Killing is never a "good" action, it's neutral at best, even if it's something that has to be done.
A claim without substantiation. Killing a rabid dog is a good act because it prevents people from being bitten. It is good because it is done with good intent and with good consequences, even if it requires a hard and calloused heart to do so.
I actually was partially surprised, so surprised as a matter of fact that the King didn't attack right away. He should have. More surprising is that the party didn't even use the son as a bargaining chip. They didn't really seem interested in bargaining period.
I'm curious. How do you justify a LN monster attacking the PCs to begin with if all they were doing was coming to negotiate with the Goblin king? How is that "protecting their home"? Did the PCs arrive in a clearly threatening way?
I think the difference is that people who die to the death penalty are given some respect when they die. The kobold had his throat slit and then his body was thrown forward towards the King like a piece of trash and mocked. Big difference.
No, the difference is that people who are executed in such a way have been given the "green light" by society; society justifies the act. But if it's morally wrong, society's approval can not make it moral. The truth is, it was moral in the first place, we just require a more thorough consideration before we follow through on the consequences; we assume the gravity of the situation is important enough to warrant more than one person's judgment.
The act was done out of frustration/rage/pleasure only, he wasn't looking to gain anything from it except his own amusement and to hurt the King. It didn't help the negotiation either, it ended it.
It is this fact alone that makes it evil -- a good person does not attempt to inflict suffering for their own satisfaction. That is sadistic. It wasn't the killing or the disrespect of the body that was evil, it was the attempted cruelty that caused it to be evil. Even if the Goblin King had no emotional response, the character still behaved with evil intent.
Scenario - Imagine for a second...
This scenario is only relevant if you make goblins evil only due to cultural reasons. But then you've warped the nature of Goblins as most people have seen them to create a world of moral ambiguity. Please keep the real world politics out of this discussion (vis-a-vis Islamic terrorists and Americans), we have enough passion here as it is. You're equating two things: humans vs humans who we know have culturally generated morality and humans vs goblins who we have strong reason to suspect do not have a culturally-generated morality. The comparison is not valid. But I'm not even that opposed to such poor comparisons, just not here.
@Damian Coldshadows: Could you elaborate even further on the context and the specifics of the event.
Context does matter so as much that you can provide is helpful.
For example:
-Was the goblin kings son a credible threat? (i.e. was he hard to defeat?)
-Was it apparent he might have a likely means of escape or was he knocked unconscious or something?
-Did you actually start initiative for combat upon the declaration of slitting the goblins throat?
-Did the character show any role-playing indications of his character deriving pleasure from the act?I would appreciate it.
You, my friend, are a consequentialist. Bravo.
+1 for evil, deserves a warning before alignment shift.
I may get ripped for this by some of you guys, but I have to say I've been reading every post in this thread and I have to totally and completely agree with Jupistar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here is quite simply that we're trying to come to a mutual resolution on an issue that has plagued D&D for 38 years, and mankind for millenia: How does one define morality?
It's nice to be a mathematician: We had Godel prove to us that some things were unprovable.
- No one on this thread is "right", because you can slowly work on shades of grey until you've reached a ridiculous conclusion.
Judge Death is a wonderful example of the final extreme of consequentialism: All crimes are committed by humanity, and therefore, to eliminate all crime, you exterminate all of humanity. You're done. Yes, you may have murdered a few innocents along the way, but if you total all of the innocent lives that would have been lost to murder throughout the future, you actually saved lives. In fact, you've solved all of humanity's problems: War, poverty, suffering, disease? All gone. You have done Good.
Hitler is a wonderful example of the final extreme of "no one who does not have blood on his hands will die". Your hero is given the choice: Travel back in time and kill Hitler as an innocent baby, or leave the time frame alone. Doing nothing condemns millions to horrible deaths. Doing something means killing an innocent babe. Which do you do? Consequentialists wouldn't have a problem here.
- No one on this thread is "wrong", because the final decision is up to the GM, who defines morality in the world, more than any book or any player does.
My *opinion* is that each of us should post his (or her) opinion of whether the act was evil, the reasons for our opinion, and then breathe a huge sigh of relief and not try to convince anyone of anything. The argument is at least 3000 years old that I know of, and I've only had a year of anthropology, so I'm probably off by an order of magnitude.
I appreciate the poster's original concern -- my belief is that he (or she) thought the act was evil, but because it was in a PFS game, he (or she) wanted confirmation. Unfortunately, an alignment thread broke out.
I have a player who wants to play a paladin in my campaign so he can argue with me about good vs. evil. I am simply going to say, "No. I am the law. There will be no discussion, so you do not want to play a paladin."
And finally, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CANE TOADS!?!?!?
Let's eliminate sentience from the entire discussion.
Consider the Australian cane toad. They are vermin, and may be killed on sight. Run them over with a bulldozer, fill their nest with gas and toss in a match, whatever. Almost nobody cares.
And yet we, as humans, have a dichotomy of pragmatism (kill on sight) with compassion (cruelty is wrong). If you take one of those same cane toads, pour gas on ONE of them, light it on fire, and watch, you are cruel. The Evil definition in Pathfinder makes ubiquitous use of the world "cruel", so burning a single toad alive would be an Evil act, even though they are vermin, because you are being unnecessarily cruel. Most people in most cultures would agree with this point, so it's not a "Western" or "modern" culture thing. What would an African tribesman think of capturing a lion, dragging it to its pride, and THEN ceremoniously killing it? Cruel? A Native American with a grizzly? A native Indian with a tiger?
We are a very pragmatic species, and understand that other species must die. But as soon as it is narrowed down to an individual basis ("THAT man took THAT toad, showed it to its family, and slit its throat just to teach them a lesson"), people consider it cruel. You may not, but I would argue that you are then in the minority, and fall into the category of "Neutral".
So if picking up a toad and consciously carrying it over to the other toads before killing it is a cruel act and worthy of being considered "mildly evil", then Goblins should receive the same 'respect'.
For the start, I think, you're right. Cruelty is the key to what makes this character's action evil. His intentions were cruel. Cruel because he intended additional and unnecessary suffering to satisfy himself.
But from there you go off the path aways. Killing a lion in front of other lions isn't unnecessarily cruel unless you first assume that lions understand what you're doing and suffer for it somehow. Killing a toad in front of other toads isn't extra cruel, unless you first assume that the toads understand what you're doing and suffer for it.
