|
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 difference between goblins and roaches being that goblins are sapient beings. Capable of choosing their own destiny.
Sorry "shackled" is too loaded for your tastes. Guess "bound" is out too. "Restricted". Is my language vetted enough yet?
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.
All the bombs really do is discourage people from reading the entirety of your posts. They obfuscate more than clarify.
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.
:\ You're the one getting bothered by other people's "rationalizations", "excuses", "poor reasoning", and "emotional language" where it concerns there preferences in the game. This has occured in numerous threads thus far, and I'm far from the only one you've spoken down to.
Chill.
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. promise, it doesn't bother me even a teensy little bit.
Evidently it does, if you feel the need to rail on against "rationalizations", "excuses", "poor reasoning", and "emotional language" in what are honest statements about how one views the game.
In other words,
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.
What, exactly, makes killing a newborn elf wrong but killing a newborn goblin okay?
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.What, exactly, makes killing a newborn elf wrong but killing a newborn goblin okay?
Read the post. I explain it in the post. As the post was not a "text bomb", it shouldn't be too hard.
The difference between goblins and roaches being that goblins are sapient beings. Capable of choosing their own destiny.
I'll grant sentience. I'll even grant rudimentary reasoning. Show me sapience. Show me moralism. Show me a tribe or a family or any group of moralizing goblins or goblins with a conscience.
Sorry "shackled" is too loaded for your tastes. Guess "bound" is out too. "Restricted". Is my language vetted enough yet?
Getting there. Thanks.
All the bombs really do is discourage people from reading the entirety of your posts. They obfuscate more than clarify.
I grant the first and reject the second. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I don't preclude your objections, then I spend a great deal of time tying off tangents, keeping subject matter on topic, and repeating the same points over and over again. If do, then you don't read it.
What's your suggestion on how to prevent the objections that distract and confuse the argument?
:\ You're the one getting bothered by other people's "rationalizations", "excuses", "poor reasoning", and "emotional language" where it concerns there preferences in the game. This has occured in numerous threads thus far, and I'm far from the only one you've spoken down to.
Chill.
Right. So I shouldn't worry if my discussions include rationalizations and excuses and poor reasoning. If I try to prevent it, I'm "taking it personal". You just love to attack, don't you? How about you chill?
Evidently it does, if you feel the need to rail on against looks up "rationalizations", "excuses", "poor reasoning", and "emotional language" in what are honest statements about how one views the game.
Nope. You have a hard time assessing evidence, it seems.
That's fine for some character types. It isn't fine for most definitions of a paladin in any but the most CrapsackWorlds.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?"
So, a paladin can't go to war or declare war on a species? Can he declare war on demons or devils?
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.
I already addressed all of this. This is why I bomb text. Guess mikaze is right. It doesn't work.
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...
This is the only partially-decent piece of thing you've said: that punishment should be merit-based. Sure. But that's only if it's punishment. Humans and elves and dwarves don't look at goblins as deserving of punishment (well, I'm sure the average one does), but rather as an evil race that is a threat to all Goodly species and needs to be eradicated for the safety and survival of the human/elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling/etc... races. They are at war with goblins. Not some goblins. All goblins.
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.
I'm aware of what the topic is about. And I addressed it. Apparently in a way some people didn't like. But that has no bearing on you claiming that "Your game sounds really boring" because I don't support moral ambiguity with my *monsters*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Mikaze and blahpers.
I prefer playing in "morally ambiguous" settings. If a race is evil or not most of the time for me is more a question of their culture then their birth race.
There are exceptions. In my opinion, almost always there are exceptions. Maybe there is one race that simply wants to eat everybody else and no matter how you treat their babies it will happen. That is okay. But every "evil race" being only is creating, in my opinion, boring gaming and boring settings.
Off course, Sewer Rats and other settings like it for beer & pretzel (or, as I prefer, Cider & Salt Vinegar chips) gaming are an exception.I like to play "Hero Quest" too. But these ways of gaming are not really roleplaying for me.
But maybe I grew up with the "wrong" style from your point of view jupistar. I only started playing D&D/Pathfinder about 2 years ago. Before that, I almost only played a German RPG. And in this game, there is no "detect evil" and so on.
