Quote from: Manzanaro;914639However, I also have to wonder what portion of GMs would be totally unprepared for such a turn of events, and would see it as the players fundamentally derailing the adventure, or spoiling the game. And this is partly why I say that I think many GMs would be best served by simply not including such elements in the first place, especially if what they have in mind is a high violence tactical dungeon crawl, which is far more typical of RPGs in my experience than exploring the trials and tribulations of raising kobold babies would be (though I sure know which one I would find more potentially entertaining).

The last Labyrinth Lord game I ran had the PCs encountering a group of goblins. Instead of killing them outright, they parleyed with them. The end result was a combined force of adventurers and goblins working together to loot the dungeon. Not what I expected and sounds like something you would not expect either.

If the GM is caught completely flat-footed by what the players do and cannot cope with that in a way that is fun, then you have a crappy GM who needs to learn their craft better.

Of course, the only way GMs learn is by doing.

Quote from: jeff37923;914652The last Labyrinth Lord game I ran had the PCs encountering a group of goblins. Instead of killing them outright, they parleyed with them. The end result was a combined force of adventurers and goblins working together to loot the dungeon. Not what I expected and sounds like something you would not expect either.

If the GM is caught completely flat-footed by what the players do and cannot cope with that in a way that is fun, then you have a crappy GM who needs to learn their craft better.

Of course, the only way GMs learn is by doing.

Well... While I agree that is a cool story, I will note that it also doesn't involve turning around and leaving the dungeon, so doesn't require quite the conceptual leap as "We're going to take these goblin babies we found and spend the next 4 years raising them on a farm".

Quote from: Bren;914650the topic wasn't about evil per se, it was about whether killing goblin children was evil

The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity. To think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.  To think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical. These lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

Of course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character. My uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.  Because a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players. Deal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

And parleying and taking the goblins with you will trigger the next alignment crisis when those goblins try to slaughter the orc children that used to play aginozing deadly tricks on any goblin they could catch or whoever else your goblins now meet backed by your firepower... .

So this also works best with evil characters that either don´t care or put a hard boot on such unprofessional behaviour. (After all those orcs could be useful too)

In the other hand a "good" character could also call himself tolerant and say that whatever his monster entourage is doing is their nature nobody is entitled to imperialistical mess with and part of their precious culture,  probably even just utilizing their freedom of religion (if they shout a prayer while killing their victims formally everything shout be OK)

In this case it is "good" behaviour to just slaughter whoever intolerantly raises organised arms (aka military etc) against those unorganized in this case goblinoid "civilists".
Double points, if the people that get mistreated by your monsters are people you don´t like to start with ... .

Quote from: Ghost;914655The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity. To think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.  To think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical. These lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

Of course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character. My uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.  Because a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players. Deal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

It's nothing to do with my limitations. I've run into players who enjoy torture, murder, rape, and etc. in games; nothing to do with exploring a character or anything like that, they were just twisted fucks. I've run into GMs who would throw in goblin babies simply because they find the idea of the PCs killing goblin babies to be amusing. I don't play role playing games to experience an empty depiction of violence, especially one against helpless targets. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't necessarily enjoy the same things as you, it is due to a "limitation" on my part.

Also, your whole conceptualization of good and evil seems very simplistic here. In reality, "good" people do not have a moral necessity to kill "evil" people; that's not how good and evil work. Admittedly though, there are game settings that do employ moral concepts in an equally simplistic way. Though I will say that it is a rare game or setting that says a particular race always is and always will be evil, unless that race is some sort of supernatural manifestation which is not generally the case with goblins.

It's issues like this that provide yet more reasons that I use Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic and ditched Good & Evil.

And yet even more reasons why I don't ascribe natural biology to supernatural creatures. Orcs / goblins / etc in my settings don't grow and procreate in terms akin to human biology. In my OD&D setting, orcs kill humans, bury their bodies in a ritual and from the dirt, one or more orcs rises from the decomposing human body.

No orc babies and its why orcs prey on humans - both to eat and to make more orcs. Goblins are crapped out of larvae sacks. Nobody feels bad when they ignite a goblin larva chamber.

I don't game to masturbate over moral conundrums. Real life has enough of that bullshit.

But hey, if that's fun for your group, party on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;914666I don't game to masturbate over moral conundrums. Real life has enough of that bullshit.

But hey, if that's fun for your group, party on.

This cannot be repeated enough.

Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

Gods forbid we actually roleplay while playing RPGs.


For me, it depends on a setting and it's assumptions. I'm okay with settings where goblins = evil, no matter what you do.

Well, masturbation involves having fun without being productive. Which is pretty much any rpg session. But masturbation has another element: you're the only who gets pleasure from it, others don't think what you're doing is wrong, but they don't want to stick around and watch.

