Killing Orcs toddlers is evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 657 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:

PrinceRaven, again, you make parallels to real life. Pathfinder is not real life.

Also, most people are not evil by default. Orcs, by default, are.

Orcs usually are, they may be naturally more aggressive than a human, but they have the capacity to choose whether or not to commit crimes deserving of capital punishment. I bring up the real life comparison to show how someone could be Evil without deserving execution, my comparison could just as easily have been a canonical pathfinder character if I was more familiar with the fluff.

Quote:

Next, people will say that you can't crack red dragon eggs or destroy Neh-Thalguu hatchlings, because they're all the 'innocent' children of sentient races! I am being facetious, of course, but that is what these arguments are beginning to sound like.

Please take a moment to look at the situation logically.

If they are capable of making moral decisions I would say yes, it would be wrong to do so. If they are monsters incapable of making such decisions and will invariably commit atrocities regardless of how they are raised, by all means, smash away. This is the exact same logic I am applying to the orc toddlers.

Liberty's Edge

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:

Deadmanwalking, that would be true were it not for these facts, which I will bold for emphasis.

ARG wrote:
"Bullies by nature... and On an almost instinctive level..."
'By nature' implies that there is no variance unless there is some sort of difference in their underlying personality which is not present in the majority of the species. Same with 'on an almost instinctive level'.

There's an 'almost' in there. That makes it at least as doubtful as anything else.

And even if you're right...all it implies is that they are instinctually bullies to some degree. Are all bullies now worthy of death? Because that's a pretty extreme position to take...

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
So, while I understand your point that the ARG paints the races in archetypal formats, the wording of the Orc descriptions implies that the traits they have are more concrete than just a generality. It implies that those are ingrained traits in each Orc as a rule. Again, any 'good' Orc is an anomaly which does not normally exist within the fantasy world except by an accident, much the same as a redeemed demon or a repentant chromatic dragon.

The wording in the Orc section isn't notably more definitive than the entries for any other Race. Acting like it is is rather profoundly inaccurate.

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
Surely that makes it easier to understand? It's like MTG, you need to read how it is WRITTEN. Example: a card that says 'Scry 2, then draw 3 cards' is different from a card that reads 'Scry 2, you may then draw up to 3 cards'.

How does a phrase like:

"Other humanoid races, such as dwarves, elves, and halflings, simply shun them."

Leave any more room for doubt than the ones about Orcs? And yet nobody is arguing that all non-human humanoid races must universally shun dhampirs simply by their nature. The ARGs descriptions engage in hyperbole and use universal statements for non-universal concepts.

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
Apart from these things, how do the people in the campaign world KNOW that there are non-evil Orcs? Again, players and GMs have to metagame to assume that the PCs know that Orcs are anything other than evil.

No they don't. Non-Evil Orcs are, at least potentially, a well-known thing in at least Golarion (there's notes about tribes of them a couple of places). And certainly knowable with a DC 5-10 Knowledge (Local) check...given Orcs are around DC 5-6 to know the basics on.

The Bestiary also makes this clear in the Alignment section. There's a very distinct difference between Aligned Outsiders like Demons, and, well, everyone else. So...anyone who knows how the metaphysics of the world actually work can tell you that anything that isn't an Alignment Subtype Outsider could actually be any alignment.


But by that reasoning, almost all 'evil monster' young would have to be dealt with by fostering them.

Neh-Thalguu are a perfect example of why the point of 'if they can make decisions and choose good or evil, their innate evil nature does not matter' is a poor one. Those alien horrors can choose good or evil and are clearly capable of making such decisions, they just do not care to be anything other than what they are because they are inherently evil. Does that mean that, as a hero responsible for your people, you wouldn't torch a clutch of Neh-Thalguu eggs, Aliens-style? If you would, then you agree with my fundamental argument. If not, I would ask why not?

