Goblins are NOT people. How many times does this have to be stated for it to sink in? Goblins do not conform to any real world group. They're mythological beings and fantasy monsters.
Lots of people in history said the same thing of other races to justify exploiting and harming them.
Words and definitions are just made up things. They don't have any bearing on reality (or fantasy, in this case). Isn't the real question whether we have to take ethical consideration for goblins? It can be argued that the criteria for a creature to be subject to ethical consideration is whether it has thoughts and feelings. Goblins clearly do. If you want to limit the definition of people to humans, fine, but then you have to admit that being subject to ethical consideration isn't exclusive to people.
Goblins are NOT people. How many times does this have to be stated for it to sink in? Goblins do not conform to any real world group. They're mythological beings and fantasy monsters.
It doesn't need to be stated at all, except perhaps to be corrected for vacuity. What makes you think they have to conform to a real world group to be people? What's your definition of people? Think it through.
I use the actual definition which means "Human beings". From Meriam-Webster:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest 2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Goblins are not People. They're Monsters.
Definitions are normative, that means they are based on usage, not factual constancy. Every print dictionary mentions that in it's forward. Thus it's normal, and appropriate, for a dictionary to be factually contradictory.
Think a little deeper. What constitutes personhood?
I use the actual definition which means "Human beings". From Meriam-Webster:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest 2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Goblins are not People. They're Monsters.
You're using the Cherry Picking Fallacy. There are multiple definitions to words for a reason, because they are meant to be used in a bunch of different circumstances. "People" is the plural form of "person", and a person, in the definition that applies to this situation, is, " a character in a play or story". Goblins are characters in D&D campaigns (which are just collective, cooperative stories with rules), thus, goblins are "people" in TTRPGs the same way that a human is, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Also, I'm curious, if we use your hand-picked definition of the word, Elves, Dwarves, and all other D&D races would not be "People". Are you saying that they are not people? And if they're not people, what are they, as they're not "Monsters" (unless you're using the Monster Manual's definition of a monster, which is anything that has hit points and can be attacked, in which case every creature in the game with stat blocks, including humans, are monsters. This would then show that the categories of "person" and "monster" are not mutually exclusive, unless you decide to argue that humans aren't people, thus allowing other races to be both "people" and "monsters" at the same time). So, yeah, that's my question for you. If Goblins aren't people, if they're monsters, what makes Elves, or Dwarves, or Halflings not be monsters, other than your bare assertion of that being true?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Plus, you can't just SAY goblins are not people. It usually differs from table to table/setting to setting. The goblins in middle earth are definitely bad, but the ones in the forgotten realms are sometimes good! DnD isn't always based on LotR
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I can't tell if you're joking, trolling or serious...
If I were joking, my sources would be the Onion and social media posts. If I were trolling, I would be using dozens of logical fallacies and personally attacking you in every other sentence in my post.
So, you should be able to figure out which of those three I am right now. (Hint: I'm serious.) In the future, I recommend that you avoid ad hominems if you want your side in the debate to be taken seriously.
If you have a problem with anything I said, I recommend that you go down my post that you seem to find hilarious and/or ridiculous, and try to use valid debating tactics to dismantle it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Plus, you can't just SAY goblins are not people. It usually differs from table to table/setting to setting. The goblins in middle earth are definitely bad, but the ones in the forgotten realms are sometimes good! DnD isn't always based on LotR
Spoken like someone that doesn't actually know anything about Middle Earth since no creature can be irredeemably Evil (Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic and LotR). Not Sauron nor Melkor (the actual Luciferian figure of Middle Earth).
I use the actual definition which means "Human beings". From Meriam-Webster:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest 2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Goblins are not People. They're Monsters.
