Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.) -

That Guy George

kiwifarms.net
Orcs are evil creatures made by an evil god and designed to do evil things until they die and spend an eternity fighting dead goblinoids in the endless battles of Acheron between Gruumsh and Maglubiyet (with an occasional special guest appearance by Kurtulmak). No orphanage is going to take in a band of marauding orc toddlers and infants because they'll kill (and possibly eat) the other children. It's no more an evil act than filling a weighted sack with pitbull puppies and yeeting it into a river.
You're making it sound like they have no choice, which goes against both RAW and common sense. Orc society is evil, no question, but's primarily because their society, culture and rules are set by their evil creator and while their is some natural push towards that alignment, it's not set in stone. Teilfings have their own push towards evil but thats it, a push, its not guarantee. The vast majority of orcs you'll find are most likely evil, but just as a human can choose to become C.E., an orc could choose to break away and become something else. There are proven cases from splats and setting books of creatures from evil races for one reason or another
Some creatures, like say a beholder, are 'born' dicks, but that's because they don't breed and propagate like normal species. A baby orc shouldn't ping as evil because it's a freaking baby, they're too busy trying to learn how to pee on command than to think about hurting others. Could they a bit more of a problem child growing up, sure, but calling that evil makes me wonder more about how you want an excuse to crush children's skulls with a warhammer
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Alignment is meaningless in current edition. OSR that's a perfectly acceptable solution for a den of monsters as opposed to raising a crew of future rapists and cannibals.
First off, commit to an edition you coward.

Second, even by running away to pre 3rd edition proves you're wrong on this, because Planescape Torment is ADnD. And because of this, Nordom along with other rogue Modrons shouldn't exist by your own broken logic, since they despite being outsiders differ from the norm, coming in flavors of LG, LN, and LE. They can fight the Good-Evil Axis.

Third, players since even 1e have defied the alignment line for their species, hence why since 3.0 Wizards has stated even races with all X alignment have an outlier percentage who are not. Even Outsiders are not exempt from this.

Fourth, just play a Paladin of Slaughter. It's clearly what you want to do.
 

40 Year Old Boomer

kiwifarms.net
You're making it sound like they have no choice, which goes against both RAW and common sense. Orc society is evil, no question, but's primarily because their society, culture and rules are set by their evil creator and while their is some natural push towards that alignment, it's not set in stone. Teilfings have their own push towards evil but thats it, a push, its not guarantee. The vast majority of orcs you'll find are most likely evil, but just as a human can choose to become C.E., an orc could choose to break away and become something else. There are proven cases from splats and setting books of creatures from evil races for one reason or another
Some creatures, like say a beholder, are 'born' dicks, but that's because they don't breed and propagate like normal species. A baby orc shouldn't ping as evil because it's a freaking baby, they're too busy trying to learn how to pee on command than to think about hurting others. Could they a bit more of a problem child growing up, sure, but calling that evil makes me wonder more about how you want an excuse to crush children's skulls with a warhammer
You give them a clean death (which is more than they could hope for when grown) and a proper burial while praying their souls make their way to a better place than Acheron. Hobgoblin paladin joke aside, a culling should not be taken lightly as a paladin. And furthermore, where does it end? Say you slay the green dragon terrorizing the nearby wood elf settlement and find a clutch of eggs or wyrmlings? Do you attempt to redeem them also? Neogi? A mindflayer spawning pool? Ogres? A pregnant hag? Where do you draw your line when it comes to slaying monsters and the spawn of evil gods and demons?
 

Corn Flakes

Battle Creek's Finest
kiwifarms.net
Yeah that's a big no from me on all of that rules lawyering to make murderhobo pallys who mulch infants. Especially since it involves a RAW take on one of several interpretations on what lawful good is and you're dealing with a humanoid infant. I don't care what excuse is made, I know if I had a player do that I'd make them fall so hard they are having an ice bath with Satan.

Also I'm sorry, but I'm of the mind that the only absolutes in setting are when you get to Outsiders and divine magic, and even they (the outsiders) can defy that fate, rare as it may be. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos exist and are actual forces, but they don't purely guide you crude beings of flesh and matter.
I was talking about Orcs being just a creature type short of being literal demons, not just another sentient race. Think Lord of the Rings Uruk-Hai, instead of "ackshually proud and noble with their own deep-and-totally-not-black culture" D&D orcs.

Either way, this sort of discussion never goes anywhere, because we end up having to discuss what happened to the goblin infants hidden away in the hovel we just burned. Or what's going to happen to the Kobold eggs and hatchlings in the ruins now that 99% of their tribe's adult population was wiped out by the party exploring the ruins for the Claw of Karthoum in order to save the world. Or what happened to the wife and child of that brigand that just tried to stab the wizard and got insta-bisected by the fighter's greatsword. Or what happened to the armies under the evil wizard that the party just killed, going without pay and food now their leadership was decapitated. Or the villages under the evil wizard's rule, which are now going to be under constant raids by the remnants of that army. Even if the Lawful Good characters aren't killing children directly, if you go by "reality ensues" rules even a party of paragons is going to leave a swathe of indirect death and destruction in their wake.

In the end it's easier to just keep it simple: if the GM says that slaughtering an entire tribe of goblins is fine because even the infants are born Lawful Evil and have taken up daggers to attack the party, then that's how it is in that world. If he says the infants are hiding in terror as the party slaughters their parents and extended families, then you can expect to take a ding to your alignment if you go chasing them down. It depends on both the worldbuilding (are all Goblins born Evil, or do they become Evil by their upbringing? Only the person running the game can say) and whether or not the GM wants to bother with it. Because sure, we could just spend the entire campaign fighting against uncontroversial Evil like Undead, but that would get really samey really quickly.

(And then you have settings where even the animated skeletons get a say in it and we're back to square one.)
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I was talking about Orcs being just a creature type short of being literal demons, not just another sentient race. Think Lord of the Rings Uruk-Hai, instead of "ackshually proud and noble with their own deep-and-totally-not-black culture" D&D orcs.

Either way, this sort of discussion never goes anywhere, because we end up having to discuss what happened to the goblin infants hidden away in the hovel we just burned. Or what's going to happen to the Kobold eggs and hatchlings in the ruins now that 99% of their tribe's adult population was wiped out by the party exploring the ruins for the Claw of Karthoum in order to save the world. Or what happened to the wife and child of that brigand that just tried to stab the wizard and got insta-bisected by the fighter's greatsword. Or what happened to the armies under the evil wizard that the party just killed, going without pay and food now their leadership was decapitated. Or the villages under the evil wizard's rule, which are now going to be under constant raids by the remnants of that army. Even if the Lawful Good characters aren't killing children directly, if you go by "reality ensues" rules even a party of paragons is going to leave a swathe of indirect death and destruction in their wake.

In the end it's easier to just keep it simple: if the GM says that slaughtering an entire tribe of goblins is fine because even the infants are born Lawful Evil and have taken up daggers to attack the party, then that's how it is in that world. If he says the infants are hiding in terror as the party slaughters their parents and extended families, then you can expect to take a ding to your alignment if you go chasing them down. It depends on both the worldbuilding (are all Goblins born Evil, or do they become Evil by their upbringing? Only the person running the game can say) and whether or not the GM wants to bother with it. Because sure, we could just spend the entire campaign fighting against uncontroversial Evil like Undead, but that would get really samey really quickly.

(And then you have settings where even the animated skeletons get a say in it and we're back to square one.)
You do know even Tolkien rejected the Orcs being fully evil, right? They were corrupted elves who didn't even know what good was like anymore. He actually disliked that he wrote them as they are and how people deemed them truly irredemable. In his own words "they were once elves".
You give them a clean death (which is more than they could hope for when grown) and a proper burial while praying their souls make their way to a better place than Acheron. Hobgoblin paladin joke aside, a culling should not be taken lightly as a paladin. And furthermore, where does it end? Say you slay the green dragon terrorizing the nearby wood elf settlement and find a clutch of eggs or wyrmlings? Do you attempt to redeem them also? Neogi? A mindflayer spawning pool? Ogres? A pregnant hag? Where do you draw your line when it comes to slaying monsters and the spawn of evil gods and demons?
The only example you have out of that list that comes close to justifiable is the spawning pool, but that's mainly because mindflayer spawn do mutate and form powerful monsters that are not sapient and siphon mind waves from others if the pool is left alone and with no hosts for the spawns to attach to.

