Quote from: Benoist;478334I disagree. It goes to the core of the problem IMO: that whatever evil and good are is something determined by the cosmology of the campaign, a campaign which may be considering orcs as some other culture and projecting all sorts of weird ideas on the part of the DM onto them, or may be considering them as representative of something else, like concepts of bestiality or barbarism, or absolutes of this or that, or may even not consider them allegorical in nature at all... like a certain individual writing a huge book we all know a few decades ago did.
.

Exactly. How good and evil things are (how morality is defined) is entirely dependant on the campaign and the people in it. These are all scaleable features of a setting.

Personally I don't like doing "all orcs are evil", not because I am worried that nurtures colonialism or racism, but because I jsut find it more believable and interesting to have cultures with texture and variance. I also like settings where morality is a little on the gray side (and I think it is fun when characters in a game get into real disputes over the ethics of a particular action).

But that doesn't mean that people who like black and white morality and evil orcs in their game are somehow misguided. It just means they prefer a different kind of game.

My biggest problem (and I know I've said this a bunch of times already) with this kind of thinking is it plays into the old arguments used against RPGs for decades now (and its the same argument they used against heavy metal or any number of things that made some adults uneasy). This Mazes and Monsters notion that the imaginary realm has a corrupting influence on the real world.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478336Personally I don't like doing "all orcs are evil", not because I am worried that nurtures colonialism or racism, but because I jsut find it more believable and interesting to have cultures with texture and variance. I also like settings where morality is a little on the gray side (and I think it is fun when characters in a game get into real disputes over the ethics of a particular action).

But that doesn't mean that people who like black and white morality and evil orcs in their game are somehow misguided. It just means they prefer a different kind of game.

In the Ptolus game on these boards right now I'm having a blast with a certain orc the players decided to keep alive. From his start as a prisoner, the orc's status is now kind of in doubt: is he becoming a henchman for the group, or is he just waiting for an occasion to backstab/flee/etc.? Which goes straight to the question of whether orcs are redeemable in Praemal (the name of Ptolus's world) or not. The players seem interested in the question, so I see no reason not to play with that. NPCs have their own reactions to it, the situation becomes more complex, and I expect that sooner or later there'll be a trigger or some situation that will resolve this (either because the PCs get tired of it, or something else happens which basically makes the pieces move on the game board, so to speak).

So I'm totally playing on this right now myself, without offering a clear answer as DM to the conundrum.

I'm not going to get out of my way to lecture people how bad and racist they are for going in dungeons to slaughter a bunch of orcs rolling dices, eating cheetos and having a good time around the game table, though. That'd be ridiculously stupid.

Quote from: Benoist;478334I disagree. It goes to the core of the problem IMO: that whatever evil and good are is something determined by the cosmology of the campaign, a campaign which may be considering orcs as some other culture and projecting all sorts of weird ideas on the part of the DM onto them, or may be considering them as representative of something else, like concepts of bestiality or barbarism, or absolutes of this or that, or may even not consider them allegorical in nature at all... like a certain individual writing a huge book we all know a few decades ago did.

And that gets lesson-givers all worked up. Because there's no lesson-giving to do when you don't know the particulars of a campaign. It's just hot hair, retarded misreadings and projections, kind of like Frank's doing on this thread. Or like he says ... it's a basic failure of logic, so you'd better camouflage it by refuting this simple truth of RPGs, because then, there's no argument to have about words on paper. It really depends how anyone interprets them. And that gets these fuckers who want to tell us what to play and what to think real angry. It's amusing.

Sorry Ben, you are wrong on this one.

I tried to explain upthread you can define the laws and cultures of your world but you can't define an objective good and evil.

Let's take a real world example. Jyhadists think its 'good' to blow up plane loads of relatively innocent people. Would we say that yes that was from their perspective a good act?
I certainly wouldn't I would say it might well be a lawful act in their cosmology but not a good one.

So I think there are broad bands of good and evil that most observers would categorise similarly. A GM that goes against that and has Paladins that kill innocents on the basis that it's for the greater good I think would have trouble selling it and that means its an issue (and no its not an issue of imagination its one of internal consistency).

