Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[theNater]

...if the fictional universe chooses to depict them as BAD people, exclusively, then that's valid within the confines of that universe.

This is reasonable. But D&D does not depict goblins exclusively as bad people. So OotS depicting goblins as something other than exclusively bad people doesn't break the fact that it's about D&D.

[Omergideon]

1) They are wholly good, better than us. Like angels.
2 and 3) They are partially good and partially evil, but are capable of redemption.
4) They are wholly evil and incapable of redemption.


Is it your intent to take option 4 completely off the table?

-- BDP.

Pk, I wish to comment on 2 things, first the quoted, then 1 other observation. Firstly I assume you mean the postulates put forth in C.S.Lewis' essay "Religion and Rocketry". I do not know of any other time he addressed the issue of aliens. In it I believe he does not mention irredeemable aliens at all. However assuming you are referring to some other work (I have not read all his works) I would say the notion of irredeemable creatures goes against the grain of his work completely. In his book the problem of pain Lewis postuclates heavily on redemption. To summarise, nothing is irredeemable and Hell (the end result of a lack of redemption) can only be chosen. Nothing is irredeemable by nature.

Second, Tolkien repeatedly said he could not countenance the idea that Orcs were things and not sentient beings, capable of being good. In letters and commentary on the issue. He went on to explain why it was wrong on occasion, and his characters such as Aragorn in LoTR do not needlessly kill even uruk-hai. But rather treat them fully as sentient beings.


Speaking more generally I would disagree with Nerd Paladin on a very fundamental level. That is, his contention that since a goblin is a fictional creature (and is known to be fictional) we should be free to apply any standard we want to it and not care about the consequences. If I am wrong forgive but it seems to me the conclusion suggested.

I disagree. Any explanation I try to compose hinges on the fact that I think that fiction is a real representation of how our culture thinks. And the sad fact is whilst in our world we have no orcs, and people do not often make the leap "since killing orcs in DnD is fine, it must be fine to hurt people in real life" it reflects a sad thing that is true. Once people can be placed into a group that you are not in, whether grouped by race, religion, gender or even football team, we begin to stereotype them. Any given individual from "group x" is at risk of being steroetyped and treated prejudicially because of it. And we may even present or invent justifications for the act. Some may even have merit. however this is the same process that leads fans of Milwall to declare fans of Derby (2 football teams) as THE ENEMY(tm). And such can lead to violence or worse. And this happens very frequently in human culture and experience.

Now we can of course deny this applies to ourselves, and be truthful. Not everyone will attack a fan of a rival football team, just because "everyone knows that ALL millwall fans are violent scumbags, dontcha know that?". But if we can challenge the notion in fiction, using proxies such as the Goblins in DnD, then we challenge the attitude in real life as well. And acceptance of the idea that "race x must be evil, because they are race x. Kill em all" seems to be approval of the basic notion of grouping. It may be benign in an individual, but the risk is there.

Besides, on a more specific notion I would deny the idea that DnD is about balck and white morality. There are 9 distinct alignments for a reason after all. 3 of them all called good, and stated to have their own merits and demerits.


Finally, I ask a question. If someone where to destroy a perfectly humanoid, and non sentient, robot, knowing that is was such, would you think it matters? I would say yes. Nerd Paladin, by your logic you would say it would not. I think it would because, while we know the robot is not real it looks it. It would feel it. The effect on the person is to allow them to edge a little closer to viewing a subset of people (for whatever reason) like the robot. The robot is not a real person, but since they seem like one in one way they have an influence on the person. The more fictional and less humanlike Goblins of the comic or the game can become this to a significantly lesser degree. Note that I am not describing an ineveitable process foranyone who dismisses fictional critters as meaningless, merely a possible one (as shown repeatedly in sociology and psychology).

P.S: Beside, in DnD it has been repeatedly stated that Goblins are not always evil anyways, so without proof positive of the evil of a specific Goblin himself I would call it's execution unnecessary and evil itself. And for my thoughts on the idea that Goblins themselves are Evil etc etc etc, I recommend the works of David Gemmel who explores the concept in great detail in many books.

