What alignment is Team Peregrine? LN or True Neutral?

[paladinofshojo]

They treat their mission as seriously as the main protagonists but they don't let morality go above jeopardizing their mission. They also seem to treat killing all enemies in a cold, professional way. Even if they're technically prisoner or civilian. They don't strike me as "heroic" more like "black ops". But I am beggining to wonder what alignment they can be, either Lawful Neutral or True Neutral....cause let's face it, they're probably not Evil unless the Elven armed forces have some secret agenda we don't know about, and they're probably not Good due to that incident with the hobgoblin prisoner.

[Xiander]

They treat their mission as seriously as the main protagonists but they don't let morality go above jeopardizing their mission. They also seem to treat killing all enemies in a cold, professional way. Even if they're technically prisoner or civilian. They don't strike me as "heroic" more like "black ops". But I am beggining to wonder what alignment they can be, either Lawful Neutral or True Neutral....cause let's face it, they're probably not Evil unless the Elven armed forces have some secret agenda we don't know about, and they're probably not Good due to that incident with the hobgoblin prisoner.

We have insufficient data to make any judgement, and even if the guy who hates goblins is LN we don't know about the rest of them.

[KillianHawkeye]

You can hate all goblins and still be Good. Rangers aren't restricted in their alignments.

[Morty]

We've seen them what, four times on-screen? It's highly unlikely that their leader is good for obvious reasons but beyond that, we can pretty much only guess.

[skaddix]

Paladins are all Lawful Good and yet they slaughter goblins with no problems whatsoever.

I saw Lawful Good or Neutral. I don't think the Elf Government sends out True Neutral's for missions like this. A TN could make a side deal with a certain Lich no problem.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

You can hate all goblins and still be Good. Rangers aren't restricted in their alignments.

True but if you keep killing them when they surrender, depending on the DM and the setting you might not stay good. Goblins, theoretically, being mortal and capable of (but highly unlikely to) reform, unlike fiends or undead. Or even mindflayers, who have eat the brains of sentient beings to survive.

Similarly, paladins are allowed to kill people in combat, but they generally have to accept surrenders (Miko didn't want to take Belkar's, but look what happened to her). Of course, prisoners can still be executed after fair trials, depending on what they've done.

And yes, I know some settings loosen the rules on fiends and undead, too but that's an entirely different argument.

[Bovine Colonel]

Paladins are all Lawful Good and yet they slaughter goblins with no problems whatsoever.

Isn't genocide a very much fall-worthy act?

[Leecros]

A TN could make a side deal with a certain Lich no problem.

That's an incredibly blanketed statement of which several issues could be raised. Not the least being the fact that in a perfectly balanced world with no biases/hatreds/vendetta/anything to tip the balance. Neutral parties tend to side with good.

Per PHB:

She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the
other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral
characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment
to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than
evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers
than evil ones.

That's under true neutral, but I would be willing to bet that even if they were Chaotic Neutral. It was unlikely that they would join the landscape chewing, bent on world domination lich whom uses hobgoblins and goblins as minions and treats everyone else as Slaves or Zombies(With few exceptions).

[Fish]

I'd put my money on Chaotic Good: generally doing the right thing, unconstrained by the niceties of surrender and rules of warfare.

Beyond that, I judge this thread is likely to go nowhere except the Locked bin. Estimating alignments using real-world measuring sticks is dicey at best.

[Kish]

You can hate all goblins and still be Good.

No, you can't. Check the Player's Handbook, the description of Lawful Evil.

Rangers aren't restricted in their alignments.
While it is a common interpretation that rangers hate all their favored enemies, it is not textual and, indeed, works very badly. There are no restrictions on the alignments of favored enemy species, no restriction against taking your own species (in 3.5ed), and, again...if rangers were required to be genocidal racists (and more so each time they gained a new favored enemy!) they would have an alignment restriction. You don't need to hate all (say) humans to find it useful to do extra damage against them and be equally good at Sensing their Motives (and so on).

...And, per Rich's commentary on Start of Darkness, no, paladins do not slaughter goblins "with no problems whatsoever."

[paladinofshojo]

I'd put my money on Chaotic Good: generally doing the right thing, unconstrained by the niceties of surrender and rules of warfare.

.

They don't strike me as generally doing the right thing, more like "just doing their job". I doubt that they're a volunteer force who personally sympathize with the Azurite cause. They were sent by their own respective government to aid in insurgency, they didn't join the cause out of altruism, they are presumably professional soldiers sent into an instable area to further the interests of their own nation rather than the Azurites....Furthermore, they take their job very seriously, ontop of respecting a strict chain of command, hardly "Chaotic".

[KillianHawkeye]

While it is a common interpretation that rangers hate all their favored enemies, it is not textual and, indeed, works very badly. There are no restrictions on the alignments of favored enemy species, no restriction against taking your own species (in 3.5ed), and, again...if rangers were required to be genocidal racists (and more so each time they gained a new favored enemy!) they would have an alignment restriction. You don't need to hate all (say) humans to find it useful to do extra damage against them and be equally good at Sensing their Motives (and so on).

Hmm.... I guess I am playing my Ranger wrong. Thanks for correcting me! :smallannoyed::smallsigh:

[NerfTW]

The Order pretty clearly murders all goblins in their way on multiple occasions. The only current difference between the Order and Team Peregrine is that Team Peregrine is actively embedded in a war zone. The Order have the luxury of working with Tarquin and trying not to make waves. Team Peregrine has a very specific mission of freeing Azure City and keeping Xykon from getting a hold of his phylactery.

I'd like more than the ONE instance of killing a prisoner to protect the safety of the resistance if someone is going to say they're evil or neutral. They said why they had to kill him. They couldn't take the risk he was a double agent. The current strip is an attack between two groups of soldiers over a powerful item that needs to stay out of Xykon's hands. If Xykon knew that the resistance both knew of his missing phylactery AND had it, they'd be crushed instantly. That's why they had to kill all of them.

The goblins they killed aren't any more innocent than the ones the Order butchered in Xykon's dungeon.

[paladinofshojo]

The Order pretty clearly murders all goblins in their way on multiple occasions. The only current difference between the Order and Team Peregrine is that Team Peregrine is actively embedded in a war zone. The Order have the luxury of working with Tarquin and trying not to make waves. Team Peregrine has a very specific mission of freeing Azure City and keeping Xykon from getting a hold of his phylactery.

I'd like more than the ONE instance of killing a prisoner to protect the safety of the resistance if someone is going to say they're evil or neutral. They said why they had to kill him. They couldn't take the risk he was a double agent. The current strip is an attack between two groups of soldiers over a powerful item that needs to stay out of Xykon's hands. If Xykon knew that the resistance both knew of his missing phylactery AND had it, they'd be crushed instantly. That's why they had to kill all of them.

The goblins they killed aren't any more innocent than the ones the Order butchered in Xykon's dungeon.

Well that goblin couple that strayed away from the party doesn't exactly sound like "combatants" to me (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html) However, I'm not exactly going to condemn Team Peregrine for doing what they have to do, war is a brutal business after all, even when your country is not turned into a permanent war zone.

But the point is that good alignments are reduced to imputency in desperate situations. A LG paladin would probably have quelms with the idea of having to "dishonorably" assassinate an enemy leader in his sleep and to "leave no witnesses". Moreover I don't think that Roy or Durkon or any other LG character would have been able to have threw that prisoner off the roof no matter his species.

The problem with Good alignments in an actual military situation is that a big part of any military is conducting many "dishonorable acts" to give you an advantage, destroying the old farmer's land and crops.....to ensure that the enemy doesn't get their hands on it. Resorting to bribing, blackmailing, threatening hostages? Pretty routine in a war. The problem is that Good usually means that you won't compromise on principles and honor or at the very least have a "line" you won't cross at the risk of turning into what you hate most. However, in war and cut throat politics those principles and "honor" usually end up getting you killed (Hello Ned Stark)

I'm not saying that Good isn't capable of being part of the military, after all a LG paladin Captain or General would probably inspire morale within his troops. And Good characters who believe in their cause would be deadly due to being so phsychologically invested into the war. However, I am saying that they shouldn't be incharge of every branch of the army due to the nature of war, and if they are they should allow their less morally-constricted allies to be given a certain degree of autonomy in making decisions.

The Order's dungeon crawls are not reminiscent of a real war....battles they may be, but its not like anyone elses' lives were hanging in the balance back then (relatively at least). As O-chul pointed out dungeons and war are not the same thing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html)

[t209]

Paladins are all Lawful Good and yet they slaughter goblins with no problems whatsoever.

I saw Lawful Good or Neutral. I don't think the Elf Government sends out True Neutral's for missions like this. A TN could make a side deal with a certain Lich no problem.

But according to Rich Burlews, some paladins who attacked Red Cloak Village lost their cape color like Miko!

[Mutant Sheep]

But according to Rich Burlews, some paladins who attacked Red Cloak Village lost their cape color like Miko!

They Fell. And fell softly.:smallbiggrin: Though I don't think the cape getting bleached is that important. :smallamused: (heres the quote, because it should be quoted to and linked to every time this comes up at least a dozen times per thread.)
Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

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. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

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

Flying far away from the too-discussed topic of paladins wearing blue stabbing green fanged people and on topic, I see the elves as elves/a bunch of Vaarsuviuses. Except for them all wizards.:smalltongue: Other than the magic thing, which is probably just "magic item" rather than "level 7 spellslot", I think the general outlook is the same, maybe even closer to Darth V than new V.

[Math_Mage]

What we've seen so far of the elves has been organized, hierarchical, and generally rules-oriented. Their active support for the Azure City rebellion rules against being evil; their rather over-enthusiastic animosity towards the goblins rules against being good. I see fairly strong justification (though nothing absolute, of course) for them being LN.

[Fish]

They were sent by their own respective government to aid in insurgency, they didn't join the cause out of altruism, they are presumably professional soldiers sent into an instable area to further the interests of their own nation rather than the Azurites....Furthermore, they take their job very seriously, ontop of respecting a strict chain of command, hardly "Chaotic".
You presume much.

We have no reason to believe that Chaotic people are incapable of recognizing authority (for instance: Haley [Chaotic Good-ish] often obeys Roy; Belkar [Chaotic Evil] obeys Roy when it suits him; Sabine [a succubus, likely Chaotic Evil] obeys Nale as well as her own masters). The very fact that Cedric exists suggests a Chaotic-based command hierarchy.

We have no reason to presume they're paid professional soldiers. We also have no reason to believe that their government ordered them to go, much less any evidence that they said "Yes sir!" and snapped into action. Even if they were paid professional soldiers, it wouldn't preclude them from being Chaotic — not everybody who holds a job must be Lawful!

We have no evidence (that I can recall) that shows Team Peregrine is acting selfishly in the interests of their own nation (in fact, evidence shows that the elven nations are allies responding to Hinjo's request for help (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html)).

[paladinofshojo]

We also have no reason to believe that their government ordered them to go, much less any evidence that they said "Yes sir!" and snapped into action.

If this is true then how come every time we see them or when one of them speaks there seems to be no humor or emotion in their words? The only time they speak is when their leader is issuing orders or when the subordinates are relaying messages. Not once has a member of Team Peregrine ever cracked a joke so far, they don't seem human (no pun intended :smallannoyed:). All we've seen of them is cold professionalism in doing their job as effectively as possible. That's the real reason they strike me as Lawful rather than Chaotic.

But more to your point, their message went straight to Elven Command, which makes your point mute. The message then also states their mission in "commence further insertions" to the ultimate goal of "liberation" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html) We know that they're sent by the Elven government for a specific purpose, what we don't know is the Elven government's reasoning for aiding the Azurites, seeing as most other of Azure City's allies turned them down in fear of getting attacked by Xykon, I doubt altruism was a reason for taking such a great risk.

[The_Weirdo]

The hobs are oppressors. Chaotic Good people will fight against oppressors, and will fight to KILL them.

[DrBurr]

You presume much.

We have no reason to believe that Chaotic people are incapable of recognizing authority (for instance: Haley [Chaotic Good-ish] often obeys Roy; Belkar [Chaotic Evil] obeys Roy when it suits him; Sabine [a succubus, likely Chaotic Evil] obeys Nale as well as her own masters). The very fact that Cedric exists suggests a Chaotic-based command hierarchy.

We have no reason to presume they're paid professional soldiers. We also have no reason to believe that their government ordered them to go, much less any evidence that they said "Yes sir!" and snapped into action. Even if they were paid professional soldiers, it wouldn't preclude them from being Chaotic — not everybody who holds a job must be Lawful!

We have no evidence (that I can recall) that shows Team Peregrine is acting selfishly in the interests of their own nation (in fact, evidence shows that the elven nations are allies responding to Hinjo's request for help (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html)).

Wait doesn't that very strip show or at least imply they work for the Elven Government, Hinjo is accounting that he finally got the elves to help him and then it cuts to a scene where they teleporting in and sending in a call to central command.

So I doubt they're Chaotic more like Lawful Neutral or at least True Neutral. They clearly are a trained insurgent squad. Not to mention their are multiple teams of these elves like Team Harrier which suggests their just 1 squad or team in a larger organization at least financed by the Elves

... wait am I arguing the alignment of nameless NPCs, what is wrong with me:smallsigh:

[Math_Mage]

You presume much.

We have no reason to believe that Chaotic people are incapable of recognizing authority (for instance: Haley [Chaotic Good-ish] often obeys Roy; Belkar [Chaotic Evil] obeys Roy when it suits him; Sabine [a succubus, likely Chaotic Evil] obeys Nale as well as her own masters). The very fact that Cedric exists suggests a Chaotic-based command hierarchy.

I don't think anyone is saying that Chaotic people are incapable of recognizing a food chain. However, every instance of elven action seems more military than mobster. They are disciplined and organized; they act as a cohesive unit rather than as associated individuals. That they reported back before entering the Cloister space suggests superiors who coordinated their mission. I think you'll have trouble constructing a significant body of evidence suggesting that they are anything but Lawful.

In the case of Good, your case is rather different, as you need to overturn a rather significant piece of evidence suggesting otherwise--the goblin incident--rather than constructing a large body of evidence in support of your position. After all, the scenario at large--Gondor Hinjo calls for aid, Rohan the elven allies sally forth--would suggest that the elves are Good; it is their specific actions during the insurgency that lead us to question that initial assumption.

[Gift Jeraff]

I'd like more than the ONE instance of killing a prisoner to protect the safety of the resistance if someone is going to say they're evil or neutral. They said why they had to kill him.Sometimes one instance is enough to judge a character. There's a reason you can usually tell stuff like "this guy's the hero" or "he's a bad guy" within a character's very first scene--the scene was specifically designed to properly establish the character in the viewer's brain. And, in my opinion, that whole scene was the Commander's establishing scene. And what does the scene consist of?

-An act which is kept a secret from a paladin. (:elan: "I mean, it's not as if knowing that we need to lie about it to the paladin is a good indication that it may be the wrong idea.")
-Shock from the Azurite previously presented with a more positive viewpoint (Hinjo is good, OOTS is bad).
-Support from the Azurite previously presented with a more negative viewpoint (Hinjo is bad, therefore vicariously the OOTS is bad).
-An off-panel incident of a couple being shot in the back. Yes, they may have been witnesses, but I think the basic point of mentioning the fact that it was just a couple who wandered away was to garner some sympathy from the audience.

So personally, I felt that whole scene was equivalent to a giant sign saying "THE TEAM PEREGRINE COMMANDER IS NOT A GOOD GUY." I will agree that it's too early to tell for the other 3, especially the cleric and wizard/sorcerer. Note that I am not claiming that any of this is hard evidence of alignment, I just feel they're basic storytelling ways of telling us who the bad guys are without spelling it out for us.

[pjackson]

Well

But the point is that good alignments are reduced to imputency in desperate situations. A LG paladin would probably have quelms with the idea of having to "dishonorably" assassinate an enemy leader in his sleep and to "leave no witnesses". Moreover I don't think that Roy or Durkon or any other LG character would have been able to have threw that prisoner off the roof no matter his species.

The problem with Good alignments in an actual military situation is that a big part of any military is conducting many "dishonorable acts" to give you an advantage, destroying the old farmer's land and crops.....to ensure that the enemy doesn't get their hands on it. Resorting to bribing, blackmailing, threatening hostages? Pretty routine in a war. The problem is that Good usually means that you won't compromise on principles and honor or at the very least have a "line" you won't cross at the risk of turning into what you hate most. However, in war and cut throat politics those principles and "honor" usually end up getting you killed (Hello Ned Stark)

I'm not saying that Good isn't capable of being part of the military, after all a LG paladin Captain or General would probably inspire morale within his troops. And Good characters who believe in their cause would be deadly due to being so phsychologically invested into the war. However, I am saying that they shouldn't be incharge of every branch of the army due to the nature of war, and if they are they should allow their less morally-constricted allies to be given a certain degree of autonomy in making decisions.

The Order's dungeon crawls are not reminiscent of a real war....battles they may be, but its not like anyone elses' lives were hanging in the balance back then (relatively at least). As O-chul pointed out dungeons and war are not the same thing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html)

Even if that is true in reality. D&D is a fantasy RPG. The Paladin class embodies the fantasy that it is possible to be a hero, who uses violence and is effective, whilst doing no evil. The mere existence of the class means that in a D&D world Good is not impotent, and it is possible to fight is a Good and Lawful manner.

Of course much of what you wrote is not true in real life. Assassinating enemy leaders in wartime is extremely rare in real life and is not a normal act of war. How many attempts on leaders lives in WW2 were made other than by their own side? (Of course the reason for this may be that it is in the interest of leaders that the they don't set such a precedent.)
Taking hostages is considered a war crime. It is not routine in war.

[Morty]

Those who say that killing the hobgoblin was necessary and is no different from all the other instances of killing goblins in the comic would be right... if the elven commander's motive had been purely necessity of warfare. However, he made it clear that he believes goblins need to be killed because they're goblins and killed the prisoner after tricking him into hoping for being spared.

[Mixt]

As far as i'm concerned all elves are Chaotic Evil.
Also, since being on the right side of the fourth wall effectively makes me infinitely more powerful than the characters, that means that i am automatically right, because if the gods of the setting get to dictate morality by virtue of being more powerful, then clearly we on the other side of the fourth wall who are even more powerful also get to do so :smalltongue:
So the elves are all Chaotic Evil. Because i say so (Same logic the gods use)

Coincidentally, that makes it okay to kill them all.
After all, genocide is totally okay if the victim is evil (Or so you people keep telling me :smallyuk: )

Anyone want to help burn the elven homelands to the ground?
DIE ELVES AHAHAHA!!!

Also, i am totally Lawful Good, because i say so.
Does not matter how many atrocities i commit, as long as i say i'm Lawful Good, then i'm Lawful Good dammit (What, it works for the gods, so naturally it must work for us as well, who live in the land of the DM's and players and are as such infinitely more powerful than even the gods)

[/Insane Troll Logic]

See what i did there?

[paladinofshojo]

Even if that is true in reality. D&D is a fantasy RPG. The Paladin class embodies the fantasy that it is possible to be a hero, who uses violence and is effective, whilst doing no evil. The mere existence of the class means that in a D&D world Good is not impotent, and it is possible to fight is a Good and Lawful manner.

Of course much of what you wrote is not true in real life. Assassinating enemy leaders in wartime is extremely rare in real life and is not a normal act of war. How many attempts on leaders lives in WW2 were made other than by their own side? (Of course the reason for this may be that it is in the interest of leaders that the they don't set such a precedent.)
Taking hostages is considered a war crime. It is not routine in war.

I didn't say it wasn't possible to fight in a Good and Lawful manner, I'm just saying that it is hard to be in charge of a military at war in a Good and Lawful manner. Unlike the other two alignments the only reason why Good exists is because it is enforced. The only way for Good as an alignment to have any teeth is if it has the Rule of Law backing it up. However said Rule seems to be thrown out the window whenever the political situation between two groups become so bad that they resort to war. That's why Neutral characters are ideal for leading the "good cause" in any semi-realistic army setting, seeing as they don't have to live up to the obligation of being a saint (good) nor are they too brutal or bloodthirsty in their actions (evil). I prefer of thinking of alignments as: the easy way (evil), the smart way (nuetral), and the self-imposed hard way (good).

As for assassinations I do believe many where made on both Hitler and Churchhill during the pinnacle of the War, the most famous assassination I remember is that of high-ranking German, Reinhard Heydrich who was killed by a Czech student who was trained by the British Special Operations Executive. Assassinations aren't rare if the war goes on for too long, especially if army 1 has some brilliant general who army 2 sees as incredibly dangerous and able to "tip the scales against them". The problem is that it's usually ludacrously difficult to get to said target for any army 2 personel to get close to due to both armies being at war, that's why in real life you usually get a local patsy to do your dirty work for you (the Czech student). However not wanting to dampen the awesomeness of assassination in fantasy, you usually fight or sneak through the entire army singlehandedly to get to that guy, which leads to the question on why you didn't kill the army yourself in the first place or routinely poison their wells or something?

Finally, on regard of hostages, as much as I hate to admit it, all men are not created equal. The life of someone higher on the chain of command is obviously worth more than a common rank-and-file soldier, aswell as someone who's related to a known figure in the enemy country. Such as how the Germans tried to do a prisoner exchange with Stalin's son for a Nazi General. Sure you can argue their POWs not hostages but the fact of the matter is that their lives have a worth to their enemies, otherwise why would they keep them alive? Argue semantics all you want.


Those who say that killing the hobgoblin was necessary and is no different from all the other instances of killing goblins in the comic would be right... if the elven commander's motive had been purely necessity of warfare. However, he made it clear that he believes goblins need to be killed because they're goblins and killed the prisoner after tricking him into hoping for being spared.

You're right about that....however he does make several valid points on why not to take the prisoner, seeing as the hobbo could be a double agent planted in there or at the very least will become turncoat to gain Redcloak's favor. It was really dark and ruthless, but that doesn't mean he didn't have valid (or at least semi-valid) reasons to commit it. Sure he seemed to do it in a sadistic and cold manner and did it in pure unapologetic spite but he can easilly justify it if he had to. It seems more like of a case of "having your cake, and eating it too". In this case it's having the moral leeaway to kill him but choosing to go about it in the cruelest way imaginable due to the fact he knows he can get away with it, so he has a rare opportunity to humor his own ill feelings toward a different species. Nothing makes a person more of a jerkass than lack of responsability for his actions.

[Dark Matter]

RE: Law vs. Chaos
Thus far their actions have leaned towards neutrality, not law.

They're organized. They take orders well. And they throw out the rules of war (and their orders from the Paladin in charge) the moment those rules become a potential problem.

"Lawful" isn't just "organized", it's mostly "respect for the law and an organization, even before it's earned". Note the utter lack of respect for orders and/or the law when the commander tossed that goblin overboard. There was no "I'm going against the law and that's a bad thing" in there.

RE: Good vs. Evil
I'd call their actions thus far neutral, there are evil tenancies and some good tenancies.

The murder of that goblin prisoner and that couple which got in the way was evil, but also arguably necessary. They're associating with a Paladin, rescuing slaves, opposing an evil government, and they're not observed to be cruel or evil outside of the "war" context.

Now that's largely an argument from ignorance, i.e. just because we don't see them being causally evil among themselves doesn't mean it's not happening off screen.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Is there a post guessing what are the Peregrine chosen classes?

The commander looks like a ranger...

[Dark Matter]

Team Peregrine members:
Commander: Brown Hair, Dark Skin, dual weapons, has tumble skill. Probably Ranger?
Lieutenant: Red Head: Only shown to use bow. Ranger or Rogue?
Pink Hair: Shown to cast "Sending" and some unknown spell. Also uses sword, shield, maybe armor. Magic effect is orange. Probably Cleric?
White Hair, Green Robes: No weapons shown. Spell caster: Fly?, Teleport?, Dancing Lights (counter spell), might be whoever cast invisibility on the crew in 706. Probably Wizard, might be Sorc?

So there's nothing in there which gives us an alignment. That the Cleric is using an Orange Aura might mean she(?) channels negative energy.

Team Peregrine actions:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0824.html

Team Peregrine Spells:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm

[Fish]

Wait doesn't that very strip show or at least imply they work for the Elven Government...
It doesn't imply anything of the kind. Maybe the elven government posted a reward for volunteer adventurer parties to come help. "City of goblins and undead, free XP, travel expenses paid." Maybe the elvish government issued letters of marque (ie, a license to be bandits or privateers). Maybe the elvish government didn't tell these guys directly and they heard it from a friend of a friend of a guy who heard it in a tavern. We have no way to know, because all we have is silly guesses. Basing conclusions upon guesses isn't terribly useful, so beware any conclusions that rely on them.

They clearly are a trained insurgent squad.
Clearly trained in counterinsurgency? No. Clearly intelligent and effective at fighting? Yes. Don't assume more than you must.

If anything can be seen "clearly," it is that they look nothing like a regimented, Lawful society of soldiers, where every conscript wears a uniform of the same color and style (like the LG Azurites or like the LE Bloodites). Beyond that, we haven't much to go on.

[skaddix]

They seem to be special forces. U don't tend to wear normal uniforms when wagging a guerilla war behind enemy lines. Even the paladin is not wearing his technical uniform. Also they have used titles like commander and lieutenant which is not something random parties of adventures do.

[Fish]

They seem to be special forces. U don't tend to wear normal uniforms...
Logical inverse. People who are in special forces may tend not to wear uniforms, but that doesn't mean all people not in uniform are special forces.

[Leecros]

Logical inverse. People who are in special forces may tend not to wear uniforms, but that doesn't mean all people not in uniform are special forces.

Blasphemy! Clearly every person you see that isn't in a uniform is some sort of special forces.


It keeps you on your toes to think like that.:smalltongue:

[Prowl]

I say NG. Good because they are fighting the forces of evil on its own turf (rather than just defending themselves when attacked, which would be neutral). Neutral along the law/chaos axis due to the presence of both the paladin (who would not stand with a chaotic organization for long) and the thief (who would not stand with a lawful organization for long).

[Kish]

Rogues have no alignment restrictions.

[Leecros]

I say NG. Good because they are fighting the forces of evil on its own turf (rather than just defending themselves when attacked, which would be neutral).

