Okay, let's argue this again

Have I murdered all the warriors in the encampment yet? What do I want with the Orcs? Did they steal something of mine? Plunder a local village?
How about
>I sneak into the nursery a few days in a row, bring kids candy, use my high charisma vs their low int/wis to befriend them
>After I become the orc Santa, I use them as leverage when trying to make a deal with the Boss Orc

I don't think Boss Orc would give a fuck about what kids would have to say. You could play the long con and use your status as Orc Santa to win the hearts and minds to the next Orc generation though.

Atavism doesn't take much intelligence, just enough linguistic skill to communicate how things "used to be." Also the real issue isn't intelligence, it's that farming was fucking hard before modern technology. It relied on an intuitive understanding of the land, weather, seasons, the crops themselves, etc. built up over generations. You can't just plop people down in a place they've never been before, teach them to hoe a field, and expect a viable agricultural community in "a few years." It might work for a time, sure, but the moment you get an unusually hot summer or a long winter, people are going to fucking starve.

Just look at how badly early English settlers in North America failed before the natives showed them what to do

A lot depends upon why I'm at the orc encampment in the first place and where it is, and also when you say "you" do you mean me, or one of my characters?

Where are the orc men?

They didn't, at all? I think the Puritans needed some help, but the folk in Jamestown and other English settlements were doing just fine. As were the French and the Spanish.

Join the tribe as a hummie woman

Kill the male babies
Take the women and female children as slaves

>Orc
>defenceless
Quit giving us impossible scenarios OP

Capture them, try to raise them in human society. If that doesn't work people would pay good money for gladiatorial games.

....Very fucking well besides a few crazy puritans who were ironically not farmers?

You have to remember Puritans were not actually the working class when it came to the type of Pilgram that came over.

>had the exact same scenario show up in my game
>laughed loudly as the Chaotic Evil Thief was ripped apart by a Barbarian, Paladin and Monk for even trying to attempt that shit.

We actually did end up "Adopting" the Orc tribe and most of the Campaign was basically Defending them from various threats and trying to get a local lord to vouch them for being his subjects.

We ended up all becoming "Saints" of Mercy and redemption in the church and the Orcs grew up to basically be a Varangian Guard Analogy for the Kingdom.

...

>>You venture into the orc encampment and you find a tent full of defenseless orc women and orc babies
Capture the camp. Fortify it, move your men into. When the orcs fighters are back you have the upper hand.

For the women & babies, hold them hostages. If negociation can happen, they are a huge bargaining chip. If it cant because males dont care about them, just kill and use their heads as catapult ammunitions

Ignore them unless they attack.

>Ignore the knife until it is under your derm
why

Detect evil. "If my divine sense it pings; my sword I swings.

>Thief was ripped apart
How did the actual player react?
Was he mad, or just shrugged it off?
Also
>Allowing a chaotic evil character AND a paladin in your party
>Leading them to an orc baby dillema
You were literally setting up the poor guys to fuck each other up.

Leave them be. We're after loot, not murder.

What are you, some kind of novice dungeon robber?

Because the knife makes noíse when it hits a full-plate armor. Plus, they aren't goblin.

Seriously, this. If they're defenceless, they don't matter and I keep looking for things which do matter to the security of the realm.

You know, like, a significant portion of people you meet in a typical human city are going to be Evil, right?

Why wouldn't I sell them to the nearest "ethical" slave trader?

They are women, they won't attack you wielding chairs. Frankly, just being the women and children in that case, I'll just play nice with you.

>Oh but we're good orcs
>We want to be integrated into hooman society
>Here's a bed and some food
>Murder you in your sleep after we drugged you into inconscience

See if any of the orc women want to fuck, if not then leave. Got no reason to be there anyway.

So you're gonna
A wait until they murder somebody in 10 years before dealing with this threat?

This

Put them to the torch and kill anything that tries to come running out.

