[D&D] On Morality

[andreww]

Recently I made the mistake of browsing through the EGG Q&A thread at ENWorld which can be found here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171753&page=11&pp=40).

One of the questions put to EGG was the perennial "what do paladins do with baby orcs." You can find the discussion on page 11.

The short answer, raise them to be good people, forcably extraxt confessions from them and then execute them.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Also, apparently, this is for their own good...

Note that the "converted" evil humanoid" is quite unlikely to remain so, will return to its evil ways, so thus the mercy killing by the paladin to assure that doesn't happen. It is all for the good of the subject of course.

As well as being acceptable amongst the rest of society.

That should pose no problem with those folk of the same persuation as the paladin, as they will understand and agree with that most caring dispatch of a reformed miscreant to a better place.

So, I am curious if this is how most gamers today see Paladins? I would be particularly interested to see how some of the old timers (I'm looking at you Geezer) deal with this issue.

[Craig Oxbrow]

Flippin' 'eck.

[Agent Oracle]

Why bother?

Seriously. Why bother trying to argue D&D's arbitrary alignment system?

It's a flippin' game!

If the GM sees fit to present the Paladin with moral quandries in order to make him fall, the player should just have the paladin coup de gras himself and play as a Knight instead. Get to be a right bastard as long as you fight fairly, in accordance with an extremely clearly defined code of conduct.

Now pass the beer & pretzels. I've got a marauding horde to take care of, one more level, and i can have my dire boar mount!

[John Morrow]

So, I am curious if this is how most gamers today see Paladins? I would be particularly interested to see how some of the old timers (I'm looking at you Geezer) deal with this issue.

I think this issue hinges on the issue of redemption. Are Evil creatures and their offspring free moral agents that might repent and do Good (or at least become Neutral)? If so, then the deserve the same treatment that would be accorded to a human being who can make that choice.

If, however, they are Evil by nature, irredeemable, and lack the capacity to be Good, then I think a Paladin gains nothing by sparing them because their fate is inevitable. You can't even put irredeemable creatures together because they will simply be Evil and cruel to each other. In essence, they are like mortal demons or devils who are Evil incarnate.

[Maedhros]

So, I am curious if this is how most gamers today see Paladins? I would be particularly interested to see how some of the old timers (I'm looking at you Geezer) deal with this issue.

The paladin's justifications, as described by EGG, are almost identical to those used by Catholic Inquisitors in the middle ages. I, for one, may consider the Inquisition to be Lawful, but by no stretch of imagination would I consider them Good.

The real issue is, of course, this: who cares what EGG says? It is the GMs duty to adjudicate player alignment drift (i.e. "morality"). It's your game - do as you wish.

[RSC]

Given who said that, I think I have all the ammo I will ever need to argue against alignments.

[Goblinardo]

Oh, I thought this was about converting nWoD Morality to D&D.

Hmm.... Ravenloft, perhaps?

[YorkusRex]

Whenever I get confused about D&D alignment morality, I just imagine Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi arm wrestling shirtless on the back of a killer whale.

In other words, I remember that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and deal with it best I can. Also: a drink or two to clear my thoughts.

[Opsimath]

If an orc is Evil by it's very nature, doesn't this convert-and-execute drill simply act as a metaphysical loophole by which Evil souls are sent to Good afterlives?

Unless, of course, orcs have variable-alignment souls but irredeemably Evil glands, or something like that.

[Narcisista]

Look, in my opinion, D&D Alignment system is a cosmic prank meant to screw with the heads of any sane gamer who tries to think critically about it.

Just drop it and try not to think if genocide may be morally aceptable in given circunstances...

[andreww]

Why bother?
But, but, but, pointless circular debates are what the internet is for.

Well, that and pr0n.

[Narcisista]

Whenever I get confused about D&D alignment morality, I just imagine Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi arm wrestling shirtless on the back of a killer whale.

In other words, I remember that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and deal with it best I can. Also: a drink or two to clear my thoughts.

:eek:

Best... Metaphor... Ever...

[Agent Oracle]

Seriously, i despise the "baby orc" problem. if it's anyone's problem, it's the GM who declares that a BABY should read as evil.

It's a frickin' baby! the last decision it made was to attempt to focus it's eyes.

See, i'm a big believer in Nurture overriding Nature. My girlfriend's parents were both in jail for drug trafficing, but she's possibly the most ardent teetotaler I've ever met. Dosn't even drink caffinated beverages.

The newborn should not read as either good or evil, they should be treated as innocent, and naieve, and neutral.

[andreww]

If, however, they are Evil by nature, irredeemable, and lack the capacity to be Good, then I think a Paladin gains nothing by sparing them because their fate is inevitable. You can't even put irredeemable creatures together because they will simply be Evil and cruel to each other. In essence, they are like mortal demons or devils who are Evil incarnate.
Yes, but if this is the case surely you are fine to execute the infant there and then. It is objectively evil and will grow up to cause evil deeds. Waiting 10 or 15 years is just delaying the inevitable and risking innocent people being harmed by it.

[andreww]

Seriously, i despise the "baby orc" problem. if it's anyone's problem, it's the GM who declares that a BABY should read as evil.

It's a frickin' baby! the last decision it made was to attempt to focus it's eyes.

See, i'm a big believer in Nurture overriding Nature. My girlfriend's parents were both in jail for drug trafficing, but she's possibly the most ardent teetotaler I've ever met. Dosn't even drink caffinated beverages.

The newborn should not read as either good or evil, they should be treated as innocent, and naieve, and neutral.
This is pretty much where I am although I do think the D&D multiverse does allow perfectly well for creatures which are absolute good or evil. Outsuders fit the bill here.

[The Scribbler]

I think "Raise them to be good people" is the only necessary step if the evil is not innate, and dropping them off with someone trusted to raise them like that is a good second.

If they really are innately evil, then effort should be made to have them raised as best as is possible while searching for a means to alter their alignment magically.

But mostly I agree that babies shouldn't read as Evil unless they are, like, demon-babies.

[John Morrow]

If an orc is Evil by it's very nature, doesn't this convert-and-execute drill simply act as a metaphysical loophole by which Evil souls are sent to Good afterlives?

I didn't say that I endorsed Gary's version of things. I'm describing how I would handle it. If they are truly Evil by nature, then they cannot ever honestly repent or convert.

Unless, of course, orcs have variable-alignment souls but irredeemably Evil glands, or something like that.

Oddly enough, I think that's not far from his argument. Another way to put it might be the idea that they are addicted to Evil. But if there is a chance that they won't do Evil, then executing them simply for a high probability doesn't sound very Good to me, especially since the 3.x Good alignment talks about protecting the innocent.

[Chaot]

Paladin casts Detect Evil on Orc Baby. If Orc Baby reads as Evil, and there is a Law in place for killing Orc Babies, the Orc Baby is dead.

I don't play D&D when I can help it.

[John Morrow]

Yes, but if this is the case surely you are fine to execute the infant there and then. It is objectively evil and will grow up to cause evil deeds. Waiting 10 or 15 years is just delaying the inevitable and risking innocent people being harmed by it.

I'm describing how I look at it. I think what he's trying to offer is a way to save their souls by killing them in a state of Grace, a sort of way to redeem the irredeemable. I think it fails because either you are giving redemption to creatures who don't deserve it or they aren't 100% inherently Evil and have some free moral agency, in which case you are killing an innocent, which is not Good.

[Chaot]

But for the most part, D&D is a system of moral absolutes. There is some drifting in alignments written into the rules, but is it the Paladin's job to act as a nurturer? He or she is a holy warrior. Give the nurture job to the peaceful Cleric or Druid. The Paladin's job is holy vengeance within the law of his or her deity.

[Tzeentch]

As several D&D books go to great lengths to explain, morality in the "standard" game is cut and dried, black and white. Some things (and beings) are EVIL and others are GOOD. If a creatures Alignment says "Always X" then any aberrants are, at best, a new type of creature (and some creatures are essentially described as such) and at worst just faking it.

The whole thing has become so ridiculous that I even think WotC has started to back away from the whole mess, as the explanations for how the "good guys" act in places like Forgotten Realms has become pretty outlandish and Eberron in particular doesn't seem to necessarily ascribe to this Absolute Morality.

But RAW (Rules as Written) make it pretty clear that if you Detect Evil on that newborn Orc it will PROBABLY show up as Chaotic Evil (it's important to note that orcs are not "always" an evil alignment) and thus is fair game for a righteous death. Heck you could even use some Feats and spells to make it go faster since it's EVIL INCARNATE in D&D and ripe for some smiting. But because they are not always evil in the current D&D EGG is a bit misguided in his interpretation - but with Absolute Morality most probably err on the side of caution just in case.

As Book of Vile Darkness says (hardly a gold standard for quality material but ...):

This [objective evil] is the straightforward approach taken in the D&D game, and it is the one stressed in this book as well. From this frame of reference, evil can be judged objectively. The evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn’t relative to the person observing it; it just is evil or it isn’t. This clear-cut definition allows spells such as holy smite to work. Conversely, an objective definition of evil exists because the detect evil spell works. Want to know what’s evil? Don’t study a philosophy book, just watch who gets hurt when the cleric casts holy smite. Those creatures are evil. The things they do, generally speaking, are evil acts. If your character still isn’t certain, he can summon a celestial creature or cast a commune spell and simply ask, “Is this evil?” The higher powers are right there, ready to communicate.

If course the BoVD also goes on to say this is for your own good, moral dilemmas are too much for you to handle!

[John Morrow]

See, i'm a big believer in Nurture overriding Nature. My girlfriend's parents were both in jail for drug trafficing, but she's possibly the most ardent teetotaler I've ever met. Dosn't even drink caffinated beverages.

That's fine when you are dealing with human beings. It can be true for monsters, but doesn't have to be. Recent research into moral decision making and psychopaths suggests that a "conscience" is not something that a sentient creature must have and that a person without a conscience and with an enjoyment of cruelty is pretty much irredeemably Evil. In other words, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to imagine Evil creatures being born as cruel psychopaths, though there are certainly plenty of other reasons why you might not want them to work that way in your games.

