Celebrim
Legend
Depends on the definition of 'orc'. Since orcs are fictional, whether or not killing them is a evil is up to the author. Supply the right definition for 'orc', and you can get any answer you want.
In my own game there are no orcs, but there are goblins filling pretty much all the same roles. The vast majority of people believe that both goblins and humans are member of the order of beings 'free peoples'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but at the risk of revealing campaign secrets, in my mind (as the creator) they are correct. As such, killing and goblin and a human are morally equivalent in my campaign world, and killing one can only be justified in situations where you kill the other.
So, in my campaign, this situation pretty much plays out exactly like the PC's were tracking a group of bandits back to their lair, and the norm is to follow rules of engagement similar to what might have been acceptable in say the 15th century. Assuming the PC's have just cause, this situation is more like warfare than modern police procedure, even if it is a human village. If the PC's attack, if you resist, you would be assumed to be allied with the bandits. The village rather than the individual is condemned for having harbored bandits, and anyone that takes up arms to resist is a valid target.
A parallel situation might be the surrender ultimatum issued to the city of New Orleans during the American Civil War. The city as a whole was promising to accept the terms and pledging good conduct. Had one of the occupying soldiers been attacked, the whole city would be subject to bombardment as a city that had refused terms of surrender and acted treacherously. Thus, it was incumbent upon the inhabitants of the city to ensure their fellow citizens didn't provoke the wrath of the occupying forces and to cooperate fully.
In the case of the PC's following bandits back to a goblin lair, the PC's are under no obligation to alert the goblins to their presence and conduct a siege or otherwise risk their lives. To offer up merciful terms at risk to themselves is certainly an act of good and any evil character would be appalled, but its not evil in and of itself to act in self-defense. (Incidentally, yes, this means it is not evil in and of itself for the goblins to resist being attacked. The whole battle could end up in the realm of tragedy rather than malevolence.) If the PC's were actively resisted, whoever resisted could be treated as an enemy. It's incumbent not just on the PC's to explain their motives or seek to parlay, but the goblins to seek to parlay as well. Likewise, it's incumbent on the tribe not to knowingly shelter enemies if they don't want to be treated as an enemy themselves.
This is a pretty harsh way of looking at it, but this harshness has to account for the relative poverty of the society and how marginally any group clings to existence in such a harsh world. Most groups simply don't have the excess or superabundant resources necessary to deal with criminality in less than a harsh manner.
Note, if there are no such thing as "adventurers" in my campaign world. The word, as it would be used by citizens of my world, means the same as the modern word "tourist". It means wealthy dilettantes that travel purely for the "enjoyment" of travel, something most people would find bizarre since travel is dangerous and unpleasant. The word does not mean "trouble shooters and problem solvers", and they have no word for these things. If it is actually the players job to kill things, then they are doing so under some groups authority whether they've been deputized as agents by a Reeve, or hired as mercenaries by a Mayor, or are operating under the authority of the crown or a recognized temple with magisterial rights. For example, a PC might say something like, "I am a Templar of the Order of Hospitallers of Aravar. These are my letters of introduction signed by the High Priestess, the Reverend Mother Reylie. I'm hunting undead, as is our customary and recognized right and responsibility. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Temple."
If they don't have authority to go around killing things, they'll likely get in a heap of trouble. If it turns out they are falsely representing themselves, they'll find themselves in an even bigger heap of trouble. (You don't want the Temple of Aravar to decide to start hunting you.)
In practice, the scenario with the "orc bandits" would be so rare, I'd be springing it on the PC's as a gotcha. This is because none of this actually occurs in isolation. If you have a goblin tribe raiding humans, chances are they are all bandits and that's why they are here. In the case of goblins living near humans, they either know that the goblins are consistently unfriendly, or else there exists some sort of diplomatic relationship between the goblins and the humans precisely to prevent this sort of thing from happening. So humans would either reason (correctly), that this is a new tribe in the area - likely impoverished, likely fleeing from a stronger tribe - and resorting to banditry to survive or else that this is an existing tribe and for some reason the political situation has changed. In the former case, probably everyone in the tribe is guilty to some extent and whatever sympathy you might feel for goblins is counterbalanced by the fact they just robbed and/or murdered innocent people and would do it again. In the later case, this is something akin to war and you deal with it accordingly. The PC's might well be backed up by a small army. If in fact, some band had went out without the chief's permission and raided the humans, then the chief more than anyone probably wants to get this dealt with before bloodshed becomes more general, and both sides may have reason to seek to negotiate. The chief might even agree to turn the bandits over to the PC's, or at least tell them, "I kicked them out. Happy hunting."
Or to put it another way, the majority of goblins are in fact evil and are out doing predatory brutal things, and their neighbors have legitimate grievances or else more rarely have some sort of working relationship to prevent those grievances from arising. How the PC's deal with goblins theoretically isn't that interesting. What's important is how the PC's deal with THIS goblin in THIS situation. It's less a matter of whether they have mercy on goblins, as whether when they have an opportunity they show mercy. If the goblins try to negotiate, are they willing to listen? If the goblins throw down their arms, do they show mercy? Are they avenging murder or just merely theft? If it is theft, do they offer a chance at restitution rather than vengeance? And so on and so forth.
And keep in mind, this is reinforced by the fact that goblin and hobgoblin are on the very short list of officially approved PC races using my homebrew rules, and that I generally introduce new players to my campaign world in the sort of cosmopolitan places where a goblin alongside a human wouldn't be that unusual, and some amount of tolerance exists. That way the player has some context before making rash judgments.
Last edited:
