A Paladin comes across some orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs. They are all Chaotic Evil. Is the Paladin obligated to wipe them out?
A Paladin comes across some orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs. They are all Chaotic Evil.
A Paladin comes across some orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs. They are all Chaotic Evil. Is the Paladin obligated to wipe them out?
Yes, next question.
Yup
Yes.
INTO HELL!
Why do we keep having these threads?
Because inevitably someone will make a strongly worded and/or politically charged response to OP that will spark harsh debate that will go on for several hundred posts. And then we'll all do it again in the next thread.
Because mods can't be bothered to ban obvious trolls threads that have been posted since 2008
because OP is too busy sucking dick to read the last 5 threads he asked this very question in. so he has to repeat himself, ad nauseum.
Because there's a constant flood of normalgay morons into DnD now and alignments are such a trash system that even the newest of newbies can make hypotheticals that break the system.
Alignments aren't a bad system, people just have a feeble understanding of it and try to twist it when in reality, it's very simple.
As the Paladin is Lawful Good, he is obliged to sword them all or risk falling. If he were a Chaotic Good character, he would instead enslave them.
Chaotic Good characters don't believe in slavery.
Yes they do. That's what makes them chaotic.
False. Chaotic characters believe in freedom.
Freedom is a right, and rights are lawful
Take it up with Gygax. In D&D Law refers to tradition and Chaos refers to freedom.
>Take it up with Gygax
Gygax is literally the man who said that LG kills the orc noncombatants, NG lets them go, and CG either lets them go or enslaves them
I also argue for killing the orc pups.
Why do people here seem to have such a hard time understanding that D&D is a game, real life is real and that just because you should take certain actions in a game doesn't mean that you should take those same actions in real life.
In real life if you go and track down a ring of bandits: looters, thieves, violent criminals, and child molesters; and kill every last one of them you'll be arrested for violating the law.
In D&D if you go and track down a ring of bandits: looters, thieves, violent criminals, and child molesters; and kill every last one of them you'll likely have a parade thrown in your honor.
>CG either lets them go or enslaves them
Wouldn't that make them LE? There is nothing chaotic or good about slavery.
Man take it up with Gygax he's the one who made that call
>nothing chaotic or good about slavery
what if keeping them enslaved is literally the only practical way to allow them to live without near certainty that they will murderhobo other people?
ie. imagine your standard medieval village, they capture 2 orc raiders. There is zero question or ambiguity that if they let the orcs go, they will merely return to reaving the countryside, because that's all that orcs do and nothing else.
the village is in no way able to feed, shelter and guard 2 big-eaters in any prison
Lawful conduct proscribes that the orcs must be immediately executed. Neutral conduct proscribes the same. Only a chaotic being would conceive to try and find radical alternatives in a situation of such mortal opposition.
Evil wouldn't even consider letting such a threat persist and there is nothing neutral about not executing an enemy whose sole purpose of existence is to ruin everything you have.
It would take an act of Good in those circumstances to take up the immense risk of letting these orcs live and accept the responsibility of watching and controlling them to make sure they don't do more harm in faint hope that they might acclimate to human customs and that witnessing lifestyles that do not solely consist of reaving might prompt them to try to participate in that life style.
ps. I think vast majority of people who play table top these games are just incapable of even imagining, yet alone comprehending the thought process of a truly POOR society. The kind of society where prisons aren't a thing because the community literally cannot afford to waste able bodied men on guarding them nor can they afford to feed freeloaders because everyone must work if enough food and resources are to be produced. Such people always assume there are many alternatives are available in such situations, neglecting to consider how much overall wealth said alternatives require.
>Neutral conduct
No such thing. Neutral is merely something between either side of an axis.
Slavery is Lawful Evil. It's the polar opposite of CG.
Chaotic Characters do whatever they want tho
>A Paladin comes across some orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs.
Children. Babies. They arent animals, you frickwit.
>They are all Chaotic Evil.
How? Seriously, fricking how? They are innocents having never participated in the actions required to become evil. And no humanoid species is automatically of a specific alignment, its an effect of the actions one takes in their life accumulating aligned energies within their souls that determine their place in the afterlife realms. There are no evil babies, barring very specific exceptions.
>Is the Paladin obligated to wipe them out?
No. A paladin does not kill innocents, its literally a core principle of being LG.
>a Chaotic Good character, he would instead enslave them
Slavery is explicitly a LE action taken by evil societies. This is explicit in the lore of a ton of settings and the rules themselves generally via the domains of some archdevil or evil god of tyranny and law, usually Asmodeus.
>Think of it like finding a nest of rattlesnake eggs in your back yard. You'd break them, wouldn't you?
What a remarkably stupid question. No. Any sane person of even the lowest decency would call animal control to remove them humanely. They are simply animals living their lives, not sapients who can be reasoned with and who must be stopped by violence if they choose harm.
>Orcs in the standard D&D setting are just always chaotic evil.
No they are not. Orcs in D&D have never been always evil. Even in 3.5 where the Always Evil desigantion comes from, Orcs didn't have it being Often CE. This meant they were about 60% of orcs encountered were CE, with the rest being something else including good. Even in the various settings, and especially in FR, orcs have ranged across alignments. And the standard D&D setting, which changes on edition, have always had nonevil orcs and plenty of them.
>They are innocents having never participated in the actions required to become evil. And no humanoid species is automatically of a specific alignment, its an effect of the actions one takes in their life accumulating aligned energies within their souls that determine their place in the afterlife realms. There are no evil babies, barring very specific exceptions.
And this is why israelites are still a thing.
Holy shit no. If you have a rattlesnake nest in your yard you kill it. If you get a wienerroach infestation you wipe it out. If wolves are coming into your area you shoot them. Don't be a fricking sheep.
That having been said, orc babies are not automatically chaotic evil and a paladin would be able to detect if they were.
>now the psycho has graduated to fantizising about shooting wolves, a generally avoidant and benign creature that only become a problem in areas of radical habitat encroachment
Next you'll sperg out about bears and torturing hedgehogs. I repeat, please fricking have a nice day.
Wolves. Are. Dangerous.
And yet without wolves, we wouldn't have man's best friend.
Frick a wolf. I ain't owe a wolf shit.
So the wolf is limiting my harvest of beaver pelts. The wolf must go
>moron can't read
You are actually fricking stupid.
You. Are. moronic.
Wolves are generally not dangerous, moron.
They can be, of course, if you encroach on their territories and frick their habitats to the point where they can't just avoid you. The fact that you're in a state of panic regarding the natural world suggests that you're a sheltered bugman, and your neurotic psychopathy reveals you to be the vilest kind; that of the simpering semite.
I repeat, please fricking have a nice day.
Based ecofascist worldview enjoyer.
FBI is Lawful Evil.
CIA is Chaotic Evil.
On the contrary, I am an American outdoorsman and I have a frontier mentality. My forefathers killed wolves and took their territory. I wouldn't kill a wolf if I saw one while visiting a park but you can be damn sure I would be armed in that park after that point.
I am not currently expanding my territory but I would certainly kill any wolf that attempted to expand his onto mine.
>On the contrary, I am an American outdoorsman and I have a frontier mentality.
Two lies in one post.
>I wouldn't kill a wolf if I saw one
Your previous posts indicate otherwise, as you have revealed yourself to be an actual psychopath undeserving of life.
>I would be armed
I support liberal gun laws, but people like you really should be screened for. I would say "barred from ownership", but I think that would be unnecessary since you really should just be euthanized, since psychopathy is at least partly hereditary.
People like me are the only reason a wolf didn't eat your great great grandma when she was a baby.
No, my people have historically have a very small number of psychopaths, and there were no cityscapes for bugmen like you to proliferate in when my great-great grandma was around.
She was a milkmaid in a rural agrarian region, by the way, with wolves being very rare - and like most wolves evasive and elusive when allowed to be. I say this because I know where I came from, whereas you're a rootless mutt trying to present your psychopathy and desire for animal cruelty as something cool or desirable on a Moldavian basket-weaving forum, and I can't think of anything more pathetic.
Gee I wonder why the wolves were so rare
>And no humanoid species is automatically of a specific alignment
Have you ever seen a human child? Without being forced out of it through rigorous years of training, humans are a chaotic evil race by default.
>a child remains a child if not trained rigorously
Not even remotely true. There's a very clear developmental progression in children, although different from population to population (subsaharans arguably never reaches what would be considered the final stages among europeans).
Frick no
Either Humanity is Neutral Good by Nature of Lawful Good by force of will
Why would a chaotic evil race glorify Honor, Justice and Lawfullness?
