Killing Orcs toddlers is evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 657 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Oly wrote:
So it's impossible to be Neutral?

No, you could just leave them. That's probably still slightly Evil, but it's an option, and way closer to Neutral than killing them (or raising them).

Oly wrote:
Assuming orcs have a reasonable chance to be decent people if raised properly, the Good act is, in fact, to raise them. But if the only other option is killing them, it can still be the option for someone who is Neutral; see canon:

There's also always the option of leaving them to fend for themselves. Which is perhaps slightly Evil, as I said, but probably not enough to drop your alignment down.

Oly wrote:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent (meaning they don't like to do it, but it doesn't say "prohibition"), but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Talk about a sacrifice! Curtailing a great adventuring career to raise a member of a species that in PF it's totally reasonable to have a prejudice against? Neutrals "may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Like I said, there's a third option. I actually meant to include it in the post you quoted, but I got distracted by life in the midst of writing that post.

Oly wrote:
So, if it's relatively easy to get them to an orphanage who'll take them (again, presuming they reasonably might grow up okay if so) the Neutral person will get them to the orphanage. But the Neutral person probably will not choose to raise them himself.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. It governs what you have done, not necessarily what you will do. What you mean is that doing this is the Neutral decision, and there's certainly some truth to that.

thejeff wrote:
You don't kill all the adult orcs either. Unless your GM is being a jerk.

This is also generally true...barring seriously weird circumstances (Orc Suicide Cult!).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I would like to point out that if it "wasn't hard" and that the temples worked the way you say then wouldn't non-evil Human raised Orcs be significantly more common? I mean Humans and Orcs go to war all the time and War Orphans are a pretty common thing for both sides to deal with. I imagine Orcs have lots of kids considering the species isn't extinct and has made enemies of... all the playable species available.

In most wars, the entire adult populations aren't slaughtered. There are certainly Orc war orphans, but those are usually the result of parents slain in battle and are taken in and raised by other orcs - or left to die by those same Orcs. Which would be evil, but they're orcs and thus often evil anyway.

The same really should be true of adventurers. Kill the orcs that are causing trouble or at least enough of them that they can't cause to much more trouble and then leave them alone. Drive them out, make them move further away from the humans they've been bothering.

It's only in a very contrived situation that you actually have to kill all the adults, leaving only the children. Or if the players and/or the GM really are thinking of the Orcs as nothing but inhuman monsters (or really as nothing but stats for combat encounters), until they reach the room in the module where the children are mentioned.

I don't get this.

"Kill the orcs that are causing trouble or at least enough of them that they can't cause to much more trouble and then leave them alone. Drive them out, make them move further away from the humans they've been bothering."

Why?

This isn't like real life. In real life if say, Mexico and Brazil went to war then what you said would be true and the winning side would take what they got in terms of territory and resources while leaving the citizenry mostly intact.

In Golarian the Orcs don't leave it as that. They beat your army? Ok, time to kill and rape your village. One village down? On to the next. No empathy or mercy, just malice.

That the playable species leave the Orcs alone is utter madness to me.


There are some situations in which a mercy killing would be the Good option.

If you knew they would die cruely if left and could not afford the time to take them somewhere safe and could not bring them with you and needed to continue on for some higher cause - to stop the BBEG who'd hired the orcs before he finished the ritual and killed thousands, for example.

Of course, in that situation, it would be the same with human babies and your GM is really a jerk.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I would like to point out that if it "wasn't hard" and that the temples worked the way you say then wouldn't non-evil Human raised Orcs be significantly more common? I mean Humans and Orcs go to war all the time and War Orphans are a pretty common thing for both sides to deal with. I imagine Orcs have lots of kids considering the species isn't extinct and has made enemies of... all the playable species available.

In most wars, the entire adult populations aren't slaughtered. There are certainly Orc war orphans, but those are usually the result of parents slain in battle and are taken in and raised by other orcs - or left to die by those same Orcs. Which would be evil, but they're orcs and thus often evil anyway.

The same really should be true of adventurers. Kill the orcs that are causing trouble or at least enough of them that they can't cause to much more trouble and then leave them alone. Drive them out, make them move further away from the humans they've been bothering.

It's only in a very contrived situation that you actually have to kill all the adults, leaving only the children. Or if the players and/or the GM really are thinking of the Orcs as nothing but inhuman monsters (or really as nothing but stats for combat encounters), until they reach the room in the module where the children are mentioned.

I don't get this.

"Kill the orcs that are causing trouble or at least enough of them that they can't cause to much more trouble and then leave them alone. Drive them out, make them move further away from the humans they've been bothering."

Why?

This isn't like real life. In real life if say, Mexico and Brazil went to war then what you said would be true and the winning side would take what they got in terms of territory and resources while leaving the citizenry mostly intact.

In Golarian the Orcs don't leave it as that. They beat your army? Ok, time to kill and rape your village. One village down? On to the next. No empathy or...

That's a fair cop. That's part of where I've been coming from with "The worst case is when the orcs are portrayed as entirely inhuman monsters, but remain theoretically redeemable."

If you want them not to be treated as inhuman monsters, they have to actually not be inhuman monsters. There can't just be an entry in the manual somewhere saying they aren't. They actually need to have some moral complexity in the setting. Different orcish cultures with different values. Orcs raised in those orphanages, living in other cultures. Some nuance that isn't just kill machine or walking experience points for your adventurers to kill.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I don't get this.

"Kill the orcs that are causing trouble or at least enough of them that they can't cause to much more trouble and then leave them alone. Drive them out, make them move further away from the humans they've been bothering."

Why?

