Quote from: beejazz;482151He killed Medusa because he promised Polydectes* any gift he wanted because he couldn't afford a horse. He succeeded with the help of Athena, who made Medusa a monster for the sin of being raped (by Poseidon) in her temple. Perseus encountered a serpent called Cetus (not the Kraken) in an unrelated incident on the way home. He killed it because he was interested in Andromeda, who was to be sacrificed to it. Probably not to save any villagers, or he would have killed the many serpents he personally was responsible for spawning on the way home with Medusa's blood.

*some asshole who wanted to bang his mom.

Sure, if you want to talk about the actual myth rather than the movie with cool special effects (LOVED the way Hades looked when he appeared) Either way, it doesn't matter because the result is the same. Perseus needed the head for something and killed Medusa without remorse to get it. Wouldn't you if you could? It's not like Medusa was some harmless innocent at that point, although she had been at one time. We all make choices.

QuoteEDIT: That it didn't bother him is because killing monsters (and other heroes) is what Greek heroes do, and that has little to do with morality or external justification.

The reason it's what Greek heroes do is because the monsters are evil and need to be killed. Even Jason, who, at the surface, quested to gain his throne. The guy he was taking it from was a selfish, ambitious would-be conqueror. Like you said, the Greeks are weird, but that doesn't mean they didn't consider what they thought to be "good" and "evil". The stories contain reasons for the heroes to be doing what they are doing, and in many cases it's because they are either defending someone/something or are given quests by someone else whom they have a need to please. This militaristic view of dealing with threats and obstacles is a strong influence, IMO, on the way D&D was designed to play. Especially when keeping in mind it was written neither by nor for folks who make life-long studies or vocations out of ancient mythology, but just have read some of it for entertainment.

Quote from: Pete Nash;482155Indeed, Greek Mythology is a prime example of ambiguous morality. The gods crap on mortals for the most petty of reasons, blameless victims suffer a great degree of injustice (being turned into monsters and killed by thoughtless heroes for example) and even the heroes themselves are bastards in one form or another - cheats, womanisers, kidnappers, rapists, fratricidal murderers, human sacrificers and so on.

In ancient times 'Hero' did not equate with being good... it just meant he was somebody dangerous who you paid wary respect to.

Depends on how you define "good". The Greek heroes are depicted according to the morality of their culture and time period. Of course the Gods were depicted as cruel and petty... life can be cruel and seemingly petty. The heroes reflected the values of their day, and in such a militaristic culture, is it really so surprising the heroes come off as a bunch of frat boys?

Quote from: SigmundSure, if you want to talk about the actual myth rather than the movie with cool special effects (LOVED the way Hades looked when he appeared) Either way, it doesn't matter because the result is the same. Perseus needed the head for something and killed Medusa without remorse to get it. Wouldn't you if you could? It's not like Medusa was some harmless innocent at that point, although she had been at one time. We all make choices.

Nothing wrong with basing your games on movies and pop-culture derived from myth, but I think it's better not to confuse the two too much.

As for whether Medusa was harmless, or attempted to kill anyone but Perseus deliberately, it isn't mentioned because it isn't relevant. Monsters didn't have to go and kill people for people to be justified in killing them.

When I look to myth and history, I try not to look through too modern a lens. I'm not a fan, for example, of looking for the monomyth or modern media parallels in everything, as the whole point is to bring in something *outside* my experience.

QuoteThis militaristic view of dealing with threats and obstacles is a strong influence, IMO, on the way D&D was designed to play. Especially when keeping in mind it was written neither by nor for folks who make life-long studies or vocations out of ancient mythology, but just have read some of it for entertainment.

I agree with the "militaristic view" and its influence on D&D*, but D&D sort of mixes sources. Paladins and a sort of "chivalrous view" exist alongside the militaristic view, and it can be hard sometimes to disentangle the two. Let alone when other aspects of D&D "morality" might be defined by Robin Hood or Conan or what have you.

*In fact, I tend to push the militaristic angle *over* the chivalrous one, keeping "justification" less of an issue.

Quote from: beejazz;482158Nothing wrong with basing your games on movies and pop-culture derived from myth, but I think it's better not to confuse the two too much.

Well if one were attempting a more academic approach I agree.

QuoteAs for whether Medusa was harmless, or attempted to kill anyone but Perseus deliberately, it isn't mentioned because it isn't relevant. Monsters didn't have to go and kill people for people to be justified in killing them.

True enough I suppose, although I'm not familiar with many Greek monsters that would not try to, or at least inadvertantly, kill anyone that got near them. In Medusa's case, perhaps Perseus was doing her more of a kindness.

QuoteWhen I look to myth and history, I try not to look through too modern a lens. I'm not a fan, for example, of looking for the monomyth or modern media parallels in everything, as the whole point is to bring in something *outside* my experience.


I agree with the "militaristic view" and its influence on D&D*, but D&D sort of mixes sources. Paladins and a sort of "chivalrous view" exist alongside the militaristic view, and it can be hard sometimes to disentangle the two. Let alone when other aspects of D&D "morality" might be defined by Robin Hood or Conan or what have you.

*In fact, I tend to push the militaristic angle *over* the chivalrous one, keeping "justification" less of an issue.

I agree, D&D greatly mixes sources. It's a legend myth mash-up, and I think that's part of it's appeal. Using a setting inspired by Greek myth, including a morality much closer to Greek myth than the modern view, and injecting the romanticized chivalrous view into that setting can be loads of fun. In that case, the heroes would very much go out to slay these evil and dangerous creatures to protect the common folk. Whether the monster was truly evil in intent, or simply tragic, would not be much of a factor. IMO it shouldn't have to be when playing pretend with such a game. To try and then view this game through the lens of colonialism and racism is pretty crazy, IMO.

Quote from: Sigmund;482134I think you are not reading folk's posts correctly. I have not sen anyone who is saying that killing non-combatants is "good".

John M. is. He's the only guy I'm really arguing with on that side as far as I can recall, although if anyone else wants to step up they're more than welcome.

This is why I haven't been jumping in to argue with CRKrueger or most of the other people who've been calling the OP a load of bollocks, because mostly, it is.

Quote from: John Morrow;482061Human beings are genetically programmed to behave certain ways and have certain mental capabilities, too.  It becomes noticeable in people who lack normal mental capabilities, such as with autism.  Why is a species that naturally has a different set of capabilities, urges, and priorities difficult to accept?

A specific different set of urges and priorities. Please explain how a humanoid species that needs to kill humans in order to survive can originate and sustain itself.

QuoteNot the only option.  They can also be noxious to their own kind such that if you leave them alone only with their own kind, they will prey on and abuse each other.  Think about what violent criminals do to each other in prison if you need a model of how that works.  So, sure, you could put them on a reservation where they can't hurt other people but they will just make life a living Hell for each other.

So, they're mean to each other, therefore every one of them deserves to die?

The more naturalistic you try to make the creatures, the less fantasy and the more sci-fi things become. In turn, the more sci-fi, the less I'm willing to swallow the idea of absolute good and evil.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;482163John M. is. He's the only guy I'm really arguing with on that side as far as I can recall, although if anyone else wants to step up they're more than welcome.

This is why I haven't been jumping in to argue with CRKrueger or most of the other people who've been calling the OP a load of bollocks, because mostly, it is.

Huh, haven't read that into John's posts, but perhaps I missed something. Fair enough.

Quote from: John Morrow;482065The Orcs are listed in the monster manual with hit points, treasure, and details about what can be found in the monster's lair.  B2 Keep on the Borderlands, a module included with basic D&D for quite a few years, contains lair after lair containing women and children.  I am seriously curious how those who played trough B2 "back in the day" (or even recently) handled those encounters.

I'm also curious about that. But...good monsters, humans, elves, etc. are all listed in the monster manual the same way. We could talk about why that is, but it sure doesn't have to do whether it's good/right/justified to hunt down orcs as opposed to other creatures.

In cases where enemies are defeated, leaving PCs in control of noncombatants...first I'd point out that "absolute defeat" happens a little too often in RPGs. With the exception of siege situations or battles where one side is routed and leaves its camp to be pillaged, I think there ought to be more cases where the orcs run away and take their dependents with them. But if the PCs are faced with the issue of dealing with noncombatants, sparing them can mean anything, particularly if you accept the argument I made earlier--that D&D alignment is a matter of broad strokes "here & now" disposition, not a statement of irrevocable destiny. For example, it wouldn't be unimaginable for orcs raised from infancy to be civilized. Also, while psychopathy is something I don't believe can be sustained in a social species, nevertheless if you postulate it, or at least some radically different psychology, the combination of intelligence and some kind of social impulse makes it possible to bargain on a basis of self-interest.

QuoteD&D has long had the ability to detect alignment and the Paladin has long had the ability to Detect Evil at will.  If that ability is not to create absolute knowledge of who the Paladin should or shouldn't slay, then what is it for?

