Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Derren S. 05-02-06, 12:00 PM	A recent thread and my memories about the fan made Inferno brought up a interesting question. How do monsters fit into the law in Faerun? I know that racism is a part of the FR but so is alignment and as the god of law and judgment, Tyr, is good and so are most of his priests racism can't influence them because of alignment restriction. So, under that assumption that a priest of Tyr is the one who speaks law (or any other paladin as because their LG alignment also limits the influence racism can have on them) what status have monsters in the law of Faerun compared to the PHB races. For example, what would happen when a band of orcs would come to a small village in a non evil country who has a priest of Tyr who is allowed to speak right in the area (from a tribe who hasn't raided the village in the past) and accuse a group of adventurers they captured of attempted murder. Sure the orcs are under no juristiction of the village, but the adventurers are (they are citicens of the nation the village is part of). How would a priest of Tyr react and decide? Edit: And what would happen if not orcs came but elves or dwarvesm just for comparisation. What if instead of orcs (who are in some places rather accepted) it was a band of trolls? What if it was a heard of unicorns? (Much more inhuman than orcs and trolls but generally good)? What if it was a red dragon? And what difference would it make if the area was generally considered cosmopolitan like Waterdeep? *For the sake of the argument assume that the above mentioned parties manage to speak with the priest without beeing attacked*
Another Gnome 05-02-06, 01:01 PM	The most likely response to the orcs would be, "Are you stupid or something?" before giving the adventurers a slap for only -attempting- to murder the damn things. It's not racism, it's a simple fact of life to your average Faerūnian. Of course, nations like Cormyr would require the adventurers to register before they could murder the orcs legally. Now, a unicorn or some do-goody fey might demand for a proper investigation, although I seriously doubt any one of those in turn would give a damn about human justice.
Derren S. 05-02-06, 02:40 PM	And how would the priest of Tyr justify that decision? Becuase the orcs are evil? If alignment influences judgment in such a strong way then it isn't just. Also when orcs are laughed at for that request because they are evil, it would mean that it is ok to murder anyone who is evil and that can't be in the interests of justice. Same with race. Would you call it just if elves could get away with murder and humans don't? Certainly not, so why would orcs be an exception? And remember we are not talking about average faerunians but about clerics of Tyr who are known to support unpopular laws when they are just. And please don't try to dodge the question by saying "Monster XXX wouldn't care for human justice and things like that. Simply accept that this happens for one reason or the other.
Another Gnome 05-03-06, 12:13 AM	First, I wasn't trying to dodge the question, just saying that insulted and injured centaurs for example would be far more likely to simply make things right by might than trust a bunch of humans to do them justice. Second, concerning orcs, they're monsters, not people, and as such they don't deserve the rights of even common beasts. I'm not saying an individual Tyrran priest couldn't feel honor-bound to speak for fair treatment of orcs, but I really don't believe the church as a whole, or even Tyr himself, would have any compelling reason to do so. Third, I do think you're placing too much emphasis on organized law enforcement. Out of sight, out of mind, would in my not-always-that-humble opinion be a more realistic take on it. Basically, if you're far enough away from the law to be protected by it, then the law ain't gonna complain when you go judge, jury, and executioner on anyone messing around with you.
Auburn 05-03-06, 12:34 AM	Somehow I think orcs are probably better accepted than people think provided they behave peacefully, and the place they're at hasn't had orc problems before. Those half-orcs have to come from somewhere. Maybe they don't settle in the cities, but I think you get a lot of orcs where all over the world there might only be one or two in a town. Trolls are somewhat similar. If they don't cause trouble, and there hasn't be troll trouble in area recently they might be watched, but nobody probably has the guts to say anything to them. After all making fire is probably a skill most peasants have and there's probably always one or more going in a village so provided you've got a few people someone will survive if they troll decides to go crazy once he's in town. People'd probably try to catch unicorns since they look like horses. Red dragons would probably be able to do what they want since everyone would run off once they saw it unless they're a powerful person capable fo fighting it.
BrianCritchley 05-03-06, 01:31 AM	it depends on the area. in an area where orcs and trolls generally aren't this might happen, however said events tend to be exceptional eneugh to get a sourcebook entry (like the orcs in thesk) hwoever any area where orcs aexist in great eneugh numbers to actually have tribes in the area the people, AND FAIRLY SO, DON'T LIKE THEM. to their way of thinking the only good orc is a dead one. the thing is that orcs aren't civilized people in the minds of the people of faerun, they are barely above beasts the thing is orcs are maraudering bloody thirsty humanoids whose only interaction with humans is to rape pillage and destroy. if a tribe of orcs approuched a village the village would take up arms the minute they struck. furthermore, the orcs would even if they where reasonable, NOT march humans into a village and issue murder trials, because the orcs do not reckonize their land as being soverign ground ruled by a human, bluntly put they don't reckonize the humans claim to land (even the good ones belive "it's ours") the fact is it's not racismk to say all orcs are bloodt thristy savages when it's pretty much the truth. you'll note the orcs deities are ALL evil, and activly enchourage their people to conquer. There is no Orc elistraee.
Faraer 05-03-06, 07:25 AM	--
Mirtek 05-03-06, 08:29 AM	Second, concerning orcs, they're monsters, not people, and as such they don't deserve the rights of even common beasts. That's certainly as evil as you can get (I would say LE). Orcs are people and orcs actually live as citizens in quite a few places beside humans, dwarfes, ... But let us drop the orcs and make it hobgoblins. As civilized and disciplined as you can get (more so than many human frontier towns). What if it's a group of hobgoblins?
Derren S. 05-03-06, 12:19 PM	That's certainly as evil as you can get (I would say LE). Orcs are people and orcs actually live as citizens in quite a few places beside humans, dwarfes, ... But let us drop the orcs and make it hobgoblins. As civilized and disciplined as you can get (more so than many human frontier towns). What if it's a group of hobgoblins? Exactly. And thats why a LG cleric of Tyr can't simply turn the orcs down. He has to listen to the orcs (or hobgoblins or all other sentient creatures). A LG cleric of Tyr who values justice above all else simply can't let race or alignment influence his judgment, at least not to the extend as to ignore a accusation of attempted murder. So what would happen in my above examples? (Orcs or hobgoblins if you want, trolls, unicorns and a red dragon). I'm not only wanting opinions on how the cleric would rule but also what political implications such a trial has and what would happen if the adventurers are found guilty. Also it doesn't matter that the orcs don't live in lands controlled by a king. Are you free to murder citicens of another country because of this? No. Same with the orcs. And again, simply accept that this happens. The monster(s) decide for whatever reason to do this and manage to speak to the cleric without beeing bothered by other people. So only what the cleric decides is important, not how normal villagers feel about the monsters.
Mirtek 05-03-06, 12:35 PM	The common folk can get away with havint LE views as far as some topics are concerned and, as a whole, still be neutral or good, but we are now talking about LG clerics of a LG god of justice.
GothicDan 05-03-06, 04:01 PM	Look at the actual dogma of Tyrists - not at the alignment. Alignment is secondary to dogma and teachings; it is a generalization of them, not a hard rule. I'd personally say that Tyr seems more LG (w/LN tendencies) to me, anyway. Because to be just (Lawful) to an Orc (who is, say, CE) may well also happen to be an Evil action as well. But the point is, do not use the alignment stated as rule. It's a broad generalization of the deity's dogma and teachings - look at those to see how a Tyrist would react in various situations. The deities of the Realms were not created with the D&D alignments in mind - they were appended later, "best-to-fit." And since said deities alignments and dogmas have remained pretty much the same over the past 3.5 editions, this is a perfectly valid fact to take into consideration.
Derren S. 05-03-06, 04:13 PM	The deities of the Realms were not created with the D&D alignments in mind - they were appended later, "best-to-fit." And since said deities alignments and dogmas have remained pretty much the same over the past 3.5 editions, this is a perfectly valid fact to take into consideration. Still the deities and their clerics have an alignment ant they have to follow it if you like it or not. And even if you ignore alignment the dogma also doesn't allow it for the cleric to be a racist. A sentence made by racism can't be just. To quote from his entry in the F&P His is a civilized voice, urging the construction of moral and legal codes and the administration of fair justice for sentient creatures in every land Look at the latter part. Fair justice for sentient creatures. Not civilized creatures, but sentient creatures. And you can't argue that all the monsters mentioned are sentient. Beeing just to an orc is evil? Come on, you can't mean that serious. If you do you have to read the alignment section in the PHB again. Thats the same as saying showing mercy to an orc is evil. Also I am not only asking for how the priest would reactm but also on the political implication. Just imagine what would happen if it gets known that adventurers are on trial for trying to kill a dragon, or even further get convicted for attempted dragonslaying.
GothicDan 05-03-06, 04:37 PM	Groups of sentient beings appropriate an Us vs. Them mindset. Unless a specific culture is enlightened the point that this Us vs. Them mindset is completely eradicated (which I do not think it is, even in the most Good of nations), then you aren't going to have adventurers on trail for slaying a dragon (unless it's a Good dragon, perhaps). Now, a LN nation is one where I feel such would be more likely - since it's pure, harsh law, without a particular bias. Tyr represents Law with a Good edge to it.
Derren S. 05-03-06, 04:44 PM	, then you aren't going to have adventurers on trail for slaying a dragon (unless it's a Good dragon, perhaps). And why? You have seen my scenario in the first post. How would the cleric of Tyr justify it not to do an trial and stay within his dogma in such a situation? Because the people don't want a trial? Since when can people vote for a murderer to be unpresecuted? Also why the exception for good dragons? So it is allowed to kill evil dragons on sight but not good ones? I guess you can apply this law for everyone then (just laws apply to everyone, not just for a specific race/group of people). That means under tyrian law you are allowed to kill everyone who is evil. A paradise for detect smite paladins.
BrianCritchley 05-03-06, 09:33 PM	for a start if a town watchman sees orcs heading to the town the reaction isn't going to be "quick summon a cleric of tyr for A trial" it's going to be. "IT'S ORCS! AND THEY'VE GOT PRISONERS! KILL EM!" about the only region where orcs wouldn't be attacked upon so much as approuching a city is likely thesk.
LordofArcana 05-03-06, 09:45 PM	But what if it is only one orc or two? Especially if they were unarmed and in one of the more southern nations, where orc raiders aren't common, I don't that the people of a small city would instantly go to kill them. Shield of Justice, an orc paladin, faced great hostility but was not attacked in Tethyr. Nor was this because he was a paladin as most of the people did not believe that. Also they probably would not have the adventurers with them, as adventurers would run away instead of being captured.
GothicDan 05-03-06, 10:02 PM	And why? You have seen my scenario in the first post. How would the cleric of Tyr justify it not to do an trial and stay within his dogma in such a situation? Because the people don't want a trial? Since when can people vote for a murderer to be unpresecuted? If it says so in the Laws of a city. Also why the exception for good dragons? So it is allowed to kill evil dragons on sight but not good ones? I guess you can apply this law for everyone then (just laws apply to everyone, not just for a specific race/group of people). That means under tyrian law you are allowed to kill everyone who is evil. A paradise for detect smite paladins. Because a Tyrist has to promote a Good version of Justice, not a Neutral one. And Tyr IS known for having a LOT of Paladins.
BrianCritchley 05-03-06, 11:45 PM	But what if it is only one orc or two? Especially if they were unarmed and in one of the more southern nations, where orc raiders aren't common, I don't that the people of a small city would instantly go to kill them. Shield of Justice, an orc paladin, faced great hostility but was not attacked in Tethyr. Nor was this because he was a paladin as most of the people did not believe that. Also they probably would not have the adventurers with them, as adventurers would run away instead of being captured. and what if those orcs arer really gold dragons in disguise? seriously, this is a highly unlikely situation. any where where rocs are prevalent they are almost always "the enemy"
Derren S. 05-04-06, 01:16 AM	Brian, please. Reread what I wrote.I said it twice so far that it simply happens thet the monsters want to do this and manage to speak the cleric without beeing attacked. Don't get sidetracked by how it is done. Gothic, do you really think a law like "You have to kill all orcs" (or "You are allowed to kill orcs without prosecution)" exists and will be supported by Tyr? So when I come across a farming some orcs who have given up their raiding lifestile and settled down I have to kill them by law? And when I meet a rare orc paladin of Tyr I'm also required to kill him by law? Or does it only apply to evil orcs? That would mean that the law is either very racism (kill evil orcs on sight but not evil humans) or it would allow you to kill everyone evil on sight and I don't think Tyr would support either version of this law. And please don't concentrate on the orcs alone but also discuss the other monsters I posted
AngryBearsFan 05-04-06, 01:47 AM	Ahhh, it was all so simply when Goblins and Orcs were evil and could never be anything but evil. I think the majority of Faerun is basically good people, with lots of prejudices and predispositions to all the humanoid races. If you go by the fact that the vast majority will only see such creatures when they raid farms or attack villiages or what have you, then its pretty apparent that these people will never accept monsters in their culture. Some of the citizens who actually get around might have a different view...but they would realize that most of Faerun just isnt ready for Orcs or Goblins to start moving in down the street. If you read that short story about Drizzt and the Goblin (either in Heroes or Villians of the realms) it sort of works out that way. Drizzt starts whining about what is evil and what isnt evil when he realizes that some people are keeping a Goblin as a slave. This goblin can speak very well (as it was probably a slave for a long while and learned the human language and how to relaly use it to its advantage). Eventually the Goblin got away as he knew no matter what the "law" was or even if he ran into people who would listen to him...he would eventually find more people who hated him than liked him. Like Drizzt usually does, and HE is a hero of the realms. Farmers caught up with the Goblin and they hanged him. Drizzt got upset and basically went on his way. Even if it was a mandate from heaven I dont think the rulers of the realms would buy into this. Goblins and Orcs make for great scapegoats. It will be interesting to see what happens with Obould and his clan. Is he trying to set up trade with any of the good areas?
kintire 05-04-06, 11:34 AM	I know that racism is a part of the FR but so is alignment and as the god of law and judgment, Tyr, is good and so are most of his priests racism can't influence them because of alignment restriction. I would be very reluctant to use the term racsim for attitudes against orcs and other monsters. It is a term used in the real world where there are no differences between races in terms of morals or potential: in Faerun there are really such differences, and the attitudes are basically justified. It isn't the same situation, and while a priest of Tyr can't have attitudes based soely on prejudice, it is a proven demonstrable fact that Orcs are usually evil murdering raiders, and operating on that assumption is reasonable. As for your situation, its very simple. Orcs are engaged in hostilities against all other races, driven by their gods. A few groups have ceased this, but any given wild orc tribe can be assumed to be on Gruumsh's crusade. Killing them is therefore not murder at all, but a legitimate act of war.
Derren S. 05-04-06, 12:04 PM	Racism is racism no matter if it is directed against humans with a different skin color or orcs. Don't forget that in the time where the term racism originates from those humans were considered a different race. And look at the alignment section in the PHB. Judge people by their race is LE as is killing people only because of their race.
Renvale999 05-04-06, 01:23 PM	All and all I think you made a good scenario Derren, it would be very interesting to see how a group of PC's react when they see a band of fellow adventurers being brought in by orcs for murder. Do the PC's jump in and save their brethren, or do they sit back and watch with concern? I think it really depends on what land you're in. If it happened in Waterdeep, the PC's may very well get put on trial. If it happened in Icewind Dale, the orcs would be shot on sight. So it honestly depends on where the PC's are and the local feeling towards orcs and goblins. Is a priest of Tyr really going to go against the whole community if they believe orcs are the enemy? A very well thought out scenario Derren, I like it alot.
BrianCritchley 05-04-06, 07:54 PM	Racism is racism no matter if it is directed against humans with a different skin color or orcs. Don't forget that in the time where the term racism originates from those humans were considered a different race. And look at the alignment section in the PHB. Judge people by their race is LE as is killing people only because of their race. it's not evil if said race is almost always trying to kill yours, it's prudance. it's not racist if your right. it's debates like these where I really sortta HATE Drizzt, as someone else said it was so much easier when all evil critters where just evil. seriously if I see an orc approuching my settlement I'll open fire. I'll ntoe wait until they've started killing the women and children before I do.
MaskedOne 05-05-06, 12:59 AM	Most Good justice systems require proof beyond reasonable doubt to actually punish and some level of evidence to actually press charges without the judge instantly dismissing them. They also leave loopholes in the rules for killing, notably defense of self or others. If you can reliably compel truth from all parties and the adventurer motives have no hint of relation to either the concept of self defense or defense of local societies then a typically evil creature might in a highly idealizized area just barely get a trial and they are still liable to come away with nothing unless the jury is made of priests of Tyr. Otherwise, when 999,999 out 1,000,000 encounters with a creature of a specific species involve that species trying to rape, pillage, burn, slaughter and otherwise ruin the lives of everyone else around, the probable response will be that the adventurer was most likely justified or innocent. The case is dismissed. Orc word against adventurer, orc loses. The same applies with drow normally, trolls and evil dragons. Regardless, crimes are typically punished in the territory that they are committed under the laws of that region. Cormyr has no authority for example to punish anyone for a crime committed in Sembia unless that crime is something like treason against Cormyr by a represenative of Cormyr's gov.'t and they still need to get the criminal back into Cormyr for a formal trial. The most that anyone is likely to get for pointing out a crime committed by an adventurer to that adventurer's residence if the crime did not occur in the jurisdiction that the adventurer resides in is the adventurer handed over to the jurisdiction the crime was committed in and that type of action typically requires a treaty which requires a recognized gov.'t. Most humans do not recognize orc tribal leaderships as governments and solitary dragons certainly don't get that status. The priest probably has no authority to act and the prosecution would need a heroic amount of background work just to make it worth his effort to try. NOTE: If a lawyer or law student sees a problem with my analysis of legal systems, please point it out. I am not an expert on the matter.
Derren S. 05-05-06, 01:39 AM	True, but don't forget that Tyr is about justice, not cold, hard law. He and his clerics will make certain that murderers are not getting away unpunished (Even if that means delivering him back to the orcs for a trial). Also getting the truth from everyone is easy. Zone of Truth and Discern Lies. Valueing the adventurers word over the orcs even though you can test them its racism again as is dismissing this crime because "most orcs are evil and attack humans". You can use this as an excuse to explain orc behaviour as most humans they meet also attack them on sight. (Especially adventurers tend to kill everything in their part).
MaskedOne 05-05-06, 02:00 AM	Tyr could of course inform his followers that they are to ignore local law in pursuit of his goals. I have a divinity who I occasionally use that would do the same. However there is a problem here that the divinity I use doesn't face due to a variety of factors. If Tyr's church contravenes local law then local law enforcement can punish Tyr's local represenatives as local law deems fit. Hmm, hand over citizenry to orc tribe, death sentence. After dealing out a very legal and very harsh punishment, the local legislature can ban Tyr's church in the region. If the legislature is polite then the priests who were not involved in superceding local law may get a chance to leave. If not, hang them all. As for Zone of Truth and fun tricks like it, I do believe that I pointed out slightly different results for the matter if such spells are on hand. I should note that they won't help at all if a dragon chooses to make a case because most dragons are known to have magic of their own, often semi-powerful and probably capable of overriding the priest's divinations. With such magic on hand and against those who he can trust it to work with, a priest of Tyr might try the case. The results are unlikely to be worth it but I could see one trying. Without such magic, the effort fails almost automatically.
kintire 05-05-06, 05:09 AM	Racism is racism no matter if it is directed against humans with a different skin color or orcs. Yes, but believing that some one is hostile because they are an Orc is not racism, any more than shooting down an aircraft pilot because he is Japanese was racist in 1944. Valueing the adventurers word over the orcs even though you can test them its racism again as is dismissing this crime because "most orcs are evil and attack humans". The difference here is that most Orcs are evil and attack humans. And by "most" we mean 99.9%. Its not racism, its war.
Derren S. 05-05-06, 10:24 AM	Yes, most orcs are evil, but not all as they only have a "usual" alignemnt. Neutral persons/gods have no problem to ignore the minority of non evil orcs but good character and gods, like Tyr and the cleric in question can't/don't ignore them. They won't take the chance to allow the murder of all orcs because also innocent orcs might suffer from this. And to expand your example yes, that is racist. Or what you would call to shoot down a civilian aircraft in USA airspace only because it was piloted by a japanese and you had no proof that the pilot had any malicious intends. That is racist and translated in D&D terms evil. As for punishing the church of Tyr for allowing such a trial, don't forget who Tyr is allied with. Making enemies with Tyr means also making enemies with Torm and Illmater and that is something not many lords will risk. Also unless you believe that paladins are allowed to kill everything they detect as evil without hesitation then that the orcs are evil is no reason to kil them.
Chosen of Bane 05-05-06, 11:10 AM	Darren, I think in the situation you described a Tyrist priest would be obligated to seek justice. You mentioned that the orc tribe has not raided the village in the past.. This is an important statement. If the Authorities (Tyrists) do not act on behalf of the orcs than they can forever damage the peace that exists between the orcs and the villagers. This could prompt the orc tribe to raid and generally be more hostile. Seeking justice for the orcs is serving the greater good. Now, Tyrists are not perfect and they may approach the "investigation" with some preconceived notions and really not put their best efforts into proving the adventurers guilt because they are not big fans of orcs (this could be consciously done or subconsciously done). I feel Trolls, Orcs, & Hobgoblins are similar in this case. If they approach the Tyrists in small number, in a civilized manner than they should be dealt with civily. If a horde of orcs or trolls showed up than that would be a different story and the Tyrists should help orginaze the defense of the village. I see a Red Dragon as being a very different situation than the Trolls and Orcs though. Firstly, in game mechanic terms, the a Red Dragon is Always Chaotic Evil and Trolls & Orcs are only Usually Chaotic Evil. So the Tyrist will have no doubt that the Red Dragon is up to no good. The other, and more important factor, is the power of a Red Dragon. If a Red Dragon approaches the village it is more akin to an entire horde of orcs approaching. If things do not go well with a couple of orcs, the Tyrists should be able to handle it, if things don't go well with a Red Dragon, there's trouble. So anytime a Red Dragon approaches the village the Tyrists should work on defenses of the village and prevent the monstrosity from getting too close. Elves and Dwarves would probably be handled in a similar situation as the orcs. They are a people from outside the village seeking justice for adventurers in the village..really no difference. Now, the different perceptions of Dwarves and Elves may alter the investigation process and the biases of the Tyrists but they should approach the situation in the same fashion. As for political implications... If Tyrsist charged adventurers with murdering orcs they better have a high diplomacy check or the villagers will get out of hand. If the village in question uses trial by jury than it would be very unlikely that the adventurers would ever get found guilty, whether the defense was Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, or Trolls. This however should not stop a Tyrist from trying to enforce law and order. That's how I see it.
