Is it evil to ambush some orcs?

[vehementi]

Playing Forge of Fury and at the start we see some orcs hanging out on a cliff, maybe guards of something. The party wants to ambush them.

Isn't this straightforward evil murder? Orcs are sentient and make treaties with humans and have lives and families (hence the half orc in the party) but the whole party felt nothing amiss about trying to execute them without discussion.

[Sigreid]

It all depends on whether in your campaign they are a competing people, or inherently evil manifestations of a dark God's will. In your world can an orc be good, or even neutral?

[hymer]

I agree that it depends. If there is an effective state of war between orcs and other races (and in many campaigns there is), then attacking them from ambush is perfectly acceptable. The assumption is that they would do the same to you if they could. They might even have done worse than what your side is willing to do to them.

At any rate, it's a chance to roleplay (depending on the table). Maybe some characters haven't thought deeply about this at all. They kill orcs because orcs kill humans, and so on. How will they respond to being moralized at? How does the moralizer respond to the assumption of orcs being evil? Is there someone around with a particular grudge against orcs? Someone who knows an orc? Or a half-orc? Is there honour in orc slaying in your culture?
There's potential for an interesting discussion that could help flesh out your characters and their relationships.

[vehementi]

I think Faerun canon is that they can be at least neutral, no? Or is all of the alliance business just evil orc long cons? Even if they are evil, shouldn't lawful characters have a problem with just outright killing them?

Agreed I guess it depends on the local state of war or something...

[JackPhoenix]

Not this again...

Look, you're the GM. You decide what counts as good or evil in your game. Are they enemy combatants in hostile area? Are they just bunch of some villagers hanging out? Are they always evil, Tolkien-like orcs, or just another sapient humanoid race? Does it even matter if it's evil or not?

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, it really does depend on your story/campaign world. Most worlds have Orcs as the bad guys. So until they find evidence to the contrary, they can attack more orcs without it being seen as evil. They can safely assume the orcs are bad nine times out of ten.

That said, I find turning such assumptions on their head to be fun, and can give the players a nice wake up call. My personal favorite moment was a 3.5 game I DMed.

The players were sent out to deal with what they were told was a group od orc raiders. They knew the man who gave them the job wasn't exactly a good guy, and they knew he was lying about something, but they didn't know what.

Cut to an ambush on the orc raiders, and the party discovered the orcs were really just a peaceful nomadic tribe with an Orc Paladin on their side. Turns out the Frontier Town they were helping was attacking the orcs to steal their land, and the man in charge was breaking several laws.

[War_lord]

The Orcs PCs commonly encounter in most settings are the warriors of the tribe. The Orcs in this adventure specifically are. It's no more evil to ambush and slay them then it is for one side in a war to ambush the opposing side. It's just war. Tribal Orcs don't have families, they're raised by the Claws of Luthic who instill in them a fear of the Orc gods and a might-makes-right mentality. Killing Orc warriors is a good act.

[lunaticfringe]

Hey Sir or Madam Elves have a long standing tradition of Orc Killing! Damn near a Religious practice. It's like Spiritual & Junk. Stop trying force your Humancentric views on Elf Culture. Get Woke. (I really hope there was an elf in the party)

[Scathain]

Playing Forge of Fury and at the start we see some orcs hanging out on a cliff, maybe guards of something. The party wants to ambush them.

Isn't this straightforward evil murder? Orcs are sentient and make treaties with humans and have lives and families (hence the half orc in the party) but the whole party felt nothing amiss about trying to execute them without discussion.

Without giving spoilers, I’d recommend you ask those orcs how they acquired that keep. That’ll answer your question.

EDIT: and if they’re already all dead, use Speak With Dead

[Asmotherion]

What exactly do you know about those specific Orcs? I am not speaking about Orcs in general, I am talking about the ones you are going to ambush.

If your knowlage about them extends to the fact that "they are Orcs so they more probably than not would do the same to us given the chance", then your action is clearly Neutral Evil (and from the amount of information you provided, I think this is the most probable scenario).

