Lanefan
Victoria Rules
"Hello, sir. Can I help you?"
"I'd like to redeem this Orc, please - it says on his shirt that redeeming him before month's end gets me a free cheeseburger..."
D&D 5E Next session a character might die. Am I being a jerk?
- Thread starter akr71
- Start date
"I'd like to redeem this Orc, please - it says on his shirt that redeeming him before month's end gets me a free cheeseburger..."
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
There's a segment of the fan base that looves playing monster PCs. It's not my bag of candy, but whatevs. I'd only allow in specific settings (Eberron for example) or in a campaign where it made specific sense. It certainly helps muddy the waters, that's for sure.
This claim is not very plausible. Our epistemic access, in real life, to the reality of brutal and arbitrary violence, is often pretty robust.
This is why I have been asserting that what is doing the work is not an explanation of how and why we know orcs to be brutal and arbitrarliy violent but rather an implicit theory of permissible violence.
The second paragraph may be true. But it is the slaying, not the evil, that is doing the work. Or in other words, where the moral certainty lies is not in the evilness of the orc, but the permissibility of using violence against it.
As far as the "footprint" of the game goes, I've already posted about that not too far upthread. Early versions of the game took for granted that orcs, goblins etc could be negotiated and allied with: that is why there were reaction rolls, rules for recruiting hunanoid troops (complete with racial attitude tables) and the like. And early editions of the game - and to the best of my knowledge, current ones also - drew no distinction between the permissibility of killing orcs and the permissibility of killing bandits, cultists and the like.
As far as LotR is concerned, it doesn't posit that orcs must be killed per se. It posits that orcs, because they are violent and cruel and aggressive, are just targets of defensive and retributive violence; and being so violent themselves, orcs can hardly complain when they suffer violence. As Gandalf says, "Many that live deserve death." Most orcs may well be among such. But it is their motivations and behaviour, not their metaphysical status, that explain that desert.
The access, in D&D, to information about evil has been present without resort to an examination of behavior. It's less true in 5e, but has been true historically. I also don't agree that a theory of permissible violence is doing all the work, unless your theory includes categorization of types of targets for that violence. It might, but since you haven't gotten that granular I'm not sure.
Obviously the access to categorization, in real life, of behavior using some sort of ethical heuristic is robust, we'd be in trouble if it weren't. D&D has that extra layer, which, along side the genre expectations, adds another wrinkle to the discussion. That same heuristic is obviously at work in fantasy fiction since it's the same humans with the same heuristic doing the reading or roleplaying, but it's modified in ways the real life equivalent is not.
I'd agree that cultists and bandits end up in the same group as orcs. However, I think your explanations more strongly explains their presence in that tier than it does orcs. Orcs are there for those same reasons and more. I'm indexing the more while agreeing with the same.
In short, I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting that there's an additional layer of inputs.
Obviously the access to categorization, in real life, of behavior using some sort of ethical heuristic is robust, we'd be in trouble if it weren't. D&D has that extra layer, which, along side the genre expectations, adds another wrinkle to the discussion. That same heuristic is obviously at work in fantasy fiction since it's the same humans with the same heuristic doing the reading or roleplaying, but it's modified in ways the real life equivalent is not.
I'd agree that cultists and bandits end up in the same group as orcs. However, I think your explanations more strongly explains their presence in that tier than it does orcs. Orcs are there for those same reasons and more. I'm indexing the more while agreeing with the same.
In short, I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting that there's an additional layer of inputs.
Todd Roybark
Hero
Oofta, that is not even true in Minnesota, let alone in ancient legal codes.
Manslaughter is not Murder, plenty of people are charged with manslaughter after directly killing someone.
Hamurabi’s code does not consider the killing of female children, ‘murder’, more like destruction of property. It is an offense resulting in a fine. The severity of which depends upon the social class of the male parent.
The Icelandic Sagas are rife with accounts of weregild being assessed for deaths caused by another.
The word Villain in the english language has it’s roots in the term used for the social rank lower than thane. The fact that the term Villain, became linked with wickedness and criminality shows, that class and criminal justice are inseparably linked.
“ Round up the usual suspects” literally means non land owning peasants.
