Quote from: Sigmund;482384Why is it so hard for you to suspend disbelief for this shit, but it's ok that druids can physically change their form into that of animals, wizards can cause things to appear out of thin air, or even that a creature the size and build of a dragon can fly at all. None of these are any less fantastic than the idea of a God that can be "good" and demand the destruction of "evil" at the same time. To be completely honest, I love your world-building, and on a level of purely personal taste I am much more likely to enjoy your standards of world-building and metaphysics than ones with much less rigorously thought out cosmology and set of moral standards. However, it is not wrong for someone to have tastes that run differently or even counter to your own. It can even be fun, if one allows oneself to be less demanding. More cartoonish, for sure, but no less potentially enjoyable.

I said before that world-building isn't the be-all and end-all of gaming, but that I do think it's an important part of the kind of fantasy gaming that is treated as the norm.

Consistency and verisimilitude are important because they give players handles on how the world works. The more irrational and inconsistent the world, the harder time it is to get a grip on how one can act towards it outside of mechanics. Departures from an everyday understanding of how the world works need justification so that PCs can develop the kind of everyday agency you and I take for granted as they come to understand this. The more incomprehensible things are, the more PCs will stick to the few things they do know for sure - the numbers on their sheet and the defined powers and options in the rulebook.

This is as true for morality as anything else. It's especially true if you're using alignments, and there are real consequences in the game world for violating one's alignment, like losing one's class abilities and having to go on some giant quest you don't want to because you didn't know some quirk of local custom. I've never had a game with a paladin in it where the paladin PC hasn't asked me at least once "Will this violate my alignment?" or "Will my god consider this good?" and I would prefer to have a straightforward answer for that question rather than make a snap judgment that may be inconsistent with previous incidents in the campaign.

On iphone so patience. I think if you have a setting where god is the source of good that gives you a lot of leeway. I suspect with yoir interest in philosophy you may personally have more rigorous exsmination of the consequences of that than many others. But you are getting into esoteric concepts at that stage and i dont think most gamers are going to go that deep.

First if god is the source of good in your setting you can define good how you want. It need not be the christian notion of good, it need not be peaceful in nature. It could be all about destroying creatures tainted by evil.

If you really want to get into gritty metaphysical questions about these things you can. Lots of people will be fine without doing so or operate under different assumptions and conclusions than you on these issues.

Personally my education was in history so i tend to overthink historical-related elements in my game. My threshold for believability in this area is much higher than most of my players----in fact i've found when i world build the history too deeply it negatively affects their enjoyment. In the same way what works for you and constitutes a well built cosmology isn't going to be the same for everyone on the board here.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482398I said before that world-building isn't the be-all and end-all of gaming, but that I do think it's an important part of the kind of fantasy gaming that is treated as the norm.

Consistency and verisimilitude are important because they give players handles on how the world works. The more irrational and inconsistent the world, the harder time it is to get a grip on how one can act towards it outside of mechanics. Departures from an everyday understanding of how the world works need justification so that PCs can develop the kind of everyday agency you and I take for granted as they come to understand this. The more incomprehensible things are, the more PCs will stick to the few things they do know for sure - the numbers on their sheet and the defined powers and options in the rulebook.

This is as true for morality as anything else. It's especially true if you're using alignments, and there are real consequences in the game world for violating one's alignment, like losing one's class abilities and having to go on some giant quest you don't want to because you didn't know some quirk of local custom. I've never had a game with a paladin in it where the paladin PC hasn't asked me at least once "Will this violate my alignment?" or "Will my god consider this good?" and I would prefer to have a straightforward answer for that question rather than make a snap judgment that may be inconsistent with previous incidents in the campaign.

