What makes the goblins evil?

[Jasdoif]

Roy embraced it out of spite, from Origins (page 34). His embracing of that oath made the quest in book one more than what Belkar described their role as (even if that might have been a bit of retcon) which was killing stuff and taking their loot and getting XPs. (DCF p. 13)

Ah, you're talking about that part of it. Yes, Roy took it up to spite Eugene...especially since Eugene wanted him to wait for Julia graduate from wizard school, so he could then saddle her with taking care of Xykon. And I'm pretty sure Belkar's only interest in the Dungeon of Dorukan was, indeed, killing stuff for loot and XP.

(FYI, the "page numbers" in the compilation books are actually the comic numbers; DCF 13 is comic 13. The bonus strips have letters after the number of the preceding comic.)

[Enixon]

The deal with the paladin's falling for killing the innocent goblins makes me wonder something.

Why did they fall?

If the Dark One's story is true, and the gods made the goblins just to be killed as a convenient source of exp, then why would the gods punish the paladins for killing them?
Isn't that exactaly what the gods would have made the goblins for?




Maybe the baby goblin's weren't "ripe" yet so it was considered wasteful? Some adventurer could have used the exp that goblin would have provided once fully grown after all

[Emanick]

Will non-evil gods (i.e. other than the Dark One) hear their prayers? Thor can barely be bothered with Durkon, so it doesn't look good.

I think some of the gods would actually be rather likely to accept the prayers of non-evil goblins. More worshippers = more power, right? It's like a weird sort of theocratic democracy - a vote's a vote, after all, regardless of race.

Also, most gods don't like The Dark One, and if he has fewer worshippers, he has less power.

[druid91]

Nobody believes themselves to be evil. The fact that the goblins can justify their murderous activities does not stop them from being evil. If it could, then nothing in the world would be evil.

Hilariously, this statement is ironic because that's precisely what the goblins believe themselves to be. Evil. That's the problem.

[Yuki Akuma]

The deal with the paladin's falling for killing the innocent goblins makes me wonder something.

Why did they fall?

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.

[Enixon]

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.

See that's what I'd figure, but then why would it even be evil, at least to most gods and their followers anyhow if goblins are supposed to be slaughterd in mass for exp? It just seems like a big hole in the Dark One's story to me, after all in his version of the story the good gods would still of been in on the whole "gobbos are there to be walking exp pinatas" thing .




Granted I'm basing a lot of this going from the scene where Miko falls, showing the 12 gods zorking her themselves, it seems like OotS has Paladin's get their powers from their patron diety rather than from the cosmic force of lawful goodness itself as implied in the D&D player's handbook.

[goodpeople25]

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.

And even then i doubt the intention of making the goblins and others was wiping out their villages, if only because it is completely counterintuitive as that would thin the population a lot more. I suspect it was mostly raiding parties, war camps (which are most likely to be evil and combatants) and those living in dungeons who were the intended targets of XP. And the last one would probably not be the truly good ones targets. Honestly i doubt the village raid was routine, but they had the crimson mantle, made and given to them by the ever-caring Dark One who could not possibly predict that it would bring trouble and is now deeply remorseful.
So i see it as them being made likely to do evil things so clerics could fight them, and perhaps push them back. But killing the source and the noncombatends is counter intuitive for XP purposes.

[Enixon]

So i see it as them being made likely to do evil things so clerics could fight them, and perhaps push them back. But killing the source and the noncombatends is counter intuitive for XP purposes.

Now that I can actually see making sense, not so much directly making them as walking exp, but making them with an inclination towards evil which lead them to do evil things that would then subsequently put them in the "ok to smite" bracket, but until they actualy get around to doing said evil any given goblin isn't anymore okay to kill than any other random person.

[factotum]

And would RC even be there with Xykon if the SG hadn't killed his family and destroyed his town? With no punishment at all for it?

Probably not--but some other goblin cleric wearing the Crimson Mantle might well be. Would Redcloak have attacked Azure City if one of the Gates he was looking for didn't happen to be there? No, he would not. He attacked the city because of the Gate, and the fact he could get some revenge while doing so was a side benefit, not the main purpose.

Oh, and it's been mentioned before, but you seem to have ignored it--we have Word of Giant that some of the paladins involved in the raid on Redcloak's village Fell for their actions there. If you don't think that's a punishment then you don't know paladins at all!

[Vinyadan]

they are described as having "malicious ingenuity."

Word roots: Latin, mal; bad or evil. So much for glossaries and us playing with words.

As before, the default condition is as stated. The exception is otherwise.

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*

More seriously, be wary of semantic drifts - there are languages in which the equivalent of malicious means "pertaining to sex".

