When do baby goblins become evil?

[fusangite]

Very well presented, fusangite. Yes, the framework is useful; I hope you won't mind if I use it for my campaign.

That's what it's here for. Now I won't feel quite so much like I've been wasting my afternoon.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Left to the whims of the Goblin Gods, baby goblins WILL grow up to be evil.

And leaving them alive to do so would be grossly irresponsible. Some day those goblin babies will grow up to CAPTURE, KILL, AND EAT human (or elf or dwarf) babies.

If they aren't currently evil, you're doing their souls the kind favor of sending them off to the higher planes before evil can work its claws into their hearts, and then they're truly damned.

Wulf

 

[John Morrow]

I was referring to empathy and altruism in a pretty narrow and basic sense. I probably didn't make that clear. I can't comment on Out of America, having not read it, but I wouldn't hold up areas with child soldiers are janjaweed as functional societies.

Again, those societies are as functional as any goblin society needs to be, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not expecting them to build a pyramid, fill the Library of Alexandria, or put a goblin on the moon. I'm expecting them to raid, torture, and kill human farmers for their stuff and to be forced mercenary soldiers for evil overlords.

Just how functional do you expect goblins to be? At what point are they simply humans with different attribute modifiers and funny looks? And if they are just humans with different attribute modifiers and funny looks, what purpose do they serve?

Those forms of entertainment take a great deal of empathy, as you have to associate the images with people and then project emotional states onto the emotional appeal. Sure, we have to dial down your empathy to avoid being upset, but there's still quite a lot there.

I disagree. There is a scene in Goldeneye where James Bond escapes from a Russian police station. In the process, it kills quite a few Russian police officers who were simply doing their job trying to stop him. Because I did have my empathy turned on, the scene bothered me quite a bit and it pretty much spoils the movie for me. How many people die in The Matrix during those oh-so-cool combat scenes? Or how about Pulp Fiction, where they play someone getting shot in the head by accident up for laughs?

Even a little bit of empathy for those who are dying and those scenes are not cool. They are troubling at best, if not sick. And notice that to really get the audiences sympathy in a movie, they have to kill an animal -- a dog, cat, or horse. That's when the audience really starts to cry. Kill a few dozen faceless Nazis? No problem. Shoot their dog, though, and there will be Hell to pay.

Cats do have altruistic instincts. Haven't you ever seen a cat bring a dead mouse or snake as a present? Grooming behaviors are also altruistic.

I have a half-dozen cats and have seen the behavior you talk about. The dead mouse, bird, etc. is a maternal instinct. It's how big cats teach little cats how to catch prey. It's not a present in the same sense that humans give presents. As for the grooming behavior, I've seen cats groom furry rugs and cat fur covered cloth. I've also heard of cats grooming the fur of dead cats. Read some web pages on training cats. I've had to do it. They can't be trained like dogs or humans because they don't think the same way.

Cats (especially lions) can react to different emotional states in members of their social groups, and they vocalize and posture to signal these emotional states. There's empathy right their.

Even when it exists, it doesn't need to be used for positive purposes. A torturer can understand that they are causing their victim pain by their body language and vocalizations. That they understand they are causing pain is a very different kind of empathy than the sort of empathy that would cause them to identify with their victims. Sure, goblins could understand the emotional state of others but that doesn't mean that they identify or sympathize with the pain or misfortune of others. In fact, they may use it more the way a torturer would -- to more effectively torment their victims and underlings.

House cats aren't extremely social creatures, anyway. I was trying to stay away from social insects as they're so much simpler in behavior that how they function wouldn't be pertinent unless you had goblins with extremely powerful social instincts and very little agency.

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Why stay away from social instincts? Basically, there are three choices. Either your goblins are simply different people and are Evil because they are raised that way, goblins have a strong tendency to be Evil but you might be able to teach some to overcome it, or goblins are Evil by nature and any social behavior they exhibit is instinctual. Each one of those choices has a different moral implication.

In the first case, goblins are simply tragic and should be treated like humans who have experienced an unfortunate upbringing. Goblin children should be sent off to good schools to grow up and become good productive members of society if their parents are killed. In the last case, goblins are simply intelligent vermin that can be slain with impunity. The middle case creates a difficult moral problem for the player characters. Yeah, you can help some goblins but it will take a lot of effort. That raises the question of playing games about being foster parents to orphaned goblin kids, trying to keep them from a life of crime.

In my case, I wanted to have things both ways so I decided that the goblinoids were Evil by nature and the Orcs, who can mate with humans, simply had an inclination toward Evil. That way, I have killable bad guys when I need them and don't want the game to get bogged down with, "What do we do with the prisoners?" and I have a deep moral problem if I want to explore that in the Orcs. As for goblins just being little people who were just brought up wrong, I'm not sure I need a whole race of creatures to fill that niche and can use bad humans if I want to explore that dimension.

