It's easier to simply remove racism from the argument and look at the crimes the goblins committed. When did this become an argument about killing goblin babies?
|
I am sorry TriOmegaZero I cannot agree with you on that.
It is the staple of heroic fantasy to have good heroes go challenge and kill the big bad evil guys. This is seen as good by example in the game itself.
You don't have to agree, but just because people say it is good does not make it so. The game itself says no such thing.
It's easier to simply remove racism from the argument and look at the crimes the goblins committed. When did this become an argument about killing goblin babies?
Sorry, I was recalling all the old arguments of: "Should a paladin kill goblin babies?" Which in turn comes down to "are goblins inherently evil or culturally evil?" It's an argument as old as D&D.
Now in my RotR game thread, the goblin PC (not evil) is currently trying to re-educate the surviving goblins in terms they will understand so that they turn away from evil. He's actually having some success, too.
Now if we look at the crimes they committed, what are they and why did they commit them? For example, it's easy to condemn cannibalism, but if the goblin rank-and-file ate humans because the alternative was starvation, or going in the pot himself, it's a lot harder to condemn. If all goblin tribes have ever known is attacks from adventurers, why wouldn't they fight back by any means available? See the "Goblins" comic strip to see what I mean.
Good is about intention, method AND results.
No that is Lawful Good you are talking about. Remember the game has TWO alignment axises.
I will leap to Mikaze's side with a completely different tack: Which makes for richer role-playing: "All goblins are evil and can be killed on sight in any way you please without having to ponder for a moment whether or not they're actually doing anything wrong?", or, "I should find out the nature of this goblin king and his clan to determine whether or not they must be exterminated."
I have read many of Mikaze's posts, and, like her (I hope), I try to have a rich world full of nuance where characters must think about their actions. I strongly dislike playing in or GM'ing a world where everything is "set in stone" so no paladin is ever questioned about his actions, nor is any adventurer ever chastised for slaughtering a clan of orcs that was minding its own business in the wilderness.
It's definitely a choice of roleplaying style; I got quite hammered on the "So a paladin is about to kill you..." thread by stating that a paladin could not execute a defenseless goblin who had already surrendered, so I know a lot of people prefer the black-and-white world of, "All goblins are evil, except the one I happen to be playing as right now..."
So:
#1: I am firmly on Mikaze's side that shades of grey make for more fun roleplaying.
#2: As for "Was this act evil?" (Yes, I really do try to address the original question on occasion), we have that the goblins were attacking merchant caravans. This is a warlike act, so it's OK for good characters to go in and destroy all resistance until the goblins surrender and sue for terms. At this point, killing prisoners is a mildly evil act. I agree with the majority that this would not change the character's alignment in a single act, especially since he had motivation (the goblins probably killed quite a few people attacking the caravans). But it's a pattern of behavior you want to start noting. Ripping out the son's heart and eating it in front of daddy? Evil. Killing son fairly painlessly because daddy isn't negotiating well? Mildly evil.
Good is about intention, method AND results.No that is Lawful Good you are talking about. Remember the game has TWO alignment axises.
Sorry, but 'Law' is using logic and order, codes and procedures and submitting to the common good, and there is nothing in that there. Chaos is using intuition and creativity, and championing individual freedom. Either can have benevolent intentions, ethical methods and beneficent outcomes, and when they do we append 'Good' to the end of the alignment description.
Chaotic good characters do not imprison and torture people in order to achieve their goals, for example. Like lawful good characters, a chaotic good character has the initial intention to harm none, uses methods that do not inflict suffering or pain (if he can help it) and works for a positive outcome not just for themselves but for others.
Now in my RotR game thread, the goblin PC (not evil) is currently trying to re-educate the surviving goblins in terms they will understand so that they turn away from evil. He's actually having some success, too.
Now if we look at the crimes they committed, what are they and why did they commit them? For example, it's easy to condemn cannibalism, but if the goblin rank-and-file ate humans because the alternative was starvation, or going in the pot himself, it's a lot harder to condemn. If all goblin tribes have ever known is attacks from adventurers, why wouldn't they fight back by any means available? See the "Goblins" comic strip to see what I mean.
This is a good point. In my last session our LG oracle decided to bring along uneducated human women and children cannibals with us to a city and see if his church could help figure out what to do with them. We had killed off all the men and he was worried about them starving to death or whatnot. He really didn't want to kill them all and they weren't a threat to my group, so he decided that he'd take them on as his responsibility and try to get them to come back and join society. It was a very interesting session of role-playing and in the end his church decided to watch over them and try to re-integrate them into society, but he has to pay for it as their sponsor. So we'll see what happens now.
Psst.....Mikaze's a dude. ;)
Aw, geez! I've been using "him or her" and annoying people so much that I finally gave up.
And promptly got it wrong.
Sorry, Mikaze! No offense!
|
It really depends completely on what you want out of the game, and consequently how you interpret the nature of the goblins. But it seem like in the original situation as described, the action in question would be evil.
Generally, I don't think having always-evil civilized races (always-evil monsters are totally fine) tends to work well. It just doesn't seem very realistic to me. After all, if the goblins are willing to negotiate, doesn't that in itself imply that they are susceptible to reason, and thus have free will?
If the goblins really are "civilized" and capable of negotiation, however crude, then it's definitely an evil act to do what these PCs did.
This guy is GOOD! My paladin would've eaten the entrails in front of them like a delicacy before standing up, beating his chest and yelling "Who's next, that was delicious!"
Seriously though, if you have to ask "Is it evil" then it's safe to assume that it is. I'm also in the camp of "One act doesn't change your alignment unless it violates everything you've ever stood for and your future MUST change because you are about to be pursued by the forces you once aligned with." At which point, a GM should tell his character to turn the sheet over and roll up a new character for a new campaign involving the repurcussions of his previous character.
Whatever works in your game at the end of the day.
P.S. my paladin is awesome :P
This is a good point. In my last session our LG oracle decided to bring along uneducated human women and children cannibals with us to a city and see if his church could help figure out what to do with them. We had killed off all the men and he was worried about them starving to death or whatnot. He really didn't want to kill them all and they weren't a threat to my group, so he decided that he'd take them on as his responsibility and try to get them to come back and join society. It was a very interesting session of role-playing and in the end his church decided to watch over them and try to re-integrate them into society, but he has to pay for it as their sponsor. So we'll see what happens now.Now in my RotR game thread, the goblin PC (not evil) is currently trying to re-educate the surviving goblins in terms they will understand so that they turn away from evil. He's actually having some success, too.
Now if we look at the crimes they committed, what are they and why did they commit them? For example, it's easy to condemn cannibalism, but if the goblin rank-and-file ate humans because the alternative was starvation, or going in the pot himself, it's a lot harder to condemn. If all goblin tribes have ever known is attacks from adventurers, why wouldn't they fight back by any means available? See the "Goblins" comic strip to see what I mean.
Sweet! That's the kind of thing that REAL heroes do, not just bullies with magic and weapons who push people around.
Chaotic good characters do not imprison and torture people in order to achieve their goals, for example. Like lawful good characters, a chaotic good character has the initial intention to harm none, uses methods that do not inflict suffering or pain (if he can help it) and works for a positive outcome not just for themselves but for others.
Well a Good person will not torture or harm an innocent regardless of whether they are lawful or chaotic. But in my opinion for chaotics that restriction is lifted when dealing with Evil. And I am talking about Evil with a capital E, not bread thieves with a little e. These are the guys who would protect us all by torturing information out of terrorists to save thousands from another bomb. Something a LG person would never do even if it meant saving lives. But I realize you aren't going to change your mind. And ultimately you don't have to. We are BOTH right in our own games. Pathfinder made the GM the final arbiter over alignment. Hopefully whichever view the OP decides on in his dilemma he applies it consistently.
|
Psst.....Mikaze's a dude. ;)Aw, geez! I've been using "him or her" and annoying people so much that I finally gave up.
And promptly got it wrong.
Sorry, Mikaze! No offense!
Eh, it's pretty much a running gag at this point. ;)
Definitely agreed on preferring to portray the various races as people though. I've always found worlds that roll that way much more interesting, believable, and enjoyable. It doesn't bother me if other folks prefer playing the other way, but when it gets pushed as the One True Way, it grates.
It was an evil act.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
He's Kind and Benevolent. He believes in Goodness and Right. He hates it when people try to Intimidate others and tell them what to do. Combines a Good heart....
What part of Taking a Hostage, Showing him to his Daddy and Slitting his throat is covered by any of this? Pretty much none of it.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Character does what his hatred and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is Vicious, Arbitrarily Violent and Unpredictable. He is Ruthless and Brutal.
What part of Taking a Hostage, Showing him to his Daddy and Slitting his throat is covered by any of this? Pretty much all of it.
An Evil Act done to an Evil Soul is STILL an Evil Act.
Does 1 Evil Act make an Alignment Change? No
But if he continues to go down that road, he will.
Clearing out Evil Goblins is a Good act because you're protecting innocents (from your own point of view). Doing it in a Torturous/Brutal Manner, is killing for pleasure. And that is also as Evil as the Goblins that they were sent to kill.
@ZugZug - well said, sir.
|
|
It is not Good to kill a murderer, it is Neutral.
Ayup. I can even demonstrate it. Lets actually make this fun and exciting, and I'll use things to back up my point.
Let's suppose two fairly easily acceptable facts. Fact #1, Goblins are evil. Okay, i don't think anyone here has disputed that yet. Great. Fact #2, Killing someone in cold blood is evil. That's also an acceptable thing. Murder is considered a sin and an abominable act in most religions (in both Pathfinder AND real life, the only exceptions are those of the...oh yeah...the evil deities) and cultures, so long as its done in cold blood, and the victim in question is defenseless.
Okay. So, we've established that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Goblins Beith Evil." Goodie goodie. Now let's take a look at one of the better known references on the subject of the good alignment, 3.5's very own Book Of Exalted Deeds. Therein, we find a small section discussing the morality of achieving good ends through evil means. A goblin is evil. A goblin's death is a "good end." Killing someone in cold blood is an evil mean. So, let's take a look at our good writer's logic. According to them (and i sincerely wish i could directly quote, but as i do not possess the book at present...) when a good character performs an evil action to benefit good, on the multiversal scale...evil still wins out. Think of it this way. Assume every evil action generates an evil point. Every good action generates a good point. In the current situation, the existence of the goblin counts as one evil point. Great. Killing the goblin prince replaces that with a good point.
Here's the catch: since you killed the goblin prince in cold blood, you also produce one evil point by the virtue that murder is considered an evil act. Therefore, evil has not lost a point, but good has gained one. Ergo, on the mutliversal scale, the scales read: "Neutral", one evil, one good, therefore null charge.
And before one disputes that "murder is okay situationally," I'd like to point out that morality simply cannot work this way. If morality were dependent upon situation, rather than a set of immutable principles, then in a society that, say, slavery is considered acceptable, slavery would be considered a neutral or even a good action. Yet this is obviously not the case. So, if you judge morality by situation (ergo, its okay to kill a goblin in cold blood but not, lets say, a ratfolk), you skew morality and create a slippery slope. Moral actions are predetermined in some fashion and then followed. End of story. According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, murder of a creature that is not actively trying to kill you or threatening to do so in some fashion (i.e. is not helpless as the golbin is) is an evil action. That, as far as I'm concerned, counts as an "in-game morality guide" that is as reliable as the premise that "goblins are evil." So, since morality cannot be situational, it's still wrong. Q.E.D.
It's late...I'm sorry if that argument isn't well...connected.
Let me apologize for the length of this, but there's a lot that can be said. I even regret having written all this expecting many of you to not read it, as a result. However, here it is anyway. Many of you are confusing two topics.
1) The first is the philosophical principle of good vs. evil based upon a shifting ideology. Most of you seem to take a deontological position (that an action is right or wrong regardless of the consequences of that action) and hold it with contemptuous righteousness, which I don't find surprising since that's what our American culture seems to push with alarming assurance. While others hold a more consequentialistic position (that the ends justify the means), which I believe is overly-maligned and misrepresented by its critics. Utilitarianism is one such consequentialist philosophy that holds up well to criticism.
2) The second issue is the philosophical description of alignments as presented by the game that we play. Zugzug is absolutely right to put it into *game* terms as to whether or not the PC broke with his or her alignment.
For a consequentalist, it's not quite as simple as zugzug wishes to portray it. But zugzug and TDD obviously are deontologists. And TDD has said that it is wrong to judge an action as being moral or immoral based upon situational parameters. TDD doesn't provide an argument, just that it's wrong because he claims it will "skew morality and create a slippery slope". But, that's simple rhetoric and holds little logic.
To sum up: The real problem with a consequentialist approach is that mistakes are easier to make because the decisions are fraught with poor information and poor judgment. Consequentialism can be very good because it can lead to much better outcomes for all involved, it's less a systematic approach to morality and more of a personal judgment.
To sum up: The real problem with a deontological approach is that you create a "code of ethics", but that code can never cover all possible situations and are oblivious to any evils that may result. This can be good for mortal creatures who cannot divine the future--who have imperfect information--to consider themselves blameless and clean for whatever their actions might bring. It's a position that allows people to feel good denying accountability, even though they may be the agents of destruction.
It's no surprise that the American system of justice takes both approaches simultaneously. Firstly, there is a deontological umbrella (laws) governing all activity because a systemic approach is needed to fairly constrain society, and then a consequentialist approach is taken to judge the legality of activity and (through jury nullification) the good of it.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I've only barely glossed over the surface of philosophical debate concerning morality. It's only tangentially relevant to the game since the game uses a broad brush to describe what *it* means by alignments and all things are subject to the GMs judgment anyway (is he a consequentialist? how does he judge the situation? is he a deontologist? what does his code of ethics include?). My approach is to let the players do what they want, but if they're in danger of doing something I consider in extreme violation of their alignment, I'll let them know before they do it, so they can take an informed action.
TDD - slavery is not considered evil in this country, only unjustified slavery. Consider hard labor, chain gangs, and other work that prisoners are required to do in prisons under the guise of "working for their room and board". I was just having a conversation with my players the other night about this. Enslaving goblins is not necessarily bad if you only have three other choices, "Kill them", "Free them", "Maim them to the point of harmlessness". If those are your only choices, then you have to determine if "Free them" creates an untenable threat to your person or the lives of innocents (them attacking you without provocation, for instance, would be a negative indicator). If you don't want to kill them and you can't let them go, you have to determine whether or not you have the wherewithal to keep them prisoner.
mikaze - in your link to TV tropes, you're confusing the issue of movie heros doing conflicting moral things (killing evil minions without thought, but being morally required to give the BBEG a second chance) with the issue of whether or not killing evil minions is evil. One cannot prove that sentience is inherently a valuable thing (Borg) and you'd be hard-pressed to show that "life" is inherently a valuable thing. Punching goblins in the throat (if they're presented as little evil terrors) is not the same as punching elves in the throat (if they're presented as moralistic beings). The issue, in my opinion, is really moralism - do they (the goblin civilization/tribes) have a collective morality and is it compatible with your own. If not, they're you're enemy, and they may need to be punched in the throat. Governance and civilization held together by fear and power does not equal cultured or collective morality.
==============================================================
Look, it's not the lion's fault that he wants to eat you. You don't blame the lion for being a lion. But you still kill the lion because ultimately, the lion *is* a lion and will eat you if you don't. Self-preservation and your own compatibility with the rest of the world may prevent you from any other course of action. However, you may value that lion's life and may have an advantage that will allow you to be safe and not harm the lion. But what about the neighbor's little girl? In the end, the whole context of a situation dealing with threats has to be considered.
Similarly, it's not the goblin's fault that he wants to eat your babies. At least, this is true of goblins as they are presented in this world of Golarion. It is possible that a given goblin is not a bad guy. He may be the dual-scimitar-wielding drow of the goblin world. But 99.9% of the time he's not. Is it bigotry, then, to assume that when you come across a group of goblins that they're thinking how tasty you might be? Hopefully, if you come across a rebel goblin, he can convince you to give him a chance. But I don't blame anyone for assuming otherwise upon initial meetings - you do what you must to protect yourself, your fellows, and the innocent. Just consider the crazy murderous goblins in the Sandpoint raid. Why must you wait for them to murder little children, burn down towns, and sodomize the local dog before you're allowed to kill them? They're not citizens committing crimes, they're monsters being monstrous. And they're widely known and proven to be monstrous.
Most of us flinched at the "deed" as described by the OP because we're all a bit soft-hearted in this day and age and can imagine the cruelty of the emotional pain inflicted on the King. But cruelty is something that deals with suffering. But not all suffering is cruel and not all cruelty is undeserved and not all undeserved cruelty is as bad as people think: in many ways, it's also contextual. These are monsters (in the moralistic sense) we're dealing with.
Alternatively, try this for a perspective. Dispense with the word, "son", as that tends to be anthropomorphic and harden your hearts for a moment. Consider that goblin was instead the vile offspring of a goblin leader. Consider that perhaps that offspring, who sought the death of yet one more moral being and who's life may have been deemed forfeit, was only being preserved in the hope that it might sway the King to stop rampaging, looting, and ordering general mayhem throughout the realm. The OP said, "The goblins are intelligent and 'cultured'." But clearly, being organized is not 'cultured' if they're raiding caravans. Now, let's assume that this hope was destroyed because the King looked at that one-of-many goblins and laughed vilely instantly processing, "Some female goblin dropped that pup, but because I was somehow part of the mechanism for it being alive in the first place, I should care now?" (because culturally, goblin males don't care about their young), then maybe there was nothing wrong with the decision. Kill the son, provoke the King into a fight, and kill all opposition = bringing peace to the land.
Just some thoughts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread tells us more about the posters' alignment than it does the characters'. :)
I think it's easier to reverse the roles: if it was the human who had his throat slit in front of his father, would you consider the act evil?
That aside, I think we can all agree that the negotiations have failed and the character has just entered his kingdom into a war; let's hope not too many of the humans get captured alive.
If good and evil just becomes two teams with the same behaviour, where evil is killing any "good" race and good is killing any "evil" race, why even have alignments? Why not call them blue and yellow?
If good and evil just becomes two teams with the same behaviour, where evil is killing any "good" race and good is killing any "evil" race, why even have alignments? Why not call them blue and yellow?
I'm not sure, but I've always felt that was how D&D/Pathfinder represented True Neutral - they see Good as white and Evil as black, with neither side inherently superior to the other. They feel that a balance needs to be maintained between the two poles of morality. But neither is "about" the killing of each other. OTOH, they do perceive each other as mortal opponents.
|
|
mikaze - in your link to TV tropes, you're confusing the issue of movie heros doing conflicting moral things (killing evil minions without thought, but being morally required to give the BBEG a second chance) with the issue of whether or not killing evil minions is evil. One cannot prove that sentience is inherently a valuable thing (Borg) and you'd be hard-pressed to show that "life" is inherently a valuable thing. Punching goblins in the throat (if they're presented as little evil terrors) is not the same as punching elves in the throat (if they're presented as moralistic beings). The issue, in my opinion, is really moralism - do they (the goblin civilization/tribes) have a collective morality and is it compatible with your own. If not, they're you're enemy, and they may need to be punched in the throat. Governance and civilization held together by fear and power does not equal cultured or collective morality.
Actually, Moral Dissonance covers far more territory than just that narrow scenario. It encompasses every moral double standard, including Moral Myopia, which is often at the heart of situations like this.
I'm not equating punching an evil goblin and a good elf. I'm equating punching an evil goblin and an evil elf. Asking one's self what one would do if the goblins in the OP were some human tribe is quite legitimate.
