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

[Oofta]

What about Orc prisoners of war, children and non combatants in villages captured by the forces of Good during the (many) defensive wars against the Orcs, Orc outcasts and refugees from conflicts etc.

Any major conflict against Orcs (and there would have been literally dozens at least) would see thousands if not tens of thousands of Orc refugees, non combatants, prisoners of war and so forth captured or fleeing from the conflict.

Do your Goodly nations simply massacre those refugees, non combatants, women and children and POWs? If not (and I certainly hope they dont) I presume (as Good aligned) they treat those thousands of refugees, POWS, non combatants and so forth with mercy, altruism, respect and kindness.

Meaning that even after one sizeable conflict with a neighboring Orc nation, there should be thousands of Orcs refugees, POW's, non combatants and so forth in civilised society. Given enough time, those Orcs reproduce (and at a faster rate than Humans) meaning any sizeable city likely has a fair few Orcs in it, and a lot more Half Orcs.

And what about the Orc settlements? Are your Goodly nations razing them to the ground in an act of absolute Genocide, or are they razing the Churches of Gruumsh to the ground, and trying to set the Orcs on a less warlike path? Surely they actually succeded at least once or twice!

Because if we just "reeducate" the orcs they can be assimilated into society? Like we tried to do to Native Americans when we shipped off all the kids to boarding school?

 

[Mistwell]

Can we not call people pro-genocide because they disagree on a philosophical point concerning this topic?

 

[Fenris-77]

Still beating the real life ethics drum here eh? Yikes. That straw man about the women and children is big enough at this point to serve as a prop in a sequel to Wicker Man.

 

[Flamestrike]

Can we not call people pro-genocide because they disagree on a philosophical point concerning this topic?

I'm not engaging with you mate, in respect to the Moderators post above, other than to clarify my position that I wasn't meaning you're pro Genocide. It's more accurate to say that you've expressed the view that the morally Good churches, deities, societies and peoples in your game world, view wholesale genocide and slaughter of Orcs (and similar species) for no other reason than they're Orcs and Orc society is brutal and violent to be acceptable.

In my game (and in my view), morally Good churches, deities, society and peoples repudiate slaughter and genocide. They would only resort to violence in immediate self defence from an imminent threat, and would instead seek other (non violent) measures to deal with the problem (forming essential trade routes with the Orcs, conversion away from the Gods of Evil, alliances with other neighbouring Good nations, opening embassies with the Orcs, improving diplomatic ties and so forth).

 

[Flamestrike]

Because if we just "reeducate" the orcs they can be assimilated into society? Like we tried to do to Native Americans when we shipped off all the kids to boarding school?

Please dont compare real life human ethnic groups to that of Orcs thanks.

There is a clear difference. If a human ethnic or religious group in your game practised and advocated the sorts of things Orc society practices (slavery, rape, demonic rituals, wholesale slaughter of the weak) then those acts would be outlawed (by a Good socity) to the extent necessary to stop those morally repugnant acts.

That goes for Orcs within a human society, as well as any Orc settlements or nations conquered or subjugated in a defensive war. The (Good aligned) victors would outlaw many Orc practices (to the extent necessary) to stop rape, slavery, wholesale slaughter and so forth. All the elements of Orc culture that are evil would be outlawed or otherwise eradicated.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not about brutal and violent, as much as your position rests on that. It's about them being provably, demonstrably, evil. That's a crucial difference that you haven't addressed except to do some morally (and/or culturally) relativistic handwaving about nurture versus nature. Orcs, unless a table decides differently, are inherently evil, it says so in the stat block, no differently than demons or devils. The latter two I'm assuming you don't have this same problem with.

What happens in your game is, not to put too fine a point on it, not terribly important to this discussion. Obviously people can do whatever they like in their own games, but those games don't have anything to with the game as a whole, it's history, or the contents of the rules - all of which support the position that orcs are inherently evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's not about brutal and violent, as much as your position rests on that. It's about them being provably, demonstrably, evil. That's a crucial difference that you haven't addressed except to do some morally (and/or culturally) relativistic handwaving about nurture versus nature. Orcs, unless a table decides differently, are inherently evil, it says so in the stat block, no differently than demons or devils. The latter two I'm assuming you don't have this same problem with.

