When do baby goblins become evil?

[JamesDJarvis]

Baby Goblins become evil just before you roll initiative.

 

[diaglo]

Baby Goblins become evil just before you roll initiative.

hey don't forget the surprise factor.

 

[fusangite]

As I think you agree, the RAW is hardly clear on this subject. Yes, you can assume that 20% of your goblins are various shades of Neutral. That's pretty close to how I deal with Orcs in my own campaign. But it's also just as legitimate to draw the line below Neutral as Above it.

I would say it's just as possible but not just as legitimate. I think a more logical assumption is that diverging alignments radiate out in two dimensions rather than one because alignment is a two-dimensional system. By suggesting one-dimensional radiation, you're implicitly deciding that the Good-Evil axis is more fundamental than the Law-Chaos axis.

Unless you have an inside track on why they decided to qualify alignments like that, we can only guess. My guess is that it was a bone for the people who complained, since the first edition of AD&D, that they didn't like the idea that ALL X ARE Y. But in the process, they opened up a whole 'nother can of worms.

Your theory seems good to me. I wouldn't mess with it. However, we can only really talk about what the rules say. Because I'm not an American, the "what the framers intended" has always struck me as weird in constitutional argument.

the implications are going to hinge on whether the goblins have a choice, whether they can ever learn to not be Evil, or whether they are simply Evil because they've had a horrible upbringing. That choice is going to have a significant impact on the tone of the game and how, for example, the PCs are expected to deal with baby goblins. What I'm suggesting is that the GM pick the feel that they want and work backwards. In my case, I was looking for the vast majority of monsterous humanoids to not pose a major moral problem for my players so I made a lot of them Evil by nature.

Again, I have no dispute with this policy and positively endorse it.

But I think the reason that you find the idea of your PCs killing creatures that are not irredeemably evil stems from your interpretation of how to apply alignment to the PCs. Because killing non-evil creatures is very problematic under the RAW, you have to make most of your NPC monstrous humanoids pure irredeemable evil because the consequence of doing otherwise would be your PCs being unable to sustain their good alignments.

Because I am more relaxed about PC alignments, I can have a lot more slate grey adversaries in the world.

But I also wanted to leave room for the moral implications of Evil by Inclination so I handled a few creatures that way. And I always have Evil humans and such for Evil by Choice. From there, I can work backwards. Why are goblins Evil by nature? Perhaps it's genetic. Perhaps it's because they were created by a demon. Perhaps it's because of magic rays or the sins of their ancestors. To me, that's not the important choice. That's just flavor to justify the choice.

Well, like nearly everyone in the world, you're more comfortable with modernity seeping into your D&D. I like games that evoke times when you didn't need to dehumanize something in order to justify killing it.

Maybe (and this thought has just crossed my mind now) the reason I dislike D&D alignment so much is that it demands that something/someone be dehumanized before killing it is okay.

What I am trying to point out is that each of those choices have implications, which are behind the many of the various responses to this thread which range from "kill the little monsters" to "raise them to be good citizens". Under each of those suggestions lies assumptions about the nature of goblins and their alignment, which is the kernel that I'm trying to address. There isn't one right choice but each choice has important implications on the tone of the game.

I agree here but I think that you're assuming that we have only two options: (a) the game is morally simple in that it is centred on killing/harming dehumanized things, (b) the game is morally complex in that it is centred on killing/harming essentially human/ensouled things. The games I run are ones in which (c) the game is morally simple even though it is centred on killing/harming essentially human/ensouled things. If one picks option (c), one has to evoke a non-mdern moral order in which killing/harming ensouled creatures is not ethically murky provided it is done in the correct way.

And it's certainly another legitimate way to deal with the problem. But it still all boils down to whether it's worthwhile or compassionate the spare goblin children and try to turn them into good citizens or not.

No it doesn't unless one adopts your moral system in a transcultural, transhistorical way. I like to leave this ethical system and step into one where the Hurons conceived of animals as being like other tribes of humans -- sometimes allied, sometimes at way, sometimes okay to kill, sometimes not. I like to run games in which people like Charlemagne and Cortes are comprehensible as both heroes and as villains. Unfortunately, the D&D alignment system unmodified attempts to thwart me at every turn so I turn alignments into Cold War style allegiances -- crucially important but just barely meaningful.

What I'd really like to see in a 4th Edition would be clearly laid out options that a GM could choose between, that would have an impact on the results of various detect alignment spells, in much the same way that different classes of creatures have different auras. I'd like the see the irredeemably Evil "detect" differently than the redeemable and misguided because I think the whole purpose of the Detect Evil that a Paladin has is to make it clear who it's OK for them to kill.