Derren S. 05-05-06, 11:25 AM	But why would the red dragon be handeled differently? Only because it is more likely to be evil? If you can kill a creature only because it is evil then paladins can slaughter everything which they detect as evil and I don't think that would be ok for most people. Also why does a dragon have not the same rights then an orc only because it is more powerfull? Does this also mean the lvl 20 fighter has less rights then a lvl 1 commoner?
Chosen of Bane 05-05-06, 11:36 AM	I agree that it's not consistant but I think it is necessary for looking out for the greater good. I think the power of the Red Dragon absolutely plays a role in how the situation would be handled. There are other components too... Killing a Red Dragon is likely saving a LOT of lives in the future. Also, I see Chromatic Dragons as being another level of evil. Sort of like a Demon or Devil. So no, I don't think a Tyrist would be okay with the murder of an evil 20th level fighter (assuming human) or an orc, or a troll. But if somebody "murdered" a Balor than I think they would be greatly rewarded. In my opinion Fiends and Evil Undead are the highest level of evil, but Chromatic Dragons are not far behind. And seeing that I agree with you on all accounts except for the Red Dragon I have to ask... Why are you asking this question in the first place? You seem to have an answer for yourself already and it doesn't appear that you're likely to be convinced otherwise.
MaskedOne 05-05-06, 02:49 PM	Also why does a dragon have not the same rights then an orc only because it is more powerfull? Does this also mean the lvl 20 fighter has less rights then a lvl 1 commoner? The red dragon has all the rights of an orc. However, since most red dragons do have the power (skill may be debatable) to defeat any form of magical inquiry by a local Tyrran priest the red dragons has all the rights of an orc in a town where there is no one with the ability to cast Zone of Truth or Discern Lies, in short none. Legally mind you, neither have any rights unless they're residents or the crime is committed against them in the town and they were there legally in which case other special circumstances will probably apply to increase their rights. As for the churches aligned with Tyr, the choice is simple. Hand my territory's sovereignty and legal system over to them so that their definition of justice can override the laws of my land or boot them all. I do not see any lord of any territory willing placing any one or all three of those churches above the law. In the place of a territorial lord, I'd give any church that felt it had the right to overrule the law of the land a distinctly finite time to leave. Failure to do so and they can earn that authority over the dead bodies of myself and all armsmen and mages loyal to me. If a church cannot abide by the law then it can try and get the law changed, not get caught breaking it, leave the jurisdiction or earn its special status as being outside the law with blood, spell and steel. They sure as heck won't be getting it handed to them on a silver platter regardless of how good their intentions are. EDIT ADD ON: On the Japanese aircraft example: If your aircraft is in US airspace without permission then it is liable to get a very specific series of instructions from the Air Force. Those instructions will be followed, this will be overseen by military aircraft. If those instructions are not followed then those military aircraft will take a handful of steps to make certain that you could not possibly miss their intent. If they are ignored, then they will drop behind you, lock missiles and fire. It does not matter what nation you are coming from or what your motives. If you are in US airspace, you are either ready, willing and able to follow the orders given by the US Air Force or you are target practice. There is no racism on this subject, we force down and/or shoot down all unauthorized aircraft equally. The only difference is if the US really doesn't like the look of an incoming aircraft we might give one warning instead of several before we open fire. There are countries that simply shoot you. No one ever likes unauthorized aircraft and no one really cares about race when it comes down to opening fire. Country of origin, yes, race no.
Another Gnome 05-05-06, 03:19 PM	If the Authorities (Tyrists) do not act on behalf of the orcs than they can forever damage the peace that exists between the orcs and the villagers. This could prompt the orc tribe to raid and generally be more hostile. Seeking justice for the orcs is serving the greater good. And if they punish the adventurers who normally take care of the orcs that are raiders, they'd be serving a greater evil then, no? As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Derren S. 05-05-06, 05:03 PM	I agree that it's not consistant but I think it is necessary for looking out for the greater good. I think the power of the Red Dragon absolutely plays a role in how the situation would be handled. There are other components too... Killing a Red Dragon is likely saving a LOT of lives in the future. How do you know that? And how do you justify someone for crimes that he might do in the future? Why are you asking this question in the first place? You seem to have an answer for yourself already and it doesn't appear that you're likely to be convinced otherwise. I can be convinced otherwise, but only when you bring better arguments then "They are in the MM so they have no rights", especially as all arguments brought so far either mean that it is ok to kil all evil humans because they are evil or kill good orcs because they are orcs. The red dragon has all the rights of an orc. However, since most red dragons do have the power (skill may be debatable) to defeat any form of magical inquiry by a local Tyrran priest the red dragons has all the rights of an orc in a town where there is no one with the ability to cast Zone of Truth or Discern Lies, in short none. What happened with the good old investigations and sense motive checks? Also why do you need to ask the dragon questions in a ZoT? You have to simply ask the adventurers if they wanted to kill them and what reason they had. EDIT ADD ON: On the Japanese aircraft example: snip Who said something about unathorized? It might be a regualr flight which just happens to have a pilot who comes originaly from japan, but according to your logic its ok to shoot him down because he is japanese. Translated to the orc example it means that you accept that some good/neutral orcs (who never killed innocents in their life) will be killed only because of their race. Of course they would number far less then the evil orcs who deserve it to be killed, but that is typical neutral "for the greater good" thinking and so nothing Tyr would accept. And if they punish the adventurers who normally take care of the orcs that are raiders, they'd be serving a greater evil then, no? As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Like the good intention to rid the area of all "evil" monsters (even if they aren't that evil in reality)? Also don't forget that finding the adventurers guilty doesn't mean that adventurers aren't allowed to kill orcs/trolls/dragosn etc. anymore, they just need a valid reason for it like if they kill other humans. Killing the red dragon who terrorized the whole area for generations is still ok. But killing the orcs you meet on a road which behave apparently peacefully (Don't attack immediatly) would be require a proof that those orcs deserve death (and the adventurers have to be allowed to execute the death sentence)
GothicDan 05-05-06, 06:27 PM	You do realize that, in reality, 95% of all Chromatic Dragons truly ARE evil, right? They're not misunderstood - they're plain evil. And it's the LEVEL of evil that they are that makes the difference. A normal evil citizen in a city could simply be a shady, greedy shopkeeper. A red dragon is more likely to slay two dozen people when attacking a caravan to express his or her form of evil. And note that, since you're hinging everything on alignment, all one would have to do to make killing justified (in a LG Tyrist's eyes) is simply cast a Detect Evil spell on an orc/goblin/dragon and have him/her come up as Evil. Since they do not lawfully make themselves subject to the society's standards and laws that the Tyrist serves, they are not guaranteed the same rights. This is part of what is being lawful - you have to follow your own laws, which in the case of justice, means that you uphold the execution of the law, including when it's written that the laws only apply to the citizens of a specific area/nation.
MaskedOne 05-05-06, 06:59 PM	Shooting down an authorized flight that is behaving legally is almost always wrong. However, the example was World War II. Flights from Japan to the US during World War 2 were unlikely to be authorized (at least by the US and our opinion is what counts inside our own airspace) so I didn't bother with the concept. Most trials do seem to like a complete picture of events. That whole expectation that one may confront one's accuser on even footing. You could try and bypass it but I doubt you'll get far. You are aware that the priest has even less authority to punish one for assaulting a chromatic dragon than an orc simply because most chromatics don't seem to have a government to extradite the guilty party to. The dragon does not by the way constitute a government in and of itself. Orcs at least have a tribal chieftain much of the time. Further a chromatic (or an orc) claiming the protection of either law or justice better be willing to submit to either. Care to find me one that wishes to be judged for its crimes or are we assuming that the entity in question is blameless and further assuming that the priest makes the same assumption? One does not get to use either law or justice as their own personal weapon for amusement value, call on either and you are judged at the same time.
BrianCritchley 05-05-06, 08:14 PM	Or what you would call to shoot down a civilian aircraft in USA airspace only because it was piloted by a japanese and you had no proof that the pilot had any malicious intends jeeze louise thats a terriable comparison. seriously, even compareing Japanese folks to Orc si out and out INSULTING to anyone whose Japanese. let's look at the differances. 1: the Japanese do not worship an evil deity who encourages them to slaughter every non-Japanese. 2: the Japanese aren't effectivly at WAR with well.. EVERYBODY. 3: the Japanese aren't notorious for large hoards descending on innocent settlements destroying entire civilizations..
Derren S. 05-06-06, 04:19 AM	jeeze louise thats a terriable comparison. seriously, even compareing Japanese folks to Orc si out and out INSULTING to anyone whose Japanese. let's look at the differances. 1: the Japanese do not worship an evil deity who encourages them to slaughter every non-Japanese. 2: the Japanese aren't effectivly at WAR with well.. EVERYBODY. 3: the Japanese aren't notorious for large hoards descending on innocent settlements destroying entire civilizations.. I'm not the one who started this comparisation. But ok. 1. In WW2 most japanese (at least the ones living in japan) were fanatic in defeating the enemy, thats where the whole kamikaze thing came from. 2. But pretty much. except for germany and italy there weren't many big countries japan wasn't at war with. Also orcs are also not at war with everyone. They get along fine with for example trolls and are even normal citizens in some "civilized" countries. 3. Do you know what japanese troops did in china in the WW2? While I normaly loath real world comparisations the situations fits rather good. ~1943 nearly everyone hates japan, is at war with them and they have a reputation for doing evil things, yet you still can't kill every japanese you come across Gothic, yes only a small fraction of red dragons are not evil (much less then 5%), but does beeing evil mean that you have no right? What about the ~20% of humans who are evil? Is it ok to kill them or turn a blind eye if they are killed? Don't forget that there are no degrees of evil. A evil human is as evil as a red dragon and only lacking the strength of the dragon to wreak as much destruction as it. Is that how the realms work? If it is evil kill it? Masked, you are slightly mistaken. It was never said that the flight had to originate from japan, only that the pilot is from japan. For example the flight could be from New York to Chicago and the pilot happens to be to have come from japan 5 years ago, but according to some peoples argumentation he has to be shot down because he is japanese. And that chromatic dragons (except blue dragons) have no governemnt could even be the reason why the dragon comes to the vilage to let the adventurer be judged there. Or maybe he just want to have some fun by watching what happens. That the monsters do not adhere to the law of the region is a problem. But what happens when a citizen of another country is assaulted and it is not possible to bring the offender to the other country for a trial? For example a elf coming from Evermeet walks along a road. A human decides to rob him, so he attacks and kills the elf. A ranger nearby witnesses this, subdues and arrests the human and brings him to the next city to a judge. What would happen? The elf is not citizen of this country and there are no diplomatic relations to Evermeet. What would happen now? Also the unicorn example got sadly ignored by now? From what was said in here the unicorns would not be treated any different then the orcs which means their accusations will be ignored.
