Killing Orcs toddlers is evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 657 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jeven wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I recall a line from either the Core Rulebook or the Bestiary that disagreed with that statement.
For example, Wraiths are always evil, but they don't have the evil subtype because they are not outsiders.

By that logic, the empyreal lord Ragathiel should be evil (and have the subtype), since he is a fiend and those are always evil.

I'm sorry, but there are canonical exceptions to these "always evil" humanoids. There was a Chaotic Neutral drow in Second Darkness, for example.


DominusMegadeus wrote:


I always liked Sarenrae for this kind of stuff. Drop the babies off at one of her temples. The Clerics or Monks or Paladins do their best to raise them, and if it fails, they take the canonically Good path of brutally slaughtering irredeemable Evil. Praise The Sun.

Rofl

Sovereign Court

Icyshadow wrote:
I'm sorry, but there are canonical exceptions to these "always evil" humanoids. There was a Chaotic Neutral drow in Second Darkness, for example.

In Golarion - yes.

I believe Jeven is arguing that it could potentially be different in a different setting.


The OP did not specify what campaign world this happened in...

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I was told a story recently by a friend of where his brother was playing a paladin where there was a similar 'goblin babies' situation.

The party were about to enter into a discussion about the moral implications when the paladin cried 'EVIL FROM BIRTH!' and charged.

Cue shock and hilarity from all.

Sovereign Court

Icyshadow wrote:
The OP did not specify what campaign world this happened in...

Exactly. It is an unknown variable which is needed to determine whether it was a good or an evil act.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, cold-blooded murder of innocent and defenceless children is Evil with a capital E, why is this even a discussion?

Although, to be fair, I once read a thread where someone tried to justify genocide as a Good act.


I believe many people here are addressing the wrong point, for a couple of reasons.

First, the race of the creature is mere detail. The main issue seems to me to be that the helpless young of intelligent beings were slain out of hand, for the heinous crime of existing. That's evil.

Second, it doesn't matter whether all orcs are evil or not. A PC's morality is determined by what he does, not what other creatures do. If killing helpless, elderly/infirm, or surrendered adults of good alignment is an evil act, it remains an evil act if those helpless, elderly/infirm, or surrendered adults are neutral or evil.

Now, committing a single evil act shouldn't change the PC's alignment, espdecially if he feels conflicted about it, but...yeah, killing kids is evil. It just is.

I do agree with thejeff that the GM set up a no-win situation, but the players could have tried to force the issue. Just because the GM hadn't previously established the existence of an orphanage to reform non-human infants, doesn't mean there wasn't one somewhere; the PCs apparently didn't ask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roger Corbera wrote:

Hello, once my players killed an orcs clans. After clawing through the barbarian chieftain his witch wife and his warrior concubines, they found three orcs toddlers. And the PC barbarian simply killed them.

Considering orcs are naturaly evil, that's not an evil act, but they were small kids, anyway.
So it was plague control or terrible crime?

As the gm, you need to answer a few questions...

1: setting? Are you looking for asclise to RAW as possible?

2: house rules? In your games, are orcs usually evil or always evil?

3: did you ask for a knowledge roll to warn the player this COULD be an evil act?

4: if hunting an awakened evil wild boar, finding the den, would it be evil to also kill 3 piglets?


Icyshadow wrote:

Wait, how is having a kid who is evil incarnate a mature story element?

As much as I appreciate JJ being against baby killing, some of the stuff in that post makes no sense to me.

There is plenty of horror fiction dealing with evil incarnate in the shape of a child. The Omen series, The War of the Flowers, Eden Lake, The Children, Children of the Corn, etc. Where protagonists are faced with the choice of letting a child go who is destined to destroy the world, or worse, having to choose between defending themselves with lethal force, or letting a pack of murderous children do them in. You can do complex stories on the theme without being immature. I think that is what JJ was getting at.

Personally I don't think baby orcs or baby goblins fit those story elements, and it would be an evil act in the game I ran.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Besides being an evil alignment, what have the orc toddlers done that deserves death?

Was it required for your survival, or the survival of others?

At best you might argue that it is a neutral act if the adventurer is Orckiller McRevenger, and has some huge personal grudge against all orcs of that particular tribe. Some sort of blood feud that leaves no ally or generation to be spared by either side.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damon Griffin wrote:
...it remains an evil act if those helpless, elderly/infirm, or surrendered adults are neutral or evil.

Not necessarily. If you KNOW that they personally have committed murders/pillaging etc, then killing them would be executions, not murders.

