In Game Moral Conundrum need help resolving

[goto124]

Warhammer 40K has Orks that are actually the result of a really bad fungal plague, right? Which makes Orks the equivalent of zombies?

[Vinyadan]

As I mentioned, aside from LOTR, the only big name setting I can think of offhand where orcs are actually something to be destroyed regardless of context is Warhammer 40K [...]

If orcs are inherently evil, then one is justified by destroying them in whatever form they're found in, whether in the womb or babies or children or adults. And even then, it depends on how evil and how it manifests.

If orcs are not inherently evil, then it's generally a bad idea for a moral agent to indiscriminately slaughter them, especially as innocent children/infants.

The problem is that killing orcs in LotR always has context making it necessary, that we never hear a good hero saying that they must be killed regardless of context, and that, in works published during Tolkien's life, only an evil being kills them while they are children (in the Hobbit).

[goto124]

It can get mixed into "it's always good to kill orcs because the context will always require the killing of orcs" and maybe even to "it's always good to kill orcs".

Which happens when orcs aren't seen or shown doing normal people or good people things. We don't kill humans because we know humans to be people, but when all orcs are portrayed as emotionless murder machines there's not much reason to not kill them before they kill us (which they will do).

[Coidzor]

The problem is that killing orcs in LotR always has context making it necessary, that we never hear a good hero saying that they must be killed regardless of context, and that, in works published during Tolkien's life, only an evil being kills them while they are children (in the Hobbit).

By all means, get bogged down in irrelevant tangents to the point, but I don't care. I've clarified my meaning and if you have no interest in engaging with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

[Ikitavi]

I like a lot of the suggestions here! But I submit that since they are calling on an agent of Law and Good, the answer should be a bit more straightforward than some of the suggestions.

See, the classic test of good in a lot of religions and philosophies starts with, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". The test of Justice is whether it work both for the leader and for the led.

And one of the tests of a leader is how good a subordinate they can be, because there is always an agency that is higher up.

So the agent of Law and Good can propose a test to see which can serve as a better lieutenant, a better sergeant perhaps, than the other.

At the end of the test period, with each petitioner having served as lieutenant to the other for at least one gaming session, there would be a judgment. A reading from the minutes, with the other players having the option of participating, as witnesses or jury or just kibitzers.

If one of the players turns out to be really good at the lieutenant role, the judging entity might rule that one of the marks of a true leader is acceptance of subordinate role for the greater good, so they get the personal satisfaction that they won the contest... but the more humble in game role.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I forgot, there's an option D here that hasn't been brought up here yet.

The players outline the circumstances to the creature, it takes in the info they give it, and it then declares that the one most suited to lead the battle (which was likely already begun if not already ended in the OP's game by now) is the called creature itself.

This might be seen as a little tasteless but it handily dodges the question and makes it unlikely that they'll pull this again. It's not like they can argue that a creature that is smarter, wiser, more charismatic, just as combat capable, infinitely more experienced, and quite probably more dedicated to justice and order is less suited to lead a troupe into battle than are either of them.

[TeflonSam1]

It seems to me that this is a lot like asking who would be the better leader of the Ninja Turtles, Leonardo or Raphael?

Anyway, I think a King Solomon type solution is appropriate.

Here's my idea..
The being appears, ponders a bit, and states they are both worthy individuals and it cannot decide between them. It proposes a simple test, the leader should be the one who wants it more. The being plants a pole in the ground, and the characters hands are magically compelled to grasp it.
The being states whomever lets go last will become leader, then disappears.

Then slowly have the world around them start to go to hell in a handbasket while they are standing there holding on to a pole. Cats stuck in trees, toddlers falling down wells, orphanages on fire, damsels in distress, old lady fallen and can't get up, etc, etc.
See how long they will ignore the cries of the needy to win the contest.

The first one to release the pole and render aid will cause the being to re-appear and declare him the true winner, and dispense a punishment to the other for being selfish.

If they wait too long, they both lose.

For bonus points, make the players roleplay it with an actual object at the gaming table.