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

[hamishspence]

Thank you, Giant, not for being a good author - I've thanked you for that in the past - but for being a good person.

I second this.

However I would be remiss if I didn't point out that cases do occur where a character is strongly opposed to some abhorrent viewpoint, while not being exactly a good person themselves.

Rorschach springs to mind.

[jidasfire]

I will admit I've thought about this topic in a manner similar to the OP. There was a part of me that felt like the comic presented an unfair dilemma, since, as a gamer and a fan of fantasy, I've enjoyed stories where the evil races got what was coming to them. Now, I was never the type of gamer who, as a player, murdered green people just for being green, and certainly not while playing a good-aligned character. Still, most often in those stories, the goblins or the orcs or whoever are the ones who started it, and once the fighting got going, I was as likely as anyone else to take them down and not think much about doing so. So then, was the comic a shot at me? I had to ask that, and if it was, if I deserved it. I don't know. I'm not the type of gamer who comes for the bloodlust, though I will admit to enjoying combat and sometimes facing enemies that are unambiguously bad.

In the end, I don't really think Mr. Burlew's message is, "If you've ever killed a goblin in an RPG, you are a terrible person and you should feel bad." After all, he went out of his way in Start of Darkness to show that Redcloak, while he had suffered some level of injustice, as had his people, the man himself was no mere tragic victim. Redcloak has all sorts of agency, and after the first incident (where he was a victim indeed), he has been pretty heavily responsible for his own woes and those of his people. Also, his hobgoblin horde has mostly proven to be pretty ruthless and brutal in their oppressive occupation of Azure City. But these are individuals and societies, born of actions and choices rather than birth. They're evil because of things they've done, not how they were born. Also, while we have been shown that many amongst the Sapphire Guard were overzealous and have done very bad things, we have also seen plenty of paladins who are kind and decent people, like O-Chul, Hinjo, Lien, and Thanh. These are people who proved themselves good through their own actions and choices rather than simply because it's a class requirement. Also, as adventurers go, Roy, who is the nominal hero of the story, has proudly proclaimed that while he may kill foes if necessary to protect himself or others, he would never murder a sentient being because it was easier than talking to them.

All of this tells us a great deal about how Mr. Burlew views morality. Good and evil do exist, and they aren't just arbitrary team names. Alignment is decided by one's actions, not innately by one's race or class. There are no easy outs or shortcuts to right and wrong, only choices and actions.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the comic is not a guilt trip for gamers, or perhaps it could be for some, but a reminder that these words, the alignment system in general, mean something, and can teach us something about ourselves, rather than just being an excuse to butt heads and roll damage.

[pjackson]

It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

[Gilphon]

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?

I suspect he didn't have anything in particular in mind, and mostly added that point as a concession that it is, in fact, possible to create such a thing.

[Dr._Demento]

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

Yeah, but school bullies don't deserve to be butchered by Paladins either...

[pjackson]

The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences. Dogs are a biological group, but it is not racist to consider them less intelligent than humans.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making.

Just because it is difficult to do well does not mean it is not worth trying. In the annals of fantasy role-playing games there are the Runequest elves and trolls which I consider pretty decent attempts. Pathfinder goblins aren't too bad either. The goblin "nursery" in the first part of Rise of the Runelords seems quite non-human.
Not that there is anything wrong with not trying in order to concentrate on other aspects of the story.

Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything.
There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

Eh? There would be an awful lot to learn if we could compare ourselves to something completely alien.
Anyway fantasy is not just about gaining insight into the human condition. A lot of it is escapism.

[jere7my]

Never played it, actually. Assuming that's the case, I would say a villain who commits no villainy is probably an example of poor writing in itself (at least as far as game modules are concerned). Certainly it's not the standard in the game.

Heh. That's kind of funny — Keep on the Borderlands is basically the foundation on which all D&D modules are built. It was written by Gygax, and included as the sample module in the red-box Basic Set, so it was the first module many many people ever played.

[saeval]

Redcloak has clearly had his own ambitions for quite awhile, the backstory to it was just never fully revealed until the start of darkness. I don't think of his development has harmed any message the comic hasn't put forth previously. Miko being what came to mind for me. Miko was part of one of my favorite parts of this whole series, and showed how a paladin could become misguided in her zeal... which is what Start of Darkness shows as well.

Sure, Goblins in dnd are "usually evil" and generally are up to no good... but all races have social structures, some more savage than others. there is "downtime" to their evil machinations, and they do have women and children, to further their race. Start of Darkness just show's some overzealous paladins, who take it a step to far into the uncomfortable explanation scenario. I mean... those goblin children will eventually ... probably ... be evil right? so its good to kill them now!

