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

[Lanefan]

Which is due to the Orcs being (baseline) evil. Orcs tend not to take prisoners, because Orcs tend to be evil. Those they do take, tend to get treated very poorly indeed (again - because evil).

Good aligned soldiers would take prisoners, and treat them with mercy, dignity and respect. Even at their own expense. Because 'good'.

I'm struggling to see the difference between your evil combatants (who pillage, kill, take no prisoners etc) and your goodly combatants (who pillage, kill and take no prisoners. etc).

In war there often isn't much difference at all, particularly at the field level.

Also, if the 'morally good' people end up taking a whole bunch of Orcs prisoner the next question becomes what to do with them.

Repatriating them is off the table if we don't want to be fighting them again next week or next month or whenever.

Keeping them in prison camps forever isn't a viable option, and also isn't exactly Goodly.

Enslaving them or putting them to forced work is also not exactly Goodly, though it's probably the most practical option.

Trying to assimilate them into our society, given how much they've got going against them (possible language issues, vast cultural issues and differences, generally lower intelligence, etc.) is fraught with danger, particularly if they're easily able to congregate into any large group and-or somehow arm themselves.

Giving them their own area of land big enough to support them, while certainly a Good solution, simply means we'll probably be fighting them again before long, only this time they'll be coming from two directions (their original home and their new home).

So what to do with them?

 

[pemerton]

I also think genre expectations play a role here as well. In many games, and this is supported by a lot of articles on running games, the enemy does not often surrender, and players are thus not often faced with the prospect of what to do with helpless prisoners. I would not be surprised if an unexpected surrender by orcs put a lot of players in a pickle because all of a sudden the issues you raise above come into play. However, I also think that in many games, enough for me to risk calling it common, that players are not asked to make the distinction very often.

I think this is probably true. I also posted about surrender and quarter not too far upthread.

Roger Moore discusses the prisoner issue in the article I was quoting from before:

Not all of the problems Paladin-players encounter in this area of whether killing is right or not are the player’s fault. Sometimes a DM will set up a situation in which, for example, the Lawful Goods have slain all the males of a tribe of Werewolves, and all that’s left are the females and young, who cower in the rocks and refuse to fight. Civilization is hundreds of miles away and no means exists at the moment to render the captives free of lycanthropy. If released, the young will grow up and terrorize the neighborhood again. If they are kept as captives, the party will be severely hampered and may meet new monsters at any moment.

Killing the captives could well be the only alternative the Paladin is left with, yet if done the DM might say it was evil and remove the player’s alignment and status as a Paladin. A touchy situation, right? The DM should keep well in mind how he or she would react if placed in the same situation in the game, essentially trapped with no way out. It isn’t fair, and the players will know it and resent it. If captives must be slain, it should be done quickly, without torture, and with the assurance that there was no way to avoid it. . . .

The DM should bear in mind the difficulties involved in being a Paladin, and should make an effort to not make things worse for the player by setting him or her up for defeat in some sort of morality trap.​

The mechanics of D&D (particularly without morale rules) reinforce the absence of prisoner-taking.

That said, surrender is not something particular surprising or (conceptually) unusual. And the mechanics of D&D can naturally (as in, without anyone really having to be super-deliberate about it) lead to situations that generate some of the pressure being described in this thread. For instance, suppose a player has his/her PC us CHA/Intimidation to cow some orcs (eg so as to save having to beat them in combat, costing more cure magic and the like). Now the PCs have some prisoners. And suppose, then that a player has his/her PC use CHA/Persuasion (or Diplomacy, or Bluff, or Intimidation, depending on edition and how the action unfolds) to persuade the cowed orcs to stick the terms of their parole.

Now the GM has to decide: are those impossible action declarations? If not, to what extent are successful skill/abilitychecks to be honoured? If the checks are allowed and do succeed, we've now established that orcs can be dealt with other than by violence. And not due to any sort of GM- or player-side contrivance, but simply by following the logic of some of the basic features of the game system where they lead.

It's a long time ago now (over 30 years), but I would say something along these sorts of lines is how my game was forced to confront the personality of orcs and similar creatures. (Reinforced by not using alignment, under the influence of the article "For King and Country" in Dragon 101.)

 

[pemerton]

Keeping them in prison camps forever isn't a viable option, and also isn't exactly Goodly.

<snip>

So what to do with them?

Is it relevant that when the US took itself to face a somewhat similar problem, it seemed prepared to maintain prison-camps on a pretty open-ended basis?

In any event, imprisonment by way of "benevolent quarantine" seems less brutal than killing.

 

[Umbran]

Still in most civilized societies those concepts do exist IRL and pretty much independent of other cultural or religious parameters.

Oh, goodness, it is not independent. There's countries all over the world that we can look at and go, "Geeze, they say it is okay to do that?" Our ideas of what are acceptable acts are generally based in those cultural parameters you mention. There is, in fact, nowhere else for those ideas to come from!

Yes, we all have a general idea that killing folks is bad. But the devil is in the details, and there's loads of details.

 

[jgsugden]

Look, folks, it is pretty well established that morality is subjective. In case you missed it, there are hundreds of thousands of people that have devoted their lives to studying it and sharing their findings - and there is no consensus.

Instead of looking for what the answers are about morality in the game, it is far more interesting to just ask the questions. D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Definitive answers with no uncertainty are kind of boring story elements. Instead, revel in the questions being asked and find interesting things to do with the answers the PCs provide.

The PCs find some orcs. It is well known in your world that all orcs are made by Gruumsh to be pillagers and agents of destruction. However, these orcs are farming and show no signs of violence at the moment. They are mostly children. Do the PCs leave them be? If so, what happens when a nearby village is attacked days later by an orc raiding party - which included young orcs? If not, what happens when the orcs attack the nearby village and target children as their prey in retribution?

