This is where I have a problem. You can play it that way if you like, but to me this is horrific. You have decided to take that land away from the people who live there, and are happy to commit genocide to do so. This is an Evil act, even if those you are removing from their home are Evil.
This is without considering the ramifications of encouraging people to view an entire group as Evil. This has led to atrocities throughout the ages, and will not be part of a game I am playing. "That whole group is evil, so we are allowed to do whatever we want to them" is a horrific viewpoint to take, and is a path to Evil in itself.
Well, you'd be wrong because the co-creator of the game gave a perfect example of just what Lawful Good means. Thus spake Gygax:
"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.
[REDACTED]
Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.
Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good."
Being merciful to Goblins is idiotic. They're Goblins and they're Evil. They are servants and creations of malevolent gods like Magubliyet. They routinely engage in pillaging, murder, rapine and destruction of settlements of humans & demihumans. D&D is not 4-Color Heroism. Go play Champions if you want that kind of game.
D&D has ALWAYS been a game where you absolutely can put an entire Goblin village to the sword and its still a Lawful and Good act. Stop thinking Law means modern Laws/Edicts/Acts. Its not. Its about Law vs Chaos in the sense of Michael Moorcock Eternal Champion series or Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.
Notes: Please keep posts appropriate to site rules
This thread is going to be a dumpster fire. Do what your original quote suggests and play how you want without imposing your will or morality on others. If you want everyone to play exactly as you want, play a single player game.
1) They are constructs with no free will. In this case, they are virtually puppets of their creator. They are not evil themselves, but were created and programmed by an evil source. They are no different to robots built by a villain: You need to kill them, and it is not evil to kill them, but they cannot be evil in and of themselves. They are machines.
2) They are non-sentient animals, like lions or wolves. They have no concept of good or evil, and cannot be classed as such. All their behaviour stems from instinct. It would be acceptable to hunt them, or to chase them out of an area, but hunting them to extinction would certainly not be a heroic or good act.
3) They are sentient creatures with free will. If so, not all of them are necessarily evil. Some will make the conscious choice to be good. In that case, slaughtering an entire village because "all goblins are evil" without first ensuring there are no good (or neutral) ones is an evil act, because you may have killed a good one. Killing children is an evil act, because there was no way to know whether they would grow up to be evil.
In no case is an entire group inherently and unchangeably evil. They either have sentience and free will, in which case they have the opportunity to be good, or they don't, in which case they cannot be evil.
The question at hand is 'In that world, are Goblins (or any other given race you care to discuss) 'people,' i.e. beings with free will who can actually consciously make decisions, or are they merely some sort of divine constructs, with no will of their own, following the programming of some evil being (Deity or otherwise).
If they are just constructs, fine. However, if they are not, then the goblin children and likely at least some of the civilian goblin adults are innocents who either do question the ways of their people, but tow the line out of fear, or are too young to have learnt such ways yet. They are almost certainly not all murderers and thieves.
Your argument is basically saying that if someone commits a crime, then it is lawful and just not merely to put them to the sword, but their family, their neighbours, their entire community. That does not really follow. Was it done in medieval times? Yes, it was. However such massacres were often labeled just that, were not always considered just or sanctioned and many of them still have lasting negative impacts on culture to this day. It is difficult to describe any of them as 'Good,' regardless of how they were rationalized by those who carried them out.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, in that it seems to assume that merely by declaring something 'good' it therefore is, in fact a good act. It does not follow.
Apparently, you don't grasp the fact that in D&D there is Objective Morality. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, are objective definable forces in the multiverse. Yes, Goblins are BORN EVIL.No matter how many snuggles, teddy bears and headpats you give goblin children, they're going to struggle against their Evil nature and more than likely shank you when you turn your back on them. They're creations of Magubliyet, who no more valued Free Will than he valued Good Food, Cheer and the company of Friends. They're small monsters. Putting them to the sword is entirely Lawful and Good because the game is BUILT ON Humanocentrism. Goblins routinely enslave humans when they don't murder them or r*** them. Or they turn them into food after sacrificing them to their Evil gods.
The official 5e section on goblin player alignment specifically states that some goblins are capable of tending towards good or neutral (though are typically neutral evil).
