The orc baby dilemma is stupid because murdering children is always wrong...

The orc baby dilemma is stupid because murdering children is always wrong. Even if it's 99% probable the baby will eventually grow into an evil, rampaging monster, the fact that there exists a scenario where it doesn't means murdering it is evil. In fact, the only non-bad option in the orc baby scenario is to adopt it and raise it in the light of justice.

Attached: 2b9d677104cd4e3299e8f7295cab209d.png (420x420, 358K)

Orcs don't have children they have "whelps." Problem solved.

The definition of "whelp" is a puppy/cub. Do you think killing puppies is non-evil, too?

Neutral act, good if wolves.

Explain to me why killing puppies is evil first.

Killing innocent things with a modicum of intelligence is wrong

Ah, there's your problem: their innocence value is NaN, and your code is misprocessing it as Inf. Fix that bug and it'll work.

Any setting that has orcs as objectively evil and unreasonable monsters who are by nature marauders is shit. Tolkien himself criticized his own orcs for the same issue and any setting that doesn't explore the humanity of orcs is one that is photocopying a self-admittedly unexplored aspect of Tolkien's lore

>murdering children is always wrong
[citation needed]

Attached: heard ya talkin shitoko.jpg (180x185, 62K)

Orcs aren't people

Any setting that wants to explore the humanity of orcs has crawled up its own asshole and died.

I would argue that most people aren't people.

I always liked the idea of making Orc young more like things than actual infants. Like little screeching pustules, crawling towards the PC's gnashing their teeth, frothing at the mouth with wild, cruel eyes. To make it clear they are irrevocably evil and killing them is a good thing.

While the Orc mothers would be covered in bite mark scars they'd likewise fight to the death

Yeah, no. If someone (an orc) is genetically hardwired to be evil, and you have the chance to prevent all the evil it could commit, it would be evil not to do so.

Attached: 1418139616341-2.jpg (830x900, 132K)

>using an example of an ork
The fact that orks can work with man shows that they're not genetically hardwired to be evil and can be reasoned with

what kind of hack fraud creatively bankrupt DM employs this scenario in their game?

Attached: 1502409010203.jpg (418x576, 171K)

>The fact that Bowser can drive karts with Mario shows that he's not genetically hardwired to be evil and can be reasoned with

Attached: a14.png (680x722, 514K)

>There is nothing wrong with killing puppies
Good to know Veeky Forums is still populated by the same sociopathic basement dwellers it always has been.
And people have the audacity to say that this board changes.

Attached: puppy.jpg (1200x650, 115K)

It's only wrong to kill Blink Dog puppies

Murdered orc babies get to hang out with Zaphkiel in Chronias, the seventh heaven of Mount Celestia. Murder too many babies and it stands to reason that Zaphkiel sends someone over to wreck your shit.

And that's why you shouldn't murder orc babies.

>there exists a scenario where it doesn't means murdering it is evil
I guess killing murderous thieves is wrong in this respect too because of the chance at a change of heart. By that reasoning, killing anything is wrong because of the chance of it becoming good for no apparent reason.

>but there's no imminent threat with the orc baby!
There will be eventually. There's no imminent threat with a group of murderers that isn't planning to kill right at that moment, but has killed in the past. One scenario is just thinking farther ahead than the other.

>actually debating this shit situation on Veeky Forums
this is what my life has become

Attached: 1513499775824.jpg (640x639, 185K)

Dude, dogs don't have souls. They're like worms. Killing them is like a non-act.

I agree with your choice but think you're stupid if you miss the difficulty of the problem. It's like the trolley problem, but if you don't pull the lever and it's a particular trolley that is leaning against it's nature, it will stop. If it's not the particular type of trolley that will consider goodness, you're boned. You don't know shit about trolleys. Though I guess you are the trolley if you pull the lever, and the orc is on the track. The orc is the trolley if you don't, and his victims on the track. If it does not stop, you are responsible for their deaths.

What about pure demon children where the baby just will be evil, no bullshit percentile needed? What about mindflayers where the fucker is a tadpole that eats brains? Sometimes you have to give them the old bap-rap and move on.

>It's like the trolley problem

Push the fat orc in front of the trolley.

This thread is approved

Attached: Unspookable.jpg (753x800, 170K)

>murdering children is always wrong. Even if it's 99% probable the baby will eventually grow into an evil, rampaging monster, the fact that there exists a scenario where it doesn't means murdering it is evil. In fact, the only non-bad option in the orc baby scenario is to adopt it and raise it in the light of justice.