Neutral in war doesn't mean the same as a Neutral alignment. a Neutral-aligned nation can still invade an evil-aligned nation without automatically being considered 'good'

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Team Peregrine members:
Commander: Brown Hair, Dark Skin, dual weapons, has tumble skill. Probably Ranger?
Lieutenant: Red Head: Only shown to use bow. Ranger or Rogue?
Pink Hair: Shown to cast "Sending" and some unknown spell. Also uses sword, shield, maybe armor. Magic effect is orange. Probably Cleric?
White Hair, Green Robes: No weapons shown. Spell caster: Fly?, Teleport?, Dancing Lights (counter spell), might be whoever cast invisibility on the crew in 706. Probably Wizard, might be Sorc?

So there's nothing in there which gives us an alignment. That the Cleric is using an Orange Aura might mean she(?) channels negative energy.

Team Peregrine actions:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0824.html

Team Peregrine Spells:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm

And also http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm in strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html

And also http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fogCloud.htm in strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html

Given that the Giant usually doesn't use many non-core or cheesy class combos, I would say the dark elf, the Commander, is a ranger: two weapon fighting and ranger-ish clothes (probably also favored enemy goblinoids).

The elf in green robes who uses Teleport, Fog Cloud, and probably, Invisibility is a wizard.

The pink chick with the metal armor who uses Sending should be the cleric (Sending is a cheaper slot for clerics than for wizards), the sword proficiency is for being elf.

Finally the red long haired elf who uses a bow, despite having less clues, is probably the one who shoots the first arrow in the last strip of #824, as everyone is acting while he/she is loading.

That would make a ranger, a wizard, a rogue and a cleric. A solid choice for an infiltration commando.

[Gift Jeraff]

I say NG. Good because they are fighting the forces of evil on its own turf (rather than just defending themselves when attacked, which would be neutral). Neutral along the law/chaos axis due to the presence of both the paladin (who would not stand with a chaotic organization for long) and the thief (who would not stand with a lawful organization for long).And yet, Thanh worked for a Chaotic thief for several months...

[eulmanis12]

I think they are
-Chosen to Operate behind enemy lines
-With highly limited communitations
-While attached to a foreign unit
-Utilize excellent small unit tactics, gerrilla tactics, coordination

These qualities alone suggest SpecOps, but are not unique to it

Here is my main argument
The Elven nation is reasonably powerful and has a military.
Most nations of the above sort tend to have some form of special forces/ elite troops
These special forces would be the logical choice for such a mission.

For a mission of this type a smart leader would send in Delta, Rangers, SEALS, SAS, Commandos or the like, not a squad of Red Shirts

As for their alignments. I doubt that they are evil. I do not belive that they are lawful. However I don't think we can rule out any of the other 4 possibilities. Sure, they killed a prisoner. Who may or may not have been an enemy agent. This is not an "Evil" act. A single evil act does not make them evil. They might have killed the hobgoblin couple, or the azurites might have, or the unlucky pair could have just been caught in the crossfire (while unfortunate, it does happen a lot in war), since it happened off panel we will never know and thus cannot judge the Elves by it. (Innocent until proven guilty)

[hamishspence]

Sure, they killed a prisoner. Who may or may not have been an enemy agent. This is not an "Evil" act. A single evil act does not make them evil. They might have killed the hobgoblin couple, or the azurites might have, or the unlucky pair could have just been caught in the crossfire (while unfortunate, it does happen a lot in war), since it happened off panel we will never know and thus cannot judge the Elves by it. (Innocent until proven guilty)

Perhaps. Still, the two incidents occuring in quick succession may be suggestive.

[Gift Jeraff]

or the azurites might haveOf the 8 Resistance members there, only the elven Lieutenant has been seen using archery.


So there's nothing in there which gives us an alignment. That the Cleric is using an Orange Aura might mean she(?) channels negative energy.The Giant has said not to put much thought into magic aura. After all, Tsukiko channels negative energy, yet her divine magic is the same colour as the paladins and Good-aligned clerics of the Twelve Gods.

[paladinofshojo]

It doesn't imply anything of the kind. Maybe the elven government posted a reward for volunteer adventurer parties to come help. "City of goblins and undead, free XP, travel expenses paid." Maybe the elvish government issued letters of marque (ie, a license to be bandits or privateers). Maybe the elvish government didn't tell these guys directly and they heard it from a friend of a friend of a guy who heard it in a tavern. We have no way to know, because all we have is silly guesses. Basing conclusions upon guesses isn't terribly useful, so beware any conclusions that rely on them.



You do realize you're just jumping off a slippery slope right? Other than the fact they openly use ranks such as Commander to adress their leader and Luietenant to address the second-in-command, we're probably never going to know the truth by your logic because you seem to not accept direct implication as proof.




Clearly trained in counterinsurgency? No. Clearly intelligent and effective at fighting? Yes. Don't assume more than you must.

If anything can be seen "clearly," it is that they look nothing like a regimented, Lawful society of soldiers, where every conscript wears a uniform of the same color and style (like the LG Azurites or like the LE Bloodites). Beyond that, we haven't much to go on.

So it's okay for you to assume but not the rest of us?:smallconfused:

Moreover, what makes you think that Team Peregrine are just run-of-the-mill conscripts? They have been shown to be more effective than a fresh greenhorn recruit will probably be. Asides, even you can see the problem with sending uniformed troops into a hostile nation. There's a reason why in real life special forces don't wear identifiable uniforms, since the term "covert operations" means "deniable operations", as in we "deny to have any part in it".


Logical inverse. People who are in special forces may tend not to wear uniforms, but that doesn't mean all people not in uniform are special forces.

I find it pretty convenient you didn't say a word about Team Peregrine using ranks to adress eachother. But moreover to your point.....what exactly is your point? I'm sorry but you lost me, how exactly can you dismiss Team Peregrine as anything but special forces over something as trivial as a play-on-words over uniforms..... They are performing a high-risk mission that conventional military cannot perform for Elven Command, by definition that makes them special forces.

[skaddix]

I think they are
-Chosen to Operate behind enemy lines
-With highly limited communitations
-While attached to a foreign unit
-Utilize excellent small unit tactics, gerrilla tactics, coordination

These qualities alone suggest SpecOps, but are not unique to it

Here is my main argument
The Elven nation is reasonably powerful and has a military.
Most nations of the above sort tend to have some form of special forces/ elite troops
These special forces would be the logical choice for such a mission.

For a mission of this type a smart leader would send in Delta, Rangers, SEALS, SAS, Commandos or the like, not a squad of Red Shirts

As for their alignments. I doubt that they are evil. I do not belive that they are lawful. However I don't think we can rule out any of the other 4 possibilities. Sure, they killed a prisoner. Who may or may not have been an enemy agent. This is not an "Evil" act. A single evil act does not make them evil. They might have killed the hobgoblin couple, or the azurites might have, or the unlucky pair could have just been caught in the crossfire (while unfortunate, it does happen a lot in war), since it happened off panel we will never know and thus cannot judge the Elves by it. (Innocent until proven guilty)

I doubt evil or chaotic.

[hamishspence]

Chaotic alignments do tend to be more common for elves than lawful ones.

Maybe a disdain for the "rules and customs of war" might be how it manifests itself in some cases.

[skaddix]

Chaotic alignments do tend to be more common for elves than lawful ones.

Maybe a disdain for the "rules and customs of war" might be how it manifests itself in some cases.

Good Point I suppose. I think its more likely to do with them living so long.

[Mutant Sheep]

As far as i'm concerned all elves are Chaotic Evil.
Also, since being on the right side of the fourth wall effectively makes me infinitely more powerful than the characters, that means that i am automatically right, because if the gods of the setting get to dictate morality by virtue of being more powerful, then clearly we on the other side of the fourth wall who are even more powerful also get to do so :smalltongue:
So the elves are all Chaotic Evil. Because i say so (Same logic the gods use)

Coincidentally, that makes it okay to kill them all.
After all, genocide is totally okay if the victim is evil (Or so you people keep telling me :smallyuk: )

Anyone want to help burn the elven homelands to the ground?
DIE ELVES AHAHAHA!!!

Also, i am totally Lawful Good, because i say so.
Does not matter how many atrocities i commit, as long as i say i'm Lawful Good, then i'm Lawful Good dammit (What, it works for the gods, so naturally it must work for us as well, who live in the land of the DM's and players and are as such infinitely more powerful than even the gods)

[/Insane Troll Logic]

See what i did there?

My brain hurts. :smalleek: Though if the gods do dictate the morals, then the Southern gods obviously don't condone genocide. Or The Giant wouldn't have the big quote saying that "no, genocide=bad.":smalltongue:

[veti]

Sure he seemed to do it in a sadistic and cold manner and did it in pure unapologetic spite but he can easilly justify it if he had to. It seems more like of a case of "having your cake, and eating it too". In this case it's having the moral leeaway to kill him but choosing to go about it in the cruelest way imaginable due to the fact he knows he can get away with it, so he has a rare opportunity to humor his own ill feelings toward a different species. Nothing makes a person more of a jerkass than lack of responsability for his actions.

In that incident, the elf allowed the hobgoblin to believe, right up until the last moment, that he was going to live, then killed him quickly and painlessly. As murders go, it was far from "the cruellest way imaginable".

Further to his defence, I would add that (a) the hobgoblin was, by his own account, a racist thug who had been imprisoned for "roughing up a ['greenskin'] new immigrant" - even assuming he was telling the truth, what are the odds that such a character could be trusted not to sell out to the Gobbotopian authorities at the earliest moment? - and (b) he did the killing himself, rather than delegating it - which implies accepting responsibility for his actions.

[Math_Mage]

In that incident, the elf allowed the hobgoblin to believe, right up until the last moment, that he was going to live, then killed him quickly and painlessly. As murders go, it was far from "the cruellest way imaginable".

Further to his defence, I would add that (a) the hobgoblin was, by his own account, a racist thug who had been imprisoned for "roughing up a ['greenskin'] new immigrant" - even assuming he was telling the truth, what are the odds that such a character could be trusted not to sell out to the Gobbotopian authorities at the earliest moment? - and (b) he did the killing himself, rather than delegating it - which implies accepting responsibility for his actions.

Throwing people off a building has got to be the lowest standard for "quick and painless death" I have EVER seen.

That said, the manner of killing is not especially cruel or sadistic, either. It's just throwing out the garbage. Which seems to be the attitude this elf takes towards goblins. There's no feeling of personal responsibility, because who places a heavy emotional burden of personal investment on himself for taking out the trash?

That's the quality of non-Good behavior I take away from that scene.

[Gift Jeraff]

In that incident, the elf allowed the hobgoblin to believe, right up until the last moment, that he was going to live, then killed him quickly and painlessly. As murders go, it was far from "the cruellest way imaginable".He has 2 swords. He has been consistently seen killing armoured hobgoblin warriors with a single strike of a single sword. Instead, he made him spend his final moments screaming for his life.

[SowZ]

Paladins are all Lawful Good and yet they slaughter goblins with no problems whatsoever.

I saw Lawful Good or Neutral. I don't think the Elf Government sends out True Neutral's for missions like this. A TN could make a side deal with a certain Lich no problem.

A sneak attack on a helpless goblin prisoner guilty of unkown crimes who has surrendered to you would be abhorable to Paladin.

[paladinofshojo]

In that incident, the elf allowed the hobgoblin to believe, right up until the last moment, that he was going to live, then killed him quickly and painlessly. As murders go, it was far from "the cruellest way imaginable".
You've obviously never been thrown off a three story roof, it's not a painless way to die, its quick but its definitely not painless. Since you're accelerating at a constant pace as you fall, it would be the equivalent of getting hit by a car going 50 miles per hour.


Further to his defence, I would add that (a) the hobgoblin was, by his own account, a racist thug who had been imprisoned for "roughing up a ['greenskin'] new immigrant" - even assuming he was telling the truth, what are the odds that such a character could be trusted not to sell out to the Gobbotopian authorities at the earliest moment? - and (b) he did the killing himself, rather than delegating it - which implies accepting responsibility for his actions.

Ofcourse..... I didn't say he didn't have valid reasons to kill him, but in the end the commander chose to exercise that right. No matter how unsympathetic that hobbo was he was still a prisoner, so a good character would have been stuck with a moral dilemna of having to kill a prisoner. Furthemore, you are right about him accepting legal responsability for his actions, not moral. The commander would probably not be losing sleep over that hobgoblin, and even if Thanh calls him out on his actions he can easilly dismiss it as neccessary to ensure their survival. In short, the Commander wasn't really doing anyone a favor that time.

[SowZ]

If a group of hobgoblins found a helpless prisoner in Azure City after taking it over and that prisoner surrendered and the goblins pretended they were going to let him live and then threw him off the tower while making dry jokes about it, most people would immediately assume those were evil hobgoblins.
There is no strong reason to believe this hobgoblin was part of the invasion of Azure City. There is no strong reason to believe the hobgoblin was evil, (hobgoblins aren't even a mostly evil race.)

Even if not done out of malice, I see no valid reason to kill the hobgoblin. What's he going to do? He can't have some sort of tracking device on him, (impossible,) and it would be easy enough to blindfold and imprison him so he wouldn't know where he was going. Yeah, this is a little extra effort. But it is extra effort to avoid killing a helpless surrendering prisoner with no indication of what fate he deserves. I am not saying this makes the elves evil. But it strongly implies they are not good.