If humanity is truly good the we follow our nature or if humanity is truly evil then we are going against our nature simple to be good
Either way humanity is good
It is a cruel and thoughtless thing to say humanity is evil
Humanity is neutral with good characteristics
Humanity has a very weird idea of justice where the only thing that’s needed to inflict pain on someone is the approval of the mob regardless of their actual guilt. Likewise, our ideas of honor are predicated more on cruelty than they are on any concept of altruism.
You act as if anthropocentric humanist liberal democracy as perpetuated by semites is the default state of humanity, even though its reign has barely lasted for 100 years and have been disastrous for the entire planet in virtually every way, from the psychological destabilisation of the masses to the wanton destruction of the entire ecosphere.
Lawful Neutral at best, anon. Never Lawful good. Our society favors only the system.
>Either Humanity is Neutral Good by Nature of Lawful Good by force of will
Lawful neutral through force at best. Good is not something our society favors. It praises it, yes, but it'd much prefer you follow the system unquestioningly
>Why would a chaotic evil race glorify Honor, Justice and Lawfullness?
Because those traits are rooted in evil ones, just shaped into ones our society approves of. Honor has its roots in our stubbornness, Justice has roots in Vengeance, and Law itself was built because people with food made a system to tell other people what to do.
>If humanity is truly good the we follow our nature or if humanity is truly evil then we are going against our nature simple to be good
I never said that humanity couldn't be good, particularly on the individual level, just that our nature is evil.
>It is a cruel and thoughtless thing to say humanity is evil
It is not without thought that this is stated, though i might agree that it may be cruel to point out our flaws as a species.
Yep. There's even 2e D&D modules fhat've shown that you can make evil creatures good through effort.
I feel like a lot of your confusion would be solved by simply defining what a human is.
By that logic shouldn’t you also be able to train a baby orc to be good?
Your inability to understand the question and morality disqualifies you from answering not the other way around.
>How? Seriously, fricking how?
Biology. Morality is mostly inherited.
>Even in 3.5 where the Always Evil desigantion comes from,
Always/Usually/Often was there since AD&D 2e in the very least, moron-kun.
Actually 1e with roots in original.
Monster scene descriptions had alignment noted, it just wasn't as prominent/front of the statblock because everyone understood "if its doing something bad and/or doesnt start the confrontation with a peace offer if found doing something questionable, kill it" due to that very fact being slammed at the start of both the PHB and DMG alignment section.
For example og lich cabal and Basics beyond 20 boss fight both being always chaotic evil liches vs AD&Ds "range of lich features by their levels in life" and usually neutral evil, but as a random in encounter always chaotic evil lich distinction.
>They arent animals
Independent fact checkers have determined this statement to be false
Obligated? No.
Can he, should he, would he? Yes.
>[Alignment] character, he would [specific action]
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. I know what you're referencing, and the point that was being made was that enslavement was just one of the potential actions that could fall within the alignment.
>find eggs of animals
>break them
What kind of fricking psycho are you? Real question. The way you treat your psychopathic actions as a foregone conclusion is fricking chilling. Consider suicide.
>Slavery is explicitly a LE action
Slavery is not an individual action, but an institution, and at its base it is Lawful, not Evil, nor specifically Lawful Evil, although it certainly can be. Thinking all slavery is semitic chattel slavery is peak brain rot.
>Thinking all slavery is semitic chattel slavery is peak brain rot.
But it is all Evil.
Semitic chattel slavery? Yes, that is all Evil.
All slavery? No.
>All slavery? No.
Yes.
Feel free to be wrong forever and never have alignment make sense, I guess.
How does slavery being bad make alignment not make sense.
The act of slavery, AKA, forced labour without compensation is not inherently Evil under appropriate circumstances. Where the alignments differ is where slavery is acceptable and under what terms. If a man gently forces his child to wash the dishes instead of watch the television by turning it off and telling him he can have the remote back when the dishes are done, he is technically coercing them into forced labour, but that is a morally neutral act anyone with a healthy upbringing would acknowledge as reasonable in the context.
Bro, stop. You're going to blow his fricking mind. npc programming has made him believe slavery only happened to joggers, it was only America/Whites that engaged in it, and anything else that resembles slavery in the modern day isn't actually slavery, but some new made up PC term to not undermine "the message," don't you see?
It fricks me up a little to use a cell phone knowing that hundreds of slave workers were involved in the production chain that got it to the store that I then bought it from, but I don't consider myself to have not had a part in it because it makes me feel bad. There's plenty of alternatives but none are as convenient and wouldn't impact my life. I participate in slavery because there's not any real means to avoid doing so. Going to the store, 90% of products on the shelves involved slavery or companies profiting from slavery, and most wagies are being paid subsistence wages which could be considered a form of slavery but the freedom of choice exempts it from that, although it could be argued that there is no freedom of choice. Obscurationist capitalism's fricked, at least the old plantations were upfront.
>bad
Nobody said it wasn't bad.
Slavery *is* bad.
Slavery *is* evil.
Slavery *is not* Evil.
That's moronic. Evil is evil and evil is Evil. Good is good and good is Good. You cannot have evil Good or good Evil.
False. McDonald's 20pc chicken nuggets are fundamentally Evil but most would agree they are good.
You're conflating your subjective ideas of "good" and "evil" with the objective nature of alignment and the cosmic forces of "Good" and "Evil".
You might consider the euthanization of orcs as "evil" or "horrifying" in the colloquial sense, and I have certainly played characters that would feel that way, but it would still be Good. So yes, in an alignment context, no matter how stupid it may sound, there can be "evil Good". There's a reason why we casually delineate between the terms by means of capitalization to avoid confusion.
You have no idea how romans, the ottoman empire or even scandinavian cultures treated slaves/indentured servants.
Look up what a huskarl is if you want to learn how slavery can be a lawful neutral institution
For an evil person, an evil institution look neutral. You're proven you're evil and everything you say should be ignored outside of court.
Nonsense, slavery itself as a concept is unaligned. If a CE bandit forces an innocent farmer to work for him, that's well-within the bounds of slavery, while if a CN agrees to keep an indentured servant for so many years in exchange for passage to another plane, that's also well-within the bounds of slavery, whereas if a CG pressgangs an arsonist into helping rebuild the homes he burnt, that's likewise well-within the bounds of slavery. Arguing that slavery, that is, forced labour without compensation is inherently Lawful is like arguing murder, that is, killing a man regardless of its justification or the lack thereof, is inherently Chaotic.
You equate any forced labor without compensation to slavery, which is not what slavery is. That's the disconnect here. Slavery is an institution, and traditionally comes with various types of slavery, whether it is regulated solely by the market or policy.
*Force* it itself, which is ultimately what you're talking about, the exercise of force whether to kill or build, is ultimately Unaligned, yes, I agree with that.
Slavery doesn't remotely require institutional backing. If I were to kidnap a +400lb neckbeard, chain him in my basement, and force him to run on a treadmill while drinking water and eating eggs until he lost his weight, that would be indisputably slavery, but at no point is a broader organization involved.
No, that would not be slavery. It'd be kidnapping and a host of other crimes, but it wouldn't really be slavery. It would mostly just be weird.
How is forced labour without compensation not slavery? If a bandit gang were to force the population of a local village onto a plantation and worked them near to death, that would be slavery, but at no point is a legitimate state actor or larger, societal faction involved in the process. Does slavery have to be a collective, group effort? I was under the impression that slavery is any situation where a man is worked and not compensated for that work, no matter the scale.
I mean, sure, it *tends* to be, but one of the core parts of slavery is really that the slave's life is not his own, that he can be traded, and that the slave is fully beholden to a master. Without the transactory aspect of it, it often wouldn't meet the standard. But I'll admit that there are valid corner cases, such as the bandits and the village you describe, where it would be hard to argue that it wouldn't be slavery (and the capital E type, even). I'll concede that at its widest possible interpretation, slavery as a concept could arguably be considered Unaligned. But I maintain that the imposition of will and inherent iron-clad hierarchy makes the vast majority of slavery in the sense in which the term is traditionally used principally Lawful. Defining it by an enduring master-slave relationship is probably a better conception than the institutional factor.
Right, I'm not arguing that slavery isn't generally Lawful, but that there are plenty of examples of non-Lawful slavery that certainly apply.
True, but there's no personal choice involved. Serfdom could arguably be called slavery, or at least adjacent to slavery, and is a good example. There's no possibility of leaving the fields to go do something else, or to pursue another career, or what have you.
>and not compensated for that work
Throughout much of history depending on location, this has not been true. Compensation by various means have sometimes even been mandated by law, especially when it comes to food and housing.
>killing a man regardless of its justification or the lack thereof, is inherently Chaotic.
No it's inherently evil, just like how slavery is inherently lawful.
Even ancient people considered it a necessary evil.