No matter what my preference is - IMO the important thing is, that a group decides on the way they want to game before they start. They have to decide how often they want the topic of the game to be "moral questions". Maybe you don't want all members of one race to be evil for fluff reasons but you also don't want to have a discussion about what to do with prisoners every game night. No problem, the GM has enough ways of handling it that way. Or maybe in your world even baby goblins are frenzied lunatics that try to eat a grown human.
As long as every participant knows the way it is done almost everything goes.
But maybe I grew up with the "wrong" style from your point of view jupistar. I only started playing D&D/Pathfinder about 2 years ago. Before that, I almost only played a German RPG. And in this game, there is no "detect evil" and so on.
Nah, man. I wouldn't think anything like that. I wouldn't care if you thought "hack and slash" was the absolute best way to play. It's not the way I like to play, admittedly, but it's all subjective. My only gripe with this specific notion (regarding evil species) is that it contradicts every bit of reason I can come up with. But that's ok. It's a fantasy game, after all. Where's the "reason" in that? :)
As I told mikaze, before: for me, moral ambiguity is easily found among morally varied species (humans, elves, dwarves, etc...). And exceptional situations can be made when you find the aberrations like Drizzt (or an even crazier thing, like a family of farming goblins).
My monsters are for combat and my human-like species are for moralizing and role-playing. That's the way I like it. I appreciate that you and others have a different developed style.
In my Pathfinder game, we recently had to deal with this. One of the players wanted to bring in a new character but not have it be one of the standard races. Due to plot points I had set in motion, I suggested he play a Charua-Ka, one of the ape men of the Mwangi expanse.
He was concerned that they were all chaotic evil and hated everywhere. I countered by pointing out lines in the book where they are among the races who come to the markets of Katapesh. Obviously the Pactmasters of Katapesh don't hate them. The Charua-Ka's gold is as good as anyones.
Which is not to say that there isn't a great deal of friction elsewhere in the world. Chelish colonists are fighting a war of expansion into Mwangi expanse and the Charua-Ka are fighting back. Most of the Charua-Ka worship the ape demon Angazhan but so far as I'm concerned this is the same as most Cheliaxians worshipping Asmodeus: a third have drank the Kool-Aid, a third are good at doing lip service, and the last third are busy worshipping other gods under the table.
Consider, oh, say, the Cult of the Dawnflower. It's well established as a hidden religion in Taldor. Now imagine a bunch of Taldan explorers, many of them secret Dawnflower cultists and missionaries, strap on their pith helmets and mount an expedition to the Mwangi expanse. While there, the are captured by the Charua-Ka, killed, and reincarnated as new Charua-Ka, there to worship the ape demon Angazhan! Which is a nice plan except that Dawnflower cultists are really good at hiding their religion and giving lip service to another. And give them a little time to do missionary work among the Charua-Ka?
It should also be pointed out that Sarenrae is the goddess of Redemption. If the cult of the Dawnflower is not actively trying to infiltrate every evil race on the planet, they're not doing it right. Which is not to say that you're going to run into tons of gnoll paladins, but there are liable to be a few, the same as there are human cultists of Lamashtu.
He was concerned that they were all chaotic evil and hated everywhere. I countered by pointing out lines in the book where they are among the races who come to the markets of Katapesh. Obviously the Pactmasters of Katapesh don't hate them. The Charua-Ka's gold is as good as anyones.
Yeah, I'm not buying it--at least, not for my game. I can't see this small piece of evidence as being enough to overturn all of the rest of the text that talks about how these charau-ka are brutal savages who love the taste of human flesh.
I've never denied that there are exceptions in the literature and in source material. But those exceptions are very few and very far in-between; that they're aberrational. That's all I'm saying.
If you want to make those exceptions more the norm in your world, please, don't let my distaste for it deter you. If your players want to play special "monstrous" characters, that's up to you all to decide. But that's not the default position of the material or the way people play.
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.
OK, let's make one thing clear here:
Language is emotive, no matter how you use it.
Goblin offspring are babies = emotive. It humanizes them when they may not be human and may not have the capacity to be anything other than vermin.
Goblin offspring are spawn = emotive. It dehumanizes them when they may have the same capacity for good or evil as humans, and tries to argue that they are vermin.
The real question here is are goblins predisposed to evil, or is it merely the culture they are raised in that makes them so from the perspective of other races?
Point #1: There are such things as good and non-evil goblins.
Point #2: Goblin culture clearly predisposes them toward evil.
This implies that goblins could have the same capacity for good or evil as humans. Ergo, language that 'humanizes' them is more justifiable than not.
OK, let's make one thing clear here:
Language is emotive, no matter how you use it.
This is only partially true. Some words are clearly more emotive than others. "Offspring" is not a very emotive term, for example. "Babies", on the other hand, is very emotive. Playing emotional games with words to win a debate is dishonest and indicates a lack of truth-seeking motivation. We're talking about the dishonest use of words to try to win an argument, not to find the righteous ground. Rhetoric over reason.
Goblin offspring are babies = emotive. It humanizes them when they may not be human and may not have the capacity to be anything other than vermin.
Goblin offspring are spawn = emotive. It dehumanizes them when they may have the same capacity for good or evil as humans, and tries to argue that they are vermin.The real question here is are goblins predisposed to evil, or is it merely the culture they are raised in that makes them so from the perspective of other races?
Point #1: There are such things as good and non-evil goblins.
Point #2: Goblin culture clearly predisposes them toward evil.This implies that goblins could have the same capacity for good or evil as humans. Ergo, language that 'humanizes' them is more justifiable than not.
Point 1 - in any sufficiently large statistical sampling, a lack of radical exception to the norm would be very surprising--whether due to a good-corrupted spirit or to gene mutation is irrelevant. We are talking about an enormous sampling to produce a few non-evil, non-sadistic Goblins. Are you saying that once Goblins get older they fail to be able to use their intelligence to think, "Maybe what I've been doing all these years is wrong?" Because if they can use their intelligence and they don't ever rebel against their lives, it implies something else than you suggest.
Point 2 - what came first, the culture or the evil? If Goblins are all predisposed to evil (which seems rather obvious to me: see Point 1), then of course their culture is going to be an evil one.
You're saying that every single Goblin culture in every single Goblin tribe across all of Golarion must be equivalent in their mass production of evil goblins. But why is that? And why are there so few rebels? Why are there so few who buck the system? Why are there no rebellious goblin tribes devoted to N deities or G deities? You get that in other species, such as human or elf or dwarf. Why do you not get that in goblin, if they're "more like humans"?
My goal is to dehumanize because they're not human. If you want to dehumanize elves and dwarves and halflings, I'm ok with that, too. Because they're not human. Hobbitize the halflings. Elvenize the elves. I bet that it won't change much about how you view them. But when you start to goblinize the goblins, it really puts things in perspective. They are vicious, rapacious little monsters that would rather eat your babies than ignore them, that would rather sodomize your dog with a dogslicer than run away from it, and would rather hobble your horse and watch it die a slow miserable death than do anything of a slightly redeemable nature.
At least, that's true according to almost all source material and fantasy literature that I've read. The exceptions are just that... exceptions. And they're extremely rare exceptions, indeed. It is my opinion, you kill them. If in your game world, there is some inherent capacity for non-evil in them, then that might justify not destroying their offspring--but that of course depends on the nature of your world. That's your decision, obviously.
You do realize that if you humanize goblins, it just means you either have to find something else to fill that role of inherently-evil-species or you have to exclude such things from your game world. I see no reason to exclude such things from my game world and I have plenty of species to work with for that purpose and all the other purposes I need, too. My world is no more boring than any of yours, I'm sure. My game might be, but that would be my fault for being a poor GM.
He was concerned that they were all chaotic evil and hated everywhere. I countered by pointing out lines in the book where they are among the races who come to the markets of Katapesh. Obviously the Pactmasters of Katapesh don't hate them. The Charua-Ka's gold is as good as anyones.Yeah, I'm not buying it--at least, not for my game. I can't see this small piece of evidence as being enough to overturn all of the rest of the text that talks about how these charau-ka are brutal savages who love the taste of human flesh.
I've never denied that there are exceptions in the literature and in source material. But those exceptions are very few and very far in-between; that they're aberrational. That's all I'm saying.
If you want to make those exceptions more the norm in your world, please, don't let my distaste for it deter you. If your players want to play special "monstrous" characters, that's up to you all to decide. But that's not the default position of the material or the way people play.