However, even here one could argue that causing evil creatures to suffer is not inherently wrong since it matches an ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule/Wiccan Rede -> they're only receiving what they would do to others). That's not an argument I'm prepared to make at this point, but even if it were true, being motivated by a lust (either for sadistic reasons or hatred or revenge) for causing suffering is generally regarded as evil intent.
May I point out that, inasmuch as we are discussing evil in the context of the Pathfinder alignment system, and the game has helpfully defined evil for us, we should begin and end with judging whether an act meets the definition provided? And like it or hate it, the alignment system Pathfinder has defined tells us this:
I agree, but when you take things out of context, you also take out the truth.
Consider good and evil together:
Good - Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
This goblin is not "innocent life". In fact, as a race, goblins are not innocent lives. Good respects life insomuch as it is not life that destroys other life. If there was one thing about this that smacks of evil, it's the lack of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings".
Evil - Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Goblins are evil as they debase and destroy innoncent lives, often for fun, sometimes for food. Stopping such creatures is not evil, but rather good because you're protecting innocent lives.
Neutral - People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
I think you're neutral since you wouldn't sacrifice your empathic feelings to help protect others. Ok, this is a stretch, but half of the arguments made in this thread smack of neutrality, "No one is evil, just unenlightened. You can't kill another intelligent creature except in *direct* self-defense."
You totally misunderstand the issue of deontology and consequentialism if you think one or the other is not relevent to Pathfinder/D&D. Deontology is fairly equivalent to the concept of Lawful and Consequentialism is fairly equivalent to the concept of Good. A large problem occurs when people equate Lawful/Unlawful behavior with Good and Evil.
I may get ripped for this by some of you guys, but I have to say I've been reading every post in this thread and I have to totally and completely agree with Jupistar.
Well, I for one won't rip you. :)
For the start, I think, you're right. Cruelty is the key to what makes this character's action evil. His intentions were cruel. Cruel because he intended additional and unnecessary suffering to satisfy himself.
But from there you go off the path aways. Killing a lion in front of other lions isn't unnecessarily cruel unless you first assume that lions understand what you're doing and suffer for it somehow. Killing a toad in front of other toads isn't extra...
Oh, there you go, dragging me into an alignment thread I keep hoping to stop reading (but I can't help it).
I wasn't wandering off the path -- anthropomorphism is a common trait among humans. So while the lions or toads wouldn't particularly care what was going on, the fact that the person DOING the deed was making a show of it to the other members of the pride/<what the heck is a bunch of toads called anyway?> indicates cruel intent.
So again, the whole thread boils down to, "What do YOU, as a GM, consider evil?"
And most people agree that the intent to inflict unnecessary pain on a being is Evil.
Everything else is an argument I'm hoping to keep reading, but stop posting to...
The issue here is quite simply that we're trying to come to a mutual resolution on an issue that has plagued D&D for 38 years, and mankind for millenia: How does one define morality?
True.
It's nice to be a mathematician: We had Godel prove to us that some things were unprovable.
- No one on this thread is "right", because you can slowly work on shades of grey until you've reached a ridiculous conclusion.
I'm sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.
Judge Death is a wonderful example of the final extreme of consequentialism: All crimes are committed by humanity, and therefore, to eliminate all crime, you exterminate all of humanity. You're done. Yes, you may have murdered a few innocents along the way, but if you total all of the innocent lives that would have been lost to murder throughout the future, you actually saved lives. In fact, you've solved all of humanity's problems: War, poverty, suffering, disease? All gone. You have done Good.
That is very poor reasoning: a consequentialist would recognize that the evil of destroying all innocent life to stamp out evil is such an evil as to be insane; would recognize that innocent life is immeasurably more valuable than evil is harmful. Blackstone was a preeminent consequentialist who's formulation underscores the American judicial system (presumption of innocence): "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". The suffering of the innocent is much worse than the punishment of the guilty. But even this must have limits, especially when it's the innocent that suffer for the guilty - then you weight innocent vs innocents.
Hitler is a wonderful example of the final extreme of "no one who does not have blood on his hands will die". Your hero is given the choice: Travel back in time and kill Hitler as an innocent baby, or leave the time frame alone. Doing nothing condemns millions to horrible deaths. Doing something means killing an innocent babe. Which do you do? Consequentialists wouldn't have a problem here.
Very true. But this is an interesting case of: the babe is innocent... for a time and that innocence is weighed against the multitude of innocents to suffer in the years to come. Not a difficult decision at all... except we don't know what the future holds without Hitler. The consequentialist's Achilles Heel is his lack of divination.
- No one on this thread is "wrong", because the final decision is up to the GM, who defines morality in the world, more than any book or any player does.
It depends on what you're judging. If you're judging other people's judgment of the question, "Did the character behave in an evil manner?", then I concur. But that wasn't all that was discussed here.
My *opinion* is that each of us should post his (or her) opinion of whether the act was evil, the reasons for our opinion, and then breathe a huge sigh of relief and not try to convince anyone of anything. The argument is at least 3000 years old that I know of, and I've only had a year of anthropology, so I'm probably off by an order of magnitude.
But see, that's the problem. Poor thinking is contagious. I wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for the fact that modern-day moral philosophy has spread throughout the consciousness of our society because people are afraid to stand up and declare these moral elitists as pushing their own brand of evil.
I appreciate the poster's original concern -- my belief is that he (or she) thought the act was evil, but because it was in a PFS game, he (or she) wanted confirmation. Unfortunately, an alignment thread broke out.
I have a player who wants to play a paladin in my campaign so he can argue with me about good vs. evil. I am simply going to say, "No. I am the law. There will be no discussion, so you do not want to play a paladin."
I applaud this. You should inform the player that an action he will take is either good or evil and that the ruling is not up for discussion -- you are the referee and such things do not need a convention for the game to continue for the enjoyment of all others.
And finally, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CANE TOADS!?!?!?
Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner.
I wasn't wandering off the path -- anthropomorphism is a common trait among humans. So while the lions or toads wouldn't particularly care what was going on, the fact that the person DOING the deed was making a show of it to the other members of the pride/<what the heck is a bunch of toads called anyway?> indicates cruel intent.
/me nods
I wouldn't dispute that.