Bear in mind that a lot of assumkptions(99% of race X being alignment X, etc.) are campaign specific, and the OP hasn't said anything about using Golarion(indeed, the idea of a merchant's guild actually trying to negotiate wtih goblins possibly implies it isn't, that's quite forward thinking compared to the Golarion norm). Sandpoint goblins can't really be taken as a solid basis to judge these (admittedly) abstract sparsely-detailed(in this thread at least) goblins in the OP. And even Golarion with its monster races leaning hard towards evil doesn't fall into absolute absolutes. Even that setting has its exceptions and its forces of good still stand for concepts of good, mercy, and redemption.
I actually disagree that dispensing with the word "son" clears the issue up. It actually does the old dangerous trick of, for lack of a better world for fantasy settings with multiple sapient races, "dehumanizes" the enemy. That's where the moral mypoia all too often gets its foot in the door.
I also think Good should be about more than putting the screws to Evil. It should be about Good.
Also, given the full explanation of the OP's situation later in the thread, the player in question pretty much derped the mission. He apparently doesn't know how to peace talk.
No, good and evil are defined differently in the core book. Good respects life, evil does not. If that is reduced to "evil kills humans, good kills goblins" thats not a game id play in, neither do i think its raw or rai.
mikaze - in your link to TV tropes, you're confusing the issue of movie heros doing conflicting moral things (killing evil minions without thought, but being morally required to give the BBEG a second chance) with the issue of whether or not killing evil minions is evil. One cannot prove that sentience is inherently a valuable thing (Borg) and you'd be hard-pressed to show that "life" is inherently a valuable thing. Punching goblins in the throat (if they're presented as little evil terrors) is not the same as punching elves in the throat (if they're presented as moralistic beings). The issue, in my opinion, is really moralism - do they (the goblin civilization/tribes) have a collective morality and is it compatible with your own. If not, they're you're enemy, and they may need to be punched in the throat. Governance and civilization held together by fear and power does not equal cultured or collective morality.
Actually, Moral Dissonance covers far more territory than just that narrow scenario. It encompasses every moral double standard, including Moral Myopia, which is often at the heart of situations like this.
I'm not equating punching an evil goblin and a good elf. I'm equating punching an evil goblin and an evil elf. Asking one's self what one would do if the goblins in the OP were some human tribe is quite legitimate.
Bear in mind that a lot of assumkptions(99% of race X being alignment X, etc.) are campaign specific, and the OP hasn't said anything about using Golarion(indeed, the idea of a merchant's guild actually trying to negotiate wtih goblins possibly implies it isn't, that's quite forward thinking compared to the Golarion norm). Sandpoint goblins can't really be taken as a solid basis to judge these (admittedly) abstract sparsely-detailed(in this thread at least) goblins in the OP. And even Golarion with its monster races leaning hard towards evil doesn't fall into absolute absolutes....
The problem with applying the concept of Moral Myopia here is the same problem you have when you apply the juxtaposition of humanity with goblinkind. You make certain base assumptions, but none more important than "goblins are not monstrous". The idea then becomes, because they have sentience and have limited reasoning capability, their lives have value to the civilized and moral world. In a nutshell, you confer moral value on a group of beings merely based upon the notion that sentience has value, disregarding all other evidence to the contrary.
This sort of position leads a consequentialist to decry your position stating, "When that goblin comes back and eats Della's baby, the blood is on you."
But now you're assuming Della's baby isn't monstrous, or humankind in general, despite all other evidence.
No, good and evil are defined differently in the core book. Good respects life, evil does not. If that is reduced to "evil kills humans, good kills goblins" thats not a game id play in, neither do i think its raw or rai.
I've already said that they're not about the killing of each other. But they do see each other as mortal opponents. If you don't respect life, I see you as my mor[t]al opponent. As a result, you probably see me as your mortal opponent. I went and looked and see that the alignment text is no longer what it once was. This is what it says for True Neutral (I've bolded the text that I find still relevant to my earlier point):
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
But now you're assuming Della's baby isn't monstrous, or humankind in general, despite all other evidence.
No, I'm assuming that humankind isn't monstrous *because* of the evidence.
|
|
Here's the thing, goblins still have free will. There is still the capacity for change.
Depending on how the GM rolls, that capacity may be a little. It may be a lot. One thing that certainly will not give that unspecified quantity of hope any chance to flourish is alleged "Good" acting anything but. Good isn't about cold pragmatism or convenience. It's about something more.
Going off what we know of the situation though, in a vacuum, the player's actions smack of evil.
And wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable.
Oh, and consequentialism is all fine and dandy but doesn't translate well into d&ds alignment system, partly because of its simplicity and partly because out of game understanding of ingame consequences are limited.
If you want to have consequentical ethics, just drop the alignment system (or limit to intents and demons/angels). In that case, its more of a hindrance than help. Ive dropped it and it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, goblins still have free will. There is still the capacity for change.
That's another anthropomorphic assumption. But let's roll with it, for the sake of the argument.
Depending on how the GM rolls, that capacity may be a little. It may be a lot. One thing that certainly will not give that unspecified quantity of hope any chance to flourish is alleged "Good" acting anything but. Good isn't about cold pragmatism or convenience. It's about something more.
Let's say that flame burns in 1/1,000,000th Goblin. Should we dedicate policies and subject all humankind, elvenkind, gnomekind, hobbitkind, and dwarfkind (and all other goodly races) to the threat of goblins for the 1/1,000,000th of a chance that one Goblin is redeemable, possesses empathy, and can be turned from the path of voracious hungering for young human blood, canine-genocide and equine-genocide, and the destruction of all that which is civilized?
Cold pragmatism is not necessarily opposed to good, nor is convenience. But there is certainly a need for cold pragmatism, even among good races and nations, or bad things will and do happen. Regularly. You're right that Good is about something more than that, but not instead of, rather in addition to. It's not just about the slaughter of evil, it's also about sacrifice and nobility. It's about staring into the darkness and saying, "I'm standing watch tonight. No one will harm my charges tonight." It's about recognizing that value is not in the goblin baby who will *most likely* grow up to eat human babies, but in the human baby that can be nurtured into a loving and caring human adult who must stand up and protect the next generation in turn from baby-eating goblins.
Going off what we know of the situation though, in a vacuum, the player's actions smack of evil.
No, it just sounds evil because of our constant need to empathize. I didn't see where the OP expanded on the story, but I saw a guy who discarded an extremely dangerous tool when that tool was no longer useful. Evil things should not be left around to do more harm later.
And wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable.
The only inexcusable thing I see here is that you believe you have some sort of objective tap from the Cask of Objective Morality. I'm not aware of anyone having won this argument anywhere other than in the popular mind (argumentum ad populum).
