"Monster" orphanages and sanctuaries (Golarion)


Advice

351 to 400 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Dot


Dot.


Necrodotting


Any notable first Bestiary race that hasn't been handled?


This is a very interesting thread, I am book marking it for later use.


@icyshadow : Maybe Satyrs ? They are born from raped / magicaly seduced women, so I guess they are often educated by humanoids if Satyrs can't reach them.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Dotting (is that the right word?)

Also, my two copper pinch on the "cultural assimilation" problem:

Honestly I think the thing to bear in mind is that these sorts of "orphanages" or things are the best possible answer to the worst possible scenario, the scenario that the PCs have massacred an entire settlement of these people only to discover children that are now orphans because of them. If the PC's (and the GM, more importantly) are relatively competent and/or sane, there shouldn't even be orphans that need care by the end of the adventure, since usually your job in that case is to drive off raiders or marauders attacking human settlements. You can add nuance and roleplaying stuff by "humanizing" the "monstrous" people so there ARE non-combatants in the lair, but these have to be handled VERY carefully, and if the situation IS a massacre, the blame lies squarely on the PCs who didn't stay their hand. If you DO wind up with orphaned monsters, you kinda brought the problem on yourselves, and giving them a home is generally considered a more paladin-friendly alternative to just slaughtering them. Unless you were specifically recruited to slaughter them all, in which case, why did you even accept the job in the first place if you wanted to stay Lawful Good?


Would Kasatha be considered monster enough for a section in here?


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Unless you were specifically recruited to slaughter them all, in which case, why did you even accept the job in the first place if you wanted to stay Lawful Good?

Killing green people and taking their stuff is a time-honored Paladin tradition.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Dotting (is that the right word?)

Also, my two copper pinch on the "cultural assimilation" problem:

Honestly I think the thing to bear in mind is that these sorts of "orphanages" or things are the best possible answer to the worst possible scenario, the scenario that the PCs have massacred an entire settlement of these people only to discover children that are now orphans because of them. If the PC's (and the GM, more importantly) are relatively competent and/or sane, there shouldn't even be orphans that need care by the end of the adventure, since usually your job in that case is to drive off raiders or marauders attacking human settlements. You can add nuance and roleplaying stuff by "humanizing" the "monstrous" people so there ARE non-combatants in the lair, but these have to be handled VERY carefully, and if the situation IS a massacre, the blame lies squarely on the PCs who didn't stay their hand. If you DO wind up with orphaned monsters, you kinda brought the problem on yourselves, and giving them a home is generally considered a more paladin-friendly alternative to just slaughtering them. Unless you were specifically recruited to slaughter them all, in which case, why did you even accept the job in the first place if you wanted to stay Lawful Good?

Generally that's my take on it as well. If the GM isn't contriving weird situations, the paladin falls when she slaughters all the adults, before you even get to the babies.

Sadly, those contrived situations are kind of a trope of D&D.

Worse some of the world building leads in horrible directions: Golarion's goblins are psychopathic little pyromaniacs, only not horribly dangerous because they're so incompetent. However, we've been told they're still redeemable and not actually that way by some innnate nature. In the first AP module, we see baby goblins being raised in cages. It doesn't take a great leap to see this as prime reason for their screwed up nature. Or a much greater one to start thinking that baby goblins need to rescued from this horrific abuse.

I do not want to play in a setting where killing goblins to take their babies away and raise them right is the morally correct thing to do.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
I do not want to play in a setting where killing goblins to take their babies away and raise them right is the morally correct thing to do.

Neither do I, but as Zousha said this is largely in response to the (frequently contrived) worst case scenarios that are infuriatingly commonplace. I've actually run into one recently in an AP that wasn't RotRL while attempting to avoid the very situation. Not fun, and it blew up in the worst possible way.

But anyway, this thread was started in response to the ugly situations we were stuck with in the setting and some hideously ugly threads that were going on at the time, to give support to players that reject the idea of Always Chaotic Evil and "good genocide". And also as proof that shifts away from evil norms are possible within the setting, showing possible origins for such characters or communities rather than being a how-to for players that find themselves in these situations.

It's worth noting that things actually have gotten better for some races in Golarion since that time. We even have official non-evil orc tribes now.

Edit-Also, just going to thank Set, Odraude, and the others who pointed out everything wrong with DM Under The Bridge's disingenuous derail attempt.