I misunderstood your point, because you referred to how other people would view it as evil. Which, of course, prompted me to consider that I think most people *would* view it as evil, but not because of the intent argument, rather because they humanize animals. And it was this that led me to think you were making a different argument.
If you are just talking about intent, then yes - I've agreed that the original poster was showing an evil intent if it was just to satisfy himself that he attempted to cause additional unnecessary suffering to the Goblin King.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- No one on this thread is "right", because you can slowly work on shades of grey until you've reached a ridiculous conclusion.I'm sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.
If consequentialism were perfect, we would have adopted it as a moral system by now. Therefore, if we spend enough time, I should be able to find a real-world example where consequentialsm "breaks". So I would start with, "It is permissible to execute a known serial killer because releasing him would cause more innocent deaths," and then work my way down from "serial killer" to "murderer" and finagle my way to "person guilty of manslaughter" until the majority of people said, "Wait, this is no longer OK!" Judge Death was just my absolute extremist example.
Consequentialism lacks any notion of compassion, and hence falls into the same realm as libertarianism: It looks great on paper, but once you start applying it to real human beings in real situations, things fall apart as people who "fall through the cracks" (either morally or economically) start populating your streets and making your city a less-pleasant place to live, especially when crime skyrockets because of people who are either starving to death or who have "nothing to lose" by upping their armed robbery to murder.
I will openly admit the in the 10 minutes it's taken me to type this I haven't come up with a concrete, "Consequentialism is broken" example, but I'm a mathematician, not a master of ethics (ethologician? Anaesthesiologist?), so I'm going to stand by my claim that it's broken in some manner as evidenced by the fact that we haven't yet adopted it universally.
- No one on this thread is "wrong", because the final decision is up to the GM, who defines morality in the world, more than any book or any player does.
It depends on what you're judging. If you're judging other people's judgment of the question, "Did the character behave in an evil manner?", then I concur. But that wasn't all that was discussed here.
I'm just not going to go there, beyond the aforementioned, "Nobody's been right in 3000+ years."
They may misunderstand you. They may use arguments that you find inappropriate. But at the end of the day, we're all voicing opinions, and while opinions can be misinformed, bigoted, or hateful, they cannot be 'wrong'.
My *opinion* is that each of us should post his (or her) opinion of whether the act was evil, the reasons for our opinion, and then breathe a huge sigh of relief and not try to convince anyone of anything. The argument is at least 3000 years old that I know of, and I've only had a year of anthropology, so I'm probably off by an order of magnitude.
But see, that's the problem. Poor thinking is contagious. I wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for the fact that modern-day philosophy hasn't spread throughout the consciousness of our society because people are afraid to stand up and declare these moral elitists as pushing their own brand of evil.
And here's why you're facing such opposition. "I'm right. You're wrong. In fact, you're so wrong you're evil."
I am afraid I do not consider excessive compassion to be evil.
And finally, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CANE TOADS!?!?!?
Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner.
OK. Now I'm happy.
If consequentialism were perfect, we would have adopted it as a moral system by now.- No one on this thread is "right", because you can slowly work on shades of grey until you've reached a ridiculous conclusion.I'm sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.
But we have. We have a jury of our peers to judge our actions for compliance with the law (deontology) and through jury nullification acquit them in spite of their legal crime (consequentialism) if they're morally clean.
Therefore, if we spend enough time, I should be able to find a real-world example where consequentialsm "breaks". So I would start with, "It is permissible to execute a known serial killer because releasing him would cause more innocent deaths," and then work my way down from "serial killer" to "murderer" and finagle my way to "person guilty of manslaughter" until the majority of people said, "Wait, this is no longer OK!" Judge Death was just my absolute extremist example.
Consequentialism lacks any notion of compassion, and hence falls into the same realm as libertarianism: It looks great on paper, but once you start applying it to real human beings in real situations, things fall apart as people who "fall through the cracks" (either morally or economically) start populating your streets and making your city a less-pleasant place to live, especially when crime skyrockets because of people who are either starving to death or who have "nothing to lose" by upping their armed robbery to murder.
I will openly admit the in the 10 minutes it's taken me to type this I haven't come up with a concrete, "Consequentialism is broken" example, but I'm a mathematician, not a master of ethics (ethologician? Anaesthesiologist?), so I'm going to stand by my claim that it's broken in some manner as evidenced by the fact that we haven't yet adopted it universally.
There is no need to go into a defense of either deontology or consequentialism here, obviously. Suffice it to say that I don't agree. People argue that logic denies emotion and/or compassion all the time, but that's poor reasoning in itself. Logic that ignores compassion and emotion is flawed. Yes, emotion and compassion are key portions of our lives, but if we allow it to rule us, we become irrational. But, of course we have to consider happiness, for any study of morality requires us to consider happiness and suffering. In fact, it's deontology that denies compassion and any other emotion, creating a code of ethics (perhaps based on compassion, but there it ends) that should be applied regardless of what one thinks or feels about a situation. Because it is rote, it is emotionless and compassionless.
I am afraid I do not consider excessive compassion to be evil.
Unfortunately, I consider excessive compassion an Evil when it leads to the destruction of Good and/or Innocent. If I don't kill the rabid dog when I recognize the threat, but because I can't harm life, and it bites some little girl (yes, I'm using a child for emotional purposes), then I would hold myself culpable. But here's where it gets real bad, if in my compassion I try to stop someone else from killing the rabid dog and that little girl gets bit, then I've *done* Evil as a result of excessive compassion. And it is this last part that scares me about today's moralists.
Sorry, but I seem to be on a tirady roll tonight:
My #1 issue with this whole thread:
WHAT MAKES FOR BETTER ROLEPLAYING, AND A MORE FUN GAME?
If we accept that:
- Goblins are universally evil, and may be killed no matter what the circumstance, as long as it is not intentionally cruel
- Good and evil can be defined consequentially
Then there is no roleplaying here. No moral dilemmas. No drama. No questions or discussion. Just "roll a die. Kill the goblin. Move on to the next creature labeled with an (E). Kill it. Repeat ad nauseum."
This eliminates all need to roleplay.
In a roleplaying game.
And I think that's why I've gotten all uppity on this thread -- It's a heck of a lot more fun to play/GM paladins and other "good" characters when they actually have hard choices to make, instead of just giving them carte blanche to slaughter anything with an (E) without even thinking about it. I'd rather say, "No, your god does not approve of that action," and see how they deal with it, than remain silent and let them kill everything in their paths.
