"Monster" orphanages and sanctuaries (Golarion)


Advice

251 to 300 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great thread! One thing that occurs to me, though, is that a lot of "monster" races have ties to evil gods or demon lords. If tieflings can be good almost anyone can be, but these types of organized efforts may attract attention from evil cults or even the demon lords themselves.


Mikaze wrote:

Eh, it's been long enough. :)

Drow
Recommended Deities: Desna, Shelyn, Sarenrae, Calistria, Black Butterfly, Ashava, Calistria
Recommended Environment: Rural/Isolated
{. . .}
Providing a safe home for young drow casts a great emphasis on the need to guard against more dangers from without more than within when caring for members of "outcast" races. It is strongly suggested that such operations be as secretive as possible. For this reason, it is highly advisable that any sanctuary for drow be kept as far from urban centers and major trade routes as possible. {. . .}

I would think that depending upon the local culture, a cosmopolitan city might be the BEST place for integrating Drow. Not only are the attitudes of the existing residents likely to be better (and less clouded by the superstition and often willful ignorance common in rural areas), and the educational opportunities generally much better, but having a high density of non-hostile people around provides partial protection against hit squads (from the Underdark/Darklands or the surface) that are after the youngsters.

To the above, add Recommended Nations: Andoran, Nex(?), Nirmathas(?)

Here is my take on an integrated Drow, who was born on the surface, so her tale necessarily includes the tale of her mom and dad that escaped the Darklands into Andoran before it became independent from Cheliax, but during the time when the motivation towards independence was already well into development. Her mom and dad ended up becoming good citizens of Almas not because of any inherent superiority to other Drow, but because with their particular situation, this was what was working best for them, so they didn't want to break it. Although I haven't read any of the Drizzt Do'Urden stories, I am fairly confident that she and her mom and dad are NOT clones of him. I created her background (no significant crunch yet) to try to make her suitable for Second Darkness, despite the recommendation that Drow not be player characters until after this AP -- as someone not raised or even born in the Darklands, she wouldn't have the baggage that would cause trouble for that AP, but would have really painful character development upon actually running up against her real live kin (yes, her mom and dad told her a significant amount about life down there, but it is quite another thing to see this first-hand, and even though they came from extended families that can be found in Second Darkness, they came from a different enough geographic region of the Darklands that they wouldn't have been able to tell her anything specific about the Darklands regions explored by the AP).

She is the first of what I would like to grow into UnArcaneElection's Weirdo Collection. Now I just have to find a PbP to play her in . . . . (doesn't HAVE to be Second Darkness, but that's what I was aiming for, and I have other character ideas for some of the other APs). I already tried to get her into a Second Darkness PbP that had recently lost a player, but it was too far along in the AP for this to work optimally, and I got a No answer (but the PbP and its DM are still awesome), and then shortly thereafter a family medical emergency took me away for a whole month anyway.

* * * * * * * *

This thread brings up the question: Why DON'T we see more examples of monster orphanages, sactuaries, and examples of redemption? This is in parallel to the question of why do we see examples of Good falling to Evil, but almost never the reverse? While inherent tendencies of monsters towards Evil are part of the problem (as they are for "normal" people, only in some cases even more so), another part of the problem is that for all the talk of redemption, Good actually does a really bad job of this, being both inept and reluctant, whereas corruption comes quite naturally to Evil, so that often no specific effort is needed for corruption (although it still helps, and thus is often done). This even includes the champions of redemption, the church of Sarenrae, which, we should remind ourselves, has its own well known serious corruption problems. Ineptness at redemption stems not only corruption in the forces of Good, but also from inability to understand those they would redeem. Reluctance at redemption includes the fear that redeemed monsters would bring corruption due to incomplete redemption and/or create a gateway for corrupting influences from others of their kind, with both versions of this fear bolstered by real occurrences of such things, especially when the forces of Evil actively work to exploit redemption attempts for exactly such purposes. The fact that various non-Good forces (not at all limited to the monsters' own cultures) have interests in foiling redemption (including but not limited to the motive of "preserving balance" or "preserving the order of the cosmos", especially in cases of redeeming Outsiders) only makes things worse.

