Is it evil to ambush some orcs?

[Willie the Duck]

Would it have helped if I'd used blue text? I mean, it was a tongue in cheek reply, but it sums up my true feelings on the matter. There's no way to "prove" it to you if you don't see it the way I do, as far as I can see. And there's no way you'll Be able to "prove" it me. So it seemed pointless to take any other approach than a silly response. Because I'm disagreeing with the root of it.

I'm looking at it going: this has no bearing on anything real, and therefore cannot be useful in any way. Any information gotten out of it will only be thought to be meaningful, because it's based on something that cannot ever happen, due to being bound in impossible constraints. In that way, it's a classical philosophers conundrum. It appears useful and meaningful without being either.

The perfectly uniform sphere we plugged into our equations for classical physics in high school also could not exist, but had uses in understanding the underlying principles.

The trolley problem is setting up a non-false-dichotomy. It is designed to test your moral theories in situations where you can't evade making a decision about (in the actual trolley problem) life and death.

I remember being very mad in my original ethics 101 or whatever course with contrived scenarios, as was much of the class. But the professor shut us down pretty effectively by saying, "what exactly about these scenarios being contrived makes you think that they aren't valid tests to put your moral theories to?" Anything I come up with is going to be 'contrived' in that I am choosing to use it.

It's an exceedingly useful tool, if for no other purpose than it tends to make 18 year old think-they're-brilliant-philosophers realize how nice, conveniently simple moral frameworks like Utilitarianism or Deontology violate their actual moral tendencies.

In so far as it's a situation that would never truly arise, I actually agree with you. But saying it in that way means you've missed the point of how it's used entirely. The trolley problem, and other situations like it, are thought experiments meant to draw out the real differences between two parties.

Pretty much this.

[smcmike]

I am disagreeing that genocide is (or can be) 'morally good' or that DnD makes this claim either.

There is a bit to unpack here.

Is genocide morally good? No. To the extent that you believe good and evil are meaningful concepts in the real world, genocide is one of the worst evils there is. Hopefully this isn’t necessary to argue.

Can it be good in some fictional universe? Maybe. If you believe that “good” is an “objective” determination made within the universe, based upon the fiction, the answer has to be yes. The Good god demands genocide. Genocide is therefore good. If you believe that “good” is judgment we make external to the universe, the answer may be no. I don’t think you believe this, though, in the context of D&D.

Does D&D make the argument that genocide can be Good? I don’t know. I know Gary Gygax has.

I’m also not sure that “genocide” is the proper concept to apply to all eliminationist attacks upon fantasy creatures. Is eliminating all Devils from the material plane genocide? I don’t think so. Is there some value to the life of a Gnoll, which, per Volo’s, is basically an insane demon-spawn monster? I don’t really think so. Your position is that killing all vampires is fine, right? Is there a reason that this eliminationist attack isn’t genocide, but killing all gnolls is?

Now, I think it’s worth thinking about what it means to play a game where this sort of eliminationist violence is encouraged. I know some fantasy writers have sworn off the use of subhuman/evil Others, and I understand that argument. But this position is an active opposition to most of the history of the genre, and D&D in particular.

[CharonsHelper]

I’m also not sure that “genocide” is the proper concept to apply to all eliminationist attacks upon fantasy creatures.

I think that this is the key point.

"Genocide" only applies to people. It doesn't apply to wiping out a pack of wolves which are loose in a subdivision, especially if they've already killed a few children. Murder doesn't apply when you shoot raccoons which get too close to your chicken coop (if so - I was a murderer as a child - yes I grew up in the country).

Whether the terms "genocide" and even "people" apply to various intelligent or semi-intelligent fantasy creatures is a setting question to answer rather than an inherently moral one.

Spoiler: Stranger Things season 2

Show

I don't think that anyone argues that closing the gate was mass murder by Eleven despite it killing all of the demo-dogs, including Dart who seemed friendly at the end and let them pass. Why? Because they're not people.