P.S. Yes, I've edited this post to remove any reference to other posters. When I have time, I enjoy intellectual debates, but I realize that I'll be working 15-hour days and preparing an 8-player campaign next week, so I really need to bow out of the board and focus on 'real life' for a bit...
|
Golarion goblins are not born evil. Quite a bit of detail is given to explain that their crappy culture is mostly to blame, what with being locked in cages all the way through early adulthood.
IIRC, Goblins of Golarion itself notes that goblins raised outside that culture have behavioral issues, but don't default to evil under the player advice section.
As for the "council of goodly races discussing genocide" scenario, totally evil.
Referring to goblin children as "children" or someone son is hardly manipulative language. It's calling it like it is. Carefully choosing words to "dehumanize"(again, for lack of a better word in settings with multiple sapient races) an entire race and justify doing anything to them in the name of good is a classic tactic used by folks that...well...condone things like genocide.
Hell, I don't know. Maybe some of us just don't like playing genocidal heroes. Maybe some of us don't like the notion of entire peoples being tagged as alright to murder wholesale. Maybe some of us don't like the notion of someone being damned and alright to write off and murder simply because they were born into the wrong race. If someone else does, I'm not going to give them grief over it. I'd thank them to return that courtesy of course.
Sorry, but I seem to be on a tirady roll tonight:
My #1 issue with this whole thread:
WHAT MAKES FOR BETTER ROLEPLAYING, AND A MORE FUN GAME?
If we accept that:
- Goblins are universally evil, and may be killed no matter what the circumstance, as long as it is not intentionally cruel
- Good and evil can be defined consequentiallyThen there is no roleplaying here. No moral dilemmas. No drama. No questions or discussion. Just "roll a die. Kill the goblin. Move on to the next creature labeled with an (E). Kill it. Repeat ad nauseum."
This eliminates all need to roleplay.
In a roleplaying game.
And I think that's why I've gotten all uppity on this thread -- It's a heck of a lot more fun to play/GM paladins and other "good" characters when they actually have hard choices to make, instead of just giving them carte blanche to slaughter anything with an (E) without even thinking about it. I'd rather say, "No, your god does not approve of that action," and see how they deal with it, than remain silent and let them kill everything in their paths.
P.S. Yes, I've edited this post to remove any reference to other posters. When I have time, I enjoy intellectual debates, but I realize that I'll be working 15-hour days and preparing an 8-player campaign next week, so I really need to bow out of the board and focus on 'real life' for a bit...
That's cool. Like I said, if people want moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with their goblins, that's fine. They don't need their goblins to be an evil race of horrid little monsters. Personally, I get enough of that with the goodly races, I don't need moral vagueness with my monsters, too.
Good and evil in the game arent the same as good and evil in real life. (How can it make sense for an inanimate object or place to be evil, using real-world definitions of evil?)
This is why defending alignment stances with reference to morality doesnt actually work - the alignment system is a model and not a terribly good one. (Note that nearly everyone ignores the law-chaos axis, since our moral theories are generally framed as single-dimensional).
You may as well argue which fraction is the correct representation of the square root of two.
Golarion goblins are not born evil. Quite a bit of detail is given to explain that their crappy culture is mostly to blame, what with being locked in cages all the way through early adulthood.
IIRC, Goblins of Golarion itself notes that goblins raised outside that culture have behavioral issues, but don't default to evil under the player advice section.
As for the "council of goodly races discussing genocide" scenario, totally evil.
Referring to goblin children as "children" or someone son is hardly manipulative language. It's calling it like it is. Carefully choosing words to "dehumanize"(again, for lack of a better word in settings with multiple sapient races) an entire race and justify doing anything to them in the name of good is a classic tactic used by folks that...well...condone things like genocide.
Hell, I don't know. Maybe some of us just don't like playing genocidal heroes. Maybe some of us don't like the notion of entire peoples being tagged as alright to murder wholesale. Maybe some of us don't like the notion of someone being damned and alright to write off and murder simply because they were born into the wrong race. If someone else does, I'm not going to give them grief over it. I'd thank them to return that courtesy of course.
And I think we're just about in agreement. Your genocidal abhorrence seems to be because you don't perceive Goblins as an inherently evil race. Cool. And if that's the way you want to play it, cool.
I have just one question to this theory, "Why aren't there any good goblin tribes or cultures recorded anywhere on the planet if they're not naturally predisposed to being evil, but are trained that way?" I mean, with all the isolated cultures not one good goblin tribe in all of Golarion? Not one threw off the yoke of evil or had Elven missionaries lead them on the path to enlightenment? I don't know, it just seems that your efforts to humanize everything leads to strange positions.
|
|
I have just one question to this theory, "Why aren't there any good goblin tribes or cultures recorded anywhere on the planet if they're not naturally predisposed to being evil, but are trained that way?" I mean, with all the isolated cultures not one good goblin tribe in all of Golarion? Not one threw off the yoke of evil or had Elven missionaries lead them on the path to enlightenment? I don't know, it just seems that your efforts to humanize everything leads to strange positions.
I have brought this up with the writers themselves. The answer is generally always along the lines of "That's what heroes are for." That and the writers aren't exactly unified on alignment matters either. Some seem to have a preference for black-and-white. Some are quite open to monsters-as-people. That's how we get guys like troll augers making an honest-ish livingn in Kaer Maga.
James Jacobs himself, a major proponent for keeping monsters mostly evil, has called out genocide as evil with the explicit example of drow children found by allegedly good Lantern Bearers.
And there are still exceptions. There are orc tribes in Belkzen itself shifting from Rovagug to Gorum worship, which has led to a few tribes there shifting from Complete Monster status to Worthy Opponents in the eyes of their Lastwall Gorumite counterparts. There are still netural drow living in drow cities.
I have just one question to this theory, "Why aren't there any good goblin tribes or cultures recorded anywhere on the planet if they're not naturally predisposed to being evil, but are trained that way?" I mean, with all the isolated cultures not one good goblin tribe in all of Golarion? Not one threw off the yoke of evil or had Elven missionaries lead them on the path to enlightenment? I don't know, it just seems that your efforts to humanize everything leads to strange positions.I have brought this up with the writers themselves. The answer is generally always along the lines of "That's what heroes are for." That and the writers aren't exactly unified on alignment matters either. Some seem to have a preference for black-and-white. Some are quite open to monsters-as-people. That's how we get guys like troll augers making an honest-ish livingn in Kaer Maga.
