After going though the posts and taken everything on board I would have to say if it happened in my game you would have a fallen paladin. In all my years of gaming I have never heard of a more clear cut case. All the arguments for the paladin keeping his status sound weak and straw grasping. To be honest I am finding it difficult not to be insulting, I am finding the cr@p trying to justify such actions as frankly pathetic. The Paladin killed an unarmed, non-hostile creature who wasn't engaged in any illegal activity and just trying to make an honest buck. The Paladin lied about the cash he had, lied about wanting to purchase the potions and in a very cowardly way hit the goblin from behind, twice. Then robbed him.
End of story.
A goblin walks into a human merchants shop. The goblin sees all the nice stuff being displayed and thinks to himself "Shop keepers should only have 10sps a week, there's 900gps worth of stuff here. He must have stolen it".
So the goblin lies to the shop worker (it isn't his stuff but he sells it for his boss) and says he wants to buy the potions on the shop behind the worker. Now so far the shop keeper has been civil (even though he doesn't like goblins but, hey! thats his job!) but has had a bad day and questions the goblin about having 900 gps to buy the potions (the goblin has a sign around his neck saying "I'm CR 1/4"). Again the goblin lies saying he has plenty of cash.
The merchant turns his back on the goblin who whips out the biggest axe in the world and smacks it into the shop keepers head. Scooping up all the potions and leaves the shop with a warm fuzzy glow inside him.
After all he just did what a paladin did.
It must be a LG act otherwise the paladin wouldn't do it.
The goblin starts spreading the word of how to achieve salvation. If you follow these 7 Codes you will be saved! Law of the Jungle you see.
And if you are LG we wont get dwarves beating the Nine Hells out of us.
And that is how the Great Shopkeeper Slaughter of 596CY came about.
I think that the issue here arises from the peculiar representation of goblins by the DM. Goblins do not normally set up peaceful merchant villages. The Monster Manual 3.5 p133 describes goblin society like so:
Goblins are tribal. Their leaders are generally the strongest of the group. They have no concept of privacy, sleeping in large common areas. Goblins survive by raiding and stealing. They sometimes capture slaves. Their lairs are always smelly and filthy due to an utter lack of sanitation. They often settle near civilized areas to raid for food, livestock, tools, etc.
Thus, a goblin peddling his wares like a human merchant is acting very much out of character. In the end though, it's up to the DM to determine if goblins can create peaceful settlements. In the case being discussed, the DM has re-defined goblins as a peaceful creature. That should have been enough for the Paladin to relent.
The Monster Manual 3.5 p133 describes goblin society like so:
Goblins ... often settle near civilized areas...
It's almost like that crazy MM is saying that goblins aren't civilized, since their settlements aren't civilized.
It's almost like that crazy MM is saying that goblins aren't civilized, since their settlements aren't civilized.The Monster Manual 3.5 p133 describes goblin society like so:
Goblins ... often settle near civilized areas...
It's also almost like the DM is interpreting the MM differently to make for a more exciting campaign. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.
I accept the D&D concept of neutrality possibly meaning an obsession with maintaining some philosophical concept of "balance" by allowing certain amounts of good and evil to exist. I don't like it, though, and my acceptance of it is mainly that I believe people can hold that belief. I think it's wrong, however. If "balance" is what is best for everyone, then in my eyes that makes it good. So, if "balance" cannot allow for too much of what is labeled good, there is a problem. Either the balance isn't really good, or that which is called good isn't truly good. I see both as a possibility. Letting a village be slaughtered for the preservation of some bogus philosophy is not good. On the other hand you have examples such as Dragonlance, where "good" was out of balance because of the Kingpriest and the elves. Of course, this assumes that so long as you wear radient white garb and/or have pointy ears whatever you do is good. I think the truth is more along the lines that the Kingpriest and (especially) the elves just stopped being good. If something is truly good, there cannot be too much of it. "Too much of a good thing" actually only applies to this thing erroneously labeled good while actually having no moral value in and of themselves except as vehicles to a true good. Thus, the idea that it has to be balanced somehow for the "good" of the world, and that this philosophy is neutrality, seems bogus to me.
LOVE. THIS.
It's also almost like the DM is interpreting the MM differently to make for a more exciting campaign. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.It's almost like that crazy MM is saying that goblins aren't civilized, since their settlements aren't civilized.The Monster Manual 3.5 p133 describes goblin society like so:
Goblins ... often settle near civilized areas...
My point speaks to baseline assumptions in the game, which I found rather ignored in this discussion, and BlueSalamander brings out well. I don't think the DM interpreted the MM, so much as ignored it, or even subverted it. Which I'm completely cool with, but needs to be stated up front. When I play a baseline game (which seems to be most worlds), then the above are goblins. In Golarion, they're little pyromaniacal nutjobs with extreme ADHD. In my home-world, like the DM in this thread, the paladin would, in fact, be guilty of heinous violations of his code. But this is the kind of thing that needs to be made explicit. If goblins and bugbears are both goblinoids, and killing the latter without provocation is a righteous act, and killing the former without justification is a sin, then I (as GM) need to have helped the players indwell the world to the extent that such thing in a world makes sense, instead of just being a shocking departure from their expectations that keeps them from being able to enter their characters. Either way the game can be a little more exciting...or a little more confusing, depending.
But yeah, I engaged in a little sarcasm.
PlungingForward -- Saern and I had some great alignment conversations, as the whole "balance of true neutrality" thing drives us both bonkers. Be careful in alignment discussion with Krome...he'll turn on ya. :)
It's also almost like the DM is interpreting the MM differently to make for a more exciting campaign. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.It's almost like that crazy MM is saying that goblins aren't civilized, since their settlements aren't civilized.The Monster Manual 3.5 p133 describes goblin society like so:
Goblins ... often settle near civilized areas...
My point speaks to baseline assumptions in the game, which I found rather ignored in this discussion, and BlueSalamander brings out well. I don't think the DM interpreted the MM, so much as ignored it, or even subverted it. Which I'm completely cool with, but needs to be stated up front. When I play a baseline game (which seems to be most worlds), then the above are goblins. In Golarion, they're little pyromaniacal nutjobs with extreme ADHD. In my home-world, like the DM in this thread, the paladin would, in fact, be guilty of heinous violations of his code. But this is the kind of thing that needs to be made explicit. If goblins and bugbears are both goblinoids, and killing the latter without provocation is a righteous act, and killing the former without justification is a sin, then I (as GM) need to have helped the players indwell the world to the extent that such thing a world makes sense, instead of just being a shocking departure from their expectations that keeps them from being able to enter their characters. Either way the game can be a little more exciting...or a little more confusing, depending.
But yeah, I engaged in a little sarcasm.
Is the assumption that all characters will know all details of all creatures found in any MM that is being used? I would think that is what knowledge checks would be for, but maybe I am mistaken. While as a player you might point out the MM entry for goblinoids and say the DM is deviating, the character has no such excuse for the behavior. The character has no MM to point to that goblins are acting out of character.
Is the assumption that all characters will know all details of all creatures found in any MM that is being used? I would think that is what knowledge checks would be for, but maybe I am mistaken. While as a player you might point out the MM entry for goblinoids and say the DM is deviating, the character has no such excuse for the behavior. The character has no MM to point to that goblins are acting out of character.
I don't think the assumption you raise in the first question is a serious candidate. I want to treat what behind the rest of your reflection by holding it up, not by attempting to answer it in some simple way, because every GM needs to answer it for themselves, for their players, and for the world they share together. Are goblins and their nature a part of common knowledge, or exotic fauna? If they are living in the local garbage pit, how exotic can they be? DC of knowledge checks should be built on this kind of information. And while I want to keep meta-gaming from running rampant in our games, I can't pretend that ever person I game with doesn't own the MM, and that about 50% of them GM as well. For that matter, several of them, like me, have been gaming for more than half of their lives. The others were fantasy lit fans before they came to gaming, and have imbibed assumptions that way. On the whole, I'd guess that, as a GM, I want to carefully pick when I am going to play against player's expectations, and when I'm going to allow them to game based on expectations. If everything is strange/odd/surprising, then will nothing be?
Another way is to counter with another question: is the player supposed to feel like they are inhabiting a character that is a part of this world or is the player supposed to feel like s/he is playing against the GM, in a "you can't guess what this world is like" contest?
Another way is to counter with another question: is the player supposed to feel like they are inhabiting a character that is a part of this world or is the player supposed to feel like s/he is playing against the GM, in a "you can't guess what this world is like" contest?
Perhaps the idea that goblins act a certain way is common knowledge in the game world, but perhaps that "common knowledge" is wrong. When you think of all the vicious stereotypes circulating in the world today, it's easy to imagine a world where most people believe that goblins are treacherous little vermin, but have no solid reason for their opinions.
Just because goblins are less exotic than Balor demons, it does not follow that most humans would fully understand their culture.
(In my opinion, The paladin's behavior was still vile...)
Again, everything is qualified with "it depends"...