As a bunch of us have been saying if you as the GM treat orcs with a racial stereotype just be aware of it and if you want a richer game try and reflect that in the game world. If you choose not to represent that in the game world becuase you want to run a hack and slash that is fine too but you probably as a GM need to be aware of what you are doing.

The problem only comes when GMs roll stuff out without thinking and ignore the implications but then claim that there are none. A world where women are emancipated and orcs are natural (as per the standard D&D rules) and therefore capable of independent thought and redemption thows up some interesting topics and ones I woudl expect someone in a realised game world to care about.

For the past couple of decades my/our playstyle has been more along the lines of "if they atack us, we attack them/it" in relation to "monsters" of all types. I've negotiated with Beholders and Red Dragons, and let orcs pass unharmed, many times. For the most part, it seems to work.

Not sure how that really relates to the OP but that's just the playstyle of me and my group. Seems to work pretty well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338Sorry Ben, you are wrong on this one.

No, I'm right. It's just that you're bending yourself out of shape trying to fit cubes into round holes. You are projecting relativist philosophies pertaining to real world situations to a game world. A game world with metaphysics which may or may not be comparable to the philosophies you so desperately want to project onto it. It all depends on the particulars of the campaign.

So what you should really do mate is stop projecting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338As a bunch of us have been saying if you as the GM treat orcs with a racial stereotype just be aware of it and if you want a richer game try and reflect that in the game world.

"Richer", heh? Because if I use orcs as ultimately evil, of course what it really is is a racial stereotype. And of course, if I didn't do that, my game would be so much "richer", so much better for it.

Man, that's is such a load of short-sighted, moralistic, pretentious bullshit right here.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338Sorry Ben, you are wrong on this one.

I tried to explain upthread you can define the laws and cultures of your world but you can't define an objective good and evil.

I think it is 100% possible to define good and evil in a fictional campaign setting. You don't even need to support your absolute moral system with logic just proclaim it: eating toast is evil because the high god says so. Absolutely your players may disagree and argue. But the whole moral system is built on a fictional cosmology and gods. For example I could make a game world where it is wrong not to kill orc babies and children, and those who don't suffer eternal torment in some kind of hell analogue.

QuoteSo I think there are broad bands of good and evil that most observers would categorise similarly. A GM that goes against that and has Paladins that kill innocents on the basis that it's for the greater good I think would have trouble selling it and that means its an issue (and no its not an issue of imagination its one of internal consistency).

I think the way alignments are described in D&D presently this is generally the case if you are using RAW. A lawfule good paladin wouldn't kill innocent people to promote the greater good (at least not IMO).

But I can see a gameworld where the greater good is the ultimate good. And good characters wipe out whole settlements of orcs. That doesn't mean I personally agree with the actions. I am just accepting the premise of the game setting.

QuoteAs a bunch of us have been saying if you as the GM treat orcs with a racial stereotype just be aware of it and if you want a richer game try and reflect that in the game world. If you choose not to represent that in the game world becuase you want to run a hack and slash that is fine too but you probably as a GM need to be aware of what you are doing.

I think the problem is people appear to be saying orcs always represent some racial minority and therefore mistreatment of them in-game is morally problematic and some indication of racism. It feels like people are on the look-out for hidden forms of racism in a table top RPG, and I just find that a bit odd. There is nothing wrong with using orcs in a more nuanced and realistic way. I just don't see why it has to be an issue if someone runs a game where orcs are evil and need to be stamped out.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338Sorry Ben, you are wrong on this one.

I tried to explain upthread you can define the laws and cultures of your world but you can't define an objective good and evil.

Let's take a real world example. Jyhadists think its 'good' to blow up plane loads of relatively innocent people. Would we say that yes that was from their perspective a good act?
I certainly wouldn't I would say it might well be a lawful act in their cosmology but not a good one.

So I think there are broad bands of good and evil that most observers would categorise similarly. A GM that goes against that and has Paladins that kill innocents on the basis that it's for the greater good I think would have trouble selling it and that means its an issue (and no its not an issue of imagination its one of internal consistency).

As a bunch of us have been saying if you as the GM treat orcs with a racial stereotype just be aware of it and if you want a richer game try and reflect that in the game world. If you choose not to represent that in the game world becuase you want to run a hack and slash that is fine too but you probably as a GM need to be aware of what you are doing.