Well humans love the taste of human flesh too. From everything I've read on the subject, long pork tastes just like regular pork except just a little bit more tender and sweeter. In fact, somewhere back in my anthropology studies, I have the notes from an anthropologist from New Zealand who talked to an old cannibal who remembered the taste of human flesh and told him that it tasted just like the SPAM the anthropologist had brought, which lead to the conversation.
Humans just have this cultural taboo about eating human flesh, but they love the taste just fine.
As for aberrations, I just checked the business in the Inner Sea Guide about Katapesh and it mentioned Gnoll slavers under the list of free sorts you can find in the markets and "intelligent apes from the jungles of the Mwangi Expanse" under the list of possible slaves.
So lets say you have a bunch of gnoll slavers go to the Mwangi expanse, find a Charua-Ka tribe, and capture the lot of them, dragging them back in chains to the slave markets of Katapesh. The warriors are sold as savage ape men for gladiatorial pits, the few old ones to traveling carnivals who want to be able to show off a "savage ape man" in their sideshows without too much risk, and the young are sold to be servants and such, including any babies, such as one a pregnant Charua-Ka delivered shortly after arriving in Katapesh.
So let's say we've got some vain young noblewoman who's out on the grand tour and she can't decide between an exotic servant boy or a pet monkey, then she's presented with the chance to buy a baby Charua-Ka. It's so cute!
And so she takes it back to Taldor and raises it up as her pet, only to find that it can actually speak, and while it's easy enough to spin a story where it eventually grows up and one night in a fit of screaming rage it kills the whole household, we can also come up with stories where it instead grows up as a sheltered pet, or even wishes to prove itself above its brute origins and makes a point of being as learned and intellectual as possible.
Heck, we could say that this happened with all of the Charua-Ka infants and toddlers sold by the gnoll slaver and come up with a different story for each one.
Which is not to say that there aren't horrible anthropophagous tribes of Charua-Ka running around the Mwangi Expanse, but if you're in the drawing rooms of Taldor and a Charua-Ka enters the room, your expectation should be that it's milady's exotic servant boy or the eccentric master's adopted son. And apart from it's ability to enter a shrieking frenzy and being extremely good at catching and throwing things, it will act as intelligently as any civilized man.
He was concerned that they were all chaotic evil and hated everywhere. I countered by pointing out lines in the book where they are among the races who come to the markets of Katapesh. Obviously the Pactmasters of Katapesh don't hate them. The Charua-Ka's gold is as good as anyones.Yeah, I'm not buying it--at least, not for my game. I can't see this small piece of evidence as being enough to overturn all of the rest of the text that talks about how these charau-ka are brutal savages who love the taste of human flesh.
I've never denied that there are exceptions in the literature and in source material. But those exceptions are very few and very far in-between; that they're aberrational. That's all I'm saying.
If you want to make those exceptions more the norm in your world, please, don't let my distaste for it deter you. If your players want to play special "monstrous" characters, that's up to you all to decide. But that's not the default position of the material or the way people play.
Well humans love the taste of human flesh too. From everything I've read on the subject, long pork tastes just like regular pork except just a little bit more tender and sweeter. In fact, somewhere back in my anthropology studies, I have the notes from an anthropologist from New Zealand who talked to an old cannibal who remembered the taste of human flesh and told him that it tasted just like the SPAM the anthropologist had brought, which lead to the conversation.
Humans just have this cultural taboo about eating human flesh, but they love the taste just fine.
As for aberrations, I just checked the business in the Inner Sea Guide about Katapesh and it mentioned Gnoll slavers under the list of free sorts you can find in the markets and "intelligent apes from the jungles of the Mwangi Expanse" under the list of possible slaves.
So lets say you have a bunch of gnoll slavers go to the Mwangi expanse, find a Charua-Ka tribe, and capture the lot...
The issue with eating human flesh was more emotive than anything else. I was trying to illustrate the savagery that is inherent in these creatures.
I think I'm done arguing the point. I'm sure, eventually, you'll find some species, maybe this one, in some story or source material somewhere that fits the bill--a savage, brutal group of non-HEGHDhOs--that can be tamed and domesticated for integration into society. I'm fine with that, as I've said many times over. It's your world and your story. In fact, if it were something less well-documented and more reasonably explained, like the Charau-Ka, I could probably even agree with and enjoy the story.
