If you look back for posts from me, about 2-3 pages I think, you'll see two quotes, one from the 3.5 MM and one from the Pathfinder Bestiary Preview. Basically, goblins are usually evil (3.5 MM) which means 'Statistically, you have somewhere between 51% and less than 100% of the population being evil'. That means there are some neutral and good goblins too. Probably mostly Neutrals...
I think you're making it too complex. If killing the leader in the fashion they did is evil, than the previous deaths of the leader's followers are no less evil and the question is moot.
(Also some one used the arguement a ways back that if the goblins would do it, then it must be evil. Using that same arguement, feeding one's children is an evil act.)
Clearly not everyone here considers the death of the goblin evil, but we ALL agree that rape is evil, right?
In a real world context, sure.
But I don't think it translates to typical fantasy RPGs cleanly.
You can have a trial to find someone guilty or not guilty of rape. And I'll strongly, but entirely subjectively, agree with you when you declare a rapist evil. But you can not establish someone as objectively evil. And if you said someone was, I'd consider that foolish.
In PF, evil is an objective reality in a way that has no real world equivalent.
Lastknightleft said that in his campaign Gogmurt was put on trial and released because he was not responsible. And that is fine, I have no issues with subjective variations in someone else's game style. I'm not trying to challenge that. But, it makes no sense within the structure of my own personal games. They may have found him "not guilty", but he was objectively evil. Now he certainly may have been clever enough to be on his best behavior. And the secretly evil BBEG who has everyone fooled is a classic. But with an INT 8 and being a goblin, it doesn't seem probable. This is an objectively evil goblin in custody. And in my game he would continue to act evil during his custody. And everyone would know that this evil goblin would go back to doing evil, harming somebody, somehow, the second he was set free.
To me, setting an objectively evil goblin free because he did not commit some particular crime is equivalent to putting a rabid dog back in the neighborhood because it has not mauled any children yet. You can love dogs with all your heart and shed big fat tears of sorrow as you put down the rabid dog. But you put down the rabid dog.
Evil is real in PF. It is real and objective.
I agree that rape is an evil act. I agree as strongly as I can.
But no amount of agreeing makes the rapist himself objectively evil. If you think it is probable that the rapist may do it again, you lock him up for a long long time. (on top of the punishment for doing it in the first place) Gogmurt is objectively evil and we know with a certainty that he will continue to behave as evil. There is no "probable" about it.
If you look back for posts from me, about 2-3 pages I think, you'll see two quotes, one from the 3.5 MM and one from the Pathfinder Bestiary Preview. Basically, goblins are usually evil (3.5 MM) which means 'Statistically, you have somewhere between 51% and less than 100% of the population being evil'. That means there are some neutral and good goblins too. Probably mostly Neutrals. The pathfinder version is even murkier. It just says that the racial alignment is a majority of the race is this alignment, doesn't go into any details at all. So, unless the race has the Evil subtype (like Devils/Demons) the race is not inherently evil, just a lot of them are.
I agree with you there. It certainly makes it more interesting and fun to have this open question.
And my impression is that in Golarion virtually anything does have a potential for running against its normal alignment.
I don't think a real world standard of proof is needed however. If world of Golarion inhabitants go to an evil lair and get attacked by goblins, then they know they are under attack by evil forces.
In my games, 99.99% or more of goblins are evil.
The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals.Bull. Goblins have no penalties to either intelligence or wisdom (they get -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha). They're as fully capable of understanding the process as the average human is.
I agree.
Objectively evil goblins know full well they are evil. And they don't mind. :)
|
Lastknightleft said that in his campaign Gogmurt was put on trial and released because he was not responsible. And that is fine, I have no issues with subjective variations in someone else's game style. I'm not trying to challenge that. But, it makes no sense within the structure of my own personal games. They may have found him "not guilty", but he was objectively evil. Now he certainly may have been clever enough to be on his best behavior. And the secretly evil BBEG who has everyone fooled is a classic. But with an INT 8 and being a goblin, it doesn't seem probable. This is an objectively evil goblin in custody. And in my game he would continue to act evil during his custody. And everyone would know that this evil goblin would go back to doing evil, harming somebody, somehow, the second he was set free.
actually gogmurt got released before ever getting back to sandpoint. what happened was that when captured and tied up with ripnugget he and ripnugget they started yelling at each other in an "I told you so" sort of manner and their yelling at each other basically revealed all the back story with gogmurt being opposed to the humans and their plans, that coupled with a promise that once the humans were gone gogmurt would encourage his tribe to leave the humans alone got Hemlock to release him since he figured that gogmurt hadn't actually commited any crimes and hoping that the goblin would keep his word, which he would have if the party hadn't been slaughtering every last woman and child in the fort at the time.
Ripnugget though was guilty as sin so he got brought back to town and hung.
What happened is what happened. Charm person made him trust the enchantress. The enchantress, in turn, by means of roleplaying (no rules for that, I guess) convinced him that her friends were to be trusted. She was wrong, of course. I have seen some people second-guessing my DMing and that is fine, though I stand by my decision. However whether the decision was right or not has no bearing on the moral debate at hand.(Actually what happened should not have happened, because the party are not the Goblin's friends just the Sorc who cast it.)
I don't have a problem with the DMing of the spell, for the record. I think it means the goblin warchief is stupid, but as I said, not out of line. Also, as you point out, the sorceress genuinely believed what she was saying, and the cleric/other guy made good bluff rolls. And you were worried about a TPK so when they came up with something else and supported it well through roleplay and rolls, you let it work. All reasonable decisions.
But as I also said, I think the act of bluffing and killing the warchief isn't evil, but is chaotic. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences. You could certainly argue it was an ugly win, and not representative of inner beauty, and have the god require some penance. I also think, like you, that the most interesting reaction came from the sorceress, whom I think is the real one to be betrayed, having vouched for her companions.
One other point is that people, in general, hate being manipulated (some more than others). I tend to rule that when mind-altering magic wears off and the character's normal feelings return, they tend to take it badly. I once let a player play an incubus (using the rules from Savage Species) and while it was a terrible decision, I learned some valuable lessons about adjudicating mind-altering effects (and dealing with encounter-breaking powers, in general). The player once used Suggestion to get some random bandit leader to want to join them, and forgot about the duration. When it wore off in the middle of the night, the party was split up (half of them on their ship, nearby) and they barely edged out the fight, and only because another bandit saw an opportunity to be the leader of the surviving bandits, under the PCs' direction, once it was clear the bandits lost the advantage.
It's also worth mentioning that while the incubus frequently avoided direct fights and prevented party members (especially the rogue, whose player is never happy unless he's in combat) from killing...it wasn't a good act each time (in my view) because he only ever did it for selfish pragmatic reasons, namely that he didn't want the rogue to trigger a TPK (and the player had seen some bad stuff go down as a participant in the earlier evil campaign). Basically I dealt with similar situations to this on a regular basis, except it was an evil demon sparing lives instead of good characters taking them. This experience, as much as anything else, convinces me to take very seriously the character's overall intent into consideration.
