Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4657404" data-attributes="member: 15538">In my games, I assume the PCs are individuals of action, and hence must sometimes act with expediency. That sometimes means bringing the horrors of war. At the same time, I don't like to get mired in endless philosophical debates. I like to challenge my players, but I like to do it in such a way that they have to make a decision, and there are no easy outs.Recently, my players got to wrestle with what to do with a women impregnated by a dark god whose demon child was able to possess her and control her when it suited its purposes (see Tainted Scion in Heroes of Horror). Initially, it seemed like they were going to simply smoke her and hope they got away with it, despite her being a highborn noble. But by the end of the discussion, they decided that even the Neutral characters were not okay with making her collateral as long as any other possible course of action existed. They took her into custody, kept her secluded until the child was born, and had the child adopted/imprisoned by a friendly NPC. In this way, they avoided killing the mother, and avoided killing a baby, even one that was really and truly cursed with evil. I was comfortable playing it either way, with the PCs as ruthless executioners fighting something evil, or with them deciding to act out of mercy. In the end, they decided to choose the take the hardest possible road, sparing the child because it was evil but still innocent.  I thought that it was a very worthwhile play experience and a nice break from the usual Special Forces type scenarios I tend to have with my players.I think there is value in having orcs that are dangerous but not intrinsically evil. I think there is also value in having them intrinsically evil. I think you can do a lot with making them basically evil but capable of more under the right circumstances. All of these are different stories, different opportunites.Also, I tend to make a distinction between Good versus Evil and "right" versus "wrong." D&D spells out good as altruism and evil as psychopathy. I am very comfortable being that literally true in a fantasy world, with good or evil acts literally energizing you with some supernatural force. And yet I'm not going to say someone would always be "wrong" for choosing to perform a callous, selfish act that causes suffering. The world is a rough place. Likewise, is it always "right" to follow the dictates of alignment? What if Bahamut appeared in front of a paladin and informed him that so-and-so was completely evil and should be smote, but the paladin recoiled at the idea of assassinating someone and possibly causing a chain of events that led to the suffering of other people besides the named villain?  What if a Good deity declared that the world would be better off without orcs? I mean, it might be true, and if you are a Good deity, you might be bound to act on that knowledge.</blockquote>

Verification