I am still on the fence as to weather I like the idea or not. How ever I do wish to share a bit of gameing history from my group. I hope others will post as to why there groups have or have not run into this as well.
OK, back in 3.x we had a rash of 'monster' races being played. We had PC kobolds, Orcs, Gnolls, and hobgoblins, teiflings...ect ect. When savage speices came out we had a few players go even more extreme. and it was fun.
However then came the game about 5 years ago where the problem finialy hit. I was a Hobgoblin Warblade...so don't think I am claiming not to be part of this problem comeing. The first 3 games of this campiagn was about a theives guild in town, and an undead problem. Then came game 4... Kobolds raiding a caravan. well we went to investigate, and another PC said we needed to hunt down the kobolds and get back what was stolen (Pretty straight forward plot) when we got there though it all went down hill.
Ok we got there and our first thoughts were "why did they attack the caravan" and the answer of 'duh there evil' didn't seam to fit anymore, espiesaly with a hobgoblin and kobold in the party. So we decided to try to talk it out instead. SO the DM ran with it, and we meet the cheif who had explained they need the supplies for there people (ok see this is where the slippery slope begain)...we negatiated a treaty with the local kobolds and the town... and the DM started having the kobolds as NPC...including a main NPC half dragon kobold sorrcerer.
So the next game focused on a bunch of demons and undead, and it is revaled there is a lich trying to soften up the town. readiing for an invasion (starting a hole story arch). The liches main force was a tribe of Orcs...guess what we had a problem with...
So we decided to talk to the orcs and try to change there sides...imaigne the combine defence of the local kobolds, our town, and the orcs...
Now my brother in law doesn't play alot, but he was in this game and he finaly asked "Wait...so what monsters are allowed to just be evil?" and we didn't have an answer. It was kinda fun to have allies, and rp, but at the end of the day who were the 'bad guys' had gotten much harder to tell.
Now at the time we didn't think this was a problem...heck we did get the orcs, and ogers (combined tribe) on our side. It was pretty fun...
the next game I ran I hit the wall though...becuse I had a tribe of evil goblins...and guess what all my PCs wanted to do...talk. One PC went so far as to say my 'they worship evil gods, and like killing and destroying' was unrealistic...the same problem with my CE Drow race...becuse they had to have logical reasons to be that way...
so what monsters are just monsters??? the answer none...how do I explain that some times monsters are just monsters...
for the record we got past it when we all agreed to stop trying to think to hard about why X is evil...but the problem all steamed from some pretty basic ideas...
They are EVIL, you may find one or two that arent that way but for the most part they are irredeamable.
I'm not seeing the problem. Look, maybe they just like that style better. Maybe their sensibilities have moved away from the Black and White morality of 'always chaotic evil'. Maybe the 'problem' is the the DM likewise is CLEARLY not ascribing to the 'all monsters are snarling, drooling characetures' model that used to be prominent in the game.
If you want to enforce a fight, you're going to have to be more nuanced in your DMing than 'they're green and we call them evil, so it's not just okay, but mandatory to murder them'. You'll have to play the sapient monsters (these groups of monsters, not ALL of them because 'always chaotic evil' will no longer fly) as fanatics or creatures with nothing left to lose -- or just jerks.
There are plenty of ways to make PCs want to kill things without falling back on the nonsensical old concepts that worked when we were teenagers in it for the hack.
Just as peace is made with the orcs, have a war-cry sound in the distance. The orcish chief goes pale.
'Our master has called the Black Scar Clan down upon us for our failure!'
'More orcs? We'll negotiate with them too!'
'No, you won't. They will **** you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skins into their clothing. Perhaps if the gods deem you fortunate, they will do it in that order.'
Hell, people don't have to be pure evil to be immune to negotiation. Zealotry of any kind, a deeply-held and shared anger, a pervasive sense of fear, even a proud refusal to accept any path but the one chosen, all of these and more will keep gray -- and even good -- foes from listening to reason. Just look at our world. If everyone could be negotiated with, if everyone could reach compromise, we wouldn't have the wars and conflicts that we do. Sometimes even perfectly rational people will be the enemy because what they need simply cannot be voluntarily accommodated by their adversaries. Often times, I should imagine, the necessary concessions simply won't be within the PCs' power to grant (and won't be in the interests of those who do have the power).
Negotiable and not-so-bad foes are a great thing to see once in a while, but without some 'we definitely kill these guys' to keep the moral compass from spinning, a lot of players can get tired or overwhelmed by the constant question of whether they should fight or not. Some players dig a game like that, and more power to them. It sounds like your group (or maybe just you?) would like to have a few more easy calls in their moral landscape, and that's all right too.
'Our master has called the Black Scar Clan down upon us for our failure!' 'More orcs? We'll negotiate with them too!' 'No, you won't. They will **** you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skins into their clothing. Perhaps if the gods deem you fortunate, they will do it in that order.'
I always thought that was Reavers, not Orcs ;)
Seriously though, I agree with everything MrCelsius said. Some humans just can't be negotiated with, so why would you expect to be able to negotiate with all monsters?
I actually think that when there are "evil races" being evil it is actually less interesting than having some baddies with real reasons to be the bad guys. These bad guys don't even need to be evil, one time when I took over DM duties I went more in depth into the neighbouring nation that is invading the PC's country. Sure this country had a bunch of "bad guys" in it, however it was no worse than the PC's home country (actually it was arguably better, similar to Rome invading everyone -> improving the new nations they conquer while removing backwater despots).
In conclusion, I don't think this is an issue at all. Sure having inherently evil races is easy, but it is also boring.
The problem was your gm doesn't know how to rp evil.
well the first DM was running with what the PCs were doing...I was the second one...
They are EVIL, you may find one or two that arent that way but for the most part they are irredeamable.
if there are 1 or 2 that are not, then they must still have a choice...and if there is a choice can't you show them X is better then Y becuse of Z...and then get them to change???
So... the problem is that the players roleplayed instead of taking the easy (murderful) way out?
no the problem is that it became the reverse...it was easier and safer to just talk our way through everything...and before it started defeating evil wasn't murderfu;l...
I'm not seeing the problem. Look, maybe they just like that style better.
the problem isn't that some one see one style as better, but once a campaing goes one style it feels cheap or wrong to go the other...even if you want to...why talk with this orc but not that one...
Maybe their sensibilities have moved away from the Black and White morality of 'always chaotic evil'. Maybe the 'problem' is the the DM likewise is CLEARLY not ascribing to the 'all monsters are snarling, drooling characetures' model that used to be prominent in the game.
or maybe too many shades of grey are getting in the way of our fun...remember this is not just 1 PC complaining...but when all of us realize that it was way harder...almost like real life...when we play to escape real life. when you have to go through all that the game stops being fun. see if you want grey that is fine, but if you start dow that road it can lead to borring games...
