D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mirtek

Hero
The larger problem here isnt the wholesale killing of guards. Its that D&D systems make it easier to just outright kill something then to knock it out.
It is forced to do, otherwise players would knock out the enemy and then kill them afterwards
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My rule of thumb is :
« if we see something similar in mainstream movie or Tv show we can play or depict it in DnD. »

We got orcs killing in Lord of the Rings, without hesitation, remorse, and even a kill count constest between Legolas and Gimli. So until LoTR is banished from streaming, I consider that we can kill orcs freely in DnD.
And more recently we got a blonde beauty that ride a dragon a burn down a entire city. So before doing worst than that we got a loose marging about what we can do in DnD.
 

Horwath

Hero
And more recently we got a blonde beauty that ride a dragon a burn down a entire city. So before doing worst than that we got a loose marging about what we can do in DnD.
well, there was a case that many consider her a war criminal and decided to (rightfully)execute her for that crime
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Can we equate goblins with modern day pests or invasive species? Australia hunts the red fox, which is a relatively intelligent animal. (I was first gonna use the mosquito as an example, but I think a fox provides more fuel for this conversation). According to what I read on the Ozzie government website (pdf warning), they used to shoot them, and now use poison traps. They also try to reduce rabbits.
See, that actually does cleave a bit closely to a historical atrocity, so I’d advise against it.
 


well, there was a case that many consider her a war criminal and decided to (rightfully)execute her for that crime
In fact, it fit in war crime.
should we avoid the DM to depict war crime during a campaign? or forbid players to commit such crime?
 



this.

maybe PCs want to commit war crimes, maybe they want to prevent one.
maybe they want to commit one war crime to prevent even bigger one...
DnD can be a place where players and Dm can enter fictions they can afford in their real live.
That can be an amazing place to explore its own mind, needs, urge, hope, without risking to finish in jail or being killed by making a silly heroic act.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
In fact, it fit in war crime.
should we avoid the DM to depict war crime during a campaign?

We already know one can't depict reducing the population in slavery, I guess depicting them being killed to the last isn't that much better.

Players.. I wouldn't "forbid" them to do anything, its the players' character, but I could say "Mmmm, you dealing with consequence of being war criminals isn't the campaign I'd like to run, so you can take over from here, I'll roll a character [or not]" if it was really egregious.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
We already know one can't depict reducing the population in slavery, I guess depicting them being killed to the last isn't that much better.

Players.. I wouldn't "forbid" them to do anything, its the players' character, but I could say "Mmmm, you dealing with consequence of being war criminals isn't the campaign I'd like to run, so you can take over from here, I'll roll a character [or not]" if it was really egregious.
My rule is simple - commit an evil enough act and your PC becomes an NPC. As a DM I reserve the right to control all the evil monsters, even the ones that are human.
 



AnotherGuy

Adventurer
More than one. Tyranny was quite open about it. Baldur's Gate: Throne of Bhaal screws it up because it's quite obvious what's going on but it simply denies you the option of "I don't believe you."[attack] and forces you to do what they say. In Planescape: Torment the bad guy is you.
Before all that there was Creature of Havoc, a Fighting Fantasy gamebook by Steve Jackson.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Not really. I like all sorts. To name a couple: Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is quick to judge your moral choices, as it KotOR. Witcher 3 and Pillars of Eternity give your moral choices without passing judgment. Solasta: Crown of the Magister and Titan Quest give you no moral choices. And I like all of them.
That's...what I said. So I'm confused you disagreed and then pretty much repeated what I said.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Seriously, humans have found reason to fight and kill each other as long as we have existed. No inherent evil and good factions needed, comes to us perfectly naturally. I have no reason to think the same wouldn't be true if sapient non-humans existed.
That's half the entire point of evil though.

Evil is both to warn people off behavior that is harmful such as eating disease-prone food or not breeding a giant army to kill the other guys and motivation to kill the other guys. Being the other guys is inherently evil because we need them dead for thier land or resources.
My rule is simple - commit an evil enough act and your PC becomes an NPC. As a DM I reserve the right to control all the evil monsters, even the ones that are human.
So... mass murder of sapients based on who they were born as?
 

This might be an unpopular or controversial opinion in current fandom, but I really love killing goblins -- or orcs, or kobolds, or any other stock enemy meant to die in droves. it hit me last night when I was playing Torchlight 3 (which is a video game and not a D&D one, but bear with me). The goblins in that game are very much the murderous, pyromaniac lit psychos of Pathfinder pre-2E and the feeling of obliterating them on screen filled me with a nostalgia for doing so at the table with dice in one hand and a cold brew in the other. There's just something truly satisfying about the over the top, silly mass murder of enemies designed specifically to die in droves.

I am not saying that is all I want out of D&D, or that I have an issue with a table or a game treating some traditional stock enemy types as not-stock enemy types (except Nazis -- Nazis should always be stock enemy types). I am just saying that killing goblins by the score is FUN.
It's only controversial because D&D has had to have it both ways as to whether it is a generic fantasy game system or an implied setting. Any other game you could do all of the above and the goblins, orcs, kobolds or other stock enemies could, in effect, be fantasy Nazis (which is to say they are bad because they do bad).
 
Last edited:


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I'm wondering if the moral protest be just as strong if we just substituted the culling of the current Australian government officials instead of goblins. I reckon a game where one waxes off politicians would have far less blowback.

Mod Note:
If you think there'd be less blowback, please consider that this almost got you booted from the thread by bringing real-world politics into the discussion.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top