Deadmanwalking, you also missed the rest of the article elaborating on those things. It was not solely based on Orcs being bullies. I simply used those excerpts to prove a point on word-play. I would also like to see a reference from where it is common knowledge that there are good Orcs, because I haven't seen it and I own a print version of almost every Pathfinder book.

Also, non-evil Orcs are much the same as non-evil Drow, oddities that are 'one in a million' type individuals. Not every Drow is Driz'zt, just like not every Orc is (Insert good-aligned Orc). Do people go fostering Drow? Or, as my earlier point, do people foster Neh-Thalguu? If not, then how are Orcs any different? Because the Drow are born evil? Well, Orcs are stated as being so as well. Because Neh-Thalguu are 'different'? Well, Orcs are stated as being so too. Because Neh-Thalguu are a monster entry in a bestiary? Metagaming. Start making exceptions for one primarily evil race and you have to make exceptions for them all, unless one does not care about hypocrisy.


Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:

Dread Knight, the same could be said of most villanous creatures. Do Balors have those things? Yes. Do Neh-Thalguu have those things? Yes.

Again, look at it logically.

Ok looking at it logically, looking, looking. Yeah same they you'd do with a human child if you found them after killing the tribe that they lived in.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post. If you have an issue with a moderator decision, go ahead and email community@paizo.com, don't drag it into other threads please.

Liberty's Edge

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
But by that reasoning, almost all 'evil monster' young would have to be dealt with by fostering them.

That's correct. Yes.

Not that a 'killed all the adults what do we do with the young' situation is particularly common, but when it comes up? Yeah, fostering is the way to go.

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
Neh-Thalguu are a perfect example of why the point of 'if they can make decisions and choose good or evil, their innate evil nature does not matter' is a poor one. Those alien horrors can choose good or evil and are clearly capable of making such decisions, they just do not care to be anything other than what they are because they are inherently evil. Does that mean that, as a hero responsible for your people, you wouldn't torch a clutch of Neh-Thalguu eggs, Aliens-style? If you would, then you agree with my fundamental argument. If not, I would ask why not?

I wouldn't. Because there's no evidence you can't raise Neh Thalggu to be functioning members of society. To reach their full power, you'll need to use them as an executioner for a condemned criminal several times, but hey, nobody's perfect.

Indeed, based on their description their Evil appears to be entirely cultural, with their brain collecting (beyond their minimum necessary for sorcerous power) being to impress their eldersor serve as currency in their vile society.

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
Deadmanwalking, you also missed the rest of the article elaborating on those things. It was not solely based on Orcs being bullies. I simply used those excerpts to prove a point on word-play. I would also like to see a reference from where it is common knowledge that there are good Orcs, because I haven't seen it and I own a print version of almost every Pathfinder book.

No, I caught the article. It's no harsher than the Dhampir one. And it's mentioned a couple of times in passing that there are some non-Evil Orc tribes that worship Gorum. They're mostly CN mind you, but they're there. The reference that leaps to mind immediately is the 'Continuing the Campaign' type article in Wrath of the Righteous (which also contained reference to Irabeth's father), but they've been mentioned a few places elsewhere. The right place to look is clearly the Hold of Belkzen book...which isn't out quite yet. Of course, they hired Mikaze to help write part of it, which I feel says something about their intentions there.

The Pathfinder Tales novel Called To Darkness also includes a pretty obviously non-Evil tribe of Orcs in the Darklands. And a protagonist who starts out as racist towards Orcs but gets over it.

Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:
Also, non-evil Orcs are much the same as non-evil Drow, oddities that are 'one in a million' type individuals. Not every Drow is Driz'zt, just like not every Orc is (Insert good-aligned Orc). Do people go fostering Drow? Or, as my earlier point, do people foster Neh-Thalguu? If not, then how are Orcs any different? Because the Drow are born evil? Well, Orcs are stated as being so as well. Because Neh-Thalguu are 'different'? Well, Orcs are stated as being so too. Because Neh-Thalguu are a monster entry in a bestiary? Metagaming. Start making exceptions for one primarily evil race and you have to make exceptions for them all, unless one does not care about hypocrisy.

