Do Paladins kill Goblin Spawn?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

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.


Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

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.

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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

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.
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.

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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*blinks*

Bastards of Golarion and Lost Omens World Guide immediately come to mind.

Is the idea of non-Evil orcs existing that alien to you?


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?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There's not much point to this if you're just going to declare sources irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.

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)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.
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)

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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.
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)

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)


CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.
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)

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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.
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)

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.

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


CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The lore didn't change, the Mwangi Orcs aren't a new invention.
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)

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.

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.


Scavion wrote:
Detect Evil wrote:


Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
So the goblins likely were plotting to murder them!

Plotting to kill someone who is invading your home and just killed your parents is probably not evil, even if the home invaders were somewhat justified in their actions. And even if it did, unless the goblin babies somehow had several more hit dice than the typical adult they still would not have pinged.

Scavion wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Actually say every demon is evil and they'll trot out a spoiler from an adventure path, and then another module and nocticula the redeemed, never minding the direct divine intervention in basically all of these examples.
It still annoys me. Outsiders being literally made up of a concept of evil being redeemed is dumb.

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.

_
glass.


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.

glass wrote:


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)


Scavion wrote:

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.

glass wrote:


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)

Given that the very metaphysics of the game multiverse sort your quintessence by alignment based energy....

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


GeneticDrift wrote:
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.


Scavion wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
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 Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
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

If 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....

avr wrote:
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.

They are a class included right there in the core rules, as suitable as any other for adventuring. As such, any interpretation of the paladin's code that makes them unsuitable for typical adventuring activities is incorrect, IMO. That said...

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
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?

No, murdering children is not a "typical adventuring activity" in any game I run or would wish to play in.

_
glass.


This thread makes me think my group missed something fairly big in the early chapters of Rise of the Runelords.


Joey Cote wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
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

That isn't what I was commenting on. I was commenting on how it seems so many people seem to think only paladins have problems with moral dilemmas, while anyone else can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

Specifically, why do people assume that paladins necessarily have stricter codes than clerics of the same god?
I don't know how other people handle it but in my games chances are very high that Law/chaos issues aside, paladins and clerics of a given god will have close to or exactly the same codes of behavior.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


glass wrote:
Scavion wrote:
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

If 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.


CorvusMask wrote:

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

Not like that's changed much lately. I mean, no one blinks when the GM throws a red wyrmling at the party after all.

Dark Archive

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

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

Not like that's changed much lately. I mean, no one blinks when the GM throws a red wyrmling at the party after all.

Wyrmlings are at least capable of speech ;D And hey, I would look oddly at them!


CorvusMask wrote:

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

Are you talking about how G1 has a room with 12 young giants?

Or the five giantesses taking care of 15 young in G3?
Those are the only ones I could find.
In G1 they are not infants by any stretch of the imagination.:they have the fighting prowess of ogres.
G3 doesn't list their stats but the weakest has 16 hp, and are big enough to fight.

On a more general note:
Screwed up indeed that a home might have immature members of that species around. How inconsiderate that monsters have things around that can be dangerous and also be sources of moral issues for enterprising murderhobos.

Re. wyrmlings: A white wyrmling made off with an evil item we found and nearly wiped the group in the process.

Dark Archive

I could be wrong but I remember text itself describing them acting like children or babies since the encounter really evokes the "fighting giant sized baby or toddler" feeling :p

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Baby being big does not make it not be a baby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Baby being big does not make it not be a baby.

Baby being baby does not make it not be an evil monster

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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 ;P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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 ;P

Course most babies here aren't capable of being a legitimate threat to your continued existence.

Old enough to bite my face off, old enough to get shanked. No mercy for the wyrmlings straight out of the egg.


CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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 ;P

Your own babies maybe. Interspecies babies? Eh...relatively modern development.


I doubt most would question killing baby spiders or snakes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Those aren’t sapient though.

Dark Archive

Melkiador wrote:
I doubt most would question killing baby spiders or snakes.

Humans in general have less problems with killing animals, lot of people don't like idea of killing puppies or kittens though :P


CorvusMask wrote:
I could be wrong but I remember text itself describing them acting like children or babies since the encounter really evokes the "fighting giant sized baby or toddler" feeling :p

I couldn't find any mention of that, but I may have missed it. The only description I found was that the 12 young ones were loud and obviously playing roughly since the text noted that any sounds of combat from that room would be ignored. The text also said that the clothes of the young giants could be used as a disguise for the PCs for them to wander about.

So these 'kids' are:
- strong enough to fight like ogres and mentally willing to do so
- have half the hp of the adults
- play rough enough that it sounds like combat anyway
- don't need adult supervision, and can wander the stedding freely

Doesn't sound anything like infants to me.

Anyway, this discussion simply illustrates the point I made earlier:
call something a baby/infant/kid/young/whatever and some people get a mental short circuit and assume it must be innocent, not evil, not dangerous, etc.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
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

That isn't what I was commenting on. I was commenting on how it seems so many people seem to think only paladins have problems with moral dilemmas, while anyone else can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

Specifically, why do people assume that paladins necessarily have stricter codes than clerics of the same god?
I don't know how other people handle it but in my games chances are very high that Law/chaos issues aside, paladins and clerics of a given god will have close to or exactly the same codes of behavior.

Please post the code of conduct of a lawful good deity that is anywhere near as strict as the code that lawful good paladins of any deity must follow. It's more than a little strange that every paladin has the same code. I don't know if lawful good paladins of neutral good deities are allowed, but if so, why is their code so strict?

A lawful good cleric could fall, and join a new religion. They have to change their domains, most likely, and maybe toss an item or two. A non-divine character could face a reputation loss, but that does not hamper their class abilities. Furthermore, there is no mechanical punishment for a true neutral rogue becoming neutral evil (as an example). Any punishment would be in-universe and inflicted by the GM.

You see similar behavior with PCs refusing to surrender. When you surrender you lose all your gear. Your wizard loses their spellbook, your fighter loses their magic armor and weapon, the cleric loses their holy symbol, and so forth. PCs will fight to the death (unrealistic) because their characters will be permanently weakened if they don't do that. The rules can certainly influence the behavior of PCs. You can't even call it metagaming: the PCs in-character know they'll lose their stuff and probably not get it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do Paladins kill Goblin Spawn? All Messageboards