What in world sea change took place to move Goblins from “Kill on sight” to viable PCs?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
To be fair, the paladin should be using non-lethal damage because at this point, they should suspect mind control.

I was not expecting this answer to be that hard to get :D

Still, it shows that in the exact same situation, the apparent alignment of the creature the players are facing will change their behavior. Evil creatures can be killed without remorse, good ones should be spared as much as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the default assumptions in the game are something like:
- The Party is good or at least contains good characters.
- The Party is going to do a lot of killing.

So the game presupposes that there are absolutely justifications for a good person killing something which do not render that person less of a hero. I would offer that we should be very careful about making that justification inherent to what kind of thing it was that just got dead. Probably "it doesn't deserve to live because what it is" shouldn't extend much beyond fiends, undead, and aberrations.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Rysky wrote:
So the clerics are killing a lawful good person and it's absolutely okay with you?

They may be possessed, controlled, lured or whatever. It's not hard to find a good reason.

Well, there is non lethal damage or disarm in the game. If your paladin behaves like a barbarian, I think there's an issue on your side.

Self defense does not make one a barbarian.

They could also just be wearing the holy symbols as a trick.

It's my understanding you can make Perception/Sense Motive checks to see if someone is possessed or mind controlled, not allowing/calling for or not giving any hints as such is just the GM trying to pull a gotcha rather than tell a story.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
To be fair, the paladin should be using non-lethal damage because at this point, they should suspect mind control.

I was not expecting this answer to be that hard to get :D

Still, it shows that in the exact same situation, the apparent alignment of the creature the players are facing will change their behavior. Evil creatures can be killed without remorse, good ones should be spared as much as possible.

Yep, spare the Good Ogres and kill the Evil Assassins pretending to be followers of Sarenrae on sight.

Because we can tell everything about someone just with a quick look. Oh wait no we can't.

Why are the "Good"creatures attacking us? Why are we attacking the "Evil" creatures?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Wouldn’t mind control and possession show up under detect evil?

I believe possession does, but not mind control? Either way isn't that an action to detect evil in this system? Also, wouldn't detecting evil from possessed sarenrites look a lot like detecting evil creatures disguised as sarenrites?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Probably "it doesn't deserve to live because what it is" shouldn't extend much beyond fiends, undead, and aberrations.

Even aberrations are an edge case since there are non-inherently hostile aberrations. Flumph and naga are good examples, though I don't have my 2E bestiary on hand so I don't know if they're still aberrations. Aberration is a weird creature type, since the qualifier for it is mostly "being weird."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drakli wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Probably "it doesn't deserve to live because what it is" shouldn't extend much beyond fiends, undead, and aberrations.
Even aberrations are an edge case since there are non-inherently hostile aberrations. Flumph and naga are good examples, though I don't have my 2E bestiary on hand so I don't know if they're still aberrations. Aberration is a weird creature type, since the qualifier for it is mostly "being weird."

Flumphs aren't in :(

But Nagas are still Aberrations and the Gaurdian Naga, LG, is one of the ones we got.

And even past that there's plenty of non-evil Aberrations.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think context matters; in my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign, the PCs went to a dinner party at a succubus' pad in the Upper Ward, and no one killed anyone on sight.


Drakli wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Probably "it doesn't deserve to live because what it is" shouldn't extend much beyond fiends, undead, and aberrations.
Even aberrations are an edge case since there are non-inherently hostile aberrations. Flumph and naga are good examples, though I don't have my 2E bestiary on hand so I don't know if they're still aberrations. Aberration is a weird creature type, since the qualifier for it is mostly "being weird."

Yeah, Aberrations are tricky since like Shoggoths and Starspawn of Cthulhu and the Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath are things you kill ASAP, but Otyughs are fundamentally reasonable and Elder Things are generally nice unless they are trying to steal your bodies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the default assumptions in the game are something like:

- The Party is good or at least contains good characters.
- The Party is going to do a lot of killing.

So the game presupposes that there are absolutely justifications for a good person killing something which do not render that person less of a hero. I would offer that we should be very careful about making that justification inherent to what kind of thing it was that just got dead. Probably "it doesn't deserve to live because what it is" shouldn't extend much beyond fiends, undead, and aberrations.

