Nonhuman noncombatants?

[JDJblatherings]

...
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.

AMEN. Why folks using nonhuman races when it is grey and nebulous and doesn't really matter that they are nonhuman baffles me.

I recall the gasps from a group of players when my established rough, aggressive and violent character dispatched some orc infants. We ended up spending a good hour or two arguing about morality. I was baffled of course we were playing grifters, mercenaries and thieves , we had killed most of ships crew and set the survivors off in a rowboat with no supplies, and all of a sudden morality was a big issue in this case.

 

[Fenes]

It depends on what character I am playing, but it's usually not a matter of alignment.

For one character, orcs are the historical bane of the land, a scourge thousands of years ago that was finally ended, at the cost of half the pantheon. Orcs of all ages are killed on sight as dangerous rabid animals, half-orcs might get lucky if they look human and can talk fast or have someone to vouch for them - and that's about the view of the whole country.

Another character would defer to the party leader, at the time a paladin, but not do any killing personally.

A third character might react one way or the other, depending on the reaction of the orc noncombattants. If possible, enslave the beasts, so they can do some good for society.

But generally, most of my characters, heroes and even those willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, don't have trouble with killing orcs - those are not people in their eyes.

As a DM, I don't have many NPCs who'd consider killing orcs was evil.

 

[freyar]

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.

Right on! This is probably the nicest way I've seen it said, and it captures why, to me, WotC is badly flubbing alignment in 4e. (Which may be because some of the designers there don't "get" alignment -- I've been shocked at the disparity between flavor text and alignment indication in some recent monsters, especially the 3e version of the fire archon.)

That said, if you want shades of gray in your morality, not all orcs are CE, even if the stat block says "always CE." There's still up to around a percent who aren't. Also, Good characters can disagree about what to do with the orcs (even the Evil ones); different deities have different dogmas, for example.

 

[RangerWickett]

A game that allows people to enjoy slaughter by objectifying others as 'evil' does a disservice to human morality. Though on a different scale, it's this sort of thinking that allows people in the real world to slaughter people of a different nation, race, or religion. I won't have it in my games.

 

[Fenes]

A game that allows people to enjoy slaughter by objectifying others as 'evil' does a disservice to human morality. Though on a different scale, it's this sort of thinking that allows people in the real world to slaughter people of a different nation, race, or religion. I won't have it in my games.

I think you are wrong. I also think that if you were right, then any game that allows disproportional violence to solve perceived problems, or allows people to enjoy killing "enemies", would do a disservice to human morality - and that includes cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, and just about every shooter game on the pc/video game market.

I includes D&D for sure, since we go and kill enemies there. Especially personified evil such as demons and devils.

So, why exactly are you playing D&D? It "glorifies killing" according to your reasoning.

 

[freyar]

A game that allows people to enjoy slaughter by objectifying others as 'evil' does a disservice to human morality. Though on a different scale, it's this sort of thinking that allows people in the real world to slaughter people of a different nation, race, or religion. I won't have it in my games.

And it shows in your excellent WotBS adventures. I think Klaus really gets it right here:

-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.

Killing noncombatants is something that the 3 main LG gods of FR, for example, would not sanction. I think the important point of alignment, though, is that there is some sort of cosmic organization that "trickles down" into the material plane.

 

[Fenes]

And it shows in your excellent WotBS adventures. I think Klaus really gets it right here:

Killing noncombatants is something that the 3 main LG gods of FR, for example, would not sanction. I think the important point of alignment, though, is that there is some sort of cosmic organization that "trickles down" into the material plane.

Letting the orcs grow up to raid and pillage would not be deemed "good" by any of my FR gods. If there's no way to prevent them from growing up to be violent monsters, then killing them is the only good solution in my campaign.

And in my campaign, orcs do have, influenced by their creation, lineage and their gods, a strong tendency to be evil monsters. There might be some exceptions, but those are just that - exceptions.

Of course, in my campaign, the characters would msot likely know that orcs are like that, and if often discover the survivors or remains of captives the "noncombattants" (both women and kids) abused, killed and ate.

If I want moral quandaries, I use humans as foes, and non-humans who do not have a history of violence and evil deeds reaching back to their creation by an evil god.

It's not our world, it's a world where evil gods and fiends are real. The nonhumans are not just humans with tusks or pointy ears, they are something different - something that might be inherently or instinctively evil like a devil.

