|
WARNING: Possible minor spoilers.
So, a really odd situation has come up in the current RotRL game.
To give a little preface, let's lay down core players to the situation:
NG Gnome Ranger/Fighter, hell bent on saving the world from the "goblin scourge", after having Parents/Friends killed by them. Also, adopted father of a Half-Orc PC, who was later killed by Goblins(sort of).
CN Possessed Oracle/Titan Mauler Barbarian, follower of Lamashtu, with a "motherly" bent in worship, and biological mother of the fallen Half-Orc PC, looking to wipe out the "Heretic" followers of Lamashtu.
Now, in Thistletop, after slaying many Goblins, Goblin Zombies, Ghouls, Yeth Hounds, and then even more Goblins, and Goblin Zombies, we began cleaning up, and searching everywhere.
That is when we found the Goblin Babies.
Now, our Gnome Ranger was very keen on a "mercy killing" of the Goblin Babies, as was a few other party members. The Human Oracle was not so pleased with the idea, as was another member of the party.
This caused quite a debate amongst the party, and had it not been for a random Ghoul rising, would have continued. Now, the babies have been quietly squirreled away momentarily by the other party member, and the session ended post combat.
Thing is, this will come up next session, and want some advice on dealing with the situation.
Any advice?
By the way, I am playing the CN Possessed Oracle/Titan Mauler Barbarian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...a goblin and a lamashtu cleric playing RotRL. Intriguing.
But, I believe you have no choice. That is, unless, no one possesses the power of puppy-dog eyes...
Otherwise, I suggest that if they can't sort it out themsleves, have Hemlock or another NPC show up with some new information. Either that he or someone else can house the goblins, or that if they aren't killed now they will definitely starve to death/be taken by the other goblin tribes and turn into little monsters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told I'm quite tired of the "should we kill the goblin/orc babies?" scenario.
Bask their bouncy little skulls into the pavement and have done with it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worst comes to worst, someone may want to leave with the kids to raise them, retiring their character from play. Sometimes that's the price of doing the right thing whenever you're the only one willing to do it.
If those for murdering the children can't be swayed, one or more of you are going to have to make a side trek to get them someplace they can be cared for. Any good aligned church worth the alignment should be willing to take them in, but your oracle's choice of deities is probably going to throw some hurdles in the way there.
Try to appeal to the others' sense of compassion and empathy first. If they worship good gods and are still in the mood for killing, throw their hypocrisy back in their faces. Hell, if it gets heated enough, point out that the half-orc was your son and you're hurting just as much as him right now. Ask him what he would do if it was a bunch of baby half-orcs instead. And then ask what if they were baby orcs. And then ask what if they were baby tieflings. Then grill him on when exactly it becomes okay to commit infanticide rather than show the same compassion he apparently showed his adopted son.
Just have the other players distract your character for a moment while the Gnome player gives 'em all a Boot To The Head™. Then get on with your day.
To be simplistic about it, the Lamashtu worshipper works from the better position. She wants to keep them alive, which is within her alignment and faith.
The Gnome however, might have his faith, but killing the goblin babies is an evil act, and he is neutral good. I'm not saying he cannot do, or justify it, I'm just saying that he has the harder position in this case.
-Nearyn
I was planning on introducing a sect of a church who was solely intended to provide orphanages for baby goblins and other normally evil races, so an option would be out there for later players (my friends prefer playing weird/monster races). Was never able to introduce it though.
My players spared the goblin babies as well as the goblin wives when they sacked Thistletop, and pretty much just let them run off.
|
|
Well, there is the possibility that the Ranger will simply kill them later.
Seemingly, the PC is convinced that this the for the greater good.
Unfortunately, he is also stubborn, and convinced that Oracle is untrustworthy, so any suggestion made by her, is something he likely to do the opposite of, which was how she initially was able to stop him from killing the babies right away, by suggesting he "enjoy killing the children".
I guess it is more complicated than just "alignment issues".
In fact, alignment, is not really an issue here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very well. Then I cannot really give any further suggestions (Barring PVP that is), except that the Lamashtu worshipper stand her ground and insist that she will nurture the children, until she can find a place for them to grow up.