You're using the Cherry Picking Fallacy. There are multiple definitions to words for a reason, because they are meant to be used in a bunch of different circumstances. "People" is the plural form of "person", and a person, in the definition that applies to this situation, is, " a character in a play or story". Goblins are characters in D&D campaigns (which are just collective, cooperative stories with rules), thus, goblins are "people" in TTRPGs the same way that a human is, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Also, I'm curious, if we use your hand-picked definition of the word, Elves, Dwarves, and all other D&D races would not be "People". Are you saying that they are not people? And if they're not people, what are they, as they're not "Monsters" (unless you're using the Monster Manual's definition of a monster, which is anything that has hit points and can be attacked, in which case every creature in the game with stat blocks, including humans, are monsters. This would then show that the categories of "person" and "monster" are not mutually exclusive, unless you decide to argue that humans aren't people, thus allowing other races to be both "people" and "monsters" at the same time). So, yeah, that's my question for you. If Goblins aren't people, if they're monsters, what makes Elves, or Dwarves, or Halflings not be monsters, other than your bare assertion of that being true?
Does the term demi-human ring a bell [REDACTED] ?
Notes: Please keep posts constructive and respectful.
I use the actual definition which means "Human beings". From Meriam-Webster:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest 2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Goblins are not People. They're Monsters.
You're using the Cherry Picking Fallacy. There are multiple definitions to words for a reason, because they are meant to be used in a bunch of different circumstances. "People" is the plural form of "person", and a person, in the definition that applies to this situation, is, " a character in a play or story". Goblins are characters in D&D campaigns (which are just collective, cooperative stories with rules), thus, goblins are "people" in TTRPGs the same way that a human is, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Also, I'm curious, if we use your hand-picked definition of the word, Elves, Dwarves, and all other D&D races would not be "People". Are you saying that they are not people? And if they're not people, what are they, as they're not "Monsters" (unless you're using the Monster Manual's definition of a monster, which is anything that has hit points and can be attacked, in which case every creature in the game with stat blocks, including humans, are monsters. This would then show that the categories of "person" and "monster" are not mutually exclusive, unless you decide to argue that humans aren't people, thus allowing other races to be both "people" and "monsters" at the same time). So, yeah, that's my question for you. If Goblins aren't people, if they're monsters, what makes Elves, or Dwarves, or Halflings not be monsters, other than your bare assertion of that being true?
Does the term demi-human ring a bell [REDACTED] ?
I think the question is whether or not you play D&D 5e.
I use the actual definition which means "Human beings". From Meriam-Webster:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest 2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Goblins are not People. They're Monsters.
You're using the Cherry Picking Fallacy. There are multiple definitions to words for a reason, because they are meant to be used in a bunch of different circumstances. "People" is the plural form of "person", and a person, in the definition that applies to this situation, is, " a character in a play or story". Goblins are characters in D&D campaigns (which are just collective, cooperative stories with rules), thus, goblins are "people" in TTRPGs the same way that a human is, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Also, I'm curious, if we use your hand-picked definition of the word, Elves, Dwarves, and all other D&D races would not be "People". Are you saying that they are not people? And if they're not people, what are they, as they're not "Monsters" (unless you're using the Monster Manual's definition of a monster, which is anything that has hit points and can be attacked, in which case every creature in the game with stat blocks, including humans, are monsters. This would then show that the categories of "person" and "monster" are not mutually exclusive, unless you decide to argue that humans aren't people, thus allowing other races to be both "people" and "monsters" at the same time). So, yeah, that's my question for you. If Goblins aren't people, if they're monsters, what makes Elves, or Dwarves, or Halflings not be monsters, other than your bare assertion of that being true?
Does the term demi-human ring a bell [REDACTED] ?
1) This is another ad hominem. 2) "Demihuman" is never mentioned in the 5e PHB, Monster Manual, or DMG. 3) I have been playing D&D for about 4 and a half years now (four of those years were DMing). 4) I indeed have heard the term "demihuman" before (which probably should count as extra credit, as 5e never mentions it), but "demihuman" is not incompatible with "people/person". Someone can be both a person and a demihuman. 5) You completely ignored the definition of "person", which is "any character in a play or story", and D&D is a collaborative story, thus goblins, dwarves, elves, and so on all count as "people" by the pertinent definition of "person".
Demi-human was actually removed because it was a term used in Indian writing supporting eugenics during the British occupation, and thus generally gets associated with Orientalism.
Brooklyn_Red_Leg > If you don't address the issue of personhood, there's not much else you can say that matters. It's too fundamental to ignore.