What exceptions? You don't kill innocent children. No exceptions. Yes, you foster Drow (read Shensen's backstory, for example). You foster Neh Thalggu. You foster Dragons. You foster everybody.

Dread Knight wrote:
Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:

Dread Knight, the same could be said of most villanous creatures. Do Balors have those things? Yes. Do Neh-Thalguu have those things? Yes.

Again, look at it logically.

Ok looking at it logically, looking, looking. Yeah same they you'd do with a human child if you found them after killing the tribe that they lived in.

Yup. This.

Though Balors are a somewhat different thing, not having young and being Alignment Subtype Outsiders...really, they don't belong in the same category.


As Deadmanwalking pointed out they don't have to eat the brains of innocent people they could eat the brains of people people they kill in self defense or eat the brains of people executed for their crimes(such as a person that kills babies) or they don't have to eat brains at all, they're carnivores so they eat meat you can just feed them beef and pork. If they choose to kill innocent people in pursuit of power they're just like anyone else that chooses to kill innocent people in pursuit of power evil if they don't kill innocent people/do other evil acts they are like others that don't kill innocent people/do other evil acts not evil


I have sent a respectful message, Chris, to inquire as to the reasons for the threadlock. Thank you for the e-mail address to so I could pose my questions. Have a pleasant day/night. :)

I am, respectfully, going to withdraw from this thread, because it is apparently going nowhere and people seem intent on making spurious parallels that make absolutely no sense and are, quite frankly, appalling. As such, I bid everyone have fun in their own campaigns.


thejeff wrote:

Doesn't really matter. Pick one and run with it. Just make sure your players are on the same page, before you go throwing contrived moral dilemmas at them.

The only thing worse that arguing over contrived moral dilemmas is arguing over them because of assumption clash about what the actual facts are.

This....

It's not often I agree 100% with thejeff. It's usually 50-60%

The GM has to communicate what the level of moral, grim, gritty or swashbuckle s/he is going to set for the game and the players need to negotiate what level is comfortable for them. If either fail to do so then they are crapy players/GMs.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


RJGrady wrote:

Having compunctions doesn't mean you can't, or won't ever, do something. Good alignment requires you to respect life, it doesn't require you to defend it unconditionally. To put a fine point on it, there is no Good alignment problem with killing an adult orc who is participating in a war campaign against your village. It is simply prudence, and prudence is Neutral.

To say any particular killing is Evil, you have to be able to say that it is unjustifiably selfish.

Selfishness and Evil often go hand in hand, but they aren't the same. Someone who commits genocide of a particular population of their own race they are prejudiced against to 'make the world a better place' and legitimately believes that it will indeed make the world a better place, is Evil...no matter how selfless his desire to improve the world.

I don't accept that genocide committed out of prejudice is selfless, or could be construed that way. That's hate, and ultimately, a kind of possessiveness and fear that is very much the opposite of selfless.

Now, if someone could say, without any internal prejudice, that the world would be better off without a certain population, that's different. And well within the bounds of Neutral behavior. There are canonically a number of Lawful Neutral outsiders whose basic mode of existence is expansion, conquest, and the imposition of order.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually Neh-Thalguu are probably a bad example. The recent article on the Dominion of the Black strongly implies that while sapient, they probably are not a "natural" race, and are engineered to be scouts for the Dominion. So they may be closer to being biological constructs than to creatures with truly free will.

I don't think there ARE baby Neh Thalgu to run across, at least in Golarion canon. And any you encounter are going to be dispatched on very specific missions from the Dominion of the Black

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Went back and removed a few more posts. Let's avoid making negative and abusive assumptions about other members of our community and keep this centered around how things exist within the game. Thank you.

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
I don't accept that genocide committed out of prejudice is selfless, or could be construed that way. That's hate, and ultimately, a kind of possessiveness and fear that is very much the opposite of selfless.