Your problem is that you're looking at orcs as if they're people at all. They're not. They're vermin, pests, monsters. Good and Evil aren't part of the calculation.
We murder rat babies and cockroach babies all the fucking time. No one thinks twice about stepping on a whole mound of ants, crushing the baby ant larva within. You don't spare the tiny spiders, crawling away from the Giant Spider Monster's corpse, because they're innocent babies that didn't eat nobody yet.
That's because they're monsters and they need to be eradicated.

Still goes under baby category. Baby, whelp, pup, cub, etc goes under the baby category.

user's pic is a bad example of orc since said ork is a genetically hardwired bio-weapon. Not your average orc.

this.

kill all orcs.

By that definition, killing babies is nigh-universally good. ENDING WILD ANIMAL SUFFERING IS THE TRUE CAUSE AREA.

>actually debating this shit situation on Veeky Forums
I'm on the side of killing Orc babies but your arguments and examples are poor. The Orc babies have never done wrong, they are innocent in that they haven't done anything but born into a evil race. A murderous thief has 'sinned' and a group of murderers that have murdered in the past has also 'sinned' neither are comparable to an Orc baby. Think about it before posting self-aggrandising shit.

"Your average ork" Is a fantasy creature that doesn't fucking exist so be a little more fucking specific senpai

There's nothing suggesting Bowser is genetically hardwired to be evil. Especially because koopas in general are shown to not be genetically hardwired to be evil. Imagine how much of a brainlet you'd have to be to imagine anyone evil is evil due solely to biology.

Agressiveness is to a certain degree, genetic. If the parents were ultra agressive, it is probable the offspring will also be ultra aggressive.

Nice strawman, I simply asked for why it would be an evil act.

>possess self-awareness and sapience
>possess culture
orcs are not monsters

Imagine falling to THIS depth of failure in your pursuit of the simple task of being a member of the human race. It's hard to conceive of a lower grade of subhuman than this thing. I'm surprised it knows how to use a keyboard, its parents obviously didn't care to nurture it.

Mindflayers have both of those

And they're not monsters, they're people. People who choose to be evil, sure.

Thereby implying that you have no idea why it would be evil in the first place. Thereby making you a sociopath.

Unless you do know that it's a bad thing to kill puppies, in which case why would you make such a retarded post in the first place?

Attached: 14443324.png (523x402, 217K)

>sociopath
This is such a buzzword nowadays.

So you have no actual answer or way to argue it and the best you can do is strawman to argue why you are correct? You haveade the claim and a simple question was asked, especially since not ever culture shares your views where dogs are seen as food to some.

Think about how OP constructed his argument and think about how to argue against points before replying to me again. OP posted that it was wrong to kill the orc baby in a situation where there was a 1% chance it would not kill. If it is wrong to kill something because of an extremely minute chance that it would not kill(the situation OP described originally) then it would logically be wrong to kill many things that would it otherwise be reasonable to kill because there is a 1% chance that the situation would not end as expected.

The only reason he gave for why it is always wrong is because of the 1% chance it will not become a murderer. When someone only has one point backed by faulty reasoning, you show why that reasoning is shit. If a 1% chance is enough to spare a life then you really shouldn't be defending yourself against (almost) certain threats to your life with deadly force. If that sounds retarded, you can see why OP's only point was retarded.

>Antisocial attitudes and behavior
on Veeky Forums
>Lack of conscience
thinks it's okay to abuse animals
Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Attached: sociopath.png (628x267, 13K)

No, they must be "monsters". It's their nature. You know how mindflayers feed and reproduce right.
No, that's not what it implies. Answer the question.

You keep doing you, my friend. At the end of the day we're all just idiots arguing on a Crimean Dancing Sea Monkey message board so there's not much I could do to change your mind I guess.

But OP has two points: the orc baby has a chance of not becoming evil, and is ALREADY innocent. Murderers aren't innocent. It is true that they could one day be good, but they are not currently innocent, and by most systems of morality (not my own) it is acceptable to punish them, even with death.

Just because you type a lot doesn't make your point smart, especially if much of your argument is "I'm being retarded on purpose to prove a point"

I have to thank you for a truly excellent post. I don't think a single person would have fallen for my bait but I was proud of myself for writing it.

In all seriousness though I could probably kill a puppy, in an indirect way like dropping it of a bridge of something.

>you know how mindflayers feed and reproduce right
The only reason they're considered monsters is because their method of feeding is "unnatural" to you. But to another sapient species, humanity's capacity for widespread slaughter of animals raised only to be food is "unnatural"

He has a point though. The 'why' killing puppies is evil isn't obvious. It's evil because killing puppies is damaging to the person doing the killing: it hurts your soul to kill something you love, name, and treat like family, or just something you find cute. If you never realize the thing you're killing is cute or human like and end it's life as a mercy, you do less damage to yourself.

This thread is my property. Like your post.

literally demons fit in that category.
would you spare a demon, just because it had only freshly been spawned into existence and hadn't committed an evil act yet?

