also, I discussed earlier how most of the core races are racist against each other. In fact, it even remained a key point in recent discussions, particularly bringing up half-orcs.
Hint 3: it also has to do with the same game fostering assumptions (some will call it stereotypes) in order to provide a standardized basis for interactions between monsters and species.
LO and BEHOLD! these stereotypes are even CODIFIED in the form of racial and monster stats! complete with "racial traits" and all!!! GASP!
Where is the elf bonus damage against drow, half-elves, and dwarves? The human bonus damage against halflings and orcs? The dwarf bonus damage against elves?
If the rules codify it in the racial and monster stats, then why are the racial and monster stats not addressing most of the stereotypes at all?
Those dwarves and gnomes! Bunch of racists! with their +4 AC to dodge giant attacks. How dare they be on their guard against giants just because they're giants! bunch of racists I tell ye....
Let me check... Nope! No written racism against other species in the core rule book! In fact, this argument is a straw man argument and thus is not even a legitimate point!
So, on the bit of racism being purely a write-up for game mechanics... Could you please keep it just to the rules and write-ups that actually exist in the core rules? Remember, Golarion isn't actually the core rules; it's a setting they're made to work with, but the core rules are also more generalized and were made so entirely on purpose. That's why the book introducing Golarion is sold separately.
|
|
Under dwarves, racial section, Core rulebook:
Defensive Training: Dwarves get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.
Greed: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to determine the price
of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.
Hatred: Dwarves receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and
goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes.
So if you don't believe stereotypes are present in the Core rulebook, check again... and again, because species vs. species interactions are all over the book. Codified. Statted. Listed. Summarized. Standardized. Meant for the player to accept in order to proceed with the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
soooo hey y'all! if you want to kill goblins and orcs on sight, you better play a dwarf, 'cause they have the "Hatred" ability that will give you justification!!
if you don't play a dwarf, you'll have to settle all combats via 6 party negotiation talks (if you're not a dwarf and kill an orc, your DM will call you racist!!)
/sarcasm off
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Purple Dragon Knight, nice try, but you are intentionally using a fallacious argument.
Saying species vs. species interaction is codified in stats? Fine. Where is the following from the Dwarf entry codified in stats?
They find halflings, elves, and gnomes to be too frail, flighty, or “pretty” to be worthy of proper respect.
Not finding anything where there's a penalty to interaction when a dwarf interacts with those races... yet, being racist against them is part of the dwarf writeup. Odd...
And, I am sad you didn't point out the bit about the dwarf society section. Specifically where it mentions giants. But it doesn't make your argument any less of a strawman.
How about this bit found under Elf?
They regard half-orcs with distrust and suspicion.
And elves don't even get a racial bonus against orcs.
Wait! Surely the Gnome entry mentions some kind of racial problem with giants!
Society: Unlike most races, gnomes do not generally organize themselves within classic societal structures. Whimsical creatures at heart, they typically travel alone or with temporary companions, ever seeking new and more exciting experiences. They rarely form enduring relationships among themselves or with members of other races, instead pursuing crafts, professions, or collections with a passion that borders on zealotry. Male gnomes have a strange fondness for unusual hats and headgear, while females often proudly wear elaborate and eccentric hairstyles.
Relations: Gnomes have difficulty interacting with the other races, on both emotional and physical levels. Gnome humor is hard to translate and often comes across as malicious or senseless to other races, while gnomes in turn tend to think of the taller races as dull and lumbering giants. They get along well with halflings and humans, but are overly fond of playing jokes on dwarves and half-orcs, whom most gnomes feel need to lighten up. They respect elves, but often grow frustrated with the comparatively slow pace at which members of the long-lived race make decisions. To the gnomes, action is always better than inaction, and many gnomes carry several highly involved projects with them at all times to keep themselves entertained during rest periods.
... nope. No mention. It does, however, make it clear gnomes think of races like humans as giants.
Wait! What about half-orcs?
Unlike half-elves, where at least part of society's discrimination is born out of jealousy or attraction, half-orcs get the worst of both worlds: physically weaker than their orc kin, they also tend to be feared or attacked outright by the legions of humans who don't bother making the distinction between full orcs and halfbloods.
Interesting! So our list of suspects for hating orcs grows to include humans... except, the human entry includes no racial bonus against orcs either!
So, let's try halflings.
Halflings coexist well with humans as a general rule, but since some of the more aggressive human societies value halflings as slaves, halflings try not to grow too complacent when dealing with them. Halflings respect elves and dwarves, but these races generally live in remote regions far from the comforts of civilization that halflings enjoy, thus limiting opportunities for interaction. Only half-orcs are generally shunned by halflings, for their great size and violent natures are a bit too intimidating for most halflings to cope with.