Still, rare successes do occur, even (very rarely) for the redemption of evil Outsiders. Aside from examples of particular individuals, it seems plausible that at least some types of Azatas may have originated from reformed Demons (much as at least some types of Devils, notably Erinyes, originated from fallen Angels). And despite strenuous protests to the contrary, it seems plausible that Agathions may have originated (or at least been engineered) from redeemed and Outsiderized(?) lycanthropes. Balisse Angels are made from the souls of redeemed former villains; plausibly some could also be made from redeemed Devils (Erinyes in reverse), although no mention is made of this. I wonder if Angels in general may have been engineered from redeemed and Outsiderized(?) Harpies (or at least from an ancestor thereof).


I think the reasoning behind the trope its a lot easier to fall than it is to rise, since the former just involves self-interest or taker short cuts, while the latter involves selfish altruism and putting others first. Also, evil outsiders who might drift towards neutrality or good are perhaps at greater risk of just being flat out murdered/eaten by their fellow fiends, whereas good outsiders will probably attempt to help an angel that perhaps strays from the flock.

Kind of a "moral gravity" an angel which deviates from it's code is most more likely to fall straight down to evil, while a demon has to work and work and work to climb up into even neutrality.


^And be hunted by Almost Everything.

Actually, I would venture that the incidence of Evil Outsiders trying to go Good is likely to be merely rare rather than unheard of, at least to those willing to listen. The problem is for them to survive the attempt without undoing it in the process.

* * * * * * * *

I thought of another set of beings that need orphanages and/or other shelters for redemption: all those creatures (including Humans) that are not traditionally considered monsters, but who have had their souls consigned to Hell, Abaddon, or the Abyss, possibly because they were tricked, or in many cases entirely through no fault of their own, because their souls were consigned before they were even born. This is particularly relevant in Cheliax, and I just saw in a recent thread that the AP for the 2nd half of 2015 will be set there, and has the working title "Hell's Rebels".

Silver Crusade

Here's a few that might be a challenge to raise as non-evil. Anyone up to giving them a try?

Normal human kids turned into vampires.
Dire Corbies
Kuru
Spriggan


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read that as "Dire Corgis". Was like, nope, just shoot it.


mdt wrote:
…That implies they are evil from birth, which means they should have the [Evil] tag attached to them. Nothing without the [Evil] tag is inherently evil, per the core rules.

I'd be very interested in brushing up on this subject and read the entire writeup, but I am having a spot of trouble finding this rule. Anybody happen to have it handy?


I know someone quoted the Bestiary or the Core Rulebook on that and confirmed such, but my search-fu has failed me.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
This thread brings up the question: Why DON'T we see more examples of monster orphanages, sactuaries, and examples of redemption? This is in parallel to the question of why do we see examples of Good falling to Evil, but almost never the reverse?

Well, in terms of PF I'm already 2/2 in seeing adventure paths providing examples of monster sanctuaries for redemption.

RotRL has Windsong Abbey, which our DM might have played up their redemption aspect, but one of the PCs is a Goblin with ties to the Abbey, and the place took in the Thisletop Goblins.

Kingmaker has the Sootscale Tribe, which provides the perfect setting of a whole village gaining the benefit of PC's civilization building (assuming you don't kill them off, the module seems to assume 50/50 chance of either happening).

-Also: This thread is really interesting and I want to do one of these for Doppelgangers.

Shadow Lodge

dot. this is too good to forget it


Mikaze wrote:

determined to make something good come out of all the bad of late

Okay, the goblin baby scenario comes up a lot. There's no shortage of GMs that'll throw it at a good-aligned party with a side-dish of "wat do". For those players that want to play idealistic characters, there's some tricky work and logistics involved if an appropriate church(like that of Sarenrae) or other such organization isn't close enough realistically to take them in.

So, wat do?