[ZorroGames]

Cool. I think your fourth answer is the most interesting. Let's assume the framing excludes the first three situations, so in what setting is it morally okay to ambush orcs who are not at war with you, not known for raiding everyone they see, and not servants of an evil god?

Orcs that do not worship Evil Orcish Gods? Okay, assume that though how you would identify that easily escapes me.

As a mainly Dwarf player (one Chultan Ranger VHuman, and one Earth Genasi PC) that is easy.

Within the boundaries of Ironmaster - SCAG pages 62-63 - any non-dwarf ignoring the anvil on diamond signs marking the realms limits is suspect and subject to ambush/death. Some innocents have merely been ejected for trespassing but others... Orcs would be ambushed - why risk Dwarf Lives? Dwarf Lives Matter!

Citadel Adbar suffered siege from the Many-Arrows Orcs. Dwarfs remember!

Ditto Citadel Felbarr.

Gauntlgrym? Maybe there too.

Mithral Hall remebers the Orcs broke the treaty of Garun’s Gorge. Little patience for Orcs there.

Sundabarr? Little better than humans are Orcs. Or is that little worse?

Thornhold? You mean Stoneshaft Hold, of course. Paranoid for Dwarfs even, I doubt you see them allowing Orcs to prowl their land.

Can’t speak for Elves but they have about the same view of Orcs I would expect.

[EvilAnagram]

I think that this is the key point.

"Genocide" only applies to people. It doesn't apply to wiping out a pack of wolves which are loose in a subdivision, especially if they've already killed a few children. Murder doesn't apply when you shoot raccoons which get too close to your chicken coop (if so - I was a murderer as a child - yes I grew up in the country).

Whether the terms "genocide" and even "people" apply to various intelligent or semi-intelligent fantasy creatures is a setting question to answer rather than an inherently moral one.

I don't think that you can answer, "Is X genocide," without adressing moral concerns.

[Tanarii]

In so far as it's a situation that would never truly arise, I actually agree with you. But saying it in that way means you've missed the point of how it's used entirely. The trolley problem, and other situations like it, are thought experiments meant to draw out the real differences between two parties.

But they aren't "real" difference. They're meaningless stances taken by people in regards to someone that cannot happen.

The trolley dillemas are not meant to have a correct answer. They're meant to help clarify what acts different people would be willing to take.

Which is fails at completely and utterly. It's not a real situation that can ever arise, and it bears no resemblance to one. It's just philosophical mental masturbation. Like the vast majority of all philosophy, including ethics.

I've said, a ton, but hopefully you can at least begin to see, it's a tool meant to help clarify someones position. Because outside the trolley problems life is filled with thousands of qualifiers that make it hard to parse. This removes those for a brief moment to get a better understanding of their root positions, upon which you can then add those qualifiers back in.

I can see that you're sold in finding meaning in something which can only ever provide meaningless results with no resemblance to life. Like I said, I don't think I can prove my feelings on the matter to you, nor vice versa.

Why is the Trolley Problem always brought up in alignment arguments? It's an argument against act utilitarianism, which few people espouse and which no one had been arguing. It's certainly not an interesting or effective counter to, "It's always wrong to kill people." Gods damned pop psychology mucking up the waters of actual discourse.

I brought it up to point out how stupid the extreme examples being made often are. They are effectively the Trolley Problem, just disguised. And the Trolley Problem, and any other contrived example that will never happen at any reasonable table where the DM is not intentionally trying to construct a moral dilemma, won't happen.

'LG/CG character murders people and eats their babies' isn't the trolley problem, but it's the same "crap that doesn't happen but let's pretend it's relevant" fallacy. Just as the Trolley Problem is.

[CharonsHelper]

I don't think that you can answer, "Is X genocide," without adressing moral concerns.

Only if you define moral concerns very broadly. I don't think that an exterminator killing termites needs to worry about the morality of what they're doing.

If what you're killing aren't people, it's never genocide/murder. Fantasy settings often expand "people" beyond humans, but not indefinitely.