This isn't like real life. In real life if say, Mexico and Brazil went to war then what you said would be true and the winning side would take what they got in terms of territory and resources while leaving the citizenry mostly intact.

Depends on the nature of the war. If you're just beating off attacks on you, not trying to conquer their lands (which is sometimes the right way to go...guerrilla warfare is a b~+!%) then that's a valid strategy. If you're fighting a war of conquest, not so much.

And even in a war of conquest, you seldom kill all the conquered people...not even all the adults.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
In Golarian the Orcs don't leave it as that. They beat your army? Ok, time to kill and rape your village. One village down? On to the next. No empathy or mercy, just malice.

That's certainly true to some degree, yeah.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
That the playable species leave the Orcs alone is utter madness to me.

Uh, they don't? Lastwall is sorta the opposite of that in many ways...

Now, conquering Belkzen hasn't happened, but that's because that's easier said than done, not because nobody has tried.

thejeff wrote:

There are some situations in which a mercy killing would be the Good option.

If you knew they would die cruely if left and could not afford the time to take them somewhere safe and could not bring them with you and needed to continue on for some higher cause - to stop the BBEG who'd hired the orcs before he finished the ritual and killed thousands, for example.

Of course, in that situation, it would be the same with human babies and your GM is really a jerk.

Yeah, I'll agree with this.

thejeff wrote:

That's a fair cop. That's part of where I've been coming from with "The worst case is when the orcs are portrayed as entirely inhuman monsters, but remain theoretically redeemable."

If you want them not to be treated as inhuman monsters, they have to actually not be inhuman monsters. There can't just be an entry in the manual somewhere saying they aren't. They actually need to have some moral complexity in the setting. Different orcish cultures with different values. Orcs raised in those orphanages, living in other cultures. Some nuance that isn't just kill machine or walking experience points for your adventurers to kill.

There's some of that in Golarion, just not as much as there could be. And likely to be a lot more once the Belkzen book is out.

Grand Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Werebat wrote:
What would be the alternative to killing the orclings? Leaving them be to starve to death or be eaten by wildlife? Bringing them to a city and letting them loose on the streets after the orphanage refuses to take in the "monsters"?
If you're a Good person with no other options?
If you're a Neutral person

Then this is a defining moment in that character's life.

If they've exhausted all other options other than raising them themselves or killing them, then taking them in to raise them themselves shunts them way towards Good...and killing them all the way down to Evil.

But, again, with Sarenrae as one of the main 20 Gods...this is a deeply unlikely scenario in Golarion in the first place. one of her temples will take them. Basically for sure. And if you're not willing to spend a bit of time and effort finding such a place to save the lives of children...you're probably Evil already.

To be fair, Sarenrae's worshippers are mostly in the south, Northern Garund and Southern reaches of Avistan, which canonically has significantly fewer orc problems than the north. It's why half-orcs from there tend to be calmer and have a significantly reduced/non-existent chip on their shoulder. While there might be a congregation of Sarenrae within travelling distance, they still might not have the resources to take on 20+ orc children.

Granted, if you have a wizard that casts teleport, this is moot, but not everyone has a 9th level caster at beck and call when a group of orcs requires pacification say, around the Hold of Belkzen.

thejeff wrote:
Stuff.

Agreed on the whole front of needing actual effort in the story to make the possibility of redemption a genuine article, rather than a footnote in a bestiary or other somesuch. If you as a GM have made orcs so horrifically bestial and brutal to make this a legitimate option, you don't get to pull the rug out from under your players and go "Psyche! You totally should have gotten all these orcs to a Good-alligned center so they could all become pure-hearted bastions of virtue!"

Liberty's Edge

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
To be fair, Sarenrae's worshippers are mostly in the south, Northern Garund and Southern reaches of Avistan, which canonically has significantly fewer orc problems than the north. It's why half-orcs from there tend to be calmer and have a significantly reduced/non-existent chip on their shoulder. While there might be a congregation of Sarenrae within travelling distance, they still might not have the resources to take on 20+ orc children.

This is a somewhat misleading statement, though technically true. Sarenrae's religion is certainly centered in the south...but it's also one of the four biggest religions in Korvosa, one of the two with Clerics in Sandpoint, and otherwise pretty significant in Varisia...and likely other parts of the north as well.

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Granted, if you have a wizard that casts teleport, this is moot, but not everyone has a 9th level caster at beck and call when a group of orcs requires pacification say, around the Hold of Belkzen.

Varisia borders Belkzen. Still, you certainly have a point. However, there's also the fact that various other Good religions seem likely to be willing to help with this as well (Cayden Cailean leaps to mind...he's a major orphanage guy), so it's not like there are no options other than Sarenrae.

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Agreed on the whole front of needing actual effort in the story to make the possibility of redemption a genuine article, rather than a footnote in a bestiary or other somesuch. If you as a GM have made orcs so horrifically bestial and brutal to make this a legitimate option, you don't get to pull the rug out from under your players and go "Psyche! You totally should have gotten all these orcs to a Good-alligned center so they could all become pure-hearted bastions of virtue!"

Yeah...bait and switching your players is always a bad policy as a GM.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dread Knight wrote:
Scavion wrote:

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Absolutely! If we were dealing with a group of culturally evil humans, my response would still be the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dread Knight wrote:
Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Apples and oranges. Humans have no set alignment but Orcs clearly have a natural evil alignment, chaotic evil to be precise, with very few examples anywhere showing exceptions. THIS is what most Orcs do. Notice the Orc having any concern for the Human child in the mother's arms? I didn't notice any.

Of course, if you think the history of almost-exclusively evil Orcs is something that is contrived by those posting here, then please buy Orcs of Golarion and give it a read. I'm sure it will prove quite the read! Read the history of Orcs in particular. It is no mere myth that Orcs are naturally and culturally evil, for it is present in the spreadbook on their kind.

