|
Just to note that by default the goblin baby cage room is currently empty but it has note for "If you want to have moral questions, add baby goblins" :p
Anyway, I find it kinda questionable yer gm had baby goblins ping as evil unless they were like fighter 5 baby goblins :p
Also just to note, 1e goblins aren't inherently evil, there is LN goblin as early as in Council of Thieves
Only thing that is fundamentally different in 2e non evil goblin portrayal vs 1e non evil goblin portrayal that 1e non evil goblins tends to be non evil because they are incredibly dumb or have latched onto idea that they really follow(such as the LN goblin who really thinks they are a hellknight despite being just goblin in fullplate hellknights use as sewer scout). Though I agree that orcs should have gotten core book treatment rather than goblins, goblins as written in 2e feel like they should be uncommon because apparently Varisian style goblins are still majority of them(even if in isger they tend to be milder mannered)
Orcs or hobgoblins, although i'd lean toward hobgoblins given the way ironfang invasion shakes out canonically. the orc nation is crumbling, disorganized and as a race other than the one chieftan they're not big into diplomatic interaction with other peoples.
Shouldabeen hobgoblin.
Orc groups around the world get along with people just fine, especially in the Mwangi and in the Crown of the World. Belkzen is a (small) outlier.
Orc groups around the world get along with people just fine, especially in the Mwangi and in the Crown of the World. Belkzen is a (small) outlier.Just to note that by default the goblin baby cage room is currently empty but it has note for "If you want to have moral questions, add baby goblins" :p
Anyway, I find it kinda questionable yer gm had baby goblins ping as evil unless they were like fighter 5 baby goblins :p
Also just to note, 1e goblins aren't inherently evil, there is LN goblin as early as in Council of Thieves
Only thing that is fundamentally different in 2e non evil goblin portrayal vs 1e non evil goblin portrayal that 1e non evil goblins tends to be non evil because they are incredibly dumb or have latched onto idea that they really follow(such as the LN goblin who really thinks they are a hellknight despite being just goblin in fullplate hellknights use as sewer scout). Though I agree that orcs should have gotten core book treatment rather than goblins, goblins as written in 2e feel like they should be uncommon because apparently Varisian style goblins are still majority of them(even if in isger they tend to be milder mannered)
Orcs or hobgoblins, although i'd lean toward hobgoblins given the way ironfang invasion shakes out canonically. the orc nation is crumbling, disorganized and as a race other than the one chieftan they're not big into diplomatic interaction with other peoples.
Shouldabeen hobgoblin.
Predominantly chaotic evil societies do not get along "just fine" with neighbors they exist at best in a state of careful tension or avoidance as their people raid or otherwise abuse them. Its why the society is chaotic evil.
|
|
Predominantly chaotic evil societies do not get along "just fine" with neighbors they exist at best in a state of careful tension or avoidance as their people raid or otherwise abuse them. Its why the society is chaotic evil.Orc groups around the world get along with people just fine, especially in the Mwangi and in the Crown of the World. Belkzen is a (small) outlier.Just to note that by default the goblin baby cage room is currently empty but it has note for "If you want to have moral questions, add baby goblins" :p
Anyway, I find it kinda questionable yer gm had baby goblins ping as evil unless they were like fighter 5 baby goblins :p
Also just to note, 1e goblins aren't inherently evil, there is LN goblin as early as in Council of Thieves
Only thing that is fundamentally different in 2e non evil goblin portrayal vs 1e non evil goblin portrayal that 1e non evil goblins tends to be non evil because they are incredibly dumb or have latched onto idea that they really follow(such as the LN goblin who really thinks they are a hellknight despite being just goblin in fullplate hellknights use as sewer scout). Though I agree that orcs should have gotten core book treatment rather than goblins, goblins as written in 2e feel like they should be uncommon because apparently Varisian style goblins are still majority of them(even if in isger they tend to be milder mannered)
Orcs or hobgoblins, although i'd lean toward hobgoblins given the way ironfang invasion shakes out canonically. the orc nation is crumbling, disorganized and as a race other than the one chieftan they're not big into diplomatic interaction with other peoples.
