Do monsters always have to be nasty just because they're monsters? Might gnolls be feral, wild, and clannish, yet sensible beings? Is there such a thing as a benign orc society? Is there any place in the multiverse of OGL games where goblins and humans live side-by-side? Why not?
I've downloaded the Classic Monsters Revisited for Pathfinder Chronicles. It's excellent for what it is, which is an anthropology of wicked humanoid monsters. The goblins crack me up! Hobgoblin society is interesting, and gnolls are downright scary.
I want to really like the gnolls, actually. I want them to be less misogynistic. Gnoll society would be really cool if aspects like their beneficence to their ecosystems, their shamanistic ways, and their culture of priestesses and mother-worship were slanted in a different way. As it is, the women are b~*&#es (yes, I understand this is a canine reference) and the men are unforgiving, lazy brutes.
Of course a player character will be motivated to strike them down.
Maybe I am looking for something different in my gaming sessions than most. I don't get a lot of joy out of ferocious combat and smiting the monsters. I want to explore worlds ripe with variety and culture. Sure, an orc NPC could be a savage beast, but humans can be savage beasts, too. Elves should be capable of being just as nasty as their drow counterparts, I think. Dwarves are greedy, foul-tempered, and violent, yet they are enshrined as heroes in the game. I am interested in worlds where lawful evil dwarven societies, obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, clash with lawful evil human societies, which are also obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, and maybe even enslaving the dwarves for their excellent crafting abilities, their strength and their constitutions. And I want the gnolls out there living in the wild fringes to be resisting this insanity, looking on at the insane behavior of those civlized monsters with disbelief and fear. Sure, the elves and halflings and gnomes are out there too, and they are prejudiced against the gnolls and goblins, perhaps, but also concerned about the raging appetites and wars of the humans and dwarves. If things got real bad, maybe the gnolls and elves would get together with a society of druids to guard their wild homelands against the encroaching greed of the civilized world.
Does this type of atmosphere appeal to anyone else? I'm just a little tired of the classic good guys vs. bad monsters scenarios, even if it is handled with new in-depth descriptions. Much, much more interesting things can be done with this game than the trope of the hordes of savage humanoids who can't be reasoned with. Of course, taking that basic axiom from the game might seem like a killing blow. But I think this game can be about much more than fighting and torching stuff with magic. Surely I'm not the only one.
Is there such a thing as a benign orc society? Is there any place in the multiverse of OGL games where goblins and humans live side-by-side? Why not?
Eberron maybe? Probably FreePort might also be ok with this, but that is more due to it being a pretty CN->CE port city (started by pirates). I don't play a lot of actual published campaign settings (prefering my own), so I can't tell you about whole lot out there.
Does this type of atmosphere appeal to anyone else? I'm just a little tired of the classic good guys vs. bad monsters scenarios, even if it is handled with new in-depth descriptions. Much, much more interesting things can be done with this game than the trope of the hordes of savage humanoids who can't be reasoned with. Of course, taking that basic axiom from the game might seem like a killing blow. But I think this game can be about much more than fighting and torching stuff with magic. Surely I'm not the only one.
I will say, I do like having some good battle evil on a regular basis. Having said that, I also agree that for most humanoid creatures they are not totally evil or totally good in my worlds. Often times in my games, the party can overcome challenges by being diplomatic instead of swing first and speak to dead later.
Here is an example of situation that happened one time in one of my games.
Of course a group of bugbears ignored this, without permission from their chief, and snuck over to the PCs camp in the middle of the night, hoping to catch the PCs unaware and easy pickings. They got a nasty surprise when the party wiped out them except for one that got away. The party a bit upset that the truce was ignored decided to have the rogue turned invisible and to "return the prisoners" (Lord of the Rings reference). The chief getting the heads of some of his tribe was furious, not with the party for killing them, but for the idiots endangering the tribe and worse, failing*. The chief recognized the heads and told the guards to find anyone else from that group of trouble makers and bring them to him. The bugbear that had escaped was found and the chief cut off his head. The chief then had a runner go unarmed with the head to the PCs' camp to give them the head of the last trouble maker. The party rogue had been observing all of this and when the runner left the camp she said to him, "I'll take that from here." To which he jumped almost out of his skin, tossing the head in the air and running back to the bugbear camp.
No other trouble occured the rest of the night and the two camps went their own way in the morning.
*The chief and alot of the warriors were in fact CE and had the trouble makers had succeed in killing the PCs, the trouble makers would have probably been reward and honored for their initiative. But to go against the orders of your chief and then to fail is the worse thing you could have done.
What you are nibbling at the edge of is a question that can arise in D&D type games. The question is "what right do adventurers have to do what they do?", and the question of "what is good and evil and why are some defined one way and the others another?"
The funny thing is that there is a lot of historical precident for the attitude of "races X, Y and Z are good, all others are monsters." Take a look at the history of colonialism in Africa. It's the same attitude of racial superiority although it's specie vs specie rather than ethnicity vs ethnicity.
These questions can do one of two things to the game. Either it can add a new and facinating dimention to the game. Or it can bog everything down, make poeple uncomfortable and generally make the game suck. The problem is that for the former to happen instead of the latter you need a group that is very, very good at role playing and more importantly that is extremely intelligent and mature. I try not to worry about those questions too much.