If the situation is diferent please provide more details.

[War_lord]

We can't be more specific without spoiling the module, google it.

[Stygofthedump]

As a DM I just see opportunities. They have just endangered a treaty between local lord and powerful orc tribe. They will be arrested and tried. At the very least have a large blood money fine to pay!

[Tanarii]

Unless the DM has established otherwise, PCs should know what players know: orcs are bloodthirsty raiders and plunderers that believe that might makes right. This is 5e (and other edition) canon. So no, it's not evil to ambush them. It's self defense, even if you take the fight to them.

If it's not the case that the PCs know the 'default' for creatures that the vast majority of D&D players already know, the DM should make clear what the PCs know about them on encountering them. Subverting a trope is all well and dandy, but if it's well known in-game to PCs that the default canon the players know isn't the case, as opposed to subversion of what the PCs know for one specific group of them, it needs to be communicated properly so the players know what the PCs know.

[War_lord]

The subversion of this trope is itself a trope. A proper subversion would be if a sizable portion of the population believed the Orcs were reformed, but they were actually still just as evil as always.

[Garimeth]

Just think about it in real terms: Rules of Engagement.

If you are at war or in conflict with them where each side is killing the other frequently, then it is a justified act of war.

If your group/country/tribe is not at hostilities with them, and you ambush - then you are WRONG. Even if you deem it is not morally wrong, the local government would probably consider it ILLEGAL.
If you rule it as neither being illegal or immoral due to this being far removed from society, then consider again: YOU ARE THE MURDERHOBO.

Use of deadly force must always have a justification if you are talking about actual ethics.

[Avonar]

From playing this, here's some Forge of Fury specific information. Spoilers obviously if you havne't played it

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

The history of Khundrukar is that after being attacked by orcs, Durgeddin the Black established a secret fortress in which the dwarves could wage a war against the orcs. However it was eventually found, besieged and taken, all the dwarves killed.

Good/evil will all depend on exactly how you see this. The orcs attacked first, the dwarves fought back, the orcs fought back against them. No one is really in the right in this situation, the orcs haven't directly harmed the players but they aren't innocent.

[Kane0]

*Guffaws* Naaah, have at it lads!

[Slipperychicken]

I think 'is it evil' is the wrong question. You'll be better served if you provide the full context of the situation, its context, the characters in it, their intentions.

Expel dnd character alignment from your thoughts, and think about it like a real situation, as if actual people were doing something equivalent. Decide what you think is right or wrong, not whether it agrees with a one-paragraph blurb in a roleplaying game manual.

[lunaticfringe]

I think 'is it evil' is the wrong question. You'll be better served if you provide the full context of the situation, its context, the characters in it, their intentions.

Expel dnd character alignment from your thoughts, and think about it like a real situation, as if actual people were doing something equivalent. Decide what you think is right or wrong, not whether it agrees with a one-paragraph blurb in a roleplaying game manual.

Is that maybe part of the problem here? Essentially the Party saw people camping out in the wilderness and decided to murder them and take there valuables. Ya know, just in case.

Maybe a bit less Modern Real life morality is called for here.

[Slipperychicken]

Is that maybe part of the problem here? Essentially the Party saw people camping out in the wilderness and decided to murder them and take there valuables. Ya know, just in case.

Maybe a bit less Modern Real life morality is called for here.

If you believe that the situation these characters face in their imaginary universe calls for different standards than those you would apply in reality, then I would encourage you to take that into account while using your head to decide right from wrong.

[Tanarii]

If you rule it as neither being illegal or immoral due to this being far removed from society, then consider again: YOU ARE THE MURDERHOBO.

Murderhoboing has nothing to do with being illegal or immoral. It just means killing the things that the DM put there for you to kill, then rolling their bodies for loot.

If the things being murdered for their loot are the "bad guys", murderhobos are even heroes, doing the moral thing. Possibly even legal too. These types of murderhobos I call murderheros. They're a subset of murderhobos. The kind that care if their murdering and looting is immoral or not.