You have to be pursuing the most negative interpretation to come away from this thinking it's an endorsement of cultural genocide. But hey, anything to sabotage attempts to support games that actually reject genocide as a tool of good, right? >:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelazan wrote:
@icyshadow : Maybe Satyrs ? They are born from raped / magicaly seduced women

[can of worms]So, in other words, raped women. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kelazan wrote:
@icyshadow : Maybe Satyrs ? They are born from raped / magicaly seduced women
[can of worms]So, in other words, raped women. :P

That's hardly a can of worms. I don't think a Good character would use Charm/Compulsion effects. I've been told doing Evil to accomplish Good is net Evil, at least. Not sure I agree with it.


Wow. You managed to find a can I hadn't even opened. "Charm/Compulsion is evil magic" wasn't at all what I was going for—mine was the less controversial but still vicious "Charm Person is not consent" can.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Again, worst case scenario. The charm/compulsion magic itself isn't evil. It's how it's used. In the case of satyrs...I dunno, it reminds me too much of deliberately trying to seduce someone while they're drunk and their faculties are compromised. But that's just my personal reading of it.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Wow. You managed to find a can I hadn't even opened. "Charm/Compulsion is evil magic" wasn't at all what I was going for—mine was the less controversial but still vicious "Charm Person is not consent" can.

[can of worms]Are you saying taking away someone's free will isn't Evil? :p

But really, I'm just putzing around. No need to get worms all over Mikaze's nice, clean topic. It's not the world everyone plays in, or probably even most people, but it's a nice place.

Dark Archive

Icyshadow wrote:
Any notable first Bestiary race that hasn't been handled?

Have Mites or Lycanthropes been done?

Fey, in general, have always felt a little bit more 'outsidery' to me, with their chaotic / unreliable / 'fey' inclinations being something that might possibly be 'un-fixable' (with the bleaching being an example of a formerly fey humanoid suffering from losing some of that primal 'wildness,' and the effects on a full fey perhaps being even more dire, like something out of Changeling: the Dreaming). I'm not sure one could raise a Redcap or Dryad or Satyr to be anything other than what they already are.

Quoth the faerie; "What care I for human hearts? Soft and spiritless as porridge! A faerie's heart beats fierce and free!"

Lycanthropes are an odd bag, because, like undead, they've quite possibly got memories of long lives as humanoids with possibly quite different morals and / or ethics. Does a LG cleric of Iomedae who contracts lycanthropy from a werewolf's bite turn CE *immediately,* or are the inclinations and hungers and drives of being a werewolf nibbling away at both her goodness and her lawfulness over a period of time? Is it *inevitable*, because she's become some sort of mindless robot, incapable of free will, choice or volition, or does she possibly have some agency, and maybe can fight it (or hold it off, or balance it out), somehow?

DominusMegadeus wrote:
[can of worms]Are you saying taking away someone's free will isn't Evil? :p

[tangent] Only victimless magical crimes like necromancy are automatically evil, regardless of intent or results. Violating the sanctity of a still living person with enchantment (charm, compulsion) magic is totally okay, per the unofficial game rules that aren't actually in the game rules. :) [/tangent]

But that way lies a level of cognitive and moral dissonance that can only end in madness. Shun this tangent! Shun!


Set wrote:

{. . .}

Fey, in general, have always felt a little bit more 'outsidery' to me, with their chaotic / unreliable / 'fey' inclinations being something that might possibly be 'un-fixable' (with the bleaching being an example of a formerly fey humanoid suffering from losing some of that primal 'wildness,' and the effects on a full fey perhaps being even more dire, like something out of Changeling: the Dreaming). {. . .}

But Gnomes got fixed enough to be able to take on all alignments with reasonable frequency.

And although I haven't researched it carefully, the threat of becoming a Grump in Changeling suggests a loophole: If this does happen to you, you might be able to upgrade yourself to a Mage or even Technomage. An example of the latter may be this Techno-Changeling who works for the Syndicate in a secret laboratory at the North Pole . . . .

Grand Lodge

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?


Worth injecting in here: If you face this kind of thing head on, it can be a key plot hook. For example, in the WarCraft setting, in the time in between WarCraft II and WarCraft III, a very unpleasant Human family (Blackmoore) adopted and enslaved an Orc baby that they found after his parents were killed (by assassins other than the Humans), to which they just gave the name Thrall, who eventually escaped slavery and became the Warchief of the new Orc Horde.


Ah, cool, thanks: was wondering about that bit of backstory.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

It's not the amount of children that's the problem. It's the issues with even one child of a typically Evil race introduced in a campaign. Unless the DM outright says so, you can't possibly know if an 'always Evil' kid has free will, or are an irredeemable pile of Evil.

You bring them to an orphanage of sympathetic Core Races: You fool! Goblins are always Evil! He eats the old peoples' faces off.

You kill them for being Evil: You fool! Every sentient being has the right to choose! You're Evil now!