And further (I keep getting flashes of idea)

[Anarion]

Edited for spacing because I thought that was hard to read.

Um... How exactly IS he contradicting his own previous statements? Just for those who've started to get confused here.

I think there are two veins of pervasive contradiction, which I'll quote here for you.

First off, let's start with the basic premise of this thread.
Nerd-Paladin said

in D&D, goblins are never harmless creatures that you can leave to their own devices without having to worry about them. Goblins, in D&D, are always a threat, and therefore violent conflict with them is almost always inevitable.

In his recent posts he said

goblins aren't anything but an abstract concept of whatever the writer wants them to be. Mr. Burlew wants them to be like real people, and hundreds of game designers want them not to be, and each depiction is equally valid (though not necessarily as good, that's an opinion matter) within the confines of its own little world.

So, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore if each interpretation is valid within its own world.


View of alignment
Then there's the fact that Nerd-Paladin doesn't actually seem to be arguing his own view of simplistic alignment, but rather that one should judge the actual actions of another creature. Compare

As I've stated repeatedly, I interpret alignment as a label on actions, not their incitement.

vs.

And if the fictional universe chooses to depict them as BAD people, exclusively, then that's valid within the confines of that universe.

Capacity of the D&D game system
Finally. This one isn't a contradiction, but the consistent theme through Nerd-paladin's posting has been

In D&D, the simple approach is almost the only one that works.

I find that indefensible in the face of how many people have come into this thread and debated the point. That kind of point (i.e. that there is only one workable approach) is disproven by the mere fact that it's debated at all, much less debated with the fervor that this thread has inspired.

[Psyren]

Sometimes, we just roleplay because it's fun and it's a game. Sometimes we want drama and deep thougt. Sometimes we just accept conventions because the existence of MonstersTM makes it easier to be a HeroTM, and just handwave the slaughter by saying "they were all bad guys anyway".

Then you've probably figured out by now that OotS isn't that kind of setting.

If not, let me tell you: OotS isn't that kind of setting.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if the OP will be willing to amend the title of the thread to :

"Redcloak's characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole"

it avoids the assumption that it was "failed".

[pendell]

Finally, I ask a question. If someone where to destroy a perfectly humanoid, and non sentient, robot, knowing that is was such, would you think it matters?

I don't quite see the point. So you destroy an animated barbie doll. And this is tragic how?

*I* think the modern world is prone to a very pervasive form of category error, and that is to treat nonhuman creatures as if they were human. Bambi the deer. Tom and Jerry. Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. Yogi Bear.

Because of this, it has happened that people have gotten stoned on LSD and then crawled into zoo bear cages because they thought the bears wanted to be their friends. It was the last mistake they made.

In the real world, if you try to treat an animal as a human being, you're asking for trouble. Animals deserve respect, and animals should not be treated with unnecessary cruelty, but if you try to treat your pet dog as if it were a fellow human, the results can be quite bad both for you and for your dog. You cannot have a relationship of that kind where the human is anything but the superior.

In the real world, humans categorize all the time. There are creatures we will kill and eat. There are pests we will destroy. There are creatures we will tame and make pets out of. And there are creatures we treat as equals.

And that's where fantasy breaks these things down -- we encounter creatures which are not human but are intelligent.

And I think it's a mistake to suggest that , just because they may superficially look like us, they therefore must be the same as us.

If we encountered an alien species in the real world, I suspect that we could not treat them either as humans or as animals. They would be an entirely different creature. Like Pournelle's Moties, of whom only the Mediators and Masters were really human-equivalent. Or perhaps a hive-mind, which is collectively "human" but whose individual units are disposable tools.

That doesn't mean that they are less than us. They may be greater. But once upon a time, in another life, I was told the biggest mistake you could make was Mirror-Imaging .

The most common personality trap, known as mirror-imaging,[2] is the analysts' assumption that the people being studied think like the analysts themselves. An important variation is to confuse actual subjects with one's information or images about them, as the sort of apple one eats and the ideas and issues it may raise. It poses a dilemma for the scientific method in general, since science uses information and theory to represent complex natural systems as if theoretical constructs might be in control of indefinable natural processes. An inability to distinguish subjects from what one is thinking about them is also studied under the subject of functional fixedness, first studied in Gestalt psychology and in relation to the subject-object problem.

