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

[Falkus]

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."

What it means is that orcs have free will, and that their alignment (unlike angels and demons and devils and whatever) is not ingrained, therefore, it is the result of moral decisions, and therefore, with the proper upbrining, an orc could be just as likely to be as good as a human.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What it means is that orcs have free will, and that their alignment (unlike angels and demons and devils and whatever) is not ingrained, therefore, it is the result of moral decisions, and therefore, with the proper upbrining, an orc could be just as likely to be as good as a human.

Er, no.

Or rather, sure, it could mean that.

It could also mean "Orcs have an ingrained Evil alignment. Some cultural variances cause them to drift closer to or farther from Chaos, but they cannot escape their Evil natures."

So, no, generally speaking, it doesn't support that view, either.

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

As an aside, let me say you have a veeery strange view of bears. :\ People have been taming bears and other dangerous animals for all of recorded history. Heck, try to catch Growing Up Grizzly on Animal Planet to see the most adorable grizzly bears play-wrestling with their owners and eating ice cream. They're the nicest, friendliest animals you could want to know. Just really big and too strong for their own good.

Back on topic, most people seem to be advancing one of the two options I pointed out. Either orcs are naturally evil due to divine mandate and their unbreakable innate character, or they're free willed sentients who have every chance of assimilating into a less evil culture if given the chance. If the first is true then allowing a single orc to survive might be an Evil act. If the second is true then murdering innocent children is absolutely an Evil act. The debate is over which is true.

As Patryn points out, the Core D&D books don't make a judgement. They leave the topic to the campaign worlds. In ones where Evil is a tangible cosmic force, like Middle Earth or Krynn, orcs are innately Evil end of story. In one where the gods are more distant and alignment felt less strongly, like Eberron and many homegames, orcs and other "often evil" races have much greater freedom to take on new cultures. Like all questions that come down to setting instead of mechanics there is no single right answer.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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.

The term you might be looking for is 'collateral damage'. It's more widely applicable than to the quoted text, too. Whenever you're in doubt, use it!

 

[Ibram]

Here is what the MM has to say on the subject of the word "Often" in relation to allignment

"Often: The creature tends towards the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A Plurality (40-50%) of indiciduals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."

That makes no mention of what the other alignments might be, leaving it entierly in the hands of the DM to decide. Indeed a close reading seems to indicate that there is a slightly greater chance that you would encounter a non-evil orc (since the 50% is at the extream end of the range).

It also says that this is by nature or nurture, again leaving it in the hands of the DM to decide the reasons the Orcs alignment.

Interestingly enough after reading the section on alignment in the MM (pg 305 in 3.5) it appears that Orcs have more free will in determining their actions then Elves do... Elves have the "Usually" descriptor added on to their allignment, and are used as an example of how that works:

"Usually: The Majority (more then 50%) of these creatures have the given allignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example, most elves inherited their Chaotic Good allignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian."

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Interestingly enough after reading the section on alignment in the MM (pg 305 in 3.5) it appears that Orcs have more free will in determining their actions then Elves do... Elves have the "Usually" descriptor added on to their allignment, and are used as an example of how that works:

"Usually: The Majority (more then 50%) of these creatures have the given allignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example, most elves inherited their Chaotic Good allignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian."

So a elven paladin (two allignment steps away from chaotic good) is, barring special campaign considerations, less realistic than a chaotic good orc....

In my campaigns, generally speaking, orcs are not inherently evil, they just lost. They were pushed out of the most livable areas thousands of years ago by the (now) civilized races, and exist in the 'badlands' type regions. Their lives are harsh and brutal and if they manage to make or find anything that would make their lives easier, you can bet that an expansion of civilization will push them away from it pretty soon. A plurality of the individual orcs have embraced this brutality of circumstance and have a matching brutality of character, and while no one needs to go "oh poor them, its ok if you raid our farm" neither are their children wriggling biting spawn that you can "put down" with a sense of moral satisfaction.

That's my campaign. Its just as valid by RAW as anyone else's, and if it ever came up, a war crime is a war crime no matter who does it.