Note the parts I bolded. If this is right, then humans should have some kind of racial bonus against halflings, and half-orcs take some kind of interaction penalty with halflings. Except, the entries for neither of those races include it and halflings also have no racial bonus against them.
Those are all stereotypes in the core rulebook that have absolutely nothing in the racial stats to back them. In fact, one of the races with a bonus against giants isn't even written up as having any problems with giants.
So, Purple Dragon Knight, one last time... do you have any evidence at all that all of the stereotypes are represented in stats in the core rule book, including negative racial interactions? Because so far, you've presented none, given that even the dwarves you made it a point to cite don't have all of their interaction stereotypes codified in states.
Oh, and that bit about RPing with hatred? Once again, that's a strawman argument.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal favorite human attitude towards orcs:
Even more rarely, certain human cultures come to embrace half-orcs for their strength. There are stories of places where people see half-orc children as a blessing and seek out half-orc or orc lovers. In these cultures, half-orcs lead lives not much different from full-blooded humans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal favorite human attitude towards orcs:
Even more rarely, certain human cultures come to embrace half-orcs for their strength. There are stories of places where people see half-orc children as a blessing and seek out half-orc or orc lovers. In these cultures, half-orcs lead lives not much different from full-blooded humans.
I think you might like hobgoblins in my campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you might like hobgoblins in my campaign.Personal favorite human attitude towards orcs:
Even more rarely, certain human cultures come to embrace half-orcs for their strength. There are stories of places where people see half-orc children as a blessing and seek out half-orc or orc lovers. In these cultures, half-orcs lead lives not much different from full-blooded humans.
Quite probably. :)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I replaced dark elves with hobgoblins in my last campaign, and gussied up the hobgoblins appropriately (putting them into the dark elf niche, complete with fantastical underdark cities, but with less spiders and matriarchy and magic, and more of a martial and militaristic bent). Gnomes and goblins were seelie/unseelie fey reflections of each other. Elves and hobgoblins were also seelie/unseelie fey reflections of each other. Bugbears were the unseelie reflection of a fey race they hunted down and exterminated to the last member...
Gnomes and goblins hated each other, as did elves and hobgoblins, for this reason (and bugbears had 'racial hatred - *everyone,*' having gone all 'Predator' and decided that all other races exist only to provide them with interesting hunts and, later, trophies), but gnomes had zero issue with kobolds, and dwarves didn't have any specific issue with goblinoids or orcs, disliking them no more or less than they would gnolls or ogres or derro or dark folk or other predatory or savage or competing humanoids.
I'm not a fan of codifying what might be very situational 'race hatreds' in the core races. Gnomes hating kobolds, for instance, might not make a lick of sense in a Dragonlance setting, which might not even have kobolds (and even if it did, the average gnome might spend their entire life not ever seeing one).
Similarly, saying that elves and orcs don't get along is all very Tolkien (and, in Tolkien, there's a very specific reason for that, as every orc is descended from elves that were tortured and transformed), but there are entire sub-races of elves (arctic dwellers in Golarion, aquatic elves in most settings, etc.) who may have never *seen* an orc in game settings like Greyhawk or Toril or Golarion.
Stuff like racial relations belongs in setting-specific material, a 'Players Guide to Golarion' or something, and, even then, would vary by region (as the Elves of that nation in Tien Xia probably have very different priorities, vis a vis orcs versus oni).
|
|
[SNIP]
I'm honestly not trying to advocate racism, if that's what you're implying; I am merely pointing out that some races have a bonus to attack other races, or bonus to AC against other races (i.e. dwarves get +1 to attack orcs and goblins, and they get +4 AC against giants)
If you're not seeing this in the Core Rulebook, then Paizo has successfully implemented a globe-spanning scheme and sold us Canadians a different book... perhaps in the hopes of making us racist and slightly less polite individuals?
|
|
Stuff like racial relations belongs in setting-specific material, a 'Players Guide to Golarion' or something, and, even then, would vary by region (as the Elves of that nation in Tien Xia probably have very different priorities, vis a vis orcs versus oni).
I respectfully disagree. You're free to change the racial relations in your campaign as you mention, but the hatred of dwarves against orcs, distrust of dwarves against elves, etc. are a tradition I intend to honor as it dates back to the early days of the game we all love and play.
Please remember the early ancient days of humanity (middle-ages and before). Humans versus humans wasn't exactly all peace and love. Now imagine if humans back then would have had the excuse of uniting against foul looking orcs coming down from the Alps or the Rockies every Spring... ;)
[SNIP]I'm honestly not trying to advocate racism, if that's what you're implying; I am merely pointing out that some races have a bonus to attack other races, or bonus to AC against other races (i.e. dwarves get +1 to attack orcs and goblins, and they get +4 AC against giants)
If you're not seeing this in the Core Rulebook, then Paizo has successfully implemented a globe-spanning scheme and sold us Canadians a different book... perhaps in the hopes of making us racist and slightly less polite individuals?