Experienced analysts may recognize that they have fallen prey to mirror-imaging if they discover that they are unwilling to examine variants of what they consider most reasonable in light of their personal frame of reference. Less-perceptive analysts affected by this trap may regard legitimate objections as a personal attack, rather than looking beyond ego to the merits of the question. Peer review (especially by people from a different background) can be a wise safeguard. Organizational culture can also create traps which render individual analysts unwilling to challenge acknowledged experts in the group.

...

Inappropriate analogies are yet another cognitive trap. Though analogies may be extremely useful they can become dangerous when forced, or when they are based on assumptions of cultural or contextual equivalence. Avoiding such analogies is difficult when analysts are merely unconscious of differences between their own context and that of others; it becomes extremely difficult when they are unaware that important knowledge is missing. Difficulties associated with admitting one's ignorance are an additional barrier to avoiding such traps. Such ignorance can take the form of insufficient study: a lack of factual information or understanding; an inability to mesh new facts with old; or a simple denial of conflicting facts.

People constantly assume they can predict the behavior of other humans because they assume they are all roughly the same. We are not. This misunderstanding has caused no end of wars, blunders and other miscalculations.

And if we make those kinds of mistakes with our fellow humans, can you imagine just how badly we would foul up with a real, no-kidding, alien species?

So I believe the assumption that goblins -- if they existed -- are just like humans, but with cosmetic differences is almost as problematic as assuming they are evil, rampaging monsters. Goblins would not be monsters. But goblins would not be humans either. Goblins would be goblins. The important thing, then, is not rely on ANY assumptions but to send out the anthropologists and actually find out what they really are .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ti'esar]

While those are quite good points for real life or a setting striving to present genuinely nonhuman nonhumans, I'd argue that goblins in OOTS - and D&D as a whole - are not really meant to be treated as an "alien" species. They are effectively humans with green skin and fangs, just as elves are long-lived humans with pointy ears and dwarves are short humans with beards.

[Jan Mattys]

Then you've probably figured out by now that OotS isn't that kind of setting.

If not, let me tell you: OotS isn't that kind of setting.

And I absolutely love it for what it is.
Just don't throw racism in there.

[Anarion]

Spoiler

Show

I don't quite see the point. So you destroy an animated barbie doll. And this is tragic how?

*I* think the modern world is prone to a very pervasive form of category error, and that is to treat nonhuman creatures as if they were human. Bambi the deer. Tom and Jerry. Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. Yogi Bear.

Because of this, it has happened that people have gotten stoned on LSD and then crawled into zoo bear cages because they thought the bears wanted to be their friends. It was the last mistake they made.

In the real world, if you try to treat an animal as a human being, you're asking for trouble. Animals deserve respect, and animals should not be treated with unnecessary cruelty, but if you try to treat your pet dog as if it were a fellow human, the results can be quite bad both for you and for your dog. You cannot have a relationship of that kind where the human is anything but the superior.

In the real world, humans categorize all the time. There are creatures we will kill and eat. There are pests we will destroy. There are creatures we will tame and make pets out of. And there are creatures we treat as equals.

And that's where fantasy breaks these things down -- we encounter creatures which are not human but are intelligent.

And I think it's a mistake to suggest that , just because they may superficially look like us, they therefore must be the same as us.

If we encountered an alien species in the real world, I suspect that we could not treat them either as humans or as animals. They would be an entirely different creature. Like Pournelle's Moties, of whom only the Mediators and Masters were really human-equivalent. Or perhaps a hive-mind, which is collectively "human" but whose individual units are disposable tools.

That doesn't mean that they are less than us. They may be greater. But once upon a time, in another life, I was told the biggest mistake you could make was Mirror-Imaging .



People constantly assume they can predict the behavior of other humans because they assume they are all roughly the same. We are not. This misunderstanding has caused no end of wars, blunders and other miscalculations.

