Genocide has a long and honorable tradition in heroic fantasy, almost certainly starting before JRR Tolkien's treatment of Orcs, but certainly passing through there. We just have to work out when it is justified.
When can we actually say it is justified? As I see it, there are three possible conditions.
Condition the first: that the race is utterly and irredeemably evil, as is proved by actions like active killing of any foes they meet, pillaging homes, and are otherwise considerably more than unpleasant neighbors and very dangerous to anyone around them
Condition the second: that the race is expansionist and xenophobic and is pushing out everyone else in their domain and irrevocably disrupting the balance of nature and hence the possibility of anyone else (or even themselves) reclaiming the land, meaning that there will be no place in their world for anyone if they are not severely curtailed and given no opportunity to escape. This does not apply if the race can be bargained with and will reliably keep its bargains while in a position of strength as well as one of weakness.
Condition the third: that the race poses a “Clear and Present Danger” to the stability of the world or to the immediate possibility, usually by trying to bring about an apocalypse (although many are triggered accidentally). At this point any action including genocide may be undertaken for the purposes of stopping the impending apocalypse.
In response to condition the second, can you not get out of its way or at least try? Quarantines have worked against most such things - it even defeated Napoleon Bonaparte when he chose to attack Moscow. Burning the city, forcing him to retreat, and destroying his army as he did so was all it took to destroy an “unstoppable” army. We clearly cannot use this as our only justification.
In response to condition the third, you are just screwed. In the extreme cases where this applies, it's usually a race of overdemons, usually not on the prime material plane, ad there are always some who are clearly more powerful than others. If the most powerful can be defeated, and others in kind, the entities will usually retreat or regroup, giving a much-welcomed respite and tactical advantage. However, once the race in question is reduced to a small enough number, genocide is clearly no longer a necessity. So the intent can be justified in this case, but the bloodlust must be satiated at some point.
For example, if the species were to fulfill condition number two, why not simply cripple their ability to expand? Unless they are inherently evil, (which is case number one) they may learn from their mistakes.
Even a species that is going to cause an apocalypse need not be utterly destroyed, unless, the entire species will crumble into dust, and each speck of dust will become a hecatoncheres, in which case it would be highly advisable to not only try to kill every single one, but also to put their remains in bags of holding and throw them into spheres of annihilation.
In short, the three parameters which are listed here are nowhere near detailed enough to justify genocide.
Genocide has a long and honorable tradition in heroic fantasy...
When you start with a line like that, it's very difficult to take the rest of your post seriously. Personally, I don't think there is any justifiable reason for any race to be exterminated. Also, there is no way that any people involved in such an undertaking would remain good in alignment.
And, while the gaming world cannot be as complex as the real world, by necessity, I think that Genocide should be treated very carefully, and given as much complexity as is possible. As a cause to fight against there is very little that could be more sinister, or evil than the efforts of one group to utterly eradicate another. Opposition to this would make both heroes and martyrs, and pose a great threat in any campaign world. The tenor of the previous posts seems to ask when genocide could be justified, or undertaken in a campaign world.
In my own opinion, I do not think that there is any case under which genocide could be justified under the auspices of anything but evil. Genocide is not only the mass slaughter of a targeted group by another group, but it also includes efforts at controlling the movements, life and reproduction of that group as well. Thus, the previous example of taking or secluding all of one race to an isolated area might not include slaughter, but it would still fall under the definition of genocide. The justification of "if one race were irredeemably evil," would fit in a campaign world, especially when dealing with the presence of evil humanoids like ogres, hobgoblins and the like. The paradox, and the undermining of such an argument as justification for genocide is that those races are not irredeemably evil. Even within the core rulebooks, like the monster manual, the alignment for such creatures is listed as "usually" a certain kind of evil.
However, there are examples where that is not the case. I remember a mini-adventure set in the realms of Greyhawk when I had the campaign setting for the second edition. It was called "The Born-Again Ogres of the Blinding Light," and it was centered on a group of ogres that had been successfully converted by a lawful good cleric that were then seeking atonement. One of the most popular and beloved characters in the Dungeons and Dragons world is R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden. The Drow are not known as paragons of goodness, but Drizzt is a notable exception that would still be marked for death if a policy of genocide were pursued against this "irredeemably evil" race. Within merely these two examples lies the very heart of why genocide cannot be pursued by any but the truly evil.