The crux of the entire situation rests on 'are Orcs naturally evil, and thus, enemies to be exterminated?', and my answer is 'yes, they are'. As I said, looking at Orc society and history in Orcs of Golarion, I have not found a single reference of 'good Orcs', nor any references to them. As a matter of fact, due to their innate traits, they are 'not recommended as player characters'.

Liberty's Edge

Not all Evil creatures deserve death, and like human toddlers, orc toddlers would be too young to have an alignment anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
Scavion wrote:

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.
Absolutely! If we were dealing with a group of culturally evil humans, my response would still be the same.

Really? In real life you'd advocate killing, say, the children of terrorists rather than attempting to raise them not to be the same way as their parents? Really?


thejeff wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

{. . .}

Werebat wrote:
Of course, Warhammer orcs don't seem to have a childhood (or females), so the question is moot with them.

I'm not sure Tolkien's Orcs have those things either.

"Bolg, son of Azog"

Admittedly, that was in the Hobbit, which wasn't quite intended to by part of the Mythology at first.

It's certainly not clear that Tolkien's Orcs are created being without any real defined life cycle, though he definitely keeps any women and children off stage. Saruman has been crossing them with humans. In the movie, this was in pods or something, but how is not specified in the books.
{. . .}

The first Lord of the Rings movie invented the pods. In The Silmarillion, Orcs are described as having been originally made by Morgoth breaking some Elves to make them evil, and then in the Lord of the Rings books when Frodo and Sam are in the Orc fortress on the boundary of Mordor, they describe Orcs as being basically Humanoid, not with respect to reproduction, but with respect to diet (their food can be foul, but cannot be poison). All together, these things imply that Orcs have a standard (if accelerated) Humanoid life cycle, although the absence of women and children is very conspicuous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

{. . .}

Werebat wrote:
Of course, Warhammer orcs don't seem to have a childhood (or females), so the question is moot with them.

I'm not sure Tolkien's Orcs have those things either.

"Bolg, son of Azog"

Admittedly, that was in the Hobbit, which wasn't quite intended to by part of the Mythology at first.

It's certainly not clear that Tolkien's Orcs are created being without any real defined life cycle, though he definitely keeps any women and children off stage. Saruman has been crossing them with humans. In the movie, this was in pods or something, but how is not specified in the books.
{. . .}

The first Lord of the Rings movie invented the pods. In The Silmarillion, Orcs are described as having been originally made by Morgoth breaking some Elves to make them evil, and then in the Lord of the Rings books when Frodo and Sam are in the Orc fortress on the boundary of Mordor, they describe Orcs as being basically Humanoid, not with respect to reproduction, but with respect to diet (their food can be foul, but cannot be poison). All together, these things imply that Orcs have a standard (if accelerated) Humanoid life cycle, although the absence of women and children is very conspicuous.

I think what it all means is that Tolkien would make a great DM if he would just shut up about the lore once in a while.

...and stop trying to sing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
Scavion wrote:

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.
Absolutely! If we were dealing with a group of culturally evil humans, my response would still be the same.
Really? In real life you'd advocate killing, say, the children of terrorists rather than attempting to raise them not to be the same way as their parents? Really?

That's categorically incorrect. There isa difference between culturally evil cultures and terrorists. Terrorists can come from any culture and a culture made up of terrorists does not and has never existed. The same can be said of a culturally evil group of humans.

Orcs, as they are portrayed, are completely alien to every Human culture we've ever seen in our history and it's really hard to find a reason why every single culture on Golarian has yet to take up arms and finally eradicate the Orc menace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So Orcs are fair game, every time, all ages. Aaaaaaaaadventure~


Knockoff wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote: wrote:

Scavion wrote: wrote:

Dread Knight wrote: wrote:

Scavion wrote: wrote:

So we're down to,

"If we're treating people like people then we need to show mercy!"

And

"If we're treating monsters like monsters then we don't need mercy!"

I figured this was obvious. As a norm, Orcs have always been the #1 humanoid bad guys. Playing them up as "They're not actually bad, just really aggressive!" seems silly. If orcs are rampaging across the countryside as they are normally portrayed, I'd be quite surprised if a DM got mad at me for cutting down one on sight.

And seriously? Raising them to be not evil? Their presence can be an endangerment to the people around them. Not to mention that such an endeavor might not even succeed. Congratulations! That orc you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil orc and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.
Absolutely! If we were dealing with a group of culturally evil humans, my response would still be the same.
Really? In real life you'd advocate killing, say, the children of terrorists rather than attempting to raise them not to be the same way as their parents? Really?

Please bear with me.

There have been a lot of hypothetical comparisons between the situation cited by OP, and similar situations featuring human toddlers in place of orcs. Those examples cited in this post are by no means comprehensive, but they reflect a sentiment through the thread that is not grounded in reality. The differences between humans and orcs, and more specifically what predisposes them toward a particular alignment, are biological, not sociological.

see examples below

** spoiler omitted **...

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I don't own that book. This further cements to "different species" viewpoint I have as well as the "no comparable Human societies."

In Golarian Orcs are evil monsters, from both a Nature and Nurture standpoint, and should be treated as such.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

{. . .}

Werebat wrote:
Of course, Warhammer orcs don't seem to have a childhood (or females), so the question is moot with them.

I'm not sure Tolkien's Orcs have those things either.

"Bolg, son of Azog"

Admittedly, that was in the Hobbit, which wasn't quite intended to by part of the Mythology at first.

