A paladin has to spread his resources in such a way that he does the most good. He's not omniscient, though. He also understands that good temples and towns have limited resources. So he might decide that stretching his or a temple's resources in order to try to save some goblin children is not worth it because the resources could be used in such a way to accomplish more good elsewhere in an endeavor with better odds of success.
Take this example: The paladin can see the future and knows that if he spends all day every day for the rest of his life, he can influence a goblin child to be good, and stay on the straight and narrow. However, if he is not able to spend all day every day, the goblin will become evil. Is it worth it for the paladin to make that kind of sacrifice for one goblin when he could instead be out doing paladiny things? It's an extreme example, but it is exactly the issue. Who is to say the smartest way to spend your limited resources? And are you really less good if you try to spread them to do the most good (even if you err)?
This is what monasteries and temples are for. I agree that it is not the Paladin's job to be surrogate father to miscreant goblins. But he must try to lead them on the path to goodness.
The reason for mercy killing would be for game expedience, rather than because it is the actual moral thing to do.
This is my problem with the scenario. If you can't be bothered with doing the moral (read: inconvenient) thing, then you shouldn't play someone who is meant to epitomise goodness.
Just because you think punishment should be used as an instructive tool to teach others not to break laws (general deterrence) does not mean you are not compassionate, and you might even get a lump in your throat when the lash hits the skin, but do it because you believe that is what needs to be done for the greater good.
I agree with this, but I was referring to execution (which has no possibility of redemption).
Like I said, if it was better for hell for everyone to die as soon as possible, Asmodeus should just order all of his priests to commit suicide. And paladins should fall on their swords as soon as they get the ability to smite evil.
The reason this is not feasible is because if every Asmodean cleric committed mass suicide, who would be left to corrupt other souls? Likewise with the Paladin, he would redeem more souls on the Prime Material Plane than he could ever affect on the Upper Planes.
The fact is if an evil person dies and goes to Baator, then there's one more Devil than there was before. This is my argument that it strengthens the planes..
I'd personally rule that they aren't evil since there have been known to be neutral or even good Goblins, however the majority are raised the way they are. You could argue a toss on this but I'll simply point out that it's your decision as a DM.
The argument could be that if they're not evil and left here all alone they'll starve to death which is a far worse and painful fate.
|
Like I said, if it was better for hell for everyone to die as soon as possible, Asmodeus should just order all of his priests to commit suicide.
Asmodeus obviously read the story of the golden goose, and knows that if he kills all of the LE mortals who are converting yet more LE mortals, he'll be getting a short rush of power, and then starve to death over the next century, as there won't be any more LE people serving him, and nobody in their right mind would willingly convert to the worship of a god that ordered the death of all of his followers recently...
A paladin has to spread his resources in such a way that he does the most good. He's not omniscient, though. He also understands that good temples and towns have limited resources. So he might decide that stretching his or a temple's resources in order to try to save some goblin children is not worth it because the resources could be used in such a way to accomplish more good elsewhere in an endeavor with better odds of success.
Take this example: The paladin can see the future and knows that if he spends all day every day for the rest of his life, he can influence a goblin child to be good, and stay on the straight and narrow. However, if he is not able to spend all day every day, the goblin will become evil. Is it worth it for the paladin to make that kind of sacrifice for one goblin when he could instead be out doing paladiny things? It's an extreme example, but it is exactly the issue. Who is to say the smartest way to spend your limited resources? And are you really less good if you try to spread them to do the most good (even if you err)?This is what monasteries and temples are for. I agree that it is not the Paladin's job to be surrogate father to miscreant goblins. But he must try to lead them on the path to goodness.
The reason for mercy killing would be for game expedience, rather than because it is the actual moral thing to do.This is my problem with the scenario. If you can't be bothered with doing the moral (read: inconvenient) thing, then you shouldn't play someone who is meant to epitomise goodness.
The paladin code requires that you help those in need as long as they will not use the help to do evil or chaos. So the question becomes will the goblins spread chaos or evil? That seems like a legitimate question that a paladin might answer in the affirmative or the negative. So I'm not so sure that the paladin code is determinative in the way you describe. There are 5 parts to the code: must be LG, respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need as long as they won't spread chaos or evil, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. A paladin doesn't have to be more LG than any other LG character, but has some other requirements. Those other requirements don't include "must lead on a path of goodness." Maybe it should, but it doesn't.
