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

[Wulf Ratbane]

Who said it was easy being good? You can't kill someone because of something he MIGHT do in the future. Should we put the entire human race to the sword? After all, a human baby has an equal chance of being good or evil when he or she grows up. Can we take that chance?

It's preposterous to suggest that a human child has the same potential for evil as a kobold.

The sun will rise in the east, the sky is blue, water is wet, and kobolds exist at the whim of their evil god with the purpose of spreading further evil.

This isn't complicated.

 

[tonym]

When you are at war with evil monsters, the general rule (in my world) is they all get killed--regardless of age.

However, I think killing younglings and the elderly is extremely unfun. Who wants to roleplay that? So the answer is: Kill the evil younglings and elderly, but make it fast, and roll no dice. Just say you kill them, and they are dead.

DM: Good job, you just killed the last warrior in the orc village. The victory is yours!

Player: Dang, that was a tough battle. Let's loot some bodies!

DM: Oh, one more thing. Do you finish the job? There are younglings and elderly...

Player: Um...I don't know. Younglings and elderly...

DM: Killing young and old monsters is customary. It will have no effect on your alignment, and will cause no raised eyebrows from the civilized world. But it is your choice. If you want to build an orphanage and...

Player: No; that costs money. We finish the job. Now back to the looting...


Tony M

 

[monkeynova]

Frequently good = stupid, and completely out of touch with the reality of the brutally violent world they live in. Its as if the gods of good want their believers to be destroyed or at best rely on waek plot contrivances that allow the good aligned soul to skirt any of the real consequences of war and the very violence that is rampant in fantasy gaming.

In Weapons of Legacy, there was the item Hammer of Witches was created by a cleric of Pelor for an un-Pelorlike purpose (hunting down and killing those who use arcane magic) which caused some amount of consternation in the church because they couldn't understand how Pelor would allow such an item to exist. In the book, part of the history of the item involves its use against a temple of Boccob.

I really think that good-aligned players would be well served by reading at least the first chapter or two of BoED; yes, the standards of good are high, but it does a good job of outlining the things you should consier as a good-aligned player. I know the next time I play a paladin or devout character, I'm going to borrow liberally from chapter one in defining my character's views of good and evil, and how the character should act.

monkeynova

 

[Falkus]

The soft sensibilites of our era IMO would have nothing to do with it.

Why not? The alignment system is clearly based on modern ethics. Slavery is evil, racial discrimination and violence is evil, etc.

It's preposterous to suggest that a human child has the same potential for evil as a kobold.

And it's preposterous to suggest that a kobold, raised in a proper environment, would be just as likely to become evil as if it was raised by other kobold raiders.

and kobolds exist at the whim of their evil god with the purpose of spreading further evil.

Deekin would disagree.

 

[Sundragon2012]

It is important to note for the nature vs. nurture question that a useful model to consider would be that culture doesn't just mold character, it reflects the natural character of the race in question forming a vicious cycle in which members of a race that is intrinsically cruel and violent has these natural qualities reinforced throughout its entire life by others around them.

The entire culture exists to support and reinforce the worst qualities of a already violent nature.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

And it's preposterous to suggest that a kobold, raised in a proper environment, would be just as likely to become evil as if it was raised by other kobold raiders.

Maybe, maybe not.

I remember reading in Dragonlance Legends trilogy how a young ogre was taken in by a loving human family. The creature was prone to anger but was managable and seemed like it could be raised to be a member of society.

Well once the creature hit puberty it got more evil minded until it slit its human "parents" throats while they slept because they had something he wanted. He ended up, I believe, a gladiator in the arena of Istar.

It all depends on the assumptions of the DM and the setting. Maybe, even if a race isn't inherently evil it may be inherently mean, cruel, viscious, predatory, etc. Certain dog species and wild animals such as bears can be raised by loving owners and still turn on them killing them brutally for the slightest reason or seemingly for no reason at all.

Now, of course we are dealing with creatures of a higher degree of sentience than dogs and bears but all creatures have instincts such as the reproductive urge. These instincts can theoretically be overcome, but only a tiny portion of a given population can ever hope to fully overcome the desire for sex for example. Most who stay celibate never overcome the desire for sex, because it is harwired but they don't act on it (in theory).

An argument can be made that creatures like drow, orcs, goblins, ogres have certain instinctive natures that make them naturally more agressive, predatory, cruel, etc. than humans, dwarves or elves. Culture does not merely create character and shape values, it reflects, at least in part, the nature of the species. Read Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything for a good discussion about this.