In my campaign there are two races that are traditionally monsters that have developed peaceful societies and are trying to be accepted by the "good" races. Of course they are not having an easy time of it, but the party has interacted with one of the two a bit recently. Still I try not to bring of the moral question of "what gives you the right to go into the orc's home and murder him?"
In my games, I have variation in how "savage" monster races are; the alignment in the monster entry is just the baseline. For instance, you could have CN/CE orcs living alongside CN/CE humans in "perfect harmony" (so to speak). Likewise for gnolls, goblins, you name it.
2E, it sounds like you have the makings of a great new homebrew campaign setting! I know that I and several of my players would be very interested in giving that a shot. I'm not familiar with any actual published setting which describes what you've laid out, but WoW has the Horde as one of the two playable factions. Their orcs are a noble barbarian culture misunderstood by the humans, and the tauren (minotaurs) are a peaceful shamanistic race. The trolls are a little darker, but not necessarily evil. Etc. The humans are often in the wrong in WoW's history (and are the ones which refuse to let the war between Alliance and Horde die out).
WoW is often maligned by the D&D community, but it really has more to it than most people give it credit for. At any rate, the point I am driving to is that experience has really opened up interest and even demand amongst the younger generation of gamers (my generation) for alternate racial identities, for playing the savage and monstrous races (only not so savagely and monstrously). I think that's one of the big reasons the 3.x Monster Manual features Level Adjustment rules for so many creatures, and also a major factor behind the publication of books such as Savage Species.
So go ahead and run with that idea! I think it would make for a great world and a great new campaign experience!
I already do this in my games, actually. Certain races may be perceived as evil, but few creatures (i.e. demons, devils) are inherently evil.
And there have been lots of settings that take this approach, as mixing up the standard player assumptions is a popular way to differentiate a setting. Eberron, as mentioned earlier, has good orcs, bad gold dragons, etc. Even earlier there were settings like Barsaive (for the Earthdawn RPG) that had PC orks, trolls, lizardfolk (t'skrang), fairies (windlings), and rockfolk (obsidimen) alongside the humans, elves, and dwarves. Barsaive was one of my favorite non-D&D settings.
So, it's solid, proven ground upon which to build an adventure, a campaign, or even a world so if it works for your game then go for it!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For me, in my campaigns, it's a question of gods.
Kids in every culture get christened/baptized/offered to a particular deity, and this has real ramifications. A child (or any race) given in dedication to a particular god may or may not end up being a priest of that god, but will have his preferences, perceptions, and personality bent to that god's purposes and perspective.
Kill a gnoll village. The little gnollings who have not yet been dedicated to Lammashtu are entirely free-willed. Some of them might be evil, some might not. But the kids whose souls have already been offered to the goddess will usually act to further her interests.
For me, in my campaigns, it's a question of gods.
Kids in every culture get christened/baptized/offered to a particular deity, and this has real ramifications. A child (or any race) given in dedication to a particular god may or may not end up being a priest of that god, but will have his preferences, perceptions, and personality bent to that god's purposes and perspective.
Kill a gnoll village. The little gnollings who have not yet been dedicated to Lammashtu are entirely free-willed. Some of them might be evil, some might not. But the kids whose souls have already been offered to the goddess will usually act to further her interests.
An interesting way of doing it Chris, but not one I would personally care for. I don't like the idea that babtizing a child in a particular faith somehow controls that childs perceptions and alignment. In my campaign I start the majority of players off at Neutral/Neutral and their alignment is the one they earn through game play.
Still it is an intreguing idea, if even I wouldn't use it.
For me, in my campaigns, it's a question of gods.
Kids in every culture get christened/baptized/offered to a particular deity, and this has real ramifications. A child (or any race) given in dedication to a particular god may or may not end up being a priest of that god, but will have his preferences, perceptions, and personality bent to that god's purposes and perspective.
Kill a gnoll village. The little gnollings who have not yet been dedicated to Lammashtu are entirely free-willed. Some of them might be evil, some might not. But the kids whose souls have already been offered to the goddess will usually act to further her interests.
I really like this idea.
I have run a couple of games where the overall theme of the game was moral decisions. The group was made of all good characters and some were exalted. The few adventures we did were based on perceived evil and good and how to deal with each encounter. The first adventure had them come to a small town that was being raided at night by goblins. The party initially were going to just fight them and kill them (well the Ranger started to) but the more level headed Cleric realized that they were not hurting anyone and were only stealing food and provisions. The group found out that the goblins were relatively peaceful but were desparate because a group of hobgoblins had come in and killed all their males and forced the women and children out of their homes. They were only raiding to provide for the children and the town happened to be the closest place to get food. So while some of the goblins may have been evil they were tending more towards neutral. I was an interesting game until the group fell apart (we had a couple playing that split up).
For me, in my campaigns, it's a question of gods.
Kids in every culture get christened/baptized/offered to a particular deity, and this has real ramifications. A child (or any race) given in dedication to a particular god may or may not end up being a priest of that god, but will have his preferences, perceptions, and personality bent to that god's purposes and perspective.
Kill a gnoll village. The little gnollings who have not yet been dedicated to Lammashtu are entirely free-willed. Some of them might be evil, some might not. But the kids whose souls have already been offered to the goddess will usually act to further her interests.
I'm planning on using something similar in my campaigns, particularly with regard to the Drow.