If you want to enforce a fight, you're going to have to be more nuanced in your DMing than 'they're green and we call them evil, so it's not just okay, but mandatory to murder them'.
why do I need to know why someone is evil?? isn't there evil good enough...especialy if they were just minons... se I understand fully tthinking out every 'major' NPC, but every singe orc and goblin doesn't need a back story...sometimes evil is just evil..
You'll have to play the sapient monsters (these groups of monsters, not ALL of them because 'always chaotic evil' will no longer fly) as fanatics or creatures with nothing left to lose -- or just jerks.
again great for some NPC but every monster???
There are plenty of ways to make PCs want to kill things without falling back on the nonsensical old concepts that worked when we were teenagers in it for the hack.
what ever...
I always find that evil is much more effective if it comes from unexpected quarters. For an example, in series 3 of Torchwood (which is about an alien not-quite-first contact situation), while the obvious threat is a bunch of aliens who get a buzz from the brain chemicals of children, the actual monsters are entirely human. It's made worse by the fact that the aliens aren't invading - they've come to extort rather than dominate, and once they have what they want, they'll go away.
In that vein, a tribe of orcs who comes down from the mountains, camps outside a city, and demands a tribute of slaves, not making any other offensive moves but just turning back anyone attempting to enter or leave the city until their demands are met, responding to diplomatic overtures with firm refusals and the hint of reprisals, would definitely push even the most diplomatic party to violence out of sheer frustration - much more effective than a tribe of marauders whose motivation is war for war's sake. When there's a definite reason for the evil, it's much more potent.
As another example, R.A. Salvatore's Hunter's Blades trilogy + The Orc King. King Obould Many-Arrows is, in 4e terms, Unaligned - but he wants real power and recognition by the civilized nations. To do that, he has to carve out a kingdom for himself with war and then use diplomacy to hold onto it. Because he is an orc with a purpose and a 'might makes right' moral compass, the supposedly 'good' people opposing him consider him far more evil than any simple warchief despite his presumably noble intentions, and are initially so prejudiced that they refuse to even consider what his true motivations might be - their preferred response is 'exterminate.'
RIIIGHT!
Some people are just evil bastards who need to be put down like rabid dogs.
That said, keep your monsters as monsters, not "alternative cultures". The PCs may play monster races, but unless you're running a "monster campaign", they need to have a reason why they don't act like the vast majority of their kind. Unless you have a reason to do otherwise, your monster NPCs should behave in the default "monster" mode. Goblins raid and maraud BECAUSE THEY'RE GOBLINS! They even waste cheese! Oh, those bastards!* Hobgoblins don't wage war on a village because they have to feed their families. They wage war on a village because they can!
Moral ambiguity can screw you up in real life, and it can absolutely destroy your game. I recommend having no part of it. Make your bad guys genuine bad guys and leave the debate to those who care about political correctness in a fantasy world.
When asked about such things in my game, I ascribe it to biological programming, chemical imbalances, or generations of conditioning from their own people. If pressed, I go into entire evolutionary histories, often made up off the top of my head. For example, when orcs are engaged in aggresive behavior, testosterone fires wildly, triggering an extremely aroused sexual urge. Anyone caught alive by a male orc is likely to get raped because the act of sexual domination is a manifestation of thoroughly defeating one's foe. To treat a captured warrior like a female is to reduce that person to a completely submissive status. The orcs in my game are extremely sexist, so a prisoner would be "reduced" to being a female. (I play with a mature group, so I can use this sort of thing without it devolving into a teenage horn-dog fest. Of course, if a PC gets taken alive, I find a reason not to force this sort of thing on them.)
*To get this reference you'd have to listen to the Dave Diamond Show, which I doubt any of you do. I apologize for the obscurity!
In the Fantasy Evil you have Demons who torture you for no reason, every Evil spellcaster wants to be a Lich Lord of the entire world and everyone not Human or a pretty race wants to kill you.
In the real world, where Real Evil exists, things aren't black and white. Orcs and Kobolds don't want to kill you because they were born to kill you but because they aren't as advantageous as you and want what you have without the work for it. Lichs still want to bring undeath through out the world but not every Evil wizard wants to be a meglomaniac Lich. Evil Mayors extort their populaces of millions of gold and Evil PCs are just greedy bastards who still want to be friends and go kill stuff with you. And most of all, your enemies can just as easily be Good because when two lines are drawn they aren't drawn between Good and Evil they are drawn between groups that have both.
Personally I've always used Real Evil in my campaigns.
Ever see that show with Andrew Zimmerman who goes around the world eating things from other cultures, well he has eaten some very strange stuff. I remember watching one episode and he went to South America I believe and they eat Guinea Pig like we eat chicken here. Now people from around here look at the Guinea Pig as a pet and may think that someone who eats one is sick, while over there someone who sees us as having one as a pet may think we are strange or sick as well.
Now this logic doesn't work with all creatures, there are some out there who are just down right evil and malicious.
What I think here is not an issue of "Watered Down" Evil but the fact that you're switching from Fantasy Evil into Real Evil.
I agree that is what the problem is in one...
Personally I've always used Real Evil in my campaigns.
We always (before the above problem) had NPCs of major influence, and PC races use 'real evil'...well monsters and minons where just that.
If I was runing a kobold tribe that worshiped a red dragon...then the kobolds would just be stat blocks, with maybe 1 or 2 being flesh out a little...but the dragon would be totaly fleshed out. the problem was somewhere along the road we realized that if we were fighting 30 kobolds what were the odds none of them could be talked to and reasoned with...
An evil mayor would be stated and have goals...his half or thugs not so much...
then sometime we would get hit with the 'why is the elf thig a thug" and would roll with it...but when people start thinking of the whole tribe of CE orcs as indviduals...sometimes it taked the fun awya, even if it is only in our heads...
No one in the party wants to play as treating savage races as sapient beings that can make moralistic decisions. And yet everyone in your group does it.
The problem is clearly twofold:
1) You and your group are maturing and don't want to admit it for whatever reason.
2) The DM isn't keeping up with this increased maturity by coming up with mature reasons for armed conflict.
There's no shame in expecting the game to be more thoughtful. I feel that it's to your credit that 'they're evil' is no longer enough for you. It was never a very good excuse to start with.
Take for instance trying to convince an invading army to go home or seek a peaceful solution. Possible but not very likely, especially in D&D where most races have the mandate of their god(s) to act in a particular fashion. So the PC's would have to convince the enemy solders that their society and religion where false. Seems like a bit of a stretch.
[...]so what monsters are just monsters??? the answer none...how do I explain that some times monsters are just monsters...