You seem quite offended by the issue. For yourself, it would be worth while trying to investigate why you have this reaction. If it's merely that you feel this ethic is an imposition, please realize that they all are, so that's not a justification either.
It doesn't matter if a goblin "has a family they want to return to", if they are raiding your village because they want to take your food. If goblins can't feed themselves without robbing other settlements including your culture's settlements, they are evil.
That's absolutely false. Remember the Irish Potato Famine? The reason they couldn't feed themselves was because the British were taking away every non-potato food that they could produce, so when the potatoes started to die from a blight, they started starving to death. Their starvation was at the hands of an oppressor, so it would have been justified for them to steal food from people who have more, especially if they can survive without the stolen food and/or if those you're stealing the food from are your oppressors. (I'm not saying that these are the circumstances that happened in the campaign, I'm just saying that there are definitely circumstances where the stealing of food would be justified.)
If a party is traveling and a bunch of goblins are approaching with the weapons out ready to initiate a fight, you are free to assume they are going to attack you. The only likely conflict would occur if you happened on a goblin encampment. If a culture is camping, it is fair to ask, are they just traveling from one place to another or are they maneuvering for a raid/attack.
So, by your logic, if a soldier is carrying a firearm ready to shoot anyone that attacks him, anyone who comes across them is morally allowed to attack them out of nowhere. Or a hunter, for that matter. What if the goblins were carrying weapons to hunt wild animals? What if they were going to attack an enemy settlement that provoked them, and they wanted to be ready for an ambush?
Again, not saying that this happened, I'm just disproving your blanket statements.
How do you wish to handle it? You could attempt to sneak by them, which doesn't solve the riddle, but might get you past the risk. Do you simply figure if you attack then you have the initiative, and that is better for the party? Or do you attempt to initiate communications with the goblins? Very risky. Or can you ask for guidance through an Augury? You could attempt to capture a sentry and question him. That isn't usually a reliable negotiation tactic, and it will automatically put you in a bad light with the goblins. Heck, can you even speak goblin?
All goblins can speak Common, based on the monster stat blocks and racial stats (again, that is dependent on if the DM changed it, but that seems fairly uncommon from my experience and from that of others I know). It is always morally superior to talk before attacking when approaching a group of other people who have done nothing to aggress you.
We simply don't agree on the basic assumptions that go into playing this game. Let's leave it at that and have fun at each of our tables in a manner that suits our groups.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Are you sure you want to go with that? I can't imagine that you either live your own life this way -or- play D&D this way. You would shrug off the theft of the towns food supply? Or you would immediately track down the thieves and question them about their situation to see if they deserved to have the food that others toiled for? That unlike any D&D group I have ever played with.
Let's just agree to enjoy the game in the manner that we prefer with our own group and stop the virtue debate. It isn't convincing anyone and only causing hard feelings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My biggest problem with this conversation is writing an alien mind. How do you understand a species that doesn't use any sense that we know of, they think in a drastically different way then humans or even have a different societal systems. It is egotistical to assume a different species are just like humans. It is these differences that make writing fantasy fun because why else have other species?
I disagree. I think it is a compliment to think that others are just as moral as you are. To think otherwise, is to assume they are less moral because you naturally think you are adhering to high moral standards. It is a natural psychological thing called projection. You project onto others the same views and morals you hold dear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Are you sure you want to go with that? I can't imagine that you either live your own life this way -or- play D&D this way. You would shrug off the theft of the towns food supply? Or you would immediately track down the thieves and question them about their situation to see if they deserved to have the food that others toiled for? That unlike any D&D group I have ever played with.
Let's just agree to enjoy the game in the manner that we prefer with our own group and stop the virtue debate. It isn't convincing anyone and only causing hard feelings.
yeah but yelling they are evil and killing them all has a history of sparked centuries of large scale genocide from the same sheltered and privileged attitude
Goblins are NOT people. How many times does this have to be stated for it to sink in? Goblins do not conform to any real world group. They're mythological beings and fantasy monsters.
Lots of people in history said the same thing of other races to justify exploiting and harming them.
