|
|
Post by bentusi16 on Jul 20, 2012 0:05:18 GMT -5
They are monsters as perceived by other humanoids. There is in fact no 'monster' category for any race. Their are aberration, animal, beast, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, giant, goblinoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, orc, outsider, reptilian, shapechanger, undead, and vermin, in NWN, though in regular DND it's less complicated but more so at the same time. Monstrous humanoids are races of humanoid shape that share animal like traits (ex: minotaurs, harpies) Not by the universal measure of good and evil. 3e list them as 'medium humanoids'. (source: www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm ) Also, go look up 'Obould Many-Arrows' to see exactly why FR is FR and NOT Greyhawk. This is why alignment in FR is different then alignment in Greyhawk or other modules, and why not everything is so black and white as it is in other modules. |
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 20, 2012 7:23:35 GMT -5
Orcs are humanoid, and able to make decisions on morality, so you do need a moral reason to kill one... ....Deer and cattle are animals, with no ability to reason or commit either good or evil deeds. You're making a great deal out of their ability to think. Are you suggesting that killing Vermithraxiucus, the ancient red dragon whose body count is higher than Small Pox, is an evil act, because he's intelligent and could choose to change his ways? Is it evil because he hasn't actually killed anyone in twenty years, and just wants to sleep now? Or is it okay because he's not a biped? |
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Jul 20, 2012 7:58:24 GMT -5
According to the book of Exalted Deeds, killing the orcs because you have proof they're about to launch a brutal war isn't evil. Killing them because you want access to the resources of the land they inhabit would be evil. Orcs are humanoid, and able to make decisions on morality, so you do need a moral reason to kill one, and delibrately placing non-combatant orcs in harms way is unambiguously evil. Deer and cattle are animals, with no ability to reason or commit either good or evil deeds. Hunting isn't evil. Orcs are classed as monsters. That's the moral reason. There's no way around that. Orc- Monster. You can kill a monster freely without alignment penalty or restriction. Least that's how I thought DnD worked. If people found out you'd killed a score of Orcs and built a castle on their land they'd likely praise someone for it rather than calling that person evil. Orcs are labelled "Monster" for a reason. Monster doesn't neccessarily mean one cannot reason, or be intelligent. It means to act (not just look) "Monstrous". By all accounts acting in a way none of the civilised races can or will ever accept en masse. I find it ludicrous in a setting such as FR, people suggest that creatures such as Orcs or their kin (Half Orcs not included) should be treated as humanoids with the capacity for sensible reason without violence. This is what makes them worse. They choose to be violent, and aggressive, and evil. As for Animals, I never said anything about hunting. I mentioned farmers slaughtering their animals, which they do. Big difference. However, this was taken out of context. My meaning here was to bring up which is worse to kill.. a Monster, which by all accounts, is "monstrous", or an animal.. which is likely just trying to get by and survive? actually no.. ya can't just launch an attack on any creature, cause their EVIL.. unless your EVIL. you can kill something to stop it from killing something else, what cat mage says is true.Also, Domination, is like having a prisioner in DND. If you Dominate a creature, then have it kill its buddies, when you have other options/ are just doing it because X creature is big and powerful (like a frost giant or something); that there is akin to toture and you should get evil points. Domination is a grey area for me, but right down to killing something in their sleep, or while incapacitated. (hold person/monster/sleep etc) Is also an evil act, now there is a great number of ways you can roll this, but straight up, without circumstance, its an evil act. Domination a Demon thats shredding your party to save the day.. well in that case. you might have less of a chance to prove that was evil. Lets go kill X, is an evil act.. Lets kill X before it kills us. not an evil act. |
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Jul 20, 2012 8:02:40 GMT -5
frc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=lore&action=display&thread=1935Here is the link Written by Ancient Empathy, it is about good and Evil, and defines pretty much Everything. the good thing with Dnd, is that there are rules for everything, no need to debate it. - by spirit of the phoenix, in an lore of the lands on Enchanters.
|
|
|
|
Post by highknight on Jul 20, 2012 8:27:29 GMT -5
 "Look kids, Big Ben!" (Apologies if you don't get the joke.) |
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 20, 2012 10:27:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by highknight on Jul 20, 2012 11:30:17 GMT -5
Always gonna be Big Ben to me. >.> |
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 20, 2012 13:16:42 GMT -5
I wanted to reply to all of this earlier, but the forum was down.