Standing your ground and taking the moral high ground is likely the best way to go. Take the children under your protection, thereby ensuring that he has to be the one to break the peace, so he may doom himself to hell. Make no mistake. Killing those children is an Evil act with a capital E, no matter how much greater good he believes he is fighting for.
|
|
"Then you're going to have to kill me first."
and
"I'm willing to die to save these children. Are you as willing to murder an ally so that you may butcher them?"
Well, due to critical miss cards(I so hate them), he has shot one ally with an arrow, and he did shoot another panicked(the condition) ally to bring them to 0 hit points, so he wouldn't be attacked Ghouls(he stabilized and cured him later).
Also, he did try to kill a horse captured by the Goblins, but the Oracle saved, and befriended it.
So, not sure if that particular line works.
Admittedly, whilst the Oracle is a huge advocate of caring for children and animals, she has been pretty brutal to enemies.
This includes pulling out the heart of a giant deformed Goblin after slaying him, and destroying corpses to prevent undead, and not really caring about why individuals were helping their enemies, only that they pay with their lives, or limbs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make no mistake. Killing those children is an Evil act with a capital E, no matter how much greater good he believes he is fighting for.
I don't want to sidetrack, but this is an issue that is certainly debatable (in fact, that's the point!), but is presented here as clear hard fact. This is simply not the case.
The following comes from the SRD page on alignment. It specifically discusses the issue of killing/sparing goblin babies and alignment.
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
My dwarf killed the goblin babies, with a rationale that many dwarves may share. Every good character in the party allowed this action, and all the players in my party agreed that it was not an objectively evil act.
And you wonder why goblins STILL act the way they do, after thousands of years?
I don't want to sidetrack, but this is an issue that is certainly debatable (in fact, that's the point!), but is presented here as clear hard fact. This is simply not the case.The following comes from the SRD page on alignment. It specifically discusses the issue of killing/sparing goblin babies and alignment.
** spoiler omitted **
My dwarf killed the goblin babies,...
So, the SRD states that if you believe that, by a random twisted logic, raping and killing the little bastards is an act of mercy you may do it and still being good.
That absolutely kills the idea of a moral system, doesn't?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately there is no right or good answer to this quandary and nor do I think there ever will be.
You could have two Paladins of the same god and they could argue this point till the babies died of starvation and they would still not reach a solution which would make everyone happy. Apart from the goblin hater who would be happy they died one way or another.
Save them, kill them, leave them? Each is good from someone’s perspective and each is also evil from another’s.
The true evil is in what each character is willing to do to supposedly ‘do good’ As this causes party conflict and possibly inter party conflict.
So in summery, there is no right path. Do or do not; there is not try. And only the Sith deal in Absolutes … Even Yoda would have difficulty with this one.
Sic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the cleric of the Mother of Monsters wants to save them. They're monsters.
This old problem.
The issue here is importing our modern, complicated notions of the words "Good" and "Evil" into a world where morality is a fully realized, divine or semi-divine force. In our world, good and evil are debatable. In Pathfinder, Good and Evil define your character in an objective sense.
You can certainly play DnD/Pathfinder "straight," which means you accept the moral precepts it lays down. Some creatures are, in fact, evil. Evil should be destroyed. This allows you to go about your campaign without wondering about these moral quandries. You kill evil things and take their stuff. A horrible way to exist in our world, certainly, but in Pathfinder, that makes you a hero, because evil is bad.
If you want to discard that notion entirely, and treat alignment as a moral code you aspire to (like in our world) rather than an inherent force that places a mark on your soul, go for it. If you enjoy the kind of dilemma you are facing right now, then by all means import all the moral/ethical BS from our world.
The important thing is you agree with the table about which version of the game you are playing. Never cross the streams. If the Paladin is going hardcore Gygaxian, vaguely racist genocide, and the Wizard is planning on clucking his tongue and demanding that the DM have him fall every five minutes nobody is going to have fun.
