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

[Falkus]

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.

Yet they don't actually do anything that would be effective to resolve the problem (occupation, integration and assimilation). That's how it works in history. If you make your enemy part of you, that makes you that much more stronger.

 

[Shoon]

Humans are dogs, orcs are bears.

A dog puppy is cute. A bear puppy is also cute (in fact, more so).

A dog puppy, if grown properly, will become your friend. If treated badly, it won't. If it is tortured, it will try to kill you.

A grown bear will try to kill you, no matter the cost. You have to kill it, if you want to survive.

 

[humble minion]

I think from a game perspective it's important to remember that your paladin PC isn't going to be the first person who's thought about this. Surely there's Wis 19, Knowledge (religion) +20 high priests hanging around somewhere that he can seek the counsel (and commune[/] spells - "Hey Pelor, just what AM I supposed to do with all these orc babies?") of, or at the very least some writings of renowned saints and such from the past. Paladins are lawful, so they should have considerable respect for doctrine and precedent.

Of course, this is just shorthand for "Ask the GM what constitutes 'good' in his game world?", but them's the breaks. Personally I'm of the opinion that in the real world there is no objective 'good' and 'evil' and that morality is just a human construct that evolved as an effort to make everybody's lives better. But in D&D world, when spells can have the 'good' descriptor and affect different creatures differently because of it, it's pretty obvious that my real world beliefs don't apply. So I've just got to run with that - it's just a game after all, and I don't play it to debate philosophy all the time...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Humans are dogs, orcs are bears.

A dog puppy is cute. A bear puppy is also cute (in fact, more so).

A dog puppy, if grown properly, will become your friend. If treated badly, it won't. If it is tortured, it will try to kill you.

A grown bear will try to kill you, no matter the cost. You have to kill it, if you want to survive.

I think you forgot to put "In my campaign which uses my own fantasy race ideas rather than the monster manual" at the beginning of this...

 

[Sundragon2012]

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.

This might surprise you, but to an extent I agree with you.

The OP was brought up to bring forth a striking example of the disconnect between the bloodthirsty often rollicking, swashbuckling violence in the game and what really happens when the good-guys need to take the battle to the bad guys in a terrible and serious fashion. The questions I pose are for individual DMs to consider and discuss.

In the OP do you see me making light of anything at all or in any way supporting the random slaughter of children of any kind? I have not and would not do this. I am making a point and that point is that sometimes in violence there are unintended consequences and how dealing with those unintended consequences fits into core D&D assumptions in a world where there is no fosterage for hundreds or more orphaned offspring of slain humanoids and sometimes the choices are as grim as that or at least once in a while should be IMO.

The OP is also intended to spark discussion of common D&D controversies like creatures being born evil or not, will dwarves or elves take care of orphaned orcs with nowhere else to go, are humanoids morally like humans but raised in bad homes, what is PC responsibility in regards to the enemy prisoners who cannot be reformed, etc.

When I say modern sensibilities.....I mean modern sensibilities because the fact is the it doesn't matter what Aquinas said, soldiers of a preyed upon people will mercilessly slaughter their enemies if given the chance if they have been subject to butchery, rape and atrocities at the hands of those enemies....in this case evil humanoids. Alignment be damned, no group en masse, no matter what their professed alignment is going to NOT destroy the villages of marauding orcs in order to prevent further hordes for the sake of their professed philosophy. Individuals yes, groups, no way.

My argument is that because of the nature of the threat that these good folk are not suddenly evil, they are preserving their lives, their children't lives and their homes from a threat that swarmed out of the woods every 10-15 yrs. Because the orcs will not leave the woods and mountaind peacably, they would be annihilated to a one unless they had the wits to leave. If they did get away, atacked again later, and were again defeated, the humans, dwarves and elves would probably do everything in their power to make sure this time they didn't get away.

I say modern sensibilities because in most settings there are no resources designed to re-educate evil humanoids except steel and Art. There are no detainment camps, no psychologists and no orphans homes for those whose parents are slaughtered deservedly for their constant savagery. When there is nothing left and all that remains is a choice of dooms, sometimes the greatest mercy the goodly folk can do for those that remain is a swift and painless death.

Elves, dwarves and human lands bordering humanoid lands would see baby humanoids as one thing only.....the seed that will sprout a tree that will bear the fruit of fire, death and suffering perhaps this time of their kin. I have little or no doubt that most of these goodly folk would have similar qualms with putting the sword to humanoid babes as they would to the killing of baby rats.