Words and definitions are just made up things. They don't have any bearing on reality (or fantasy, in this case). Isn't the real question whether we have to take ethical consideration for goblins? It can be argued that the criteria for a creature to be subject to ethical consideration is whether it has thoughts and feelings. Goblins clearly do. If you want to limit the definition of people to humans, fine, but then you have to admit that being subject to ethical consideration isn't exclusive to people.
Not just for you here, but I keep coming back to what about the ethical consideration for the people the goblins and orcs are harming?
Some people who are molested as children grow up to molest other children. If we condemn that act are we blaming the victim because their earlier victimhood led them to this action? Are we immoral for trying to stop them from causing further harm in the future? What if we lived in a place with no law enforcement and no judicial recourse? Would it be moral to use force against said molester? Would it be immoral to talk it out with them if they then ignored your words and continued in their behavior?
What if its not a child molester but an orc, or a band of orcs, who repeatedly and reliably raid, murder and steal from peaceful people? Isn't the moral thing to do to intervene? And in a lawless world isn't violence a viable answer?
Maybe deep down these classes of humanoids are redeemable. Unless and until they actually change their behavior in my view the immoral action is to empathize and appease.
We simply don't agree on the basic assumptions that go into playing this game. Let's leave it at that and have fun at each of our tables in a manner that suits our groups.
That kind of vacuity is frankly offensive, dismissing moral discussion under the guise of a live-and-let-live attitude. You can't reasonably assert a position while actively waving away what goes into getting to that same position. What basic assumptions would those be then?
You would shrug off the theft of the towns food supply? Or you would immediately track down the thieves and question them about their situation to see if they deserved to have the food that others toiled for?
It's not about who deserved to have the food, it's about the context of a situation influencing the culpability of the actor. That's ubiquitous enough an idea that you'll see it expressed by toddlers as often as you see it expressed in formal jurisprudence.
Lots of people in history said the same thing of other races to justify exploiting and harming them.
Words and definitions are just made up things. They don't have any bearing on reality (or fantasy, in this case). Isn't the real question whether we have to take ethical consideration for goblins? It can be argued that the criteria for a creature to be subject to ethical consideration is whether it has thoughts and feelings. Goblins clearly do. If you want to limit the definition of people to humans, fine, but then you have to admit that being subject to ethical consideration isn't exclusive to people.
Definitions are normative, that means they are based on usage, not factual constancy. Every print dictionary mentions that in it's forward. Thus it's normal, and appropriate, for a dictionary to be factually contradictory.
Think a little deeper. What constitutes personhood?
You're using the Cherry Picking Fallacy. There are multiple definitions to words for a reason, because they are meant to be used in a bunch of different circumstances. "People" is the plural form of "person", and a person, in the definition that applies to this situation, is, " a character in a play or story". Goblins are characters in D&D campaigns (which are just collective, cooperative stories with rules), thus, goblins are "people" in TTRPGs the same way that a human is, or an elf, or a dwarf.
Also, I'm curious, if we use your hand-picked definition of the word, Elves, Dwarves, and all other D&D races would not be "People". Are you saying that they are not people? And if they're not people, what are they, as they're not "Monsters" (unless you're using the Monster Manual's definition of a monster, which is anything that has hit points and can be attacked, in which case every creature in the game with stat blocks, including humans, are monsters. This would then show that the categories of "person" and "monster" are not mutually exclusive, unless you decide to argue that humans aren't people, thus allowing other races to be both "people" and "monsters" at the same time). So, yeah, that's my question for you. If Goblins aren't people, if they're monsters, what makes Elves, or Dwarves, or Halflings not be monsters, other than your bare assertion of that being true?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Plus, you can't just SAY goblins are not people. It usually differs from table to table/setting to setting. The goblins in middle earth are definitely bad, but the ones in the forgotten realms are sometimes good!
DnD isn't always based on LotR
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
If I were joking, my sources would be the Onion and social media posts. If I were trolling, I would be using dozens of logical fallacies and personally attacking you in every other sentence in my post.
So, you should be able to figure out which of those three I am right now. (Hint: I'm serious.) In the future, I recommend that you avoid ad hominems if you want your side in the debate to be taken seriously.