It's certainly not clear that Tolkien's Orcs are created being without any real defined life cycle, though he definitely keeps any women and children off stage. Saruman has been crossing them with humans. In the movie, this was in pods or something, but how is not specified in the books.
{. . .}

The first Lord of the Rings movie invented the pods. In The Silmarillion, Orcs are described as having been originally made by Morgoth breaking some Elves to make them evil, and then in the Lord of the Rings books when Frodo and Sam are in the Orc fortress on the boundary of Mordor, they describe Orcs as being basically Humanoid, not with respect to reproduction, but with respect to diet (their food can be foul, but cannot be poison). All together, these things imply that Orcs have a standard (if accelerated) Humanoid life cycle, although the absence of women and children is very conspicuous.

It's not that conspicuous. They were almost exclusively dealing with armies and other war parties of orcs. Even in Moria, they weren't in the area where the orcs were actually living. The towers on the borders of Mordor were guard outposts. It's not really surprising they didn't run into non-combatants.

The pods are definitely movie only, though he did consider other options for the origin of Orcs, they would have been creations of Melkor in the distant past, not something Saruman could have duplicated.


Knockoff wrote:

I should mention that the "Ferocity" tidbits are situated between sections titled "Strength and Stamina" and "Senses". All information on the biological distinction between orcs and the "civilized races".

reading the passage immediately above by itself, I would conclude that orc culture made orcs this way. but in light the very explicit bit that directly contradicts that, I think it is very fair to say that orcs fit the definition for "evil".

So anyway... Had the barbarian that killed the orc toddlers been aware of these facts about orcs, he could have reasoned that raising them himself wouldn't fly. Dumping them off on some clueless priest likely would have ended poorly as well. So he was confronted with the two alternatives:
1) abandoning them to die. (and if they survived they are inclined grow up into chaotic evil monsters)
2) kill them

The barbarian cannot know for sure the orcs will grow up to hurt somebody, but a calculated decision air on the side of caution isn't really evil.

Killing anything defenseless is definitely bad, even if you don't enjoy it. but when confronted with no "good" options, killing them cannot justifiably be considered "evil".

Please do not fall into the trap of comparing humans to orcs. They may share higher intelligence and bipedalism, but they think and act completely different for biological reasons. I took intro to sociology too, but orcs are bad guys.

YMMV. Check with your GM regarding the status of orcs in your game before killing babies. Not responsible for any alignment damage that may occur if this step is neglected.


thejeff wrote:
Knockoff wrote:

I should mention that the "Ferocity" tidbits are situated between sections titled "Strength and Stamina" and "Senses". All information on the biological distinction between orcs and the "civilized races".

reading the passage immediately above by itself, I would conclude that orc culture made orcs this way. but in light the very explicit bit that directly contradicts that, I think it is very fair to say that orcs fit the definition for "evil".

So anyway... Had the barbarian that killed the orc toddlers been aware of these facts about orcs, he could have reasoned that raising them himself wouldn't fly. Dumping them off on some clueless priest likely would have ended poorly as well. So he was confronted with the two alternatives:
1) abandoning them to die. (and if they survived they are inclined grow up into chaotic evil monsters)
2) kill them

The barbarian cannot know for sure the orcs will grow up to hurt somebody, but a calculated decision air on the side of caution isn't really evil.

Killing anything defenseless is definitely bad, even if you don't enjoy it. but when confronted with no "good" options, killing them cannot justifiably be considered "evil".

Please do not fall into the trap of comparing humans to orcs. They may share higher intelligence and bipedalism, but they think and act completely different for biological reasons. I took intro to sociology too, but orcs are bad guys.

YMMV. Check with your GM regarding the status of orcs in your game before killing babies. Not responsible for any alignment damage that may occur if this step is neglected.

Yeah in my playgroup everyone at the table has varying levels of campaign setting knowledge. Just because you know something the GM doesn't will not make you right at his table.


I've got to say, if that really is the canonical approach to orcs in Golarion, it's about the worst of both worlds. Orcs are capable of moral choice and thus must be treated as fundamentally innocent, yet even attempts to raise them in other cultures are likely to fail and cost innocent lives.

I see why they made them that way from a game standpoint: They make great villains and you can even have the occasional redeemed one as a counterpoint. But it really leaves the moral question in a good deal of trouble. Very much a screwed either way trap.


Crusty Ol' Adventurer wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
Congratulations! That human you raised still turned out evil and stabbed the baker! Now you have an evil human and a dead baker because you couldn't steel yourself and put the creature to death.

Apples and oranges. Humans have no set alignment but Orcs clearly have a natural evil alignment, chaotic evil to be precise, with very few examples anywhere showing exceptions. THIS is what most Orcs do. Notice the Orc having any concern for the Human child in the mother's arms? I didn't notice any.

Of course, if you think the history of almost-exclusively evil Orcs is something that is contrived by those posting here, then please buy Orcs of Golarion and give it a read. I'm sure it will prove quite the read! Read the history of Orcs in particular. It is no mere myth that Orcs are naturally and culturally evil, for it is present in the spreadbook on their kind.

The crux of the entire situation rests on 'are Orcs naturally evil, and thus, enemies to be exterminated?', and my answer is 'yes, they are'. As I said, looking at Orc society and history in Orcs of Golarion, I have not found a single reference of 'good Orcs', nor any references to them. As a matter of fact, due to their innate traits, they are 'not recommended as player characters'.

What about a group of Humans that do nothing but raid and pillage other villages if you killed all of the adults would you kill the children as well? These Humans are doing the same exact thing that the Orcs were doing if you'd put the Orc babies to death and call it Good or Neutral you'd have to do the same with the Human children.