Not necessarily. Someone who was simply raised to believe that a particular group are a legitimate threat could hod those beliefs without an hate or possessiveness. And fear for others is hardly purely selfish.

RJGrady wrote:
Now, if someone could say, without any internal prejudice, that the world would be better off without a certain population, that's different. And well within the bounds of Neutral behavior. There are canonically a number of Lawful Neutral outsiders whose basic mode of existence is expansion, conquest, and the imposition of order.

I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Committing genocide is Evil...certainly the genocide of non-Evil creatures. Neutral creatures can sometimes perform Evil acts, but that doesn't somehow make them not Evil.

MMCJawa wrote:

Actually Neh-Thalguu are probably a bad example. The recent article on the Dominion of the Black strongly implies that while sapient, they probably are not a "natural" race, and are engineered to be scouts for the Dominion. So they may be closer to being biological constructs than to creatures with truly free will.

I don't think there ARE baby Neh Thalgu to run across, at least in Golarion canon. And any you encounter are going to be dispatched on very specific missions from the Dominion of the Black

Noted. The basic point still applies, though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Committing genocide is Evil...certainly the genocide of non-Evil creatures. Neutral creatures can sometimes perform Evil acts, but that doesn't somehow make them not Evil.

Perhaps genocide is impossible to commit without some particle of Evil, but isn't it equally impossible without some vapor of Good? The self-justification of the genocidalist is not persuasive of me as to their Good, but neither is a blanket condemnation as Evil was has surely been enacted a hundred thousand times in history by people seeking, above all else, to survive and thrive.

Liberty's Edge

Sure, if you suddenly killed an entire race some of those killings would be good acts as you serendipitously struck down some members of the race as they were in the process committing of or about to commit an act that warrants lethal force in defence of their victim. But that would be just as true of killing all humans as it would be killing all orcs. In fact, you might have even saved some innocent orc toddlers from being slaughtered by a party of human adventurers.

Liberty's Edge

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

I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Committing genocide is Evil...certainly the genocide of non-Evil creatures. Neutral creatures can sometimes perform Evil acts, but that doesn't somehow make them not Evil.

Perhaps genocide is impossible to commit without some particle of Evil, but isn't it equally impossible without some vapor of Good? The self-justification of the genocidalist is not persuasive of me as to their Good, but neither is a blanket condemnation as Evil was has surely been enacted a hundred thousand times in history by people seeking, above all else, to survive and thrive.

Sure. But the Evil inherent in the act so vastly outweighs any scrap of Good involved as to make it almost meaningless. It's there, but not super relevant.


One thing to keep in mind about supposedly contrived scenarios is that if OTHER raiding parties have repeatedly tried to eradicate an Orc tribe with no offer of quarter, including aggressively attempting to hunt down any who flee regardless of age/maturity, the Orcs might feel that they have no choice but to fight to the death when the PCs come in. It's not as if the Orcs have any way to know that these are the PCs . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:

One thing to keep in mind about supposedly contrived scenarios is that if OTHER raiding parties have repeatedly tried to eradicate an Orc tribe with no offer of quarter, including aggressively attempting to hunt down any who flee regardless of age/maturity, the Orcs might feel that they have no choice but to fight to the death when the PCs come in. It's not as if the Orcs have any way to know that these are the PCs . . . .

No, but it does say something about the "civilization" the PCs are likely defending.

Which is, since the entire history is GM created, on the GM again. In such a case, he'd better be intending to do something with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Committing genocide is Evil...certainly the genocide of non-Evil creatures. Neutral creatures can sometimes perform Evil acts, but that doesn't somehow make them not Evil.

Perhaps genocide is impossible to commit without some particle of Evil, but isn't it equally impossible without some vapor of Good? The self-justification of the genocidalist is not persuasive of me as to their Good, but neither is a blanket condemnation as Evil was has surely been enacted a hundred thousand times in history by people seeking, above all else, to survive and thrive.
Sure. But the Evil inherent in the act so vastly outweighs any scrap of Good involved as to make it almost meaningless. It's there, but not super relevant.

