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

[Oofta]

One of the earliest D&D PCs was the fighter Robilar. He had an orc henchman.
...
There may have been some, perhaps many, early groups who played the game as you describe, but it was not a universal norm and those early texts don't really bear it out.

We can all only report what we know based on our experience. I don't think I've ever played a home campaign where orcs weren't universally evil.

Robilar was evil so having an evil henchman isn't a surprise.

 

[pemerton]

We can all only report what we know based on our experience.

Well now you know some new things: eg that Gygax included orcs and kobolds on his City/Town encounter matrix, and that Moldvay's Silverleaf the Elf negotiated with hobgoblins.

You can factor those into your reports of how early versions of D&D were played.

 

[Oofta]

Well now you know some new things: eg that Gygax included orcs and kobolds on his City/Town encounter matrix, and that Moldvay's Silverleaf the Elf negotiated with hobgoblins.

You can factor those into your reports of how early versions of D&D were played.

I'll take that into consideration if I ever mention early editions ... which I haven't.

Different campaigns are going to have different representations of how different species intermix. There are a few, rare, places in my campaign where an Aasimar may rub elbows with a Pit fiend. Doesn't make the Pit Fiend any less evil. Well, okay one place that's kind of a neutral territory that I've only ever used in my 4E epic campaign. But still.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But the only significance of that definition is as a shorthand for their personalities and behaviour. Because that's what alignment is.

My own preferred account of D&D alignment is found in Gygax's AD&D books, but the same thing is said in the 5e Basic PDF (pp33-34 ):

A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. . . . These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment.​

So to say that orcs are inherently CE is just a shorthand for saying that it is in the nature of orcs to "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." (Quoted fro p 34.)

Does that warrant killing every orc you meet? That's a further question which is not answered simply by reiterating the point that orcs act with arbitrary violence out of base motivations.

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

Don't you? Is the only reasonable response to base and aribtrary violence the use of lethal violence in response? There are well-known moral views in the real world which don't accept this proposotion, and not just pacifistic ones.

The fact that relatively little D&D play reflects or conforms to those well-known moral views isn't explained by reference to the fictional state of affairs whereby orcs are said to be evil - which is, as I've shown, just a shorthand summary of their outlook and behaviour. It's explained by reference to the real-world state of affairs which is the tone and content of mainstream fantasy fiction.

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

The notion of inherently evil does no work here. What you say here is just as true if the PCs are assaulted by some bandits on the road, or are assualting a cultist shrine hidden in a city basement, as it is if the PCs are fighting orcs.

The game is premised on the relatively casual use of violence being morally permissible. You don't need any pseudo-metaphysics of "inherently evil" to explain that. In the real-world periods which provide the general tropes and trappings of fantasy RPGing the casual resort to violence was also pretty common, and no one supposed that the human beings they were killing were "inherently evil". They just had a very permissive view of what sort of violence was permitted on the grounds of defence, retribution and otherwise to enforce considerations of justice.

 

[pemerton]

I'll take that into consideration if I ever mention early editions ... which I haven't.

When you replied to my post about early editions - which was itself a reply to a post about early editions - I took you to be saying something about early editions.

If not, your reply seem something of a non-sequitur. If in fact you know nothing of how early groups played the game, then why post in contradiction of my account of some such play?

 

[Oofta]

When you replied to my post about early editions - which was itself a reply to a post about early editions - I took you to be saying something about early editions.

If not, your reply seem something of a non-sequitur. If in fact you know nothing of how early groups played the game, then why post in contradiction of my account of some such play?

I was primarily replying because people keep saying "But Robilar had an orc so therefore ..." well therefore IMHO it means nothing. Robilar was evil. He had an evil retainer. Big surprise.

As far as early groups, does playing since the 70s count? I mean, I didn't play with Gygax or Arneson (and based on what I've read I probably wouldn't have wanted to). I'm just relaying that everyone's experiences are just their own experience.

Beyond that I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Umbran]

But the only significance of that definition is as a shorthand for their personalities and behaviour. Because that's what alignment is.

In editions in which alignment has mechanical impact, where you can detect it, and protect against it to keep it out of an area, it is a bit more than shorthand reference. It is then a metaphysically potent aspect of an entity.

But, otherwise, I largely agree with your position.

 

[Fenris-77]

Does that warrant killing every orc you meet? That's a further question which is not answered simply by reiterating the point that orcs act with arbitrary violence out of base motivations.

I never said that it did, it was a notion foisted on me by another poster.

It's explained by reference to the real-world state of affairs which is the tone and content of mainstream fantasy fiction.

And where were you when I made this exact argument upstream?

The game is premised on the relatively casual use of violence being morally permissible. You don't need any pseudo-metaphysics of "inherently evil" to explain that. In the real-world periods which provide the general tropes and trappings of fantasy RPGing the casual resort to violence was also pretty common, and no one supposed that the human beings they were killing were "inherently evil". They just had a very permissive view of what sort of violence was permitted on the grounds of defence, retribution and otherwise to enforce considerations of justice.

But the game contains just such psuedo-metaphysics. This is especially true, and especially true in the case of orcs, if you take into account the entire footprint of the game, which includes not just 5e but other editions, as well as other common depictions of orcs such as LotR. I didn't put them there, I just pointed them out.

I don't think the casual violence in fantasy RPGs is primarily a result of the historical periods they are based on either. That might have been true at one point, and might be true of some exemplars, but at this point I think it's as much a product of straight genre expectations as it is anything else. If you peel back the onion layers you probably get to history at some point though. That said, I do think that the black and whiteness of the ethics of fantasy is a primary driver in people's enjoyment of it, and that enjoyment, including the casually violent content, is what continues to drive those expectations. There's a satisfying moral certainty in slaying the evil beast.

We never get to be sure about other people in real life, and I think rarely get to slay the evil beast, and those are both potent ingredients in the fantasy recipe.

 

[Lanefan]

So... your 'Goodly' nations fighting the Orcs either refuse to take prisoners, or those who they do take prisoner, they simply execute anyway 'because they're a drain on resources'?

It's not like the Orcs take prisoners, for the most part.

What about the Orc children (after they've massacred all the men and women)? What do your 'Goodly' nations do with them?

Depends if those children are ever found.

Maybe take them in, separate them, and raise them; though the Orc kids are still going to have a tough time of it trying to fit in with the other kids, if nothing else due to their much-faster maturation rate.

 

[Lanefan]

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!

With this, I agree.

However, it's also highly likely that the characters in the game world, who probably aren't as worldly as is the average 21st-century person, would come to much harder-edged conclusions than we would in real life. "Every [xxxx] is Evil, just because" would very much be in play.

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.

Again agreed, to a point: perceived alignment is influenced by the pereciver's own point of view.

Which means, if an extremely Lawful caster and an extremely Chaotic caster each throw Know Alignment on someone who is objectively Neutral, the Lawful caster will get a slightly Chaotic reading while the Chaotic caster will see the target as being slightly Lawful, due to their own differing ideas as to where true Neutrality lies.