The problem only comes when GMs roll stuff out without thinking and ignore the implications but then claim that there are none. A world where women are emancipated and orcs are natural (as per the standard D&D rules) and therefore capable of independent thought and redemption thows up some interesting topics and ones I woudl expect someone in a realised game world to care about.

Jibba,
I run one of those games where the orcs are morally ambiguous and is 'richer'.  So I get what you are saying, but I think you are underestimating the ability to create a setting where a race may be born evil or chaotic; and while I don't think you are wrong to say it can raise the question, it is certainly not beyond the ability of a GM to get beyond 'laws and cultures' and create cosmologies that can have races that are literally created evil and be morally determined by the fundamental laws of the setting.  
And they can set up settings where independent thought does not mean they are redeemable.

I disagree.

This whole thread really reminds me of a campaign five years ago.  It was a high level campaign.  We were on the fifth layer of the abyss and had just been ambushed by a group of type 5 demons, so in our own self-defense we were forced to slay them (although we did manage to subdue 15 of them without killing them).  Then we stumbled upon the type 5 demon babies...

Well, you can imagine the dilemma.

Quote from: Benoist;478341"Richer", heh? Because if I use orcs as ultimately evil, of course what it really is is a racial stereotype. And of course, if I didn't do that, my game would be so much "richer", so much better for it.

Man, that's is such a load of short-sighted, moralistic, pretentious bullshit right here.

Dude, chill. Richer because you are showing that your world is aware of the rest of your world. The people in the cities are aware that orcs are evil or are not evil. The fact that there are people in your world that might have these sorts of conversatiosn is what makes your world richer.

Like I repeated many times I have no problems with all orcs being evil. I just want the GM to have considered the what hows and whys of that and to reflect it in their worlds.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338Sorry Ben, you are wrong on this one.

Actually he's right, you're just misinterpreting him.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338I tried to explain upthread you can define the laws and cultures of your world but you can't define an objective good and evil.

Which he's not doing.  What he's doing is defining the cosmology under which his world works, something you have a clear problem with being able to imagine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338bunch of stuff about slaying of "innocents"

This just proves your logical block, not Ben's.  You're incapable of defining a cosmology different from ours.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338As a bunch of us have been saying if you as the GM treat orcs with a racial stereotype just be aware of it and if you want a richer game try and reflect that in the game world. If you choose not to represent that in the game world becuase you want to run a hack and slash that is fine too but you probably as a GM need to be aware of what you are doing.

So we're back to the idiotic idea that treating orcs as objectively Evil due to their spiritual nature as defined under the rules of the cosmology is somehow representative of racist issues in our world.  Or the idiotic idea that if you don't deny the possibility of Absolute Good and Evil for things other then planar/created creatures you're running an unsophisticated hack and slash campaign.  Nice.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338The problem only comes when GMs roll stuff out without thinking and ignore the implications but then claim that there are none.

Who said there were no implications, repercussions, issues, conflicts?  There's lack of thinking alright, however, not where you expect.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338A world where women are emancipated

Try cutting loose the political baggage for once.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338and orcs are natural (as per the standard D&D rules) and therefore capable of independent thought and redemption

"Natural"?  Which version of D&D?  Since when does "independent thought" (as opposed to what, hivemind) automatically equal "capable of redemption"?  Isn't Orcus capable of independent thought?

Quote from: jibbajibba;478338thows up some interesting topics and ones I woudl expect someone in a realised game world to care about.

And of course defending humanity at the risk of losing yours doesn't bring up any interesting topics in a "realised game world".  Jesus.

You know, you might try flexing the imagination a little more.  For example. Instead of talking about the oh so supposedly interesting topic of whether some fantasy Aztec analogue sacrificing their own people is good or evil from a cultural perspective, how about addressing it from a cosmological perspective?  Heresy I know.

What if the sun does stop rising if they fail to sacrifice their own?  What if the only thing keeping the tzitzimine from devouring the world is the constant flow of blood?  Does that make those actions Good?  I'd say no, but it surely makes for interesting roleplaying.