Killing is not abusing.

Yes, exactly? Why do you think "monster" was in quotations? That doesn't change anything. I'm not another sentient species, I'm this one, and to me, mindlfayers are monsters. And they'll be treated as such.

>would you spare a demon
I guess it depends on whether demons are 100% always evil. If not then of course.

Attached: Hellboy.jpg (640x449, 40K)

They're monsters because they're aligned to objective cosmic evil and they propagate through acts of objective cosmic evil. People like you in some way deserve it when their brain is eaten by tadpoles.

>no he said children are innocent
He never said that, did he? He only said that murdering children is always wrong. What he did do is provide a point about how a 1% chance of not murdering is enough to spare a life.
And I see that you didn't disagree that the reasoning is retarded after I broke it down, which was my intent. We can argue about whether or not it is okay if the child is innocent, but we would probably be doing so without the assumption OP made about not killing in near certain scenarios of death. Because that was what my post was addressing.
That is not being retarded, it is being deliberate with isolating individual points and looking at the underlying reasoning. If you're used to arguing by throwing 15 claims at a time at the other person then I can see why this would be strange. But THAT is an intentionally retarded way to argue.

Attached: 1467879615541.jpg (910x925, 64K)

But user, you're not arguing, you're just making claims and then strawmaning against someone who asked a simple question. So my next question is what do you think of pitbulls user?

If the baby is female, adopt and receive an orc waifu in about 10 years.

there is no "dilemma"
they're objectively evil if you're playing DnD
end of discussion
--- --- ---
Troll Line
--- --- ---

Fine. We'll leave them to die of natural causes, then.

is perfectly fine to spare a orc's life, I mean is not like they're elves, rigth?

Sometimes they are, depends on the setting

>Wolves
>Innocent
My dead livestock beg to differ

I think they shouldn't continue to be bred but any that are kicking around right now should be treated with the love deserved by all living things. As long as I have something in my care that depends on me daily I'd do the most I can to help it, because "Nature versus nurture" isn't absolute and if Pitbulls WERE remorseless killing machines, you wouldn't see so many people defending them. But they are genetically predisposed to occasional bouts of violent behavior or, even worse, continued acts of violent behavior if placed in the wrong environments. it just so happens that with pitbulls the "Wrong environment" can vary a lot more than with other dogs, so I don't think they have any reason to be continually bred other than dindus trying to make dog fighting rings.

So I guess at the end of the day, that's my answer to the Orc question too.

Attached: 1505451603542.jpg (342x298, 34K)

...I don't like you very much right now.

The people in this thread defending mindflayers and orcs think they're Jean Luc Picard, but really they're just the retarded frog who lets the scorpion cross the river on his back.
For what purpose would you go out of your way to save a being you know to be your dire enemy and will try to destroy you at the first opportunity?

You're fools, all of you, and a warning from Laocoon himself wouldn't stop you from from killing yourself from your own idiocy.

Are you high?

Doesn't change the facts here.

The moral of the scorpion and the frog isn't that the frog is wrong, though. If that were the intention, the fable would have the frog escape death by not helping the scorpion.

If the moral was that the frog was right to let the scorpion die he would have left him behind
If the moral was that the frog was wrong to help the scorpion live he would have helped him over.

The frog helped and died for it because he knew the scorpion would likely kill him and did it anyway. The Catholic upbringing in me perverts this fable to mean that it is right to sacrifice yourself to help others who would hurt you but I keep that bit of my character at arm's length.

Attached: 1491232641208.jpg (1165x1075, 141K)

So we castrate the orc babies. Fair enough

That's not it at all. The moral is that we must fight our base nature in order to benefit. The scorpion chose his nature over reason. The frog's nature is to avoid the scorpion, and he was able to fight his nature.

So simply because they have been bred by arguably evil people to be this way an entire breed deserves to be phased out of existence? Sounds like getting rid of a symptom instead of the cause to me, should we start applying this to all things in life? Any people who have shown higher than normal signs of aggression are forced to have their genetic line end, especially if their family has a history of such?

Also, ready to answer my original question for funsies?

>if Pitbulls WERE remorseless killing machines, you wouldn't see so many people defending them
I got a clue right here. The UK also has a ton of clues.
It very much changes the facts

Attached: 1491430367615.png (603x800, 301K)

I'm the first arguer, you responded to some other user (not that it actually matters). I still think your opening argument is terrible, your main failing is making the inexplicable link between first time and repeat offending. OP isn't saying don't kill Orc babies, he's saying you have to raise 100 Orc babies and slay 99 of them when they become murderous for the good of the 1 good Orc.

Or maybe your first post was serious and all these other arguments about what OP has said are an asspull to save your damaged ego.