As for Gnoll slavers being free to sell their wares in the marketplace at Katapesh. I think it sort of speaks for itself, don't you?
Too much wall of text to respond to inline.
Overall take from this: I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that killing infants of a sentient species is or is not Lawful Good based on their statistical alignment distribution. I have heard people argue that declaring war on an entire species--or subset; what's so special about the species boundary, anyway?--to the point of total extermination on sight (including noncombatants) is in iteself perfectly Lawful Good. They tend to be (statistically speaking, of course) people with whom I do not enjoy gaming. Or working. Or talking. Or pretty much anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, when I hear about people massacring babies of any sentient race, I'm reminded of the description in Ishi, The Last of His Tribe, where the Gold Rush miners ran around killing everyone, even the children, of the Yahi tribe, proclaiming, "Nits will be lice!"
I can think of many words to describe this, but suffice it to say that the action depicted is not Lawful Good.
Quite honestly, when I hear people unable to distinguish between real human sapient beings and evil fantasy creatures, I just shake my head.
Suffice it to say, I worry about the human race when I read about what masquerades as Good.
To the OP
IMO Drejk has it basically right.
If a creature surrenders it is basically giving up and asking for mercy
Paladin is fighting gnolls when 2 surrender he can either
A accept the surrender and accord them appropriate terms of surrender; or
B refuse to accept their surrender
If he intends to execute them on surrender, without further consideration then to accept their surrender would appear to be using the idea of surrender in a duplicitous way - dishonorable IMO.
This doesn't mean execution would never be possible just that it has to be considered, lawful, honorable. Even if you are at war with the race - a paladin believes in the rules of war.
If you do not intend to follow this path you should make it clear you do not accept their surrender, nor take advantage of any misunderstanding they may have about whether or not you will accept their surrender and show them mercy.
I would have no problem with your play of a paladin in my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is only partially true. Some words are clearly more emotive than others. "Offspring" is not a very emotive term, for example. "Babies", on the other hand, is very emotive. Playing emotional games with words to win a debate is dishonest and indicates a lack of truth-seeking motivation. We're talking about the dishonest use of words to try to win an argument, not to find the righteous ground. Rhetoric over reason.OK, let's make one thing clear here:
Language is emotive, no matter how you use it.
On the matter of morals and ethics, emotion is as relevant as reason.
What do we define as good? Compassion, love, generosity. Emotional.What do we define as evil? Cruelty, hatred, greed. Emotional.
Point 1 - in any sufficiently large statistical sampling, a lack of radical exception to the norm would be very surprising--whether due to a good-corrupted spirit or to gene mutation is irrelevant. We are talking about an enormous sampling to produce a few non-evil, non-sadistic Goblins. Are you saying that once Goblins get older they fail to be able to use their intelligence to think, "Maybe what I've been doing all these years is wrong?" Because if they can use their intelligence and they don't ever rebel against their lives, it implies something else than you suggest.Goblin offspring are babies = emotive. It humanizes them when they may not be human and may not have the capacity to be anything other than vermin.
Goblin offspring are spawn = emotive. It dehumanizes them when they may have the same capacity for good or evil as humans, and tries to argue that they are vermin.The real question here is are goblins predisposed to evil, or is it merely the culture they are raised in that makes them so from the perspective of other races?
Point #1: There are such things as good and non-evil goblins.
Point #2: Goblin culture clearly predisposes them toward evil.This implies that goblins could have the same capacity for good or evil as humans. Ergo, language that 'humanizes' them is more justifiable than not.
The statistics are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the description of alignment allows for non-evil goblins. As for goblins failing to use their intelligence, I would refute that in three ways:
1) The way goblins are raised (I base this on the information provided in Rise of the Runelords: Burnt Offerings) is such that any goblin not predisposed toward aggression and selfishness will likely not survive childhood. Therefore while adult goblins may be evil, there is no way of telling if a goblin infant will actually share that predisposition.
2) Indoctrination - especially of the very harshest kind - prevents humans from using their intelligence to realise that they are committing evil atrocities, can goblins cannot be expected to be any better?