If you're going to introduce something like this, you have to establish with the players which side your Goblins fall on. Once you do, it becomes a meaningless event. Either you take it to the orphanage, or you kill it, because only one of those is the right(Good) answer.

This is ignoring the idea that, if there's not orphanage around, you have to raise it yourself, which becomes the entire campaign. Whatever you were doing before in on hold because you're caring for a baby. A baby with a natural inclination to pyromania and eating people.

Walking Dead has the survivors raising a baby, but that's because they leave someone behind to care for it whenever they go on actual adventures. None of your players likely wants to be the babysitter when they could be fighting Aboleths or space dragons or something. If you give them an NPC who can care for the baby... why don't they leave it with him? There's just a lot of issues with the whole set-up, including the idea that every single able-bodied Goblin fought to the death. It's a horrible thing from every angle, and it should just never happen.

I personally feel you should kill them, consequences be damned. Goblins are awful things.

Shadow Lodge

Ideas--

Sheylnite Goblin orphanage and firework factory! Harnesses pyromania in a constructive way that is praised by the surrounding community provided they don't burn down said community.

Abadar raised Minotaur orphan who designs impossible prisons for non Minotaurs to escape from.

Best spiritual mentors to prevent Changlings from answering the call-- Erastil, Sheyln. Gives both focus and things to strive for that distract them.

Best diety mentor for a Good Drow--Milani. Being a good drow in and of itself is a rebellion against the nature of what many think is possible and the demonic forces that ensnare drow. As an ascended half elf who rebelled against elven culture there is plenty of common ground.

Shadow Lodge

Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

My group has encountered two individual orcish/half-orcish youths.

In a casual light-hearted game she was adopted and became a minor side character.

In a more serious game the youth ended up going on a homicidal rampage when we got back to his home village, killing two PCs who tried to stop him from murdering an orc baby. The youth then ran off. It was a very interesting scenario and I mostly just regret that the campaign ended abruptly before we could find the youth and reach a more complete resolution of some sort.

My group has also encountered goblin babies with no problems. My monk is currently raising about a half-dozen which we found apparently abandoned in a shed near our new base of operations.

Grand Lodge

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

It's not the amount of children that's the problem. It's the issues with even one child of a typically Evil race introduced in a campaign. Unless the DM outright says so, you can't possibly know if an 'always Evil' kid has free will, or are an irredeemable pile of Evil.

You bring them to an orphanage of sympathetic Core Races: You fool! Goblins are always Evil! He eats the old peoples' faces off.

You kill them for being Evil: You fool! Every sentient being has the right to choose! You're Evil now!

If you're going to introduce something like this, you have to establish with the players which side your Goblins fall on. Once you do, it becomes a meaningless event. Either you take it to the orphanage, or you kill it, because only one of those is the right(Good) answer.

This is ignoring the idea that, if there's not orphanage around, you have to raise it yourself, which becomes the entire campaign. Whatever you were doing before in on hold because you're caring for a baby. A baby with a natural inclination to pyromania and eating people.

Walking Dead has the survivors raising a baby, but that's because they leave someone behind to care for it whenever they go on actual adventures. None of your players likely wants to be the babysitter when they could be fighting Aboleths or space dragons or something. If you give them an NPC who can care for the baby... why don't they leave it with him? There's just a lot of issues with the whole set-up, including the idea that every single able-bodied Goblin fought to the death. It's a horrible thing from every angle, and it should just never happen.

I personally feel you should kill them, consequences be damned. Goblins are awful things.

The thing is, with an adolescent, as opposed to a baby, you've got a lot more to go on. Does the tyke attack you, or try hiding in a corner? Assuming they've got a level in commoner, "taking care of them" could be a touch easier if they've got a rank in Survival or Profession (Cook).


Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

My group encountered an orc child in a 4e game. His dad was a rather evil Orc Chieftain, but he was still a kid, young enough to be impressionable. I adopted him, to the utter disdain of the party ranger. By the end of the story, he was pretty functional. He had the occasional temper fit, but the cleric and I could keep him in check if he got too angry about something.


What do you do if you run into a baby Doppelganger?
How would you manage a baby who can become anything.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

Wrath of the Righteous spoilers:
On the way through the ruins of one of the last fey holdouts on the way to Drezen, we encountered the last survivor from that forest: a six-year old forlarren. We discovered her when she ventured out to steal food from our supplies, panicked and lashed out when discovered, injuring some of our soldiers in the process, after which we pursued her, found out what she was, subdued and calmed her, and took her in. The tiefling PCs(my paladin and a friend's cleric, both twins) have all but adopted her. We consider her a blameless innocent, especially given her origins and after calming the ghost of her nymph mother. She's a child who had no say in the nature of her birth, who had the last vestiges of family torn from her by demons, and has spent the past year or so of her life in the wild with no one for company but half-presence of her dead mother. We would consider any harm to her to be a grave sin, and anyone looking to cause her harm is guaranteed to get at least three holy longswords, a fireball, and Kellid battleaxe in the face.