Ancient Legal systems were not concerned with ‘Justice’ as it is conceived in modern views. Those systems were concerned with stability and order...which, comprised most concerns of ancient justice.
Zeus is not Just. Plato says as much about the gods. Zeus promotes stability, which for some is more important than individual justice.
This thread prompted me to go back to Roger E Moore's article "It's Not Easy Being Good" (Dragon 51, July 1981).
This is Moore's general account of how paladins should respond to evil:
And he then says this about killing:
Obviously none of this is official or authoritative, but it does show how one thoughtful and influential D&D personality saw the issues 40-odd years ago.
Moore doesn't tell us how what he thinks is best to do if (due, say, to a high roll on the reaction dice) a group of orcs approaches a paladin in order to parley. Is this still a case where the sword is the only answer? Or is it a case of an evil person who is not trying to kill the paladin or someone else and hence who is not liable to be killed? I think there's no obvious answer here, and probably no typical answer either. The Mouth of Sauron clearly is as evil as any orc ("more cruel than any orc" says JRRT), but in Book V of LotR Aragorn did not threaten him (though he did cow him with his presence) and Gandalf spoke with him as with any other herald.
In the Director's Cut of Return of the King, though, Aragorn decapitates the Mouth. Some (eg me) consider this an unwarranted and (at best) distasteful departure from the novel; others (eg Peter Jackson) clearly thought it a reasonable depiction of a just king's conduct.
For anyone who wants to run a "morally unambiguous" D&D game, I would suggest not having orcs seek to parley.
This is Moore's general account of how paladins should respond to evil:
Once a Paladin is aware that evil exists, he cannot turn his eyes away from it; that’s not just cowardly, it’s wrong. On the other hand, a Paladin cannot just slay every evil person he or she meets. That’s wrong, too, unless every evil person one meets is trying to kill the Paladin or someone else. Somehow, in one way or the other, the ends of evil must be undone.
And he then says this about killing:
Killing is a difficult topic to address with regard to Paladins. . . . In an AD&D game . . . there are many creatures whose whole existence is evil and cannot be undone by any means short of a Wish (and even that may not be possible). Undead of any sort, evil dragon types, and all demons, devils, and daemons deserve (from a Paladin’s point of view) no other fate than utter and absolute destruction. . . . There is no quarter and
no prisoners are taken.
Other beings, like Beholders and Mind Flayers, will also fit pretty well into this category. No amount of polite talk and reasoning will convince an Intellect Devourer to be a nice guy. The sword is the only answer. When orcs, trolls, and so forth are encountered, the same applies. They are evil, there are deities who make a living at keeping them evil, and there’s not much more to say. Perhaps the only exceptions one could make to killing evil monsters would be if they surrendered; the Paladin could then tie them up or whatever and march them off to the nearest authorities to stand trial or be imprisoned.
no prisoners are taken.
Other beings, like Beholders and Mind Flayers, will also fit pretty well into this category. No amount of polite talk and reasoning will convince an Intellect Devourer to be a nice guy. The sword is the only answer. When orcs, trolls, and so forth are encountered, the same applies. They are evil, there are deities who make a living at keeping them evil, and there’s not much more to say. Perhaps the only exceptions one could make to killing evil monsters would be if they surrendered; the Paladin could then tie them up or whatever and march them off to the nearest authorities to stand trial or be imprisoned.
Obviously none of this is official or authoritative, but it does show how one thoughtful and influential D&D personality saw the issues 40-odd years ago.
Moore doesn't tell us how what he thinks is best to do if (due, say, to a high roll on the reaction dice) a group of orcs approaches a paladin in order to parley. Is this still a case where the sword is the only answer? Or is it a case of an evil person who is not trying to kill the paladin or someone else and hence who is not liable to be killed? I think there's no obvious answer here, and probably no typical answer either. The Mouth of Sauron clearly is as evil as any orc ("more cruel than any orc" says JRRT), but in Book V of LotR Aragorn did not threaten him (though he did cow him with his presence) and Gandalf spoke with him as with any other herald.
In the Director's Cut of Return of the King, though, Aragorn decapitates the Mouth. Some (eg me) consider this an unwarranted and (at best) distasteful departure from the novel; others (eg Peter Jackson) clearly thought it a reasonable depiction of a just king's conduct.