A paladin, the way I see it, would wait for a cause, or at least a fair/honorable fight. even from the filth of the earth. I am a dnd dungeonmaster myself, and have never punished my players by telling a story in "black and white" the game system is broader than you give credit, and I feel you are both bashing the comic, and the system, by stating otherwise. DnD always has room for paladins to fall from grace, and Goblins to rise above their stature.

[Xapi]

Eh? There would be an awful lot to learn if we could compare ourselves to something completely alien.
Anyway fantasy is not just about gaining insight into the human condition. A lot of it is escapism.

Yes, there would be a lot to learn from interacting with something truly alien.

That is not the same as creating a fictional race that is truly inhuman (so hard it'd be virtually impossible) and comparing ourselves to what we think an inhuman race could be.

[Typewriter]

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences. Dogs are a biological group, but it is not racist to consider them less intelligent than humans.

If a dog walked up to you and said "Hey mate, can I have a steak?" and you continued to treat him like every other dog in the world because 'dogs are dumb' then yes - it would be racist. You wouldn't be responding to the dog based off it's own merits, you'd be responding based off the standard species variation.

[King of Nowhere]

Just because in D&D goblins are irredeemably evil, they don't need to be so in the comic. There's nothing wrong if in your campaign world goblins are always the ones who started the wars and make the violences.
It simply don't have to be that way. you can easily craft a campaign world where the evil races aren't really much worse that humans, and they certainly contain several good and neutral and slightly-evil-but-redeemable individuals.
I don't see how that's a problem, or how that makes this a comic not based on D&D. Just because it is based on D&D, it do not mean it has to follow every single written line of the manuals. The op original intervention remembered closely to me that guy who complained thatrich was stretching the interpretation of the anti-magic field cancelling the forcecage, who ended up getting a permaban because he insulted rich for not being faithful to the rules. The op basically said "goblins in D&D are irredeemably evil; goblins in this comic are not. So this is not a comic about D&D. But since it is clear that this comic is about D&D, then this is a poorly written comic."
Roleplaying games are about imagination in the first place. You imagine adventures and stuff. When I was a DM, creating a world from scratch and trying to figure out how to make it consistent was probably the part I enjoied most. And I always houseruled everytime I didn't like the rules and it felt rigth to change them. Sticking to the letter of what the manuals say... well, I think that's not the true spirit of roleplaying. And I would say that redcloak's characterization is one of the most succesful I've ever seen.

[Burner28]

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

It says a lot about this topic when you have to state something that everyone should have already known.

[hamishspence]

Just because in D&D goblins are irredeemably evil, they don't need to be so in the comic.

As far as I can tell, they're not irredeemably evil in the default D&D world. Practically nothing is. Even fiends have, on occasion, repented and changed alignment.

You can easily craft a campaign world where the evil races aren't really much worse that humans, and they certainly contain several good and neutral and slightly-evil-but-redeemable individuals.

[Psyren]

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?

The Jedi Council in the prequels Okay, I kid.

War of the Worlds, maybe? Though I'm not sure if "obscure thought processes" and "alien thought processes" are entirely the same.

[FujinAkari]

Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

Where exactly is this quote from? Because it seems entirely at odds with

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not.

...

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

I had always interpretted events to be that the Paladins would show up when there was an actual threat to the Gates from within a village and put down all resistance, NOT that the Sapphire Guard was a racist font which routinely went out to put all non-humanoids to the sword.

The events of SoD seem to support this, why would Redcloak's predicessor have yelled out that he is the one the Sapphire Guard wanted if there wasn't a history of them killing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and then -not- sticking around to slaughter every last goblin?

Still though, I'll admit that I may be wrong, though if I am I really don't understand the Sapphire Guard anymore, or why Miko was so distraught about losing her powers if it is something which occurs with such alarming frequency.

[VinRaven]

Either he didn't fall (in which case Redcloak has a case that the gods are capricious and unjust) or he DID and it just wasn't on-screen. I believe Rich said at one point that any or all of those paladins may have fallen, but he's not going to tell us who, if any, they were.

Or, you know, paladins behavior is that of truly evil bastards, but they are good in their gods' eyes.

I recommend Elizabeth Moon's "The Legacy of Gird" and "The Deed of Paksenarrion" if you want a good look at the seamy underside of paladinhood.

[hamishspence]

Where exactly is this quote from?

War & XPs.

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It

If all of the paladins that Fell, were killed in the battles, it wouldn't necessarily come to light.

Even if when some of the paladins get back, they notice they've Fallen, they might simply be assigned some sort of penance for "overzealousness" by their superiors.