All actions are taken with necessary assumptions. Reasoning, while having some importance, is nowhere near as important as the facts of the case. A paladin who sees a balor, for example, selling potions, will understandably act first and reason later. It might be great to break the assumption or it might be a jerky GM action...it all depends...
Another way is to counter with another question: is the player supposed to feel like they are inhabiting a character that is a part of this world or is the player supposed to feel like s/he is playing against the GM, in a "you can't guess what this world is like" contest?
Except a character has to guess what the world is like. They don't have the metagame knowledge of the players. They don't know about various other fiction that has been written or how Tolkien described them or anything. All they know is what they can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste with their own senses, and whatever bit of lore they have gathered in their lifetime (not the player's lifetime). How do you determine what that lore is in 3.5? Knowledge check. It isn't about outguessing the DM, you make a roll, if it is common knowledge (10 or lower) anyone can make the check, and the DM lets you know.
Don't make the roll, don't know, then you have to trust to your own senses. If the goblin is acting like a respectable merchant, then they probably are a respectable merchant and should be treated as such until new information arises. That is being part of the setting. Using the player's preconcieved biases is not being part of the setting.
If players are to play characters in a shared world, they must have some knowledge of it. Otherwise, you're not role-playing, you're playing "Guess what I'm thinking."
I think that the situation is one where the player decided to follow the logic of: goblins = evil. Paladin = destroyer of evil, ergo paladin = destroyer of goblin.
More than likely the goblin was probably evil as most goblins are, but its not a given. Even still, you don't turn a goblin's brain-box into an ashtray in the middle of a goblin market if you have any sense, even if you are mind reading the fellow and he is thinking of awful things he wants to do to your mom. This paladin has an overdeveloped sense of immunity. Good paladins don't pick fights they can't win.
As for the civility thing, sure. Depending on the campaign there is no reason they are not civilized. Hell in Eberron a crap-ton of them are civilized and live in human cities.
Heh. I didn't take the debate to touch on whether the player was being stupid...that's a question I'd figure didn't need my help. ;)
Heh. I didn't take the debate to touch on whether the player was being stupid...that's a question I'd figure didn't need my help. ;)
well to be beat a dead goblin further ...
Paladins often get a bad rap because of these kind of shenanigans. Mind you the player could also be playing a paladin with an intelligence of 6, in which case higher level planning isn't playing in character. In which case, there is opportunity here for more goblin civility! Like a goblin trial! with a goblin defense lawyer! dealing out goblin JUSTICE!
If one wasn't a "guess which end is up" GM and somebody did something so stupid, maybe the universe should instantly change to goblins being good and civilized just to punish the player for being stupid... I know I've lost my temper once or twice as a GM.
As you cause me to cast back in my memory over paladins past, I wonder if paladin ought to be a class we allow people to play only after we know them well as an experienced player...kind of like CN characters...
|
Given the circumstances, I disagree with the paladin's choice on both the lawful and the good sides of his alignment. Good characters don't strike down unarmed ones, ever. Lawful characters don't take the law into their own hands, ever. If this was a jungle without any lawful authorities, the argument could be made that he was allowed to adjudicate the law as he wished, but he would still fail as a beacon of good.
In my games, I tend to discount the idea that any race is automatically an alignment, or even usually an alignment. Goblins are as likely to be lawful or good as any other race. The monster manual is rife with the sort of preconceptions that Lord of the Rings introduced to fantasy long ago, even though both players and the game have long evolved past the simplicity of "dark=evil" and "childlike=good." In the same way that it's racist to assume that humans are better than everyone else in a game world, it's racist to make a race "evil by monster manual."
All that said, selling things made of human skin should probably be followed up with some sort of investigation. Grave-robbing is a smaller offense than murdering people to make knick-knacks.
Just my take. I've always been a goblin-lover.
|
|
Heh. I didn't take the debate to touch on whether the player was being stupid...that's a question I'd figure didn't need my help. ;)well to be beat a dead goblin further ...
Paladins often get a bad rap because of these kind of shenanigans. Mind you the player could also be playing a paladin with an intelligence of 6, in which case higher level planning isn't playing in character. In which case, there is opportunity here for more goblin civility! Like a goblin trial! with a goblin defense lawyer! dealing out goblin JUSTICE!
I love this idea.
I once imagined just this sort of thing as a sequel to the part of the Odyssey where Odysseus demands gifts after trespassing on the Cyclops' land and then blinds and torments him when the Cyclops exercises his rights as a homeowner and starts eating the intruders.
It would be the height of irony if goblins proved to be more lawful and officious than the "take no prisoners" paladin.