Shouldabeen hobgoblin.
Again, Belkzen is the outlier, the Orcs of the Mwangi lean heavily towards Good and fight the Demons and their worshippers there, and the Crown of the World Orcs are non-evil. Those are two continents filled with Orcs. Belkzen is just one loosely affiliated country.
Source.
Because i think you're full of it.
Lost omens world guide is 2nd edition and irrelevant. Bastards of golarion has nothing of either mwangi orcs leaning toward good nor crown of the world orcs being non evil.
Some other source?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.
There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)
|
|
Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
People could already play Goblins in P1, not all Goblins were Evil in P1, and no only LG people can be Paladins in P2.
We had Gray Paladins, Vindictive Bastards, and Antipaladins of all Evil alignments in P1 as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daddadaddada
Mwangi orcs lean good, eye of the world orcs lean neutral...first edition sources.
this isn't a rhetorical argument, you made a claim...im asking for your sources because i don't believe they exist in first edition. Second edition is a different game, including the metaphysics of the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
Ye do kinda seem biased there. I mean, like I said, non evil goblins were thing in 1e too. Ye need kinda citations on lore between edition being different in that regard.
(and I don't count those "And all goblins are evil" player companion book texts mostly because by that point it was already untrue since Council of Thieves :p)
Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
Ye do kinda seem biased there. I mean, like I said, non evil goblins were thing in 1e too. Ye need kinda citations on lore between edition being different in that regard.
(and I don't count those "And all goblins are evil" player companion book texts mostly because by that point it was already untrue since Council of Thieves :p)
Mwangi orcs lean good, eye of the world orcs aren't evil...first edition sources. Im not into a rhetorical argument about alignment, i know how rysky feels about it and i feel differently. Sources from THIS edition, that support those claims. Thats what im asking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mwangi orcs lean good, eye of the world orcs aren't evil...first edition sources. Im not into a rhetorical argument about alignment, i know how rysky feels about it and i feel differently. Sources from THIS edition, that support those claims. Thats what im asking.Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
Ye do kinda seem biased there. I mean, like I said, non evil goblins were thing in 1e too. Ye need kinda citations on lore between edition being different in that regard.
(and I don't count those "And all goblins are evil" player companion book texts mostly because by that point it was already untrue since Council of Thieves :p)
I mean if we are accurate, Lost Omens books doesn't claim that Mwangi's orcs lean good, just that they fight demons and as result ekujae and other tribes have better relations with them.
Like if we take what bastards of golarion says about jungle half orcs and orcs
"The jungle orcs of the Mwangi Expanse are relics, cut off at the farthest reaches of orc expansion and isolated so long they’ve forgotten their racial past, save for oral legends that they once ruled whole continents. Now they’re one small threat surrounded by greater perils, and driven by pride to refuse subjugation to the Gorilla King."
So context of mwangi's orcs before being expanded in lost omen book was that they are in opposition to Gorilla King and charau-kau. Also that jungle half orcs are product of marriages between orcs and other tribes.
So if nothing else, its been established in 1e that mwangi's orcs got along with other tribes much better than belkzen orcs did with their neighbors and their primary opposition were the evil factions in Mwangi
Mwangi orcs lean good, eye of the world orcs aren't evil...first edition sources. Im not into a rhetorical argument about alignment, i know how rysky feels about it and i feel differently. Sources from THIS edition, that support those claims. Thats what im asking.Actually the lore DID change quite a bit...look at 2nd edition goblins. Oh and metaphysically everyone gets to be a paladin now! (no throwing it as a name at lawful good champions does not differentiate things)The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.There's not much point to it if you have to go to a different edition to make your case.
First edition forums, first edition rules, first edition lore.