James Jacobs himself, a major proponent for keeping monsters mostly evil, has called out genocide as evil with the explicit example of drow children found by allegedly good Lantern Bearers.
And there are still exceptions. There are orc tribes in Belkzen itself shifting from Rovagug to Gorum worship, which has led to a few tribes there shifting from Complete Monster status to Worthy Opponents in the eyes of their Lastwall Gorumite counterparts. There are still netural drow living in drow cities.
Yeah, but see Mikaze, that only makes the difference between you and me be about our vision of these species. I'm okay with your vision of goblins and orcs and drow. They just don't fit my vision. When I want moral dilemmas and ambiguity, I'm fine with it cropping up in my goodly races and leaving the evil ones to be the ones they negotiate with only because they don't have the strength to defeat (one of the most common themes of negotiation), with the hope, however dim, that the evil party will stick to the letter of the treaties.
/me shrugs
I get you and I hope you get me. I think there is one other difference between us: you have a problem with the *concept* of genocide, whereas I don't. I suspect you have this problem because you associate it with human-based genocide. I suspect you have a need to bring modern-day moralizing to fantasy settings which has traditionally been one of the few safe harbors for people like myself to dwell.
You said "under the player advice section" of the Goblins of Golarion. I read of a review of that book (I don't have it myself). My understanding was that they were saying that PC hero goblins should be seen as an aberration of the standard goblin, like Drizzt, only without the aristocratic features. You know, they say that happiness is genetic? Look it up. It may easily be explained that people have a predisposition to good and evil, too. My goblins are predisposed to evil, that's why they lock their offspring in cages! The egg came before the chicken. :P
I removed a post and the replies to it. Play nice.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Play nice.
Thanks Ross for allowing this conversation to go on as long as it has.
This is my cue to exit, I think. I've spent at least 10x more time on this thread than it probably deserves.
Let's just put it this way:
If I'm walking through the forest a mile or two from a small farming community and I come across small group of goblins slinking through those same woods, there's a good chance that one of us will not leave the forest alive. And I won't feel like I've done a thing wrong. In fact I'd probably walk back to the village, ask for bandages, let them know that I destroyed a band of goblins, and warn them to be on the lookout. They'd probably praise my actions and offer me some stew and a place by the fire.
And not one of them would ask me if Han "jupistar" Solo shot first.
Jupistar... lets break it down.
First lets look at Goblins. Can an individual goblin chose a path of good? Yes, in Pathfinder an individual goblin CAN be good. This is direct evidence that the alignment is nurture not nature based. They have an evil culture and that sets the outlook of most goblins. So genocide would be evil. You are killing beings who have done no wrong for no greater reason than because you find it expedient to. THAT isn't the action of a peace loving society. They would need a real reason to wipe them out and coming from an evil society isn't a good reason. There are too many innocent goblins who don't now or never will pose any real threat to the good societies... and even then they would be likely to take prisoners if they are "good" people, not engage in genocide.
This is why I cautioned against racism. Killing someone who has done no harm to the civil and peace loving societies is neutral at best and evil at worst. Depending on the situation.
If Goblins did something big and bad enough to warrant such an international response. Then it is far more likely they would simply be conquered by the allies and the innocent goblins would become part of the general population of the bigger "good" nations. After a time it may even become common to see "good" goblins. Goblins raised in a good society could become paladins and heroes.
Something bad enough? Like the goblin wars of Isger where they ate the country, until put down by a most curious coalition. The number of orphans, the costs in lives, the destruction. It is enough for a good group or coalition to decide, that is enough. NO MORE! :)
If the many nations convened and reached the verdict that due to the cost and damages of the past goblin wars, and the continuing costs of goblin raiding, it was decided to wipe them out wherever they are found, and to provide a standardised bounty across countriies, it would simply be acts to remove a violent and dangerous scourge. An individual goblin can be good, sure, but the raiding and despoiling tribes and all their members that engage in evil acts, are not. the words "innocent goblins" to me just sounds ridiculous. They are not baking cookies and handing them out to all the people they are attacking.
May I point out that, inasmuch as we are discussing evil in the context of the Pathfinder alignment system, and the game has helpfully defined evil for us, we should begin and end with judging whether an act meets the definition provided? And like it or hate it, the alignment system Pathfinder has defined tells us this:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
So is slaughtering a hostage consistent with hurting, oppressing, and killing others without qualm if doing so is convenient? I would certainly say so.
As a minor derail: Pathfinder alignment is explicitly about attitudes, not actions:
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
<snip>
Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies
<snip>
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral
The first two points clearly tell us alignment is about attitude or philosophy, making no mention of actions; the third point tells us that even though animals can do the same things as people, we do not assign them an alignment based on the consequences of their actions because they are incapable of moral action - they do not make moral choices.
Whether you prefer consequentialism or not, the Pathfinder alignment system is not consequentialist.
Oh no, the paladin hurt a goblin, now you are evil, goodbye paladin abilities.
Likewise would you say Aragorn, Legolas and the others are evil, because they hurt the orcs and goblins with their arrows and swords?
You can't just focus on causing injury and hurting though, because then good heroes can't hurt evil and remain good. If they continue to rack up the body count of evil foes, cause hp and ability damage, they are doing evil acts, by the above definition of evil.
Alignment is in my games, but it mainly sits in the background. Killing evil is not an evil act, it is part of being an adventurer. We can try and make this as complex as we want, and there are many ways to do this, but if fighting back and ending evil is wrong and a cause of a change to evil, it is pushing a type of pacifism and condemnation of violence and adventuring that just doesn't really fit with the game.
I like how dark souls did it, you can kill off non combatants and accrue sin, but the monster are insane or outright evil. Nice and simple, now concentrate on survival. For dnd, anything that tries to kill the players should be put down quick, and of course, law/chaos, honour/dishonour can come into it.
Having said that, in games I do like running npcs of an evil monster type, that are intelligent and not necessarily belligerent. After all, that doesn't always work so well. I don't run pure neutral good goblins, but not all of them have the same background. Mostly though, the evil monsters are evil, if they attacking the party it doesn't matter, if they lose their lives are in the pcs hands. Whom may then shame themselves by their conduct.
Sovereignty can come into it, if you wish.
