-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Nonhuman noncombatants?
- Thread starter CruelSummerLord
- Start date
JDJblatherings
First Post
-Would it be evil to slaughter them, given that they are, after all, noncombatants, even if they are orcs?
No becasue they are in fact evil. Unless that facts are somehow different.
-Would it be evil to let them live, if you view orcs and other humanoids as inherently evil?
Mercy is never evil.
-Do humanoids, IYC, have the same rights and deserve the same consideration as demihumans and humans?
What, Where, when,, how? Most humans often didn't (and don't) have the same rights as other humans in the real world because of such things as age, sex, birth place, ethnic heritage, religion, trade practiced, family and more. Why would one assume it's different in a D&D world ?
-What if your character is a dwarf, who may well view these creatures as inherently evil? Could it be an act of Good, from his point of view, to destroy them where they stand, so they cannot breed more of their kind?
Yes because they are evil.
No becasue they are in fact evil. Unless that facts are somehow different.
-Would it be evil to let them live, if you view orcs and other humanoids as inherently evil?
Mercy is never evil.
-Do humanoids, IYC, have the same rights and deserve the same consideration as demihumans and humans?
What, Where, when,, how? Most humans often didn't (and don't) have the same rights as other humans in the real world because of such things as age, sex, birth place, ethnic heritage, religion, trade practiced, family and more. Why would one assume it's different in a D&D world ?
-What if your character is a dwarf, who may well view these creatures as inherently evil? Could it be an act of Good, from his point of view, to destroy them where they stand, so they cannot breed more of their kind?
Yes because they are evil.
darthkilmor
First Post
CruelSummerLord said:
An act of mercy by the PC's could well be what keeps the next village over from being burned to the ground and everyone slaughtered. If I were another orc and came across an entire village of my kinfolk slaughtered by humans, I'd go wipe out a human settlement as revenge. If you come across a village with no males and just woman and childer, then well, your clan would just assimilate them into your own, and probably thank the humans that killed your rivals. Assuming it was a group of humans that came across the village, well, half-orcs have to come from somewhere. Repercussions are definitely worth the PC's consideration. Maybe the dwarves make it a point to leave the woman and children alone, and thats what makes them better than the orcs, who probably often go on the traditional rape and pillage.
I would personally see the killing of intelligent non-combatants as an neutral-to-evil act, depending on the situation. The village could just as easily be a clan of evil human barbarians, then the decision will probably be a little less easy for your PC's. This all actually reminds of the star wars movie where anakin kills the whole village of sand people, which some people would probably consider an evil act(and theatrically served to illustrate his slide to the dark side).
Also, just because someone is evil doesn't mean anyone good can just kill them. The local sheriff, magistrate, nobility, and even local church officials may be evil. You don't see paladins walking around with constant detect evil, slaughtering anything they don't approve of.
Klaus
First Post
-Would it be evil to slaughter them, given that they are, after all, noncombatants, even if they are orcs?
Yes. Because Good "respects life and values the dignity of sentient beings". Even in D&D worlds, the most common "war atrocity" soken of is when an army puts everyone in a conquered city to the torch.
-Would it be evil to let them live, if you view orcs and other humanoids as inherently evil?
No. If you view orcs as "inherently evil", you're misguided, since orcs aren't "inherently evil". Demons, Devils and Chromatic dragons (among others) are "inherently evil'.
-Do humanoids, IYC, have the same rights and deserve the same consideration as demihumans and humans?
There's no distinction since 3e between "humanoid" and "demihuman".
-What if your character is a dwarf, who may well view these creatures as inherently evil? Could it be an act of Good, from his point of view, to destroy them where they stand, so they cannot breed more of their kind?
In the D&D alignment system, there's no such thing as "Good, from his point of view". Good is Good, Evil is Evil. They're absolutes.
IMC, during the Forge of Fury, the party came across a tribe of troglodytes (expanded the trogs in the second level of the module). They killed the warriors and the evil priest who led them, then allowed the females to leave with their young, with a promise to never return.