Just because you think punishment should be used as an instructive tool to teach others not to break laws (general deterrence) does not mean you are not compassionate, and you might even get a lump in your throat when the lash hits the skin, but do it because you believe that is what needs to be done for the greater good.I agree with this, but I was referring to execution (which has no possibility of redemption).
Like I said, if it was better for hell for everyone to die as soon as possible, Asmodeus should just order all of his priests to commit suicide. And paladins should fall on their swords as soon as they get the ability to smite evil.The reason this is not feasible is because if every Asmodean cleric committed mass suicide, who would be left to corrupt other souls? Likewise with the Paladin, he would redeem more souls on the Prime Material Plane than he could ever affect on the Upper Planes.
The fact is if an evil person dies and goes to Baator, then there's one more Devil than there was before. This is my argument that it strengthens the planes..
I do not dispute that it seems logical that killing a LE creature would mean hell's ranks grow by 1. In your campaign, that could be seen as making team Asmodeus more powerful. In my campaign, I could say that for some metaphysical reason team Asmodeus was more powerful with one fewer devil and one more LE creature on the prime material. We're talking about fictional outer planes, after all.
I just think it works better to assume that there is some reason why the gods want their alignments represented on the prime material and it is for some reason better than premature harvesting. There is plenty of fluff about how some gods want worshippers on the prime material. I think kicking evil creatures off the prime material plane should be seen as a victory for good, not a loss; and killing off good people should be seen as a victory for evil. That's just the kind of game I want to run.
fair 'nuff.
Goblins aren't born evil, none of the natural races are. It's their situation that forces them to become evil in order to survive (in combination with generations of social stigmata).
Dork Lord lies goblin flesh is tasty and low in fat.
Then you haven't tried goblin Matron.
Just don't stick goblin babies there to be killed. Problem solved ;pWhere's the fun in that? These guys have been roleplaying for years and a more unusual encounter should be a welcome change from the standard dungeon crawl. Sometimes it's good to challenge the players with something more difficult. Ofcourse, it really depends on the players involved and the group dynamic.
Well, to put it another way, the reason alignment arguments always sprout up on this is because it's not a situation that alignment was made for.
Alignment at it's base terms was created based around the standard D&D game - good vs evil, dungeon crawling, epic fights against extraordinary monsters. I don't think the developers ever sat down and asked "What if they want to kill orc babies? Is...is that ok?" Rather, I think the assumption was "The adventurers will not encounter orc babies."
I think that's also the reason that goblins and orcs don't have towns, they have warbands and warcamps - at best it shows them as being aggressive and "evil," and at worst, it's a good excuse to not have children around. The classic orc warcamp is just filled with warriors and adults. Likewise, bandit hideouts don't have families inside.
I'm all for grey areas in morality, but there comes a point where you have to realize that you've strayed off the path that alignment is designed for.
Which is why I'm all for abandoning alignment altogether in PFRPG 2.0.Why wait? :)
Because alignment is a sacred cow :) Seriously though it gives you an easy way to define and outline acceptable behavior. A system / description is needed unless you want to leave it all up to either the whim of the player or the DM. That should scare you :) Any system that you replace it with will probably entail some of the same faults. My 2 cp.
|
Because alignment is a sacred cow :) Seriously though it gives you an easy way to define and outline acceptable behavior. A system / description is needed unless you want to leave it all up to either the whim of the player or the DM. That should scare you :) Any system that you replace it with will probably entail some of the same faults. My 2 cp.
Why replace it with anything, other than actual roleplaying? Someone can still be a good person without having a descriptor in their stat block to prove it. And trying to classify everyone's personality to fit in one of nine boxes is rather simplistic, as proved by all the alignment threads going on in these forums. Plenty of games exist without alignment.
EDIT: Of course, it might make it a bit harder for toro's paladin to justify being a bloodthirsty a$$%%+* serial killer.
Why replace it with anything, other than actual roleplaying? Someone can still be a good person without having a descriptor in their stat block to prove it. And trying to classify everyone's personality to fit in one of nine boxes is rather simplistic, as proved by all the alignment threads going on in these forums. Plenty of games exist without alignment.
