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

[Oofta]

TBH I have a real issue with the wording in Volo's. They spend pages on how orcs are inherently evil and live only to slaughter.

Then the whole "if they only believed what we believed they could be okay". Couple of things, first of all it's only "could". No guarantee. Kind of like how a tiger could make a good pet.

But it also makes orcs effectively human. That they are only maligned and labeled evil because they're different. If they only spoke properly, embraced [insert religion/belief system here] they'd be fine. It's the same thing we said about Native Americans before we shipped an entire generation of them off to boarding schools in an attempt to assimilate them.

It also gets into relative ethics and dilemmas I don't want to deal with in a game.

Last, but not least VGTM is not a core book. As has been pointed out, it is also specific to role playing an orc; something I wish they would have made clearer.

P.S. as others have stated, angels that fall are no longer angels. Dwarves are not monsters and have no default alignment.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It I accept your premise, then the word murder loses all meaning (there are thousands of legal codes around the world).

I'm asserting an act that would be murder in most of them. Specifically, walk into someones home or village, and kill them, for no other reason than they're a member of a specific race.

Right. You are asserting that, using modern day, 2020 ethics, where evil beings don't exist, most of those actions would be considered murder. Unfortunately, for your argument, in a fantasy game, wholly evil beings do exist and their existence is designed, often by an evil god, to be a (literal) plague on humanity (and other races) as a whole. You can't, therefore, look at it through the same moral lens.

One can choose to not have innately evil races. A DM can make an Orc's 'evil' and violent behavior a cultural phenomena instead of an inherent part of their fabric.

The latter (inherently evil version) dictates that an Orc cannot be redeemed. I wouldn't allow a player to use the Orc PC-exception from Volo's in that kind of campaign unless:
1. It is an evil campaign and all players are playing evil characters
2. The 'good' Orc PC is a very, very rare exception and is constantly struggling against its evil impulses. It would even be considered good RP if the PC occasionally lapsed into evil actions for lack of self-restraint.

 

[Oofta]

@Umbran that's why I use the term.

It I accept your premise, then the word murder loses all meaning (there are thousands of legal codes around the world).

Im asserting an act that would be murder in most of them. Specifically, walk into someones home or village, and kill them, for no other reason than they're a member of a specific race.

It's murder to kill another human without justification. It may be illegal to kill other species, it may not.

Orcs are not real, nor are they human. By your logic no one could ever run a dungeon crawl. But no one is condoning whole-sale slaughter of all orcs everywhere even if it might be a logical outcome.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I've repeatedly stated if you want to say 'genocide and murder of evildoers' is a morally good act in your games, or something a morally good person would do, go nuts.

Who am I to stop you?

Ah yes. But no one has said those things in this thread. That is an argument that you made up to tell everyone that they're playing their good characters wrong.

 

[Umbran]

There have literally been peeps in this thread stating its OK to kill an Orc for no other reason that its an Orc and it's evil. They've further defined that act (here and in other threads) as being a 'good' act.

As in go into its home in a ruin somewhere, and kill it, for no other reason than it was there, and it was an Orc.

Yep. And, within the context of their fictional worlds, that may be 100% totally accurate, no matter what Volo says, and you laying on charged terms may be doing those games a major disservice. You judging those actions as if they went on in your preferred fictional world is not appropriate, either rhetorically, or, in fact, ethically.

 

[Umbran]

It I accept your premise, then the word murder loses all meaning (there are thousands of legal codes around the world).

No. It tells you that the word "murder" is context-dependent, relevant locally, to a given time and place, rather than it being one thing across all game tables.

 

[Xenonnonex]

There have literally been peeps in this thread stating its OK to kill an Orc for no other reason that its an Orc and it's evil. They've further defined that act (here and in other threads) as being a 'good' act.

As in go into its home in a ruin somewhere, and kill it, for no other reason than it was there, and it was an Orc.

I suppose the definition of murder in the context that killing takes place could exclude Orcs as creatures capable of being murdered (or it could happen outside of a legal jurisdiction at all) but Im happy to use the term murder, as thats what most civilised people would consider such a killing.

Goodly orcs are aberrations. They are at best killed for not comforming to orcness or the absurdly few somehow manage to escape their evil indoctrination from birth and design by a literally chaotic evil creator god.
Goodly orcs are about as widespread as the original Drizzt in any given world. Which is to say not at all.

