Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
61) Eat them. Take any alignment change that may or may not result of this. With your new alignment, give exactly one immense poo.
One of the players at my lodge tried something like this. As I understand it, the character has the goal of cooking at least one of every monster in existence. The GM pretty quickly nixed doing it to anything with an Int score of higher than 2, though :)
Liath Samathran |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon wrote:Murder is the only option. It's what the paladin would do.The paladins of "Lawful Good" Iomedae and Torag, sure.
30. Baleful polymorph all of them into sheep, and hope none of them made their will save to keep their mind.
Utter blasphemy.
Holy Iomedae holds in her greatest scorn those who would commit such wickedness and cruelty in the name of the "greater good", especially those who would dare to do so in Her name.
Was so happy her god article came right out and said it.
Minah |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
62. Ask your DM if not rescuing them is an evil act. When your DM, a real dick, says yes, go ahead and save them. Go to the nearest village. If anyone objects to them or says they should be killed, slaughter them in the streets. When the DM objects point out that they were evil and you were only fighting evil.
rungok |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
62. Ask your DM if not rescuing them is an evil act. When your DM, a real dick, says yes, go ahead and save them. Go to the nearest village. If anyone objects to them or says they should be killed, slaughter them in the streets. When the DM objects point out that they were evil and you were only fighting evil.
I would also accept the response "I'm not evil, I'm just a dick."
63. Make good use of the Hypnotism spell, then they go take care of themselves.
thegreenteagamer |
9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy solved this dilemma, PERFECTLY, I might add, in another thread.
Give the babies, one at a time, a holy weapon. If they are evil, they only have 1HD, so the negative level will kill them. If neutral or good, they will live.
Move on, thread over, dilemma solved, he figured out what one hand clapping sounds like, and if a tree falls in the woods if there's sound.
DominusMegadeus |
Lemmy solved this dilemma, PERFECTLY, I might add, in another thread.
Give the babies, one at a time, a holy weapon. If they are evil, they only have 1HD, so the negative level will kill them. If neutral or good, they will live.
Move on, thread over, dilemma solved, he figured out what one hand clapping sounds like, and if a tree falls in the woods if there's sound.
That's actually brilliant. Of course, if you're still fighting goblin tribes, you're probably not high enough level for a Holy weapon, but it is a fool-proof plan.
Secret Wizard |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy solved this dilemma, PERFECTLY, I might add, in another thread.
Give the babies, one at a time, a holy weapon. If they are evil, they only have 1HD, so the negative level will kill them. If neutral or good, they will live.
Move on, thread over, dilemma solved, he figured out what one hand clapping sounds like, and if a tree falls in the woods if there's sound.
72. Ignore ages of philosophical debate on nature vs. nurture by assuming morality is innate rather than obtained through our thoughts and actions
PathlessBeth |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy solved this dilemma, PERFECTLY, I might add, in another thread.
Give the babies, one at a time, a holy weapon. If they are evil, they only have 1HD, so the negative level will kill them. If neutral or good, they will live.
Move on, thread over, dilemma solved, he figured out what one hand clapping sounds like, and if a tree falls in the woods if there's sound.
Rich Burlew already solved it in a much more satisfying way. See also here, and here and here.
If you don't feel like following the links, the main points were
Storm_Of_Snow wrote:Given that, there's a chance that there's babies in the nest, and they will be in the line of fire at some point, whether accidentally, or getting involved actively, so they will need some stats to handle those situations.Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:
Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.
and
And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that.
Why bother treating the symptom when you know how to cure the disease?
thegreenteagamer |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The holy weapon being wielded isn't you killing the babies, it's the GM.
The item doesn't say anything about subjective morality, or nature or nurture, cause and effect, or any other crap like that. It says if you're evil, you get a negative level.
If the GM rules that it kills them, HE SAYS THEY'RE EVIL and so there is No Moral Debate! If it doesn't, again, that's the GM...you know, the guy who decides whether Paladins fall or protection from evil works, etc...that's that guy saying, nope, they're not evil.
He cannot possibly give you any moral doubt with it. It's either instant death or not, and it's solely based on what you ARE. Not what society says you are, not what you feel like, not what you intend, what you ARE.
Secret Wizard |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:What? No no, they absolutely do. Evil is Evil man. Less Evil is a Net Good for the multiverse.
On the downside, he'll probably say "just because someone is evil doesn't mean they automatically have to die", so you still lose.
That's not true.
Let's say the moral spectrum goes from 1 to 5, with 1 being pure good and 5 pure evil.
Then let's say that there's only 5 people in the universe, one an alignment of 1, another with an alignment of 2, another with an alignment of 3, another with an alignment of 4 and a last one with an alignment of 5.
This would mean there's a 50%-50% spread of good/evil.
If you kill the guy with an alignment of 3... then that's still a 50%-50% spread.
If you kill the guy with an alignment of 5... then the guy with the alignment of 4 becomes the most evil dude out there, and 3 the second after him. We end up with a 50%-50% spread as well.
In short, bad is the enemy of worse.
Kobold Catgirl |
If an evil merchant who underpays his employees and overprices his merchandise (see him as a sort of Scrooge figure, just even more douchey) is out in the wilderness, away from the law, and the paladin runs into him and detects him as evil...
The guy doesn't kill people. All he does is treat his employees like s++!, ignore evil acts that don't affect him, refuse starving men food and mortally wounded children medical attention, and he probably hold some really nasty views on the lower class. But he detects as evil. So, kill?
I'm sure someone's just going to dodge that and say that this guy is obviously Neutral, though, so screw it.