"The adventuring model of "invade other creatures' homes and kill them for their loot" falls pretty squarely, I think, under the description of evil. And, to bring us back to the original question, so does the cold-blooded murder of a hostage because you think it will bring you a better negotiating position."
There is usually a justification given for these invasions, wrongs to be righted and all that.
|
To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.Well, it's a little bit more than that. This game was run using PFS, which is organized play, and evil alignments aren't allowed. If he commits enough evil acts, I'm forced to move him to evil and retire his PC. So it does matter.
Ah I had missed the bit about PFS, in that case yes it does matter as the acts become divisive.
My usual course of action for that sort of scenario, is to provide the player a warning and take it offline after the game and lay out a "moral framework" for people so it's clear from their perspective what constitutes a moral "transgression" in the eyes of their deity. I think a lot of people will evaluate "evil" from a Judeo-Christian framework; when they should instead consider what's "evil" for a worshipper of Calistra Vs. Sarenrae. I find people having a clear understanding of what the deity expects should minimize these arguments (IMHO).
|
|
Sorry, but I seem to be on a tirady roll tonight:
My #1 issue with this whole thread:
WHAT MAKES FOR BETTER ROLEPLAYING, AND A MORE FUN GAME?
If we accept that:
- Goblins are universally evil, and may be killed no matter what the circumstance, as long as it is not intentionally cruel
- Good and evil can be defined consequentiallyThen there is no roleplaying here. No moral dilemmas. No drama. No questions or discussion. Just "roll a die. Kill the goblin. Move on to the next creature labeled with an (E). Kill it. Repeat ad nauseum."
This eliminates all need to roleplay.
In a roleplaying game.
And I think that's why I've gotten all uppity on this thread -- It's a heck of a lot more fun to play/GM paladins and other "good" characters when they actually have hard choices to make, instead of just giving them carte blanche to slaughter anything with an (E) without even thinking about it. I'd rather say, "No, your god does not approve of that action," and see how they deal with it, than remain silent and let them kill everything in their paths.
P.S. Yes, I've edited this post to remove any reference to other posters. When I have time, I enjoy intellectual debates, but I realize that I'll be working 15-hour days and preparing an 8-player campaign next week, so I really need to bow out of the board and focus on 'real life' for a bit...
Well said QFE.
To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.Well, it's a little bit more than that. This game was run using PFS, which is organized play, and evil alignments aren't allowed. If he commits enough evil acts, I'm forced to move him to evil and retire his PC. So it does matter.
Ah I had missed the bit about PFS, in that case yes it does matter as the acts become divisive.
My usual course of action for that sort of scenario, is to provide the player a warning and take it offline after the game and lay out a "moral framework" for people so it's clear from their perspective what constitutes a moral "transgression" in the eyes of their deity. I think a lot of people will evaluate "evil" from a Judeo-Christian framework; when they should instead consider what's "evil" for a worshipper of Calistra Vs. Sarenrae. I find people having a clear understanding of what the deity expects should minimize these arguments (IMHO).
Good ideas, but not an end to argument. I have had a player, in control of a cleric argue the position of their god and faith on not aiding evil aberrations was wrong. Ha ha, yeah, they were not sticking to the faith. Even had some slightly convincing arguments from the I'm one step away position.
Should have been summoned to a celestial debating arena. Have it out with an eloquent lawyer ghost. Instead, he got a grumpy flaming lion as an advisor. Which was fun to rp as a disapproving bureaucrat.
<Kirk>
Can't... control... self... must... post... more...
</Kirk>
I'm enjoying this thread more than I should, but can we avoid the cascade of "straw man" arguments that are popping up?
Context is everything.
<rant>
- If you find a group of goblins 'skulking' near a farming village, confront them, engage in battle, and kill them all, I have no problem with it. If you happen to use Detect Evil, I don't mind if you ambush them and slaughter them before they know you're there. If you just kill the goblins because they're goblins, you should first check with your GM to make sure he/she is OK with it. As you've seen, opinions differ wildly here, and most people are quite passionate about their own.
- If you are sent to negotiate with a group of goblin bandits who have been raiding human caravans, they attack you on sight, and you kill them all, I have no problem with it.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back and the paladin declares that for crimes against humanity, the goblin has been condemned by rightful authority to death and beheads the goblin, I have no problem with it, as long as the group has been deputized, granted authority, or is in a 'lawless region'.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back while each party member punches the goblin in the gut for nonlethal damage until you slowly bludgeon it to death, you've crossed the line.
As to my personal GM'ing style:
- In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the characters start off in Korvosa. I had them find a goblin nest underground. The nest included clear evidence that the goblins had been raiding in the city above. Because they are within easy reach of a lawful court capable of dispensing justice, I expect the LG members of the party to carry the captive's sorry butt back aboveground and turn it over. With no LG members, if the CG members want to give the goblin a clean, immediate execution I'd be OK with it. But any form of torture, or carrying the goblin around so its death could have the most serious impact on morale of other goblins would be questionable at best.
- In Kingmaker, the characters are the law unto themselves. They are welcome to cleanly execute the goblin once they've decided it is a menace. Again, carrying it around as an easily-executable bargaining chip is not OK, which was the OP's dilemma.
</rant>
<Kirk>
Can't... control... self... must... post... more...
</Kirk>I'm enjoying this thread more than I should, but can we avoid the cascade of "straw man" arguments that are popping up?
Context is everything.
<rant>
- If you find a group of goblins 'skulking' near a farming village, confront them, engage in battle, and kill them all, I have no problem with it. If you happen to use Detect Evil, I don't mind if you ambush them and slaughter them before they know you're there. If you just kill the goblins because they're goblins, you should first check with your GM to make sure he/she is OK with it. As you've seen, opinions differ wildly here, and most people are quite passionate about their own.- If you are sent to negotiate with a group of goblin bandits who have been raiding human caravans, they attack you on sight, and you kill them all, I have no problem with it.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back and the paladin declares that for crimes against humanity, the goblin has been condemned by rightful authority to death and beheads the goblin, I have no problem with it, as long as the group has been deputized, granted authority, or is in a 'lawless region'.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back while each party member punches the goblin in the gut for nonlethal damage until you slowly bludgeon it to death, you've crossed the line.