If even one creature can be saved, if even one hill giant, ogre, orc, goblin, or the like, could lead a life that was not evil, then the crime of taking that life would be on the head of the person who helped perpetrate that genocide. A paladin of Heironious, or a Priest of Pelor could not keep to their teachings, or the cause of good if they willingly aided in the death of infants, or children, no matter the "evil" of the parent race. Could they save a creature that could grow into something that despised them, and ultimately tried to do them harm? Yes. But that is the burden of good. It is one thing to engage a band of bugbears in combat. Smite-away, says I. It is another thing to then track them back to their lair, and then kill the non-combatants.
Arguably, the gaming world is not meant to be as complex as our own. It can detract from the ability to enjoy and escape, which--at least for me--is why I play in the first place, to burden characters with such complexities. Any DM is free to say, "you know what, in my world, all orcs are evil, period." Another is free to say that it is the orcish way of life that creates evil in them. However, I do feel that if one is to deal with "genocide" in their world, and give it its name, it must also be given its complexity. And with that, I think that no character that claims to be a servant of good in any form could willingly perpetrate, or give aid to such an act without crossing into darkness, and themselves embracing "irredeemable evil."
What if you have a species that is technically sentient (intelligence, above 3, can make tools, learn techniques and skills and feats, learn form tactical and strategic mistakes) but has no concept of dealing with other species as any thing but food or threat, and the condition of threat is dealt with violence? Always. The species doesn't communicate in any way except inside the species, via species-only telepathy.
They build cities, and places to build weapons, but are as hungry to devour the world as a swarm of locusts. Every last member of their species is willing, even eager, to kill and eat all other species, and with no qualms about dieing.
I am not making this up. Author David Weber did. It is a good series with lots of moral debates over this very issue.
In the story in question, they decided on genocide against this one race, because there was no other way for any other race to survive in the same universe as this species. It was either commit genocide against them, or let them commit genocide against us.
Then, we're also crossing from genocide into war. The genocides in history were often perpetrated against non-combatants, thus--to a degree--giving them their status. Being required to wage all-out war against a group that was ALWAYS combative might be different.
But, as said before, unlike what the U.S. government wanted people to think about the Native Americans, what Hitler wanted people to think about the Jews, or what the British Empire tried to get people to think about NUMEROUS indigenous peoples throughout their colonial days, no entire RACE has ever been evil and bent on the destruction of the world like locusts.
Thus, we have no model to go off. But, that's the beauty of D&D, no? If we can think it, we can play it. A situation like that would require a lot of thought.
Regards,
JD
I'd recommend that you check it out - it would be worth your while.
Is it okay to wipe out a dangerous species? Sure, I'd love to see killer bees become endangered. And I wish the HIV virus became extinct long ago.
In D&D we speak of "races" but are devils and demons considered races? Should they be confined to an island or simply wiped off the face of the planet? Such "xenocide" is, perhaps the prayer of the angels themselves.
Would Lawful Good slay all demons? Read Revelations. Mercy is Chaotic Good.
Sci-Fi presents us with lots of 'irredeemable' foes, not because they are evil per say, but because their instincts and mode of thinking are so contrary to ours that there is no point of negotiation. In the Aliens series, the Alien species isn't evil, despite it's relative intelligence. The Alien can not act in any other way, its instinctual motives drive it to feed and reproduce in a manner that is inimical to our survival.
Originally posted by strenoth
Ah, but what of the following scenario:
What if you have a species that is technically sentient (intelligence, above 3, can make tools, learn techniques and skills and feats, learn form tactical and strategic mistakes) but has no concept of dealing with other species as any thing but food or threat, and the condition of threat is dealt with violence? Always.
The species doesn't communicate in any way except inside the species, via species-only telepathy.
...
Every last member of their species is willing, even eager, to kill and eat all other species...