I'm not sure you could have a society entirely composed of autistic people, and certainly not without high functioning autistics and people with Asperger's. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be a society of sociopaths, and I'm betting we can agree that that one wouldn't work.

Oh, I think it could work pretty well. It wouldn't be pleasant. It may not put a man on the moon. But it could serve the purpose that goblins are intended to serve. They don't need to build cities and write novels. They simply need to eat, reproduce, and menace others. They don't need a complex society for that any more than those child soldiers do in Africa. They can be but they don't have to be.

The goal is to have a goblin population that can care for goblin babies (presumably as helpless as other hominid babies), can form recognizable societies, can make tools, can do things that require cooperation and have no immediate reward, and can regularly perform complex tasks. No soup kitchens are needed.

First, goblin babies don't need to be as helpless as human babies. Think about the little sea turtles that swim their way into the ocean to survive on their own or even baby herd animals that can walk minutes after birth. They don't have to be helpless and perhaps they aren't. But even if they are for some short period of time, goblin mothers can have a use for them, which I already suggested. Or like cats, they could simply be overcome by maternal instincts that they can't control.

As for being a recognizable society, what exactly are you looking for? Burrows? Villages? Cities? High technology? I don't see them making a lot of tools. I see them either stealing tools or enslaving someone else and forcing them to make tools. I also don't see them building little thatched roof cottages with curtains in the window and a flower garden.

There are plenty of reasons to cooperate on things that have no immediate reward which are neither altruistic nor empathetic, in the compassion sense. Why do kids join street gangs? Why do child soldiers pick up an AK-47 and join a band of thugs? Do goblins really need more motivation than that?

 

[John Morrow]

But I still think that goblin babies are face-chewing monsters. It's a lot more fun for me to play in a fantasy world with some clear distinctions between good and evil. Leave the moral ambiguity for the PC races, there's plenty of that to go around. At the end of the day, the PC's still need foes that they can feel good about vanquishing.

That's why my goblin babies are face chewing monsters and why their mothers were willing to force their children out into the PCs to shield the mothers. I'm not looking for moral ambiguity in my goblins. I'm looking for monsters.

And played right, the face-chewing monster baby goblins can be just as troubling as the morally ambiguous kind. The group I'm running, including a paladin, did plow through the women and children in the goblin lair they attacked. There were no high-fives or cheers at the end. It was more of a "Well, that was unpleasant and I hope I never have to do that again." I think it was the quietest post-combat reaction that I've ever seen. Yeah, they knew that my goblins detected Evil and were Evil by nature but that didn't make the task of killing intelligent creatures that were recognizably women and children any easy for them, even after they saw just how nasty they were.

 

[Sigurd]

Game Mechanics not Philosophy

Alignment is a game mechanic it is not a deep moral delemma.

Evil monsters are the fodder for good combat. It justifies killing them as a moral act. Evil critters can't reform, they certainly shouldn't have had the chance to reform if you've killed them.

The Dm says Goblins are evil. They are.

The DM says Faeries are evil. They are.

The Dm says they're using 5 foot long swords with glass handles. They are.



If you want to run a world where you can redeem the occaisional goblin go ahead. (btw. there is a good example of the Hobb - a good hobgoblin). Do you think that making them good will not create the need for another creature to slay? Bet you the slain creature is evil - cause then its not Murder. Parties don't examine their morality and relax at the same time. Think about how much grave robbing and disturbing of the dead goes on in the game.


Sigurd

my 02

 

[John Morrow]

This is a lovely problem. Leaving aside the evidence this provides for the raw absurdity of the current D&D alignment system, I'll try to sort this out.

I think that the D&D alignment system is only absurd if you try to apply it to subjective morality. The 3E treatment is fairly consistent about what Good and Evil are.

The first question we have to address is where the nature of a people or race comes from. Obviously, the nature-nurture debate can't be easily mapped back onto the D&D world. Genetics and psychology don't exist as fields in D&D worlds and even if they did, we know that in the case of genetics at least, it would be a wrong theory.

Just because the evidence strongly suggests that nature, at best, only influences human behavior in our world does not mean that we can't imagine fantasy races of intelligent creatures for whom elements of their behavior is built in and instinctual. Yes, we've been taught to be disgusted by the idea that people inherit their behavior, in part because many of those theories have been discredited but also because they've been badly misused by racists and other bad people. But we aren't talking about human beings. We are talking about goblins.

If humans can be behaviorally programmed to feel hungry and eat or to have a libido and can become chemically dependent on various substances, I don't find it difficult to imagine an intelligent creature who is born cruel and sadistic. Yes, it would be really disturbing if someone claimed that about a group of humans and yes I'd be mighty skeptical about those claims, but we aren't talking about humans.