[qube]

No, because a lot of people don't act as their conscience directs. Ex: the lawful neutral cop who feel sorry for a family who can't pay the rent, yet still has to make them leave the building where they live,

Except, it doesn't work like that. Considering he in fact DOES feel sorry, would indicate that if it wasn't for cicumstances that bind his hands, he in fact would act as their conscience directs. -- as though the CG alignment suggests.

That's the problem with conscience is:

• if able, people will do what they believe to be correct (which is per definition, following their conscience)
• there will always circumstances that will leave you making a choice against ones conscience (usually "the greater good")

(there are exceptions to this, but those people are recommended to see a psychologist)

That leaves your argument only to an meaningless a priori assumption that it's a lawful neutral cop, and thus not a chaotic good cop.
(and even that could be debated, as the descriptions of alignment as so broad, one could easiily fall under multiple categories)


think about it: alignment has always been a gradient. How in heavens blazes can you expect a one line sentence describing a huge area in the gradient not also to apply in some degree to the rest?

I'm glad you agree that previous editions alignment systems are irrelevant to 5e due to being vastly different.

I have no clue how you got that from there.

As they are copy pasta, I consider them the same. Just more hidden, in an attempt to make them less relevant.

[hamishspence]

If what you're killing aren't people, it's never genocide.

A big part of many LE ethoses, though, is redefining "people" as "unpeople" wherever convenient.

An elf who redefines humans as "not people" and acts accordingly (say, a member of the elf-supremacist Eldreth Veluuthra)

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eldreth_Veluuthra

- is acting evilly - because, just they choose to redefine humans as Not People - doesn't mean that the universe as a whole accepts that redefinition.

[CharonsHelper]

A big part of many LE ethoses, though, is redefining "people" as "unpeople" wherever convenient.

That only works if you're a moral relativist. Otherwise they're just lying (arguably to themselves as well) and are still committing murder/genocide.

D&D is very much a moral absolutist sort of world.

But that doesn't keep there from being a line somewhere where certain fantasy creatures of above animal intelligence (or even above human in the case of some demons/devils especially, and probably some dragons) not qualifying as people, varying by setting.

[ZorroGames]

I don't think that you can answer, "Is X genocide," without adressing moral concerns.

Are we talking real life or a fantasy game?

[Garimeth]

I find justifications of genocide and baby murder far worse than calling people out on those justifications.

So no.



Im not personally attacking anyone for disagreeing with how to play a game.

I am disagreeing that genocide is (or can be) 'morally good' or that DnD makes this claim either.

So two things. I was going to leave both of them alone, but now I changed my mind.

You call him out for personal attacks, yet three times in this thread you have referred to people who disagree with you of being mentally incapable, as well as calling people who are playing a game by its intended design potential baby murderers or genocidal. Pot meet kettle.

Also, I have given very specific quotes from the source material that directly contradict your claim, in both 3.X and 5e - posts which you pointedly refuse to address. So here's a suggestion:

Learn how to debate like an adult without resorting to personal attacks yourself, or maybe grow some thicker skin about how you respond to people telling you that you are wrong, especially since you clearly lack the ability to defend your positions.

My 2cp, I'm sure you'll ignore it, but I'm calling you out.

EDIT: In case anyone missed it:

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend towards lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in it's essence. If it somehow ceases to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

THEREFORE: Killing, banishing, or thwarting these beings' existence in ANY WAY, is an increase in the cosmic Good in the material plan, therefore Good. This is further referenced in the paladin's class entry. Each table can play how they want, but this is what the actual material says.

[Kish]

I have no issue calling people prepared to justify murder or genocide out when they dos so.

Particularly when they try and justify murder and genocide as 'morally good'.

And yet you're the one who declared that Dungeons and Dragons is not a game that presumes violence can be moral based on individuals' actions, but rather a game that presumes entire races of sapients (including orcs) are so evil that killing them is the only solution.

[hamishspence]

And yet you're the one who declared that Dungeons and Dragons is not a game that presumes violence can be moral based on individuals' actions, but rather a game that presumes entire races of sapients (including orcs) are so evil that killing them is the only solution.