So, say there's a band of armed robbers who have caused a lot of deaths in their heists. Most of the gang is shot to death in a firefight with police. The leader of the gang is convinced by a negotiator to disarm himself and allow himself to recieve medical treatment. As he is awaiting treatment, two cops shoot him to death.
How do you judge that?
I think you're making it too complex. If killing the leader in the fashion they did is evil, than the previous deaths of the leader's followers are no less evil and the question is moot.
You're comparing apples and marbles here. The followers were not killed in the fashion the leader was. Actually, if you'd read the last few pages, the followers mostly weren't killed at all, they were captured.
(Also some one used the arguement a ways back that if the goblins would do it, then it must be evil. Using that same arguement, feeding one's children is an evil act.)
Actually, goblins don't feed their children.
If you look back for posts from me, about 2-3 pages I think, you'll see two quotes, one from the 3.5 MM and one from the Pathfinder Bestiary Preview. Basically, goblins are usually evil (3.5 MM) which means 'Statistically, you have somewhere between 51% and less than 100% of the population being evil'. That means there are some neutral and good goblins too. Probably mostly Neutrals...I think you're making it too complex. If killing the leader in the fashion they did is evil, than the previous deaths of the leader's followers are no less evil and the question is moot.
(Also some one used the arguement a ways back that if the goblins would do it, then it must be evil. Using that same arguement, feeding one's children is an evil act.)
The killing of the leader is beside the point to the race being evil. Whether you agree that killing the leader was evil or not, the idea that every member of the race is evil is wrong (per RAW).
I think the argument used was 'If an evil Goblin would do it, then it's evil, regardless of your reasons'.
If you look back for posts from me, about 2-3 pages I think, you'll see two quotes, one from the 3.5 MM and one from the Pathfinder Bestiary Preview. Basically, goblins are usually evil (3.5 MM) which means 'Statistically, you have somewhere between 51% and less than 100% of the population being evil'. That means there are some neutral and good goblins too. Probably mostly Neutrals. The pathfinder version is even murkier. It just says that the racial alignment is a majority of the race is this alignment, doesn't go into any details at all. So, unless the race has the Evil subtype (like Devils/Demons) the race is not inherently evil, just a lot of them are.I agree with you there. It certainly makes it more interesting and fun to have this open question.
And my impression is that in Golarion virtually anything does have a potential for running against its normal alignment.
I don't think a real world standard of proof is needed however. If world of Golarion inhabitants go to an evil lair and get attacked by goblins, then they know they are under attack by evil forces.
In my games, 99.99% or more of goblins are evil.
And that's fine, as long as you keep it an Evil act to randomly kill a Neutral Goblin that happens to be walking through the woods. My objection was to people saying it wasn't Evil to kill every goblin you came accross (when you hit the occasional good or nuetral), and also evil to kill babies. I'd also say genocide would be Evil.
Interesting stuff
Ugh. Don't quote my typos. They're really easy to make on an iPhone and much harder to catch when it's such a pain to edit anything (just moving the cursor to the right place can take several attempts). And seeing them only after someone else quotes them is embarassing.
Other than that, since my example of low-level goblins isn't quite silly enough...
Does a high level party have an obligation to disable the low-level goblins nonviently if they can? Do they cast sleep and just walk on by, leaving them for lower-level NPCs to deal with?
As for your proposed goblin sitting peacefully on the road, I feel the intent of the word "peacefully" is that he's not trying to rob people walking by and just skipping the PCs becaus they look tough. If they're peaceful, sure it's probably evil, even if the goblin itself is inherently evil. I've been sticking with that all along.
But the warchief attacked first. And it's worth mentioning, if the PCs had any allies (or any NPCs, for that matter) coming along after them, the warchief would have still attacked them. On large-scale encounters, having a low-level support army going against the minions of the big bad isn't especially uncommon (in my games, anyway). I'd hate to be reinforcements rolling in and discovering that the heroes left the warchief (that almost beat them) alone and even healed his wounds.
Yeah. If the PCs were close to getting wiped out by the warchief, I definitely think he still qualifies as a threat to everyone else.
So, say there's a band of armed robbers who have caused a lot of deaths in their heists. Most of the gang is shot to death in a firefight with police. The leader of the gang is convinced by a negotiator to disarm himself and allow himself to recieve medical treatment. As he is awaiting treatment, two cops shoot him to death.
How do you judge that?
Did the negotiator hit the leader of the gang with magic to get him to disarm himself or somehow apply psychotropic drugs or something? 'Cause if not, it's not a relevant comparison. Is the goblin warchief legally entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers in the lands where he was, and were the PCs legally required to restrict the use of deadly force to only preventing others from dying? 'Cause if not, it's not a relevant comparison.
Edit: changed "of" to "if.". Stupid iPhone.
I think you're making it too complex. If killing the leader in the fashion they did is evil, than the previous deaths of the leader's followers are no less evil and the question is moot.You're comparing apples and marbles here.
They're both sphereical aren't they? :)
The followers were not killed in the fashion the leader was.
It doesn't matter that the leader was killed using trickery; if it wasn't evil to show up at the goblin's home and start curbstomping the little blighters, then using trickery to get the big one certainly isn't any more evil than following them to their home and attacking them.
Actually, if you'd read the last few pages, the followers mostly weren't killed at all, they were captured.
Is mostly weren't killed like being sort of pregnant? :) The fact that any of them were killed is the issue.
Actually, goblins don't feed their children.
Be careful with that one... it lends strength to the inherently evil arguement if they're self-sufficient from time zero.
Interesting stuffUgh. Don't quote my typos. They're really easy to make on an iPhone and much harder to catch when it's such a pain to edit anything (just moving the cursor to the right place can take several attempts). And seeing them only after someone else quotes them is embarassing.
Other than that, since my example of low-level goblins isn't quite silly enough...
Does a high level party have an obligation to disable the low-level goblins nonviently if they can? Do they cast sleep and just walk on by, leaving them for lower-level NPCs to deal with?As for your proposed goblin sitting peacefully on the road, I feel the intent of the word "peacefully" is that he's not trying to rob people walking by and just skipping the PCs becaus they look tough. If they're peaceful, sure it's probably evil, even if the goblin itself is inherently evil. I've been sticking with that all along.
But the warchief attacked first. And it's worth mentioning, if the PCs had any allies (or any NPCs, for that matter) coming along after them, the warchief would have still attacked them. On large-scale encounters, having a low-level support army going against the minions of the big bad isn't especially uncommon (in my games, anyway). I'd hate to be reinforcements rolling in and discovering that the heroes left the warchief (that almost beat them) alone and even healed his wounds.
Yeah. If the PCs were close to getting wiped out by the warchief, I definitely think he still qualifies as a threat to everyone else.
Hmm, for the original situation, we may only differ then in two aspects of our assessments of that situation.
I interpreted it as that the combat was effectively over when the two PCs tricked the warchief and killed him. So in my view, similar to the goblin sitting by the road situation - so whether the warchief attacked first doesn't matter at that point.
We also differ with respect to the warchief's future actions - say the party left, and their low level re-inforcements came along. First, I hope the party would know they had re-inforcements coming, and so agree that they should not leave an angered, healed goblin waiting for them. That would be a threat to the re-inforcements, which the PCs should take pains to avoid. But, if the PCs took another route, other than death, to convince the warchief to surrender (they're doing great with bluff checks already, and he's still charmed), then tie him up with the other prisoners. When the charm wears off, he will definitely be angry, and probably vengeful. But I don't think he's very stupid, and may re-evaluate his options (whatever they are based on how justice was determined per the surrender). And, since they were close to being wiped out by him, it seems particularly dangerous to attack him with just the advantage of him having removed his armor - even without armor, he might have still killed the PCs.
As for an obligation for high-level characters to be non-lethal, I would guess no. Particularly if, in game, you can never be sure how powerful your opponent is. On the other hand, if you are sure your foe is much much weaker than you, then maybe it's not 'good' to fight with lethal force at such an obvious advantage? This comes both from a modern perspective, considering a professional boxer vs. a high school chess champion (who is not an athlete), and a medieval one - I can't imagine a seasoned knight thinking it's fair to kill a knight who appears barely able to hold a sword. But this may be too restrictive for 'good' normally in a game.
To get back to your earlier point about a player adopting a strategy to avoid the moral quandaries. This should reflect, I think, a conversation between the players and the DM. If the players want to play 'good' aligned characters, but don't want to wrestle with these issues of when it's right to kill etc., then I think it can be done. The DM has a lot of leeway to make sure it doesn't happen. Maybe the villain runs away and escapes, maybe he fights to the death instead of surrendering, maybe the PCs are empowered to give out the death penalty to prisoners in certain situations. There are ways to avoid getting bogged down by these things in game (I think), so as long as people play with the same expectations, it can still be fun for all.
Is the goblin warchief legally entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers...
Just as a complete aside, I rather like the image of a jury box full of goblins.
Is the goblin warchief legally entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers...Just as a complete aside, I rather like the image of a jury box full of goblins.
LOL
I have to use that in my monster game when it starts up. :)
It doesn't matter that the leader was killed using trickery; if it wasn't evil to show up at the goblin's home and start curbstomping the little blighters, then using trickery to get the big one certainly isn't any more evil than following them to their home and attacking them.
I would refine this a little bit.
I wouldn't think it's evil for the PCs to show up at the goblin's home.
If they are then attacked (or see an armed force an engage it), that's not evil either.
If the goblins are sitting around baking cookies (evil cookies) and the PCs charge in and kill them, then probably evil.
The means are important to the classification of good vs evil (or neutral), not just the ends.
Though we may differ on which means are evil or good in which situations.
So, say there's a band of armed robbers who have caused a lot of deaths in their heists. Most of the gang is shot to death in a firefight with police. The leader of the gang is convinced by a negotiator to disarm himself and allow himself to recieve medical treatment. As he is awaiting treatment, two cops shoot him to death.
How do you judge that?
Did the negotiator hit the leader of the gang with magic to get him to disarm himself or somehow apply psychotropic drugs or something? 'Cause if not, it's not a relevant comparison. Is the goblin warchief legally entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers in the lands where he was, and were the PCs legally required to restrict the use of deadly force to only preventing others from dying? 'Cause if not, it's not a relevant comparison.
Edit: changed "of" to "if.". Stupid iPhone.
Morally, it is the same, I was just removing the fantasy clothing from the basic issue. A goblin warband is essentially a rampaging group of armed robbers and vandals, adventurers charged with ending their threat to a region are essentially a posse rounded up for the situation. Since charm isn't more than causing someone to trust and be favorably disposed to someone, the way a negotiator is trained to gain the trust of a hostage taker, it isn't the same as having one's perceptions psychoactively altered. It's a situation where a genuine offer was made, betrayed, and fatally taken advantage of. Arguing technicalities doesn't change the right and wrong of it.
(Also some one used the arguement a ways back that if the goblins would do it, then it must be evil. Using that same arguement, feeding one's children is an evil act.)
I think the argument used was 'If an evil Goblin would do it, then it's evil, regardless of your reasons'.
And it's still a logical fallacy. That statement turns everything an evil goblin does into an evil act. Someone, I think Seabryn or Doskious Steele, mentioned brushing your teeth. It's not an evil act, even when an evil goblin does it. It's just as wrong as concluding that any individual goblin is evil on the basis that goblins are usually evil.
Basically, the two lines of reasoning appear to be:
Most goblins are evil. There is a goblin, therefore it must be evil.
The goblin warchief is evil. He tried to act friendly and then attacked, therefore acting friendly then attacking is evil.
Even if both conclusions are true (the random goblin in question is evil/acting friendly then attacking is evil) the reasoning being used is faulty. And I, of course, don't feel the second conclusion is always true.
I think the argument used was 'If an evil Goblin would do it, then it's evil, regardless of your reasons'.And it's still a logical fallacy. That statement turns everything an evil goblin does into an evil act. Someone, I think Seabryn or Doskious Steele, mentioned brushing your teeth. It's not an evil act, even when an evil goblin does it. It's just as wrong as concluding that any individual goblin is evil on the basis that goblins are usually evil.
You are right, I didn't state it right. What I was trying to get at was :
If the Goblin was Evil, and did something, and it was Evil, then a Good character doing the same thing is Evil. What I was trying to get at is that it doesn't matter what your alignment is, if you do an Evil act, it's Evil, regardless of your alignment or the alignment of the person you do it to. I was just in a hurry and didn't get the statement quoted above right.
Basically, the two lines of reasoning appear to be:
Most goblins are evil. There is a goblin, therefore it must be evil.The goblin warchief is evil. He tried to act friendly and then attacked, therefore acting friendly then attacking is evil.
Even if both conclusions are true (the random goblin in question is evil/acting friendly then attacking is evil) the reasoning being used is faulty. And I, of course, don't feel the second conclusion is always true.
I'll agree with the first line, not sure about the second, I don't think anyone ever accused the goblin of acting friendly and then attacking. Except perhaps in a hypothetical.
Hypothetically though, if a Goblin went to the village and acted friendly and gained some trust and then lured the village chief into a compromising situation and then slit his throat, I think everyone would agree that would be an Evil act. Even if he charmed the village chief in the first place.
Morally, it is the same, I was just removing the fantasy clothing from the basic issue. A goblin warband is essentially a rampaging group of armed robbers and vandals, adventurers charged with ending their threat to a region are essentially a posse rounded up for the situation. Since charm isn't more than causing someone to trust and be favorably disposed to someone, the way a negotiator is trained to gain the trust of a hostage taker, it isn't the same as having one's perceptions psychoactively altered. It's a situation where a genuine offer was made, betrayed, and fatally taken advantage of. Arguing technicalities doesn't change the right and wrong of it.
Ugh. It's not the same at all, and the "clothing" makes all the difference.
If the sorceress is using just diplomacy, your analogy would be much closer. But if the goblin warchief is only listening because for 1 hour/caster level he thinks the sorceress is his friend, that's an important "technicality." The goblin warchief didn't choose to trust the sorceress as a friend, he failed a will save.
And the expectatios of the society at just as relevant. In the US, it is much easier to have extremely high standards for what you consider good and lawful. There really aren't many situations where the lines need crossing. We outlaw executions in some states, and forms of execution in still more. Trials by a jury of peers, extremely detailed codes of conduct by law enforcement officers, a right to a defense attorney in criminal cases...these are all absent from the fantay situation but implicit in the modern one. Plus, you conveniently leave out that hostage negotiation teams commonly employ snipers to end the threat by having the negotiator talk the robber into disarming and surrendering, again without the robber even needing to attempt a will save or automatically breaking the effect of the negotiator's technique after a few hours.
Totally different.
What I was trying to get at is that it doesn't matter what your alignment is, if you do an Evil act, it's Evil, regardless of your alignment or the alignment of the person you do it to.
So evil acts are evil? I'll agree (there's not really an alternative), but that doesn't establish the act in question as evil or, really, establish anything else. That required the faulty logic.
The goblin warchief is evil. He tried to act friendly and then attacked, therefore acting friedly then attacking is evil.I'll agree with the first line, not sure about the second, I don't think anyone ever accused the goblin of acting friendly and then attacking. Except perhaps in a hypothetical.
Hypothetically though, if a Goblin went to the village and acted friendly and gained some trust and then lured the village chief into a compromising situation and then slit his throat, I think everyone would agree that would be an Evil act. Even if he charmed the village chief in the first place.
The OP said the warchief waited until the weakest looking member of the party approached to talk, then raged and attacked. That's what brought the original comment about how the goblin doing it first demonstrates that it's evil.
Regarding your additional scenario, I think it's missing some key info (for it to be usable as an analogy) that is actually determinant regarding the morality of the act in the first scenario by the OP. Was the village chief, even if he was good, the original aggressor, and did he also attack under false pretense first? If so I'd say he did the chaotic (and probably evil, depending on his motives) act, and the goblin, even if he was evil, did a chaotic but not necessarily good or evIl act. I'm not prejudiced against the warchief by race, alignment, level, or class.
What I was trying to get at is that it doesn't matter what your alignment is, if you do an Evil act, it's Evil, regardless of your alignment or the alignment of the person you do it to.So evil acts are evil? I'll agree (there's not really an alternative), but that doesn't establish the act in question as evil or, really, establish anything else. That required the faulty logic.
Ok,
Again, not talking about the original OP's scenario. There were some people arguing in the thread that if you were good, and the person you killed was evil, there was no way you could commit an evil act while killing them. Killing babies would be ok because goblin babies are evil because goblins are evil.If an act is evil (and in D&D, certain acts are Evil, by definition, check the Book of Evil Deeds for examples of Evil acts), then the fact you are good and doing the Evil act to an Evil person does not make the act Not Evil.
That was my argument. If you don't like it, fine, but it's useless to hash it out over and over again.
The goblin warchief is evil. He tried to act friendly and then attacked, therefore acting friedly then attacking is evil.I'll agree with the first line, not sure about the second, I don't think anyone ever accused the goblin of acting friendly and then attacking. Except perhaps in a hypothetical.
Hypothetically though, if a Goblin went to the village and acted friendly and gained some trust and then lured the village chief into a compromising situation and then slit his throat, I think everyone would agree that would be an Evil act. Even if he charmed the village chief in the first place.The OP said the warchief waited until the weakest looking member of the party approached to talk, then raged and attacked. That's what brought the original comment about how the goblin doing it first demonstrates that it's evil.
Regarding your additional scenario, I think it's missing some key info (for it to be usable as an analogy) that is actually determinant regarding the morality of the act in the first scenario by the OP. Was the village chief, even if he was good, the original aggressor, and did he also attack under false pretense first? If so I'd say he did the chaotic (and probably evil, depending on his motives) act, and the goblin, even if he was evil, did a chaotic but not necessarily good or evIl act. I'm not prejudiced against the warchief by race, alignment, level, or class.
I'm glad about the last part, and you do have a point. As to the rest, I'm not interested in rehashing the same points over again (they've been hashed out in 300 posts before us). Not because it's not interesting, but I can't add anything that hasn't already been posted, and so posting anything else is just a waste. :(
actually gogmurt got released before ever getting back to sandpoint.
Sorry, I would have sworn I read it the other way. My bad.
what happened was that when captured and tied up with ripnugget he and ripnugget they started yelling at each other in an "I told you so" sort of manner and their yelling at each other basically revealed all the back story with gogmurt being opposed to the humans and their plans, that coupled with a promise that once the humans were gone gogmurt would encourage his tribe to leave the humans alone got Hemlock to release him since he figured that gogmurt hadn't actually commited any crimes and hoping that the goblin would keep his word, which he would have if the party hadn't been slaughtering every last woman and child in the fort at the time.
Ripnugget though was guilty as sin so he got brought back to town and hung.
And that is cool.
But it sounds to me like you changed Gogmurt from evil to neutral though. Again, just my opinion, an INT 8 evil goblin just isn't going to play this way in my game.
If they honestly think he hasn't committed "any" crimes, (as opposed to the specific crimes the party knows of) and assume that he won't commit crimes in the near future, then what makes him evil?
Again, the drug dealer down the street may be "guilty" but that is all. Gogmurt is a fantasy version of objective evil.
It doesn't matter that the leader was killed using trickery; if it wasn't evil to show up at the goblin's home and start curbstomping the little blighters, then using trickery to get the big one certainly isn't any more evil than following them to their home and attacking them.I would refine this a little bit.
I wouldn't think it's evil for the PCs to show up at the goblin's home.
If they are then attacked (or see an armed force an engage it), that's not evil either.
If the goblins are sitting around baking cookies (evil cookies) and the PCs charge in and kill them, then probably evil.
The means are important to the classification of good vs evil (or neutral), not just the ends.
Though we may differ on which means are evil or good in which situations.
I don't, necessarily, agree. It mostly depends on why the PCs are there to kill the goblins. What do they hope to accomplish? In other words, what are the ends they are trying to bring about?
If the goblins have done terrible deeds and escaped unpunished, the kicking down the door, killing them all, waiting ten minutes and eating all the cookies fresh out of the ovens when they are warm and gooey and soft...probably not evil. If it's unprovoked, or even underprovoked (maybe the PCs are mad they weren't invited to the cookie party?) then yeah, evil.
And MDT, I obviously (given my reasoning in the tables-turned example you gave) disagree with those saying it's always good to kill evil, too. I feel its roots lie in the same reasoning, just with more interim steps.
And MDT, I obviously (given my reasoning in the tables-turned example you gave) disagree with those saying it's always good to kill evil, too. I feel its roots lie in the same reasoning, just with more interim steps.
Sorry, guess I didn't get that impression. Just getting tired of the going back and forth I guess. :)
And that's fine, as long as you keep it an Evil act to randomly kill a Neutral Goblin that happens to be walking through the woods. My objection was to people saying it wasn't Evil to kill every goblin you came accross (when you hit the occasional good or nuetral), and also evil to kill babies. I'd also say genocide would be Evil.
I can't imagine a solo neutral goblin strolling peacefully though the woods as an encounter.
Honestly, even in the real world there is the concept of reasonable doubt. If a paladin encountered a goblin walking down the road and killed him flat out, and the DM said "You just killed a neutral goblin. You lost your paladin status." Then that would be nothing but a case of DM asshattery. Unless the DM has gone out of the way to explain to the players a pretty extreme moral uncertainty to the game, killing the goblin as evil comes way way way beyond reasonable doubt.
Likewise, baby goblin killing has never been a point of action in my games. But goblin lairs have been burned out, so I certainly think one can assume. If it ever did come up, I would expect a paladin to humanely put them down. But it won't ever come up.
Again, the real world terms like "genocide" don't apply to me. Genocide is intensely subjectively evil in the real world. Forget gaming and I am 100% with you.
In a fantasy game with objectively evil goblins, you may as well complain to me about genocide against the polio virus.
In a fantasy game with objectively evil goblins, you may as well complain to me about genocide against the polio virus.
This is an interesting point. I think some of us (myself included) are coming to this discussion with the point of view that unless it's an extraplanar creature with the evil subtype, its evil alignment is a choice, or at worst, based on its culture/upbringing. My understanding is that's RAW, although I don't have my beastiary previews with me. Those of us with that view are also holding the view that it is reasonable to hold the characters responsible under that view. We don't want the Paladin smiting every last random NPC that fails a breathalyzer...I mean Detect Evil test on the side of the road.
You really don't take that approach in your definition of objective evil, and thus we come to very different conclusions. For me the big difference is that since goblins don't have the evil subtype, evil isn't inherent to their being. Since they have an int of 3 or greater, they are sentient and capable of choosing their actions, unlike the polio virus.
It's also worth noting that I love the Pathfinder goblins, and nearly made a significant (as in, member of the party) Arcane Trickster goblin that was raised by dwarves (to hate uncivilized goblins, of course). I ended up going with an Illumian Druid that plans on becoming an arcane hierophant, but that's mostly because two players created a wizard and a rogue, and divine spellcasters are lacking in the party.
In a fantasy game with objectively evil goblins, you may as well complain to me about genocide against the polio virus.
This is an interesting point. I think some of us (myself included) are coming to this discussion with the point of view that unless it's an extraplanar creature with the evil subtype, its evil alignment is a choice, or at worst, based on its culture/upbringing. My understanding is that's RAW, although I don't have my beastiary previews with me. Those of us with that view are also holding the view that it is reasonable to hold the characters responsible under that view. We don't want the Paladin smiting every last random NPC that fails a breathalyzer...I mean Detect Evil test on the side of the road.
You really don't take that approach in your definition of objective evil, and thus we come to very different conclusions. For me the big difference is that since goblins don't have the evil subtype, evil isn't inherent to their being. Since they have an int of 3 or greater, they are sentient and capable of choosing their actions, unlike the polio virus.
It's also worth noting that I love the Pathfinder goblins, and nearly made a significant (as in, member of the party) Arcane Trickster goblin that was raised by dwarves (to hate uncivilized goblins, of course). I ended up going with an Illumian Druid that plans on becoming an arcane hierophant, but that's mostly because two players created a wizard and a rogue, and divine spellcasters are lacking in the party.
I have to agree. I think some people prefer the 'If the books says they are mostly evil, they are all evil because I don't want to deal with the fact there might be some non-evil ones'. I think that takes away a HUGE amount of RP and flavor, but, if that's what they want, it's their game. I just don't want them to tell me it's a wrong interpretation to say that randomly killing creatures without checking to see if they deserve it is the way the game was designed. Because it's RAW that the creatures are not always evil, therefore assuming they are and slaughtering them at random is evil too.
As long as the GM lets the players know what the reality is, all evil vs mostly evil, then however he approaches it is valid in his game (as long as again he is being consistent).
|
|
And that is cool.
But it sounds to me like you changed Gogmurt from evil to neutral though. Again, just my opinion, an INT 8 evil goblin just isn't going to play this way in my game.
If they honestly think he hasn't committed "any" crimes, (as opposed to the specific crimes the party knows of) and assume that he won't commit crimes in the near future, then what makes him evil?
Again, the drug dealer down the street may be "guilty" but that is all. Gogmurt is a fantasy version of objective evil.
I didn't change gogmurts behavior at all, the AP tells you that gogmurt will if captured spill his guts and try to get the captors to kill the humans.
Gogmurt did exactly that, he told them that the humans convinced the goblins to attack and he told them that if they got rid of the humans, he'd convince his tribe not to have any more attacks. None of that implies good or evil, when they went further and captured ripnugget he got tied up and left hostage with gogmurt. Whereupon they got in a yelling match because gogmurt couldn't resist saying "I told you so" which led to an argument between the two goblins, however, it had nothing to do with saying that gogmurt never commited any crimes, and everything to do with the fact that gogmurt had nothing to do with the reasons the party were there, and therefor they had no reason really to capture him, and it was confirmed by ripnugget in their argument, which they had because in their low int they didn't even think that maybe what they were saying wouldn't have been overheard. Remember the reason he was in the thistle instead of the fort was because ripnugget kicked him out for not agreeing with the plans and saying the humans were bad and not to be trusted. Hell in his discussion with the PCs gogmurt even said that he'd have killed the longshanks that brainwashed ripnugget if they weren't so much stronger than him, showing that he was somewhat of an evil prick, that doesn't change the fact that he was an evil prick who had NOTHING to do with the raids on sandpoint which was the reason the PCs were there. And if it had been shelelu instead of balor, gogmurt would have been dead, but I play the characters as I see them and I don't see how I had gogmurt at all being a nuetral character.
For the record gogmurt then in revenge started luring children out of sandpoint and feeding them to malfeshnekor which he sold his body to devils to get the knowledge to release, his plan was to lure the PCs back to the thistle then have them trade themselves for the child he captured then when he had them locked up he was going to have malfeshnekor slaughter every person in sandpoint, then he was going to let the PCs go (not even caring if the PCs then killed him because he knew he was dying anyways). So no I don't feel that I played gogmurt as nuetral. An evil person can be innocent of a specific crime and still be evil. And everything I did with gogmurt emphasised how his evil mind worked, after all he put a childs head on a pike on bridge for every day the PCs didn't come get him, only ever holding one child at a time. So the PCs saw a head on a pike because they didn't go after the first child, and then when they wouldn't trade themselves they watched as malfeshnekor ripped off the second childs head.