Which, given that games like D&D sell much more widely than games like Dogs in the Vineyard, is more likely to be the case in a game session with moral quandries than in one without. It'll just be that one player, and he's probably the bastard who didn't bring any snacks.

Quote from: Ghost;914655The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity.

And yet presumably you aren't killing evil people right and left in the real world. So the sort of evil you mean must be different than ordinary human evil.

QuoteTo think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.

Whether goblins are evil by nature and unable to change or be redeemed certainly is a legitimate question to raise. It's too bad you just dismissed it.

QuoteTo think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical.

And yet goblins (and creatures with different names but similar niches or roles) aren't unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature in all fantasy campaigns. Your experience with fantasy, both literary and as RPG settings must be really limited if you are entirely unaware of the existence of other alternatives. It seems like your experience of fantasy is limited to one or two D&D settings. But even D&D settings had that Drool Drizzler doh Whatsists name guy. In a setting where Drow are supposed to be EVIL, like goblins, somehow Drizzler is not evil. Is someone had killed Drizzler as a baby, Salvatore would have needed to go out and find another job to pay for that roof over his garage.

QuoteThese lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

As I said, whether goblins are unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature is a legitimate question. Ironically, its a question you intentionally avoided with your erroneous assumptions about the logical nature of goblins in every fantasy campaign.

QuoteOf course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character.

First, I never claimed that roleplaying brutal, unpleasant, or evil characters was necessarily less thoughtful. Obviously it can be. So can playing kindly, nice, or good characters. Second, pontificating about what is logical for all fantasy campaigns from a position of extreme ignorance about the scope of fantasy and RPG settings is a lot less than thoughtful. Or meaningful.

QuoteMy uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.

But your EVIL goblins remove the need for characters (or players) to think about the experience of killing goblins.

QuoteBecause a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players.

You appear to be trying very hard NOT to think.

Which is fine. Playing RPGs is a leisure activity. It doesn't have to be any more meaningful than watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon. If you and your pals want your fantasy roleplay to be grand theft auto with goblins it doesn't bother me so long as you aren't at my table. And you clearly are not at my table.

QuoteDeal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

This is by far the best line of your post. Total. Comedy. Gold.

I'm still amazed that there's so little mention of what the "need" is to massacre, or find safe caring foster homes for, the goblin kids. So there are some goblin kids. Why is ignoring them not an option? Am I missing something by not having read/played Keep on the Borderlands?

Seems to me like the moral onus for the fate of the kids would be on the goblin parents who decided to set up their nursery however they did and then have no family escape plan or whatever. The idea that Good(tm) PCs have a moral obligation to massacre the kids because otherwise they're liable to survive being orphaned in a dungeon and grow up to massacre farmers, is also far far from my first thought.

Quote from: Skarg;914715I'm still amazed that there's so little mention of what the "need" is to massacre, or find safe caring foster homes for, the goblin kids. So there are some goblin kids. Why is ignoring them not an option? Am I missing something by not having read/played Keep on the Borderlands?

Seems to me like the moral onus for the fate of the kids would be on the goblin parents who decided to set up their nursery however they did and then have no family escape plan or whatever. The idea that Good(tm) PCs have a moral obligation to massacre the kids because otherwise they're liable to survive being orphaned in a dungeon and grow up to massacre farmers, is also far far from my first thought.

Good points. I wonder if part of this is the way alignment can frame the situation.

If alignment is seen as a sort of team identifier.
   And everyone has an identifier.
And everyone wants to support their team and defeat the other team(s).

And if you can't actually change the alignment of the goblin children.

Then the goblin children will grow up to be supporters of the other team.
   And they will help defeat your team.
And that is bad.

So kill them. KILL THEM ALL!

Quote from: David Johansen;914637Ask a Christian how they feel about the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament.  You'll get a wide range of answers but you'll get a lot of people telling you that it was okay for the Children of Israel to massacre every man, woman, child, and beast of the field in Canaan because God told them to.

And you'll get way more people telling you that textual literalism is the greatest heresy of the 20th century, and that the vast majority of Christians reject the "it's OK to slaughter" mentality.

And if they're actually an educated Christian... rare, sadly... they'll point out that the book of Joshua was written centuries after the events depicted, while the Hebrews were captive in Babylon and that the priestly caste rewrote the events in Judges to give the Hebrew slaves a heroic myth, and that Joshua is essentially a Jewish Rambo.  (the later Rambo, that is)

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

I don't know what 'mastrubation' is, but I don't want to face moral dilemmas in a game of D&D because I game for escapism.  As I said before, I get plenty of moral dilemmas playing this game called "real life."