The newborn should not read as either good or evil, they should be treated as innocent, and naieve, and neutral.

To the extent that they have animal intelligence, they would likely be Neutral in D&D terms unless alignment resisters their nature. But that still raises the problem of why you are raising them if you know, with 100% certainty, that as soon as they become sentient, they'll be Evil. What's the motive or goal of keeping them alive?

[Halfjack]

I think this issue is best resolved through experimental play. Paladins in the Vineyard.

[Goblinardo]

To the extent that they have animal intelligence, they would likely be Neutral in D&D terms unless alignment resisters their nature. But that still raises the problem of why you are raising them if you know, with 100% certainty, that as soon as they become sentient, they'll be Evil. What's the motive or goal of keeping them alive?

Uh, how do you know that? My copy of the SRD says orcs are "often Chaotic Evil", not "always Chaotic Evil" like, say, a succubus.

[John Morrow]

I think "Raise them to be good people" is the only necessary step if the evil is not innate, and dropping them off with someone trusted to raise them like that is a good second.

I think part of the reason why D&D doesn't encourage this is that it puts a huge burden on the players. "You just wiped out the orc village. Congratulations! You are now the proud parents of a half-a-dozen baby orcs that you are obliged to care for!"

If they really are innately evil, then effort should be made to have them raised as best as is possible while searching for a means to alter their alignment magically.

If the game provides a reliable way to alter the alignment of Evil creatures, then it should be used in every case, not just for baby orcs, and Paladins would go out trying to capture Evil to help them.

The problem is that once you humanize Evil monsters and have to deal with them humanely in a game with any moral depth, Paladins cease being butt-kickers for Justice who slay Evil and start becoming police officers and peacekeeping soldiers, raising the whole issue of things like the Geneva Conventions, prisoner rights, excessive force, and all of the other things that make being a police officer and soldier not so fun in real life.

But mostly I agree that babies shouldn't read as Evil unless they are, like, demon-babies.

If you can imagine demon-babies detecting as Evil, then why is it a greater stretch to imagine orc babies detecting as Evil?

[andreww]

I think this issue is best resolved through experimental play. Paladins in the Vineyard.
Hmm, interesting idea. An all paladin party enforcing law and justice throughout the kingdom.

Sort of like jedi but with broadswords.

[John Morrow]

Uh, how do you know that? My copy of the SRD says orcs are "often Chaotic Evil", not "always Chaotic Evil" like, say, a succubus.

Beyond the fact that the SRD tries to have it both ways, there are two ways to read that. You can read it as "often Chaotic Evil" means that they could be any of the 9 alignments or that they can be any of the 3 Evil alignments. My point is that if you read it as "could be any of the 9 alignments", then killing baby orcs is wrong and killing orcs on sight, without checking their alignment first, is wrong, too. If you read it as "could be any of the 3 Evil alignments" and that they can't be Neutral or Good, then you might be justified killing them all on sight.

For the record, in my D&D campaign, orcs could be any Neutral or Evil alignment so that Paladins could not slay orcs on sight while goblinoids were Evil by nature and could be killed on sight. And in case you think I'm suggesting that killing Evil babies is great fun, the slaughter of a goblin lair, including all of the women and children, even though the women and children were all attacking the party, was probably one of the grimmest scenes in the entire campaign.

[Tzeentch]

There's an issue of resources (Detect X is a first level Cleric spell) of course. But a devious player can REALLY play havoc with the game world if the DM decides to be anal about Absolute Alignment with one evil, devious, campaign wrecking item that costs a measly 4,000g at the local Magic Itemmart ("Shop Smart, Shop Itemmart!") --- HELM OF OPPOSITE ALIGNMENT (DMG and SRD, in the Cursed Items section. This thing is a One Stop Shop of Brainwashing for GOOD (or evil I suppose ... muhaha). Watch your DMs carefully laid plans disintegrate as you mass convert evil beings to your side (Grapple, put on helmet, Detect Evil, if still Evil remove and redon it on him until he eventually fails his save). Laugh at the spectre of an evil mastermind mass producing these things to lay low his enemies by converting poor commoners into slavering psychopaths!

Helm of Opposite Alignment: This metal hat looks like a typical helmet. When placed upon the head, however, its curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required. The curse only works once; that is, a character whose alignment has been changed cannot change it again by donning the helmet a second time.

Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.

Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Create Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp;Weight 3 lb.

[The Scribbler]

I think part of the reason why D&D doesn't encourage this is that it puts a huge burden on the players. "You just wiped out the orc village. Congratulations! You are now the proud parents of a half-a-dozen baby orcs that you are obliged to care for!"

Yes, well if you're running a game where orc babies are possibly going to be slaughtered I think it best to make it clear just what sort of action that's going to be.

I guess I mean that if I was playing in a game where decisions like that had to be made, which is more serious than most games I've played in but not all of them, I'd expect the decision to have actual weight and thought and consequences.

If the game provides a reliable way to alter the alignment of Evil creatures, then it should be used in every case, not just for baby orcs, and Paladins would go out trying to capture Evil to help them.

1) There's actually a society devoted to doing just that in Ptolus.

2) There's a difference between a helpless child and a ravening monster. One most likely <b>must</b> be put down rather immediately for your safety or the safety of others, the other presents a more sticky wicket.

3) Such measures do exist in the D&D rules.

4) I agree if such measures were immediately on-hand they probably <u>should</u> be applied in every available circumstance, though it's arguable that some creatures are more deserving of redemption than others.

The problem is that once you humanize Evil monsters and have to deal with them humanely in a game with any moral depth, Paladins cease being butt-kickers for Justice who slay Evil and start becoming police officers and peacekeeping soldiers, raising the whole issue of things like the Geneva Conventions, prisoner rights, excessive force, and all of the other things that make being a police officer and soldier not so fun in real life.

Well, yes. Which is why throwing moral conundrums like the slaughtering of helpless and innocent (if not pure) beings into the mix is a bad idea if you don't want that sort of weight in the game.

If you can imagine demon-babies detecting as Evil, then why is it a greater stretch to imagine orc babies detecting as Evil?

Oh it's not a huge stretch, it's just not the rules of the game. Demons and the like (outsiders for the most part) are innately evil by the rules of the game, but most intelligent humanoids are not.

Also, most innately evil creatures don't reproduce normally.

[The Scribbler]

Beyond the fact that the SRD tries to have it both ways, there are two ways to read that. You can read it as "often Chaotic Evil" means that they could be any of the 9 alignments or that they can be any of the 3 Evil alignments. My point is that if you read it as "could be any of the 9 alignments", then killing baby orcs is wrong and killing orcs on sight, without checking their alignment first, is wrong, too. If you read it as "could be any of the 3 Evil alignments" and that they can't be Neutral or Good, then you might be justified killing them all on sight.

I don't think I've ever read "often Chaotic Evil" as anything but "they are often raised to be Chaotic Evil." Interesting. Basically it always seemed to me, especially when considering things like the nature of their culture, that it was a function of their society.

[andreww]

I don't think I've ever read "often Chaotic Evil" as anything but "they are often raised to be Chaotic Evil." Interesting. Basically it always seemed to me, especially when considering things like the nature of their culture, that it was a function of their society.
Yes, this had always been my assumption which I was so floored by EGG's comment of "raise them to be good little orcs then chop off their heads."

[Halfjack]

Yes, this had always been my assumption which I was so floored by EGG's comment of "raise them to be good little orcs then chop off their heads."

If that was the case would we not expect some isolated orc societies to show other alignments predominant? I think some orc anthropology is called for.

[The Scribbler]

If that was the case would we not expect some isolated orc societies to show other alignments predominant? I think some orc anthropology is called for.

I do think that isolated orc societies would likely deviate in some ways. It wouldn't always be alignment, but it would sometimes.

Remember, though, that it's not just immediate environmental pressures... there's also the influence of the race's religion if it mostly worships a god of a particular alignment. And in D&D an entire society of orcs that didn't worship the god of orcs is either going to eventually get in trouble or will have found a new patron.

[Nem]

I think I'll print and frame this thread under giant gilded scrollwork that reads "Absolute Morality is Doomed".

[Goblinardo]

Remember, though, that it's not just immediate environmental pressures... there's also the influence of the race's religion if it mostly worships a god of a particular alignment. And in D&D an entire society of orcs that didn't worship the god of orcs is either going to eventually get in trouble or will have found a new patron.

It's not like race portfolio-free gods are scarce in D&D.

Hmm... Kord-worshipping Spartan orcs...

[Noon]

I want to know what good and evil, as some sort of concepts, do when the pally raises the orc baby and decides to let it live, and the orc baby grows up and dedicates itself to become some mother Teresa like figure.

I mean, what the fuck do the concepts of good and evil do, jump up and down and get really pissed off? WHAT DO THESE ALMIGHTY CONCEPTS ACTUALLY DO IF YOU BREAK THEM????

Why is the pally following 'good' and redeeming/slaying the baby - cause good will spank him if he doesn't? Cause the pally is just like a robot following orders?

Neither is the case.



In D&D its easier to think of good and evil as deseases, like leprosy or something. Each desease enables some actions while blocking others - they each enable what the other blocks.

[andreww]

If that was the case would we not expect some isolated orc societies to show other alignments predominant? I think some orc anthropology is called for.
Possibly we should form a research team to study orc anthropology across a wide range of different habitats on different game worlds. They would of course need some security, possibly from the military. They could get there using a series of giant inter-connected gates.

Hmm, I am now envisiging a DitV/Jedi/SG crossover of anthropolgist paladins studying indigenous cultures on other worlds and converting them to the "true faith."

Personally I have never been a fan of alignments or absolute good/evil spectrum except as it applies to outsiders. Should I ever run D&D again I will dispense with alignment entirely and make the PC's decide their reactions based on their own observations and prior knowledge of the creatures they are dealing with.