I see something that I consider deplorable, as well, and that is according to you, somehow, regardless how few members of a race might be redeemable (whether it be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000), the goodly races must endure the threat of their horrific actions anyway. We can't just ride in and put the little beasts to the sword.
Your argument is like finding out that HIV is, in reality, sentient. So you find some method of communicating with the community of viruses and tell them, "you're killing us". They don't stop. And thanks to thinkers like you, we stop trying to eradicate them because, "wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable". This thinking has it that our lives lose value because of another race's sentience, regardless of their constant horrific behaviors.
one standalone evil action does not automatically justify an alignment shift.
so what if you slit the throat of a goblin prince in front of his daddy?
goblins are just goblins. petty fodder that exists for one entire reason. to be mercilessly killed in cold blood by the PCs with a smile on thier face.
in fact, considering the bad steriotypes surrounding goblins, i would consider killing the goblin prince in front of his father a good act. you eliminated a future threat.
just because goblins are cultured doesn't mean they aren't evil.
for that same reason, i believe it's perfectly justified for a paladin to slaughter hordes of orcish children. they would have just grown up to be evil anyway.
You don't want to sell anybody death sticks.
You want to go home and rethink your life.
Scary person.
Oh, and please don't take any babysitting jobs, or work around animals.
|
|
Let's say that flame burns in 1/1,000,000th Goblin. Should we dedicate policies and subject all humankind, elvenkind, gnomekind, hobbitkind, and dwarfkind (and all other goodly races) to the threat of goblins for the 1/1,000,000th of a chance that one Goblin is redeemable, possesses empathy, and can be turned from the path of voracious hungering for young human blood, canine-genocide and equine-genocide, and the destruction of all that which is civilized?
Again, you're applying Golarion flavor over to the OP's situation. You're also applying an arbitrarily skewed probability to goblins that are willing to negotiate and are thus likely far more likely than 1 out of a million to actually have a range of possible behavior.
And pragmatism in service to good should never grow so cold as to condone the genocide of sapient beings and the murder of children.
No, it just sounds evil because of our constant need to empathize. I didn't see where the OP expanded on the story, but I saw a guy who discarded an extremely dangerous tool when that tool was no longer useful. Evil things should not be left around to do more harm later.
I saw a guy who callously and foolishly sabotaged the peace talks he was trusted with.
The only inexcusable thing I see here is that you believe you have some sort of objective tap from the Cask of Objective Morality. I'm not aware of anyone having won this argument anywhere other than in the popular mind (argumentum ad populum).
wat
Who said anything about anyone having won the argument?
I see something that I consider deplorable, as well, and that is according to you, somehow, regardless how few members of a race might be redeemable (whether it be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000), the goodly races must endure the threat of their horrific actions anyway. We can't just ride in and put the little beasts to the sword.
:\
Because I've suggested that Team Good should just sit back and take it.
Team Good has far more proactive options on their table beyond lazy genocide. And far more interesting options as well.
To simplify it into "it's them or us!" is a false dilemma.
Your argument is like finding out that HIV is, in reality, sentient. So you find some method of communicating with the community of viruses and tell them, "you're killing us". They don't stop. And thanks to thinkers like you, we stop trying to eradicate them because, "wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable". This thinking has it that our lives lose value because of another race's sentience, regardless of their constant horrific behaviors.
Hardly. Maybe it would turn into some form of war. Or maybe there are alternate approaches that don't involve one wiping out the other.
I'd like to think we could be bothered to give the latter the old college try first.
Man you would hate Mass Effect.
If one must look to Golarion flavor, Book of the Damned Vol. 3 had some interesting things to say on the matter of genocide and its pragmatic implementation. Or rather, where it leads.
edit-removed snark leaking through.
Let's say that flame burns in 1/1,000,000th Goblin. Should we dedicate policies and subject all humankind, elvenkind, gnomekind, hobbitkind, and dwarfkind (and all other goodly races) to the threat of goblins for the 1/1,000,000th of a chance that one Goblin is redeemable, possesses empathy, and can be turned from the path of voracious hungering for young human blood, canine-genocide and equine-genocide, and the destruction of all that which is civilized?Again, you're applying Golarion flavor over to the OP's situation. You're also applying an arbitrarily skewed probability to goblins that are willing to negotiate and are thus likely far more likely than 1 out of a million to actually have a range of possible behavior.
And pragmatism in service to good should never grow so cold as to condone the genocide of sapient beings and the murder of children.
I would agree. Sapient, however...
Goblins are not sapient. Sentient, yes, sapient, no. The use of the term sapient implies a moralistic and enlightened creature capable of making wise judgments. Additionally, you like emotion-charged terms such as "children" and "son" when referring to goblins. I do not accept these words as being properly defining the offspring of goblins. Goblins don't have children, they have spawn.
I don't know what makes you think that because the OP said, "negotiate or wipe them out" and "intelligent and cultured" in the same post with stop them from "raiding caravans", the goblins in his world are any better, morally, than goblins in Golarion. Sounds to me (and I realize it's my opinion) like you're, again, reaching to anthropomorphize these goblins so that you can sound empathic and morally righteous.
But that's fine. Even if these goblins are somewhat neutral in their flavor of alignment, I would bet it doesn't change anything about your ideas of genocide regardless the racial genetics. You would be opposed to the annihilation of Golarion goblins, too. You've as much as committed yourself to that position in other posts.
The only inexcusable thing I see here is that you believe you have some sort of objective tap from the Cask of Objective Morality. I'm not aware of anyone having won this argument anywhere other than in the popular mind (argumentum ad populum).Who said anything about anyone having won the argument?
You did, when you claimed that X was "inexcusable". That is an objective declaration of fact, not opinion.
Edit for clarity: The term "argument" here and in the previous sentence was in regards to the argument regard consequentialism and deontology. IOW, I'm saying that for you to make the claim that you did, you have to first assume that deontology is a correct position and further that your code of ethics is the best code of ethics in a deontological worldview.
No, it just sounds evil because of our constant need to empathize. I didn't see where the OP expanded on the story, but I saw a guy who discarded an extremely dangerous tool when that tool was no longer useful. Evil things should not be left around to do more harm later...
The only inexcusable thing I see here is that you believe you have some sort of objective tap from the Cask of Objective Morality. I'm not aware of anyone having won this argument anywhere other than in the popular mind (argumentum ad populum)...
I see something that I consider deplorable, as well, and that is according to you, somehow, regardless how few members of a race might be redeemable (whether it be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000), the goodly races must endure the threat of their horrific actions anyway. We can't just ride in and put the little beasts to the sword...