I'm not arguing that some races don't have bonuses to attack others. Never have been. Nor can you prove that I was; I won't even bother to ask for evidence to the contrary because I know none exists.
What I was pointing out is saying "all stereotypes are in the stat block" is completely false. The stat block doesn't even cover half of them in most cases, and in one case it covers one that isn't found elsewhere in the core write-up. And unfortunately, thanks to the way the entire section on alignment is written we cannot simply ignore the non-stat-block writing until we have some idea of what parts of it are actually important. After all, if we ignored the fluff, we wouldn't be able to enforce alignment because we would have no written standards of what each alignment is.
Oh, one other interesting thing... If dwarves hate orcs so much (as shown in both the writing and the stat block), then why are humans the only race in the core rulebook write-up noted for attacking half-orcs? Dwarves are mentioned as being one of the two races that are least accepting, but only humans are noted for outright attacking half-orcs. You would think a race that hates orcs so much it has become effectively part of their physical make-up would be the one doing the attacking, and yet they're not.
What is my point? That the stat blocks mean almost nothing when it comes to actually roleplaying a race. Which makes it pretty much irrelevant to this topic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably say Janus, the reason humans are mentioned as attacking half orcs, is because dwarves aren't as impulsive, and would probably give the cold shoulder. Make him pay double here and there, ans so forth.
Anyways, there is of course the "innocent bigot" trope I've used before. The character doesn't have any persional experience with X, so they think back on old stories, and make silly assumptions.
I do this for rural human villages all the time, usually with funny twists. Such as kids gathering around an elf fighter, and asking to see him fly "because grandpa said the elves flew into battle at Mel-Sunshar"
Or I use "understandable bigotry" a Neutral Good shop keeper being biased against half-orcs, and being unfriendly because he lost his father in an orc raid. It's still wrong, but the players can understand why he hates them. That being said he's NG, so he's distrusting, and slightly afraid, instead of outright hateful. "I'm keepin an eye on you greenskin" and the like.
|
|
My head hurts. I'm gonna take that as a win for Janus... if his intent was to give me a headache.
Overall I think you're reading way too much into this (I mean really? you went to the extent of reading the racial fluff? huh....)
+1 vs goblins and orcs... that's pretty much all i need to successfully play my dwarves as the caricature they should be... :P
Vulpae, that makes sense ^^
Purple Dragon, this entire thread was about discussing the fluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was wondering how racism fits in with alignments,
Well, I would probably suggest using what the Core Rulebook actually says about racism and alignment:
He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.
Seems pretty clear-cut.
+1 vs goblins and orcs... that's pretty much all i need to successfully play my dwarves as the caricature they should be... :P
I would hope you'd want to play a character, not just a caricature. Maybe that just makes me a REAL ROLEPLAYER.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discussions like this were part of the reason I took a ten year break from D+D to any other game system BUT D+D.
When we discussed characters and organisations like Iteration X or the New World Order, we talked about them as entities, not where their coordinates would lie on an alignment graph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a good point. Aroden was the god of humanity and he was lawful neutral. Angradd mostly cares about dwarves and he is lawful good.Racism is clearly neutral or good.
See how all the deities of race are either neutral or good, even if their race has no "common" alignment, except for the ones where the entire race is always evil.
Caring about your own kind isn't being racist.
Putting down everyone that isn't your own kind for the sole reason that they aren't your own kind, IS being racist.
The two are not equivalent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent necro a good choice.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That certainly isn't how racism is interpreted IRL. A group or organization that dedicated itself to helping whites would definitely be viewed as racists.Thats a good point. Aroden was the god of humanity and he was lawful neutral. Angradd mostly cares about dwarves and he is lawful good.Racism is clearly neutral or good.
See how all the deities of race are either neutral or good, even if their race has no "common" alignment, except for the ones where the entire race is always evil.
Caring about your own kind isn't being racist.
Putting down everyone that isn't your own kind for the sole reason that they aren't your own kind, IS being racist.
The two are not equivalent.
When helping whites means burning crosses in black neighborhoods, or cheering on such activity, or promoting hateful activity or discrimination againt others.... yeah... that's racist. Or if you open up a soup kitchen for the poor and turn away "coloreds" yeah, that's racist as well.
Discussions like this were part of the reason I took a ten year break from D+D to any other game system BUT D+D.
