My character is a hero because he saves the town every time the Orcs come. He's a hero because he does it out of a sense of altruism. He helps these people not to be rewarded or to garner attention (although he is given both for his heroism).
He is a Good person in every way, except he plans to wipe out the entire Orc tribe and their progeny for the sake of his own.
He's Neutral.
He would be without the toddler killing. With it he's the guy who killed a bunch of Orcs fighting for there own survival in the only way they knew how and killed defenceless innocent kids because it was easier and less time consuming than attempting any kind of rehabilitation.
So I'd say evil. And slightly lazy evil at that.
If your character can put the effort into fighting for a town without expectation of reward or recognition, why can't he try and help baby Orc too? And where does he draw the line? Does he kill the local version of the Gnomish Bender family because his parents were both evil?
What about the baby Tiefling at the Orphanage? It's daddy once levelled a small country whose main export was Turnips, after all.
Or the Duergar creche assault?
Killing one set of innocents because it's the quick solution opens up a whole barrel's full of issues. Yeah, it'll cause your character problems, time and money trying to help infants. But they're kids. I assure you, they cause that in real life too.
|
It depends on how much evil he is willing to do to for the cause of good, you can't determine anyone's alignment by a single action unless that action has world-shattering effects. Whether or not the character slides to Evil is up to the GM to determine. As a GM, a character who otherwise does Good and Neutral actions killing the orc children wouldn't be enough to force an alignment shift the first time they did it.
{. . .}
But if you killed all the mortals first, then genocided all the demons, there would never be any more.That would be a good thing, right?
That's the idea that the Qlippoths (including Rovagug) have . . . .
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
It depends on how much evil he is willing to do to for the cause of good, you can't determine anyone's alignment by a single action unless that action has world-shattering effects. Whether or not the character slides to Evil is up to the GM to determine. As a GM, a character who otherwise does Good and Neutral actions killing the orc children wouldn't be enough to force an alignment shift the first time they did it.
I disagree. If you replace the 'Orc' in that statement with 'Half-Orc' then it would suddenly be almost universally agreed as an evil act. Ad if it was a tribe of vicious, cannibalistic humans the heroes had to wipe out, leaving behind a bunch of kids with a taste for the femur things in life, they're be all for the effort of saving them nine times out of ten.
The only difference between an Orc and a Half-Orc? One human parent and a percentage chance of possible evil. For me that's not enough to sway it into neutral territory, let alone good.
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
Would a man who gave to charity, was loved by his family and died defending his family but happened to smash a three year old child in the face with a warhammer because it was easiest option go to hell?
Yeah, probably. 'Your daddy started it' doesn't really justify the ends.
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
A "hero" who attacks innocents to protect his people at the cost of those who would attack them? People who are considered a different species, even though they can produce fertile offspring with them. Where have I seen this before?
Oh...right. Here. Yep. Evil. Charismatic as hell, and someone you understand, and maybe even root for, but dude, evil. The ends don't justify the means.
|
|
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
Does he ever repent for his Evil actions and try to atone for them, or revel in being the hero who slaughtered children for his village? Does he do something so monumentally good that it washes out the Evil he has committed or does he continue doing whatever he deems necessary for the sake of the village?
And you know what, even if it does justify it, justifiable does not equal good, or even neutral. It means lawful at best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
Would a man who gave to charity, was loved by his family and died defending his family but happened to smash a three year old child in the face with a warhammer because it was easiest option go to hell?
Yeah, probably. 'Your daddy started it' doesn't really justify the ends.
No one in the village is going to take in an Orc baby. If there was another village anywhere close they would have asked for help with the Orcs in the first place. Finding more Orcs is the exact opposite of what the village wants to do.
The kids will die of exposure or be eaten by monsters. Giving up the rest of your adult life to raise children that, statistically, will probably be violent brutes anyway is a very Good action. Refusing to do so is not an Evil action. It's a Neutral action. Killing them is saving them the pain.
Orc kids are tough, man. They could totally survive out in the wild, it's not a good chance of survival but it's higher than the 0% chance of surviving being killed by you.