While a child's upbringing in Drow society is horrendous by our standards and is very likely to produce a warped personality, what really makes the young Drow really evil is the dedication of its soul to Lolth/[insert demon lord name here] at the start of the 'teens (by which I mean the Drow age-equivalent thereof). Such a dedication would include the sacrifice of some sentient being, thus sealing the young Drow's soul to an evil entity and confirming the Drow's alignment as being some shade of Evil. My point in this case is that a young "teenager" has enough free will and self-understanding to be able to make this choice.
Of course, any young Drow who refuse to complete this ritual are simply slaughtered by the next candidate in line. That's why a Good (or even Neutral) Drow is so rare. Also, social pressure, etc. ensures that a young Drow will never attain status/adulthood in Drow society without having completed such a ritual.
Of course, if one can kidnap a Drow child before it is old enough to have completed such a ritual, then anything could happen. But its childhood experiences would still have been pretty bad ...
Do monsters always have to be nasty just because they're monsters? Might gnolls be feral, wild, and clannish, yet sensible beings? Is there such a thing as a benign orc society? Is there any place in the multiverse of OGL games where goblins and humans live side-by-side? Why not?
Dude...
It is YOUR world. YOU are the GOD. MAKE it AS YOU WISH.
Why must everyone think that a rule must exist? Or that something be written in stone????
Have fun, be inventive, your players will thank you for being creative and original in a world stymied with secondhand backwash.....
|
My son developed a world that was interesting (speaking of goblins and humans living together). The Elves were the aristocracy and were sorcerers. They were the government and ran things and were heavy handed. Dwarves were the judges (and often monks or clerics) of the government and were also pretty heavy handed. Humans were fewer than a normal world having lost a war to the nation of Dragons to the south and were almost wiped out. The halflings were halflings... On an isolated island they were barbarians.
Wizards were outlawed because it was not the natural way of things and the elves were in charge. Probably there was a historical reason for this, like Starfall or something.
The goblins were enslaved after the war and were the slaves of those who could afford or want them. Mostly the elves. All the elves had slaves.
You could say in this world that elves were the oppressors and therefore the evil force in the world. A lot of the story line was about the goblins prophecy that the albino goblin would come and free his people. So, the goblins started running away and waiting for this freer of goblins. My character was killing the goblins and the albino showed up and kicked my ass (a monk I think) and later amputated my father's hand as a sign to leave his people alone. Between trying to deal with the savior of goblinkind and the rogue wizards in the world (one of our characters was a sorcerer and so took direction from the government - at least early in the campaign) it was a busy life. There was eventually a goblin uprising and a war of sorts.
Wow, thanks for all of the thoughtful responses! I'm glad to see this thread generating some discussion, and encouraged to see that there are several campaign settings that people consider good grounds for the sort of gameplay I am proposing.
I've played WoW, and I also noticed this feature that has been mentioned: the complexity and depth of the non-human races. The Taureen, Troll, and Orc societies are all very interesting in WoW. Another race that I like a lot in that game is not a playable one, but has personality: kobolds! I'd never thought much about kobolds before that game, but the way they are presented as mischievous miners (with the candles on top of their heads!) impressed me. Since then, I've researched their roots in mythology a little bit. I have to say that I was surprised to find that they are not just an entirely invented fantasy race, like the gnolls, but have their roots in Germanic folklore.
I really like this idea.I have run a couple of games where the overall theme of the game was moral decisions. The group was made of all good characters and some were exalted. The few adventures we did were based on perceived evil and good and how to deal with each encounter. The first adventure had them come to a small town that was being raided at night by goblins. The party initially were going to just fight them and kill them (well the Ranger started to) but the more level headed Cleric realized that they were not hurting anyone and were only stealing food and provisions. The group found out that the goblins were relatively peaceful but were desparate because a group of hobgoblins had come in and killed all their males and forced the women and children out of their homes. They were only raiding to provide for the children and the town happened to be the closest place to get food. So while some of the goblins may have been evil they were tending more towards neutral. I was an interesting game until the group fell apart (we had a couple playing that split up).
This is very much in line with what I have in mind for my own fledgling setting. I've posted elsewhere that I'm cooking up a goblin-human hybrid race. I realize this may sound absurd to some, but my basic theory is that anything goes, especially in fantasy. ;P (edit: that's right, flynnster; you nailed it in your post.)
Well, alright! I'm encouraged and excited. All I have to do now is continue to work on my setting and drum up some players.
|
|
Eberron is definitely a world where the alignment isn't hard coded...In the Demon Wastes, there are Orc Paladins, The Orc Gatekeepers were the ones who stopped the Invasion of the Daelkyr. The Ancient Humanoid civilization is a Hobgoblin society, a Hobgoblin Paladin would do good for his people, and obey their laws...not the laws of man...
There are places where orcs and humans lived side by side...the main area where Half-orcs come from.
That's the reason I fell in love with the setting...the twist on typical interactions...
I love Golarion as well
And I'm also a HUGE Earthdawn fan!!!
Creative Director
|
In my opinion, what makes a monster is the fact that it's monstrous. That pretty much means that it HAS to be a savage, really. In RPGs, the term "Monster" got kind of transformed into a generic term to apply to ANY creature that the PCs encounter, regardless of the creature's attitude or alignment.