This thread is meant to offer flavor and practical advice on a race-by-race basis for those players and GMs that want to run a Big Damn Good party. If you've got ideas about some of these races, pitch 'em, along with any criticism and further advice.

Orc
Recommended Deities: Sarenrae, Cayden Cailean, Desna, Kurgess, Erastil
Recommended Environment: Rural/Isolated

The common psychological traits among the orc race make it difficult to keep large numbers of children together without them becoming a bad influence on each other. It is generally recommended that they be kept in smaller, separate groups.

It is imperative that the caretakers are capable of projecting an imposing figure, be it physical in nature or through sheer force of personality in order to establish that they are in charge. Half-orcs are highly recommended for these roles when possible. The caretakers must also be aware of the almost inevitable development of a pecking order amongst the children and take steps to keep relationships between them as equal as possible, discouraging the instinct to bully later in life.

Two matters are of absolute importance in the development of orc children:

1. Healthy outlets for frustration and anger must be made available. Any constructive methods are recommended. Consequences for loss of self-control should be made clear early on.

2. They must be kept busy. Young orcs should be inundated with positive activity, boastful storytelling, and work to develop skills they will need in adult...

This simply reminds me of the assimilation practices of many countries, and that genocide can take many forms.

Instead of the blade, bolt or the noose, this is the policy of the giant pillow. Smothering their true selves and tiring them out as the monsters inevitably struggle against it. You want them to give up, sink into the pillow and rely upon its potential comforts, thus making them another subordinate in the fantasy society rather than fighting against it along with the rest of their kind.

I want this in a few campaigns, it poses some questions and puts up rp opportunities, but yeah, as an Australian it has the heavy taste of assimilation.


Are you suggesting that we should actually tell the Orcs to grow up evil instead? Because that sounds like a horrible idea. Fantasy worlds like Golarion don't always follow real world logic, and for good reason.


Well you could brainwash them, use the carrot and stick until they are obedient and similar to their new masters; or you could just kill them.

If you are going to do it, it is erasing their culture bit by bit, altering what is believed by each demihuman, and even depriving them of an afterlife with others of their kin. Yes, racial pantheons make ethnocentrism and assimilation weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People worried about "cultural genocide" through assimilation ignore the fact that cultures evolve naturally too.

Just because you offer change to a culture does not mean you are killing it or the people associated with the culture.

It's one thing to go through and pull a soviet union (or USA to the earlier Americans) style, "you can't do anything that involves your old culture, language, and must completely match ours."

It's quite another to go, "You know you don't have to ritually attack everyone you ever meet to establish the pecking order for your leadership."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:

People worried about "cultural genocide" through assimilation ignore the fact that cultures evolve naturally too.

Just because you offer change to a culture does not mean you are killing it or the people associated with the culture.

It's one thing to go through and pull a soviet union (or USA to the earlier Americans) style, "you can't do anything that involves your old culture, language, and must completely match ours."

It's quite another to go, "You know you don't have to ritually attack everyone you ever meet to establish the pecking order for your leadership."

Thing is, since the usual advice here seems to be "Kill the adults and take the kids to be raised in orphanages and taught your culture", it seems a lot closer to the first than the second. Possibly even worse.

The real solution, I think, is to avoid the problem by not setting up situations where slaughtering the entire town's worth of adults is the right thing to do. Fight the raiding party. Beat most of the warriors. Kill the chief. Let the others surrender or run, instead of fighting to the death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

People worried about "cultural genocide" through assimilation ignore the fact that cultures evolve naturally too.

Just because you offer change to a culture does not mean you are killing it or the people associated with the culture.

It's one thing to go through and pull a soviet union (or USA to the earlier Americans) style, "you can't do anything that involves your old culture, language, and must completely match ours."

It's quite another to go, "You know you don't have to ritually attack everyone you ever meet to establish the pecking order for your leadership."

Thing is, since the usual advice here seems to be "Kill the adults and take the kids to be raised in orphanages and taught your culture", it seems a lot closer to the first than the second. Possibly even worse.