So, take five minutes before your next session and ask, OC, which kind of Pathfinder you want to play. Maybe your DM should just lay down the law on what good and evil mean, and go from there.
Best answer.
|
|
This old problem.
The issue here is importing our modern, complicated notions of the words "Good" and "Evil" into a world where morality is a fully realized, divine or semi-divine force. In our world, good and evil are debatable. In Pathfinder, Good and Evil define your character in an objective sense.
You can certainly play DnD/Pathfinder "straight," which means you accept the moral precepts it lays down. Some creatures are, in fact, evil. Evil should be destroyed. This allows you to go about your campaign without wondering about these moral quandries. You kill evil things and take their stuff. A horrible way to exist in our world, certainly, but in Pathfinder, that makes you a hero, because evil is bad.
If you want to discard that notion entirely, and treat alignment as a moral code you aspire to (like in our world) rather than an inherent force that places a mark on your soul, go for it. If you enjoy the kind of dilemma you are facing right now, then by all means import all the moral/ethical BS from our world.
The important thing is you agree with the table about which version of the game you are playing. Never cross the streams. If the Paladin is going hardcore Gygaxian, vaguely racist genocide, and the Wizard is planning on clucking his tongue and demanding that the DM have him fall every five minutes nobody is going to have fun.
So, take five minutes before your next session and ask, OC, which kind of Pathfinder you want to play. Maybe your DM should just lay down the law on what good and evil mean, and go from there.
I prefer a sort of a middle ground...one that's not overly judgmental, but does allow that there should be something of a moral code...so, while I applaud making the effort, I can see the act of 'mercy killing' as a viable alternative that would not cause a paladin to fall. It's a very YMMV case.
So, the SRD states that if you believe that, by a random twisted logic, raping and killing the little bastards is an act of mercy you may do it and still being good.
As stated in the SRD, there are varying good alignments. Each may have a different solution for this quandry, and each may still be "good".
I'm not sure what impulses drove you to include rape in this discussion, either...
If you actually read the SRD page on alignments, you'll see that there are many varying motivations for "good" characters, including honor, freedom, equality, justice, security, and mercy (and much more). This isn't "random twisted logic"; this is a believable character motivation. At least, that's what the SRD says.
Obviously, each table can decide what morality/values system is present in their game, how fixed the rules are, and the nature of goblins. In fact, just as an action may be regarded as "evil" or good depending on the character, this action may be regarded differently by different gaming groups.
|
|
Is it nature or nurture? The world may never know...
The world can never find out if no one ever gives them a chance.
Goblins of Golarion's notes on how children are typically brought up veers strongly towards nurture. That there are non-evil goblins in canon and a gaggle of them running around in the freaking Pathfinder Society lends even more weight to that.
Make no mistake. Killing those children is an Evil act with a capital E, no matter how much greater good he believes he is fighting for.I don't want to sidetrack, but this is an issue that is certainly debatable (in fact, that's the point!), but is presented here as clear hard fact. This is simply not the case.
Oh, no no no no, I am not arguing that the character is not allowed to THINK that he is doing something good. Not at all :D
Your alignment do not stop you from performing actions, that does not sit well with it. In fact, I totally agree that a good character can try to rationalize that killing the babies is the only right choice. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was saying the Gnome KNEW he was doing evil. :)
I meant he IS DOING evil, whether he rationalizes it away or not. He is totally permitted to think as he wants, since alignment system does not suspend free will and thought. His actions however are evil.
The alignment rules in pathfinder are very clearly defined, because alignment can have an effect on stuff in the system, and in order to avoid the whole "evil is subjective, yadda yadda"-debate, when discussing the rules. The characters can hold any viewpoint they want, but whether their actions are evil or not, can be objectively examined by use of the Alignment Rules.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
As we can see here, the act of hurting or killing others is an evil act. It is so, because the rules says it is so. However if you temper it with good actions, like:
"risking your life, defending peasants you don't owe anything(good), by killing the savage orcs(evil), as they were attacking their village".