It isnt likely to have much of an impact on many monsters. I dont envisage the average party Paladin politely enquiring of the local vampires membership status in Blood Suckers Annonymous.

It might however make them think twice before charging into the local Hill Giant steading, gutting them and taking their stuff in the absence of some actual hostilities on the giants part.

[andreww]

I mean, what the fuck do the concepts of good and evil do, jump up and down and get really pissed off? WHAT DO THESE ALMIGHTY CONCEPTS ACTUALLY DO IF YOU BREAK THEM????
In the case of Paladins they take away your shiny cool powers and leave you worse off than a straight fighter of the same level.

In D&D that is not a place you want to be where your life expectancy is measured in equal CR encounters.

[Eslington]

Question: Who are the EGG?

I think for my next non-Eberron character I'm going to have to play an orc whose tribe was wiped out by adventurers when he was a baby, then passed into the care of a human village by the party's paladin.
Then, a year or two later, he is taken away when another orc tribe shows up to raid the village.
A month or two later, a different party of adventurers comes a-smiting...

You get the idea.
Whenever I get confused about D&D alignment morality, I just imagine Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi arm wrestling shirtless on the back of a killer whale.

In other words, I remember that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and deal with it best I can.I think I've found a new quote for my WotC board sig.

[The Scribbler]

I want to know what good and evil, as some sort of concepts, do when the pally raises the orc baby and decides to let it live, and the orc baby grows up and dedicates itself to become some mother Teresa like figure.

I mean, what the fuck do the concepts of good and evil do, jump up and down and get really pissed off? WHAT DO THESE ALMIGHTY CONCEPTS ACTUALLY DO IF YOU BREAK THEM????

Why is the pally following 'good' and redeeming/slaying the baby - cause good will spank him if he doesn't? Cause the pally is just like a robot following orders?

Neither is the case.



In D&D its easier to think of good and evil as deseases, like leprosy or something. Each desease enables some actions while blocking others - they each enable what the other blocks.

I'm really not sure I understand your post.

[Halfjack]

So maybe the nature/nurture dichotomy is imply not sufficient in D&D precisely because of the source of alignments: factual, physical divinity. That is, we have forces of nature, nurture, and divine intervention. That's a different playing field.

[andreww]

Question: Who are the EGG?
Gary Gygax, one of the authors of earlier versions of the game. He is considered both a living saint and the devil incarnate by different sections of the gaming hobby.

[Chaot]

Yes, well if you're running a game where orc babies are possibly going to be slaughtered I think it best to make it clear just what sort of action that's going to be.

True, but by the book, Orcs are often Chaotic Evil. I guess it's up to the DM to decide if all babies in their world start out True Neutral (or Neutral Good for that matter) and develop one way or another. The fact is, all the Paladin has to do is cast Detect Evil. If they turn up as Evil, and the Paladin's god is for smiting Evil, then the Paladin will kill the baby with a clear conscience.

Do I like it? No. Would I play a game like that? No. You say slaughter, but wouldn't a Paladin view it as Holy Vengeance, a Writ from their god, and an act of protecting the forces of Good from an Evil menace?

2) There's a difference between a helpless child and a ravening monster. One most likely <b>must</b> be put down rather immediately for your safety or the safety of others, the other presents a more sticky wicket.

Not if that child is a ravening monster. If the child detects as Chaotic Evil, then the Paladin is in it's rights to kill it. The Paladin is a Holy Warrior whose job it is to vanquish Evil. I don't like it, but that's what you get when you play in a system with moral absolutes.

3) Such measures do exist in the D&D rules.

Yes they do, but is it the Paladin's job to reform misguided individuals? Nope. He's a Holy Smiting Machine.

To a Paladin, it doesn't matter if the condition of Evil is 'ornate' or not. It's an issue of, "is this being Evil?" If it is, the Paladin is within it's rights to smite it, providing there is acceptance of the Law to smite it. If it were illegal to smite orc babies in a given Provence, or if the Paladin's god found smiting orc babies to be unlawful, then the Paladin would be gong against his or her code by doing it.

Have I mentioned that I don't like the Alignment System in D&D?

[Noon]

Oh wait, I just got it - it's a theory of mind issue.

The people who write up what the pally would do are interested, ie have a RL motive, in following the rules of the game in portraying the world.

That's the player confusing his interest in portraying the world for what a character might want to decide for himself. This is like when your a kid and your mother would decide to dress you in something you thought crappy - to her, the whole thing is done. But obviously she's ignoring what you might decide for yourself. Here the player is 'dressing' the characters actions.

The reason the morals come out entirely skewed is because the player can't identify that they even have a motive to portray the world (perhaps cause their going for immersion), and thus can't see where their motive should end and a fictional characters motives should begin.

[Noon]

In the case of Paladins they take away your shiny cool powers and leave you worse off than a straight fighter of the same level.

In D&D that is not a place you want to be where your life expectancy is measured in equal CR encounters.
But that doesn't really make the choice for a character as to whether they keep those powers though, does it?

[andreww]

But that doesn't really make the choice for a character as to whether they keep those powers though, does it?
I am not sure what you mean? It is however late hear and I should have gone to bed a few hours ago so I may be being a bit dim.

[Belac]

I've always found EGG's rules for alignment (or my understanding of them, anyway) mind-numbingly stupid and creepy. Sorry EGG, but that's my take on it.

I don't want to play an RPG about killing babies. I don't care what EGG says about cosmic good and evil. That's bullshit. I don't run alignments like that. EDIT: There might be absolute good and evil in some of my campaigns, but in my book, an action like that qualifies as evil.

I don't like the idea of inherently evil sentient creatures. Sure, it comes from old fantasy tropes, but a lot of those trends were started by authors who grew up in environments where it was common to believe that sort of thing about real people. I have to study chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and the Holocaust enough as it is; I don't want that shit intruding into my game, and I'll be damned if I play any game that lauds that sort of behavior as heroic, fictional or not. Besides, Bilbo Baggins never murdered baby orcs.

[John Morrow]

Yes, well if you're running a game where orc babies are possibly going to be slaughtered I think it best to make it clear just what sort of action that's going to be.

Oh, absolutely. I had a lengthy discussion about what Evil was going to mean in my game. And it was at the request of the players that they got irredeemably Evil bad guys that they could kill without pause.

I guess I mean that if I was playing in a game where decisions like that had to be made, which is more serious than most games I've played in but not all of them, I'd expect the decision to have actual weight and thought and consequences.

Sure. All I can say is that you should have seen the looks on the faces of my players' faces after they carried out the slaughter of the goblin lair in my game. It was incredibly heavy. And that's even though almost every goblin that they slaughtered, including the children, were killed while attacking the party (the goblin babies in my game were born able to crawl, claw, and bite and matured quickly, otherwise they wouldn't survive live among their own kind very long). I think that witnessing the goblin mothers forcing their own children down the hallway to fight the party in hopes of saving themselves that was part of what made it so awful. And, yes, I had their whole social system worked out to explain how they could survive like that and why.

1) There's actually a society devoted to doing just that in Ptolus.

There were clerics in my game engaged in, for example, a mission to the orcs and the Good church extensively researched Evil creatures, including trying to raise their young to be Good, before declaring them irredeemable.

2) There's a difference between a helpless child and a ravening monster. One most likely <b>must</b> be put down rather immediately for your safety or the safety of others, the other presents a more sticky wicket.

Well, in my game, the goblinoid babies were a lot less helpless than human babies. They could crawl at birth and walk within days and were born with sharp teeth and so forth. They couldn't survive if they weren't born that way. Other goblin children would kill them as easy pickings.

3) Such measures do exist in the D&D rules.

As I said earlier, D&D tries to have it both ways (nature AND nurture) so I felt obliged to step in and make it more consistent. If you are talking about the Atonement spell, there is a distinct choice that has to be made. If you are talking about the goofy helm mentioned earlier in the threat, then alignment is something that can be forced on you.

4) I agree if such measures were immediately on-hand they probably <u>should</u> be applied in every available circumstance, though it's arguable that some creatures are more deserving of redemption than others.

I would think that a really Good paladin or cleric would want to offer redemption to any creature who might take it. And that's why I think that once you introduce redemption, free moral agency, and nurture into the mix, you've created a very complex moral situation at odds with freewheeling slaughter of the enemy.

Well, yes. Which is why throwing moral conundrums like the slaughtering of helpless and innocent (if not pure) beings into the mix is a bad idea if you don't want that sort of weight in the game.

Correct. But it can even be heavy if you have to deal with a single orc captive if orcs can be redeemed. How do you deal with orc captives, even if they are all male warrior types, and even if they are all evil, if they can be redeemed and turned from Evil? If I wanted to keep it light, I'd probably make Evil creatures irredeemably Evil and spawned through some sort of non-biological process like what we saw in the Lord of the Rings movies. The problem is that unless everyone just doesn't think about it, it's difficult to make killing both casual and moral.

Oh it's not a huge stretch, it's just not the rules of the game. Demons and the like (outsiders for the most part) are innately evil by the rules of the game, but most intelligent humanoids are not.

I don't think it necessarily conflicts with the rules, either. According to the D&D 3.5 SRD alignment description, "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose." So according to the SRD, most people are not free moral agents and most people simply recognize their alignment rather than choosing it. Yes, it's trying to have things both ways (nature AND nurture) but it's clearly favoring nature here.

Also, most innately evil creatures don't reproduce normally.

I don't think that really matters unless a player feels so strongly that behavior is all nurture that they can't wrap their minds around the idea of inborn behavior that's nature rather than a choice.

[Rainfall]

The alignment system in DnD is open to some interpretation. You're not a slave to it.

One Paladin may slaughter an entire village of orcs and have done the right thing; considering that said village is probably pillaging and torturing everything around it and pretty much every male, female and any child able to walk was fanatically trying to inflict as much damage to him as possible, it can be understood too.