Nope, a bunch of monsters strong enough to be a reasonable challenge to a 5th level PC roam the tundra. The Orc babies have nowhere to hide from the monsters, the weather will kill them if they're out there for a full night.
Does he go to Hell?
His soul is struggled over by N and E aligned outsiders in the afterlife. Adventure hook for your PCs. Try to redeem the soul of the beloved local hero with a dark secret, before his crimes drag him down into the Pit.
Does he go to Hell?His soul is struggled over by N and E aligned outsiders in the afterlife.
No, Pharasma actually says where he goes, and he goes there.
I didn't think every outsider respected Pharasma's dictates. Daemons are notorious for not, aren't they? and NE seems to fit with the evil aspect of him.
Or am I thinking of demons?
Or maybe the aeons choose to allow such once he arrives, for their inscrutable reasons.
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
Would a man who gave to charity, was loved by his family and died defending his family but happened to smash a three year old child in the face with a warhammer because it was easiest option go to hell?
Yeah, probably. 'Your daddy started it' doesn't really justify the ends.
No one in the village is going to take in an Orc baby. If there was another village anywhere close they would have asked for help with the Orcs in the first place. Finding more Orcs is the exact opposite of what the village wants to do.
The kids will die of exposure or be eaten by monsters. Giving up the rest of your adult life to raise children that, statistically, will probably be violent brutes anyway is a very Good action. Refusing to do so is not an Evil action. It's a Neutral action. Killing them is saving them the pain.
Valid reasons why it would be difficult. But, again, how about the cannibal human toddlers? No one in the village would house someone who ate Cousin Andy. There's no village close enough to take them who haven't also served as Sunday Lunch. They'd die of exposure.
Does that mean you can let those kids die?
See, there's a difference between 'valid reasons why it's difficult' and 'valid reasons why it's not possible'. Your character could go adventuring to fund the kind of sanctuary they need. He could ask for financial help from wealthy Half-Orcs to give them the chance to prove themselves. He could convince the town that if they could be raised right, in service of Sarenrae the Redeemer then they could be a powerful force to protect the town in twenty years, when another Orc band or something equally nasty moves in to take the place of the ones killed now.
There are other options. Choosing not to bother and to kill instead is what makes this an evil act.
I didn't think every outsider respects Pharasma's dictates. Daemons are notorious for not, and NE seems to fit with the evil part of his actions.
Did I forget to mention that he totally worshiped Pharasma near the end of his life, and established a relationship with Psychopomps who were well aware of his passing before it happened?
You're thinking Devils. "Eye for an eye" + "slaughter innocents" = Lawful Evil.
You as the DM make him Evil for killing the Orc babies. He continues to serve his village and help the people in it for the rest of his life, killing people who try to kill his people. He dies surrounded by friends and family who adore him.
Does he go to Hell?
Would a man who gave to charity, was loved by his family and died defending his family but happened to smash a three year old child in the face with a warhammer because it was easiest option go to hell?
Yeah, probably. 'Your daddy started it' doesn't really justify the ends.
No one in the village is going to take in an Orc baby. If there was another village anywhere close they would have asked for help with the Orcs in the first place. Finding more Orcs is the exact opposite of what the village wants to do.
The kids will die of exposure or be eaten by monsters. Giving up the rest of your adult life to raise children that, statistically, will probably be violent brutes anyway is a very Good action. Refusing to do so is not an Evil action. It's a Neutral action. Killing them is saving them the pain.
Valid reasons why it would be difficult. But, again, how about the cannibal human toddlers? No one in the village would house someone who ate Cousin Andy. A village close enough to take them would be too far away. They're die of exposure.
Does that mean you can let those kids die?
See, there's a difference between 'valid reasons why it's difficult' and 'valid reasons why it's not possible'. Your character could go adventuring to fund the kind of sanctuary they need. He could ask for financial help from wealthy Half-Orcs to give them the chance to prove themselves. He could convince the town that if they could be raised right, in service of Sarenrae the Redeemer then they could be a powerful force to protect the town in twenty years, when another Orc band or something equally nasty moves in to take the place of the ones killed now....
I'm not arguing that the act wasn't Evil. I'm arguing that the character is not Evil just for performing an Evil action.