Admittedly - you couldn't do so in the modern day - but it's unlikely most settings have a robust justice system.

After all - if you're hunting down evildoers, you aren't stopped from finishing them off if, when they're down to 3hp they hold up their hands "I give up! Take me in officer. I have seen the error of my ways and totally won't try to escape once I get my spell slots back tomorrow." *smirk*.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damon Griffin wrote:
I do agree with thejeff that the GM set up a no-win situation, but the players could have tried to force the issue. Just because the GM hadn't previously established the existence of an orphanage to reform non-human infants, doesn't mean there wasn't one somewhere; the PCs apparently didn't ask.

It's still a dick move by the GM. I'd bring the game to a screeching halt and talk about it OOC if it came up in a game I was in. Unless one way or another things had been made clear ahead of time.

It's all about assumption clash and genre expectations, not any actual interesting moral questions. Remember we've already decided before we reach the kids that it's perfectly "Good" behavior to slaughter every single adult in the village. There are no non-combatants. No one tries to surrender or flee.
That's not going to be the case or an acceptable moral choice in any situation involving humans, is it?

Liberty's Edge

Oh, slaughtering the adult non-combatants is evil as well, just not quite as evil as infanticide.


MMCJawa wrote:
There is plenty of horror fiction dealing with evil incarnate in the shape of a child. The Omen series, The War of the Flowers, Eden Lake, The Children, Children of the Corn, etc. Where protagonists are faced with the choice of letting a child go who is destined to destroy the world, or worse, having to choose between defending themselves with lethal force, or letting a pack of murderous children do them in. You can do complex stories on the theme without being immature.

I'm not familiar with all of the sources you cited, but for the most part I agree in principle.

As for "a child who is destined to destroy the world", I don't believe in destiny as an immutable thing. This is basically the "kill Hitler as a child" situation. In our timeline, Hitler was shaped by his experiences, made choices, and did what he did. Different experiences could have led to different choices. He wasn't born evil.

Now, in some stories the child isn't truly a child at all, but a demon who is masquerading as a human child. That you can kill with no qualms. I'm not sure how Damien would qualify here. Was he a human child who was molded into the Antichrist by guided experience, or was he a demon soul brought into the world through the mechanism of human birth?

If you are being attacked by a pack of murderous children, you are entitled to use whatever means are necessary to survive, but the key word there is necessary. You can't outrun them? You can't stop at injuring/disabling them? Perhaps you can't, and if you can't, using lethal force in self defense isn't evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PrinceRaven wrote:
Oh, slaughtering the adult non-combatants is evil as well, just not quite as evil as infanticide.

But there weren't any. Every adult orc in the scenario attacks. (At least that's a common thing in these contrived situations.)

That would actually be another good way for the GM to signal that not all orcs are evil and need to be killed: Have a reasonable number of non-combatants in the orc village. If every single inhabitant is a dangerous combatant who attacks strangers on sight, that's a pretty decent sign that these creatures really aren't just like humans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Those are valuable commodities.

Sell them to a nearby country with legal slavery.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Those are valuable commodities.

Sell them to a nearby country with legal slavery.

Yes... because that's totally NOT evil. Lol.


justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

ALSO: whoever said the alignment of the bebes didn't matter is right.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Those are valuable commodities.

Sell them to a nearby country with legal slavery.

Yes... because that's totally NOT evil. Lol.

And valuable? Please. All the adventurers keep coming here trying to sell their orc babies. And the amount of training they need? Frankly, I couldn't give you more than a gp each.


The problem with good and evil acts its its very much based on perspective. We can all agree baby killings are terrible acts, but that doesn't necessarily make it evil. In the world my players are in their home city kills orphans and keeps a very tight control on the population. Reason being is only so much of the region is inhabitable and to go above that limit puts everyone at risk, so while terrible and dark it serves the greater good and is arguably a good act. If said barbarian was raised in a tribe that taught him orcs were evil and must be done away with or worships a diety that has similar views then he did what was right by his morality. Not every society sees things the same and its for these exact scenarios that I require my players to give me detail about their characters.


Secret Wizard wrote:
justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

Well, we do have all sorts of institutions in place to handle these kinds of situations. Lacking that, and assuming you're also on some kind of quest to save the world (or at least the kingdom or something else important), are you evil if you don't personally adopt the baby and make its survival and proper upbringing your primary goal? Also it wasn't an accident, but the parents were terrorists plotting to kill thousands of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
justaworm wrote:

Leaving them there defenseless, waiting to be eaten by something else could be seen as evil as killing them. It could be seen as more humane to dispatch them quickly and painlessly than to leave them to die of starvation or other predators.