For anyone who wants to run a "morally unambiguous" D&D game, I would suggest not having orcs seek to parley.
If the statement becomes it's murder to intentionally kill another person of status without justification or excuse then it probably gets closer to the truth.
Most manslaughter tends to involve either a lack of intention (eg gross negligence) or some degree of excuse (eg provocation, for those jurisdictions that have such a concept).
One big difference between many contemporary legal systems and at least some ancient legal codes, that is relevant to D&D, is a that in most modern codes consent is not a justification for killing, so that killing someone in a duel is still murder. Whereas in the context of the Icelandic sagas and most D&D campaigns killing someone who chooses to fight you is not murder.
How choice/consent relates to killing in war is interesting.
In LotR Book III, Saruman also sets out a very permissive theory of authorisation of soldiers to kill:
it was not by design of your own that you [Gimili] became embroiled in [the troubles of this land], and I will not blame such part as you have played - a valiant one, I doubt not. . . .
To every man his part. Valour in arms is yours, and you [Eomer] win high honour thereby. Slay whom your lord names as enemies, and be content. . . .
But my lord of Rohan, am I to be called a murderer, because valiant men have fallen in battle? If you [Theoden] go to war, needlessly, for I did not desire it, the men will be slain. But if I am a murder on that account, then all the House of Eorl is stained with murder, for they have fought many wars, and assailed many who defied them. Yet with some they have afterwards made peace, none the worse for being politic.
Theoden's retort to Saruman has two limbs:
Even if your war on me was just - as it was not . . . - even so, what will you say of your torches in Westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Hama's body before the gates of the Hornburn, after he was dead.
There is a suggestion here that political command and valour in arms provide a justication for killing only if the cause is just. But Theoden's stronger point concerns unjustified and inexcusable killings and other wrongful conduct.
Hence, in a D&D game that wants to be reasonably light-hearted I would suggest leaving out orcish non-combatants.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Seeking to parley is a time-honoured tactic, used while your forces regroup and sneak around to a better attack point...
I appreciate what you're doing. I'm attempting to respectfully disagree. I think that, as the game is presented, the metaphysical element supervenes entirely on the behavioural and dispositional elements that I'm talking about.
So Detect Evil or Know Alignment cast on an orc is (I assert) no different from the same cast on a Brigand (cf Bandit) or Pirate (cf Buccaneer) or random NPC who came up evil on the random alignment chart.
A Wand of Enemy Detection may of course give a different answer. But perhaps the same answer for Bandit and Buccaner as for Brigand and Pirate. And in the Dragon article I mentioned, discussing a paladin's response to neutral NPCs, Roger E Moore says
Of course, when confronted by a band of wild bandits or buccaneers (all Neutral) you can’t just punch them in the nose and settle things. Again, the sword might be a reasonable answer
(The reference to punching in the nose follows from an earlier anecdote about how a paladin in a game Moore was GMing dealt with a dryad who tried to Charm party members.)
To allude back to the distinction between manslaughter, murder and justified killing: different legal systems will draw the boundaries of defensive violence in different places - eg what is legitimate self-defence, what is excessive self-defence (which is, roughly at least, a form of manslaughter) and what is outright murder? Many US jurisidictions are, by my standards, very permissive in this respect but still I think draw these boundaries.
Serious theoretical discussions of defensive violence need to consider such factors as proportionality, necessity (eg how "anticipatory" can such violence be?), motivation (eg if I kill my nemesis out of a desire for vengeance, but - as it happens though unknown to me - happen to prevent said nemesis killing another person at that very moment, am I to be condmened as a murderer or to enjoy the justification of defensive violence?), etc. I wouldn't expect most D&D games to get into that sort of detail, but we can reconstruct the implicit theory that is evinced by the way such games actually proceed.
When it comes to killing orcs, most D&D games seem to set a very low threshold for necessity, connected i part to a very permissive conception of anticipatory self-defence and/or justified warfare. That is, the mere presence of orcs is taken to create a threat that warrants the use of violence to elminate them.
Again, my advice for games that want to strengthen the veneer of moral permissibility without making anything too complicated would be to reinforce this by having the orcs be raiders of the Westfold (and perhaps who do not spare non-combatants, though that might also be unwanted grimness for some tables).