You can take just about every single argument against Orcs and put another race in it would still work.

Orcs are Sentient, Orcs are Capable of choosing their own path in life and to be Good or Evil = Killing Orc children who have done nothing but been born are evil.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think at the end of the day, everyone posting here will agree that people will portray Orcs in their own games one way, while someone else will portray them another.

Regardless of what the official write-up on any given race or culture is, people will do things differently at their tables. I hate absolutes in any game I participate in and that includes the crusader GM's that say 'All things are redeemable' or that 'Nothing is redeemable'. I like grey areas, but that's just me.


The Orcs of Golarian passages are interesting; based on those I'd say an orc raised outside of orcish society will gravitate towards Chaotic Neutral.

Being Always Angry isn't the same thing as Always Evil. Just look at the Hulk.

Heh. It ain't easy being green.

Now, I'd assume the reason for why there's so few orclings in orphanages --

Humans having to deal with the question of "what the hell do I do with these orc children?" requires folks taking on orc tribes and winning.

Based on Belkzen's steady encroachment into Lastwall, I'd guess that doesn't happen very often.

The orcs of Belkzen are fantastically dangerous (like, stop Worldwound advancement dead cold dangerous), and what's keeping the orcs in check isn't Ustalav or Lastwall; it's the orcs themselves fighting each other.

Lastwall loses several miles of border every time the orcs get their s+~! together enough to seriously attack. Fortunately for Lastwall, the orcs are usually having too much "fun" fighting each other to get around to attacking Lastwall.

The orcs in Garund and Qadira don't appear to be nearly as problematic - hell, based on the Rainkin entry from Bastards of Golarion, in the Mwangi Expanse the orcs are apparently comrades in arms with the Mwangi against the Gorilla King and his forces, and other threats.

The Sandkin and Rainkin entries from Bastards of Golarion are probably relevant, especially the sandkin entry:

Bastards of Golarion, page 12 wrote:
In human societies, desert half-orcs (and half-orcs who travel to these regions from other lands) benefit from another fortunate pair of circumstances. First, orcs haven’t been the primary threat in the deserts of northern Garund and Qadira since before the Age of Destiny, so their half-breed progeny aren’t a reminder of some constant looming threat or ancient racial foe, even when born in unchosen circumstances. Second, Sarenrae’s church has a powerful influence in all of these lands save Rahadoum, and its focus on redemption encourages humans to give half-orcs a fair chance. Indeed, many half-orcs find the Dawnflower a welcome source of balance in their lives, reminding them of the importance of mercy, while the practice of eliminating the unrepentant allows them to release their aggression in a productive manner.

Note that Sarenrae doesn't have much influence in the area around Belkzen.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and the replies to it. Let's leave comparisons about descendants of people who experienced major real world atrocities out of a discussion concerning the world of Golarion and keep it squarely centered within the realms of the campaign setting.


Not to lob a grenade in here - but: do orc children radiate evil (as per the detect evil spell)? If so, they are evil - if not, they aren't. Remember - we aren't dealing with "real-world" morality here, even though that's really our only frame of reference. We're dealing with a fantasy reality where evil can be objectively detected by means of a spell. Where mechanical effects can affect evil creatures differently than others.

Would they be subject to the evil damage from a paladin's smite? Would you gain a benefit to your AC if you had protection from evil and were facing an orc child who wanted to attack you?

For me - the answer to the question "Are orc toddlers evil" depends on whether or not they detect as evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vvincent wrote:
Not to lob a grenade in here - but: do orc children radiate evil (as per the detect evil spell)? If so, they are evil - if not, they aren't.

Unless you have some seriously impressive babies, they will not possess sufficient hit dice to set off detect evil.

Liberty's Edge

vvincent wrote:

Not to lob a grenade in here - but: do orc children radiate evil (as per the detect evil spell)? If so, they are evil - if not, they aren't. Remember - we aren't dealing with "real-world" morality here, even though that's really our only frame of reference. We're dealing with a fantasy reality where evil can be objectively detected by means of a spell. Where mechanical effects can affect evil creatures differently than others.

Would they be subject to the evil damage from a paladin's smite? Would you gain a benefit to your AC if you had protection from evil and were facing an orc child who wanted to attack you?

For me - the answer to the question "Are orc toddlers evil" depends on whether or not they detect as evil.

Uh...no creature (other than demons, undead, or the priests of Evil Gods) of less than 5 hit dice radiates Evil. So...4th level serial killer? Doesn't detect as Evil. Neither do adult Orcs. So...the Detect Evil thing doesn't work so well as a barometer for this.

And as for whether a Paladin's Smite would effect them...that's sorta what's being argued here, really.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
That's categorically incorrect. There isa difference between culturally evil cultures and terrorists. Terrorists can come from any culture and a culture made up of terrorists does not and has never existed. The same can be said of a culturally evil group of humans.

I disagree, and provided examples of real world cultures that are pretty easy to define as Evil. This response was deleted, so I can't give examples again, so we'll just leave it at: There are (or at least have been) Evil cultures, even large ones.

You can argue that particular family traditions of terrorism (or cannibalism, there've been at least a family or two who killed and ate people) are not cultures...but they are, just very small ones, and there've been larger evil cultures to boot.

The point I was making was that Scavion's statement advocated, more or less, the acceptability of killing large numbers of children in the real world...which is pretty messed up. Or at least appeared to do so.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Orcs, as they are portrayed, are completely alien to every Human culture we've ever seen in our history and it's really hard to find a reason why every single culture on Golarian has yet to take up arms and finally eradicate the Orc menace.

Way easier said than done. Most of the time, the Orcs are fighting each other, but when you invade, they unite and tend to wreck whoever's doing the invading.