Short of finding them a new home, one option is to leaving a care-taker alive, maybe just staggered or otherwise able to recover.

It is best to just generally avoid these types of situations.

that's why if you get into a fender bender with another vehicle, and then walk up to that vehicle and find two dead adults and a baby, the humane choice is to put the baby down, cause i mean, its the easiest one.

A. Hell of a fender bender.

B. What if they're zombie adults with a zombie baby that'll grow up to be a zombie and all zombies are evil? I'm not saying it applies in all settings, but in some settings all orcs are evil full stop. That's not the case in Golarion (even though all undead are because *REASONS*) but it might be in the setting they're playing in.

Which is why setting matters here.


Oakbreaker wrote:
The problem with good and evil acts its its very much based on perspective. We can all agree baby killings are terrible acts, but that doesn't necessarily make it evil. In the world my players are in their home city kills orphans and keeps a very tight control on the population. Reason being is only so much of the region is inhabitable and to go above that limit puts everyone at risk, so while terrible and dark it serves the greater good and is arguably a good act. If said barbarian was raised in a tribe that taught him orcs were evil and must be done away with or worships a diety that has similar views then he did what was right by his morality. Not every society sees things the same and its for these exact scenarios that I require my players to give me detail about their characters.

But PF has an objective morality system, not a subjective one. Your barbarian may believe orcs are evil. Your city may believe killing orphans is good. That doesn't mean either of those things is true.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Those are valuable commodities.

Sell them to a nearby country with legal slavery.

Yes... because that's totally NOT evil. Lol.

Really?

A home, food, a place in society, and possibly an education?

There are no Orc orphanages.

You either kill them, sell them, or take responsibility for them yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was a huge discussion before it was a discussion here, relating to the ROTRL initial scenario where goblin babies are found as part of the crawl. Goblins, Orcs, same difference.

IN EVERY INSTANCE, Paizo has flavor text of the innate violence of the goblins as a race, including their cannabilism and infanticide on their own race. They certainly have no qualms sacrificing their own, and expect the strongest to survive. Goblin high comedy involves pain and fire.

You can play the game two ways. Soft and fuzzy or hard and realistic.

Soft and fuzzy sends all evil progeny off to a mystical orphanage where they become soft and fuzzy. Lots of S&F roleplaying. Thats ok, too.

Hard and realistic means a hard choice, do you leave toddlers to the caprice of nature or a sword of mercy? Will your social blinders fix the problem or cause that particular goblin to become a larger force of destruction? Will that goblin grow up to throw the torch that burns down grandma's house? Are hard-bitten fighters capable or delicate enough to become babysitters? What would Conan do?

Again, people equate modern day morales to fantasy. Look at how early Americans treated the native tribes, "Here's a nice soft blanket full of small pox, make sure you keep your children warm with that." Fire and disease have been weapons of war for centuries, I think it hypocritical to play a combat game and not accept spilled blood.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

"I murder strangers on sight, based on race, but I spare the children, so I am a good guy."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I think it hypocritical to play a combat game and not accept spilled blood.

I think it's hypocritical to play a game about racial interactions and not look deeper at the hypocrisy and superiority complex of our ancestors.

Quote:
Hard and realistic means a hard choice, do you leave toddlers to the caprice of nature or a sword of mercy? Will your social blinders fix the problem or cause that particular goblin to become a larger force of destruction? Will that goblin grow up to throw the torch that burns down grandma's house? Are hard-bitten fighters capable or delicate enough to become babysitters? What would Conan do?

And there lies the point of this game. If you believe that "evil" is passed down by genetics, nature vs. nurture, or that even something is "evil" because it simply likes violence (have you seen the Super Bowl? Were Romans all chaotic evil because they loved their Games? Do you think Michael Bay movies are better than goblin theater because they are *simulated* violence?) and commits infanticide (I'd like to remind you that there's quite a few references in the Bible of mothers eating their babies to survive after a city was razed)... these are things you have to justify.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
"I murder strangers on sight, based on race, but I spare the children, so I am a good guy."

I agree with the sentiment. Encourage your players to talk to the Orcs first. Subvert their expectations.


Heimdall666 wrote:
This was a huge discussion before it was a discussion here, relating to the ROTRL initial scenario where goblin babies are found as part of the crawl.