3) Point of view is VERY important. Nobody believes that they are the bad guy, after all. Goblins very likely justify their behaviour toward other humanoids under the heading of necessity. They have to raid caravans because no-one will trade with them. They have to eat people because they cannot afford to waste any resource of food. They have to be terrifying and fearsome to their foes to make them feared and respected and keep them from raids and attacks. They have to worshiop[ fearsome deities for the same reason. It's a 'do it to them before they do it to us' world out there, and only the toughest and most dedicated survive.
Point 2 - what came first, the culture or the evil? If Goblins are all predisposed to evil (which seems rather obvious to me: see Point 1), then of course their culture is going to be an evil one.
That goblin culture is predisposed toward evil is not in doubt. However that does not mean that a goblin raised away from goblin culture will be any more disposed toward evil than the young of the culture it is raised in. There is no indicator one way or the other on this.
You're saying that every single Goblin culture in every single Goblin tribe across all of Golarion must be equivalent in their mass production of evil goblins. But why is that? And why are there so few rebels? Why are there so few who buck the system? Why are there no rebellious goblin tribes devoted to N deities or G deities? You get that in other species, such as human or elf or dwarf. Why do you not get that in goblin, if they're "more like humans"?
Simple: Most goblin tribes interact with other goblin tribes, often competitively. Mainstream goblin culture sees following neutral or good deities as weakness. Therefore any goblin tribe turning from an evil path toward a good one would likely be attacked by it's neighbours. Given that they would be outnumbered by said neighbours, it is unlikely that they would survive long.
Any goblin using their intelligence as you imply above will likely also realise that showing such inclinations among other goblins will make them a target. So even if there were individuals and tribes out there that are non-evil, don't expect to find them easily; they would either retire to places far from interactions with others, or else disguise themselves as being as nasty as their neighbours. In fact, given goblin interactions with other humanoids - attacked by adventurers, dominated by evil masters etc. - it is highly likely that most goblins have the impression that everybody in the world thinks and acts the way they do. How would they know about the creeds of good aligned deities? How many missionaries have gone to convert them?
Now consider human history: there is no act that goblins perform in fantasy that some human culture or organisation has not performed in history, yet humans are not, by their nature, evil. Many of these cultures perpetuated themselves for some time, unless called to task by external cultures. Further, many of those performing such actions on other humans justified them as righteous and justified usually on the basis that those they destroyed were not human.
In short, your own arguments are what have been used to justify such acts. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster..."
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.
Ooh, how about, "Being a gnoll inflicts terminal case of evil, the only cure death. I'm doing you a mercy, Gnoll."
Quite honestly, when I hear people unable to distinguish between real human sapient beings and evil fantasy creatures, I just shake my head.
Suffice it to say, I worry about the human race when I read about what masquerades as Good.
On that last note, I agree.
Ooh, how about, "Being a gnoll inflicts terminal case of evil, the only cure death. I'm doing you a mercy, Gnoll."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.
Nope, still bored.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'd have no problem if the gnoll was a combatant that tried to surrender, and the paladin gave no quarter. That's life-or-death combat, folks. But if the paladin accepts their surrender, then he must honor it. (Key word: honor)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, when I hear people unable to distinguish between real human sapient beings and evil fantasy creatures, I just shake my head.
Suffice it to say, I worry about the human race when I read about what masquerades as Good.
I can distinguish between real human sapient beings and evil fantasy creatures just fine. My trouble is separating the "Why X race is Evil" arguments for fantasy creatures from those used to stereotype and malign real human sapient beings. Especially when a lot of those same arguments were used by the same authors who wrote a lot of the fantasy fiction we're basing our games upon as well as some embarrassingly racist stuff.
Honestly, it's incredibly hard to find a piece of late 19th/early 20th century literature that's not dripping with Social Darwinism.
And to have 21st century gaming where the humans are basically viewed through a modern lens but the orcs, gnolls, goblins and so forth can naturally be born "bad" or "stupid" or what have you?
|
|
Show me sapience. Show me moralism. Show me a tribe or a family or any group of moralizing goblins or goblins with a conscience.
You mean besides all the specific examples I gave earlier? Besides the statement that alignment for these creatures who are intelligent and not made of an alignment are fluid with their own alignments?
Even Orcs of Golarion noted that they sent their elderly and young ahead of them while the able held the line during their retreat from the dwarves during their Quest For Sky.