EDIT: Of course, it might make it a bit harder for toro's paladin to justify being a bloodthirsty a#&**#& serial killer.
Because it would probably increase the number of alignment (or behavior if you prefer) arguments in game and they would be less likely to be easily settled. Well, except by DM fiat. And can you imagine the tone of those same "discussions" on line? I shudder to think...
I think you could get rid of alignment, and only keep it for the following :
A) Clerics (due to their Aura feature).
B) Aligned Creatures (Have the EVIL/GOOD/CHAOTIC/LAWFUL subtypes).
C) Creatures who have managed to attain an extreme somehow (most adult dragons for example).
D) Paladins (due to their Aura feature).
E) Anyone who has made a pact with an infernal realm.
Anyone not falling into these categories would basically still have an alignment (good, evil, etc) but it'd fluctuate a lot more and they'd not show up on Detect <blah>.
|
|
Because it would probably increase the number of alignment (or behavior if you prefer) arguments in game and they would be less likely to be easily settled. Well, except by DM fiat. And can you imagine the tone of those same "discussions" on line? I shudder to think...
I really don't think it would. The majority of alignment debates that I've seen boil down to "X says they are Lawful Good, but they act Chaotic Neutral" or something of the like. Don't lock characters into these little boxes and people won't have to argue about where one box ends and the next begins.
Take Call of Cthulhu. About the only "alignment" debates I've ever seen for that game are discussions of the morality of playing a character that's also in the Mafia.
|
I think you could get rid of alignment, and only keep it for the following :
A) Clerics (due to their Aura feature).
B) Aligned Creatures (Have the EVIL/GOOD/CHAOTIC/LAWFUL subtypes).
C) Creatures who have managed to attain an extreme somehow (most adult dragons for example).
D) Paladins (due to their Aura feature).
E) Anyone who has made a pact with an infernal realm.Anyone not falling into these categories would basically still have an alignment (good, evil, etc) but it'd fluctuate a lot more and they'd not show up on Detect <blah>.
That's almost how I run it, minus part C. Anything with an alignment subtype or Aura of X registers as that alignment. Everything else pings as Neutral. So obviously Clerics/Paladins and Outsiders are the common ones. I suppose signing a Faustian pact would count too. I suppose if I thought adult dragons were strongly aligned I would give them the appropriate subtype too.
|
|
That should scare you :) Any system that you replace it with will probably entail some of the same faults. My 2 cp.Hasn't scared me for the last three years. :) If 'no arguments over alignment' is a fault, I'll take it!
Of the dozen or so RPGs I've played, D&D is one of the *very few* that has, or is argued to need, any sort of alignment system.
Batman neither has or needs alignment. He's a developed character and doesn't need to behave in a two-dimensional manner.
After years of GURPS, Vampire, M&M, etc. I find alignment to be an annoyance, at best, that has produced some of the worst role-players I've ever met, like people who got their idea of morality from George Lucas childish maunderings on morality in the first Star Wars movie or something. I remember thinking that the man who introduced us to GURPS was a bit of an elitist for pooh-poohing the concept as overly restrictive and something that made players used to considering 'in-character' acts as existing in some tiny little arbitary box that nobody in the real world lives by, but, over the decades, I've come to agree with that.
Of the dozen or so RPGs I've played, D&D is one of the *very few* that has, or is argued to need, any sort of alignment system.
How many of those dealt with absolutes of good and evil? How many had codes of conduct for classes? I've played dozens of RPGs in the last 35 years, most don't need alignment. D&D / PF does, imho, of course.
Oh, and don't bother with CoC... the spread between incredibly inhuman / alien evil and anything normal is too great :)
I've seen madness (CoC), noble action (Tekumel related), and honor (Bushido) among other intangibles tracked because they are germaine to the game / setting. In Traveller Imperial law was important. There are constraints on behavior or "alignment" in a lot of games, whether they are formal or informal. A game chock full of good / evil like D&D benefits, again imo, from a system that lays out the boundaries and keeps players informed. Especially those dependent on alignment, like Paladins.
