Paladins and Good Aligned Folk In War - Are Orc Children Slain?

[Sundragon2012]

I think that standard D&D assumptions regarding alignment are in some cases completely divorced from the blood drenched fantasy world reperesented in D&D where violence is everywhere. PCs are expected to make a living killing things in the name of good, their gods, for gold, etc. And most are presumed to be good or at worst neutral.

However, what are the consequences of this constant violence? Where is the impact of PCs destroying orc tribes? What is the impact of the PCs smashing a hobgoblin town or goblin stronghold upon the most defenseless within.....the humanoid children and the weak, elderly or ill. If these humanoids do not just kill the infirm anyway that is.

According to some, you are supposed to raise them, foster them to loving human families, hand them over to someone sympathetic....anyone as long as you don't kill them because that would be evil.

Well lets look as these assumptions and discuss the impact of this kind of thinking on the internal consistancy of your setting and the questions that seem to go perpetually unanswered.

In your setting what happens to all the orphaned orc, goblin, hobgoblin children once their parents are slaughtered in wars of attrition against humans, dwarves or elves when the beasts decide to swarm local communities for plunder, slaves and food?

Do the human, elven and dwarven communities band together to give homes, food, and moral education after a war? Who takes in the hundreds or thousands of orphans who will otherwise die of starvation, predation, exposure or disease?

Can paladins ever make war or be involved in wars when it is a certainty that orphans will be made and the creatures will starve or be killed by predators in an unforgiving wilderness?

Are paladins and good aligned PCs expected to set up infrastructures to prevent the deaths of thousands of orcish, goblin and assorted humanoid children after their parents and kin have been put to the sword? Where do they set up the humanoid orphanages?

What about the elderly or the infirm, if there are any, in the defeated humanoid tribes who were valued for their wisdom but are now unable to hunt for their own food. Do the PCs give them a stipend or set up an Old Orcs Home for those that would have otherwise died of starvation and exposure? What human, elven or dwarven communities would even allow this?

Is it good to allow thousands of orphans to die slowly but evil to kill them swiflty and mercifully in the aftermath of a terrible conflict in which NO human, dwarven or elven lands will raise a finger to prevent their deaths? If this is the case are the governments of these lands of "good" folk (who just crushed the predatory hordes who were bent on slaughter and rape) "evil" because they don't see baby/young orcs, hobgoblins, goblins, etc. as worth concerning themselves with?

I run a grittier campaign were sometimes the best thing you can do for those who would otherwise die from hunger or predation is a quick sword thrust that sends them to their gods. I don't believe it is realistic or even believable to hold the lands attacked by orc hordes responsible for the raising of orc infants. But if killing them is off limits, is it "good" to let them starve to death, get devoured by wandering beasts or freeze in the unforgiving winter if no one is around to take them in?

I think that these are fair questions and things that DMs should consider in campaigns were war and violence have believable consequences.


Chris

 

[Prince Atom]

Well, at one point in my campaign, the PCs tracked a missing elf-child to the lair of a mated pair of displacer beasts. After dispatching the beasts (the paladin yelled, "Surrender!" and proceeded to roll 3 natural 20s on a single attack) they discover the young girl and the beasts' offspring. Turns out that the beasts were going to teach their cub how to hunt, starting with "easy" prey.

Since they'd killed its parents, and the MM says only, "usually evil," they took the cub in hand and brought it back to the elfs, who then decided to raise it and teach it their ways.

But I'd say it's ultimately something the group should decide on its own. That's just my own example, and I think that if I were to tug the strings in a similar manner with orc children, they'd find a like solution.

It's possible that the question would never come up in some games.

TWK

 

[Sundragon2012]

Well, at one point in my campaign, the PCs tracked a missing elf-child to the lair of a mated pair of displacer beasts. After dispatching the beasts (the paladin yelled, "Surrender!" and proceeded to roll 3 natural 20s on a single attack) they discover the young girl and the beasts' offspring. Turns out that the beasts were going to teach their cub how to hunt, starting with "easy" prey.

Since they'd killed its parents, and the MM says only, "usually evil," they took the cub in hand and brought it back to the elfs, who then decided to raise it and teach it their ways.

But I'd say it's ultimately something the group should decide on its own. That's just my own example, and I think that if I were to tug the strings in a similar manner with orc children, they'd find a like solution.

It's possible that the question would never come up in some games.

TWK

I think on a smaller scale, case by case basis, individual PCs can do this kind of thing. They could raise a humanoid/monsterous creature to be if not good, then maybe tolerably neutral. But my greatest concern as a DM is more along the lines of large scale conflicts where the PCs maybe find themselves either within or commanding armies and those armies smite the villianous humanoid tribes leaving countless orphan creatures.

Are good characters allowed, via the D&D assumptions of alignment, even in a roundabout way, to be the reason for the plight of at minimum hundreds of orphaned humanoids if not thousands after a great conflict?

What about the "good" races like elves who are real enemies of humanoids, do they send out search and resue teams to prevent the death of humanoid orphans so that none die of starvation, exposure and predation? Do they actually foster these creatures and if so where? It is in any way believable to assume that even the good-aligned races would do anything other than let the fates take the little beasts hoping that the elements, hunger and predators kill them? Wouldn't a quick death be more in keeping with good when there are really no option to raise countless humanoid fosterlings.


Chris

 

[monkeynova]

It depends...