If you think otherwise, you are evil yourself.
>Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I like this way of putting it.
The LG Paladin would 10/10 times sword them, unless it's absolutely a 1 out of 1000 instance where killing these maggot spawned evil rapist orcs isn't the best way to smite evil.
>Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.
>I like this way of putting it.
Yeah, really, this idea that everyone fits neatly into each alignment, that alignments somehow mandate how people should or even would act, and that there's only ever some singular action (and only that action!) that is "correct" in regards to a given alignment, and that any mortal with a given alignment does (and must!) encapsulate the totality of their alignment, it's all deeply cancerous and one-dimensional. It really is a sub-80 IQ Black person take and I'm always surprised by how many people have difficulties grasping such a basic-b***h concept like a two-dimensional graph with relatively objective standards.
>The LG Paladin would 10/10 times sword them, unless it's absolutely a 1 out of 1000 instance where killing these maggot spawned evil rapist orcs isn't the best way to smite evil.
This assumes that the paladin somehow always knows the best way to smite Evil at any given time, which he almost certainly does not. What the paladin would actually do would entirely be up to the paladin. Even if he would choose not to kill the orc babies out of mercy or pity, he wouldn't fall, because that would not be an Evil action, and the paladin only needs to maintain his alignment, which certainly wouldn't shift unless this would be the final straw in a history of disregarding principle or engaging in wanton naivety.
In a world where there's such a thing as "always chaotic evil" races who are irredeemably evil from childhood, then yes.
Think of it like finding a nest of rattlesnake eggs in your back yard. You'd break them, wouldn't you?
No, but that's because snakes are true neutral and cool.
>You'd break them, wouldn't you
I would call animal control because rattlesnakes are non-native to my backyard but also I don't want to accidentally break any laws re: rattlesnake eggs. That's lawful.
>Think of it like finding a nest of rattlesnake eggs in your back yard. You'd break them, wouldn't you?
Why break them when they can be safely removed and the snakes released into their natural habitat?
The backyard is their natural habitat.
>Think of it like finding a nest of rattlesnake eggs in your back yard. You'd break them, wouldn't you?
Why would I? I'd move them somewhere else.
Homicidal maniacs dream of an excuse to kill something
Orcs don't have cubs, you dumbass, they have orclets.
>orclets
That's just a short orc.
A young orc is an "imp", not in the outsider fiend sense.
Yep
The paladin can do whatever he wants. If he kills the orcs, that's lawful and good, because they're chaotic evil and will become a problem later on. If he lets them live, that's lawful and good, because he didn't kill a defenseless opponent.
By that logic Sgt Barnes is LG
Uh, no?
Humans in real life don't have set morality we are in a constant flux bouncing between (and occasionally across) boundaries that we set for ourselves. Orcs in the standard D&D setting are just always chaotic evil. End of story. Age is not a factor.
Additionally, afterlives are a real thing in D&D. If you know that the afterlife is real and that your soul will be ushered to your god when you die, then why shouldn't a Paladin kill evil orc cubs? Keeping them alive would cause suffering, killing them sends them on their way to the being who they will see in the end regardless.
> Humans in real life don't have set morality we are in a constant flux bouncing between
The post modern cuck of a man personified. Everything is relative and nothing is to be taken seriously. Men like you will be the downfall of civilisation. Much like Ancient Rome we will fall to homosexuals and girly men like you.
>Much like Ancient Rome we will fall to homosexuals and girly men like you.
Rome fell to internal corruption and degeneracy brought about by conversion to Christianity and the destruction of the Roman way of life.
Found the Monkeypox spreader.
Hey, facts are facts whether your feelings hate them or not.
Uh? Sorry, I'm too busy enjoying my smooth unblemished skin.
Even before christianity became the majority religion, Romans were being influenced by foreign cultures. For example many Roman soldiers worshipped Mitra which was an iranian deity. Which is funny because the Romans had off and on wars with the Persians.
No, it died by literal multiculturalism brought on by the goths flooding Rome as civilians, and pussified artsy homosexuals not having what it takes to tell them to frick off while the real men were too busy winning the bulk majority of their wars.
>internal corruption and degeneracy brought about by conversion to Christianity
They hated him for he told the truth
Behold; the smallest-brained, most intentionally dishonest way to interpret a post.
>interpret
Your weakness is showing again you postmodern melatonin worshipper.
If you took a second to stop gobbling wieners you'd realize that setting boundaries around what we each find morally acceptable and choosing to occasionally take actions that are closer to the edge of what we find acceptable is quite different from moral relativity, but your brain is too addled from your daily anal semen injections to understand that without someone pointing it out, I guess.
>Ad hominem
Typical leftoid
That is rich coming from the lefty. Namely, you.
>Melatonin worshipper
The question is basically "Are you white or Chinese".
Chinese believe in the absolute morality of removing your enemies " by the root".
Stop making these threads.
Gary Gygax was Chinese?
No just old and bitter after he got kicked off the project.
He hadn't been a developer for DND for decades at that point.
>Killing is wrong!
But he's evil
>But he's a baby!
But he's evil
>But he can be redeemed!
Always Evil
>How do you know?
I'm the fricking DM
>You can't just say he's evil!
I can
>B-but in-universe it makes no sense
He pings as really fricking evil on Detect Evil
>But I can fix him
The Grand Master of the paladin shows up and says "Yep, that's an evil one all right! Tried redeeming one once, he took my eye out and burned an orphanage. Put him down!
>But #NotAllOrcs!
The greatest scholar of the realm, who studied orcs his entire life, affirms this by saying: "Not surprising, every orc baby I ever studied was just like that. You should put him down!"
>But his knowledge isn't perfect!
The almighty and all-knowing creator of the universe declares "I have seen everything that is, everything that isn't and everything that could be! This orc is evil, strike it down!"
>Wow, there's a lot to unpack here! Maybe the creator is actually evil and we should strike him down to free ourselves from this tyranny!
To the surprise of absolutely nobody the creator strikes you down to hell
>Who is to say this is hell! If the creator is evil and condemned me, then maybe this is actually heaven! It's heaven in my mind!
Did you even read my post?
>Orcs in the standard D&D setting are just always chaotic evil. End of story. Age is not a factor.
I advocate for killing orc pups. Not against.
You are replaying to the most moronic frog posting homosexual that I have ever seen in a month
>replying to frogposters
>Did you even read my post?
No, I just reply whatever I feel like replying.
you sound like a shit railroading GM and should stick to D&D so the rest of us don't have to deal with your kind
I'm going to sticky this in my peer to peer MERP radiochannel from 8am to 9am on loop.
Would just save us all the trouble and boot them after "How do you know?"
By this logic we should kill all black people in America so they can go to heaven instead of being oppressed.
Expect we have no good reason to believe Heaven exists, you idiot. You might as well ask why all the theists don't just kill themselves. But you didn't, because you're an idiot.
>Orcs in the standard D&D setting are just always chaotic evil.
And the Vietcon aren't?
This anon gets it
>lawful, VC are not NVA regular. Not permitted Geneva Convention protection
>good, executing the mission
Death to the subhumans.
According to Gaigax, everyone of the good alignments, except maybe chaotic, is obligated to kill them, since they will grow to spread evil themselves. The chaotic goods can at least enslave the orcs to hopefully teach them better ways, or at minimum benefit from the existence of evil for the purposes of good.
And in Middle Earth, are Orcs even alive in the way Men and Elves are? I thought they were animated by the pieces of Morgoth's soul that he into suffused Middle Earth like the ring, and thus lacked souls.
nits make lice
>And in Middle Earth, are Orcs even alive in the way Men and Elves are
From what I recall orcs are just corrupted elves and men and Tolkien himself had restraint calling them irredeemably evil in one his letters so it does seem possible for an orc to be good
>Tolkien himself had restraint calling them irredeemably evil in one his letters so it does seem possible for an orc to be good
Untrue. He left the option open based on his Christcuck conception of the world itself, which is as a fundamentally "good" creation, and therefore, orcs being a product and part of that world, had to be "redeemable" in the metaphysical sense. But at no point were orcs nothing but a corruption of elves and there was arguably righteously genocided after the fall of Sauron, judging by his notes on a sequel to LotR that never materialized, where orcs were virtually unknown.
They're not, though. Elves as a whole are prone to chaos, while dwarves as a whole are prone to law, metallic dragons and aasimar and such are prone to Good. Humans are literally the baseline, and are prone to no particular alignment or axis, except arguably neutral since more humans are not prone to the extremes (i.e. LE, LG, CE, CG).
This. It's just order vs. chaos and self-sacrifice vs. self-centered. It's that simple.
