All your options could be said to be in accordance with the Paladin code.
All your options could also be said to be in violation of it.
How did those last two Gnolls "give up" anyway?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a chance that your GM made a (common) mistake - while gnolls indeed are Chaotic Evil they rather should not register as evil for your detect evil ability. Mundane creatures gain aura of evil only if they have five or more HD/levels - gnolls have 2 racial HD. Of course that could be gnoll with 3+ class levels or he could be gnoll cleric.
EDIT: Also the gnoll could fall under evil intent clause as long as it had evil intentions on its mind while you scanned him, but if you done that after surrendering I think that it would be more interested in own survival.
Back to main topic:
- if the creature surrendered to you it is your duty to treat it accordingly. You could potentially refuse to accept surrender and force them to fight to death if they could not run away but once you accepted surrender killing the prisoner is rather dishonorable (unless the culture your character comes from perceives surrendering as dishonorable act, like RL Japanese)
- if you took a prisoner you can free him, deliver him to some sort of authority or you could potentially judge him (and execute if you find him guilty of acts warranting it)
Important thing to consider and which you could talk about with your GM: what is your character's culture or overall setting stance towards the gnolls (or orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. depending upon humanoid group that would be encountered in analogical circumstances): Are they considered fully sapient (if barbarous) or are they considered monsters and beasts that happen to speak and use tools? Are they considered honorable, dishonorable or a-honorable (outside of matter of honor, like mere beasts lacking the inherent potential for nobility and honor of fully sapient beings).
I think you played it right, Eriyoth. Yes, they may be evil, but evil can be redeemed, and the way to kill your prisoners is after due process has been observed, not arbitrarily. In extreme circumstances it may be justifiable, but not often.
|
Wow talk about bloodthirsty. Lawful Good type just to not go around killing all evil simply because it is evil. With the situation presented the paladin/sorc did the right thing. If the gnolls were armed and threatening then of course the paladin has a duty to stop the gnolls from doing any harm, but in this case the gnolls were his prisoners, and as such they were unarmed. The barbarian did what in the pally's eyes would have been an unhonorable act, and even possibly evil as it could be considered murder. However that does fall more into the chaotic realm.
Lawful Good types respect life. They only destroy evil as a last resort if it is threatening others. Otherwise all "evil" races would be hunted down into extinction simply for perceived crimes that they have yet to commit. This then includes the helpless women and children.
Drejk has the heart of it. It all depends on your world, you should ask your DM how things are set up.
Personally, I don't have a problem with tied-up Gnolls being killed and the player doing it being of Good alignment. I've explained myself very clearly on this subject: I don't care if they're intelligent creatures with the capacity for intelligent object manipulation and advanced speech, they're very disposed (genetically/spiritually and culturally) towards evil in my world. And even in worlds where they aren't, if they're engaging in evil acts and are part of an overwhelmingly evil culture, they're still alright to execute, in my book. More especially if they've been engaged in evil actions (you can then ignore their pleas of "I'm not evil like the rest of them").
However, as a Paladin and doing so when they're tied up? Yeah, not honorable and you did the right thing by not executing them outright, even in my world (unless your in your own country and have the legal right to do so).
I would have given them a weapon and forced them to fight me, I think. If they wouldn't fight honorably, then I would have to execute them, anyway, because I do have the moral authority. Can't have that kind of evil running loose in the world when I can stop it.
I think with Paladins Code issues, if you need to think about whether or not what you are doing is right, or worse, try to find a way of justifying an action that you feel uncomfortable about, then you just shouldn't be doing it. Being a shining light for good and order should come naturally to you. If your checking the fine print and looking for loop holes in the Paladin's code then you should be docked for lawful neutral (at the very least) behaviour.
That is a good rule of thumb.
I think with Paladins Code issues, if you need to think about whether or not what you are doing is right, or worse, try to find a way of justifying an action that you feel uncomfortable about, then you just shouldn't be doing it. Being a shining light for good and order should come naturally to you. If your checking the fine print and looking for loop holes in the Paladin's code then you should be docked for lawful neutral (at the very least) behaviour.That is a good rule of thumb.
I don't. I see too many people get things wrong, in my opinion, by going with their natural reaction.
Just saying. :)
I think with Paladins Code issues, if you need to think about whether or not what you are doing is right, or worse, try to find a way of justifying an action that you feel uncomfortable about, then you just shouldn't be doing it. Being a shining light for good and order should come naturally to you. If your checking the fine print and looking for loop holes in the Paladin's code then you should be docked for lawful neutral (at the very least) behaviour.That is a good rule of thumb.I don't. I see too many people get things wrong, in my opinion, by going with their natural reaction.