I didn't think every outsider respects Pharasma's dictates. Daemons are notorious for not, and NE seems to fit with the evil part of his actions.Did I forget to mention that he totally worshiped Pharasma near the end of his life, and established a relationship with Psychopomps who were well aware of his passing before it happened?
Meh, this is getting contrived. Frankly it was already contrived with the whole DM blocking every means of nonlethal solution, but, it is even more contrived now. Bedtime for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That entirely depends on just how evil that action was, really. Slaughtering innocents is pretty darn off one end of the evil spectrum, so, yeah, that'll do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That entirely depends on just how evil that action was, really. Slaughtering innocents is pretty darn off one end of the evil spectrum, so, yeah, that'll do it.
An entire lifetime of Good acts, one orc baby, and he goes to Hell?
|
If all Pit Bulls do that, why do we still keep them around? Either you're generalizing or I have way too much faith in humanity.My opinion is that enough Pit Bulls do that, that owning them should be illegal and Pit Bulls should be forced to be sterilized or killed.
That's easy, because Pit Bulls are non-sentient (Int < 3) and while it's possible to raise those who aren't monsters, too many are monsters.
It's not as simple with a sentient species, and since probably 1/3 (maybe more) of pit bulls are not a threat, that would be wrong if they were sentient. And in a universe where 1/3 of orcs were benign, killing orc children would be very wrong/evil. In a universe where only 1/100 of orcs are benign, all orcs of any age should be killed on sight.
So it all comes down to the laws of the universe.
In a thread about the morality of killing babies, I'm surprised that this is the most inhumane thing I've read. If one was to actually compare pit-bulls to orcs, it'd be a fantastic argument for saving the orcs, because Pit Bulls are one of the naturally sweetest and most affectionate breeds... that get trained and bullied into being monsters.
There's an interesting idea... Orcs start off as cuddly, warm, and compassionate, and become monsters due to societal views that they are constrained by, and consequently raised into.
I'm stealing this. Thank you.
I'm not arguing that the act wasn't Evil. I'm arguing that the character is not Evil just for performing an Evil action.
Fair enough. I disagree strongly - as long as there's another option that doesn't end with an apocalypse, a child deserves the effort to be taken regardless of species. But I avoid killing spiders just because it's easy - a sentient life form is never going to be an option.
I'm not arguing that the act wasn't Evil. I'm arguing that the character is not Evil just for performing an Evil action.Fair enough. I disagree strongly - as long as there's another option that doesn't end with an apocalypse, a child deserves the effort to be taken regardless of species. But I avoid killing spiders just because it's easy - a sentient life form is never going to be an option.
The Hero probably felt bad about killing the babies, but out in the monster-infested tundra like that, they weren't going to last. He at least made it quick instead of the cold/bloody suffering that was waiting for them. I like to think choosing the lesser of two Evils where he can comes out to Neutral.
I don't know, DM, you and I apparently don't see eye-to-eye at all. My eyes, yeah, pretty much. Unrepentant slaughter of innocents is wholesale evil, hands down.
Good doesn't make evil go away. If Ted Bundy built a bunch of orphanages, donated a ton of money to cancer research, volunteered at homeless shelters, and spent ten years working as a police officer putting horrible people away in jail, he'd still be Ted Bundy, psychopathic murderer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, DM, you and I apparently don't see eye-to-eye at all. My eyes, yeah, pretty much. Unrepentant slaughter of innocents is wholesale evil, hands down.
Good doesn't make evil go away. If Ted Bundy built a bunch of orphanages, donated a ton of money to cancer research, volunteered at homeless shelters, and spent ten years working as a police officer putting horrible people away in jail, he'd still be Ted Bundy, psychopathic murderer.
Then what is redemption?
Notice I said the word "unrepentant". Look that up.
Notice I said the word "unrepentant". Look that up.
I said "he probably felt bad about it". He spent the rest of his life making sure that the people he killed the Orcs to protect had a good life. There were no other Orcs to do right by and the babies were dead. He did all he could.
Your character example would have once been good, slaughtered innocents, became evil...and had he felt really terrible about it, as you mentioned, repented from his actions, never slaughtered kids again, and went out of his way from then on to protect innocent children regardless of race, he could gradually earn his way back to neutral or good.
