• 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?

HeavenShallBurn

First Post
Klaus said:
From the WotC article by Keith Baker on the Church of the Silver Flame (and its paladins):
The Alignment system isn't exactly the most cut and dry part of the rules. That for example is predicated on the notion that you'll find roughly equal amounts of good, evil, and neutrality in the population. Yet the last time I saw a MM entry for Humans it said "mostly Neutral" which indicates the majority are Neutral and the ends are the exception. Beyond that it is a very petty view of evil I find sorely lacking in scope.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gez

First Post
Merkuri said:
The basic idea was that monsters (humanoid or not) whose entry in the Monster Manual said "Always Evil" were to be killed on site regardless of their age or whether they fought back. These monsters cannot be redeemed.
Dragons would be, as far as D&D3 is concerned, the only case where it's really meaningful to talk about age of creatures that have an "Always" alignment. I don't think you'll ever see a serious setting with a baby balor.
 

Rykion

Explorer
TerraDave said:
You all know that "killing evil 'cause its evil" is, er, evil. Right?
<snip>
Or I guess, you are evil. Should we kill you?
RangerWickett said:
To sorta agree with the above, you folks who are saying that there are races that are evil, and thus deserve to be killed, could be viewed by some as being evil yourselves. You would then need to be killed.
Did people forget we are talking about a roleplaying game here? Do you tell people who play violent videogames they are evil? It's a game. No one talking about orcs is talking about anything in real life. It's not like Stephen King is evil because he writes about evil characters or good people killing them. I haven't seen anyone in this thread talking about becoming a real life vigilante and taking the law into their own hands.

Just because your game lacks absolute evil, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Personally, I find it a lot more fun to play a game about killing things and taking their stuff if those things actually are evil.
 

Fenes

First Post
Personally, I have more fun in a game where there are pure good and pure evil as well as all the shades of gray in between. I can have all the moral ambiguity I want, but I also have the occasional black/white option.

And, of course, deciding whether or not to ally with an orc tribe against a common (non-evil) foe is a harder decision if the orcs are not just misunderstood victims of society - or if the common foe actually is pure good, and only wants the best for the whole world, but may be mistaken.
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
Thinking more about this there are two problems:

1) In RL: Confusion of "evil" with "dangerous". Sure, the two overlap, but aren't the same. There may be all sorts of evil beings who aren't that dangerous (including the original example), and non evil things that are. Violence may (may) be justified against something that presents some kind of immenent danger (enemy soldiers, man-eating lion...) but just because someone is wrapped up in greed, envy, and so on, not really.

2) In Game: What is "fun". This is the real problem, isn't it? Its not really fun for me to rationalize the death of non-combatants. Its just sort of creepy. But it is fun to have all sorts of to-the-death combat and heroic daring-do. And I would sooner have a better "rational" for it then just a tag saying "evil". At the same time, I do like occasional moral ambiguity...for me, either have them fight back, or let them go and move on. Either is the "funner" option.
 

Kahuna Burger

First Post
WayneLigon said:
None that I'm aware of. What are they?
I can't seem to lay hands on my monster manual for the specifics, but orcs are listed as "Often Chaotic Evil" and iirc, that is the third step down : "always*" "usually" then "often". If I had the MM I could quote the percentages they have for each, but a non evil orc would be an unremarkable proposition. Not a safe bet on any individual group of orc non combatants.

Additionally, I recall that even the "always" category doesn't mean always - the one in a million chance is called out in the rules.
 

Klaus

First Post
Kahuna Burger said:
I can't seem to lay hands on my monster manual for the specifics, but orcs are listed as "Often Chaotic Evil" and iirc, that is the third step down : "always*" "usually" then "often". If I had the MM I could quote the percentages they have for each, but a non evil orc would be an unremarkable proposition. Not a safe bet on any individual group of orc non combatants.

Additionally, I recall that even the "always" category doesn't mean always - the one in a million chance is called out in the rules.
Orcs are "often chaotic evil".

"Often" means 40-50% are of the listed alignment.
"Usually" means more than 50%.
"Always" means that exceptions to the listed alignment are unique or very rare (but still possible, like a LG Balor or CE Solar).
 

Kahuna Burger

First Post
Klaus said:
Orcs are "often chaotic evil".

"Often" means 40-50% are of the listed alignment.
"Usually" means more than 50%.
"Always" means that exceptions to the listed alignment are unique or very rare (but still possible, like a LG Balor or CE Solar).
Thank you, those are the details I wasn't able to come up with. Now, of course you can say that 45% of orcs are CE and all the others are NE and LE, but then why not just list them as "Always Evil (any)"? My assumption as a DM would be something along the lines of

CE 40%
/\
NE 15% CN 15%
/\
LE 7% N 12% CG 7%

With 4% left over for the alignments more than 2 steps from their standard. But further guidence in extrapolating community alignments (including for humans) would be kinda nice.
 

