Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.
Correction, killing is a matter of good and evil because it concerns itself with the ending of the life of a living organism (this includes all living organism, not only sentiments and those that practice logic. )
Murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought , so it's more along the line of Law/Chaos than good/evil.
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.
No, murder is a legal definition. If you're in cheliax and a group of legally owned halflings are being legally carted down the town road by a bunch of slavers gleefully singing "where there's a whip there's a way" then the morality of the act is completely independent of the legality of the act. Shooting them in the head and freeing the slaves would be a good thing. It would also be murder (since the killing is unlawful)
Conversely, the Lawful evil king who has a law "no one but the king may touch the red tile" who has a slave thrown onto the red tile and orders him executed isn't committing murder. Its a nice and legal execution.
|
Of course, this isn't a serious thread, and shouldn't be taken so, or Mikaze will run in and start explaining that I should take care of that Goblin and rise him to become a LG Cleric of Iomedae... ;-)
Bull@#$%.
Sarenrae's an easier sell.
;)
Also, I took "scatter families to be more "destroy their culture" than "kill every last one of them". Torag's got some anger issues too.
CLASH OF THE KINGSLAYERS SPOILERS
Aside from the height issue.
Yeah, if you really want some hardcore kill-on-sight, no quareter action, look no further than the Dawnflower vs. the Rough Beast.
Saranrae ain't taking s@*+ from Ravagouge.
|
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.No, murder is a legal definition.
That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.
That's evil.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
I <3 Sarenrae. :)
+1, favorite Deity, and she also has like the coolest Paladin Code.
That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.That's evil.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
Chance giving is optional.
You set up a contract with someone, they break the contract. It's up to you, as the only authority in the land, to determine what the punishment is.
Furthermore, if an individual have been known to act in a particular way for an extended period of time, there's arguably been enough of a chance for them to change their ways prior to any altercation.
|
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.No, murder is a legal definition.That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.
That's evil.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
Semantics is what you have been quibbling over for quite some time. Poorly I might add.
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.No, murder is a legal definition.That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.
That's evil.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
And if the bandits have superior numbers and/or allowing them the option of the first move in your quest to stamp out the evil they are doing would be akin to suicidal or at least risking of your life and the benefit of others?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the bandits have superior numbers and/or allowing them the option of the first move in your quest to stamp out the evil they are doing would be akin to suicidal or at least risking of your life and the benefit of others?
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.No, murder is a legal definition.That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.
That's evil.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
This is what is generally called Lawful Stupid. Which seems to be the only version he seems to be aware of.
Pretty much what I was thinking too.
This alignment thread got me thinking:
Paladins that survive must be very genre savvy. I mean they have this terribly horrifying survival of the fittest vetting process when it comes to their code and order, so any paladin beyond say 3, and especially beyond 5 must have above average int. scores.
Or Epic Fantasy point buy.
|
|
And if the bandits have superior numbers and/or allowing them the option of the first move in your quest to stamp out the evil they are doing would be akin to suicidal or at least risking of your life and the benefit of others?
Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the same thing as doing the pragmatic thing. Often it is more effective to ambush and kill people who are doing something you strongly disagree with. That might make it the tactically sound thing to do, but its still morally wrong.
If you must strike first you could, at the very least, use nonlethal attacks.
I'm assuming these are human slavers, of course. If they're orcs, you just pop an arrow in them and say goodnight.
That's semantics. Killing someone in a unjust, vicious, brutal, etc. manner is what I meant. Killing someone who didn't need to be killed because it was expedient to your selfish goals.
I don't see whats unjust about killing the slavers. No one has mentioned being unnecessarily brutal when you kill them. As to "need" to kill them that's kind of the crux of the matter. You're certainly denying yourself a combat advantage by not ambushing them. A combat advantage could mean the difference between life and death, and if there's a meaningful definition of "need" its to stay alive and free.
No meaningful definition of "selfish goals" is going to call freeing the halfling slaves for their own sake as a selfish goal.
Killing a bunch of bandits because they -- the only authority in the area -- were coming to collect a ransom they received on a regular basis, without making any attempt to parlay... That's not the right thing to do.
Why not? It may be below what's accepted for a paladin,, but they require good, law, AND the paladin's code. The options are not paladin or evil. You can still be good and consider the following factors.