>Elves as a whole are prone to chaos, while dwarves as a whole are prone to law
Chaotic Good and Lawful Good respectively
>Humans are literally the baseline, and are prone to no particular alignment or axis
Which by extension means they're inherently more likely to be Evil than the inherently Good races, and thus should be killed. Nits make lice and all.
No. Only humans are allowed to go round genociding other races for arbitrary reasons while being considered good and just in doing so.
Can you explain why this double standard exists, and why humans benefit from it? Explain it with in-universe reasons, not metagame reasons.
Humanity first, no exceptions.
That's moronic, even humanity doesn't think humanity should be first IRL, most of our religions are about serving something greater than ourselves.
Yeah they do. They just murdered a friendly Walrus in Norway because there's a .0001% it could have harmed some one.
Exterminating entire species for short term gain is typical human behavior.
Humans don't worship walruses.
Because in-universe, Humanity is trusted by the Gods to be Good. Other races can be Evil so the Forces of Good seek out and destroy Evil.
>Humanity is trusted by the Gods to be Good.
Nope, humanity can be trusted to be Neutral at most, it's Elves, Aasimar, Dwarves, and Metallic dragons that can be trusted to be Good.
Elves are around 80% Evil (Drow are all Evil and are the most populous of their kind the rest are neutral to good but it varies) Dwarves are around 60% Evil 30% Neutral and all Chaotic due to their inherent Greed, Dragons are all evil, also due to greed and arrogance and Aasimar have too low numbers to properly class them.
>Elves are around 80% Evil (Drow are all Evil and are the most populous of their kind the rest are neutral to good but it varies)
Drow are different from Elves.
>Dwarves are around 60% Evil 30% Neutral
False, Dwarves are "usually Lawful Good" meaning at minimum 51% are Lawful Good.
>Dragons are all evil, also due to greed
False, half the dragon population is different variants of Good due to being Metallic Dragons.
Well no. Orcs are evil and only a few can raise above their culture and nature. Humans are 70% Lawful Good with only few being full on Evil.
>Humans are 70% Lawful Good with only few being full on Evil.
False. Humans are 90% Lawful Neutral, 9% different variants of Evil (mostly Lawful Evil), and 1% different variants of Good. Humans will inevitably breed more Evil people than Good people. Kill them all, nits make lice.
What sample size did you use? Did you ensure double-blind testing procedures were used? Is your study peer-reviewed?
Yes.
Prove it.
Prove that I didn't do it.
If you had it, you would have posted it now.
Therefore, I just proved that you didn't do it.
QED.
>If you had it, you would have posted it now.
Prove it.
Dumb gatchaBlack person
>Chaotic Good and Lawful Good respectively
Wrong. Both Drow and Duergar are types of elves and dwarves, respectively. Elves as a whole are usually Chaotic, while dwarves as a whole are usually Lawful.
>Which by extension means they're inherently more likely to be Evil than the inherently Good races, and thus should be killed.
"More than" does not mean "actually". Deal with it.
>Nits make lice and all.
Yes, and baby humans are not nits, nor are humans as a whole lice.
That being said, your line of thinking isn't entirely without merit, and could easily form the basis for a fallen angel or a corrupted gold dragon or something to that effect, whatwith the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
Both of you are factually wrong. Humans are the baseline for alignment (and for virtually everything else), and can go in any direction, although are somewhat more prone to some neutrality due to the nature of the alignment system itself.
Outside of semitic delusions, this is fundamentally untrue. Most structures of faith are or have historically been centered around extensions of human concepts and archetypes.
>Both Drow and Duergar are types of elves and dwarves,
But are still listed separately.
>Elves as a whole are usually Chaotic, while dwarves as a whole are usually Lawful.
Chaotic Good and Lawful Good respectively.
>"More than" does not mean "actually". Deal with it.
Same applies to Orcs. Deal with it.
>Yes, and baby humans are not nits, nor are humans as a whole lice.
Yes, and baby Orcs are not nits, nor are Orcs as a whole lice.
>But are still listed separately
Irrelevant. Many things are listed separately.
>Chaotic Good and Lawful Good respectively.
Repeating yourself does not make you correct. But feel free to be wrong forever.
>Same applies to Orcs.
No, because Orcs are "actually".
>Deal with it.
I don't have to, because you're simply wrong. Your inability to understand the sliding scale of alignments and instead try to create hard lines between relative concepts suggests that you're actually autistic, for which reason I must encourage you to have a nice day.
>and baby Orcs are not nits, nor are Orcs as a whole lice.
No, in the context of the discussion, they are the nits that makes lice, and objectively so. As opposed to humans, orcs are inherently prone to Evil. But feel free to cope and seethe over it.
Untrue. While animists often attribute power to the inhuman, it is seldomly what is worshipped or forms the basis of the religion other than in comics-grade storylines that wants to showcase some kind of "primitive" "religion". Once a faith has graduated from mere superstition to an actual religion with a narrative, tenets, rituals, etc., it *almost* invariably start to anthropomorphize. Outside of semitism and possibly some key isolated African tribes maybe, you'll see this pattern very consistently, where the exalted are almost always very human even when superhuman, and often represent forces to be avoided or concepts to be aspired to, and almost always based around archetypes - archetypes that endures between cultures to the point where many cultures simply equated some deities of other faiths with deities from their own, even though the narrative structures and backgrounds were wildly different.
>Many things are listed separately.
Yes, and? By that logic you could group humans and orcs together since we're both bipeds.
>Repeating yourself does not make you correct
Correct, take that lesson to heart, anon.
>No, because Orcs are "actually".
False.
>I don't have to, because you're simply wrong.
I see you ran out of arguments.
>As opposed to humans, orcs are inherently prone to Evil
That wouldn't make them opposed to humans, that would make them akin to humans. Feel free to look at all of human history if you disagree.
How exactly is a race of Elves somehow not Elves? Orcs and Humans are two entirely different species.
Also
>Feel free to look at all of human history if you disagree.
There's objectively more good than bad in Human history. You only hear about the bad stuff because sensationalism.
>How exactly is a race of Elves somehow not Elves?
How are a species of Drow, who aren't even called elves, and bare only the loosest resemblance to Elves, Elves?
>There's objectively more good than bad in Human history.
Only if you count basic acts of survival as "Good", but even Orcs do that. Acts of human enslavement, genocide, murder, theft, conquest, and oppression is always going to outnumber acts of human selfless altruism.
>who aren't even called elves, and bare only the loosest resemblance to Elves, Elves?
Is this some cope homebrew?
>Yes, and?
And they are still elves, and dwarves, regardless of whether they are listed separately or not.
>By that logic you could group humans and orcs together since we're both bipeds.
Yes, you could group humans and orcs together if we were talking about bipeds in general, but we're not.
Stopped reading there, because if you can't even comprehend a simple progressing from the general to the specific and the difference between the two concepts, you might actually be too stupid to understand something as simple as the topic discussed.
>grows "more advanced"
But that doesn't actually happen. There's no clear developmental progressions when it comes to faiths in this regard. Many faiths flirted with monotheism at times, without at all showing a movement away from archetypal polytheism towards conceptual monotheism. The anti-human monotheism of semitism is practically unique to semites.
>Once a faith has graduated from mere superstition to an actual religion with a narrative, tenets, rituals, etc., it *almost* invariably start to anthropomorphize
Only to be further de-anthropomorphized once the religion grows more advanced beyond mere polytheism into a concrete monotheistic structure.
>monotheistic religion is more advanced than polytheistic religion
lol
lmao
Yes, they in fact are. They're better organized, more coherent, and have more social utility.
>Most structures of faith are or have historically been centered around extensions of human concepts and archetypes.
Not really. In fact usually the opposite happens, humanity takes something very inhuman and non-understandable and worships it.
>But at no point were orcs nothing but a corruption of elves
Tolkien lorelet confirmed.
It could be a moral quandry, if it was not a trap question. The age old adage of what is order for the spider is chaos for the fly. We look and decide what is good and evil, however we are heroes of our own stories, and can justify great harm in the name of the greater good. One only need to look to the inquisition, or to residential schools. Horrific actions that were committed by people who thought they were doing "the moral, lawful and just" thing.
You're obligated to stop posting.
Don't bring Viggo into this
It's his own fault for kicking that helmet so he can't just walk away from the question.
Yes, as long as you're playing any game other than 4e or 5e D&D, in which case "paladins" can be something other than good aligned. Not that we didn't have other words to describe these types of characters already or anything.
Come on man if you gonna put the same post in two threads at least have a picture or something.
Also
I actually meant to post it ITT but had both threads opened at once. My mistake, don't mean to be spamming.
Yes but only in a cool way like he has to do ninja flips and sword tricks to kill them. Preferably in slow mo too.