Another Paladin may manage to spare a few kids and have them raised as normal children. That's gonna be hard as hell, the True Neutral neighbors won't be too thrilled about it, but it can be done. He too would have done the right thing.

Yup, the two pallys may very well end up on opposed sides in a conflict. Ain't it fun?:D

Of course the GM can always make an ass of himself and ruin good roleplaying with "AND YOUR GOD TAKES AWAY YOUR POWERS!" to option one and/or two. Luckily I've played with far more clever DM's.

Of course other players haven't been so lucky...

[andreww]

TOne Paladin may slaughter an entire village of orcs and have done the right thing; considering that said village is probably pillaging and torturing everything around it and pretty much every male, female and any child able to walk was fanatically trying to inflict as much damage to him as possible, it can be understood too.
So in a world with subjective morality and free choice you would consider it acceptable for a paladin to kill a humanoid infant or an adolescent with a pointy stick trying to defend his home and family from you?

[John Morrow]

I don't want to play an RPG about killing babies. I don't care what EGG says about cosmic good and evil. That's bullshit. I don't run alignments like that. EDIT: There might be absolute good and evil in some of my campaigns, but in my book, an action like that qualifies as evil.

What is the purpose of sparing a baby orc or goblin if it will inevitably grow up to be a cruel and murderous adult? I'm honestly curious about your answer.

I don't like the idea of inherently evil sentient creatures. Sure, it comes from old fantasy tropes, but a lot of those trends were started by authors who grew up in environments where it was common to believe that sort of thing about real people. I have to study chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and the Holocaust enough as it is;

Something to consider...

What made chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and the Holocaust so awful was that the victims were never inherently Evil or as bad as those justifying those practices claimed that they were. But the reason why those arguments were used against the victims was that if they were true, the actions justified by the claims are not entirely unreasonable nor irrational. (ADDED: Please note that I am not saying that I'd personally endorse them even if they were true -- I wouldn't but I could understand how someone might.)

In other words, would you want an orc living next door to you if knew the odds were good that they'd rape your wife or daughter the first chance they got? Would you want a goblin living next door to you if you knew they hungered to east human flesh as surely as an alcoholic hungers for a drink?

And, yes, that looks and feels very dirty and racist because it's seeing a sentient creature in the same way a racist sees those they hate and it's reacting to them the same way that a racist reacts to those that they hate. For all intents and purposes, it's justified racism. And I can understand why someone wouldn't want anything to do with that in their games.

I don't want that shit intruding into my game, and I'll be damned if I play any game that lauds that sort of behavior as heroic, fictional or not.

In the game I ran, it wasn't lauded as heroic. It was treated as a grim but necessary duty, like shooting a horse with a broken leg because you can't help it get better. As I mentioned, the slaughter of goblin women and children was one of the grimmer battles in the campaign I ran. Players or characters who enjoy killing orc babies would be troubling.

Besides, Bilbo Baggins never murdered baby orcs.

According to the Lord of the Rings movies, there conveniently weren't any baby orcs.

[John Morrow]

So in a world with subjective morality and free choice you would consider it acceptable for a paladin to kill a humanoid infant or an adolescent with a pointy stick trying to defend his home and family from you?

Why limit it to infants and adolescents? If any humanoid surrenders to you in a world with subjective morality, on what grounds do they warrant a summary execution rather than humane treatment and a trial?

[andreww]

According to the Lord of the Rings movies, there conveniently weren't any baby orcs.
A minor nitpick but I dont believe you will find baby orcs anywhere in the books either.

[andreww]

Why limit it to infants and adolescents? If any humanoid surrenders to you in a world with subjective morality, on what grounds do they warrant a summary execution rather than humane treatment and a trial?
I would say that in a psedu european medieval society if the orcs/vikings/barbarians come into your village raiding and pillaging you probably arent going to try and capture them and put them on trial. You are going to try and drive the attackers away and protect your homes.

That is very different from following them back to their village and putting every last man, woman and child to the sword.

[John Morrow]

I don't think I've ever read "often Chaotic Evil" as anything but "they are often raised to be Chaotic Evil." Interesting. Basically it always seemed to me, especially when considering things like the nature of their culture, that it was a function of their society.

At that point, aren't orcs just humans that look different? Why not just make them humans at that point? And isn't it even more disturbing and racist if orcs are essentially human but get treated as sub-human by characters because they look different?

It all depends on what purpose you want orcs to serve in your game, what you want them to be a metaphor for, and so on. And the only way to eliminate all of the heaviness is to just not think about it because once you think about it, it's going to be heavy somewhere, no matter what you do because morality is funny that way.

[John Morrow]

A minor nitpick but I dont believe you will find baby orcs anywhere in the books either.

Agreed, but the movie vividly illustrates them as definitely not even existing at all. (A perfectly fine solution to the problem, too.)

[andreww]

And isn't it even more disturbing and racist if orcs are essentially human but get treated as sub-human by characters because they look different?
Why is it racist to model a scenario in which less develped socities are exploited by or overrn by more developed ones.

This is pretty much what history has taught us and if you are including within your game a moral dimension I dont see a problem in including such elements.

[John Morrow]

I would say that in a psedu european medieval society if the orcs/vikings/barbarians come into your village raiding and pillaging you probably arent going to try and capture them and put them on trial. You are going to try and drive the attackers away and protect your homes.

That is very different from following them back to their village and putting every last man, woman and child to the sword.

So you can only attack the orcs and goblins and so forth that attack you, first? While that's an interesting way of looking at it, it kinda throws a wrench into the classic D&D dungeon structure, doesn't it?

[Scurrilous]

It's a nasty can of worms, but one needs to keep in mind that EGG's alignment morality draws strongly on his religious background. Keep in mind that there are several divinely mandated genocides in the old testament when reading the D&D alignment system.

People always look at me funny when I describe D&D as a morality play written by a Jehovah's Witness, but that's exactly what it is. The alignment system is very much intended to raise moral questions.

[Nikis-Knight]

Interesting thread. I browse DnD books, but haven't read them in depth. The morality described by the OP is a bit of an immature, or at least odd view of absolute morality.
Absolute morality can exist without intelligent creatures being entirely good or evil. It is actions that are good or evil; individuals are the sum of their actions, and none are entirely one or the other.
Men (elves, orcs, etc.) can be evil enough, or rather have commited enough evil, to be judged and sentenced and executed, and likewise can have done enough good to be lauded and emulated.
But babies of any inteligent species should be viewed as innocent, with futures open to them in which they may turn to good or evil or more likely some uneven measure.
Now it's concievable for some species, even some humanoid-looking species like orcs, to not be moral actors, i.e., to have their every instinct to be violent and be incable of learning a moral code. These creatures would not be evil, but simply be monsters or beasts acting out their nature, and could be killed with a clean conscience if necessary.

Anyway, that's how I'd run it.

By the way, I wrote a (very) short story on exactly the subject described here. Sheelba (http://civ4wiki.com/wiki/index.php/FfH_Sheelba_%28Leader%29#Civilopedia)

[John Morrow]

Why is it racist to model a scenario in which less develped socities are exploited by or overrn by more developed ones.

Are you asking me whether it's racist to model such a scenario in a game or whether it's racist to declare such actions Good by the objective alignment of the setting and the sort of things that Paladins should do, being on the side of Angels in the matter?

See the games Power Kill and Violence for details about why the latter is messed up.

This is pretty much what history has taught us and if you are including within your game a moral dimension I dont see a problem in including such elements.

I don't have a problem with the elements. I do have a problem with calling such elements Good in accordance not only with my own morality but the definition provided by the SRD.

[Reynard]

First and foremost, I believe the "orc babies" scenario to be DM asshattery at its most disgusting level. While i am sure that there'll be droves to come along and tell me I am wrong, i have never, ever seen that tactic used by a DM who wasn't being a complete dick to his players. It's stupid.

That being said, there's a whole range of issues that need to be considered for any moral quandries in D&D. the first is, obviously, how the group views alignment. Is it inherent? is it absolute? Is it a fundamental function of the cosmos? next up is morality (as being distinct from alignment). Is the morality a modern perspective? Is it a pre-modern one? Because, you know, if it is the latter then genocide can still be a perfectly lawful good act.

The last time there was an alignment discussion here, I took an absolutist stand. During the course of that discussion, though, I re-read the alignment text and associated rules and came to the conclusion that D&D doesn't even know what alignments are. The text is contradictory with itself and rules surrounding it and, really, the whole system should be jettisoned for either something similiar but more elastic (Monte Cook's system presented in Book of Hallowed Might works) or something dissimilar but still useful mechanically (Exalted's Virtues works). Or just ignored altogether, though some reworking of some magical effects will be needed (i.e. does Smite work on any enemy of the paladin's ethos? does the paladin exist at all? what about spells like Hallow and Unhallow?)

[Blizzardborn]

I know something about that, since I'm in a playtest of a slimmed down D&D that lacks alignment (among other things).

Detect evil, Magic Circle against evil, protection from evil, Holy Aura, holy word, holy smite and their axial kin can actually be easily dropped. DJ says he could keep the Hallow and Unhallow as is, because alignment is only a part of the spell.

Paladins are long gone, but that's because a cleric/fighter is often a better build.

[John Morrow]

First and foremost, I believe the "orc babies" scenario to be DM asshattery at its most disgusting level. While i am sure that there'll be droves to come along and tell me I am wrong, i have never, ever seen that tactic used by a DM who wasn't being a complete dick to his players. It's stupid.

It depends on what the players and GM want out of the game and setting. If they are looking for a rollicking light game without any heavy moral issues, then you are probably correct. If they are looking for a morally deep and ecologically plausible setting that supports a high degree of verisimilitude and so forth, than asking where orcs come from and expecting orc villages and camps to contain women and children isn't only reasonable but desirable.