As to my personal GM'ing style:
- In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the characters start off in Korvosa. I had them find a goblin nest underground. The nest included clear evidence that the goblins had been raiding in the city above. Because they are within easy reach of a lawful court capable of dispensing justice, I expect the LG members of the party to carry the captive's sorry butt...
Check with the dm before killing a band of monsters? REALLY? :)
Are you okay with this Frank? The sneak attack is coming, avert thou eyes from this roll in a fictitious game!
Question: if a goblin is executed in a forest, does it lead to an alignment change?
How back and forth this goes.
Unfortunately, I consider excessive compassion an Evil when it leads to the destruction of Good and/or Innocent. If I don't kill the rabid dog when I recognize the threat, but because I can't harm life, and it bites some little girl (yes, I'm using a child for emotional purposes), then I would hold myself culpable. But here's where it gets real bad, if in my compassion I try to stop someone else from killing the rabid dog and that little girl gets bit, then I've *done* Evil as a result of excessive compassion. And it is this last part that scares me about today's moralists.
Unless, of course, you come to the conclusion that the compassionate thing is to kill the dog that's fatally ill and most likely suffering. So I wouldn't conflate refusal to kill an animal as an excess of compassion. I would consider it a lack of empathy for the dog that can't be saved, but whose suffering can be ended.
Rather than killing hostages as being evil, prolonging suffering, especially through torture seems far more evil to me, in game and out. It being chaotic to kill an unwanted hostage, but evil to drag it out with as much torture as possible.
Course if your lord/church/culture had no problems with the killing of demi-human hostages, it might be lawful to stick to the letter. Ah alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check with the dm before killing a band of monsters? REALLY? :)
Actually, that is my ENTIRE point, and the point of many other posters here.
We don't care for a black-and-white world where it's always OK to kill anything with an (E), no matter what the circumstances. The Bestiary provides a host of undead, evil outsiders, and other creatures that fit the bill of "kill on sight", so why roll goblins, orcs, and all other "evil" creatures into that whole ball of wax? It creates a very simplified world where characters never have to think about the consequences of their actions. It's how we played when we were in our teens and twenties. Now that we're in our forties, we want more nuance.
If you don't care for it, that is your prerogative, and I'm not going to argue if you declare all evil creatures killable in all situations in your game.
But you have mentioned several times that torture is definitely beyond the realm of "good", so we get back to the OP's question: Is it OK to kill a goblin after you have captured it and entered into negotiations with the other goblins, for the sole reason that you're frustrated?
And that's the shade of grey we're arguing about. I'm not going to convince you that it's not OK to raze a goblin village you find hundreds of miles from any human settlement before doing some preliminary investigation to make sure they're evil, and you're not going to convince me that it is, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole "kill on site in all circumstances" situation.
I will point out that the OP specifically said the party was sent in to "negotiate" with the goblins. In a black-and-white world, that would never happen - the characters' mandate would have been "kill them all". So I, as a player, would have inferred that the GM did not espouse the "it's always OK to kill all goblins" mindset.
And from everything I've read from the OP, the slaying of the goblin had everything to do with cruel intent -- he wanted to cause the goblin king to suffer. Not die. Not attack so that the characters could just get it over with and kill all the little buggers. But suffer for having the audacity to negotiate in bad faith.
And I'll still maintain that the intentional causing of needless suffering is a mildly evil act.
Anyway, sorry to post and run, but I really do need to do some "real" work now.
It is a good topic of discussion though, when does "I don't give a damn about kobolds" turn into, "I am now an evil character, muahahahah". There would be plenty of anti-kobold rangers that would never care about them or their condition, except making them arrow filled dead creatures. Wonder if that makes them evil?
On dms, alignment and changing alignment, I had a dm force an alignment change in one of my characters once. It was rise of the runelords, we went in from the sea, not the bridge and found the goblin... brood-room.
We were there to clean house, and had found the breeding pens. My CN character thought about it for a bit, how they would be left to starve once we wiped out the clan, and decided to step up. He tearfully and quickly killed them all. Saddened by doing such an act, but not wanting them to suffer, or be a future problem. The dm smiled and moved me straight to CE. Which got some argument, because my barb was not CE prior, and I was not interested in playing a chaotic evil character. I even asked, "do you really want me to play a chaotic evil character? Does that seem like a good idea for the party?"
He changed it to CE, and I kept playing a CN young barb, who was reckless, but didn't act in the manner as the CE alignment is illustrated. Barb had a moustache, and I didn't even twirl it. He didn't betray anyone, didn't hunt and kill good or the innocent, mourned his dead friends. We kept hunting evil, we helped people, etc etc. The dm was sure the char was CE though. So dms make their changes, sometimes they change things that we don't want, but you can always play your character exactly how you want them to be. The player has a lot of power.
Wow! OK, now I understand your objections.
(1) I would NEVER consider changing a character's alignment for a 'mercy killing'. I would have been at your side, arguing with your GM. Especially CN. Remember the example of finding goblins skulking near a farming village? I would have been perfectly OK with a CN character killing them all -- In my universe CN means, "I am going to do what *I* think is best." If your character has never encountered a non-evil goblin, he's going to act like all goblins are evil. "Good" characters need to "give peace a chance" (and for some reason "good" characters in my campaigns carry a handy-dandy Detect Evil around to help). Neutral characters are burdened with the far-less-absolute "do not cause needless suffering". I'm perfectly OK with a neutral character, especially a chaotic one, deciding that it's safer to kill skulking goblins near a town rather than assuming they're out hunting game. It's easy to go from "good" to "neutral". It's hard to cross the line all the way to "evil".
(2) I have never changed a PC's alignment. I give them clear notice of my beliefs, because, as I like to put it, 'You live in that world, so you know the rules'. Some may argue with me for a bit, but as long as I have a rational reason for my decision (which either I have had so far or my PCs are far too nice to me), the PC says, "OK, if that's how your world is..." And as I posted before, this action was mild enough to elicit a warning from me: "That was Evil. Do not continue to act in that manner if you don't want an alignment shift." As you said, it's the PC who decides how the character behaves, not the GM. (Unless we are wonderfully lucky enough to get a mind-controlling monster. Whee!)
I have just one question to this theory, "Why aren't there any good goblin tribes or cultures recorded anywhere on the planet if they're not naturally predisposed to being evil, but are trained that way?" I mean, with all the isolated cultures not one good goblin tribe in all of Golarion? Not one threw off the yoke of evil or had Elven missionaries lead them on the path to enlightenment? I don't know, it just seems that your efforts to humanize everything leads to strange positions.Does the similar lack of "good" aligned Human nations justify making the same assessment on Humanity itself?