I've made a DM angry because he tried to run a "monstrous humanoids are really just people with funny teeth!" campaign and I convinced the party to kill every fucking greenskin that came across our path. That is a garbage setting idea that basically only exists for being a contrarian or trying to force cheap guilt on to your players like that adds ""depth"" to your campaign.

>oh noooo, you see the wailing family of the orcs you killed!
>b-but if you guys had someone who spoke their garbage language you could have talked it out with the 3 int goblin who brandished a weapon at your party!
>isnt it a little uhh... bigoted to just think an ENTIRE category of creatures is just universally chaotic evil??

The dumb faggot even tried to say our party was at risk of having an alignment shift to evil for our actions and that killed the campaign. The whole thing felt like guilt bait anyway.

I'm not going to wait at all. I'll move on immediately.

If they're defenceless, the next city guard or even any random peasant rabble led by the village eldest can deal with them in the meantime.

>Also I doubt orcs are intelligent enough to maintain sustain farms and irrigation systems long term without babysitters
Depending on the edition, their average INT is 8 or 10. So they're either as smart as humans or as smart as human rednecks.

Based baatoranon

This

Frankly if you're at war with them I don't care what color their skin is. If the goal is to conquer them, shock&awe then integration. Then you negociate with their elders, not with their women, and only when you have the upper hand to the point they are willing to make huge concessions.

If the goal is to exterminate them, guilting the players is just bad gming

Ooh, look, me edgy's here.

>That is a garbage setting idea that basically only exists for being a contrarian or trying to force cheap guilt on to your players like that adds ""depth"" to your campaign.
D&D has had non evil Orcs since the very first fucking edition though.

Torch the tent and let the gods decide who survives.

Nomadic cultures understood the basics of farming- they lived with the seasons constantly and knew how to cultivate food. They moved a lot but didn’t sleep in a different spot every Single night, they hung around in certain areas long enough to occasionally bother growing shit. Orc Bubbas and Mumas could totally survive the transition.

You sound well fucking boring to play with

1) kill all women because orcs are evil
2) now kill all the babies because they have no one to take care after them and killing them would be act of mercy compared to hunger death

>Also I doubt orcs are intelligent enough to maintain sustain farms and irrigation systems long term without babysitters

Well, the good news is that it's not too late for you to learn correct information.

You were right to do what you did
He made a contrarian setting which is fucking stupid abd if he sees a campaigns morality is going in a certain direction, he shouldve embraced it.

Depends on the setting.

I know you hate this, but it does. If this is something where Orcs are categorically evil, capable of naught but evil, then slaughter them all, every, well, woman and child. Likewise if these are sovereign territories in which orcs are not permitted due to their, well, orcish tendencies.

If this is a warcamp (ie. the men are all out raping/pillaging/murdering and all those other good things), then same as above. They're actively supporting, or will support, what we would define as war criminals, as such we're morally permitted to kill them for aiding and abetting.

Otherwise, due process takes precedence, and benefit of the doubt must be given, or the act cannot be morally justified.

If you know who to call, a bunch of defenseless women and children can be quite valuable loot

...

Oh right, the race that was literally created because TSR got angry with Greenwood for having good orcs in his setting.
I did always enjoy that old FR seemed to hate the alignment system.

>If this is a warcamp (ie. the men are all out raping/pillaging/murdering and all those other good things), then same as above. They're actively supporting, or will support, what we would define as war criminals, as such we're morally permitted to kill them for aiding and abetting.
You can't bring up the concept of war crimes to justify committing war crimes

>What do you do, user?
Smite evil

>You can't bring up the concept of war crimes to justify committing war crimes
actually, that's exactly what you do.

>Okay, let's argue this again.
Let's not.

But TES orcs are best orcs, and inherently evil races are basically just objectively worse and less interesting than races being driven to conflict by potentially changeable situational and cultural factors.

What would you call the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Because I'm pretty fucking certain those weren't bombs designed to hit solely military targets. No one gives a shit, me either for that matter, because they were enemies of the state, who were supporting a foreign power which was routinely committing what I can only describe as grossly immoral acts.