Darn, now i'm going forward knowing we have to kill babies.

Moral issues will be coming for the party.


So by that logic killing any intelligent humanoids an evil act and every character should be doing nonlethal damage against them lest they shift on the alignment table? I doubt the creators had that as the intent and the fact that they published something arguing goblin genocide as a good act is oof to my point. This is still ultimately a role-playing game and by the very nature of the genre background is very important. If these sort of things were supposed to be black and white there would be text saying that, but there isn't any. In fact the line is blurred just by dwarves. They tend to be lawful good according to the core but racially possess a trait called Hatred that targets orcs. If a lawful good group can allow training against a foe they hate and want dead yet remain lawful good and a group that focuses on redeeming can be lawful good then there isn't black and white on this and it is very much subjective


You don't HAVE to kill the babies is what we saying, son.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Roger Corbera wrote:

For me, it's an evil act. But the PC argued the Bestiary says orcs are bad people. Also I remembered reading drow could only by Evil, so I supposed the same happended with orcs.

Are ther examples of non-Evil orcs in Golarion? All I've seen are evil, AFAIK.

hmmm I didn't know that barbarians had access to the giant meta books that underpin the cosmic structure of his universe, that is a very hooked up barbarian.

On a less facetious note no it's evil. If I can exchange the unimportant word orc with say human, elf, or black and it is repugnant than it's evil. Now what to do with those kids could be hard, potentially harder than the actual act of killing the whole orc camp (who will take in these orcs and will they treat them right?) but assuming your party is full of heroes of the not evil persuasion than that is part of the job! Hell you could have a whole quest in and of itself trying to figure out what to do with these little lives and could lead to some interesting growth for all these erstwhile killers. And if a quest of proof of moral alignment isn't something you want to explore completely (we all have stories we might want to focus on and sometimes this particular quest might not be what you as the gm or most of your party want to focus on) you can always present the option for them to give them to someone they can trust like a good church they are friends with, a friendly orphanage, or a family they are particularly close with.


Oakbreaker wrote:
So by that logic killing any intelligent humanoids an evil act and every character should be doing nonlethal damage against them lest they shift on the alignment table?

Not really. If someone is trying to kill you, I doubt you can be bothered to deliver nonlethal rather than fight for your life. I think that's how Good works.

What I'm saying is that "there's an orc village, let's raid it!" makes Evil/Good nothing more than Horde/Alliance, since you are not even bothering to have a moral high ground.

Liberty's Edge

Killing babies/children is Evil. Killing noncombatants who haven't committed any crimes is Evil. Killing noncombatants who've committed horrible crimes is called 'execution' and is not Evil, but requires evidence of what they've done (though that's often not hard to come by in, say, an Orc camp in Pathfinder).

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

I found the post I was thinking of. Take from it what you want.

** spoiler omitted **

...

Thanks for posting that, I was worried I was gonna have to go find it...

Icyshadow wrote:
Jeven wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I recall a line from either the Core Rulebook or the Bestiary that disagreed with that statement.
For example, Wraiths are always evil, but they don't have the evil subtype because they are not outsiders.

By that logic, the empyreal lord Ragathiel should be evil (and have the subtype), since he is a fiend and those are always evil.

I'm sorry, but there are canonical exceptions to these "always evil" humanoids. There was a Chaotic Neutral drow in Second Darkness, for example.

For the record, even Fiends can canonically redeem themselves (and in doing so, lose the Evil subtype). So, Ragathiel presumably did that.

No Alignments are actually absolute in Golarion with the exception of those of creatures with Int 2 or less (and the Bestiary generally supports that being true outside Golarion as well).

blackbloodtroll wrote:
"I murder strangers on sight, based on race, but I spare the children, so I am a good guy."

This would indeed, not make you a good guy. But who says they're killing every Orc they meet? I don't think anyone's suggested that...

You don't get to go around attacking people based on race and remain Good. Now, if you walk up in a friendly fashion and are attacked, or are responding to them raiding human villages repeatedly, that's a whole different thing.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thing is, there is good chance that there is no "good church, or friendly orphanage" that would take them in.

Orcs are naturally strong, dim, and their culture promotes violence.

So, selling them into slavery, or raising them yourself, are usually the only options, outside of mercy killing them.

Giving them to an Orc tribe, means they will grow up, and kill innocents, and if you meet them again, you will likely have to kill them.


Secret Wizard wrote:
You don't HAVE to kill the babies is what we saying, son.

