Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:23 pm
I thought Barbarians were not allowed to be Lawful in D&D?
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/
Because of the terms used.PoliteNewb wrote:I don't know how the hell this turned from a morality dispute to an alignment dispute. The 2 often have nothing to do with each other, and the fact that they both use terms like "good" and "evil" and mean entirely different things is going to automatically muddy the waters. Every time I've used the word "good" in this discussion, it was in the moral sense, not the alignment sense. I don't give a fuck what's written on your character sheet...if you stab baby orcs, you're not good (and you're probably evil).
-1st UA introduces them as any non-lawful alignment.sabs wrote:I thought Barbarians were not allowed to be Lawful in D&D?
Barbarians were just some bad joke invented by the Greeks and Romans to put down foreign invaders. The whole class reflects Roman snobbery.sabs wrote:I thought Barbarians were not allowed to be Lawful in D&D?
That's an interesting, if depressingly common, point of view. So if I have a bunch of Nazi prisoners I got the drop on, it's okay for me to torture and kill them instead of bringing them to a PoW facility because they're Nazis? How about if I meet a couple of guys while infiltrating a Stormtrooper bar who says that they're in charge of making sure that food and clothes gets to the crew of the Death Star? Is it okay for me to kill them, too, even if I could sabotage the shipment of supplies without ganking the Supply Officer? Actually, why did they let so many concentration camp guards go after the war? Can I machine gun all of the pre-teens in the Hitler Youth organization, even the ones that are talking about how much they're going to enjoy being a soldier and are the top of their class?PoliteNewb wrote: Okay, I'll bite...WHY are you opposed to killing faceless goons and still calling yourself a hero? If those faceless goons are part of the Nazi war machine that slaughters jews and steamrolls over Europe, you ARE a hero for killing them. If they are part of the evil Empire that blows up Alderaan and enslaves wookies, you ARE a hero for killing them.
Because as much as you keep trying to deny it, Dungeons and Dragons does try to support these kinds of characters, to the point where it's a default assumption about any 'good' organization. There are literally entire orders of religious sects and paladins who don't have much of a description beyond 'tries to help everyone in need'. The minutae comes as an afterthought. The first thing you hear about these people's goals is how much they try to uphold justice and civilization and hope and all that crap.PoliteNewb wrote: I didn't say a word about spandex. I'm saying playing a character like Superman in the sense that "I'm a big bouncing boy scout who helps old ladies cross the street and [important here] doesn't kill my enemies" is not an archetype supported by D&D. Not by the rules, and not by the setting. So why are you doing it?
No, really, I really am. You're applying a dehumanization label out of convenience rather than looking at the nuances. That directly leads to things like killing Blurt the orc baby. I mean, really, what's the difference between going 'Nazis are uniformly evil, therefore I can kill anyone with membership' and going 'orcs are uniformly evil, therefore I can kill anyone with membership'?PoliteNewb wrote:
What the fuck? You seriously put concentration camp guard # 9 on the same level as Blurt the orc baby in his diaper? And you call ME a monster?
But they're orcs. It's only a matter of time for them to someday go around killing innocent people or burning forests or whatever, because they're orcs. You not killing Blurt is just condemning some other family to die 10 years in the future, because orcs are inherently evil and have no other choice or chance of redemption. It's either that, or you realize that all of those other orcs you met were babies at one point had this state of innocence, too, so it's not too hard to assume that there may be some orcs that have held onto this innocent state, still. So why doesn't it trouble you that when you're destroying an orc camp or busting up a celebration you're probably killing a few orcs that haven't drunk the evil Kool-Aid?PoliteNewb wrote: It's wrong to kill infants because they are helpless and innocent. Literally. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have committed a crime worthy of death.
Read up the Milgram experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Hofling Hospital Experiment sometime. This is behavior pretty much indistinguishable from some of the worst results of that vile ideology and in fact is pretty much the reason why it was able to work as well as it did. While thankfully no one died in these experiments it's pretty easy to see that if they had gone on far enough they would have crossed the line. Why aren't all of these future Nazis in jail or executed? I mean, if it's okay to kill Nazis at the pub playing with their children because you know they'll be torturing prisoners later, why isn't it okay to put a bullet in the brain of everyone who went through with shocking someone to death at the orders of someone in a labcoat?PoliteNewb wrote: Guards who have killed people (often innocent people) and would happily kill you, given means and opportunity, are not the same thing. They are not even close...not the same ballpark, not the same league, not the same fucking sport.
Uh, yes, but these people had actual trials and shit. A lot of them even got off scot free even though they spent years putting the idea that it was okay to kill undesirables into the minds of hundreds of thousands of people. No one just rounded up a bunch of suspected Nazi officials and started putting bullets in their brains because the results wouldn't have been any different and they could go home early for tea.PoliteNewb wrote:The "just following orders" defense didn't work at Nurnberg, and it doesn't work in Flaeness.
While it would be preferrable to spare the crew of the Death Star, debrainwash them, then make them get all real jobs it was just not an option. I don't have a problem with Luke killing the hundreds of millions of people onboard the Death Star, probably even some visiting families or prisoners, because there was really no other way. This would even be true if there was a reveal that all of the crew was being mind-controlled by implants. Even in small-scale confrontations, the margin of error between 'able to fight and do evil', 'disabled but alive', and 'dead' is just impossible for humans, even the best of Vanilla Action Heroes, to meet. Same goes for Lancelot. He's a pretty low-level hero so he can't pull his punches. He gets a pass as long as he does his best to keep down the needless killing, which means no provoking people or looking for fights. But once the violence goes down and is unavoidable, there's just not much he can do with his sword and his knowledge of medicine to nonlethally disable the bandits.PoliteNewb wrote:Are you denying the existence of a middle ground, or not? And if so, which side do guys like Lancelot and Han Solo fit on?
This holds up for some organizations. If some mercenary group won't let you into their gang unless they have magical-sworn proof that you tortured and killed a child, you can pretty much assume that everyone is evil. But I find it stupid to reflexively apply this same standard of responsibility to Ravagers as to some random guards, like you did right here. 'Oh, they're working for the Dark Lord? It doesn't matter that I don't know anything about their membership requirements or individual behavior, they're working for someone evil so I can kill them!'Re: Dark Lord's Guards...what compartmentalization? Again, see the part where people are held accountable for what huge evil organizations they choose to belong to.
Because everyone knows that military staff get to pick their positions and are allowed to leave if they disagree morally with their bosses' position, especially in Iron Age times when most people were little more than slaves. And this goes double for Dark Lords. Riiiight.Honorable guy who doesn't agree with the Dark Lord, but is apparently still willing to stab babies for him (or at least, look the other way while others do the stabbing). I say fuck that guy.
You didn't actually refute my argument, you just twisted it so that it said 'I know you said this, but what if this detail I added completely twists your point around, huh?' You know, a strawman. I said that the guard didn't know that his employer was evil, but then you said that he should somehow be held guilty because he was fighting for an evil person--forgetting that the original argument was THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS FIGHTING FOR AN EVIL PERSON. Who cares if the PCs actually know that he's been sacrificing villages to Cyric? The guards sure as hell don't, so why are they being punished for doing their jobs?Guy who was duped by the Dark King. This is fairly valid...but why do you hold the PCs to a higher standard than this guy? They have no way of knowing he's an innocent dupe...but you'll hold them guilty for killing him in self-defense, whereas you won't hold HIM guilty for fighting for an evil person?
It's not that simple. Being a traitor or deserter, especially in these times, isn't just a matter of political party or whatever where you just walk away from it and everything is okay. First of all, being a traitor might actually be the more evil decision because it'll put your family under undue stress and torment depending on who you work for. And if you're fighting in D&D times, that punishment could very well be 'family and friends get killed to set an example', like what actually historically happened.Guards who would rather die fighting than traitors/deserters...if they would put loyalty to country or whatever so high that they will go along with evil atrocities, sorry, they don't get a pity pass in my book. "Wanting to look good" (not be a traitor/deserter) is not a valid excuse for "works for murderous evil". It's barely more acceptable than "wants to earn a big paycheck".
Then why do people get up in arms about FATAL and Racial Holy War? What are my options if I want to play a game where people of the wrong race get killed or gender and it's the right, clear-cut solution? Why does Exalted: Lunars get taken to the task for providing me with the fantasy of conquering the world through slavery and mass rape and presenting it as if it's a good thing?It's a fantasy game...in real life, everything you're saying is valid, and situations are muddled and morally ambiguous. But I play fantasy exactly because I want a nice, clear-cut situation where monsters deserve to be killed, and that's a valid solution.
They don't feature in them BECAUSE THIS ASPECT OF FANTASY MORALS SUCK AND PREACHES A BAD MORAL STANDARD. It's not integral or anything, it's just an embarrassing thing that keeps popping up because people don't know any better. Frank already mentioned this in the past that this is just circular justification about why something should be in a fantasy story, so I'm just going to give a mini-rant here.Name me 10 fantasy novels/movies predicated on either of those concepts (or even which involve them heavily). 'Bad guys who really aren't so bad' is a standard gambit, I admit. It should crop up roughly 1 in 40-50 or so D&D adventures, and you have a good time with it, and then forget about it.
Complete Champion. Look up the writeup of Corellon Larethian's church. You have to kill drow as a holy duty, because Corellon wanted to send them all to hell, but Lolth somehow prevented this. So because they aren't in hell, and your god wanted to send them all there, it is holy to kill every drow you meet. Also, it's holy to kill orcs and drow with a bow, because God said they're evil! Which is kind of like Lago's point of "murder all the Germans" above.PoliteNewb wrote:
Maybe there's just a disconnect about what D&D morality is. I don't see it as any worse (in general) than "kill bad fuckers who do bad things". If someone would like to point me to where the game encourages you to butcher orc babies or sow salt on the orc's fields, let me know.
This is intellectually dishonest to the extreme. In almost every example you are replacing killing people who, you know, are explicitly a threat, with killing people, who have explicitly lost the capacity to be a threat or contribute to a threat. Except with supply personnel for the Death Star. These are OK to kill, and, in fact, if you can, you should, because there is fucking total war going on here, and mercy to them is cruelty to the people the Empire routinely exterminates. No, there are very little to no viable justifications for them not deserting to the Rebels, they know they are helping making the flying genocide machine run smoothy, and, in the very best case, they chose to do so, to save their hides, and they will almost certainly continue to do so if you don't deprive them of capacity to take actions permanently.Lago PARANOIA wrote:That's an interesting, if depressingly common, point of view. So if I have a bunch of Nazi prisoners I got the drop on, it's okay for me to torture and kill them instead of bringing them to a PoW facility because they're Nazis? How about if I meet a couple of guys while infiltrating a Stormtrooper bar who says that they're in charge of making sure that food and clothes gets to the crew of the Death Star? Is it okay for me to kill them, too, even if I could sabotage the shipment of supplies without ganking the Supply Officer? Actually, why did they let so many concentration camp guards go after the war? Can I machine gun all of the pre-teens in the Hitler Youth organization, even the ones that are talking about how much they're going to enjoy being a soldier and are the top of their class?PoliteNewb wrote: Okay, I'll bite...WHY are you opposed to killing faceless goons and still calling yourself a hero? If those faceless goons are part of the Nazi war machine that slaughters jews and steamrolls over Europe, you ARE a hero for killing them. If they are part of the evil Empire that blows up Alderaan and enslaves wookies, you ARE a hero for killing them.
Exactly the same way anyone in feldgrau is deserving, if his hands is not firmly in the air, and we're in 1942.Lago PARANOIA wrote:(and unless you know anything about them other than Random Guard #12 or Orc Hunter #8, how do you know if they're deserving?)
And if orcs are actually such (now, why you are posing this setup which isn't even true in most versions of normal DnD, in fact, almost everywhere where the authors put some actual thought in that, I don't know), yes, I'm fully supporting total orcocide. Anyone with a brain will. It is literally no different from disabling killer robots or eliminating smallpox. And unless you actually believe that smallpox should be set free to ravage humanity again, saying that there is anything wrong with this approach is hypocritical on your part.Lago PARANOIA wrote: But they're orcs. It's only a matter of time for them to someday go around killing innocent people or burning forests or whatever, because they're orcs. You not killing Blurt is just condemning some other family to die 10 years in the future, because orcs are inherently evil and have no other choice or chance of redemption.
I'm sorry, but that post just shows a remarkably deep misunderstanding of how human conflict ever plays out. Deeply, deeply mistaken.FatR wrote: No, there are very little to no viable justifications for them not deserting to the Rebels, they know they are helping making the flying genocide machine run smoothy, and, in the very best case, they chose to do so, to save their hides, ...
No. Letting Germany not pay them in full was a bad idea. Giving Germany rather lenient peace conditions, instead of just cutting it into smaller states was a bad idea. Leaving in potential condition for Round 2 the country, which leaders consciously and deliberately decided to solve all of its problems with neighbours by military force, and which political climate allowed such leaders to come in power and stay there, was a bad idea. And leting said leaders to get away unscathed, to actively participate in laying foundations for a much worse regime was a bad idea. This is yet another case of fake mercy. "But these people weren't at all responsible for the decisions of the government, which aggression most of them whole-heartedly supported until things went all pear-shaped" is a position that was proven to be crueler to everyone, including the people in question, in the real life. So excuse me if I won't support it in fantasy, when we're not talking about random civilians, but enemy soldiers who are either actively trying to kill PCs, or would try, if they knew who they are.DSMatticus wrote: And let's face it, they were right - the reparations were a bad idea.
No offense or anything, fbmf, but you really need to read the last few pages. No one is choked up over the definition of evil or anything. What is under consideration is:fbmf wrote:
D&D works a lot better if you largely ignore alignment. We all know this.
Why is this discussion happening?
Especially when both sides arguments boil down to "No, my definition of good (or evil) is the right one?
No, he didn't add a detail, you mental-midget, he just applied your agrument both ways. if it's ok for him fight the PCs because he doesn't know he's sided with the bad-guys, why isn't ok for the PCs to kill him be cause they don't know he's an oblivious dupe? if it's not okay for the PCs to kill the guard because he doesn't know any better, thus upgrading his moral standing from "active malevolence" to "armed and dangerous retard", why is it ok from him to "do his job" as a guard without similar moral hand-wringing?Lago PARANOIA wrote:You didn't actually refute my argument, you just twisted it so that it said 'I know you said this, but what if this detail I added completely twists your point around, huh?' You know, a strawman. I said that the guard didn't know that his employer was evil, but then you said that he should somehow be held guilty because he was fighting for an evil person--forgetting that the original argument was THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS FIGHTING FOR AN EVIL PERSON.Guy who was duped by the Dark King. This is fairly valid...but why do you hold the PCs to a higher standard than this guy? They have no way of knowing he's an innocent dupe...but you'll hold them guilty for killing him in self-defense, whereas you won't hold HIM guilty for fighting for an evil person?
the fact remains that the evil guards are choosing to do evil, the fact that they have motives beyond "for teh evulz" doesn't change that. it might ameliorate it by degrees. he's not killing babies for fun, he's doing it to put his kids through college. THAT ISN"T ENOUGH TO MAKE IT OKAY!It's not that simple. Being a traitor or deserter, especially in these times, isn't just a matter of political party or whatever where you just walk away from it and everything is okay. First of all, being a traitor might actually be the more evil decision because it'll put your family under undue stress and torment depending on who you work for. And if you're fighting in D&D times, that punishment could very well be 'family and friends get killed to set an example', like what actually historically happened.Guards who would rather die fighting than traitors/deserters...if they would put loyalty to country or whatever so high that they will go along with evil atrocities, sorry, they don't get a pity pass in my book. "Wanting to look good" (not be a traitor/deserter) is not a valid excuse for "works for murderous evil". It's barely more acceptable than "wants to earn a big paycheck".
Secondly, even if the person committed suicide upon learning of their new assignment that wouldn't make things better. The position of Throne Room Guard still needs to be filled and at the very least all you've done is make it so that your friend or squaddie or whatever has to be faced with this awful decision. Or they could pull a Xykon on you and resurrect your corpse as a guard, meaning that you'll do just as much evil but without the chance for redemption. Sucking it up and condemning yourself to a life of evil may in fact be the best decision on a strict 'lives saved in the short and long run' scale.
It is of course your job as the superpowered PCs to kill the Dark Lord and spare Steve or Hans of this awful fate. If you just knock him out, then when this whole mess is over they can go back to their family shop and raise babies and do whatever.
actually... yes. assignments like that realistically are given to troops selected for some level of political reliability. it's assumed even by the "bad guys" that not everyone can be trusted with those kind of orders.Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Because everyone knows that military staff get to pick their positions and are allowed to leave if they disagree morally with their bosses' position, especially in Iron Age times when most people were little more than slaves. And this goes double for Dark Lords. Riiiight.Honorable guy who doesn't agree with the Dark Lord, but is apparently still willing to stab babies for him (or at least, look the other way while others do the stabbing). I say fuck that guy.
You are completely missing the point. Let me phrase out my argument a little better.FatR wrote: No. Letting Germany not pay them in full was a bad idea. Giving Germany rather lenient peace conditions, instead of just cutting it into smaller states was a bad idea. Leaving in potential condition for Round 2 the country, which leaders consciously and deliberately decided to solve all of its problems with neighbours by military force, and which political climate allowed such leaders to come in power and stay there, was a bad idea. And leting said leaders to get away unscathed, to actively participate in laying foundations for a much worse regime was a bad idea.
So we are talking about the definition of "Evil" then, or at least the definition of the [Evil] alignment tag.Lago PARANOIA wrote:
2) For critters that don't default to evil but are part of an overwhelmingly evil philosophy, how much individual responsibility any particular actor bears and thus whether it's appropriate to kill them.
The current discussion is centered on the problems you have assigning whole groups of things the 'evil' tag to justify things like killing them and then zooming in on individual members to see how this macroperspective holds. The fact that whether it's true (orcs) or false (Nazis) is not necessitated on any alignment system. These problems would still persist even if you took it out of the game but still had people devoted to upholding concepts like justice and peace.
If any of those guys have guns and can shoot you, then yes, you kill them without qualm. If they surrender, and you don't have good reason to believe they'll break parole (or have a way of dealing with prisoners), you don't kill them (if you want to be a hero).Lago wrote:So if I have a bunch of Nazi prisoners I got the drop on, it's okay for me to torture and kill them instead of bringing them to a PoW facility because they're Nazis? How about if I meet a couple of guys while infiltrating a Stormtrooper bar who says that they're in charge of making sure that food and clothes gets to the crew of the Death Star? Is it okay for me to kill them, too, even if I could sabotage the shipment of supplies without ganking the Supply Officer? Actually, why did they let so many concentration camp guards go after the war? Can I machine gun all of the pre-teens in the Hitler Youth organization, even the ones that are talking about how much they're going to enjoy being a soldier and are the top of their class?
Well first, we did indiscriminately kill German citizens back then...ever hear of the Dresden bombings?Lago wrote:I personally find this an extremely troubling point of view. I mean, no one would support you indiscriminately killing German citizens--even those openly professing the virtues of Hitler--in the 50's and 60's. But a lot of these people were Nazis during WWII. And you might well go 'it's okay to kill them then, but not kill them now', then what was stopping you from indiscriminately killing German citizens back then?
I am calling bullshit, and welcome you to post quotes supporting this. I especially call bullshit on:Lago wrote:Because as much as you keep trying to deny it, Dungeons and Dragons does try to support these kinds of characters, to the point where it's a default assumption about any 'good' organization. There are literally entire orders of religious sects and paladins who don't have much of a description beyond 'tries to help everyone in need'. The minutae comes as an afterthought. The first thing you hear about these people's goals is how much they try to uphold justice and civilization and hope and all that crap.
This is not true, except in your weird brain. There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to uphold justice and civilization and waging war on established evil organizations/nations...and by default, the members thereof.Lago wrote:But this is completely at odds with the default assumption that it's okay to kill hundreds of faceless goons when you didn't have to. Not killing people you don't have to (and unless you know anything about them other than Random Guard #12 or Orc Hunter #8, how do you know if they're deserving?) is a direct consequence of wanting to uphold justice and civilization and hope without being a hypocrite.
The fact that membership in the nazis is something you choose, and defined by actions/ideals, whereas membership in the orcs is something you do NOT choose, defined by accident of birth? You're seriously making a claim equivalent to saying that because it's okay to say "the KKK are all racist" it's okay to say "black people are all criminals".No, really, I really am. You're applying a dehumanization label out of convenience rather than looking at the nuances. That directly leads to things like killing Blurt the orc baby. I mean, really, what's the difference between going 'Nazis are uniformly evil, therefore I can kill anyone with membership' and going 'orcs are uniformly evil, therefore I can kill anyone with membership'?
More or less correct. Not only has Blurt "not exactly done anything evil yet", he literally CANNOT have done anything evil yet. He's a baby. He has no moral agency. He likely doesn't even have the ability to do anything, evil or otherwise.Lago wrote: I mean you objected to Blurt being killed because that aside from being nauseating there are a ton of mitigating circumstances; Blurt hasn't exactly done anything evil yet, there's a chance that he might grow up to be good, at this young age all of these evil acts like eating mashed halfling heads he can't control, etc..
Hans, unlike Blurt, had the ability to choose his course of action, and to make intelligent decisions. Further, he is an adult who has presumably taken actions in his life.Lago wrote:Hans the random Nazi guard might have just been conscripted into service, he might actually believe all of the propaganda about this being good for the world, he might have just been a reserve guard and has never fired his gun outside of a firing range, etc.. The only reason you'd think automatically that a Nazi, even a concentration camp guard (because they all had such a great choice about where they were being assigned) = baby-raping evil is by buying all of that propaganda.
Horseshit. I explained the difference above.The only reason why Blurt gets a pass but Hans doesn't is just because of sensibilities.
Of course all those orcs were babies and innocent once, and killing them then would have been wrong. But as they grow up, they either accepted a culture of murder and pillage, or they didn't...and if they didn't, they wouldn't be sitting in an orc camp full of human skulls.But they're orcs. It's only a matter of time for them to someday go around killing innocent people or burning forests or whatever, because they're orcs. You not killing Blurt is just condemning some other family to die 10 years in the future, because orcs are inherently evil and have no other choice or chance of redemption. It's either that, or you realize that all of those other orcs you met were babies at one point had this state of innocence, too, so it's not too hard to assume that there may be some orcs that have held onto this innocent state, still. So why doesn't it trouble you that when you're destroying an orc camp or busting up a celebration you're probably killing a few orcs that haven't drunk the evil Kool-Aid?
It's because adults can make meaningful choices and babies cannot.Lago wrote:Is it because babies are cute and grown ups are not so cute?
No, they are not. Full stop. They are entirely distinguishable. Equating them is absurd.Read up the Milgram experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Hofling Hospital Experiment sometime. This is behavior pretty much indistinguishable from some of the worst results of that vile ideology
It may be comforting for you to think "everyone's the same", but the fact is no, people are not all the same. Some people are capable of performing horrendous acts, and some people are not. Some people are put into certain situations and take one course, and others are put into the same situation and do something else.It's comforting to think that Nazis or whatever are uniformly complete monsters that have something 'wrong' with them where you can make life-or-death decisions without knowing anything other than their affiliation--because they're monsters and can't do that better. But it doesn't work that way and has never worked that way. With some very few exceptions most of the people you're gleefully killing, even the ones for some reason or another are shoving prisoners into trains to Dachau, are normal-ass people.
And we're done. This is your whole high-level bullshit wankfest all over again, and I'm done with it.This reasoning does not apply to D&D heroes. A lot of people have pointed out that it might be too much to expect people fighting in a heroic fantasy pastiche to faire much better than Lancelot and Conan (where even if they wanted not to kill everyone in a swordfight they couldn't, because they're vanilla action heroes) but I find it a really flimsy excuse that you can control your sword manuevers enough that you can cut holes in space time but you can't avoid killing faceless goon #9.
My dad knew a guy who was in a US Army Ranger unit in WW2. They were on foot about 30 miles in front of the "real army", the infantry, tanks, etc. They would take a bunch of prisoners, question them and then the same guy would ask the NCO if he should "take them back to headquarters". The NCO would say yes, and he would march them off.PoliteNewb wrote:If any of those guys have guns and can shoot you, then yes, you kill them without qualm. If they surrender, and you don't have good reason to believe they'll break parole (or have a way of dealing with prisoners), you don't kill them (if you want to be a hero).Lago wrote:So if I have a bunch of Nazi prisoners I got the drop on, it's okay for me to torture and kill them instead of bringing them to a PoW facility because they're Nazis?
I wasn't discussing this before, really...my argument was never "orcs are killable because they're orcs".Lago PARANOIA wrote:What is under consideration is:
1) How appropriate it is to have entire races of critters whose overriding concern is making the world less safe and happy and the ramifications of this.
I will attempt to summarize my views on this:Lago wrote:2) For critters that don't default to evil but are part of an overwhelmingly evil philosophy, how much individual responsibility any particular actor bears and thus whether it's appropriate to kill them.