That's perfectly fine, just as long as your paladin knew he was killing children he couldn't be sure were evil (except for the fact that you as DM make them evil, they still don't detect to detect alignment)My world... goblins are evil. Baby gobs are just more annoying less conniving than adult gobs... my group..paladin had no issues...gobs are evil. Makes things easier..if I want moral dilemas I run a different type game. We did storyteller games ad nauseum for moral issues. Our group is ready for black and white. Good vs Evil. It is a simpler time of it. HOWEVER just because they are evil doesn't mean torture and starvation and such are not inherently cruel. quick merciful kill.
wasgreg
wassayin'
yep..goblins are all evil.. evil race created by evil god..neutral or good isnt even an option. Before I ran burnt offerings, I did think about other options. I gave serious thought to them being "vermin" and not even being thought of as a "thinking" race. In other words, really strong predjudice ingrained in Varisian culture. But as I had also read about drow, I started liking the inherent evil. As for the less than fifth level thing..wasn't a factor. EVERYONE just knows they be evil :)
wasgreg
waslate replyin'
|
|
yep..goblins are all evil.. evil race created by evil god..neutral or good isnt even an option. Before I ran burnt offerings, I did think about other options. I gave serious thought to them being "vermin" and not even being thought of as a "thinking" race.
The fluff of the Golarion Goblins, prone to killing each other or themselves accidentally, certain supports that version. I'd be inclined to give Golarion Goblins racial modifers of -4 to Int, Wis and Cha, based on the flavor text. They'd be less like 'goblins' and more like Warhammer 'snotlings,' a teeming mass of animalistic critters, giggling and chortling and howling as they swarm into an area.
Even then, they'd still be sentient, but far easier to justify eradicating like vermin than a Goblin with a racial Intelligence equal to humans, elves, dwarves, etc.
A more intelligent version might exist elsewhere, if I want to re-introduce 3.5 style Goblins, who are less 'whacky' than Golarion Goblins.
Popping into the channel very, very, very late here, but as was mentioned in the first page of the thread, very few things on the Material Plane are born evil. Thinking of the Material Plane as the convergence of every other Plane of Existence means that in addition to the physical aspects of those planes, also the spiritual aspects, and the drive of the Gods or otherwise powerful entities that rule on those planes to try and tip the scales in their own favour.
Goblins ... hell no Material Plane race is born evil. PCs come across Goblins, the Cleric goes to smite after getting a rotting piece of rat-flesh, stalks up to the cage to smite the little bugger, the Goblin child stretches his arms through the cage and gasps "Give back! Hungry! Give back!"
PC should be given a DC 10 perception check to notice that the Goblin child is emaciated. Other Goblins, being younger and possibly sick, are on the verge of dying from starvation. Cleric of War grits his teeth, swings the mace ... and knocks the lock off the cage. Paladin pats him on the back, whispers 'thank you' and grabs the squealing Goblin child and begins plying it with some of her rations.
Nobody gets a 'going to hell' tick on their character sheets. Party has made a difference, even if it is just a small one. When the PCs get back to town, yes the villagers will be going OMGWTF but this leads up to some wonderful diplomacy and bluff and possibly even intimidate checks for the Party to start throwing around! Ask the villagers can they live with themselves for killing desperate, starving children? If they strike down the weak and defenseless, how are they any better than a bandit or a demon-worshipper?
Goblins ... could possibly be left in a safe, secure place, where they can be kept from wandering, and the PCs could get a short break sometime in the near future where the PCs that want to can play with the Goblins and you can throw some culture-shocks both ways. PCs trying to train the Goblins in 'civilised' behavior might get mixed results, as they are trying to 'unlearn' however many months/years of ingrained 'kill it before it kills you' mentality.
Party finally cornered him and captured him, but the Assassin's last act was to throw the antidote for the poison he'd been fouling the Kobold's well with against the wall. PCs did what they could for the Kobolds after that, and the party Wizard found the evidence that it was the Gnome who had originally hired the Assassin that had been stealing supplies after the crops burned down so as to be able to sell them back to her community at an obscene profit.
Almost every adult Kobold was dead or dying and the magical poison the Assassin had used was unstoppable by the Party's anti-poison abilities at that level. The surviving Elder begged the PCs to keep the eggs warm, and safe, and the PCs did so, ending up with three armfuls of squirming Kobold hatchlings. Dwarf Ranger calmly asked for the hatchlings, the rest of the party is watching on in horror as I had Kobold as a Favoured Enemy and I began calmly tucking them into a wheelbarrow with high sides, the bottom covered in heated rocks with a thick blanket put over the top, and wheeled the Kobold Hatchlings out. We stopped long enough in the village to get some perpetual campfires from the Gnomes, and the Dwarf Ranger wheeled the Kobolds back to his home Village. Took some doing, but the Dwarf Ranger and the party Cleric managed to convice the Elders to let the Kobolds be raised in proper Dwarven manner.