I wouldn't ever take the view that "monsters are just monsters" - that'd be unbelievably tedious for me as a DM or player. When I'm GMing I try and give my NPCs motivations, the closer to humans they are the easier it is. As soon as you label a race as "evil" or give it some moral absolute the game gets really boring and predictable and ends up sounding like some of the worst pulp fiction.
So don't think in terms of alignment except in the broadest strokes - just come up with a motivation for an NPCs actions and the rest falls out of the woodwork.
Cheers,
Ash
Let me get this straight:
No one in the party wants to play as treating savage races as sapient beings that can make moralistic decisions. And yet everyone in your group does it.
yea, it felt like we had to once we opened the door to X can be good, we felt our character would be the evil ones if we didn't try...but then it felt too much like real life...
The problem is clearly twofold:
1) You and your group are maturing and don't want to admit it for whatever reason.
great so playing the game is imature??? can you possible be more condecending??? becuse hunting evil orcs is badwrong fun right???
2) The DM isn't keeping up with this increased maturity by coming up with mature reasons for armed conflict.
so now our DMS (Including me) aren't mature...any other insults you want to throw around???
It appears that your group got the impression that there is a diplomatic solution to all problems and this was reinforced by the DM. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this situation, assuming everyone is happy with it, however it is not very realistic.
Take for instance trying to convince an invading army to go home or seek a peaceful solution. Possible but not very likely, especially in D&D where most races have the mandate of their god(s) to act in a particular fashion. So the PC's would have to convince the enemy solders that their society and religion where false. Seems like a bit of a stretch.
the thing is that we don't want to wast our time trying to do things that don't mean anything...we want to have monsters to fight and NPC to talk to...not every one needs to be both...
the thing is that we don't want to wast our time trying to do things that don't mean anything...we want to have monsters to fight and NPC to talk to...not every one needs to be both...
Technically, monsters are NPCs as well. but I digress.
This is why the DM should discuss the nature of the game with his players before anybody ever picks up a pencil. If your game is going to be 'monsters are monsters, kill them without consequence', then the players need to know that before they think up their characters and their backgrounds. If it's not so clear-cut, they need to know that before you play so they don't shoot first and ask questions never.
I wouldn't ever take the view that "monsters are just monsters" - that'd be unbelievably tedious for me as a DM or player. When I'm GMing I try and give my NPCs motivations, the closer to humans they are the easier it is. As soon as you label a race as "evil" or give it some moral absolute the game gets really boring and predictable and ends up sounding like some of the worst pulp fiction.
here is the thing...if I want to run a Red dragon who made a pact with a demon...and he has a tribe of kobolds that whorship him, and has taken control of a group orcs and ogers...who inturn bully the local goblins...
I have 1 Dragon
35 kobolds
17 Orcs
3 half oger/half orc
6 ogers
30 goblins
and of cource the demon the dragon made th pact with...
how many of those need to be NPCs compaird to monsters???
see I have noo problem with the Dragon, and the Orc cheif, and maybe 1 or 2 more being fleshout...but not all of them...
do you really take the time to make 93 seprate goals and persnalities??? I don't I make X number of monsters and Y number of NPC normaly where Y is lower then 10...
the thing is that we don't want to wast our time trying to do things that don't mean anything...we want to have monsters to fight and NPC to talk to...not every one needs to be both...
Now with this I 100% agree. If you walked around and fought everything that wasn't in your party then it would feel even more like a video game. Some creatures can be reasoned with and some cannot. Mixing the right amount of diplomacy and the right amount of combat is always good.
All of those henchmen (and hench-kobolds) may not be 100% pure bubbling evil but for whatever life reason they feel their lot is with the big bad evil. Some of them no doubt have a weak conviction and may second guess their decisions and can be used by the DM as a great plot device.
So how should the PC's react? It depends on party alignment. If the group is playing the super-saintly good folk of the world they really probably should try and at least offer the cannon fodder a chance to solve it peacefully. They can ask the kobolds to lay down their weapons, a generic "we don't have to do this!" line before battle. If the DM decides to add a turn coat in the group, he/she could speak up at this point. The rest of the kobolds should reply with a racial slur to humans and cry out the glory of their master and attack. Why? Because they, in their scaled little hearts, DO believe in their master.
There you go, both sides of the argument and play style are met. The "gray" NPC's will find the nonviolent solution and the "black" NPC's get to be standard monsters you kill with no moral qualms. Now if the group is full of chaotic neutral hot heads they don't even need to ask for peaceful solution, they just assume all monsters are monsters and start swinging.
What I think here is not an issue of "Watered Down" Evil but the fact that you're switching from Fantasy Evil into Real Evil.
In the Fantasy Evil you have Demons who torture you for no reason, every Evil spellcaster wants to be a Lich Lord of the entire world and everyone not Human or a pretty race wants to kill you.
In the real world, where Real Evil exists, things aren't black and white. Orcs and Kobolds don't want to kill you because they were born to kill you but because they aren't as advantageous as you and want what you have without the work for it. Lichs still want to bring undeath through out the world but not every Evil wizard wants to be a meglomaniac Lich. Evil Mayors extort their populaces of millions of gold and Evil PCs are just greedy bastards who still want to be friends and go kill stuff with you. And most of all, your enemies can just as easily be Good because when two lines are drawn they aren't drawn between Good and Evil they are drawn between groups that have both.
Personally I've always used Real Evil in my campaigns.
Orcs aren't humans with green skin and bad teeth.
Elves aren't humans with pointy ears.
We're talking about totally different races here. With different biologies and different urges and of course, different life expectancy.
Even if you were to put an Orc at birth within a human family and have him be raised with care and love - there's no guarantee he wouldn't turn out to be a sociopath anyway.
A tiger is a tiger... and while you may get him as a cub and do your best to raise him as dog... he'll always be a tiger. Who's to say the Orcs' rage and anger isn't hardcoded in their genetic code? Centuries of 'domestication' may well dull those instincts... but those orcs standing in front of you are the real deal.
For someone who insist so much on 'reality' and 'maturity'... you're basically dumbing down the 'evil' races into different human ethnicities. Than again, I suppose it's easier to fall back to the way things are in real life rather than trying to figure out how a world with many different sentient races would work out.
But that isn't realistic or mature.
When you play a game you have to suspend your disbelief. "So he time traveled back to kill Einstein and it caused a war?" , "So he's flying a jet that turns into a robot in out space?" , "So he wants to kill us because he got beat up as a little kid?"
Things don't always make sense in Fantasy and there are really only two ways to approach D&D. You can approach it Fantasy or you can approach ir Reality. What you as the DM need to decide is whether or not you're going to use Fantasy or Reality. If you are going to use Fantasy then it's simple, they are Evil because they ARE. If you are going to use Reality then you need to come up with some real reasons why they are Evil and those reasons are as often going to be as solid as the Fantasy reasons, simply more mature because they are real.