Just saying. :)
It won't help if you're just plain wrong-headed, but "if you have to ask yourself if you're an alcoholic, you're probably an alcoholic" in practice works pretty well. Getting the person to admit it is the hard part.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are still going to be plenty of times when there's a legitimately complicated moral question that requires consideration. Not every ethical dilemma can be quickly and easily resolved by making a snap decision based on gut feelings.
There are still going to be plenty of times when there's a legitimately complicated moral question that requires consideration. Not every ethical dilemma can be quickly and easily resolved by making a snap decision based on gut feelings.
+1
Yes, that was what I meant. Some of the dilemmas that people have put on these boards have been answered in very kneejerk, yet very natural, ways, in my opinion; in very non-objective ways.
There are still going to be plenty of times when there's a legitimately complicated moral question that requires consideration. Not every ethical dilemma can be quickly and easily resolved by making a snap decision based on gut feelings.+1
Yes, that was what I meant. Some of the dilemmas that people have put on these boards have been answered in very kneejerk, yet very natural, ways, in my opinion; in very non-objective ways.
Does bear mentioning that in the historical sense a lot of people have kneejerk moral reactions that left them utterly convinced that something was inherently wrong, only for society to ultimately reject those notions.
Most of the threads I've seen on the subject in the past week or so have been terribly easy to resolve by simply reading the two small paragraphs on the subject in Core.
Most of the threads I've seen on the subject in the past week or so have been terribly easy to resolve by simply reading the two small paragraphs on the subject in Core.
Have to agree there; the Paladin Code isn't all that hard to interpret. I find it frustrating that so many people seem to believe Paladins are required to be Stupid Good and/or Lawful Stupid.
Only dilemma I could see in this specific case is that the requirement to fight evil that harms or threatens innocents could come into conflict with the requirement that a Paladin must act with honor. Even then, it's a pretty simple judgement call on the Paladin's part:
Is the evil creature likely to continue threatening innocents if it is shown mercy? If the gnoll will go right back to doing evil the second it's released, it gets no mercy. If it seems likely to change it's ways it gets mercy.
Most of the threads I've seen on the subject in the past week or so have been terribly easy to resolve by simply reading the two small paragraphs on the subject in Core.Have to agree there; the Paladin Code isn't all that hard to interpret. I find it frustrating that so many people seem to believe Paladins are required to be Stupid Good and/or Lawful Stupid.
Only dilemma I could see in this specific case is that the requirement to fight evil that harms or threatens innocents could come into conflict with the requirement that a Paladin must act with honor. Even then, it's a pretty simple judgement call on the Paladin's part:
Is the evil creature likely to continue threatening innocents if it is shown mercy? If the gnoll will go right back to doing evil the second it's released, it gets no mercy. If it seems likely to change it's ways it gets mercy.
I don't even see how this last is a question. Of course it will. That's what gnolls do. Those who want to see us let them go free because they "haven't done anything wrong, yet" are simply whistling past the graveyard (thanks Heinlein). They will. It's only a matter of time. All else is wishful thinking or a re-imagining of what it means to be a gnoll, goblin, orc, drow, aboleth, or name-your-evil-monster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even see how this last is a question. Of course it will. That's what gnolls do. Those who want to see us let them go free because they "haven't done anything wrong, yet" are simply whistling past the graveyard (thanks Heinlein). They will. It's only a matter of time. All else is wishful thinking or a re-imagining of what it means to be a gnoll, goblin, orc, drow, aboleth, or name-your-evil-monster.
This is possibly true (and almost certainly so in Golarion) but is fairly world dependent. Some worlds Gnolls will be just another intelligent species, perhaps a bit more barbaric than most.
The paladin code causes more problems than anything else.
I tend to ask my GM if I can use one based on my god more than based on such debatable concepts as it currently is. Especially since modern-day honor allows you to be a sneaky, back-stabbing, "operative, just so long as it's in the line of duty for your respective nation.
There are still going to be plenty of times when there's a legitimately complicated moral question that requires consideration. Not every ethical dilemma can be quickly and easily resolved by making a snap decision based on gut feelings.
Yes but if you get down to the basic principle of a paladin being a good and just Judge/Jury/Executionner, he encountered bandits using leathal weapons to kill travelers. Surender from some of them doesn't make that go away. So declaration and prayer for the guilty, make it painless in execution AND take the time to bury (maybe not the full dept and all) them to get them "in the right direction afterwards".
Important note that many probabliy will be called pure cheese: The Paladin still shouln't feel "good" (but it's sure not an evil act IMO)about these situations and might pray and /or light candles for the executed ones.
I tend to ask my GM if I can use one based on my god more than based on such debatable concepts as it currently is.
I agree, and there are plenty of examples in Faiths of Purity.
Especially since modern-day honor allows you to be a sneaky, back-stabbing, "operative, just so long as it's in the line of duty for your respective nation.