[Kish]

There is no strong reason to believe the hobgoblin was evil, (hobgoblins aren't even a mostly evil race.)
Yes, they are Usually Lawful Evil.

Yes, there is a strong reason to believe that particular hobgoblin was evil, since his argument for why the Resistance could trust him was to proclaim his own racism and explain that he had been locked up for an anti-goblin hate crime.

No, the elf commander most certainly does not have the moral high ground in that matter, nor do any of the Resistance members who acted like what he'd done was cool.

[SowZ]

Yes, they are Usually Lawful Evil.

Yes, there is a strong reason to believe that particular hobgoblin was evil, since his argument for why the Resistance could trust him was to proclaim his own racism and explain that he had been locked up for an anti-goblin hate crime.

No, the elf commander most certainly does not have the moral high ground in that matter, nor do any of the Resistance members who acted like what he'd done was cool.

My mistake.

I don't think that is a strong reason since it is clear that in OOTS there isn't much of a correlation between being racist and being evil, (despite racism being evil.)

Yeah, for one enslaving a race for being that race is hardly worse than killing someone for being a race. So they lose some of their arguments justifying their resistance.

[hoff]

The elves are probably lawful good or neutral good, yes even the leader. That little scene with the hobglobin on the balcony was just to show (yet again) how screwed up the D&D alignment really system is. This is like arguing that redcloak is not evil.

[veti]

You've obviously never been thrown off a three story roof, it's not a painless way to die, its quick but its definitely not painless. Since you're accelerating at a constant pace as you fall, it would be the equivalent of getting hit by a car going 50 miles per hour.

In terms of physics, it's more like 50 km/h, or 32 miles per hour. Except that it's a completely different situation.

But in terms of D&D rules, the calculation is much simpler: from a fall of 30' you take 3d6 damage, which if you're a basic 6 h.p. hobgoblin, is 90% likely to reduce you to negative hit points in one blow. Which is to say, instantaneously.


Ofcourse..... I didn't say he didn't have valid reasons to kill him, but in the end the commander chose to exercise that right. No matter how unsympathetic that hobbo was he was still a prisoner, so a good character would have been stuck with a moral dilemna of having to kill a prisoner.

Quite, which is exactly what happened to the elf commander. But being "stuck with a dilemma" doesn't imply that, if you're a good character, you have to stand about impotently waiting for something to relieve you of the responsibility: a truly good character will act to resolve the dilemma with as little harm as possible. Which is exactly what he did.

This is why the fact that he acted himself is so important. He could have ordered an underling to do the deed; but instead he does it himself, so that if there is a moral stain attached, nobody else will have to shoulder it.

Whether his motivations were pure is between him and his conscience. I think that his action was entirely defensible for a good character.

[SowZ]

The elves are probably lawful good or neutral good, yes even the leader. That little scene with the hobglobin on the balcony was just to show (yet again) how screwed up the D&D alignment really system is. This is like arguing that redcloak is not evil.

Nah, it would only be to show the flaws in the alignment system if we already knew the elf was good and there is no real indicator of his alignment before that. The captain's character wasn't established. That scene establishes his character and immediately makes us feel uneasy and probably slightly disgusted, (if amused.) Besides, none of the characters we know that are good in this comic that I can think of would have done that.


In terms of physics, it's more like 50 km/h, or 32 miles per hour. Except that it's a completely different situation.

But in terms of D&D rules, the calculation is much simpler: from a fall of 30' you take 3d6 damage, which if you're a basic 6 h.p. hobgoblin, is 90% likely to reduce you to negative hit points in one blow. Which is to say, instantaneously.



Quite, which is exactly what happened to the elf commander. But being "stuck with a dilemma" doesn't imply that, if you're a good character, you have to stand about impotently waiting for something to relieve you of the responsibility: a truly good character will act to resolve the dilemma with as little harm as possible. Which is exactly what he did.

Whether his motivations were pure is between him and his conscience. I think that his action was entirely defensible for a good character.

By that logic, I could hang someone up by a rope and dip them into a pool of death acid over the course of a few minutes but as long as the person died immediately upon hitting the acid it was a quick and painless death. The terror of falling is the issue. A quick slash of the sword would have been far more humane and making the goblin think he would be freed was in all likliehood not out of compassion but instead a sick sense of humor.

If this action was defensible, it would be equally defensible if the elves were at war with halflings that had invaded elven lands and the elf threw what may well be a helpless non-evil halfling civilian over the balcony.

A truly good character resolves the situation with as little harm as possible, sure. That is pretty much the opposite of what the commander did. I can't think of any good reasons why the hobgolbins death was even halfway necessary.

[Kish]

Quite, which is exactly what happened to the elf commander. But being "stuck with a dilemma" doesn't imply that, if you're a good character, you have to stand about impotently waiting for something to relieve you of the responsibility: a truly good character will act to resolve the dilemma with as little harm as possible. Which is exactly what he did.
Tease the hobgoblin with freedom, make a statement that "good goblins are dead goblins," and shove him to his death...I can't imagine on what planet that was "resolving the dilemma with as little harm as possible."

--I mean, setting aside the complete lack of indication that the elf commander perceived a dilemma.

[veti]

By that logic, I could hang someone up by a rope and dip them into a pool of death acid over the course of a few minutes but as long as the person died immediately upon hitting the acid it was a quick and painless death. The terror of falling is the issue. A quick slash of the sword would have been far more humane and making the goblin think he would be freed was in all likliehood not out of compassion but instead a sick sense of humor.

The "terror of falling" lasts about two seconds. Compare that with time required to draw a weapon, make an attack roll, and the possibility that the elf's average damage per attack is less than 3d6. And that's without allowing for the possibility of missing the attack, forcing the victim to live in terror for another couple of seconds.

Look, I'm not saying it was nice. I'm taking issue with the characterisation that it was "the cruellest way imaginable". I can imagine way crueller methods of doing it, and I'm pretty sure you can too if you put even part of your mind to the task.

[skaddix]

The "terror of falling" lasts about two seconds. Compare that with time required to draw a weapon, make an attack roll, and the possibility that the elf's average damage per attack is less than 3d6. And that's without allowing for the possibility of missing the attack, forcing the victim to live in terror for another couple of seconds.

Look, I'm not saying it was nice. I'm taking issue with the characterisation that it was "the cruellest way imaginable". I can imagine way crueller methods of doing it, and I'm pretty sure you can too if you put even part of your mind to the task.

Its hard to tell which method is more horrible. Game Mechanics interfere in real life u can go to basically instant kill method.

[Friv]

The "terror of falling" lasts about two seconds. Compare that with time required to draw a weapon, make an attack roll, and the possibility that the elf's average damage per attack is less than 3d6. And that's without allowing for the possibility of missing the attack, forcing the victim to live in terror for another couple of seconds.

Given the situation, weapons being drawn is in fact really easy, and the attack would probably have been a coup de gras. However, none of that really matters next to the more serious issue that you can't use game rules to decide where a quick sword-based attack to the back of the neck is likely to be a more or less merciful death than throwing someone off a building. Throwing someone off a building is not a merciful death. The hobgoblin literally has time for a horror-filled scream, while the guy makes a cheerful quip about it.


Look, I'm not saying it was nice. I'm taking issue with the characterisation that it was "the cruellest way imaginable". I can imagine way crueller methods of doing it, and I'm pretty sure you can too if you put even part of your mind to the task.

While that phrasing was certainly hyperbole, it is equally hyperbolic to say that there was anything quick or merciful about the method that he chose.

[Dark Matter]

You're comparing a one round action (falling to death) to a one round action (attack by a 9th level ranger on his chosen foe).

In terms of time, pain, suffering and the like, I don't think they're different.

The Commander did lead him away from everyone else, but presumably that was because running around openly murdering captives might have caused problems with the other captives.

Certainly a non-good act, probably an evil one, certainly evil if he was serious about "kill all goblins"... although he did list other reasons which were somewhat less evil.

Having said that, the idea of "tying him up and blindfolding him" is way too much effort for an evil goblin that you're going to have kill at some point anyway. If Haley is calling Belkar's actions (basically the same thing) non-evil, then I don't feel like using The Commander's actions as evidence of overall evil. He's not going to be making it into Paladin Heaven, but I doubt he cares.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html

[SowZ]

The "terror of falling" lasts about two seconds. Compare that with time required to draw a weapon, make an attack roll, and the possibility that the elf's average damage per attack is less than 3d6. And that's without allowing for the possibility of missing the attack, forcing the victim to live in terror for another couple of seconds.

Look, I'm not saying it was nice. I'm taking issue with the characterisation that it was "the cruellest way imaginable". I can imagine way crueller methods of doing it, and I'm pretty sure you can too if you put even part of your mind to the task.

My argument was that just because the damage was enough to one shot him doesn't make the death painless.

Drawing your weapon and cutting someones head off when there back was turned would be far more humane then taunting them and letting them fall to their death.


You're comparing a one round action (falling to death) to a one round action (attack by a 9th level ranger on his chosen foe).

In terms of time, pain, suffering and the like, I don't think they're different.

The Commander did lead him away from everyone else, but presumably that was because running around openly murdering captives might have caused problems with the other captives.

Certainly a non-good act, probably an evil one, certainly evil if he was serious about "kill all goblins"... although he did list other reasons which were somewhat less evil.

Having said that, the idea of "tying him up and blindfolding him" is way too much effort for an evil goblin that you're going to have kill at some point anyway. If Haley is calling Belkar's actions (basically the same thing) non-evil, then I don't feel like using The Commander's actions as evidence of overall evil. He's not going to be making it into Paladin Heaven, but I doubt he cares.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html

Give me one strong indicator he was evil, (he was racist doesn't cut it,) and one good reason why he would have to be killed later. There is a big difference between Belkar killing a soldier with the means to fight the resistance and an elf murdering a likely civilian and helpless prisoner who surrendered to his captors without a struggle. The difference is massive. It was an amusing strip. It was also one probably designed to be uncomfortable.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Even if not done out of malice, I see no valid reason to kill the hobgoblin. What's he going to do? He can't have some sort of tracking device on him, (impossible,) and it would be easy enough to blindfold and imprison him so he wouldn't know where he was going. Yeah, this is a little extra effort. But it is extra effort to avoid killing a helpless surrendering prisoner with no indication of what fate he deserves. I am not saying this makes the elves evil. But it strongly implies they are not good.

Actually he could be tracked. Scrying functions normally within a Cloistered area so long as the Scrying originates within the zone (which I assume is why you say tracking him isn't possible). You could blindfold him and tie him up that will definitely slow you down and time was at a premium, they wanted to get the prisoners out and be gone before anybody noticed them.

Further, if you take him prisoner, even if you blindfold him, he could eventually escape, find his way to the surface and lead the whole of the hobgoblin army in on the Resistance. On top of which, the very presence of the elves was something Redcloak wasn't sure of until after this strike. If they leave the hobgoblin behind then Redcloak DEFINITELY finds out the Resistance has Elven back-up, and possibly gets specific details on what kind of back-up, which is also something they would rather avoid.

Was killing the prisoner nice? No, but it was probably safer than the alternatives. Was throwing him off a building particularly Good? No. Is it strong proof he's not Good? I'd say 'no' again. Dead is Dead. Whether by a coup de grace sword-wound or by a 30 foot drop to solid ground, the hobgoblin was dead less than 6 seconds from when he found out he was about to die. Either way is quick, and either way will hurt like heck very, very briefly.

[Narren]

Logical inverse. People who are in special forces may tend not to wear uniforms, but that doesn't mean all people not in uniform are special forces.

I don't think anyone ever said that. The argument was made that these guys look and act like a disciplined military special forces unit, so their lack of uniforms has nothing to do with whether or not their a military unit or lawful in alignment. No one is arguing that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER not wearing a uniform in this comic belongs to a special forces unit.



My argument was that just because the damage was enough to one shot him doesn't make the death painless.

Drawing your weapon and cutting someones head off when there back was turned would be far more humane then taunting them and letting them fall to their death.


Am I the only one here that would rather plunge to my death than be pierced with bits of metal? Seriously...I think falling three stories is a better guarantee of a quick death than being stabbed with a sword.

And I don't think that this commander can win with some people. Is it cruel that he made the hobgoblin think he was going to live up until he threw him off the ledge? Or is it cruel that he didn't cut off the hobgoblin's head when he wasn't looking? He took away knowledge of his immediate demise in both situations.

[derfenrirwolv]

There's no way to tell what the alignment of the team is. You might be able to argue about the alignment of that one goblin hating ranger, but for all we know he could be either the belkar, roy, or elan of his group with respect to how well he meshes with the others.

[Kish]

And I don't think that this commander can win with some people.
I don't think Rich would have had him paraphrase James M. Cavanaugh if he was meant to "win," if by that you mean "be perceived as an upstanding, moral, and totally not genocidally racist character."

[The Succubus]

Well, given today's update, I'd have to go with Truely In The Poop or Lawful Soon To Be Disembowelled.

[Dark Matter]

Give me one strong indicator he was evil, (he was racist doesn't cut it,) We have an Evil city, with Evil laws. Evil plays rough. Even by those standards, what that goblin did was worthy of imprisonment.

Further we also have conservation of detail, i.e. if Rich had wanted to establish that this was a non-evil goblin in prison for being non-evil, he could have trivially done so. For example he could have said he was in prison for protesting the treatment of the slaves.

