Quote from: BedrockBrendan;482459Sure, but that is because people generally find that concept distasteful. That doesn't mean it is inconsistent in the setting though.

It depends on what kind of god Jalai actually is. IRL, pagan gods are not considered the source of goodness like a lamp is the source of light. Rather, they set laws that must be obeyed, and provide good things to their followers. Jupiter doesn't determine what is good, any more than the state determines what is good. Both simply define what is permissible or not. Jalai sounds like that kind of god, and if he is, then crushing the skulls of his foes is not a question of good or bad, but of doing what one is required to do, regardless of how one feels.

Using a real world example, the Aztecs don't appear to have been horrible monsters, they appear to have truly and genuinely believed that if they didn't cut out the hearts of people the gods would die, and the entire world with them. It wasn't a matter of cutting hearts out being good or bad to do, it was a matter of necessity and divine command. I'm sure many Aztecs desperately wished their gods were capable of surviving without human sacrifice and if they thought they could, would have given up heart-cutting quite readily.

Quote from: J Arcane;482465Out of curiosity then, do you find Ferengi in Star Trek hard to swallow as a society?  They are, essentially, corporate sociopathy as cultural philosophy, and while later DS9 did undermine that and begin redeeming them, the basic idea was pretty regular.

I find the Ferengi annoying but not implausible. In DS9 we see that they do have a lot of familial affection, and they do have regular social customs that allow them to get along in nonviolent, law-abiding ways. Most Ferengi are not breaking using any means at all to chisel one another, but are following a well-established set of social conventions.

The earlier Ferengi of TNG considered alone are kind of stupid if we consider them completely typical for all Ferengi. However, we do only really see the piratical types who don't appear to even be able to get along in greater Ferengi society IIRC.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482468Sure. But it's one thing to say someone is "irredeemable" or "evil", and another for them to have the E-gene or be full of E-energy. I'm fine with the former and consider the latter somewhat odd, to say the least.

Then I'm left with nothing else to argue with you about. Ah well.

Quote from: J Arcane;482469I might point out that, at least in 3rd edition, the existence of, essentially, "E-energy" is actually there more or less.  

Which is sort of odd if you think about it too hard, and is why I tended to lean more on the "personifying death and decay" aspect of "negative energy" rather than a direct association with evil.

So have I.

Quote from: J Arcane;482469I might point out that, at least in 3rd edition, the existence of, essentially, "E-energy" is actually there more or less.  

Which is sort of odd if you think about it too hard, and is why I tended to lean more on the "personifying death and decay" aspect of "negative energy" rather than a direct association with evil.

E-Energy is very limited as a concept in 3.x though. I tend to follow Keith Baker's idea that Detect Evil is really "Detect Negative Energy", and that such energy is not found in most evil humanoids, but only in creatures like demons, undead, and the clerics of evil gods (who specifically pick up an "aura of evil" in 3.x).

Quote from: Sigmund;482472Then I'm left with nothing else to argue with you about. Ah well.

High five, all is well.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482474E-Energy is very limited as a concept in 3.x though. I tend to follow Keith Baker's idea that Detect Evil is really "Detect Negative Energy", and that such energy is not found in most evil humanoids, but only in creatures like demons, undead, and the clerics of evil gods (who specifically pick up an "aura of evil" in 3.x).

I did the same. Not really even for "realism" or consistency's sake, but simply to keep it from being over-used, abused, or relied on too heavily.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482475High five, all is well.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Sigmund;482476I did the same. Not really even for "realism" or consistency's sake, but simply to keep it from being over-used, abused, or relied on too heavily.

That too (otherwise it's an XP tricorder), but a single consistent standard helps everyone know what they're getting into with detect evil.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;4824312) Removal of all of the neurological machinery that makes one capable of recognising and appreciating what is good, the value of others, etc.

What does "good" have to do with value of others in relation to the self?  One orc can't scour the face of the earth of everything non-orc by itself.  It needs other orcs to thrive and prosper the same way any species needs other members.  The idea that an orc would never recognize a non-orc as something of value does not mean that they have no sense of value.  It doesn't follow at all.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431(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.

Complete and total supposition, not a shred of fact.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431A 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?