The real solution, I think, is to avoid the problem by not setting up situations where slaughtering the entire town's worth of adults is the right thing to do. Fight the raiding party. Beat most of the warriors. Kill the chief. Let the others surrender or run, instead of fighting to the death.

First off no one has stated, "You want to change the culture what you do is slaughter the adults and take the kids." -- it's a gross misstatement of the intent and purpose of the thread.

If you wanted to say it as, "This thread is basically what do you do when you realize you just killed a town and not a raiding camp." or some such I wouldn't like it (as that's not the only way you could end up with a bunch of orphans) but I would understand the starting point.

Well I would agree that's part of the solution. But if you don't follow through with talk, (or preferably start with talk) then really you will just have the situation happen again.

At the end of the day the OP was about what to do if you do have an orphan of species "x" to raise. In several such cases you can end up with more than one at a time so the base idea of how to do raise them makes sense to cover.

However I fully agree that starting with the adults and trying to win 'hearts and minds' from there and work down would be the better over all solution.

Many of the points made in raising children however could (and would) carry over to interacting with adults of the species even if the methods involved won't.

For example my parts on trolls and wyverns point out specifics of how you are going to look into their physiology for parts of the problems you will run into culturally when interacting with them.

Ultimately any intelligent race should be approachable in some fashion -- success rates are going to vary however as they always have.

*******************************************************

With all that said your suggestion could be the interesting start of a new campaign/adventure -- what do the PCs do when some misguided sap does get it in their head (after all saps being weapons aren't that intelligent usually) that the best way to solve the problem of the (species X) is to do just that -- kill all the adults and raise the children peacefully?


Dotting for interest.


Dotting for turning the demihumans/monsters into free labour, and raising them to see this as their natural state.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Dotting for turning the demihumans/monsters into free labour, and raising them to see this as their natural state.

Yeah, there is a word for that...


If you are going to confine specific species to orphanages and raised in a strict tailored form of education to channel their natural tendencies, then there needs to be end game. What is the purpose of doing this? Are they trying to turn them into retainers or warriors, wizards, court eunuchs, merchants, scribes, border scouts and legionnaires or secret police? Are they inducting them into the urban classes and guild system or the clergy? Is there actually freedom and choice, or are they quite openly slaves, or more vaguely second class citizens?

This is one of the big problems with this heavy state hand, it thinks it knows best. Are they being made servants to it (very likely, as this happened, specific groups raised to be domestic servants), are they working in the cotton fields or in the households of the masters, or do they have a brighter (or more dangerous) future? Are they unsullied or raised to be totally loyal to the regime (in a way that a typical human with some choice and freedom in the kingdom is unlikely to be)?

Go with it if you want, but think on the functions assigned to them by the assimilators.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much cynicism it's not even funny...


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If you are going to confine specific species to orphanages and raised in a strict tailored form of education to channel their natural tendencies, then there needs to be end game. What is the purpose of doing this? Are they trying to turn them into retainers or warriors, wizards, court eunuchs, merchants, scribes, border scouts and legionnaires or secret police? Are they inducting them into the urban classes and guild system or the clergy? Is there actually freedom and choice, or are they quite openly slaves, or more vaguely second class citizens?

This is one of the big problems with this heavy state hand, it thinks it knows best. Are they being made servants to it (very likely, as this happened, specific groups raised to be domestic servants), are they working in the cotton fields or in the households of the masters, or do they have a brighter (or more dangerous) future? Are they unsullied or raised to be totally loyal to the regime (in a way that a typical human with some choice and freedom in the kingdom is unlikely to be)?

Go with it if you want, but think on the functions assigned to them by the assimilators.

I think the theory is that they aren't "natural tendencies", but just culture and that once you've raised one generation and broken the cultural links, succeeding generations can merge with the general population. And it's possible that with strict control by a strong, actually good-aligned organization, that could even happen.

In practice, it's more likely that you'd be correct and they'd be turned into second class citizens, possibly guided into some specific role.

More, even with the best intentions and efforts in the world, I have a lot of trouble seeing those races with serious intelligence penalties (and often strength bonuses making them more dangerous) integrating successfully. Though they could probably be turned into slave soldiers quite nicely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope Mikaze shows up soon...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh, it's kind of like the people that mistake a national interest in educating children with a Nazi like devotion to brainwashing generations.

I mean the slippery slope and all. They don't get how you could do one and not the other (in both directions at that).

You can't logic people out of positions they didn't logic themselves into (no one said you didn't reason your way into those positions but reason is not logic even if similar).

The ability to ignore what people have already said on the topic is truly astounding though. It's almost as if ignoring the part where it's directly said by the OP that the goal is peaceful integration into society with the less harm done and with the most freedom for the creatures involved means you can give any motive you want to the thread.

It is after all the "just asking questions!" of pathfinder.


Yep, and peaceful integration and merging them with the society can sound really nice, and involve massive cultural genocide.


You do know that good and evil are objective in Pathfinder, right?

If the cultures that are "facing extinction" are evil, is it really a bad thing to get rid of them?

To let evil reign due to some twisted respect for these cultures comes off as naive at best, and actively malicious at worst.


Depends, does the "good" kingdom (or a coalition of them) end all political alternatives in the world thereby pushing for absolute tyrannical unity? Streamlines the world via the sword and the carrot into lawful good, a few outposts of the other goods and makes sure everyone follows suit or their progeny go to the LG re-education camps.

Good and evil are objective in pathfinder yes, and sometimes good can be very frightening, not at all tolerant and readily engages in genocide.

So I altered your sentence just a bit, for clarity:

"If the cultures that are "facing extinction" are evil according to the good kingdom, and they were the native ancestral inhabitants of the land, is it really a bad thing to get rid of them?"

:D


An interesting moral quandary, but I would still argue that it is better to cause a minor evil to save multiple lives than let a greater evil run rampart for a minor kindness. If the preservation of this culture was still something to be respected, then I would have people archive information about said culture. That way, the folks that had said culture might change, but their heritage will live on in another form. As a tiefling, I have no real culture that I can call my own, and thus I find this entire debate to be rather ridiculous despite the curiosity it has managed to gain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are we assuming culture has some inherent value worth preserving?

That's the question you are coming down to DM. My answer would be culture of itself does not have inherent value. That does not mean culture has no value. Only the value is not an inherent condition of being a culture.


Which, if I may add, reminds me of a Galactic civilisations game. The evil Drengin backed up by purple terminators threatened the alliance of good, the independent planets and my humble neutral technologists faction. What is to be done, Carthage must be defeated. Our losses were high, but together the Drengin were overcome - but wait a minute! The good alliance didn't cease the war and invaded the Drengin completely. Set up their controlling governments, altered their culture, totally assimilated them. They did the same to the terminators, I can only imagine what patch they uploaded.

Then emboldened by victory, good got pushy. They declared war on the Snathi, a cruel and vicious hatefully little rat people. However, the Snathi kept their nastiness in house and didn't fight others, they weren't aggressive. So good threatened them, threatened my neutral faction and finally declared war on the Snathi, and the neutral powers, and the other neutral planets under my protection.

What the hell good guys?

Those poor Snathi, they never harmed anyone except through foul language. But over came the good guys to invade, blow up all of their space infrastructure and be gigantic *****. This would not stand.

So the neutrals, with a touch of evil - the last evil civilisation left banded together and threw back the alliance of do-gooders. And stay out! Unfortunately, it would not be that simple. The good side were really casting this as another war against evil, and they were completely not interested in diplomacy while I protected the Snathi, and the Snathi, well I liked those dic**.

So, I had to annihilate all life on whole planets, and they still didn't stop, because now I'm the bad guy. :D My crimes would not be forgotten!
Wiped out their capitals, they wouldn't listen to diplomacy. Sigh. Destroyed their ships, they just sent out more to their death. My floating castles of neutrality were getting a bit tired of it, and always needed to be repaired.

