Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2119556" data-attributes="member: 27012">To be honest, while I don't think the 3.5 RAW is 100% simple and consistent, I think a lot of the confusion comes from people not reading the RAW text on alignment and the preconceived notions that that carry into the alignment system from (A) the terms "Good", "Evil", "Law", and "Chaos" in a broader plain-English context (B) their experiences from earlier editions of D&D.  I also still think that a big part of the problem comes from people trying to categorize everything as either Good or Evil while ignoring the pragmatic self-interest that's described as Neutral in the RAW.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.  Why can't 60% of the goblins be NE, and the remaining 40% split between LE and CE?  It's certainly legitimate to draw your line at Neutral.  It's also legitimate to claim that they are free moral agents and that Lawful Good goblins are possible.  But it's also legitimate to draw the line at Evil.  And remember that earlier editions didn't have those qualifiers.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.Fair enough.  But I think it helps to cut to the chase.  Ultimately, I'm not talking about Medieval philosophy or even genetics when I say that a monster race is either Evil by Nature, Evil by Inclination, or Evil by Choice.  Whether the mechanism that draws them to Evil is sociological, genetic, or based on a Medieval worldview, 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.  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.I'm not necessarily saying that your model is bad or wrong.  I guess I think it simply obfuscates the real choice, which is one of nature or nurture, be it a matter of genetics, sins of the ancestors, or however you want to explain it.What I'm effectively doing is reading "Usually Neutral Evil" as "Always Evil and Usually Neutral on the Law and Chaos Axis".  I'm simply excluding the possibility that they could rise above Evil just as you seem to exclude the possiblity that they could rise above Neutral.  The RAW neither supports nor disputes either line and seems to be vague on exactly what those categories mean in many ways.  In fact, the Monster Manual glossary allows for either cultural or genetic alignment influences and even talks about elves "inheriting" their Chaotic Good alignment from their deity.  It also explicitly talks about "nature or nurture" in the description of "Often".On the other hand, the glossary also seems to say that even the Always descriptor isn't absolute.  And the vague way it's written suggests to me that they were either (A) trying to please several conflicting points of view at the same time and/or (B) trying not to conflict with published works and existing settings.  For as long as D&D has been around, there have been those troubled by races having alignments and those who liked it that way.  And I think the RAW is written in such a way that it's ultimately the GMs call, how far they want to go either way.Please note that I'm not claiming that my approach is the only way to handle the problem and, as I've pointed out, it's not the only way that I've handled the problem in my games.  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.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.  And since there are nine alignments, even with that "usually" descriptor, the solution could be to allow them a range of 3 alignments, 6 alignments, or all 9 alignments.  But given that most humans are also Neutral, I think there is very little difference between the latter two options, because being Neutral does not mark one for extermination.But let's put that in context.  Once we asume that the monsters have souls and can find salvation, you introduce a level of moral complexity that simply isn't there when the monsters are evil by nature.  And that's the choice I think a GM needs to make.  Yes, that moral complexity can be mighty interesting but it can also be mighty frustrating, annoying, and burdensome for players who don't want to worry about what to do with the baby monsters.  In many ways, I think that defeats the whole purpose of having monsterous evil intelligent creatures because it's easy enough to get that moral complexity with evil humans.Again, I'm not saying that it's wrong to pick moral complexity.  I'm saying that it's a choice, and it's just as reasonable to pick moral simplicity, especially since so much of the genre fiction and mythology that D&D draws from is morally simple.  It's the old "black and white" vs. "shades of gray" choice.  Goblins that have a soul and can be saved are not black and white.  Goblins that are evil by nature are.  That, again, where I think the core of the choice lies.  And I do think the RAW speaks out of both sides of its mouth in this at times, which is why I can understand why people consider the alignment system so dysfunctional, even if I don't ultimately agree with that assessment.I'm trying to work with the RAW, too.  No, it isn't perfect but it also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  The description of "Usually" in the Monster Manual says, "The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment.  This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the cratures origin.  For example, the elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator [...]." With wording like that, are goblins Evil by nature or nurture?  Could be either or both.  What percentage of goblins are Neutral Evil?  A "majority", defined as "more than 50%".  99.44% is "more than 50%" and less than the 100% of "Always" (which isn't even 100% given the description of that term).  And it doesn't say anything about what the range of alignments is for those who aren't the majority alignment.  Is that range limited or the full range of alignments?  It doesn't say.  And somehow I think that intentional, since it allows the RAW to support a variety of perspectives.  Yes, what you wrote works with the RAW.  But what I wrote can, too.  It all depends on how loosely you want to interpret that "usually".I'm not talking about altering their alignment descriptor any more than you are when you talk about the good alignment being "out of range" for goblins and allowing "rare cases".  I'm simply assuming that good and neutral alignments are out of range.  But I do suppose that ultimately, I do think that the more fundamental and important issue is the tone that the GM wants to set rather than strict compliance with any particular clause, sentence, or definition in the RAW.  Ultimately, I think it's an issue of the tone that the GM wants to set.  And, yes, I probably think about this a lot more than a lot of people do because, yeah, I actually was troubled by James Bond shooting a bunch of Russian police officers who were just doing their job.  If my goblins are free moral agents who can be good, I can't just shrug and ignore the PCs exterminating them like vermin.  I'd much prefer to actually make them vermin, if that's what supports the appropriate tone of the game.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.  No, I don't think that "always" is the always the right approach and, as I've said, I treat Orcs differently in my game.  Of course Orcs are "Often Chaotic Evil".  So I guess what I'm really arguing is that I tend to interpret "Usually" as a strong enough inclination to limit a creature to a single band on the Good to Evil axis while "Often" is a weak enough inclination that it allows a range of two or three bands.  As worded the RAW doesn't say that.  But it also doesn't really conflict with that interpretation, either.  At least not that I can see.Fair enough.  And it's certainly a legitimate and interesting point to make when it comes time to add the details.  But a "yes and no" position is still taking that middle ground and the point I'm trying to make is anything short of a "no" adds a level of moral complexity to a game that a GM may or may not want.  Moral complexity isn't bad but it can have a way of consuming a game if it gets out of hand, especially if the players or GM consider it important.  I'm not opposed to a "yes and no" answer, but I'm more interested in what it means to the game in a broad sense, because that's where I think a GM needs to make their decision.Well, the RAW even allows for rare exceptions for the "Always" descriptor, too.  In a game where alignment can be changed magically, it's kind of difficult to rule that out entirely.  What other circumstances would satisfy your "rare cases" exception?  I'm curious.No, I don't think we are disagreeing.  I simply didn't see how the observation really changes anything from the real world.  Yes, a D&D character can do a detect and put a name to their alignment but many a real world person can look into their own soul and get an even more nuanced assessment of their character if they can be honest with themselves.  So I'm simply not sure that would have any particular impact on behavior, other than to makie it more difficult for people to hide what they are from others.</blockquote>

Verification