[Dr._Demento]

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

I had always interpretted events to be that the Paladins would show up when there was an actual threat to the Gates from within a village and put down all resistance, NOT that the Sapphire Guard was a racist font which routinely went out to put all non-humanoids to the sword.

The events of SoD seem to support this, why would Redcloak's predicessor have yelled out that he is the one the Sapphire Guard wanted if there wasn't a history of them killing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and then -not- sticking around to slaughter every last goblin?

Still though, I'll admit that I may be wrong, though if I am I really don't understand the Sapphire Guard anymore, or why Miko was so distraught about losing her powers if it is something which occurs with alarming frequency.

I think this incongruity serves to highlight the difference between "by the book" good and "actual decency" good. When the Paladins swept upon the goblin's village, it was almost certainly approved of by their gods. However, the gods themselves can be selfish beings, and so their approval does make an action right, and thus unworthy of karmic retribution. Note that Rich's quote about the fatal flaw of the Sapphire Guard indicated that it was an outside force that enacted the punishment, specifically, the goblins who are considered "evil," not their gods. I think in this instance it is best to consider the Sapphire Guard and the 12 Gods as a single unit, both of which got their comeuppance.

[Xapi]

I think this incongruity serves to highlight the difference between "by the book" good and "actual decency" good. When the Paladins swept upon the goblin's village, it was almost certainly approved of by their gods. However, the gods themselves can be selfish beings, and so their approval does make an action right, and thus unworthy of karmic retribution. Note that Rich's quote about the fatal flaw of the Sapphire Guard indicated that it was an outside force that enacted the punishment, specifically, the goblins who are considered "evil," not their gods. I think in this instance it is best to consider the Sapphire Guard and the 12 Gods as a single unit, both of which got their comeuppance.

I think this is the best interpretaion we have.

The Paladins commited evil acts, yet most of them (possibly all excepting those who did the most horrible things) did not fall, because the Gods did not care enough about their evil actions, they are more worried about them safeguarding the Gates.

Also, we know that from the God's PoV, the goblins are there to provide XP for their servants.

So I think that the Paladins aren't the only ones to blame for "playing the game as 9 out of 10 groups play it", but the Gods have a hand in that too. This explanation is compatible with both quotes provided.

[Fish]

There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

There is a Tolkien quote along these lines, which I cannot find, where he asserts that all fantasy must be grounded in the familiar in order to resonate with the reader. All fantasy monsters, by necessity, are reflections of humans, with similar desires and flaws; they live in a mortal world of night and day, with farming and warfare, because without these touchstones they would be so alien as to lose the reader's sympathy.

The limitations of pre-packaged monsters handcuffed to a rigid alignment system is what drove me away from D&D in the first place — or more accurately, the limitations of players who couldn't imagine how a Drow Elf was not automatically the corrupt member of a coalition council. At its best, D&D is a granular statistical wargaming model bolted onto a mythology framework. The parts function, and it's got boss chrome, but it runs kinda choppy, and it doesn't go off-road at all well.

The elven commander and Yuk-Yuk are not so much the product of D&D-based alignment behavior, in my view, but are on the schadenfreude end of narrative comeuppance. Both did something unpleasant and questionable, as a setup that something could happen to them that we might, in some light, call "fair."

Fairness, of course, is a other human-invented touchstone by which we recognize fantasy stories as reality.

[The Cat Goddess]

Then why is the artificial binary there? Why is it the basis for so much material in the comic? In effect, we're saying that the alignment system exists, and is real, and is the work of the gods, but doesn't really apply to the actual people in the world and should not inform their decisions. This, then, is why the world of the comic doesn't make sense, why its narrative is increasingly muddled, and why it's a great example of how a story can be strained by trying to do too many things. That's my estimation, anyway.

Because it's funny.

You know funny, right?

[LuPuWei]

Well, there's the fact that the setting has dragons, and then there's the fact that the setting has Tiamat; the former is simply a material difference between the real world and the game, but the latter is a fundamental, metaphysical difference. Tiamat, and similar entities/concepts/forces, is what defines and, to an extent, rationalizes the morality of the game world. I mean, how do we know that gnolls are predisposed to be wicked creatures? Because of the influence of Yeenoghu. Why do these concepts not bleed over into the real world? The absence of any verifiable influence of Yeenoghu (if you catch my drift; it rather late here...).

There's a long history of religious bias against certain species of animals that's resulted in violent persecution, that in fact endures to this day in many societies around the world. I will not mention these animals or their associated religions out of respect for the Forum Rules.

However, there are some non-religious examples too, such as Sharks.

If you take the time to read scientific literature on sharks it has been established (at least among marine biologists) that Sharks are in fact not mindless predators and that very few species are even a regular direct threat to human beings. Some sharks are even smart enough to learn and communicate with their trainers in simple ways.

Sharks are, however, for the most part, depicted in movies as mindless predators and killing machines- a trend started by the film Jaws. While this might on the surface seem ok, as sharks evoke a primal fear in us and therefore make a simple villain the actual impact of these films was to create a public bias against sharks, to the extent that there were actual mass killings of sharks at the time and it is difficult to evoke public sympathy on the subject of the conservation of endagered sharks to this day. (google "Jaws Effect" or just look up sharks on wiki)

All this information just to point out that the existence Tiamat or any such verifiable entity is immaterial. Prejudice is prejudice and exists non-the-less.

[Idhan]

Just quoting some old things to review where we were last time:

Goblins are Neutral Evil. They are not real people. They are not so complicated (not in terms of their morality anyway). Except in "The Order of the Stick" they are...but in a way that contradicts their Neutral Evilness for the sake of making them theoretically sympathetic (something they would never be under the RAW). But that Neutral Evilness is still there, and still hardwired into the concept of the game world. The conflict is founded on internal inconsistencies.

The Mongols had their motivations. Monsters in D&D often have no motivation at all. When they do, it's usually an evil one; because they want treasure, or food, or territory, or to please an evil god. That works because it's a game and it's their role to be the villain, and also because the game demands no more of them than that. No real situation is ever that simple. But that's why this is fantasy, not reality.

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

Or are you saying that all neutral evil beings, humans, goblins, whatever, are driven by some form of pure malice, and anyone with any motivation besides that is, by definition, not neutral evil in the alignment sense, even if their actions might be very brutal (e.g., Hulagu Khan)? (If so, what alignments does this not apply to? Is everyone with a motive other than pure benevolence and distaste for order not Chaotic Good? Is everyone with a motive other than cool indifference not True Neutral? Is any alignment compatible with with complex motivations?)

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

Okay: can we restrict the question to D&D then? Are a neutral evil goblin's motives categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives in D&D? Or are all neutral evil beings in D&D, humans, goblins, whatever, driven by some form of pure malice, and anyone in D&D with any motivation besides that is, by definition, not neutral evil? If so, what alignments does this not apply to? Is everyone in D&D with a motive other than pure benevolence and distaste for order not chaotic good? Is everyone in D&D with a motive other than cool indifference not true neutral? Is any alignment compatible with more complex motivations in D&D?

Motivations? No. I consider alignment more of a tag that puts on behavior. See previous comments. But the comic is very concerned with ideas about right and wrong, and that's obviously going to run afoul of Rules As Written alignment in a world that's rooted in these game concepts.

Now I'm thinking I don't understand what's going on at all. I thought I was reading your previous comments. I thought you wrote that behavior isn't what matters, it's what motivates it. I even thought you wrote that "They had their motivations" demonstrates that the evil tag isn't warranted, even if the guys in question, say, exterminate a city's population, and evil is based on basically being horrible with no motives whatsoever, or possibly being motivated by greed (?) or worshipping an evil god.

[Typewriter]

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

Keep in mind that these Paladins were also Samurai. Their lord ordered them to go and do something with a good and lawful reason but, if in executing these orders, a Paladin was to lose his Paladin 'status' he would still be a samurai. Would he then go around spreading rumors about his lord having sent them on an evil mission? Would he wonder if he had faltered or fail in some way? More than likely it wouldn't be talked about, or if it was not loudly.

It's actually an interesting parallel to real life. Whenever someone is being trained to go to war they're generally taught to hate their opponent and to believe in their own superiority. When a victory is won very little time is usually spent pointing out that the enemy did a good job killing some of the 'home' troops. It's all about how we stomped the bad guys.

When the Sapphire Guard is sent out to stomp some evil goblins (and save the world) we hail them as heroes, but we don't spend time mourning every single individual who may have lost his status as a Paladin.

EDIT:

Random thoughts: Miko has always been my favorite character just because I really enjoyed her writing, and the 'arc' the character goes through, but now I'm thinking how interesting it is.

She was very insistent that she was a Samurai, but she acted so much more like a Paladin. A Samurai would put faith in her Lord before she placed it in the gods, where as a Paladin would believe in the gods before their lord.

Miko eventually got to the point where she thought she was following the will of the gods, but had actually put all of her faith in herself and her ability to determine what was right and what was wrong.

So she claimed to serve her lord, but she really only cared about the will of the gods, and she was so arrogant that she put her own beliefs above anything else.
/Random Thoughts

[Crimsonmantle]

Wrong. Please read this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=21

Here, The Giant explains why we don't know or see weather or not the paladins fall, and why the fact that we don't see it doesn't speak of the nature of the paladins' deed.