The Giant said something very similar at least about "how the game is normally played" rather than "how the game is"- and that OOTS is at least partly about criticising this aspect of the game:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=108

The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought.

[KorvinStarmast]

@KorvinStarmast, you know better than me, while my first DM had Eldrich Wizardry near our table in '79 I personally didn't get much besides the "bluebook" until 1980, but I think the description of the Mind Flayers as "highly evil but otherwise lawful" was the first "Aligned with Law" but evil monster listed.

Were there any earlier?

Before AD&D 1e MM came out? Hmm, I need to think about that.

[Kish]

The Giant said something very similar at least about "how the game is normally played" rather than "how the game is"- and that OOTS is at least partly about criticising this aspect of the game:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=108

Sure. But Rich was criticizing how the game is normally played, while presenting examples of heroic characters who kill individuals because of those individuals' actions. For example, O-Chul, the perfect paladin, tells Belkar that if he ever throws anyone else to expected certain death again O-Chul will gut him with his hands. Not saying that "monsters and demons and orcs" are Acceptable Targets.

[EvilAnagram]

I brought it up to point out how stupid the extreme examples being made often are. They are effectively the Trolley Problem, just disguised. And the Trolley Problem, and any other contrived example that will never happen at any reasonable table where the DM is not intentionally trying to construct a moral dilemma, won't happen.

'LG/CG character murders people and eats their babies' isn't the trolley problem, but it's the same "crap that doesn't happen but let's pretend it's relevant" fallacy. Just as the Trolley Problem is.

I think silly or exaggerated examples are fine so long as they illuminate something about an actual argument. The classic, "Is it moral to lie to save a life?" argument against Kant is a good example of this, but it's only a good example because Kant argues it is never acceptable to lie. It's a classic argumentum ad absurdum. If they're just part of a general argument, they're useless.

Only if you define moral concerns very broadly. I don't think that an exterminator killing termites needs to worry about the morality of what they're doing.

If what you're killing aren't people, it's never genocide/murder. Fantasy settings often expand "people" beyond humans, but not indefinitely.

Morality is necessarily a broad subject.

Society defines genocide as a crime based on a sound moral judgment. Therefore, when you examine whether an act is genocide, you are asking a moral question.

Perhaps the exterminator arrives at the conclusion that killing termites is moral, or perhaps he never asks it at all, but if you examine whether or not his actions are genocide, you are asking whether they fall into a specific category of immoral behavior, making it a moral question.

Are we talking real life or a fantasy game?

Does it matter? Or would you assert that fictional universes lack internal questions of morality?

[KorvinStarmast]

Ambushing orcs isn't genocide. This thread has gone way too far off topic.
If there is a general state of war or hostility between the party's country/nation/duchy and this band or clan or tribe of orcs, it's expected behavior. (See raids between Plains Indians for centuries in the American west as an example, though as often as not scalps or prisoners would be taken, rather than simple slaughter engaged in ... but that's mostly not part of the D&D reward cycle...).

if, on the other hand, this tribe / clan of orcs is a frequent trading partner with the human kingdom/country/duchy, then the picture isn't so clear. Maybe a parley is a better way to open, or maybe some more recon to find out what's up, why are the orcs hanging around ...

Question as asked lacks the three dimensional feature to answer it.
Is the party's clan/duchy etc allied with the dwarves against orcs? It the duchy neutral to that dispute?
And so on.

Then again, we teach genocide in checkers. You are to remove ALL of the opponents pieces.
Genocide, eh?

[Garimeth]

Sure. But he was criticizing how the game is normally played, while presenting examples of heroic characters who kill individuals because of those individuals' actions. For example, O-Chul, the perfect paladin, tells Belkar that if he ever throws anyone else to expected certain death again O-Chul will gut him with his hands. Not saying that "monsters and demons and orcs" are Acceptable Targets.