It is both a good and evil act, which I'm guessing would make it neutral(since if it doesn't paladins are boned). Varying degrees of evil and good, is probably DM territory, but the rules provide us with a very solid base to work from on these issues.
Using these rules, I'm guessing we can all agree that killing defenseless, innocent children, who does in no way have the means to pose a threat to anything, other than their parant's patience, must be an evil act. At best, if some utterly contrived nonsense forces the player's hand, it would be neutral, but in the "oh my god, the evil-o-meter is going nuts"-category of neutral. :D
EDIT:
Here is what the Thistletop-Goblin-Babies-Dilemma ends with, for characters who chose to DO good, rather than THINK good.
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
I love Pathfinder :)
|
|
Is it nature or nurture? The world may never know...The world can never find out if no one ever gives them a chance.
Goblins of Golarion's notes on how children are typically brought up veers strongly towards nurture. That there are non-evil goblins in canon and a gaggle of them running around in the freaking Pathfinder Society lends even more weight to that.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly...my post was more a joke than anything else. My only real issue is...who raises all the orphans?
If every party out rampaging through the dungeons of the world saves all the kiddies...just where do they go?
|
|
Just as an aside, my namesake (the character my forum name comes from - Eldon Guyre) was a paladin. He started an orphanage on a farm, so that the kids could have a place to be safe and well-fed. He even lived there, and taught basic, simple skills...and defense. It wasn't the kids of the slain parents he took in...he never really encountered any...but the kids of the mean streets of the city he lived in. (He was from the Great Kingdom, for you old D&D buffs...)
Again, the SRD specifically mentions this quandry. It gives several examples of different solutions that "good" characters may prefer, depending on their "good" motivations.
To say that killing the goblins is an evil act is not fact, but your opinion. The GameMastery Guide goes out of its way to specifically list different "good" options for this quandry, listed above. Of course, you can disagree with these rules in your own home at your own table. You can impose your own moral code to the alignment system as you wish, with the agreement of the gaming group.
Well, like I said, there is no paladin, and no Cleric involved.
Nobody loses class features, no matter what is decided.
While there are PCs looking to do what is "good", it is not so much "good" in the mechanical sense.
This is more about staying within character, and avoiding any full PvP.
This conversation should focus more on how the blackbloodtroll's party members can resolve this socially awkward moral quandry, while avoiding PvP and staying true to their characters' strongly held beliefs. Okay, back on track.
I'd suggest that to resolve this issue without PvP, and move on with the fun of the adventure, consider simply submitting (as a player, not your character). I see most of the suggestions in this conversation geared toward figuring out "How do we save the babies and still avoid PvP". If the player that controls the ranger is truly stubborn, then this is a monumentally difficult task without PvP. Perhaps consider role-playing your barbarian (if she has low Int) as being easily tricked. Maybe the ranger will "get his way" in this instance, perhaps even without your character's knowledge. Or, this trickery could deepen the mistrust between you two, only to be resolved when one character saves the other from certain death (or something). This suggestion is not perfect, or even that great, but at least it allows the group to move on without PvP and enjoy the rest of the fun of RotR.
Anyways, my priority would be settling this issue quickly, and moving on. Sometimes not all characters can be happy about something. If you find that these moral quandries are not fun or slow down the adventure too much, discuss that with your GM. In fact, this whole issue is an extra non-standard option in RotR that GMs can impose if they want.
I am sorry but when ones actions are ruled by rage and hate. The outcome cannot be good. The ranger killing babies is evil. Pure and simple. Killing goblin babies is like a powerful wizard divining a Paladin will one day murder a man who is betrothed to a woman he falls in love with. So the wizard has the Paladin arrested and hanged, although the crime won't take place until10 years later. If your PC was the paladin in question, you would be the first to say its not fair.
I would suggest that the ranger must also kill himself as a way to balance the scales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would he do that? That's stupid.
I'd personally rather shank the person who's asking me to kill myself for cleansing the world of monsters than actually, y'know, kill myself.
And the whole point is to AVOID PvP.
It doesn't make sense. But if the ranger wants to kill babies because they have a propensity for evil. Then he should kill himself for the same reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make sense. But if the ranger wants to kill babies because they have a propensity for evil. Then he should kill himself for the same reasoning.