But anyway, the jist of it is this:
Every adventurer currently in game right now, and those that have been created beforehand, may all as well be evil.
Yep, you that's right, the blackest, nastiest, evil. Afterall, I don't know of any PC that's NOT travelled to an Orc Lair, specifically to kill them and take their stuff, as in the opinion of some people, killing Orcs like this, or adventuring in general even (Lets just not keep it to Orcs here, there's plenty of other humanoids that are evil, act monstrously but are "self aware") is evil, because... well... these creatures haven't done anything. So, evil characters rejoice! you can play to your hearts content. Good characters, you sit at home and twiddle your thumbs, think about another career, running an orphanage, maybe!
|
|
|
|
Post by bentusi16 on Jul 20, 2012 13:35:06 GMT -5
You're either purposely missing the point or you don't get it, so I'll explain again.
Killing an orc because it's an orc, is an evil act.
Killing an orc because its been raiding nearby farms/towns/caravans, is not an evil act.
Copy and pastes this and swap orc for every natural humanoid race.
Dragons and outsiders are special cases because they are magically or celestially bound to a certain alignment, but you will note that they are -not- natural humanoids.
|
|
|
|
Post by holyredeemer on Jul 20, 2012 14:40:03 GMT -5
I think I'm missing the point on declaring that just the fact of killing orcs is an evil act unless the orcs are causing mischief.
You are basically giving the benefit of the doubt to orcs since they are sentient, but ask yourself this - would you give the benefit of the doubt to ANY other sentient evil creature? How about Drow? Devils? Trolls?
They are all monsters, and do evil acts as an intrinsic part of their nature. Could there be a Troll that doesn't want to rend humans and eat them for dinner? Sure, but that would be the rarest of cases (lets call that the Drizzt exception).
Adventurers only know these creatures, humanoids, whatevers by their past deeds and historically they do evil and therefore to protect the civilian that don't have enchanted armor and weapons they want to remove these creatures as a threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 20, 2012 14:56:26 GMT -5
You're either purposely missing the point or you don't get it, so I'll explain again. point. Watch your tone or mine will get nasty too. Killing an orc because it's an orc, is an evil act. False. Sorry, you keep insisting this in various ways, but it's not so. Nor is killing a drow because it's a drow an evil act, or Shevarash having non-evil followers makes no sense at all. Nor ogres, goblinoids, various fae, trolls, Sea Hags, or perhaps a thousand other monsters I could list, all of whom are humanoid and sentient. You want very badly for all sentient humanoids to be granted Person status, but I have yet to see any argument for that, you seem to take it as a granted fact and it's simply not. It would be Evil to destroy an Ascended Pitfiend, it would be Good to destroy a Fallen Angel. In this way, sure, it's an Evil act to kill a pitfiend. But you're really not changing the Big Rule here, as an ascended devil is not really a devil any more. An orc who has proven himself a person? Gone to court, say, and is interacting like a person with other persons? THEM it would be evil to kill. They've removed their Monster status. An orc in the wild? Wants to eat you. Shoot the bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by bentusi16 on Jul 20, 2012 15:05:06 GMT -5
Self defense is not an evil act, and I never suggested it was.
Walking into an orc camp and murdering them wholesale because, and this is important, because they are there and for no other reason, is an evil act. Walking in and killing them because they've been raiding caravans? This is a good act.
Killing any humanoid just because you have the ability to is NOT a good act. Your not killing it to prevent it from harming yourself or another, your not killing it to right a wrong, your killing it because you can. If you want to argue that this attitude is not evil, please feel free to, but I'm curious as to how you can argue that the abuse of power over another is considered a non-evil act.
And for your drow argument, there is in fact a reason for them to be killing the drow, which is the slaughter of the elven court or whatever that event is. And as far as I know they have a no kill policy on Drow worshipers of Elisomethingorother.
If you could kill someone for potentially doing an evil act, Detect Evil would be a blank card to kill everyone who popped up evil, ever.