Some of the inquisition faction still in our midst likely feel otherwise, but many of them feel the same way about the two tieflings and the Sarkori berserker among the Chosen of Kenabres, not to mention their "mongrelman" allies. The whole group is adamant about protecting this child and shielding her from the scorn of those inquisitors. She's suffered more than enough already. Both tieflings and the aasimar paladin have declared her under protection in Iomedae's name, and right now our word carries more weight amongst our army than any inquisitors, many of whom we're viewing with strong suspicion at the moment.

Aforementioned Sarkori berserker has had her nurturing side brought back of her shell by that girl. She had lost her children to the Worldwound and she knows what it's like to have to wrestle with her own rage, so she feels a real connection with the forlarren just as the tieflings do.

We also refused to harm any non-combatants during the push through the "traitor tribe" village outside Neathholm. It didn't take much to convince the mongrelmen to take them and those that surrendered back in, including those that surrendered, after reminding them of their common humanity and the stakes as we understood them at the time.

All in all, I've enjoyed that far more than the no-possible-win situation we wound up with in Jade Regent, an AP I've largely enjoyed save for that part.

Silver Crusade

SCP-096 wrote:

What do you do if you run into a baby Doppelganger?

How would you manage a baby who can become anything.

Help them find the identity that suits them, with an eye towards likely fluidity. Communities of skindancers(Wayfinder #7) would be a good place to turn to for advice in that area, provided you can find them.

Gnomes(non-bleachling) strike me as good candidates for rearing dopplegangers in a way that's healthy for their likely mindset.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

** spoiler omitted **...

My group took every traitor alive. Including the named one. I was so proud.

I really like the spoiled plot point, by the way. I might do something with that in mine...


Interesting ideas, I do suppose once they get old enough to stick to one form it would be a bit easier.

Silver Crusade

Kalindlara wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

** spoiler omitted **...

My group took every traitor alive. Including the named one. I was so proud.

I really like the spoiled plot point, by the way. I might do something with that in mine...

Yeah, we didn't do that perfectly but we talked down as many as we could. And my character and Lann grew closer in the bargain.

I'm loving the hell out of that campaign and we're probably not even a quarter through it yet.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

** spoiler omitted **...

My group took every traitor alive. Including the named one. I was so proud.

I really like the spoiled plot point, by the way. I might do something with that in mine...

Yeah, we didn't do that perfectly but we talked down as many as we could. And my character and Lann grew closer in the bargain.

I'm loving the hell out of that campaign and we're probably not even a quarter through it yet.

Campaign journal pls. :)

Mine is... bumpier. I have a very... my group is... I don't know. I haven't come out to two of them yet (I'm worried it might break the campaign), we're having trouble with optimization arguments and bossiness in-party, and the Mythic system is starting to show its cracks. They're not as... nice as your group sounds. I wish I were there... :'(

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

** spoiler omitted **...

My group took every traitor alive. Including the named one. I was so proud.

I really like the spoiled plot point, by the way. I might do something with that in mine...

Yeah, we didn't do that perfectly but we talked down as many as we could. And my character and Lann grew closer in the bargain.

I'm loving the hell out of that campaign and we're probably not even a quarter through it yet.

Campaign journal pls. :)

Mine is... bumpier. I have a very... my group is... I don't know. I haven't come out to two of them yet (I'm worried it might break the campaign), we're having trouble with optimization arguments and bossiness in-party, and the Mythic system is starting to show its cracks. They're not as... nice as your group sounds. I wish I were there... :'(

Oh damn, I'm sorry to hear about that. :(

I hope it gets better for you. I've been there before, and I'm absolutely not taking this group for granted. Please hang in there and, if it comes down to it, know that there are groups out there that will fit you like a glove.

Oh, and here you go. It's way behind schedule at the moment, but I'm hoping to catch up this coming month now that work is finally settling down. And plz don't judge our barbarian too harshly by first impressions. She does get better. ;)


SCP-096 wrote:

What do you do if you run into a baby Doppelganger?

How would you manage a baby who can become anything.

Actually, that's been done, even in mainstream media -- at least in a non-D&D/PF setting.