That's not honour - it's integrity, yes, but not honour. I don't think any of the 'operatives' in question would call it such. That's the while reason being honourable and good is such a virtue: it's hard.
Thus being judge and jury making me unlawful.
Lawful =| law abiding.
Lawful is about being logical, codified, and organised.
On the flip side, the paladin should respect local laws unless he finds that they cannot deliver his idea of justice.
Actually that is a great RP opportunity, Eriyoth: Your paladin starts off respecting the local law, doing things by the book, and gradually finds that they local judges are corrupt, or too lenient, or the constabulary are inefficient, and loses patience with them and starts acting as judge, jury and executioner himself.
Or he could find himself elevated to having the right of Low Justice (where a local lord could act as JJE for any situation he found in his jurisdiction).
Either way, it should prove interesting for you!
On the flip side, the paladin should respect local laws unless he finds that they cannot deliver his idea of justice.
Indeed. The Paladin code of conduct requires that a Paladin respect legitimate authority. If local authorities are corrupt, cruel, arbitrary, etc. then the Paladin is under obligation to respect them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even see how this last is a question. Of course it will. That's what gnolls do. Those who want to see us let them go free because they "haven't done anything wrong, yet" are simply whistling past the graveyard (thanks Heinlein). They will. It's only a matter of time. All else is wishful thinking or a re-imagining of what it means to be a gnoll, goblin, orc, drow, aboleth, or name-your-evil-monster.
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign.
|
I think there is a chance that your GM made a (common) mistake - while gnolls indeed are Chaotic Evil they rather should not register as evil for your detect evil ability. Mundane creatures gain aura of evil only if they have five or more HD/levels - gnolls have 2 racial HD. Of course that could be gnoll with 3+ class levels or he could be gnoll cleric.
EDIT: Also the gnoll could fall under evil intent clause as long as it had evil intentions on its mind while you scanned him, but if you done that after surrendering I think that it would be more interested in own survival.
Back to main topic:
- if the creature surrendered to you it is your duty to treat it accordingly. You could potentially refuse to accept surrender and force them to fight to death if they could not run away but once you accepted surrender killing the prisoner is rather dishonorable (unless the culture your character comes from perceives surrendering as dishonorable act, like RL Japanese)
- if you took a prisoner you can free him, deliver him to some sort of authority or you could potentially judge him (and execute if you find him guilty of acts warranting it)Important thing to consider and which you could talk about with your GM: what is your character's culture or overall setting stance towards the gnolls (or orcs, goblins, ogres, etc. depending upon humanoid group that would be encountered in analogical circumstances): Are they considered fully sapient (if barbarous) or are they considered monsters and beasts that happen to speak and use tools? Are they considered honorable, dishonorable or a-honorable (outside of matter of honor, like mere beasts lacking the inherent potential for nobility and honor of fully sapient beings).
Where does it say that characters have to be a certain level to ping as evil? I keep reading it in forums, but cannot find it myself.
|
|
Where does it say that characters have to be a certain level to ping as evil? I keep reading it in forums, but cannot find it myself.
In the actual description of the Detect Evil spell. Read it and be amazed. Or something like that, anyhow.
It's based on HD, not level, and some creatures ping at a lower one...but only stuff like demons, undead, and evil Clerics.
The way detect evil works now pretty much makes the "license to kill" mentality work.
Something that is sufficiently evil to be detected requires to be several levels, and have had some success being evil. There is no such thing as a "Oh, I am just a pickpocket, plz don't smite" anymore. No innocent pickpocket is a lv5+ rogue. You have done some BAD things, and you are a BAD influence.
And evil is not "selfish". Evil is complete disregard of others for your own winnings. Or for fun. If your GM tells you the pickpocket that steals to survive and feed his orphan baby sister is EVIL... he should be smacked over the head.
The only lv1 that detect as evil is a cleric. And an EVIL cleric of an EVIL god is pretty much the most horrible person there is. His/her mission in life is to further evil ideals, consciously and intentionally.
No innocent pickpocket is a lv5+ rogue. You have done some BAD things, and you are a BAD influence.
This does not follow. Level does not make you more or less extreme in alignment. It just gives you greater power to impress your will upon the world around you. You don't have to be a murderer or a thief to reach level 5; garden variety "that a#**+@! who runs the HOA" evil is enough to set off the Evil-O-Meter; being a fighter 5 doesn't change that. A paladin is supposed to fight evil, not murder every evil person she meets.
|
|
Where does it say that characters have to be a certain level to ping as evil? I keep reading it in forums, but cannot find it myself.In the actual description of the Detect Evil spell. Read it and be amazed. Or something like that, anyhow.
It's based on HD, not level, and some creatures ping at a lower one...but only stuff like demons, undead, and evil Clerics.