All of that being said, I will happily admit that 99% of the time, killing orcs is a good act, because 99% of the time, they are in fact doing something to warrant punishment. But pretending that by their very NATURE it's all clear to kill them, that seems to suggest that a good character can murder any evil character in any way they want and not be evil in some manner, though they'd definitely be chaotic.
|
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 20, 2012 15:28:29 GMT -5
You're either purposely missing the point or you don't get it, so I'll explain again. point. Watch your tone or mine will get nasty too. Killing an orc because it's an orc, is an evil act. False. Sorry, you keep insisting this in various ways, but it's not so. Nor is killing a drow because it's a drow an evil act, or Shevarash having non-evil followers makes no sense at all. Nor ogres, goblinoids, various fae, trolls, Sea Hags, or perhaps a thousand other monsters I could list, all of whom are humanoid and sentient. You want very badly for all sentient humanoids to be granted Person status, but I have yet to see any argument for that, you seem to take it as a granted fact and it's simply not. It would be Evil to destroy an Ascended Pitfiend, it would be Good to destroy a Fallen Angel. In this way, sure, it's an Evil act to kill a pitfiend. But you're really not changing the Big Rule here, as an ascended devil is not really a devil any more. An orc who has proven himself a person? Gone to court, say, and is interacting like a person with other persons? THEM it would be evil to kill. They've removed their Monster status. An orc in the wild? Wants to eat you. Shoot the bastard. Thank you! Common sense prevails! |
|
|
|
Post by urghargh on Jul 20, 2012 16:06:59 GMT -5
"Look kids, Big Ben!" (Apologies if you don't get the joke.) Pfthth Americans, this is the real Big Ben, that's just the clocktower:  |
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Jul 20, 2012 16:42:25 GMT -5
As bentsui said, most of the time you're probably not going to be commiting a wholesale evil act by killing orcs, because the every orcs in the module attacks you mindlessly because of the AI, and we never encounter orc non-combatants. The point of them being able to reason is moot.
Monster is not a status, it is a term used as a catch all for things that aren't the standard playable races. City of Splendors mentions at least two "monsters" living openly in Waterdeep, and mentions that a fair number of "monsters" live in the city, some peacefully, some as brutes, and some as shadowy do badders. In the FRCS, it mentions a troll mercenary that plys the Lands of Intrigue for work, with a band of standard humanoid mercenaries. I know, "Waterdeep is not Cormyr", but it's not about whether there are are monstrous creatures are capable of being more than mooks to be killed because "They're monsters, it's automatically okay".
Self defense is not evil. No one is saying it's bad to go out and put a stop to orcs ACTIVELY raiding in the area, and FRC is kind enough to either make the orcs be in places that can't help but denote that they're going to be hostile and a threat to put down. But if one of those orcs throws down it's arms and begs for it's life, it's evil to kill it. If you poison the orcs water supply, which includes what the women(most orc tribes do not let women fight) and children drink, you're being evil, because it is indiscriminate murder.
Evil isn't always buying the orphanage and training the kids to be evil. From the BoVD is the example of a man who runs a boarding house, and every so often some men leave some money for him, and he brings up a particular problem student. The student disappears forever. He tells himself he's done nothing wrong.
Evil is not carte blanche to kill. You can not lock up or murder a person for being evil. You -can- watch him like a hawk, spy on him or spread the word to be on the look out for no goodnikness, and otherwise not be a trusting fool. People want evil to be intelligently played, the same should be expected from good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 20, 2012 18:53:15 GMT -5
Walking into an orc camp and murdering them wholesale because, and this is important, because they are there and for no other reason, is an evil act. Walking in and killing them because they've been raiding caravans? This is a good act. I really do get your point. It's still incorrect. You're still conflating orcs with people, and they're just not, not until they prove themselves an exception to the rule. But hey...it's still the rule! Killing any humanoid just because you have the ability to is NOT a good act. Your not killing it to prevent it from harming yourself or another, your not killing it to right a wrong, your killing it because you can. If you want to argue that this attitude is not evil, please feel free to, but I'm curious as to how you can argue that the abuse of power over another is considered a non-evil act. Again with the humanoids! You still have not said why this matters. Please include this in your next response. I will argue that this attitude is chaotic neutral. Revelling in combat is no more evil than revelling in football. If the thrill is not the pain you are causing, if in fact the target's misery is utterly irrelevant to your enjoyment, then you're killing them just for being there