I grant the first and reject the second. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I don't preclude your objections, then I spend a great deal of time tying off tangents, keeping subject matter on topic, and repeating the same points over and over again. If do, then you don't read it.
What's your suggestion on how to prevent the objections that distract and confuse the argument?
One, consice writing.
Two, not assuming that disagreements with your position, or positions you disagree with, are distracting or confusing the argument.
A number of gamers don't view the game and certain elements(be they races or alignment) of the game the same way you do.
This does not mean they are confused or misguided.
Right. So I shouldn't worry if my discussions include rationalizations and excuses and poor reasoning. If I try to prevent it, I'm "taking it personal". You just love to attack, don't you? How about you chill?
:|
You don't even see what you're doing man.
Nope. You have a hard time assessing evidence, it seems.
Considering who's actually been posting evidence...
This implies that goblins could have the same capacity for good or evil as humans. Ergo, language that 'humanizes' them is more justifiable than not.
JUst ask your GM if there are any goblin pallies in his campaign; he might call it meta-gaming, but it'll settle the issue.
|
|
You do realize that if you humanize goblins, it just means you either have to find something else to fill that role of inherently-evil-species or you have to exclude such things from your game world.
Or some might not find any need for an inherently evil race when they can have inherently evil organizations. And fiends. Having the all-clear to butcher anyone for being a certain race has never been a source of appeal to me.
Personally, good and evil are more potent and ring more true when they're a matter of choice rather than an accident of birth.
Ooh, how about, "Being a gnoll inflicts terminal case of evil, the only cure death. I'm doing you a mercy, Gnoll."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.
Nope, still bored.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'd have no problem if the gnoll was a combatant that tried to surrender, and the paladin gave no quarter. That's life-or-death combat, folks. But if the paladin accepts their surrender, then he must honor it. (Key word: honor)
I agree with this.
@Dabbler: I disagree with everything you said.
@Kevin: That's a purely preferential and emotional post and doesn't actually address anything about my position or reasoning. I disagree with just about everything you said, except for where you admit to the type of conflation I was criticizing.
@Mikaze: As you say. Is this concise enough?
@TOZ: I don't know whether to apologize or express "Your Welcome". On the one hand, I hear your sarcasm, on the other hand, I think it's probably a good thing, too. You didn't actually have to read or respond to me, you know?
@All: I submit that I believe your reasoning is faulty as a direct result of your emotional and preferential biases. Ultimately, I'm the only one fighting this fight, which should probably tell me I'm wrong or at least to reconsider my position, but I can't find even one slight reason to think so (in spite of your objections--they make very little sense to me). I'm overwhelmed with too many, seemingly to me, irrational voices. Thank you for the discussion, in spite of the vitriol. I've had enough. You've browbeat me into silence.
Just remember, mobs are often wrong for this same reason--high emotions, low reason. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. I will not respond again to this thread, you may have the last words. Again, thank you.
Eh. Play it how you like it. It's just a message board thread. Some people like their evil served straight up, others on the rocks. : D
You do realize that if you humanize goblins, it just means you either have to find something else to fill that role of inherently-evil-species or you have to exclude such things from your game world.Or some might not find any need for an inherently evil race when they can have inherently evil organizations. And fiends. Having the all-clear to butcher anyone for being a certain race has never been a source of appeal to me.
Personally, good and evil are more potent and ring more true when they're a matter of choice rather than an accident of birth.
I am in absolute agreement.
@Dabbler: I disagree with everything you said.
Purely on instinct, apparently, as you cannot or will not cite reasons or evidence. When you have to accuse everyone else of bias, it's time to take a good long look at your own biases.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TOZ: I don't know whether to apologize or express "Your Welcome". On the one hand, I hear your sarcasm, on the other hand, I think it's probably a good thing, too. You didn't actually have to read or respond to me, you know?
No no, you got it, I meant it as a good thing! I just like wrapping it in snark for humorous effect.
|
Well, firstly, there are a couple of problems with the idea of killing anything evil:
1. Being Evil doesn't mean you are going to do any of those Evil things. It just means you're cool with them or otherwise willing to do them if it's to your advantage. A chiseling, selfish, merchant is very capable of being Evil while never doing anything worse than cheating people out of some money. So evil doesn't prove anthing in terms of either crimes committed or crimes they will ever commit. It judges crimes they are capable of commiting to some degree, but even there they ardly hold a monopoly.