That being said, there's a whole range of issues that need to be considered for any moral quandries in D&D. the first is, obviously, how the group views alignment. Is it inherent? is it absolute? Is it a fundamental function of the cosmos? next up is morality (as being distinct from alignment). Is the morality a modern perspective? Is it a pre-modern one? Because, you know, if it is the latter then genocide can still be a perfectly lawful good act.

I'd argue that calling genocide "good" isn't going to make the players feel like it is unless the context is changed. That leads to the idea that Good and Evil are a sort of "team jersey" identifying two teams, neither of which is particularly the good guys in the battle.

The last time there was an alignment discussion here, I took an absolutist stand. During the course of that discussion, though, I re-read the alignment text and associated rules and came to the conclusion that D&D doesn't even know what alignments are.

I don't think that's entirely true. I think that there is some waffling to give GMs room to spin it however they want but it's pretty clear that Good is altruistic and takes personal risks to help the innocent while Evil is proactively murderous and/or cruel, with Neutral a self-interested but not cruel band between the two. In practice, I think that's an entirely workable way to define Good and Evil, even if some people won't like the categories that certain deeds and people get put in to.

[The Scribbler]

At that point, aren't orcs just humans that look different? Why not just make them humans at that point? And isn't it even more disturbing and racist if orcs are essentially human but get treated as sub-human by characters because they look different?

Other than some far-out variations on races, I usually <b>don't</b> think of them as anything other than a physically distinct race that is otherwise just a strongly defined culture that the civilized world finds monstrous when it comes to D&D. To be honest, most of the humanoid races are only really alien if you <u>make</u> them that way; as they are presented in the game most simply have different body types, specialties, deities, and cultures that reflect these three things.

[The Scribbler]

So you can only attack the orcs and goblins and so forth that attack you, first? While that's an interesting way of looking at it, it kinda throws a wrench into the classic D&D dungeon structure, doesn't it?

I've never played in a game that displayed monstrous races as anything other than completely aggressive and antagonistic where I felt comfortable playing as an adventurer who slaughters first and asks questions later. Well, unless my character himself was something less than a hero.

If the bad-guys are more than 2-dimensional, then no you shouldn't be attacking them unless they have (directly or indirectly, through threats/past action/etc.) attacked you first if you want to call yourself the good-guy.

[John Morrow]

If the bad-guys are more than 2-dimensional, then no you shouldn't be attacking them unless they have (directly or indirectly, through threats/past action/etc.) attacked you first if you want to call yourself the good-guy.

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?

[Rainfall]

So in a world with subjective morality and free choice you would consider it acceptable for a paladin to kill a humanoid infant or an adolescent with a pointy stick trying to defend his home and family from you?

I honestly don't know why I even bother to answer. But I might as well try to do so for the three people who aven't left this thread in disgust yet.

We're talking about a species that pertty much lives on the destruction of others, that worship some god of slaughter and gets kicks corrupting their environment as much as possible. Subjective morality and free choice my ass, if played right those creatures have been raised from infancy to kill stuff.

Taking their kids and raising them in a more healthy environment probably would work, but it's not gonna help you when the entire village attacks you. Oh and they'll really enjoy torturing you to death if YOU surrender. What are you gonna do now, let them continue to destroy everything around them?

Hint; Pally's probably don't need to slaughter neutral orcs. They're too few and busy to bother with such nonsense. If you don't get it, you should probably stick to other games.

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?


How about putting yourself between the orcs and the boy's familly when the orcs come in the first place? Being Good is not being Stupid after all.

[Coyraven]

It depends on what the players and GM want out of the game and setting.

That is true, but also to be fair- D&D isn't built for weighty or deeply moral games. The same way it is is not a engine to create a "realistic" fantasy society, or to act as a lifelike combat simulator.

It can be played as a soul searching experience. I know, I have played in quite a few games, but it takes some willful ignoring of fundamental parts of the system to do it--- often alignmnet. Or, at the very least, a reduction in its importance.

I think Reynard is right. The whole scenario doesn't often come up-- unless it is a dm being a jerk about a player having a paladin. If isn't an orc baby, then it is something else.

Moreover, for all the people who use the orc baby argument to decry D&D-- from what I see of actual play, anecdotes, and etc .. the type of scenario doesn't often comes up in their games either.

CR

[ShanG]

Recently I made the mistake of browsing through the EGG Q&A thread at ENWorld which can be found here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171753&page=11&pp=40).

One of the questions put to EGG was the perennial "what do paladins do with baby orcs." You can find the discussion on page 11.

The short answer, raise them to be good people, forcably extraxt confessions from them and then execute them.


This is stupid.

Helmet of Opposite Alignment. Duh.

Think, Paladin. Think.

[Gloombunny]

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?
Is that situation at all different if it was marauding humans rather than orcs?

[RobertFisher]

Here's how I'd handle it:

1. Don't put orc babies in the game. Even better, leave the orcs out completely.

2. If I'm DMing, don't pick a version of D&D that includes Paladins. If I'm playing, don't play a Paladin.

3. Don't take D&D alignment so seriously.

[John Morrow]

Is that situation at all different if it was marauding humans rather than orcs?

No.

It's certainly legitimate to require a real and present danger before a good character can attack. My point is simply that sometimes waiting for a real and present danger can result in victims and makes the Paladin more reactive than active. That might not be a bad thing but it can leave moral issues behind every bit as sticky as the orc baby problem.

[Metallian]

Sort of like jedi but with broadswords.

That is very much how Paladins worked in my D&D campaign. An order of wandering warrior/diplomats (they have Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills, after all) who foreswear all earthly claims to land or titles (if of noble birth) or gods. Their powers stemmed from their sheer dedication to serving the common good (as the PHB says, "A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough."), though I house-ruled that even serving a LG god was seen as a potential cause for conflict since a god is just one individual with its own interests. They were expected to be humble, wise, and good examples (Charisma being a key skill) to people they served and protected.


Yes they do, but is it the Paladin's job to reform misguided individuals?

Heh, in my campaign it was not required of Paladins, but it was encouraged. Eliminating a threat is beneficial to society. Turning a threat into an ally not only removes the threat, but actually adds to society. Obviously, this is not always practical or safe, the Paladins are expected to use their judgment.

When the (Half-Orc raised by humans) Paladin in my campaign took the Leadership feat, I used a bunch of reformed minor villains he had "straighted out" in the past as his followers. Some of them had met up with one another and appreciated what he had done for them, so they sought him out to help him with his work.


I don't think it necessarily conflicts with the rules, either. According to the D&D 3.5 SRD alignment description, "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose." So according to the SRD, most people are not free moral agents and most people simply recognize their alignment rather than choosing it. Yes, it's trying to have things both ways (nature AND nurture) but it's clearly favoring nature here.

"Not a conscious choice" does not always imply "nature." People get "programmed" to a great extent by their parents and their society. I imagine this would be even more true in an isolated tribal culture. I have picked up various habits from my parents, but I never actually sat down and chose them per se, nor do I think they are inborn traits I inherited.


Anyway, as for Orcs, the current Monster Manual rates them as "Often" Chaotic Evil. Not "Always" or even "Usually." The glossary defines this as: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but execptions are common." (emphasis mine)

Orcs do not have the "Evil" subtype (like Demons or Devils), and while their description does not specifically state that their tendency to "Often" be evil is not inborn, there is a section on Orc Society that goes on about how their culture and religion promote Chaotic Evil behavior.

To me, this strongly implies that there is a very good chance that you could raise an Orc baby to be any alignment. This would not be true in, say, Middle-Earth, and it might not have been true in prior editions of D&D, but I think it would be true in the current edition of D&D.

That having been said, unloading a large number of any kind of babies on a bunch of PCs is kind of obnoxious. One orc baby is an interesting dilemma, a bunch of orc babies is a logistical headache.

The Metallian

[Metallian]

confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

By this rationale, wouldn't it be good to execute all LG people you met, just in case they might turn evil later...??? It's for their own good! They'll be in a better place!

The Metallian

[John Morrow]

"Not a conscious choice" does not always imply "nature." People get "programmed" to a great extent by their parents and their society. I imagine this would be even more true in an isolated tribal culture. I have picked up various habits from my parents, but I never actually sat down and chose them per se, nor do I think they are inborn traits I inherited.

Correct, and you can treat orcs that way but then we are back to funny looking people.

Anyway, as for Orcs, the current Monster Manual rates them as "Often" Chaotic Evil. Not "Always" or even "Usually." The glossary defines this as: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but execptions are common." (emphasis mine)

Correct, again. But if that means that at least 50% are not Chaotic Evil and let's say that half of those aren't Evil at all, that gives us 25% of orcs which are Neutral or even Good. How many settings and campaigns portray them that way? I'm not saying that it can't be done but how many do?

Orcs do not have the "Evil" subtype (like Demons or Devils), and while their description does not specifically state that their tendency to "Often" be evil is not inborn, there is a section on Orc Society that goes on about how their culture and religion promote Chaotic Evil behavior.

The problem is that the "Evil" subtype is even more of a mess. It says, "Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment." So the subtype doesn't necessarily equal the alignment, and vice versa.

Again, you can play it entirely cultural but that raises all sorts of other sticky moral issues whenever you capture an orc and so forth.

To me, this strongly implies that there is a very good chance that you could raise an Orc baby to be any alignment. This would not be true in, say, Middle-Earth, and it might not have been true in prior editions of D&D, but I think it would be true in the current edition of D&D.

A GM can put whatever spin they want on it. So where are all the Good orcs, then?

That having been said, unloading a large number of any kind of babies on a bunch of PCs is kind of obnoxious. One orc baby is an interesting dilemma, a bunch of orc babies is a logistical headache.

It depends on why the players are playing. One groups obnoxious logistical headache is another group's interesting adventure.

[Belac]

I don't have a problem with the elements. I do have a problem with calling such elements Good in accordance not only with my own morality but the definition provided by the SRD.
WHOA! jensun said that, not me. You put the wrong name in your quotation. Just wanted to clear that up.