He's not just criticizing people, he's saying they are ok with genocide and baby murder and calling people that disagree with him stupid, then getting upset when people respond with:

"You're aware D&D isn't reality right? Because you constantly demonstrate an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy in this thread."

By saying that's a personal attack, lol. If this guy is serious I am literally chuckling in my office right now. If he is trolling however, he's done a great job and has given me some entertainment, and I'm grateful. I hope he's trolling.

[Garimeth]

Ambushing orcs isn't genocide. This thread has gone way too far off topic.
If there is a general state of war or hostility between the party's country/nation/duchy and this band or clan or tribe of orcs, it's expected behavior. (See raids between Plains Indians for centuries in the American west as an example, though as often as not scalps or prisoners would be taken, rather than simple slaughter engaged in ... but that's mostly not part of the D&D reward cycle...).

if, on the other hand, this tribe / clan of orcs is a frequent trading partner with the human kingdom/country/duchy, then the picture isn't so clear. Maybe a parley is a better way to open, or maybe some more recon to find out what's up, why are the orcs hanging around ...

Question as asked lacks the three dimensional feature to answer it.
Is the party's clan/duchy etc allied with the dwarves against orcs? It the duchy neutral to that dispute?
And so on.

Then again, we teach genocide in checkers. You are to remove ALL of the opponents pieces.
Genocide, eh?

To bring it back to the actual OP, I agree. This was my initial response as well:

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.

[CharonsHelper]

Perhaps the exterminator arrives at the conclusion that killing termites is moral, or perhaps he never asks it at all, but if you examine whether or not his actions are genocide, you are asking whether they fall into a specific category of immoral behavior, making it a moral question.

It's a moral question to the point of silliness. Should I ponder morality every time I spray Lysol and kill bacteria? Every time I swallow an antibiotic? What about the horrible genocide which my white blood cells might be performing?

I disagree with the premise that they are moral questions.

[EvilAnagram]

It's a moral question to the point of silliness. Should I ponder morality every time I spray Lysol and kill bacteria? Every time I swallow an antibiotic? What about the horrible genocide which my white blood cells might be performing?

I disagree with the premise that they are moral questions.

I'm not the one that asked if killing termites is genocide. I merely stated that framing it as a question of genocide makes it a moral question. If you find it a pointless moral question, you should not ask it.

(See raids between Plains Indians for centuries in the American west as an example, though as often as not scalps or prisoners would be taken, rather than simple slaughter engaged in ... but that's mostly not part of the D&D reward cycle...).

... You realize scalps were trophies people took from the corpses of those they killed, right? It's not like they ran someone down, cut off their scalp and let them live. And the scalps weren't valuable. People killed other people and skinned their heads.

[Unoriginal]

Except, it doesn't work like that. Considering he in fact DOES feel sorry, would indicate that if it wasn't for cicumstances that bind his hands, he in fact would act as their conscience directs. -- as though the CG alignment suggests.

Yes it works like that. The cop DOES feel sorry, and his conscience is telling him to help those people, but he DOESN'T act as his conscience directs, due to the consequences that he'd have to deal with if he did that, meaning that he is NOT behaving like the chaotic good alignment suggest.

My claim was that plenty of people don't follow their conscience even when they're not sociopaths, and that exemple illustrates that.

That's the problem with conscience is:

• if able, people will do what they believe to be correct (which is per definition, following their conscience)
• there will always circumstances that will leave you making a choice against ones conscience (usually "the greater good")

(there are exceptions to this, but those people are recommended to see a psychologist)

No, if able most people will always do what they believe is the best for those they care about, which include moral considerations (where conscience plays its part), pragmatic considerations, and quite a lot of other factors.

Some people will act according to their conscience most of the time, even at great personal risks or cost (ex: the person who will help a suffering family, despite knowing the consequences they risk to personally suffer from because of it), others will ignore their conscience when they think the risks/costs are too much (ex: the person who ignores a family's suffering despite knowing helping them would be the right thing to do, because they don't want to deal with the consequences).