If you have a problem with anything I said, I recommend that you go down my post that you seem to find hilarious and/or ridiculous, and try to use valid debating tactics to dismantle it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Spoken like someone that doesn't actually know anything about Middle Earth since no creature can be irredeemably Evil (Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic and LotR). Not Sauron nor Melkor (the actual Luciferian figure of Middle Earth).
Does the term demi-human ring a bell [REDACTED] ?
I think the question is whether or not you play D&D 5e.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
1) This is another ad hominem.
2) "Demihuman" is never mentioned in the 5e PHB, Monster Manual, or DMG.
3) I have been playing D&D for about 4 and a half years now (four of those years were DMing).
4) I indeed have heard the term "demihuman" before (which probably should count as extra credit, as 5e never mentions it), but "demihuman" is not incompatible with "people/person". Someone can be both a person and a demihuman.
5) You completely ignored the definition of "person", which is "any character in a play or story", and D&D is a collaborative story, thus goblins, dwarves, elves, and so on all count as "people" by the pertinent definition of "person".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Demi-human was actually removed because it was a term used in Indian writing supporting eugenics during the British occupation, and thus generally gets associated with Orientalism.
Brooklyn_Red_Leg > If you don't address the issue of personhood, there's not much else you can say that matters. It's too fundamental to ignore.
You seem quite offended by the issue. For yourself, it would be worth while trying to investigate why you have this reaction. If it's merely that you feel this ethic is an imposition, please realize that they all are, so that's not a justification either.
We simply don't agree on the basic assumptions that go into playing this game. Let's leave it at that and have fun at each of our tables in a manner that suits our groups.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Are you sure you want to go with that? I can't imagine that you either live your own life this way -or- play D&D this way. You would shrug off the theft of the towns food supply? Or you would immediately track down the thieves and question them about their situation to see if they deserved to have the food that others toiled for? That unlike any D&D group I have ever played with.
Let's just agree to enjoy the game in the manner that we prefer with our own group and stop the virtue debate. It isn't convincing anyone and only causing hard feelings.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My biggest problem with this conversation is writing an alien mind. How do you understand a species that doesn't use any sense that we know of, they think in a drastically different way then humans or even have a different societal systems. It is egotistical to assume a different species are just like humans. It is these differences that make writing fantasy fun because why else have other species?
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
I disagree. I think it is a compliment to think that others are just as moral as you are. To think otherwise, is to assume they are less moral because you naturally think you are adhering to high moral standards. It is a natural psychological thing called projection. You project onto others the same views and morals you hold dear.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
yeah but yelling they are evil and killing them all has a history of sparked centuries of large scale genocide from the same sheltered and privileged attitude
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Please keep posts focused upon the topic of the thread and not upon the user behind the keyboard.
We aim to keep D&D Beyond a constructive, respectful, and welcoming community. Please ensure that it remains as such.
Thank you,
Not just for you here, but I keep coming back to what about the ethical consideration for the people the goblins and orcs are harming?
Some people who are molested as children grow up to molest other children. If we condemn that act are we blaming the victim because their earlier victimhood led them to this action? Are we immoral for trying to stop them from causing further harm in the future? What if we lived in a place with no law enforcement and no judicial recourse? Would it be moral to use force against said molester? Would it be immoral to talk it out with them if they then ignored your words and continued in their behavior?
What if its not a child molester but an orc, or a band of orcs, who repeatedly and reliably raid, murder and steal from peaceful people? Isn't the moral thing to do to intervene? And in a lawless world isn't violence a viable answer?
Maybe deep down these classes of humanoids are redeemable. Unless and until they actually change their behavior in my view the immoral action is to empathize and appease.
That kind of vacuity is frankly offensive, dismissing moral discussion under the guise of a live-and-let-live attitude. You can't reasonably assert a position while actively waving away what goes into getting to that same position. What basic assumptions would those be then?
It's not about who deserved to have the food, it's about the context of a situation influencing the culpability of the actor. That's ubiquitous enough an idea that you'll see it expressed by toddlers as often as you see it expressed in formal jurisprudence.