Commit genocide of demons and nothing of value is lost.


won't somebody please think of the children


RJGrady wrote:

This is all kinds of real-world unsavory, but here's a question. Let's say your party got into a fight with a village of warrior-raiders, and you killed all the adults, thereupon discovering a creche of young human toddlers. What happens next?

To be honest, historically speaking, things do not look good for those kids. That's probably not a situation most players want to deal with, but it's not very different than the orc situation.

[...]

For me, part of the appeal of fantasy gaming is the violent brutality and the warrior culture ethos, which is quite different from a modern conception of morality.

Frankly, if we're talking premodern conflicts, it's rarer to find a conquerer who doesn't incorporate the outright enemy military into his own, let alone wiping out all the adults, let alone wiping out all the adults and all the children.

If this sort of situation got transferred to the real, ancient world, we'd be likelier to end the human-orcish conflict with defeated orcish raiders fighting for the human victors (or vice versa), probably with significantly lower social and military status, but not all dead.

This idea that peoples can only trust members of their own group and have to exterminate all enemies does have precursors in the ancient world, but, by and large, is more of a modern one.

Not to say there weren't conflicts of extermination in the ancient world, but they were not common and not infrequently became infamous even by the standards of their time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Committing genocide is Evil...certainly the genocide of non-Evil creatures. Neutral creatures can sometimes perform Evil acts, but that doesn't somehow make them not Evil.

Perhaps genocide is impossible to commit without some particle of Evil, but isn't it equally impossible without some vapor of Good? The self-justification of the genocidalist is not persuasive of me as to their Good, but neither is a blanket condemnation as Evil was has surely been enacted a hundred thousand times in history by people seeking, above all else, to survive and thrive.
Sure. But the Evil inherent in the act so vastly outweighs any scrap of Good involved as to make it almost meaningless. It's there, but not super relevant.
Commit genocide of demons and nothing of value is lost.

Outsiders are really weird since they are composed of pure alignment. And they spontaneously arise from souls, so even if you wiped out every last demon, more would just generate eventually.

Liberty's Edge

Undone wrote:
Commit genocide of demons and nothing of value is lost.

As MMCJawa notes, demons and other aligned Outsiders don't work like, well, anything else. Yes, you can kill them all and it'd be a good thing...but they generally arise from Evil mortal souls and commit horrible acts pretty much universally (making it more like killing exclusively all people who've committed atrocities than genocide per se)...and they lack any real 'children', or life cycle, or anything like that.

Comparing killing them all to genocide is rather deeply misleading and inaccurate.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Undone wrote:
Commit genocide of demons and nothing of value is lost.

As MMCJawa notes, demons and other aligned Outsiders don't work like, well, anything else. Yes, you can kill them all and it'd be a good thing...but they generally arise from Evil mortal souls and commit horrible acts pretty much universally (making it more like killing exclusively all people who've committed atrocities than genocide per se)...and they lack any real 'children', or life cycle, or anything like that.

Comparing killing them all to genocide is rather deeply misleading and inaccurate.

But if you killed all the mortals first, then genocided all the demons, there would never be any more.

That would be a good thing, right?

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

But if you killed all the mortals first, then genocided all the demons, there would never be any more.

That would be a good thing, right?

And if we killed all humans on Earth there'd be no more crime of any sort.

That does not, in fact, make killing all humans a good thing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But if you killed all the mortals first, then genocided all the demons, there would never be any more.

That would be a good thing, right?

And if we killed all humans on Earth there'd be no more crime of any sort.

That does not, in fact, make killing all humans a good thing.

There may have been a little snark in that post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PrinceRaven wrote:
Sure, if you suddenly killed an entire race some of those killings would be good acts as you serendipitously struck down some members of the race as they were in the process committing of or about to commit an act that warrants lethal force in defence of their victim. But that would be just as true of killing all humans as it would be killing all orcs. In fact, you might have even saved some innocent orc toddlers from being slaughtered by a party of human adventurers.