Interesting question. I checked the references to Detect Evil last night. Gygax appears to have given the idea some thought, and his concepts evolved somewhat from the Player's Handbook (June 1978) to the DMG (August 1979). The DMG seems to revise the use of the spell considerably, suggesting that it will really only detect supernatural evil, like devils--which of course dovetails nicely with the fact that supernatural evil creatures are of the essence of evil, unlike, say, a human who just happens to have an evil alignment or is planning to do something evil.

Besides, even the most expansive concept of Detect Evil is not "Predict Future". People can change alignments.

So basically I'd say, either way, that the Paladin's Detect Evil isn't a moral litmus test, it's a warning mechanism. This guy is evil, so don't trust him. Doesn't mean he should be executed on the spot.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;482164A specific different set of urges and priorities. Please explain how a humanoid species that needs to kill humans in order to survive can originate and sustain itself.

For argument's sake, I'll say that feeling the need to kill humans doesn't automatically equate to the need existing solely for survival purposes, especially in a fantasy setting.

QuoteSo, they're mean to each other, therefore every one of them deserves to die?

The more naturalistic you try to make the creatures, the less fantasy and the more sci-fi things become. In turn, the more sci-fi, the less I'm willing to swallow the idea of absolute and evil.

Why not? Wouldn't the pretend world be a safer place without them? What positive contribution do they make to the pretend world that their loss is to be lamented? If their God has created them for the sole purpose of wiping out all the other sentient species (for example), what benefit is there to be gained by not wiping them out? Substitute "dragon" or "undead" for "orc" and nobody would even be having this discussion, but they are all pretend in the end, so what's the difference? If I were to include orcs in my home-brew setting, it would most likely be in just this role, to be honest. They would be extra-planar invaders who would attack and kill any other sentient species without mercy or hesitation. For the less polarized humanoids I already have dwarves, humans, and goblins. Why is it so easy to pretend that all elves (or dwarves) are good, but so hard to pretend all orcs are bad?

Quote from: Sigmund;482165Huh, haven't read that into John's posts, but perhaps I missed something. Fair enough.

He's said it multiple times throughout this thread explicitly (he even told a story about a time his PCs did it), and it's been the subject under debate for a thousand posts or so now. You've gone off the fucking deep end and don't appear to have kept track of anyone's position, including your own.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;482167IAlso, while psychopathy is something I don't believe can be sustained in a social species, nevertheless if you postulate it, or at least some radically different psychology, the combination of intelligence and some kind of social impulse makes it possible to bargain on a basis of self-interest.

Just to address this specific issue, I disagree that if we're postulating a fantastic setting anyway that a high birthrate and mild sense of self-preservation would not allow a social species to lack a conscience as it relates to killing and still be social. Lacking the characteristic of feeling remorse does not equal feeling a compulsion to kill. Even without a conscience, the individuals of the species would have to be motivated to kill each other. I agree it would result in much higher incidents of violence among individual members of the species as motivations arose, the higher birthrates and unwillingness to directly challenge obviously stronger individuals could possibly balance that out. The lack of remorse also does not mean the individuals develop relationships with each other. Those relationships would just be of a different nature than what we think of, but it is fantasy after all.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482169He's said it multiple times throughout this thread explicitly (he even told a story about a time his PCs did it), and it's been the subject under debate for a thousand posts or so now. You've gone off the fucking deep end and don't appear to have kept track of anyone's position, including your own.

What I see John saying is that a good person can commit "morally questionable" acts in self-defense and not automatically be viewed as evil, such as in the case of Ripley in Aliens. You're going to have to be more specific if you want me to take you seriously. Have I missed something in this huge thread? Possibly, I am human after all. As for the rest, piss off troll. My position is clear. This whole thread is based on an OP that is fucking ludicrous, and every defense of that position or even ones vaguely similar to it have been pathetically weak, including yours. I see you and JJ and others putting forth this elitist view that your way of playing pretend is better or "deeper" or more "realistic" than one that includes pretend irredeemable evil and think that your one-true-wayism is retarded. Clear now or do I need to draw pictures?

Edit: I'm going through and reading all John's posts, and so far all I see is him describing why it would be pragmatic to wipe out an irredeemable species. So, if you are equating pragmatic with 'good", then I'll stand corrected. I have not, however, seen where he has described the extermination of irredeemable non-coms as some shining example of goodness and light. If anything, I'm seeing him say it's perhaps a necessary or pragmatic (which could be viewed as "good" for the safety of everyone else) task solely to protect the innocent, not to be be avoided, but not to be celebrated either, such as in the case of his party that killed the females and young of the goblin tribe.

Edit 2: Nope, haven't seen John post anything that I would interpret as him saying it's "good" to kill non-coms, in the sense of inherently good rather than "good" in the sense of the pragmatic removal of a future threat to innocents.