So, what are some viable theories that might be true in a D&D world?

I'm still not sure why you don't find simply saying "nature" a viable alternative, particularly since many of the archetypes from which these monsters are drawn come from an age in human history when people believed that human behavior was also governed by nature in a broad sense, even if explained in terms of the other categories that you presented. Like I said, I realize why that's a mighty offensive stand to take with real human beings but these are monsters in a fantasy game. If we can imagine worlds that are flat, etheral planes, astral projection and a host of other fantasy ideas that real people used to believe in but have since been discredited, why can't we believe in a species of monsters that is just born evil?

Is it because such theories were often used for racist purposes and have forever been tainted (like the swastika has forever been tainted by the Nazis, even though it had a much longer history as a Buddhist symbol of good luck)? Well, isn't the whole idea of races in D&D, including races of monsters and racial ability modifiers, pretty racist, too, if applied to humans? Face it, the whole idea of a race of monsterous bad guys that you can kill with impunity draws from the same spring that the idea of races having natures draws from. And I personally think that the half-effort to straddle the line -- having monsterous evil races yet refuse to say that they are evil by nature -- raises far more troubling and offensive problems. If the goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and orcs aren't evil by nature. then just why are they evil? And why doesn't someone do something about it? Why can't they?

Now, you can cover the theme of a "nature" behind ideas like "environment", "nobility", or "divine inheritance" but the real question is whether monster races are free moral agents who choose to be evil or can't help but to be evil. Can they be helped or changed or not? If they choose to be Evil, that raises a set of questions that can be just as troubling, because of how they are presented and used in a typical D&D game, as the idea that they are born evil.

1. Usually: Goblins have a "usually" alignment. According to the rules,

If they are "usually Neutral Evil", does that mean that they are also sometimes "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" or does it mean that they can also be True Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral or even Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good? Just beause they are not always Neutral Evil, does that mean that the full range of alignments is open to them?

2. Detectability: Unlike most worlds, in the D&D world, it is very hard for either large groups or powerful individuals to be unaware of their goodness or evilness. Detection spells, aligned weapons and spells, etc. make it very difficult not to know one's own alignment.

In the real world, a lot of people know what they are, too. As I've mentioned, many sociopath types understand that they are bad people. Why don't they change? Because they like the way they are. I'm not sure what this really changes. I think the belief that everyone always must think of themselves as "good" and that good and evil are totally relative is a side effect of cultural relativism run amok.

There are also some sizeable game mechanical holes. In particular, D&D rules do not list the characteristics of creatures who are less than adult, except for dragons. So, it's difficult to discern how and if the creatures' mental attributes and alignment tend to change over time.

I think this is one of those cases where they left things open for interpretation on purpose. I also think that the "usually" in the alignment is due to the long history of complaints by people who strongly dislike the idea of monolithic intelligent races. "Usually" is a convenient way to let the people who want their killable bad guys to read it as "every one you'll ever meet" while allowing those who want their Lawful Good goblin Paladin to have their way, too. Basically, it's tossing a bone to both sides in the hope that neither side will bite them.

 

[Aeric]

You are funny and I want to have your babies.

Just make sure they aren't goblin babies....

 

[John Morrow]

Do you think that making them good will not create the need for another creature to slay?

Look at what happens on Star Trek every time they soften up a bad guy species and make them noble, lovable, or sympathetic. They wind up having to create a new bad guy.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

OK. Its done & here is what the party did.

They discovered the secret entracne to the city the Goblins were using to raid the city, so they now had an easy egress route to leave the goblin warrens (thus no debate about how to lug dozens of baby goblins back through the ooze infested caverens and sewers they just went through).

They decided they coulnd't just kill helpless opponents who couldn't effectively fight back. Plus they found a large, ornate 4 poster bed worth a lot of gold they could easily rig up as a giant crib.

So they lugged a giant bed loaded up with screaming goblin babies out through the secret exit the goblins had been using, which led to a cyrpt in the city's graveyard. The local gravedigger has now sworn off alcohol.

They took the babies, set in in front of the Church of the Celestial Heavens (led by a Contemplative Deva- Green Ronin's Monsters of the Mind). They then knocked on the door and ran away.

They have met the deva before & knew she wouldn't kill them, and would do her best to raise them to become GOOD goblins.

So, they didin't feel capable of killing them, but they had acess to an easy escape route & knew of a place they could dump them off.

Of, course after an hour of baby goblin cryng one player did ask "How much sudual damage would it tkae to knock a baby goblin unconcious.

Thanks,

 

[fusangite]

I think that the D&D alignment system is only absurd if you try to apply it to subjective morality. The 3E treatment is fairly consistent about what Good and Evil are.