>paladins when they see orc children
And what would a ranger know of it?
Infants of intelligent races, like humans, wouldn't register as evil. They've yet to develop to commit acts of evil. Sure, they may have eaten the spoils of the grown orcs' raid on a farmstead, but they're too young and naive to understand morality.
The concept of killing the children of your foes so they don't have the opportunity to rise against you in the future is an evil act. Rather, a paladin should take the orc children away and teach them morality, training them under his code to become better than their savage origins. Chaotic Smite paladins have and will always be a shitty meme perpetuated by shitty players that don't understand how to play paladins.
No.
Unless you're going the Gygaxian 1E dungeon crawl "Good is nothing more then a side or allegiance to a group of species or factions", then a good character can perform a good act upon an evil target in multiple ways.
This can be to kill them, wipe them off the face of existence so as to objectively remove an evil. Or this can be to take them in, drop them off at a Temple or Monastry, for them to be trained up as Priests or Paladins, because alignments can shift, and frankly most babies would ping CE because they haven't developed morals, ethics, or social comprehension yet.
Now depending on said Paladin, they might have a personal interpretation of it. They might consider an unwillingness to kill the evil creatures, because they're young, a sign of lack of commitment to doing good. That when it becomes inconvenient or unpleasant, people back off. But just as many others would consider killing them in itself an inferior deed of good, or even a deed doing more evil then good, as it's wasting a far greater potential for good, for you've denied the world three potential Paladins, so you could kill three CE but ultimately harmless babies.
Is a Paladin justified in killing some orphaned, defenseless CE orc babies? Yep. It ain't nice to anyone, especially not the Paladin (and if it is, boot the player), but it's objectively a good deed.
Are they Obligated to kill any CE orphaned orc babies they encounter? No.
To clarify, this is operating under the assumption that Orcs are, by culture, an evil race.
Nor does it account for system outliers, and my answer is based off the premise that an Orc in Orc culture, without intervention, will become evil.
If the species is a morally mixed bag, like humans, then killing the infant becomes an evil act for
reasons, and there is not enough justification for the potential to evil, to kill them while they're helpless.
>most babies would ping CE because they haven't developed morals, ethics, or social comprehension yet.
Not only are you wrong on alignment in general, "Gygaxian 1e", and specifically in thinking alignments shifting being relevant to inherently violent and murderous orcs, but this thing here is actually the biggest wrong you wrong. Things that are incapable of making moral judgements are not Chaotic Evil. They are Neutral or more specifically Unaligned. This is the very reason virtually all animals are Neutral, even though an animal could easily eat a human baby just because it's really hungry.
The reason orcs are Usually Evil is because orcs exhibit behaviors associated with Evil. It's part of what makes them orcs. And the orc babies aren't Evil yet, that's not why they are euthanized by the paladins; they are euthanized by the paladins because nits make lice.
Further, there is nothing inherently Good about taking these nits and then force them to play-act against their urges and tendencies into a facsimile of civilized behavior - a psychological terror fully comparable to forcing boys to act like girls or left-handed people to use their right hands, or declawing bears and forcing them to dance.
Orcs tend towards Evil because they are low-intellegence savages with poor impulse control and an appreciation for short-sighted violence and displays of power. They aren't just Evil "because muh Evil" and they can't just be resocialized "because.. uuh.. monastery?".
And anyone that tries to force an orc to not be an orc despote being an orc should inevitably drop to an Evil alignment due to repeated and prolonged Evil actions against what is likely to still be Neutral at best; even worse if they're actually Good due to having been forced to act against their nature and internalized the abuse they have suffered.
You clearly missed the follow up part where I explained the entire premise is based around the principle that an Orc, when not interacted with, will become evil by culture.
Culture. Not nature. Because Orcs being evil by biological compulsion is dumb. Because then they're not evil. They just are.
So despite all those pretty little lines, you're trying to have and eat your cake at the same time. You want the Orcs to be Evil by nature, instead of neutral. But then, assuming Orc is Evil, you want to make taking an Orc and teaching them to be Good, an Evil act.
Which this implicitly isn't, because while you're arguably changing a nature with nurture (a thing only debatably an evil), you're netting a positive, by teaching them to be good. This isn't brainwashing, it's education. Same as humans. We beat rising ape nature with descending angel education.
The only way this re-education is an evil, is if the Orc's nature is neutral. And even then it's iffy, because you're still teaching what is now not an evil creature, how to be good. You're also making the education redundant, but then also making the entire point redundant because Orcs are now no longer evil.
>But muh tendency.
Even considering that, it only strengthens my point. If Orcs by nature and culture can swing, this is no longer any kind of evil act, because you're not introducing some entirely new culture and behavior, but you're working on top of aspects of an old one.
TL:DR, you're telling me that it's an Evil act, to make an Evil entity Good, because you're altering an entity's state of natural being. Despite this being a common and typically positive thing called Education, and that by killing them, you're altering their natural state of being far more extremely, and negatively.
>You clearly missed
No.
>Culture. Not Nature.
Culture is an expression of nature, as suggested by the very word itself.
>Orcs being evil by biological compulsion is dumb.
Nobody has suggested that orcs are "evil" by biological compulsion. Orcs are *Evil* because they exhibit inborn behaviors that eventually align them with Evil.
I ignored the rest of the post because if you cannot understand the basics, what follows is no doubt completely irrelevant.
>McDonald's 20pc chicken nuggets are fundamentally Evil but most would agree they are good.
I love this because it's funny while also being a perfect example of how similar word can represent different concepts.
>forcing a declawed bear to dance is just "education"
You're an evil moron and I hope you and your entire soulless bugman civilization dies.
The thing that rapes and murders and consumes mindlessly and spoils the rest as a result of a biological urges would be evil. Dumbass.
Depends on the age of them. If they are young enough they are just afflicted elves or men or some mixed blood combination thereof. They can be raised good and they will be good and they will not be orcs.
If they are older they will be given a chance to seek redemption. Those that take this chance are just afflicted, those that reject it or who fall again from grace are orcs and should be slain.
None are beyond redemption, but they have to seek it.
>i kill children because their parents are evil, I'm the good guy
Uuuuh, enjoy losing your pally powers I guess
If children's lives really mattered, the FBI would have raided the homes on Epstein's client list.
Not 1 house raided out of Epstein's associates.
>Not 1 house raided out of Epstein's associates
I mean, Trump's was
Should tell you everything you need to know
The FBI are chaotic evil though
That's not how you spell CIA.
FBI Too
Booo. Get better material.
Mine would
Alignments are moronic.
Depends whether his god or goddess leans more towards retribution or towards redemption. Former smites, latter doesn't.
>Chaotic Evil
the paladin is obligated to wipe himself out for playing dnd
Yes. The age of the enemy does not factor into the morality of killing them.
Their ability to defend themselves does, however. It is never good to strike down a helpless opponent.
No, even Paladins are not obliged to kill anyone merely for the crime of having an evil alignment. Even if the Paladin saw adult orcs minding their own business (and not currently engaged in any sort of evil activities, as far as he is aware of) he would not be obliged to kill them merely for existing. If the orcs are actively engaged in or plotting some sort of evil activity, or if he has taken to himself the quest of wiping out this group of orcs, then he would be obliged to kill them, but not before.
Undead, fiends and other beings that passively spread evil or cause harm merely by existing are another matter, but even then the Paladin has a degree of discretion: a Paladin traveling through the lower planes on a quest must keep in mind that while he has obligation to kill such beings, his quest should almost always take precedence over other duties, if there is doubt as to whether he can accomplish both.
The answer is obviously yes but it's why alignments and racial alignments are all shallow garbage. They're for autistic kids with no imagination.
No. The paladin is not actually obliged to kill evil, only to prevent it from harming others. He can - assuming this is standard D&D where alignment can and does change based on life choices - instead ensure that those orcs are raised in a good or at least neutral manner and become good or neutral.
>orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs. They are all Chaotic Evil. Is the Paladin obligated to wipe them out?
Yes, and they are not orphans, defenseless or cubs. Every class and race would wipe them out and even evil aligned characters would. Get a grip.
Obviously he'd kill them. A more interesting question is what a Good church will do. I know the cop-out answer is 'give them to a Good church to raise', but there are other, more deserving options.
One DM had the best way of handling it: In this case, the beastmen children were quietly drowned in the creek behind the church.
Orcs are no longer evil by default, so the pally would fall.
If you live in the era of non-evil orcs, you live in the era of non-lawful good Oath-based paladins, which means whether they would fall or not depends on the Oath. Just looking over the Oaths, only the Devotion, Redemption, and Ancients even look to be directly at risk.