Exactly. It's Neutral.


RJGrady wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Sure, if you suddenly killed an entire race some of those killings would be good acts as you serendipitously struck down some members of the race as they were in the process committing of or about to commit an act that warrants lethal force in defence of their victim. But that would be just as true of killing all humans as it would be killing all orcs. In fact, you might have even saved some innocent orc toddlers from being slaughtered by a party of human adventurers.
Exactly. It's Neutral.

Except that's not how it works. Not in PF. Not in real life.

Indiscriminate killing is evil. Those you killed who by chance were evil don't balance out those who were not.

Targeting evil people and catching some others accidentally might be neutral, depending on the circumstances.


Genocide isn't, well, indiscriminate. And this isn't about "evil" this is about Evil.

Killing an entire village because you don't like them is Evil.

Killing an entire village because you don't want raiders from that village to ever come to your village against and try to kill you and yours, well, it isn't very nice. But it's a mix of Good and Evil intentions, and it's essentially neutral. It's done as a matter of survival.


RJGrady wrote:

Genocide isn't, well, indiscriminate. And this isn't about "evil" this is about Evil.

Killing an entire village because you don't like them is Evil.

Killing an entire village because you don't want raiders from that village to ever come to your village against and try to kill you and yours, well, it isn't very nice. But it's a mix of Good and Evil intentions, and it's essentially neutral. It's done as a matter of survival.

Nope. That's pretty solid Evil.

Setting off a bomb in the village that kills everyone because you can't beat their warriors and there's no other way to save yourselves. That's neutral.

Barring creatures that don't follow anything like a normal human lifecycle and therefore are likely to fall into the supernatural evil category, if you can beat their warriors and then proceed into the village to kill all the non-combatants and children, you have other options. If nothing else, you've pushed back the threat for now. Another generation of warriors isn't going to spring into existence overnight. You're not in immediate danger.

Yes, a GM could contrive a situation where there wouldn't be any choice but to slit every little baby throat personally - but that brings us back to dick GM.


thejeff wrote:


Barring creatures that don't follow anything like a normal human lifecycle and therefore are likely to fall into the supernatural evil category, if you can beat their warriors and then proceed into the village to kill all the non-combatants and children, you have other options.

Well, some of those "other options," including some historically popular ones, seem pretty evil to me.

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Barring creatures that don't follow anything like a normal human lifecycle and therefore are likely to fall into the supernatural evil category, if you can beat their warriors and then proceed into the village to kill all the non-combatants and children, you have other options.
Well, some of those "other options," including some historically popular ones, seem pretty evil to me.

Some of them are. So's murdering children.

For example, the Indian Schools in the U.S. were, in fact, evil and terrible for a host of reasons. Killing those children instead would not in any way have been less Evil. Indeed, I'm pretty sure most would agree that it would've been a lot more Evil.


RJGrady wrote:

Killing an entire village because you don't want raiders from that village to ever come to your village against and try to kill you and yours, well, it isn't very nice. But it's a mix of Good and Evil intentions, and it's essentially neutral. It's done as a matter of survival.

It's not essentially Neutral insofar as it fails to respect the clearly laid out compunctions of Neutral regarding harming the innocent. Neutral will be more comfortable killing actual raiders, not so much with indiscriminate slaughter of everyone back where the raiders came from. I'm not really sure how we're slipping around the line regarding Neutral compunctions, here.

It's also not necessarily a matter of survival, particularly within the ancient attitudes that you mentioned earlier - as I mentioned above. Ancient attitudes tend to value either transitory pillage, or longer-term subjugation - in either case, over actual campaigns of extermination.

Liberty's Edge

People who think "I'm willing to do anything to ensure I survive" is how we get Liches.