Knockoff wrote:

Please bear with me.

There have been a lot of hypothetical comparisons between the situation cited by OP, and similar situations featuring human toddlers in place of orcs. Those examples cited in this post are by no means comprehensive, but they reflect a sentiment through the thread that is not grounded in reality. The differences between humans and orcs, and more specifically what predisposes them toward a particular alignment, are biological, not sociological.

see examples below

I had a long response to this whole post...but both have been lost in the cleansing. So, short version:

I agree that Orcs are more likely to be Evil than humans. 'More likely' and 'inevitably are' are in no way the same thing, however. And killing children for crimes they might or are more likely to commit in the future is pretty damn Evil.

All the examples you present say about Orc nature, as opposed to socialization, is that they have really bad tempers. So...violent? Yes. Sociopathic? Nope, not so much.

Would raising them to be Good be trickier than raising a human that way? Sure. Impossible? By no means.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I don't own that book. This further cements to "different species" viewpoint I have as well as the "no comparable Human societies."

Well, speaking purely in terms of in-game societies (since real ones might get things deleted again) the Bekyar leap to mind as an equally Evil society. So...yeah, that's comparable.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
In Golarian Orcs are evil monsters, from both a Nature and Nurture standpoint, and should be treated as such.

Unless you consider having a bad temper to make one inherently Evil, this is not precisely true.


When your bad temper brings you to murderous rage and little Orc kills Little Timmy Ender's Game style I don't think the townspeople are gonna want anymore "Angry Orcs."

There is a difference between anger issues and murderous rage issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not "Orcs get angry over little things". That would be a bad attitude, but not Evil. Orcs actually get a "murderous fury" over minor annoyances. That is naturally Evil. Humans who kill people for being slightly annoying? Evil. Orcs are all like that, naturally.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:

When your bad temper brings you to murderous rage and little Orc kills Little Timmy Ender's Game style I don't think the townspeople are gonna want anymore "Angry Orcs."

There is a difference between anger issues and murderous rage issues.

Given there are canonical Neutral and Good Orcs, there's clearly a little bit of hyperbole going on there.

And...speaking as someone with a few anger issues, those sorts of things can be suppressed with sufficient willpower. I haven't been in a physical altercation in over a decade, but I am not less angry than I was for the last one of those (which I didn't start, but did culminate in me stabbing a guy repeatedly in the back of the head with a screwdriver), just better at controlling it.


Those neutral and good orcs are exceptions, and far from anywhere near the norm.

The vast majority of Orcs will go into murderous rage at minor annoyances and good luck teaching an angry small child to control his emotions.

DMW it's easy for you to say because you are a Human and not an Orc.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Those neutral and good orcs are exceptions, and far from anywhere near the norm.

There've been whole tribes shown on at least a couple of occasions...

Insain Dragoon wrote:
The vast majority of Orcs will go into murderous rage at minor annoyances and good luck teaching an angry small child to control his emotions.

There are real children with issues like this. We get them therapy. It often works pretty well.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
DMW it's easy for you to say because you are a Human and not an Orc.

Is it? I'm not a typical person, emotionally speaking. I'm...distinctly odd and divergent from the norm in that regard. Probably at least as divergent as some of the other 'species' in Pathfinder (who, being written by humans, are seldom truly alien).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
And killing children for crimes they might or are more likely to commit in the future is pretty damn Evil.

These sorts of calculations are (as I noted earlier) listed as core concepts of Lawful Evil in Ultimate Campaign.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Those neutral and good orcs are exceptions, and far from anywhere near the norm.

The vast majority of Orcs will go into murderous rage at minor annoyances and good luck teaching an angry small child to control his emotions.

DMW it's easy for you to say because you are a Human and not an Orc.

Do you know why they might be far from the norm? Because the Orcs aren't taken out of the bad culture/place they're growing up in; if you brought them up in a culture/place that didn't say might makes right and if you're strong enough kill anyone that crosses you or one that didn't do anything but bully them many more of them would grow up to be on the Neutral or Good parts of the alignment scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote: wrote:

Knockoff wrote: wrote:

Please bear with me.

There have been a lot of hypothetical comparisons between the situation cited by OP, and similar situations featuring human toddlers in place of orcs. Those examples cited in this post are by no means comprehensive, but they reflect a sentiment through the thread that is not grounded in reality. The differences between humans and orcs, and more specifically what predisposes them toward a particular alignment, are biological, not sociological.

see examples below

I had a long response to this whole post...but both have been lost in the cleansing. So, short version:

I agree that Orcs are more likely to be Evil than humans. 'More likely' and 'inevitably are' are in no way the same thing, however. And killing children for crimes they might or are more likely to commit in the future is pretty damn Evil.

All the examples you present say about Orc nature, as opposed to socialization, is that they have really bad tempers. So...violent? Yes. Sociopathic? Nope, not so much.

Would raising them to be Good be trickier than raising a human that way? Sure. Impossible? By no means.

You are right about the sociopathy bit. Sociopaths act the way they do because of environmental factor (to my knowledge). Orcs are predisposed to violent antisocial(by human standards) behavior for biological reasons. I was just using dramatic language. my fault.

I think we can agree that orcs raised independent of orc culture and humans raised independent of the "evil" culture into which they were born are not at all the same (at least after reading the source material).

However, I think you are downplaying the violent, arguably chaotic evil nature of orcs. I would never argue that raising orcs to be credits to society is "impossible". I tried to steer clear of that absolute in my initial post.

