Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[HalfTangible]

I'm not sure if his alignment was ever officially given, but Estriss, the illithid spelljammer captain in the Cloakmaster novel series, was pretty likeable and helpful to the protagonist at least.

You don't necessarily need to be unlikable or harm the protagonist in order to be evil.

I thought we were talking about Gobbotopia, anyway, which involves goblins and hobgoblins, not fiends or mind flayers.

"Usually evil" is something I always took to mean that you're more likely to find an evil one if you pick one at random. Especially for creatures like Hobgoblins and Goblins which (by oots' rules) live impoverished and with a burning hatred for all because

Spoiler: Start Of Darkness

Show

they were created to be cannon fodder and their god ascended after being betrayed and murdered by the 'good' kingdoms. Even if you have a nation like Gobbotopia, which seeks to make itself a recognized nation, there's still anger and resentment for good-aligned beings because of what they did to the Dark One and have continued to do for centuries, even millennia since then.

This is even more true for a universe where Good and Evil are cosmic forces you can align yourself with, rather than morality descriptors. I'm reminded of one DND campaign where Pelor and Nerull were rewritten to be elder dieties of Good and Evil, respectively; Pelor's greatest paladin (implied to be Epic/Mythic) was reverent and respectful of Nerull, because their concerns were far beyond petty mortal notions of Good and Evil.

"Inherently evil" to me sounds like the creature in question has some necessary or important biological function that runs counter to the good of sapient life (vampires need to drink the blood of the living, mind flayers eat sentient brains, etc etc)

But above all: Individuals are always the exception to the rules. (not necessarily in every way, obviously, but you get the idea)