Ye do kinda seem biased there. I mean, like I said, non evil goblins were thing in 1e too. Ye need kinda citations on lore between edition being different in that regard.
(and I don't count those "And all goblins are evil" player companion book texts mostly because by that point it was already untrue since Council of Thieves :p)
I mean if we are accurate, Lost Omens books doesn't claim that Mwangi's orcs lean good, just that they fight demons and as result ekujae and other tribes have better relations with them.
Like if we take what bastards of golarion says about jungle half orcs and orcs
"The jungle orcs of the Mwangi Expanse are relics, cut off at the farthest reaches of orc expansion and isolated so long they’ve forgotten their racial past, save for oral legends that they once ruled whole continents. Now they’re one small threat surrounded by greater perils, and driven by pride to refuse subjugation to the Gorilla King."
So context of mwangi's orcs before being expanded in lost omen book was that they are in opposition to Gorilla King...
Literally none of which says they lean good.
My understanding of the Detect Evil spell is that if you are currently harboring "evil" thoughts, you ping regardless of HD(Or actual alignment!) based on the line of text I quoted.
The way I see it, for something to be "evil", they actually have to have a choice to have been good. So for demons to be evil, even (especially) if they are made of evil, redemption has to be possible. It can, and should, be vanishingly unlikely, but not impossible.
I...disagree. And the game disagrees with you too since you can unwillingly perform an act and lose all your Cleric/Paladin/Druid abilities. So it seems the metaphysical forces of good and evil do not give a damn about free will(which is more a law/chaos angle anyways)
My understanding of the Detect Evil spell is that if you are currently harboring "evil" thoughts, you ping regardless of HD(Or actual alignment!) based on the line of text I quoted.
I...disagree. And the game disagrees with you too since you can unwillingly perform an act and lose all your Cleric/Paladin/Druid abilities. So it seems the metaphysical forces of good and evil do not give a damn about free will(which is more a law/chaos angle anyways)
The way I see it, for something to be "evil", they actually have to have a choice to have been good. So for demons to be evil, even (especially) if they are made of evil, redemption has to be possible. It can, and should, be vanishingly unlikely, but not impossible.
Given that the very metaphysics of the game multiverse sort your quintessence by alignment based energy....
The paladin would have already fallen before getting here if it was going to be a problem. He did just murder an entire village with no due process of law or attempt to solve without violence.
I imagine due process was kinda thrown out when goblins attacked, one of the most influential people in town was murdered, and a cultist is using the goblins in a plot to murder everyone in Sandpoint.
The paladin would have already fallen before getting here if it was going to be a problem. He did just murder an entire village with no due process of law or attempt to solve without violence.I imagine due process was kinda thrown out when goblins attacked, one of the most influential people in town was murdered, and a cultist is using the goblins in a plot to murder everyone in Sandpoint.
its almost like there are much better games to do wrenching moral quandaries in.
Yeah but paladins. They're like walking moral quandary beacons. You couldn't ever have a paladin at a switching yard, it'd all but ensure a trolley problem.
Yeah but paladins. They're like walking moral quandary beacons. You couldn't ever have a paladin at a switching yard, it'd all but ensure a trolley problem.
Just distract them with a kitty. What could go wrong?
|
The paladin would have already fallen before getting here if it was going to be a problem. He did just murder an entire village with no due process of law or attempt to solve without violence.I imagine due process was kinda thrown out when goblins attacked, one of the most influential people in town was murdered, and a cultist is using the goblins in a plot to murder everyone in Sandpoint.
Maybe some goblins attacked from this goblin village. You assume they all did? They left all the babies alone? The party terrorized this group and murdered everyone. I can understand the reaction but it wasn't normal paladin behavior.
This is revenge killing, like how Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side.
Are my games the only ones where Good characters don't act like crazed murderers, and intentionally killing innocents will cause you to lose any divine powers, paladin or no?