I suppose the example I gave of Ted Bundy would be more appropriate had I said "If before murdering all those people Ted Bundy built a bunch of orphanages, donated a ton of money to cancer research, volunteered at homeless shelters, and spent ten years working as a police officer putting horrible people away in jail, he'd still be Ted Bundy, psychopathic murderer."
EDIT: Sorry, I missed the neutral you put in there. We have a common ground then.
I, unfortunately, have a technical perspective that slants me somewhat in this. I believe pretty much everyone is an evil son of a b at their core, and it takes constant effort pretty much just to be neutral. Most of us who think we're "pretty good people" are at best neutral. Truly good people are probably one in a million...and I don't use that as a figure of speech. I think there's probably, in this 7 billion population world, roughly 7,000 good people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, unfortunately, have a technical perspective that slants me somewhat in this. I believe pretty much everyone is an evil son of a b at their core, and it takes constant effort pretty much just to be neutral. Most of us who think we're "pretty good people" are at best neutral. Truly good people are probably one in a million...and I don't use that as a figure of speech. I think there's probably, in this 7 billion population world, roughly 7,000 good people.
I was hoping we could discuss Pathfinder Morality. Real Life Morality tends to make people get deleted/banned on the internet very fast.
But even not believing that...dude...murdering kids. MURDERING KIDS. How is that not an act of an evil person? Murder + Kids!
You stopped arguing that they'll grow up to be evil. You have broken it down to "well, yeah, it's evil, but does it make HIM evil?" To murder kids? YES! Holy crap, yes, it does! It's murdering kids!
EDIT - cause even I thought that was a little emotional, and questioning you personally is wrong.
But even not believing that...dude...murdering kids. MURDERING KIDS. How is that not an act of an evil person? Murder + Kids! Holy crap, I know I'll probably get at the very least this post itself erased and a stern wording from the moderators for personal attack, but...
You stopped arguing that they'll grow up to be evil. You have broken it down to "well, yeah, it's evil, but does it make HIM evil?" To murder kids? YES! Holy crap, yes, it does! It's murdering kids!
It's a terrible thing, but he had to do it for his people at first, and then to save the children themselves from a horrible fate out in the tundra. A 100% chance to suffer and die, or a 100% chance to die without knowing a thing, quietly and without sin, probably to the True Neutral afterlife. I already told you it was an Evil act.
I don't think I can more thoroughly boil down my point anymore than:
"Murdering children is always evil, and always makes you (the murderer, not you the player), no matter who you are, no matter how much good you've done in the past, evil. Period. There is no exception, loophole, or other wiggle room. It's murdering children. You (the person doing the murdering, again, not you the player) are therefore an evil, horrible person, and you deserve all the horrible torture the negative planes have waiting for you, you evil, evil barstard. Yes, forget all the good you did, it doesn't mean diddly squat when you murder children. Unequivocally. "
That being stated, I think I'll head to bed.
I may check in on this thread to see the arguments that continue to cycle through, but, well...
In case any more "What if's" come up, allow me to preemptively reply with..."NO! Still evil. Children + Murder = Always Evil" in order to help facilitate the conversation during my absence.
If it helps, please, do picture me as fanatical, wild-eyed, and emphatically emotional as suits any personal need to feel less ethically and morally detached for thinking murdering kids has any situation where it is okay and not the act of an evil person.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why "objective morality" doesn't work.
The people adjudicating it are not objective.
Being dispassionate about the ideals and mores one was raised with isn't a thing, though; so "objective morality" is more a kind of contradiction in terms.
|
|
I still think it's entirely possible that the character wouldn't be Evil if killing the orc kids was the only Evil act he does, there were a bunch of (clearly contrived) reasons other options didn't seem feasible, and he still felt horrible about doing it.
Granted, the very first Evil act a character does is unlikely to be slaughtering the innocent, you'd think they would at least work their way up from theft or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think it's entirely possible that the character wouldn't be Evil if killing the orc kids was the only Evil act he does, there were a bunch of (clearly contrived) reasons other options didn't seem feasible, and he still felt horrible about doing it.