The official 5e section on goblin player alignment specifically states that some goblins are capable of tending towards good or neutral (though are typically neutral evil).
Dude, run. Don’t blink, don’t hesitate, just run. This thread is absolutely about to be a horrific dumpster fire of hatred. Run.
"Goblins occupy an uneasy place in a dangerous world, and they react by lashing out at any creatures they believe they can bully. Cunning in battle and cruel in victory, goblins are fawning and servile in defeat, just as intheir own society lower castes must scrape before those of greater status and as goblin tribes bow before other goblinoids.
Goblins know they are a weak, unsophisticated race that can be easily dominated by bigger, smarter, more organized, more ferocious, or more magical creatures. Their god was conquered by Maglubiyet, after all, and now when the Mighty One calls for it, even their souls are forfeit. It is this realization that drives them to dominate other creatures whenever they can-for goblins, life is short.
Goblins seek to trap and enslave any creatures they encounter, but they flee from opposition that seems too daunting. For miles around their lair, they employ pit traps, snares, and nets to catch the unwary, and when their hunting patrols encounter other beings, they always look for ways to capture their foes instead of killing them. Goblins that run up against the fringes of a society first test its defenses by stealing objects, and if these crimes go unpunished, they begin stealing people.
Enslaved creatures receive the worst treatment the goblins can dish out while still getting decent performance out of the slaves. But humanoids and monsters that are especially capable or that provide unusual services find themselves treated like favored (though occasionally abused) pets." - Volo's Guide to Monsters
That is Objectively Evil. It doesn't say "Some Goblins". It doesn't say "Most Goblins". It doesn't even say "All but a handful of Goblins". D&D has Objective Morality, Good and Evil as Definable Forces and Goblins are Objectively Evil. Otherwise, the Cosmology could not exist. Nor could spells like Detect Good/Evil.
The official 5e section on goblin player alignment specifically states that some goblins are capable of tending towards good or neutral (though are typically neutral evil).
Dude, run. Don’t blink, don’t hesitate, just run. This thread is absolutely about to be a horrific dumpster fire of hatred. Run.
Why do you think I'm here? I've got a box of popcorn and a nice big glass of coke.
Edit: And some 10 foot poles to poke the thread occasionally...
The official 5e section on goblin player alignment specifically states that some goblins are capable of tending towards good or neutral (though are typically neutral evil).
I have no problem with someone playing a Goblin. You can play an Evil character, its okay. Quij the Ork Hero, companion to Lord Robilar, was Lawful Evil.
Stop trying to cram modern morality into a game about pseudo-Medieval fantasy
Modern morality will always have an impact on a game played today. Most players would find it distasteful, at the very least, to include themes which had black people as slaves, or a religious group rounded up into camps for extermination, even if those were acceptable in medieval times. They would consider a village which was executing homosexuals or burning supposed witches at the stake to be uneducated bumpkins at best, and would consider their actions to be evil. To try to exclude modern morality from a game played by modern people is misguided at best.
I think it's time to consider discussing the alignment of a troll, they are all Chaotic Evil, right ?
With an INT of 7, you may be able to posit that they are at least close to non-sentient, and their lack of intelligence makes concepts of good and evil irrelevant... :P
I think it also depends on what setting you choose or if it's your own homebrew setting.
In a homebrew setting you can do whatever you want. Goblins can be good/evil, or anything in between. Hell you could write it so all humans were made by an evil god or are innately evil.
I mean, this is ultimately up to each table and each campaign. So if one campaign has goblins as mindless evil creature, that's fine. If another has them as good aligned and benign-natured creatures that like to help travelers in their lands, that's fine too. If another has goblins who vary in all manner of morality, philosophy or religious expression, that's fine as well. Not everyone uses the standard setting and its generalization of what each race is like, but others do and that's alright. I think a majority of people here will accept and even encourage you or anyone else that plays differently from them to do so, don't let us stifle your creativity or fun. We all are still playing the same core game, we all just have different ideas for how to make the game and the world you play the game in more meaningful, fun and rich in experience.
I mean, this is ultimately up to each table and each campaign
You are certainly correct. Anyone can play the game at their table the way they want, and are not "idiotic" to do so.