A chaotic good person is someone who acts as their conscience tell them, regardless of what others and society want.

That leaves your argument only to an meaningless a priori assumption that it's a lawful neutral cop, and thus not a chaotic good cop.
(and even that could be debated, as the descriptions of alignment as so broad, one could easiily fall under multiple categories)

Frankly at this point I think I'd be happier believing you're genuinely trying to troll.

It's not an a priori assumption, it's a factor I've determined in my exemple. And a chaotic good cop would likely follow what his conscience directs and help the family, since he's a chaotic good person, which would be irrelevant to my point that people who have a conscience can nevertheless not act according to it.

think about it: alignment has always been a gradient. How in heavens blazes can you expect a one line sentence describing a huge area in the gradient not also to apply in some degree to the rest?

Show me anywhere in this edition where alignment is described as a gradient.

That it worked like that in 3.X is NOT relevant. The same way that 4e's "Lawful good- Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic Evil" version of alignment is not relevant in 5e, or that 2e's (or a previous edition) position that chaotic neutral people must act insanely and randomly.

Yes, some actions can fit several alignment, but alignment describe *how the person tends to behave*. Shelia the Debt Collector who sends her thugs beat up anyone who doesn't pay all the money on time could mean she's lawful evil (since she methodically takes from people within the limit of order), neutral evil (since she does that because she knows she can get away with it) or chaotic evil (since she inflicts arbitrary violence on others due to greed), but won't suddenly be chaotic good if she follows her conscience once.

[2D8HP]

Before AD&D 1e MM came out? Hmm, I need to think about that.

It was in '76's Eldrich Wizardry that Mind Flayers were "highly evil but otherwise lawful", but I wondered if there was any earlier separation of Chaos = Evil, Law = Good (which seemed to fit Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, and Moorcock's Stormbringer, but doesn't fit later Moorcock stories in which "The Balance" = good).

Just curious, I already had the 5 point Alignment system from the '77 "blue book" in mind when I first played D&D, so I haven't played much "single axis" alignment.

.....I am disagreeing that genocide is (or can be) 'morally good' or that DnD makes this claim either.

...I know Gary Gygax has....

I already quoted at length 1976 Gygax (the guy who made up "Lawful Good", "Chaotic Good", "Neutral Evil", etc., Arneson just had "Law", "Neutral", "Chaos"), so let me quote an older, and crankier Gygax in 2005: (previously quoted by @lunaticfringe)


"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted,*a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide....

....An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct...

...The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that.*It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

....Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question....

...I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws....

..Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not...

...Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good."

-Gary Gygax 2005


Yeah a bit different than '76 Gygax, but still the guy who made up this claptrap.

Source here

(In my view, just as/as not relevant to 5e as to stuff quoted from 3e sources)

Why is the Trolley Problem always....

My first exposure to the "Trolley problem" was in a 2009 "Justice" broadcast of a Harvard University lecture...



....which (Full disclosure: I have never taken any College/University classes, but I've read some textbooks that my wife had from her time as a Harvard law student), after my initial gratitude upon seeing it televised, quickly made me reflect on how I could see no extra merit in the banter of the college students than I could in the minds of most of my inferiourly educates co-workers... [extended rant]

...previous editions alignment systems are irrelevant to 5e due to being vastly different.

Are we talking real life or a fantasy game?

It's pretty clear that 5e's use of the word "Wisdom" for "Wisdom stat' does not match colloquial/dictionary definitions of the word ("Wisdom" in 5e seems to mostly measure how acute ones senses are), it's reasonable to infer that a similar deference in meanings may be attributed (pun intended) to "good" and "evil", so (as has already been suggested in either this or a similar thread) one can go a different way.

Unlike the OAD&D I used to play (supplemented by Arduin and All the World's Monster's) WotC 5e D&D has the two new mechanics of "Ideals" and "Inspiration" (which I seldom see used).

"Inspiration" may be awarded as a "carrot" by DM's when PC's act according to their "Ideals" (I'm reminded of similar mechanics in 1985's Pendragon which had "sticks" as well).