1) the crimes commited by the people you're going to fight. If they warrant execution anyway there's no difference if they go down to a surprise crossbow bolt to the kidney or an executioners ax. The halfling slavers above fall into this catagory: they deserve to die , you kill kill them. That may be taking the law into your own hands but that's the law's problem.
2) Your chances of winning.
Sure, mr 20th level wizard should probably find a non lethal way of dealing with the slavers. If the group looks like seasoned fighters and you're level 1 nobodies then fighting dirty is a lot more understandable.
3) The neccesity of the goal: What are you trying to accomplish? If you and another group are racing for an insanely large Ruby worth a kings ransom killing them to achieve your goal isn't a moral option. In the slaver example though, your victory doesn't just affect you. The increased chance of loosing you risk by offering surrender/conversion is an increased chance of innocent people spending the rest of their lives in slavery. Its not fair for you to gamble with their lives like that in what is likely a doomed failure of diplomacy. I'm pretty sure the slavers and bandits have all heard "pretty please just leave them alone" before and yet remained in their current occupation for some time before coming across the pcs.
The bandits being the only authority in the area is completely and totally irrelevant. Authority is meaningless on the good/evil axis, its what you do with the authority that matters. Since these people are described as bandits, that usually involves robbing people.
Clearly the right thing to do is give them a chance to surrender. Same as your slavers. It would be better to stop the slaver caravan in its tracks (deadfall in the road, frex) and demand the slavers surrender.
Does that ever work?
And, of course, it would be best to stop the caravan long enough and then to convince the slavers through rational persuasion that they should give up their lives as slavers, find new occupations helping people, and let the halflings go. Let them go! Amen. Halleluiah.
I realize its a fantasy game, but now you're being ridiculous. First of all, they've heard it all before, they're still slavers. Secondly the theme of the game does involve a lot of large metal objects with pokey bits being poked into evil people... hence why solutions other than hard metal meeting soft flesh tend not to work.
|
|
Thanks, Gorbacz. This is an important topic which warrants discussion.See what I'm working with here? I make a clear disclaimer that this is a joke thread, and nobody takes me NOT seriously. :)
Honestly, I took you not seriously. I agree, others clearly haven't. My comment was meant to (sarcastically) say: You can't create a thread like this as a foil, because it ends up attracting attempts at legitimate conversation around what you're trying to foil. Even if you stamp it as a foil. In bright red ink.
Or, at least, it is that way with alignment threads.
my GM sometimes actually makes noncombatant evil races member to appear, and thats is something that makes the whole group go into a discussion, because, really, if u find yourself in a place taken by goblins and u find their...nest/nursery/whatever they call it, what should you do? killin e mis evil? leaving em there cuz their are babies is evil? knowing that you killed their parents so they are alone now
i really hate those situations, specially because my GM is totally against the "kill on sight" rule, he says that killing a goblin/orc/whatever is evil unless it atacks you, or it gives a reason to.
|
|
This is what is generally called Lawful Stupid. Which seems to be the only version he seems to be aware of.
Nice. But no Jester, it's called "the easy way isn't always the right way."
There are dozens of ways a group of four adventurers can stop seven bandits without killing anyone, especially when they can force an encounter inside a fort that they can control the terrain of.
* sleep spells
* rig dummies so the bandits think they are out numbered
* ghost sound and silent image for a wide range of tricks
* A net
* entangle
* color spray
* nonlethal attacks
* a covered pit
* animate rope
And it has nothing to do with Lawful. Chaotic Good characters can't ambush and murder people just because that's easier than giving them a chance to surrender. It's a moral issue, a matter of right and wrong, good and evil.
|
|
But sadly, it's in the right forum, as it's being actively discussed as though it was serious, and worth discussing. Or, the conversation may have evolved into some variant which is being taken seriously. Either way, I can't be bothered to read to figure out which it is.
Things need to be less about good vs. evil and more about awesome vs. lame. It's a game, after all. Paladins should only be able to do Awesome things.
See, even I was unable to resist fully.
Some cultures and folks believe that surrender is dishonorable, and as a result give and take no quarter, death in battle is considered a good thing and a life well lived.
In fact, the Paladin Code for Iomdae in Faiths of Purity specifically mentions that they will receive and give no quarter to anyone willingly. If they do end up taking a prisoner, the Paladin becomes personally responsible for their actions afterwards. If that person ever does harm, or performs evil, the Paladin takes it upon himself to not only right the wrong, but also slay the wrong doer, and three other evil dudes.