I found the table for it. Gonna show my friend that wouldn't believe me. Ha. Thank you.
In the wilderness a paladin can always hold a trial and by that decide the fate of his prisoners.
Depending on the outcome he could set them free or execute them or what ever.
That's what I did one time when playing a paladin (in D&D 3.0). We were just about to enter the basement of some castle ruin when some cultists attacked us. When the rest was down one cultist surrendered.
We could not take him with us
We could not bring him back to the nearest town (several days)
So what was left was to either kill him or set him free.
He was to low level to register as evil to detect evil.
So I kind of held trial under the authority of being a paladin of the god of law. So I condemned him to death and (not wanting to make someone else do my dirty work) executed him myself.
I don't even see how this last is a question. Of course it will. That's what gnolls do. Those who want to see us let them go free because they "haven't done anything wrong, yet" are simply whistling past the graveyard (thanks Heinlein). They will. It's only a matter of time. All else is wishful thinking or a re-imagining of what it means to be a gnoll, goblin, orc, drow, aboleth, or name-your-evil-monster.Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign.
Nice pull. I had forgotten that line. Well, I can see why it's a question now: that line gives legitimate reason to question the world in which his character plays in.
Thank God for the line where they write, "...they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign."
I know that wasn't the part you "extra"-emphasized, but it was the part I latched on to when I read it. Because, it means that the alignment listed by the monster entry is the standard, but you can make it fit how you need it. I latched on to it because it strongly implies that the word "unchangeable" in the last sentence means, "unchangeabele by you". At least, that's how I read the intent.
In other words, I agree that you have legitimate rules support to change the monsters how you like, since they have intelligence (but we already assumed that anyway). I do, however, still maintain there is no legitimate rules support to suggest that it happens naturally or to any degree of regularity (whether that be frequently or rarely). And there is very rare evidence of it happening in source material or even much fantasy material.
|
|
Nice pull. I had forgotten that line. Well, I can see why it's a question now: that line gives legitimate reason to question the world in which his character plays in.Thank God for the line where they write, "...they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign."
I know that wasn't the part you "extra"-emphasized, but it was the part I latched on to when I read it. Because, it means that the alignment listed by the monster entry is the standard, but you can make it fit how you need it. I latched on to it because it strongly implies that the word "unchangeable" in the last sentence means, "unchangeabele by you". At least, that's how I read the intent.
In other words, I agree that you have legitimate rules support to change the monsters how you like, since they have intelligence (but we already assumed that anyway). I do, however, still maintain there is no legitimate rules support to suggest that it happens naturally or to any degree of regularity (whether that be frequently or rarely). And there is very rare evidence of it happening in source material or even much fantasy material.
I take it as "changeable" in-setting, as GM's don't require rules to give them the all-clear to change a creature's alignment. And a player actually showing interest in reformed "monsters" certainly qualifies as a potential example of "the needs of your campaign" calling for a possible alignment change.
And I recall evidence of this happening in quite a bit of source material and fantasy material in general.
The point is that there's no call in belittling people for not playing the game the way you think they should.
|
|
The fun part about Paladins, and by 'fun' I mean 'alkhglhaaaaggghhhw;oth;kjh', is that they serve deities and gain their Paladinhood from said. So some deities may react subtly differently to the question.
As far as whether you should care or not, that varies by campaign. You've already indicated it's not a beer and pretzels campaign, so you certainly have the option of caring. It's up to you and the DM how to specifically sort that out.
As a fun aside: That said, what I know of Apsu (what very little I know) suggests your Paladin's actions can be pretty easily justified. If I were the DM and asked, "Can you explain that decision?", I would have gladly accepted any of several lines such as:
"My character does not have evidence of Evil action, only Evil intent. Crimes being punished require motive, guilty mind, and either clear conspiracy or actual action." This is a very Lawful response that also doubles as an interest in avoiding Lawful Evil or at least Evil.
"That gnoll has had the hell scared out of it; it just watched close to two dozen of its peers get cut down in the name of justice. He's probably going to think real hard before doing anything Evil again, he may have just been 'scared straight'." I would accept this as a Good answer emphasizing... well, perhaps not true redemption of the soul, but certainly practical redemption of it in that the Paladin reasonably believes no more harm will be done by the gnoll after its brush with capture-and-execution. Why add one more to the body count in this case?
Even if the Paladin ends up being wrong and the gnoll goes on to do other things, I would imagine that his actions were in accord with Lawful, Good, and how Apsu does things. I wouldn't strip his Paladinhood for the error, since it seems he thought this through.
Far as I can tell, you did an interesting job of handling one aspect of Paladinly behavior.