So if you want an irredemable conflict then look to the real world for motives. Land, water, trade routes, loot, bigotry, lust for power, etc. coupled with a bit of territorialism, nationalism, religious zealotry, racism, etc will easily provide not only sufficient motive for conflict but put it on a level that the PCs can't really do much about outside of beating the tar out of the opposing side.
Just to create a random example: The Orcs of the Malburg Mountains have increased in population over the last 2 centuries to the point where they are overcrowded and need to expand into Nextdooria in order to acquire new hunting grounds. They also have certain cultural traits, they habitually enslave humans and elves for use in their iron mines. Their religion, Grummsh worship, teaches that these races are weak and inferior. The priesthood of Grummsh feeds these ideas because it gives them power. The tribal warchiefs feed these ideas because it gives them an excuse to send their rivals down into the valley to get killed, etc.
The people of Nextdooria might theoretically negotiate with the Orcs, but the ruling class there also keeps power mainly by fear of the orcish threat, so it isn't in their interest to even consider peace either. Furthermore they really would like those iron mines for themselves since they now have to pay a lot of money to import the stuff from the dwarves 500 miles away.
Its pretty clear there is going to be war. It really doesn't even matter much if both sides are good or evil or what they are. The PCs are pawns of history and socioeconomics, they just fight the "evil orcs" and if they don't beat them, then their towns will be enslaved.
Of course you could get a lot deeper with the whole thing and maybe at higher tiers of play if you want to move in a more shades of grey direction you can explore the whole conflict more deeply and maybe the epic destiny of the party is to make peace between the two. Or you play your black and white style of game and the destiny of the party is to put the orcs heads on pikes and crush them. Neither path requires you to think of the orcs as just slavering evil any more than in the real world we need to think of our enemies that way.
Of course each side will probably depict the other as being depraved, evil, whatever.
Obviously its simpler to just have plain old evil monsters and not even go down that path, and that is just fine too. It is the simpler approach and I've seen games go the way you describe as well when the players began to wonder a bit too much about the world. For this reason I do give my conflicts some depth, that way they hold up reasonably well without a lot of need of rationalization.
However there is something to remember that an Orc is not a Tiger. It's very simple because Orcs have thumbs, Orcs create things from clay pottery to walls and crude jewerly. Orcs no matter how savage are simply an early civilization.
Those kobolds don't need to die 'cause they're kobolds'. They need to die because when you approached thier chief, he threw a childish fit, taking insult at everything you said and ordered his men to attack you.
Those orcs don't need to die 'because they're green and we're fantasy racists', they need to die because the dragon gave them a kill on sight order regarding adventurers.
That's... you know, how it works in real life. The game where you were able to peaceably talk your way through all conflict is the fantasy land.
I do agree how ever about the differences in genetics. I don't disagree that the Orcs will have specific instincts as a race, but so did humans before we created society.
However there is something to remember that an Orc is not a Tiger. It's very simple because Orcs have thumbs, Orcs create things from clay pottery to walls and crude jewerly. Orcs no matter how savage are simply an early civilization.
The first question you should ask you is - 'What makes race X different than humans?'
If your only answers are only physicals... than you have a very boring imagination.
If your answers are both physical and emotional/mental - then you need to remember that the emotional/mental differences are even more important than the physical ones. Your orcs shouldn't be able to get rid of their bloodthirst/rage/anger/whatever it is that makes them orcs anymore then they can get ride of their green skin and tusks (at least, not without centuries of re-conditioning and/or selective breeding).
This is a world where the gods are not only real, but meddles quite a bit.
What if in my setting, the Orcs are the creation/offspring of Grummsh? What if every last one of them has a tiny little spark of divine power in their heart... and that divine power is the hatred and rage of the god of destruction?
Yeah. They can work as a society... a brutish and violent one. They can make tools, they can build villages... but ultimately, it is in their nature to destroy and prey on those weaker than them.
And this is what makes them orcs. Not their skin or tusks, but the fact that deep down inside, they have a thirst for destruction.
But I guess that makes my setting immature right? >_>
So yeah... to use Ashland's last post - the fantasy setting is the one where a bunch of adventurers were able to talk some orcs out of their violent ways. The realistic one is the one where they had to kill them.
the next game I ran I hit the wall though...becuse I had a tribe of evil goblins...and guess what all my PCs wanted to do...talk. One PC went so far as to say my 'they worship evil gods, and like killing and destroying' was unrealistic...the same problem with my CE Drow race...becuse they had to have logical reasons to be that way...
so what monsters are just monsters??? the answer none...how do I explain that some times monsters are just monsters...
So your problem with monster races is that you let your players push you around? I think that is a very bad reason.
Every sapient entity you meet should be, in a perfect game, an 'NPC' in the sense that you can try and communicate with. This doesn't mean that they will listen.
Those kobolds don't need to die 'cause they're kobolds'. They need to die because when you approached thier chief, he threw a childish fit, taking insult at everything you said and ordered his men to attack you.
Those orcs don't need to die 'because they're green and we're fantasy racists', they need to die because the dragon gave them a kill on sight order regarding adventurers.
That's... you know, how it works in real life. The game where you were able to peaceably talk your way through all conflict is the fantasy land.
This. Ascribing motivation beyond 'We're evil! Raaar!' is great, but making everything reasonable and willing to compromise is the far opposite end of the spectrum and just as ridiculous.
Orcs aren't humans with green skin and bad teeth.
No, but they're as intelligent as humans and look pretty capable of using technology. Comparing them to any other species currently on Earth which are nowhere near as intelligent is doing them a huge disservice. Show me that the majority of Tigers that can make weapons and armour, can use weapons and talk coherrently and I might believe your argument.
once you look too deep into grey you realize there is no white and there is no black...
So the kobold cheif ordered them to attack us...ok
lets say it is an encoutner of
12 minons, and 1 elite, and 2 regular monster (Equivalant of 7 monsters) the elite is the kobold cheif... so as a PC do we knock out the minons (Call non leathal) and regular kobolds, kill the elite (The chief) then negatiate with someone mor calm?? If we just kill them aren't we just being prejudice, after all they are only following orders... after all skippy the kobold is a good kobold, some of these might be too if given the chance...
So your problem with monster races is that you let your players push you around? I think that is a very bad reason.
yes, that must be it...I messed up and when my players said they were un happy should have said "TOO BAD I AM THE DM SO WHAT I SAY GOES...HA HA HA!!" as apposed to saying "Why what doesn't feel right?" and them get into an hour long discussion on why if they can be good how can it be ok to be good and still fight them...and if they are evil then why are they evil...it was a choice so should'nt the good guys help them see the error of there ways...or atleast show them how they can reatch there goals through compramize...