5e is so fricking stupid. Why have races that are always evil like gnolls but then have orcs be different when Gruumsh created orcs to be specifically evil and destructive. If a race was created by a God to be always evil then the race is always evil
Because orcs are closer to humans in appearance. Guarantee, if D&D stuck with pig orcs this would never happen.
you know why
Because everyone wants to be raped by cute gnoll girls and that can't happen if they're good
Why can't it be consensual sex with cute gnoll girls? Why does the sex have to be theft, too?
Gnolls confirmed best enemy mooks. NuOrcs are fricking soi personified.
>*limited* capacity for empathy
>No matter how domesticated [...] its bloodlust flows just beneath the surface.
Sounds like an inherent tendency towards Evil if I ever saw one. The fact is that even 5e, despite being full of fricking nonsense, still affirms what most people in the thread are saying, which is that orcs exhibit inborn behaviors that in turn makes them prone to Evil, birthing Evil culture, perpetuating Evil, and that nits make lice.
For which reason the Paladin *should* kill the orc, whether obligated or not.
That logic also justifies killing humans as well though, since humans are inherently far more prone to evil than Elves, Dwarves, Aasimar, and Metallic Dragons are.
I don't give 2 shits abut what b***hES OF THE COAST SAYS. In my games full orcs are chaotic evil.
>I don't give 2 shits about what b***hES OF THE COAST SAYS
If only everyone else acted like this. 90% of 5e discussion would disappear since most of it is just whining and strawmanning about the new "progressive" approaches WotC taking to make the game more inclusive and controversy free.
If a creature is only capable of evil then killing it before it can harm others seems like a good thing
Lawful Good characters would torture them like baby monkeys and sell recordings of light going out of their eyes from pain
>cries about eggs
Probably pro abortion gay
>have a nice day
Behold the moral gay
Yes, there is no situation where it is not good and just.
>But they are babies
Irrelevant, age is no excuse for villainy committed
>They haven't done anything evil
They are the spawn of those who have committed evil. Their existence and situation a direct result of villainy and it is thus that they like evil are destined to fall.
>But you can take them in and raise them to be good
That is true. But the responsibility of raising a child belongs to the parent. I may decide to raise them myself but as a paladin I cannot with any good judgement say I can raise them properly, by eternal quest against evil comes above rearing a child. Thrusting the care upon another person is likewise irresponsible and I will forever be to blame of they are raised incorrectly. I can instead assure peace and goodness by ending the problem at my hand.
>Not all orcs are evil
Perhaps not in your nonsense world but I came here, I saw villainy and I see the spawn of villains. It matters not if they are orcs or angels. They have been reared by sin and I will put a stop to it
lol that kind of outlook is exactly the sort of thing that will doom an entire world because it just so happened someone smited the would be prophesized hero of unlikely origin
It is not prophecy if it does not come to pass. Even if the very gods abandon hope for the cause of good, I shall not. My path is straight, my cause is just, and my heart shall not be lead astray from doing what is right. Even if death and eternal torment greet me and the fight for justice is already lost, I shall throw my body upon the pyre as a final sacrifice.
Okay, Javert.
>Their existence and situation a direct result of villainy and it is thus that they like evil are destined to fall.
That would also justify wiping out the human race.
What?
Every single person on Earth at one point has an ancestor who was a rapist, and thus they are all the direct results of villainy, and thus like evil and are destined to fall.
All human societies see rape as villainous and impose both punishment upon it's perpetrators and a shared social taboo. Humans are capable of such evils and it is the duty of good to stop evil, but human society itself endeavors to glorify virtues. Even a human rapist must find excuse as to why he raped. An orc society does not do this, it is evil at its very foundations.
>Even a human rapist must find excuse as to why he raped
No, he doesn't.
Am human, confirm that we deserve to be apocolypse'd. Pray harder.
Ye
yes. mostly because he is human and his god is not an orc.
to favour the orcs now is to act the opposite of his god.
that doesn't happen to all races, for example an Elven Paladin wouldn't have to kill human orphans. cuz they are not natural subhuman.
>defenseless orc cubs
They definitely are already dangerous, you just haven't noticed yet.
>They are chaotic evil
Being orphaned and defenseless doesn't take away from being an evil piece of shit. Yes, you kill them.
Depends on the setting.
Are orcs all innately evil, like demons? Paladin's obliged to put them to the sword.
Are orcs just generally evil, but nonevil ones have been shown to exist? Paladin's got a moral dilemma.
>Be Paladin
>Learn Orcs are raiding a nearby village
>Lead your party against the savages
>Defeat their chieftain, party starts dividing treasure
>Find women and children Orcs
>Party says they should just be killed off because they're "evil."
>"A child isn't evil. They're just a child."
>Everyone looks at you, dumbfounded
>Even the cleric that accompanied you through thick and thin, that you thought would be smarter than this, claims that Orcs are evil by birth
>Claims they have no way to take them prisoner, demands they all be killed on the spot
>Refuse
>Rescue the Orcs, fighting off your own party
>When you're safe you ask your god for answers
>Find out you're rejected by your god because you wouldn't kill a goddamn child.
>Think: Frick it, in for a penny, in for a pound.
>Lead the rescued Orcs to another tribe
>Tribal chief says they'll make good slaves
>Tell him like hell
>Challenge him to a duel
>Defeat him
>Find out you're the new chief of the Orc clan
>Adventurers come because they hear Orcs live nearby
>Attack your tribe for loot
>Kill every single one of them
>More adventurers come
>Frick it.
>Raid the town that keeps sending them, demand they stop or be put to the sword
>Keep the Orcs from fighting over loot by having them gather it all in the center of town and portioning it out in order of who contributed the most
>Eventually end up fighting other Orc tribes that raid towns paying you tribute
>Defeat their chiefs, absorb their tribes
>Start re-organizing Orcish society with new laws, promote the most trustworthy Orc warriors to enforce them.
>Local kingdoms say you're assembling an Orcish Horde
>Try to raid you
>Lead your Orcs into battle
>They create black armor for you, decorated in their war paint
>Win
>Have a whole fricking kingdom at your disposal
>Realize one day on your throne, surrounded by your Harem, that you've accidentally become the prophesied Dark Lord of Orc kind
Doesn't matter, had orc sex
Isn't this a thing in Goblin Slayer? Like some woman looks after and cares for some orphaned Goblins and as soon as they get the opportunity, they start raping? If it's a situation like that where they are objectively fundamentally evil, then yes. It sucks but it has to happen.
The Paladin is obliged to follow whatever orders Charlemagne commands of them.
Yeah.
yes, and that's why nobody uses alignment
Why? What about alignment would compel these free-willed warriors to conduct needless slaughter?
>humans
>good
Humans have dominion over the planet and the animals it holds. What we do with them is up to us and us alone.
As always, man's overwhelming hubristic belief in his own primacy perpetuates the truth of his own tyranny.
It's not tyranny, it's fact. The world is ours and ours alone. If we wish for an animal to cease existing, then that is morally good.
Sure, until man's own stupidity rightly humbles him and reveals he shot himself in the face by messing with things he doesn't fully understand.
If they have free will and there is a chance that the babies could be raised to not be evil, then is the duty of the paladin to grant them a new home that will teach them good morals.
Depends on the setting. You use chaotic evil as definitive in your question, so it's probably a tolkien-esque setting or like my own wherein they are abyssal (demonic) in origin. So yeah, you have a goblin slayer situation where it is most virtuous to kill them while they are young.
However, if you have a setting wherein redemption can specifically be achieved by taking them in young and raising them in civil society then it would be more virtuous to do so.
It's amusing that the whole "species is born Evil" thing is pretty much a TRPG invention. Tolkien himself rejected the idea of anyone being born inherently evil as it contradicted the Christian worldview, while polytheistic religions rarely have strict divisions of Good and Evil in the first place.
It makes sense as a meta device to keep people on rails and away from not just killing and looting.
Honestly its an idea that works pretty well for a game until you start getting meta about it.
>Tolkien himself rejected the idea
This is untrue. It's another one of those things that have been taken out of its entire context, dumbed down, and misrepresented. What he said was that orcs are redeemable as they are (or rather, became) a part of Arda, which is a fundamentally good creation of a good God. In a semitic sense, this could be interpreted as anything from "can be converted and become not-orcs again" to "orcs should be redeemed by the sword" no differently from how homosexuals can get rooftopped to save their souls.
When it came to orcs actually being evil, Tolkien was very clear in that they were, and that they were a "creation" of evil (i.e. a perversion of good, as by Tolkien evil cannot create ex nihilo).
None of these things are true. Several monotheistic faiths were no better organized than their polytheistic counterparts, and semitics were certainly not "better organized" than the established Roman faiths at the relevant time. They're arguably "more coherent" in that they change less over time, but even this isn't a given, as monotheistic faiths have been subsumed or changed greatly over time, such as egyptian Atenism or the Christian propensity for synthesis with other established faiths. As for "social utility", I'm not even sure what you're talking about, as polytheistic faiths largely performed all the same social functions, and still do today.
>orcs should be redeemed by the sword
Except Tolkien was a Christian so this would not have been the intended meaning, which only leaves either Orcs being able to become non-Orcs, or Orcs as themselves being able to become good outside of the influence of Sauron.
>Except Tolkien was a Christian so this would not have been the intended meaning
The intended meaning is what he said, and he left the specifics nebulous. While I sincerely doubt that Tolkien was a fire-and-brimstone type of Christian, let's not pretend like Christianity, like all forms of semitism, hasn't actively practiced salvation by the sword extensively. All we can infer is that orcs can, the autistic Tolkien's Christian projection sense, be redeemed, and so reach *some* form of salvation.
There's discrepancies between the things Tolkien said at different times, both because he changed his mind and because he considered his works narrative in nature and thus occupying a realm of "maybes" and "what ifs", but also because he was autistic and tried to rationalize his mutually exclusive but equally ironclad and immovable positions taken.
He was quit clear both on orcs being evil as well as them being redeemable. Exactly how he resolved that cognitive dissonance through which type of semitic adherence is very, very debatable, but I'd argue that he simply never did.
>Exactly how he resolved that cognitive dissonance through which type of semitic adherence is very, very debatable, but I'd argue that he simply never did.
Origional sin, they are made evil, and if left on their own, they are evil and naturally inclined to do evil. But despite that, all can forgiven, no one is beyond saving.
That is certainly a possibility, but we simply don't know, because he never actually explained anything to resolve it.
And just to be clear, we know that he considered orcs to be fundamentally evil but could still be "redeemed" because he mentions how he "almost wrote irredeemable" when referencing orcs in a letter, and then proceeded to sperg out about the aforementioned reedeemability-because-the-world-is-good-and-orcs-are-part-of-the-world to explain himself.
From the way it is written, it really comes across as just a basic concession on his part to make the world adhere to his personal Christian faith, without any explanations or thought put into how that is supposed to actually work in practice. It's just "yeah they're evil but lmao I guess the have to be redeemable somehow but ok haha". Honestly he was a great academic and in terms of worldbuilding he was exhaustive and prolific, but ultimately he was pretty much just a brainlet that didn't think to deep about things unless they related to his academic field (which was primarily philology).
Literally untrue in practice. The idea of saving someone's soul by sending them to be judged by God before they can sin has even been enshrined in law at times, such as the very logic of punishing suicide by the death penalty.
>The idea of saving someone's soul by sending them to be judged by God before they can sin has even been enshrined in law at times, such as the very logic of punishing suicide by the death penalty.
A logic which doesn’t work if Orcs are supposed to be fundamentally evil since there’s nothing you’re saving them from, you’re just sending them to Hell sooner. Without a forced conversion first there is no pretense of even trying to save their soul.
>A logic which doesn’t work if Orcs are supposed to be fundamentally evil since there’s nothing you’re saving them from, you’re just sending them to Hell sooner. Without a forced conversion first there is no pretense of even trying to save their soul.
This is an argument you should bring up with Tolkien, not with me. The element of goodness that allows them to be redeemed according to Tolkien is because they are now part of Arda. But they're still Evil. The issue of "forced conversion" and so on and so forth is never raised, and from all accounts orcs were hunted down and *at the very least* implicitly genocided following the fall of Sauron.
There's also the possibility that sending them to purgatory or Hell to have them be purified after an eternity would leave them "redeemed" in a sense. All we can say is that Tolkien's orcs are both fundamentally evil and can be redeemed due to having become a part of a fundamentally good universe, because Ilúvatar is good.
The more you think about it the more we approach the autism-singularity of "because it just is, OK?!". There is no doubt in my mind that Tolkien was a high-functioning autist, with all the things that comes with that. The books aren't even really that good.
>let's not pretend like Christianity, like all forms of semitism, hasn't actively practiced salvation by the sword extensively
If by "Salvation by the sword" you mean forced conversions, then yes. However, forcefully converting the Orcs to the religion of Eru Illuvitar is very different from just killing them, and nowhere in Christianity will you find this idea of "redeeming people by killing them".
Should've thought about that before swearing your oath, moron. Now take out your sword and start working.
Since sapient beings are capable of changing alignments, and these orc children are helpless and impressionable, the paladin is morally obliged to bring them to a Good aligned orphanage where they can be raised to be Good. While conversion to Lawful Good would be ideal, a paladin is capable of taking pragmatic actions. So taking them to a Chaotic Good orphanage, on the basis that being currently Chaotic, it will be easier to convert them to Chaotic Good as that requires a less dramatic change.
Goodness is - by definition - benevolent. A paladin is required to take benevolent actions, even when inconvenient or personally challenging. The best outcome for these orc children is being raised to become virtuous and happy citizens, so that's what the paladin should do.
> inb4 "But orcs are innately chaotic evil and can't change!"
This isn't how it works in D&D, and hasn't been for the last 4 editions. Since AD&D, mortal races are capable of choosing alignments even when they go against their societal or psychological tendencies, since they have free will.
Read and play the actual game rather than just getting your information from 3x3 alignment grids.
> inb4 "but orc psychology predisposes them to being chaotic evil! It probably won't work!"
Sure. It's hard. You're a fricking paladin. Being a paladin isn't *meant* to be easy, you're *meant* to be held to a higher standard and to do the difficult but more virtuous thing where others would let things slide.
Yes, you're going to try to do something difficult because you have hope that doing the right thing will be worth it. If you don't want that, consider being a fighter instead. If you don't want to hold yourself to a high, hard standard, you aren't a paladin or if you are you're about to fall.
There's a 200-post discussion detailing why you're wrong.
yeah but those posters are morons
Yes, but you're moronic and wrong.
>Verification not required.
What exactly would happen if the Paladin did not wipe out the orc children?
From a metaperspective, he would fall
From an in character perspective, they would grow up and make human orphans
Why would the Paladin fall, and what is the exact consequence of them falling?
Why is it assumed that the orcs would be guaranteed to grow up and make human orphans? Do they end up gaining some protection from death or injury through misadventure or assault by third parties?
>Why would the Paladin fall
For countenancing "evil" (i.e. letting the babbies go)
>what is the exact consequence of them falling
The loss of his immunity to disease, ability to heal by touch, and ability to dispel evil while holding a holy sword
>Why is it assumed that the orcs would be guaranteed to grow up and make human orphans
Because the gods are c**ts
The children would likely expire from exposure, under the assumption as they are "orphaned, defenseless", they have no-one to care for them.
So under that logic, too, the less cruel option would be to euthanize them.
>From a metaperspective, he would fall
Why is that a metaperspective? Falling isn't a metaperspective, it's something that actually happens, and the effects of it can quickly be felt from a personal perspective, as the Paladin's lay on hands will no longer work, nor will his prayers be answered, and so on and so forth.
That being said, merely not killing the orcs is not in itself an Evil act, so I disagree that he would fall. It is very much both a Lawful and a Good act to euthanize the orcs in the scenario presented, but although a Paladin should maintain his Lawful Good alignment and falls if he should willingly commit an Evil act, he doesn't fall for merely failing to commit the singularly most Lawful and/or Good act possible in any given context. Paladins could never function under such restrictions, as they would be alignment automatons, not actual people trying to do their best.
Paladins aspire to the higher planes, but they are ultimately mortals, which leaves them flawed. It is exceptionally rare that mortals are even capable of encapsulating the totality of any given alignment and only act as that alignment at any and all times.
>Obligated? No.
>Can he, should he, would he? Yes.
>Why is that a metaperspective? Falling isn't a metaperspective, it's something that actually happens
Well it's why the player wouldn't want to do it, the loss of the mechanical goodies that you get from being a paladin.
Is the paladin so mechanically more effective than the other possible classes the player can choose that it justifies the falling mechanic being put in place to balance it out?
In the editions where you would fall for not swording the orc babies, you can only become a Paladin in the first place by being born functionally superhuman (with extremely high attribute rolls). The benefits of being a paladin on top of those are very powerful. Ultimately it's up to the player if he would like to fall.
They would starve to death and be eaten by predators because they're fricking babies.
This is why Chaotic Good is better, it's not full of this nanny state autism bullshit.
Would it be lawful good to have extermination camps where orcs and other evil monsters are gassed in a fast and humane way until they're all gone?
Morals do not apply to non humans.
If we're being honest morals don't apply to humans either.
History has shown that what counts as human can always be changed for the killer's benefit.
>you can rape an angel and still be lawful good
Correct.
I mean you technically did not ever stick it anywhere so yeah, you're technically correct.
Yes. And if they don't they fall and lose their paladin power immediately.
Should they fall to atone and get a cleric to forgive them after sacrificing their level worth of orc babies their god will send good outsiders to hunt them down and kill them for betraying their oath
Well, no, a paladin should strive to help the meager, amd even try to bring such creatures to a brighter way, as chaotic or not, even the direst of monsters with the right teachings and respect can learn to aim its evil against the enemies of the kingdom.
But where's the fun to skin an easy fiend alive, boil them in hot oil, blimd them with silver, cut them to pieces while they squel and gut them like the pigs they are, and so avoid them to attack you when they become bigger and stronger than you?
You're confusing paladins with some kind of very specific lawful neutral knight or something.
Here's a better question:
Your Paladin comes across a dwarf baby. He knows that, as a member of another species, the dwarf forms a fundamental threat to humanity's existence. Should the Paladin kill the dwarf?
>as a member of another species, the dwarf forms a fundamental threat to humanity's existence.
But that's wrong
It's correct though, every single non-human person is taking up space and resources that could go to humans instead, eventually conflict over limited resources is inevitable and one species will live while the other will die.
A horse also takes up space and resources. You're not seeing the big picture. Prosperity is not measured in bushels of wheat alone.
>A horse also takes up space and resources.
So you're saying that we should enslave the dwarves and turn them into a domesticated creature to benefit humanity.
No, I'm saying we already did.
Oh boy, look at this guy. I bet the next thing he will break out is the dark forest bullshit.
>A Paladin comes across some orphaned, defenseless Orc cubs. They are all Chaotic Evil. Is the Paladin obligated to wipe them out?
Orc babies, or babies of any type, are less than 4HD. Unless they are outsiders, they do not have a discernable alignment, even if they have an internal one. >90% of all people and creatures in the world do not radiate aligned auras of any kind.
Apologies, it's actually less than 5HD, meaning it's probably more like 95% of all people.
Doesn't stop them from being orcs.
No. Barnes is not principled or ordered, nor does he follow any kind of code or set of tenets. His behavior is erratic, unhinged, and largely arbitrary at any given moment, as he does what he feels like at any given moment. Further, he does not follow the chain of command or the rules of engagement as handed down by the hierarchy of which he purports to be part.
In no universe is Sgt Barnes Lawful.
Sgt Barnes is, at best, Chaotic Good.
What if these orc children were actually Ondonti children. Remember, Ondonti are orc cousins that are Lawful Good.
>Ondonti
Never heard of her, and also gesundtheit.
The correct answer is that if the paladin can reasonably assume that they're orcs, he would be fully within his rights to summarily euthanize them. Given how uncommon the ondonti are, I wouldn't give them a high probability of life.
They are orcs, but your paladin cannot sense any evil in them. Pathfinder has an interesting dynamic with orcs and paladins in Golarion, because there are some 'paladins' who think like you, and think the whole orc race should be butchered and Belkzen should be part of Lastwall, but in PF, detectably aligned beings are rare, so their genocidal ambition can't be handwaved away as magically good, as is the case in DnD proper.
Personally I think that those paladins are right about orcs, but that isn't a job for some prancing la-la holy order to solve, it's something a monarch with the mandate of his realm should be doing.
You don't need to sense Evil to stop Evil.
Okay, dude, enjoy your fall. Just play a better martial class and kill orcs because they're a malicious, hostile race of barbarians, don't invoke "muh evil!", it's not even supported by the mechanics and you don't need to think an enemy is evil in order to fight it.
>they're a malicious, hostile race of barbarians,
>don't invoke "muh evil!",
?
They are cruel to non-orcs as a rule, aka malicious, they are totally hostile to non-orcs, and they are barbarians. Those are reasons for their extermination, not "uhh paladin say alignment glow red!"
It's synonymous. They are evil. Their behavior demonstrates it.
Depends on the setting
Alignment Threads of /tg/
The only people who seem to have a problem with D&D Alignment are Literal morons, Philosophy 101 Autists or people who are blatantly evil under the system disliking being called out as vile frickwits.
Every thread on Alignment reveals these three every single time.
Literal morons have issues with the rules and their reading comprehension tends to be shit. They misinterpret simple language and are often pigheadedly obstinate when it comes to correcting their moronic ideas.
Phil 101 Autists are worse than Literal morons. Unable to ignore their newfound knowledge, they argue incessantly about how the system must work within all these ideas they just learned (or have only ever learned) and blatantly ignore the conditions for D&D's Objective Alignment. They only seem capable of arguing about the system as it relates to modern day, real world, Earth and not the Fantasy universe it comes from, a common aliment for certain types of shit speckled, muppet farts ala Caster/Martial disparity.
Evil motherfrickers are the worst. Quite simply they will argue at length and with every bad faith argument they have to not be labelled the monstrous things they are. From fascists trying to not have their genocidal movements called out as the evil they are, from people who like to cause others suffering not being properly labelled, to other types who all want to be Good but are so far from it with their beliefs and actions and are unable to reconcile it with the way the system labels them.
Shit copypasta bait is shit copypasta bait. At least Teehee Macaroni is funny because of how stupid it is.
But that's just it, you mongoloid. Youndon't *need* to involve "alignment glow red!", and nobody but you did. Paladins aren't made to be more stupid than anyone else. Only profound Evil actually exudes an Evil aura, and Paladins are perfectly aware of this, just as they can be aware of all the implications of orcs and nits. Orcs being a malicious and hostile race of barbarians is more than enough.
>enjoy your fall.
A paladin needs to willingly commit Evil to fall. Stopping the spread of Evil without relying on cop-outs and metamechanics like Detect Evil (which are unreliable by its very nature of only detecting great and persistent personal alignments) does not constitute an Evil act.
In fact, I would argue that a Paladin so complacent in its duties as to let anyone that isn't strong or Evil enough to exude an Evil aura go would be remiss in its duties and should eventually fall due to a failure to uphold its Lawful alignment long-term. Small Evils are still Evil, and the Paladin's mandate is to repudiate the rapist as mich as the red dragon.
I guess he'll just have to use his human fricking judgment to come up with a solution,
Shit thread, possibly a bit, frick off.
YES, they are literally BORN EVIL. Their entire lineage of ancestors began at the corruption of good creatures into universally evil ones who can never revert back to good.
Nobody is born evil.
>Nobody is born evil.
that's egregiously false. even in the real world, without considering things like wolves who are objectively evil from human perspective and looking at just humans:
numerous research studies have concluded that about 1% of population are psychopaths and that minimum holds across the globe regardless of social customs or wealth of the country. Even granting a lot leeway to the term and entertaining the premise that its a 'scale' (which should immediately than change that 1% up to 4+%) that's still huge.
In any randomly selected crowd of a thousand people, several would torture you to death as they eat your kids alive in front of you just for the fun of it, if there were no negative consequence to them personally from it.
"Born evil" exists and is relatively common. the idea that it doesn't is just a misguided fantasy
People aren't born as psychopaths, but with psychopathic tendencies which then may develope into full blown psychopathy.
Also wolves aren't simply evil even from human perspective.
>People aren't born as psychopaths, but with psychopathic tendencies which then may develope into full blown psychopathy.
that's a weird way to say that some people are born psychopaths
>wolves aren't simply evil even from human perspective.
anytime we cohabited in the same region, wolves ended up waging war on humans, killing our kids and vulnerable women until humans killed them all. Soon as a hunger period strikes, wolves gathered in giant packs and besiege villages and small towns.
Its not an accident that on both continents where wolves lived, they are the one predator that humans tried their best to purposefully eradicate. not for sport, not for food, but dedicated genocide of the species.
Only a person who has lived his whole life in a sheltered city with government provided militia ready to defend him, and also who doesn't read history about just how dangerous wolves were, wouldn't see wolves as evil.
>ad hominems
Mate, I know all that and even have personal experience about wolf attacks, so maybe just shut up. And double so if you don't even know the difference between tendency and emergence.
>anytime we cohabited in the same region, wolves ended up waging war on humans
You're psychotic as well as delusional?
>Heh, might makes right, cope and seethe.
>NOOO THE MINORITIES OUTNUMBER US AND HAVE ALL THE MIGHT NOW THIS ISN'T FAIR SAVE ME
that's a ranger. OP once again is a huge wiener smoking homosexual.
No: the paladin is obligated to seek out and destroy their universe's source of Alignment for forcing this and other moral dilemmas on people in the first place.
Nobody in this entire discussion had fun or talked about games.
You're all so unbelievably miserable...