Honestly, the easy way isn't always wrong either, and the existence of alternatives must be weighed against their chance of success and their overall impact. Killing roving bandits will garuntee that they don't screw with people anymore, while trying to diplomatically interact with them to either leave or what-have-you could result in worse things down the line.
|
|
I don't see whats unjust about killing the slavers.
They're people. You can't just kill people because they've made bad life decisions. Maybe they couldn't find work doing something other than slavery? What if most of the Cheliax slave drivers are slaves themselves? The job of keeping slaves working often fell to other slaves.
Do you think if the Union army had marched into the South and just start bushwacking slaveowners, that would have been the right and moral thing to do? I don't mean Confederate soldiers. I mean groups of Union soldiers sneaking onto Southern plantations and killing the owners of the plantations and the slave drivers? That seems moral and just to you?
A combat advantage could mean the difference between life and death, and if there's a meaningful definition of "need" its to stay alive and free.
That's not how good people think. That's how neutral people think.
Good people consider people other than themselves. Neutral people do when its convenient, but not when it interferes with their goals.
A person who is committed to fighting legal slavery by any means necessary, including killing other people, is not chaotic good. They are chaotic neutral, having decided that chaos (freedom) is more important the not killing people (good).
No meaningful definition of "selfish goals" is going to call freeing the halfling slaves for their own sake as a selfish goal.
I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about my example of Mikunze and the bandits. The bandits aren't slavers, they're just bandits who rob the place every month. The heroes are clearing the bandits so that a CN country can claim the land and secure more power for itself, which is a selfish goal.
Why not? It may be below what's accepted for a paladin,, but they require good, law, AND the paladin's code. The options are not paladin or evil. You can still be good and consider the following factors.
You're right, the options aren't paladin and evil. But they also aren't paladin, good and evil. They are good, neutral and evil.
What you describe below is all very pragmatic, but pragmaticism is the domain of neutral characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the bandits have superior numbers and/or allowing them the option of the first move in your quest to stamp out the evil they are doing would be akin to suicidal or at least risking of your life and the benefit of others?Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the same thing as doing the pragmatic thing. Often it is more effective to ambush and kill people who are doing something you strongly disagree with. That might make it the tactically sound thing to do, but its still morally wrong.
If you must strike first you could, at the very least, use nonlethal attacks.
I'm assuming these are human slavers, of course. If they're orcs, you just pop an arrow in them and say goodnight.
Then Paladins cannot exist in your world. They will all fall or they will die. Likewise, I find your lack of compassion and judgmental statements disturbing. There is no difference between evil human bandits and evil orc bandits, other than their society and race. Both are humanoid, both are intelligent, they all eat, breath, and sleep (according to their racial type). Presumably if you prick them, they will bleed.
If their crimes are enough to justifiably kill them without it being an evil act, then offering them an out might seem more good (merciful), or might be expected as part of your sense of honor (more lawful than good), but it in no way makes it more of an evil act, anymore than letting someone know you're about to make them makes that act any more benign.
This is the problem. Morality is a touchy subject and frankly the alignment system does a horrible job of handling it. Especially when you try to make things black and white. "Oh well it's ok, he was an orc" is basically racism in its purest form. It might be imagination racism, but it's racism.
Someone mentioned slavery earlier. Is it innately good or evil? I'd say neither. It is part of a lifestyle of a culture, and generally has laws and regulations around it. Some cultures have outlawed it, other cultures have encouraged it. Where I see the good and evil coming into play is how the slaves are treated. If they are well treated, respected, and given basic human rights then it might not be a problem (the greatest enemy to freedom is happy slaves). If the slavery is akin to the slavery of Cheliax, or some of the slavery of the united states, then it is a means for which evil can be legally done.
One of my GMs actually ran a game recently where the party became slaves in a tribal society and were honestly treated quite well. Some of the party members were ready to throw down and murder the messenger who told us that we were now slaves for tresspassing on their lands, but my character convinced them to remain civil and not upset the natives. We ended up getting off the island on good terms, by earning our freedom from our "masters". Not once did the culture he presented ever seem evil. Just different.
=================
Personally I take a more holistic approach to alignment. I tried to narrow down what I felt to be the most fundamental traits of the alignments in D&D, and with a combination of raw logic and philosophical observance, I have come to the following conclusions.
Good = Altruism, Love, and Kindness
Goodness is defined by one's willingness to put others before themselves. Good characters avoid hurting others if possible, tend to be merciful, and tend to act in ways that benefit others.