Anyway, back to what I was saying...I've gotten into this discussion before, and I'm going to try to make a clear and concise argument for once (although John Morrow already touched on what my feelings are.)

John Morrow:
I am not arguing that it would be morally wrong to kill an orc child if that child was automatically going to be a homicidal maniac. I am arguing that I do not want to play a game with a lot of that content in the first place. I don't mind throwing in a few "living killing machine" monsters or an edgy moral problem here and there, but I don't want it to be the focus of my entire game, and I don't want it to be casual.

Your example of the goblins is fine with me, for one big reason. I know that you didn't portray the slaughter of goblin children as a fun activity. On the other hand, I don't know that about EGG. It certainly seems a lot more casual for him. Yes, I'm basically questioning EGG's real-life morality. Has he ever specifically said that D&D alignments are completely opposite what his real moral ideas are? I've always heard that D&D's alignments were inspired by Gygax's real beliefs.

I'm also saying that I find racial alignments stupid in a game sense, much like I feel that Kevin Siembieda's dog boys, glitterboys, and dead boys have stupid names. It's a matter of personal preference there.

So, I have both a slight moral problem with playing games that I feel are about fantasizing about being a champion of Aryan racial purity (with real races replaced with fantasy equivalents that serve the same functions) and a much more concrete objection of the basis of style and gaming preference.

I am much happier with the Eberron-style creatures that choose their own morality than I am with the Gygaxian inherently evil races. They're more interesting characters, and they don't make me feel weird about gaming.

Oh, and I would argue that despite the way many people choose to run them in their own campaigns, Tolkien's orcs and _official_ D&D orcs are not the same thing. The movie version of Tolkien's orcs were zombie-like bioweapons and the novel versions were similar. D&D orcs (and other evil humanoids) seem much more human-like, even in older editions.

EDIT: And before someone says "It's just a game, you're taking it too seriously" to me, I have a response. I'm not really taking this very seriously. We're discussing a topic and I'm killing time and trying to explain my arguments, but this is not something I actually take very seriously. Even actual racist games like FATAL and RaHoWa register somewhere around position #10 billion on my list of bad things I'm concerned about. The problem of my discomfort with possible racist overtones in D&D is infinitely less important to me than the fact that I want to eat a microwavable pizza right now but don't want to put in the effort to walk five feet and get one.

[Pillsy]

Why limit it to infants and adolescents? If any humanoid surrenders to you in a world with subjective morality, on what grounds do they warrant a summary execution rather than humane treatment and a trial?
On what grounds do they warrant summary execution even in a world with objective morality? D&D alignment, at least for humanoids instead of undead and demons and the like, is mostly about moral outlooks and values. Just because there's an objective moralty doesn't mean the goodies should go around killing people just because they have a shitty attitude.

Paladins go around protecting the innocent (being good) and punishing the guilty (being lawful), but you can be evil and innocent or good and guilty. A paladin would be honor-bound to protect you in the first instance and punish you in the second. His magical ability lets him ascertain whether someone's evil but not whether someone deserves punishment.

Where the difference comes in is the harshness of punishment. A paladin would be justified in being more lenient with a good criminal than with an evil one.

[Agent Oracle]

This is stupid.

Helmet of Opposite Alignment. Duh.

Think, Paladin. Think.

Bah, mere DC 15 will save negates. Scarcely usable against any caster over level 2.

Though they rarely get captured anyway...

[ShanG]

Bah, mere DC 15 will save negates. Scarcely usable against any caster over level 2.

Though they rarely get captured anyway...

Against infants, though? And Orcs to boot?
Going with this assumption that baby orcs are actually evil.

Besides, stuff like Temporary Wisdom Damage or penalties to the saving throw can take care of anybody else who you might want to use it against.

[Pillsy]

Correct, again. But if that means that at least 50% are not Chaotic Evil and let's say that half of those aren't Evil at all, that gives us 25% of orcs which are Neutral or even Good. How many settings and campaigns portray them that way? I'm not saying that it can't be done but how many do?
Shrug. When I run games, good and neutral orcs, goblins and kobolds turn up fairly frequently. They aren't the norm, but they aren't unheard of. One of the best D&D PCs I've ever seen was a CN orc barbarian who was being led, haltingly, to redemption by the party's paladin. Too bad the game didn't last longer....
A GM can put whatever spin they want on it. So where are all the Good orcs, then? Well, most orcs are raised in a... morally impoverished environment, where being good, or even neutral, is probably just going to get you killed. The only readily available source of magic for orcs (who have crap Charisma and more crap Intelligence) are a bunch of evil priests.

It's not exactly like there's a shortage of environmental factors that explain widespread orcish evil.

[SuperG]

Here's what I think of... the scene in an Eddings novel where a main character (Polgara) actually does kill an infant. A demonspawn, which /was/ irredeemably evil, and was going to grow up to be an utterly invincible monster.

That would be justified. THAT is a baby that detects as Strongly Evil.


Other babies detect as neutral. Even the demon baby doesn't have an evil alignment, it simply is MADE of evil. The succubus Paladin that showed up in an online article covers this nicely: redemption IS possible for any creature.

However, that doesn't mean they have a /right/ to be given the chance if they've done evil (you can certainly give them a chance, but there is no obligation for a good character to decide either way).

As for orc babies... I don't know what D&D games you people play, but I've never been in a game where we attacked a /village/. We attacked armies and warbands.





So. Evil =/= can kill at will. A Paladin should not fall for killing a being who detects as (strongly) evil if the being in question is in a position to be dangerous imminently... but Paladins are allowed to leave Evil alive.

The code says they may not /befriend/ them, they can't just turn a blind eye to evil. That is, however, all.


Paladins are not just smiting machines. Diplomacy is on the class skill list for a reason: they are ALSO ambassadors for good. Yes, redemption IS something they can help along.

[SuperG]

So you can only attack the orcs and goblins and so forth that attack you, first? While that's an interesting way of looking at it, it kinda throws a wrench into the classic D&D dungeon structure, doesn't it?

Not so much... often, the monsters will attack you first. Also, it's more like killing the guards in a fortress - you're in the dungeon for a reason.

It's when you kill them rather than let them surrender that things get sticky.

[Metallian]

Correct, again. But if that means that at least 50% are not Chaotic Evil and let's say that half of those aren't Evil at all, that gives us 25% of orcs which are Neutral or even Good. How many settings and campaigns portray them that way? I'm not saying that it can't be done but how many do?


Eberron springs to mind (admittedly, Eberron breaks the mold in a lot of ways), but I'm not very familiar with how current Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk products portray orcs in the world.

In my own campaign, there were some tribes of predominantly Neutral (on the good/evil axis) orcs in the large area dominated by orc tribes. They tended to work together better and be more productive than the Chaotic Evil orcs. They were also capable of limited trade with other societies. On the other hand, they were less savage in battle and did not have lots of juicy plunder. Since their lands were not particularly fertile, this tipped things slightly in favor of the evil orcs.


The problem is that the "Evil" subtype is even more of a mess. It says, "Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment." So the subtype doesn't necessarily equal the alignment, and vice versa.


True, even the Evil subtype isn't a guarantee of Evil alignment, but IMO it indicates an inborn tendency as opposed to a simple cultural tendency amongst members of that species. For example, you could slap a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a demon and make it Good, but the substance of its body is still suffused with Evil Planar Essence and it retains its vulnerability to Holy weapons and so on. (Orcs are definitely not like that in current D&D.) I can't think of any examples I've seen of non-Evil "Evil subtype" creatures that weren't portrayed as bizarre and truly exceptional cases.

Personally, I tend to consider creatures of the Humanoid Type to be more like "funny-looking humans," and give them the benefit of the doubt unless it's explicitly stated that they have an "inborn" tendency to a certain alignment. Outsiders are at the other extreme, since they can actually be made up of the essence of aligned planes ("made of evil," if you will). The others "Types" fall on a scale depending on how far removed they are from Humans...again, unless they are specifically described as being more or less Humanlike than their Type would indicate.

The Metallian

[insomniac]

Well, in the end, it all depends on how the evil races work in the campaign. The way I see it, there are three basic possibilities:

Orks are inherantly Neutral, but the culture & god are Evil. The result of this is, if a froathing ork comes at you with an axe, you can dispatch it without worrying about the moral justifications of the action. Even a whole villiage of ork warriors is, really, just waiting for their next chance to pilliage and slaughter, so it's a good deed to kill them before they get the chance. Babies, though, haven't picked up their culture's evil ways, so leaving them to be raised at the St. Cuthbert orphanage will most likely get you LG orks. Even adults are redeemable, if they choose to be, but trying to convert all of them will just result in a lot of dead townfolk while you're not putting the marauding orks to the sword. This seems like D&D as written.

Orks are inherantly and irredeemably Evil. Maybe they spring from the ground where human blood was spilled in great amounts. Maybe they were the creation of an evil god or wizard as nothing more than sentient killing machines, and are 'programed' at the core of their being to slaughter and rape. Maybe they're really animals, who are bright enough to form social structures and make complex weapons, but don't have the moral agency to choose not to be evil. Whatever the reason, redemption is an excersise in futility, and the only way an ork is bennefiting the world around it is if its rotting corpse is useful as fertilizer. A useful house interpretation if you want to have ork-slaughters without any moral compunctions.

Orks are inherantly but redeemably Evil. They inherantly have brutal, cruel, violent urges, but they do have the moral authority to decide whether or not to act on them. The vast majority of orks do give in, becoming the wicked monsters that desperately need a party of adventurers to show up and wipe them out, but a few (for whatever reason) see the light, and try to turn their back on their evil ways. I'd steal from C:tD's Kithbook: Redcaps for advice on Good and Neutral orks in this case; they act as either jokes or badasses. The 'jokes' spend their lives trying to fit in with good people by acting as un-orklike as they can, to convince everyone (including themselves) that they're no threat. They tend to be miserable, and usually wind up giving in to their base urges sooner or later. 'Badasses' are the ones who take their primal ork instincts, bottle them up, and never, ever give an inch. They're constantly in complete control of themselves, and watching for a slip, fully aware that, if they do, people will die. They hold themselves completely in check, holding down all the building agression until they find someone who deserves their rage--and then, every bit of repressed violence is let out against his enemies. Useful for some ethical dilemias and tortured heroes.

