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

[Flamestrike]

I'd prefer that you didn't use rhetorical flourishes to misrepresent my position if that's all right with you.

You're saying that orcs aren't evil, and anyone who plays that way is making a mistake in their reading of the rules.

Ironic.

I've never said 'Orcs arent evil' at all, and unless you've seriously misinterpreted me you're deliberately misrepresenting me.

Most Orcs are evil. It's the default after all. However this is not an inherent trait of the Orc. An Orc raised away from (all the Gruumsh worship, rape, murder and violence) and even the rare few within that civilisation that reject it, would not be evil. This is expressly stated by one of the Devs of the book (Mearls) and also expressly stated in Volos Guide to Monsters (under the Orc entry).

And even if Orcs were inherently evil, even inherently evil creatures exist that have changed alignments (Angels and Devils).

And Im not saying 'you're making a mistake'. Subjectively (to me) you are, but Im not the OBJECTIVE moral arbiter of DnD. If (in your games) you want murder of an 'evil-doer' to be a 'morally good' act, go nuts. I repudiate this postion personally, but I dont run your games do I?

 

[Umbran]

I've repeatedly stated if you want to say 'genocide and murder of evildoers' is a morally good act in your games, or something a morally good person would do, go nuts.

Who am I to stop you?

Do you recognize the passive-aggressive nature of this positioning?

And, in fact, the bit of rhetorical bait and switch going on in it?

"Genocide" and "murder" are words with moral and emotional weight to them. They do not have meaning totally separate from the moral framework of the culture in which they are used. In one culture an act may be murder, and in another that same act can be justifiable homicide, or self-defense.

So, above, you are using words defined in your framework to actions done in what you are plainly stating is another framework. That's not rhetorically sound.

 

[Flamestrike]

Good generally values freedom of will, evil does not

Source?

So orcs in my world are effectively all evil.

Go nuts. They can be 20 foot tall and have purple skin for all I care. Its your game mate!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Just to pipe in on the moral dilemmas of Good and Evil. This is purely my opinion:

1. An Evil Angel is a Devil. It's, literally, a fallen angel. A Good Devil is called an Angel.
2. Evil monsters are evil and a scourge to humanity. Most* of Humanity is not suffering a moral dilemma over the fact that we are trying to eradicate Covid 19. It is a living entity and yet humanity is dead-set on eradicating it. In my campaigns, if I choose to include an Evil race, such as orcs or goblins, they are viewed by humanity in the same way as we view a plague. They must be eradicated and the people who do so are not seen as murderers, they are seen as our current day doctors and nurses: Heroes on the front line, saving humanity. And I don't draw any lines between sentient (an orc) and non-sentient(a virus) scourges. An orc is just a smarter and more complex force than a plague.

That said, I don't typically depict Orcs as evil in my campaigns, but that's just my own take on it. I see them more as Klingons. Just a war-like, tribal species. In which case, Flamestrike's views on moral dilemma might hold a bit of water in my campaigns. But, no matter what, Devils are still Always Evil because they are Paragons of evil. They are, Evil incarnate. A Devil that turns away from evil is 'elevated' and becomes an Angel. So, If a Devil isn't Evil, then it's not a Devil. Once again, purely my opinion.

*I suppose people could argue that, as a natural phenomena, allowed to spread. I maintain that isn't the opinion of the masses. (I'd also like to avoid that debate and stay on topic)

On topic: @akr71

I think it's perfectly justifiable to have a Revnant stalk the Necromancer. Just Make sure you have a variety of ways of this story-line coming to a reasonable end: the death of the PC, Making amends and laying the Revnant to rest or having it as a long-term villain who is focused on killing the PC. It might be cool to have the Revnant become a powerful undead General that starts taking over parts of the country in order to become powerful enough to destroy the Necromancer. There's nothing to say your Revenent can't see the character's death as a long-term goal. All that is important is that his actions are driven by the Necromancer's eventual death. Why not throw some innocent people under the bus while he's at it?

 

[Fenris-77]

Page 87 of Volos Guide to Monsters (Orcs) expressly states it.

As specific out for Orc player characters, not as a caveat about orcs generally. Context matters. Why do they need to provide that out for player character Orcs? Because otherwise they'd all be CE, because that's what orcs are.

Wheeee! This is fun. Let's do it again. You pretend that that one sentence in Volo's about PCs somehow overrides all the other many pages about orcs, and I'll tell you that's not how it works.

 

[Flamestrike]

Do you recognize the passive-aggressive nature of this positioning?

And, in fact, the bit of rhetorical bait and switch going on in it?

"Genocide" and "murder" are words with moral and emotional weight to them. They do not have meaning totally separate from the moral framework of the culture in which they are used. In one culture an act may be murder, and in another that same act can be justifiable homicide, or self-defense.

So, above, you are using words defined in your framework to actions done in what you are plainly stating is another framework. That's not rhetorically sound.

There have literally been peeps in this thread stating its OK to kill an Orc for no other reason that its an Orc and it's evil. They've further defined that act (here and in other threads) as being a 'good' act.

As in go into its home in a ruin somewhere, and kill it, for no other reason than it was there, and it was an Orc.

I suppose the definition of murder in the context that killing takes place could exclude Orcs as creatures capable of being murdered (or it could happen outside of a legal jurisdiction at all) but Im happy to use the term murder, as thats what most civilised people would consider such a killing.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

There have literally been peeps in this thread stating its OK to kill an Orc for no other reason that its an Orc and it's evil. They've further defined that act (here and in other threads) as being a 'good' act.

As in go into its home in a ruin somewhere, and kill it, for no other reason than it was there, and it was an Orc.

One would be me. See my post above, (just a couple posts back), to try to understand why that is so.

 

[Flamestrike]

As specific out for Orc player characters,

Ok. so you agree - not all Orcs are evil, and (according to that same paragraph) even the ones that are evil, are also not inherently evil either?

You also agree with the rest of that paragraph that if an Orc is removed from its evil society, it can grow to learn love, compassion and empathy?

That an Orcs default alignment is not due to an inherent quality of the Orc, but instead due to its society.

Because it's all there in black and white in an official DnD sourcebook.

 

[Flamestrike]

"Genocide" and "murder" are words with moral and emotional weight to them. They do not have meaning totally separate from the moral framework of the culture in which they are used. In one culture an act may be murder, and in another that same act can be justifiable homicide, or self-defense.

There have literally been peeps in this thread stating its OK to kill an Orc for no other reason that its an Orc and it's evil. They've further defined that act (here and in other threads) as being a 'good' act.

One would be me.

@Umbran that's why I use the term.

It I accept your premise, then the word murder loses all meaning (there are thousands of legal codes around the world).

Im asserting an act that would be murder in most of them. Specifically, walk into someones home or village, and kill them, for no other reason than they're a member of a specific race.

 

[Fenris-77]

Ok. so you agree - not all Orcs are evil, and (according to that same paragraph) the ones that are, are also not inherently so either?

You also agree with the rest of that paragraph that if an Orc is removed from its evil society, it can grow to learn love, compassion and empathy?

That an Orcs default alignment is not due to an inherent quality of the Orc, but instead due to its society.

Because it's all there in black and white in an official DnD sourcebook.

Not at all. They made that exception the same way they handwave non-native races in settings, so that someone can play an orc (or a dwarf, or whatever) if they really want to. It's an option, not a secret massive change to the orc race. You can continue to think that one sentence in a PC option does what you argue it does in terms of the whole race though. You will continue to be incorrect, and, I suspect, blissfully unaware of the fact.

Lets do this again! First you say...