Okay, let's push this a bit I thought (see if more billions of deaths get their attention). Started to not just wipe them out with viruses, but actually land some troops and take a bit of control. Now I didn't want to take over everything, and I'm not interested in administering these idiots so I started to delegate, yes, I rewarded my minor civ allies with major star systems. There was the new Snathi systems, and other neutral overlords. These minor civs seemed a bit surprised at all this power, but they started to rebuild the trade lanes and repair the damage.

As the good civs neared their end, they all defected to the next most powerful good civ, which refused to negotiate. So! Had to kill or conquer all of them, and create a peaceful neutral confederacy of more calm peoples over all these fanatics of good. I bet there were terrorist attacks every day, sigh, but in space, at least there was peace.

Re-education of other civilisations can sound good, but if there is no balance then good can capsize into evil, and be utterly convinced they are always in the right, always fighting the good fight - and then you have to kill every single one of them, and appoint rat overlords to get them to stop.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Are we assuming culture has some inherent value worth preserving?

That's the question you are coming down to DM. My answer would be culture of itself does not have inherent value. That does not mean culture has no value. Only the value is not an inherent condition of being a culture.

There is plenty of value in the evil civilisations. What are they doing, researching, building and developing?

In Golarion, I remember reading the Orcish tribes were developing an extensive trade network, transporting and guarding trade right across some of the badlands. This is exactly what the Mongols did, and they were very vicious (but also religiously tolerant, ha ha). The Vikings also loved raid and trade, mainly down the rivers.


Sotiria Spiros wrote:
An interesting moral quandary, but I would still argue that it is better to cause a minor evil to save multiple lives than let a greater evil run rampart for a minor kindness. If the preservation of this culture was still something to be respected, then I would have people archive information about said culture. That way, the folks that had said culture might change, but their heritage will live on in another form. As a tiefling, I have no real culture that I can call my own, and thus I find this entire debate to be rather ridiculous despite the curiosity it has managed to gain.

If an evil tribe of Shoanti raids and causes trouble, why not just drive them back to their holdings? Why kidnap them, raise them in your lands to follow your ways and steal their ancestral land?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well a few points:


  • I never claimed there was no value in evil cultures -- I simply said cultures themselves have no inherent value.
  • Just because you started good, doesn't mean you stay good. Alignment is not team red or team blue (though in some aspects culture could be -- just realize you can still make purple). As such a civilization that starts doing things right that moves into doing things wrong even for the 'right' reasons doesn't get to dictate that it is still the 'good guys'.
  • You'll notice that many of the posts take great efforts into utilizing the native talents in the creatures discussed and their current cultural tendencies (such as they are). There is a distinct difference with my perspective on the drow however that is also a discussion on the nature of the drow themselves in the Golarion setting, as we saw with further posts.
  • Something can have value and still end up destroyed. Value does not equal protection (meta-plot armor such as it is) unfortunately.

While you are right it can happen that things could go too far and end up in the wrong areas, I feel what you did was go, "Hey guys, nice thread you have here -- I'm just going to pop a squat right in the middle of it because hey someone could take things too far."

What's more not only did you pop that squat you then proceed to point around and go, "Now we need to have a conversation on the squat that's been popped and the fact that this is your fault for having this conversation that I came to and popped a squat in."


Yeah, you say that, but pretty sure those defending their culture see the value, they know its value as they have the experience within it, the well-meaning conquerors do not; and saying cultures themselves have no value is an excuse - to wipe out cultures. Got to be careful with that type of thinking!

"Hey guys, nice thread you have here -- I'm just going to pop a squat right in the middle of it because hey someone could take things too far."

Not my intent at all. I like to chat not about ideas, topic and history (and historical lessons from such topics as cultural genocide), not squat on threads. Is discussion in a thread bad now?