I take it as "changeable" in-setting, as GM's don't require rules to give them the all-clear to change a creature's alignment. And a player actually showing interest in reformed "monsters" certainly qualifies as a potential example of "the needs of your campaign" calling for a possible alignment change.
In home settings, no. In PFS games and default settings, most assuredly. When we start standardizing games, people start having expectations. If I dealt with the gnoll as I expect it to be and only after am informed there was a reasonable, or even just "non-trivial", chance it would "reform", I would feel a bit abused.
And I recall evidence of this happening in quite a bit of source material and fantasy material in general.
Yeah? Care to compile a list from your memory? How about we compare your list to the lists of fantasy writing where it doesn't happen.
The point is that there's no call in belittling people for not playing the game the way you think they should.
You're right. No call. Who did that? When and where? Pics or it didn't happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In home settings, no. In PFS games and default settings, most assuredly. When we start standardizing games, people start having expectations. If I dealt with the gnoll as I expect it to be and only after am informed there was a reasonable, or even just "non-trivial", chance it would "reform", I would feel a bit abused.
For starters, I would be very clear up front on how I run games. I don't run races as being shackled to Always Chaotic Evil, and I don't enjoy playing in games where it is and genocide becomes the forced order of the day. That way players that do want that sort of game know that my games aren't going to be their thing, and I appreciate when they in turn are upfront about how they run their games so that I don't wind up investing in a game that I'm just going to be miserable with. The great thing is that there's room enough in the hobby for both groups to have their games because there's no One True Way to play the game.
As for default settings(see below)
And I recall evidence of this happening in quite a bit of source material and fantasy material in general.Yeah? Care to compile a list from your memory? How about we compare your list to the lists of fantasy writing where it doesn't happen.
To start, Tolkien himself wasn't happy with the Always Chaotic Evil treatment of his orcs.
Without checking my books and sticking strictly to Golarion rather than just pointing at Planescape or Eberron or Zobeck or previous editions' use of "Usually/Often _____" and being done with it:
(adventure path spoilers)
Classic Monsters Revisited details how outcast gnolls readily change and adopt the ways of other folks in order get back into a "pack".
Goblins of Golarion goes into detail with players on the subject of reformed goblins.
Neutral goblin is an honorary Hellknight in Westcrown. (Council of Thieves)
Hobgoblins can apparently serve jury duty in Absalom.
Orcs of Golarion notes that orc paladins exist.
Non-evil wererats seek help against extremists of their own kind to keep persecution from falling on their heads again. (CotCT)
CN Drow exist in predominantly CE drow cities, without even needing heroes to pull them out of that muck. (Second Darkness, an AP that was all about trying to take drow back to their villainous roots at that)
Classic Horrors Revisited goes into detail on the difference between intellegent undead and non-, specifically how the former and even some fiends, beings mostly made up of evil, are capable of redemption. Blood of Fiends goes to great lengths to explain that tieflings born with the blood of fiends running through their veins are very much capable of choosing their own moral destiny. If tieflings and the beings that spawned them, beings that actually have the [Evil] descriptor, are capable of change, it's fair enough to conclude that mortal beings without the taint of fiends, beings from races you can reincarnate into without any sort of forced alignment shift, most certainly can choose their own moral destiny as well. All that's needed are some big damn heroes to free them from whatever crap culture they're stuck in or forced into.
Ragathiel did one better and became an Empyreal Lord.
Sarenrae exists.
Ihys existed, and his legacy remains in full effect. ("problem, Asmodeus?")
The Bestiary points out that alignment is "much more fluid".
And so on.
You're right. No call. Who did that? When and where? Pics or it didn't happen.
Suggesting that those that don't play your way must be "whistling past the graveyard"?
*snip*
I like the cut of your jib.
For starters, I would be very clear up front on how I run games. I don't run races as being shackled to Always Chaotic Evil, and I don't enjoy playing in games where it is and genocide becomes the forced order of the day. That way players that do want that sort of game know that my games aren't going to be their thing, and I appreciate when they in turn are upfront about how they run their games so that I don't wind up investing in a game that I'm just going to be miserable with. The great thing is that there's room enough in the hobby for both groups to have their games because there's no One True Way to play the game.
You just love emotionally charged language. It's a continuous theme with you: when reason fails or when poor reason needs support, try rhetoric. How about, instead of "genocide", "speciocide"? How about some other word than "shackled", as if these purely fictional creations so desperately want to change, but are imprisoned by horrific, monstrous GMs like myself. If you want to have a decent conversation with me, quit equivocating. Stop using emotionally charged human-based words for (sub-)species that I don't agree are necessarily human-like and stop wasting the rhetoric on me.
I know, I know. I "want to avoid these words so that I can remove the horrible pain of them". No, I want to avoid these words because they don't apply and are being used by you in a way that is dishonest and dishonorable.
