Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sundragon2012" data-source="post: 2554103" data-attributes="member: 7624">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</blockquote>

Verification