But in the end, this is a question that each GM needs to decide for his campaign. For Golarion, which is vary humanocentric, things like goblins and orcs ARE monsters, and as a result are foes to fight against rather than things one might expect to see as the baker or barber down the street. A paladin orc isn't impossible in Golarion, but it's rare enough that if there were a paladin orc NPC in the world, we would have mentioned him by now, or he would have died before he got too high level, or he's not high enough level yet for anyone to notice.
|
In my opinion, what makes a monster is the fact that it's monstrous.
I have to agree with this. I like having good and evil clearly defined...
Once you make orcs, goblins, or what-have-you, as simply being "misunderstood", then you begin to blur the line between good vs. evil...
Questions arise...
Just what, exactly, is good, and what exactly is evil?
There is already far too much moral ambiguity in the real world as it is (I mean, you call something evil, that might be judgmental, be judgmental, and you might have to take a look at your own self, and who wants that right?)...
No, I do not have any interest in tracking all the garbage of the real world into my fantasy!
Does this mean there are no "rogue monsters" within my campaigns (i.e. good dark elves, fallen angels, etc.)? no, absolutely not. But they are the exception, not the rule...
But that's the great thing about our fine hobby...
If one feels they need to think "progressively" and add that level of nuance, and those particular shades of grey to their game, more power to them!
Just my added thoughts and opinions...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Once you make orcs, goblins, or what-have-you, as simply being "misunderstood", then you begin to blur the line between good vs. evil...
But you notice how often this thinking is only one directional. You can see lots of evil (non-drow) elves in settings (someone like Ironbriar) and yet that doesn't destroy the idea that elves tend to be a "good" race (I don't know how Pathfinder treats most elves as I stopped reading their material). So how would an orc that is good totally destroy the idea that evil orcs are ... well ... evil. A human can be just as evil as any orc (read some of the Freeport stuff). To copy Gump, "Evil is as evil does." Your putting babies on spikes, it doesn't really matter if you are an orc, elf, human, fallen archon, demon, whatever, you're probably pretty damn evil.
In my opinion, what makes a monster is the fact that it's monstrous.I have to agree with this. I like having good and evil clearly defined...
Once you make orcs, goblins, or what-have-you, as simply being "misunderstood", then you begin to blur the line between good vs. evil...
Questions arise...
Just what, exactly, is good, and what exactly is evil?
Yes, they do arise, and that is what makes the game interesting.
There is already far too much moral ambiguity in the real world as it is (I mean, you call something evil, that might be judgmental, be judgmental, and you might have to take a look at your own self, and who wants that right?)...
*raises hand* Wait, what was that bit from the "classical" tradition of western-o-centrism? "The unexamined life is not worth living."
No, I do not have any interest in tracking all the garbage of the real world into my fantasy!Does this mean there are no "rogue monsters" within my campaigns (i.e. good dark elves, fallen angels, etc.)? no, absolutely not. But they are the exception, not the rule...
But that's the great thing about our fine hobby...
If one feels they need to think "progressively" and add that level of nuance, and those particular shades of grey to their game, more power to them!
Just my added thoughts and opinions...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Yes. I want an interesting, rich, complex fantasy world, perhaps for similar reasons you'd like one with less moral ambiguity than you perceive in the real world. Yes, this has political and moral implications for the game, and yes, that is part of the point of developing this kind of game. I'm not interested in reading about or playing in escapist fantasy worlds.
Fun? Oh, yes, it will be fun...
But you notice how often this thinking is only one directional.I agree...
Which is why in my campaigns, I will occasionally use a "fallen angel" or an evil gold dragon. But again, these are the exceptions, not the rule within my games...
The issue I was looking at was more about would someone use "risen demon"s or good black dragons? People seem to have little problem with good things going bad, but bad things going good? No way, for some reason.
|
|
*raises hand* Wait, what was that bit from the "classical" tradition of western-o-centrism? "The unexamined life is not worth living."
I was being sarcastic when I wrote:
"I mean, you call something evil, that might be judgmental, be judgmental, and you might have to take a look at your own self, and who wants that right?"
Because I dare say most people do not like to be judged (or even labeled) because that means they might have to look in a mirror! And there is a tendency to take this to the gaming table...
I am not saying my way is the One True Way to gaming Nirvana! But this IS the way me and those that share my gaming table prefer...
I game to escape the world I live in. And I dare say that my world is just as rich and full of wonder as any out there! The players are Heroes, the monsters are evil, and the good guys don't always save the day...
As I have stated in a couple posts now, my worlds are not perfectly black and white. But again, the exception, not the rule...
You asked for opinions, there's mine (YMMV)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
The issue I was looking at was more about would someone use "risen demon"s or good black dragons? People seem to have little problem with good things going bad, but bad things going good? No way, for some reason.
I would totally use a good black dragon, or a good demon/devil...
But again, as an exception to the rule...
Monsters... monstrous...hmmm.... I think those two going together works.
Savages...well several of the monsters presented in the monster manual are by no means savages. They maybe morally reprehensible from a modern human perspective but that's not the same as savage.
|
To add a few thoughts on the matter, citing some sources from fiction...
In The Hobbit Thorin and company are dwarves driven as much by their leader's twin desires for vengeance and to regain his people's stolen treasures as by anything else- as Bilbo discovers towards the end of the book when Thorin finds out just what has happened to The Arkenstone (although Thorin has a big redeeming moment later, charging out into a seemingly hopeless battle).