*chat about* not "chat not about", lol. :)


The kind of conversation that turns an idealistic goal into a malevolent one is nothing short of character assassination. I prefer the word sabotage myself, but I do enjoy the squat-taking analogy. XD

You might not see it or want to admit it, but you are derailing the thread. Please stop it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the beginning this thread has had no "here's how to cure those dirty savages" and instead has been all "we can't kill babies, it's not their fault. What do we do with an orc/drow/whatever baby?" Ditto the many threads that spawned it, though there's a surprising amount of babykilling in them. And I do hope you recognize that when the choice is between "cultural genocide" and genocide which one is the lesser evil.

The way these choices get made is after killing all of the children's possible parental figures you're left with: killing the baby, leaving the baby (will probably starve if animals don't kill it first), trying to raise it yourself, or finding someone to raise it. If the baby has next-of-kin or part of their group is alive or any number of other factors then you don't have to worry about the baby. If the baby has nothing then capital G Good characters are required to care about what happens to the baby. If they're all pure unfiltered evil then you kill it (if you let it live it's a danger to society), if they're just people with different skin and tusks then you need to save it (as it's just an innocent life). There's no real middle-ground for a baby on this, culture can change the extremes but as a baby it's only one or the other. This thread assumes the second view and presents a series of delightful world-building snippets for people who'd like to include that view in their world. They're well fleshed out based on existing fluff of natural tendencies and the societies they would have grown up in.

"Someone could abuse this to wipe out a culture!" Well, yes. That sounds like a villain I'd love to beat up. Is there really a point to this? Half-elves and half-orcs have made their own cultures despite having literally nothing unique to work with. Maybe a "city orc" culture would emerge that looks a lot like Wall Street (ultra-competitive, fight with finances and trade routes) if you give them a chance. There's nothing I saw in any of these that said to prevent them from learning about their heritage. I know my heritage, doesn't mean I strip naked and go pillaging. Well, maybe on weekends.


Icyshadow, you don't seem to get what I have been saying. The problem is the idealism. Because this type of ideological policy has a history OF BEING EVIL. See the Native Americans, see the Australian Aboriginals, see Apartheid South Africa. Invaders stealing and raising the children of their cultural enemies is abhorrent - those stolen and their descendants have told us so.

If a player or kingdom wanted to be "good" then fight off, best and negotiate with the demihumans/monsters, not engage in genocide or cultural genocide, or abducting them, and then brainwashing them to be utterly against the culture of their people.

If children or babies are found, keep them going with magic for sustenance (low level stuff guys), and negotiate a handover. They may really value the next gen if they have been taking a lot of player-caused casualties. Lot of rp opportunities here.

Shadow Lodge

Is not that the king told the people orcs are evil, monsters are defined as evil because of how the game mechanics operate. Yet its sensible to assume this is could be cause due to culture or enviroment. Sure you can try preach mindfliers to make them paladins (this actually happens in Book of Exalted Deeds), but if this will work will depend of the mindset of game . Mikaze thread assumes an specific mindset of how good and evil operates

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
If a player or kingdom wanted to be "good" then fight off, best and negotiate with the demihumans/monsters, not engage in genocide or cultural genocide, or abducting them, and then brainwashing them to be utterly against the culture of their people.

The original premise of the thread was what to do with children of hostile races that survived hostilities, not 'abducting' children of other races and brainwashing them. It was pretty much 100% the *opposite* of genocide (since actual genocide, killing the youngsters before they 'grow up evil', was the accepted solutions for Paladins who would find hauling the young orcs / goblins / whatever off to the local church of Sarenrae to be terribly inconvenient).

If the orc / goblin / etc. 'culture' includes stuff like genocide of other races, cannibalism, etc. then it's hardly a fair comparison to what's happened to various native American or Australian aborigines or even just slower-than-average kids in attempts to 'mainstream' them into whatever group is dominant. It's more similar to a jobs training program for kids in juvie, giving them tools to avoid spending even more of their lives in correctional system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, teaching war orphans to not go raiding and pillaging other peoples is a far cry to what the Indian schools were. It's a comparison of generalities (kids being educated against a previous culture) without looking at the specifics, which make both a complex and much more unrelated case.