Granted, the very first Evil act a character does is unlikely to be slaughtering the innocent, you'd think they would at least work their way up from theft or something.
There was no reason to steal things. If he didn't kill the Orcs, every single person in the village would die or be enslaved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know commoners get a bad rap but I'm pretty sure a village full of them could take on a few orc toddlers.
Which is why he couldn't take them back to the village. Which is why they were going to die one way or the other.
|
|
Don't ya just love the internet, and Paizo's OGL? Makes this kinda thing easy to look up. Check it out.
According to this, half-fiends are native outsiders, not evil outsiders, BUT they're always evil, not mostly.
Actually...per the Alignment Rules shown here, which are the only actual guidelines provided, only those with the subtype are actually restricted at all. 'Always' comments are purely flavor, really.
Tieflings, on the other hand, vary the gamut, but lean more to evil; still, there's more than just a handful of good tieflings, so it's a little more cut-and-dry than the average orc.
Eh. I feel like killing children is always clear-cut as deeply Evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're saying is that:
a) No one in the entire village would agree to look after the orc children.
b) Everyone in the village is Evil (and racist) enough that they'd kill toddlers on sight just because of their race.
c) The character in question couldn't be bothered look after the toddlers themself.
d) Every single orc in the entire orc village has been exterminated, no non-combatants existed or were spared, no warriors escaped the slaughter.
e) These are only two villages around, the last outposts of humanity and orcity in the entire land, meaning there's no one else who could possibly look after the toddlers.
f) The wilderness surrounding these villages are so hostile there's absolutely no chance of these orc toddlers surviving, but not hostile enough that a human village can still make a living there despite constant predations by a nearby orc village.
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly contrived?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. I feel like killing children is always clear-cut as deeply Evil.
Barring weird circumstances like demon children or possession that can't be (for whatever reason) overcome, I would agree.
Being dispassionate about the ideals and mores one was raised with isn't a thing, though; so "objective morality" is more a kind of contradiction in terms.
I was referring to how people trot that out in these discussions.
"maybe, but Pathfinder has objective morality"
Pathfinder may have objective morality from a design standpoint, but it cannot have it from a practical standpoint so long as humans are the arbiters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dunno if it's been mentioned here yet, but there's a passage about alignment in one of the Paizo books about how a Paladin that kills goblin children based on the belief that they could not overcome their racial evil is a valid Good interpretation.
But as a general DMing note-
Unless you're trying to preach your personal beliefs to people without allowing them to maintain their own belief, this probably shouldn't be an alignment thing and just be a character thing.
By that I reiterate that it'd come off somewhat arrogant to believe that your personal belief on the matter is the one true way. That's a shortcut to destruction if I ever saw one.
Under the playable Orc race does it say you must be evil aligned?
The answer is no, which means they can be neutral or good characters and so killing the orc toddlers is evil, plain and simple.
And frankly what is the intelligence score of a toddler orc anyways?
Are they even conscience of what their beliefs or actions are to determine an alignment of their own. I would put them at a neutral alignment like an animal. They aren't inherently evil.
|
|
Dunno if it's been mentioned here yet, but there's a passage about alignment in one of the Paizo books about how a Paladin that kills goblin children based on the belief that they could not overcome their racial evil is a valid Good interpretation.
It's been mentioned. And that's not quite what that paragraph says. Also, that interpretation has been directly contradicted by James Jacobs who, as creative director, has authority on matters like this.
But as a general DMing note-
Unless you're trying to preach your personal beliefs to people without allowing them to maintain their own belief, this probably shouldn't be an alignment thing and just be a character thing.
By that I reiterate that it'd come off somewhat arrogant to believe that your personal belief on the matter is the one true way. That's a shortcut to destruction if I ever saw one.
Normally, I agree with this sort of policy on morality. However, we're talking about the brutal murder of children here. If there's anyone at the table who doesn't have a personal belief that doing so is wrong...I am deeply disturbed and don't want to game with them.
I can see the argument that they're only okay with killing children of other species that are prone to certain tendencies such as violence or lacking a conscience...but frankly, I don't find that much less disturbing in any meaningful sense. Biology is not destiny, and killing people based on it is both morally wrong and profoundly messed up.