Your argument is like finding out that HIV is, in reality, sentient. So you find some method of communicating with the community of viruses and tell them, "you're killing us". They don't stop. And thanks to thinkers like you, we stop trying to eradicate them because, "wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable". This thinking has it that our lives lose value because of another race's sentience, regardless of their constant horrific behaviors.
Wow. Not a single one of your arguments holds any water.
Firstly, sentient, sapient beings are not tools. Neither are tools good nor evil. By their very nature, they are non-thinking, utilitarian objects.
Next, you assume there is no universal right or wrong. You dropped an "argumentum ad populum" on us. The problem with that particular fallacy is that every one of us, including those who drop the aap-bomb to argue against universal right and wrong, must live by the notions of right and wrong created by the masses. No? Go ahead then, live in a constant state of anarchy. Hate everyone for selfish reasons, and run around punching people in the face and shooting them just on principle. See how far you get.
Modern philosophy has taught us there is no all-powerful being delivering said guidelines. However, in the absence of such, we mere human beings must produce good and evil, right and wrong, and we have, as a majority, decided that a conscious decision made to kill or destroy to further our own self interest, is bad. Argue all day against it, if you like. You won't impress anybody, because the knowledge that this is somehow not a fair argument has yet to make you a person free from any and all moral entanglements, and if it has, I fear for the people around you.
Nevermind philosophy, though; evolution has chosen us to love, to care, and to create community - EVOLUTION has CHOSEN EMPATHY, a thing you seem to despise because you see it as a weakness. A pack of wolves may be animals, and seem lower to us, but they seem to know better than many of us: they exist to serve their community, and destroy only what they need to survive. Dolphins save humans from sharks out of altruism, my friend. Look it up.
Next, how does believing that another living thing has value somehow lessen the value of ourselves? How on earth did you get there from here? Explain that. That's reactionary at best, and completely arbitrary and illogical. That it is coupled with the notion that an intelligent being can be compared to a mindless virus is terribly alarming. We're talking about goblins here, but your level of aggression suggests you might be talking about something - or someone - else. And that's scary.
Yes, goblins might hurt people. But using logical fallacies, a generalization that they must all do so because the only ones you've ever seen were doing so, is fallacious. You seem to covet logic when it suits you, but not when it requires you do the harder thing. Doing good is harder. That's why it requires strength, unlike selfish, destructive behavior. Logic is great. But as a human being you must choose from one of two evils: acknowledge that, as everybody's favorite vulcan knows, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end," or live purely by logic and find yourself at odds with the world.
But do one or the other. Don't pretend to superiority because you know how to use it when you feel like it. S@#$ or get off the pot.
|
|
I would agree. Sapient, however...Goblins are not sapient. Sentient, yes, sapient, no. The use of the term sapient implies a moralistic and enlightened creature capable of making wise judgments. Additionally, you like emotion-charged terms such as "children" and "son" when referring to goblins. I do not accept these words as being properly defining the offspring of goblins. Goblins don't have children, they have spawn.
I disagree. Goblins fit the sapience bill. It's their culture and abusive precursors combined with their naturally occuring issues(if we're talking Golarin goblins, if we're not, we're off the map) that results in their general badness. But Golarion goblins have also proven capable of enlightened outlooks.
To the point that some of the nicer Hellknights could make one an honorary member in canon.
You can refuse to accept those words as being appropriate to goblins as well. If you choose to see them saying something about how I approach goblins, do take note that your own do likewise.
I don't know what makes you think that because the OP said, "negotiate or wipe them out" and "intelligent and cultured" in the same post with stop them from "raiding caravans",
Human barbarian tribes can fit the bill for "intelligent and cultured" and "raiding caravans" as well. Golarion in fact makes quite a deal about the varied Ulfen cultures in Land of the Linnorm Kings.
It's not an either/or.
the goblins in his world are any better, morally, than goblins in Golarion. Sounds to me (and I realize it's my opinion) like you're, again, reaching to anthropomorphize these goblins so that you can sound empathic and morally righteous.
You can assign motives if you want, but all I've done is voice my personal take and opinion on the matter. I'm not out to score points with anyone. I'm simply stating how I view the game, and sharing opinions along with others in the thread. Sometimes I also voice opinions to let those who share similar sentiments that they're not alone on the matter.
But that's fine. Even if these goblins are somewhat neutral in their flavor of alignment, I would bet it doesn't change anything about your ideas of genocide regardless the racial genetics. You would be opposed to the annihilation of Golarion goblins, too. You've as...
You better believe I'd be opposed to the annihilation of Golarion's goblins. It's not necessary. It's not good.
It's a setting whose practical Big Good deity is a goddess of redemption and mercy. It's a setting where heroes have more options than mass murder. It's a setting where heroes can make a genuinely positive difference. It is a setting where even the most hardassed of the Good aligned gods, Torag, draws the line before genocide. He'll visit some real harshness to the enemies of his people and scatter them, but even he won't go there. It is not a world where all those possibilities boil down to a false dichotomy of "it's us or them".
Plus the dumb little bastards are so damn cute.
When they're not nomming babby.
You did, when you claimed that X was "inexcusable". That is an objective declaration of fact, not opinion.
Feel free to apply the unwritten "IMO" to everything I've written in the thread thus far then. I don't think it's needed, but hey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily. Killing evil is, normally, a good act,
Sorry, but I'm going to rant on you. You hit a button.
KILLING EVIL IS NOT INHERENTLY GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it were, then evil creatures would rapidly become neutral because more evil creatures are killed by evil creatures than by good!
I hate this argument, it basically turns good and evil into matter/antimatter. It's saying the two sides are actually the same, just different flavors. People who propose this argument usually then go on to say that intent doesn't matter because the world is an absolute good/evil. They ignore that under that interpretation, if it's the act, and not the intent, then evil killing evil are committing good acts, no matter what.
Sorry to rant at you, not a personal attack, just you hit a button.
Wow. Not a single one of your arguments holds any water.
And so you go on to mischaracterize and present sophistry for each one. Great.
Firstly, sentient, sapient beings are not tools. Neither are tools good nor evil. By their very nature, they are non-thinking, utilitarian objects.
You assume sapience. We only, originally, assumed sentience. If they are all collectively evil, then they should be destroyed with a callousness similar to that which is used to kill animals for food. If you don't destroy one because you have a need for it, then it becomes a tool (much like a horse is a tool for riding - though we care about horses).
Next, you assume there is no universal right or wrong.
No I didn't. Nor did I claim it. Nor did I imply it. I simply claimed that mikaze's claim was arrogant.
You dropped an "argumentum ad populum" on us.
Only to indicate that society has taken the deontological side of the argument as if it were fact. Much as you and mikaze have done here. But that simply because society seems to accept it doesn't make it so.