The PCs are fighting a powerful Evil. Just before it is beaten, it suddenly surrenders. It looks the paladin in the eye and says, "I surrender and place myself in your custody. Show me your goodly nature, paladin - take me prisoner. I will not try to escape while I await trial, and my word is law." It is well known that Devils never lie in this world, although the truth they speak is often not what it appears. Do the PCs take it prisoner - and risk that it has some evil plan underfoot that they do not see? If so, what evil can it achieve while prisoner? If not, and they slay it, how can the Devils use the paladin's willingness to slaughter a prisoner against the paladin... and what does the God of the paladin think of the paladin showing no mercy? Some Gods may be all for a no mercy response.... others not so much.

Use the ambiguity and questions to propel the story.

 

[Umbran]

Is it relevant that when the US took itself to face a somewhat similar problem, it seemed prepared to maintain prison-camps on a pretty open-ended basis?

So, next time, if you want to avoid the politics issue and someone coming around with red text to scowl at you, remember that such behavior is not at all unique to any particular country. Thanks.

 

[Oofta]

Look, folks, it is pretty well established that morality is subjective. In case you missed it, there are hundreds of thousands of people that have devoted their lives to studying it and sharing their findings - and there is no consensus.

Instead of looking for what the answers are about morality in the game, it is far more interesting to just ask the questions. D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Definitive answers with no uncertainty are kind of boring story elements. Instead, revel in the questions being asked and find interesting things to do with the answers the PCs provide.

The PCs find some orcs. It is well known in your world that all orcs are made by Gruumsh to be pillagers and agents of destruction. However, these orcs are farming and show no signs of violence at the moment. They are mostly children. Do the PCs leave them be? If so, what happens when a nearby village is attacked days later by an orc raiding party - which included young orcs? If not, what happens when the orcs attack the nearby village and target children as their prey in retribution?

The PCs are fighting a powerful Evil. Just before it is beaten, it suddenly surrenders. It looks the paladin in the eye and says, "I surrender and place myself in your custody. Show me your goodly nature, paladin - take me prisoner. I will not try to escape while I await trial, and my word is law." It is well known that Devils never lie in this world, although the truth they speak is often not what it appears. Do the PCs take it prisoner - and risk that it has some evil plan underfoot that they do not see? If so, what evil can it achieve while prisoner? If not, and they slay it, how can the Devils use the paladin's willingness to slaughter a prisoner against the paladin... and what does the God of the paladin think of the paladin showing no mercy? Some Gods may be all for a no mercy response.... others not so much.

Use the ambiguity and questions to propel the story.

Using the real world to make judgements about a fantasy world doesn't do much for me personally.

The real reason orcs are CE (and always CE in my campaign). It's a game. Beyond that, it's a game based on standard fantasy tropes where there are evil monsters. It's also simplified just like AC and HP which are also not particularly realistic. Then again, neither are orcs or beholders or trolls or any other number of things in the game.

Evil is not some "us vs them" in D&D. If evil creatures surrender or make peace it's only because they are biding their time until they can kill you.

 

[Oofta]

Look, folks, it is pretty well established that morality is subjective.

Just one more thing that was bugging me. Moral relativism is not universally accepted even in the real world.

I don't want to get into too deep a philosophical debate, but I think it applies even less to a fantasy world where monsters are real.

 

[Todd Roybark]

based on standard fantasy tropes where there are evil monsters.

I would, kindly suggest it is, A standard, in fantasy, (and indeed a prominent banner), but not the sole banner.

The Song of Roland, in the character of Fierabas, the Saracen Knight, has a conversion of a character from ‘evil’ to ‘good’, by the moral terms of the work’s ethical framework.

The Lord of the Rings, hinges upon the pity and mercy of Bilbo and Frodo.
If Bilbo slew Golem, then Sauron wins!

More importantly, Tolkien did not focus on Orcs. We know from The Silmarillion, that Morgoth, tortured elves that had not seen the Blessed Lands to make Orcs.

One, can make an argument, that in Tolkien’s world, there are instances, taints of Evil that can not be removed....except perhaps in the Blessed Lands.

Melkor, could not be reformed, we don’t know about Orcs or the burden of Frodo.

Which is a long winded way of saying, even the banner you are flying, has exceptions.

The Conan stories are largely amoral, (some might argue immoral, )
The tales of Lord Dunsany, amoral.
Norse mythology and Icelandic Sagas, amoral.
Tristan and Iseult, The Well at the World’s End, and many other chivalric tales are largely amoral.

Your foeman, is your foeman in these stories due to opposition of the protagonist’s goals, not due to some cosmic, inherent blemish of evil.

This is also, a prominent banner and trope of fantasy literature.

 

[billd91]

Just one more thing that was bugging me. Moral relativism is not universally accepted even in the real world.

I don't want to get into too deep a philosophical debate, but I think it applies even less to a fantasy world where monsters are real.

I'm not going to agree - certainly not because monsters in a fantasy world are real. Imagine if cats and mice were both intelligent enough to define moral behavior. I can't help but think that their take on morality would vary a great deal depending on whether they're naturally the predator or naturally the prey. The way cats grab live mice and play with them in the process of killing and eating them would be utterly cruel and evil from a mouse's perspective, and morally neutral, at worst, from a cat's perspective.

No, what would have the most impact on the suitability of moral relativism in D&D is the presence of moral forces that are concrete enough that a character (whether PC or NPC/Monster) can be measured against them. It wouldn't matter if an orc thinks their society, social values, and personal behaviors are good or not. If they don't measure up to good, they aren't going to be detectable by magic that detects good or affects it in some special way.