Hellcow

Adventurer
HeavenShallBurn said:
Beyond that it is a very petty view of evil I find sorely lacking in scope.
While I find this view of neutrality to be broad to the extent of being useless. If you look to Eberron, it is a world that has GOOD and EVIL with capital letters. You have the Lords of Dust, physical embodiments of malefic ideals. You have the living nightmares of the Quori, and the walking terrors of the Daelkyr. Lycanthropy is terrifying because it can turn even the purest man into a vicious murderer. Among humans you have brutal soldiers of the Emerald Claw and crazed killers serving the Mockery or the Dragon Below, to name but a few. If you WANT a clear, black-and-white struggle between Good and Evil, you can have that in Eberron; after all, that's an important part of many pulp stories.

However, one of the key goals of Eberron was to support a broader range of stories than that - to allow the noir as well as the pulp. Furthermore, it was designed to take into account the existence and use of low-level magic. Which made it vitally important in my view that detect evil NOT be the one true tool that solves every problem. If you rule that only the most despicable, vile creatures or criminals actually possess evil alignments, you OUGHT to see societies arise in which paladins are constantly scanning for evil and imprisoning or eliminating those they find. If there's no possibility of an evil person doing good, or of being redeemable, and you had a concrete means of detecting these ruthless vile people at your disposal, why WOULDN'T you automatically use it? And how do you tell your murder mystery if detect evil will automatically tell you which of your ten suspects is evil... or that if it pings on two people, you might as well kill both of them?

Eberron's approach doesn't weaken the horror of true, pure evil. But it makes evil a SPECTRUM... and says that detect evil is a blunt tool that won't tell you where your target lies on that spectrum. I liken it to Star Wars, where Yoda can look at Luke and say "There is much anger in that one." It tells you that someone has the POTENTIAL for darkness, but it doesn't tell you if they've ever indulged it, or how far they'll go. It's a warning, a sign that the person you're dealing with COULD be a ruthless baby-killer - but there's no proof that he is.

As for the orcs, to me it's all a question of whether you accept the idea of pure, genetic evil. In Eberron, certain creatures ARE manifestations of evil. A fiend isn't just an alien creature that's decided to be evil; its alignment defines its existence, and if the alignment changed I'd expect the creature to physically transform to reflect it (as is the case with Radiant Idols, which have different stats than the angels they once were). In Eberron, the curse of lycanthropy sets an alignment, and if you are bitten by an evil 'thrope and surrender to the curse, you become not just evil but a vicious killer who revels in bloodshed. If you say that orcs fall into this category - that pure capital-E Evil runs through their blood and that every orc will unquestionably grow to rape and murder, than I think killing orc children is perfectly acceptable - because at this point they are monsters in every sense of the word, no different from demons. In Eberron, they're nothing like this. Orcs are sentient humanoids, nothing more, nothing less. They have different physical capabilities than humans. They have developed significantly different cultures than the primary human cultures. But they aren't INHERENTLY evil any more than elves are inherently chaotic good.

If all you're looking for from D&D is "I want to kill evil people and not have to think whether it's the right thing", hey, you can even do that in Eberron, using any of the groups I described above. And hey, if the orcs you meet are sprouting tongueworms and murdering babies for Khyber or wearing the flayed skins of human peasants, it doesn't matter that orcs as a SPECIES aren't inherently evil - these are people you need to stop. But for me, making both good and evil spectrums in their own right - as opposed to the extremely narrow end points on a spectrum that's 90% "neutral" - provides far more opportunity for mystery, suspense, and depth of story than "Everything that detects as evil deserves to die."
 
Last edited:

Hellcow

Adventurer
With all that said, I certainly respect the role of "Race X is irredeemably evil" in many classic settings... and personally, the idea of a mortal race that for whatever reason is truly, iredeemably evil is one that I find both chilling and intriguing, and one that I've used in various homebrew campaigns (albeit to a lesser extent than is common by the Monster Manual). My adventure The Ebon Mirror is based on the "orcs and goblins are inherently vile" assumption, and does in fact have a scene with some goblin children. So it's all about the stories you want to be able to tell. In Eberron, orcs aren't INHERENTLY evil and don't deserve to be killed merely for existing. But that doesn't stop you from creating a group of orcs which are as vile as any demon... or, for that matter, creating a group of elves who are even worse.
 

Remove ads

Top