A former GM of mine, developed a theory of "three kinds of evil" for his setting and wrote cool tracts about it. In my view, what 4E needs is a modular alignment system that one can use part or none of, the way 3.0 MOTP writes about the effects of removing different planes of existence.

 

[Hurtfultater]

Any single day a thoughtful DnD-playing girl from Madison wants to have my babies makes for a great year.

I'm sorry, there's bad news on the girl front, there. Figure of speech and all that.

Dude, why'd you have to tell her I'm a goblin? Now she won't want my filthy green slime-covered babies!

Hey, if you can manage to impregnate me, I'll bear whatever it is. Unless it's an alien chest burster.

John Morrow, I'll respond to your response when I've got the time, probably tomorrow.

 

[Gez]

What you describe is selfish. Selfish pragmatic self-interest is Neutral. Murderous and cruel is Evil. Unless you're talking about Damien or Rosemary's Baby, babies are Neutral, no matter how much they torture their parents.

No. Selfishness is evil. You can evil without murdering anyone. And babies are cruel. Kids will pull the legs and wings of bugs out of playful cruelty. They'll kick and bite you, other kids, pets, etc. out of malice. They'll try to steal their siblings' share of candies. They'll have all sorts of nasty pranks which can have serious, long-lasting consequences.

Babies are born evil, and they stay so during their first half-dozen years of life.

Seven is called the age of wisdom because it's around this time that kids start to no longer being evil.

 

[John Morrow]

I would say it's just as possible but not just as legitimate. I think a more logical assumption is that diverging alignments radiate out in two dimensions rather than one because alignment is a two-dimensional system. By suggesting one-dimensional radiation, you're implicitly deciding that the Good-Evil axis is more fundamental than the Law-Chaos axis.

I absolutely do. When I see a module where the Paladins side with Lawful Evil people to put an end to the chaos caused by all those Chaotic Good Elves in the way I might see a module with Chaotic Good elves siding with Paladins to defeat a Lawful Evil enemy, I'll believe they are equivalent. I'll also point out that a Paladin who becomes a Blackguard is considered "fallen" in a way that a Paladin who becomes a Liberator is not. That's not to say that Law and Chaos aren't important. But I don't think that Law and Chaos define the morality of D&D in the same way that Good and Evil does.

But I think the reason that you find the idea of your PCs killing creatures that are not irredeemably evil stems from your interpretation of how to apply alignment to the PCs. Because killing non-evil creatures is very problematic under the RAW, you have to make most of your NPC monstrous humanoids pure irredeemable evil because the consequence of doing otherwise would be your PCs being unable to sustain their good alignments.

I think that's essentially accurate.

But it's a campaign tone issue as much as an alignment issue. Even if I were to remove alignment entirely, a player who plays a good character is going to have a much heavier moral dilemma to resolve if their opponents are not Evil by nature. Star Wars would be a very different movie if the heroes had to worry about what to do with wounded Stormtroopers, if the Stormtroopers were brainwashed but redeemable soldiers (ala the Kurt Russel character in the movie Soldier), if we could see their faces as real human beings, or if the Death Star had a day care center for the children of all of those crew members. The heaviness of such real-world concerns in Star Wars is even addressed for comic effect in a Kevin Smith movie. And, heck, look at how much effort George Lucas went through to make Greedo shoot first, because he thought Han's pre-emptive shot made him a murderer.

If you want your Star Wars to be morally heavy, then make the Stormtroopers real people and put families on the Death Star. If you want your Star Wars to be morally light, make the Stormtroopers cruel, irredeemably evil, and cover their faces so they look like robots. Better yet, go the original Battlestar Galactica route, dealing with anti-violence television restrictions, and make the bad guys robots. A lot of translated anime for children during that period does the same thing -- "robot tanks", "robot planes", etc. Undead often get used the same way in fantasy.

Because I am more relaxed about PC alignments, I can have a lot more slate grey adversaries in the world.Well, like nearly everyone in the world, you're more comfortable with modernity seeping into your D&D. I like games that evoke times when you didn't need to dehumanize something in order to justify killing it.

Several people in my group (myself included) either role-play immersively (they try to think and feel in character) or from a strongly in character perspective. Before running D&D, we hadn't been using D&D or alignments but we still had to deal with these problems in any setting that we played in. Basically, it's a moral issue whether it's wrapped up in an alignment system or not.

As for modernity, I can't avoid the fact that myself and my playes are modern Americans. Ultimately, the players are going to like or dislike their own characters based on their own morality. I think your point is legitimate and fair, but I think I'm talking closer to the norm, at least in my anecdotal experience in the US. There is a scene in The Princess Bride where the grandfather suggests that the story won't have the ending he expects and says, "Jesus, Grandpa! Why are you reading me this thing!" While there are certainly a lot of people who enjoy exploring the unpleasant aspects of human nature, a lot of people simply want something that they'll enjoy and like. That's why you don't see too many movies where the good guys lose or the protagonists are unlikable monsters.