2. What about redemption? If race is not a factor, then all that makes those people evil is their choices so far. They are eminently capable of changing and becoming Neutral or even Good people, and a Paladin's mercy might easily be the thing that causes that.
Is it truly Good to deny such people a chance at that kind of redemption, assuming they're no longer a threat?
.
.
.
Secondly, and most importantly, your GM said it was Evil, so it is. Nothing we say is going to change that. He's the one you should be having this discussion with, not us.
The options presented to me would have been;
-Kill it on sight
-Let him go without weapons
-Go back 4 days and deliver him the to the city. So he can be killed on sight by the guards.
Any and all of these actions are in character for a paladin.
Basically i'm just wondering if i should defend monsters who abandon or just slay them anyway because they are monsters.
It depends on the world you are in and the character type you are playing. But this is pretty much a question of "should I be LAWFUL good or lawful GOOD."
According to strict RAW, killing something that pops on detect evil is a "good" aligned action. But going around murdering everyone who pops is certainly not "lawful". Either action, however, is perfectly fine and within the alignment and code of conduct. It's up to you to determine how to play it, until and unless the DM steps in and disagrees with your actions being within the COD and alignment.
...Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. ...
These things are mostly the way a character of lawful good alignment should be acting anyway, so it's not much more restrictive than the alignment itself. It's too bad so many DM's and players really seem to think pally's should be played lawful stupid. There is a good deal of room for different actions and character types within the alignment.
However, one thing I will say is that in any campaign I run, killing a tied up prisoner after the battle in cold blood, or killing non-combatants (suck as babies and commoners), would not be considered "good" no matter the foe's alignment. But according to strict RAW killing something of evil alignment is a "good" aligned act.
It depends on the world you are in and the character type you are playing. But this is pretty much a question of "should I be LAWFUL good or lawful GOOD."
You lose paladinhood if you commit an EVIL act, not a chaotic one.
You have the power to detect EVIL, not detect chaos.
Ergo I think the paladin in all cases needs to be lawful GOOD.
It depends on the world you are in and the character type you are playing. But this is pretty much a question of "should I be LAWFUL good or lawful GOOD."You lose paladinhood if you commit an EVIL act, not a chaotic one.
You have the power to detect EVIL, not detect chaos.
Ergo I think the paladin in all cases needs to be lawful GOOD.
If that's how you want to play fine. That doesn't mean it's how everyone else has to.
Actually, I seem to recall there being a statement from the devs somewhere that if a Paladin gets into a Law vs. Good situation, they're supposed to pick good.
Well James Jacobs says it's up to each GM, so I stand by that.
When it comes to alignment issues and things like "do evil for the greater good," there can NEVER be an overarching "always this way" response. The concept that there could be is so alien to me that when I say "the ends justify the means" I just assume folks understand this. The ends only justify the means when they're justified, and without a specific scenario, there's no way to know if they can be justified. But if the CAN be justified, then the ends, by definition, justify the means.It comes down to each individual GM in the end. I only GM a few games at a time, so I can only say for sure if a paladin's doing good or bad in those games. I can offer advice for other GMs, but I'm not interested in codifying all the possible scenarios and making a playbook for what is officially justified and what is not.
The only time I would have a problem with the paladin choosing law over good, is if that choice required commission of an evil act.But, again, if forcing the player to always choose good over law is your thing, I'm fine with that, it's just not how I roll.
If that's how you want to play fine. That doesn't mean it's how everyone else has to.
I don't recall saying it was, I was just presenting my opinion and the evidence. I have seen nothing to suggest the paladin is LAWFUL good, and some details that imply lawful GOOD. While it's easier to be lawful than to be good, that doesn't mean it's always an option for the paladin-as-presented.
Of course how you or anyone wants to play their game is up to the individual DM and player. What I do think is important for any game is that the DM and player should talk beforehand and ensure that they are both singing from the same song-sheet on the subject. If the DM feels a paladin should be lawful first or good first, the player has to be aware of it, and of course it may vary for different deities followed. I can imagine a paladin of Abadar (LN) would tend toward lawful, one of Shellyn (NG) would tend more toward good.
I don't recall saying it was, I was just presenting my opinion and the evidence. ...
My apologies then. I couldn't agree more.