Evil = Selfishness, Hate, and Cruelty
Evilness is defined by one's willingness to put themselves before others. Evil characters care little about inflicting harm on others, tend to be cruel, and tend to act in ways that benefit themselves.
Law = Justice, Order, and Logic
Lawfulness is defined by one's willingness to have order. Lawful characters are driven mostly by logic, reasoning, social structure, and basic principles.
Chaos = Freedom, Change, and Emotion
Chaos is defined by one's desire for freedom. Chaotic characters are are driven mostly by emotion, inspiration, personal freedoms, and personal intuition.
Rarely will any one person display all or none of these traits at all times. If an act occurs that is questioned, I relate it to these fundamental principles and quite honestly the reasons behind actions are more important than the actions themselves in MOST cases. Are you putting your life at risk and killing those orcs because you are trying to protect the people they are going to hurt? Probably falls into the neutral territory. Are you killing them to loot their goodies? Killing with a lack of altruism and a heavy dose of selfishness: sounds evil to me.
Most of the supposed murdering hobos? Yeah most of 'em probably are neutral to evil. It's hard to kill people and make it a good act, because it means you're harming another. The best you could hope for is for it to be a neutral act. However, if you basically keep it in the realm of neutrality, while otherwise living good, you will ultimately be good.
To me, that is why Paladins do not fall when they ambush and cut down the bandits. If the opportunity presents itself they would indeed speak with the leader of the bandits personally, and would welcome them to their camp, but if they purge the bandits to bring peace to the local communities and to stop the pillaging and other crimes they are committing against people, then they have acted in a way that suggest law (keeping order and peace) while committing no evil (only neutrality).
There does come a point where our own reasoning abilities have to be called into question. It would be very hard to sell me on the idea that somehow torturing an infant, boiling it alive, and feasting on its flesh while it died in some sick ritual to conjure up demons from the netherworld to save a kingdom of innocents was in fact an act of neutrality. At some point, the scale tends to tip in one direction based on the sheer weight of one side.
|
|
Bandits are just as bad as slavers. They're extortioners and murderers. Preventing them from engaging in further banditry justifies lethal force just as much as lethal force is justified against slavers and marauding armies and rabid dogs.
But good guys can't get their hands dirty, leave that for the local government. Seriously, death is the only way to be sure they are never a threat agian and good is not too stupid to see that
I hope.....
|
|
Then Paladins cannot exist in your world. They will all fall or they will die.
No, my campaign world has an entirely fantastic moral system based on the existence of a cosmic war. Paladins can't exist in this world, which is why (IMHO) its really a bad idea to base the morality in D&D on the morality of the real world.
Paladins in my world only tend to fail when they let themselves get embroiled in worldly politics and the machinations of kings. When they focus their attention on doing the thing they were empowered to do -- hunt down supernatural evil and slay it with courage and valor -- they have no need to fear falling.
Likewise, I find your lack of compassion and judgmental statements disturbing. There is no difference between evil human bandits and evil orc bandits, other than their society and race. Both are humanoid, both are intelligent, they all eat, breath, and sleep (according to their racial type). Presumably if you prick them, they will bleed.
No, my orcs are evil to the core. Bandits are just jerks who think the world owes them something. But even an evil bandit would think it was wrong to kick a baby. Not an orc. An orc wouldn't even think twice.
This is the problem. Morality is a touchy subject and frankly the alignment system does a horrible job of handling it. Especially when you try to make things black and white. "Oh well it's ok, he was an orc" is basically racism in its purest form. It might be imagination racism, but it's racism.
The alignment system does a great job of presenting a world that is black and white. And it's not racism. Orcs aren't real. You don't have to pretend they are people. You can just pretend they are slavering hordes of evil humanoids who exist for no reason except to make the world a suckier place, and give evil wizards convenient flunkies.
To me, that is why Paladins do not fall when they ambush and cut down the bandits. If the opportunity presents itself they would indeed speak with the leader of the bandits personally, and would welcome them to their camp, but if they purge the bandits to bring peace to the local communities and to stop the pillaging and other crimes they are committing against people, then they have acted in a way that suggest law (keeping order and peace) while committing no evil (only neutrality).
Yeah, except the bandits live out in an unsettled wilderness area and there are no local communities.