Soilent |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an evil merchant who underpays his employees and overprices his merchandise (see him as a sort of Scrooge figure, just even more douchey) is out in the wilderness, away from the law, and the paladin runs into him and detects him as evil...
The guy doesn't kill people. All he does is treat his employees like s&@%, ignore evil acts that don't affect him, refuse starving men food and mortally wounded children medical attention, and he probably hold some really nasty views on the lower class. But he detects as evil. So, kill?
I'm sure someone's just going to dodge that and say that this guy is obviously Neutral, though, so screw it.
My Paladin would try to make him see how much he could help others, perhaps the party could make a quest out of it.
It'll be like "A Christmas Carol" but with less ghosts.
Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scavion wrote:Kobold Cleaver wrote:What? No no, they absolutely do. Evil is Evil man. Less Evil is a Net Good for the multiverse.
On the downside, he'll probably say "just because someone is evil doesn't mean they automatically have to die", so you still lose.That's not true.
Let's say the moral spectrum goes from 1 to 5, with 1 being pure good and 5 pure evil.
Then let's say that there's only 5 people in the universe, one an alignment of 1, another with an alignment of 2, another with an alignment of 3, another with an alignment of 4 and a last one with an alignment of 5.
This would mean there's a 50%-50% spread of good/evil.
If you kill the guy with an alignment of 3... then that's still a 50%-50% spread.
If you kill the guy with an alignment of 5... then the guy with the alignment of 4 becomes the most evil dude out there, and 3 the second after him. We end up with a 50%-50% spread as well.
In short, bad is the enemy of worse.
Thats not how alignment works at all!
Is that on purpose or...?
Evil is evil, Good is good. If you kill an evil person, someone does not magically get eviler. There is no sliding scale of evil. All evil alignments are not exactly in competition with one another in evilness. Lawful Evil is just as evil as Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil in the game. The only difference is how the individual Evil person feels about the Law/Order axis. For the purposes of how the game treats them, the man who savagely beats his children because he never wanted them is just as evil as the dude about to sacrifice a thousand people to his dark god.
Cranefist |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thegreenteagamer wrote:72. Ignore ages of philosophical debate on nature vs. nurture by assuming morality is innate rather than obtained through our thoughts and actionsLemmy solved this dilemma, PERFECTLY, I might add, in another thread.
Give the babies, one at a time, a holy weapon. If they are evil, they only have 1HD, so the negative level will kill them. If neutral or good, they will live.
Move on, thread over, dilemma solved, he figured out what one hand clapping sounds like, and if a tree falls in the woods if there's sound.
I had a thread on here a long time ago about the PCs in my game saving a bunch of deep gnomes from a drow slave camp. When they ran the place over, the gnomes found the drow nursery and started smashing up all the babies with their hammers like a herd of bison finding lion cubs.
One of the players asked, "is that evil?" to which I replied, "Drow were created by the spider queen to be inherently evil and make war on the surface societies. Without divine intervention they are always going to be evil. Killing them is just grim work for the light." The players laughed and let it go.
I don't personally think goblins have babies. I think they are born from eggs that appear on the ground during storms and hatch fully grown.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
72. Ignore ages of philosophical debate on nature vs. nurture by assuming morality is innate rather than obtained through our thoughts and actions
Ignore ages of philosophical debate on nature vs nurture when you realize it doesn't have to apply in the same way to all creatures in a fantasy universe where there are literal evil forces.
Personally, I generally prefer humanoids to be more nurture than nature, but I can cope with the opposite in appropriate settings. I do like there to be exceptions, especially among the stranger more alien creatures.
B. A. Robards-Debardot |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
85. Attempt a series of untrained perform(juggling) checks.
86. Apply the swarm template, set them upon BBEG and watch as hilarity and touching moments ensue as he attempts to raise them as his own (Mr. Mom style). Just because you're a BBEG doesn't mean you're a bad parent.
87. Raise them training them with ranks in acrobatics and disguise, give them a trench coat.
B. A. Robards-Debardot |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Icyshadow |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
89. Thank the DM for giving me something else than mere blocks of HP that I need to cut down for EXP. Then try raising the goblins and hoping for the best.
Seriously, so many murderhobos here want to kick / punch / slap the DM for this scenario. It just seems to show that people don't care for the RP in a Tabletop RPG.
thejeff |
89. Thank the DM for giving me something else than mere blocks of HP that I need to cut down for EXP. Then try raising the goblins and hoping for the best.
Seriously, so many murderhobos here want to kick / punch / slap the DM for this scenario. It just seems to show that people don't care for the RP in a Tabletop RPG.
Or perhaps they care for RP, but aren't particularly interested in a campaign about raising goblin babies.
BTW, I assume your characters are retiring from adventuring and aren't endangering these helpless children by taking them into dangerous situations?
thejeff |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raising the goblins could very well be done in a setting like Kingmaker, where there are long downtime periods between some adventures. I guess the vitriolic responses just go to show how narrowminded some folks can be.
In some games it could work. Preferably when it's something the players talked about wanting to do.
In most games you won't have that kind of downtime. Most likely is a cliched moral dilemma forced on you by a GM who's got no idea how to do interesting RP.
Or just as likely one who thinks it's only realistic for there to be babies in the goblin village and thinks it would be horrible for you to hurt them, despite having set it up as heroic for you to slaughter every adult goblin - no survivors, no one tries to flee, everyone just attacks you in suicidal waves, even the older children. Otherwise, why would the helpless babies be the only survivors?