Any could probably work, in ways that lend themselves better to world-building than "never encounter baby orks." Which works best depends on campaign and style. Just my two cents.

[wise_owl]

I realize that this might be tangental to the discussion of subjective/objective morality and so forth; But isn't killing a creature that can't defend itself inherently non-good? Might one even say Evil? I mean I expect Paladins to accept surrender even when the surrender is quite obviously a ruse from an Evil despot only looking for his chance to escape and begin his reign of terror anew. That's what being a Paladin means; Taking it on the Chin for your High and Lofty beliefs. To my mind a Paladin could never kill an infant period, even if it radiated primordial evil to a degree that caused the Paladin's eyes to bleed.

[insomniac]

That sounds pretty Lawful Stupid to me, there. Paladins are holy warriors, and while they are there to uplift the good, notice that their powers tend toward finding and destroying evil. I see no reason that a paladin is obligated to let more innocents be slaughtered because the bad guy made an insincere promise.

[Eric Tolle]

So in a world with subjective morality and free choice you would consider it acceptable for a paladin to kill a humanoid infant or an adolescent with a pointy stick trying to defend his home and family from you?

Do you mean something like this (http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/a/n/andersson/blood_of_vengeance.jpg.html)?

(Sorry, couldn't resist- it IS a direct riff on te issue raised by this thread.)

[John Morrow]

But isn't killing a creature that can't defend itself inherently non-good? Might one even say Evil?

So does that mean that you think a Paladin would be against any executions and thus anti-death penalty?

[Keefe the Thief]

So does that mean that you think a Paladin would be against any executions and thus anti-death penalty?

Oh boy... This will end in fla... Wait, it already has! ;)

[andreww]

So you can only attack the orcs and goblins and so forth that attack you, first? While that's an interesting way of looking at it, it kinda throws a wrench into the classic D&D dungeon structure, doesn't it?
Yes, which is IMNSHO a good thing.

I don't have a problem with the elements. I do have a problem with calling such elements Good in accordance not only with my own morality but the definition provided by the SRD.
OK, I see what you are saying now and I would agree. Some of the reviews I have read of the Book of Exalted Deeds have really run with this theme.

[andreww]

I honestly don't know why I even bother to answer. But I might as well try to do so for the three people who aven't left this thread in disgust yet.
I dont see anyone leaving in disgust nor do I particularly understand your level of hostility.

What I do see is a remarkably civil discussion about alignment, morality and their place in D&D.

Your view of Orcs is a valid one but it is not necessarily the only one and discussion what would be appropriate actions in different scenarios is entirely reasonable.

[riprock]

It's a nasty can of worms, but one needs to keep in mind that EGG's alignment morality draws strongly on his religious background. Keep in mind that there are several divinely mandated genocides in the old testament when reading the D&D alignment system.

People always look at me funny when I describe D&D as a morality play written by a Jehovah's Witness, but that's exactly what it is. The alignment system is very much intended to raise moral questions.

Are there any biographies of Gygax which describe his religious background and affiliation?

[Lord Lucifer]

D&D Morality... trying to find game mechanics to express peoples' opinions and belief system.

I don't find alignment useful, ever. I really don't.
It doesn't explain what moves people to do things, it only describes what an uninvolved third party thinks of those involved and their methods.


Personal motivations are much more useful. That gives me something to work with.

[RedFox]

First, I don't think EGG is up on the current edition of D&D. It's likely he was answering from a version of the game from back before he and TSR parted ways.

Second, this is really a bit of an edge case. Most D&D action doesn't involve the raiding and wanton slaughter of tribal / village communities. Occasionally you may have situations where PCs stumble upon a cave where kobolds live or whatever. In that case, this is likely to crop up only if the PCs decide to slaughter everything in sight and the creatures make no move to surrender (even with communication problems, this is quite possible when mates and young are threatened).

How the GM handles such situations is what determines the tone of PC actions. If the GM has the creatures attempt to surrender, that sets up one tone. If the GM has the clawed babies being tossed at the invaders to slow them down by desparate females, well that sets an entirely other tone.

[Nelzie]

Seriously, i despise the "baby orc" problem. if it's anyone's problem, it's the GM who declares that a BABY should read as evil.

It's a frickin' baby! the last decision it made was to attempt to focus it's eyes.

See, i'm a big believer in Nurture overriding Nature. My girlfriend's parents were both in jail for drug trafficing, but she's possibly the most ardent teetotaler I've ever met. Dosn't even drink caffinated beverages.

The newborn should not read as either good or evil, they should be treated as innocent, and naieve, and neutral.

That's wholly dependent upon the cosmology of the gameworld in question.

In the real world, Babies are neutral, naive and innocent.

In the non-existent fantasy world with magic and gods that interact with the world... A baby can be much more.

For example, in my gameworld all Orcs are unrepentant evil. It's because the evil gods have a grip upon their soul and more or less control their actions. Even at birth a baby Orc, within an hour or so of being born, will fight and attack armed adventurers like feral demonic little goblins. Any good aligned being that let a baby Orc live would be considered insane.

[Iozz-Sothoth]

To me, this strongly implies that there is a very good chance that you could raise an Orc baby to be any alignment. This would not be true in, say, Middle-Earth, and it might not have been true in prior editions of D&D, but I think it would be true in the current edition of D&D.

It's probably at least partially supported by some 2nd Ed stuff -- there's a god of Good aligned humanoids, and (in Planescape) a Dwarven priest in Sigil who decided to test the 'Nature vs. Nurture' hypothesis by raising an abandoned ogre baby. Nurture appears to have the upper hand -- the kid's LN, and his family is rather protective of him, IIRC.

[Chaot]

The movie version of Tolkien's orcs were zombie-like bioweapons and the novel versions were similar. D&D orcs (and other evil humanoids) seem much more human-like, even in older editions.

The orcs in Tolkien's novels were not zombie-like. They were corrupted elves and they were very individualistic. They constantly fought for dominance. They were also the creators of perverse, but effective 'machines' geared to war and torture.

Jackson's orcs were bioweapons....

For the record, I have never killed an orc baby. I do not plan on killing an orc baby. But I'm not a Paladin.

[Ikselam]

If orcs are inherently evil, then you should just kill the baby. Don't even bother with the "redemption" angle, because you know it's not going to work -- its only purpose is to make you feel better about yourself: "Well, at least I tried!"

If they're just predisposed toward evil, then of course you shouldn't kill the baby, because it might end up good and noble if given the correct upbringing. Given that D&D seems to have been moving away from the idea of "natural" creatures having inherent alignments, this is probably the correct choice. I mean, by EGG's rationale, Drizzt should commit suicide asap before he backslides into spider-worshiping eeeeevil.

[Reynard]

Drizzt should commit suicide asap before he backslides into spider-worshiping eeeeevil.

Among other reasons... :D

[Fugitive Unknown]

Times like this are where I'm glad I made the "Paladins" for my world Lawful Neutral.

*Mercy* is for the *weak*

[The Scribbler]

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?

Well if you honestly had no reason to think that they'd go after his family before, or that the defenses of the child's family and the society they were living in were not going to be enough to protect them, you tell him that you didn't know it was going to happen.

If you had reason to think that these orcs were going to attack these people, then maybe you should have done something about it. Killing people outright for crimes they might one day commit, though, is generally (not always, depending on threats they might have made or past actions of those people in particular) nonsense.

[Greg 1]

If you honestly believe that whether you are good or evil at death determines whether you get eternal paradise or eternal torture, then it would be amazingly cruel not to want to slaughter every good person you can. There could be reasons for not doing it, but compassion for the subject would not be one of them.

Paladins, by right, should be more concerned with saving souls than protecting the good (the good are fundamentally doing ok, simply in virtue of being good).

[Eric Tolle]

Times like this are where I'm glad I made the "Paladins" for my world Lawful Neutral.

*Mercy* is for the *weak*

That won't help much: if killing an orc baby is an evil act than "I vas chust followink orders" won't help, and the paladin will still get nailed for an alignment violation.

My dodge around the issue in one game world was to have all of the humanoids originally be humans whose desires and attitudes warped ther physical forms. Thus, thre are no orc babies, though living with orcs a child woud rapidly become one.

[Metallian]

Paladins, by right, should be more concerned with saving souls than protecting the good (the good are fundamentally doing ok, simply in virtue of being good).

I disagree. Some quotes on Paladins, from the PHB:


The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil - these are the three weapons of the paladin. Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin's path, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal, and to smite. In a land of scheming wizards, unholy priests, bloodthirsty dragons, and infernal fiends, the paladin is the final hope that cannot be extinguished.

...

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." (emphasis mine)

The Metallian

[Greg 1]

I disagree. Some quotes on Paladins, from the PHB:


Oh, I'm not saying that the Paladin code doesn't forbid it. I'm saying that if you honestly believe that whether you are good or evil at death determines whether you get eternal paradise or eternal torture, then it would be amazingly cruel not to want to slaughter every good person you can.

The kind thing would be to want to slay the innocent and protect the guilty from being killed until they can be saved. There might be practical reasons for not doing that (maybe you need good people alive to help convert the guilty), but that should be the ultimate goal.

[Metallian]

Oh, I'm not saying that the Paladin code doesn't forbid it. I'm saying that if you honestly believe that whether you are good or evil at death determines whether you get eternal paradise or eternal torture, then it would be amazingly cruel not to want to slaughter every good person you can.

The kind thing would be to want to slay the innocent and protect the guilty from being killed until they can be saved. There might be practical reasons for not doing that (maybe you need good people alive to help convert the guilty), but that should be the ultimate goal.