In the context of the paladin and D&D alignment, I can see your point. However, in the past the paladin's code is how I have usually handled the specific expectations of the paladin. Most codes I've seen used or use myself include details about these moral questions over which we've been arguing, and will depend very much on how black and white the morality of the setting is imagined to be. I can't argue that consistency is very important, but IMO this consistency only needs to be internal, and does not have to also be consistent with reality when playing in a fantasy game. Irrationality can be the point of a fantasy world. Quite often, magic is irrational, not just some sort of science. Flying dragons that can talk and cast spells are irrational. I see no reason why morality can't be irrational as well and still be entertaining, at least to some folks.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482393My concern remains that I don't think a group like that would be able to maintain self-sustaining, intergenerational society so that there would be children and women (or at least female noncombatants).

Well, first off, I think the females would be combatants, like the females of any species are, just not as effective as the males.  As far as the rest...

Take the most aggressive, violent, xenophobic "redeemable" species you can think of.  Where is the logical gap from there to the "ireedeemable" species?  How does the removal of the capacity for good render a species incapable of self-survival?

Here's the thing though, you don't need to go this deep into cosmology to justify killing orcs. You only need to if you want to be explicitly justified in killing noncombatant orcs.

Orcish combatants don't require any heavy lifting beyond what human combatants require to justify killing them. Some dude is waving a sword at you, you stick him with your sword before he gets you, whether he has tusks and green skin or white skin and blue eyes. I have evil orcs in my games, they just aren't some sort of special uber-evil in the soul.

Someone going "There are these orcs, and they're completely evil, but they're helpless so you can remorselessly murder, torture and rape them and still be good" strikes me as weird. Not only that, but I do want a good explanation for why that is the case, just as if mythusmage pulled out Kiddie Raper the RPG, I'd demand a pretty good explanation from him about why Dracomangus the Sodomancer, Lord of All Creation, is OK with paedophilia.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482393This "real world analogue" stuff is a red herring other people keep on bringing up, not me. My concern remains that I don't think a group like that would be able to maintain self-sustaining, intergenerational society so that there would be children and women (or at least female noncombatants). If you want relentless killer orcs, then you pretty much have to make them fungus or drops of a dying god's blood or whatever, and throw out the anthropological realism of having a lair somewhere with women sewing shirts and orcish children roaming around.

I've said before that either one is fine, but the two don't mix, or if they do, no one has yet managed to lay out how they could adequately.

You say that "real world analogue" stuff is a red herring in relation to your position, but then your very next sentence you talk about how you don't think a group of irredeemable and violent orcs would be able to maintain a self-sustaining and intergenerational society. Why not? If we're talking about creatures that are never real, have never been real, and will never be real, why not? Is it not because it wouldn't jive with what you know about the real world? Of course it is, because you say so when you write, "f you want relentless killer orcs, then you pretty much have to make them fungus or drops of a dying god's blood or whatever, and throw out the anthropological realism of having a lair somewhere with women sewing shirts and orcish children roaming around". Emphasis mine. In fantasy, nothing has to be based on reality.

Quote from: CRKrueger;482409Well, first off, I think the females would be combatants, like the females of any species are, just not as effective as the males.  As far as the rest...

Take the most aggressive, violent, xenophobic "redeemable" species you can think of.  Where is the logical gap from there to the "ireedeemable" species?  How does the removal of the capacity for good render a species incapable of self-survival?

Good question. One thing that has not been considered that I recall seeing is that perhaps their violent or psychopathic natures only extend to species other than their own. This would make perfect sense if they were being postulated in the context of the Gruumsh myth.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482410Here's the thing though, you don't need to go this deep into cosmology to justify killing orcs. You only need to if you want to be explicitly justified in killing noncombatant orcs.

I agree there are simpler ways to justify killing orcs. I guess I asssumed the people designing these sort of campaigns found the idea of inherently evil orcs cool and that is why they went that direction.

QuoteOrcish combatants don't require any heavy lifting beyond what human combatants require to justify killing them. Some dude is waving a sword at you, you stick him with your sword before he gets you, whether he has tusks and green skin or white skin and blue eyes. I have evil orcs in my games, they just aren't some sort of special uber-evil in the soul.