And if we make those kinds of mistakes with our fellow humans, can you imagine just how badly we would foul up with a real, no-kidding, alien species?

So I believe the assumption that goblins -- if they existed -- are just like humans, but with cosmetic differences is almost as problematic as assuming they are evil, rampaging monsters. Goblins would not be monsters. But goblins would not be humans either. Goblins would be goblins. The important thing, then, is not rely on ANY assumptions but to send out the anthropologists and actually find out what they really are .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Two points.
1. Your stance assumes that goblins (or any fantasy race) could be classified categorically once you've done adequate investigation. This may or may not be the case in a default D&D setting. It certainly is NOT the case in OoTS.
2. This whole argument seems to me to fully support The Giant's main point that it's wrong to prejudge and it's proper to investigate, rather than slaughter every goblin that you meet at first sight.

[Bastian]

Then you've probably figured out by now that OotS isn't that kind of setting.

If not, let me tell you: OotS isn't that kind of setting.

I think he has figured it out since a long time.
His issue is with the equivalence 'Slaughter Always Evil Monsters = Racism' in D&D. Additionally, many character in this setting (see also OtOoPCs and SoD) act according to this assumption.

Edit: Ninjaed

[Nerd-o-rama]

I wonder if the OP will be willing to amend the title of the thread to :

"Redcloak's characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole"

it avoids the assumption that it was "failed".

No, because it's an attention-grabbing title, and that's all it was ever meant to be. Nerd_Paladin doesn't even present Redcloak's characterization as "failed" in his initial argument, he just stated that it didn't agree with "D&D rules and setting", and when people kept pointing out that that's just his highly specific and rather old-school interpretation of D&D rules and setting, he started moving the goalposts.

[RickGriffin]

I think he has figured it out since a long time.
His issue is with the equivalence 'Slaughter Always Evil Monsters = Racism' in D&D. Additionally, many character in this setting (see also OtOoPCs and SoD) act according to this assumption.

It's certainly not racism from the gamist perspective, just as shooting enemy Russians in an FPS isn't racist, it's because they're the enemy.

The racism comes in when the enemy is always Russians because they're the designated villain, which is a flaw at the fundamental level of world design. When it's so ingrained that anytime you hear a Russian accent you think "villain", something went wrong somewhere.

[pendell]

2. This whole argument seems to me to fully support The Giant's main point that it's wrong to prejudge and it's proper to investigate, rather than slaughter every goblin that you meet at first sight.

Absolutely. That's necessary even if all you care about is defeating them. You can't defeat an enemy if you can't predict what he's going to do next, and you can't predict an enemy if you don't understand him.

My main disagreement -- if there is one -- is to point out that simply assuming people are the same as you, while laudable, can also be the cognitive trap called mirror-imaging. And mirror-imaging can cause as many problems as blind, ignorant bigotry. More, because bigotry is obviously evil while mirror-imaging *sounds* like a laudable thing.

Neither mirror-imaging nor bigotry are any substitute for real knowledge, gained from firsthand experience.

And that's my point. Which I suspect the Giant would agree with.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Omergideon]

The robot picture is a starting point for the rest of my thoughts. As said, if it looks human to such a massive degree as to be physically indistinguishable from a human, the to treat it as a mere animate doll is to run the risk of leading people of a certain type (what type I cannot say) to treat other people of another type (I caanot sepcify what sort) like the doll, whatever the rationale. Such rationales exist very often in life. Granted it is only likely to affect people who are likely to be bad otherwise. However it does legitimise the viewpoint to a small degree.

In a similar way to treat fictional characters (from imagination or others) as such begins to legitimise the idea that such treatment might be ok. There are of course a lot more steps needed to get from a to b, but by preventing even step a the idea is delegitimised a lot more.

Of course, I repeat that the journey from a to b is by no means garunteed, or required. A more moral person will not make it. But the risk is there, and the danger of legitimising the idea that "being group x means you do not count" is very real considering past human society and psychology.