Again, in Tolkien, in The Silmarillion Túrin and his group of guerilla's are 'sold out' by a dwarven host who is captured by a group of Morgoth's troops, and earlier in the same book Fëanor and his seven sons are elves prepared to steal from and murder their own kin because they won't voluntarily lend them the ships they need to pursue the valar who stole the Silmarils.
Speaking of Tolkien, I like how the moral of the LotR trilogy was that Good was weaker than Evil, but manages to win by default, since Evil accidentally defeated itself; thusly, Good was the only one left standing in the end.
Now I just have to wait for the obligitory Dark Helmet quote.
|
|
If I were to do something like make gnolls and goblins (somewhat) respectable members of society, or at least not viewed as evil, I'd have to do the ol' switch-a-roo with another race or two. Like maybe gnomes and halflings resent the tall people, and play deadly pranks whenever possible.
Maybe even take a page from Magic: The Gathering (of which I play extensively). In one set, Elf society was based on beauty, in which the most beautiful were worshiped almost as gods. Eyeblights (ugly people) were seen as abominations, and they went to great lengths to exterminate them. And, of course, they deem pretty much anything not an elf to be an eyeblight, and the world would be better off without this stain. (My favorite card was Eyeblight's Ending - Destroy target non-elf creature. That says it all)
Either way, I'd have to restore balance in one way or another, doing a race for race trade in status. For every race I raise in status, another has to fall. In a world where orcs, goblins, and gnolls are the most common, the Elves' hatred of ugliness would cause quite a bit of dissent, and quite possibly even war.
On Tolkien:
To Charles Evans 25- You have to admit, Turin wasn't exactly the nicest fellow in the world to Mim. He shot at him for no reason, killing his son. He invaded his house and turned it into the base for his band. Mim had plenty of motivation for betraying Turin. Just pointing that out. (I'm currently working on a semi-long term project in college of writing an analysis between Beren and Turin, and this is something I deal with).
To Cato- Not exactly.
[waxings philosophical and literary]Eru is God in the modern, Christian sense of the word. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Ultimately, good is infinitely strong and evil is infinitely weak. See the Ainulindale at the beginning of The Silmarillion when Melkor rebels against Eru, who replies with something along the lines of, "No matter what you try to do to subvert my creation, you will find it turns back to the good in the end." This notion stems from Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, and is evident throught the Lord of the Rings.
For instance: Gandalf is killed by the Balrog (evil), but that in turn allows him to become Gandalf the White (good). Had he not been remade as Gandalf the White, he likely would not have been powerful enough to lead the forces of good to victory over Mordor. Also, Gollum is consumed by the Ring's power (evil), but that is what saves Middle-Earth at the end (good) when Frodo is unable to destroy the Ring himself.
Thus, as I see it, the "point" of Lord of the Rings and all of Tolkien's works on Middle-Earth is not that evil is stronger; it is that good is infintely stronger and will always win out in the end. That doesn't mean there won't be any pain or suffering or loss, however, or that the victory will be swift. It is thus necessary for people to have faith to carry them through the darkness until the coming of the light.[/waxings philosophical and literary]
On Risen Demons:
You've brought this topic up several times, pres man. :) I have to go back to what another poster once said (I think it was Set, but I'm not sure): to have more than one risen fiend dilutes the entire concept of the rising of fiends. The more it happens, the more commonplace it becomes, and the less power the concept has. Now, one can accept that in one's own setting, of course. But I think that's why many people object to the idea (I know it's my reason). I think many people (myself included) would also say that good is supposed to be difficult, while evil is easy. To treat them as equivalents is to deny their very natures. Evil is what happens when people choose the easy way (doing what pleases them without taking the time to think of the consequences) whereas good requires continual effort (seeking to make the world better not just for the self, but for everyone else as well; and almost always thinking of and minding the consequences of actions). Therefore, it is easier to fall than to rise.
Further, it might point to some conclusions which could alter the tone of a game. If demons can be redeemed, then perhaps they aren't the spiritual epitomes of evil afterall. Perhaps they're "only" as bad as orcs or goblins or other mortal races. Also, if too many of any typically evil creature are redeemed, be it drow or demons or mind flayers or goblins; then it really does indicate that they are just "misunderstood" and that killing them outright is definitely wrong. When that concept is taken as far as fiends, then it really can mess with player expectations. I also think it hurts the heroic struggle of good against evil, turning it into zealots versus victims.
Hope that wasn't too disjointed.
|
|
With respect to 'misunderstood races', I think the best rule of thumb is to ignore whether the race/nation/culture wars with its neighbours (which can happen for all sorts of reasons), and look at how they treat members of their own community.
If goblins are cannibalistic savages, who will pounce on the weaker members of the tribe, and have to be ruled with an iron fist by a bloodthirsty chief, who murdered his way to the top (as did every previous chief), then it's safe to say that they're evil.
Kick them out of their homes, drive them over the other side of the mountain, and they'll carry on exactly the same, as a thorn in the side of someone new.
Contrast them with a tribe of humanoids who work together, understand the concept of honour, family, caring for the sick and old, or other 'noble' ideals. Such a race could be considered good, or at least neutral, regardless of whether they wage a constant war with their neighbours over scarce resources.
If they win their war, find an alternative resource, or migrate to better pastures, they could settle down to a peaceful, productive future.
This yardstick gets you over the objection that "Goblins only fight humans because humans fight goblins!". You can point to how they behave among themselves, and then the PCs can have no qualms about wiping them all out.