John, you and I have been in enough threads on this topic to acknowledge that while, on one hand, you can perform an exegesis of the rules that makes these things simple and consistent, this interpretation is not, however, either universal or one that naturally arises from a person just reading the rules.

Just because the evidence strongly suggests that nature, at best, only influences human behavior in our world does not mean that we can't imagine fantasy races of intelligent creatures for whom elements of their behavior is built in and instinctual. Yes, we've been taught to be disgusted by the idea that people inherit their behavior, in part because many of those theories have been discredited but also because they've been badly misused by racists and other bad people. But we aren't talking about human beings. We are talking about goblins.

My case here is that this is what the always descriptor is for. Creatures that are always a particular alignment are of species in which evil inheres as a fundamental part of their nature. Other alignment descriptors indicate predisposition not inherency. If we accept that goblins are usually neutral evil, I'm guessing about 55% are NE, another 12.5% are LE, another 12.5% are CE and about 20% are various shades of neutral. In this case, we need a framework that models an evil predisposition rather than inherent nature.

In my view, the three predisposition theories I offered have a more medieval/pre-modern feel than a tarted-up rephrasing of modern ideas of genetics.

If humans can be behaviorally programmed to feel hungry and eat or to have a libido and can become chemically dependent on various substances, I don't find it difficult to imagine an intelligent creature who is born cruel and sadistic.

And many goblins are under my model but my models also try to offer people ways to cope with this being less than 100% while still retaining the idea that "goblins are evil."

Yes, it would be really disturbing if someone claimed that about a group of humans and yes I'd be mighty skeptical about those claims, but we aren't talking about humans.

No. But we are talking about the rules having three categories for describing the alignments of large groups; and it seems to me that you, in order to make alignment work in your campaign, are effectively changing goblins' alignment descriptor to always; now if that's what you're doing, good for you. My answer is just predicated on the GM trying to cope with the usually descriptor.

I'm still not sure why you don't find simply saying "nature" a viable alternative, particularly since many of the archetypes from which these monsters are drawn come from an age in human history when people believed that human behavior was also governed by nature in a broad sense, even if explained in terms of the other categories that you presented.

These theories could all be integrated into a Christian framework; in the 9th century, Ratramus of Corbie wrote about how the cynocephali (dog-headed men) must have sould because, although they were monstrous and savage, they wore shirts. The views of the cynocephali and the St. Christopher legend were about medievals reconciling the idea of non-human or quasi-human races being predisposed to evil and savagery but still capable of choosing Christ. It is this spirit that I wanted to preserve in the frameworks I articulated because it appears to be consistent with the usually descriptor.

why can't we believe in a species of monsters that is just born evil?

We can. Creatures with the always descriptor are just such things. If people want to change goblins to that descriptor, I say more power to them. But I'm working with the RAW.

Well, isn't the whole idea of races in D&D, including races of monsters and racial ability modifiers, pretty racist, too, if applied to humans?

Again, I was trying to maintain the racism while conforming as closely as possible to the written text of the rules. I have no problem with the views you are articulating but the question we were given was not "how do I alter goblins' alignment descriptor to make it easy to kill them?" it was a question about dealing with goblins so I assumed the rules were fully in effect.

Now, you can cover the theme of a "nature" behind ideas like "environment", "nobility", or "divine inheritance" but the real question is whether monster races are free moral agents who choose to be evil or can't help but to be evil. Can they be helped or changed or not? If they choose to be Evil, that raises a set of questions that can be just as troubling, because of how they are presented and used in a typical D&D game, as the idea that they are born evil.

You make a good case for changing many races to the always descriptor here. But ultimately, we're situated right in the middle of the free moral agent question, having been given a 'yes and no' position by the RAW. So my response was to design frameworks with a pre-modern feel that can accommodate that position. There are all kinds of categories that pre-modern people answered 'yes and no' to on the free moral agent question; at various times it was Jews, Turks, Gypsies and cynocephali.

If they are "usually Neutral Evil", does that mean that they are also sometimes "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" or does it mean that they can also be True Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral or even Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good? Just beause they are not always Neutral Evil, does that mean that the full range of alignments is open to them?

I assume that the good alignments are out of range except in very rare cases.

In the real world, a lot of people know what they are, too. As I've mentioned, many sociopath types understand that they are bad people. Why don't they change? Because they like the way they are. I'm not sure what this really changes. I think the belief that everyone always must think of themselves as "good" and that good and evil are totally relative is a side effect of cultural relativism run amok.

I don't allege that anywhere. Some evil people consider themselves to be good; some consider themselves to be evil. All I'm saying in my post is that it's tough for powerful evil people not to notice that they are evil. So I don't think we're exactly disagreeing here.