DM and I retired the Ranger at that stage and I rerolled. PCs tramped back a few years later, older, wealthier and wiser, and stop by to see how their old friend is doing. Kobolds are running all over the city, carrying messages or carry-baskets of hot food and drink for the miners and soldiers, the Dwarf Ranger is deep in theological discussion with a High Priest over wether or not Muradin's clergy will really accept a Kobold Cleric of Muradin and a handful of nervous Kobolds finger their spotless neophyte robes and shoot the PCs toothy grins of welcome.
For those who are interested here is what happened:
Party makeup:
LG Male Human Paladin lvl 3
CG Female Halfling Rogue/Fighter lvl 2/1
CG Male Human Ranger lvl 3
CG Male Gnome Sorcerer lvl 3
CN Female Human Cleric/Fighter lvl 2/1
NG Female Elf Druid lvl 3
They next encountered the nursery where the walls of the room are lined with wooden cages. The rogue burst into the room ready for trouble only to see 3 skinny goblin children in 3 of the cages aged about 18 months, 4 years, and 6 years old. The oldest goblin was stretching from his cage poking the youngest in an adjacent cage with a bone causing it to wail. The rogue immediately lost interest in this and backed out of the room.
I reminded the party that they had so far killed ALL the goblins they had encountered and that they needed to take that into consideration in deciding what to do with the caged children. They immediately understood the implications of leaving them in here to starve to death. The paladin entered the room only to have the 4 year old throw goblin poop at him staining his armour much to the amusement of the eldest child who stopped poking the toddler with the bone.
It was at this point that the party started to do the unexpected. As a relatively new GM, I am quickly learning that players will often do unpredictable things sometimes throwing your whole adventure out of kilter. The CN Cleric had pushed past the paladin and opened all the cages, considering it cruel to keep them locked up. She then helped the eldest out of the cage and fed it some rations from her backpack. Naturally, the eldest took an immediate liking to the cleric and followed her out of the room where she then pulled out a spare cloak to wrap around the emaciated figure declaring delightfully that she had a new follower of Gorum to protect. (I had seriously expected the cleric to just run her sword through the lot of them while they were still in their cages.)
The rest of the party were not so enthused. The rogue told the cleric bluntly that there was no way in hell that they could trust that sneaky little goblin child as the halfling was sure it would slit someone's throat in their sleep or steal something and never be seen again. The gnome sorcerer has an even greater dislike of goblins having nearly died numerous times at their hands who also explanded on the racial issue of gnomes hating goblinoids.
The ranger had gotten bored with the whole scenario and had started moving off to explore new parts of the dungeon. He wanted nothing to do with these goblins. At this stage the 4 year old jumped out of its cage and ran out into the larger room running in and out of the characters with its arms stretched out making childish noises. Again unexpectedly (I should have seen this coming), the gnome had drawn a dagger and as the child ran past him, he ruthlessly slit its throat with some high rolls of the dice.
The rest of the party stood there in shock except for the rogue who stealthed with some incredibly high rolls and sneak attacked the goblin child clinging to the cleric's leg and killed it instantly with a sniping bolt to the back of its head with his hand crossbow from 20 feet away. The cleric was disappointed but did not react violently as I expected taking an easy-come, easy-go attitude.
The paladin is still staring in shock at all this and that is when we had to stop as we ran out of time. It will be very interesting to see how the paladin handles this next session and there is still a goblin toddler sitting in its open cage wailing away.
The funny thing out of all of this is that the Detect Evil issue never even came up.
Just going to wax philosophical on the subject... or at least very obtuse.
Alignment to me has always seemed to have two faces. I'm going to illustrate this with an unusual example: an equity option contract.
The value of an option contract is derived from it's intrinsic value and it's time value. While in securities these have specific meanings, to me, alignment really does have the dual natures as well (just interpreted a bit differently).
Intrinsic value might represent a character's inherent lean towards good, neutral or evil - based more on biology than anything else.
