D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Maxperson]

Why are you putting jam on ice cream?!? Can't you just get an ice cream that already has jam in it?

I once knew a guy who put ketchup on his.

 

[Gradine]

In what universe is jam not a perfectly legitimate ice cream topping?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Right. Which again shows how the alignment system is utterly useless, as people never agree what things mean.

I'll always love the Alignment system for heavily influencing D&D's take on devils to the point that a Forgotten Realms novel apparently has a granddaughter of Glasya (and therefore great-granddaughter of Asmodeus himself) worried about the imp underling of hers that has filed a formal complaint against her that'll look bad on her record.

The idea that devil society can be so Lawful that it actually somewhat impacts their ability to do Evil is just really amusing to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Its almost like it is a fun game mechanic that lets you know what to kill and which magic items you can use without getting a headache, rather than trying to simulate actual psychological nuances.

I’m not inherently opposed to the idea of a game mechanic that categorizes characters by their moral character. The 9-alignment system just does a poor job at it.

 

[Maxperson]

On Javert, I call him LN as well. He didn't care much about true justice or good, only the rule of law. He may have seen the rule of law as good in and of itself, but that belief doesn't make it so.

 

[Gradine]

Thinking that you're good and being definitionally good are very very different things

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get that sometimes you might not want to think deeply and just commit some fictional violence. But I really don't get why you would then care about the moral aspect at all? Why you need to justify it? Why can't your character just kill the goblins, why it matters who's good or bad in this scenario? We aren't thinking deeply about morals after all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thinking that you're good and being definitionally good are very very different things

The first is your own opinion, the latter is someone else's. But bot are just opinions.

 

[CleverNickName]

Right. Which again shows how the alignment system is utterly useless, as people never agree what things mean.

I think it's pretty useful, myself. After all, I don't need everyone to agree with the definition of "evil," just the folks at my table. No issues so far.

 

[Cadence]

I’m not really a comic book girl, so I can’t speak much to the relative nuance of various comic book villains. From an outside perspective, they all pretty much look cartoonishly evil, with varying levels of explanatory backstory and/or internal conflict. Are explanatory backstory and internal conflict nuance? Yeah, I guess, they’re just minor as nuance goes.

It’s also maybe not the best analogy because these are individual characters, whereas goblins are a group. It might be more apropos to ask if, like, the Ten Rings is more nuanced than Hydra.

Not defending the alignment system...

I picture the "nuanced group" as a few or all of planning and sticking to them, making alliances they keep, playing for the long term, and wanting to build things (even if they're somewhere between very self-serving and horrific). One site (looking up the alignment label I used previously) suggests Raistlin, the Malfoys, Professor Moriarty, and Johnnie Marcone.

I picture the "un-nuanced group" as not doing the first three well if at all, and not having anything we would view as coherent for what they'd like to build. This seems like the way OP described the Goblins in his world. The site suggested the Reavers from Firefly, Gregor Clegane, Apep, and most slasher flick villains.