Maybe (and this thought has just crossed my mind now) the reason I dislike D&D alignment so much is that it demands that something/someone be dehumanized before killing it is okay.

At it's heart, D&D is tapping into the same well that real world human monsters use to encourage real people to do awful things to other real people, much in the same way that making all elves a certain way taps into the same idea. I can certainly see why people feel that's troubling. But movies do the same thing all the time. Why do villains wear masks, helmets, sunglasses, and unforms in movies? Because it dehumanizes them and makes it emotionally acceptable to kill them. When that fails, the heroes in movies can look like quite the monsters themselves (e.g., the scene in Goldeneye that I mentioned earlier).

I agree here but I think that you're assuming that we have only two options: (a) the game is morally simple in that it is centred on killing/harming dehumanized things, (b) the game is morally complex in that it is centred on killing/harming essentially human/ensouled things. The games I run are ones in which (c) the game is morally simple even though it is centred on killing/harming essentially human/ensouled things. If one picks option (c), one has to evoke a non-mdern moral order in which killing/harming ensouled creatures is not ethically murky provided it is done in the correct way.

Using movies and television as a guide, if it were that easy, we'd see more movies where the characters are historically accurate rather than sanitized for a modern audience. And when movies do depict past atrocities under modern moral standards, they feel obliged to cast them as such rather that treating them in terms of the morality of the day. I agree that it's possible for people to play and enjoy your type (c) games, but I'm really not sure that most role-players are up for, or even want, that challenge.

No it doesn't unless one adopts your moral system in a transcultural, transhistorical way.

Well, the D&D RAW does provide a fairly objective moral system and the idea of, say, "Detect Evil" in the RAW really doesn't make any sense outside of a transcultural and transhistorical sense. Yes, a GM could certainly go down the road of moral relativism but that's really not any more RAW-friendly than what I'm doing.

I like to leave this ethical system and step into one where the Hurons conceived of animals as being like other tribes of humans -- sometimes allied, sometimes at way, sometimes okay to kill, sometimes not. I like to run games in which people like Charlemagne and Cortes are comprehensible as both heroes and as villains.

And that's fine, but they are all going to be looked at with modern eyes, which is what the D&D alignment system is, in many ways. There is no reason you can't run a Charlemagne or Cortes within the D&D alignment system just as there isn't any reason why you can't make a movie about them for a modern audience. Sure, the alignment will judge those people in much the same way modern people judge their behavior but it doesn't have to change their behavior. I think of it more as a way to define a character rather than as a straitjacket.

Unfortunately, the D&D alignment system unmodified attempts to thwart me at every turn so I turn alignments into Cold War style allegiances -- crucially important but just barely meaningful.

Why can't you just let your Charlemagne or Cortes be Neutral or even Evil, if that label fits? Nothing in the rules says that your point-of-view character nees to be Good, though it does do a lot of limit the utility of alignment if everyone is Evil, for example.

A former GM of mine, developed a theory of "three kinds of evil" for his setting and wrote cool tracts about it. In my view, what 4E needs is a modular alignment system that one can use part or none of, the way 3.0 MOTP writes about the effects of removing different planes of existence.

I agree with you on that. I don't think one size fits all and the attempts to encompass every possible option has made the RAW so vague that it's nearly useless in many areas.

 

[Gez]

I'll also point out that a Paladin who becomes a Blackguard is considered "fallen" in a way that a Paladin who becomes a Liberator is not. That's not to say that Law and Chaos aren't important. But I don't think that Law and Chaos define the morality of D&D in the same way that Good and Evil does.

That's because a paladin that becomes CG has not fallen, he has become a leftist.

Look at the chart:
LG NG CG
LN TN CN
LE NE CE

You clearly see that moving from LG to any E makes you move down (ergo, fall), while moving from LG to any C makes you move left (ergo, shift).

A holy liberator is a shifted paladin, not a fallen paladin.

(This may seem silly, but it really isn't that much. Look at the upper and lower planes of the core D&D cosmology. The first layer of upper planes is said to be the "lowest." The first layer of lower planes is said to be the "highest." Limbo and Mechanus, both being on the neutral moral axis, are neither upper nor lower planes, as a result they don't have layers at all.)

 

[John Morrow]

No. Selfishness is evil.

Perhaps in your own moral system it is. In the D&D alignment system as defined by the RAW, it isn't. I also don't personally consider it evil.