Is that nice, no. Is that believable....yes, especially considering how some races like dwarves in FR have suffered near extinction at the hands of these types of creatures.



Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Yet they don't actually do anything that would be effective to resolve the problem (occupation, integration and assimilation). That's how it works in history. If you make your enemy part of you, that makes you that much more stronger.

Maby in Eberron, but in most settings elves, dwarves and humans are not assimilating orcs, ogres, hobgoblins and whatnot save as slaves in regions where such is the practice. Assimilation works on earth because we are all human beings whose natures, within a broad variance, is the fundamentally the same.

You can't make these assumptions about evil humanoid races. They are different because psychologically and physically they are different.

The inhabitants of most settings would annihilate as opposed to assimilate and that includes good folks because its often the good folk whose homes are always being set aflame, their sons killed and their daughters ravished by these brutes. Assimilation may seem like an option for some small minority in nations or people but the majority of any nation or race in most settings wouldn't accept this.


Chris

 

[Falkus]

Maby in Eberron, but in most settings elves, dwarves and humans are not assimilating orcs, ogres, hobgoblins and whatnot

Well, maybe they should be.

You can't make these assumptions about evil humanoid races. They are different because psychologically and physically they are different.

Nurture over nature. Hell, the monstrous manual backs me up, not all orcs are evil.

The inhabitants of most settings would annihilate as opposed to assimilate and that includes good folks because its often the good folk whose homes are always being set aflame, their sons killed and their daughters ravished by these brutes. Assimilation may seem like an option for some small minority in nations or people but the majority of any nation or race in most settings wouldn't accept this.

Since when do they have to accept it? Most of these nations are monarchies, there is no public opinion poll. The leaders aren't answerable to the people. And the leaders are interested in increasing their own power.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hell, the monstrous manual backs me up, not all orcs are evil.

Where does it say that?

Here's a hint: it doesn't.

It says that orcs are "Often Chaotic Evil."

You take that to mean that, occasionally, some orcs are Lawful Good.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, though. For all the information given, it could just as well mean "More than 50% of orcs are CE, and the rest are Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil."

In other words, the MM doesn't back you up in your claims. It might - but then again, it might not.

 

[Beowolf]

This is an intriging thread and everyone has posted some excellent thoughts and views. now i would like to humbly contribute

sundragons has mad many points that killing the offspring is the only way to prevent the death of one's own people, and has shown several settings where such a thing is the norm.
one way we could see thoses actions is that even the elves , dwarves ect see it as evil and wrong but do it because of the above idea. they dont like it and probably regret it or feel guilty but they still would probably do it simply because of the possible consequences. in short -its not a good thing but something that has to be done
if the situation was reversed and the orcs won we would see their killing of the young as an evil act so why should it be not the same if the good guys do it. for that matter what if the enemy wasnt some savage orc tribes but an evil human empire that raises its children to be brutal killers. would the good guys kill a child of a thourghly evil civilisation because when that child grows up he will kill more people form the good guys country?
would dwarves abvocate slaughtering duegar helpless
would elves seek to kill drow kids .... both are inherently evil culturly and religiously

in regards to the idea of an intrinsicly evil culture and religion equals/ natual instincts = evil
it was said that we would have no problems with killing roaches and that lions will continue to consume meat. both are absolutely true but the differece between these examples and the orcs in question is that both the roach amd lion are not self-aware they have no choice in their actions or thoughts, they only follow instinct . the orcs on the other hand are sentient and thus have freedom of choice and as such can become good given the proper inviroment.
though it is reasonable to assume that orc children would be more likely to grow up evil simply because of biological proneness to anger or violence


just a few thoughts .. excuse the spelling and grammar

 

[Ibram]

Well I can only speak from my experience...

I doubt very much that my players would go around knifing baby orcs through the throat, though I'll have to bring that up in a game to see what they would do...

"you see an orc moving through the woods!"

players cut the orc down

"while searching the body of the orc woman you find a bundle of cloth wraped around a softly crying orc babe..."

As a general rule I dont use mortal creatures as absolute evil/good, its just dull in my experience... "The Orcs attack, um, because they are Orcs... yea" or "After years of raids by both sides the Orc clans have finaly united to take back the lands taken from their ancestors by the Dwarven Kingdoms" makes for a more interesting game.