I would not want to play at any table which considered an entire group evil, and who thought it Good to slaughter an entire village/tribe/pack of any creatures without question. That's my own choice. I wouldn't call that group "idiotic" to do so.
The reason I would not want to play in such a group is because it comes very close to a very dangerous attitude in real life, which is sadly more prevalent than we would like. I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of thinking in anyone, whether in a real or imaginary setting.
So, to the OP: You play that way if you would like. Don't insist that everyone else must, or call everyone who disagrees with you idiotic. It isn't a part of the rules of 5e, and many people would find it distasteful. Trying to dictate that yours is the Only True Path is yet another dangerous attitude.
I believe that having villain's with motives and personalities is far more interesting than them just being bags of XP to kill on sight. You play your way, let me play mine. Stop calling anything that doesn't align with your outdated perspective on the game idiotic.
Quite frankly? I could care less what Gygax says. The game has changed and moved on since the eighties, and the words of Gygax are not holy law anymore. In fact, what you are saying isn't even RAW. It isn't true for the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Wildemount, Theros, and Ravnica.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
This thread is going to be a dumpster fire. Do what your original quote suggests and play how you want without imposing your will or morality on others. If you want everyone to play exactly as you want, play a single player game.
I agree with this. Different people play D&D differently, and there is no right or wrong way to play as long as people are having fun. Whether sparing goblins is idiotic or not should ironed out during session zero, as every campaign is different.
Telling people to keep modern morality out of D&D is no different from telling people to keep phones out the table. Some groups like to include current event to spice up the game and explore racism, sexual abuse, bigotry, political oppression, and a variety of other darker subjects. Some groups like a more chill atmosphere and browse their phones for a while during a lull in play.
If a player thinks you're evil and that you shouldn't be, you can explain to them why you think you're good or just agree to disagree and move on. A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad. The same way humans would group to fend off a threat from the goblins, the goblins can do the same against the humans. The character might still win against these goblins, but at least the slaughter didn't go unnoticed.
If, however, the character - through roleplaying - says that they cannot stand that kind of behaviour; they have every right to say so and if that even breaks the party, it makes sense and should happen after genocides. An Oath of Redemption Paladin, IMO, should attempt to stop fights in any way. Be it killing the enemies or restrain their teammates.
Just like someone can choose to be a murderhobo, another can choose to be a pacifist. Neither is wrong and you shouldn't think they are. At most, you can explicitly say before the campaign starts that such a character isn't wanted at the table if you're the DM. If you're a player, understand that each player is allowed to do as they like, including telling others they don't like what they are doing. No, it is not a paradox, as they can't force the murderhobo to stop killing nor force the pacifist to kill. It's an opinion, and they're allowed to have it.
Is killing an entire village of Goblins who have free will but choose to do evil an evil thing? Yes.
But the thread is not about is it evil or not. It's about is it wise. And in a premodern society sparing the kids means hey either die later slowly and excruciatingly without the care and safety provided by the tribe, or they survive and harbor hatred for those who killed their families, coming back few years later to enact revenge on random villagers, because for them all humans look the same and are enemies, thus perpetuating the circle of violence.
There was a reason Roman Empire and Chinese Empires killed barbarians and nomads crossing their borders to a man, not even sparing children, and satuday-mornin-cartoon Evil was not one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, you'd be wrong because the co-creator of the game gave a perfect example of just what Lawful Good means. Thus spake Gygax:
Being merciful to Goblins is idiotic. They're Goblins and they're Evil. They are servants and creations of malevolent gods like Magubliyet. They routinely engage in pillaging, murder, rapine and destruction of settlements of humans & demihumans. D&D is not 4-Color Heroism. Go play Champions if you want that kind of game.
D&D has ALWAYS been a game where you absolutely can put an entire Goblin village to the sword and its still a Lawful and Good act. Stop thinking Law means modern Laws/Edicts/Acts. Its not. Its about Law vs Chaos in the sense of Michael Moorcock Eternal Champion series or Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.
This thread is going to be a dumpster fire. Do what your original quote suggests and play how you want without imposing your will or morality on others. If you want everyone to play exactly as you want, play a single player game.
To me, there are 3 options:
1) They are constructs with no free will. In this case, they are virtually puppets of their creator. They are not evil themselves, but were created and programmed by an evil source. They are no different to robots built by a villain: You need to kill them, and it is not evil to kill them, but they cannot be evil in and of themselves. They are machines.
2) They are non-sentient animals, like lions or wolves. They have no concept of good or evil, and cannot be classed as such. All their behaviour stems from instinct. It would be acceptable to hunt them, or to chase them out of an area, but hunting them to extinction would certainly not be a heroic or good act.
3) They are sentient creatures with free will. If so, not all of them are necessarily evil. Some will make the conscious choice to be good. In that case, slaughtering an entire village because "all goblins are evil" without first ensuring there are no good (or neutral) ones is an evil act, because you may have killed a good one. Killing children is an evil act, because there was no way to know whether they would grow up to be evil.
In no case is an entire group inherently and unchangeably evil. They either have sentience and free will, in which case they have the opportunity to be good, or they don't, in which case they cannot be evil.
Apparently, you don't grasp the fact that in D&D there is Objective Morality. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, are objective definable forces in the multiverse. Yes, Goblins are BORN EVIL.No matter how many snuggles, teddy bears and headpats you give goblin children, they're going to struggle against their Evil nature and more than likely shank you when you turn your back on them. They're creations of Magubliyet, who no more valued Free Will than he valued Good Food, Cheer and the company of Friends. They're small monsters. Putting them to the sword is entirely Lawful and Good because the game is BUILT ON Humanocentrism. Goblins routinely enslave humans when they don't murder them or r*** them. Or they turn them into food after sacrificing them to their Evil gods.
The official 5e section on goblin player alignment specifically states that some goblins are capable of tending towards good or neutral (though are typically neutral evil).
Dude, run. Don’t blink, don’t hesitate, just run. This thread is absolutely about to be a horrific dumpster fire of hatred. Run.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, they are, even in 5E:
"Goblins occupy an uneasy place in a dangerous world, and they react by lashing out at any creatures they believe they can bully. Cunning in battle and cruel in victory, goblins are fawning and servile in defeat, just as intheir own society lower castes must scrape before those of greater status and as goblin tribes bow before other goblinoids.
Goblins know they are a weak, unsophisticated race that can be easily dominated by bigger, smarter, more organized, more ferocious, or more magical creatures. Their god was conquered by Maglubiyet, after all, and now when the Mighty One calls for it, even their souls are forfeit. It is this realization that drives them to dominate other creatures whenever they can-for goblins, life is short.
Goblins seek to trap and enslave any creatures they encounter, but they flee from opposition that seems too daunting. For miles around their lair, they employ pit traps, snares, and nets to catch the unwary, and when their hunting patrols encounter other beings, they always look for ways to capture their foes instead of killing them. Goblins that run up against the fringes of a society first test its defenses by stealing objects, and if these crimes go unpunished, they begin stealing people.
Enslaved creatures receive the worst treatment the goblins can dish out while still getting decent performance out of the slaves. But humanoids and monsters that are especially capable or that provide unusual services find themselves treated like favored (though occasionally abused) pets." - Volo's Guide to Monsters
That is Objectively Evil. It doesn't say "Some Goblins". It doesn't say "Most Goblins". It doesn't even say "All but a handful of Goblins". D&D has Objective Morality, Good and Evil as Definable Forces and Goblins are Objectively Evil. Otherwise, the Cosmology could not exist. Nor could spells like Detect Good/Evil.
Why do you think I'm here? I've got a box of popcorn and a nice big glass of coke.
Edit: And some 10 foot poles to poke the thread occasionally...
I have no problem with someone playing a Goblin. You can play an Evil character, its okay. Quij the Ork Hero, companion to Lord Robilar, was Lawful Evil.
Modern morality will always have an impact on a game played today. Most players would find it distasteful, at the very least, to include themes which had black people as slaves, or a religious group rounded up into camps for extermination, even if those were acceptable in medieval times. They would consider a village which was executing homosexuals or burning supposed witches at the stake to be uneducated bumpkins at best, and would consider their actions to be evil. To try to exclude modern morality from a game played by modern people is misguided at best.
With an INT of 7, you may be able to posit that they are at least close to non-sentient, and their lack of intelligence makes concepts of good and evil irrelevant... :P
You get that that's like, Volo's opinion, right?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Do whatever you want. K, we can all leave now.
I think it also depends on what setting you choose or if it's your own homebrew setting.
In a homebrew setting you can do whatever you want. Goblins can be good/evil, or anything in between. Hell you could write it so all humans were made by an evil god or are innately evil.
I mean, this is ultimately up to each table and each campaign. So if one campaign has goblins as mindless evil creature, that's fine. If another has them as good aligned and benign-natured creatures that like to help travelers in their lands, that's fine too. If another has goblins who vary in all manner of morality, philosophy or religious expression, that's fine as well. Not everyone uses the standard setting and its generalization of what each race is like, but others do and that's alright. I think a majority of people here will accept and even encourage you or anyone else that plays differently from them to do so, don't let us stifle your creativity or fun. We all are still playing the same core game, we all just have different ideas for how to make the game and the world you play the game in more meaningful, fun and rich in experience.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
You are certainly correct. Anyone can play the game at their table the way they want, and are not "idiotic" to do so.
I would not want to play at any table which considered an entire group evil, and who thought it Good to slaughter an entire village/tribe/pack of any creatures without question. That's my own choice. I wouldn't call that group "idiotic" to do so.
The reason I would not want to play in such a group is because it comes very close to a very dangerous attitude in real life, which is sadly more prevalent than we would like. I wouldn't want to encourage that kind of thinking in anyone, whether in a real or imaginary setting.
So, to the OP: You play that way if you would like. Don't insist that everyone else must, or call everyone who disagrees with you idiotic. It isn't a part of the rules of 5e, and many people would find it distasteful. Trying to dictate that yours is the Only True Path is yet another dangerous attitude.
I believe that having villain's with motives and personalities is far more interesting than them just being bags of XP to kill on sight. You play your way, let me play mine. Stop calling anything that doesn't align with your outdated perspective on the game idiotic.
Quite frankly? I could care less what Gygax says. The game has changed and moved on since the eighties, and the words of Gygax are not holy law anymore. In fact, what you are saying isn't even RAW. It isn't true for the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Wildemount, Theros, and Ravnica.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I agree with this. Different people play D&D differently, and there is no right or wrong way to play as long as people are having fun. Whether sparing goblins is idiotic or not should ironed out during session zero, as every campaign is different.
Telling people to keep modern morality out of D&D is no different from telling people to keep phones out the table. Some groups like to include current event to spice up the game and explore racism, sexual abuse, bigotry, political oppression, and a variety of other darker subjects. Some groups like a more chill atmosphere and browse their phones for a while during a lull in play.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think it's a matter of character or player.
If a player thinks you're evil and that you shouldn't be, you can explain to them why you think you're good or just agree to disagree and move on. A good DM would bring consequence for genocides, IMO, good or bad. The same way humans would group to fend off a threat from the goblins, the goblins can do the same against the humans. The character might still win against these goblins, but at least the slaughter didn't go unnoticed.
If, however, the character - through roleplaying - says that they cannot stand that kind of behaviour; they have every right to say so and if that even breaks the party, it makes sense and should happen after genocides. An Oath of Redemption Paladin, IMO, should attempt to stop fights in any way. Be it killing the enemies or restrain their teammates.
Just like someone can choose to be a murderhobo, another can choose to be a pacifist. Neither is wrong and you shouldn't think they are. At most, you can explicitly say before the campaign starts that such a character isn't wanted at the table if you're the DM. If you're a player, understand that each player is allowed to do as they like, including telling others they don't like what they are doing. No, it is not a paradox, as they can't force the murderhobo to stop killing nor force the pacifist to kill. It's an opinion, and they're allowed to have it.
Varielky
Is killing an entire village of Goblins who have free will but choose to do evil an evil thing? Yes.
But the thread is not about is it evil or not. It's about is it wise. And in a premodern society sparing the kids means hey either die later slowly and excruciatingly without the care and safety provided by the tribe, or they survive and harbor hatred for those who killed their families, coming back few years later to enact revenge on random villagers, because for them all humans look the same and are enemies, thus perpetuating the circle of violence.
There was a reason Roman Empire and Chinese Empires killed barbarians and nomads crossing their borders to a man, not even sparing children, and satuday-mornin-cartoon Evil was not one.