The problem with that particular fallacy is that every one of us, including those who drop the aap-bomb to argue against universal right and wrong, must live by the notions of right and wrong created by the masses. No? Go ahead then, live in a constant state of anarchy. Hate everyone for selfish reasons, and run around punching people in the face and shooting them just on principle. See how far you get.
Which makes the rest of this nonsense above, irrelevant. I don't disbelieve in an objective right-or-wrong, just that mikaze knows what it is. I have faith that there is an objective morality, but that it's not currently perfectly knowable.
Modern philosophy has taught us there is no all-powerful being delivering said guidelines.
I must have missed that class. Although I'm agnostic, I'm pretty certain that this particular philosiphical, thestic point has never been proven.
However, in the absence of such, we mere human beings must produce good and evil, right and wrong, and we have, as a majority, decided that a conscious decision made to kill or destroy to further our own self interest, is bad. Argue all day against it, if you like. You won't impress anybody, because the knowledge that this is somehow not a fair argument has yet to make you a person free from any and all moral entanglements, and if it has, I fear for the people around you.
My arguments have nothing to do with anything you've just talked about. I dare you to prove that morality does not exist objective from societal decision-making. That's like saying 2+2 only = 4 because society says so. It might be true, I'd like to see you prove it, though.
Nevermind philosophy, though; evolution has chosen us to love, to care, and to create community - EVOLUTION has CHOSEN EMPATHY, a thing you seem to despise because you see it as a weakness. A pack of wolves may be animals, and seem lower to us, but they seem to know better than many of us: they exist to serve their community, and destroy only what they need to survive. Dolphins save humans from sharks out of altruism, my friend. Look it up.
More mischaracterization. I don't consider empathy a weakness nor a strength. I consider your ridiculous mischaracterizations a weakness of logic, though. And I consider misplaced empathy to result in a failure of logic, as well, but worse, in a failure to properly find the correct moral choices in life.
Next, how does believing that another living thing has value somehow lessen the value of ourselves? How on earth did you get there from here? Explain that. That's reactionary at best, and completely arbitrary and illogical. That it is coupled with the notion that an intelligent being can be compared to a mindless virus is terribly alarming. We're talking about goblins here, but your level of aggression suggests you might be talking about something - or someone - else. And that's scary.
You are insane to think you have any idea what I'm talking about if you think I'm not talking about goblins or sentient viruses attempting to kill us.
It comes down to this: if you choose to allow goblins to roam the earth freely, humans will die. That means you choose to lessen the value of human life because you think the sentience of goblins gives it equivalence. It works kind of like this (I'm going to put it in monetary terms and hope you can work backwards): I have 1 bar of gold and you have 1 bar of silver. If one day everyone agrees that gold and silver have the same rarity and value, then my gold automatically has less value. If you don't understand this basic principle, let me know, and I'll explain it in less reactionary terms.
Yes, goblins might hurt people. But using logical fallacies, a generalization that they must all do so because the only ones you've ever seen were doing so, is fallacious.
Generalization is not a fallacy in logic, but hasty generalization is. We inductively reason many things in life and if we didn't we would not be able to operate. If we never hear of good goblins. If the goodly races have never reported a single good goblin tribe, then why should we ever suspect it. If you get fire ants in your yard, do you not assume they'll bite you if you stick your hand near their home?
You seem to covet logic when it suits you, but not when it requires you do the harder thing. Doing good is harder. That's why it requires strength, unlike selfish, destructive behavior. Logic is great. But as a human being you must choose from one of two evils: acknowledge that, as everybody's favorite vulcan knows, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end," or live purely by logic and find yourself at odds with the world.
But do one or the other. Don't pretend to superiority because you know how to use it when you feel like it. S@#$ or get off the pot.
Most people who truly know me, consider me "good" (maybe to a fault in my openness and honesty). But I don't pretend to superiority. If this bit of thinking is the best you can do, I think it's a certainty with regards to reasoning. What I do claim is that I think you're all wrong to just denounce this player's action as being objectively evil without further information (i.e. that the goblin king and goblins were reasonable creatures who could be trusted to abide by a peace accord).
I'm done defending myself to your ridiculous attacks.
On empathy: Personally, IMO, you can't have Good without it.
That's interesting, because I think Good derives from Reason.
If it was me as GM
Did the player have the intent to do that from the start, or was it spontaneous / moment of anger frustration
NO: not evil, very chaotic.
YES: dependent on HD you have an evil aura for 24 hours
Had he do this sort of thing before
NO: not evil / no alignment shift
YES: alignment has shifted to CN & dependent on HD you have an evil aura for 24 hours
Did he show remorse, sorrow, realise he had acted rashly, made a mistake
YES not evil, very chaotic.
NO: alignment has shifted to CN & dependent on HD you have an evil aura for 24 hours
one evil act rarely makes you evil...previous history / post event is important too
I would agree. Sapient, however...Goblins are not sapient. Sentient, yes, sapient, no. The use of the term sapient implies a moralistic and enlightened creature capable of making wise judgments. Additionally, you like emotion-charged terms such as "children" and "son" when referring to goblins. I do not accept these words as being properly defining the offspring of goblins. Goblins don't have children, they have spawn.
I disagree. Goblins fit the sapience bill. It's their culture and abusive precursors combined with their naturally occuring issues(if we're talking Golarin goblins, if we're not, we're off the map) that results in their general badness. But Golarion goblins have also proven capable of enlightened outlooks.
To the point that some of the nicer Hellknights could make one an honorary member in canon.
You can refuse to accept those words as being appropriate to goblins as well. If you choose to see them saying something about how I approach goblins, do take note that your own do likewise.
My "goblin outlook" is based on the little bit of Golarion I've read in the Inner Sea World Guide and the way they were described in RotRL. Meaning, they're described flatly as nasty little buggers with an insatiable appetite, a hatred of humans, dogs, and horses, and a desire to raid - as seen in their attack on Sandpoint.
Again, it's irrelevant. Your belief is that no sentient race, no matter how they're described as a collective, deserves genocide. But then you're conflating sentience with sapience. That makes the issue of the nature of Golarion goblins, moot. We can just assume they're the horrid little brutes I've understood they are and continue. But it also proves that sapience is not a prerequisite for your championing their cause.
I don't know what makes you think that because the OP said, "negotiate or wipe them out" and "intelligent and cultured" in the same post with stop them from "raiding caravans",Human barbarian tribes can fit the bill for "intelligent and cultured" and "raiding caravans" as well. Golarion in fact makes quite a deal about the varied Ulfen cultures in Land of the Linnorm Kings.
It's not an either/or.