Usually this is how I run things. Even in classic D&D I don't assume all orcs need to be eradicated, and I don't treat killing them mercilessly as lawful good (going by the text for lawful good that just isn't my take on how a lawful good character would behave). However I can see someone going a different direction if it suits their preferences.

QuoteSomeone going "There are these orcs, and they're completely evil, but they're helpless so you can remorselessly murder, torture and rape them and still be good" strikes me as weird.

I think it is wierd, but it is also a setting built around a much different moral framework than our own. In a way, this kind of thing seems much more inline with how ancient combat was often conducted. By our standards this wouldn't be good. But for Romans killing non-combatants usually wasn't much of a moral dilemma.

QuoteNot only that, but I do want a good explanation for why that is the case, just as if mythusmage pulled out Kiddie Raper the RPG, I'd demand a pretty good explanation from him about why Dracomangus the Sodomancer, Lord of All Creation, is OK with paedophilia.

I think if you find it distasteful content for a game, few explanations will be good enough. However I do think the "all orcs are evil by nature" is a pretty good solution to the immeditate problem of justifying the killing of orc non-combatants. The working defintion of good in the setting probably needs to be a little more rugged as well (this isn't the all-loving good of many modern religions).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482410Someone going "There are these orcs, and they're completely evil, but they're helpless so you can remorselessly murder, torture and rape them and still be good" strikes me as weird.

I'm not sure if you are specifically responding to me or not, but I made it pretty clear earlier that raping, torturing and enjoying the slaying of "irredeemable orc" children isn't good, but killing them would be.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482410Not only that, but I do want a good explanation for why that is the case.

The "irredeemable orc" is no different from an incapacitated demon in this case.  It is not currently capable of harm, but if left alone it shall be capable of harm, and will do harm, for that's what it is, harm embodied.  Anyone it harms later results directly from you choosing not to let it live.  The choice does not rest with the "irredeemable orc" it cannot be other then what it was made to be.  The choice rests with you.  Choosing to let an inherent evil exist when you could end it's existence is inherently evil.  Choosing to end an inherent evil is an inherent good.

And please stop going on about "need for justification", Stabby McChildRaper and all the other snide, smug bullshit.  The only one you're insulting is yourself.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482410Here's the thing though, you don't need to go this deep into cosmology to justify killing orcs. You only need to if you want to be explicitly justified in killing noncombatant orcs.

Orcish combatants don't require any heavy lifting beyond what human combatants require to justify killing them. Some dude is waving a sword at you, you stick him with your sword before he gets you, whether he has tusks and green skin or white skin and blue eyes. I have evil orcs in my games, they just aren't some sort of special uber-evil in the soul.

Someone going "There are these orcs, and they're completely evil, but they're helpless so you can remorselessly murder, torture and rape them and still be good" strikes me as weird. Not only that, but I do want a good explanation for why that is the case, just as if mythusmage pulled out Kiddie Raper the RPG, I'd demand a pretty good explanation from him about why Dracomangus the Sodomancer, Lord of All Creation, is OK with paedophilia.

Honestly, I think the non-com killing is not that big an issue when it comes to the game at the actual table. I doubt most of us really care about that at all, and is certainly not why I can imagine using irredeemable orcs in a game. What I would want is a species of enemies that would be the fantasy equivalent of the Terminator, as has been mentioned before in this thread. Sure, undead or demons could be used, but perhaps what I want is for my terminator species to also come across as a Hun-like horde of vicious killers (at least from the "good" guy's PoV) who can't be reasoned with, who give no mercy, who won't stop, who can't be redeemed or deterred. The have all the ability and adaptability of a living army of soldiers, and all the terror of unreasoning supernaturals. They can't be banished, aren't afraid of churches, can't be turned, can't be intimidated or convinced. They won't surrender, even to the last orc. That's how I would use them. Their mates, and children, and "everyday life" would give the illusion of rationality to them, but then the reality of their unwavering threat would be that much more horrific.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482381Let me assure that if good has metaphysical components, that messing with it is exactly like messing with causation. The damage may not be as obvious, but it is as profound. The metaphysics of a world are the foundations out of which everything else must derive. A world where goodness was radically different in the ways described would be as bizarre if carried out logically as one in which causation worked in some radically different way.