Roast some P'Orc like the tradition of Wood Elves dictates.

im currently playing an orc barbarian and I have, without fail, raped every single female npc the gm has introduced.

A lot of people give a shit, though. When those bombings are brought up, even people who don't really give a shit are often less than sold on the idea of something like that being okay. A lot of innocent civilians who had no part in and no way to influence the actions of their nation died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and if there were such things as Heaven and Hell, the people who planned and executed those bombings sure as fuck wouldn't have a place in Heaven. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were terrible crimes that basically took away any moral high ground America had in relation to Japan. If people don't give as much of a shit about the whole thing than they should, it doesn't imply that Japanese war crimes somehow made those mass murders justified. It just means that victors get away with their evil deeds.

History always looks poorly on anything that sounds bad, especially if you attach names like "war crime". You need to look at public opinion of people of the time.

Even today though, public opinion is not on Japans side (hell, after the tsunami hit Japan following the Fukushima incident, you had Americans flocking to facebook to comment about how they deserved it for Pearl Harbour), and you're seriously overblowing a statistically insignificant minority and acting as though that isn't the case.

Why not?

Is morality a matter of majority opinion, then?

>
Even today though, public opinion is not on Japans side (hell, after the tsunami hit Japan following the Fukushima incident, you had Americans flocking to facebook to comment about how they deserved it for Pearl Harbour),
Yeah, that sounds like a purely American thing. I haven't really encountered similar sentiment in Europe, though admittedly I'm not familiar with popular opinions in every European country. At any rate, the logic - that people deserve bad shit because of something done by their paents or grandparents or great-grandparents - seems pretty damn bizarre to me. Couldn't the same reasoning be used to argue that, say, Americans deserved Pearl Harbor because of bad shit that happened with natives?

I wish we could have invaded the mainland with the nationalist Chinese and given Imperial Japan the reckoning they deserved.

Ask where the warriors went.
Or, if encampment is an enemy one, steal them and use as hostages.

Yes. Hypocrisy and double-think are some crazy drugs.

No, it isn't.

I am saying this to you, if you, as a non-combatant, actively aid others for committing grossly immoral acts as the Japanese committed, foreign powers are morally justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on whatever country you're from to save the lives of its own military from committing to a fucking land war in Asia, which has historically ended awfully more often than not.

I was tempted to leave out the second paragraph and let you connect the dots but I didn't want to be misconstrued.

>Yeah, that sounds like a purely American thing. I haven't really encountered similar sentiment in Europe, though admittedly I'm not familiar with popular opinions in every European country.
Nah it isn't. Maybe England, but I wouldn't know about them.

>At any rate, the logic - that people deserve bad shit because of something done by their paents or grandparents or great-grandparents - seems pretty damn bizarre to me
thats actually not a point of contention, and it doesn't seem bizarre to me so much as idiotic. its a point i've come across before and its easy to run circles around

p.s. im loving this but i gotta go for half an hour. to be continued if youre still here

>guilting the players is just bad gming

But the DM isn't doing that. He simply has a camp with orc women and children. If the players feel guilty about killing them, that's their fault, not the DM's. However, it does perhaps reveal that maybe they talk a big game but don't actually want to play a game where Exterminatus is the goal.

>3 int goblin

Which edition of D&D is this (I'm assuming D&D because you used the term "DM")? Because if it's 3rd or 5th Edition, the average Goblin warrior has an Intelligence score of 10, which is the same Intelligence as the average human. For that matter I'm pretty sure that holds true in earlier editions of D&D as well - goblins are as smart as humans.

What made you think that the goblin in question had a lower Intelligence than a human?

>is just universally chaotic evil??

I mean, whether or not it's bigoted, it would be wrong anyway. Goblins are usually Neutral Evil. And the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook makes a point of stated that "usually" only means a simple majority, 51%, or close to it.

You didn't do anything wrong.

Well, I would unload my wares, since I likely came here to trade, probably meats and furs for some Orcish herbal medicines and some travel gear like rope or rations

depends on my character

for my paladin of essentially khorne, I would kill the women and tell the kids to seek vengeance against me.

as any god aligned character, I would make an attempt at penitence.