No, but they're as intelligent as humans and look pretty capable of using technology. Comparing them to any other species currently on Earth which are nowhere near as intelligent is doing them a huge disservice. Show me that the majority of Tigers that can make weapons and armour, can use weapons and talk coherrently and I might believe your argument.
did you ever wonder shy they are monsters...the whole point of them is to be the evil inhuman villians...the more you humanize them the less clear it is...sometimes a little shade of grey is one thing, but as I said before...when you look too far into the grey you realize there is no white or black left...
No, but they're as intelligent as humans and look pretty capable of using technology. Comparing them to any other species currently on Earth which are nowhere near as intelligent is doing them a huge disservice. Show me that the majority of Tigers that can make weapons and armour, can use weapons and talk coherrently and I might believe your argument.
I think you missed the point. I don't think the poster was trying to compare orcs to animals. The statment was that a tiger is always a tiger even if you try to raise it as a dog. The comparison isn't that an orc is a like a tiger, it's that an orc is always an orc and that even if you tried to raise one like a human among humans it would still be an orc. The point then being that reasoning with a tribe of orcs wouldn't be like trying to reason with a group of humans, as they are an entirely different species and as such likely possess not only different social standards, but radically different biological imperatives as well.
second, even though a race or a group can be evil, this does not mean they are irrational, most of the time a diplomatic solution can be found that will be beneficial to both parts... now probably the evil part will not hold it for long, but that`s another story (and that could lead to some minor fights scaling up to a battle with time) ... also most good character WILL look for a diplomatic solution rather than just go and kill em.
this unless one of the part is a bunch of zealots following their good (evil ones are less likely to follow that path actually).
There was no actual problem, so, when monsters are just monsters?, when they are not open to reason, when we deal with the irrational, or with something that just look down to everything else but himself as nothing more than a waste of space...
maybe reading about serial killers would give you a better insight about it...
P.S.:
remember, even though orks and they like are evil they live in a society, so they follow some rules and are not just chaotic.
did you ever wonder shy they are monsters...the whole point of them is to be the evil inhuman villians...the more you humanize them the less clear it is...sometimes a little shade of grey is one thing, but as I said before...when you look too far into the grey you realize there is no white or black left...
Why the hell do you want black and white? What advantage does that give your game apart from reducing the amount of thinking you have to do?
This doesn't mean that the characters in the game can't have simplistic viewpoints but to enshrine them in the reality of the world is just plain boring. Your game ends up like an early 20th century pulp novel full of cliches.
[As a side issue, I understand that my style of play has it's own set of cliches, I just find them more satisfying than the idea that creatures as intelligent as humans can't express a wider range of behaviours than some parties in this thread are advocating]
The President orders his soldiers to kill you. Do you kill the President and try to negotiate with the soldiers? Do you kill the soldiers and try to negotiate with the now powerless President?
The answer is you kill anyone who doesn't surrender, and maybe those who do surrender.
A non-chief Kobold is going to be no more amiable to polite conversation after you've plastered his beloved leader's guts all over the forest floor. The leader is going to be no less righteous when his minions are dead.
It has been stated before but I'll state it again, thinking you can reason with everyone is simply unrealistic. You can humanize them, you can give them reasons but humans are illogical, superstitious and unreasonable and so are Orcs, Kobolds, Elves and Dwarves.
I think you missed the point. I don't think the poster was trying to compare orcs to animals. The statment was that a tiger is always a tiger even if you try to raise it as a dog. The comparison isn't that an orc is a like a tiger, it's that an orc is always an orc and that even if you tried to raise one like a human among humans it would still be an orc. The point then being that reasoning with a tribe of orcs wouldn't be like trying to reason with a group of humans, as they are an entirely different species and as such likely possess not only different social standards, but radically different biological imperatives as well.
That's all well and good but D&D's own products don't support it and never have. With that reasoning there are no Drizzit characters. There are no fish out water origin stories, etc. The OP's party itself doesn't support this: the PC's were made of good aligned kobolds, hobgoblins, and other monster races. If an orc was an orc, there couldn't ever be orc PC's but there are so the exception exists and unless you're really willing to suspend belief, that exception has to exist outside of your PC's party as well.
And D&D's products support reasoning with groups of monsters. For example, one of the first missions in Never Winter Nights 2 puts you face to face with a Lizard-folk chieftain who you can either use bluff, diplomacy, or intimidation on to avoid having to fight.
the heart of the problem is that when you deal with white and black shades of grey mess it up if over done...
once you look too deep into grey you realize there is no white and there is no black...
So the kobold cheif ordered them to attack us...ok
lets say it is an encounter of
12 minions, and 1 elite, and 2 regular monster (Equivalent of 7 monsters) the elite is the kobold cheif... so as a PC do we knock out the minions (Call non lethal) and regular kobolds, kill the elite (The chief) then negotiate with someone more calm?? If we just kill them aren't we just being prejudice, after all they are only following orders... after all skippy the kobold is a good kobold, some of these might be too if given the chance...
"Oh, worshipful masterssz! Thanks you so muhsh for rezcuing usz from da evil chieftains. Wez is only poor lezards who is fourced to do what he sez!"
Then, the first night (extended rest) the party has without setting a guard on the koblds, they lose ALL their equipment. Why? Because the kobolds want their stuff. Why wait for hand-me-downs from the party when they can just take what they want, and run away and dominate other people with their new toys.
Why steal? Why not!
As said before, you're moving from Fantasy Evil to Real Evil. Why is it a problem? Your party is solving problems through applications of Real Evil solutions, but the "evil" monsters have only Fantasy Evil alignments. To explain differences, I'll draw from Harry Potter. Draco Malfoy is Fantasy Evil. Harry (our hero) hates him, therefore Draco is Evil. Similarly, Severus Snape hates Harry, therefore, Snape must be Evil. Tom Riddle is the only character who is really Evil, and his justification is still Fantasy Evil.
Here are two simple methods of evil motivations;
Sblock 1 explains why evil is evil in a rational manner. Not every evil person can be "converted" to good, because evil has a better pay-off. Sblock 2 explains what makes evil a Fantasy Evil. Please note that although the term "Fantasy Evil" is being used here, Fantasy, in this context, does not mean fake. It means "requiring imagination". It is the most common excuse for relativistic morality evil.
sblock 1
Imagine a game, called "The Prisoner's Dillemma".
A Nice person tells no secrets when the Guard asks. If both players are Nice, they each get 1 point.
A Mean person tells a secret when the guard asks. If both players are Mean, no points are awarded.
If one player is Mean, and the other is Nice, the Mean player gets 2 points.
Mean players are evil, and Nice players are good. There's no reason to be good in this game, because being evil always has an advantage to being good.