...and one good reason why he would have to be killed later. There is a big difference between Belkar killing a soldier with the means to fight the resistance and an elf murdering a likely civilian and helpless prisoner who surrendered to his captors without a struggle. The difference is massive. It was an amusing strip. It was also one probably designed to be uncomfortable.This comic has seen civilian goblins and non-evil goblins, this one wasn't either.

Further, the goblin already knew too much to be lightly let go. How many Elves, what they look like, their likely class and apparent level, what spells were cast, etc. These are not minor details.

[Psyren]

It won't matter pretty soon, after Redcloak is done interior decorating.

[Reltzik]

I'd guess most of them are about to become evil by way of undeath.

[hoff]

Besides, none of the characters we know that are good in this comic that I can think of would have done that.

You are right, Miko would just stab him.

[Narren]

I don't think Rich would have had him paraphrase James M. Cavanaugh if he was meant to "win," if by that you mean "be perceived as an upstanding, moral, and totally not genocidally racist character."

No, I never said that. My only point was that some people (wasn't paying attention to who) condemned the commander for tricking the hobgoblin into think he would live right up until the moment of his death, but in the same breath say that he should have cut off the hobgoblins head when he wasn't looking.

[paladinofshojo]

We have an Evil city, with Evil laws. Evil plays rough. Even by those standards, what that goblin did was worthy of imprisonment.

Further we also have conservation of detail, i.e. if Rich had wanted to establish that this was a non-evil goblin in prison for being non-evil, he could have trivially done so. For example he could have said he was in prison for protesting the treatment of the slaves.
This comic has seen civilian goblins and non-evil goblins, this one wasn't either.



Technically the only reason he was thrown in prison was because redcloak trying to preach equality of all goblinoids, if it was Xykon or Tarquin who where incharge then I can agree with your first statement on "evil laws" but Redcloak being Redcloak, he believes that his cause is just even though he does take somewhat extreme means to get to the end, but that's anothe story, the point is for goblinoids at least, he wants to establish equality and prosperity, therefore he seems to believe towards other goblinoids is a serious offence, whether due to his own epiphany or to the advancement of his people as a whole I can't tell.

Secondly, what makes you think he got thrown in there for being "non-evil"? That hobbo was probably just yet another slack-jawed gaurd who roughed up a new immigrant. Sure that doesn't mean being killed, but my guess was that Redcloak was in a seriously bad mood when carrying out his sentence (and thus giving him such a harsh penalty) or this was not a first offence.

[Math_Mage]

Dramatically, the scene was set up to make it clear that the elven commander didn't give a hoot what the goblin was in for. So I don't think discussing that is really going to accomplish much.

[Dark Matter]

Secondly, what makes you think he got thrown in there for being "non-evil"? That hobbo was probably just yet another slack-jawed gaurd who roughed up a new immigrant. Sure that doesn't mean being killed, but my guess was that Redcloak was in a seriously bad mood when carrying out his sentence (and thus giving him such a harsh penalty) or this was not a first offence.First, I don't think he was non-evil or there for being non-evil, I was pointing out that if that had been the case we would have seen things we didn't.

Second, "seriously bad mood"? Redcloak's usual punishment for problem goblins is to feed them to the Ghouls.

[Fish]

This thread has run its course. Plenty of so-called "good" characters kill, cause pain, or cause fear. There is even a spell for causing fear and it does not say "evil characters only" on the label. It is, after all, a game that grants XP primarily through killing. The alignment model is deeply flawed. It impossible to look at one act in isolation and say "Therefore, this character is Evil."

I'm going to stick with the Chaotic Good answer for elves, because elves usually are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm). They call each other "lieutenant" and "captain" not because they're Lawful (what, you think all Chaotic nations are egalitarian societies lacking ranks and armies?) but because they're mooks who are going to die. But yeah, go ahead and imagine any answer you like. They're all Neutral Evil polymorphed white dragons with special forces training, yay. Whatever.

You guys go ahead and tussle over this old bone. I'm leaving before the thread gets locked.

[SowZ]

We have an Evil city, with Evil laws. Evil plays rough. Even by those standards, what that goblin did was worthy of imprisonment.

Further we also have conservation of detail, i.e. if Rich had wanted to establish that this was a non-evil goblin in prison for being non-evil, he could have trivially done so. For example he could have said he was in prison for protesting the treatment of the slaves.
This comic has seen civilian goblins and non-evil goblins, this one wasn't either.

Further, the goblin already knew too much to be lightly let go. How many Elves, what they look like, their likely class and apparent level, what spells were cast, etc. These are not minor details.

If you arguing that since the city was under evil rule with evil laws and so he is most likely evil since he was a resident and is now a prisoner in said city, then you are arguing that it is a good assumption to make that most of the gladiators/citizens in Tyrannia are evil, too.

If you are arguing that the goblin is likely evil since he was racist, you are arguing that the Captain of Team Peregrine is evil. Unless you are arguing that goblins should be presumed evil until proven otherwise. Even within standard D&D rules this is an evil line of thinking. The argument doesn't work either way.

I see no reason to say he wasn't a civilian, (why are you assuming he is military or part of the invasion?) and to say he was evil. I see some validity to the reason why it was necessary to kill him, even if I think imprisoning him would have totally possible, but an evil action done for presumably good ends still isn't a good action.


You are right, Miko would just stab him.

Miko wold have certainly casted detect evil on him if she did intend to kill him. I highly doubt she would not have killed a helpless, surrendering prisoner anyway and I prett much know she would not have tricked him for her amusement.


This thread has run its course. Plenty of so-called "good" characters kill, cause pain, or cause fear. There is even a spell for causing fear and it does not say "evil characters only" on the label. It is, after all, a game that grants XP primarily through killing. The alignment model is deeply flawed. It impossible to look at one act in isolation and say "Therefore, this character is Evil."

I'm going to stick with the Chaotic Good answer for elves, because elves usually are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm). They call each other "lieutenant" and "captain" not because they're Lawful (what, you think all Chaotic nations are egalitarian societies lacking ranks and armies?) but because they're mooks who are going to die. But yeah, go ahead and imagine any answer you like. They're all Neutral Evil polymorphed white dragons with special forces training, yay. Whatever.

You guys go ahead and tussle over this old bone. I'm leaving before the thread gets locked.

Why would the thread be locked? Because people are getting into the discussion? This isn't taking some obscure thing in the comic and getting worked up over a dumb thing. The morally questionable nature of Team Peregrine seems to be intentional and it is pretty predictable that these kinds of discussions would arise.

Anyway, the argument that 'good characters can kill and cause pain and cause fear,' doesn't do anything to change how killing, causing fear, or inflicting pain because of racism is totally evil. The captain didn't say, 'there is no alternative but to kill you,' but rather, 'all goblins should die.' He even seemed to take pleasure in it, making a subtle joke, though this is speculation.

I don't think Team Peregrine is necessarily evil. I think they are probably ignorant and very racist. But the hobgolbins have the same flaws, (being racist themselves,) and I don't think most of the hobgoblins in this comic are evil, either. (The monster manual isn't that relevant here. OOTS world is not standard D&D mythos world.) I think both Team P. and most Hobgoblins have shown themselves to be non-good, though.

[Math_Mage]

Fundamental thing about the goblin incident is that the commander is willing to kill goblins because they are goblins. Whether the goblin was an innocent civilian, a pushy SOB, a potential threat doesn't really matter. I wouldn't push the Evil button just from that, but I'd definitely avoid saying they're fundamentally Good.

Only reason I could think of for threadlock is if Miko gets involved. Lotta red tape around that topic.


This thread has run its course. Plenty of so-called "good" characters kill, cause pain, or cause fear. There is even a spell for causing fear and it does not say "evil characters only" on the label. It is, after all, a game that grants XP primarily through killing. The alignment model is deeply flawed. It impossible to look at one act in isolation and say "Therefore, this character is Evil."

I'm going to stick with the Chaotic Good answer for elves, because elves usually are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm). They call each other "lieutenant" and "captain" not because they're Lawful (what, you think all Chaotic nations are egalitarian societies lacking ranks and armies?) but because they're mooks who are going to die. But yeah, go ahead and imagine any answer you like. They're all Neutral Evil polymorphed white dragons with special forces training, yay. Whatever.

You guys go ahead and tussle over this old bone. I'm leaving before the thread gets locked.

Okay, you can dismiss 100% of the actual evidence from the actual comic and say "They must be CG because SRD says, anyone who disagrees is just imagining things!" and then stalk off high and mighty...the rest of us are going to continue having fun interpreting real character behavior from an alignment perspective, even if we don't have perfect information to work from. Buh-bye.

[Dark Matter]

If you arguing that since the city was under evil rule with evil laws and so he is most likely evil since he was a resident and is now a prisoner in said city, then you are arguing that it is a good assumption to make that most of the gladiators/citizens in Tyrannia are evil, too.No, I'm arguing that even by stunningly vile, evil, and racist laws... his fellows decided he was evil enough he needed to be locked up. That takes some doing.

And the larger issue is whether or not there was proof that he was non-evil and/or he could be trusted, as far as we can tell neither or those are correct. The resistance doesn't have the resources to take prisoners and he's a goblin who knew too much. As a default, he dies.

At *best* this would have been a non-good act right on the edge of evil, the Commander showed he was willing to step over that edge.

Unless you are arguing that goblins should be presumed evil until proven otherwise. Even within standard D&D rules this is an evil line of thinking. The argument doesn't work either way.The brutal truth is goblins are usually evil, Rich's work reflects that pretty nicely. That doesn't quite mean that they should be presumed evil until proven otherwise, but it does mean you should always be ready for them to be evil because that's their default setting. "Usually" isn't the same as "always", Rich could introduce a goblin paladin and still be within the rules, but such a goblin would very much stand out as the exception.

Further, this isn't a random goblin about which we know nothing. Was he exceptionally good, perhaps even to the point of being non-evil? Was that why he was locked up?
Miko wold have certainly casted detect evil on him if she did intend to kill him. I highly doubt she would not have killed a helpless, surrendering prisoner anyway...Miko almost fell for killing a helpless prisoner and then she did fall for killing a helpless prisoner with aggravated circumstances (she killed her non-evil boss in a time of crisis). So yes, I can see Miko doing it, and yes, it's an evil act.


I don't think Team Peregrine is necessarily evil. I think they are probably ignorant and very racist.Racist I'll give you, but what makes them "ignorant"? Goblins are usually evil in the monster manual (which various characters have indicated they've read or are aware of). One assumes Team Peregrine knows this, probably has experienced this, and this forms the basis for their actions.

IMHO Team P is True Neutral.

I don't think most of the hobgoblins in this comic are evil, either. (The monster manual isn't that relevant here. OOTS world is not standard D&D mythos world.)What makes you think Rich has defaulted from cannon for this? We've seen a lot of evil goblins, and a lot of casual evil among the goblins. They've got an Evil god, an Evil high priest, follow an evil Lich, practice slavery, etc, etc, etc. Pick a random goblin and it's expected it will easy to teach him to enjoy whipping the slaves. That's pretty heavy evidence that they don't default to neutral.

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm going to stick with the Chaotic Good answer for elves, because elves usually are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm).Mhmm. And the main elf character in the comic isn't 2 steps away from the standard? And what if the commander is a wood elf? They're Usually True Neutral.

[SowZ]

1.) No, I'm arguing that even by stunningly vile, evil, and racist laws... his fellows decided he was evil enough he needed to be locked up. That takes some doing.

2.) And the larger issue is whether or not there was proof that he was non-evil and/or he could be trusted, as far as we can tell neither or those are correct. The resistance doesn't have the resources to take prisoners and he's a goblin who knew too much. As a default, he dies.

3.) At *best* this would have been a non-good act right on the edge of evil, the Commander showed he was willing to step over that edge.
The brutal truth is goblins are usually evil, Rich's work reflects that pretty nicely. That doesn't quite mean that they should be presumed evil until proven otherwise, but it does mean you should always be ready for them to be evil because that's their default setting. "Usually" isn't the same as "always", Rich could introduce a goblin paladin and still be within the rules, but such a goblin would very much stand out as the exception.

4.) Further, this isn't a random goblin about which we know nothing. Was he exceptionally good, perhaps even to the point of being non-evil? Was that why he was locked up? Miko almost fell for killing a helpless prisoner and then she did fall for killing a helpless prisoner with aggravated circumstances (she killed her non-evil boss in a time of crisis). So yes, I can see Miko doing it, and yes, it's an evil act.

5.) Racist I'll give you, but what makes them "ignorant"? Goblins are usually evil in the monster manual (which various characters have indicated they've read or are aware of). One assumes Team Peregrine knows this, probably has experienced this, and this forms the basis for their actions.

6.) IMHO Team P is True Neutral.
What makes you think Rich has defaulted from cannon for this? We've seen a lot of evil goblins, and a lot of casual evil among the goblins. They've got an Evil god, an Evil high priest, follow an evil Lich, practice slavery, etc, etc, etc. Pick a random goblin and it's expected it will easy to teach him to enjoy whipping the slaves. That's pretty heavy evidence that they don't default to neutral.

1.) All we know is that he roughed someone up for being racist. This is far milder than killing someone for racism which 'good' people can apparantly do. Maybe it was someone with connections and that is why he was arrested. We have no idea. So we have no strong reason to believe he is evil.