These beings are literally molded and brainwashed into being fictional murderers. They do not care about moralizing or 21st century ethics. They go about their killing ways regardless.

Fictional is also the key here as well as recognizing all of this is make believe.

 

[Oofta]

Goodly orcs are aberrations. They are at best killed for not comforming to orcness or the absurdly few somehow manage to escape their evil indoctrination from birth and design by a literally chaotic evil creator god.
Goodly orcs are about as widespread as the original Drizzt in any given world. Which is to say not at all.

These beings are literally molded and brainwashed into being fictional murderers. They do not care about moralizing or 21st century ethics. They go about their killing ways regardless.

Fictional is also the key here as well as recognizing all of this is make believe.

If being a non-evil orc is an aberration (I think it would be if it even happens) then I agree that the follow-up question is how often? For example, roughly 1% of the population are sociopaths. Most of them are still functional members of society but 25% of our prison population in the US are sociopaths.

But while we don't kill sociopaths out of hand ... orcs would almost certainly kill an orc that didn't toe the line. Even if those random few orcs escape, they still have to find someplace safe.

No offense to Drizzt fans, but I think it would be logical if every orc anyone has ever encountered was a murderous sociopath bent on killing everyone in sight wouldn't stand a chance. It's simple logic - an orc would be more dangerous than any wild animal. If a tiger walked into town it would soon be a dead tiger.

I'm not saying that's right, or a good thing. I think it's realistic.

On a side note since I mentioned Drizzt, Drow's history is different than orcs. They were not created by an evil god, they were kicked out and turned to Lollth because she was the only one who would accept them. So point to Drizzt as proof that there are exceptions doesn't work for multiple reasons. He's campaign specific and not a race created for the purpose of revenge and destruction.

 

[Coroc]

The revenant should go after the pally (If he is of the LG/NG/CG kind)!!! The necromancer played true to his class, and i would force him to take evil as part of his alignment now, but that is about it.
The pally failed at his role . I would not make him aware of this but make the revenant attack him and inform him at that point that his powers are gone and he is fallen (No casting turning laying on hands or aura).

 

[pemerton]

In earlier editions, Monsters were based upon monsters.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

I think this is exaggerated.

Gygax's PHB (p 40) offers the following definition of the game term monster:

It is necessary to stress that the usage of the term "monster" is generic for any creature encountered during the course of adventuring. A monster can be exactly what the name implies, or it can be a relatively harmless animal, a friendly intelligent beast, a crazed human, a band of dwarves, a thief - virtually anything or anyone potentially threatening or hostile.

When your referee indicates your character has encountered a monster, that simply indicates a confrontation between your character and some type of creature is about to take place. The results of such a meeting will
depend on many factors, including the nature of the monster and your character's actions. All monsters are not bad . . .​

That doesn't say what you have said.

Gygax's DMG, in the City/Town encounter matrix (p 191 - amusingly enougn, within a couple of pages of the famous ilustration of Emirikol the Chaotic blasting townsfolk and guards with his magic), allows for the option that 25% of ruffians encountered are "half-orc or of humanoid race (goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, orc)." This implies that, in Gygax's conception at least, it was quite possible for humans, orcs and the like to live side-by-side in the same urban areas. Ruffians (p 192) are "fellows of shabby appearance and mean disposition", which seems apt for orcs and their ilk, but is hardly the same as devils, rakshas or demons which the same encounter table treats in a completely different vein (p 191): such encounter "must'be carefully restricted, and . . . may be ignored entirely if desirable. . . Treat these encounters as highly special."

One of the earliest D&D PCs was the fighter Robilar. He had an orc henchman.

In reading play accounts of B2 KotB, it is common to hear accounts of working with monster group A vs monster group B, or of tricking or paying the ogre so that it fights such-and-such other group, etc. This is conssitent with the reaction roll mechanic which was part of early versions of D&D. In the example of play in Moldvay Basic, which demonstrates the use of that mechanic, the PCs attempt to negotiate with some hobgoblins.

There may have been some, perhaps many, early groups who played the game as you describe, but it was not a universal norm and those early texts don't really bear it out.