[hroþila]

See that's what I'd figure, but then why would it even be evil, at least to most gods and their followers anyhow if goblins are supposed to be slaughterd in mass for exp? It just seems like a big hole in the Dark One's story to me, after all in his version of the story the good gods would still of been in on the whole "gobbos are there to be walking exp pinatas" thing

Toddlers and unarmed civilians are not or should not be worth any XP.

Or rather, it's for the same reason it'd be Evil in most D&D games. The gods, or the DM, want you to kill appropriately dangerous and hostile creatures, not to slaughter everyone and harvest their kidneys. It has to be proper.

Before the Goblinoids existed, other creatures were worth XP, it's just that the level 1 clerics were not strong enough to defeat them. Allegedly, the Goblinoids were created as a low-level expansion to an already existing system where other sentient creatures could also be killed for XP - it doesn't mean they're fair game in all circumstances.

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*

They're not homophones though, merely homographs: malus, "bad, evil", with a short vowel vs mālus, "apple", with a long vowel.

[Bulldog Psion]

Toddlers and unarmed civilians are not or should not be worth any XP.

Or rather, it's for the same reason it'd be Evil in most D&D games. The gods, or the DM, want you to kill appropriately dangerous and hostile creatures, not to slaughter everyone and harvest their kidneys. It has to be proper.

Before the Goblinoids existed, other creatures were worth XP, it's just that the level 1 clerics were not strong enough to defeat them. Allegedly, the Goblinoids were created as a low-level expansion to an already existing system where other sentient creatures could also be killed for XP - it doesn't mean they're fair game in all circumstances.

While what you say is true, I always thought that the "goblins as XP fodder because the clerics couldn't level up" was a singularly specious idea anyway.

After all, the "PC races" go to war with each other. Or among themselves. Tarquin's arrangement is direct proof that they don't limit their aggression to humanoid species. We see, for example, a horde of human Weepies killing and conquering a bunch of other humans here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html

It's perfectly possible to get lots of XP without single humanoid in sight. I've always suspected the Dark One's claim is complete BS because of this; if it eventually turns out that it's supposed to be taken seriously, it would be the first time that I'd ever claim "plot hole." Because it's profoundly illogical even within the internal framework of the comic.

As V pointed out quite correctly: "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher." In fact, the original Monster Manual, IIRC, includes entries for all the races -- humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc. -- along with their combat stats and XP values. Because soldiers, bandits, cultists, etc. can just as easily be of these races and also end up as opponents of adventuring parties.

I've always thought the Dark One's claims were a crock; it'll be interesting to see how it's handled in the story.

[factotum]

I've always thought the Dark One's claims were a crock; it'll be interesting to see how it's handled in the story.

I'd have to agree there--the stated reason for the goblinoids being so downtrodden simply doesn't make any sense. Quite apart from humans etc. being perfectly free to fight each other, as you point out, there are also plenty of low-level monsters in the Monster Manual that are not humanoid *or* goblinoid--for example, the humble Dire Rat.

[hroþila]

While what you say is true, I always thought that the "goblins as XP fodder because the clerics couldn't level up" was a singularly specious idea anyway.

After all, the "PC races" go to war with each other. Or among themselves. Tarquin's arrangement is direct proof that they don't limit their aggression to humanoid species. We see, for example, a horde of human Weepies killing and conquering a bunch of other humans here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html

It's perfectly possible to get lots of XP without single humanoid in sight. I've always suspected the Dark One's claim is complete BS because of this; if it eventually turns out that it's supposed to be taken seriously, it would be the first time that I'd ever claim "plot hole." Because it's profoundly illogical even within the internal framework of the comic.

This is kinda what I said, though. The goblinoids are essentially the same as every other creature from this point of view, as they all grant XP - it's just that the goblinoids were handicapped so that they're easier. Allegedly, they fill a niche for the lowest-level PCs out there, so that more of them make it past those first few levels. It was never about there not being any potential targets for the PCs, although we could speculate that, perhaps, back then, before the creation of the goblinoids and other sentient antagonists changed the dynamics of warfare, things were a lot more peaceful.

I'd have to agree there--the stated reason for the goblinoids being so downtrodden simply doesn't make any sense. Quite apart from humans etc. being perfectly free to fight each other, as you point out, there are also plenty of low-level monsters in the Monster Manual that are not humanoid *or* goblinoid--for example, the humble Dire Rat.

Perhaps the dire rats were created along with the goblinoids and other low-level monsters.

[The_Weirdo]

Probably not--but some other goblin cleric wearing the Crimson Mantle might well be. Would Redcloak have attacked Azure City if one of the Gates he was looking for didn't happen to be there? No, he would not. He attacked the city because of the Gate, and the fact he could get some revenge while doing so was a side benefit, not the main purpose.