I assume you mean this species not only has no concept of dealing with other species in any way but violence, but is also incapable of learning the concept (since you say they always deal with other species that way).
Then they're irredeemably Evil.
Good requires the willingness to make sacrifices for the welfare of others - even of other species - and these creatures are intrinsically incapable of ever being willing.
Neutral requires compunctions against killing innocents - even of other species - and these creatures are intrinsically incapable of ever having such qualms.
By elimination, they're not only Evil, but aggressively, violently, actively Evil. Always. With - it appears - no possibility to ever change, due to a deficiency in their cognitive abilities that arguably compromises their free will. In D&D canon, it's arguable that even demons and devils are that irredeemable - at least they appear to have free will, which these creatures don't entirely have.
Whether that makes them "okay" to exterminate is another matter, but many people - in-game and out - would argue it was acceptable on a basis of self-defense and self-preservation, especially given the apparent lack of true free will in the race. Of course, people debated about whether to destroy the last smallpox samples, so it's not entirely clearcut.
The actual case was that when human civilisations have met others, the results have almost invariably been major conflicts (the obvious ones that come to mind are Europe and the New World, the Mongols and the Maoris and the Moriori, but I can think of almost no peaceful first contacts). Humanity fits the evidence necessary for case 1 (which was why I phrased it that way). Humans are also extremely expansionist and regularly Xenophobic (if we have discrimination based on colour and birth within humanity, think what we'd do to people of different species). It is also untrustworthy (I present as near-trivial evidence the treatment of the "red indians" by the settlers, Byzantine court politics and other cases should be obvious). Humanity is also a clear and present danger to the safety of the world (nukes, the environment, the number of evil mages in fantasy settings that are humans...) and therefore fills the third criterion.
The entire post was therefore an incitement to wipe out humanity. If that's what a relatively reasonable case for genocide can easily lead to, think where you can take other cases.
As for Weber's aliens (I can't remember their name, Starfire books) and Flint/Wentworth's Ekhat (The Course Of Empire), I'd need evidence that such an entity could actually exist and not be brought under by internal paradoxes and not be educated differently before I would be able to think of Genocide as anything other than evil.
Oh, and a
to loki for realising the post was at least slightly tongue in cheek.Originally posted by strenoth
Ah, but what of the following scenario:
What if you have a species that is technically sentient (intelligence, above 3, can make tools, learn techniques and skills and feats, learn form tactical and strategic mistakes) but has no concept of dealing with other species as any thing but food or threat, and the condition of threat is dealt with violence? Always. The species doesn't communicate in any way except inside the species, via species-only telepathy.
Well, David Weber isn't the only author to use that premise. I'm sure many of us here will fondly remember Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and the Speaker trilogy that followed it. The premise of Ender's Game is that the "buggers," being a hive-mentality species, was unable to grasp the concept of individual sentience that characterizes humanity until the end of their second colonization attempt on earth, when one commander finally managed to kill a queen- the only real casualty (in terms of losing an actual sentient individual) that the buggers suffered in two massive and brutal wars with Earth. Only after losing their entire fleet (because of losing their queen) did the homeworld-buggers realize that humanity was a mass of individuals, rather than a massive individual. The human invasion fleet commited a genocide against the buggers because of precisely the situation strenoth mentions: Neither side was truly able to recognize the sentience of the other, and lack of the ability to communicate led to a brutal attempt at genocide- from both sides.
From the perspective of either side, at the time, was the genocide Good? Well, certainly. The buggers were just killing off 'arms' and 'legs', and other various 'body parts' of humanity, from their perspective. And humans were wiping out a vicious alien threat that could have destroyed the entire species. Objectively, however, (and a major theme Card uses in the Speaker trilogy), is that they both were completely wrong in their attempts at genocide. Neither was evil, they simply couldn't understand each other.
How about that in D&D? Total war between two sides, neither of which is evil. Now that would be an interesting campaign... Massive war against Great Evil is a staple in fantasy. Tolkein did it, Terry Brooks did it (Sword of Shannara, Elfstones of Shannara...), I'll admit, my current D&D campaign does it. I think it would be an immensely fascinating campaign in which the characters are charged not with leading a war against Evil, but rather, a struggle to end a massive and brutal war between two sides that is fueled not by a Good/Evil opposition, but a misunderstanding.