Wrong.
He wants to kill the goblins because they're monsters. Quite a gulf of difference there.
In his mind the goblins are always going to be evil. They can be nothing but evil. They are GENETICALLY evil.
So why not nip the issue in the bud?
And even if he DID just think it was because they COULD be evil WHY WOULD HE KILL HIMSELF? HE does not see killing them as an evil act, so there's no reason for him to do it.
And on top of THAT sentient beings are hypocrites all the time, so AGAIN why would he kill himself?
That is possibly the worst "solution" I have seen for this issue, ever. Bar none.
I think I'll avoid commenting on Rogar's "suggestion" and try to add a helpful suggestion of my own.
Try talking to the player of the ranger ahead of time. See if you two can come to some sort of solution. Maybe he's not as stubborn as his ranger seems to be, or he can suggest a method of persuasion that may really resonate with his ranger.
For example, if this gnome ranger sees himself as better than and above the "evil and monstrous" (from his view) goblins, then you can explain to him that killing the babies is exactly what a group of goblins would do to gnomes. Often this type of argument can have a heavy impact on a character, who doesn't want to have any similarities with his hated enemies. The old "that action would make you just as monstrous as them" argument, though very played out, can be effective.
|
|
It doesn't make sense. But if the ranger wants to kill babies because they have a propensity for evil. Then he should kill himself for the same reasoning.Wrong.
He wants to kill the goblins because they're monsters. Quite a gulf of difference there.
In his mind the goblins are always going to be evil. They can be nothing but evil. They are GENETICALLY evil.
So why not nip the issue in the bud?
And even if he DID just think it was because they COULD be evil WHY WOULD HE KILL HIMSELF? HE does not see killing them as an evil act, so there's no reason for him to do it.
And on top of THAT sentient beings are hypocrites all the time, so AGAIN why would he kill himself?
That is possibly the worst "solution" I have seen for this issue, ever. Bar none.
I can see where we can accept that he believes that they're evil...and I can handle the concept that it's a mercy killing, too. We know it's not strictly genetic - they don't have the subtype 'evil', and there are plenty of known exceptions.
On the whole, I agree, though. Kill yourself for killing what is socially accepted as a monster? Seriously? Does the age of a rust monster matter, when you kill it?
Truth be told I'm quite tired of the "should we kill the goblin/orc babies?" scenario.
Bask their bouncy little skulls into the pavement and have done with it.
Indeed. The goblins need their tans too, right? ;)
|
Try talking to the player of the ranger ahead of time. See if you two can come to some sort of solution. Maybe he's not as stubborn as his ranger seems to be, or he can suggest a method of persuasion that may really resonate with his ranger.
For example, if this gnome ranger sees himself as better than and above the "evil and monstrous" (from his view) goblins, then you can explain to him that killing the babies is exactly what a group of goblins would do to gnomes. Often this type of argument can have a heavy impact on a character, who doesn't want to have any similarities with his hated enemies. The old "that action would make you just as monstrous as them" argument, though very played out, can be effective.
This would be my suggestion, too. Figure out what resolutions you would find acceptable as players (does either of you actually care OOC what happens to the goblins?) and then figure out how to get to that resolution IC. This worked really well for my group when we found an evil weapon - some party members wanted to destroy it IC, and two wanted the weapon IC, but we agreed OOC that my ranger ought to get the weapon and then had an IC discussion that ended with my ranger getting the weapon and all players satisfied - even though one character was a little annoyed.
My only real issue is...who raises all the orphans?
If every party out rampaging through the dungeons of the world saves all the kiddies...just where do they go?
The Monster Orphanages, of course!
To say that killing the goblins is an evil act is not fact, but your opinion.
Sigh... Wrong.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
|
|
Try talking to the player of the ranger ahead of time. See if you two can come to some sort of solution. Maybe he's not as stubborn as his ranger seems to be, or he can suggest a method of persuasion that may really resonate with his ranger.