Oh, and it's been mentioned before, but you seem to have ignored it--we have Word of Giant that some of the paladins involved in the raid on Redcloak's village Fell for their actions there. If you don't think that's a punishment then you don't know paladins at all!

"As a punishment, Paladin X, you are now a normal human that can't patch up your boo-boos by rubbing them."

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.

[Keltest]

"As a punishment, Paladin X, you are now a normal human that can't patch up your boo-boos by rubbing them."

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.

Goblins, children or otherwise, are not protected by the legal systems of nations they are not in. Furthermore, the idea of a legal system requires that there be an authority with the ability to enforce it. Finally, justice and any given legal system do not automatically coincide.

Also, youre forgetting about the stigma of being a Fallen paladin. Everybody who knows you now knows that you did something vile and unforgivable, and while it may not have been illegal due to a technicality, don't count on, for example, your armorer to repair your gear anymore, or your butcher to continue to deal with you.

[The_Weirdo]

Goblins, children or otherwise, are not protected by the legal systems of nations they are not in. Furthermore, the idea of a legal system requires that there be an authority with the ability to enforce it. Finally, justice and any given legal system do not automatically coincide.

Also, youre forgetting about the stigma of being a Fallen paladin. Everybody who knows you now knows that you did something vile and unforgivable, and while it may not have been illegal due to a technicality, don't count on, for example, your armorer to repair your gear anymore, or your butcher to continue to deal with you.

That is not enough! My whole point is that that is not enough! Redcloak's whole raison d'etre is that that is not enough! The very fact that RC is threatening the world right now is due to that not being enough! The problem is the difference in treatment. If a Paladin killed a human baby, he'd be jailed or even executed. He'd not lose his butchering privileges, he'd be butchered!

[Vinyadan]

A fallen paladin is a paladin who lost the endorsment of his god. As for the god meting punishment, there is time in the afterlife.

[The_Weirdo]

A fallen paladin is a paladin who lost the endorsment of his god. As for the god meting punishment, there is time in the afterlife.

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

[factotum]

If a Paladin killed a human baby, he'd be jailed or even executed. He'd not lose his butchering privileges, he'd be butchered!

So, I was right--you don't understand Paladins at all. These guys dedicate their lives to service of their gods, probably even more so than clerics, and they have a much stricter code to follow as well. Falling is not just "being fired" or losing "butchering privileges" (which they never had in the first place, I'll add, because if that was a perk of being a Paladin they wouldn't Fall for doing it), it's knowing you screwed up the most important thing in your life *so badly* that the Gods felt the need to withdraw their favour from you. I'm struggling hard to think of a non-religious real world equivalent--maybe an athlete who dedicates their life to winning at the Olympics, only to be banned for drug irregularities the day before they were due to get on the plane? Multiply that loss of self-worth by a hundred and you'll be getting close to what we're talking about here.

[The_Weirdo]

So, I was right--you don't understand Paladins at all. These guys dedicate their lives to service of their gods, probably even more so than clerics, and they have a much stricter code to follow as well. Falling is not just "being fired" or losing "butchering privileges" (which they never had in the first place, I'll add, because if that was a perk of being a Paladin they wouldn't Fall for doing it), it's knowing you screwed up the most important thing in your life *so badly* that the Gods felt the need to withdraw their favour from you. I'm struggling hard to think of a non-religious real world equivalent--maybe an athlete who dedicates their life to winning at the Olympics, only to be banned for drug irregularities the day before they were due to get on the plane? Multiply that loss of self-worth by a hundred and you'll be getting close to what we're talking about here.

Okay, but it's still not enough unless, in the setting, Paladins that kill human children are also told "you got punished enough, go walk free".

[theNater]

@theNater
I am talking about Goblins, and you are talking about a glossary. Interesting.

Usually Neutral Evil. Your point seems to be that the exception is the rule. That's backwards.

I'll take plain English, thanks, and once again be pleased that I took the 3.5 books to second hand. FWIW: My available ref is the SRD, which glancing over doesn't have a tab for glossary.

You will also note that goblins are not described as having green skin (yellow to orange to red ... but we can live with the change in complexion as it's an externality), and that they are described as having "malicious ingenuity."

Word roots: Latin, mal; bad or evil. So much for glossaries and us playing with words.

As before, the default condition is as stated. The exception is otherwise.

We're both talking about what the Monster Manual says about goblins. Let's look at a few more of the parts of the Monster Manual you are leaving out. "Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society." Hey, look at all those environmental factors!

Goblins are Evil more often than not(what usually actually means in English) because most goblins live in an environment where being Evil is encouraged and rewarded. Not merely because they are goblins or because the word "malicious" appears in their description.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*

More seriously, be wary of semantic drifts - there are languages in which the equivalent of malicious means "pertaining to sex".

Well played! *golf clap*
In the case of the Latin root for malicious, the etymology is firmly in my corner.