Gotcha, I missed the fact that your second statement was conditional on your first statement. And I agree with your extrapolation from EGG's logic in the OP.

Fortunately, "Good" alignment in D&D is defined as: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life" and "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others," which precludes such actions even if they do make sense in a setting where people can know exactly what happens to souls in the afterlife. Good alignment seems very focused on the concerns of life, as opposed to the afterlife.

(Of course, you could get into a really circular argument about how killing good people to send them to a cozy afterlife is evil, but since it would negate your own chances at a cozy afterlife it could be considered the ultimate "personal sacrifice to help others" and therefore good! :D But you could handwave that by saying that in the metaphysics of D&D, consequences that only take place in the afterlife don't "count" for the purposes of moral calculus.)

The Metallian

[wise_owl]

So does that mean that you think a Paladin would be against any executions and thus anti-death penalty?

Hmmm.... tough call. In the end I would say yes, but not in terms we would understand. A Paladin is held to the highest 'statures' of Lawful Good behaivor. In the pseduo-medieval world of D&D that means societies are viewed through the lens of their rulers behavoirs. Thus a ruler who dispensed executions would probably be viewed as non-good, or at least not living up to the Paladin's standards. So while I think a paladin would still accept public executions, if asked he would advise a ruler not to engage in them.
On the flip side of that though is that I think a Paladin, like most people, has a morality that varies depending on the actors. A paladin's Moral code effects his own actions, not the actions of others(though of course it affects how he relates with others). I don't think a Paladin could be an executioner of any kind and retain his 'saintly' qualities.

[Nikis-Knight]

Thus a ruler who dispensed executions would probably be viewed as non-good, or at least not living up to the Paladin's standardsWell, that's one interpretation. I don't see why a ruler executing serial killers would conflict with any good Paladin's sense of justice.
If the ruler was executing petty criminals or political rivals, then the Paladin should certainly see it as an evil act.

[Calithena]

The original post's solution is ludicrous in any case. By the same logic the paladin should kill every weak-willed or neutral-tending human, elf, dwarf, etc. the moment he drifts to good. After a night up with the rogue finally getting him to see the glory of goodness, the paladin slits his throat, secure in his god's blessings. Whatever.

[Greg 1]

The original post's solution is ludicrous in any case. By the same logic the paladin should kill every weak-willed or neutral-tending human, elf, dwarf, etc. the moment he drifts to good. After a night up with the rogue finally getting him to see the glory of goodness, the paladin slits his throat, secure in his god's blessings. Whatever.

Yes, by the same logic, the Paladin should do that. But it isn't ludicrous. It is the kind thing to do in the rather perverse universe in which the Paladin finds themself.

This life is a one-second pit-stop on the way to the permanent life - a permanent life that is liable to be either mind-blowing wonderful or mind-blowing horrific depending on your alignment at death. Whether you get a half-second or full-second pit-stop at the station is a trivial thing - what matters is that you get on the right train. (Alright, I've mutilated enough metaphores now)

[John Morrow]

Even at birth a baby Orc, within an hour or so of being born, will fight and attack armed adventurers like feral demonic little goblins. Any good aligned being that let a baby Orc live would be considered insane.

My orcs weren't inherently Evil but the goblinoids were and, like your orc babies, my goblins were born being able to claw and bite. I think that helps mitigate the "Ick!" factor a bit if the babies in question aren't simply lying there helpless but can at least claw and bite at the adventurers to demonstrate their maliciousness and hostility.

[SuperG]

The orcs in Tolkien's novels were not zombie-like. They were corrupted elves and they were very individualistic. They constantly fought for dominance. They were also the creators of perverse, but effective 'machines' geared to war and torture.

Jackson's orcs were bioweapons....

For the record, I have never killed an orc baby. I do not plan on killing an orc baby. But I'm not a Paladin.

Those were Jackson's Uruk Hai.

Given we never find out in the novels how the Uruk Hai were created, but we do see that they are vastly different from corrupted elf Orcs, I buy his interpretation.

What individuality the Uruk Hai showed in the novels would apply to the ones in the movie - yes, they don't speak as much in the movie, but he skipped the scenes where they would have.

Sauron's Orcs also didn't get personality scenes, but we don't see them being grown from mushrooms or something.

[SuperG]

My orcs weren't inherently Evil but the goblinoids were and, like your orc babies, my goblins were born being able to claw and bite. I think that helps mitigate the "Ick!" factor a bit if the babies in question aren't simply lying there helpless but can at least claw and bite at the adventurers to demonstrate their maliciousness and hostility.

Even then...

A baby crocodile can claw and bite, and some baby animals get downright vicious (iirc)... and just because an evil god has it's grip on their soul, doesn't mean they /deserve/ to have the grip.

I mean, a demon possessed human baby? One would want to try and exorcise the demon, not kill the baby.


So even in your setting, what I'd want my good character to do is try and find a way to get this little creature - which is not smart enough to be evil, even if it's vicious (think people who try and preserve the crocodiles) - to have a chance at a life as something other than a monster.

I mean, give a human baby immense physical power and it might kill you in a tantrum. That doesn't make it guilty unless it's smart enough to not really qualify as a baby (rather, it would simply be a small/larval whatever).

[John Morrow]

I mean, a demon possessed human baby? One would want to try and exorcise the demon, not kill the baby.

If the demon can be exorcised, yes. And if it can't?

So even in your setting, what I'd want my good character to do is try and find a way to get this little creature - which is not smart enough to be evil, even if it's vicious (think people who try and preserve the crocodiles) - to have a chance at a life as something other than a monster.

In my setting, doing so would be futile and would produce nothing but frustration for your character, at the very least. I wouldn't stop you from trying it, if you felt that your Good character just had to give it another try, but that wouldn't make it work.

I mean, give a human baby immense physical power and it might kill you in a tantrum. That doesn't make it guilty unless it's smart enough to not really qualify as a baby (rather, it would simply be a small/larval whatever).

Correct. But in my game, they were destined to be Evil and no amount of nurture was going to change that. That was a deliberate design decision. The orcs, on the other hand, could be raised to be non-Evil and it was the obligation of Good characters to spare them.

My point was specifically to address the point about killing the helpless. A human newborn is helpless. My goblin babies were not. Even if both are inherently Evil and cannot be redeemed, it's easier to kill something that's fighting you than something that's just laying there and doesn't pose any threat at all.

[Scurrilous]

Are there any biographies of Gygax which describe his religious background and affiliation?

Not official ones. It came up in the letter to his fans when he had the stroke.

[Maarzan]

One point that gets overlooked is numbers.

First - most monsters, even low CR ones, will mob the floor with common people or 0 lvl town watches and are quite aggressive. Leveled characters can do this with these monsters in a similar way, but they are much fewer than those homanoids and there are some more realy ugly monsters around, that also have to be kept in check.
So monsters surrender once they guess their enemy is over 5th level and has a lawful orientation. But how to deal with those captives, if most of them could break a non leveled guard bare handed? And having surrendered doesn´t mean nice person from now on.
Killing or even taking away the parents that refuse to leave their old ways and beliefs of killing others, will probably not be taken well by the bigger kids. In some few years you will have some angry, dangerous youngsters running around. Double so, if you don´t divide them from the parents and their aggressive culture. At what age do you want to make the cut?

Secondary there is the question of resources. Magic will probably lead to much better grain yields than in our middle ages, but there are also more people and cities in most fantasy worlds and the area to be used for farming has to get controlled because of monsters and is thus further limited.
So (example) there are some hundred or even thousands starving orcs at the border with their families, but the same drough that destroyed their foodbase has decidedly lessened your harvest also and the king has to open his storages to feed the towns people. Now trecks get robbed and farms get burned by probably even partly neutral orcs. But there are to few paladins and guards for too many farms and trecks. Imprisoning the orcs would only mean more people that would have to share the already thining supplies (and starving people or starving orcs anyway).

It is easy to be good, if you are living in an ideal, secure surplus society - but the typical paladin usually has responsibilities und circumstances that will force him to cut somewhere - or else there wouldn´t have been a conflict to start with.
If there is a single tribe making problems it is most probably possible to try to salvage the redeemable members - the crusading Horde on the move or a whole race fighting a war for basic resources- not so much.

[medivh]

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?

Crying kid: "WHYYYYyyyyyy? Why didn't you kill those orcs before they attacked my family?

Paladin: For the same reason I haven't just stapped the baker: There was no cause. Maybe the baker will poison all his bread tomorrow. That he might do so does not give me the right to slay him today.

[Halfjack]

And what do you tell the boy whose parents were slaughtered by the marauding orcs that you are about to go hunt down and kill when he asks you why you didn't do anything about the orcs until after they killed his family?

"Quit cryin' ya baby."

[Flibbertigibbet]

If orcs are inherently evil, then you should just kill the baby. Don't even bother with the "redemption" angle, because you know it's not going to work -- its only purpose is to make you feel better about yourself: "Well, at least I tried!"

If they're just predisposed toward evil, then of course you shouldn't kill the baby, because it might end up good and noble if given the correct upbringing. Given that D&D seems to have been moving away from the idea of "natural" creatures having inherent alignments, this is probably the correct choice. I mean, by EGG's rationale, Drizzt should commit suicide asap before he backslides into spider-worshiping eeeeevil.

Can't we kill him just because he's annoying?

[andreww]

Can't we kill him just because he's annoying?
Only if you promise to take his stuff. And to kill his friends so they wont bring him back from the dead. And all of the priestesses of Lloth who might reanimate him like they did with his dad to make him an even cooler Mary Sue, now with extra undead powerz.

Frankly its probably easier just to not let R A Salvatore near any writing implements for the rest of his natural life.

[Greg 1]

Crying kid: "WHYYYYyyyyyy? Why didn't you kill those orcs before they attacked my family?

Paladin: They weren't ripe yet. Do you have any idea how few xp you get for a baby Orc?