Chris

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And it's preposterous to suggest that a kobold, raised in a proper environment, would be just as likely to become evil as if it was raised by other kobold raiders.

No, it's not preposterous, because we're talking about D&D.

If you want to change the core assumptions of the game world, that's another matter. But D&D is very specifically designed to demonstrate a clash of Good and Evil. It suffuses the entire design. You may deviate from this design to present your players with complex moral conundrums, but that isn't the default. (Compare D&D alignment with D20 Modern allegiances-- very different.)

Assuming we're back on the same frame of reference, what you're essentially suggesting is that a lion raised by sheep will learn to eat grass.

Again, that may be true in your campaign-- not for me to judge. But unless you change the frame of reference, I'd say you were being silly.

 

[Dr. Harry]

These therads tend to get garbled, and somewhat nasty, from a couple of reasons:

1) People who hate alignment and think those people who use it are stupid, and look for contrived means to set up a situation, or,

2) People don't realize that there fixed, definite, and cut-and-dried definition about what the "Lawful Good" thing to do has to be might not be what someone else thinks it is .

I'm not saying that is what is happening now, but it will probably happen before the thread is over.

Your example has set up a situation in which (apparently) the forces of good have destroyed a tribe of humanoids to such a level that any orc (or whatever) capable of providing for the tribe has been destroyed. This is in itself a contrived situation, but it might be a helpful one, we'll see. Obviously, in most cases, even a full defeat of an attacking horde will not result in the complete destruction of the horde, so the young are not just abandoned in the wild.

But suppose that happened. Assuming that humanoids have the same level of free will that huamns and demihumans are expected to have, it would not only be "good", but also expedient to transfer the young to a missionary organization for the purposes of raisong them. This has real-world parallels. If the clash happened because human/deimhuman civizations were encrouching upon humanoid lands, the humanoids would probably be dumped on some equivalent of a reservation. The culture might end, and the tribe would stand an excellent chance of dying out, but not through violence.

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.

See above, if and only if the raid actually did kill *all* of the capable adults. If this sort of thing happens commonly in a campaign, the actions of "good" are the least of your realism worries.

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.

A missionary/reservation system would not go to quite the ridiculously extreme length of considering foster families for each goblin child, etc.

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?

My players have never had a point in which this has happened because even the craziest orcs in my world don't leave the kids sitting out on the hillside while they go rampaging, nor do they fight until every last one of them is dead.

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?

Perhaps the better question would be if they could ever *start* an aggressive war. After all, if they just sit back when they or their allies are attacked, there would still be suffering inflicted upon the helpless. Answering this question as I see it might be a mistake in this thread as this decision is connected to a number of current political topics.

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?

If they don't build orphanages, but send missionaries to the humanoid villages, this is not a problem.

 

[Falkus]

I remember reading in Dragonlance Legends trilogy how a young ogre was taken in by a loving human family. The creature was prone to anger but was managable and seemed like it could be raised to be a member of society.

And I remember reading about Shield of Innocence, the orcish paladin, in the Forgotten Realms novel War in Tethyr.

If you want to change the core assumptions of the game world, that's another matter. But D&D is very specifically designed to demonstrate a clash of Good and Evil. It suffuses the entire design. You may deviate from this design to present your players with complex moral conundrums, but that isn't the default.

And what's that got to do with nature versus nurture? Demons and devils are naturally evil, no argument here, but I will maintain that the evil in orcs, kobolds and the like is cultural, not instinctive.

Assuming we're back on the same frame of reference, what you're essentially suggesting is that a lion raised by sheep will learn to eat grass.

Funny, the last time I checked, digestive systems and biological processes were considered to be somewhat different than moral codes.

 

[haakon1]

I wonder if Gondor and Rohan would open up foster homes for orcish kiddies orphaned in the war that could have destroyed mankind?

If Tolkien wrote about Legolas and Aragorn as baby-killers, I don't think his books would have sold.

It's funny that you accuse folks who want heroic heroes of being modern, politically correct, moral relativism, modern values, yadda yadda.

I think it's the opposite -- PLAYERS who want to have their PC's rape, torture prisoners, murder kids, etc. are getting treated with the modern values, politically correct, moral relativism (but the orcs were terrorist), politically correct kid gloves. "It's just a game." "I was playing my character." Well, I'm not interested in excuses. I'm a moral absolutist of the old school -- do evil stuff that's repulsive to me, and I don't care if it's in character -- I don't want to associate with people whose fantasy is to be do evil. Having justice served in character and then not inviting you to roll up a new character seems appropriate to me.