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

[The Giant]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

Hmm- how do we retain the alignment system (as per the much earlier post about liking some of it) while jettisoning all "unfortunate implications"?

Maybe, for all Monster Manuals, leave out the alignment line in a statblock entirely?

Yeah, I think that would take care of 90% of the problem. I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them. Let alignment be something assigned by the DM when he places that creature in his campaign. If he wants them to be amoral slavers, he gives them and Evil alignment; if he wants them to be scrappy survivors making the best out of their lot in life, he might give them True Neutral or even Chaotic Good (especially if the civilized nations are Evil Empires). DMs already do that for every human that appears, is it so difficult to imagine doing it for the other races, too? Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

Originally Posted by KillItWithFire

But no one is holding a gun to the DMs head and forcing him to play it that way.

This is absolutely true, but there's huge undeniable power in the fact that it's in there, in print. Some people are always going to read it without delving further—without ever even reading the explanation of what "Usually Evil" means technically within the rules. I think a lot of people, just in everyday life, hear the word "usually" and think "almost always."

And by the same token, if you left out the default alignments, it would be just as easy for DMs to house-rule them back in, but at least the text wouldn't be encouraging it.

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by The Giant

This is absolutely true, but there's huge undeniable power in the fact that it's in there, in print. Some people are always going to read it without delving further—without ever even reading the explanation of what "Usually Evil" means technically within the rules. I think a lot of people, just in everyday life, hear the word "usually" and think "almost always."

So to you, "Usually Neutral Evil" means that the exceptions aren't just not Neutral Evil, but non-Evil?

I don't read it that way, especially considering the history of Goblin descriptions in D&D. Even the 3.5 version:

"Goblins are small humanoids that many consider little more than
a nuisance. However, if they are unchecked, their great numbers,
rapid reproduction, and evil disposition enable them to overrun
and despoil civilized areas."

Before 3.0, Goblins were listed as Lawful Evil, period, and their descriptions were even less pleasant. Maybe "Usually Neutral Evil" means more "Usually Neutral Evil, but there are some that are Lawful Evil, and some that are Chaotic Evil."

Set the Wayback Machine for AD&D and the Monster Card for Goblin makes no bones about it:

"All goblins are slave takers and are fond of torture." Mama mia!

I also remember their deity Maglubiyet lived in Hell, playing wargames against Gruumsh using the spirits of dead goblins. Did he create Goblins, or not?

I do not think your definition "Usually Neutral Evil" is reconciled with that of D&D's definition, or that of most Fantasy fiction. I don't think Goblins were intended as green-skinned misunderstood People.

But you know what? I love your version of Goblinoids and Redcloak in OOTS, period. You are creating a wonderful new world.

[Thrax]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

So to you, "Usually Neutral Evil" means that the exceptions aren't just not Neutral Evil, but non-Evil?

What I'm reading this as, and what I agree with, is that he thinks calling a race of creatures "usually neutral evil" is just wrong, because it implies that a whole race of people are inherently morally inferior, so he's lampshading that fact - subverting and spoofing it.

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by Thrax

What I'm reading this as, and what I agree with, is that he thinks calling a race of creatures "usually neutral evil" is just wrong, because it implies that a whole race of people are inherently morally inferior, so he's lampshading that fact - subverting and spoofing it.

It's wrong to create a race of evil beings in a fantasy world? I...I don't.... Look, if Good and Evil exist in D&D, not simply as judgements of someone's actions but as actual forces - which I believe is borne out in the rules - then Evil monsters can be created, whole cloth, by Evil deities, to be Evil.

If you want to change that in your game (or your D&D webcomic), GREAT! But the implication that others are somehow shallow or simply wrong for playing by the rules as written is absurd!

Page 7-8 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide:
STYLES OF PLAY
KICK IN THE DOOR
The PCs kick in the dungeon door, fight the monsters, and get the treasure. This style of play is straightforward, fun, exciting, and action-oriented. Very little time is spent on developing personas for the player characters, roleplaying noncombat encounters, or discussing situations other than what’s going on in the dungeon.

