D&D 5E Next session a character might die. Am I being a jerk?

[Fenris-77]

There's no difference.
<snip>

The point there was to try and draw a distinction between the normal actions of the orcs, which I agree any sane person would define as evil, and the fact that they are defined as (usually) evil by their alignment. It's that second bit that changes the value or real world ethical arguments ported over to D&D. When you know something is evil, you don't have to agonize about killing it, even if you yourself are good. D&D would be a very different game if the players had to agonize over the ethics of killing every monster they meet. The point of 'monsters' is to not have to do that, or to provide an evil canvas or backdrop against which the heroes can shine.

 

[Flamestrike]

Unlike real life, where we never know about an individual, we do know about orcs, we know that their evil

How does our knowledge impact on what our characters know?

Surely they're in the same position you and I are in when we debate if something is evil or not?

 

[Flamestrike]

When you know something is evil, you don't have to agonize about killing it, even if you yourself are good.

Your characters dont know the orcs are evil, and any 'Good' person that doesnt agonize about slaughtering another creature (evil or not) is not a morally good person.

 

[Fenris-77]

How does our knowledge impact on what our characters know?

Surely they're in the same position you and I are in when we debate if something is evil or not?

So your saying using information about alignment is metagaming somehow (it seems anyway)? The information in the rules represents things the characters would or could know. If alignment wasn't one of those things it either wouldn't exist, or it would specifically be exempt. But it's not. There's a difference between real life and the game, a fact you seem unwilling to grant. How do we know that the undead, or demons or devils are evil? Would you be willing to grant those the groups the same uncertain status as orcs based on exceptions to the rule? The idea of literal monsters isn't something we deal with in real life.

In an actual game there would be signposts or signals from a DM that a particular group of orcs was different. Those signals are necessary because orcs are otherwise evil, just like the book says, and players expect monsters to follow the rules, which means they are as they appear unless the DM changes it. On the other side of the same coin, the evil orcs in a game are also signaled or indexed by their actions.

Orcs aren't evil because of some sort of fantasy orientalism, they're evil because the rules say so.

 

[Oofta]

Your characters dont know the orcs are evil, and any 'Good' person that doesnt agonize about slaughtering another creature (evil or not) is not a morally good person.

Do you not see where you seem to go from stating your opinion to saying "everyone who doesn't agree with me is doing it wrong"?

Who says PCs don't know orcs are inherently evil? If you run orcs by the book, they are raising everlasting war against humans, elves, dwarves and so on. An orc is always going to be an enemy combatant in a war that will never end.

This is not the real world. According to the MM orcs are not human, they are a monster created for the sole purpose of laying waste to the enemy.

 

[Flamestrike]

The information in the rules represents things the characters would or could know.

No it doesnt. Any more than it tells them when they meet a Human Farmer (a Commoner NPC) that he's Neutral 'because that's what the Monster Manual says he defaults to'.

While we (the players) might be in a (somewhat) privileged position to glance at a Characters character sheet or write up and see that creatures alignment as 'evil', the characters in the game are in no such privileged position.

In much the same way you and I, right now, are debating 'what' exactly is evil, so would the PCs in the game world!

And in much the same way, in the game world an evil creature itself might genuinely think its a good person (as would many people who know him) despite that not being the objective reality as you and I know it.

Consider a Vengeance Paladin committed to the wholesale genocide of Orcs. He's driven - he offers Orcs no mercy, pity or remorse. He engages in torture, murder and worse to bring woe to the evil scourge of Orcs. He tosses mewling Orc children on the burning pyre because 'nits make lice' and to save generations to come. He rides into villages with an army of devout followers and slaughters every Orc he can see, crucifying the leaders as an example to others. He has the survivors rounded up and sent to work camps, where they are forced to create weapons for his armies, and tend crops for them, before they are led to mass graves and executed.

In his mind he's a Good man. He genuinely believes it to be so. He works towards a 'greater good'. Many of his men think so as well, having seen the savagery of many orcs up close and personal.

Of course if you or I (in the real world) looked at his character sheet, he's Evil with a capital E, because he is no different from the Orcs he enslaves and butchers.

 

[Oofta]

Except the Devs (and indeed the RAW) expressly states that the alignment written in a creatures Stat block is not the standard for all of them, and exceptions exist (expressly including evil angels, and even good fiends).

It also expressly states (again as RAW) that even the few rare creatures that are inherently evil (fiends and angels), even they can (and have and do) have different alignments. It's extremely rare of course, but it happens.

Where? Where does it say that other than the standard "the DM can change things if they want"?

Are you referring to:

The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.​

That's just spelling out standard "do what you want" rule to me.

As far as orcs being "usually" evil and demons being "always" evil ... there's nothing in the text that says that either that I can find. They have different origins. Orcs are created by an evil deity as a tool to seek revenge. Demons are spawned by the abyss. They are both creatures created by an evil power for a specific purpose.

Orcs live to wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk. Demons exist only to destroy.

The big difference to me is that orcs form tribes and are threats on the prime material plane. Demons can act more as individual operators and with more subtle means.

But both seek destruction. Both, by the rules, are just as evil. This can, and is, overridden in specific campaign worlds.

 

[Oofta]

No it doesnt. Any more than it tells them when they meet a Human Farmer (a Commoner NPC) that he's Neutral ...

Not sure what version of D&D you're referring to, but in 5E a commoner can be any alignment.

 

[Flamestrike]

Do you not see where you seem to go from stating your opinion to saying "everyone who doesn't agree with me is doing it wrong"?

In your view, can a morally Good person contemplate murder, without agonising over it?

In my view if that 'morally good' person doesn't agonise over potentially committing a murder (even of a vile victim) they're not morally a Good person.

Heck; in my view no morally Good person commits murders.

In no other place other than a role-playing forum does the above sentence attract debate.

Who says PCs don't know orcs are inherently evil?

Because firstly, they're not inherently evil. And even for creatures that ARE inherently evil (Fiends) there are examples (RAW, explained in the Monster Manual) of extremely rare Good ones. And inherently Good creatures (Angels) becoming evil.

So not only are they not inherently evil, even if they were, there would be Good (and Neutral) ones out there.

And the characters cant know their alignment, any more than you can know mine. They can make subjective judgements of course.

Heck, plenty of Evil PCs probably dont see themselves (or Orcs for that matter) as being evil at all.

This is not the real world. According to the MM orcs are not human, they are a monster created for the sole purpose of laying waste to the enemy.

Of course they're not human. They're Orcs. Elves arent human either, and neither are Dwarves so who cares?

Ditto with the 'monster created for the sole purpose of war'. My that metric Warforged are in a lot of strife as well arent they?

 

[Fenris-77]

He thinks he's a good man? OF course he doesn't think of himself as evil, that's a chestnut as old as time when comes to talking about evil people - they never think of themselves like that. I'm not sure what that proves though. Let's say that Paladin started as LN. If you were DMing that game would you say he's playing that alignment? Or would you be more likely to say he's proved himself evil by his actions? Neither answer moves the needle much on the orc question.

You are assuming that, as in real life, absolutes (or close) about good and evil don't exists in D&D. That argument is, well, troublesome given that D&D and fantasy fiction more widely do in fact use moral absolutes very commonly. The 'great evil that threatens the kingdom' is a thing. Fantasy fiction has monsters that are evil. It's that simple.

The human commoner is a faulty example. Is your argument that orcs vary in alignment as much as humans? Humans that are probably the most variable creature, alignment wise, in all of D&D? That comparison isn't carrying any water for you I'm afraid.