And basically, following your logic, if the police set an ambush for a bunch of gangbangers and mowed them down without giving them a chance to surrender, that wouldn't be evil.
This is what blows me away. You're all concerned about racism towards the hordes of raping and pillaging orcs that care about nothing but violence and mayhem, but ambushing and killing a bunch of people for being common, garden-variety criminals is totally okay.
That's completely messed up.
Of course, this isn't a serious thread, and shouldn't be taken so, or Mikaze will run in and start explaining that I should take care of that Goblin and rise him to become a LG Cleric of Iomedae... ;-)
This is a serious thread, and Page 45 of Burt Offerings makes this Pathfidner relevent too.
When I ran this, I did charge the party with an "Evil Act" but not enough to change their alignment (the cleric of Sarenrae needed to atone though).
When it comes to goblins and orcs, are they creatures of free will that can have any alignment like a human? That was never my impression. I thought they were made by evil gods and wizards to torment humans and elves. They don't have free will - they have to be evil. If that is the case, killing any of them is fine.
Actually Golarion, at least, is a little more complex then that.
Yes, Goblins and Orcs were created by Evil Gods to torment humans; however, they still do have free will.
So, in a way they are "born evil" (due to their culture), but could learn a better way.
|
The way I see the humanoids (goblins, humans, orcs, hobgoblins, et cetera), is that they are competing for finite resources, which led them at an early stage in development to kill each other when they were encountered, so as to secure more resources for themselves.
But a better way would be to cooperate and share the finite resources to achieve a better civilization. So cooperation is better than killing.
Goblins do not have to be evil, and cooperation will get you higher up on the alignment axis than killing goblin babies.
So your view is that lawfulness leads to goodness?
Which came first? The Good or the Law? :P
Cooperation =/= Rule of Law
I play Chaotic Good as anarcho-syndicalist.
The D&D world is built on justifying racism. For god's sake, all black skinned elves are evil.
This is the problem. Morality is a touchy subject and frankly the alignment system does a horrible job of handling it. Especially when you try to make things black and white. "Oh well it's ok, he was an orc" is basically racism in its purest form. It might be imagination racism, but it's racism.
First off there is no "the D&D world". D&D is not a world. D&D is a roleplaying game ruleset. The "D&D world" is whatever campaign setting you are playing in at the time, and your generalizations aren't even true in most of them. The Forgotten Realms has good drow and a good goddess of good drow (Eliastree actually).
Peddle your ignorance elsewhere.
When it comes to goblins and orcs, are they creatures of free will that can have any alignment like a human? That was never my impression. I thought they were made by evil gods and wizards to torment humans and elves. They don't have free will - they have to be evil. If that is the case, killing any of them is fine.
Depends on the setting. Remember that there is no "D&D world". Even the default generic description for why orcs and such are evil tends to revolve around their cultural aspects (how they live). No where does it say they are created evil, unless it is a purely campaign-specific circumstance.
Of course, that story sounds like a silly bit of propaganda spread by ye old human empire to justify exterminating another race. But that is jaded real world experience combined with the idea that "races" (human ethnicity) doesn't predict morality. In D&D / Pathfinder it does.
I'd like some citation on that claim.
To determine if killing goblin or orc babies are evil, you have to figure out what they are. Are they a natural race with free will or are they born evil, without the capacity to choose their own way, created by an evil god to kill you?
This part I can actually agree with, merely because it is based on the assumption that campaign settings might have different lore and rules for these creatures in that setting. The default assumption, however, is that sentient creatures have both free will and the capacity to understand right or wrong (by having 3+ Int).
|
that one is easy:
1) invest into a goblin orphanage and collect as many baby goblins as you can during your raids against goblins;
2) have Iomedan nuns run the orphanage;
3) indoctrinate all the baby goblins to develop a hate of other "uncivilized" goblins (do a good job there: get some intel on actual goblin tribes and educate the Iomedan Goblin Youth as to what atrocities these goblins commit)
4) if possible, turn as many as these goblins into paladins or clerics (or anything with divine spellcasting so as to keep them into the light of Iomedae)
5) of course there will be a certain rate of failure as the inherently rebellious goblins will resist this indoctrination... so those who "fail" the program are given freedom (after being given a Quest spell to go eradicate as many goblins as possible so as to walk in the shining light of Iomedae)
...or you could always put your boot on its tiny Stewie melonhead... (depends on your current funds I guess... :P )
|
|
One player of mine exterminated some goblin tribes in RotRL. Including females and babies.