Even then, there has been at least one redeemed Mindflayer. No being is beyond redemption.
 

MaxPayne

kiwifarms.net
Not directly.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Cheers,
Gary

And

Quote
Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :lol:

Cheers,
Gary

Quote
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

Cheers,
Gary
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56868&start=270
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


The creator of the game played orcs as irredeemably evil. It dosent mean you have to play that way, but it is the standard in advanced d&d specifically. Personally I prefer monsters to be irredeemably evil like the goblins from goblin slayer or trolls from berserk rather than what we see in the elder scrolls or warcraft.
 

Spergetti

Unoriginal Lurker
kiwifarms.net
I think the best way to avoid table drama if you're going to allow a player with a LG paladin to genocide orcs is to make orcs a race that doesn't have children. Just to offer a couple of examples, they might be a race that is created through magic and are always adults (this works whether wizards make them or gods). If a more naturalistic explanation works better in your setting, you can make them like Warhammer orcs that just grow out of the ground and appear as full-grown-ready-to-rape-kill-eat-sleep-repeat orcs.

PC orcs can still be a thing - even good or neutral orcs - if a decent explanation is given about how this orc managed to escape the mental programming that other orcs normally fall into.

Another potential benefit of taking this route as the DM is that you can stipulate that there aren't any female orcs and none of the orcs occupy anything like a "civilian" role in their social structure.

Overall, less moral quandaries and you get to exclude women. It's a win-win.
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
And

Quote


Quote

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56868&start=270
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


The creator of the game played orcs as irredeemably evil. It dosent mean you have to play that way, but it is the standard in advanced d&d specifically. Personally I prefer monsters to be irredeemably evil like the goblins from goblin slayer or trolls from berserk rather than what we see in the elder scrolls or warcraft.
This just gives me the impression now how I can argue that an Orc Warlord who legit is the biggest stan for Grummsh is now LG or just plain Lawful if we're doing Basic, since all that rape, pillage, destruction, and murder is now a pre-emptive attempt to stop humans from genociding their people and simply following the code laid down by old One-Eye.

Raping and nuking the human village into nothing is removing the nits too. Just they look like you so it's bad.
 

Corn Flakes

Battle Creek's Finest
kiwifarms.net
You do know even Tolkien rejected the Orcs being fully evil, right? They were corrupted elves who didn't even know what good was like anymore. He actually disliked that he wrote them as they are and how people deemed them truly irredemable. In his own words "they were once elves".
I know, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, Tolkien may be the original creator, he may have made the claim that Orcs "were once elves". But it's not in his hands anymore, the only person who gets to make that call is the person writing the story we're playing: the GM. The GM is the one who defines how much nuance we want to see in these things.

If my GM says "Orcs are dark-hearted from birth and cannot comprehend anything other than violence and evil due to their inherent connection to their Dark God, period", then that's how it works in his game and I'll be acting accordingly. Of course, if he then allows players to play as Orcs then I'm going to have some words with him.

If my GM says "Orcs are tribal, bloodthirsty warriors that raid and pillage but they can reason and negotiate if they see the need to", then they could be spared if they surrender, and their encroaching tribes would be pushed away instead of wiped out outright.

Different situations in different settings. No one plays the same settings either. Even if we're both playing Forgotten Realms, different GMs and groups have different interpretations of the setting. I've played a campaign in which Waterdeep was an amazingly corrupt place, coated with a thin veneer of legitimacy. That's not how the city is in "canon", but that's how it was played in that campaign and we had fun with that. Likewise, one of my former (and late, unfortunately) GMs played his dragons as extremely dangerous feral beasts as opposed to intelligent creatures and it worked for him. My current D&D GM has Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs as creatures with their own cultures and values, but Gnolls are literal demons in all but creature type (to the point their "pups" are born by ripping themselves out of their mother's belly. Some mothers even survive it).

I think the best way to avoid table drama if you're going to allow a player with a LG paladin to genocide orcs is to make orcs a race that doesn't have children. Just to offer a couple of examples, they might be a race that is created through magic and are always adults (this works whether wizards make them or gods). If a more naturalistic explanation works better in your setting, can make them like Warhammer orcs that just grow out of the ground and appear as full-grown-ready-to-rape-kill-eat-sleep-repeat orcs.