Edit: Though what is said about the risk of mirror imaging with another person is true. Assumin others are just like you is another prejudice. Granted it may be necessary to make some assumptions when interacting with people at first, but only when they are recognised as "in lieu of knowledge of you specifically, and giving you the benefit of the doubt as being a decent enough person, I may assume you to be a typical person. I am ready to change my mind as soon as evidence is provided, and will try to make as few assumptions as I can". In the case of OoTS though, since the goblins are essentially reskinned humans in nature (from all our available evidence), treating them as such would be sensible.

[RickGriffin]

My main disagreement -- if there is one -- is to point out that simply assuming people are the same as you, while laudable, can also be the cognitive trap called mirror-imaging. And mirror-imaging can cause as many problems as blind, ignorant bigotry. More, because bigotry is obviously evil while mirror-imaging *sounds* like a laudable thing.

But the Giant isn't even promoting mirror-imaging. That's why people in OotS all act and behave different and have different motivations and convictions and personalities and thoughts and ideas. That they may only do so with the range of a human doesn't invalidate it.

[Psyren]

And I absolutely love it for what it is.
Just don't throw racism in there.

I think he has figured it out since a long time.
His issue is with the equivalence 'Slaughter Always Evil Monsters = Racism' in D&D. Additionally, many character in this setting (see also OtOoPCs and SoD) act according to this assumption.

It IS racist, both in D&D and in OotS, and those characters ARE racist for acting accordingly. That's the point.

[RickGriffin]

It IS racist, both in D&D and in OotS, and those characters ARE racist for acting accordingly. That's the point.

But Psyyyyreeeen, I want to slaughter hoards of sapient opponents outside of a war zone WITHOUT being a racist!

[Popovich]

I feel Belkar's lines in this comic lampshade the idea of the classic 'hack-n-slash' mentality perfectly. Given that Belkar is not usually taken to be the voice of reason, one can see even early on how the Giant has worked to create a story with more substance than goblins being 'little packets of xp'.

(Apologies if this has been posted already, I'll admit to running out of steam a few pages in, I know I'm breaking age-old forum etiquette of RTFPosts)

[VinRaven]

With all the due respect: I am sorry, but I take offense when people calls me (or implies I am) a racist.
The Giant pissed me off with his assumption, and you did just the same.

Wanna guess what's another big tell?

[Math_Mage]

I feel Belkar's lines in this comic lampshade the idea of the classic 'hack-n-slash' mentality perfectly. Given that Belkar is not usually taken to be the voice of reason, one can see even early on how the Giant has worked to create a story with more substance than goblins being 'little packets of xp'.

(Apologies if this has been posted already, I'll admit to running out of steam a few pages in, I know I'm breaking age-old forum etiquette of RTFPosts)

Not to mention this comic.

[Bastian]

It IS racist, both in D&D and in OotS, and those characters ARE racist for acting accordingly. That's the point.

Specicist technically (since Racism applies to members of the same species and hasn't appeared so far within Oots) - but I see your point, from a metagaming perspective. Those paladins would be indeed racist/specicist with a penchant for genocidal massacres. Those imaginary paladins and characters.

Jan Matty's point (if I understood it correctly from his previous points) and mine, refer to the real people playing characters with similar dynamics in a D&D setting: he objects to the labelling of such people as racists, potential or otherwise.

I followed up his point showing that most of the 'gaming' perspective is imbued with such an objectification of sentient beings.

We independetly stated that we adore Mr. Burlew's work exactly for its critique and different perspective on 'traditional' setting and that we do not advocate nor like the 'black and white' / shallow approach to the game.

[Anarion]

But Psyyyyreeeen, I want to slaughter hoards of sapient opponents outside of a war zone WITHOUT being a racist!

I know you're trying to be funny, but you do raise a good point. I don't think anyone debates the morality of chess. If people just want a tactical simulator with a fun and engaging mathematical system, that's certainly possible and probably doesn't raise any moral issues. People play chess because it causes them to think creatively and problem solve, and I'd suggest that a system that just lets you build a character and take that character into an open field of mixed enemies works under similar principles.