With respect to 'misunderstood races', I think the best rule of thumb is to ignore whether the race/nation/culture wars with its neighbours (which can happen for all sorts of reasons), and look at how they treat members of their own community.
If goblins are cannibalistic savages, who will pounce on the weaker members of the tribe, and have to be ruled with an iron fist by a bloodthirsty chief, who murdered his way to the top (as did every previous chief), then it's safe to say that they're evil.
Kick them out of their homes, drive them over the other side of the mountain, and they'll carry on exactly the same, as a thorn in the side of someone new.
Contrast them with a tribe of humanoids who work together, understand the concept of honour, family, caring for the sick and old, or other 'noble' ideals. Such a race could be considered good, or at least neutral, regardless of whether they wage a constant war with their neighbours over scarce resources.
If they win their war, find an alternative resource, or migrate to better pastures, they could settle down to a peaceful, productive future.
This yardstick gets you over the objection that "Goblins only fight humans because humans fight goblins!". You can point to how they behave among themselves, and then the PCs can have no qualms about wiping them all out.
Excellent point. Excellent rule of thumb.
Another interesting notion to factor into the idea of "is x 'good' or 'evil'?" would be to pose the question, "what is their relationship to the natural world?" This perhaps won't work in all settings; for example, assume a fictional world where an ascendant deity of "good" charges his followers to subdue the natural world, spread his law, and wipe out all evil opposition. Furthermore, as the faith develops, it becomes a matter of dogma that animals are non-intelligent beings who exist to be used, exploited, and consumed by the dominant race(s). Ditto for "natural resources." The land has been created by the deity to be refined, shaped, and exploited by the dominant race(s), and this is how good is defined.
On the other hand, assume a society where natural forces are revered. The "good" population respects, cultivates, and tends to nature, ensuring the continuity of the world through ecological practices and spiritual traditions that are rooted in place. "Evil" cultures, on the other hand, uproot and displace the natural order, harness raw materials and bend them to the will of the society, and despoil and pollute the land.
;) ;)
Now imagine these different societies occupying the same world, and the constant struggles and conflicts that would arise.
What I am driving at is: how does the campaign define "good" and "evil"? What is truly "monstrous"?
On Risen Demons:
You've brought this topic up several times, pres man. :) I have to go back to what another poster once said (I think it was Set, but I'm not sure): to have more than one risen fiend dilutes the entire concept of the rising of fiends. The more it happens, the more commonplace it becomes, and the less power the concept has. Now, one can accept that in one's own setting, of course. But I think that's why many people object to the idea (I know it's my reason).
Nobody is suggesting that it should be common place, like 1 out of every 4 fiends is actually good or some such. Merely that it is possible and has happened a time or two. With it possible, it actually allows good characters to be good and not just merely wear a white hat with "GOOD" written on it. If you have to actually treat your foes with respect with the chance of redemption (you don't have to be stupid about it though) irregardless of their type (assuming they are not just really dumb creatures incapable of alignment) then you can actually do things like mercy, redemption, sacrifice, etc. You know, good traits.
I think many people (myself included) would also say that good is supposed to be difficult, while evil is easy. To treat them as equivalents is to deny their very natures. Evil is what happens when people choose the easy way (doing what pleases them without taking the time to think of the consequences) whereas good requires continual effort (seeking to make the world better not just for the self, but for everyone else as well; and almost always thinking of and minding the consequences of actions). Therefore, it is easier to fall than to rise.
And I would argue that is looking at things from a binary perspective, only black-and-white if you will. I think that being evil or good takes effort, it is being neutral that is the "easy way".
For example, you're in a park and you see two guys attacking another one, they have him on the ground and are really going to town on him. What do you do? Rush over to help, shout at them to stop as you all the police on your cell, call the police on your cell but don't draw attention to yourself, ignore it and move along hoping they didn't notice you, start shouting "yeah beat the crap out of him!", wait till they are done then sneak over and see if there is anything you can rob from the beaten/dead guy. The person who sneaks off is the one that takes the least "effort", it is the "easiest" path because you don't have to get involved, that is a neutral choice.
Further, it might point to some conclusions which could alter the tone of a game. If demons can be redeemed, then perhaps they aren't the spiritual epitomes of evil afterall.
If angels can fall then perhaps they aren't the spiritual epitomes of good after all? The question there is do these creatures have the concept of "free will"? It may be that after millennia of doing evil, of swimming in it, a fiend sees a good act and something clicks in its mind, "I've been doing A, and look were it has gotten me. They do B and look at them. Maybe there is something to this B thing after all." Or they start off "fool" everyone by acting "good", and they end up finding they enjoy it and actually become "good".
Perhaps they're "only" as bad as orcs or goblins or other mortal races. Also, if too many of any typically evil creature are redeemed, be it drow or demons or mind flayers or goblins; then it really does indicate that they are just "misunderstood" and that killing them outright is definitely wrong.
Someone being able to redeemed does not mean that their past deeds are not relevant. Read the original Frankenstein story. At the end the monster says something to the extent that even though he was treated poorly his whole existance, he finally realized that didn't relieve him of his responsibility to the choices he made. That he was just as capable of good as evil, but he choose to do evil when faced with evil. He might have been "misunderstood" initially and treated poorly, but when he choose to act evilly, it was his decision to do so.
When that concept is taken as far as fiends, then it really can mess with player expectations. I also think it hurts the heroic struggle of good against evil, turning it into zealots versus victims.