No. But, if there were a lack of "good"-aligned Human societies, tribes, or communities, then yes. In other words, you would expect that if a sentient species were able to overcome their baser instincts with their intellectual strength (non-aberrationally), that you would see that reflected in the sort of communities and societies they form. Even if it's just 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000.
<Kirk>
Can't... control... self... must... post... more...
</Kirk>I'm enjoying this thread more than I should, but can we avoid the cascade of "straw man" arguments that are popping up?
Context is everything.
<rant>
- If you find a group of goblins 'skulking' near a farming village, confront them, engage in battle, and kill them all, I have no problem with it. If you happen to use Detect Evil, I don't mind if you ambush them and slaughter them before they know you're there. If you just kill the goblins because they're goblins, you should first check with your GM to make sure he/she is OK with it. As you've seen, opinions differ wildly here, and most people are quite passionate about their own.- If you are sent to negotiate with a group of goblin bandits who have been raiding human caravans, they attack you on sight, and you kill them all, I have no problem with it.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back and the paladin declares that for crimes against humanity, the goblin has been condemned by rightful authority to death and beheads the goblin, I have no problem with it, as long as the group has been deputized, granted authority, or is in a 'lawless region'.
- If in the same scenario, you first choose to capture one of the goblins alive, then wait 'til you're in a safe place, then your fighter pins the goblin's hands behind his back while each party member punches the goblin in the gut for nonlethal damage until you slowly bludgeon it to death, you've crossed the line.
As to my personal GM'ing style:
- In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the characters start off in Korvosa. I had them find a goblin nest underground. The nest included clear evidence that the goblins had been raiding in the city above. Because they are within easy reach of a lawful court capable of dispensing justice, I expect the LG members of the party to carry the captive's sorry butt...
I hear you. I disagree with almost everything you said except for how you like to DM yourself (that's your prerogative) or with regards to respecting the DM's position on these subjects with whom you're playing.
Unfortunately, I consider excessive compassion an Evil when it leads to the destruction of Good and/or Innocent. If I don't kill the rabid dog when I recognize the threat, but because I can't harm life, and it bites some little girl (yes, I'm using a child for emotional purposes), then I would hold myself culpable. But here's where it gets real bad, if in my compassion I try to stop someone else from killing the rabid dog and that little girl gets bit, then I've *done* Evil as a result of excessive compassion. And it is this last part that scares me about today's moralists.Unless, of course, you come to the conclusion that the compassionate thing is to kill the dog that's fatally ill and most likely suffering.
Of course. That would be a compassionate (not "excessively compassionate") thing to do. You would have me believe there's no such thing as "too much compassion". But I believe there is, defined as, "compassionate emotions that lead to irrationality".
So I wouldn't conflate refusal to kill an animal as an excess of compassion. I would consider it a lack of empathy for the dog that can't be saved, but whose suffering can be ended.
Excessive compassion would be, by my definition, compassion that overwhelms reason. Here, you let your compassion inform your reasoning, not rule it. The problem is that we have too many people trying to rationalize, what I believe, are irrational, emotionally-driven decisions. They have backed away from these positions, somewhat, but not very far -- just enough to make sense (in most cases).
In the OPs specific scenario we're pretty sure the PC behaved with evil intent, especially with the OP basically coming out later and describing the offender's action as "evil-in-different-words" (telling us the PC's motivations). Like Glendwyr said, we're actually only directly interested in the morality of the PC, not the deed committed (the deed informs our judgments), but the OP took that out of our hands. He said the PC's intent was to inflict unnecessary suffering from the standpoint of irrational anger and that would be almost definitionally wrong. Though some might argue that evil should suffer a measure of the suffering they inflict on others, I'm not ready to make that argument and I doubt anyone could argue that the PC was being described as attempting to mete out "just vengeance".
Not necessarily, you'd expect that your typical functioning society would be Neutral in nature spanning from Chaotic Frontier societies to Lawful City-State establishments. The only time you would have a "good" or "evil" society would be one that had an outsize amount of control from a very powerful figure or church.No. But, if there were a lack of "good"-aligned Human societies, tribes, or communities, then yes. In other words, you would expect that if a sentient species were able to overcome their baser instincts with their intellectual strength (non-aberrationally), that you would see that reflected in the sort of communities and societies they form. Even if it's just 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000.I have just one question to this theory, "Why aren't there any good goblin tribes or cultures recorded anywhere on the planet if they're not naturally predisposed to being evil, but are trained that way?" I mean, with all the isolated cultures not one good goblin tribe in all of Golarion? Not one threw off the yoke of evil or had Elven missionaries lead them on the path to enlightenment? I don't know, it just seems that your efforts to humanize everything leads to strange positions.Does the similar lack of "good" aligned Human nations justify making the same assessment on Humanity itself?
So, you don't think the little town of Anytown, America (pop. 1400) is likely to be a "good community"? Ok. But I disagree.
Minus all the crazy talk about what's good and not, I (PERSONALLY, game-aside) am on the side of everyone that says killing the goblin is an evil act. Any creature that is intelligent and bound at least deserves some sort of trial and not to be killed in cold blood in front of his father. That is a horrible act. I couldn't even imagine how someone would feel if their own son was killed in front of them because some character was frustrated things weren't going their way.
Personally, I would have (As a Paladin) Never captured him in the first place, but instead offered him another life. To serve Iomedae and repent of it's sins... Or be executed for it's evil actions.
However if my Paladin was in that situation, he would have first tried to stop the character from doing it. If the character DID then end up doing it, he would have bound THAT character and taken him back to town to be judged. Likely the city would congratulate him for his good deed in killing the goblin and my Paladin (while feeling morally horrible for the act) would repent to Iomedae that he could not stop the act of cruelty and move on with life.
Yes the greater good has been served. But at what cost to ones soul? (From the point of my Paladin)
Note that I put my personal opinion above and what my Paladin would do. This distinction must be made to form a consensus on what is the 'best' course of action. For it differs between each character.
I think we agree killing a defenseless enemy in real life is wrong. In the game world I can see where it is more gray that a Goblin is in question here. (AKA whether it's a race that deserves to live due to it's as a whole evil acts or not)