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

[Fenris-77]

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

And here, in your own words, is the end of this argument. Orcs are, barring a change by the DM, evil. Which is exactly what I said. Everything else you said is a reading and extension of that 'change', and for the purposes of this argument, the rulings of individual DMs don't matter, neither yours, nor mine, nor any other individual's. You don't get to tell people that in their game they have to follow the same ethical garden path that you did. Moreover, on the 'but the devs said' angle, if the devs wanted orcs to provide a moral quandary within the standard game world, or perhaps with the standard presentation of orcs, they would have written orcs like that. Except they didn't - they wrote up standard orcs as exactly what everyone but you has indexed them as being.

Perhaps you're suggesting that no one but you can read and understand the monster manual? Or your posts? I don't say that to bait a trap either. I can assure you, I did indeed read your posts, and it is possible for me to read the rules of the game, and you posts about them, and still completely disagree with your reading of those rules. That's why you get to do you at your table and I do me at my table.

 

[The Green Hermit]

And here, in your own words, is the end of this argument. Orcs are, barring a change by the DM, evil. Which is exactly what I said. Everything else you said is a reading and extension of that 'change', and for the purposes of this argument, the rulings of individual DMs don't matter, neither yours, nor mine, nor any other individual's. You don't get to tell people that in their game they have to follow the same ethical garden path that you did. Moreover, on the 'but the devs said' angle, if the devs wanted orcs to provide a moral quandary within the standard game world, or perhaps with the standard presentation of orcs, they would have written orcs like that. Except they didn't - they wrote up standard orcs as exactly what everyone but you has indexed them as being.

Perhaps you're suggesting that no one but you can read and understand the monster manual? Or your posts? I don't say that to bait a trap either. I can assure you, I did indeed read your posts, and it is possible for me to read the rules of the game, and you posts about them, and still completely disagree with your reading of those rules. That's why you get to do you at your table and I do me at my table.

Exactly. They could have written them like drow or duergar -- or even half-orcs.

 

[pemerton]

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

There's no difference.

The statement it's not about brutal and violent, it's about them being provably, demonstrably evil is analogous to it's not about them having four sides of equal length and four right angles, it's about them being square.

What makes orc's evil - what their being evil consists in - is precisely their brutality and violence. (Or to borrow from the way Gygax put it back in an early version of the game, they scorn life, beauty and truth.)

Whether this warrants them being killed in general, or whether it means that they are readily understood to be threats who might be killed in defence of self or others, seems a separate, further question.

Lots of verbiage about the CE nature of orcs and the horrible things they get up to

Again, the horrible things aren't in addition to, or on top of, that CE nature. They're what that nature consists in and how it manifests.

Those horrible things seem - given the general, radically non-libearl non-pacifistic tone of fantasy in general and D&D in particular - to provide a warrant for the use of violence. Whether the violence is defensive or retributive or a bit of both seems a secondary matter.

 

[GreyLord]

In earlier editions, Monsters were based upon monsters.

Animals were also feared. Animals that were rabid or invading settlements were dangerous and you could quest to destroy the whole pack. If you could tame an animal, or monster-like animal in a few cases, you were lucky. Animals were much better than monsters. Animals were just acting as they did in nature and were not naturally wanting to promote evil or evil causes.

Monsters on the other hand were monsters. Think things like the most sadistic, psychotic, and evil humans that are irreparably unchanging in their ways. You could not change a monster. That's why they were monsters. They were the things that went bump in the night. They were the creatures that preyed on your fears and then destroyed you.

Saying one could live side by side of a monster is like saying you could live side by side with Dracula, or a Banshee, and not have to fear for your life (or worse, your soul).

You would stand a better chance of domesticating an invading army of army ants or Africanized Killer bees than you would a monster.

This is why the quests were to wipe out the entire group of monsters, because they WERE monsters. They were not just another form of human or another racial subtype, they were literally the things that nightmares were written from. They were the Freddy Krugers, the Hellraisers of legend come to live in the game.

Things and perceptions have changed from those times and we do not really view many of the monsters that WERE monsters from back then as monsters any more. It's a lot like demi-human races. We do not view the races and creatures so different form humans that their entire way of life and how they act are different. Instead, we simply act as if they are humans with pointy ears or shorter than normal. We seem to have the same reaction to what were formerly known as monsters. They are either humans who look different, OR they are more like animals than actual monsters today.

I think that it is how the game is run on how one would treat monsters. If they are treated like the irredeemable creatures from hell that were spread upon earth as they were seen in fairy tales and in many early D&D games, wiping out the entire lot of them may be the ONLY way to stop the horror and terror they bring. If you do not, even the smallest one will bring horror and destruction if it can. That's just the way they think and act. They cannot change it, it is an innate part of what they are.

They are literally the incarnations of evil. Evil is what they are made of, and as such, their only real goals in life is to the pursuit of evil and all it's incarnations. Good heroes seek to wipe these horrors from the face of the earth.

On the other hand, if it is a more modern take where they are simply humans with different looks, or more of an animalistic nature, then wiping out an entire group or colony of them would seem more like an evil act than something a good character would consider. I think many groups play this way today, and so destroying creatures that are basically just like humans, but with different goals and alignments in general, seem distasteful. They can be retrained or reintegrated and even made to work within civilized society if one tries. If more animalistic, they could be trained.

The two different views are two very different games and ways of playing.

Edit: I am adding, neither way is the wrong way to play. They both have their adherents and some who mix the two and are in between both ways of playing. What may be true in one game, may not be in another and vice versa. It is good to know what type of game the DM is running before you start, but that probably is true of many different ways one can play the game beyond even the above different styles of play.