Sure, but we're talking about *goblins* and "wipe them out" along with the other comments, and not humans who we know we can reason with. Taking that as a whole, I think it points to something not good. For example, the Goblin King in the Hobbit could have been negotiated with (though Gandalf found no success there). But I don't think it would be any crime to cut one's throat in the throne room to make a point if it would aid in the negotiations. They were nasty brutes.
the goblins in his world are any better, morally, than goblins in Golarion. Sounds to me (and I realize it's my opinion) like you're, again, reaching to anthropomorphize these goblins so that you can sound empathic and morally righteous.You can assign motives if you want, but all I've done is voice my personal take and opinion on the matter. I'm not out to score points with anyone. I'm simply stating how I view the game, and sharing opinions along with others in the thread. Sometimes I also voice opinions to let those who share similar sentiments that they're not alone on the matter.
Quite right. I should not have done so. I'm simply trying to point out how anthropomorphizing leads to a way of thinking that is not necessarily accurate.
But that's fine. Even if these goblins are somewhat neutral in their flavor of alignment, I would bet it doesn't change anything about your ideas of genocide regardless the racial genetics. You would be opposed to the annihilation of Golarion goblins, too. You've as...You better believe I'd be opposed to the annihilation of Golarion's goblins. It's not necessary. It's not good.
I believe it *is* necessary. They do horrific things. Evil, in this case, is doing nothing and allowing more babies eaten, more dogs and horses victimized, and more towns raided. You might be able to round up 3 or 4 good ones here and there among their multitudinous numbers, but for the most part, they're rotten.
It's a setting whose practical Big Good deity is a goddess of redemption and mercy. It's a setting where heroes have more options than mass murder. It's a setting where heroes can make a genuinely positive difference. It is a setting where even the most hardassed of the Good aligned gods, Torag, draws the line before genocide. He'll visit some real harshness to the enemies of his people and scatter them, but even he won't go there. It is not a world where all those possibilities boil down to a false dichotomy of "it's us or them".
Plus the dumb little bastards are so damn cute.
When they're not nomming babby.
True. That's why I wouldn't allow eradication either. I like DMing them.
You did, when you claimed that X was "inexcusable". That is an objective declaration of fact, not opinion.Feel free to apply the unwritten "IMO" to everything I've written in the thread thus far then. I don't think it's needed, but hey.
It was only needed because your statement carried the weight of condemnation with it, as well. You're basically saying that my position is "inexcusable". So, if we agree that it is only your opinion, then I can move on from that. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i tend to go by the rule of thumb: if you have to ask, it probably is.
Jupistar: first you claim we are in error for assuming goblins aren't all monstrous, then when evidence of golarions goblins not being all monstrous you say that well we can ignore that and assume they are. That's not only a weird way to (not) debate, it's also, combined with your viewpoint that genocide of goblins isnt evil, a way to fit perfectly into the game definition of lawful evil.
Acting on reason isn't a good trait, and good isn't based on reason. Reason is more of a lawful trait, law/chaos being ethics while good/evil being morals. Id even say consequentialism in itself is lawful, especially utilitarianism.
Regardless, in pathfinder deontologistic ethics ARE how the world works. Good and evil ARE defined.
|
|
On empathy: Personally, IMO, you can't have Good without it.
You don't have to even cite that as a personal opinion. There have been studies done that strongly support this claim. According to current research, it has been determined that in order to apply morality to a subject, one first has to empathize with them. Lack of empathy immediately drops the subject out of your "moral range." Most human genocides occur when people divide themselves into two groups and then de-humanize the other, thus increasing the perceived competition between the two, dropping empathy to nothing, and after that, mass killing no longer sounds like a bad idea anymore. Why? Because you can't empathize with the other person. You don't see them as having any value, and it's fine to kill them, because morality doesn't "apply to them" so to speak (this time I have a source for this. Check DeWaal's "Age of Empathy" for more info, huzzah! :D ).
Doesn't really have much to do with this, but, it's an interesting note on perspective. Also, reason derives from emotional response towards other things. So, if you are correct in saying that alignment derives from reason (which, as far as I'm concerned, it does), and reason derives from emotion (one can demonstrate this easily by basically reversing the argument to see if its true: human beings who have had the emotional part of their brain damaged lose the ability to make reasonable or logical choices), therefore, alignment must also derive from emotion (and to an extent empathy, see again argument above).
stringburka: I was simply trying to point out obfuscation (intentional or otherwise) on the part of a specific debater. If you also believe that sentience is sufficient to judge the moralistic nature of another being, then you also obfuscate when trying to argue whether or not the goblins in question are of a good (enough) sort and therefore worthy of our moral regard. I was simply trying to sidestep an argument that seemed relatively irrelevant when trying to come to the heart of the problem.
Your claims to the contrary, I believe that morality is most assuredly based upon reason; upon beliefs in very basic "brute" fact directives. Notably, many derive a great deal of moral beliefs from an ethic of reciprocity (the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede or whatever manifests itself as such in your belief system). Others take similar brute fact approaches and then, using Reason, build a moral compass from that.
And whether you believe deontology is Pathfinder's approach or not is your decision to make when you play. I don't see how it can be most certainly determined. Take for example, Lawful Good, "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. -> Lawful good combines honor with compassion." I don't see why both a deontologist and a consequentialist can't come at this equally. A deontologist may see the OP's player's action as evil in this light (murder, assuming sentience is inherently morally valuable), but the consequentialist may see a man who brought the guilty to justice *and* showed the discipline to oppose evil with relentlessness.
/me shrugs
YMMV
Personally, I think a deontologist learns to equivocate when put to the test. If honesty is moral and dishonesty is immoral, do you speak the truth or a lie (assuming silence is tacitly equivalent to truth) if you know your moral action will lead to the murder of an innocent? Do the ends justify the means, or no?
The Drunken Dragon: I believe you're confusing the difference between the development of a moral framework and the application of that moral framework. Some people (Paladins) would be disciplined enough to always apply their moral framework, regardless of their empathic connection with the people/creatures involved. Others (chaotic good characters) would be more likely to apply their moral framework in situations where their heart was in it (because they are more emotional creatures, in my opinion).
Here's two thought experiments to make the point with regards to emotion. Data from Star Trek was the perfect example of an emotionless being who had a very strong set of moral principles and acted on them when they were put to the test. Also, Asimov's Three Rules of Robotics apply a guiding moral principle from which all robots can reason a code of ethics. It's interesting to note that these principles as described by Asimov all base themselves upon a consequentialist worldview (just saying).
I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.
Victims have rights.
But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.
I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.
Victims have rights.
But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.
Being Good is hard. Being Evil is easy. It's really just that simple.