Oly wrote:
But I really disagree with your statement. Even if you consider the babies innocent even if they're certain to become guilty, it's actually evil to let them live if that choice will result in more innocents dying. I think you need to reflect on your moral compass if you'd let an orc baby live if he will become an evil monster and kill probably 10 innocents if you don't kill him when you have the chance.

Your hypothetical is ridiculously one sided and therefore pretty worthless in an actual discussion. You might as well put forward that 100% of orc babies fart atomic explosions for all that is worth discussing.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
...and yet, everybody sees the Spartans as heroes...

I sure as hell was disturbed by the casual killing off the wounded and throwing babies off cliffs. Frank Miller is a pretty disturbed guy (now quite much more visibly than back then).


Champion_of_the_Blessed wrote:

PrinceRaven, again, you make parallels to real life. Pathfinder is not real life.

Also, most people are not evil by default. Orcs, by default, are.

What, you mean like the father of Irabeth Tirabade, a good aligned orc who raised her with his human wife, so that Irabeth became a Paladin of Iomedae?

Yeah, I can really see how they must all be evil.

Liberty's Edge

I'm actually with Oly in the case that if creatures don't have the capacity to make their own moral decisions and will always end up brutal killing machines and an active threat to civilised races it wouldn't be an Evil act to exterminate them. What I disagree with is that Pathfinder orcs are anything like that.


PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm actually with Oly in the case that if creatures don't have the capacity to make their own moral decisions and will always end up brutal killing machines and an active threat to civilised races it wouldn't be an Evil act to exterminate them. What I disagree with is that Pathfinder orcs are anything like that.

What he and you are describing then are, in essence, creatures with the evil subtype, i.e. creatures "made out of evil". The vast majority of those are outsiders, which don't really have children, as far as I know.


magnuskn wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm actually with Oly in the case that if creatures don't have the capacity to make their own moral decisions and will always end up brutal killing machines and an active threat to civilised races it wouldn't be an Evil act to exterminate them. What I disagree with is that Pathfinder orcs are anything like that.
What he and you are describing then are, in essence, creatures with the evil subtype, i.e. creatures "made out of evil". The vast majority of those are outsiders, which don't really have children, as far as I know.

Tieflings and half-fiends exist.

Hm...half-fiends CAN be toddlers, AND have the evil subtype. What about slaughtering them? Orcs is morally debatable (and IMO evil to kill toddlers of) but what about half-fiends?

Sovereign Court

thegreenteagamer wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm actually with Oly in the case that if creatures don't have the capacity to make their own moral decisions and will always end up brutal killing machines and an active threat to civilised races it wouldn't be an Evil act to exterminate them. What I disagree with is that Pathfinder orcs are anything like that.
What he and you are describing then are, in essence, creatures with the evil subtype, i.e. creatures "made out of evil". The vast majority of those are outsiders, which don't really have children, as far as I know.

Tieflings and half-fiends exist.

Hm...half-fiends CAN be toddlers, AND have the evil subtype. What about slaughtering them? Orcs is morally debatable (and IMO evil to kill toddlers of) but what about half-fiends?

Funny enough my party and I actually saved a Half-fiend child, so yeah at least from my end, can save them. It's just very hard to keep them on the right path. My character while ill suited to push the kid toward good behaviors (I'm chaotic neutral), at least make sure, she gets to choose her path in life eventually.


I'm away from my rulebooks at the moment, so I have no way of checking if they got the evil sub-type. However, they fall under the "mostly evil" label and are born not evil, but rather raised that way in most cases (if they are raised at all). I guess they would have evil tendencies because of their close link to their fiendish relatives, but that doesn't mean that they cannot make the rational decision to be not evil.


magnuskn wrote:
I'm away from my rulebooks at the moment, so I have no way of checking if they got the evil sub-type. However, they fall under the "mostly evil" label and are born not evil, but rather raised that way in most cases (if they are raised at all). I guess they would have evil tendencies because of their close link to their fiendish relatives, but that doesn't mean that they cannot make the rational decision to be not evil.