Originally posted by strenoth
Ah, but what of the following scenario:
What if you have a species that is technically sentient (intelligence, above 3, can make tools, learn techniques and skills and feats, learn form tactical and strategic mistakes) but has no concept of dealing with other species as any thing but food or threat, and the condition of threat is dealt with violence? Always. The species doesn't communicate in any way except inside the species, via species-only telepathy.
They build cities, and places to build weapons, but are as hungry to devour the world as a swarm of locusts. Every last member of their species is willing, even eager, to kill and eat all other species, and with no qualms about dieing.
Hmm, scenario? That has been the norm for humans except in recent years. Humans have even done that a lot to other humans, and all other races has always been viewed as things to use, kill or enslave. Most that have been regarded as any kind of threat like wolves have also been exterminated anywhere near human abundant population and many races have even had had kill bounties on them.
A more intelligent race that would be an even more sure threat would have been absolutely sure to have been a targeted of genocide. I don't understand a lot in this thread. You are basically saying that humans as a race have always been evil and then by most standards we need to redefine good and evil to see the different evils.
Nils
For example: if Goblins were listed as "always" being chaotic evil and that view was agreed upon by the DM of a campaign. It would stand to reason that running an operation of genocide versus the goblins would not be an evil act, since goblins are always C-E and could easily run foul of the 3 guidelines set forth earlier.
OT: Genocide in reality: IMO genocide is a natural by product of warfare, ancient war philosophy and the propaganda that goes along with such matters. It is rather tough to sell a war versus a people if they are portrayed as loving, caring, thoughtful beings. I would go on, but I probably have gone far enough.
Real world genocides are not one species wiping out another, they are the same species wiping out cultural/ethnic/racial variations of itself, which by the D&D definition (and most RL ethical systems) is evil.
However in D&D:
Evil is an objective force in direct opposition to good.
Good is an objective force in direct opposition to evil.
There are species that are universally good.
There are species that are universally evil.
It is a good act to exterminate evil creatures.
It is an evil act to exterminate good creatures.
Therefore in D&D the eradication of all demons, devils, demodands and daemons etc. would be a morally good act, plain and simple.
Genocide has a long and honorable tradition in heroic fantasy, almost certainly starting before JRR Tolkien's treatment of Orcs, but certainly passing through there.
I know this is a side issue, but I'll toss this out anyway: There is no genocide of orcs in Tolkien. We see no orc who isn't employed as an enemy soldier throughout the work. There is no effort shown to round up all of the orc civilians and wipe them off of the face of Middle Earth. There's no mention that I can recall of what becomes of the orcs after the war for the ring is over. The orcs are, themselves, genocidal. They were created for hate, and they hate. They hardly fall under "honorable," however. The closest thing we have to an idea of what the good side thinks is the dilemma over Gollum. Gollum was thoroughly corrupted by the ring, yet Gandalf cautioned against killing him. Despite being so thoroughly corrupted, Gollum redeems himself in a manner of speaking at the end. So, as close as we can tell, not only are the orcs in Tolkien not a target of genocide, but there could exist a possibility of redemption, however slight. You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a genocide being painted as "honorable" even in the most morally gray science fiction, let alone the more black and white morality of most high fantasy.
Originally posted by PatternGhost
You'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a genocide being painted as "honorable" even in the most morally gray science fiction, let alone the more black and white morality of most high fantasy.
It's certainly not described as "honorable", but the idea of genocide is addressed in Niven and Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye. In that science fiction novel, humanity is faced with the discovery of a powerful species that is certainly not evil. However, this race is locked into an endless cycle: Civilization, Overpopulation, Crash, and Anarchy. When it achieves interstellar travel, there is good reason to believe that it will take the galaxy, and humanity, with it. What are the humans to do?
Although genocide is considered, compassionate humans, as well as diplomats from the species, press for a more moderate solution. The final conclusion is to blockade the species, and prevent it from spreading. However, this plan is not without difficulties. It is a great drain upon resources, and requires constant vigilance, as even one slip could spell disaster.