The flip side of the question is, suppose all orcs are born with strong sociopathic tendencies; the vast majority of orc children who are allowed to live will grow up to be monsters, not because or nuture but because of their own internal nature. The PCs are tasked with destroying an orc tribe. Do they save any children they find, on the chance that they might make them less monstrous, or do they kill the children to prevent them from becoming future monsters?

In fact, increase the tension: give orc children a relatively short adolescence; within three years after birth, they have become adults. (It gives orcs short lifespans, but then again, the orcs can wreak tremendous damage during those brief lives...) Same question: try to rescue the child, or kill the child now?

I mean, if you're going to ask "What about the children?", you also need to examine if the children really need your help to begin with...for humans, this is true; for orcs, this may not be.

monkeynova

 

[Sundragon2012]

The flip side of the question is, suppose all orcs are born with strong sociopathic tendencies; the vast majority of orc children who are allowed to live will grow up to be monsters, not because or nuture but because of their own internal nature. The PCs are tasked with destroying an orc tribe. Do they save any children they find, on the chance that they might make them less monstrous, or do they kill the children to prevent them from becoming future monsters?

In fact, increase the tension: give orc children a relatively short adolescence; within three years after birth, they have become adults. (It gives orcs short lifespans, but then again, the orcs can wreak tremendous damage during those brief lives...) Same question: try to rescue the child, or kill the child now?

I mean, if you're going to ask "What about the children?", you also need to examine if the children really need your help to begin with...for humans, this is true; for orcs, this may not be.

monkeynova

I go under the assumption that orcs and similar humanoids enter adulthood within 12yrs of birth and within six years are able to weild a weapon and defend themselves even with tooth and claw if necessary. I make this assumption to explain the relatively explosive growth of orc hordes.

I think that individual orcish children could theoretically be rescued by caring individuals (PCs) but there are going to be non-combatants who are unable to care for themselves and will die because the tribes great hunters and warriors are now dead. This is something I feel would be of no consequence to 98% of even good aligned folk who would actually see the creatures as something akin to roaches to be crushed and good riddance if the young die, at least they won't grow up to slaughter human, elven and dwarven children in 10-12yrs.

The races plagued by orcs are often dwarves and elves. Dwarves in many settings are good aligned but at the same time suffer genocidal attacks at the hands of orcs in their halls. In FR dwarven nations were literally wiped out by these creatures.

Any rational species would, if possible crush the orcish armies and then move to sweep the threat from the region so that they are themselves no longer bordered by a genocidal threat. The dwarves, if they have the brains they were born with, will sweep into the villages of the defeated orcs and drive them from the map altogether so as to protect their own women and children from a threat that rises over and over again, a threat from a race more fecund than they and one that can, unless destroyed utterly, overwhelm them.


Chris

 

[J-Buzz]

I would not say the Lawful Good Alignment would stop him from killing orc (evil) children as much as his code of conduct. I would think his code of conduct would prevent him from killing the unaggressive (dam monks don't allow me to say unarmed ), or foes that are yeilding.

Since orcs are evil, I would think he could look the other way as others kill them. The code of conduct would not allow him to participate.

But like others have said these topics are open to interpretation.

 

[Mighty Veil]

I think it's going to come down to how black and white one's game is. A game with shades of grey is going to bring up the whole LG hero moral choices. A more B/W game is going to simple assume bad is bad, and your doing the world of good a favor in ridding it of any bad. Having all (or most) villian roles being monster races, like orcs, also will force the point of who's bad. Having orcs being invaders will make it easier for a paladin to kill off them all without moral questioning (he's upholding lawful values in the face of the orc's non-lawful ones; and protecting the innocent fro marauders). Also it'd be doubtful orc invaders, even ones who've held themselves up in a dungeon, will bring the family with them. Certain male pleasures would have to be attained through more unmoral ways,, helping to create many'a kidnapped village girl adventure and half-orc PC background.

A game with less ecology on monsters could make things easier (eg. orcs are created through mortal creationism). Treat monsters more as a parasite who have no purpose except to destroy.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I go under the assumption that orcs and similar humanoids enter adulthood within 12yrs of birth and within six years are able to weild a weapon and defend themselves even with tooth and claw if necessary. I make this assumption to explain the relatively explosive growth of orc hordes.

I one was to compare the starting ages of half-elves, elves, (to see how blood mixes affects lifespan) humans and half-orcs, you'd probably be right.

 

[Kurotowa]

It comes down to Nature or Nurture and the quality of evil (or Evil) in your gameworld. Are orcs inately violent nasty cruel and all around Evil with a capital E? If they are, then the best solution is extermination down to the last child. They're part of the armies of Evil and there can be no peace or rest for Good while they exist. And the paladins will get nice shiney medals for it.

If they're not, then like all defeated peoples they will be assimilated into the victor's society. Eberron is a decent example of there, where slums of goblins live as second class citizens and menial workers. Depending on the culture of the victors the surviving orcs are taken as slaves, made serfs for the newly apointed lords of the conquered territory, or made a new province that's mostly left alone so long as they pay their taxes and don't attempt to raise arms. Expect to see a lot of cultural mixing as new settlers move in, a lot of racial tension and a lot of half-orcs. War is about claiming resources, and conquered peoples are one of the prime resoucnes to be won.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In my campaign, evil is evil, and goblins don't get rehabilitated.

There are enough shades of grey in the real world. My players don't need to sit down at the table to wrestle with deep philosophical questions of good and evil. They want to smite evil, and they want to be secure in that decision in a way that most of us wish we could in real life.