What I find really wierd is that most people (at least on the first few pages, I didn't read all of it) agree that it was an evil act.
But there is another post earlier this week where most people seemed to have no problem with a paladin murdering a goblin that had surrendered.
Seems just a wee bit inconsistant to me.
Definitely evil. A sentient creature that could not defend itself was brutally killed. In front of his own father, no less! I know of no GM who would let that get by without some sort of consequence.
What I find really wierd is that most people (at least on the first few pages, I didn't read all of it) agree that it was an evil act.
But there is another post earlier this week where most people seemed to have no problem with a paladin murdering a goblin that had surrendered.
Seems just a wee bit inconsistant to me.
I think most of those who would be ok with a Paladin killing a surrendered goblin are coming from the mindset of the Paladin having 'Low Justice' rights in the setting.
In other words, the Paladin has been given the right to meet out legal punishment in the field. So, he's legally and morally judge, jury and executioner. In this case, the Paladin would quite literally give the goblin a 10 minute trial, and based on evidence (including sense motive, mind reading magic, whatever) he would execute the goblin for crimes committed, assuming the goblin deserved it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't read the whole thread (too long) so sorry if i say things already said by others.
Are we talking about standard Golarion goblins?
Are we talking about CE goblins?
If yes then no it wasn't an evil act, most probably was a good act.
In fact if there was a paladin of Abadar present (or a paladin of Torag whose people were hurt by the goblins or an oath of vengeance paladin with a vengeance against goblins) then i would have him fall if he would let the goblin escape.
So, you don't think the little town of Anytown, America (pop. 1400) is likely to be a "good community"? Ok. But I disagree.
It's far more likely to be a Lawful town, but that does not preclude individual residents from being Good, or Evil for that matter. Communities as a whole aren't altruistic, they'll see to their own needs and obligations first, anything else may not even come to a second.
Small towns by their nature are insular, and mistrusting of strangers.
Then again, AnyTown America doesn't exist in a world where the outside is full of monsters and communications are a matter of weeks and months as opposed to intantaneous.
If you were to travel back in time to Frontier AnyTown, America, you'd find a whole different set of attitudes.
That seems like a lot of cliche and not-well-founded claims. Many small towns I've visited were populated with very accepting and hospitable people. You're making judgment valuations that seem very poor to me. I would consider them both lawful and good (although, in a lot places, I have found them, by-and-large, neutral good or chaotic good).
You're suggesting that since the majority of the members of a community take care of each other, that somehow it's not a "good" community. Ok. Still I disagree. But taking your position to the next step, you don't think Anotherton, USA (pop. 4500) about 60 miles away would likely send charitable disaster relief to Anytown, USA if it were hit by a tornado? If not, I disagree. If you don't think this is indicative of a good community, then I disagree.
Your desire to reframe this to make it not appropriate, because we've shown human nature already. Simply by showing that human communities are comprised of empathic-capable people proves the point. So, I disagree with that, too. However, just to cover all bases and to illustrate a point (this took me less than 2 mins to find by google, I'm sure there are tons of such examples):
http://www.thewildwest.org/cowboys/wildwestwesternfacts/251-donnerparty.htm l
Can you imagine this same story being told with goblins?
I can't. I can't because my vision of goblins doesn't include a framework of empathy or compassion, of anything other than self-interest.
|
Yes.
I have very little issue with the CG character performing the "assassination of the son goblin" before the king as described in this scenario. I would be curious to hear "how that worked out for the party as a solution". I suspect his motivation was to end the conflict through intimidation, cowering of lesser force or destruction of the problematic source. Or maybe the goblin represents (to him) the evil or wantan destruction that he views as needless and may be compelled to prevent. In either way I have no issue with a CG character performing this action.
If he was the 1st to shoot and arrow at the entrance to the cave (without provocation) is he also committing an evil act ?
Should a CG Ranger allows a goblin to live in the woods if he found one running away? Not necessarily....it's his call.
As GM....I would allow this and probably a little surprised...since it's not usually how I run a CG character....but, then again, I'm not about to rule that it consistitutes an "assassination" just because the condition of 1 goblin among a throng was helpless to my sword.
Didn't read the whole thread (too long) so sorry if i say things already said by others.
Are we talking about standard Golarion goblins?
Are we talking about CE goblins?
If yes then no it wasn't an evil act, most probably was a good act.
In fact if there was a paladin of Abadar present (or a paladin of Torag whose people were hurt by the goblins or an oath of vengeance paladin with a vengeance against goblins) then i would have him fall if he would let the goblin escape.
Yeah I'm thinking along similar lines. Just because a CE goblin surrenders (or LE or NE), doesn't mean they are suddenly a protected, endangered species that you can't kill, because then that would be evil. CG or CN can get away with a lot, especially dishonour. Which brings me to another story.
I had a cavalier/knight once (twice the honour!), that was trying to preach the code of honourable conduct to surface elves, who were fighting drow in second darkness. It was a great RP opportunity, and allowed the dm to even learn something about the elves he was npcing.
So this outsider merc, an honourable human, sits down with the elves post battle and starts to discuss how he is not pleased with how the war is going. Both sides are skirmishing, running, shooting, very little melee, there is simply no honour on the battlefield. His oratory was good enough, that some young elves were swayed by his ideals of chivalry and respecting the captured. The older elves only had scorn though. Any captured drow were tortured for information and killed. No redemption, nor parlay, this was a gritty ethnic conflict. The elves captured by the drow were treated the same. Now my cavalier didn't concentrate on the aspects of good, instead he wanted people to have some type of code, and not just be bandits that killed via ranged ambush. For we, elves and men, must rise above our baser instincts, be better than the drow, fight with more courage and honour.
Now that pathfinder adventure presents the elves as the good guys and the drow as the bad guys. Problem with ethnic conflicts, is that there often isn't a good side, but more centrally, honour and rules are abandoned in the hope of getting an advantage. Killing a captive is dishonourble, and you can argue chaotic, although others argue that the law may allow/encourage execution. It is lowly, but if the targets are evil, there are reasons that it can also be just and good (evil is sent to the hells that they deserve and no longer in this world to cause havoc and pain). I can't see a chaotic good really hesitating from ending evil, and a neutral good could certainly rationalise the benefits of one less goblin noble.