That's why orcs and goblins exist. So you can murderhobo them and not worry about who the bad guys are. (Provided you're interested in playing a murderhobo game style , of course.)

[Slipperychicken]

Murderhoboing has nothing to do with being illegal or immoral. It just means killing the things that the DM put there for you to kill, then rolling their bodies for loot.

If the things being murdered for their loot are the "bad guys", murderhobos are even heroes, doing the moral thing. Possibly even legal too. These types of murderhobos I call murderheros. They're a subset of murderhobos. The kind that care if their murdering and looting is immoral or not.

Hurting and killing people who are labeled as bad guys is not the same thing as being a hero. It might mean a momentary overlap in behavior, but when real tests of virtue, humanity, sacrifice, and heroism come up, it's easy to separate real heroes from murderhobos. You can even tell at times by the lifestyle choices and manner or enthusiasm with which players conduct themselves in conversation.

'Murderhobo' refers to a specific, generally undesirable set of behavior-patterns which suggest player-character amorality and lack of concern for any stimulus or condition which does not directly impact their game statistics. Those behavior-patterns might sometimes do things that can be construed as heroic if you squint the right way, but the idea that these are decent people generally collapses under scrutiny.

[Pex]

Just today our party was walking through some woods but noticed movement before we were about to enter a clearing, an ambush. Two party members scouted ahead and spotted three orcs with bows ready. They attacked and killed them. Orcs from the other side of the clearing went after them as the rest of us joined in the fray. I too was thinking the same thing as the OP but quickly consoled it was self-defense since they clearly meant to kill us in ambush. However, it was also an ongoing struggle with myself I've had for awhile to just let it go and not be in such a philosophical quagmire. I often in the past over analyze the moral implications when it wasn't necessary.

A few weeks ago in a different campaign the party while traveling in non-magical darkness heard flapping wings rapidly approach us. I happen to be playing a wizard. My natural instincts as a player was to wait until the creatures arrive and let them make the first hostile move. I always did that, and I always regretted it. I forced myself to attack first when I could see them with darkvision, casting Fireball. They were hostile to begin with.

It is true not every encounter needs to be a combat and not every orc is hostile, but oftentimes a combat is just a combat with no moral philosophical strings attached. The DM is not testing you. Your deity will not be upset with you. It's a random encounter/filler fight. Put the roleplaying away and swing your weapon or cast your spell.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Just today our party was walking through some woods but noticed movement before we were about to enter a clearing, an ambush. Two party members scouted ahead and spotted three orcs with bows ready. They attacked and killed them. Orcs from the other side of the clearing went after them as the rest of us joined in the fray. I too was thinking the same thing as the OP but quickly consoled it was self-defense since they clearly meant to kill us in ambush. However, it was also an ongoing struggle with myself I've had for awhile to just let it go and not be in such a philosophical quagmire. I often in the past over analyze the moral implications when it wasn't necessary.

A few weeks ago in a different campaign the party while traveling in non-magical darkness heard flapping wings rapidly approach us. I happen to be playing a wizard. My natural instincts as a player was to wait until the creatures arrive and let them make the first hostile move. I always did that, and I always regretted it. I forced myself to attack first when I could see them with darkvision, casting Fireball. They were hostile to begin with.

It is true not every encounter needs to be a combat and not every orc is hostile, but oftentimes a combat is just a combat with no moral philosophical strings attached. The DM is not testing you. Your deity will not be upset with you. It's a random encounter/filler fight. Put the roleplaying away and swing your weapon or cast your spell.

going to agree with this, also Pex you sound pretty jaded. Too many bad experiences of letting someone else make the first move will have a character want to shoot first and ask questions never. This is perfectly reasonable behavior.

[Tanarii]

Hurting and killing people who are labeled as bad guys is not the same thing as being a hero. It might mean a momentary overlap in behavior, but when real tests of virtue, humanity, sacrifice, and heroism come up, it's easy to separate real heroes from murderhobos.