Here is the excerpt from Orcs of Golarion

Orcs of Golarion wrote wrote:

Though much of this furious behavior is enforced by
orc culture, it cannot be denied that those rare orcs raised
apart from their kind, even from childhood, are often
still filled with the same animal rage. All it takes is a
momentary annoyance or minor frustration to drive an
orc to murderous fury . Their terrible ferocity makes it all
but impossible for there to be any lasting peace with orcs.
Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled[/i].

italics added for emphasis

I think this text makes it clear that raising an orc to be "good", or even not dangerous, would be very difficult. "Tricky" is a gross understatement.

To reiterate

Orcs of Golarion wrote wrote:

Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled.

The text states that orcs are likely to be sent into a "murderous fury" by a "momentary annoyance". It is "all but impossible" to have lasting peace with an orc. All this is mentioned in the explicit context of the nature of orcs when raised apart from orc culture.

I am not argueing that orc toddlers are evil. They are not. I am argueing that the barbarian mentioned by OP was faced with the following options.

1) Raise the orcs, either on his own or by dumping them off on some charitable individual. Knowing what we do about the nature of orcs we can assume that "sooer or later... blood will be spilled"

2) Leave the orcs alone. They would likely starve. If they didn't, they would grow up without positive influences and most likely turn out CE.

3) Kill them. No one is enjoying it. The barbarian would simply be airing on the side of caution. Given that he knows what we know about orcs, he resolved to avoid the substantial risk that the orcs would eventually hurt somebody.

The barbarian could not possibly know for sure how the orcs would turn out. If he did know of orcs natural predisposition to "murderous fury" (emphasis on murderous and that sooner or later, blood will be spilled" he could reasonably calculate that taking three lives now is the safest option. It is not a good act, but when faced with such an untenable situation it can't really be called evil either.

If the barbarian killed the baby orcs to, in his understanding, save future lives, his actions were not evil.

Grand Lodge

Dread Knight wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Those neutral and good orcs are exceptions, and far from anywhere near the norm.

The vast majority of Orcs will go into murderous rage at minor annoyances and good luck teaching an angry small child to control his emotions.

DMW it's easy for you to say because you are a Human and not an Orc.

Do you know why they might be far from the norm? Because the Orcs aren't taken out of the bad culture/place they're growing up in; if you brought them up in a culture/place that didn't say might makes right and if you're strong enough kill anyone that crosses you or one that didn't do anything but bully them many more of them would grow up to be on the Neutral or Good parts of the alignment scale.

Except that we see from "Orcs of Golarion", as has already been mentioned, that raising them separate from orc culture still has a dangerously high chance of ending in a murderous rampage. At this point you're going in circles about which culture they're raised in.

Honestly at this point this thread does nothing but make me want to create a homebrew where a devout worshipper of Abadar starts working to purge the Hold of Belkzen of all orcs, just to see what player reactions would be, and for the challenge of creating a character capable of marshalling a threat against the orcish horde.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Those neutral and good orcs are exceptions, and far from anywhere near the norm.

The vast majority of Orcs will go into murderous rage at minor annoyances and good luck teaching an angry small child to control his emotions.

DMW it's easy for you to say because you are a Human and not an Orc.

Do you know why they might be far from the norm? Because the Orcs aren't taken out of the bad culture/place they're growing up in; if you brought them up in a culture/place that didn't say might makes right and if you're strong enough kill anyone that crosses you or one that didn't do anything but bully them many more of them would grow up to be on the Neutral or Good parts of the alignment scale.

Except that we see from "Orcs of Golarion", as has already been mentioned, that raising them separate from orc culture still has a dangerously high chance of ending in a murderous rampage. At this point you're going in circles about which culture they're raised in.

Honestly at this point this thread does nothing but make me want to create a homebrew where a devout worshipper of Abadar starts working to purge the Hold of Belkzen of all orcs, just to see what player reactions would be, and for the challenge of creating a character capable of marshalling a threat against the orcish horde.

Considering the nature of Orcs, I would find it a realistic turn of events for some of the major powers in the world to unite for common cause in eradicating every tribe that lives up to the stereotype as depicted in the quotes that Knockoff posted. I know I wouldn't hold it against the nations that have had to deal with that level of violence.


I'd say the only reason Orcs are still a problem is because the playable species and Human Nations are too busy fighting each other or are too devoted to economic growth to band together and just take the Orcs out of Belkzen.

Liberty's Edge

Knockoff wrote:
You are right about the sociopathy bit. Sociopaths act the way they do because of environmental factor (to my knowledge). Orcs are predisposed to violent antisocial(by human standards) behavior for biological reasons. I was just using dramatic language. my fault.

Actually...the set of traits often called sociopathy is pretty much inborn. No, my point was that it was an entirely different seet of inborn traits than those mentioned as being displayed by Orcs.

Knockoff wrote:
I think we can agree that orcs raised independent of orc culture and humans raised independent of the "evil" culture into which they were born are not at all the same (at least after reading the source material).

They're not quite the same, no. But they're both sapient creatures with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. The Orc just needs to overcome a particular part of themselves (their incredible rage) that humans don't have to in order to be Good.

Knockoff wrote:
However, I think you are downplaying the violent, arguably chaotic evil nature of orcs. I would never argue that raising orcs to be credits to society is "impossible". I tried to steer clear of that absolute in my initial post.

If it's not impossible, then killing children for things they're likely to do remains Evil as all hell.

Knockoff wrote:

Here is the excerpt from Orcs of Golarion

italics added for emphasis

I think this text makes it clear that raising an orc to be "good", or even not dangerous, would be very difficult. "Tricky" is a gross understatement.

To reiterate

The text states that orcs are likely to be sent into a "murderous fury" by a "momentary annoyance". It is "all but impossible" to have lasting peace with an orc. All this is mentioned in the explicit context of the nature of orcs when raised apart from orc culture.