Hope that wasn't too disjointed.
Sure it can have an effect player expectations, at least at first. But I don't think it has to hurt the heroic struggle. If players can basically kill and maim at will as long as it is to the "right" creatures, that I think ultimately hurts it. If when a pair of elves from the nation your kingdom is fighting approaches the party under a white flag and your paladin says that you must honor it because that is the code of war, but the same paladin attacks a group of devils doing the same thing (approaching under a white flag) thus tossing out his "honor" for the sake of killing the evil beings, I think that hurts it. Meet force with force, stop evil acts when you can, but don't do them yourself just because your target is an evil being. Raping a erinyes isn't any more of a disgusting act just because she is a devil.
Of course, DMs should make it clear when some foes are just going to kill the PCs. Not every devil is going to surrender, not all of them have any interest in being redeemed. I'm thinking of the KotOR game where most foes you fight, just fight to the death, but some stop and ask for mercy and such (others just stop to taunt and then start fighting again). When there is an "opening" to do good, a good character should do it. These openings with things like fiends and evil orc warlords should be rare, but not nonexistant.
Saern:
I hope your analysis is not too far written (:D) since it was one of Túrin's men, 'shooting at someone suspicious running away' who killed Mîm's son, not Túrin, although it could be argued that Túrin feels a commander's responsibility for what his man has done which is what he expresses with his wish that he could recall the shot. Mîm bears Túrin himself no actual malice- he asks Morgoth's troops that Túrin himself be spared, and Morgoth's troops agree (though that is more because Morgoth wants Túrin humiliated as a prisoner alongside his father, I presume).
With apologies to the OP, for briefly diverging from the topic of the thread, it seems to me that Beren is more often the 'lone hero' either operating on his own, or with one or two others, whereas Túrin personally leads others- although that Túrin is hounded by ill fortune (and often makes bold but rash decisions) means that those others are frequently caught up in the ruin when something goes wrong on him.
True, it is Turin's man rather than Turin himself. And while Turin did repent that Khim was killed, considering the context of his future and later deeds, I didn't find it convincing. Now, I'm just going on The Silmarillion here. I recieved The Children of Hurin for Christmas and have begun it, but am not very far. The elaboration could clarify things and change my understanding a bit.
That being said, Turin is pretty reckless throughout his days and lets his pride get the better of him time and time again. That's typically what brings pain upon himself and ruin to those around him. Even when Glaurung puts the spell on him, Turin kinda brought that on himself when he looked into the dragon's eyes without fear or hesitation. Seems heroic, but also dangerously brash and naive. This is after he basically seized control of Nargothrond and ordered the elves to change their tactics and build a mighty bridge. Ulmo himself sent word through Cirdan and then his messengers to tear the bridge down. Turin defied the Vala, "for he was become proud and stern, and would order all things as he wished... and... would [not] suffer the great bridge to be cast down." (Silmarillion 212).
The difference between Beren and Turin, at least the one I focus on in my essay, is pride. Turin never masters his, and that is the source of almost all his ills.
Or maybe teenage fiends going through a 'rebellious' phase sneak off to the upper planes for a couple of years to hang out with the celestials just to annoy fiendish society.... :D
Kinda like this? :)
...assuming that they have free will...
The question there is do these creatures have the concept of "free will"?
On the subject of good vs evil, and the redemption (or otherwise) of fiends, if 'good' can be corrupted but 'evil' cannot be redeemed it seems to me to be a denial of the philosophy that good is stronger and always has hope (however faint) to win in the end.
This has spurred me to a new thought, actually. I was previously of the opinion that creatures with an alignment descriptor, such as angels and demons, were not truly beings of free will. Created from the raw stuff of good or evil, they should inherently be bound to an alignment. But then angels aren't really good and demons aren't really evil because they lack the free will to make moral choice, thus defeating my own argument.
In light of that, my new answer would be that yes, it is possible for a fiend to be redeemed, just as an angel can fall. However, I still hold that it should be much, much harder. No one can make you good or evil for you. There are some cursed magic items floating around in the game which change a character's alignment, but I wouldn't really count those anymore than I would the actions of a creature affected by dominate monster (again, because of free will). The choice to be good or evil must come down to the individual's own free decisions. I am of the opinion that it is much harder to shed evil habits and thoughts than good ones.
To return to Tolkien, one of his points is that evil cannot imagine what it is like to be good (the implication being that if it could, it would realize the error of its ways and cease to be evil). Further, look at Sauron himself. When he is defeated, he is not destroyed. His spirit is merely cast down. Somewhere it is explained that he could, in theory have rebuilt his power again; but his greed and lust for the ring was so great it would continue to consume him even after the object's destruction. While so consumed, he could never muster himself to power again. In essence, yes it would theoretically possible. But it will never happen. I have the same view of fiends. Yes, it is theoretically possible for them to be redeemed. But it is unlikely to ever happen.
If when a pair of elves from the nation your kingdom is fighting approaches the party under a white flag and your paladin says that you must honor it because that is the code of war, but the same paladin attacks a group of devils doing the same thing (approaching under a white flag) thus tossing out his "honor" for the sake of killing the evil beings, I think that hurts it.