Another Gnome 05-06-06, 05:46 AM	A ranger nearby witnesses this, subdues and arrests the human and brings him to the next city to a judge. What would happen? The elf is not citizen of this country and there are no diplomatic relations to Evermeet. What would happen now? If the ranger accused the human of murder and highway robbery, the Tyrrans would likely trial and judge the guy to be hanged on the spot. No problem there. However, had the victim been an orc, chances are the ranger wouldn't have bothered even reporting the incident, let alone arresting the man. Also the unicorn example got sadly ignored by now? From what was said in here the unicorns would not be treated any different then the orcs which means their accusations will be ignored. Unlike orcs, unicorns have a reputation speaking for them. The local peasantry will be hesitant to anger such a creature, and the Tyrran authorities would likely find it in their best interest to follow suite. After all, it's tough trying to convince the people you're a servant of fairness and justice by spitting on the face of an embodiment of goodness. It's simple politics.
MaskedOne 05-06-06, 08:17 AM	Masked, you are slightly mistaken. It was never said that the flight had to originate from japan, only that the pilot is from japan. For example the flight could be from New York to Chicago and the pilot happens to be to have come from japan 5 years ago, but according to some peoples argumentation he has to be shot down because he is japanese. And that chromatic dragons (except blue dragons) have no governemnt could even be the reason why the dragon comes to the vilage to let the adventurer be judged there. Or maybe he just want to have some fun by watching what happens. That the monsters do not adhere to the law of the region is a problem. But what happens when a citizen of another country is assaulted and it is not possible to bring the offender to the other country for a trial? For example a elf coming from Evermeet walks along a road. A human decides to rob him, so he attacks and kills the elf. A ranger nearby witnesses this, subdues and arrests the human and brings him to the next city to a judge. What would happen? The elf is not citizen of this country and there are no diplomatic relations to Evermeet. What would happen now? Also the unicorn example got sadly ignored by now? From what was said in here the unicorns would not be treated any different then the orcs which means their accusations will be ignored. I'm leaving the flight alone. As long as it's authorized and behaving properly, it should be fine regardless of pilot or origin. If it isn't, well as stated we force down or shoot down all unauthorized craft equally, the only difference is some craft get fewer warnings. The chromatic still can't press charges over something that did not happen within the jurisdiction of the village. Blurring jurisdictional boundaries is not a good idea. As to the elf on a roadway, most common roads do fall within someone's jurisdiction and have regular patrols. They are set up by nations and typically maintained by one. The ranger takes the criminal to the nearest court that has authority in the area and it probably has either jurisdiction over that stretch of road or it can contact someone who does. Doesn't matter anymore where the elf is from, the crime occurred within that court's region of influence. Theoretically the same could be applied to an orc but I doubt most rangers would try and if they do then the only way that a conviction is likely is if the entire jury is made up of Tyrran priests. An orc cannot however drag a human in to prosecute if the human tried to kill him outside that court's region of influence, neither can an elf, or a dragon or a unicorn for that matter. If the unicorn is attacked within a court's region of influence then it would be able to try and bring charges and unlike an orc it has a sufficiently good reputation that it has half a chance of getting something accomplished by doing so.
Derren S. 05-06-06, 08:43 AM	But what would happen if the dragon was assaulted in the territory of a kingdom? Dragons don't adhere to human borders. So if he was and brings the attacking adventurers to a village of that kingdom you have the same situation as with the unicorns. Both don't follow the law of the kingdom, but both are also sentient and were attacked in within the jurisdiction of that kingdom/village. Of course you again have a difference in reputation and alignment and most normal courts would decide on this factors as you point out but the difference is that Tyr wants to bring just law to all sentient species and that means he can't favor one race over the other. Both the unicorns and the dragon already showed the goodwill by delivering the adventueres to the propper court instead of simply killing them (If that is really the true intention of the dragon is a different matter). To the orc example, you both dodge the question. Assume that the ranger arrests the human for killing an orc, maybe because the ranger knew that orc who wasn't a ravaging babarian but for example a guide for a local trader who has to pass near orc territory or whatever. Anyway, the example with the elf is very similar to the other examples with the orcs and dragons. All of them are not human, not part of the kingdom where they were attacked in and in all cases there is no government to deliver the criminal to. Masked seemed convinced that the murderer of the elf would face a trial, so why wouldn't the same happen when you kill (or try to kill) an orc or dragon as long as is on the territory of that kingdom (Realize that in Faerun most territory is already claimed even if it is only a formality). Of course there is the predjudice that dragons and orcs are evil monsters and most N people would see that as a reason for not arresting the attacker, but many LG persons, especially Tyr clerics and paladins can't make that destinction. Even if the monster is evil they can't simply let an offender to the law go only because they, personally, don't like the race he attacked or maybe can even sympathise with the criminal. That might influence the punishment but not if there will be a trial or not.
Gladi 05-06-06, 11:15 AM	Bright day Why the heck bring them to village for trial? Kill them and then send runner to say that this is not your idea of "cease fire" and ask for blood debt if they were licensed.
MaskedOne 05-06-06, 11:32 AM	As stated, theoretically, you could force a trial if someone attempts to kill an orc on a public road as long as you find a court with the right jurisdiction and a priest of Tyr willing to listen to you. You will have to force it unlike with an elf but it is theoretically possible if you find the right priest. Reputation is still a factor and you probably won't gain a verdict worth the effort but it can be attempted. Dragons have equivalent respect for human law in most cases as they do for human territorial borders, i.e. none. Most people are going to be exceedingly skeptical about a chromatic dragon attempting to call on human law, that includes priests of Tyr. Minor suggestion, go register at Candlekeep and pose the question to Greenwood. He may actually have an answer that takes into account specifics of various territorial laws.
GothicDan 05-06-06, 02:39 PM	Gothic, yes only a small fraction of red dragons are not evil (much less then 5%), but does beeing evil mean that you have no right? What about the ~20% of humans who are evil? Is it ok to kill them or turn a blind eye if they are killed? Don't forget that there are no degrees of evil. A evil human is as evil as a red dragon and only lacking the strength of the dragon to wreak as much destruction as it. Is that how the realms work? If it is evil kill it? No, but you weren't talking about the Realms' laws. You were talking more about LG alignment. In the Realms, there ARE degrees of evil.
BrianCritchley 05-07-06, 03:09 AM	Dragons have equivalent respect for human law in most cases as they do for human territorial borders, i.e. none. Most people are going to be exceedingly skeptical about a chromatic dragon attempting to call on human law, that includes priests of Tyr. this can also be applied to rocs I might add, Orcs don't useally respect human law and territorial borders, thus if they suddenly show a desire for law it's gonna make all but the most naive of fools VERY suspicious. the focus of the trial will quickly become "what are the orcs up too"
MaskedOne 05-07-06, 03:00 PM	Orcs are exponentially easier to magically test, are less intimidating than dragons and are known for some social organization. While some dragons certainly have much more experience with human law and society, most of Toril seems to prefer not thinking about the shapeshifted dragons infiltrating their society. Hence, I stuck to orcs. There will be suspicion in both cases but orcs are slightly better off.
MaskedOne 05-08-06, 12:37 AM	Double posting but it's a somewhat rare occasion in that is possibly the only real aid I'll willingly grant to Derren S' case. If my memory Elminster's Daughter runs accurately, then simply admitting to being a thief is enough to get one punished. Doesn't matter whether you stole something in the city. Notably, this law is probably NOT universal or even that common and can only be confirmed within Waterdeep. However, it sets a precedent in at least one city of Faerun where the boundaries of jurisdiction are somewhat blurred which limits arguments on that subject slightly. Of course, I'm not betting that most of Waterdeep's justice is handled by Tyrran priests but the point is there.
Xaean 05-08-06, 03:16 AM	I think the orc situation partly depends on the regional background. A Tyrran priest in Thesk will likely know, that there are orcs that are not simply marauding monsters. In the North proof of such orcs has yet to be made and the orcs are unlikely to live long enough to make their accusations. Killing a unicorn or metallic dragon will earn the killer a quick death sentence, if clear evidence of his guilt is brought up - and if he is not killed by angry mobs first. In the case of red dragons it's likely that an adult red dragon has already done enough damage that killing him is seen as justified before the law.
kintire 05-08-06, 06:53 AM	Yes, but believing that some one is hostile because they are an Orc is not racism, any more than shooting down an aircraft pilot because he is Japanese was racist in 1944. And to expand your example yes, that is racist. Or what you would call to shoot down a civilian aircraft in USA airspace only because it was piloted by a japanese and you had no proof that the pilot had any malicious intends. That is racist and translated in D&D terms evil. jeeze louise thats a terriable comparison. seriously, even compareing Japanese folks to Orc si out and out INSULTING to anyone whose Japanese. let's look at the differances. 1: the Japanese do not worship an evil deity who encourages them to slaughter every non-Japanese. 2: the Japanese aren't effectivly at WAR with well.. EVERYBODY. 3: the Japanese aren't notorious for large hoards descending on innocent settlements destroying entire civilizations.. You miss the point. In 1943 Japan was in a state of declared war against the Allies. If confronted by a Japanese aircraft, you didn't need any proof that it had any short term malicious intent; it is the asset of a nation which you are at open war with, and is a legitimate target. Its not racism at all; "Japanese" has a relevantly different meaning from, say "American", in that you are at war with one and not the other. It is a difference based on ethnicity, but it is a legitimate one. Orcs are in a similar position. The deity they follow, Gruumsh, has ordered them to destroy or enslave all other races and take over the world. They are, therefore, at open and declared war with all other races, and killing them is a legitimate act of war. Of course, obvious non combatants or individuals who have abandoned this crusade are an exception, but if a group of adventurers sees a group of adult armed Orcs they are fully entitled to treat them as enemy combatants, and killing them is not murder. If the priest of Tyr is presented with an accusation of it, then it is a worst a case of mistaken identity (if the orcs weren't Gruumsh worshippers that is).
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-08-06, 07:57 AM	I agree on the above but incase of inviduality and Tyr being aware of the invidual orc's activities and knowing they are not a threat thanks year sof peace he will accuse adventurers from murder because orcs distantly follows the community laws (obviously, any non-lawfull orc Tyr priest would not respect because law breakers are put unto death or punished) and follow them generally while orcs had stayed in town (same can be applied to Unicorn who respects at least some laws or respects the community). But like it was said, in north there is no such thing as civilsized orc even knowed to be even possible if magic is not involved. So scenario is unlikely in north because orcs do not get even chance create peacefull bond in north because local villagers would hunt them down faster than you cna spell 'orc'. Red Dragon other hand is same like Tyr priest dealing whit demons, no law should ever put protect demon because it is against Tyr's alignment (and even trough his doghma says so there is difference of 'sentient being' and 'sentient being from another plane') and any sensible priest knows that demons are not up no good ever. Same goes to Red Dragons who have been listed as 'always CE'. Dealings whit more lawfull dragon is possible and Tyr priest would put adventurers into trial for assaulting any lawfull dragon (including LE) but any non-good chaotic dragons Tyr priest would not likely defend because it does not serve any 'generall good nor wellfare'. Neutrals thena gain is more case by case basis, but not treated as anysort of standard. Also of course Tyr priest's own race determines the reaction. Elf Tyr priest (yes I know, near impossible) would never make trial for adventurers who killed few orcs and same goes to dwarf vs goblinoids/giants case. Humans would have the most strongest struggles and most potential follow Tyr's doghma in situations where others would not follow the laws exactly waht they are said to be.