Goblin children are cannibals as much as the adults. they aren't innocents
This thread makes me think my group missed something fairly big in the early chapters of Rise of the Runelords.
There's a room in Thistletop called the 'Goblin Nursery', where the goblins keep their kids in cages, where they are 'raised like animals on daily regimens of raw meat and abuse so they grow up properly mean and strong'. It's empty by default, but there's a note at the end that says:
GMs seeking to confront their players with awkward social situations might want to put a few sharp-toothed feral goblin children and babies in these cages for the unsuspecting adventurers to discover.
I...disagree. And the game disagrees with you too since you can unwillingly perform an act and lose all your Cleric/Paladin/Druid abilities. So it seems the metaphysical forces of good and evil do not give a damn about free will(which is more a law/chaos angle anywaysIf demons are evil for killing you, but crocodiles and falling-block traps are not, then alignments really are just meaningless team shirts. I prefer good and evil to actually be different. EDIT: And I disagree that the game disagrees with me....
glass.
Demons aren't evil for killing people. They're evil because they're physical manifestations of the soul energy of evil people intermingling with the Abyss who then go on to do tons of evil things because every fiber of their being is made up of evil.
Crocodiles are just nature. Their intelligence isn't high enough to understand good and evil. They're basically complex machines that act on instinct and/or survival. A Crocodile doesn't kill you because it derives intense pleasure from doing so like a demon might. It kills you because it's hungry or that you stepped within it's territory.
I don't understand your falling-block example. My point earlier was that the game/alignment itself doesn't care whether someone is willing or not when it comes to their actions. The goblin babies are being bred to be savage and cruel in this scenario. They likely don't know that there is any other option than attacking and are starved for food. Much like a dog, they'll try to bite off your hand.
|
|
Not like that's changed much lately. I mean, no one blinks when the GM throws a red wyrmling at the party after all.This is starting to remind me of how D&D Against the Giants module uses literal Giant Baby as enemy encounter without ever even thinking there is anything weird about the scenario :P
...Seriously, that is so screwed up in multiple ways
Wyrmlings are at least capable of speech ;D And hey, I would look oddly at them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baby being big does not make it not be a baby.
Baby being baby does not make it not be an evil monster
Baby murder is often looked as taboo horrific thing in most human cultures ;PBaby being big does not make it not be a baby.Baby being baby does not make it not be an evil monster
Your own babies maybe. Interspecies babies? Eh...relatively modern development.
I doubt most would question killing baby spiders or snakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those aren’t sapient though.
Sapience in a world where you can have intelligent blobs of protoplasm whose entire reason for existence is to burn down all civilization isn't much of an argument.
|
to answer the original question, the answer is "Some"
Depending on the deity the Paladin is aligned too, some would simply kill destroy future enemies.
Erastil would be one such deity ironically enough. Hunting enemies and putting an end to them, but if they have a 'monster farm' a place to raise and sell such creatures they might raise the young, but not with beneficial thoughts as a few others.
Iomedae in the case of them detecting as evil so young, yes. Less so if they didn't detect as evil. then taking them to a Church or Orphanage.
Torag is another yes, as Goblins are one of there hated Enemies.
Sarenrae would be a strict no, as the possibility is there for them to be redeemed off the bat. Evil or Not, they might be too young to understand the evil they are learning and would be granted a mercy. But Also would tend to try and Redeem the Goblins themselves, instead of leaving it to a church/orphanage.
Shelyn would be another redeemer, to see if some inner beauty comes forth to offset the feral ankle biting of the young goblins.
|
|
Those aren’t sapient though.Sapience in a world where you can have intelligent blobs of protoplasm whose entire reason for existence is to burn down all civilization isn't much of an argument.
… what does that have to do with the price of tea in Tennessee?
The person I was responding to brought up snakes and spiders, not things with sapience.
The thing you bring up is sapient but is locked into an alignment and mindset, not the same thing. Also not a baby.