For example, if this gnome ranger sees himself as better than and above the "evil and monstrous" (from his view) goblins, then you can explain to him that killing the babies is exactly what a group of goblins would do to gnomes. Often this type of argument can have a heavy impact on a character, who doesn't want to have any similarities with his hated enemies. The old "that action would make you just as monstrous as them" argument, though very played out, can be effective.
This would be my suggestion, too. Figure out what resolutions you would find acceptable as players (does either of you actually care OOC what happens to the goblins?) and then figure out how to get to that resolution IC. This worked really well for my group when we found an evil weapon - some party members wanted to destroy it IC, and two wanted the weapon IC, but we agreed OOC that my ranger ought to get the weapon and then had an IC discussion that ended with my ranger getting the weapon and all players satisfied - even though one character was a little annoyed.
The Monster Orphanages, of course!My only real issue is...who raises all the orphans?
If every party out rampaging through the dungeons of the world saves all the kiddies...just where do they go?
SWEEEEET! :)
Eldon Guyre approves. ;)
I'll be sure to tuck that passage into my back pocket next time my Paladin kills anything Nearyn.
I'll be sure to tuck that passage into my back pocket next time my Paladin kills anything Nearyn.
As we can see here, the act of hurting or killing others is an evil act. It is so, because the rules says it is so. However if you temper it with good actions, like:
"risking your life, defending peasants you don't owe anything(good), by killing the savage orcs(evil), as they were attacking their village".
It is both a good and evil act, which I'm guessing would make it neutral(since if it doesn't paladins are boned). Varying degrees of evil and good, is probably DM territory, but the rules provide us with a very solid base to work from on these issues.
|
|
My hope is to have a few backup options, in case the "this is what my character would do" is the only response I get, which means PvP.
I have been getting along well with this player lately, and I don't want to have another game where I kill his character again.
Perhaps there is a way to put it forth as though saving the babies helps hurt other adult Goblins?
Playing to his hatred?
Keeping it a secret seems very unlikely though.
I'll be sure to tuck that passage into my back pocket next time my Paladin kills anything Nearyn.As we can see here, the act of hurting or killing others is an evil act. It is so, because the rules says it is so. However if you temper it with good actions, like:
"risking your life, defending peasants you don't owe anything(good), by killing the savage orcs(evil), as they were attacking their village".
It is both a good and evil act, which I'm guessing would make it neutral(since if it doesn't paladins are boned). Varying degrees of evil and good, is probably DM territory, but the rules provide us with a very solid base to work from on these issues.
Why is killing the savage orcs any different from killing the savage goblins?
And you are protecting the peasants. From the grown up pyromaniac goblins.
My hope is to have a few backup options, in case the "this is what my character would do" is the only response I get, which means PvP.
I have been getting along well with this player lately, and I don't want to have another game where I kill his character again.
Perhaps there is a way to put it forth as though saving the babies helps hurt other adult Goblins?
Playing to his hatred?
Keeping it a secret seems very unlikely though.
Well you are in a tight spot, because as I've come to understand it, you have already expressed an interest in saving the children, because you feel it is the right thing to do? If so, it will be pretty transparent when you try to twist the argument. But hey, it might work :)
I think Mikaze's suggestion is the best yet. If your character will not allow your companion to slaughter children, then stand in his way. Is your character afraid of death, or afraid of confrontation to protect what she believes in? If so, this could be an excellent chance to play on those insecurities. If not, be the bulwark, be the shield. If he wants to start something, let him, but tell him that you do not wish to see anyone hurt. Not them, and not him. :)
|
|
My hope is to have a few backup options, in case the "this is what my character would do" is the only response I get, which means PvP.
I have been getting along well with this player lately, and I don't want to have another game where I kill his character again.
Perhaps there is a way to put it forth as though saving the babies helps hurt other adult Goblins?
Playing to his hatred?
Keeping it a secret seems very unlikely though.
Hmmm. Not sure how it would hurt other adult goblins...unless they could be trained to infiltrate goblin society (wait...huh? Goblin...gangs. Better.)...and destroy them from the inside...maybe?