Derren S. 05-08-06, 10:40 AM	You miss the point. In 1943 Japan was in a state of declared war against the Allies. If confronted by a Japanese aircraft, you didn't need any proof that it had any short term malicious intent; it is the asset of a nation which you are at open war with, and is a legitimate target. Its not racism at all; "Japanese" has a relevantly different meaning from, say "American", in that you are at war with one and not the other. It is a difference based on ethnicity, but it is a legitimate one. So? Is it also legitimate to shoot down civilian planes from an US airline in US airspace because it is flown by a japanese pilot who emigrated 10 years ago? Or when you encounter a japanese aircraft in neutral airspace? According to your (and many others) argumentation it is. Japanese -> at war with -> kill without second thoughts.
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-08-06, 11:48 AM	I think they use the example because you must 'move back in time' mentally to live in those times when Japan was in war whit America (and not live in nowadays standards). But if you want fresher example, let's take the America vs Terrorists. If you see terrorist flying in neutral airspace and you are American or any country who fights against terrorists, you have country obligations at least report the presence of the plane and most countries would shoot it down (despite it is in neutral airspace) or try capture the terrorist alive for trial. Anycase in present day civilian aircraft in legal airspace whit all legal licenses to do so are allowed to fly despite nationality but at moment any person from same land where has been strong terrorist activity is watched and some cases subletly moved away from plane controls whit payed vaccation. This is racism yes but our world is not perfect nor is Faerun even tough Faerun haves storng ideals whcih are even supported by divine entity. So to your questions there is no universal answer, it is matter of invidual areas and invidual Tyr followers to resolve do they allow orcs get trial for murders or not. Anycase if there are adventurers who attack bow armed orcs (whoa re really emr ehunters and trappers) whitout orcs provoking them then if other orcs capture them and send to them into tiral, most non-elf Tyr follower would put adventurers into trial and give punishment according the law but it is likely never a death penalty because Tyr preaches for good willing and productive justice than cold hearted justice more likely (so certain amount of forced labour, some amount coins payed to orcs or banishment from village's region are possible).
Derren S. 05-08-06, 01:11 PM	Your terrorist example is flawed. Beeing a terrorist is not a racial or national feature. Its a membership in a group and having specific intention and such not applicable here. A better example would be someone from Iran. Would you shoot everyone who comes from Iran you meet because he might be a terrorist?
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-09-06, 06:58 AM	Well, Americans HAVE captured innocent Iran related folk (even folk who do not live regularly in Iran but share same etnic groups) into their prisons and hold them still there (saw the document not long time ago) still there against their will and despite American goverment have publicly announced them not be guilty for the crimes what Al Qaida had done (but shooting down a Iran plane down whitout provocation is crime but even if such plane would be allowed into airspace then it iscarefully watched). But anycase one good examples for 'non-reconized' racism is black slaves about hundreds years ago. Even today there is scars from that period but long time blacks were treated as 'inferior' humans even by academics and people STRONGLY believed (note; Believed, not desired) that blakc people were inferior race and slave human race. It tkaed years to remove many myths regarding 'inferiority' but then it taked dozens of years of removal of these slave laws and give privilegdes to black people becuase social standards were set to this mind set. In case of orcs the case would never improve massive scale if orcs themselves would not change in massive generall (and this woould mean change in Gruumsh doghma) scale. So most villages and towns would not allow orcs live as neighborsh if the village or town in question is too weak drive them away or too scared to act. Only years of such peace would create bond between humans and orcs, in Thesk people there were FORCED to live alongside of orcs and only thanks this communion Thesk folk accepted orcs and orcs learned that they do not need rob and pillage Thesk to live there. So Northern Faerunians can be very racist while more southern folk COULD be toleratable but at now humans nor elves like orcs generally but there are ALWAYS expections to this rule and evne then humans rarely do trust orcs (expections are certain npc's and PC's of course and adventurers). In case of elves elves never accept orcs thanks religious and background raising reasons. Try accept that Tyr is not blind to Gruumsh doings, so he advices his followers use plain common sense or wisdom when these cases do occur. There ARE half-orc paladins of Tyr as shwon that no orc blooded people ar enot brutes but orcs generally are more beyond of any redemption and worth to be noticed by laws because Tyr does not respect Gruumsh nor Gruumsh him because serious doghma and alignment issues. But Tyr allows expections to exchists, so if orcs are killed in Thesk (and there orcs tend to follow human pantheon or Bane thanks Zhents influence) so orcs deserve trials there definently and some parts of Faerun some tribes do not follow Gruumsh but follow other deity. So in these INVIDUAL cases Tyr preist/paladin will ask a trial to the adventurers for killing a sentient beings but same Tyr priest/paladin would refuse accept followers of Gruumsh (and whole orc pantheon) as sentient beings or 'worthy' to have a trial in first place.
Derren S. 05-09-06, 11:12 AM	So now it is a religious issue? Worship the right gods and you deserve basic rights, worship the wrong one and you may be killed on sight?
BrianCritchley 05-09-06, 12:44 PM	So now it is a religious issue? Worship the right gods and you deserve basic rights, worship the wrong one and you may be killed on sight? to a degree, but it's not religous discrimination when the deities in question really are nasty. this isn't a case of discriminating because you dislike their religon, it's a matter of "these peoples gods are telling em to kill me! Belive me, if I found out my neighbors was a member of some sect that said "kill the non-beliver men, use their women for breeding fodder! conquer the world!" I sure as heck would NOT want em to be a neighbor and would be quite happy to see em driven outta town.
Derren S. 05-09-06, 02:03 PM	And how are the "good" gods any better when they would let you kill every ork you see?
GothicDan 05-09-06, 02:30 PM	Because 99% of said orcs are evil and directly dangerous to a large number of living beings. This is a fantasy world - alignment is indeed often an inborn trait of a race.
Derren S. 05-09-06, 03:35 PM	Actually a lot more orcs are not evil then 1%. Orcs are only often CE, that means only 40-50% of these orcs are that way. That means that there are a lot of orcs who are not evil (CN is only 1 step away). And would someone good really take the chance to condem an idividual only because the steretype his race has? (Hello racism).
BrianCritchley 05-10-06, 02:58 AM	yeah only 40-50% of orcs are CE, however odds are the remaining 50% are NE, LE and maybe CN.
kintire 05-10-06, 05:30 AM	So? Is it also legitimate to shoot down civilian planes from an US airline in US airspace because it is flown by a japanese pilot who emigrated 10 years ago? Now you're being silly. It is obviously not acceptable to shoot down a plane on your own side, and someone who has emigrated from Japan is no longer Japanese. Or when you encounter a japanese aircraft in neutral airspace? Absolutely. Subject, of course, to any agreement your government may have with the neutral owner of that airspace, but even then your offence is trespass against the airspace owner, not murder. According to your (and many others) argumentation it is. Japanese -> at war with -> kill without second thoughts. I believe you have the definition of "war" pretty much surrounded. Your terrorist example is flawed. Beeing a terrorist is not a racial or national feature. Its a membership in a group and having specific intention and such not applicable here. It is exactly analogous. being an Orc is also membership in a group and having a specific intention. Gruumsh has mandated the destruction or subjugation of all other races on ALL ORCS. Except for those few who have abandoned their race's central culture (emigrated, if you like) all Orcs are comitted to this war, and are legitimate targets (with appropriate modification for noncombatants)
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-10-06, 08:34 AM	Actually a lot more orcs are not evil then 1%. Orcs are only often CE, that means only 40-50% of these orcs are that way. That means that there are a lot of orcs who are not evil (CN is only 1 step away). And would someone good really take the chance to condem an idividual only because the steretype his race has? (Hello racism). Yes, Corellon taches kill orc son sight and same gos to drow but thanks examples set by Drizzt and Eilistraeens elves are more precautioned kill drows on sight and rather capture, then see is the drow follower of Eilistrae, if not, then it is plain execution which is treated as act of war. You try put some RL policies into fantasy setting and in most cases it does not work when we start talk about laws, policies etc. Deities are real living entities in the Faerun, not mere distant ideals. So treat Gruumsh as Osama Bin Laden and rest of the world as united nations vs terrorism. Also do not ask me who MAY be George W Bush in Faerun in deitic wise....but it is not Corellon surely!
Chosen of Bane 05-10-06, 09:17 AM	These real life analogies are absolutely ridiculous.
GothicDan 05-10-06, 10:21 AM	Warning: Sarcasm ahead! Racial profiling in a fantasy game? Never!
Derren S. 05-10-06, 11:09 AM	Now you're being silly. It is obviously not acceptable to shoot down a plane on your own side, and someone who has emigrated from Japan is no longer Japanese. Someone born in japan with japanese heritage stays japanese no matter where he lives. And an orc who doesn't live up to your expectation of CE babarians (which only 40-50% of all orcs fit in) doesn't has the "luck" of spontaneously becoming a different race. he stays an orc. I believe you have the definition of "war" pretty much surrounded. Ah, so when the US was at war with the iraq it was the right, no, even the duty of every american citizen to kill every iraqi he meet, even if it was a 16 year old going to school in the US and every US soldier in iraq is a traitor because he didn't kill every civilian he encountered? It is exactly analogous. being an Orc is also membership in a group and having a specific intention. Gruumsh has mandated the destruction or subjugation of all other races on ALL ORCS. Except for those few who have abandoned their race's central culture (emigrated, if you like) all Orcs are comitted to this war, and are legitimate targets (with appropriate modification for noncombatants) No, beeing an orc is not like a membership in an organisation. Orcs don't choose to be an orc nor do they act all the same even if they follow Gruumsh and not one of the other orc gods. So unless you kill everyone who worships an evil god this is extremly hypocrite.
BrianCritchley 05-10-06, 04:46 PM	except the other orc gods all serve gruumish.
GothicDan 05-10-06, 05:14 PM	There is NO human civlization or nation that was as wholly dangerous to another, on a person-for-person basis, as Orcs are to Humans. That's the difference. Even during WWII, the majority of civilians would not kill the enemies on sight. There's really no such thing as a "civilian" orc - they are all effectively soldiers. Because that's how Gruumsh and the rest of the Orcish pantheon has shaped them since their inception. Look at the LotR movie for a (rough) idea of what orcs are like.
Xaean 05-10-06, 07:25 PM	I agree - no war in the history of the real world was ever a conflict between good and evil. A country may be ruled by the most cruel tyrant but this does not make it's citizens monsters - they are no more likely to be evil than people born in a benevolent democracy. Real life and fantasy should not confused - hating orcs doesn't make players racists in real life after all ;)
Derren S. 05-11-06, 01:25 AM	I agree - no war in the history of the real world was ever a conflict between good and evil. A country may be ruled by the most cruel tyrant but this does not make it's citizens monsters - they are no more likely to be evil than people born in a benevolent democracy. Real life and fantasy should not confused - hating orcs doesn't make players racists in real life after all ;) And only 40-50% of all orcs are CE too. That means that there is a good chance that every 5th orc you meet (20%) is CN, but people here seem to activly forget thise otherwise their nice "every orc is a evil monster and has to be killed" theories don't work anymore.