When I have used irredeemably evil orcs (and I don't always), there is a specific reason they are irredeemably evil - they were created that way.   Most D&D worlds drop a fully-formed pantheon or multiple pantheons in your lap without going into the genesis of the cosmology.  I take great pains to try and detail that cosmology as much as possible in my own worlds.

Now just looking at what D&D gives you, as I see it, the basic rationale of an "irredeemably D&D orc" is that it is created and given a soul by Gruumsh.  The orc's purpose is to drive all other races from the world through war and prove the superiority of the orc race, for the glory of Gruumsh, in revenge against all the other racial gods.  This creation myth comes from Dragon Magazine, Roger Moore I think.

Quote from: Roger Moore in Dragon MagazineIn the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven deities drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!"
There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it over the world. The shaft blotted the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No! You Lie! You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps. One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell…here!," he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening a mighty rift and chasms. "And here!," and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!," and the black spear gouged the meadows and made them bare.
"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

As a result, orcs have more then violent DNA, they have a violent soul.  They revel in violence, in pain, in suffering, in destruction, because their god crafted them thus.  Do they breed? Yes.  Do they have females and young? Yes.  If set free, will those females find other orc males and create more orcs? Yes.  Will those young grow up to ravage the countryside again? Yes.  Is killing them necessary to the peaceful existence of good? Yes.  Can they be other then what their god made them to be? No.

Now, I never had Paladins roving the wastes just looking for orcs to exterminate, I always saw Lawful Good militant orders as reacting to actual current threats to society and peace, not scouring the world in flame and sword.

Is slaying an "irredeemably evil orc" an inherently good act even if currently defenseless?  Yes.  Removal of evil is inherently good.  Reveling in it, enjoying it, wishing for it, is evil.  Doing it is good.  Is it honorable, valorous, heroic?  No.  It is doing a despicable thing in the cause of the greater good.  The reason that gets everyone going for the flamethrower is because in our world, where there is no greater good, humans have committed atrocities in the name of it nonetheless.  However, the beauty of a fantasy RPG is that there may just be a greater good (or any other metaphysical construct you want to make that doesn't exist on earth).  Of course if you can't imagine the existence of a greater good or an absolute good or absolute evil, well then of course you can't envision what I'm talking about.

Personally, slaying females and young should be seen as a horrific act, and I've never had a party just do it without conflict, sometimes PvP conflict, between good characters.  However being the sword of a god is not easy, nor should it be.  As Ken Hite put it...

Quote from: Ken HiteCivilization must be protected from the Barbarians, and to do that, somebody has to pick up The Gun. However, if you pick up The Gun, you become a Barbarian.

Now he was talking about one of the key elements of the western, however, I think the same can apply to a Paladin or other Lawful/Good knight/templar.

When you take up the sword of your god, you willingly accept that you might be sacrificing some of your humanity to do the god's will.  You will be the defender of peace, yet never have any yourself.  I think of the quote of Van Helsing when he realizes that "We have all become God's madmen."

Frankly, by my experience, a game where the players storm in, and put every orc, male, female and child to the sword without any questions, conflict, argument, guilt or self-atonement has never happened in 30 years of gaming, not even when I was 12.  I know such games exist, but claiming them a base assumption or a core trope that infers something about the hobby itself, is just silly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;482181Is slaying an "irredeemably evil orc" an inherently good act even if currently defenseless?  Yes.  Removal of evil is inherently good.  Reveling in it, enjoying it, wishing for it, is evil.  Doing it is good.  Is it honorable, valorous, heroic?  No.  It is doing a despicable thing in the cause of the greater good.  The reason that gets everyone going for the flamethrower is because in our world, where there is no greater good, humans have committed atrocities in the name of it nonetheless.  However, the beauty of a fantasy RPG is that there may just be a greater good (or any other metaphysical construct you want to make that doesn't exist on earth).  Of course if you can't imagine the existence of a greater good or an absolute good or absolute evil, well then of course you can't envision what I'm talking about.

Fantastic way to put it, much better than anything I've posted. I enjoyed the rest of your post as well, nicely put.

I would challenge whether you can even summarise my position, let alone characterise it as "pathetically weak" with any veracity. Certainly you've shown that you aren't reading this thread very carefully, and that you don't actually have a coherent position, just a shitty, self-righteous attitude with nothing behind it.

As for Morrow, he explicitly stated that he ran a game in which his good PCs mowed down a bunch of greenskin kids without any moral consequences. This was because they were irredeemably evil.