Yes, with a mixture of good/evil, you can do better than a purely evil. But any given character will want a reason to behave good now when they can see the clear benefit of being evil. Done well, monsters can begin to convince players to act evil. Which then sets more powerful good-aligned NPCs after them...
Possible "2 points":
In charge of an area
All the food you want
All the women you want
All the little boys you want
Mastery of secret arcane spells
Sadism
Revenge for thinking bad thoughts
A Nice person tells no secrets when the Guard asks. If both players are Nice, they each get 1 point.
A Mean person tells a secret when the guard asks. If both players are Mean, no points are awarded.
If one player is Mean, and the other is Nice, the Mean player gets 2 points.
Mean players are evil, and Nice players are good. There's no reason to be good in this game, because being evil always has an advantage to being good.
Yes, with a mixture of good/evil, you can do better than a purely evil. But any given character will want a reason to behave good now when they can see the clear benefit of being evil. Done well, monsters can begin to convince players to act evil. Which then sets more powerful good-aligned NPCs after them...
Possible "2 points":
In charge of an area
All the food you want
All the women you want
All the little boys you want
Mastery of secret arcane spells
Sadism
Revenge for thinking bad thoughts
how many of those need to be NPCs compaird to monsters???
How many are the PCs going to talk to? Probably not more than one or two. Even if it's more, if you're comfortable with some casual fictional racism, the adage that all members of a race look and act the same to those not of their race comes in handy - just one or two personalities per racial group should be quite adequate unless the party is planning on interacting with this monster community at considerable length.
That's all well and good but D&D's own products don't support it and never have. With that reasoning there are no Drizzit characters. There are no fish out water origin stories, etc. The OP's party itself doesn't support this: the PC's were made of good aligned kobolds, hobgoblins, and other monster races. If an orc was an orc, there couldn't ever be orc PC's but there are so the exception exists and unless you're really willing to suspend belief, that exception has to exist outside of your PC's party as well.
actually the opposite is true. if there weren't such massive tendencies in evil races to be this way, the rebellious ones would be much less likely to be drizzt. having an exception to a societal rule does not invalidate the rule, it actually enforces it to those who still follow. most any campaign world has the good "monster" being the rare exception. without this being the case, theres nothing special about any of these races, because everyone sees them on a day to day basis. if it were all as simple as choice, where alignment worked the same for everyone, there wouldn't be evil or good societies, they would all simply be neutral. while there is nothing wrong with this, it's not generally something that works in a high fantasy campaign where there are beings that represent the root of evil/good.
you can't reason with an orc because he thinks YOU are the one who is being unreasonable.
think about it, you don't put a Catholic Priest in the same room as a Buddhist monk and expect one or the other to convert with a simple conversation. You can't use reasoning and logic to change OPINION. it's not logical that raping your enemies is a bad thing, it's a societal view we have. most good or even neutral characters are going to agree, but an average orc thinks thats just as silly as I think most speed limits are.
even a most basic example, before the rain of blows power got errata, there were several different interpretations of how this power worked, and both sides were always trying to "prove" to the other why they were wrong. If THAT camp could not be quelled by logic, how do you expect to convert a zealous tribe of evil cannibals with a few diplomacy checks?
I'm not saying that skill challenges are a bad thing, in fact they're great. it's always fun to have multiple ways of defeating a challenge, but it should never be assumed that reason will sway a foe, even a reasonable foe. If you disagree with someones core principles, you aren't going to be swayed by their arguments which are based on them.
the heart of the problem is that when you deal with white and black shades of grey mess it up if over done...
once you look too deep into grey you realize there is no white and there is no black...
That's assuming this is really a problem, of course. If it is for you and your group, then allow for a more hard-wired universe where morality is more set. I enjoyed as a mental exercise that in earlier editions, one could directly measure the morality of an act by getting a group in the Outlands and repeatedly performing that act so as to measure the distance they shifted that area of the plane.
Personally, I enjoy when villains aren't necessarily evil for the sake of being evil, but have some motivation that just so happens to put you in the way of the new Hellish Multiplex. Sure, they're reasonable, but you can't exactly negotiate your way out of destroying your plane of existence.
With mortal groups, though, it stands to reason that if you want to play a less hack-and-slashy sort of game, there are more often than not ways to try and do something socially rather than just violently. Not everyone can be swayed, and of those who can, the costs of doing so can still often be harder to meet than to merely destroy them. Especially for good characters, though, it seems that having to take risks and learn that sort of thing before slaughtering an entire tribe would make sense. 4E does seem to make non-lethal combat easier to achieve than before... perhaps for a reason? *shrug*
That's all well and good but D&D's own products don't support it and never have. With that reasoning there are no Drizzit characters.
And what a terrible, terrible lost that would be. ;)
But on a more serious note, what Silvermesh said is spot on - it is because such character are so rare and such a deviation from the norm that they are special and compelling.
If the only thing there was to being Drizz't was waking one day and saying 'hey! I'm think I'm going to stop being an *******!', then they'd be a lot more good Drow around and nobody would give a damn.
Drizz't is to the Drow as a serial killer is to humanity. He's not right in the head and cannot fit in the society due to his 'problem'.
Drizz't is to the Drow as a serial killer is to humanity. He's not right in the head and cannot fit in the society due to his 'problem'.
Very well-said. Although I'd point out that serial killers are less of a deviation than Drizz't is. (Neutral-evil and evil-good)
Very well-said. Although I'd point out that serial killers are less of a deviation than Drizz't is. (Neutral-evil and evil-good)
I agree with this but I'd like to point something out.
The Drow were not born Evil. They were born Elven.
As everyone knows the Drow are just Elves who disagreed with society and broke off to make their own society. The Drow, the Dark Elves, are just Elves. They are simply another culture, no more inherently Evil then a High Elf. It is their society that is Evil and Drizz't disagreed with their society as they disagreed with the Elven societies their founders left behind.
An Elf can be born into any Elven society and it will be born the same. It will grow and Align depending what happens in that individual Elf's life.
1. You've started fighting and they aren't paying attention to what you say, they certainly have no reason to believe you while your weapon is drawn. If you lower your weapon, there's an opportunity!
2. The Leader you knocked out to talk to someone "more reasonable" was beloved, the others are now out for vengence.
3. They culturally believe you are inferior to them, they intend to subjagate you.
4. They have good reasons for their actions, but there is nothing they believe you can do to help resolve them peacefully.
For larger evils like dragons and such: Doing evil is fun, they are bored, talking is boring and there's nothing they want you could give them.
I hate the idea of "Always Evil race", because it is stupid to assume that everything of the race will be Evil. That doesn't mean that I think none of them should be Evil. It's just when you base it on race, the old "They are Evil because they are Orcs!", that it gets stupid. No, they aren't Evil because they are Orcs. They are Evil because they kidnap villagers for slaves and steal food. Evil should have a motive, but that doesn't necessarily that every Evil character is "just misunderstood".