Why would it be more ok to kill a fiend than an ogre?

There are extremely few justifications for a morally good person to kill someone else. And when you see the amount of blood adventurers have on their hand, they would be considered serial killers if you can't bring the ultimate argument: It's evil so I can kill it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In general though, I can't think of many straight examples of Paizo adventure assuming you attack a tribe of people without provocation just because you assume they are evil :P

Like, that is a D&D trope, but in Paizo's adventures you usually attack someone who has already attacked someone or they have big bloody "We are evil look at this mutilated body hanging over the wall" type signs :p

(I think closest examples might have been in ironfang somewhere or kingmaker? I can't really remember, but I recall it possibly happening in some wilderness adventure)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Why would it be more ok to kill a fiend than an ogre?

Fiends are literally made of the elemental essence of evil. They don't really have a choice in the matter, Redemption is possible but extremely difficult and will probably involve a lot of telling people "no seriously I'm trying to be good!" It's a lot easier for an Ogre to turn good than a Marilith, since an Ogre's evil is cultural rather than essential.

But usually good people are going to try to to talk to whoever they're about to kill before anybody gets hurt. At that point the GM is free to signpost "this one probably needs to be dealt with before they hurt more people."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Self defense does not make one a barbarian.

In my country, if you kill someone out of self defense, you have great chances to end up in jail. Self defense is no license to kill. And if you kill 20 people out of self defense, you are considered mental, not the paragon of good.


I feel like the odds of walking into a tomb and while walking through the various chambers, SURPRISE, there are two ogres actually living there. Even with a couple small creatures, there should still be evidence that the tomb has a couple squatters, especially ones as big as ogres. Perhaps outside the tomb you might find a very large, makeshift wheelbarrow or at least some very large footprints. In the case of most tombs, they would have to leave regularly for food unless the tomb has it's own ecosystem capable of providing food for creatures (especially large creatures if they are in fact ogres). Even if they don't have to leave the tomb, the tomb should still have some clues to the existence of creatures. Perhaps some beds, discarded trash, or even some bones. If a DM just says you stumble across two ogres living in a tomb, and there were no potential clues or warning signs, I would probably thinking either those two ogres are an illusion or the DM is not a very logical person.


CorvusMask wrote:
(I think closest examples might have been in ironfang somewhere or kingmaker? I can't really remember, but I recall it possibly happening in some wilderness adventure)

Early on in Ironfang there's a section where you kill some Xulgaths and take their cave because you need somewhere to stay. Hypothetically this could be pretty gross, but we tried to negotiate (this party tried to negotiate with literally everything) with the Xulgaths and they just attacked us.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Fiends are literally made of the elemental essence of evil. They don't really have a choice in the matter, Redemption is possible but extremely difficult and will probably involve a lot of telling people "no seriously I'm trying to be good!" It's a lot easier for an Ogre to turn good than a Marilith, since an Ogre's evil is cultural rather than essential.

But usually good people are going to try to to talk to whoever they're about to kill before anybody gets hurt. At that point the GM is free to signpost "this one probably needs to be dealt with before they hurt more people."

I think you could expect table variations for all of that. Some DMs will try to give very good justifications to every fights, others will consider that anything found in a "Monster Manual" or "Bestiary" is just there to be killed, unless specifically noted.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So now people are debating dming styles and at the same time paladin and alignment? Guess all the signs are pointing toward thread lock down.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Flumphs aren't in :(

Noooooooo, my little buddies! D:

Well, fingers crossed that they don't get lost in Copyright limbo considering WotC decided they wanted to do more with them in 5e...maybe they'll be in the next Bestiary... :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
I think you could expect table variations for all of that. Some DMs will try to give very good justifications to every fights, others will consider that anything found in a "Monster Manual" or "Bestiary" is just there to be killed, unless specifically noted.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't do that. I mean, the Bestiary contains Unicorns and Leshies and Dryads and stuff. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a contextual justification for violence in media where "armed conflict" is part of the core experience. I mean, a lot of things in the Bestiary are trying to eat you, and that should be enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Self defense does not make one a barbarian.
In my country, if you kill someone out of self defense, you have great chances to end up in jail. Self defense is no license to kill. And if you kill 20 people out of self defense, you are considered mental, not the paragon of good.