Also, we are missing an important point in Mikaze's post (at least about the orcs I haven't read all of them). They aren't being forced into compliance against their natural tendancies of aggression. In fact, it recognizes their predisposition and shows venues to channeling that in a positive manner. They aren't stripping down what it means to be an orc or hobgoblin. Rather, they are helping them take their natural predispositions and using them for positive means. And not to become a slave race or second class citizen, but to become aware of what their culture does and to be given the tools to choose a path other than mindless violence. In Mikaze's case, it'd be a half-orc paladin of Sarenrae :p


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

{. . .}

If they're all pure unfiltered evil then you kill it (if you let it live it's a danger to society), if they're just people with different skin and tusks then you need to save it (as it's just an innocent life). There's no real middle-ground for a baby on this, culture can change the extremes but as a baby it's only one or the other. {. . .}

Not necessarily -- they might be strongly biased towards one kind of behavior or another (including those that turn out Evil), but if you put in extra effort you might be able to overcome this, the point being that you would have to put in more effort than with babies of different origin. You might find disagreements between various people upon how much effort is too much to be affordable, even when still theoretically possible. Potentially you might even be able to redeem a Fiend (canonically, it does happen on really rare occasions), but most people draw the line well short of that. Not saying that's the way it should be, bit it is what it is.

Shadow Lodge

DOT

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hmm something i've heard is "sometimes to do some good you've got to be the badguy" lol, i've started to take a liking to this statement for the simple fact that not everyone is going to go along with stuff, personally i am loving reading this thread lol so awesome :)


And there is the other point, that flexing power does not grant peace. Perhaps Americans will understand?

"Power will not grant you peace. The storms of fate cause misery for many and few will be able to calm them once they start." --Leknaat, Suikoden II.
Indeed, this sums up quite a lot of Suikoden's underlying narrative: Power can be used, but it is ultimately impotent to grant peace, or to change the nature of humanity, which causes so much suffering.

A way monster orphanages could go absolutely pear shaped would be if the monsters realise what the "good" powers are up to. The territory that has these new institutions of cultural power finds itself under more concentrated attack. When some attackers are captured and questioned, it is discovered the monsters are quite aware what is being attempted and are fighting more vehemently than ever before. Allying together and putting aside their differences because their holy seers realise what is at stake.

A dm will put in whatever the like and guide it how they see fit, make it easy or hard, but if players want to make great changes, then there could be a lively response to the re-programming initiative. Their young being raised by an enemy culture might be the most infuriating event imaginable.

Shadow Lodge

This thread assumes the teaching is drived by good faith. PCs can actually try anything, ive seen from jerk paladins to wizards who hate magic. You cannot prepare a world assuming pcs will do this or that because its almost impossible to forsee what shenaningans and crazy antics they will try to pull. Heck, ive even heard of a character specifically made to try f@%% with the lady of pain, when everybody knows you just cant do that.


But assimilation could lead to such interesting figures as half-orc paladins.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13024752&postcount= 38


You know, I had a villain do that whole "cultural genocide" speech once.

He didn't get very far, because the characters were NOT forcing allied races to change what they are.


A better villain might do away with the speech, but steadily exert their will through many agents across a few generations, as a people, their ways and language ceased to be.

Naturalising and harmonising can put a good spin on ending difference.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Looking at goblins and their predilections, I'll note the following:

1. They are afraid of dogs.

2. They are afraid of horses.

3. They don't mind rats.

4. They enjoy singing, particularly simple songs with grisly lyrics.

5. They love to eat, and the more red meat the better.

6. They enjoy hacking things up with machetes.

7. They love fire and explosions.

8. They love thrills and excitement.

The merchant priests of Abadar have looked at these job requirements and have found a perfect match to allow goblins a useful and prosperous place in humanoid society: crew of a whaling vessel.

I disagree The taven of the best god decide to get them liquored up and have them make merry jolly band of adventurers slaughtering evil, singing, and drinking.

251 to 300 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / "Monster" orphanages and sanctuaries (Golarion) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.