and, well, who cares? Torture an orc to death, toss in a few Bwahaha's, and we'll talk Evil points. Abuse of power over another? This applies to people. If orcs aren't people, it's like abuse of power over a horse. Are you really saying whipping your horse to go faster is evil? It's not even evil to kill it for glue. And for your drow argument, there is in fact a reason for them to be killing the drow, which is the slaughter of the elven court or whatever that event is. And as far as I know they have a no kill policy on Drow worshipers of Elisomethingorother. Eilistraee. And that is a policy, not a dogma...plenty of whiteclad dancers get shot by black arrows. If you could kill someone for potentially doing an evil act, Detect Evil would be a blank card to kill everyone who popped up evil, ever. Aha! But now we're talking people again. Back in the day, Detect Evil would only work on the very nastiest of individuals whose hands were caked with blood, and, very importantly, they still had to have Evil Intentions when detected. Only a Blackguard or evil Cleric would radiate evil just hanging around the flat. That should never have changed. It was originally used to see if altars, artifacts and such were EEEEvil. Or to see if someone was possessed. All of that being said, I will happily admit that 99% of the time, killing orcs is a good act, because 99% of the time, they are in fact doing something to warrant punishment. But pretending that by their very NATURE it's all clear to kill them, that seems to suggest that a good character can murder any evil character in any way they want and not be evil in some manner, though they'd definitely be chaotic. See also: characters =/= monsters. This would be a lot clearer to you if you could abandon this kick of "Orcs are people too!" Alternatively you could convince me that orcs require People status. Until then, yes, I'm going to pretend their nature is evil, and kill them with impunity. For your last example, they wouldn't necessarily be chaotic. There are plenty of Lawful ways to break the law. Are we opening that can of worms, now, too? |
|
|
|
Post by highknight on Jul 20, 2012 18:56:22 GMT -5
Eilistraee. And that is a policy, not a dogma...plenty of whiteclad dancers get shot by black arrows. Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Jul 20, 2012 19:46:55 GMT -5
Page 9, book of Exalted Deeds
"Violence in the name of good must have just cause... it is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war on another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not nessecarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them.
The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources."
Monster Manual 3.5e, page 203
Orc, humanoid(orc)
Often Chaotic Evil
MM3.5e
Often: The creature usually has the given the alignment, and a plurality (45-50%) of creatures share this alignment. Exceptions often exist."
I continue with orcs because orcs were the listed reference. When I return I'll bring up more soure to defend the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 20:00:09 GMT -5
When I am done with 'real life' for the day, reading this kind of argument on the forum makes me smile.
|
|
|
|
Post by highknight on Jul 20, 2012 20:30:18 GMT -5
"Look kids, Big Ben!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 20:32:43 GMT -5
"Look kids, Big Ben!" ROFL |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Jul 20, 2012 23:25:50 GMT -5
What if we change "orc" to "winter wolf"? Winter wolves have more INT than most orcs and more WIS than most adventurers so they certainly fit into the 'sentient' category. Nobody seems to have any issue with slaughtering them and all their pups though.
Is it because it's easier to think of them as 'mosters' or just because most don't realize how smart they are?
|
|
mastersenge
Old School
[orange]Player Advocate[/orange] Scoutmaster of Evil Scouts Troop 1372
"I can't brain today. I've got the dumb."
Posts: 516
|
Post by mastersenge on Jul 21, 2012 1:01:15 GMT -5
With the wolves you could say it'e because they attacked first since you arent raiding their lair so much as running across them while travelling.  I know, that has nothing to do with the point your'e making. It's easy to come up with an excuse for orcs in Comyr due to the story of the place that would make for reasons to kill orcs for the sake of good. It's when the good aligned characters go to kill and outright say it's for the gold, which is something I've seen a good bit lately. Or they could just be evil characters that lie about being good aligned. I don't know. Good characters always have to come up with these reasons that are good to do bad things. I rarely play good guys so i dont usually have these problems. My guys can just say it's for the gold or even just to kill somebody or something. |
|
|
|
Post by antimatter on Jul 21, 2012 3:34:55 GMT -5
oh wow. I didn't realize how much of my internalized sense morality came from the BOED (And probably BoVD, now that I think about it). I guess it resonated with me.
*looks up winter wolves quick*
Right. I think the biggest difference here is that unlike orcs, they don't have a civilization. They travel in "packs" of 1-5 individuals and don't really form communities, just families. That's probably why they're more often viewed as monsters (Well, that and the "look a darned lot like a wolf" thing).