In such a game, let the PCs face mostly clearly evil monsters and opponents and meet clearly good helpful NPCs (occasionally). Don’t expect PCs to anguish over what to do with prisoners, or whether it’s right or wrong to invade and wipe out the bugbear lair. Don’t bother too much with money or time spent in town. Do whatever it takes to get the PCs back into the action as quickly as possible. Character motivation need be no more developed than a desire to kill monsters and acquire treasure.

My game doesn't run that way, but I wouldn't say D&D is discouraging it, right?

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

It's wrong to create a race of evil beings in a fantasy world? I...I don't.... Look, if Good and Evil exist in D&D, not simply as judgements of someone's actions but as actual forces - which I believe is borne out in the rules - then Evil monsters can be created, whole cloth, by Evil deities, to be Evil.

If you want to change that in your game (or your D&D webcomic), GREAT! But the implication that others are somehow shallow or simply wrong for playing by the rules as written is absurd!

Page 7-8 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide:
STYLES OF PLAY
KICK IN THE DOOR
The PCs kick in the dungeon door, fight the monsters, and get the treasure. This style of play is straightforward, fun, exciting, and action-oriented. Very little time is spent on developing personas for the player characters, roleplaying noncombat encounters, or discussing situations other than what’s going on in the dungeon.

In such a game, let the PCs face mostly clearly evil monsters and opponents and meet clearly good helpful NPCs (occasionally). Don’t expect PCs to anguish over what to do with prisoners, or whether it’s right or wrong to invade and wipe out the bugbear lair. Don’t bother too much with money or time spent in town. Do whatever it takes to get the PCs back into the action as quickly as possible. Character motivation need be no more developed than a desire to kill monsters and acquire treasure.

My game doesn't run that way, but I wouldn't say D&D is discouraging it, right?

You're blurring definitions.

No, D&D is not actively discouraging the variant your quote describes, except insofar as a ton of the printed material is simply irrelevant if you only ever play that way. That doesn't mean it encourages it either, and it certainly doesn't mean it's the default.

Yes, a force of pure evil could create a race that was incapable of behaving anything but evily. I can't think of any examples of such a race (no, fiends don't qualify, even they can change alignment), though I heard something about a race in the Book of Vile Darkness. That, most certainly, does not mean that someone who treats every Often/Usually X Evil race in the Monster Manual as this hypothetical race-incapable-of-behaving-anything-but-evily is "playing by the rules." Goblins are always evil like elves are always good and halflings are always neutral. If someone was going to shriek about being untrue to D&D because goblins aren't mindless avatars of evil, the shrieking should have started as soon as it became plain that Belkar wasn't True Neutral and amped up when it became plain that Vaarsuvius wasn't Chaotic Good.

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by Kish

You're blurring definitions.

As are you, between Player Characters and NPCs and Monsters.

[pendell]

Originally Posted by The Giant

Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

And this also answers my question as to why goblins are green people while wights are 'bits of bone and dark magic' who are wholly evil. Goblins are biological, and all biological sentients are entitled to benefit of the doubt regardless of their stat block. They are natural. Wights, by contrast, are overtly supernatural, literal abominations created by dark magic who have no place in the world.

In OOTSworld at any rate.

My question is answered. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

As are you, between Player Characters and NPCs and Monsters.

I'm also blurring definitions between characters whose names begin with V and B, and characters whose names begin with R. What was I thinking?

If you want to debate, debate. Neither lame-ass "gotchas" nor repetitive assertion qualifies.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by pendell

And this also answers my question as to why goblins are green people while wights are 'bits of bone and dark magic' who are wholly evil. Goblins are biological, and all biological sentients are entitled to benefit of the doubt regardless of their stat block. They are natural. Wights, by contrast, are overtly supernatural, literal abominations created by dark magic who have no place in the world.

In OOTSworld at any rate.

My question is answered. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I'd be a little cautious here. Even creatures with an "inborn alignment" can change- in D&D. And mustn't forget how variable the alignment of ghosts is.

Tsusiko, interestingly, does not apply "undead are good and kind" logic here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0465.html

"It'll be freewilled and evil and mean".

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by Kish

I'm also blurring definitions between characters whose names begin with V and B, and characters whose names begin with R. What was I thinking?

That there's no official difference between PCs, NPCs and Monsters in the books? Because there, like, totally is.

And how does a fiendish creature change alignment from evil? "Always evil," says it right on the template.

[Kaed]

I'm amazed this thread is still going. I kind of expected a mod to have shut it down ages ago due to how incitefully (but not insightfully) the original poster was writing.

I'm not really sure what you guys are even arguing about anymore. Alignment again? It's always about the damn alignment rules on this board, isn't it?

Is/Was it mortally justified when/if...

Anyone remember THOSE threads? While this one seems to have miraculously managed to escape devolving into a morality argument, I'm not sure how much more dickering about on the subject of blanket alignments assignments a topic can go through before it derails. Maybe ya'll should stop soon and keep the good memories.

But since I'm here, I want to throw in my own two cents. Just from looking at the title of this thread, I was slightly offended. I found Redcloaks characterization to be brilliant, and in fact in some cases he feels more dynamic and rounded than several of the protagonists! ()

And then I read it, and saw how ridiculous the argument was, since the OP was completely missing the point. Then Rich came in and actually SAID so himself, about 2-3 pages in. I'm frankly baffled that the topic continued past that point. Maybe a new thread should be made, since this one is no longer about Redcloaks 'failed characterization'. But maybe I'm just a stickler.

[RickGriffin]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

That there's no official difference between PCs, NPCs and Monsters in the books? Because there, like, totally is.

And how does a fiendish creature change alignment from evil? "Always evil," says it right on the template.

Being uplifted. Epic-level item of alignment-changing. Being the one-in-a-million exception stated as possible under the "always" definition in the front of the book.

[hamishspence]

Having a celestial spending time and effort to convince them to start down the path of redemption helps (the succubus paladin had this).

Eludecia the Succubus paladin

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

That there's no official difference between PCs, NPCs and Monsters in the books? Because there, like, totally is.

There is no "Monster" classification.

There are a number of distinctions between PCs and NPCs. "One can vary from its listed racial alignment, the other cannot" doesn't happen to be one of those distinctions--any more than it is for characters whose name begins with a V or a B, but not for characters whose name begins with an R.

And how does a fiendish creature change alignment from evil? "Always evil," says it right on the template.

Pick up the Monster Manual. Look up what it says the "Always" alignment classification means. While you're at it, pick up the Player's Handbook and look up the defining traits of the Lawful Evil alignment.

Argue that it's annoying that the D&D term "Always" doesn't actually mean "Always," if you want, but insisting that a creature listed as Always X Alignment must literally be always that alignment is completely insupportable, just like claiming that a five-year-old goblin will probably be Neutral Evil.

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

Having a celestial spending time and effort to convince them to start down the path of redemption helps (the succubus paladin had this).

Eludecia the Succubus paladin

Wouldn't they then lose their Fiendishness? Can a Good Fiend still Smite Good? Have DR?

What started this, for me, was this:

Originally Posted by The Giant

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.

I reject that that applies to D&D, and I believe I have seen and provided enough proof in this thread that Goblins were designed - by Fantasy writers, D&D designers and their own Deity - to be Evil at the core.

I, and others, are not speciesists, racists, or lesser GMs/Players for playing them that way, or treating them that way. Clearly, CLEARLY, many here will disagree - but since I've been playing D&D this way for over 30 years, and have yet to become a racist....I have all the proof I need.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

Can a Good Fiend still Smite Good? Have DR?

Strictly, yes.

They'll still Detect as Evil, be vulnerable to spells that specifically harm evil creatures, and so on.

Think of it as the creature being imbued with evil energy, which is seperate from its personality. It's the personality that's important though- and it's the "Lawful Good personality" of the redeemed fiend that allows her to qualify for the paladin class.

Originally Posted by Baelzar

I believe I have seen and provided enough proof in this thread that Goblins were designed - by Fantasy writers, D&D designers and their own Deity - to be Evil at the core.

Goblins have a long history in fantasy and mythology- they range from benevolent to mischievous to malevolent. One can't fairly say they've been "designed to be evil at the core" when there's so much variation in their portrayal.

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

Strictly, yes.

They'll still Detect as Evil, be vulnerable to spells that specifically harm evil creatures, and so on.

Think of it as the creature being imbued with evil energy, which is seperate from its personality. It's the personality that's important though- and it's the "Lawful Good personality" of the redeemed fiend that allows her to qualify for the paladin class.

Even your Fight Club example (which does not qualify as canon, I'm pretty sure) doesn't list those traits nor abilities.

Originally Posted by hamishspence

Goblins have a long history in fantasy and mythology- they range from benevolent to mischievous to malevolent. One can't fairly say they've been "designed to be evil at the core" when there's so much variation in their portrayal.

These are rare exceptions. Since the argument here is over the Rule, not the exception, I think the scales tip in my favor. Especially since the question at hand is whether treating goblins as Evil makes one a racist - no small insult.

[rbetieh]

Originally Posted by The Giant

Yeah, I think that would take care of 90% of the problem. I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them.

Doesn't this destroy the D&Dness of D&D? This, for instance is what other systems do, Palladium Games and the Star Trek RPGs are the ones I remember. Describe how they act normally and let you decide what that means. But that seriously changes the game for D&D in that it becomes less portable to other cultures. By saying they are simply "Evil" you can sell books all over the world because everyone can apply their own definition of evil. From a business standpoint, leaving things as open-ended as "this guys are a bad guy race, you figure it out" sells more book and keeps more people playing. It really is up to the DM to figure it out, which means more emphasis should be put on providing the tools to make better DMs, no?

[The Giant]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

I reject that that applies to D&D, and I believe I have seen and provided enough proof in this thread that Goblins were designed - by Fantasy writers, D&D designers and their own Deity - to be Evil at the core.

And again, "They were designed that way," is not a very good refutation of the argument, "They should not have been designed that way." I see no reason to adhere to a tradition that I find repellant.

[Morty]

Goblins in D&D are stated to be "Usually Neutral Evil". That means over 50% of their population will be Neutral Evil and only that. Everything else, including statements of them being "evil to the core" is up to the writer or the GM. Never mind that having an Evil alignment does not mean that one is a horrible monster who deserves to die.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by The Giant

And again, "They were designed that way," is not a very good refutation of the argument, "They should not have been designed that way." I see no reason to adhere to a tradition that I find repellant.

This. This is axiomatic truth. There are otherworldly entities setting down their pencils and gazing up from the deepest mysteries of the universe in order to bask in the awe-inspiring truth of this statement.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

These are rare exceptions. Since the argument here is over the Rule, not the exception,

At this point, you've gone from, "All goblins are evil," to, "Goblins are evil as a rule, and exceptions don't matter." And the only evidence you've ever offered for either position is a dictionary reading of game terms, a willingness to keep repeating yourself, and picking nits with other people's presented evidence.

[rbetieh]

Originally Posted by Morty

Never mind that having an Evil alignment does not mean that one is a horrible monster who deserves to die.

It does, in a world where Good and Evil are at war. Which is the point.

Why did the the Federation and Klingons Empires attack each other on sight in the first Star Trek show? Because Klingons were Evil Sneaky Humans. Now, they are a proud warrior race, and you had to backfill the exact reason why they were at war before. That's the evolution of storytelling right there, and the growing pains of longtime RPG players as well. When you start out, "lets fight the bad guys" is good enough. Over time, that gets boring.

Now if there is a campaign setting where differing ideologies are competing with each other, then people of differing alignments could be working together to advance the same ideology, right? But thats a campaign setting, one you will probably have to make up yourself.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Baelzar

Even your Fight Club example (which does not qualify as canon, I'm pretty sure) doesn't list those traits nor abilities.

It comes direct from the WotC site. James Jacobs, writer of the Fiendish Codexes, also wrote in Dragon Magazine (Demonomicon- Malcanthet) that the existence of rare redeemed succubi is the only thing that makes her sad.

So, yeah, they're canon. The "Evil Subtype" in MM's list of Traits, explains that nonevil creatures with the trait detect as evil, and are vulnerable to attacks that harm evil creatures. Succubi have the Evil subtype.

Originally Posted by rbetieh

It does, in a world where Good and Evil are at war. Which is the point.

Is there ever such a thing- even in D&D? One cannot presume that "All that is Good, is at war with all that is Evil, and are entitled to kill them all"

[Morty]

Originally Posted by rbetieh

It does, in a world where Good and Evil are at war. Which is the point.

So why did Hinjo stop Miko from killing Belkar? By your logic, he should have just let her slice him in two without bothering with a trial.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by rbetieh

It does, in a world where Good and Evil are at war. Which is the point.

Not when the dividing line is supposed to be that Good-aligned characters hold themselves to ethical principles and care about these principles, even when they sometimes fail them.

To give a personal example, I had an assassin for the longest time who concerned himself with the protection of children. His brother, a politician in Sharn, tried to support laws and initiatives to improve education, raise standards of living in orphanages, et cetera. Whenever there was significant opposition to one of these measures, my character killed everyone that voted against it, making each and every death seem accidental.

Yes, he's fighting against evil - the selfish oppression of the weak, usually motivated by profit - but he's not holding himself to any standards when he's doing so. So what that he doesn't harm anyone else? His tendency to select his targets carefully and only harm them informs a Lawful alignment, not a good one. He's Evil - but he's not fighting Good. He's just living his life in a way that brings repeated and unnecessary harm and sorrow to others without caring about the consequences beyond his own goals.

[Lynam III]

Maglubiyet is a Turkish word meaning "defeat".
Kurtulmak is a Turkish word meaning "to survive".

So the creators of the D&D saw the evil races akin to Turkish/Mongolian/whatever "barbarians". That's how D&D implicitly defines evil, beyond the descriptions.

Considering this piece of information, the "deconstructionism" is fairly well-grounded to be honest.

[hamishspence]

"Respect for life" is one of the basic traits of Good, after all.

[The Giant]

The only real argument being put forth is that goblins were originally designed to be evil, so they should be evil. Except, vampires were also originally designed to be evil, and (one's thoughts on Stephanie Meyers aside) I think we can all agree that there are hundreds of works with morally conflicted or even outright heroic vampires, maybe even more than with purely evil ones now.

Things change. Tradition does not matter. We can revise our views on these monsters as many times as we want until they reflect the story we want to be told, because they do not exist. You cannot say that these ideas do not apply to the world of D&D because the world of D&D is not REAL. We made it up, and we made it up less than 40 years ago. Just change what it is! Write a new story where it's not like that!

Oh wait—I am!

[Baelzar]

Originally Posted by Kish

At this point, you've gone from, "All goblins are evil," to, "Goblins are evil as a rule, and exceptions don't matter." And the only evidence you've ever offered for either position is a dictionary reading of game terms, a willingness to keep repeating yourself, and picking nits with other people's presented evidence.

I'm saying that Goblins are Evil as a rule in D&D and the vast majority of literature. Anything else is basically "house rules," which is perfectly fine. Doesn't make those playing by the rules a racist, in-game or out.

I think a dictionary reading of the rules is applicable, seeing as how you claimed earlier that no D&D book supports my argument. They do, overwhelmingly.

{{scrubbed}}