He was a paladin of iomedae. I decided as a DM that he needed to be punished as although monsters manual and rules tend to give us a black and white picture... There are many more greys.
As a paladin he had to strongly believe in redemption, honor (there s no honor in killing a baby) and all the chivalry code that goes with it.
So he lost his Paladin powers for a while ... Until he saved some goblins babies from raids from less scrupulous soldiers.
He then had to raise the goblin child according to Iomedae teachings.
Therefore :
- For RP it was great fun to learn the goblin not to bite everyone and set fire to everything.
- Alignment in my world is made of grey.
- Why couldn't we have a Paladin Troll (they met one in my game).
- The paladins though shall follow a rather strict code of conduct.
|
|
When it comes to goblins and orcs, are they creatures of free will that can have any alignment like a human? That was never my impression. I thought they were made by evil gods and wizards to torment humans and elves. They don't have free will - they have to be evil. If that is the case, killing any of them is fine.
Actually Golarion, at least, is a little more complex then that.
Yes, Goblins and Orcs were created by Evil Gods to torment humans; however, they still do have free will.
So, in a way they are "born evil" (due to their culture), but could learn a better way.
References and examples of non-evil members of those races have also shown up in canon as well. There's even a current cultural shift going on in some parts of Belkzen where Gorumite orcs are developing into Worthy Opponent types to the Gorumite humans serving in Lastwall.
SECOND DARKNESS SPOILERS
On orcs, the source of their creation is still unknown IIRC, but it seems they generally went south once they started clashing with the dwarves as both races headed for the surface. There's also one telling passage about the orcs sending their young and elderly(!) ahead while they held off the pursuing dwarves. Kind of paints a more nuanced picture of what the orcs might have been before they started stomping all over the surface in the Age of Darkness. Especially when it's noted in that book that the orcs had no idea about Rovagug until surface humans introduced them to him.
Football-heads get punted.
Extra points if you use steel-toed adventuring boots.
|
|
that one is easy:
1) invest into a goblin orphanage and collect as many baby goblins as you can during your raids against goblins;
2) have Iomedan nuns run the orphanage;
3) indoctrinate all the baby goblins to develop a hate of other "uncivilized" goblins (do a good job there: get some intel on actual goblin tribes and educate the Iomedan Goblin Youth as to what atrocities these goblins commit)
The Iomedan Goblin Youth? Will there be jackboots and marching?
Murder is most definitely a matter of good and evil.For example, Mikaze thinks his group is playing a far more progressive game than others (because he recognizes orcs as people), but if you read his Kingmaker campaign journals he and his group bushwack a bunch of human bandits and kill them with no chance to surrender, despite having no legitimate authority in the land.That is a matter of law/chaos, not a matter of good and evil.
Look! Ants are marching into the house. Spray them! Wasps decided to make a nest in the alcove near the front door. Spray them!
Murder. They were innocent.
Or is that reserved toward only intelligent life forms?
Charlie.... your still around?
These sad little trolls.
*gurgle*
XD
These boards are fun. People of all shapes and sizes having armchair ethics discussions, saying that certain oppressive institutions probably weren't all that bad.
I mean hey, slaves got fed right? And housing too, don't forget housing.
And great family stability, no one was ever split up from their loved ones for profit, or bred for specific purposes.
annnnnnnd you have just described Eberron goblins. Conquered by human barbarian kings, made into slaves, they now are emancipated but still live in human cities eaking out a living as lower-class merchants or upper-class butlers (like at hogwarts).
BUT of course the keen thing about Eberron is that alignment is secret and while chaotic there are no greater proportion of evil goblins as there are evil humans and evil dragons for that matter.
Also, Eberron is like star trek and shadowrun, a great world in which to approach the many facets and ugly aspects of racism in a way that feels honest.
Now in Golarion however...
a goblin baby is an ugly, filthy, poop launcher, projectile vomit machine that cries with an unearthly pitch that probably dives the whole race to the chaotic axis of the ethical scale. Its right up there with the zombie baby from Dead-Alive. It is not a baby. It is a grotesque corruption of the concept of a baby.
So my guess is that you do squish it under your boot, as you would a tarantula, closing your eyes so as not to watch the mess it make as you do so, and also so that I don't make you roll a fort save vs sickened.
Yes
These sad little trolls.