PC orcs can still be a thing - even good or neutral orcs - if a decent explanation is given about how this orc managed to escape the mental programming that other orcs normally fall into.

Another potential benefit of taking this route as the DM is that you can stipulate that there aren't any female orcs and none of the orcs occupy anything like a "civilian" role in their social structure.

Overall, less moral quandaries and you get to exclude women. It's a win-win.
So, in short, 40K Orks are the best.
 

MaxPayne

kiwifarms.net
This just gives me the impression now how I can argue that an Orc Warlord who legit is the biggest stan for Grummsh is now LG or just plain Lawful if we're doing Basic, since all that rape, pillage, destruction, and murder is now a pre-emptive attempt to stop humans from genociding their people and simply following the code laid down by old One-Eye.

Raping and nuking the human village into nothing is removing the nits too. Just they look like you so it's bad.
That's some faggot tier sophistry.

"From the queen xenomoprphs point of view, Ripleys the bad guy for killing her young"!

Orcs are evil because they're monsters created by an evil god. They cannot be empathetic and civilized, and are compelled to murder, raid, and rape. They aren't humans and lack our psychology. You're free to run them differently, but the "from the cockroaches point of view, the exterminator is the bad guy!" Isnt nearly as clever as you think it is. I'm fact it's pretty played out in pop culture at this point.
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
ITT: People try justifying the baby mulching build while straight-facedly saying they'd be treated as good.
That's some faggot tier sophistry.

"From the queen xenomoprphs point of view, Ripleys the bad guy for killing her young"!

Orcs are evil because they're monsters created by an evil god. They cannot be empathetic and civilized, and are compelled to murder, raid, and rape. They aren't humans and lack our psychology. You're free to run them differently, but the "from the cockroaches point of view, the exterminator is the bad guy!" Isnt nearly as clever as you think it is. I'm fact it's pretty played out in pop culture at this point.
That's why they can be treated as non-evil in all editions, even if Gary wanted to kill them all.

Good job bringing up the Xenomorph by the way dude; they're neutral creatures because they're just a highly territorial parasitoid animal or abberation. They're more like the tarrasque or gibbering mouther (both neutral btw) than an "evil race". I imagine a tiger would also be pretty pissed if you killed their cubs too.

Also I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just pointing out that even in Basic and Advanced DnD, mulching babies is a no go and y'all are retarded for trying to defend it. I mean fuck's sake, why not just rape the Orcs to death too at this point? Or enslave them?

The real question is why did the DM or any person doesn't just fade to black or just mention casually "the village is destroyed" in the first place.
 

Corn Flakes

Battle Creek's Finest
kiwifarms.net
The real question is why did the DM or any person doesn't just fade to black or just mention casually "the village is destroyed" in the first place.
So you're fine with the implication of babies being slaughtered, so long as no one is rolling dice while doing it?

Weird flex but okay.
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think it's more about not even bringing up orc children to slaughter in the first place
Pretty much.

I mean, I'm not going to cry over skeletons being destroyed, or putting down a rampaging tarrasque since you know, property damage, lives lost, and so on. The dumb part was bringing up infants to slaughter and then trying to justify said action in general tbh.
 

MaxPayne

kiwifarms.net
ITT: People try justifying the baby mulching build while straight-facedly saying they'd be treated as good.

That's why they can be treated as non-evil in all editions, even if Gary wanted to kill them all.

Good job bringing up the Xenomorph by the way dude; they're neutral creatures because they're just a highly territorial parasitoid animal or abberation. They're more like the tarrasque or gibbering mouther (both neutral btw) than an "evil race". I imagine a tiger would also be pretty pissed if you killed their cubs too.

Also I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just pointing out that even in Basic and Advanced DnD, mulching babies is a no go and y'all are retarded for trying to defend it. I mean fuck's sake, why not just rape the Orcs to death too at this point? Or enslave them?

The real question is why did the DM or any person doesn't just fade to black or just mention casually "the village is destroyed" in the first place.
I just gave you quotes from Gary gygax on the subject. It was indeed perfectly fine (lawful good even) to exterminate orc youths in advanced and basic d&d, regardless of what your feelings say.

