therobfather3's page

Hey, guys! DM here for this game.

So, we ended up resolving it way different than any of us expected.

The Magus messaged me and told me that he wasn't liking how his character was playing out (RP and mechanic wise), and asked if he could roll up a different character. I told him to come up with an idea, and I'd probably approve it.

He decided to roll up a Goblin Ranger. He wrote up a whole backstory which included his character being an official Ranger for the Goblin King that was the party's prisoner. He also wrote a whole intro spiel where his Magus is provoked into attacking the Goblin prisoners, and the Ranger swoops in and saves the King by incapacitating the Magus.

He gave his loyalty to the party in exchange for allowing the King to go free (the two guards with the King were killed by the Magus before he was knocked out).

When the Magus came to, he saw that the party had accepted the Ranger, and being the Goblin racist he is, he left in quite a disgusted huff.

So there it is! This all happened in the first few minutes of our session, so it didn't take any real time at all (thankfully!).

Thanks for everyone's input on the matter. I don't think Ashbury or I ever expected two pages of discussion on this matter, lol.

Has the race information been alter in any way? If so, was this clearly changed and made obvious? Or did your new world just add goblins in? Swapping worlds don't change the info under the race/moster listings unless you tell people it does.

It's definitely not altered much (and wasn't even intentionally altered in this scenario...)

For me, this would mean I'd go with the default setting/description for goblins. That's not to say the paladin isn't free to make up his own mind, it just means that if I was a player I'd be right with the magus saying we should kill them. Myself, I avoid playing a paladin because these kind of questions come up all the time and no one wants to fall over a disagreement over what good/evil in a 'shades of grey' game.

You would be 100% right to go with the default feeling of "goblins are evil". I definitely don't think the magus was wrong to act the way he did. That's why I let it go on. It was more of an organic decision, I suppose. It became a big discussion, and so I let it ride out because I was interested in seeing what the outcome would be. I didn't think that it would turn into what it has, but that's the dice I rolled, and now I have to accept those results and do with them what I can.

All in all, I had no plans to have non-evil goblins (although I didn't have plans to specifically NOT have non-evil goblins either), this was just an effect of players making decisions in a soft rule set game.

You won't hear me complain about it, though!

We take the books on there word about what nations are next to each other, that buildings are in a town and how the rules work. I find it very odd that for some reason, when alignment comes into play, all that gets tossed out the door.

I suppose there's a lack of clarity/information there. The world itself is of my own creation. The books are a guidelines for rulings, but none of the physical world is quite the same. I have a couple of modules set up for starting out, but I've removed/edited anything pertaining to specific places that the players haven't been to yet.

EDIT: That's for my own game. Of course I understand that you're speaking generally, as it's been seen on this thread that people do feel a sense of malleability to alignment. I think that's because it IS a physical/mental situation.

I expect the book explanation to be what the players start out knowing. Nothing in the posts from the players/dm in this situation mentioned anything about a setup in the game that altered the basic nature of the game. SO, a player that isn't using out of character knowledge SHOULD have/use that common knowledge about the race they are talking about.

Myself, I "don't want to play'" a game where the game is influenced by players knowledge/feeling over the characters knowledge/feelings. Treating the world like a 21 century modernized country in regards to morality and capturing 'villains' isn't my idea of D&D.

I definitely get where you're coming from. People have different playstyles and interests. Nothing wrong with that. I like a more moral gray area. I think it gives my characters more of a depth of personality.

Oh, you can and there should be. The issue at hand is 'do the PC know that it's possible?' Unless there are tales of odd non-evil members of usually evil races floating around, why would the players know it? Did they roll a high DC know check? Or are you assuming that it's just common knowledge? If you expect something outside the norm, like non-evil goblins are common enough that EVERYONE in the world knows about it, then that's something to let the players know ahead of time.

It's not a common thing in my head. I don't have any of my notes with me, but I know that the Paladin doesn't follow Torag. He could tell you more about who he does follow, and if there are any rules for surrender. Like I said, this is definitely a bit more of a homebrew game, with a lot of open space for creativity, so to speak. The Paladin may believe that all beings are worthy of redemption, and so he fights to protect that ideal.