Back to orcs...
What if a god of darkness created a race of beings to hate, destroy, corrupt, inflict pain, and strive to bring about the end of the world?  A race that despite being capable of thought cannot resist their innate nature, cannot be other then what they are?  A race whose wretched hatred of self is second only to the hatred they feel for all the world.  The very existence of these beings is a horrible tragedy.  Any sane human would pity these beings for the horror they experience by simple existence.  At the same time, any sane human would also realize these things need to be destroyed wherever they are found.  Young, old, male, female, all are (in fact, can never be anything other then) The Enemy.  Killing them is not fun, it's not easy, it's not without mental and spiritual cost.  However, it is necessary, it is justifiable, and yes, it is Good.

That's not gonna add any interesting depth to the roleplay of characters who have to deal with such things, nah.  Someone who comes up with something like that is a racist, misogynist, expansionist, colonialist, hack and slasher who's also a dick GM and likes eating baby squirrels.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478342I think it is 100% possible to define good and evil in a fictional campaign setting. You don't even need to support your absolute moral system with logic just proclaim it: eating toast is evil because the high god says so. Absolutely your players may disagree and argue. But the whole moral system is built on a fictional cosmology and gods. For example I could make a game world where it is wrong not to kill orc babies and children, and those who don't suffer eternal torment in some kind of hell analogue.



I think the problem is people appear to be saying orcs always represent some racial minority and therefore mistreatment of them in-game is morally problematic and some indication of racism. It feels like people are on the look-out for hidden forms of racism in a table top RPG, and I just find that a bit odd. There is nothing wrong with using orcs in a more nuanced and realistic way. I just don't see why it has to be an issue if someone runs a game where orcs are evil and need to be stamped out.

First off we are going to disagree about the limits where you can set the Good/Evil axis. Maybe its because you think Good and evil come from religion and I think religion reflects fundermental human principles about good and evil. You can't make eating Toast Evil. You can make it a heresy, you can make it unlawful, you can make it a shunned activity that means offenders are stoned or whatever, you can't make it evil. If you do them all that has happened is you have purloined the word Evil and changed it's meaning to be 'something that this reglion\culture thinks is wrong' .

So putting that to one side.

I never said that orcs alwasy respresent some racial minority. What I said was that if the GM chooses to have orcs as a sentient race with free will then they can not be inherently evil, violent, brutal and savage yes but not evil, and this is the standard D&D orc. By all means they can be treated that way by the powers in the world and I would expect that to be reflected in the world with conflicting views and positions (shit we have that here and the orcs don't even fucking exist ).
If the GM makes the orcs evil for a reason, like they are corrupted elves, or grown from the ground then fine they are irredeemably evil. If the game was a well developed one then I would still expect some  opinions about that across the world some nuance to the postion. I would still hold that Good characters shouldn;t go out into the world to eradicate these creatures at least not without some inneral debate.

Take Dr Who in the genesis of the Daleks. He has the option to destroy the entire race but he opts not to becuase it is an evil act. Or take The Serenity movie. The Operative does things for the Alliance that he knows are for the greater good, but he is fully aware that in doing those questional things he himself can no longer be considered good. He reconciles himself to this. This is akin to the internal conversations I would expect PCs to engage in.

I do not care about racism fromt eh game seeping into real life. But I want the racism in the game to be recognised in the game if that makes sense.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478353I just want the GM to have considered the what hows and whys of that and to reflect it in their worlds.

Why do you want that?

I'm not offended by other gaming tables' preference about morals and stuff. I'd prefer a table where suggesting the party spare the life of a few creatures, or even wondering about violence in general, isn't going to make me the pariah player (it's happened before).  

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478342But I can see a gameworld where the greater good is the ultimate good. And good characters wipe out whole settlements of orcs. That doesn't mean I personally agree with the actions. I am just accepting the premise of the game setting.

That's one of my favorite things about RPGs: making up places and societies that are not necessarily realistic but provide a good backdrop for PCs to explore and reveal themselves. It could be imaginary places and people that are appalling to me personally but create interesting situations at the table.  

Redeemable Orcs seem more exciting to me, just because PCs get more options to interact with them, but I'm fine with Orcs being evil incarnate provided there are deeper aspects to the setting somewhere else.

QuoteI think the problem is people appear to be saying orcs always represent some racial minority and therefore mistreatment of them in-game is morally problematic and some indication of racism. It feels like people are on the look-out for hidden forms of racism in a table top RPG, and I just find that a bit odd. There is nothing wrong with using orcs in a more nuanced and realistic way. I just don't see why it has to be an issue if someone runs a game where orcs are evil and need to be stamped out.

I wonder if Adam Dray has any issue with 3:16 Carnage Among the Stars. Here is a game where PCs slay dozens and dozens of creatures, maybe not evil ones, but clearly tagged as enemies. Also PCs get better at killing as a reward.

But I think I can anticipate the answer here:

Quote from: Adam DrayFourth, substitute mindless monsters for the tribes and nations of humanoids.

It's the core of the problem. Non-humanoid and/or solitary monsters are not an issue. It's stabbing humanish looking creatures who have families that's an issue.  

Some gamers can leave their XXIth century mindset on the coat rack while playing their character, enjoying the view and what not. Others are going to be bothered by it and it could manifest as a suspension of disbelief shot in flames. That's one of the many topics to discuss at session zero of the campaign.

Quote from: CRKrueger;478354Actually he's right, you're just misinterpreting him.

Which he's not doing.  What he's doing is defining the cosmology under which his world works, something you have a clear problem with being able to imagine.

This just proves your logical block, not Ben's.  You're incapable of defining a cosmology different from ours.

So we're back to the idiotic idea that treating orcs as objectively Evil due to their spiritual nature as defined under the rules of the cosmology is somehow representative of racist issues in our world.  Or the idiotic idea that if you don't deny the possibility of Absolute Good and Evil for things other then planar/created creatures you're running an unsophisticated hack and slash campaign.  Nice.

Who said there were no implications, repercussions, issues, conflicts?  There's lack of thinking alright, however, not where you expect.

Try cutting loose the political baggage for once.

 "Natural"?  Which version of D&D?  Since when does "independent thought" (as opposed to what, hivemind) automatically equal "capable of redemption"?  Isn't Orcus capable of independent thought?

And of course defending humanity at the risk of losing yours doesn't bring up any interesting topics in a "realised game world".  Jesus.

You know, you might try flexing the imagination a little more.  For example. Instead of talking about the oh so supposedly interesting topic of whether some fantasy Aztec analogue sacrificing their own people is good or evil from a cultural perspective, how about addressing it from a cosmological perspective?  Heresy I know.

What if the sun does stop rising if they fail to sacrifice their own?  What if the only thing keeping the tzitzimine from devouring the world is the constant flow of blood?  Does that make those actions Good?  I'd say no, but it surely makes for interesting roleplaying.

Back to orcs...
What if a god of darkness created a race of beings to hate, destroy, corrupt, inflict pain, and strive to bring about the end of the world?  A race that despite being capable of thought cannot resist their innate nature, cannot be other then what they are?  A race whose wretched hatred of self is second only to the hatred they feel for all the world.  The very existence of these beings is a horrible tragedy.  Any sane human would pity these beings for the horror they experience by simple existence.  At the same time, any sane human would also realize these things need to be destroyed wherever they are found.  Young, old, male, female, all are (in fact, can never be anything other then) The Enemy.  Killing them is not fun, it's not easy, it's not without mental and spiritual cost.  However, it is necessary, it is justifiable, and yes, it is Good.

That's not gonna add any interesting depth to the roleplay of characters who have to deal with such things, nah.  Someone who comes up with something like that is a racist, misogynist, expansionist, colonialist, hack and slasher who's also a dick GM and likes eating baby squirrels.

You are clearly having an arguement with someone who is not me

I have no issues with all the orcs in a campaign being evil I just want the GM to have made that as an active choice.
And I like the roleplay of people who regard themselves as good having to reconcile the actions they take with the greater good. I like the situation where the PCs have to decide if they kill the orc 'babies' and possibly prevent them from killing in the future, but I want them to accept that killing innocents even those with teh potential to do harm can not be taken lightly. Well it can be taken lightly but not by PCs who regard themselves as inherently good.

My problem is where the PCs run round killing everything labelled 'monster' in the rulebook with no qualms, but still insist that they are Good and no one questions anything. And that is not a corner case it is a default play style.

The PCs encounter a black dragon. They kill it and take its stuff. The same PCs encounter an Evil old man they don't kill him until he does something overtly evil. Even though they ran a detect evil on him and they know he is evil. What is the difference? What if the Dragon polymorphed himself into a man?