Ya think? That's why I call them murderheroes, and not just heroes.

'Murderhobo' refers to a specific, generally undesirable set of behavior-patterns which suggest player-character amorality

amoral isn't the same as immoral. And it's not even amoral. All it means is PCs that kill things and loot their stuff. Okay, yes, it also includes not investing in much, possibly beyond gear to get better at killing things, and moving to the next job. (The hobo part.)

[Provo]

I think Faerun canon is that they can be at least neutral, no? Or is all of the alliance business just evil orc long cons? Even if they are evil, shouldn't lawful characters have a problem with just outright killing them?

Agreed I guess it depends on the local state of war or something...

I'm pretty sure that in Forge of Fury, there is a bounty out on orcs (maybe that was just from my DM).

That would suggest that orc killing is supported by law. The legal support suggests that most people in this fictional world don't see the orc killing as immoral (regardless of our real world moral views). So from a Role-Playing standpoint, it's not immoral.

If that isn't enough, consider that these orcs are inhabiting a dwarf stronghold that was taken by force. So this is a militant group that is actively hostile to the players. This suggests that the players' actions aren't immoral.

It is fair to prod players toward diplomacy, but this is a game (and one that involves a lot of killing). If context highly suggests that somebody is a bad guy, you can't fault the players TOO much for acting accordingly.

[vehementi]

I'm pretty sure that in Forge of Fury, there is a bounty out on orcs (maybe that was just from my DM).

That would suggest that orc killing is supported by law. The legal support suggests that most people in this fictional world don't see the orc killing as immoral (regardless of our real world moral views). So from a Role-Playing standpoint, it's not immoral.

If that isn't enough, consider that these orcs are inhabiting a dwarf stronghold that was taken by force. So this is a militant group that is actively hostile to the players. This suggests that the players' actions aren't immoral.

It is fair to prod players toward diplomacy, but this is a game (and one that involves a lot of killing). If context highly suggests that somebody is a bad guy, you can't fault the players TOO much for acting accordingly.

Yeah, I'm aware of the history of the stronghold. So essentially a hundred years ago or something, some the great great great great great great great grandparents of some of these orcs (maybe?) did a (let's assume) terrible thing [actually I just checked the first paragraph and the orcs there today are explicitly not the ones who took it by force]. That doesn't at all mean we should kill on sight here. My DM didn't mention a bounty though that's possibly something he just left out for time. The other players just said "but they're orcs" and that was the end of the reasoning.

I guess I agree most with the poster who said that the DM should make it clear if the assumptions of the players are wrong or if the characters would understand differently. In this case there was no attempt so it's reasonable to say they orcs are free loot bags in this situation.

[2D8HP]

Orcs?

Of course it isn't evil!

Especially if they're banging on those headache inducing wardrums!

You'd be spreading civilization!

Unless.....if some of the Orcs are totally hot.

If they're some hot Orcs then what's evil is not going "native", joining the Orc tribe and learning their ways which are more in tune with nature and emotions and stuff, including extending bathing under waterfalls.

Then you fight the non-Orcs who are clearly the evil ones.

-Your welcome

[Tanarii]

In this case there was no attempt so it's reasonable to say they orcs are free loot bags in this situation.

Lol yup the jump from "brutal, even locust-like, raiders / pillagers, that need to be burned out for the safety of civilization" to "free loot bags" is traditional. But it's still making me laugh right now.

[Malifice]

The Orcs PCs commonly encounter in most settings are the warriors of the tribe. The Orcs in this adventure specifically are. It's no more evil to ambush and slay them then it is for one side in a war to ambush the opposing side. It's just war. Tribal Orcs don't have families, they're raised by the Claws of Luthic who instill in them a fear of the Orc gods and a might-makes-right mentality. Killing Orc warriors is a good act.

In your scenario killing orc warriors is a morally neutral act, not a good one.

Killing people, even in war, is never morally good.

But I otherwise agree.