I was the Barbarian.

The Player was in hysterics, his "Hidden objective" was to see how far his Anarchist spoiled asshole of a thief would get.

All my players are pretty good friends and the game was basically an open ended romp after we finished our 3 year long campaign recently.

>He was being contrarian for having shades of grey and not autistic shit.

That's a risk of any small group. It takes a large and well organized group to be able to survive small scale disasters like a bad harvest or sparse hunting season without a major risk of starvation.

Orcs are never defenseless, and orc children are born capable of walking. So a whole tent of pissed off orc mothers and their wicked children?

Party wipe.

>Hiroshima had a major military base and both extensive manufacturing and logistical facilities
>Nagasaki was built around a steel mill
They deserved what they got. They made the machines that those who were massacring civilians were using. They manned the shipping yards and the railways that were sending them supplies.

Puritans of New England were middle class yeoman and craftsmen, they didn't bring over nobles or the poor. They did their work themselves, they were most educated English colonists. Yet they were the most dogmatic, elitist, and self denying of any group.

Native American conflict is a bit more complex than just the New England desire to ensure their sons all could be yeomen but their attempts at conversion were very much just for show. Considering their strict Calvinist roots, they gave the harshest punishments to Quakers (made a female quaker missionary travel between towns naked getting beaten in winter, this only lasted for three towns BTW). You have to know the Natives that New England found were also pretty metal and warlike in their own regard.

>Cause a bunch of death with 2 bombs
>Cause even more death (on both sides) with a full scale invasion
Not that the bombs weren't horrible, but war is inherently horrible. It's not that "people don't give a shit." It wasn't a decision that was made lightly. It's that it WAS justified because it probably saved lives, hundreds of thousands or even millions

Collect XP

This. Defenseless enemies = free xp

Why does your GM give out XP for defenceless "enemies"? What's next, getting XP for cutting firewood?

Make more defenseless orc babies

>rape

I don't know if he'll give me XP, but it costs me nothing for trying right?

It's all about that grind to level 20. Leave nothing to chance and take no prisoners.

Depends on what the hell the setting is, and what the hell orcs actually are. If every damn orc in the world is born with Gruumsh speaking directly into their minds then by all means massacre the lot.

They're my wives and kids now.

Many settings have them as inheriently evil. I'd burn them alive like I'd burn a Saracen alive. They're not meant for this world.

How does, say, a random baker who happens to liv in the wrong city deserve being killed by an atom bomb? What about his wife and children, or the teachers of his children, or the doctors and nurses in the local hospitals?

Apologize and ask where the bathroom is, so I can take a hot dump and get back to flogging trinkets and sundries to the orcs.

That means that it was pragmatic, not that it was right. This discussion was, originally at least, about roleplaying games and fantasy settings. In DnD terms, taking obviously evil but necessary actions such as murdering civilians wouldn't be Good. I mean, that's also the case in real life - it wasn't a good thing to do. In DnD terms, though, it's the kind of an action a Lawful Evil character might consider reasonable.

Start a total war get total war retaliation. They would've done the same given the chance.

>Helpless
>Orc females

Pick one. If the DM doesn't have them armed and jumping at me the second I walk through the door, it's magical realm, and the DM needs to stop.

The baker didn't start a total war, user. The baker didn't have any say in the matter. Is it somehow difficult to understand that people aren't guilty of actions of others, and most people who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were regular folks who did regular things and had done nothing whatsoever to deserve their fate? I mean, considering the bombings a necessary evil is an entirely reasonable view, but it should be pretty fucking obvious that they were nonetheless terrible tragedies were huge numbers of innocents died.

> depends_on_the_setting.duh
If orcs are MADE of evil then extermination is prudent.
If orcs are evil because they are ugly or because their culture is violent then capture and "taming" is the best course.
If orcs are misunderstood barbarians then I should make sure some males survive and do what I can to gain the trust of the survivors so that I can reduce the likelihood of future conflict.