My char would definitely be hesitant, but i'm sure the rest will think them weed to be ripped away. Chances of those babies surviving are slim :/

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Thing is, there is good chance that there is no "good church, or friendly orphanage" that would take them in.

Any Church of Sarenrae that wouldn't is actively doing it wrong according to their Goddess...so I'd expect most of those would.

Liberty's Edge

Chyrone wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
You don't HAVE to kill the babies is what we saying, son.
My char would definitely be hesitant, but i'm sure the rest will think them weed to be ripped away. Chances of those babies surviving are slim :/

That's all kinds of messed up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I had to deal with the "goblin babies" situation before.

Luckily, I had a Oracle/Barbarian follower of Lamashtu, who had a mother complex.

Adopted them right up.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Any Church of Sarenrae that wouldn't is actively doing it wrong according to their Goddess...so I'd expect most of those would.

That assumes GM conformity to all her ideals for all campaigns.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc the grey wrote:
you can always present the option for them to give them to someone they can trust like a good church they are friends with, a friendly orphanage, or a family they are particularly close with.

What if that completely backfires and the players return to the find the infant orcs were true to their nature and while the caregivers and orphan humans were sleeping ripped out their throats in a bloodbath?

What if 99% orcs are born psycopaths? and introducing infant ones into human society is like throwing a serpent into a nursery?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's all kinds of messed up.

I know, i hope i'm wrong. I'd think it'd be a blast raising a goblin baby, though being a local from Sandpoint, it'd be a mixed feeling.

But seriously, though we are G aligned, i think it'll go somewhere along the lines of: .."but goblins are evil wicked creatures, they will attack Sandpoint when they come of age. We could leave them here, but we'd leave a new tribe able for future raids".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
There should be a general forum rule against starting such threads.

There should be a general rule against complaining about the presence of threads which you are not interested in but other people are.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, alignment is always a hot issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Oakbreaker wrote:
So by that logic killing any intelligent humanoids an evil act and every character should be doing nonlethal damage against them lest they shift on the alignment table?

Not really. If someone is trying to kill you, I doubt you can be bothered to deliver nonlethal rather than fight for your life. I think that's how Good works.

What I'm saying is that "there's an orc village, let's raid it!" makes Evil/Good nothing more than Horde/Alliance, since you are not even bothering to have a moral high ground.

Absolutely. If you're attacking the orc village for no reason other than they're orcs, then you're already setting off the evil meter. Though even some such evil people will turn away from killing babies.

OTOH, if the GM has set up the orc village as a valid target for whatever reason, such that attacking it is a good thing, then you're okay attacking it, but still not okay wantonly killing all orcs present. Realistically, there will be non-combatants of various types and likely at some point, once it's clear the adventurers are too powerful to stop, some will flee or surrender. In which case, the poor little babies can be left with them. If you do kill all the fleeing and surrendering ones, there goes the evil meter again.

It's only in the case when each and every member of the clan fights you to the death, except for the babies who are too young to fight, that this "We must take care of the children or leave them to perish" dichotomy comes up. And at that point we've left reality far enough behind we really shouldn't even be bothering with the moral dilemma.

At that point it's the GM's fault. If you just want everything to fight to the death, don't stick the babies in there. If you do want a more realistic settlement, put the babies in, but also put in all the other non-warrior types and have them behave somewhat realistically - run or surrender.

If it's the players being evil about it, I like the contrast of having a rear guard of the savage monstrous evil orcs fighting and sacrificing themselves to hold back the party so their children and elders can escape. Who are the bad guys here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Secret Wizard
But the game has to be Horde/Alliance = Good/Evil lest we all have to meta-game. If I play a Dwarven paladin and in the course of our adventure decimate an Orc tribe leaving no survivors must I atone and lose my class features despite my worship of a diety who is against orcs and being raised in Dwarven society where due to a history of war we are taught how to take them down specifically? With this genre of game the goal is to be someone else. It is not to play through your morality but your character. To say it is an evil act despite a character upbringing saying it was the right thing to do is to force us all to play through the game not as our characters, but as 3rd person overseers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you really want the bug the players concerned about orc babies, have the evil orc warriors strap their own orc babies to their chests as meat shields. This will emphasize how evil they are, and throw the players into a quandry.
It would also explain why the paladins of Lastwall keep losing all the wars - they have to retreat or risk hurting the orc babies and become fallen paladins. Orcs also breed like rats so they have plenty of youngins to spare.

51 to 100 of 657 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Killing Orcs toddlers is evil? All Messageboards