I think you missed the point. I don't think the poster was trying to compare orcs to animals. The statment was that a tiger is always a tiger even if you try to raise it as a dog. The comparison isn't that an orc is a like a tiger, it's that an orc is always an orc and that even if you tried to raise one like a human among humans it would still be an orc. The point then being that reasoning with a tribe of orcs wouldn't be like trying to reason with a group of humans, as they are an entirely different species and as such likely possess not only different social standards, but radically different biological imperatives as well.
I didn't miss the point. First off I agree that playing Orcs as men in funny suits is missing the point, there should be a difference in behaviour between Orcs and Humans. However I'd disagree on a couple of points: Firstly that Orcs can't adapt to differing social conditions and secondly that Orcs are that different from Human beings.
To support the first one consider that Orcs are pretty intelligent beings. An Orc raised in a human community would fairly quickly learn that if he or she wants to survive [1] (expressed as not wanting a clip round the earhole) there are certain things you don't do. His or her fundamental Orcishness would still be there but they'd learn to suppress it in polite company (perhaps like a human psychopath can learn to hide amongst "normal" humans).
To support the second ones... Orcs can't be a different species (nor are elves) 'cause they can interbreed with humans. The fact they can use the same technologies (whether they can innovate new ones or not), can use the same languages as fluently as humans shows a certain level of psychological compatibility as well.
Anyway, the thrust of this lot is yep, Orcs are different but there's no reason to assume that even if Orcishness is somehow immutable and that they can't modify their behaviours to cope with local conditions. This includes negotiating with humans [2].
As per usual, your game will vary. All the opinions above are the opinion of the Orc that made me write it.
Cheers,
Ash
[1] I'd disagree that Orcs have fundamentally different biological imperatives to humans - if their imperatives weren't to survive and breed they wouldn't last very long.
[2] All the usual caveats apply i.e. that the humans have something the Orcs want and the Orcs don't think they just can't take it.
Once more, using the horrible Drizzit comparison, when he left his home land he vowed never to kill another drow because that other drow might deep down be like him or his father was. And throughout the rest of the 12 books you see other drow that deviate from the norm. Jarlaxel, Dinin, Gromph, etc. While not "good", they aren't crazy cleric of Lolth evil that the race is stereotyped in to. Dragonlance has books where an Ogre mage was the hero's best friend, and a half-elf/half-ogre king is trying to make a better way for his people, albeit by conquering others. Drizzit does end up killing drow again because he realizes it is necessary but he doesn't assume "an orc is an orc", he lets actions speak volumes as should any self-categorized "good" person.
At least that's how I see it and run my games that way. Whoever said it is right, to me there are no evil and good kingdoms but a bunch of neutral-good leaning and evil-neutral leaning shades of gray. To each his own but an orc will never just be an orc to me.
yes, that must be it...I messed up and when my players said they were un happy should have said "TOO BAD I AM THE DM SO WHAT I SAY GOES...HA HA HA!!" as apposed to saying "Why what doesn't feel right?" and them get into an hour long discussion on why if they can be good how can it be ok to be good and still fight them...and if they are evil then why are they evil...it was a choice so should'nt the good guys help them see the error of there ways...or atleast show them how they can reatch there goals through compramize...
You, and your players, are incorrect in saying that everything has to have a logical reason. Evil creatures are evil, there does not have to be any logical reason for this. At all. Zealotry is not logical. Nor can it be negotiated with. "We try to negotiate with the Orcs." "Roll initiative." "But we tried to negotiate." "They don't care - roll initiative."
If your players don't like that, then too bad. D&D isn't a philosophical debate on good and evil.
"Oh, worshipful masterssz! Thanks you so muhsh for rezcuing usz from da evil chieftains. Wez is only poor lezards who is fourced to do what he sez!"
What's funny is this is a full half of Lizardmen related adventures.
The goblin tribe may indeed not be evil; but that doesn't mean that they won't go to war with the neighboring dwarves. It just might happen with good "people" on both sides. Your problem is thinking that "good" people go to war against "evil" people (axis of evil et cetera). You need to open up the possibility for good people to go to war against each other for their own selfish reasons.
The easy fix is to make them eat human as their primary diet. Let your characters "negotiate" over a dinner of elf baby brains still in the skulls like the scene from indiana jones. Then your players will stop asking you to consider the "monster's" alignment and YOU can start asking them to consider THEIR OWN!
It a world of fantasy and magic, it is completely possible that there is no solution but war.
then also is a kobold or a hobgobling can go into a human setlement, deal wit the people there, and all, is to be expected that there is some sort of not violent interaction between the parts...
please first consider the setting of the story before talking.
hmm the last 2 post give some good pointers, specially the irreconcilable differences, even though even those can be deal with as it can take both parts to ruin considering a third party can appear... BUT you are forgetting one of the PC WAS a KOBOLD, and another one WAS a HOBGOBLIN, in that case those irreconcilable differences hardly make sense...
then also is a kobold or a hobgobling can go into a human setlement, deal wit the people there, and all, is to be expected that there is some sort of not violent interaction between the parts...
please first consider the setting of the story before talking.
Just because a single member of a race/ethnicity/nation/culture can peaceably interact with others doesn't mean that you can't ever come into violent conflict with others of that race/ethnicity/nation/culture.
Just as you can be on friendly terms with some Humans and deadly enemies with others, the same goes with the other races. Campaigns like this shouldn't really grind to a halt any more than campaigns where Human PCs have to come into conflict with other antagonistic Humans.
Those kobolds don't need to die 'cause they're kobolds'. They need to die because when you approached thier chief, he threw a childish fit, taking insult at everything you said and ordered his men to attack you.
Those orcs don't need to die 'because they're green and we're fantasy racists', they need to die because the dragon gave them a kill on sight order regarding adventurers.
That's... you know, how it works in real life. The game where you were able to peaceably talk your way through all conflict is the fantasy land.
Yay!!
Someone I agree with!
For the most part, "Alignment" in the game is invisible. You and your party don't need to make decisions on the basis of "most kobolds are Evil". You can, instead, make decisions on the basis of "these guys are attacking (and presumably injuring and killing) harmless people".
The more attention you can pay to actions and not alignment, the better.
If someone (say a kobold) is attacking travelers, and there is a long history of kobolds attacking travelers (which, the PCs, being natives of the world, would know about), they don't really need any other reason to whack the kobold.
If, on the other hand, a bunch of gnomes, perhaps, start ambushing travelers (and you don't have a history of gnomish ambushers), then you might expect them to do a bit more investigation before killing the gnomes. Maybe they are Redcaps. Maybe the travelers are slavers in secret. Maybe someone is being Dominated.