As for the point about the tiger, if they were almost as intelligent as humans, attacked us on sight, and compelled by the forces of evil (which are a real and definable thing in d&d) to wage war and kill, then youd have a point. But that's not the case.

Whether you like it or not, any edition that used gygax as the author assumed these creatures to be irredeemably evil, and dispatching them to be a mercy. If you want to re interpret them as warcraft orcs you're free to do so, but thats not the cononical way they're presented by the author.
 

Adamska

Last Gunman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I just gave you quotes from Gary gygax on the subject. It was indeed perfectly fine to exterminate orc youths in advanced and basic d&d, regardless of what your feelings say.

As for the point about the tiger, if they were almost as intelligent as humans, attacked us on sight, and compelled by the forces of evil (which are a real and definable thing in d&d) to wage war and kill, then youd have a point. But that's not the case.

Whether you like it or not, any edition that used gygax as the author assumed these creatures to be irredeemably evil, and dispatching them to be a mercy. If you want to re interpret them as warcraft orcs you're free to do so, but thats not the cononical way they're presented by the author.
>Tries to hint there is no free will
>Uses quotes that free will exists

I think your argument's a bit faulty there given that using Gygax to justify baby mulching indicates that they have free will. If they can recant, then they are are not fully compelled by evil. But then when that doesn't work you try the lack of free will via compulsion to justify baby mulching when trying to dismiss tigers, who actually have in the past have stalked and killed humans out of revenge.

It's one or the other dude.

And while you didn't personally say it, one of the justifications being used for baby mulching was Word of God is dead, meaning I don't have to take his words at all.

Besides, Gygax only had control over 1e, so it's really just one edition that his words have any meaning over. And last I checked, when people say ADnD, they almost always refers to 2e. 2e had Gygax get kicked out of his own company and was designed to utterly strip his influence and be able to pay him jack shit.

And again, even he agreed that they can be redeemed, it's just he advocates you mulch them right after they do so rather than actually roll with it.
 

Corn Flakes

Battle Creek's Finest
kiwifarms.net
I think it's more about not even bringing up orc children to slaughter in the first place
That's the point I spoilered in my previous post: even righteous actions have consequences. If you killed all the adults in village, the children are going to starve regardless. Because it's a village. Even if we don't see them, there will be children (unless we're talking about 40K Orks, which have been established as being da best).

Again, you're implying a horrible death to living beings that must be there. Even if the infants and women were evacuated the moment the party showed up at the gates of the village to enact punishment for all those villages the orcs sacked, if you slaughter 80% of the male population of any village, the survivors are going to starve. If you take them in to be raised by humans, assuming they even make it to adulthood they'll have a wretched existence as second-class citizens under horrible prejudice and will likely die unmourned as lowly criminals.

Pretty much.

I mean, I'm not going to cry over skeletons being destroyed, or putting down a rampaging tarrasque since you know, property damage, lives lost, and so on. The dumb part was bringing up infants to slaughter and then trying to justify said action in general tbh.
Alright, I get that.

But read above: what do you do when these children (which must exist since Orcs reproduce sexually) are the sons and daughters of murderers, rapists and pillagers? What do you do when the infants are going to grow to be violent, aggressive and dim (and yes, I'm using the original statblock from Volo's fuck that "proud and noble" bullshit they're pushing now) and not really fit into civilized society? If you spare them but kill their parents and burn their tents, they're going to be dead from starvation or exposure anyway. Which is not an argument for killing them, mind you, but it's one of those situations where it's impossible to retain a Good alignment and get anything done if you go by these rules.

I'm arguing this point simply out of principle, by the way. In my groups we just do a fade to black and don't think about the orphans we left behind. But if the threat is sentient and irredeemably Evil-with-a-capital-E (like the gnolls I mentioned earlier) then often the quest is to kill them all, to the last, and throw them all into a funeral pyre.

Alignment arguments and D&D players. Name a more iconic duo.
You can’t.
Thank you for the reality check, actually. We've wasted enough time doing this.

Anyone else has something they want to show class? Something not Alignment-related?
 
Top