The Monster manual only sets the default alignment. Not a universal alignment. That's RAW.

I can cite examples of Evil angels (Zariel), Good Drow (Drizzt), and Chaotic Devils (Grazzt). There are evil Halflings and Sun Elves raised and arising in Good cultures, why does a Good Orc (who repudiates the evil of his people, similar to Drizzt did in the Underdark) strike you as impossible?

As for RAI, the devs have been clear that Orcs are not violent and evil because thats an inherent part of who they are, but only have the alignment they have due to Orc society making them so. An Orc raised outside of that society (that encourages slavery, rape, slaughter, Demon worship etc) is no more likely to be evil than a Sun Elf.

 

[Fenris-77]

What do you think default alignment means? Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions, like Drizzt, are interesting because they play against type. Those examples don't change anything about the race as a whole.

The "what the devs say" argument also falls flat because it's entirely outside the rules. That's not a RAW argument, just an observation about the content of the rules. Take a gander at the three pages on orcs in the Monster Manual for example. Lots of verbiage about the CE nature of orcs and the horrible things they get up to, and nary a word about any of the things you hold as self evident. That's the gold standard for how orcs play in D&D. If your argument was going to hold water the MM would read differently.

That doesn't mean that Orcs can't play differently in some settings, or at some tables - of course they can, and they do. But those settings and tables aren't the default.

Does you whole argument rest on the devs? I suspect it does, but if it doesn't I'd like to know that too. I'm not infallible and I could be missing some portion of the rules that contradicts the MM.

 

[The Green Hermit]

What do you think default alignment means? Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions, like Drizzt, are interesting because they play against type. Those examples don't change anything about the race as a whole.

The "what the devs say" argument also falls flat because it's entirely outside the rules. That's not a RAW argument, just an observation about the content of the rules. Take a gander at the three pages on orcs in the Monster Manual for example. Lots of verbiage about the CE nature of orcs and the horrible things they get up to, and nary a word about any of the things you hold as self evident. That's the gold standard for how orcs play in D&D. If your argument was going to hold water the MM would read differently.

That doesn't mean that Orcs can't play differently in some settings, or at some tables - of course they can, and they do. But those settings and tables aren't the default.

Does you whole argument rest on the devs? I suspect it does, but if it doesn't I'd like to know that too. I'm not infallible and I could be missing some portion of the rules that contradicts the MM.

My daughter just rolled up two drow characters. For right now, I am letting her skate a bit on the "usually evil" bit, but she at least has them earning their living somewhat in society's underworld. As the campaign goes on, though, I am going to engineer situations that at least make her consider that aspect of their lives.

 

[Flamestrike]

What do you think default alignment means?

It means this is the default barring a ruling by the DM.

Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions, like Drizzt, are interesting because they play against type. Those examples don't change anything about the race as a whole.

No, that's not the case. Default doesn't mean 'everyone barring a few individuals'. It means 'unless the DM says otherwise, this is the behaviour of the typical member of this creature'.

(From the MM) 'A monster's alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.'

The "what the devs say" argument also falls flat because it's entirely outside the rules.

No, its not outside the Rules. By default, Orcs are ONLY evil because they're raised that way in an evil society under the auspices of an evil God. An Orc is not inherently evil in the way a Devil is (and heck; even THEY can change alignments).

Here is the entry (from the MM) for Celestial and Fiends.

Celestials are good by nature, so the exceptional celestial who strays from a good alignment is a horrifying rarity. ... If an evil celestial is a rarity, a good fiend is almost inconceivable.

So even creatures that are by nature evil or good (as in; their goodness or evillness is inherent in the creature, as a cosmic force that they are literally comprised of, and which has nothing to do with environment) can have different alignments from the default, and the RAW expressly states such beings exist (rare as they may be).

If I take a baby Orc and raise it among Good aligned people, it's as likely to be evil as is a halfling child, or an elf child would be in the same situation.