Yes. Because Good "respects life and values the dignity of sentient beings". Even in D&D worlds, the most common "war atrocity" soken of is when an army puts everyone in a conquered city to the torch.
-Would it be evil to let them live, if you view orcs and other humanoids as inherently evil?
No. If you view orcs as "inherently evil", you're misguided, since orcs aren't "inherently evil". Demons, Devils and Chromatic dragons (among others) are "inherently evil'.
-Do humanoids, IYC, have the same rights and deserve the same consideration as demihumans and humans?
There's no distinction since 3e between "humanoid" and "demihuman".
-What if your character is a dwarf, who may well view these creatures as inherently evil? Could it be an act of Good, from his point of view, to destroy them where they stand, so they cannot breed more of their kind?
In the D&D alignment system, there's no such thing as "Good, from his point of view". Good is Good, Evil is Evil. They're absolutes.
IMC, during the Forge of Fury, the party came across a tribe of troglodytes (expanded the trogs in the second level of the module). They killed the warriors and the evil priest who led them, then allowed the females to leave with their young, with a promise to never return.
Kesh
First Post
Depending on our play style at the table, there are two ways I usually handle this:
1) Cheetos™ mode: There are no women or children. It's a military encampment and the males are the only ones who fight.
2) Complicated mode: The orcs don't fight to the death. Men & women fight together. Some may surrender, plead for leniency and explain why they stole crops/attacked the caravan/work for the evil overlord/whatever. They may be lying, they may be telling the truth. Either way, the PCs are free to choose. Again, I probably wouldn't even have children present unless finding orc children is the plot point that brought the PCs there in the first place.
In short, it's an annoying thing to throw at player's feet unless they already said they want to explore the moral dilemma of killing other humanoids' children.
1) Cheetos™ mode: There are no women or children. It's a military encampment and the males are the only ones who fight.
2) Complicated mode: The orcs don't fight to the death. Men & women fight together. Some may surrender, plead for leniency and explain why they stole crops/attacked the caravan/work for the evil overlord/whatever. They may be lying, they may be telling the truth. Either way, the PCs are free to choose. Again, I probably wouldn't even have children present unless finding orc children is the plot point that brought the PCs there in the first place.
In short, it's an annoying thing to throw at player's feet unless they already said they want to explore the moral dilemma of killing other humanoids' children.
IMHO, part of the appeal of a game like D&D is that it allows its participants to imagine a fantasy world where good and evil are objectively real. Alignment was never just a description of how a character acts. It was a statement of which side a creature takes in the cosmos-wide struggle of forces.
D&D was intended as a game of action-filled adventure, not angst-filled ennui. In other words, the default assumption should be that Orcs are evil, and need killing. The players get to be the men (and women) of action that journey to the wilderness, and give the Orcs the killing they deserve. In the real-world it would be deplorable to kill a race based simply on a perception that it is evil. That's all the more reason to have a fantasy game where people get to act out such otherwise unacceptable desires.
If you make the game too much concerned with modern notions of morality, it loses the cathartic value that it otherwise has. It's good for us to pretend there is a place where larger than life people can really solve problems just by hitting them hard enough, and its easy to know who is bad, because they look bad. The real world is complicated enough. Our fantasy worlds might lose all value if even they don't let us get away from mundane morality.
D&D was intended as a game of action-filled adventure, not angst-filled ennui. In other words, the default assumption should be that Orcs are evil, and need killing. The players get to be the men (and women) of action that journey to the wilderness, and give the Orcs the killing they deserve. In the real-world it would be deplorable to kill a race based simply on a perception that it is evil. That's all the more reason to have a fantasy game where people get to act out such otherwise unacceptable desires.
If you make the game too much concerned with modern notions of morality, it loses the cathartic value that it otherwise has. It's good for us to pretend there is a place where larger than life people can really solve problems just by hitting them hard enough, and its easy to know who is bad, because they look bad. The real world is complicated enough. Our fantasy worlds might lose all value if even they don't let us get away from mundane morality.
Last edited:
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
QFTClavis said:
