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

[Sundragon2012]

When I was running the Sunless Citadel I think there were about 40 or so Kobalds living in the Citadel. They were all EVIL! Evil I say!!! And thus they were slain.

Orcs..well as Tolkien's orcs spraing from Morgoth and were forever tainted by his evil thus were Greyhawk's orcs foreve tainted and thus slayable.

It seems that some DMs are applying modern psychological and developmental theory to their "evil" aligned creatures. This manner of thinking states that if you raise em' right, they'll be upstanding. Well, human psychology puts the lie to that argument when three siblings raised in a healthy home become very different people both morally and ethically. Now, maybe one or two may have moral values very similar to the parents, while the other(s) have very different outlooks, values, and overall character.

Now lets translate this into the gulf between completely different species. There is no reason to believe that creatures listed as usually evil do not have a fundamentally different psychology that humans. Now there may be and I am sure are, similarities, but to make them nearly exactly the same as humans IMO is foolish and is a personal preference that is demonstrated nowhere in fantasy literature or in the game itself.

Amongst humans, great evil is abnormal.
Amongst elves and dwarves, great evil is an utter abberation.
Amongst orcs, goblins, hill giants, etc. good is an abberation.
Amongst evil dragons, beholders, illithids, etc. good is nearly utterly non-existant.

See a pattern here anybody?

The baseline for humans is that for humans and the factors that make humans so philosophically versatile is because of HUMAN psychology that creates human cultures.

The reason elves and dwarves are the way they are due to elven and dwarven psychology that creates their cultures.

Those races tending to evil are the way they are because of certain intrinsic traints of their own psychology that creates their cultures.

Then toss in that their are gods who are actively working to keep things the way they are in most settings, you have a recipe for a reliable, if not completely exact, baromter of what to expect from a given race. Things are nowhere near so simplistic as "those poor orcs, if only they were raised with love and care they would all turn out just like sweet, loving human children." Hell, human children don't turn out full of light and sunshine even if raised in a loving environment. Why do we assume orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, drow, etc. would?

The exception is never the rule and just because some extremely tiny fraction of a given race turns out good despite the probabilities otherwise is no argument against an intrinsic wickedness in a given species.


Chris

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

This is true for your game but it might not be true in someone else's game. I have played in a game where a tribe of kobolds had turned away from evil and now worshipped Pelor none of the kobolds detected as evil.

And I would have to say human children raised in an evil corrupt society would most likely be evil how would they know that there was a different way to be.

 

[Conaill]

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.

Then again, I don't see an entry under "Lion" in the MM that says: "Food: Often eats meat".

Orcs are listed as "Alignment: Often chaotic evil". Not even Usually chaotic evil, mind you! So in standard, canonical D&D, you should be more likely to find a Good-aligned Orc than a Good-aligned Drow (which are Usually neutral evil). If races in your world have different alignment defaults as in the D&D RAW, I have no problem with that. Feel free to change the Alignment line under Orcs to "Always irredeemably Evil" for all I care. But saying that orc children are as likely to be non-evil as lions are to be vegetarian is not exactly what I would call standard D&D.


Let's simplify the discussion somewhat, and do away with all the stereotypes people are carrying around in their own game world...


Let's say your paladin is faced with a juvenile creature of a race with "Alignment: Often evil". By definition, not all members of that race will be Evil. You could assume that individuals are born with the alignment they will have as adults, in which case you can just zap them with Detect Evil and slay the bad ones on sight. Otherwise, juveniles of the species can presumably go either way when it comes to alignment (although with a bias towards one end of the spectrum), and it may be possible to guide them towards some preferred alignment.

 

[Elf Witch]

First of all unless you are doing and all out war why would most bands of humanoid have there young with them so the point would be moot.

In and all out war I see the humans killing older, young, helpless. I also see some not caring and leaving babies to starve to death.

Unless they take them as slaves or if there is some proff that the young won't turn evil.

I think how the PCs handle it depends on not just if they are good or neutal but their class. A druid for example may say let the wild animals come and eat them it is nature's way. A paladin may feel that it is unhonorable for him to slaughter unarmed noncombatants. A fighter cleric of St Cuthbert may wade in sword swinging.

War is hell let me ask this question what if the war is between humans how do you handle what happens to the losers are the babies thrown from the wall and all the men and elderly killed and the woman and children who can work are taken as slaves? That has historical basis.

 

[Sejs]

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.

Generally the impact is similar to that which occurs to a real-world settlement when a war comes around and kills off all the able-bodied combatants. Either the non-coms carry on and life sucks for a while and the population eventually refills, or they end up merging into another settlement's population nearby. This is assuming another, neighboring group doesn't roll by and incorporate them on its own initiative.

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.

That's a very distinctly modernistic viewpoint, one that's right up there with subduing evil-doers and bundling them off to the 'proper authorities', presumably so they can be carted off to prison. Taking up enemy war orphans and placing them in some sort of foster care program falls squarely into the same category.

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?

Well, first off, in my games a group isn't made up solely of combatants and helpless children. There are non-combatants even amongst warrior societies such as those of orcs or hobgoblins. The elderly, the infirm, those too young to fight but able to fend for themselves, and those who flat out just arn't warriors. To take a note from Warcraft, peons whose job it is to chop lumber, quarry stone, raise pigs, build buildings, farm crops, and any of the myriad other jobs that are needed to make a society work that arn't done by the beefy guys who're primarily concerned with the kicking of asses. After all the fighters have fallen, they're the people who carry on. Chances are they'd probably end up merging with other decimated groups for mutual survival. They'd probably end up moving to a new location, or rebuilding if it's a viable option. The orphans of those wars of attrition would be raised by other surviving members of their own societal group. Bobby Orc's mom and dad were killed in the fighting against the Thorncrown elves. Now Bobby Orc and his older sister live with Greg Orc's family.

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?

Almost certainly not, and to do so would be foolish from a sociopolitical viewpoint. You'd be raising an entire sub-community within your own society that will hate and revile you. That's just asking for trouble. Assuming some kind of major decimation such that the remains of the defeated enemy could not carry on under their own power, they would most likely wind up as refugees in some third, neutral nation. They either take care of themselves, or they go to someone who wasn't directly involved. They certainly do not run to the people who just killed the bejesus out of their family and friends and ask for help.

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?

They most certainly can. I don't see Create Food anywhere on a paladin's spell list, but I certainly do see that they get Smite Evil. Paladins are soldiers. They are not social workers. "I'm sorry, I can't stop that orcish horde that's rolling over the countryside raping, burning, and looting as it goes - stopping them will create orphans, and I can't have that on my conscience." I don't bloody well think so.

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?

Short answer: no, they are not expected to. As for where, see above statements on survivors.

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?

Again, above. These societies do not exist in a vacuum.

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?

As the saying goes, War is Hell. It carries with it a lot of unpleasantness that has to be dealt with in the aftermath

War and its repercussions, however are, on their own, neutral on the good-evil axis. Just because something is bad, or not pleasant, or uncomfortable, or inconvienant, does not, and I can't stress this enough, not make it evil. Burning to death sure is a bad thing, but does that make fire evil? No, of course not. Cancer does horrible things to someone afflicted with it, but does that make cancer evil? No, just tragic.

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?

This may come across as rather harsh, but take it in stride, one DM to another: you run a pretty myopic game. Honestly, if you're interested in running a game where there are realistic consequences for violence, read up on our own history and look for general trends. It's been my experience that the more realistic and 'living' you can make your game world feel to those involved, the more everyone seems to enjoy it.

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

Fair enough. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Psionicist]

These topics are cool.

Lets take a mosquito. It tries to suck your blood. You kill it? Do you care at all about the mosquitos age?

Lets take the creepy wandering brain monster in psionics handbook. It's standing there, doing disgusting brain thingies. You kill it? Do you care about how old it is?

How about some kind of snake monster. Lots of icky snakes. You kill them? All? Or do you spare the really small snakes?

How about beholders. These things are magically evil! You kill them? All of them? Spare no one?

See where I'm getting at?

If I kill a pig, no one will care much about it. What if I kill a dog? Does it hurt yet? What about a really cute puppy who vuws you, mind if I kill it? A puppys life is worth more than the life of a mosquito or fly according to most people.

So, the problem with orc kids is they resemble human kids. They are not just small snakes or semi-brains (or whatever they are called). Thus, they are harder to kill.

Do you kill the young orcs?

Lets ask this question again: Did you kill the small snakes / brains?



The easy fix is to make orc children even more ruthless and bloodthirsty than their parents. Or make them only have one leg or something other weird and not-human-like. It's easier that way.

 

[Dr. Harry]

I am saying that using human nature as a baseline might be a foolish assumption and that as I said before:

" 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."

Okay, now we have an illustration of the fundamental gulf in the positions. You seem to be saying that the nature of humanoids ids to loot and destroy and kill and maim, etc., and that is so deeply a part of their nature that it is downright biological, such that (to you) the idea of them doing anything different is on a par with cockroaches being friends and lions becoming beneficial. Speaking for myself, the reason why this is not how things are in my campaign is that I use humanoids as three-dimensional opponents, and that evil is (I feel) scarier and more alarming to the players if it is actual and consciously chosen. Delibarate evil, as opposed to simply an animalistic savagery. I use animals for that.

What evidence is there that entire species who have been, for millenia, evil that somewhere deep inside is anything remotely human in regard to intrinsic nature and capacity for love, compassion and empathy? There is no reason to assume this. In fact there is every reason to assume that there is something different regarding temperment and instinct that makes these creatures tend toward a cruel and warlike nature. I think my argument is bolstered by the fact that in fantasy settings these creatures are 95% likely to be evil and have always been this way and have dieties who actively promote that state both psychologically and culturally.

Obviously, you can set up your campaign any way you want. I am going to try and address this for two reasons. (1) I don't think that it is quite as silly as you seem to think it is to say that the culture that the orcs, etc., live in has a strong effect on their attitudes, and (2) the only value in discussing about whose campaign is closer to the basic design decisions of the game is in the framework of the base rules and future rules & "stuff".

In your discussions, you properly use conditional phrases "tending ...", even "95% likely", but then you demand that the discussion take place in absolutes, such that you imply that the "standard" orc, if removed as an infant and brought up outside of orc culture would naturally have instincts toward violence and mayhem, as strongly as a lion is compeled by biological nature to eat meat. I think that there was a conscious movement away from what I perceive your game point of view to be, since it can collapse down into a simplistic hack 'n slash. Hence the use of qulaifiers in the alignments in the MM.

All arguements against this are using human nature as a baseline but I see that as an error because the creatures we are discussing have, in all settings I am aware of, been utterly wicked and cruel. Claiming that deep inside a orc child is a sweet, loving human child is demonstrated nowhere in gaming or literature and is countered by the very reality of these creatures being nearly universally evil no matter where they appear (with very few exceptions).

We use human nature because we only have one data point, so to speak, as far as intelligent cultures go. Also, since so much work has been done on human culture we can use other races to examine different aspects of humananity (admittedly, sometimes as caricatures.) This can give greater depth to the world and a feeling of verisimilitude.

I think that one of the reasons that I avoid the nature-over-nurture argument is that I have seen it used to justify racist atitudes. I am certainly *not* saying that you are doing anything like that, but I am not going to set up games to use something that disturbs and annoys me?

 

[Dr. Harry]

... (dangerous animals) ...

How about beholders. These things are magically evil! You kill them? All of them? Spare no one?

See where I'm getting at?

Only if the way that you run humanoids is as if they were merely reacting animals with no real ability to make conscious moral decisions. The beholders are a more interesting case, and if they are just mere evil obstacles to be overcome, then your setup is fine. I try and avoid this myself because there is a point at which the players might as well play computer RPG's if their are no actual decisions to be made beyond "is it of a type that we can automatically try and kill?

So, the problem with orc kids is they resemble human kids. They are not just small snakes or semi-brains (or whatever they are called). Thus, they are harder to kill.

The question is whether the orcs actually have what could be considered to be free will. If orcs are not free, independent creatures in the same way that humans are, then they're just somewhere between animals and demons.

The easy fix is to make orc children even more ruthless and bloodthirsty than their parents. Or make them only have one leg or something other weird and not-human-like. It's easier that way.

Just go ahead and do it they way you are doing it where the orcs are automatically evil and have no moral existence.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Generally the impact is similar to that which occurs to a real-world settlement when a war comes around and kills off all the able-bodied combatants. Either the non-coms carry on and life sucks for a while and the population eventually refills, or they end up merging into another settlement's population nearby. This is assuming another, neighboring group doesn't roll by and incorporate them on its own initiative.

...(snip for the sake of space)...

This may come across as rather harsh, but take it in stride, one DM to another: you run a pretty myopic game. Honestly, if you're interested in running a game where there are realistic consequences for violence, read up on our own history and look for general trends. It's been my experience that the more realistic and 'living' you can make your game world feel to those involved, the more everyone seems to enjoy it.

I am taking an example from things I have seen in games, where the good guys smash the orcish army that was raiding and pillaging and then, after being tired of being raided over and over again, take it to them. They go into the orcish lands and burn villages and root the violence out ar the source in order to prevent another horde from arising in another 10yrs. Sometimes war is about attrition, vengeance and about the ultimate removal of a persistant and pernicious threat.

My OP assumes that the tribe(s) have been decimated and their isn't anywhere to go and many of the females and wizened elder orcs had to fight as well in order to protect their homes from the human, elven and dwarven warriors. There is no support left for the survivors and in this case. Those orcish younglings who aren't fortunate enough to be spirited off are doomed. This is the premise. The premise is intentionally extreme for the purpose of the discussion. Is this kind of thing commonly encountered, probably not, but have I seen it...yes.

Also, because orcs are a savage tribal society there is a chance that the women may be allowed entry into otherwise rival tribes but that their children will be killed because no orcish warrior of a rival tribe is going to raise the whelp of his dead enemy. And orcs are fecund enough to not warrior about the fate of the able bodied kiddies they really don't want to raise anyway.

So the situation is fully and completely bleak for the orphans in the OP. It is intentionally so for the sake of the setup in order to being the desperate choice to light so we here can talk about it.

Myopic???? I am setting up a situation for the sake of a philosophical discussion regarding the believability of certain standards within the D&D game regarding alignment and whatnot when the DM presents a particularly unpleasant situation. This situation in no way reflects my campaign as a whole any more than one of my player's characters going on a drunken bender and groping serving maids is indicative that my entire campaign is based on alchohol.

I couldn't make my setting more meaningful or deep and compelling to my players if I tried. My 20yr track record with largely the same fantatically loyal core group, who I believe are themselves frustrated fantasy authors, demonstrates to me that I am doing everything I need to do.


Chris

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Warriors don't lower themselves to such things and whatnot but not a sense of sentimenatlism about the innocence of orcish childhood and such profoundly modern sensibilities.

I have to admit, it makes me a wee bit crazy when people try to claim that such a thing as not slaughtering the babies of your enemies is a modern sensibility.

In the History of the Pelopenician (sp) War, which I think takes place before the real middle ages, much less a culturally-twisted-by-magic one, the issue of killing the non combatants and surrendered soldiers of a particular town is debated at length, with the implication being that even if they didn't have the word, war crimes were already frowned upon. It was also debated on purely practical grounds, since the tactic of claiming that we don't have the luxury of clinging to outdated moral codes with our survival as a nation/culture at stake is apparently pretty old too.

St Thomas Aquinas, who was a papal advisor starting in 1259, theorized on the ideas of "just war", and the morality of ambushes. Morality in waging war and in its aftermath is not "modern", everything before the geneva convention was not blood drenched no holds barred mascacres of your enemies.

I think its foolish to assume that a world with vaugly middle ages tech but with magic, dragons, other senitent races and drect divine intervention would be expected to have a moral mindset typical of wester europe circa sort-of-middle-ages, but even worse are the assumptions people make about what that moral mindset should even be.