How would you play an 8 int evil goblin that had been beaten by the PCs, I had gogmurt grovel and beg and try to shift the PCs focus onto other targets, what would you have done have him attack again even though he knew they could beat him?
It doesn't matter that the leader was killed using trickery; if it wasn't evil to show up at the goblin's home and start curbstomping the little blighters, then using trickery to get the big one certainly isn't any more evil than following them to their home and attacking them.I would refine this a little bit.
I wouldn't think it's evil for the PCs to show up at the goblin's home.
If they are then attacked (or see an armed force an engage it), that's not evil either.
If the goblins are sitting around baking cookies (evil cookies) and the PCs charge in and kill them, then probably evil.
The means are important to the classification of good vs evil (or neutral), not just the ends.
Though we may differ on which means are evil or good in which situations.I don't, necessarily, agree. It mostly depends on why the PCs are there to kill the goblins. What do they hope to accomplish? In other words, what are the ends they are trying to bring about?
If the goblins have done terrible deeds and escaped unpunished, the kicking down the door, killing them all, waiting ten minutes and eating all the cookies fresh out of the ovens when they are warm and gooey and soft...probably not evil. If it's unprovoked, or even underprovoked (maybe the PCs are mad they weren't invited to the cookie party?) then yeah, evil.
This is helping me crystalize how we differ, I think.
I think I've been arguing that the ends (including intent) should not be considered when determining whether an act (the means) is good or evil. I think the ends and the intent should be considered in determining whether the act has any alignment-type consequences, and, if so, what these might be.
I think you are arguing that the intent (and maybe the ends too?) helps determine whether the act is good or evil, and therefore influences whether any consequences should be considered (and if so, what they are).
I honestly don't know which is objectively 'right' - or, less philosophically, even if the game rules can unambiguously be read one way or the other.
Subjectively I hope I would agree with myself (it helps reduce cognitive dissonance).
I hope that in any particular situation, my opinion would not violate or be at odds with the principles agreed on with the players for each particular alignment. In your restatement of the cookie example, I could see situations in which I might think these acts would not be evil by the PCs, and others in which I might think they are. In either case, it might be ok for some PCs of certain alignments, but less so for others, or fine for all, depending on the circumstances.
I'm really not a philosopher by any stretch, so arguing this abstractly is straining my ability to reason, but I'm comfortable trusting my judgment for a detailed and concrete example (both in abstract moral terms and to keep a game fun). On the other hand, you and Douskious and a few others have given me serious pause to think about how these issues could be played consistently in game terms.
I haven't changed my mind yet about the original puzzle, but I could perhaps be persuaded in a game to rule it contrary to my subjective opinion, if the players honestly feel as you do (and aren't just arguing to avoid in-game consequences), since I don't think your view is 'wrong' in any objective sense - and as long as one approach is consistently chosen, c'est la vie.
I have to agree. I think some people prefer the 'If the books says they are mostly evil, they are all evil because I don't want to deal with the fact there might be some non-evil ones'. I think that takes away a HUGE amount of RP and flavor, but, if that's what they want, it's their game. I just don't want them to tell me it's a wrong interpretation to say that randomly killing creatures without checking to see if they deserve it is the way the game was designed....
And that's fine.
Is there a single example of a non-evil goblin in any Golarion content so far?
IMO, I've taken away exactly 0.00001% of the RP and flavor in exchange for not displacing a huge amount of the fun and flavor with needless faux angst. I think the extremely minor footnote that the option remains in place for some freaky exception goblin somewhere may not be evil does not mean the game is supposed to be played in a matter that requires walking on eggshells.
I just don't want anyone telling me it is a wrong interpretation that being able to kill a goblin that has attacked you without getting hung up on some wildly unlikely chance.
To be clear, I am 100% NOT saying you are wrong. I am saying that the game is very much intentionally built with an open ended functionality on this type matter. Your view is embraced by the game and that is the way the game is designed.
But, my view is also embraced by the game, and that is also the way the game is designed.
I do take exception to the claim that I have some need or desire to avoid non-evil entities. I think that is just an insult to dodge the issue. I like having BOTH moral ambiguity and discreet good and evil at the same time. I actually had a mini-arc in a campaign several years back in which the party became mixed up with a very large tribe of neutral orcs. And things were really touchy at first because the players, as expected, presumed evil until they had reason to think otherwise. And the orcs were still certainly not good and were rather xenophobic to boot.
I like the Lord of the Rings goblins that are evil through and through not because it avoids dealing with anything, but because that it fun. And I can deal with complex issues AND step up and bring the blade of good against true evil, both in the same game.
I like using evil goblins. And I do believe that the game was designed with the presumption that goblins are evil UNLESS a particular DM elects to be more ambiguous with them. The way I imagine it, a goblin's first thoughts are evil thoughts. The only reason they are not all evil is because some major intervention may occur in some random goblin's life that changes things. (And yes, that is entirely my own personal spin)
I'm curious, what is your opinion of Golarion drow? It has long been D&D tradition that Drow are evil but the non-evil exceptions exist. Paizo very bluntly put the foot on the neck of that idea. I guess they didn't want to deal with it. Or maybe they just thought it was more fun that way. But either way, there are no non-evil drow is the way the game was designed.
I didn't change gogmurts behavior at all, the AP tells you that gogmurt will if captured spill his guts and try to get the captors to kill the humans.
Well, ok. I don't think you have done a good job of describing the action because the tone keeps changing significantly.
For the record gogmurt then in revenge started luring children out of sandpoint and feeding them to malfeshnekor which he sold his body to devils to get the knowledge to release, his plan was to lure the PCs back to the thistle then have them trade themselves for the child he captured then when he had them locked up he was going to have malfeshnekor slaughter every person in sandpoint, then he was going to let the PCs go (not even caring if the PCs then killed him because he knew he was dying anyways). So no I don't feel that I played gogmurt as nuetral.
I'd imagine the fine people of Sandpoint wish those self-righteous "good guys" would go the hell away and some quality neutral heroes would come in a kill the bad guys BEFORE children get fed to a fiend.
But, hey, children's blood down the throat of a fiend is the price of purity. :)
An evil person can be innocent of a specific crime and still be evil.
My point exactly. Lawful Good says they hate to see the guilty go unpunished, but it ALSO says they have "a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly." In my game the LG guys tend to not relent in their fighting of evil on technicalities applying only to the "L" part.
This is an interesting point. I think some of us (myself included) are coming to this discussion with the point of view that unless it's an extraplanar creature with the evil subtype, its evil alignment is a choice, or at worst, based on its culture/upbringing. My understanding is that's RAW, although I don't have my beastiary previews with me.