There are numerous reasons devils might fly a white flag other than to offer up their redemption, and thus the paladin would still be wise to at least listen to the fiends. Further, he should honor their truce regardless of whether devils can ever be redeemed or not. That is the essence of playing a paladin: he doesn't get to choose who the rules apply to. Even if he is 100% sure that the devils are up to trickery (as he well should be), if his code binds him to honor the white flag, then he must honor the white flag. If it leads to his death, at least he dies with his honor intact.
Read the original Frankenstein story.
I have. I enjoyed it very much.
Both of you have my thanks for a stimulating discussion which has actually led me to some new conclusions. I apologize for switching back and forth between who I was quoting so much, and hope it hasn't hindered the legibility of my own post. As for the matter at hand, I think the final word from my perspective has to come down to semantics: I think the concept of fallen angels is powerful and intriguing. Risen fiends just don't really do anything for me for some reason.
|
|
To Cato- Not exactly.
[waxings philosophical and literary]Eru is God in the modern, Christian sense of the word. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Ultimately, good is infinitely strong and evil is infinitely weak. See the Ainulindale at the beginning of The Silmarillion when Melkor rebels against Eru, who replies with something along the lines of, "No matter what you try to do to subvert my creation, you will find it turns back to the good in the end." This notion stems from Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, and is evident throught the Lord of the Rings.
For instance: Gandalf is killed by the Balrog (evil), but that in turn allows him to become Gandalf the White (good). Had he not been remade as Gandalf the White, he likely would not have been powerful enough to lead the forces of good to victory over Mordor. Also, Gollum is consumed by the Ring's power (evil), but that is what saves Middle-Earth at the end (good) when Frodo is unable to destroy the Ring himself.
Thus, as I see it, the "point" of Lord of the Rings and all of Tolkien's works on Middle-Earth is not that evil is stronger; it is that good is infintely stronger and will always win out in the end. That doesn't mean there won't be any pain or suffering or loss, however, or that the victory will be swift. It is thus necessary for people to have faith to carry them through the darkness until the coming of the light.[/waxings philosophical and literary]
I know, its just more funny to look at things in the way I stated them: Saying that Evil only lost because it consumed itself in the end instead of saying that Good is stronger. To me, the ending was anticlimactic. Of course, the whole thing was a little dull to me. It read like a fantasy travel log, with treants and orcs.
Ah, they're walking. Oh no! Frodo's been poisoned. Oh, and here they're walking. Oh, they get attacked, and Boromir performs a heroic sacrifice to make up for his previous greed. Now they're walking again, and riding a boat. Oh, Steward Crazypants is going to try to set himself and his son on fire. Ah, and they're walking again. If you cut out half of those portions from the novels or the movies, it might not be so dull. But that's just me.
Oh, and then there's always this little fact.
|
Do monsters always have to be nasty just because they're monsters? Might gnolls be feral, wild, and clannish, yet sensible beings? Is there such a thing as a benign orc society? Is there any place in the multiverse of OGL games where goblins and humans live side-by-side? Why not?
I've downloaded the Classic Monsters Revisited for Pathfinder Chronicles. It's excellent for what it is, which is an anthropology of wicked humanoid monsters. The goblins crack me up! Hobgoblin society is interesting, and gnolls are downright scary.
I want to really like the gnolls, actually. I want them to be less misogynistic. Gnoll society would be really cool if aspects like their beneficence to their ecosystems, their shamanistic ways, and their culture of priestesses and mother-worship were slanted in a different way. As it is, the women are b~~%%es (yes, I understand this is a canine reference) and the men are unforgiving, lazy brutes.
Of course a player character will be motivated to strike them down.
Maybe I am looking for something different in my gaming sessions than most. I don't get a lot of joy out of ferocious combat and smiting the monsters. I want to explore worlds ripe with variety and culture. Sure, an orc NPC could be a savage beast, but humans can be savage beasts, too. Elves should be capable of being just as nasty as their drow counterparts, I think. Dwarves are greedy, foul-tempered, and violent, yet they are enshrined as heroes in the game. I am interested in worlds where lawful evil dwarven societies, obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, clash with lawful evil human societies, which are also obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, and maybe even enslaving the dwarves for their excellent crafting abilities, their strength and their constitutions. And I want the gnolls out there living in the wild fringes to be resisting this insanity, looking on at the insane behavior of those civlized monsters with disbelief and fear. Sure, the elves and...
I'd like to point out that all the races were at one point feral.
One example of races living together was in a Dritzz books. They found found an ancient city with murals depicting dwarves and orcs living together peacefully.
Al-Qadim was very big about characters being judged by their deeds not by their racial ancestry, since the whole area was dominated primarily by an overarching mystical belief system, and one goverment, their was no racial disharmony, as per the typical setting, both goblins and orcs were valued members of society.
The issue I was looking at was more about would someone use "risen demon"s or good black dragons? People seem to have little problem with good things going bad, but bad things going good? No way, for some reason.But you notice how often this thinking is only one directional.I agree...
Which is why in my campaigns, I will occasionally use a "fallen angel" or an evil gold dragon. But again, these are the exceptions, not the rule within my games...
I've used good 'bad' guys in the past. They make for a nice change of pace.
Thpough I've got to say, there are some critters I could never personally see as being good or even neutral. Vampires and Mind Flayers come to mind -- they have to kill sentients just to survive. They may hate what they do, or they may limit themselves to 'the deserving' (i.e., "People I personally dislike"), but in the end they are bad guys and can't change it without major (as in species-altering) magic.