As for you being clear about how you run a game, up front, I applaud you. It is my claim that the default for most people is that these creatures are evil with radically, improbably little exception, though many become confused because of people like you muddying the waters with poor reasoning combined with emotive language used to create sophistic arguments ("shackled", "genocide", "infanticide", "babies", "innocent", "redeemable", etc...).
You want this morally ambiguous world because, IN MY OPINION, you're afraid of a world where such species are innately evil or where it's ok to kill the evil offspring of evil races because, and again this is only MY OPINION, you cannot help but conflate them with "races" or "cultures" in the real world.
But whatever the reason, you then turn a blind eye to these creatures when you have no proof they've done evil. Thus supporting my position that you're "whistling past the graveyard". You hope they're not evil, even though you suspect they are and have every valid reason to fear it: because there's a 99.999% chance that they are. It's extraordinarily likely that given a chance, they'll do some horribly wicked thing when you're not there to stop them.
I have other beliefs on this topic, as well, but I'll refrain from saying them because you'll probably find them even more "belittling" than what I've just said. See below.
<snip 14+/- points in fantasy literature and source material where evil creatures exhibit non-evil individuals -- one that comes to my mind is Hellboy>
You provide a very non-compelling list. Chances are that if I walked into a store and grabbed 10 adventure modules off the shelf and 10 fantasy books off the shelf, not one would have a "good goblin" or a "good gnoll" or a "good orc" or a "good aboleth", except where it is aberrational such as with Drizzt and Zaknafein (one being the offspring of the other). They're so aberrational that they become the focus of their own stories. And what's more, I think you know it.
Further, you spin the point on several of these (such as the Goblins of Golarion), where the players are advised to just assume that they are aberrational.
For the record (and I suspect you already know this, in spite of what you wrote), Tolkien's view of Orcs has been the subject of dispute for quite some time. Surely, in none of his stories were the orcs and goblins seen as redeemable, nor were Sauron or any other evil creatures, other than those who had human-like origins (Gollum, Saruman, Grima); those who started off good/innocent and walked the wrong path. And let's not forget the good and wise Ents: Treebeard would have committed "infanticide" (using your language) if the hobbits hadn't convinced him they weren't young orcs. Every single orc was shown as horrible and nasty and vicious and greedy and no one spared them a thought. Not the Rohirrim. Not Gandalf. Not the Ents. Not the Elves. Certainly not the Dwarves who reveled in eradicating them. They were the allies of Balrogs and other innately evil things.
Suggesting that those that don't play your way must be "whistling past the graveyard"?
That phrase is belittling!?!? It is my opinion that it is not belittling to share an honest analysis about you or anyone else *EVEN IF IT IS NEGATIVE*. It is my honest and rational belief, on this issue, that you and people who think like you, want to pretend the best is true because you all don't want to face the fact that the monsters you release are going to commit horrible evil again. It's like saying to my kid who thinks he can pour himself a glass of milk, "No, you can't reach that glass, you're too short for that." And he responds in a huff, "Don't belittle me!" "..." I might expect that from a kid who wants his dad to treat him like a grown-up, but from an adult? Seriously? You belittle yourself in this way.
And here you go again with rhetoric for the dishonest and dishonorable purpose of putting me on the defensive. That people want to play their own way is their business and not mine, and I've never said otherwise. Let me be clear, here:
My belief may be wrong that you're "whistling past the graveyard" when you let a goblin go when you have no proof it has committed evil.
You may not like that I believe it or that I expressed my belief.
It is, however, honest and the result of deliberate consideration.
There was no meanness in it, at all.
Nor did I say it rudely. In fact, I was trying to be tactful. I didn't express myself with language like, "because you're a bunch of kool-aid drinkers!" or "you're blind fools to let evil monsters walk".
Try my perspective and you might see that there wasn't, either. I'm not saying you'll agree with my assessment, but maybe you'll understand that it's not the same thing as me being rude or belittling.
You could have said, "No, we're not blind to reality, we just think that punishment must be merited." Or some similar response. I guarantee you I would consider your reasoning with an open mind. I think I've proven that I'm very cordial to people who disagree. But this... this just makes me shake my head.
I will not continue to defend myself to you after this post. You have a problem with me saying what I'm saying. I get it. Thank you for telling me. In the future, if my beliefs regarding people's perspectives are offensive to you, flag me and don't talk to me.
So, basically, jupistar isn't terribly lawful in his interpretation of lawful good. Unless the law includes "being a gnoll is illegal and the punishment is death". : /
Your game sounds really boring.
So, basically, jupistar isn't terribly lawful in his interpretation of lawful good. Unless the law includes "being a gnoll is illegal and the punishment is death". : /
Your game sounds really boring.
How about, "being a gnoll means you've been declared enemy"?