This post is brought to you by the Index of the Giant's comments.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220195

I browsed that index, but this particular comment had actually escaped me. Thanks! (Not that I was being entirely serious in the way I framed my question, of course.)

[cheesecake]

I have 2 words you for.

"Drizzt Do'Urden"

[Omergideon]

A fun little debate here, and one in which I agree with the giant. Also I agree that Nerd Paladin is being an insightful and sennsible debater, even if I think him fundamentally wrong.


But to mention Tolkien, one of his fundamentals of Fantasy can be summed up in verisimilitude. That is, the more grounded, real and recognisable the world and the people the better we can accept the unreal we are presented with. I have his essays on Fairy Tales (though have not read in ages) and this point is frequently mentioned. It is impossible, he says, to accept something truly alien and learn anything from it. Once it goes beyond a certain point we stop caring about it as it becomes "totally alien" and thus not applicable to humans. It is only when we recognise things, whether they be the world crafted or the races seen, can we really care what they have to say.

I really do love Tolkien's work, and his worldbuilding. In fact Tolkien in his letters and works specifically goes out of his way to point out even his orcs, even his Big Bad's, were not pure evil in origin. He really worked hard to get that point across with specific characters (like Gollum, or Sauron, Morgoth and Feanor) to general commentary such as that expressed by Faramir. He was adamant that even beings created as evil like the Uruk-Hai were nor irredeemable by nature, but only by nurture. Aragorn himself does not treat them as xp sources and offers them chances to surrender and avoid bloodshed on more than one occasion.

I would recommend that Paladin re-read the LoTR, as it contains far more nuance and detail than many people think it seems. Even his orcs (who seem lawful evil, if DnD labels are applied, and simply at that) are treated fairly and are not hated merely for their nature. The treatment is much closer to the Giant's work than seems to be recognised. Tolkien of course was very interested in how corruption can turn the most noble of beings into villains (his most prevalent theme IMO), and the giant in commentary on labels specifically. But they seem to come from the same moral perspective.

[TheyCallMeTomu]

Butting in because someone linked to the thread, and I confess to having only skimmed bits. Oh crap, that's never a good way to start-

1.) Always Chaotic Evil can be a reference not to someone having done bad things, but to the inevitability of doing bad things. Perhaps even Drizzt will end up becoming a mass murderer. It's fantasy, maybe it's in his blood. Seems racist to write a race that way though.

2.) Chaotic Evil as defined by the game world may be evil as percieved by the characters, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way indicative of Good and Evil as reality. Avoid equivocation-just because it's called evil doesn't mean it's evil.

3.) If goblins are predestined to be evil, and by virtue thereof, killing one prior to it arriving at evil acts thus prevents evil acts, then is the act of killing a non-currently evil entity evil? This is an Ends/Means discussion, and I somehow doubt there's any objective answer that would satisfy all.

4.) Is escapism truly necessarily "petty?" That part rather irked me.

5.) Whether Tiamat and kin set moral standards because they're gods or not may well be irrelevant, depending on whether you think that RL gods can actually set those things objectively to begin with. In short, gods are just really powerful characters with a lot of authority-they don't rewrite the laws of ethics any more so than any other character.

[hamishspence]

1.) Always Chaotic Evil can be a reference not to someone having done bad things, but to the inevitability of doing bad things. Perhaps even Drizzt will end up becoming a mass murderer. It's fantasy, maybe it's in his blood. Seems racist to write a race that way though.

As it happens, Drow (and goblins) are only "usually Neutral Evil"

3.) If goblins are predestined to be evil, and by virtue thereof, killing one prior to it arriving at evil acts thus prevents evil acts, then is the act of killing a non-currently evil entity evil? This is an Ends/Means discussion, and I somehow doubt there's any objective answer that would satisfy all.

Well, there's the BoED answer:

"Violence in the name of good must have just cause."

"Even launching a war on a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm"

and from 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting:

"In a world where characters have access to magic such as detect evil, it's important to keep in mind that evil people are not always killers, criminals, or demon worshippers. They mights be selfish and cruel, always putting their interests above those of others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers. The self-centered advocate is lawful evil, for example, and the cruel innkeeper is neutral evil."

[TheyCallMeTomu]

I try not to get my system of rules and ethics from Dungeons and Dragons source books. Not that those are bad points.

"Just cause" is pretty much up in the air. If you think that killing a goblin child will save three human children down the line, you could argue that's just cause-but it would require that it be reasonably foreseeable that that's the case.