2.) The exact same logic could justifying killing a group of possibly civilian halfling prisoners begging for their lives because my country is at war with the halflings and the halflings took over my city. They know our battle tactics? We can't give them food? Kill them. Besides, based on what we know of Team Peregrine I think it is very likely that even if they had a foolproof way of keeping the goblin imprisoned and wiping his memory with little effort or expenditure of resources they would have killed him anyway. The captain stated all goblins should die. If this does not make Team Peregrine evil than hobgoblins wanting all humans dead does not make them evil.

3.) By what standard are goblins evil? They follow Xykon, who is evil, but Xykon took them over by killing the hobgoblins leader and subjugating through fear followed by promising a life free from fear of being killed for their species and revenge at the people who have killed a number of them.

4.) Miko was being used as an example of a good character who would have killed a goblin. I do not think she was good at the point she killed Hinjo.

5.) Their actions perperuate the cycle of violence causing more goblins to attack more elves which will cause elves to attack more goblins, etc. The cycle of violence is used pretty often in OOTS and either the elves don't see that and are ignorant racists or they do see that and decide to be genocidal anyway, which makes them evil.

6.) I think he deviates from what is typically expected of evil races in general. They react to brutality against them with, (arguably more,) brutality. If the standards that make a monster evil were used to judge many human cultures/adventurers, they would be evil, too.

[ti'esar]

Fundamental thing about the goblin incident is that the commander is willing to kill goblins because they are goblins. Whether the goblin was an innocent civilian, a pushy SOB, a potential threat doesn't really matter. I wouldn't push the Evil button just from that, but I'd definitely avoid saying they're fundamentally Good.


This sums up my views pretty well. The reason the elf commander stated for killing the goblin in question wasn't because he was a potential liability, or because he was exceptionally bad even by goblin standards. It was because "the only good goblins are dead goblins". There are motivations for killing the goblin that might have made it arguably Good - but out of racism? No. Team Peregrine is not necessarily Evil, and I'm not even convinced we can make an argument about the whole team in the first place, but I think we can be fairly certain that neither the commander nor his (?) lieutenant are Good-aligned.


No, I'm arguing that even by stunningly vile, evil, and racist laws... his fellows decided he was evil enough he needed to be locked up. That takes some doing.

I'd contest this slightly. It wasn't necessarily that he was evil even by the standards of Gobbotopia, it's that he was a goblin racist in a city founded on the premise of equality among the goblin races.

[Dark Matter]

I'd contest this slightly. It wasn't necessarily that he was evil even by the standards of Gobbotopia, it's that he was a goblin racist in a city founded on the premise of equality among the goblin races.In D&D terms he wasn't locked up for being Evil, he was locked up for not being Lawful.

1.) All we know is that he roughed someone up for being racist. This is far milder than killing someone for racism which 'good' people can apparantly do. Maybe it was someone with connections and that is why he was arrested. We have no idea. So we have no strong reason to believe he is evil.What you're doing is raising the standard of evidence to exclude all available evidence and then claiming that because we don't know anything, we have to default to thinking him an innocent lamb. This is simply nonsense. We don't "have no idea", you just don't like the evidence we have.

2.) The exact same logic could justifying killing a group of possibly civilian halfling prisoners begging for their lives because my country is at war with the halflings and the halflings took over my city.Only if the government were Evil and those halflings were just released prisoners who were arrested for being Evil even by that government's standards.

...based on what we know of Team Peregrine I think it is very likely that even if they had a foolproof way of keeping the goblin imprisoned and wiping his memory with little effort or expenditure of resources they would have killed him anyway.True.

3.) By what standard are goblins evil? They follow Xykon, who is evil, but Xykon took them over by killing the hobgoblins leader and subjugating through fear followed by promising a life free from fear of being killed for their species and revenge at the people who have killed a number of them.(Ignoring that you mean Redcloak), And they're using that new freedom from fear to live as all goblins should, i.e. by making the helpless slaves beg and bleed as they torture them, don't forget that part.

They're Lawful Evil by D&D standards. It's a nasty package.http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

4.) Miko was being used as an example of a good character who would have killed a goblin. I do not think she was good at the point she killed Hinjo.Agreed. Paladins don't fall for doing non-good, they fall for doing evil.

5.) Their actions perperuate the cycle of violence causing more goblins to attack more elves which will cause elves to attack more goblins, etc. The cycle of violence is used pretty often in OOTS and either the elves don't see that and are ignorant racists or they do see that and decide to be genocidal anyway, which makes them evil.Or the Elves believe (or know) that goblins are Evil even without the cycle of violence.

In D&D being Evil isn't a bad thing. There are Evil gods which reward their followers for being evil, even in the afterlife. In D&D there's no long term reason why Goblins, freed of the restrictions of the forces of Good, shouldn't become more evil, not less. Low level evil Clerics become high level evil Clerics and so on.

The system is stable and, because of the gods, self re-enforcing. It's also stable because the evil races were designed to be cannon fodder for Paladins, i.e. they were evil right out of the box before any "cycle of violence". This is why we see how easy it is to teach the typical goblin to be a sadist.

I think there's a strong argument for a "cycle of violence" making things worse, but as it stands the amount of Evil in the world went up with the destruction of the order of the Saphire Guard and the founding of Goblin-Utopia.

If the standards that make a monster evil were used to judge many human cultures/adventurers, they would be evil, too.How so? The "adventure scenarios" I've seen don't just have a group of Good Adventurers wander around killing things because they have green skin. The point of the scenario is that if you don't fight Evil, the Evil monsters will do Evil things.

If Evil, left to it's own devices, would just become Good, then there'd be no point to the system. What Evil god would let his followers turn away from him like that?

[ti'esar]

In D&D terms he wasn't locked up for being Evil, he was locked up for not being Lawful.

I don't think racism and Lawful alignment are mutually exclusive, though I get the point you're making.

[Dark Matter]

I don't think racism and Lawful alignment are mutually exclusive...They're not, racism is a common part of the LE package.

But Redcloak has clearly issued orders and all Goblins are darn well expected to obey them, regardless of what they really think.

[Narren]

5.) Their actions perperuate the cycle of violence causing more goblins to attack more elves which will cause elves to attack more goblins, etc. The cycle of violence is used pretty often in OOTS and either the elves don't see that and are ignorant racists or they do see that and decide to be genocidal anyway, which makes them evil.

Why is the burden always on the good guys (and no, I don't think that Team P is "good" on the alignment scale) to take the ridiculously high ground? This is not a cycle of violence. The goblins invaded and occupied a city. If people don't stand up to them, why would they not continue to do so? If no one perpetuates the "cycle of violence" then they can just take whatever they want with no fear of retribution.

[Kish]

Why is the burden always on the good guys (and no, I don't think that Team P is "good" on the alignment scale) to take the ridiculously high ground? This is not a cycle of violence.

The author would seem, from War and XPs comments, to disagree with you.

The goblins invaded and occupied a city.

The goblins invaded and occupied a city which had been keeping them pinned up in the hills for generations.

Who started it? Who knows? Not you, and not any of the people who claim they do.

[Narren]

The author would seem, from War and XPs comments, to disagree with you.

I don't believe that the heinous actions of a few justify the slaughter, torture, and enslavement of an entire population.


The goblins invaded and occupied a city which had been keeping them pinned up in the hills for generations.

Who started it? Who knows? Not you, and not any of the people who claim they do.

Were they being kept pinned in? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I don't recall that and couldn't find it.

[Gift Jeraff]

The author says it's a cycle of violence and in a bonus strip the Hobgoblin General says both the paladins and regular army have kept them pinned in the valley for years. I think the Azure City pamphlet verifies this, but I can't find any mention in the online comic.

[Kish]

I don't believe that the heinous actions of a few justify the slaughter, torture, and enslavement of an entire population.

That's a non-sequitur which leads me to think you're thinking of different authorial comments then I am. I am not talking about the destruction of proto-Redcloak's village.


Were they being kept pinned in? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I don't recall that and couldn't find it.
Again, it's in the author commentary for War and XPs. The hobgoblins say the conflict started with Azure City attacking them. Azure City says the conflict started with the hobgoblins threatening the Gate in some way. No one is still alive who really knows.

[Dark Matter]

Who started it was presumably the gods, and there's a fair argument that "everyone" is continuing it.

But just because everyone is involved doesn't mean everyone is equally guilty.

A human Paladin with a sword isn't well equipped to bring peace to a goblin village, especially when "law and justice" are going to mean pretty harsh things to much of the village. By the time he gets involved it's "an adventurer scenario" which means the goblins have been committing vile deeds and need to be stopped. That this continues the cycle is pretty irrelevant imho.

Ideally someone, presumably The Dark One or someone of a similar stature, would try to redeem his people, perhaps found an order of Paladins and they'd police themselves. However thus far that that hasn't happened.

Or in short, imho all of the Good ways to end the cycle involve giving up "The Plan" and trying to reform goblin kind, but what we've seen attempted thus far has been "good for goblins" which to a first approximation is "evil wins". The forces of Good can't accept that without ceasing to be the forces of Good.


That's a non-sequitur which leads me to think you're thinking of different authorial comments then I am. I am not talking about the destruction of proto-Redcloak's village.He's talking about Azure City's current state. The PC races are enslaved and being routinely tortured for the sadistic amusement of the goblins.

[Kish]

Or in short, imho all of the Good ways to end the cycle involve giving up "The Plan" and trying to reform goblin kind, but what we've seen attempted thus far has been "good for goblins" which to a first approximation is "evil wins". The forces of Good can't accept that without ceasing to be the forces of Good
Since your concept of "the forces of Good" are apparently perfectly fine with "these races of sapients exist to be cannon fodder," I'd say they ceased to be the forces of Good a very long time ago.

An essential component of your stance on this issue seems to be, "It is possible and easy for the dramatically-named Forces of Good to owe goblins death, but impossible for them to owe goblins anything positive, ever."

[SowZ]

1.)In D&D terms he wasn't locked up for being Evil, he was locked up for not being Lawful.

What you're doing is raising the standard of evidence to exclude all available evidence and then claiming that because we don't know anything, we have to default to thinking him an innocent lamb. This is simply nonsense. We don't "have no idea", you just don't like the evidence we have.
Only if the government were Evil and those halflings were just released prisoners who were arrested for being Evil even by that government's standards.

True.

2.) (Ignoring that you mean Redcloak), And they're using that new freedom from fear to live as all goblins should, i.e. by making the helpless slaves beg and bleed as they torture them, don't forget that part.

3.) They're Lawful Evil by D&D standards. It's a nasty package.http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Agreed. Paladins don't fall for doing non-good, they fall for doing evil.
Or the Elves believe (or know) that goblins are Evil even without the cycle of violence.

4.) In D&D being Evil isn't a bad thing. There are Evil gods which reward their followers for being evil, even in the afterlife. In D&D there's no long term reason why Goblins, freed of the restrictions of the forces of Good, shouldn't become more evil, not less. Low level evil Clerics become high level evil Clerics and so on.

The system is stable and, because of the gods, self re-enforcing. It's also stable because the evil races were designed to be cannon fodder for Paladins, i.e. they were evil right out of the box before any "cycle of violence". This is why we see how easy it is to teach the typical goblin to be a sadist.

5.) I think there's a strong argument for a "cycle of violence" making things worse, but as it stands the amount of Evil in the world went up with the destruction of the order of the Saphire Guard and the founding of Goblin-Utopia.

6.) How so? The "adventure scenarios" I've seen don't just have a group of Good Adventurers wander around killing things because they have green skin. The point of the scenario is that if you don't fight Evil, the Evil monsters will do Evil things.

7.) If Evil, left to it's own devices, would just become Good, then there'd be no point to the system. What Evil god would let his followers turn away from him like that?

1.) Yeah, we cannot use 'goblins locked him up' to mean he deserves death at all. Even if he is in prison for doing the wrong thing, maybe he threw a rock at someone with status. Maybe he stole the guys fork. Maybe it was wrong, but we don't know how wrong. We can't just start assuming creatures deserve death unless they prove they don't. Assuming someone doesn't deserve punishment unless we have a reason to believe so is one of the foundations of all ethical legal systems.

You are making the assumption that the halflings were arrested for doing evil that even approaches a death sentence crime. Again, those halflings could be in jail for tripping a high class dwarf in the street in our hypothetical scenario. We don't know and saying, 'Well, maybe he had done something very evil and so maybe it is okay to kill him,' just doesn't cut it. We have zero evidence to the extent of his crimes. It is not that he was so evil he disgusted his compatriots. At least, not necessarily. Maybe it was. We can't say.

2.) Kind of like how Team Peregrine made a helpless goblin beg for his life while they teased and eventually murdered him in an unnecesarily fear-inducing way? I fail to see how murdering a race for being their race isn't worse then enslaving that race.

3.) The word evil doesn't mean anything if it isn't used with consistent standards. I could make a fantasy universe where the word Pelican meant bannana, but that would mean the words lose the meanings we associate them with. In the same way, if D&D uses words like evil without a consistent/logical value system the word evil in D&D no longer means evil anymore. Unless you show me why they are evil by standards that would not make the non-evil people evil as well, saying, "Evil" is totally meaningless.