I don't doubt this would have heavy repurcussions in real life or in a fantasy setting where the effects of changing the metaphysics was fully examined. But my point is really that most players have a much lower threshold when it comes to metaphysics than physics. You can say "all orcs are evil, and the good comes from Jalai the sky god" and people will pretty much accept it. But if you tell your players rivers are running uphill or the world is zero G, they tend to ask a lot more questions about such changes.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482410Someone going "There are these orcs, and they're completely evil, but they're helpless so you can remorselessly murder, torture and rape them and still be good" strikes me as weird.

Torture and rape remain evil acts no matter who is doing them to whom. I couldn't imagine letting players indulge in either in an RPG. Certainly not one that I'd be a part of. But then, I play games about heroes, up to and including superheroes. I expect players to act like heroes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;482409Well, first off, I think the females would be combatants, like the females of any species are, just not as effective as the males.

Yes, I'd find that reasonable as well. It's why I've switched over to the less gender-specific term of "noncombatants", which I think gets across the general point more clearly.

QuoteTake the most aggressive, violent, xenophobic "redeemable" species you can think of.  Where is the logical gap from there to the "ireedeemable" species?  How does the removal of the capacity for good render a species incapable of self-survival?

Those are complex questions, but I'll try to answer them briefly:

The removal of a capacity for good could happen in one of two ways:

1) Removal of sentience
2) Removal of all of the neurological machinery that makes one capable of recognising and appreciating what is good, the value of others, etc.

(1) is not evil, just "noxious", to use Elliot's term.

(2) is a creature so intellectually limited that it cannot understand the value of loyalty, cooperation, reciprocity, etc. even through reasoning about it. It must lack the capacity to understand the point of view of others in any deep way, but perhaps it can mimic their behaviour sometimes when there is an immediate goal. It must lack the capacity to control and discipline its own social behaviour, and to ever improve or learn from the results of that social behaviour.

(2) IRL exists only as aberrations - the psychopath - and even then we're really looking at the most extreme examples thereof.

A creature that cannot regulate its own behaviour and must succumb to impulse (and where those impulses are only evil, as part of our initial constraints) could possibly get pregnant. It could even give birth. But the moment it gets angry at the baby, why would it not kill it in an impulsive rage or abandon it? How would it, if it cannot discipline and regulate its own behaviour, be able to maintain the routine of child care that young sentient creatures need?

Let's say that it is possible that orc children are much more self-sufficient from an early age than human children are, so that they can be abandoned by their parents (though this means they won't be hanging around the lair to be slaughtered) and raised to adulthood. Why would they then join with other orcs in a society, even a gang? They take no pleasure in socialisation (the capacity for friendship is a traditional good, and thus is impossible for them), and the risks of associating with a gang of equally monstrous individuals would be far greater than staying alone in the woods. You wouldn't have a society, you'd have a collection of intelligent, asocial predators avoiding one another. There would be no culture, no orcish language, no orcish technology (to build the swords etc.).

Psychopaths IRL are almost never really able to get past the point of two-person self-organisation (the "folie a deux") where a stronger psychopath dominates a weaker one.

So at best, you might have an orc who tried to physically dominate a weaker and smaller one, but the weaker and smaller one, equally ruthless, needs only to wait until the stronger one is asleep before throttling it or beating its head in with a hammer or rock or whatever (this has happened IRL, as a fellow-gamer friend who wrote the first omnibus on Canadian serial killers showed me in the manuscript of his book).