The distinction is that RPGs, or at least most of them, create worlds. Goblins are not pawns, they're beings with their own thoughts, feelings and beliefs. To the extent that a person buys into the premise of the setting, it becomes wrong to kill because of the sapience of those beings.

From what I can tell of this thread, the problem is that Nerd-Paladin and some others are unwilling to ascribe to the belief that fictional characters have real personality. I find it strange that such people play RPGs or read fiction, but that perhaps speaks to the breadth of offerings provided by a game like D&D.

[Kish]

I think he has figured it out since a long time.
His issue is with the equivalence 'Slaughter Always Evil Monsters = Racism' in D&D.

Not that I would sympathize with objections to "Slaughter Always Evil Monsters=Racism," but in this case, it's, "Slaughter Usually Evil Monsters And Vocally Complain That Anyone Would Suggest There Might Be Anything Wrong With It=Racism."

[RickGriffin]

Jan Matty's point (if I understood it correctly from his previous points) and mine, refer to the real people playing characters with similar dynamics in a D&D setting: he objects to the labelling of such people as racists, potential or otherwise.

I followed up his point showing that most of the 'gaming' perspective is imbued with such an objectification of sentient beings.

While this is a fairly salient point, as nobody feels a whit of sorrow over the goombas squashed in the original Super Mario Bros games despite the fact that they're sometimes cast in good guy roles later in the series, the D&D setting is different because it has open options. If they are designated villains with no thought (and especially no reason) given to them being anything but villains, then that's okay, but don't act so surprised when someone does make that consideration.

After all, they are sapient beings with nothing in the Monster Manual to designate them as always having to be cast as villains. It won't stop someone (at least not anyone intelligent) from killing an Orc that's coming at them with a battleaxe, or stopping Orcs who raze and rampage through the land, but penalizing someone for thinking about what Orcs do in their downtime and wondering where good Orcs come from and hey why are we killing these Orcs who we have never seen do anything wrong? It may be because we were travelling through a dungeon and they attacked us first, but would they have attacked us first if the system didn't pre-designate them as our sworn enemies? Why do we give fair-skinned races the benefit of the doubt and not orcs?

It snowballs from there. This thought process in itself is not a 'humanizing' of monsters but a consideration of actions from intelligent motivation, because these creatures are as intelligent as humans. It even says so in the Monster Manual.

[TheyCallMeTomu]

This thread is moving quickly.

Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether or not it's okay to slaughter wights indiscriminately and why? I mean, classically in the Monster Manual, they're all hateful entities and apparently they survive off of humanoid flesh and all, so it's probably okay as a means of protecting humanoid entities, but what about other undead creatures with positive intelligence modifiers?

Again, the "Well, a powerful enough cleric-" argument doesn't work, because the same goes for a powerful enough enchanter. I mean, V is able to dominate the Kobold into having a cat take a **** in his mouth-does that mean Kobolds don't count? Certainly not.

Is there truly any difference between a human and a wight? Well, a human that is filled with rage and eats human flesh and a wight, anyway...

[TheyCallMeTomu]

This thread is moving quickly.

Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether or not it's okay to slaughter wights indiscriminately and why? I mean, classically in the Monster Manual, they're all hateful entities and apparently they survive off of humanoid flesh and all, so it's probably okay as a means of protecting humanoid entities, but what about other undead creatures with positive intelligence modifiers?

Again, the "Well, a powerful enough cleric-" argument doesn't work, because the same goes for a powerful enough enchanter. I mean, V is able to dominate the Kobold into having a cat take a **** in his mouth-does that mean Kobolds don't count? Certainly not.

Is there truly any difference between a human and a wight? Well, a human that is filled with rage and eats human flesh and a wight, anyway...

[SN137]

in D&D, goblins are never harmless creatures that you can leave to their own devices without having to worry about them. Goblins, in D&D, are always a threat, and therefore violent conflict with them is almost always inevitable.