I would describe this solution, the blockade, as the "Good" response. However, I do not believe that genocide in this case would have been evil. It would have been neutral, self-defense, the final selection of the lives of oneself and one's kin over those of strangers. Humanity is a neutral species, in the end.
This same logic applies to other species (such as orcs), if they are not irredeemably evil (if they are, do whatever to them, it doesn't much matter - but that may never actually occur, if even fiends can repent). If their very existence presents an unavoidable and deadly threat to all others, then all options must be considered by those interested in survival.
Originally posted by Winsome
Surely the difficulty of actually completing genocide within the game makes the idea a theoretical exercise anyway? The logistics of it are mind boggling, then factor in the God potential, unless the race you want to wipe out have no divine protection then you're up against a God as well. I suppose you could search out Orcs (for example) and knife them all, but I wouldn't want to try it myself.
I don't know about that. Here on earth we've managed to wipe out many species. Now I know the x-factor in this case is that the other species in this case is intelligent and that seems to preclude that they could be completely eliminated. However it might just be possible.
After all if we look into our own antiquity, many anthropologists suggest that the elimination of our cousins the Neanderthals were in good part the responsibility of us Humans. Now there can be no doubt as to their intelligence and yet they aren’t around any more. Now we can perhaps equate that situation to the fantasy orc or goblin and in fact in many campaigns you can see that these savage humanoids are on the decline. Now if you suggested that the entirety of humanity were to actively seek their elimination, I certainly can see a scenario were it would be successful especially with both technological and magical superiority.
You also suggested that a race couldn't be eliminated do to divine intervention. Now I would suggest to you that it is gods are generally assumed to gain their power through the worship of their followers. Well in that case as the species declined so would their divine protectors. Now I'd assume that if a whole race were interested in the eradication of another that their gods were for the effort or it wouldn't be going on. So therefore one divine patron would in a sense commit genocide against the other at the same time as the mortals.
Okay now that I've made that point let talk a little about he original topic. How does one determine if another creature is irredeemable or not? You can't even begin to make a determination unless you try to reform them and for some creatures that won't even be possible. Now I’d say that it could be considered acceptable to "kill on sight" if you have reasonable expectation that these beings would kill you if they could. That would even include if they were sleeping, but if not (in the case of humanoid children for example) then no dice. Now in some of the examples I've heard as being justifiable its seems to me that containment is always a possibility. If you have it within your power to eliminate a species then you have the power to contain it and not eradicate it outright (heck, we give that consideration to smallpox).
I blatantly illustrate this point on occasion in my campaigns by showcasing individual NPC's from a race players might often arbitrarily label as "always a bad guy" and demonstrate that even goblins (for example) can be just misguided people. It's possible for them to be good contrary to all the weight of their culture and history predisposing them to be otherwise.
Sure, Good vs. Evil. Orcs threatening to conquer and destroy the world as we know it. It's a common and popular theme in epic fantasy novels. And if all you want is a titanic good vs. evil clash as a backdrop for your campaign world so be it.
But, it doesn't have to be so simple. Even in epic fantasy there is often doubt. Not all orcs have to be bad. Even a skeleton or a mummy might on occasion be a good individual with unfortunate circumstances. Even orcs in general might just have never known what peace might be like. The race in general may have never been allowed the opportunity for peace, every time they try the humans or the elves or the dwarves come in to try to "finish them off" leaving them no choice but to war for as long as any can remember.
My advice would be to keep your epic good vs. evil campaign if you've got one. It's a common story. So be it. But spice things up a bit by picking a race your players might have never thought of before and making it into a really interesting NPC that can change the players perception of the world. Make things interesting.
None of the initial justifying reasons hold water when you look at the Blood War. Reasons never much mattered between the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri. They kill each other for the very fact that they don't represent the same flavor of evil as they other. The other is weaker and thus deserving of obliteration. No mitigating circumstances required. It's very nearly as bad as the situation between the Yugoloths and the Gehreleths(Demodands) who will butcher each other on sight for the simple fact that the other has the temerity and the gall to exist. Long history behind that conflict of course.