Should also point readers in this thread to this awesome Council of Thieves PbP where the party ended up adopting some rather interesting characters in the "Other party-connected NPCs:" section of the Campaign Info page (caution: treat this link as a spoiler!); one was turned into a normal Humanoid, but redemption actually also seems to be working on at least one of the ones that was NOT turned into a normal Humanoid.

Silver Crusade

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Should also point readers in this thread to this awesome Council of Thieves PbP where the party ended up adopting some rather interesting characters in the "Other party-connected NPCs:" section of the Campaign Info page (caution: treat this link as a spoiler!); one was turned into a normal Humanoid, but redemption actually also seems to be working on at least one of the ones that was NOT turned into a normal Humanoid.

Council of Thieves major spoiler:
Khazrae is one of the best redemption-bait characters ever, I swear.

^@Spoiler: Cool. And by the way, I made a bookmark to the campaign journal you linked, and have just now started following it. Awesome (although painful) character backstory there.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:


Mine is... bumpier. I have a very... my group is... I don't know. I haven't come out to two of them yet (I'm worried it might break the campaign), we're having trouble with optimization arguments and bossiness in-party, and the Mythic system is starting to show its cracks. They're not as... nice as your group sounds. I wish I were there... :'(

My condolences. It's a difficult situation: you don't want to feel like you're being deceptive, but at the same time don't want to look like you're pushing the issue to them, and it can be quite difficult to gauge whether someone will value candor or discretion more highly. Although I've found that candor is best reserved for after the first questions have been asked on the initiative of others.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Thank you both for the kind words. It really means a lot to me. :)


Resurrecting this thread to ask a question about nagas. Has there been enough material provided to understand the ecology of nagas and how to deal with raising a non-evil naga. The existence of Guardian Nagas calls into question whether or not there is an actual racial difference between regular Dark/Spirit Naga and Guardians, or if it is entirely in the upbringing and society in which they are raised.


Unless you REALLY want to spend a lot of time in the details, if I truly wanted to play a good character and spare the babies (of whatever monstrous race), I'd hire NPCs to handle it, and delegate. Ultimate Campaign has some rules for downtime and handling organizations. Otherwise, I think it'd be pretty fair to just recycle a dungeon that was cleared, and calculate the weekly salary for a dozen laborers, and meals.

What kind of playgrounds the kiddies need? That's way too much micro-management for what is essentially meant to be a moral test ("are the characters truly good-hearted?).


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

There seems to be a lot of vitriol that comes with dumping a pile of goblin/orc/kobold babies on the players.

Has anyone ever experimented/played/GMed in a situation where rather than a group of infants, the players just encounter one youth/adolescent? Is this typically better-received?

It's not the amount of children that's the problem. It's the issues with even one child of a typically Evil race introduced in a campaign. Unless the DM outright says so, you can't possibly know if an 'always Evil' kid has free will, or are an irredeemable pile of Evil.

You bring them to an orphanage of sympathetic Core Races: You fool! Goblins are always Evil! He eats the old peoples' faces off.

You kill them for being Evil: You fool! Every sentient being has the right to choose! You're Evil now!

If you're going to introduce something like this, you have to establish with the players which side your Goblins fall on. Once you do, it becomes a meaningless event. Either you take it to the orphanage, or you kill it, because only one of those is the right(Good) answer.

This is ignoring the idea that, if there's not orphanage around, you have to raise it yourself, which becomes the entire campaign. Whatever you were doing before in on hold because you're caring for a baby. A baby with a natural inclination to pyromania and eating people.

Walking Dead has the survivors raising a baby, but that's because they leave someone behind to care for it whenever they go on actual adventures. None of your players likely wants to be the babysitter when they could be fighting Aboleths or space dragons or something. If you give them an NPC who can care for the baby... why don't they leave it with him? There's just a lot of issues with the whole set-up, including the idea that every single able-bodied Goblin fought to the death. It's a horrible thing from every angle, and it should just never happen.

I personally feel you should kill them, consequences be damned. Goblins are awful things.

And a third option: fund random NPCs to run a monstrous-only orphanage. Considering what adventurers get, it'd cost peanuts. You pretty much avoid all of the problems you mentionned. If an "always evil" child attacks another "always evil" child in the same orphanage, assuming those in charge do their best to avoid it, would anyone raise a fuss? They certainly aren't gettng it any worse than they would have normally.


*casts Miracle*

There should totally be a section for sahuagin.


^Add in Deep Ones while we're at it.

But you can't get True Resurrection of this thread unless you can find Mikaze . . . .


Assemble the party, we're going on an adventure!


Can we train Morlocks or are they a lost cause?


.

Dark Archive

what did happen to Mikaze?


we have already seen what happens when one race tries to uplift another evil lesser race. Scar from the lion king.

351 to 400 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.