(And yes, most of the foes in my campaign are humans - I use monsters for the "clean" "gamist" kills. I don't see why I should use orcs if I would want them treated as humans anyway by my players and their characters.)

 

[RangerWickett]

Letting the orcs grow up to raid and pillage would not be deemed "good" by any of my FR gods. If there's no way to prevent them from growing up to be violent monsters, then killing them is the only good solution in my campaign.

But there are ways to prevent that. Give them better shelter, help them get the food they need through trade and cooperation, rather than driving them to the peripheries of the realm so that they feel they lose nothing by being violent.

Basically, get them out of the metaphorical ghetto, and make them part of your society.

And in my campaign, orcs do have, influenced by their creation, lineage and their gods, a strong tendency to be evil monsters. There might be some exceptions, but those are just that - exceptions.

Of course, in my campaign, the characters would msot likely know that orcs are like that, and if often discover the survivors or remains of captives the "noncombattants" (both women and kids) abused, killed and ate.

If we are talking metaphysical, where creatures with supposed free will can still be by their nature automatically evil, then they aren't people, and they are just monsters. I suppose in your setting there are ways to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that yes, orcs are most of the time evil, and that their 'evil' is the result of nature, not nurture. But you don't say they're always evil.

Indeed, their 'evil' is the result of circumstances -- the society they grow up in, the evil god who drives them. They are indoctrinated to care only for causing suffering, but perhaps, if a noble enough person put in the necessary effort, he could take children away from that society, shield them from the influence of the god who has cursed their ancestors, and bring light to their people.

If I want moral quandaries, I use humans as foes, and non-humans who do not have a history of violence and evil deeds reaching back to their creation by an evil god.

It's not our world, it's a world where evil gods and fiends are real. The nonhumans are not just humans with tusks or pointy ears, they are something different - something that might be inherently or instinctively evil like a devil.

A wise enough man would, upon learning of that history, still find a moral quandary. The orcs in your world are victims, and should be helped if possible, and killed only if they are an immediate threat. Killing someone because they are inconvenient to keep alive is callous and disrespects the value of life.

At the very least, killing orcs is a tragedy, something that decent people should regret having to do for the sake of the greater good. Most men don't care, though. They see the enemy, the other, and only worry about protecting their own families and friends. But truly good people realize that lasting peace and prosperity can only come from helping those who you call enemies, and ensuring that you can live in harmony.

 

[Fenes]

No, the orcs in my world are not victims, they are monsters. Some of them, a very few, might not follow their nature, and not relish in evil, but those are, in orc society, sociopaths, aberrations, freaks. Sort of like serial killers in our society.

IMC, orcs would, even if they had all the riches of the world, still enjoy raiding, abusing, killing and eating other sentients because that is their true nature. They are not raiding because they lack any other way - they raid because they like to pillage, like to do harm to others. They are born that way, with the exception of a very few "Mutants".

They might behave more "civilised" if forced to, or if it gives them a big advantage, but an orc baby, even if raised by paladins, will still have evil urges, and may very well give in to them if it can do it safely.

Or to sum it up: They are not evil because of society, they are evil by nature. Just as many animals have instinctive behaviour that is not learned, so do orcs, and their instinctive behaviour is evil.

Of course, you can say they are victims since they were created as an evil race, and influenced by the gods, and all - but then, that still doesn't make them redeemable.

But orcs aside, how do you see mindflayers? Beholders? Are those "driven to the fringes of society" as well, in your view? What about Demons and Devils?

Are there any pure evil beings in your campaign who are to be killed on sight?

Or is every being a victim?

 

[frankthedm]

At the very least, killing orcs is a tragedy, something that decent people should regret having to do for the sake of the greater good. Most men don't care, though. They see the enemy, the other, and only worry about protecting their own families and friends. But truly good people realize that lasting peace and prosperity can only come from helping those who you call enemies, and ensuring that you can live in harmony.

In D&D, at least as far as I am concerned, killing orc combatants should be a comedy {academic definition]. Killing an orc should be FUN for players.

Orc sows and orc spawn should be taking up arms when their lairs are being invaded. They are not weak pathetic humans. +4 str means an orc whelp can lug around 50 pounds when the equivalent human brat would be struggling with just 10 pounds. And even if one rules a orc female is weaker than average, base STR 6-8, she packs a punch to rival and probably still beat the typical human.