As for the alternatives... the standard D&D world does not have orphanages and hospices and all that sort of thing to deal with the survivors of war, it's true. Nor does the standard D&D world have bathrooms or midwives. So if you decided to focus part of your story on the fighter's bad food choices in a light hearted moment, or a pregnant noblewoman in a more serious one, would you continue to assume those things simply don't exist? If you want to explore that aspect of war, just pull aside the curtain and reveal that side of your world that the PCs usually don't see.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In my campaign it's easily decided. I have Orcs as inherently Lawful Evil (C&C & 1E alignment), as they were created thusly by Grummish and are not as freewilled as Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, or Elves. The evil humaniods(Orcs, Goblinoids, Kobalds, etc.) were created by thier chief dieties as extensions of thier own self and power on the prime plane. There is some freewill involved, but its not nearly as strong as it is in the PC races. Grummish didn't create Orcs out of love and need to see his children thirve so they can be happy. He created them to glorify himself and to serve his desires and whims and to project his will onto other races on the prime. He views his own creations as quasi-slaves to him, and his priests do everything they can to weed out those showing "un-orcish" behaviorial traits. This is why the 1/2 Orc Paladin in my game is always fighting against his murderous impulses...he feels the blood call to mayhem, conquest, and destruction(according to the player).

But its all up to the DM and the game style. We are oldshoolers and not interested in doing character studies or examining the implications of adventuring and the plight of the poor monsters harrassed by the mean PC's.

 

[Quasqueton]

Lawful Good orcs make baby Gruumsh cry very damn angry.

Quasqueton

 

[Darth Mikey]

R E A L I T Y C H E C K ! ! !

Please note that this post is NOT in response to any one previous post or poster in particular.


When D&D started out, it was a simple game of hack-n-slash, loosely bound with some plots and bits of story-line. Read some of the original modules. It was most often a game of kill-the-monster-steal-its-treasure. This was justified because you had ALIGNMENT, which was definite. A "chaotic" monster (basic D&D) or "chaotic evil" (1st ed. AD&D) was literally evil, from birth, and always would be evil. Even if it wasn't attacking you, it would given the chance. Thus, it was okay to slay it.

30 years later, people ask for more out of their RPG's. Now players want humanoid characters and the Good vs. Evil has morphed into a spectrum of grey. Alignment is no longer "certain". While this has broadened the horizons of the game it has also allowed moral issues in. What happens to the non-combatants? How do you define good and evil?

I've not played D&D for some time (I've been playing Shadowrun, then Star Wars D20 for about five years) but when I did play we abandoned the non-combatants. Here's why.

1) We did not want to kill babies and old people. So we didn't.

2) Most humanoids (in our game) valued the women and young. Therefore, survivors of a PC encounter could count on being taken in by other tribes. The women did much of the work as well as "entertainment" and the young were enslaved and/or used for cannon fodder. Additionally, we assumed that they could all run like hell.

3) When the characters stormed a lair, we only fought those that resisted. If the females resisted, they were treated as males. I do not ever remember children offering resistance. I also do not remember any time where ALL adults were killed.


I'm going to give three pieces of advice here, mainly because I can. So there.

1) As a group, set your limits.
Make it known what everyone wants and does not want in a game. If some players don't want to kill non-combatants then make it known. Also set out the cosmology of the setting regarding certainty of Alignment and such.

2) Never forget that it's a game.
You don't want to be losing sleep because the party abandoned a group of baby kobolds. If the game is disturbing you change the style of play. If the players are disturbing you change the players. The game is supposed to be entertaining and fun. If it is not, then something is wrong.

3) Remember the spirit of the game.
D&D was intended to be a game of high fantasy and high adventure. What would you rather play, a scenario where you burst into the dungeon, slay the bad guys and rescue the prisoners, or one where you follow procedure, negotiate for the prisoners release, petition the courts, secure housing and foster care for the displaced and provide counseling for the losers?

Hope all that makes sense.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

3) Remember the spirit of the game.
D&D was intended to be a game of high fantasy and high adventure. What would you rather play, a scenario where you burst into the dungeon, slay the bad guys and rescue the prisoners, or one where you follow procedure, negotiate for the prisoners release, petition the courts, secure housing and foster care for the displaced and provide counseling for the losers?

Good point. Remember we aren't playing some White Wolf game here people! Kill them and take thier stuff!!!