Also, it's extremely questionable whether these creatures, which we have defined as totally incapable of anything good, would even be brave enough to physically confront one another or anything else unless absolutely forced to. Their cruelty might overcome their cowardice in certain circumstances, but you're really looking at something much more like Gollum than like a typical orc.

IRL, a psychopath can get by acting like this because most people are not like this, and he is a parasite on the results and benefits of their goodness and socialising. In our example though, the orcs don't belong to a larger host society that they can take advantage of and steal the benefits of. They are left with the complex society and material culture that a bunch of solitary nomads have - none.

Quote from: Sigmund;482406In the context of the paladin and D&D alignment, I can see your point. However, in the past the paladin's code is how I have usually handled the specific expectations of the paladin. Most codes I've seen used or use myself include details about these moral questions over which we've been arguing, and will depend very much on how black and white the morality of the setting is imagined to be. I can't argue that consistency is very important, but IMO this consistency only needs to be internal, and does not have to also be consistent with reality when playing in a fantasy game. Irrationality can be the point of a fantasy world. Quite often, magic is irrational, not just some sort of science. Flying dragons that can talk and cast spells are irrational. I see no reason why morality can't be irrational as well and still be entertaining, at least to some folks.

Sure, I would agree that fantasy worlds do not need to be consistent entirely with the real world. However, I don't think elements like magic and dragons are irrational, just fantastical. Magic in games is often organised, with clear conceptual boundaries on what it can do (usually provided by the rules on casting spells if not otherwise explicitly listed). It is not scientific, but it is rational.

One can say "There is magic in this game, and it works like this..." and expect any sensible person paying attention to understand how magic works, especially if there is a clear set of well-written rules detailing how one casts spells and what happens when one does.

The important thing there is consistency of outputs / actions, rather than necessarily understanding the internal thaumological principles of magic (which are really just the rules for casting spells etc.). So long as magic acts in a predictable way, it can incorporated into an otherwise consistent world without causing damage to the verisimilitude or consistency because the ability to transparently predict the outcome of one's actions is the goal that verisimilitude and consistency serve.

Morality isn't fantastical though. Morality already exists, and we know how it works, and we are all already reasonably well-trained in it. We don't even really require rules for it (a good, though not perfect, indicator, of whether something is fantastical or not) though we do have some in classic D&D.

Deviations from our ordinary understanding of morality do not serve to make the world easier to get along in, unless presented in a comprehensible, rational way that PCs can grasp (which is why they have to be rational on some level). If the codes cannot be understood or do not make sense but transgressions are punished (by losing Paladin status etc.), you create an attitude of learned helplessness, as the easiest attitude when one is not sure of how to avoid being punished for screwing up is simply to do nothing at all. This is directly contrary to encouraging player agency.

You can use bizarre moral systems if you wish, so long as you can explain to players how and why they work, since otherwise you're just going to confuse them and leave them wondering what the hell they're supposed to be doing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;482417I think it is wierd, but it is also a setting built around a much different moral framework than our own. In a way, this kind of thing seems much more inline with how ancient combat was often conducted. By our standards this wouldn't be good. But for Romans killing non-combatants usually wasn't much of a moral dilemma.

The Romans had a radically different way of slicing things up ethically, and the notion of an "absolute good" that derives from something outside of human life would have been meaningless bafflegab to them. IRL, I think the Romans are right in that respect, but that's neither here nor there.

QuoteI think if you find it distasteful content for a game, few explanations will be good enough. However I do think the "all orcs are evil by nature" is a pretty good solution to the immeditate problem of justifying the killing of orc non-combatants. The working defintion of good in the setting probably needs to be a little more rugged as well (this isn't the all-loving good of many modern religions).

The problem actually becomes much easier to resolve if you give up the whole "absolute" and "irredeemable" elements, and just use "good" and "evil" in straightforward, ordinary ways to refer to individual orcs.

"These orcs are evil" is far less problematic than "All orcs are evil by nature".