BrianCritchley 05-11-06, 01:43 AM	And only 40-50% of all orcs are CE too. That means that there is a good chance that every 5th orc you meet (20%) is CN, but people here seem to activly forget thise otherwise their nice "every orc is a evil monster and has to be killed" theories don't work anymore. yes but that orc is proably still trying to kill you, he just won't torture you for fun first
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-11-06, 08:33 AM	There is reason why Eye of gruumsh, a fanatical figther of Gruumsh, can be CE, NE or CN. CN orc does not change in beliefs much when compared to NE and CE, he more likely leaves human kids alone but still would rape their mother if he is horny when he raids their home and kills their father :P. So, it si actually 40-50% ar etruly evil, then 70-80% orcs are unsuitable to fit to human society adn are generall trouble shooters. So it is more each eight orc can be a good or enough neutral and have brains to think he could live peacefully fi he would not have orc society pressure on him doing war. Also think a moment that Drizzt Do'Urden examply is still good person despite he killed orcs on sight, same goes giants, trolls etc but he speaked for goblinoids becuase he knows these beings COULD live peacefully whit humans and have good enough thinking capacity to be civilsized. Orcs have heavy pens on charisma and int, so orcs cannot most cases reasoned whit and they do not bother to reason and humans have no patience and elves have religious reasons hate and kill orcs and same goes to dwarves. Do not think we are simple minded gamers who like a simple rulign that orcs must be kileld on sight, we think REALISTICALLY hwo things work in fantasy world and fatasy world ahves different physicall laws, so try understand reason why orcs are hated and why scenarions of the trials are rare. It would be egually rare as in RL dolphin asking trial to fisherman (using somesort advanced technology to speak or evolve able form words) who killed her young accidentally in their nets in that part of the sea (about all way to the home coast of fisherman). This is fantasy based racism yes and orcs are thinked more in level of animals in emotion wise by common Faerunians when they kill orcs ("They are not sentient beings, they are mosnters!"). They do not THINK them as humanoids and only truly priest of Tyr would ONLY think that view about the orcs. In same way Nazis killed Juwes in germany, they simply used some psykologicall barrier to prevent 'feel' compassion for Juwes and created illussions to be able kill them such grand numbers in the death camps. I know I pull quite extreme examples but you can imagine a shock of party members if they are but on Trial by Tyr priest for killing a peacefull behaving orcs, the adventurers do not have ever thinked orcs would ahve such rights! Of course I do not speak of PC controlled adventurers, generally adventurers are after for money and loot and they think orcs only as threat because most of their careers they had killed numerous orcs and no one had before them put on trial for them and whit good reason they have not placed on trial.
kintire 05-11-06, 10:34 AM	Someone born in japan with japanese heritage stays japanese no matter where he lives. And an orc who doesn't live up to your expectation of CE babarians (which only 40-50% of all orcs fit in) doesn't has the "luck" of spontaneously becoming a different race. he stays an orc. He ceases to be a citizen of the state of Japan, and hence isn't covered by declarations of war against that state. And you clearly don't understand my expectations very well! I don't care if the orc is CE, NE, CN or BO, the question is, is it currently engaged in armed hostilities against my race/nation/people? And the answer is, Yes. Of course, if he isn't, like in Thesk, then thats fine. Ah, so when the US was at war with the iraq it was the right, no, even the duty of every american citizen to kill every iraqi he meet, even if it was a 16 year old going to school in the US and every US soldier in iraq is a traitor because he didn't kill every civilian he encountered? Its good when I can just repost. Saves work. and are legitimate targets (with appropriate modification for noncombatants) However, if that 16 year old was walking innocently past a tank position, or even something that had been misidentified as a tank position, and was killed when the position was hit, thats a tragedy, but it isn't murder. Orcs don't choose to be an orc nor do they act all the same even if they follow Gruumsh and not one of the other orc gods. They don't, but they do choose to join Gruumsh's war or not. So unless you kill everyone who worships an evil god this is extremly hypocrite. Why? my criterion is "are they at war with us?" not "are they evil?". If there is a human worshipper of a god that has an ongoing war against everyone else, then they get whacked as fast as the Orcs do, if that's any comfort!
GothicDan 05-11-06, 01:33 PM	And only 40-50% of all orcs are CE too. That means that there is a good chance that every 5th orc you meet (20%) is CN, but people here seem to activly forget thise otherwise their nice "every orc is a evil monster and has to be killed" theories don't work anymore. Too bad in FR this doesn't hold true, for all intensive purposes. You know why this is true? Because then FR wouldn't operate like it does. And that's how it operates - so the above, in FR, is false. And, that being said, even a CN individual is highly dangerous to society. These aren't OUR theories. This is how FR works. If you don't like it, change it. In FR, Orcs have historically been more destructive on a wholescale than their alignment in the core books would suggest - you hear numerous encounters of raiding orc hordes, from the days of the Elves, to early Netheril, to Cormanthyr, to the modern Drizzt novels. Even Obould is CE. The Orcs of FR are Evil, far more than 40-50% of the time. You can backup your opinion with "facts" from books as much as you want, but those facts don't mean anything if they aren't backed up by the lore of the setting itself. If you believe in these "facts" and rules so much, then there are many, many things about FR that you are going to disagree with. And you're not going to find many people here agreeing with you, because the majority of those most knowledgable about FR (those who are posting on such threads) care more ab out lore than rules.
Derren S. 05-11-06, 01:39 PM	Do not think we are simple minded gamers who like a simple rulign that orcs must be kileld on sight, we think REALISTICALLY hwo things work in fantasy world and fatasy world ahves different physicall laws, so try understand reason why orcs are hated and why scenarions of the trials are rare. It would be egually rare as in RL dolphin asking trial to fisherman (using somesort advanced technology to speak or evolve able form words) who killed her young accidentally in their nets in that part of the sea (about all way to the home coast of fisherman). Yes, but you forget the mystical laws, more specifically alignment. You examples are all true for neutral people but not for people with good alignment. Read the alignment section and the BoED. Good people can't and won't judge people by its race and so it doesn't matter for them if 99% of all orcs are evil murderers, they can't take the risk to kill one of the 1% of the orcs who live peacefully, especially not when the orcs come peacfully to them and seek a justice from a cleric from the god of justice. He ceases to be a citizen of the state of Japan, and hence isn't covered by declarations of war against that state. But we are not talking about citicenship but about heritage and you can't loose that. he will always look japanese and does that allow anyone to kill him? Its good when I can just repost. Saves work. And what exactly makes orcs who come peacfully to a village to speak with a cleric about legal matters combatants? Why? my criterion is "are they at war with us?" not "are they evil?". If there is a human worshipper of a god that has an ongoing war against everyone else, then they get whacked as fast as the Orcs do, if that's any comfort! Bane is at war with everyone as is cyric and shar. So can all worshippers of these deities be killed on the spot? And how do you know if the tribe the orc come from really is at war with you?
GothicDan 05-11-06, 01:48 PM	Alignment is a guide, not a law. Also: Bane is at war with everyone as is cyric and shar. So can all worshippers of these deities be killed on the spot? And how do you know if the tribe the orc come from really is at war with you? In most countries, yes. The worship of said deities is utterly banned. One may pay a few words of worship to the deities, as they rule portfolios which govern parts of their lives, but they cannot function as clerics, zealots, or actual lay worshippers of the faiths.
BrianCritchley 05-11-06, 08:46 PM	to build upon what GD said earlier. just about every civilization in northern faerun that is dead save nethril was destroyed by Orc Hoardes. Thus orcs aren't seen as people, but evil blood theirty savages who are avatars of the apoclypse.
Another Gnome 05-12-06, 04:07 AM	Good people can't and won't judge people by its race and so it doesn't matter for them if 99% of all orcs are evil murderers, they can't take the risk to kill one of the 1% of the orcs who live peacefully Good people can do whatever they please. What effect it has on their alignment is another matter, yet even a paladin could torture someone and the only immediate effect it would have on him would be the loss of his powers; alignment doesn't make sudden shifts except through magical influence or truly extreme actions. No, torture wouldn't count as extreme, and the commonfolk of Faerūn does that to criminals all the time. It's certainly evil, but not noteworthy on overall alignment over short term, and in comparison the significance of mere racistic attitudes would be virtually nonexistent.
Thelin_Winterstrom 05-12-06, 05:26 AM	The most important thing to remember here is that this is a low-tech environment. They still use crossbows, horses to pull wagons, cooking fires... etc etc etc. The point being that the world, while very developed in years, has not developed today's behavioral psychology. A 'good' person will do good things, an 'evil' person will do good things. Don't always base alignment restrictions on actions or situations. Look at the personality's involved. Paladin: The law is just, you shall pay. The law is unjust, we must deliberate Rogue : Well, it seems to me like there are two sides to this, which do you want (read: pay) me to be on? Fighter : Hmm.. let me think (where's the mage?) Well, what were your intentions? Adventure? Fight the forces of opposing views? Cleric : Everyone has the right to live and serve their views. Impede mine and I would react in my disposition as seen by my faith. Everyone has a veiwpoint, but really...in a world that is in constant conflict, they don't have enough time to get over prejudice and so the general outcome should almost always be the same. Evil = Evil Good = Good Both are self serving and self defeating. So it will always fall to be a judgement of an individual.
kintire 05-12-06, 07:01 AM	they can't take the risk to kill one of the 1% of the orcs who live peacefully, especially not when the orcs come peacfully to them and seek a justice from a cleric from the god of justice. You are shifting your ground. Certainly, the orcs who are approaching the town to negotiate should not be killed: I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question is, are the adventurers they are bringing in guilty of murder? and the answer to that is still no. But we are not talking about citicenship but about heritage and you can't loose that. he will always look japanese and does that allow anyone to kill him? No. YOU are talking about heritage, because you have decided that Faerun is racist. I am pointing out that orcs a being killed not because of racism but because of a declared war. A war, what's more, that the orcs have declared. It is justified to kill orcs because the adventurers are at open war with the orcish people. It was justified to kill citizens of Japan in 1944 because we were at open war with the state of Japan. It was not justified to kill americans of Japanese ethnicity because they are not citizens of Japan, and the declaration of war covered the state, not the race. And what exactly makes orcs who come peacfully to a village to speak with a cleric about legal matters combatants? Nothing, as long as they observe the parley. Bane is at war with everyone as is cyric and shar. So can all worshippers of these deities be killed on the spot? Active worshippers: Absolutely! See GothicDan for details. how do you know if the tribe the orc come from really is at war with you? The war has been declared by Gruumsh, who is followed directly or indirectly by every Orc, with a very few well known exceptions. And the exceptions know to make it very clear that they ARE exceptions! Its just not a tribe by tribe matter.
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-12-06, 05:10 PM	I also note that altough core rulebook or other books say otherwise, most paladins do not take account 1% chance when killing most monsters what they encounter. Would paladin halt for a second when he faces devil/demon? For because he heard once in bard's legend there was ONE neutral devil/demon in the tale? Heck no! Also most paladins would not know there is 1% marginal chance there would be good orc among the orcs who is different. You can call it ignorance but good orcs ARE rare inviduals and are expections and especially do not make much noise of themselves most cases thanks that most other races want kill them. So it is reasonable to quess that paladins do not lose their pwoers thanks for not knowing the orc what they killed could had been good, but if they knowed the orc was good and still did it, then it is a evil act in itself. But if you still think our view flawed, I would ask you drop Faerun setting altogether because Faerunians are racist, at least towards many inteligent humanoids which are ill-reputed.