In general, the world should be set up so that PCs can make choices based on things that they should logically know. If orcs typically behave in brutish, violent, bloodthirsty ways, and you haven't given them any information to the contrary, it should be OK to treat the orcs as violent savages.
If, on the other hand, you are running an Eberron-style game, where there are non-hostile orc communities, then, OF COURSE, the PCs shouldn't be treating orcs as violent cannon fodder.
The D&D worlds are fairly violent, but much more importantly, they also have little central government and law enforcement. You can't reasonably expect, in most games, to be able to retreat from brigands and call the police out to arrest them. You often can't even expect to be able to capture them and escort them to a nearby jail. Attacking back makes good sense. If it doesn't in your world, make sure the PCs know it. AND, if you don't want them to attack back, make sure that it doesn't make sense to do so.
Too many games play "Gotcha!" with someone's expectations. If your game keeps having Evil races which can consistently be negotiated with, and reasoned with, why are they "Evil Races"? If you want to have "bad guy" races (say, Orcs), then, at least most of the time, the Orcs need to be inveterate bad guys. It's totally OK to have some Unaligned or Good orcs. However, in a world of "bad guy" orcs, even THEY would know that most people are going to assume they are "bad guy" orcs. If, on the other hand, if every group of enemies you encounter is basically unaligned, then their reputation in the world should match that. If orcs are open to diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution most of the time, they wouldn't HAVE a reputation as "bad guys".
hmm the last 2 post give some good pointers, specially the irreconcilable differences, even though even those can be deal with as it can take both parts to ruin considering a third party can appear... BUT you are forgetting one of the PCWAS a KOBOLD, and another one WAS a HOBGOBLIN, in that case those irreconcilable differences hardly make sense...
At risk of a D&D Godwin - Drizz't.
You, and your players, are incorrect in saying that everything has to have a logical reason. Evil creatures are evil, there does not have to be any logical reason for this. At all. Zealotry is not logical. Nor can it be negotiated with. "We try to negotiate with the Orcs." "Roll initiative." "But we tried to negotiate." "They don't care - roll initiative."
If your players don't like that, then too bad. D&D isn't a philosophical debate on good and evil.
I'd like to mention the difference between having a "logical reason" and just merely having a "reason". There are plenty of ways to provide reasons, not necessarily logical ones or factually correct ones, for monsters.
"We try to negotiate with the Orcs."
"The Orc leader says 'We need the food and supplies from your village!'"
"We tell the Orc leader that we are willing to trade with them."
"The Orc leader syas 'We heard that one before from your kind!'"
Roll initiative.
Of course the Orc leader is employing logical fallacy (e.g. that just because you are *whatever race* that it cannot be true, or that because representatives from the village have lied before means that you must be lying), but even pointing that out to the Orc won't make him like you more.
Or we can look at zealotry. "We're taking this land because our God commands it" is a bad reason to most people but it's still a reason. And clearly to some people (i.e. the zealots) it's am excellent reason.
Now, one could just simply say that the creature is evil and that's that. And certainly some creatures are like that (e.g. the Zombie wants to eat your brains, he wants to because he's hungry, no you can't negotiate with it), but if every encounter is handled as such then that tends towards rather shallow story telling in my opinion.
I'm actually in a playgroup that has the whole "you slay evil because you're good" approach and goes no deeper than that. I still play because the combat is fun, but I've come to pretty well ignore everything else. It's really just a series of combat encounters with forgettable filler inbetween.
Also I'd like to toss out my agreement with the posters who have mentioned that being evil has just as much to do with how you do something as it does with what you're doing. World domination is typically viewed as an evil goal, but if you're trying to dominate the world through charity and goodwill in order to bring world peace and unity... then how evil is it really? Slaying the 'baddies' is typically a good act, but how good is the Paladin that slays Orc children in cold blood?
Anyhow I'll wrap up my rant here, I just wanted to get across that the good vs. evil dilemma is only as shallow or deep as the DM & Players are willing to think about it. Oh, and that "evil is as evil does" is the very shallow end of that pool.
And its not uninteresting either. Some of the most fascinating bad guys in fiction have had no motive - Joker, Lecter, Myers, etc.
I'd like to mention the difference between having a "logical reason" and just merely having a "reason". There are plenty of ways to provide reasons, not necessarily logical ones or factually correct ones, for monsters.
No, the OP specifically said that there had to be a "logical reason."
"We try to negotiate with the Orcs."
"The Orc leader says 'We need the food and supplies from your village!'"
"We tell the Orc leader that we are willing to trade with them."
"The Orc leader syas 'We heard that one before from your kind!'"
Roll initiative.
Of course the Orc leader is employing logical fallacy (e.g. that just because you are *whatever race* that it cannot be true, or that because representatives from the village have lied before means that you must be lying), but even pointing that out to the Orc won't make him like you more.
There is zero reason to get to "We heard that one before from your kind." You are presupposing you could negotiate with them in your counter scenario. I am stating there is no reason for them to even allow negotiations to begin, at all.
Now, one could just simply say that the creature is evil and that's that. And certainly some creatures are like that (e.g. the Zombie wants to eat your brains, he wants to because he's hungry, no you can't negotiate with it), but if every encounter is handled as such then that tends towards rather shallow story telling in my opinion.
And I consider turning D&D into a philosophical debate on good and evil and every evil clan of monsters only misguided souls who could be negotiated and worked with and brought "back to the light" as equally shallow, and not to mention ham-handed and self-important.
No, the OP specifically said that there had to be a "logical reason."
And I disagree with the OP on that point.
There is zero reason to get to "We heard that one before from your kind." You are presupposing you could negotiate with them in your counter scenario. I am stating there is no reason for them to even allow negotiations to begin, at all.
Actually there's one really good reason to get to that point: To encourage the PCs to attempt negotiations for the times when they actually can.
And I consider turning D&D into a philosophical debate on good and evil and every evil clan of monsters only misguided souls who could be negotiated and worked with and brought "back to the light" as equally shallow, and not to mention ham-handed and self-important.
I'd agree.
The best games would have a mix. Some enemies can be negotiated with, some will change for the better, some will work with you simply because it better serves their own ends, some are blinded by their own illogical assumptions, some are just sociopaths, and some simply don't have enough intelligence to discuss the matter.
Perhaps the PCs, while traveling, are beset by a group of brigands. Maybe a deal could be worked out. Sure the brigands could attempt to kill the PCs and loot them but why risk their lives when they could walk away with a sure thing? Or maybe they're a lil' sociopathic and consider killing their victims part of the fun? Won't know without trying, hence why things should get to the "We heard that one before from your kind" stage.
Orcs can't be a different species (nor are elves) 'cause they can interbreed with humans.
That's not the correct definition of species. See: Polar bears and Grizzly Bears.