Time value might represent a character's acquired lean towards good, neutral, or evil (over time) - this is based more on environment than anything else.
A baby goblin might lean towards evil intrinsically, but it's time value might lean more towards neutral (assuming it's still very young).
A baby goblin, "rescued" by a paladin from band of marauding goblins and sent to a monastary to be raised "properly" might lean towards evil intrinsically, but it's time value might be good (after years of living among the monks).
A baby human, captured by a marauding orc band and kept around to amuse the orc king might have leaned toward neutral intrinsically, but it's time value (after 10 years of captivity) might lean towards evil.
--
So, yes... as was said before, the standard alignment chart used in PF, 3.x, 2.0, etc probably isn't sufficient to describe all possible scenarios, upbringings, natures, nurtures, etc. However, one could elaborate a bit further upon character descriptions to better represent these variable scenarios.
It's all food for thought.
I think you might learn here, that it is pretty silly for everyone to fight to the death. If there are 8 goblins, and 6 get dropped, it makes a lot of sense for the remaining 2 would then surrender and/or flee.
When I ran this encounter, I didn't have the harem females all fight to the death. So the party didn't have this problem, all adults are dead so what happens to the young.
I hate Paladin in a party.
Honestly.
They are the only class that gets to order everyone else around and everyone else /must/ obey or the Paladin leaves and/or loses his powers.
Blech.
For the OP's scenario I prefer a hard line rule.
Gobbies are evil. Kill them all. Every one.
You can tame a rat too but its still a rat, and if you find a baby rat in your house while cleaning out the adults you kill them too. You do not leave them there in the hopes they grow up to not be rats.
Goblins are goblins. Kobolds are kobolds. Orcs are orcs.
Kill. Them. All.
Putting evil monster's children into your games without a bright line just makes the painful party's job with a Paladin even more painful.
**Note, I do not necessarily think they are or are not "evil" but the game as presented NEEDS a hard rule for it not some grey wiggly squishy line that just begs to turn all Paladin into Warriors.
-S
Most of the harem females were cowering at the back of the room. One of the harem females had an opportunity to attack one of the characters when their back was turned (she was upset her bugbear lover had just been killed) which infuriated the gnomish sorcerer who hates goblins. One round later, flaming hands killed the whole harem.
Sounds like what Spider-Man does... actually that's exactly what Spider-Man does. Perfect example. He's had people tell him again and again "why don't you just kill Carnage instead of turning him over to the authorities? He's just going to escape and kill again", but you know what? If he did kill the villain that would make him no better than they are. Spidey would never kill a villain and even if he would he would never kill one that was surrendering, because he's good.
No. That's because he's a thorough hypocrite who firmly places his self-image above the lives of innocents. (Well, the true reason is, of course, contractual immortality of popular comic book villains, but either way, comic book verses are a really bad example to bring up in the discussion on the morality of killing, at least if you're trying to prove that heroes should not kill, and not the reverse.)
As about the initial theme: this is PF goblins, so PCs should just gank them, unless they are ignorant of the fact, that PF goblins are sociopathic monsters spawned by demon-goddess to bring ruin and misery to the world. Leaving them to die from hunger will be more cruel anyway. With more standard DnD gobbos, I would have advocated mercy.
I have always believed that all children of all races are evil..
Just take a look at how a bunch of elementary schoolers treat eah other (or worse...pre-schoolers) and there is definietly some evil going on...
I have to question whether or not the "all children are evil" actually HAVE children.
All children are selfish, or have selfish tendencies. They are not evil -- their selfishness doesn't derive from a desire to hurt others at their expense. When my youngest wants a toy another child has, he isn't seeking to get the toy at the other kid's expense -- he just wants the toy.
In order to have an alignment (other than N, I suppose), the character has to make a conscious decision, a moral decision before taking the action.
From the PFRPG:
"Lawful Evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil."
"Netural evil represents pure evil without nonor and without variation."
"Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."None of those statements depict children's behavior.
Now at some point, the child is able to determine between action & consequence and make a moral judgement. For example, an abused child blindly lashes out in anger and if questioned is unable to express why they did it. The act may have been evil, but the motivation isn't and the consequence likely wasn't even a consideration. Fast-forward a few years and having never received help or been removed from the abusive environment, the child may shift to someone who inflicts violence upon another intentionally. The child is now consciously making evil choices and is aware of the cause-effect relationship of violence = harming another. In game terms, the child's alignment is now evil, or at least on it's way to getting there.