Can you reference this for me. I don't believe you are correct.
You really don't take that approach in your definition of objective evil, and thus we come to very different conclusions. For me the big difference is that since goblins don't have the evil subtype, evil isn't inherent to their being. Since they have an int of 3 or greater, they are sentient and capable of choosing their actions, unlike the polio virus.
Right, they are worse than the virus because they choose evil.
I certainly don't agree with the concept that inherent evil requires the evil subtype.
And that's fine.Is there a single example of a non-evil goblin in any Golarion content so far?
Golarion = Pathfinder, but Pathfinder <> Golarion. Not everyone runs in Golarion.
IMO, I've taken away exactly 0.00001% of the RP and flavor in exchange for not displacing a huge amount of the fun and flavor with needless faux angst. I think the extremely minor footnote that the option remains in place for some freaky exception goblin somewhere may not be evil does not mean the game is supposed to be played in a matter that requires walking on eggshells.I just don't want anyone telling me it is a wrong interpretation that being able to kill a goblin that has attacked you without getting hung up on some wildly unlikely chance.
At no point did I every say that, please don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that per RAW slaughtering goblins without cause is Evil, because you have no reason to unless they pose a danger. If he's attacking you, then he's a danger, ipso facto.
To be clear, I am 100% NOT saying you are wrong. I am saying that the game is very much intentionally built with an open ended functionality on this type matter. Your view is embraced by the game and that is the way the game is designed.But, my view is also embraced by the game, and that is also the way the game is designed.
A agree completely, there is room for both interpretations in the game, as long as one or the other is not specified as 'The only right way to do it'.
I do take exception to the claim that I have some need or desire to avoid non-evil entities. I think that is just an insult to dodge the issue. I like having BOTH moral ambiguity and discreet good and evil at the same time. I actually had a mini-arc in a campaign several years back in which the party became mixed up with a very large tribe of neutral orcs. And things were really touchy at first because the players, as expected, presumed evil until they had reason to think otherwise. And the orcs were still certainly not good and were...
Please note I was extremely careful not to say you or anyone else specifically had that outlook. However, there have been enough people posting specifically that 'Goblins is evil, killing goblins is good, even killing baby goblins is good' that I feel there are some people who just don't want to deal with RAW or actual alignment consequences. That is fine in their games, but it's not RAW, and stating it is is incorrect. I don't know how else I could make that point, if I say some people, it is 'you' and if I say 'You' it's you. Any ideas?
I'm curious, what is your opinion of Golarion drow? It has long been D&D tradition that Drow are evil but the non-evil exceptions exist. Paizo very bluntly put the foot on the neck of that idea. I guess they didn't want to deal with it. Or maybe they just thought it was more fun that way. But either way, there are no non-evil drow is the way the game was designed.
Sorry, this didn't make it into the quote due to space limitations.
I think that if that is how Paizo wants to handle Drow in Golarian then that is fine. I am also glad they decided not to alter RAW on races outside of Golarian.
To me, Golarian is a specific world with specific rules. If all Drow are automatically evil in their world, they published it, they have every right in the world to say that. They had the wisdom to know the difference between in my world and in my game system. The former is perfectly valid to set races All Evil or Usually Evil or Often Evil. The latter is not, and they knew that.
I will say that they should specify that in Golarian Drow acquire the Evil subtype then, if that is their intention, and the same goes for any race. Per the RAW unless the race has the Evil subtype, then they are only Mostly Evil. Setting specific changes are perfectly valid.
I would never be happy playing in Golarion or running there, having said that. Because I don't like the idea of sentient mortal species with souls being 100% evil. That's what Outsiders are for.
This is an interesting point. I think some of us (myself included) are coming to this discussion with the point of view that unless it's an extraplanar creature with the evil subtype, its evil alignment is a choice, or at worst, based on its culture/upbringing. My understanding is that's RAW, although I don't have my beastiary previews with me.Can you reference this for me. I don't believe you are correct.
Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creature's origins. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.
Often: The creature tends towards the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.
Alignment: Usually Neutral Evil
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster’s size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
Regarding 3.5 rules
So, by the rules, Goblins are usually but by no stretch of the imagination, always evil. Just as not all Elves are Chaotic Good. It does not take an act of a god, or GM fiat, to make a Goblin non-evil. Goblins are somewhere between 51% and 95% Evil. However, they can change their alignment, and to get to be evil, they have to commit evil acts. Thus, they are not born Evil.Pathfinder Rules
As you see above, in Pathfinder, they only list a norm for the species, but state it is very fluid, and can be changed as needed. Only relatively unintelligent monsters and planar monsters (IE: Those with an alignment subtype) are relatively unchangeable.
To me, this is even looser than the original 3.5 guidelines. Which means it's really up to the GM to say 'ALL RACE <BLAH> IS EVIL NO MATTER WHAT'. Unless your GM has said this, you can prepare for a race being the listed alignment, but, assuming it can get you in a lot of trouble (as easily assuming all Elves are Chaotic Good as all Goblins are Neutral Evil). Note the nomenclature of far more fluid. This isn't 'May be different in wildly unusual circumstances'. This is 'Your mileage may vary wildly'.
Golarion = Pathfinder, but Pathfinder <> Golarion. Not everyone runs in Golarion.
Agreed and I apologize for the implication. Though I do believe Golarion is a good hint as to Paizo's take.
At no point did I every say that, please don't put words in my mouth.
Hold up, if I need to apologize for putting words in your mouth, then you first. All I did is reverse your comment toward me back toward you.
All I said was that per RAW slaughtering goblins without cause is Evil, because you have no reason to unless they pose a danger. If he's attacking you, then he's a danger, ipso facto
And I'm saying that per RAW, goblins are evil and LG fights evil relentlessly.
Per RAW being evil is cause.
Please note I was extremely careful not to say you or anyone else specifically had that outlook. However, there have been enough people posting specifically that 'Goblins is evil, killing goblins is good, even killing baby goblins is good' that I feel there are some people who just don't want to deal with RAW or actual alignment consequences. That is fine in their games, but it's not RAW, and stating it is is incorrect. I don't know how else I could make that point, if I say some people, it is 'you' and if I say 'You' it's you. Any ideas?
hmmm
Again, I claim you are 100% wrong per RAW. The rules very openly embrace ambiguity, but a simple default reading contradicts your position as a default.
That said, I don't buy that saying people with no vowels in the user name are morons would not be targeting you just because I make a point not to specifically say you. And I'm not saying that. But come on.....
Golarion = Pathfinder, but Pathfinder <> Golarion. Not everyone runs in Golarion.
Important distinction. I, for one, still run Forgotten Realms, although I'm enjoying the additional flavor from the Classic Monstrrs revisited, and I never dealt with goblinoids much before so it required very little retconning to use the Pathfinder default treatment of goblins.