4.) If that is truly the case, then status quote doesn't follow any ethical standards that I can even remotely agree with and I hope Redcloak succeeds temporarily, followed by his and Xykon's death. Again, they are evil because they were made that way doesn't cut it. Philosophy isn't so simple and if a universe tries to make morality black and white without standards it isn't morality anymore. Good and Evil mean different things in that case.

5.) That is how it works. Evil against goblin causes evil against humans which causes more evil against goblins and then causes even more evil against humans. Of course the most current iteration of the cycle has resulted in more evil. The evil always keeps growing until someone stops it. If Azure City had repelled the invasion then it probably would have resulted in the Azurites hunting down and killing the disjointed hobgoblins after the battle which would have brought hobgoblins pretty close to extinction increasing the evil even more then it was previously, probably causing a few paladins to fall, and possibly creating a redcloak or two more. This is one of the comics predominant themes, IMO, and one of its deeper elements. The only significant factor here that imbalances the scale and makes the goblins winning worse for thw amount of evil in the world then them losing is Xykon, (and possibly Redcloak depending on your point of view,) a deliberately evil person outside of the cycle who intentionally escalated the cycle faster then it was progressing normally. The goblins don't share all of that guilt.

6.) What about any given bar in a predominant human city likely being filled with people willing to kill someone because they aren't human for the promise of a few gold? Sure, this was a joke. But it was a joke consistent with the game world and satirizing the callous nature of adventurers.

7.) If a creature does evil people have the right to defend themselves, absolutely. If there was unjust provocation that led to this evil people should try and be wise enough to see what it was and while that doesn't justify the evil and doesn't mean blame should be shifted towards the victims, people should try and change their behavior for the sake of their attackers and themselves. And for the most part, the party has been justified in their quest because they are fighting Xykon, someone who is very deliberate in his actions.

But people aren't always defensive about the 'evil' races. A pre-emptive strike at a culture or refusing to acknowledge claims over land because of someones race is the cause for lots of warfare, both in RL and the D&D world. If a group of adventurers defends a city from an Orcish raid, they are usually justified. But if a group of adventurers finds a Kobold camp or trespasses on Kobold land and kills them then the adventurers unwittingly justify the Orcish raid by being no better than the Orcs themselves. If an adventurer can raid a camp of Gnolls and not be evil than an Orc can raid a caravan and not be evil.


Why is the burden always on the good guys (and no, I don't think that Team P is "good" on the alignment scale) to take the ridiculously high ground? This is not a cycle of violence. The goblins invaded and occupied a city. If people don't stand up to them, why would they not continue to do so? If no one perpetuates the "cycle of violence" then they can just take whatever they want with no fear of retribution.

What constitutes standing up to the Goblins? Raiding their city in return is standing up to them? If so, I could just as easily argue that the Goblins were standing up for themselves and following the advice you gave by attacking humans that have sent out groups to attack them. How is it different? If it is justified to raid a Goblin city because the Goblins took it from the humans, how is it wrong for the Goblins to raid a human city if the land the city was built on used to be theirs? Why is human ownership of land recognized more than Goblin ownership?

Without bringing up RL politics, I'll leave possible parralels up to the imagination. Maybe I am putting words into Rich's mouth, but is seems to me this is a real statment Rich is making about how we can view other people and using Goblins as the example.

I Am Legend, (The Book) Spoilers ahead...

I Am Legend was genius. It had a hero who routinely broke into the homes of his enemies who he shouldn't have had a strong reason to believe were guilty of evil and killed them in their homes for most of the book. Right up until the end, the author was able to make everyone read this display and never question the morality of it. At the end, everyone says, "WTH is wrong with me?" after getting over the initial pissed off shock of realizing that the vampires that have been slain were mostly normal people. Dehumanization is powerful, real, and just because someone is guilty of it doesn't make them terrible people.

I think OOTS is about more than just this theme whereas I Am Legend was central around it. But I think this is one of the themes. Probably one of the top five, IMO. And I think these two works have parallels.

Anyway, good has to take a higher ground than evil or it is not good anymore. Good is holding yourself to a higher set of values. Good is respecting the lives of your enemies and not just your allies.

I think the Azurites were justified in defending Azure City just as I think the Goblins aren't evil for defending Gobbotopia.

[Dark Matter]

Since your concept of "the forces of Good" are apparently perfectly fine with "these races of sapients exist to be cannon fodder," I'd say they ceased to be the forces of Good a very long time ago.

An essential component of your stance on this issue seems to be, "It is possible and easy for the dramatically-named Forces of Good to owe goblins death, but impossible for them to owe goblins anything positive, ever."It's an evil act to kill an evil creature only because it's evil. It's not an evil deed to punish evil deeds, that's called justice. It's easy to argue some generic goblin is "owed" something better than the edge of a sword. The problem is that's an argument from ignorance, i.e. since we don't know what he's done, we can imagine he's done nothing.

But everyone has a name even if we don't know what it is. What do the forces of good owe Nale? Xykon? Belkar? Those goblins whipping the slaves for their amusement? The more we know, more just their punishment looks.

Nale, and probably Xykon, was born evil. That doesn't make them "cannon fodder", it just means that when they die at the hands of the forces of good, they'll deserve it. I don't see how being a generic goblin changes any of these mechanics.

[SowZ]

It's an evil act to kill an evil creature only because it's evil. It's not an evil deed to punish evil deeds, that's called justice. It's easy to argue some generic goblin is "owed" something better than the edge of a sword. The problem is that's an argument from ignorance, i.e. since we don't know what he's done, we can imagine he's done nothing.

But everyone has a name even if we don't know what it is. What do the forces of good owe Nale? Xykon? Belkar? Those goblins whipping the slaves for their amusement? The more we know, more just their punishment looks.

Nale, and probably Xykon, was born evil. That doesn't make them "cannon fodder", it just means that when they die at the hands of the forces of good, they'll deserve it. I don't see how being a generic goblin changes any of these mechanics.

What exactly are you arguing, then? That we can assume a goblin deserves to die because he happens to be surrounded by a bunch of people that may well deserve to die? You say it is evil to kill a creature because it is a certain creature. But killing for justice can be fine.

But assuming a creature ie evil because of its species and then killing the creature because of that assumption is exactly the same as killing a creature just because it is that creature. There is no difference.

[Kish]

It's an evil act to kill an evil creature only because it's evil. It's not an evil deed to punish evil deeds, that's called justice. It's easy to argue some generic goblin is "owed" something better than the edge of a sword. The problem is that's an argument from ignorance, i.e. since we don't know what he's done, we can imagine he's done nothing.

But everyone has a name even if we don't know what it is. What do the forces of good owe Nale? Xykon? Belkar? Those goblins whipping the slaves for their amusement?

Everything. Because "the forces of good" do not have a name or an identity or any rights at all, and literally the worst character in the comic has every right to take everything from them, by virtue of having a name and an identity.

What does Hinjo, as the political leader of Azure City, owe Redcloak, as a goblin whose family was murdered by the military of Azure City? Your answer, apparently, is "Nothing." Fine--I mean, horrific actually--but at least own it. Or point out the character The Forces Of Good who you're defending.

Edit: You know...I just realized we're having completely different arguments.

If I agreed with you that Nale and Xykon were "born evil," which I don't, but if I did, then that would lead me not to, "They are entitled to nothing but death because they're evil," but rather, "They are entitled to massive reparations from the gods for making them born evil, before we look at anything else."

"Goblins were created to be cannon fodder" is something you're seemingly completely ignoring. Your claim was that The Forces Of Good cannot accept Evil (another character who I haven't seen) winning without ceasing to be The Forces Of Good. But, if I try to translate that into something concrete, the best I can do is, "Hinjo, Roy, and the other good-aligned characters in the comic are morally obligated, if they wish to keep their alignment, to punish the other characters in the comic who commit acts like enslaving and whipping innocent people." Which, if I were to think about agreeing with it, would demand that whatever characters The Forces Of Good broke down to must immediately focus all of their attention on punishing those characters who set up a system in which many species of sapients exist to be brutally slaughtered.

That is, all the characters comprising The Forces Of Good would need to make overthrowing the creator gods, all of the creator gods, their immediate #1 priority. Xykon? Not guilty of nearly severe enough acts, by comparison, to get any attention this century. Nale? A piker. Tarquin? Less than a historical footnote. Belkar? Don't make me laugh.

[Math_Mage]

It's an evil act to kill an evil creature only because it's evil. It's not an evil deed to punish evil deeds, that's called justice. It's easy to argue some generic goblin is "owed" something better than the edge of a sword. The problem is that's an argument from ignorance, i.e. since we don't know what he's done, we can imagine he's done nothing.

But everyone has a name even if we don't know what it is. What do the forces of good owe Nale? Xykon? Belkar? Those goblins whipping the slaves for their amusement? The more we know, more just their punishment looks.

Nale, and probably Xykon, was born evil. That doesn't make them "cannon fodder", it just means that when they die at the hands of the forces of good, they'll deserve it. I don't see how being a generic goblin changes any of these mechanics.

The elven commander plainly was not concerned with whether or not this sentient creature was Evil. The elven commander was concerned with whether or not this sentient creature was a goblin.

That aside, we continue to have no evidence that the goblin was jailed for being exceptionally evil. You keep saying that for him to have been jailed by an evil government, he must have been a terrible person...but look at the whole Empire of Blood arc. Evil, good, neutral, you find all of them in prison. You have no evidence that he was locked up for anything but "roughing up a new immigrant," which is the ONLY textual evidence we have on the subject. And that's not Evil, that's just brawling.


Everything. Because "the forces of good" do not have a name or an identity or any rights at all, and literally the worst character in the comic has every right to take everything from them, by virtue of having a name and an identity.

What does Hinjo, as the political leader of Azure City, owe Redcloak, as a goblin whose family was murdered by the military of Azure City? Your answer, apparently, is "Nothing." Fine--I mean, horrific actually--but at least own it. Or point out the character The Forces Of Good who you're defending.

What does Hinjo, as the newly minted leader of Azure City whose first days as leader saw Redcloak invade and destroy his nation, owe to Redcloak, whose family was slaughtered long before Hinjo was relevant to anything? I think we have a slight problem of perspective here. Azure City, or the Sapphire Guard, may owe Redcloak justice and recompense, but it certainly did NOT owe what Redcloak took.

[Kish]

What does Hinjo, as the newly minted leader of Azure City whose first days as leader saw Redcloak invade and destroy his nation, owe to Redcloak, whose family was slaughtered long before Hinjo was relevant to anything? I think we have a slight problem of perspective here. Azure City, or the Sapphire Guard, may owe Redcloak justice and recompense, but it certainly did NOT owe what Redcloak took.
Oh, certainly Redcloak's actions are evil. I mainly object to the argument that, despite the author making it plain this is not what he's going for, it is entirely correct--even required--for everyone associated with Azure City to keep throwing as much force as they can at the hobgoblins, that the Sapphire Guard did nothing wrong killing them before they conquered Azure City and the Resistance can do nothing wrong in restoring the pre-conquest status quo and resuming their pogroms against the hobgoblins.

[Dark Matter]

Everything. Because "the forces of good" do not have a name or an identity or any rights at all, and literally the worst character in the comic has every right to take everything from them, by virtue of having a name and an identity.Not, "by virtue of having a name and an identity", by virtue of having a history of misdeeds.


What does Hinjo, as the political leader of Azure City, owe Redcloak, as a goblin whose family was murdered by the military of Azure City? Your answer, apparently, is "Nothing." Fine--I mean, horrific actually--but at least own it. Or point out the character The Forces Of Good who you're defending.RE: Death of RC's family
1) This was a screw up where Paladins presumably fell.
2) If you want to call Redcloak Lawful Neutral at that point I'm good with that, so very clearly it didn't happen because of him being evil.

The Giant has said Redcloak had done nothing to merit the tragedy which befell him. That's true only because of the timing of the raid. If they'd done it a week later it likely wouldn't have been true for himself personally. Redcloak was a member of an organization trying to give a god killing, soul destroying, abomination to a god of evil who will use it to destroy the multi-verse if his demands aren't met.

When his family was killed, Redcloak was actively in the process of making himself a minion to The Plan's point man. Maybe he would have backed out, maybe not. If you're going to turn away from your god, first level might be the time to do it. His family certainly hit the radar as innocent bystanders. But The Plan is, by far, the most Evil thing which has been introduced in OOTS.

For the murder of his family, Hinjo owes RC an apology, right before he cuts off his head for being The Plan's current point man, and that's over and above everything else Redcloak has done.

[Kish]

Not, "by virtue of having a name and an identity", by virtue of having a history of misdeeds.

You are either refusing to engage with what I'm saying, or you should reread what you just responded to.


For the murder of his family, Hinjo owes RC an apology,

An apology? Incredible.

[Tebryn]

An apology? Incredible.

What more exactly could he give him?

[ti'esar]

What more exactly could he give him?

Honestly, this is a good question. Several of the paladins who did the deed died in the act, and several others presumably fell. And they're all likely long dead now anyway.

Redcloak doesn't want compensation, he wants revenge. But even if he didn't, I have a hard time seeing what kind of "compensation" Hinjo or any other Azurite could realistically give him.

Remind me again, what does this have to do with Team Peregrine anyway?