Don't ya just love the internet, and Paizo's OGL? Makes this kinda thing easy to look up. Check it out.

According to this, half-fiends are native outsiders, not evil outsiders, BUT they're always evil, not mostly.

Tieflings, on the other hand, vary the gamut, but lean more to evil; still, there's more than just a handful of good tieflings, so it's a little more cut-and-dry than the average orc.


I never got this one. Is there any potential that the creature can be raised good? Then every attempt must be made to do so by good characters.

If you kill creatures just because they might be evil one day, then you need to kill everything from slugs up just to be sure. Paladins can fall, after all. Chances have nothing to do with the situation - just because there's a 95% chance the Orc baby will go Reaver on you at some point, and only a 5% chance the human one will try and eat someone's eyes on toast, doesn't allow you to judge the Orc one based on his or her heritage.

If you start judging based on who the parents are, then I imagine the Tiefling and Changeling players are gonna be shuffling away from you pretty damned fast. After all, a Tiefling's daddy is virtually always some kinda hellbeast - you don't get more evil genetics than that. And there alignment is listed as 'Typically 'something' Evil' so they must he whole heatedly screwed.

And of course, the Duergar crèche scene will be pretty gruesome. After all, Duergar are described as 'few can be described as anything other than vile and cruel' so that's gonna be a nasty one. That they will probably look more or less like human babies shouldn't make much difference...

Any good party won't just wantonly kill. You'd need to take precautions and make sure both the people raising the kids and the kids themselves are safe, but it should be doable. If you kill infant creatures with no hope of defending themselves then how, exactly, is your 'hero' better than the Orc parents they just fought?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonGarrett wrote:
If you kill infant creatures with no hope of defending themselves then how, exactly, is your 'hero' better than the Orc parents they just fought?

By being Neutral and not Evil.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
JonGarrett wrote:
If you kill infant creatures with no hope of defending themselves then how, exactly, is your 'hero' better than the Orc parents they just fought?
By being Neutral and not Evil.

Not to be cyclical, but if you kill the kids you won't be neutral anymore. :-P


Unless there's actually a valid reason for the neutral character to kill a kid, such as the old, 'Oh hey Bob, you remember how you had a kid with that Bar Wench a while back? The one you go and visit? Well, the sorcerer you just upset is apparently an ass and decided to turn your living sprog into there phylactery. Since if you don't destroy the lich the world will end, you need to kill your own kid. Your roll!' storyline.

But that's not the situation here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My character is a hero because he saves the town every time the Orcs come. He's a hero because he does it out of a sense of altruism. He helps these people not to be rewarded or to garner attention (although he is given both for his heroism).

He is a Good person in every way, except he plans to wipe out the entire Orc tribe and their progeny for the sake of his own.

He's Neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clearly, 449 posts would say that, sir, is debatable, by it's most literal definition.

I don't know if this or the other alignment thread bouncing around now was where I gave the example, but being "mostly good" and having one horrifically bad action doesn't make you neutral, it makes you evil. Especially if the evil action is unrepentant.

If the most altruistic person you could conceive of showed up and slaughtered a few innocents for his own personal gain, he would instantaneously be an evil son of a b****. Good things don't make evil things go away, especially if you don't feel remorse and change your ways to, you know, stop murdering children.

Your character would be an evil guy who used to be good. Never neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Clearly, 449 posts would say that, sir, is debatable, by it's most literal definition.

I don't know if this or the other alignment thread bouncing around now was where I gave the example, but being "mostly good" and having one horrifically bad action doesn't make you neutral, it makes you evil. Especially if the evil action is unrepentant.

If the most altruistic person you could conceive of showed up and slaughtered a few innocents for his own personal gain, he would instantaneously be an evil son of a b****. Good things don't make evil things go away, especially if you don't feel remorse and change your ways to, you know, stop murdering children.

He didn't kill them for his own personal gain. He killed them because his tribe was raided and would always be raided until the Orcs were gone. He killed them to save his world.

401 to 450 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