How about, "the only good monster is a dead monster?" Or does that sound too similar to real-world racism? Separate yourself from your emotions: It's not the same thing at all. Monsters, by definition, are bad things. Of course, some people would say, "the old rules used the word 'monster' more liberally--generically." Ok, fine. But the point is--these creatures are bad by design. They're supposed to be a challenge for you to combat or scheme around or subdue or defeat in some way.
I know you don't really think the only thing that makes a game fun is moral ambiguity regarding monsters. Of course, if it is, maybe it's time you started looking at other games. Just sayin'.
|
|
Christ.
Suddenly calling things what they are is emotional language. If "genocide" is good enough for the books themselves for what I'm calling genocide, well...
What you call emotional language, I call not dancing around the subject. Murder is murder. Goblin babies are babies. Etc.
And again, that's how Tolkien wrote it. But he himself was not satisfied with it.
As for the selection of fictional references after I specifically pointed out that I'm going from memory and Golarion alone, check the bookstore. Generally a lack of strict adherence to the concept of Always Chaotic Evil is one of the criteria I use to separate good fiction from not-so-much. <3 Terry Pratchett. Need to give that Stan Nichols Orcs series a looksee too after the recommendations here.
You have a problem with me saying what I'm saying
The wall of text bombs perhaps and the habit of making matters personal perhaps, but if you think I've got something against you personally and that I'm out to "get you", you're mistaken.
What I'm not a fan of is One True Wayism. Having put up with a ton of crap because of it in early experiences with the game, I may a bit quick to call out what at times seem to be authoritative statements that This Is The Way The Game Should Be Played.
The only lv1 that detect as evil is a cleric. And an EVIL cleric of an EVIL god is pretty much the most horrible person there is. His/her mission in life is to further evil ideals, consciously and intentionally.
Ah, but a neutral cleric of an evil god will detect as evil, as well...
What you call emotional language, I call not dancing around the subject. Murder is murder. Goblin babies are babies. Etc.
If you want to deny that the word "baby" has a very specific human-connotation or that genocide has a very modern-day racial bias, then I question your integrity.
The offspring of goblins are no more babies in the human sense of the word than the offspring of roaches are babies. Are you alright with exterminating roach babies? What about flea babies? If you're ok with that sort of language, then you should have no problem with people exterminating goblin babies when they think goblins are inherently evil. Not all killing is murder and you know it. And if you don't think "shackled" was a loaded word... well.
The wall of text bombs perhaps and the habit of making matters personal perhaps, but if you think I've got something against you personally and that I'm out to "get you", you're mistaken.
Do you know why I "bomb" text? It's because I desire to stop all of your rationalizations before you write them; all the excuses; each piece of poor reasoning that I can forsee.
And you were the one who made it personal. I wasn't the one who started with the "belittling" crap. So you might try avoiding the indignant tone--it's transparent.
What I'm not a fan of is One True Wayism. Having put up with a ton of crap because of it in early experiences with the game, I may a bit quick to call out what at times seem to be authoritative statements that This Is The Way The Game Should Be Played.
Nor am I a fan of such. However, I thought you and I were already past this. I agree and have agreed that you can play your game however you like. Hell, it's a game. It's there for fun. If the way you play is fun for you, then, by golly, you should play it that way. It sounds like you really are a bit sensitive here. I promise you. I'm ok with you playing your game the way you want to play it. I promise, it doesn't bother me even a teensy little bit.
But that doesn't mean that I can't publicly analyze and comment on that play style when it's being put out in a public forum as if it were a default and natural way of viewing the game. I don't agree that it is, I don't think it's fun in any way other than as an exception to the rule, and I don't see that it's rational to treat any species where the individuals are 99.999% likely to be bad as if there was a reasonable chance they're going to turn out good.
Offspring of goblins are no more babies in the human sense of the word than the offspring of roaches are babies.
Hmm... Young goblins, being humanoid (and thus mammals) would exhibit the scheme of childlike characteristics (I hope my translation program got that one right), which, indeed, would trigger the 'Baby' classification in humans.
This having been said, how are young goblins 'no more babies in the human sense of the word than the offspring of roaches are babies', but young elves are, at least in the eyes of a typical adventurer?
I can follow a reasoning that draws the line between human and non-human; I can follow a reasoning that draws the line between humanoid and non-humanoid... but 'Offspring of non-evil humanoid races are to be considered babies, while those of evil races are not' is, in my opinion, not exactly hitting it.
Offspring of goblins are no more babies in the human sense of the word than the offspring of roaches are babies.Hmm... Young goblins, being humanoid (and thus mammals) would exhibit the scheme of childlike characteristics (I hope my translation program got that one right), which, indeed, would trigger the 'Baby' classification in humans.