Given the canonical presence of entire tribes of Neutral Orcs...I feel like you're taking a somewhat hyperbolic sentence way too literally. Yes, if they literally killed people over every little thing, they couldn't be Good...but the phrase 'murderous fury' is often used for much less extreme acts and emotional states than literal murder.

It's like the phrase "I could kill him." it certainly indicates a great depth of anger...but not necessarily literal murder.

Orcs get profoundly angry over even minor things, and are thus certainly more likely to commit crimes of passion and get in fights...but they're not slaves to their nature any more than any other sapient being. Everyone has impulses they suppress...a Good Orc just needs to work harder to suppress such thoughts and feelings than a human might.

Knockoff wrote:

I am not arguing that orc toddlers are evil. They are not. I am argueing that the barbarian mentioned by OP was faced with the following options.

1) Raise the orcs, either on his own or by dumping them off on some charitable individual. Knowing what we do about the nature of orcs we can assume that "sooer or later... blood will be spilled"

2) Leave the orcs alone. They would likely starve. If they didn't, they would grow up without positive influences and most likely turn out CE.

3) Kill them. No one is enjoying it. The barbarian would simply be airing on the side of caution. Given that he knows what we know about orcs, he resolved to avoid the substantial risk that the orcs would eventually hurt somebody.

Number one's 'blood spilled' line does not, in fact, follow at all. Once again, there are entire tribes of Neutral Orcs.

Knockoff wrote:
The barbarian could not possibly know for sure how the orcs would turn out. If he did know of orcs natural predisposition to "murderous fury" (emphasis on murderous and that sooner or later, blood will be spilled" he could reasonably calculate that taking three lives now is the safest option. It is not a good act, but when faced with such an untenable situation it can't really be called evil either.

Yes, it can. Nature and nurture combine to form the character of individual people. Placing someone with a nature inclined to bad things in the care of a good 'parent' who will give them a sense of right and wrong and teach them to control themselves could easily result in no future problems.

And once again, killing children for things they might do, is basically the definition of Evil.

Knockoff wrote:
If the barbarian killed the baby orcs to, in his understanding, save future lives, his actions were not evil.

Motivation is not the only criteria as to whether an act is Evil. The nature of the act itself also matters.

Liberty's Edge

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Except that we see from "Orcs of Golarion", as has already been mentioned, that raising them separate from orc culture still has a dangerously high chance of ending in a murderous rampage. At this point you're going in circles about which culture they're raised in.

It's hyperbole. Pretty obviously given the various equally canonical sources for non-Evil Orcs existing, and even existing in some numbers.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
I'd say the only reason Orcs are still a problem is because the playable species and Human Nations are too busy fighting each other or are too devoted to economic growth to band together and just take the Orcs out of Belkzen.

People have tried this. Several times. Indeed, people have been trying to exterminate Orcs as long as there've been Orcs. Nobody's succeeded yet because Orcs are really tough.


Gotta say that those Neutral tribes severely conflict with the Orcs of Golarian book. I have no idea which one is more correct, but if we're going off just Orcs of Golarian then Orcs are just plain monsters and baby Orcs are Monsters too small to hurt you, but just as capable of murderous rage.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Gotta say that those Neutral tribes severely conflict with the Orcs of Golarian book. I have no idea which one is more correct, but if we're going off just Orcs of Golarian then Orcs are just plain monsters and baby Orcs are Monsters too small to hurt you, but just as capable of murderous rage.

Or, y'know, the authors didn't really expect people to take hyperbole literally. Which they likely should've, mind you, given the inability of text to convey intent, but still.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Except that we see from "Orcs of Golarion", as has already been mentioned, that raising them separate from orc culture still has a dangerously high chance of ending in a murderous rampage. At this point you're going in circles about which culture they're raised in.

It's hyperbole. Pretty obviously given the various equally canonical sources for non-Evil Orcs existing, and even existing in some numbers.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
I'd say the only reason Orcs are still a problem is because the playable species and Human Nations are too busy fighting each other or are too devoted to economic growth to band together and just take the Orcs out of Belkzen.
People have tried this. Several times. Indeed, people have been trying to exterminate Orcs as long as there've been Orcs. Nobody's succeeded yet because Orcs are really tough.

No Orcs have survived simply because they haven't grabbed a Big enough army. This is an entire nation of monsters as capable as level 1 adventurers with plenty of Orcs carrying class levels as Clerics, Shaman, ect. They are very capable of defending themselves, but they are still just one "country." The surrounding countries, to my knowledge, don't have large militarized forces and would not be able to beat such a densely populated zone of warriors. Now if the playable races actually cracked down to it and stopped making war on eachother (looking at you Andoran+Cheliax), ended their civil conflicts (Galt seriously), stopped being all stuck up (Taldor man) and invaded Belkzen with a superior force it would all be over in a year.

In real life terms it would be similar to all the surrounding countries going to war with a central powerful country.... kinda like WW2 Germany.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Gotta say that those Neutral tribes severely conflict with the Orcs of Golarian book. I have no idea which one is more correct, but if we're going off just Orcs of Golarian then Orcs are just plain monsters and baby Orcs are Monsters too small to hurt you, but just as capable of murderous rage.
Or, y'know, the authors didn't really expect people to take hyperbole literally. Which they likely should've, mind you, given the inability of text to convey intent, but still.

I don't see any reason why an explanatory book on the culture of Orcs in the Golarian campaign setting would have such disruptive hyperbole then treat that hyperbole as fact in the following passage.

551 to 600 of 657 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Killing Orcs toddlers is evil? All Messageboards