You can evil without murdering anyone.

Sure. But all the D&D alignment system requires of Neutral characters is that they have "compunctions against killing the innocent" (note that they are not even prohibited form killing the innocent -- they simply shouldn't do so without some pause) and goes on to say that they "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." Sounds like a pretty good description of "selfish" to me.

Out of curiosity, how would you define Neutral?

And babies are cruel. Kids will pull the legs and wings of bugs out of playful cruelty. They'll kick and bite you, other kids, pets, etc. out of malice. They'll try to steal their siblings' share of candies. They'll have all sorts of nasty pranks which can have serious, long-lasting consequences.

Some kids do. Other kids don't. Often kids do those things without thinking (which, again, falls under the definition of Neutral in the SRD).

I can remember my childhood very well (e.g., I can remember being in my crib, remember noticing the crickets outside for the first time, etc.) and I can even often remember what I was thinking (e.g., I can remember exactly why I was reluctant to give up my bottle and know how throwing away my favorite stuffed animal affected me) and I certainly did some of those things (but not others -- I never had any interest in hurting pets, for example) and not only wasn't it motivated by cruelty or sadism but, in at least one case, I got fairly upset when someone explained to me why what I did was cruel because I just didn't know any better (and I know how that effected my, too -- let's just say that I still catch most insect and release them outside rather than killing them). There is a reason why, in response to a parent asking a child why they were doing something bad, a child answers, "I don't know!" They really don't.

Babies are born evil, and they stay so during their first half-dozen years of life.

If you define selfishness or ignorance as Evil. I don't. I think Evil requires intent.

Seven is called the age of wisdom because it's around this time that kids start to no longer being evil.

I know plenty of children who were helpful and altristic long before that age and plenty of children who never stopped being evil at that age. Maybe I'm just not meeting the same children that you are.

 

[fusangite]

If you want your Star Wars to be morally heavy, then make the Stormtroopers real people and put families on the Death Star. If you want your Star Wars to be morally light, make the Stormtroopers cruel, irredeemably evil, and cover their faces so they look like robots.

I assume you're thinking of the independent contractors speech from Clerks. I agree here provided you're moored to a contemporary moral system.

Several people in my group (myself included) either role-play immersively (they try to think and feel in character) or from a strongly in character perspective. Before running D&D, we hadn't been using D&D or alignments but we still had to deal with these problems in any setting that we played in.

That makes sense; I tend to play in a very third person distanced academic style except for periodic intense verbal interactions with key NPCs.

As for modernity, I can't avoid the fact that myself and my playes are modern Americans. Ultimately, the players are going to like or dislike their own characters based on their own morality. I think your point is legitimate and fair, but I think I'm talking closer to the norm, at least in my anecdotal experience in the US.

As I alluded in my last post, there is not a doubt in my mind that I'm in a tiny minority. Were it not for a fortunate meeting with a new GM in 1997 and my involvement in his campaign that year, I might never have even conceptualized the way I game now. I think the way I play the game now is radically different than anybody I've ever met.

And that's fine, but they are all going to be looked at with modern eyes, which is what the D&D alignment system is, in many ways. There is no reason you can't run a Charlemagne or Cortes within the D&D alignment system just as there isn't any reason why you can't make a movie about them for a modern audience. Sure, the alignment will judge those people in much the same way modern people judge their behavior but it doesn't have to change their behavior. I think of it more as a way to define a character rather than as a straitjacket.

Why can't you just let your Charlemagne or Cortes be Neutral or even Evil, if that label fits? Nothing in the rules says that your point-of-view character nees to be Good, though it does do a lot of limit the utility of alignment if everyone is Evil, for example.

Because I like gaming worlds to be ones in which we transport ourselves into a different mindset as well as a different setting. For me, identifying with an alien way of thinking about the world deeply enriches my roleplaying experience.

I agree with you on that. I don't think one size fits all and the attempts to encompass every possible option has made the RAW so vague that it's nearly useless in many areas.

Nice to see that we're generally in accord here.

 

[irdeggman]

What I'd really like to see in a 4th Edition would be clearly laid out options that a GM could choose between, that would have an impact on the results of various detect alignment spells, in much the same way that different classes of creatures have different auras. I'd like the see the irredeemably Evil "detect" differently than the redeemable and misguided because I think the whole purpose of the Detect Evil that a Paladin has is to make it clear who it's OK for them to kill.

I think the spell works fine, since it works off alignment or spell descriptor (for evil spells). I believe the issue is determining alignment itself. Once alignment is set then the spell works aswritten, the problem is assigning an alignment in the first place. Not that in 2nd ed the paliidna detected evil intent vice evil alignment, made things a whole lot muckier.