Are they monsters? Not particularly. They're more likely to act Monstrously (That is, evil), but other than that ("Usually Neutral Evil"; so a majority, but not an overwhelming one) alignment difference, they're as much a people as Blink Dogs (Usually LG). If anything, maybe even moreso, because Winter wolves explicitly speak common and Giant, while it's not clear if blink dogs can speak at all (Though they tend to form larger packs, for what that's worth; 7-16 in size). Language and community are large parts of what I consider "Proof of being a person", so to speak.
And evil people are still people... just... not good people. Vampires are people... just the sort you really don't want to have anything to do with...
Man, I really want to play a good aligned winter wolf or worg PC, now. You think Drizzt has a hard time getting acceptance? At least a drow is immediately recognizeable as a sentient, sapient being. Gonna slap that up there on campaign ideas along with the campaign where the PCs are intelligent magical items.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Jul 21, 2012 4:10:55 GMT -5
oh wow. I didn't realize how much of my internalized sense morality came from the BOED (And probably BoVD, now that I think about it). I guess it resonated with me. *looks up winter wolves quick* Right. I think the biggest difference here is that unlike orcs, they don't have a civilization. They travel in "packs" of 1-5 individuals and don't really form communities, just families. That's probably why they're more often viewed as monsters (Well, that and the "look a darned lot like a wolf" thing). Are they monsters? Not particularly. They're more likely to act Monstrously (That is, evil), but other than that ("Usually Neutral Evil"; so a majority, but not an overwhelming one) alignment difference, they're as much a people as Blink Dogs (Usually LG). If anything, maybe even moreso, because Winter wolves explicitly speak common and Giant, while it's not clear if blink dogs can speak at all (Though they tend to form larger packs, for what that's worth; 7-16 in size). Language and community are large parts of what I consider "Proof of being a person", so to speak. And evil people are still people... just... not good people. Vampires are people... just the sort you really don't want to have anything to do with... Man, I really want to play a good aligned winter wolf or worg PC, now. You think Drizzt has a hard time getting acceptance? At least a drow is immediately recognizeable as a sentient, sapient being. Gonna slap that up there on campaign ideas along with the campaign where the PCs are intelligent magical items. On that note then, is it evil to destroy a vampire that begs for its life? (It's sounds a bit like I'm mocking you but I'm not, I promise. I'm trying to break down your logic to see just where your and my opinion meet.) If no: What makes it different? |
|
|
|
Post by antimatter on Jul 21, 2012 4:48:36 GMT -5
The difference comes from a few places. Vampires are far, far more often evil than are orcs or winter wolves ("Always" instead of "often" or "usually". "Always" meaning they -are- inherantely evil. Other such "Always evil" things include Devils and Demons; literal incarnations of evil made manifest). This means it's far less likely that they're being honest about surrender, let alone any chance of changing. -If- it was an honest act of repentance (And the attacker knew this), then yes, striking them down would be evil. Of course, even if it -were- an honest act of repentance (Which is -exceedingly- unlikely; you're as likely to see a demon apologize for eating babies becaue it feels bad), it's not the sort of thing you'd know.
Things that are "Always Alignment" generally have a very good reason for being so. Negative energy is Evil (For reasons I don't fully understand; seems to me its really just a representation of entropy or decay, but I'm not sure about that), so undead are by extension. Evil outsiders are literally made of evil. Unicorns Literally radiate an aura against evil. Formians hail from Mechanus and have retained the alignment of that plane. In all these cases, their alignment defines who they are more than their individual choices. Their alignments are hard-coded in.
So to finally answer your question, A vampire begging for mercy is a ploy (Or at best a completely selfish act of survival), so yes, killing them is fine, because they don't mean it. If a vampire swears he'll change, then he's lying. Because he -can't- change. (Barring some very bizarre circumstances and some powerful magic.) A wight that says it will stop killing is lying; either because it's not a wight or because it's not surrendering: They're held together by their hatred. If a wight -did- let go of its hatred, sure, it wouldn't be evil. It also would be put to rest, the hatred that literally supports its existence being gone, kind of solving that problem itself.
Hmmm. Thinking on it now, I'm not sure sure vampires -are- people, despite what I said earlier. They can reason, but they can't... choose, I guess? I feel like this is getting into Free will vs. Destiny/fate. Where things with Free Will (Which requires capability for thought, of course; understanding what the consequences of an action are are necessary to have morality; this is why Animals and vermin in D&D are Neutral) are people and those without are not.