When we discussed characters and organisations like Iteration X or the New World Order, we talked about them as entities, not where their coordinates would lie on an alignment graph.
When introducing new players to the hobby, I typically have them start with a game other than D&D. The fact that many (most?) other games are easier to learn is a nice bonus.
Once they've gotten into another game, I find newcomers can learn to play D&D without getting trapped into thinking about characters as caricatures defined entirely by their alignment.
If you're introducing players into different games, I don't see the point of taking them a step backwards into D20. The only reason I play Pathfinder is because of it's ubiquity. But I don't know any other system that's more rigid and wargame focused than the D20 variants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When helping whites means burning crosses in black neighborhoods, or cheering on such activity, or promoting hateful activity or discrimination againt others.... yeah... that's racist. Or if you open up a soup kitchen for the poor and turn away "coloreds" yeah, that's racist as well.
So you're saying that helping one race at the exclusion of other races is racist/evil.
Am I mistaken about how Golarian gods work? I thought that the majority of Elven or Dwarven gods weren't interested in (ie excluded) non-Elven or non-Dwarven clergy?
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.
Haha, yea, I used to call a friend of mine's paladin a racist all the time. She would always smug my hobgoblin LN cleric of Abadar, who was on a quest to bring his family back to power in the empire he came from and reform their society to Abadar's teachings (instead of the raving warmongers they had become). We always worked together because we always had the same goal, though often for different reasons (she'd oppose slavery as being demaning and evil, I'd oppose it for being an inefficient form of labor management, inferior to wage labor). Sometimes her racism made me question her code of honor, but it didn't really feel like it was enough to question her "good" alignment.
There's a wide gap between being racist and killing their babies. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying that helping one race at the exclusion of other races is racist/evil.
The NAACP might like a word with you on this...
Am I mistaken about how Golarian gods work? I thought that the majority of Elven or Dwarven gods weren't interested in (ie excluded) non-Elven or non-Dwarven clergy?
You're mostly mistaken. There are a few Elven Gods who feel this way, but they're the only ones. Aroden accepted non-human clergy pretty readily, for example. As do the Dwarven Gods in regards to non-Dwarven faithful.
So you're saying that helping one race at the exclusion of other races is racist/evil.The NAACP might like a word with you on this...
Am I mistaken about how Golarian gods work? I thought that the majority of Elven or Dwarven gods weren't interested in (ie excluded) non-Elven or non-Dwarven clergy?You're mostly mistaken. There are a few Elven Gods who feel this way, but they're the only ones. Aroden accepted non-human clergy pretty readily, for example. As do the Dwarven Gods in regards to non-Dwarven faithful.
There is exactly one elven diety who will not accept devotions from anyone other than pure-blooded elves. The others are considerably more open. And Calistria while popular among the Kyonin elves is not an "elven" diety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When helping whites means burning crosses in black neighborhoods, or cheering on such activity, or promoting hateful activity or discrimination againt others.... yeah... that's racist. Or if you open up a soup kitchen for the poor and turn away "coloreds" yeah, that's racist as well.
So you're saying that helping one race at the exclusion of other races is racist/evil.
Am I mistaken about how Golarian gods work? I thought that the majority of Elven or Dwarven gods weren't interested in (ie excluded) non-Elven or non-Dwarven clergy?
You are... for one thing there is no such thing as racial pantheons for the most part. Torag is not a dwarven exclusive god, nor does he even prefer dwarves. But being lawful, he isn't going to get a lot of elven worship, and dwarves generally don't go for the chaotic deities that elves prefer. Humans however, go all over the place when it comes for beings to adore.
|
|
While moral quandaries shouldn't come up all the time, they equally aren't something to avoid. If every situation is a clear cut Good vs Evil scenario, then the paladin who maintains her morals and nobility isn't that special. I'm in a game right now where questions of right and wrong have come up. We need to stop a group of 'bad guys'. Sure killing them would end the threat 100% of the time. But they may well be innocents. This has led to some interesting role playing. And it allows us players to examine our characters morals and motivations.
Actually, that's one reason why I love play-by-post role playing. You get to examine your characters motivations a lot deeper then when sitting around a table.
|
|
To be fair, that would be overly contrived. I mean, why would the non-warriors in a orc tribe be fighting to the last? Presumably the elderly, women, children, and craftsorc were in hiding during the assault on their village. And if not, the GM had better have described the elderly and women trying to protect the children. Or the non-combatants trying to flee.
Execution for crimes is proper treatment.We need rules for "My Little Pathfinder" for those that think the bad guys just need a hugThere'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.
1. Legal execution is a matter of law and chaos, not good and evil. This is directed at everyone in this conversation, not just you.
2. Many people strongly disagree. Killing is killing.