GothicDan 05-12-06, 05:15 PM	This isn't even racism. This is species-ism - and it's part of evolution and nature to be wary and even aggressive towards other species.
Derren S. 05-12-06, 05:30 PM	Ah, so now its natural to kill everything which is different from you. I guess that means that orcs and kobolds are neutral in eality as they only follow their natural instinct to kill everything which is not of their race.
GothicDan 05-12-06, 05:39 PM	Consider yourself reported. Mainly because I don't appreciate being called a hardcore redneck (let's see, north-east, in college, and liberal - yeah, I'm a redneck), as I believe others do not. Discussing alignment is one thing. Generalizing alignment discussions to personally insulting the beliefs of others (especially when such insults display no actual knowledge of the differentiation between a poster's personal beliefs and those one's expressing in context of the game) is not appropriate. We cannot be racist towards races that do not exist, thus there is no way we can personally offend them. I'm done with this discussion now. More important things to do. Ta!
Derren S. 05-12-06, 05:42 PM	Consider yourself reported. Mainly because I don't appreciate being called a hardcore redneck (let's see, north-east, in college, and liberal - yeah, I'm a redneck), as I believe others do not. Yes, sorry. I was heated up du to an personal issue. I edited that comment out. You can still report me, I probably deserve it. I guess it si time to let this thread die anyway as nothing good seems to be coming from it anyway. In closing I summarize that I think that the good alignment and the desire for just laws for everyone should transcendent racial predjudice and the only deciding factor should be the individual and self awareness (int 3+) You say that even with the good alignment the differences of the races weights more then justice and that the well beeing of your own race is more important then the well beeing of other races especially when a large part of that race is hostile and that this determines how individuals of that race should/will be treated. I hope that is at least close to your actual opinion.
GothicDan 05-12-06, 05:58 PM	Since you apologized I figure I'll be amiable too. The point is, when the majority of a race is going to kill yours (FAR more than 40-50%, no matter WHAT it says in the Monstrous Manual - because that's the reality of it in FR; FR does NOT have the same basic rules as core, often), then you killing an orc on sight means that you truly believe that it is evil. If a Paladin kills 1 Neutral orc for every 50 evil ones that he slays, it may be a very, very tiny mote towards "evil" on the alignment scale, but all of the "good" points he gets for killing the evil ones ultimately makes up for it in the end. That's what our point is. And also, that Law and Good in FR do not mean the same as they do in core. For instance, it's perfectly acceptable for some Paladins to own Slaves. That's just the way it is in FR. The great grand scales of "good and evil" do not apply so much as "us versus them," culturally speaking. That's why a Good Wychlaran from Rasheman will kill all Red Wizards they find along their borders - whether they are Evil or Neutral.
Derren S. 05-12-06, 06:09 PM	Yes, but we are actually very far from the original question. The original question was (reformulated) how much the "just laws for everyone" idea of Tyr goes when confronted with other races. I am not so naive to think that the adventurers accused of trying to murder an orc (or unicorn, or dragon. Don't forget the other examples I made) would get a completly objective trial (if there was one at all) The Tyr cleric will probably do everything he can to give the adventurers every advantage and rule as mild as he can exactly because of the reasons you said. The question is if there would be a trial at all (I think yes because Tyrs dogma doesn't allow the cleric to simply dismiss the monsters) and what implications it would have when there was a i precedence for adventurers beeing trialed for tryring to kill an orc in the wilderness even if they were not found guilty (or were found guilty and punished with 10 hours social service or some other meaningless task). But lets take alignment out of this discussion. Imagine a Amethyst dragon (LN) brings some wannabe dragonslayers and charges them of attempted murder. What would happen? Will there be a trial? What would happen if they were not found guilty? What if they were?
Xaean 05-12-06, 08:17 PM	In the case of the Amethyst dragon: It's very unlikely that they are found innocent, if the dragon can somehow proof his accusations. They would almost certainly be put to death. It's commonly known that dragons are sentient beings and not just monsters - which people most likely forget about orcs. Orcs don't have to be evil - they are not undead or outsiders with the evil subtype after all; they have free will - though Gruumsh certainly wants them to be evil. But then again, a good orc is no less likely than an evil elf or dwarf - and nobody denies the existence of such individuals. I don't think killing evil orcs balances the killing of a neutral sentient being; though killing a neutral character in necessary self defense need not be seen as an evil act - it's simply a natural reaction to an attack. A priest of Tyr might try to organize a fair trial in the case of the orcs too (which Tyr would appreciate), but propably unsuccessful. Orcs are simply seen as monsters in most parts of Faerun. Some cultures have a different view of orcs however - e.g. in Thesk they live in peace with the human population. Killing an orc in Thesk might be punished as murder.
GothicDan 05-12-06, 10:45 PM	I would also note that Undead do not have to be Evil, and that unintelligent undead were in fact always neutral in 2E. The fact that they made Negative Energy evil is ridiculously idiotic. :) And note that unless said Amethyst Dragon was a recognized member of a given nation's law system, he/she would not be recognized as being able to have said nation's laws applied to him/her. :)
BrianCritchley 05-13-06, 01:27 AM	I would also note that Undead do not have to be Evil, and that unintelligent undead were in fact always neutral in 2E. The fact that they made Negative Energy evil is ridiculously idiotic. I've always figured it wasn't so much that they where literally evil but it's amatter of mechanics. as it makes sense that various holy items etc would have an effect on the undead.
Derren S. 05-13-06, 04:36 AM	And note that unless said Amethyst Dragon was a recognized member of a given nation's law system, he/she would not be recognized as being able to have said nation's laws applied to him/her. :) Yes, but look at page 2. We have already established (at least no one disagreed) that when someone kills an elf who comes from Evermeet and such is not a member of the nations law within the borders of a kingdom he would get punished. Replace "Elf from Evermeet" with heremit if you want. The situation is still the same as is the outcome. So what makes the dragon different?
GothicDan 05-13-06, 08:45 AM	That's not established - that's a person's opinion. There are different laws for different species, different cultures, different nations, etc. The laws of an entire world cannot be summed up as easily as that. Some would say that the Elf may have political immunity. Who would want to be enemies with Evermeet...?e
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 05-13-06, 12:18 PM	I would say that both the LN amethyst dragon and orcs get trial, but orcs case trial is more favoured towards adventurers and it is reverse in dragon issue. It is matter how people view the accused and accuser. Tyr priest/paladin cna hold fair as possible trial but if 99% of the public wants one decision over Tyr's, then the priest must then weight his decision as judge towards that (if we use that there are hand picked folk who shall eventually decide are the accused guilty or not and judge merely reads the decision and places the punishment) decision. So most cases orcs would not get adventurers punished but if dragonslayers are trying kill a neutral or good dragon then people would side more whit the dragon than cold blooded dragonslayers but if people ahd not BEFORE knew there is dragon around then it goes bit on puzzle but it depends how good speaker the dragonslayers and dragon haves. But if dragon speaks for himself and tells his case, then it is near certain dragon wins because we all know how charismatic speakers dragons can be :P. But I agree that any Tyr priest/paladin would hold trial if accuser (a +3 Inteligent being) comes town peacefully while bringin in accused. After all it reads that despite Int roll Orc nor half-orc cannot have Int 3 or less so they qualify as sentient beings.
Mirtek 05-13-06, 01:19 PM	to build upon what GD said earlier. just about every civilization in northern faerun that is dead save nethril was destroyed by Orc Hoardes. Thus orcs aren't seen as people, but evil blood theirty savages who are avatars of the apoclypse. Of course, that could have been the fault of these civilization who were actually the aggressors (not the victims) of these wars as they ruthlessly tried to push their borders into the lands that rightfully belonged to these orc hordes. :D The question is, are the adventurers they are bringing in guilty of murder? and the answer to that is still no. If they attacked first and the orcs only fought as selfdefense, then yes, they are. Dragon Magazine, issue 298, page 29 Adventurers who want to maintain their good alignments must always think before they smite. Just because the vast majority of orcs and bugbears, for example, tend to be evil, does not guarantee that any particular orc or bugbear deserves to be mercilessly cut down in the name of truth and virtue It was justified to kill citizens of Japan in 1944 because we were at open war with the state of Japan. So it is justified for the orcs to kill humans, because they are at open war with humanity. That measn orcs aren't evil for killing humans, because they have the right to kill humans. And note that unless said Amethyst Dragon was a recognized member of a given nation's law system, he/she would not be recognized as being able to have said nation's laws applied to him/her. So this dragon could go and steal and would be free of legal charges as said nations law don't apply to him? The truly difficult question: What if the dragon predates the nation by some centuries and the human civilzation that build their puny hamlets is actually trespassing on his rightful lands?
GothicDan 05-13-06, 01:31 PM	Justification has nothing to do with good or evil.
Derren S. 05-13-06, 03:45 PM	The truly difficult question: What if the dragon predates the nation by some centuries and the human civilzation that build their puny hamlets is actually trespassing on his rightful lands? Lol. That would be a very interesting question. It (almost?) good enought to make another thread up for that. Let me think about that...
GothicDan 05-13-06, 04:53 PM	Unless said claims are lawfully documented, than the priests of Tyr have no reason to respect them. They're Lawful.
Derren S. 05-13-06, 05:33 PM	Unless said claims are lawfully documented, than the priests of Tyr have no reason to respect them. They're Lawful. So? What lawful documents do the settlers have? Also in a world with lie discerning spells or even commune spells legal documents are rather overrated in such issues. (And yes, there are enough high level people in the realms to use such spells for such legal disputes)
GothicDan 05-13-06, 05:37 PM	I'm not going to discuss what is and isn't lawful - that's not the point of this thread, is it? Whatever the Tyristsconsider Lawful, they consider Lawful for their own Laws, obviously. I'm not a Tyrist, and the little bits we know about Tyr's dogma and laws aren't enough to conclude such a discussion. Tyrists probably have thousands of pages of laws that could deal with such protocols, and we're privy to none of them.
Derren S. 05-13-06, 05:41 PM	The only thing the cleric can argue in this case is when the settlers live on the land unchecked for a generation or so it becomes their land (as even a dragon should have noticed them by now and by doing nothing accepted that they live there). But if the people don't live that long on the land then I see nothing the cleric can do against the dragon taking his land back, at least not when he wants to stay lawfull.
Another Gnome 05-13-06, 06:01 PM	But if the people don't live that long on the land then I see nothing the cleric can do against the dragon taking his land back, at least not when he wants to stay lawfull. Well, if it's an evil dragon (as in, it looks like one), the cleric is also going to do nothing when the settlers promise the dragon's treasure hoard to the first group of adventurers showing up to kill the damn lizard. Unless he chooses to sell healing supplies to said adventurers. Now a special offer: three potions at the price of two! Come and get yours as long as the dragon... er... the stock lasts!
BrianCritchley 05-13-06, 09:36 PM	The only thing the cleric can argue in this case is when the settlers live on the land unchecked for a generation or so it becomes their land (as even a dragon should have noticed them by now and by doing nothing accepted that they live there). But if the people don't live that long on the land then I see nothing the cleric can do against the dragon taking his land back, at least not when he wants to stay lawfull. actually IIRC the exact number required is 20 years in modern courts. although this could vary in faerun. that being said Humans generally aren't gonna recknonize a dragon's ownership of the land because "they don't do anything" with it.