As for the goblins? Perhaps, depending upon your view of psychology & genetics, you could argue a genetic predisposition towards evil. But to arbitrarily say all are evil and to...
1) It was (mostly) intesnded as a joke.
2) When I see kids horribly torment one another (or at least one) at ages 4,5,6 and so on, that's past the age of "i didnt know any better".
But, it was intended as a joke.
|
On "un-fun" duty involving giving care and guidance to mostly helpless beings:
In last night's game we cleared some bandits out of their camp and were left with one prisoner, a mentally handicapped man who had been sorely neglected by his previous caretakers. Party witch wanted to take him under his wing.
The man later displays extreme cruel tendencies starting with clubbing a horse to death while laughing like a child. This troubles the party. I detect evil. He pings. The man is practically a child. He couldn't survive on his own in the wild, and he couldn't be trusted in any civilized area. We discuss what would be best for him. Everyone from CN-ish witch to LG-me agree on our course of action both for the man's sake and for the sake of everyone else in the region.
We make the five day trip back to the city while keeping a close eye and a tight rein on him at all times, and hand him over to people that could actually give him the care he needed, an asylum run by the church of Abadar.
Feels good man.
Also, inborn alignment for mortal races blows. Cultural effect, all the way.
That's the bit about being Good vs being Evil. If being Good was easy, everyone would be Good, and sometimes being Good can be it's own reward.
Perhaps the PCs could swing past a few levels later and find this NPC is now serving as a 'counter' for the church of Abadar, meticulously counting out coins into orderly piles. Most Downs Syndrome people I have met tend to be somewhat 'childish', but normally sweet-natured and get frustrated easily because they know they can do things but, and this really wrings my heart, they sometimes just can't connect the dots, but when given a task that seems repetitious and/or cumbersome to so-called 'normal' (incidentally, discrimination against these people because of their so-called defect makes my blood boil! Different does not mean deficient!) people, they can quite literally blaze strait through it. One person, Daniel, is employed by the local Bunnings store and his job is to place the tickets on every item, and in the three years he's been employed I don't think they've had a single complaint about his end of the job.
When I ran this encounter, I didn't have the harem females all fight to the death. So the party didn't have this problem, all adults are dead so what happens to the young.Most of the harem females were cowering at the back of the room. One of the harem females had an opportunity to attack one of the characters when their back was turned (she was upset her bugbear lover had just been killed) which infuriated the gnomish sorcerer who hates goblins. One round later, flaming hands killed the whole harem.
Well, if this was my group, I'd draw two conclusions from that. Don't have cowering opponents attack the party. And two, the gnomish sorcerer is looking to be an evil alignment. While certainly dealing lethal damage to the one female that is attacking is perfectly fine, purposefully catching other non-combatants in the effect and killing them because you are a racist is pretty indicative of an evil mindset.
|
|
That's the bit about being Good vs being Evil. If being Good was easy, everyone would be Good, and sometimes being Good can be it's own reward.
Perhaps the PCs could swing past a few levels later and find this NPC is now serving as a 'counter' for the church of Abadar, meticulously counting out coins into orderly piles. Most Downs Syndrome people I have met tend to be somewhat 'childish', but normally sweet-natured and get frustrated easily because they know they can do things but, and this really wrings my heart, they sometimes just can't connect the dots, but when given a task that seems repetitious and/or cumbersome to so-called 'normal' (incidentally, discrimination against these people because of their so-called defect makes my blood boil! Different does not mean deficient!) people, they can quite literally blaze strait through it. One person, Daniel, is employed by the local Bunnings store and his job is to place the tickets on every item, and in the three years he's been employed I don't think they've had a single complaint about his end of the job.
That might be overly optimistic in this guy's case, but hey, you never know! We'll be happy as long as he's taken care of and kept from being a danger to himself and others.
Some might see it as passing the buck but honestly most standard good parties probably should pass certain duties onto others responsibly. The claim that goblin/orc/red dragon orphans has to equal throat-slitting or an end to adventuring for one or more characters has always irked me because there will be someone willing and capable of taking proper care of them. It's just a matter of making the effort to take them there.