 

[Todd Roybark]

They are evil. You can turn on your detector and know, with certainty, they are evil.

To be fair Mistwell, there is no ‘evil’ detector in 5e. The Ol’ Paladin Paradigm of:
“ If it glows, kill it” of prior editions, and the Detect Evil spell is gone.

Some Cleric spells have riders, that state, the appearance of a spell, like Spirit Guardians, is determined by the Alignment of the Cleric, (not their god). If played this way, these spells will unequivocally reveal the Caster’s Alignment.

That said, such verbiage in spells like Spirit Guardians, has zero mechanical game balance, and thus, for me, are flavor text...to be used or ignored at will.

The Raiders of the Lost Arc, Arc of the Covenant, would be EVIL, by RAW, since the effect it produces...an extra large Sprit Guardian effect, is clearly more Fiendish than Angelic.

Skulls that melt your face off if you look at them, is not your typical imagery for smiting Angels in Christian Iconography, for example.

But those settings and tables aren't the default.

As I stated , in a prior thread...Default has two usages.

In contractual terms, it means a failure to fulfill a bond, requirement, or obligation.

In the 5e Monster Manual, (I believe it is page 7), states very clearly, that the Alignment listed can be changed, Freely, and with no restriction.

So ‘Default’ in a D&D context for Alignment, can not mean a breach of obligation to the rules, or intent of the rules.

Thus the ‘Default’ of D&D Alignment must be evaluated, in the second common usage, which is akin to computer games and electronics: an arbitrary position, that can modified, or not modified, at the aesthetic and arbitrary whim of the end user.

A D&D Argument, made on the foundation of ‘Default Settings’ has the same weight as saying an electronic game must be played with a certain Gamma Resolution....which to me, is almost zero weight at all.
Modern Games allow for Setting alterations to be made, to fit, one’s individual taste. Period.

To Parody a Black Flag song, if you want to do the following:

“D&D Party Tonight!

We're gonna have a D&D party tonight
All right!
We're gonna have a D&D party, all right
Tonight!

We've got nothing better to do
Than kill some Orcs and have a couple of brews”

No problem, it is fun, and you do not have to contend with granular moral distinctions.

It is not, however the presumption, inherent in the mechanics of the system, as it was, in the historical past of D&D.

The game has moved beyond that paradigmatic presumption, while, simultaneously being backward compatible with the old paradigm.

 

[Imaculata]

Only one character might die? I think I see the problem here.
How about two revenants?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Highly unlikely those refugees are going to flee into civilized lands, though, unless they have no chocie at all; as they'd know their odds of acceptance or even survival there would be low.

As for PoWs: unless there's a ransom possibility taking prisoners is uncommon at best, particularly in large numbers, due to the drain they put on resources.

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.

Given as how it's probably those same Goodly nations who are at war with the Orcs in the first place, I repeat it's highly unlikely at best to think that's where the refugees would flee to. (oh, and Orcish women are typically right there on the front lines with the men; the children are left to fend for themselves)

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!

Can't speak to anyone else's game, but here just getting to the Church of Gruumsh would involve fighting almost the entire settlement anyway, including no small number of fanatics. (my Orcs are monotheistic, and Gruumsh is their deity)

Were a stealth group to sneak in and bring the Church down, the populace of whatever settlement that Church was in would seek vengeance by whatever means possible - once they got done building a new Church.

 

[Flamestrike]

if the devs wanted orcs to provide a moral quandary within the standard game world, or perhaps with the standard presentation of orcs, they would have written orcs like that. Except they didn't - they wrote up standard orcs as exactly what everyone but you has indexed them as being.

Except the Devs (and indeed the RAW) expressly states that the alignment written in a creatures Stat block is not the standard for all of them, and exceptions exist (expressly including evil angels, and even good fiends).

It also expressly states (again as RAW) that even the few rare creatures that are inherently evil (fiends and angels), even they can (and have and do) have different alignments. It's extremely rare of course, but it happens.

 

[Flamestrike]

As for PoWs: unless there's a ransom possibility taking prisoners is uncommon at best, particularly in large numbers, due to the drain they put on resources.

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'?

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

 

[Fenris-77]

Except the Devs (and indeed the RAW) expressly states that the alignment written in a creatures Stat block is not the standard for all of them, and exceptions exist (expressly including evil angels, and even good fiends).

It also expressly states (again as RAW) that even the few rare creatures that are inherently evil (fiends and angels), even they can (and have and do) have different alignments. It's extremely rare of course, but it happens.

We seem to be going in circles. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, alignment can be changed by DM fiat. However, barring those few exceptions, and barring DM fiat, what are orcs? Evil. That's the usage of default I'm indexing here - evil is what orcs are unless someone actively decides differently, which you seem to. That's fine, as I;ve said several times, we all get to run our own games (thank goodness). Unlike real life, where we never know about an individual, we do know about orcs, we know that their evil, which means there's no moral conundrum involved unless we make it so. That's the base expectation, the default, the standard, whatever we want to call it.

That said, I wouldn't want my party killing orc women and children either. The optics there are bad for a heroic campaign. I don't put orc women and children into my campaign though, and if I did it would be precisely to provide a moral quandary to the players. If there was a village of neutral or good orcs that would be the same thing - added on purpose by me to play against type. Those exceptions are not somehow a standard for the game though, nor are they somehow assumed by the RAW. Those are both instances of DM fiat, at which point we aren't talking about the default any more.