Mirtek 05-14-06, 11:06 AM	Justification has nothing to do with good or evil. Then why is justification used to prove that it's not evil to kill orcs in this thread? Well, if it's an evil dragon (as in, it looks like one), the cleric is also going to do nothing when the settlers promise the dragon's treasure hoard to the first group of adventurers showing up to kill the damn lizard. This makes the cleric of Tyr not better than a cleric of Cyric sendig an assassing to murder someone and steal his stuff that being said Humans generally aren't gonna recknonize a dragon's ownership of the land because "they don't do anything" with it. With other words: We are only good and just as long as there isn't something we could gain by being evil for a while. Same with these wilderness up in the north that the humans try to expand their empires into. To them it's just wilderness, but to the goblinoid tribes living their it's their empire. The humans are the invaders
GothicDan 05-14-06, 12:57 PM	So, Mirtek, it seems like you have a problem with the D&D alignment system altogether. :) One thing that Planescape seems to have taught us is that alignment is much more subjective than one is made to think (especially based off of the 3E products..).
Derren S. 05-14-06, 01:07 PM	So, Mirtek, it seems like you have a problem with the D&D alignment system altogether. :) Maybe the problem is not the alignment systems but your (and the others) attempts to justify this behaviour? This behaviour is perfectly fine for neutral people (which most people in FR are) but not for good people. The problem ist that you apparantly want to make everyone good which of course doesn't fi with the alignment system because they don't act like it. As we are talking about a good cleric of a good god we can't simply say that he would behave like normal people in the FR because his alignment is different. And thats why I have chosen him for this example. Tyr/good people won't simply gloss over some things like normal people.
GothicDan 05-14-06, 01:18 PM	I think that some people are being too strict as to the alignment system. FR was not made with the alignment system in mind, and it was not developed with it in mind for many, many years. :) It was made by Ed before the alignment system as he knew it existed. The alignment system of D&D is based in large part on the Elric Saga, in which alignment itself is shifting and malleable and Law versus Chaos, Good versus Evil, cannot be as easily identified as as some have been trying to do. Alignment, again, is not a straight jacket, but a guide line. If a person kills a Neutral Orc because he or she sincerely feels that said Orc is going to be dangerous to his or her family, I would personally rule this as a Good action, and I think in FR in general it would be seen as Good. Even Good people literally cannot care about everyone all the time. It's psychologically impossible.
Derren S. 05-14-06, 01:21 PM	That doesn't answer the question. It rather looks like you are dodging the question by saying that game rules don't apply.
GothicDan 05-14-06, 01:38 PM	I am. Because they don't. :) You can't ask a question about something that the topic doesn't apply to. I can't ask, "What's the square root of eggs?"
Xaean 05-14-06, 07:08 PM	The alignment system certainly doesn't provide the answer for each and every moral or ethical question in the multiverse - it's quite possible that even the gods disagree on what's good and evil sometimes. Tyr might say, orcs deserve a fair trial; Moradin would certainly disagree and say they should be slain on sight - both gods are LG, however. In such cases I'd say portfolio is more important than alignment. But unless the campaign is set in Thesk I still think that the orcs woulnd't even the chance to make their accusations - even if they tried to enter the city peacefully - the city guard would welcome them with swords and spears ready.
selunatic2397 05-15-06, 01:28 AM	Boy am I glad that I run a first edition AD&D game! In my games the orcs are evil...the heroes are good...and politically correct topics like this never rear up their heads. Most people play this game for the same reasons that anyone with a hobby does...to have FUN. This is such an unreal topic for a fantasy roleplaying game...I mean, orcs wanting to have adventurers tried for murder????? :confused: What's the next topic? How Calimshan should be compensated for all those slaves freed by the heroes??? Nevermind that they were rescuing their kidnapped friends...those were the slavers lawful property! What about that thief that the heroes caught picking their pocket and slapped around before tossing him in a cesspit? Prosecute them for assault, take all their property to compensate the thief for emotional damages. Come on people...we play this game to have fun! Leave "Papers And Paychecks" in the real world. This board is not the place for political correctness to show up...even as a faintly trollworthy subject :P
Another Gnome 05-15-06, 02:08 AM	Now, I agree with Mirty & Derren (and other people whose names I can't recall off-hand) about goodness, or rather I'm with them on this to disagree with Dan's take on it -- evil is evil no matter how you want to dress it up, and if that means Elminster would be doing evil left and right in D&D terms, that's a problem with Elminster, not the alignment system. Still, I also am strongly of the opinion that good people are far from infallible; adventuring is all about killing people and looting their corpses, and any adventurer thinking he's being a hero while doing his job is living in a serious case of self-denial. However, being good doesn't require you to be a hero: just like an evil person can be loving and caring to those close to him (the stereotypical mafia boss), a good person can be brutal and unforgiving to his enemies (like your average dwarf). As for the Tyrran effectively sending the adventurers to assassinate the dragon, yeah, that's what he'd be doing, and likely he wouldn't have any illusions about doing just that. And exactly what else could he do about it? Arresting the adventurers and an entire village would be suicidal to even try. No, he serves his church best by doing nothing, or better yet, by aiding the adventurers indirectly to increase the odds of not having to worry about the dragon seeking revenge later. Getting the dragon killed might make him uncomfortable due to his sense of duty, certainly, but the priest is not going to cry over something evil being destroyed -- as a good person, he'd more likely be only pleased with the outcome, and would have every right to be.
BrianCritchley 05-15-06, 03:45 AM	Boy am I glad that I run a first edition AD&D game! In my games the orcs are evil...the heroes are good...and politically correct topics like this never rear up their heads. now now let's not bring editions into this, but I agree here with the rest of your comment. this entire thread is basicly out of control sillyness. guys orcs are bad guys and no one will be convinced otherwise. and the odds of orcs peacefully marching a buncha adventurers to a human town demending they be put on trial for murder? LUDERCRIS. if an Orc tribe captures a buncha human adventurers what they'll do is KILL THE HUMANS. maybe if they are particularily civilized they'll give em a trial, they sure as heck aren't gonna march em to a nearby human town for justice. they'd implement their own. (and it'd be fair to do it. if I commit a crime in Australia I'd expect to be charged and sentenced for it In Australia, not have thw Australians march me back to Canada and politely ask canada to try me). The Orcs also would be justified in not expecting a fair trial in a human village. the fact is generally if a human sees an Orc they think "EVIL!" thats just the way things are in FR and just about every d&d setting out there. I dunno how the heck this can come up. I suppose we can blame the Drizzt books, which forced us to consider that some of the classic bad guys could be good. the depiction of Orcs as noble savages who just wanna be left alone by the humans in Warcraft 3 proably also didn't help (those who feel sympathy for the orcs in warcraft 3 kindly remember the orcs DID invade)
Another Gnome 05-15-06, 09:31 AM	Lok'tar ogar! :fight!:
GothicDan 05-15-06, 09:57 AM	How dare you disagree with me, Another Gnome! ;) Go Planescape!
Another Gnome 05-15-06, 03:34 PM	Go Planescape! I agree. And the further away, the better. :D
GothicDan 05-15-06, 03:40 PM	It's beyond me how anyone could not like Planescape... I feel as if I've lost my religion. :(
Mirtek 05-16-06, 05:30 PM	If a person kills a Neutral Orc because he or she sincerely feels that said Orc is going to be dangerous to his or her family, I would personally rule this as a Good action, and I think in FR in general it would be seen as Good. And if a neutral orc kills a good human because he knows that this human is going to kill him and his family, then it's an evil act because he's an orc?
GothicDan 05-16-06, 05:35 PM	No, then it's a Neutral or Good action.
Xaean 05-16-06, 09:09 PM	I'd say it's simply a natural reaction - self defense - neither good nor evil.
Derren S. 05-17-06, 01:11 AM	I'd say it's simply a natural reaction - self defense - neither good nor evil. Self defense even though non of the two is hostile or dangerous? A pretty lame excuse to murder someone. "Why did you kill farmer joe?" "I thought he was dangerous with his pitchfork and all so I blasted him with a desintegrate" "Ah, then it is ok. Clearly a form of self defense. I congratulate you for doing this good act."
GothicDan 05-17-06, 01:29 AM	The Orc was a threat; the human had learned from previous encounters with Orcs that they regularly try to harm his own being or that of his family. It's called psychological conditioning - which is natural. If an animal is hurt by humans all of its life, and it attacks a single good human who is trying to feed it, do you consider it "evil" for the animal to do that? At heart, humans are just animals.
Alac Luin 05-17-06, 01:48 AM	What's the next topic? How Calimshan should be compensated for all those slaves freed by the heroes??? Nevermind that they were rescuing their kidnapped friends...those were the slavers lawful property! Well, if the heros managed to get caught by the Calimshan authorities......
Derren S. 05-17-06, 10:30 AM	If an animal is hurt by humans all of its life, and it attacks a single good human who is trying to feed it, do you consider it "evil" for the animal to do that? At heart, humans are just animals. No, they aren't. Animals have an int <3 and can't comprehend alignment/morality. Humans can and thus they can't excuse their actions with "an animal would do it too".
GothicDan 05-17-06, 10:58 AM	Humans are still animals, regardless of what the mechanics say. To ignore that fact is to wholly interpret the human psychology incorrectly. If that's what 3E wants to do, than go ahead. I'm not going to do it, though.
kintire 05-31-06, 10:37 AM	The question is, are the adventurers they are bringing in guilty of murder? and the answer to that is still no. If they attacked first and the orcs only fought as selfdefense, then yes, they are. Dragon Magazine, issue 298, page 29 Adventurers who want to maintain their good alignments must always think before they smite. Just because the vast majority of orcs and bugbears, for example, tend to be evil, does not guarantee that any particular orc or bugbear deserves to be mercilessly cut down in the name of truth and virtue No, they are not. In FR, orcs are at war with other races; cutting down enemy combatants is not murder. And this isn't about "good alignments" its about Lawful Good, and how it responds to a legal challenge. So it is justified for the orcs to kill humans, because they are at open war with humanity. That measn orcs aren't evil for killing humans, because they have the right to kill humans. It is not "justified"... that depends on the justification for the war. It isn't murder. And indeed orcs aren't evil for killing humans, assuming they are combatants, but that doesn't mean they aren't evil for participating in an unjust war! However, while they may be comitting an act of evil, they are not comitting a crime. The truly difficult question: What if the dragon predates the nation by some centuries and the human civilzation that build their puny hamlets is actually trespassing on his rightful lands? Easy. If the dragon has a legitimate claim on the lands the Priest of Tyr is obliged to uphold it, although he may award compensation or some other arrangement, especially if the Dragon did not inform the humans of its rights in a timely manner. Then why is justification used to prove that it's not evil to kill orcs in this thread? I don't believe the OP said anything about whether or not it is evil. The question was, is it legal. The only thing the cleric can argue in this case is when the settlers live on the land unchecked for a generation or so it becomes their land (as even a dragon should have noticed them by now and by doing nothing accepted that they live there). But if the people don't live that long on the land then I see nothing the cleric can do against the dragon taking his land back, at least not when he wants to stay lawfull. Good summary! I'd say it's simply a natural reaction - self defense - neither good nor evil. Self defense even though non of the two is hostile or dangerous? A pretty lame excuse to murder someone. I believe you'll find that "genuinely thought he was a threat is included in the set up...