We dont kill people based on expectated alignment though, anymore than we do based on the persons actual alignment.
We don't. But in the context of the game most people do. The vast majority of people playing D&D don't concern themselves with these types of discussions at all. They sit down, prepared to kill some monsters, get some treasure, and gain some abilities that let them kill more monsters in different ways.
The published adventures wrap that in a story, and obviously there's more to the game than that, but combat still tends to take up the majority of the time in most adventures.
Whether the players have ever read the MM or not, goblins, orcs and the like are viewed as evil, and free to be killed.
We dont judge actions based on the alignment (real or percieved) of our victims.
Of course we do. We don't typically talk in terms of good or evil, we question whether a killing was justified. If we feel it was justified, we don't consider the killer evil, ostracize them, imprison them, or otherwise exclude them from society. We often raise them on a pedestal and call them a hero.
Killing, harming and opressing others = evil. The only time it is morally neutral to do it, is when it is the only option reasonably at hand to prevent the harming, killing and opressing of others, the threat is direct and imminent and you act in proportion to the threat.
If Orcs raid your villiage, you can engage them in open warfare (killing them, raiding their outposts, ambushes, assaults, defensive actions the works) - however at the same time you should be seeking a peacefull solution (peace) to the problem that minimises harm and loss. You should be merciful to POW's, show compassion and kindness, minimise civilian losses etc.
Except that D&D adventures aren't usually (I can't think of one offhand) presented in this manner. Only the first half of your statement. In the majority of games, there are no POWs. Most monsters fight to the death, whether it makes sense or not. That's not the way I handle things, but again, that's more of an exception.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=Flamestrike;6909627]No its not. That is not the expectation of the game at all. If you dont believe me, open your PHB and look at the illistration of the Paladin.[/QUOTE]
The inclusion of evil or monstrous races addresses a different aspect of the game (namely the desire for a lot of gamers to play monsters), and is still an exception to an otherwise overwhelming amount of published material based on an almost universal fantasy element trope of evil humanoid monsters.
QUOTE=Flamestrike;6909627]Yes there most definately is. A Paladin who slays a defensless Orc for no other reason than he is an Orc, falls. It is an act of evil.[/QUOTE]
Not in most campaigns.
Should fall is a different question.
QUOTE=Flamestrike;6909627]Exactly. The adventure frames the scenario as a war, with the 'forces of Chaos' attacking the PCs homeland ('the realm of mankind'), and the PCs as fighting a defensive battle against the evil forces of chaos that live outside the keep.
Like I said earlier, a soldier acting in collective self defence against a foreign invader is not evil, any more than a police officer is for shooting an armed bank robber, or the French Resistance were evil for fighting back against the Nazis.
You dont have to sit and wait for the raid to come. If offensive operations against the invader (ambushing them on the way, an assault against HQ, a raid on their camp or whatever) is likely to minimise innoent casualties and losses and provide a decisive blow against your enemies then go for it.
If the Orcs were just minding their own buisiness, had a peace treaty with the local humans, were just trading with the local Goblins and not being a problem to anyone, then riding into their camp and slaughtering them is evil.[/QUOTE]
OK, and there is an underlying current of a constant war in the descriptions of many of the monstrous humanoids over the years. And the concept of orcs in general, and especially most people's perception of them are from things like Lord of the Rings where it is also framed as a war. Even some of the quotes from the MM I posted refer to that, although a lot are just giving them traits we would consider "evil" because, of course they are, since the ones they are describing are the ones they've labeled chaotic evil.
Again, the framing of a given adventure or campaign may vary slightly, and most don't get into any concept of an ongoing war, but simply place the monstrous humanoids for a combat obstacle to achieving the ultimate goal of the adventure. The vast majority of the time it's irrelevant, since the monstrous humanoid almost always attack on sight.
But like other killings we justify, the monsters are framed in such a way that sniping, or sneaking up and assassinating them when they don't even know you are there, is OK. Just as we tend not to have any issues with James Bond sneaking up and killing agents of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
In real life, I agree with you. And in my campaigns (as I've mentioned many times, and in many threads), I treat monsters such as these as intelligent, and they tend not to fight to the death, and the PCs have to contend with situations where they will surrender, and figure out what to do next. Orcs are still evil, mind you, and that's not in debate in my campaigns. Not as a race. For individuals, there are exceptions to the rule.The question becomes more about the threat they pose, or the potential threat to the innocent people of society.
But in the game, the default is orcs are evil. And it's OK to kill evil things. And that's about all the thought most people give when playing the game. And frankly, in a game where combat and killing are a central point, particularly one that is played by a lot of kids as well (and often played
with their kids), that's all the thought most want to give it.
Playing an Indiana Jones RPG? Nazis are evil, killing them is OK.
James Bond? S.P.E.C.T.R.E, or if you were playing in the '80s, the Russians, or whatever villainous organization is the current enemy. Same thin
Star Wars? Storm Troopers.
Lord of the Rings/D&D Fantasy? Orcs, goblins, etc.
In most cases these are framed as wars, or the machinations of a villain that can kill millions. There's a quick nod to justification, that the good guys are allowed to kill the bad guys. And that's all the framework that's needed for most to be OK with the idea that their kids are playing a game killing others, or to do so themselves.
That framework is the same reason why a movie with a body count in the thousands is considered OK for kids of at least 13, but sometimes younger. The faceless bad guys are evil.
In the real world, people aren't good or evil per se, nor are they defined by a rigid alignment system. Sure, you can assign an alignment to somebody based on their actions as a whole, but most don't fit into such a narrow box. In the game, there are entire worlds (planes) that are formed of the very nature of evil (or good).
That's not to say that the game doesn't support other play styles that focus on a different morality, or that a lot of people like playing the monster, or an evil character, committing evil acts on a regular basis as the villain. Particularly since 2e, the game has provided a number of alternative baseline frameworks, where the "standard" races and monsters are altered and not always following the usual descriptions of such creatures (like the cannibal halflings of Athas). But this is not the standard.