I don't think Ashbury or I ever expected this thread to become such a hot spot. I appreciate everyone putting their input on it, though! It's a blast reading through and seeing everyone's fairly differing opinions. Like I said somewhere up above, I'll reply with what happened regarding this situation once we've played again.

therobfather3 wrote:

After all, if you're not passionately trying to save/kill goblins in your first campaign session, are you even playing right?

I find 'morality trap' goblins an annoying trope.

I would advise saying, "In my world goblins aren't vermin or innately evil, though some of them are evil. The Magus is in the wrong here."

Or the opposite.

Otherwise, there is no likely end point to this argument, no obvious compromise possible between 'dead goblins' and 'non-dead goblins', and no justification for either side backing down, since both of them are in the right, based on their understanding of the situation.

The issue I have with this is I don't want to give absolute certainties to things in the world. Maybe the adventurers have never met a goblin that wasn't evil. Should that mean there can't possibly be any non-evil aligned goblins ever? And if there are, why would the DM say off the bat "There are some good goblins in this world." That leaves no sense of surprise or confusion for the players once they DO possibly encounter a non-evil goblin.

If the point is to build an interesting narrative, having something unexpected pop up randomly, I think, is a good thing. It's a twist that maybe nobody saw coming, and throws preconceived notions for a loop.

EDIT: I should say, I never intended for the goblins to behave this way. Like Ashbury said, the beginner's box has them essentially try to broker a deal with the players. What ended up happening is the players were way more powerful than we thought, so they just tore through the beginner box content like it was nothing. I didn't plan for it, but you gotta roll with what happens!

I think FAR too many people go into the game with a modern 'comic book' outlook instead of a fantasy sword and magic view. Pathfinder has established that some races either are or assumed to be innately evil.

So because the book says it, that means it's just plain fact, and can't ever be changed? That's not a game I want to play, personally.

Exactly, My game of choice is actualy the HERO system. In it they talk about 4 color games v. Gritty...I have always said I do 32 Color games...It is not a simplistic "Good guys ware white" but you are rewarded in minor ways for doing Good...In my game a Paladin WOULD fall for not defending the little guys, not because they claim to be good but because HE is good

I agree with this. I don't like the idea of black and white games. Then it just turns into a "it's what my guy would do" situation. There's no substance, just rules and regulations.

These are just my opinions on things. I guess I prefer a more homebrewed/on the fly system, rather than a hard set of rules to follow.

graystone wrote:

Ashbury137 wrote:

but what if the goblins in question have only raided the town for food and their surrender was sincere?

How would the party know if it was? Have you set up a world where non-evil goblins live? Is it a known factor in the world? If not, it's a pretty big leap of faith that THESE goblin are an exception to the norm.

So it's NOT that they are sincere but does the party have a realistic reason for thinking they are. Have you set the groundwork for them to think it's possible?

As PCs, we know that none of the townsfolk have been injured in the goblin raids, just that food and livestock have been stolen. And I'm pretty sure the goblin was telling the truth when he told us that they only raided because they were hungry (tbh at this point I can't remember if any of us failed or passed our sense motive checks... lol Maybe my DM or some of the other players can chime in here if they remember).

As far as the sincerity of their surrender, we're playing the Pathfinder beginner box wherein I think the goblins are supposed to try and broker some kind of truce with the PCs. The dragon invaded their home and they want him gone... enemy of my enemy kind of situation I think.

And, in all honesty, my DM is probably just making them "good" because this whole scenario is not going in the direction he was expecting. So as far as some kind of groundwork for good goblins... no idea lol

Apparently I've created a situation where there ARE some good goblins? Or, at least, ones that aren't just bent on being evil. I guess things will just have to unfold as they will.

The situation definitely didn't happen the way I expected it to, but I'll have to roll with it. Ain't no retconning in my game!

Out of curiosity, what happened?

We're finishing it on Saturday. I'll let you know after that!

Rackdam wrote:

As a GM, if the party is arguing for more than 10 minutes here's what happen :

That's some pretty heavy-handed bad GMing right there.

GM for the game in question here. I definitely let this go on for about 15-20 minutes, at which point we went outside to "take a break", and the dwarf and elf still continued their discussion (even bringing girlfriends/wives into it for opinions).

All of this was definitely heated and passionate, but never hostile, and it was all in character, so I didn't feel any reason to just nip it for the sake of time.

Personally, I loved every second of watching them go back and forth trying to reason with the other. After all, if you're not passionately trying to save/kill goblins in your first campaign session, are you even playing right?