Again, extreme magical powers can change a lot of this; a demon can don a helm of opposite alignment and become Good. No doubt such a demon would have a great deal of difficulty dealing with shadows of its former life, but It would behave differently than other demons. Its first reaction when meeting with a person would, unlike most demons, not be "Kill/torture/enslave". Which means in turn that it could hope a similar response to be afforded it by good creatures.
I suspect this is why Paladins disfavor ambushes. They don't allow potential exceptions to the rule. Of course, a paladin of a war god is going to be far more willing to/able to ambush people, because it's a strong tactical advantage to surrender. And because I doubt they were taught these deep philosphical ideas, or that a demon could be good aligned. They were taught that demons are evil, and demons ARE evil. That there may be two Good ones in the multiverse doesn't mean demons aren't kill on sight.
So there's my thinking. You can probably tell its a bit disorganized and unclear. That's because it's not hammered out fully in my mind yet. It's just kind of a set of guidelines, and it's not heavily internalized (My own doctrine goes for "The action that causes most happiness for the most people is the most good action." but I realize that's not at all what D&D's default alignment system is.)
This conversation is helping me forge a better representation of those guidelines though, so huzzah!
|
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Jul 21, 2012 11:07:38 GMT -5
With the wolves you could say it'e because they attacked first since you arent raiding their lair so much as running across them while travelling. I know, that has nothing to do with the point your'e making. It's easy to come up with an excuse for orcs in Comyr due to the story of the place that would make for reasons to kill orcs for the sake of good. It's when the good aligned characters go to kill and outright say it's for the gold, which is something I've seen a good bit lately. Or they could just be evil characters that lie about being good aligned. I don't know. Good characters always have to come up with these reasons that are good to do bad things. I rarely play good guys so i dont usually have these problems. My guys can just say it's for the gold or even just to kill somebody or something. this is why the safe road system is less believable then what was. Once upon the time, many years ago, on FRC. If there was an orc lair near by, Generally there was X creatures along the road that would attack you, (and often if you weren't big enough levels, maim you) but that made adventuring rather easy to find an excuse. LG characters who wanted to "walk to arabel to aid the city" could buy food and water etc in one town, travel all the way to arabel, and drop it off.. and along the way get pulled into two or more dungeons by orcs/goblins/ trolls. you didn't need to "find trouble" trouble found you, which I rather liked. But it harmed those that wanted to walk city to city safely. So now its a stretch for good characters to claim "Defense of a town" when they attack first. but you kind of have to look the other way in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Jul 21, 2012 11:51:24 GMT -5
I know, that has nothing to do with the point your'e making. It's easy to come up with an excuse for orcs in Comyr due to the story of the place that would make for reasons to kill orcs for the sake of good. It's when the good aligned characters go to kill and outright say it's for the gold, which is something I've seen a good bit lately. Or they could just be evil characters that lie about being good aligned. I don't know. Good characters always have to come up with these reasons that are good to do bad things. I rarely play good guys so i dont usually have these problems. My guys can just say it's for the gold or even just to kill somebody or something. ;D These guys started that trend. lol! |
|
elysiumfields
Old School
Two Kit Determinator
Flavour text is tasty
Posts: 512
|
Post by elysiumfields on Jul 21, 2012 14:12:00 GMT -5
You can argue the semantics of good and evil, law and chaos all you want. You can quote source and you can make logical argument for every situation under the sun.
But the bottom line is this:
Alignments and their shifts are what the DMs tell us they are until they tell us otherwise.
I know I just broke my rule regarding talking about the alignment topic, but I thought it important to point that out in the light of seeing Big Ben three times already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 21, 2012 18:54:50 GMT -5
I think there's a discrepancy somewhere in this thread worth mention.
"Not Good" is not the same as "Evil".
If an act is Not Good, it means it will not get you any Good points.
If an act is Evil, it means it will get you Evil points.
You will not get any Good points for the slaughter of orcs. It's too mundane.
You will not get any Evil points for it either.
Let me just finish by saying that I am just terribly amused that if we're pushing morality to the point where Orcs Are People Too, it's somehow still okay to destroy entire villages for the actions of a few of their more aggressive men. Are they people or not? You don't slaughter and burn down a village because some bandits grew up there. If you go there to arrest the perpetrators and the others attack you...aren't they acting in self defense?
On the other hand, you could call them monsters and just kill them.
|
|