This having been said, how are young goblins 'no more babies in the human sense of the word than the offspring of roaches are babies', but young elves are, at least in the eyes of a typical adventurer? I can follow a reasoning that draws the line between human and non-human; I can follow a reasoning that draws the line between humanoid and non-humanoid... but 'Offspring of non-evil humanoid races are to be considered babies, while those of evil races are not' is, in my opinion, not exactly hitting it.
That's a great question. I would actually be willing to interrogate that very issue myself. Keep in mind that one very clear definition of the word "baby" is "human fetus". That connotation is in every usage of the word.
I'm fine with separating elven young from human young in terms of emotive language. Except that I think the indiscriminate killing of elven young is morally the same as killing human young, because elves and humans are much the same in terms of their psychological and moral makeup and in terms of their alignment tendencies and capacity for change.
So, if someone were to talk about elven "babies", I would shrug and not make a stink, because I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't care because I'm not arguing with that person about killing elven young as a Good thing. It's not a Good thing, whether we call them "elven offspring" or not.
On the other hand, the fact that I am talking about destroying Goblin offspring, I think it's extremely important to make sure that we eliminate inaccurate emotive language that clouds and muddies our reasoning. Don't you agree? Calling them "goblin offspring" doesn't make destroying them Good or Bad, but calling them "goblin babies" conflates them with "human babies" in many people's minds. Then all of a sudden, it's the same thing as human infanticide.
So, basically, jupistar isn't terribly lawful in his interpretation of lawful good. Unless the law includes "being a gnoll is illegal and the punishment is death". : /
Your game sounds really boring.
How about, "being a gnoll means you've been declared enemy"?
How about, "the only good monster is a dead monster?"
That's fine for some character types. It isn't fine for most definitions of a paladin in any but the most CrapsackWorlds.
Or does that sound too similar to real-world racism?
Yep. It's fine when I'm playing a CG vigilante ranger who's out to kick bad guy ass and not bother taking names. Not so much when I'm playing a paladin that I want to stay a paladin.
Separate yourself from your emotions: It's not the same thing at all. Monsters, by definition, are bad things.
Except when they aren't. In Pathfinder, "monster" means anything that isn't a PC race. Where do you go to find the rules for statting a stronger astral deva? That's right, the "monster advancement" section. Mikaze already gave about a dozen counterexamples to your statement, from mortals all the way to otherworldly creatures that are for all intents made of evil.
Of course, some people would say, "the old rules used the word 'monster' more liberally--generically." Ok, fine. But the point is--these creatures are bad by design.
They're as bad as their actions. If they don't actually do any significant evil, then punishing them is a perversion of justice. If I spy a random 5 HD gnoll and he pings evil and I stick a sword through his gut, I'm not a champion of righteousness. I'm a murderer. For all I know, he only tips over from CN to CE because he's spent his entire life coveting his neighbor's heirloom spear or simply being a greedy bastard. If I spy an abandoned 2-day-old gnoll pup and hack it to bits even though it hasn't even lived long enough to be capable of evil, then there's even less rationalization for a paladin. If it fits your character, then that's good--you're definitely playing goodrightfun. But that's not going to fly in any conventional paladin order worth the name, so if you're a paladin, expect to fall as a consequence of your character. Or house-rule the code away and don't worry about it.
The nice thing about a straight hack and slash is that the gnolls are already ready to kill you--they're either running at you with halberds or standing guard at the evil wizard's gate or torturing prisoners--so you can go ahead kill them right back. Keeps things simple, and it's enough for a lot of players (and occasionally for me if that's what I'm in the mood for that session). Others, like more complicated situations from time to time.
I know you don't really think the only thing that makes a game fun is moral ambiguity regarding monsters. Of course, if it is, maybe it's time you started looking at other games. Just sayin'.
I have fun doing a lot of things. PF lets me do many of htem, including hacking up monsters, stealth and espionage, diplomatic disputes, world building, and, yes, exploring morally ambiguous situations. "You like a little depth to your hack and slash. That is badwrongfun in Pathfinder. Go play something else!" I like Pathfinder, and it is a more than acceptable avenue for things besides mindlessly jumping the meat hurdles in front of me whilst waving my sword around. I would counter your suggestion that if you wanted a game with no moral ambiguity, maybe you should start looking at a nice video game--except even the better video games have at least a hamfisted attempt at morality. At the least, I would suggest that you avoid playing a class that has moral stringency, and the penalties for not observing that stringency, explicitly built into the class description. Or go ahead and do so, and house-rule away the paladin code. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this if it makes your game more fun.
The topic of this thread was about moral ambiguity. Your answer appears to be that it doesn't exist in Pathfinder. This is not a constructive answer, as you don't appear to be playing the same game the OP, and many of us, are playing.