Most of the time when someone says they killed in self-defense and they are being completely honest, what they really mean is "This person was trying to explicitly murder me and I tried to stop them from killing me. However, while trying to prevent them from killing me, I accidentally killed them. I really didn't want to hurt anyone, but I also didn't want to die." As far as killing a large group of people in self-defense, I'm not sure if there is a precedent for that. However, while killing someone accidentally to stop them from killing you may not make you a better person or a "paragon of good", wanting to live doesn't make one insane.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
And when you see the amount of blood adventurers have on their hand, they would be considered serial killers if you can't bring the ultimate argument: It's evil so I can kill it.

Uh, if that's the only defense you have then yeah, those characters are.

Usually in APs you're killing stuff because they're trying to kill you or someone else.

SuperBidi wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Self defense does not make one a barbarian.
In my country, if you kill someone out of self defense, you have great chances to end up in jail. Self defense is no license to kill. And if you kill 20 people out of self defense, you are considered mental, not the paragon of good.

We don't have vorpal greatswords and fireballs and plenty of HP take lethal hits to talk through stuff in the real world. Also are you just supposed to let one of those 20 kill you?

And when I say self defense i literally mean self defense, as in killing them was the only way to make them stop trying to kill you. Not flippantly claiming self defense for murder after the fact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
If the GM is making encounters with non-hostile monsters and DELIBERATELY not cluing the players in to create some sort of "GOTCHA!" moment, it's bad GMing. Subverting player expectations is one thing, but actively decieving your players to create alignment-based melodrama is QUITE another!

Quite right!

*Hands Arcpaladin Zousha his trophy*


I mean, if your players just killed a bunch of something you can always create a justification for "turns out that was probably a good thing" after the fight. Like "their leader was wearing a necklace made of human thumbs" or "the back room is full of corpses" or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Rysky wrote:
If the Follower of Sarenrae is attacking the Paladin for absolutely no reason with no attempt to talk to the Paladin? Then yes, killing in self defense would be justified. Which is what we've been saying.
So, the paladin is killing neutral good people and it's absolutely ok for you? No point of infamy, alignment switch, atonement, loss of powers, nothing?

So the clerics are killing a lawful good person and it's absolutely okay with you?

Again, if they attack and try to murder someone for absolutely no reason that person has the moral right to defend themselves. That's also not something a Neutral Good person would do anyway.

Being a cleric or a paladin or following a Good Deity does not make someone beyond morality.

Legitimate, lawful good paladins have been known to kill other legitimate, lawful good paladins during times of war.

Good people kill good people sometimes. It's one of the sad facts of life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Good people kill good people sometimes. It's one of the sad facts of life.

Yeah. sometimes the party might have to throw down with a celestial or what-have-you. I do not think only monsters of evil alignment are to be fought by PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Rysky
Just a nod to the Succubus thread and Noticula.

*edited for clarity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Just a nod to the Succubus thread.

And Redeemed Mind Flayers!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Just a nod to the Succubus thread.
And Redeemed Mind Flayers!

And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I remember this comic with a good mindflayer in dragon magazine with the drow main character ... It was a fun little comic strip. Believe the comic ended right before wotc switched to 4th edition.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:

@Rysky

Just a nod to the Succubus thread and Noticula.

*edited for clarity.

?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Just a nod to the Succubus thread.
And Redeemed Mind Flayers!
And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?

We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Quote:
And if we start overthinking it, any creature with a positive Int modifier is some sentient species you can deal with. Why would you kill a mindflayer on sight?
Man, wouldn't it be awkward if you decided to just straight up murder the only mind flayer on the planet who'd decided that maybe eating the brains of living humanoids was a bad idea, and was coming to you for help?

That has LITERALLY happened in a game I was in. We were exploring a cave system under a temple when a Kobold appeared and called out to use and waived its arms to get our attention. The gunslinger promptly shot it because "It's a kobold, they're evil!".

It had escaped from Duergar slavers and had fled to try and find someway to rescue the rest of the clan that were still slaves the GM explained to us afterwards...