It's makes sense to me that a player selects "Ideals" from their PC's "Backgrounds" that fit what they want to play.

When I make a 5e PC I select an "Alignment" that matches the "Ideal" I most would like to be rewarded "Inspiration" for (If it would ever happen!), no more or less!

The OP seemed to feel moral qualms about the (pretend) violence of his PC's party...

it seemed to be a happy unspoken non-objected-to assumption between the other players and DM that these are the "they are evil and would be hostile so we can ambush them" perspective was true. I think the "they would be hostile" part is pretty shaky since we're invading their thing but yeah.

...and I really don't have much to say on that besides "It's pretend", and IIFC the antagonists of the games I played "back in the day" were mostly animated skeletons and giant spiders, seldom goblinoids, and the focus was more on looting the Dungeon rather than slaying it's inhabitants, which seems to be more the focus now.

For most of us it's more fun to pretend to be the "good guys" (though I have played some "Evil party" games which turned out to be kinda boring for me), so really if I were to OP I would just talk to the other players and DM to see if some changes could be made.

But I still prefer "Heist" style adventures (get in, get the loot, try to bring the loot back to the tavern without getting stabbed) so what do I know?

[ZorroGames]

My Lord has this thread jumped the rails or what?

[EvilAnagram]

My Lord has this thread jumped the rails or what?

Any question about good and evil with regards to D&D jumps the rails. I love it.

[Unoriginal]

I merely stated that framing it as a question of genocide makes it a moral question. If you find it a pointless moral question, you should not ask it.

HOW does it make it a moral question?

[EvilAnagram]

HOW does it make it a moral question?

Because genocide is an act defined by society's moral condemnation. The term originated in the wake of massive campaigns of mass murder in order to describe it in criminal terms. The term only exists because societies wanted to express moral repudiation through treaties and laws. Because the concept of genocide originates as a moral value judgment, because society's legal definition of genocide is based on a moral position, to question whether or not an act is genocide is to question its morality.

Because A falls within the subject of B, if you ask whether x is A, your discussion relates to B.

[MadBear]

But they aren't "real" difference. They're meaningless stances taken by people in regards to someone that cannot happen.

Which is fails at completely and utterly. It's not a real situation that can ever arise, and it bears no resemblance to one. It's just philosophical mental masturbation. Like the vast majority of all philosophy, including ethics.

I can see that you're sold in finding meaning in something which can only ever provide meaningless results with no resemblance to life. Like I said, I don't think I can prove my feelings on the matter to you, nor vice versa.

I brought it up to point out how stupid the extreme examples being made often are. They are effectively the Trolley Problem, just disguised. And the Trolley Problem, and any other contrived example that will never happen at any reasonable table where the DM is not intentionally trying to construct a moral dilemma, won't happen.

'LG/CG character murders people and eats their babies' isn't the trolley problem, but it's the same "crap that doesn't happen but let's pretend it's relevant" fallacy. Just as the Trolley Problem is.

Well, I guess you're committed to being wrong.

[Willie the Duck]

My Lord has this thread jumped the rails or what?

Rails imply there was initially somewhere where it was intended, and could have, gone that would have been safe, reasonable or something. The basic premise of asking the OP question is more of dropping a train off a cliff and being surprised that it didn't magically land on some rails heading in some meaningful direction.

The basic premise of monster orcs is* that of designated villain. That works as a storytelling device, and is awfully convenient for a game, but extrapolated to the real world (that place against which people calibrate their verisimilitude), it is an absurdity.
*yes, this is opinion

Unless you're perfectly fine with 'this is a game, don't overthink it' (where I am, in actual play) there is nowhere to go with the line of thought that isn't going off-rails.

I agree with 2D8HP that EGG's opinion on the matter has no special weight, but the 1976 quote makes pretty clear that they became aware of this conflict right from the start. And I don't think anyone in the meantime has ever come to any magical resolution which is particularly satisfactory. I don't know why this amazingly toxic thread should be any different.