Hey Charlie, is beating a female goblin evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes
These sad little trolls.Hey Charlie, is beating a female goblin evil?
Only if she doesn't charge me for sex and doesn't snort my coke stash splayed out on the coffee table. Otherwise, it's a negotiable trick to be turned.
There's a scale of redemption. It looks like this:
humans
elves/dwarves/gnomes/halflings
barbarians/lizardfolk
goblins/orcs
demons/devils/undead
far realms creaturesCreatures at the top of the list are redeemable, while creatures at the bottom are totally not.
Age is also a factor, with the younger specimens being more redeemable.
A perfect example of the default racism in D&D/role-playing game. You enter world where things are Black or White vary little gray... How many times have you seen this?
GM: There is Ork walking down the road...
Elf Ranger: I shot it with my bow.
Dwarven Fighter: Charge it and hack it with my Battle Ax.
Wizard Human: I cast Magic Missile.
A Vampire Kill It!
A Lich Kill It!
A Demon Kill It!
A Devil Kill It!
A Colored Dragon Kill It!
I have to give credit to Pathfinder Adventure Paths for giving several time that traditionally evil raced that are given chance to be redeem.
Over the cource of the path.
Whoever said Mammy Graul was evil is definitely lying. Cake, on the other hand, is evil.
Hm. As usual, before it decended into depravity, this thread gives me much to think about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're people. You can't just kill people because they've made bad life decisions.
Yes. Yes you can.
That is in fact, the one of the few legitimate grounds for killing someone. They DECIDED to be a bad person. They decided to make a living off of the misery of others. It was their choice and they should pay for it.
Maybe they couldn't find work doing something other than slavery? What if most of the Cheliax slave drivers are slaves themselves? The job of keeping slaves working often fell to other slaves.
Then the next time your master sends you out halfling hunting you make a run for the border.
If someone with a knife was dragging your neighbor out of their house by her hair towards a white van would you grab a baseball bat or a pamphlet to ITT technical institute?
Do you think if the Union army had marched into the South and just start bushwacking slaveowners, that would have been the right and moral thing to do? I don't mean Confederate soldiers. I mean groups of Union soldiers sneaking onto Southern plantations and killing the owners of the plantations and the slave drivers? That seems moral and just to you?
*Hoists John Brown #1 Flag*
Assuming it would have had a lower butchers bill than the civil war, yes. I don't see why killing someone is better just because they were snatched up off the street, put in a uniform and handed a gun.
That's not how good people think. That's how neutral people think.
Even good people have needs. Even the staunchest paladin realizes that he needs to eat to keep up his strength and that his lifestyle requires an expensive investment in equipment. The world is not binary.
Good people consider people other than themselves. Neutral people do when its convenient, but not when it interferes with their goals.
A person who is committed to fighting legal slavery by any means necessary, including killing other people, is not chaotic good. They are chaotic neutral, having decided that chaos (freedom) is more important the not killing people (good).
Anyone dedicated to fighting legal slavery is going to have to accept the fact that they will either kill people or stand uselessly on a soap box farting into the wind. Again, the options are not binary. It is not "any and all methods possible" or "pacifism" or stupid good. There is a HUGE middle ground in between, and a fair bit of it still falls into good.
The goal does not justify ANYTHING. You could not for example, start killing the children of the slavers in order to send them a message. But it does justify NOT being Stupid Good, fighting smart, and killing people that deserve to die anyway. WHY you're fighting is a matter of Good/EVil. HOW you fight is a matter of law/chaos.
And basically, following your logic, if the police set an ambush for a bunch of gangbangers and mowed them down without giving them a chance to surrender, that wouldn't be evil.
Would depend on what they've done. Look at bonnie and clyde. They'd killed the last 9 police officers that had tried the "Surrender in the name of the law" approach. Are you really going to become dead cop number 10 following the rules or are you going to do something effective like blow their car to pieces from ambush?
Even if you have no concern for your own skin, by failing to stop them you've put other people in danger. That's pride, pure and simple.
This is what blows me away. You're all concerned about racism towards the hordes of raping and pillaging orcs that care about nothing but violence and mayhem, but ambushing and killing a bunch of people for being common, garden-variety criminals is totally okay.
I'm against rampagers and pillagers, like the aforementioned bandits.(well by definition they're pillaging at least) Whether they're humans or orcs shouldn't matter. You think one person guilty of the same crimes deserves a chance to surrender but not the other: thats speciism.