Well it would only count as failed characterisation if the comic couldn't manipulate parts of the stuff it's based on ie: it was meant to be wholly based on D&D sourced material , if the Goblins were literally completely harmless , or if that was actually what the source material said .
First statement :no . I haven't been convinced that any of these things are true by the comic or by what you've said . SOD depicted Goblins as a raider/bandit archetype , and hob-goblins are some mass enslaving army in Azure city (who are actually inline with what a army sacking a city would be historically) , so they are not really harmless (though both do have actual motivations and incentives for what they do , as opposed to just being on the eeeevil end of the alignment tree) .

The difference, of course, is that pre-SoD, those inconsistencies were played for laughs.

So you're point is that the change to more melo-drama is bad ? Given that is a completely subjective viewpoint , I don't see why you couldn't have just said I don't like the melodrama increase , rather then bury the point in reams of text and arguments .

Alignment is a label on actions for me *

Well that is only your experience , for others it just been experienced as an excuse for lazy writing , or just so the group can randomly go in and kill the goblins because they have green skin and we don't or something like that (most importantly this is how it has been experienced by the writer).
And two the main thing I've gotten from Goblins and Hob-goblins in comic is that their actions would put them on the Evil end of the spectrum from the "good" race's perspective . SOD had Goblins (I believe) being a race which lived off of banditry and raiding the other races due to their poor land who slaughtered every damn thing in which would be in the vicinity of a million (?) man army , when their leader was killed at negotiations , and the Hob-goblins in Azure city are a bunch of thugs and slavers . The only difference between the Black-and-white world of D&D wouldn't go into them having any damn reason for doing that , nor would it depict any realistic complete exterminations of gobo villages in reaction to them doing that stuff , like would happen in a world where sentient beings were actually acting like people (historically ..... and modernly).
*possibly not exactly what you said as I couldn't find the quote.

[Bastian]

Not that I would sympathize with objections to "Slaughter Always Evil Monsters=Racism," but in this case, it's, "Slaughter Usually Evil Monsters And Vocally Complain That Anyone Would Suggest There Might Be Anything Wrong With It=Racism."

When you refer to the in-game character, I tend to agree with you.
But the issue discussed was different. (see previous post).

In Belkar's words:
Don't hate the Player Character, hate the Game System

[TheyCallMeTomu]

That's why I hate it when people tell me as a DM that instead of trying to rewrite the game and that it's not broken here or there that I as a DM should just do my job and tell players no. Well, every time I do, they bitch that that's not what the rules say, and that if I don't like it, blame the rules. Well, I tried to fix the rules, and everyone bitched about that too! RAWR!

Sorry, off topic.

[RickGriffin]

I know you're trying to be funny, but you do raise a good point. I don't think anyone debates the morality of chess. If people just want a tactical simulator with a fun and engaging mathematical system, that's certainly possible and probably doesn't raise any moral issues. People play chess because it causes them to think creatively and problem solve, and I'd suggest that a system that just lets you build a character and take that character into an open field of mixed enemies works under similar principles.

The distinction is that RPGs, or at least most of them, create worlds. Goblins are not pawns, they're beings with their own thoughts, feelings and beliefs. To the extent that a person buys into the premise of the setting, it becomes wrong to kill because of the sapience of those beings.

From what I can tell of this thread, the problem is that Nerd-Paladin and some others are unwilling to ascribe to the belief that fictional characters have real personality. I find it strange that such people play RPGs or read fiction, but that perhaps speaks to the breadth of offerings provided by a game like D&D.

And while I don't turn down playing an FPS just because the enemies are Russians or Arabs (Okay, I don't really play FPS games but that's beside the point) it is usually because I play games solely from the simulation viewpoint. Yes, I do assume in a game that everyone in my field of vision is an enemy because the game is over if I do not. But that's not the ONLY option in D&D. While I also like to play D&D as a simulation-tactics game, since I am within the scenario that doesn't only give me targets to hack down and in fact encourages me to play it as a story, I am going to think about these things if my motivation to kill everything in sight is not strong enough.

And it's unsatisfying to say that creatures designated by the monster manual who are intelligent like humans deserve to die. (In fact I pretty much ground my last game to a halt because I was afraid of DM entrapment by getting me to kill someone I was not absolutely sure needed to die . . . go figure)