The lack of regulation of it's behavior is a strawman.  The fact that an orc is driven to kill all non-orcs says nothing of it's ability to raise other orcs.  An "irredeemable orc" mother would beat the young, torture the young, to make them cruel and strong, and to prepare them for war and murder, but it wouldn't bash it's own children's head against the wall every time it stubbed it's toe.  That's coming totally from you, it exists nowhere in the idea.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431Let'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?

Simple survival is one reason, their inherent nature another.  They are driven to join with other orcs, breed, then war with and kill all non-orcs.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431the risks of associating with a gang of equally monstrous individuals would be far greater than staying alone in the woods.

Again, making the rather ridiculous assumption that they slay their own as readily as they slay others, a fact existing only in your limited interpretation.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431You 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.).

Except the foundation you're building these assumptions on doesn't exist, so yeah, they pretty much would have all those things, because they need them.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431Also, 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.

Bravery is good?  Whether it is or not is immaterial, you're forgetting one thing - the "irredeemable orc" is predicated on a god that made them that way.  A orc god to which their soul might go back to.  Brave orcs kick back in Gruumsh's cave, getting to mate with the best orc chicks and rape other race's women for all eternity, orcs that run or fail to obey the warchief/shaman whatever are torn apart and eaten daily for all eternity.  Religions get humans to be brave for far less payoff/punishment every day in our real world.

Morrow's the psychopath guy, there may be some parallels between a psychopath and an "irredeemable orc" but drawing an extended 1:1 relationship across several points is just silly.  Again you're just saying nothing that doesn't exist here on earth, can't exist happen in a different way, also just silly.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482431They are left with the complex society and material culture that a bunch of solitary nomads have - none.

Unfortunately, all that was, was a brilliant house of cards.

So after 157 pages, is it okay to kill orcs again?

And if so, what if they are Black Orks from Warhammer?

Holy shit, CRKrueger doesn't actually seem to know what "good" is or what makes people capable of being "good". Nor can he keep an argument straight, it appears.

Protip: You asked me to what separate a violent, xenophobic species from an "irredeemably evil" one. I stripped out all capacity for good. If you don't like that, don't ask the question.

Quote from: Sigmund;482419What 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.

What you then get is a caricature of historical (and current) xenophobic beliefs. But unlike Tolkien, who wavered at describing Orcs as fully natural, biological beings (with women & kids), and certainly never showed any scenes of such, you'd be establishing those beliefs as certainties regarding a group of "pseudo-people".

(Wikipedia runs down a list of theories & comments about orcs' nature & origins that can be found in Tolkien's writings. In an unpublished letter he wrote "there must have been orc-women", but he doesn't seem to have been willing to stare the implications in the face. Compare the actually-published passage in LotR where he talks about men under the influence of evil, where Sam sees a dead man of Harad and wonders "...what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was truly evil at heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.")

The degree of xenophobia extending to the biological level has antecedents in stories about the origins of the Huns, actually; the ancient historian Jordanes wrote that the Huns arose from Gothic witches having sex with "unclean spirits". But modern thought & science not only makes this sort of thing an anachronism, but modern attempts to square radical xenophobia with science strongly parallel the language found in RPG discussions of "irredeemable evil" justifying the slaughter of noncombatants. This is what makes the latter particularly distasteful to me. I'd speculate that it's largely the byproduct of math & science geeks being attracted to fantasy.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482474E-Energy is very limited as a concept in 3.x though. I tend to follow Keith Baker's idea that Detect Evil is really "Detect Negative Energy", and that such energy is not found in most evil humanoids, but only in creatures like demons, undead, and the clerics of evil gods (who specifically pick up an "aura of evil" in 3.x).

Again, this is similar to the gloss Gygax provides on Detect Evil in the 1e DMG.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;482495Protip: You asked me to what separate a violent, xenophobic species from an "irredeemably evil" one. I stripped out all capacity for good. If you don't like that, don't ask the question.

Protip: All you really did was set up a bunch of very dubious assumptions, claimed those were the only possibilities and then presumed to build arguments off those erroneous assumptions, then cry foul when I labeled them as such.

I'm not the one who can't keep the argument straight.

BTW, the bravery shown by Islamic suicide bombers who take their own life willingly for their cause is inherently good, is it?  According to you, I guess.  For me bravery has nothing to do with good or evil, it could be bravery merely for self-preservation.  The act of bravery is not aligned, the intent that drives it is.

Nice way to avoid all the other stuff though.  :hatsoff: