Do Paladins kill Goblin Spawn?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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

Being a baby is irrelevant if that baby is going to crawl over to me in my bedroll and gnaw out my throat because its cannibalistic.

edit: Also there's literally no rule that locks blights into an alignment.

Silver Crusade

Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Being a baby is irrelevant if that baby is going to crawl over to me in my bedroll and gnaw out my throat because its cannibalistic.

edit: Also there's literally no rule that locks blights into an alignment.

If they're starving maybe, if they're fed no, they wouldn't eat people for s&#!s and giggles. Goblins don't have an innate alignment, especially infants.

As for Blights they're created beings, and nothing in their writeup really hints at them having variance. Not saying they can't be other alignments, but like Immortals, extremely unlikely.


Goblins of Golarion wrote:
Goblins are first and foremost villains. They may be comical on some level, but they’re also quite evil. Goblins enjoy inflicting misery and causing pain, and a goblin who doesn’t isn’t truly a goblin—he’s some sort of freak’s freak.


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.

My party mostly avoided fighting with the goblins in the thicket to deal with what was on the island. We even left the goblin druid alive.

Silver Crusade

Ryan Freire wrote:
Goblins of Golarion wrote:
Goblins are first and foremost villains. They may be comical on some level, but they’re also quite evil. Goblins enjoy inflicting misery and causing pain, and a goblin who doesn’t isn’t truly a goblin—he’s some sort of freak’s freak.
From the same page,
Quote:

Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs—just because most of them are doesn’t mean your character is. In fact, playing a non-evil or even a good-aligned goblin can present some enjoyable and interesting roleplaying challenges. If you want to play a goblin because you’re eager to explore these challenges, or because you like playing strange characters against their stereotypes, or because you enjoy playing “monsters with hearts of gold,” then you’re on the right track for most campaigns.

In such a case, you should look at the majority of the avor in this book in reverse—you can de ne your goblin character by playing a character with values opposite of many of the things most goblins de ne themselves. Perhaps your goblin is a patient scholar who specializes in languages and is attempting to catalogue the “true” history of the goblin race in a series of books. Maybe you’re a cavalier who seeks to use dogs or horses as allies because you’re convinced that the goblin fear of these creatures is one of your kin’s greatest failings. Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.
None of this means you can’t still enjoy playing up some of the goblin race’s other quirks. Their ravenous hunger, their love of songs, their twisted senses of humor, and respect for nature are excellent traits that you can embrace as a goblin that don’t disrupt parties or derail adventures. You can still maintain these classic goblin personality traits without also being a distraction to the game itself.

Goblins have never been innately evil, not in 3.5, not in P1, and not in P2. By continuing to claim otherwise, you're outright making things up.


And just to capstone off this whole mess here's what happened:

We locked up the kids, bonked a few on the head with saps, and later took them to town with all other NPC's from the dungeon. They were promptly sold as indentured servants to someone in Magnimar to pay for the damages they did. We recovered 7 / 10 hostages that had been taken (GM added that part). If you want to know why hostages were taken lets just say our GM is a fan of the Spellmonger books as well as Goblin Slayer. Our game is officially rated xXx and can never be spoke of again. We actually managed to save all the 'human' I guess enemy NPCs. And two of them are now working for the party while the other two are living under the Doom of Damocles thanks to some of our party (Me and our Slayer) worshiping Ragathiel.

Paladin did not fall since he did protest the selling of the goblin children, but we all agreed we did what we could. We're only playing mortals, sometimes not losing is the best you can do.

Dark Archive

Yer gm seems to be really into grim dark huh O_o; Well if nothing else, one of comics bonus rpg content has

business that provides service of novelty goblin manservants:
that is secretly run by goblin that keeps drinking intelligence enhancement potions
so not too out of character for Magnimar I suppose...

Either way, uh, if this is what your GM did with first book, I think second book is gonna be even worse. Not to mention book 3 which is already incredibly dark. Then again, consider that book is already dark, not sure how they can make it darker- Okay I want to stop imagining how to make incredibly shocking book even darker xD


CorvusMask wrote:

Yer gm seems to be really into grim dark huh O_o; Well if nothing else, one of comics bonus rpg content has ** spoiler omitted ** so not too out of character for Magnimar I suppose...

Either way, uh, if this is what your GM did with first book, I think second book is gonna be even worse. Not to mention book 3 which is already incredibly dark. Then again, consider that book is already dark, not sure how they can make it darker- Okay I want to stop imagining how to make incredibly shocking book even darker xD

See you say Grim Dark but this is just the kind of fantasy we all grew up on. Wheel Of Time, Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian, Starship Troopers. We like our monster to be monstrous and our villains to be more than black mustaches. I mean a lot of fantasy has been watered down these days. I mean look at the original Ravenloft or the Anti-Paladin class in Dragon magazine. The stronger the adversity the stronger your resolve.


Kimera757 wrote:
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.

Any Mystaran Lawful Immortal, for starters.

Kimera757 wrote:
It's more than a little strange that every paladin has the same code.

They don't.

Kimera757 wrote:
I don't know if lawful good paladins of neutral good deities are allowed, but if so, why is their code so strict?

They are.

Legacy issues.

Kimera757 wrote:


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.

So can a paladin.

Kimera757 wrote:


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.

Yes, and?

Kimera757 wrote:


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.

Um, this has no relevnace to the subject at hand that I can see.

CorvusMask wrote:


...Why is ANYONE even trying to argue for literal actual baby murder being okay? That is just like telling mods "Hey lock up this thread!"

...and my point about mental short circuits is proved yet again.

Dark Archive

Alchemist 23 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Yer gm seems to be really into grim dark huh O_o; Well if nothing else, one of comics bonus rpg content has ** spoiler omitted ** so not too out of character for Magnimar I suppose...

Either way, uh, if this is what your GM did with first book, I think second book is gonna be even worse. Not to mention book 3 which is already incredibly dark. Then again, consider that book is already dark, not sure how they can make it darker- Okay I want to stop imagining how to make incredibly shocking book even darker xD

See you say Grim Dark but this is just the kind of fantasy we all grew up on. Wheel Of Time, Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian, Starship Troopers. We like our monster to be monstrous and our villains to be more than black mustaches. I mean a lot of fantasy has been watered down these days. I mean look at the original Ravenloft or the Anti-Paladin class in Dragon magazine. The stronger the adversity the stronger your resolve.

Eh, I guess it might be exaggeration yeah since grimdark refers to settings where good doesn't exist at all :p But yeah your group can have your preferences, but I'm pretty sure not all of those things you listed had sexual violence in them?(if I understood your implication right from Goblin Slayer being referenced combined with Lamashtu material in the Burnt Offerings)

Either way though, I think its okay for different groups to have different levels of how much shocking or gross material they like in their games, but if anybody does arguing that their way is better then I start eyerolling and enter the debate mode xP

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:


...Why is ANYONE even trying to argue for literal actual baby murder being okay? That is just like telling mods "Hey lock up this thread!"
...and my point about mental short circuits is proved yet again.

Hey, they are the ones who bought abortion into the topic :P And you don't really seem to agree with idea of baby goblin slaughter either, so dunno why you are taking shots at me :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a type of creature be inherently evil and morally okay to butcher en masse, they shouldn't HAVE babies. There's just no amount of fancy moral footwork that's going to sidestep that issue in a satisfying way. Make them a nasty thing that's born every time you tell a lie or when a child has a nightmare or something. As soon as anything able to have a moral stance at all is having babies, they have a pre-moral state and everything else is just a product of development. The very fact that they have to be kept in cages and forced to resort to brutality and cannibalism pretty much disproves any argument that their morality is inherent out of the gate. You can call it fantasy rules, but you invited biology in by giving them mundane reproduction. It just doesn't mix.


Alchemist 23 wrote:
See you say Grim Dark but this is just the kind of fantasy we all grew up on. Wheel Of Time, Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian, Starship Troopers. We like our monster to be monstrous and our villains to be more than black mustaches.

I am not overly familiar with the others, but I have read the Wheel of Time and I do not recall any occasions where the heroes murder children. And neither of the mortal races (humans and ogier) are born evil.

Shadowspawn, being somewhere between demons and constructs, do not appear to be born at all. At least, we never encounter myrdraal babies as far as I recall.

_
glass.

Dark Archive

Saffron Marvelous wrote:
This is why I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a type of creature be inherently evil and morally okay to butcher en masse, they shouldn't HAVE babies. There's just no amount of fancy moral footwork that's going to sidestep that issue in a satisfying way. Make them a nasty thing that's born every time you tell a lie or when a child has a nightmare or something. As soon as anything able to have a moral stance at all is having babies, they have a pre-moral state and everything else is just a product of development. The very fact that they have to be kept in cages and forced to resort to brutality and cannibalism pretty much disproves any argument that their morality is inherent out of the gate. You can call it fantasy rules, but you invited biology in by giving them mundane reproduction. It just doesn't mix.

That is probably why lot of settings that have orcs be always evil have them spawning out of creepy pools :p That and being inspired by lord of the rings I guess


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Babies locked in cages and force fed meat to turn them bad are babies.

Babies locked in cages and force fed meat arent cannibals. They are babies.

Babies locked in cages aren't fetuses. They are babies.

Dont kill babies.

You know what Rise of the Runelords didnt have? Third term abortion arguments.

You know what it does have? Temples dedicated to redemption.

Don't kill babies. Even more so don't kill babies locked in G+~ d+!n CAGES.

No one is going to pin a medal to the chest of a paladin because he found a dozen babies locked in cages and stabbed them.

For f+#~s sakes. It's not good roleplaying to play catch 22 with baby murder and Paladin codes. This is amateur DM masturbatory material at best.

Grow the f@@~ up.


cool...do they amount to .001% of the goblins npc or otherwise printed in the books? In what universe should the five random good aligned goblins anywhere on golarion influence the behavior of sub level 10 adventurers in rise of the runelords?

Also if you can bring them up as existing, why not point out the source? Because we've done this dance before and all people came up with was a CN option, or some variance around NE.

In fact we just did this dance over good aligned orcs in the mwangi. Please give me the sourcebook for this good aligned goblin npc. Then make an argument about how this goblins existence should sway the entire campaign settings reaction to goblins.

Dark Archive

Sandpoint campaign setting book.

Also I've never been talking about in universe prejudices, but about killing children or babies of any intelligent being definitely not being good aligned at least and being by modern standards incredibly messed up :p And arguing about how evil aligned childrens is pretty nonsensical unless they are fiends or born mentally adult

Like to me it definitely makes sense for most humans assume goblins are CE. About whether it makes sense for them to exterminate them like rats? Depends on whether they live in area like Cheliax(and even then if hellknights can tolerate them, I don't believe that goblins have "Kill on sight if you see them on street" rule)


You've now equaled the number of good aligned demons, referenced the one thing they laid out to make the crap ass 2nd edition goblins, and reinforced that literally everyone in that town is poised kill goblins on sight.

Dark Archive

Yes? Sandpoint has good reason for it compared to most :p Though I think you are exaggerating when you say "literally everyone", because I'm sure shopkeeper's reaction to goblins is "Kill it with chair!" rather than running away or yell for guards. Or even just looking them at highly suspiciously.

Heck, in 3.5 version they rather fast set up "Goblin Day" party because they took away from it year later how ridiculous goblins are :p They did retcon that from hardcover version when they removed the "assume players spend a year at the Fort" part. That said when goblins started being danger again they started hiring adventures to clear them out so *shrugs* hard to say. I would definitely expect lot of screaming in fear

I think you are misunderstanding my stance being that "Goblins being common PC option makes sense in every town in inner sea"?

All I've been arguing about is that killing babies is bad. Plus I'm kinda skeptical about NG town in general killing goblin babies as standard :p I think even OP's party and GM despite their preference for darker stories agreed on that in the end(even if only reason they spared them was because they had paladin with them so they had to do the "good as possible" thing) since they didn't have townsfolk just roast the cages.

(also you never said we should refer to 1e books before specific in real life date)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi internet, can we not railroad this already contentious topic into real world discussions?

I have played through this encounter as a player.

My group involved a lawful neutral wizard (me), a lawful good paladin, a chaotic neutral rogue, chaotic neutral oracle, and I think a ranger of some version of good (ambivalent good?).

The GM ran this encounter with the nursery being inhabited, and with a lot of painful discussion we decided to let the rogue kill them as painlessly as possible.

I genuinely regret that, especially considering that we redeemed several other characters.

Oh yeah and went out of our way to raise a horse that was killed (Shadowmist).

All of this to say: the GM should set expectations on whether the baddies are always evil monsters or have more complexity. They can't make your enemies "always evil" but still make you feel bad about fighting them. That's having your cake and eating it in the worst possible way.

If you like kicking in the door and punching dragons, that's cool. If you like having sympathetic foes, that's cool too. But that needs to be a discussion before you sit down and roll dice.

PS: Nothing good to say about Goblinslayer and other so-called "grimdark" materials (grossdork is probably a better description), and I can say that the GS series is not a good suggestion for a person who doesn't like manga.


2nd ed is a different game.

Dark Archive

Ryan Freire wrote:
2nd ed is a different game.

And that is relevant to this 1e discussion how?


Ryan Freire wrote:
2nd ed is a different game.

This a correct, but not necessarily useful statement.

EDIT: Darn you Corvus, you ninja'd me.


CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
2nd ed is a different game.
And that is relevant to this 1e discussion how?
Quote:
(also you never said we should refer to 1e books before specific in real life date)

I misread this as saying I never said we should refer to 1e books.

The problem is y'all take what is the best possible reaction of civilization to a goblin, and assume its the most likely one. You take the exceptions that prove the rule, and claim that everyone should behave as though it were the rule.

No adventurers know about the chaotic good goblin they seeded to make 2nd ed goblins a core race for branding purposes.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly kinda getting confused about what are we arguing here.

Like, I'm arguing about this: Baby murder is bad even in Pathfinder, so good aligned parties and characters wouldn't do this even if they absolutely hate goblins(or they wouldn't be good aligned then).

It doesn't matter if we are talking about goblins, orcs, troglodytes, gnolls or kobolds, its disturbing to slaughter children even if their whole tribe was evil and you don't have good alternative on how to deal with them as you are adventurers and not child caretakers :p


That its perfectly reasonable for immature goblins who detect as evil be treated as monsters by an adventuring party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's even more reasonable to not kill babies in locked cages. Well, it should be.

Dark Archive

Which by 1e detect evil rules isn't possible unless they somehow have 4 hd in tribe where most members have 1 :p

And even then, even if you assume that children can have mental capability to evil aligned and that isn't just my bias, they are feral children grown in cages, they'd be more likely to have animal level intelligence until they are mature enough making them neutral.

And even if you assume that they can be evil, killing evil children is still messed up for good aligned party. Its kinda same for killing evil non-combatants in general.

If you disagree about that then we have to agree to disagree I guess.


goblins reach complete maturity at 5 years of age and become self sufficient very soon after birth according to goblins of golarion.

Again you're treating them like humans in a funny skin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One might wonder if they each had that many class levels why the other goblins didnt just unleash the baby horde when things went wrong.

Or maybe the simpler explanation is the GM didnt read detect evil properly.


Cavall wrote:

One might wonder if they each had that many class levels why the other goblins didnt just unleash the baby horde when things went wrong.

Or maybe the simpler explanation is the GM didnt read detect evil properly.

which doesn't matter because the player acts on the information the gm gives them.

Dark Archive

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

goblins reach complete maturity at 5 years of age and become self sufficient very soon after birth according to goblins of golarion.

Again you're treating them like humans in a funny skin.

I would assume that baby goblins are less than one year old though.

Also I don't think you have to be similar to humans to be treated as person, not really sure self sufficiency means they have adult mental capability, just that they are capable of moving and eating on their own :p Which again would make them similar to animals in general.


They were old enough to be needed to be penned up.

That's hardly self sufficient. And as Ryan points out, act on the info the GM gives them. So. Killing non self sufficient babies.

Dark Archive

Cavall wrote:

They were old enough to be needed to be penned up.

That's hardly self sufficient. And as Ryan points out, act on the info the GM gives them. So. Killing non self sufficient babies.

I mean, goblins tribes have several different ways of raising children. Some of them throw them in pits, some of them put them on leashes, some of them put them in cages.

Thats because otherwise the goblin children run around and goblins suck in child rearing :p Self sufficiency just means what it means for vast majority of animals: After being born they are capable of moving and eating on their own.


Clearly not capable based on the room description.

But I'll grant you goblins could have many ways of being dicks to kids.

Dark Archive

Cavall wrote:

Clearly not capable based on the room description.

But I'll grant you goblins could have many ways of being dicks to kids.

Wouldn't be too surprised if Goblins of Golarion is contradictionary with RotR, but feeling bit too tired to read both GoG and RotR and comparing them xP


There's also not capable, and penned up to be out of the way


Ryan they each have class levels to be detected as evil. In fact more class levels than anything else in the area, party included.

Keeping out of the way of what exactly? And who is doing it? And who made this superhuman baby program. And why do they suddenly lose all these class levels as they get of the pen?

I submit they are not only capable but unable to be kept out of any ones way. These are some damn magic babies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a very bad thread that is definitely getting locked soon and the people advocating child murder are not people I would ever want to be in the same country in, let alone party.

And so, yet again, I link Basrakal, the city full of outsiders who have alignments differing from "default".

Also, 2E essentially starts like, months after Tyrant's Grasp ends, the setting hasn't actually changed. Just because you don't like 2E for some reason doesn't make it not Pathfinder.


Cavall wrote:

Ryan they each have class levels to be detected as evil. In fact more class levels than anything else in the area, party included.

Keeping out of the way of what exactly? And who is doing it? And who made this superhuman baby program. And why do they suddenly lose all these class levels as they get of the pen?

I submit they are not only capable but unable to be kept out of any ones way. These are some damn magic babies.

Or they're just evil enough to detect as evil, or the gm misunderstood detect evil, BUT THATS THE INFORMATION THE CHARACTER HAS TO GO ON.

they aren't humans in a funny skin, they're ravenous quick breeding quick maturing cannibals that eat both their own and other peoples. Of the THOUSANDS of goblins in all published content, people can come up with ONE good aligned goblin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is proof enough they arent all evil, which is the proof you requested.

Goal post moving AND marksman fallacys arent making a good case for you.

Accept that good goblins have been published as well as good goblins are in accepted published works even when you cut and paste them out on purpose.


Cavall wrote:

Which is proof enough they arent all evil, which is the proof you requested.

Goal post moving AND marksman fallacys arent making a good case for you.

Accept that good goblins have been published as well as good goblins are in accepted published works even when you cut and paste them out on purpose.

Accept that they're exceptions that prove the rule.

And by "they" I mean it..the single solitary one...that no one knows about in game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except they are the only proof needed that goblins can be good. And in fact raised to be good. So killing babies isnt required. Not that it would be required because, again, killing babies is wrong.

You asked for proof. You got it.


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

Which is proof enough they arent all evil, which is the proof you requested.

Goal post moving AND marksman fallacys arent making a good case for you.

Accept that good goblins have been published as well as good goblins are in accepted published works even when you cut and paste them out on purpose.

Accept that they're exceptions that prove the rule.

And by "they" I mean it..the single solitary one...that no one knows about in game.

This is also a logic fallacy. You can't use printed material (and cut out the part you don't agree with) to say "see they are all evil so its ok the characters would know this" and dismiss printed material that proves you wrong because "characters in game wouldn't know about this"

In game they dont have access to either printed source so quoting them to try to prove a point about goblin knowledge and dismissing it because it disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith. So that's 3 arguemental flaws you've displayed in an attempt to prove an already disproved point.

Edit
Scratch that. 4. That's textbook "no true scotsman" statements.


CorvusMask wrote:


Eh, I guess it might be exaggeration yeah since grimdark refers to settings where good doesn't exist at all :p But yeah your group can have your preferences, but I'm pretty sure not all of those things you listed had sexual violence in them?(if I understood your implication right from Goblin Slayer being referenced combined with Lamashtu material in the Burnt Offerings)

Either way though, I think its okay for different groups to have different levels of how much shocking or gross material they like in their games, but if anybody does arguing that their way is better then I start eyerolling and enter the debate mode xP

Oh yeah to each their own. Anyway everyone always focuses on that aspect of Goblin Slayer but actually the Goblins are a lot worse than just that. I mean they blinded that one cleric, and that was just the tip of the ice burg."

101 to 150 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