I feel like with the mindflayers I would be concerned whether or not i was being charmed by it though. that's a seriously though pickle with mindflayers. it isn't just their looks but theyr reputation and abilities that would immediately make me extremely distrustful of them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
I've never loved seeing Tieflings and even Nagajis or Ifrits as playable characters. At some point, it's kind of unsettling for people to see monstrosities wandering the streets like normal peasants. It should be limited to some areas where they proved themselves.

Tieflings were playable characters from the first time they showed up, back in Planescape.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought it was funny when the great heroes who save the day are an Leshy, an Astomoi, a Cecaelia, and one Human who needed the bonus feat. Or a Caligni, a Yaddithian, an Android, and a Half-Elf who wanted that free EWP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Dracovar wrote:


And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?
We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!

I don't miss them at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It's my understanding you can make Perception/Sense Motive checks to see if someone is possessed or mind controlled, […]

Yes and no. It is certainly possible (PF1: SG 25 for general Enchantment, SG 15 for Dominate), but generally not feasible in combat ("Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, […]")

But yeah, a GM should give some hints if that's what they're going for. A GM who would throw out-of-context Dominated good guys at you is just as likely to have an evil spellcaster Veil prisoners or another group of heros as hobgoblins, drow, or whatever your group is otherwise fighting.

So, you either trust your GM to not throw morality questions at your characters out of context, or you look for another group.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Just a nod to the Succubus thread.
And Redeemed Mind Flayers!
And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?

No, I believe multiple devs have confirmed that drow becoming good aligned doesn't transform them into regular elves. Regular elves can be evil without immediately turning into drow, after all. The transformation isn't spontaneous. It requires, in addition to an elf with an evil alignment, both Abyssal influence and that evil elf committing a singular act of incredible treachery to trigger it, which is why it's incredibly rare these days.

Eltacolibre wrote:
I remember this comic with a good mindflayer in dragon magazine with the drow main character ... It was a fun little comic strip. Believe the comic ended right before wotc switched to 4th edition.

I think I read some of that one, it's called Downer, right?


scary harpy wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Dracovar wrote:


And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?
We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!
I don't miss them at all.

Right on; I think they have become watered down, lost their alien faerie-land aspect. I also don't like that they became so Lolth focused, whereas earlier they worshipped other demons (and evil elemental gods).

Though, I do like the planar neutral Norse drow of Svartalheim.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I'm still a bit irritated about goblins suddenly being an official core ancestry myself, but that has more to do with my fear about them being used too much as comic relief in my games. But being a big fan of Eberron and Midgard, I don't mind having "more exotic" races to play with.

But as far as that kill-on-sight thing, I've never been a fan of that and have never allowed murder-hoboing in my games. As far as I am concerned, being good implies "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Oh and guess where that quote came from.

Killing being the ultimate violation of a sentient being's dignity,I'd have a hard time justifying killing a creature "just because we can". Even if it's "only a game".

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

In general though, I can't think of many straight examples of Paizo adventure assuming you attack a tribe of people without provocation just because you assume they are evil :P

Like, that is a D&D trope, but in Paizo's adventures you usually attack someone who has already attacked someone or they have big bloody "We are evil look at this mutilated body hanging over the wall" type signs :p

(I think closest examples might have been in ironfang somewhere or kingmaker? I can't really remember, but I recall it possibly happening in some wilderness adventure)

Playing Kingmaker now. Our party's "battle cry" (later became our national motto) is to wave and call out "HELLO, FRIEND!" as soon as we're close enough to see anything that might have language skills.

So far, we've made friends with four faeries, two tribes of kobolds, a tribe of mites, a boggard, a ghost, a werewolf, and a group of travelling gnomes. I think the gnomes were actually the shiftiest of the bunch, and we didn't quite trust them.

My character is a total nerd who spent years preparing for this expedition (elf with high int). He heard that there might be fae, kobolds, and/or mites in the area (info from the Kingmaker Player's Guide), so he made a point of learning the sylvan, draconic, and undercommon languages in advance, just to be prepared. So the fact that we could talk to all these critters, and tried to make peace, was something the printed adventure didn't anticipate in all cases, but we managed to do it.

Of course, we've killed plenty of non-friendlies along the way, as well, including other werewolves, boggards, and even humans.

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What in world sea change took place to move Goblins from “Kill on sight” to viable PCs? All Messageboards