Then again, some players might decide that their characters would see fit to retire and pursue their new responsibilities out of the game. They should at least be given that option rather than having it assumed that no one would ever do it, ever. Then again again, they should have a good option that doesn't require that as well.
Q: Are goblin babies and children evil?
A: Sometimes.
|
|
Abso-friggen-lutely, That gives me an idea for an awesome campaign ark with a fallen paladin that hides his fallen status and has been spearheading a church initiative to do just that.
This sort of logic, in the real-world, led to a practice during the Spanish Inquisition of torturing Jews and Moslems until they repented and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and then stabbing them to death, so that they died in a state of grace, their souls bound for Heaven, and didn't have time to backslide into 'heathenry.' I'd hardly call that good behavior, but, in a game-world where souls explicitly do exist and can travel to upper or lower planes, and become outsiders, or become power sources for good or evil powers, that sort of logic would be even *more* likely to manifest than it was here on Earth.
Sounds like a perfect fit for Mendev, considering the firmly entrenched morally questionable inquisitions already going in that country.
Entire place is a mess. Natives struggling to hold onto their culture or just survival in the face of demonic invaders and crusaders from the south, crusaders of all stripes coming in to hold the line against the Abyssal wave, war profiteers, corrupt people under demonic influence of all sorts, extremist inquisitions pursuing demon cultists and persecuting the native populace and their culture, and actual paladins trying to keep hell from spilling out over the planet.
All with plenty of people from various groups believing that extreme times call for extreme measures, even if it involves making pacts with demons to survive or torching a wise-woman because she's undermining trust in the Mendevian Crusade amongst the natives.
Cripes. I halfway think one would have an easier time playing a paladin in Cheliax. Or in the Worldwound itself. Still, place needs heroes...
|
|
Sounds like a perfect fit for Mendev, considering the firmly entrenched morally questionable inquisitions already going in that country.
Entire place is a mess. Natives struggling to hold onto their culture or just survival in the face of demonic invaders and crusaders from the south, crusaders of all stripes coming in to hold the line against the Abyssal wave, war profiteers, corrupt people under demonic influence of all sorts, extremist inquisitions pursuing demon cultists and persecuting the native populace and their culture, and actual paladins trying to keep the abyss from spilling out over the planet.
Yeah, the Campaign Setting text skirts around using the word 'rape' in the writeup of Mendev, but the way 'take what they want by force' is tossed out there strongly suggests that the Mendevian crusaders, led by the Church of Iomedae and her Paladins, sanctioned wholesale rape and plundering of the native population during their last crusade, because 'they might be working with demons, or, at the very least, failed to fight them off with sufficient zeal, so it's okay to torture them, steal their land and possessions and drag their women off to our tents.'
Even Norgorber laughs and points at that one. 'Iomedae, goddess of honor and chivalry and paladins and ethnic cleansing...'
|
|
Yeah, the Campaign Setting text skirts around using the word 'rape' in the writeup of Mendev, but the way 'take what they want by force' is tossed out there strongly suggests that the Mendevian crusaders, led by the Church of Iomedae and her Paladins, sanctioned wholesale rape and plundering of the native population during their last crusade, because 'they might be working with demons, or, at the very least, failed to fight them off with sufficient zeal, so it's okay to torture them, steal their land and possessions and drag their women off to our tents.'Even Norgorber laughs and points at that one. 'Iomedae, goddess of honor and chivalry and paladins and ethnic cleansing...'
See now I want to spin this off into its own thread. Currently playing an Iomedaean paladin with familial links to the Mendevian crusades and inquisitions and having just recentely rewatched Witchfinder General AND having reread the Holy See-centric chapters of Berserk, I really want to see this hellhole explored a bit more.
IIRC, the Iomedae god article talks about Mendev as if it were an embarrassing skeleton in her church's closet, as if some of Iomedae's mainstream clergy is only vaguely aware that something in Mendev is seriously wrong besides the big honkin' Abyssal rift next door. I'll have to re-read that.
It presents an interesting situation where paladins might feel more at home on the front lines or just within the Worldwound itself. Right and wrong are easy there, but head back and away from the frontlines and amongst all the people that have crowded around and it all becomes a miserable mire.
Great, now I absolutely can't think of a Mendevian adventure that isn't damn depressing.