>liberals
The only people I see arguing for pitbulls are conservative. It's like the gun debate, m-muh people kill people shit. Liberal counties in Canada tried to have them banned.

>Better rapists than racists

The story doesn't show any good coming from sticking to universalist moral principles to the point of suicide. If the frog went to heaven in the story for doing so your argument would make sense.

There are a dozen different interpretations for this. The scorpion is wrong for failing to fight his nature. The frog is either right or wrong: he's wrong if the goal is to live: if you want to live, don't bet on others fighting their natures. He's right if the goal is to die a martyrs death.

The main statistician recording pit bull attacks is in charge of a major animal rights group that push things like animal sentience and welfare

Pitbulls should obviously continue to be bred, and anyone who says otherwise is a weak human who can't take a dog attack every once in a while.
I've been attacked by wildlife with a regularity for my entire life, and when I am no longer canny and strong, it will kill me.

Quite frankly, we need WAY more casual threats like pitbulls in our society.

>raise 100 orc babies and slay 99 of them when they become murderous
That sounds pretty divorced from any situation that isn't inheriting an orc orphanage. What I'll cede is that we would need more information about when they become murderous and if it is reasonable to stop them before their first murder consistently to judge the risk versus letting the baby live. Whether or not seeing some aggression is justifiable for killing, etc

>ego
It's other anons who take issue with me arguing about this, more specifically one just got uppity about thinking the argument itself is played out, which it is honestly.

Attached: 1513629253381.jpg (866x898, 229K)

I'll say that inheriting an orc orphanage is an alright twist on the situation as a premise for a one-shot or campaign idea if your players are fine with time skips and trying to make it work, though.

Attached: 1465249801177.jpg (1280x720, 52K)

As my goal for my kingdom is to eventually have a populace where even the weakest peasant can merit boss fight music and can reliably fight a battleship, I think "whether or not the baby will eventually kill some people" is a naive worry.

I fully expect and outright encourage high lethality rates. After all, it is to be expected. I don't want to change how people behave- I just want them each individually to be capable of levelling a building. Therefore, bar room fights are now extremely high threat incidents, and this is as it should be.

What if you just polymorphed the orc baby into a rat or something and let it scamper off?

giga magicrime, you are now an evil witch.
Though, really, if you are thinking about this in the first place, you probably don't give a shit about this.

Attached: wizards_.gif (600x263, 25K)

While I wholeheartedly agree, I don't know about cultivation of external danger, IE sparing orc babies, for that end. Bears and pit bulls can't dismantle my entire tribe/kingdom, but orc hordes might

>muh epic pupper good boi doggo
Fuck off, reddit.

The correct response to the orc baby scenario is to call your DM a fag and then go get a beer. It's a half assed attempt at moral complexity that tends to fail in the light of the GM treating orcs as mindless murder machines yet expecting you to waffle over the babies as if they're nhot

I want a nice range of dangers, external and internal.

Gotta have shit testing your people as well as your governance and military.

Okay then, Mr. Paladin, how do you solve the issue of "the orc population is doubling every two years"?

Just detect evil on it, if it pings use helm of opposite alignment until it stops pinging. Repeat every year until adult.

Problem solved.

>how do you solve population issues
Gigacrimes.
Either that or a continuous process of creating more housing and more infrastructure.

Note, one of these options most likely has an upper cap.

Good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men, strong men create good times.

But I'd rather that it goes like that and not
>weak men create strong orcs
>

>muh alignment
What about the laws of the country? What about their policies on different things? Are we just to assume that every lawful good/lawful neutral country is identical?

The thing about this whole debate is because we're looking from it on the outside. If we were in a place where orcs are routinely going around killing our children and burning our homes, we wouldn't think twice about murdering an orc baby. Same as with the dogs, if they are attacking people or even if they are tamed and during a time of starvation we wouldn't think twice about killing a dog.

>The moral of the scorpion and the frog isn't that the frog is wrong
that's literally the moral of the story.
don't naively trust something you know, by its very nature, will try to kill you. Otherwise it will kill you.

Better use your weak men to make some stronger men while that is happening, dumbass.

Attached: weyland.jpg (575x269, 80K)

Create some device to cast a permanent Block the Seed on most orcs.

It's the humane thing to do.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Actually, we would think several times and then feel a lot of remorse about killing a dog in times of starvation because of cultural mores.

And, quite frankly, the people who take the risk of raising the dangerous thing have outreproduced the people who did not take the risk on so many occasions with so many different dangerous things that taking care of the ork baby is pretty much instinct by this point. Anyone responding otherwise is an artifact of one of these outbreeding points not being recent enough.

>murdering children is always wrong

Attached: Arthaspaladin1.jpg (185x185, 6K)