As for Golarion Drow, I dunno. I'm not that familiar with the setting as a whole, but I thought the goblins looked so cool and the dev blog was so sweet I had to learn more about them. I was super bummed when no one in the party of my new campaign knew the goblin language so they can't understand the hilarious things the goblins are saying and why they act so strange. For the drow, though, someone in the thread mentioned the developers said that non-evil drow are killed/turned into driders. So it's a cultural explanation, as I understand it, not a supernatural one.
Regarding the subtype rule...that'll have to wait until I get home. I may be misremembering.
Edit: Ah, sweet, MDT looked it up for me. I was pretty sure it was in the Beastiary preview, as I implied, but I'm glad I remembered it right. And yeah, quoting rules from an unreleased product is kinda weird, but that's where I'm coming from.
2nd edit: Well, sorta right. It doesn't mention subtypes. Hmm...I wonder where I got that from. Maybe that's just my RAI...I'll have to pore over all the books I've been reading again.
hmmmAgain, I claim you are 100% wrong per RAW. The rules very openly embrace ambiguity, but a simple default reading contradicts your position as a default.
That said, I don't buy that saying people with no vowels in the user name are morons would not be targeting you just because I make a point not to specifically say you. And I'm not saying that. But come on.....
Then there is no reason for us to bother arguing. You have the RAI version of RAW that you like. I have my RAI version of RAW that I like. Neither of us will convince the other, no matter how many passages we post from the rulebooks.
Have fun with your game.
I don't need a rules review. I'm quite familiar with them and think that having goblins be officially "all" evil would be a bad move. I support and applaud the 3.5/PF systems.
Leaving open the option for non-evil goblins does NOT remotely make it presumed that there is any notable number of non-evil goblins out there.
I never said "ALL" (I clearly agreed with highly rare exceptions), but I did say that the presumption is so overwhelming that reasonable doubt doesn't even begin to cover the presumption of evil upon encountering a goblin.
I'll claim that as a historic D&D cultural given.
Again, it is also a historic D&D cultural given that the DM can change this as they see fit. It comes clipped on to the game, but it is designed to be removable.
If, for example, some said they were going to play PF set in the WoW universe, the cultural givens become completely different.
|
|
I didn't change gogmurts behavior at all, the AP tells you that gogmurt will if captured spill his guts and try to get the captors to kill the humans.Well, ok. I don't think you have done a good job of describing the action because the tone keeps changing significantly.
But, hey, children's blood down the throat of a fiend is the price of purity. :)
The PCs are dealing with a faction of people in the town that resent them for their failure to save the children. Especially since they actually prevented the father from going. I'm sure a lot of the jokers victims wish batman was more like the punisher, that doesn't make the punisher Good, even though he is one of the "good guys"
]An evil person can be innocent of a specific crime and still be evil.My point exactly. Lawful Good says they hate to see the guilty go unpunished, but it ALSO says they have "a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly." In my game the LG guys tend to not relent in their fighting of evil on technicalities applying only to the "L" part.
So if a creature is evil it should be killed regardless of alignment and situation, that's how you play it. Detect Evil doesn't even work because they're lower than 5 HD so there's no way to prove they're evil at all, but he seems like a dick, better kill him in case he ever possibly would do anything wrong ever.
and as for my tone, I haven't changed my tone at all, i took a description of what happened and each time someone tries to call me on my actions I've gone into further detail, however, that was in attempt to keep the thread from becoming a derailment about my game. I'm not going to let people tell me off of a few scant descriptions that I'm not doing alignments properly and therefore had to post a more detailed description of events.
Important distinction.
Agreed. But again, I still claim that you can infer a degree of Paizo's take on it from this.
I, for one, still run Forgotten Realms
Know of any "official" non-evil goblins in FR?
I'll claim that as a historic D&D cultural given.
Again, it is also a historic D&D cultural given that the DM can change this as they see fit. It comes clipped on to the game, but it is designed to be removable.If, for example, some said they were going to play PF set in the WoW universe, the cultural givens become completely different.
Feel free to claim it all you want. If that is your claim, then I direct you to the MM1 and it's statement of 'usually evil' and the definition that that is 50% or more but not 100%.
If you wish to claim from 1ed or 2ed, that is also fine, but rules get updated. If you don't wish to use those updated rules, you are more than welcome not to, it's your game. Does not mean the rules were not changed.
The PCs are dealing with a faction of people in the town that resent them for their failure to save the children. Especially since they actually prevented the father from going. I'm sure a lot of the jokers victims wish batman was more like the punisher, that doesn't make the punisher Good, even though he is one of the "good guys"
I'm just saying, N certainly seems to serve the interests of the little people better than G in what you have described.
So if a creature is evil it should be killed regardless of alignment and situation, that's how you play it.
No.
First of all, you can't have "regardless of alignment" after "if a creature is evil", so I don't follow that part.Second, it depends on the situation. But it is very easy to get there once evil is established.
Detect Evil doesn't even work because they're lower than 5 HD so there's no way to prove they're evil at all, but he seems like a dick, better kill him in case he ever possibly would do anything wrong ever.
Again, he is a goblin, he is living at a lair of evil forces, he is a goblin, he fights the party, he is a goblin.
"Seems like a dick" is a red herring.We are way way way beyond reasonable doubt.
I love the Detect Evil change, by the way...
Feel free to claim it all you want. If that is your claim, then I direct you to the MM1 and it's statement of 'usually evil' and the definition that that is 50% or more but not 100%.
If you wish to claim from 1ed or 2ed, that is also fine, but rules get updated. If you don't wish to use those updated rules, you are more than welcome not to, it's your game. Does not mean the rules were not changed.
I thought you were done.
I, again, am very much aware of those references. And again will claim that no one seemed to need a special category for between 99% and 100%. I certainly didn't. And yet vastly over 99% of the goblins I've encountered or read in modules or other products over the years, through edition after edition are evil.
The idea that any point between 50% and 100% is equally valid and other other data to provide further clarification should be discarded is a terrible example of rules lawyering, imo. (And please note that I have not named anyone specific here)
I thought you were done.
You're right, I did. I shouldn't have bothered. Please excuse me for doing so. I'll be very sure not to let it happen again.
I thought you were done.
You're right, I did. I shouldn't have bothered. Please excuse me for doing so. I'll be very sure not to let it happen again.
Good gaming (sincerely)
This is helping me crystalize how we differ, I think.I think I've been arguing that the ends (including intent) should not be considered when determining whether an act (the means) is good or evil. I think the ends and the intent should be considered in determining whether the act has any alignment-type consequences, and, if so, what these might be.
I'd actually add in the means to that arguement. For example killing the goblins by slowly lowering them into a pit of acid or summoning demons to kill them would be an evil act.
If you really want to mess with things, read up an Ayn Rand and her rather compelling arguement that certain selfish actions are very virtuous, and that altruism and self-sacrifice can be very malevolent. (Essentially why communism is great on paper but doesn't transition to reality.)