(There are likely puns in Italian about mal mele and bad apple, but I don't speak enough Italian (which is a corruption/variation of Latin) to be able to pull one off).

[Deliverance]

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

Because they understand the concept of jurisdiction and enforcement of law and you don't?

The gods aren't responsible for enforcing the secular laws of the goblin village, Azure City, Cliffport, or wherever, such as "it is illegal to commit murder within our jurisdiction". The legal institutions of those areas are, and law is segmented between jurisdictions except in cases of legal treaties. Kill somebody in Cliffport, and it is unlikely the law in Azure City will care unless the one you killed was a citizen of Azure city or the two cities have an extradition treaty. Likewise with the goblins, and also vice versa. The hobgoblin army overrunning Azure City, killing countless innocent people and enslaving the survivors that fail to flee, are not committing any crimes by their own laws as far as we know, and the ones who used to have jurisdiction have now fled, with Gobbutopia establishing a new jurisdiction in its place. So the invaders gets pats on their heads for their murderous invasion rather than being arrested, tried, and punished by the legal system.

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.

[KorvinStarmast]

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.

I'd like to introduce you to OJ Simpson, and a variety of other people who have stood trial for a murder rap and not been "really punished" as you put it.

[theNater]

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.

That's what the next life is for. Assuming it must be malfunctioning as a justification for atrocities is just making excuses.

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

What about Nale? He committed sixteen massacres and had exactly none of those things happen to him. Don't pretend there's a perfect system of justice out there for everybody except the goblins.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect. Others may champion their cause, but that is no longer a question of legality.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.

FWIW, whomever the paladins serve can indeed argue that they have jurisdiction over the paladins' actions ... which is why some soldiers get charged by their own governments with various crimes committed during war.

The victims of the atrocity aren't the only ones with an interest in that.

With the Paladins being allegedly both lawful and good, their hierarchy has a vested interest in their performing to a certain standard. If we extend the RL bit into the deities actually existing and being at least partly involved in what those who serve them do ... the paladins falling due to power being revoked (comes from the gods, revoked by the gods?) seems a correct jurisdiction thing.

The other piece is a matter of reality: IRL, only the winners of a war have jurisdiction, though one can appeal to their better natures.

I was going to ask "how many DM's actually grant XP for killing the women and children too" when sacking a goblin village, but this might not be the right discussion forum for a question like that. I tend toward AngryDm's approach, in that I don't have evil player characters at my table. If you trend toward evil, and make no effort to redeem/correct, there are consequences.

The exception is characters under a curse, or some malevolent influence like a fiend.

[Vinyadan]

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

1. We know that there is judgment concerning both good and lawful, and, through Soon's words to Miko, that at least one fallen, unatoned paladin didn't end up in the afterlife she was hoping for.

2. I was referring to the supernatural aspects only. But I think it clear that there is an unjustified bias against goblins in the oots world.

[The_Weirdo]

Because they understand the concept of jurisdiction and enforcement of law and you don't?

The gods aren't responsible for enforcing the secular laws of the goblin village, Azure City, Cliffport, or wherever, such as "it is illegal to commit murder within our jurisdiction". The legal institutions of those areas are, and law is segmented between jurisdictions except in cases of legal treaties. Kill somebody in Cliffport, and it is unlikely the law in Azure City will care unless the one you killed was a citizen of Azure city or the two cities have an extradition treaty. Likewise with the goblins, and also vice versa. The hobgoblin army overrunning Azure City, killing countless innocent people and enslaving the survivors that fail to flee, are not committing any crimes by their own laws as far as we know, and the ones who used to have jurisdiction have now fled, with Gobbutopia establishing a new jurisdiction in its place. So the invaders gets pats on their heads for their murderous invasion rather than being arrested, tried, and punished by the legal system.

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.

In that case, things are now legal and just. RC was the only remaining member of his village. That means he gets to decide what punishment the Paladins (and their families and even their barbers!) get. Since we don't know that RC's village had any law at all limiting punishment to the criminal (as opposed to killing his family, his country and so on) and since it doesn't matter because RC became a village of one and his word became law, legally, there is no reason whatsoever for Redcloak to be punished for what he did, no matter how he uses his new pet Azurites.

[Pyrous]

In that case, things are now legal and just. RC was the only remaining member of his village. That means he gets to decide what punishment the Paladins (and their families and even their barbers!) get. Since we don't know that RC's village had any law at all limiting punishment to the criminal (as opposed to killing his family, his country and so on) and since it doesn't matter because RC became a village of one and his word became law, legally, there is no reason whatsoever for Redcloak to be punished for what he did, no matter how he uses his new pet Azurites.

Let's assume your right about this. How exactly being lawful evil makes someone less evil?