[eulmanis12]

What else would hinjo owe him. Hinjo is a representative of an organization that did something wrong to RC. Most of the paladins involved in the raid itself probably died before Hinjo became one. Hinjo never personaly did anything to Redcloak.
Spoilered for SoD
[SPOILER]Even that attack had possible merit and was not nessecarily a "bad" (not using the word evil here because of the confusion between moraly wrong and Evil alignment) act, more of a poorly executed one. The Plan, is EVIL, alignment and moraly. It will likely result in the end of the universe, possibly the multiverse. The Safire guard, in hunting the bearer of the crimson mantle, was actively trying to prevent this from happening. A few goblins that were not the primary target, or active combatants got killed, which was wrong, but not as wrong as what the paladan's were trying to prevent. As was said to Roy later, "you did what was right according to the best of your abilities, including your ability to judge what was right" /SPOILER]

this whole thing about redcloak and the goblins is a little off topic though. The discusion is supposed to be about team perigrene. I'd say they are probably good, possibly neutral. Being good does not mean that you don't do bad things, it means that you try not to do bad things. Good people can do wrong. The elf commander might have done one bad deed, but this by no means makes him an evil person.

[Kish]

Xiander answered the question in the thread title in the very first reply to it. Everything since then has been on related-but-different subjects.

Anyone who aspires to be non-ironically considered "the forces of good*" should be trying to bring an end to the constant wars between Azure City and the hobgoblins...and no, not by "wiping out the hobgoblins." Or by wiping out Azure City, for that matter.

*I mean, not that I see any indication that anyone in the story fits the description "someone who aspires to be non-ironically considered 'the forces of good'" anymore, now that Miko's dead.

[SowZ]

What else would hinjo owe him. Hinjo is a representative of an organization that did something wrong to RC. Most of the paladins involved in the raid itself probably died before Hinjo became one. Hinjo never personaly did anything to Redcloak.
Spoilered for SoD
[SPOILER]Even that attack had possible merit and was not nessecarily a "bad" (not using the word evil here because of the confusion between moraly wrong and Evil alignment) act, more of a poorly executed one. The Plan, is EVIL, alignment and moraly. It will likely result in the end of the universe, possibly the multiverse. The Safire guard, in hunting the bearer of the crimson mantle, was actively trying to prevent this from happening. A few goblins that were not the primary target, or active combatants got killed, which was wrong, but not as wrong as what the paladan's were trying to prevent. As was said to Roy later, "you did what was right according to the best of your abilities, including your ability to judge what was right" /SPOILER]

this whole thing about redcloak and the goblins is a little off topic though. The discusion is supposed to be about team perigrene. I'd say they are probably good, possibly neutral. Being good does not mean that you don't do bad things, it means that you try not to do bad things. Good people can do wrong. The elf commander might have done one bad deed, but this by no means makes him an evil person.

Sure, good people can do bad things. But if declaring genocidal views that an entire species should be wiped out and then acting on those views by killing helpless persons because of their race isn't enough to make one not good, I don't know what is. This isn't a lone action, (even though I would say genocidal murder of a helpless, sapient being because of it's race is enough to be a one-time good changer,) but in all likliehood a pattern of behavior. The dead goblin couple? Yeah, highly unlikely that it was an accident. It is entirely in keeping with the elf's character that he makes killing goblins a regular part of his life.

Pretty sure no one would call him good if the elf had been genocidal towards halflings and then threw the halfling over the edge because he is a halfling, even if that halfling was someone evil like Belkar. What has he done that has evidenced good? Fighting in a war doesn't make one good, especially when collateral damage is not avoided but seems to be actively fought for.

If a goblin who holds a view that humans are inferior and fit to be slaves is evil for it, I will say that the commander of Team Peregrine is almost unquestionably evil, too. Because the same standards used to judge one side need to be applied to the other. In most wars, RL or fictional, this will mean either both sides are evil or neither is evil.

[skaddix]

Sure, good people can do bad things. But if declaring genocidal views that an entire species should be wiped out and then acting on those views by killing helpless persons because of their race isn't enough to make one not good, I don't know what is. This isn't a lone action, (even though I would say genocidal murder of a helpless, sapient being because of it's race is enough to be a one-time good changer,) but in all likliehood a pattern of behavior. The dead goblin couple? Yeah, highly unlikely that it was an accident. It is entirely in keeping with the elf's character that he makes killing goblins a regular part of his life.

Pretty sure no one would call him good if the elf had been genocidal towards halflings and then threw the halfling over the edge because he is a halfling, even if that halfling was someone evil like Belkar. What has he done that has evidenced good? Fighting in a war doesn't make one good, especially when collateral damage is not avoided but seems to be actively fought for.

If a goblin who holds a view that humans are inferior and fit to be slaves is evil for it, I will say that the commander of Team Peregrine is almost unquestionably evil, too. Because the same standards used to judge one side need to be applied to the other. In most wars, RL or fictional, this will mean either both sides are evil or neither is evil.

perhaps that is how things should be viewed objectively when the eemy is not like the nazis and clearly evil but in reality your side is always righteous and your foe evil

[Narren]

What constitutes standing up to the Goblins? Raiding their city in return is standing up to them? If so, I could just as easily argue that the Goblins were standing up for themselves and following the advice you gave by attacking humans that have sent out groups to attack them. How is it different? If it is justified to raid a Goblin city because the Goblins took it from the humans, how is it wrong for the Goblins to raid a human city if the land the city was built on used to be theirs? Why is human ownership of land recognized more than Goblin ownership?


It has nothing to do with human ownership vs goblin ownership. The Sapphire Guard slaughtering innocent villagers is not a parallel to the goblins occupying Azure City. What the Sapphire Guard did that day (and probably other days) was wrong. They had good reasons for going in there, they wanted to stop the bearer of the Crimson Mantle. But their execution (no pun intended) was horrifying. And if they were still occupying that village, I would see no problem with goblins fighting to reclaim it.

If some goblins raid your town or village, it doesn't give you carte blanche to murder and/or torture and/or enslave every goblin you meet in a cruel and sadistic manner. That's what the goblins are doing to the humans. That's not ok, even if some humans did some bad things to some goblins. Even the paladins that attacked Redcloaks village didn't do that. They felt they had a job to do, and they did it. They did it to protect all of existence. I'm not justifying them murdering innocent goblin children, there were certainly other avenues available to them. But the goblins consistently do worse, and it seems that excuses are often made for them.

If a couple of generations had passed, and the most or all of the goblins in Azure City were not participants in the battle, and most of them (especially the leadership) were not evil, and they STOPPED murdering, enslaving, and torturing people based on their race, then I would say that the Azurites no longer have a claim to their city. History isn't always nice, but that's no reason to punish the grandchildren. If that's the case though, Gobbtopia should open it's doors to humans who want to peacefully co-exist alongside the "monsterous" races. And that's something Azure City should have offered the goblins long ago.

[snikrept]

They seem to be rather highly organized and fanatical about their faction.

Lawful something seems most likely. Or at least whoever trained them is.

[Dark Matter]

If I agreed with you that Nale and Xykon were "born evil," which I don't, but if I did, then that would lead me not to, "They are entitled to nothing but death because they're evil," but rather, "They are entitled to massive reparations from the gods for making them born evil, before we look at anything else."First, there are evil gods. Second, D&D gods aren't omnipotent and aren't responsible for everyone's actions, much less everyone's birth. Third, "massive reparations" from whom?, and consisting of what? Something done to your distant relatives doesn't give you a pass for murder and the like.

"Goblins were created to be cannon fodder" is something you're seemingly completely ignoring.How exactly does someone's sucky childhood justify their current evil actions? I doubt you're suggesting Xykon should be given a pass on everything he's done if we find out his parents abused him, so what exactly are you suggesting in terms of actionable items? What exactly is a Paladin supposed to do when (not if) he finds a goblin engaged in vile acts like threatening to destroy the universe?

Your claim was that The Forces Of Good cannot accept Evil (another character who I haven't seen) winning without ceasing to be The Forces Of Good. But, if I try to translate that into something concrete, the best I can do is, "Hinjo, Roy, and the other good-aligned characters in the comic are morally obligated, if they wish to keep their alignment, to punish the other characters in the comic who commit acts like enslaving and whipping innocent people."That's pretty close.

Which, if I were to think about agreeing with it, would demand that whatever characters The Forces Of Good broke down to must immediately focus all of their attention on punishing those characters who set up a system in which many species of sapients exist to be brutally slaughtered.
You are either refusing to engage with what I'm saying, or you should reread what you just responded to.There's a point which I think that you think you're making, which you're really not.

Let's just review D&D.

1) Paladins fall if they commit an evil act.
2) It's an evil act to kill an evil creature only because it's evil (multiple on screen examples).
3) Goblins were made to be killed by Paladins. They are usually evil, they're built to like torturing people etc.

None of these points contradict each other. If a Paladin kills a goblin for being a goblin, he falls.

If you're a PC Paladin in Goblotopia and you find a goblin sadistically whipping the slaves for his amusement, should the Paladin say to the goblin, "you were built to do this by the gods, you get a pass?" Does that seem even slightly Good?

In a larger sense, it seems like it'd be evil to create an evil race... but from a godly point of view, I suspect we might run into the whole "can good exist without evil" question which makes me think I'm out of my depth.

[hamishspence]

In a larger sense, it seems like it'd be evil to create an evil race... but from a godly point of view, I suspect we might run into the whole "can good exist without evil" question which makes me think I'm out of my depth.

BoVD does suggest that "creating evil races" is an evil act in itself.

[Dark Matter]

Sure, good people can do bad things. But if declaring genocidal views that an entire species should be wiped out and then acting on those views by killing helpless persons because of their race isn't enough to make one not good, I don't know what is.You're talking about The Commander, but you're also talking about the established law of Goblotopia. That raid to free the human prisoners? Their crime was to have PC class levels.


If a goblin who holds a view that humans are inferior and fit to be slaves is evil for it, I will say that the commander of Team Peregrine is almost unquestionably evil, too. Because the same standards used to judge one side need to be applied to the other. In most wars, RL or fictional, this will mean either both sides are evil or neither is evil.Yes and no. If the only thing we knew about Roy was he left Elan to die, then we could call him evil and be done with it. Similarly, if the only thing we knew about The Commander was that he was racist, then we could just call him evil and be done with it.

However: He fights an evil city/organization with great risk to himself. He frees slaves. He associates with a Paladin.

At the moment I'm inclined to call The Commander Neutral, but there's certainly room for moment.

[Dark Matter]

1.) Yeah, we cannot use 'goblins locked him up' to mean he deserves death at all. Even if he is in prison for doing the wrong thing, maybe he threw a rock at someone with status. Maybe he stole the guys fork.Claiming there might be off screen events to make him less evil doesn't impress.

There's a limit to the amount of information we have, but saying "we can't say" is only fair if you apply it to both sides. Maybe The Commander did a detect evil, we can't say. See how unuseful that is?

You are making the assumption that the halflings were arrested for doing evil that even approaches a death sentence crime. Again, those halflings could be in jail for tripping a high class dwarf in the street in our hypothetical scenario.The halflings are your analogy, not mine, and to be true to the current situation you need to have creatures who were arrested for being more evil than lawful.

2.) Kind of like how Team Peregrine made a helpless goblin beg for his life while they teased and eventually murdered him in an unnecesarily fear-inducing way?Actually they seemed pretty cold blooded about it. The Commander's joke was to his fellow.


4.) If that is truly the case, then status quote doesn't follow any ethical standards that I can even remotely agree with and I hope Redcloak succeeds temporarily, followed by his and Xykon's death. Again, they are evil because they were made that way doesn't cut it. Philosophy isn't so simple and if a universe tries to make morality black and white without standards it isn't morality anymore. Good and Evil mean different things in that case.Xykon is evil because of how he behaves. Ditto Nale. Ditto Redcloak. Ditto the rest of the goblins. Ditto even the Dragons and the rest of the creatures who are "always evil".

Further no one is calling the Commander's action "good".


5.) That is how it works. Evil against goblin causes evil against humans which causes more evil against goblins and then causes even more evil against humans. Of course the most current iteration of the cycle has resulted in more evil. The evil always keeps growing until someone stops it. If Azure City had repelled the invasion then it probably would have resulted in the Azurites hunting down and killing the disjointed hobgoblins after the battle which would have brought hobgoblins pretty close to extinction increasing the evil even more then it was previously, probably causing a few paladins to fall, and possibly creating a redcloak or two more. This is one of the comics predominant themes, IMO, and one of its deeper elements. The only significant factor here that imbalances the scale and makes the goblins winning worse for thw amount of evil in the world then them losing is Xykon, (and possibly Redcloak depending on your point of view,) a deliberately evil person outside of the cycle who intentionally escalated the cycle faster then it was progressing normally. The goblins don't share all of that guilt.Yes, the cycle makes things worse, it's one of Rich's themes, and Redcloak is certainly part of the cycle.

But the goblins were evil before the cycle started, and if we end the cycle right now they'll still be evil. Gobblotopia might free them from the cycle, especially if Redcloak crushes the resistance. But Gobblotopia has made them more powerful, but not less evil.

Redcloak might be the way he is because of the cycle, but those goblins whipping the slaves for their sadistic amusement? They're the way they are because they're typical goblins.


6.) What about any given bar in a predominant human city likely being filled with people willing to kill someone because they aren't human for the promise of a few gold? Sure, this was a joke. But it was a joke consistent with the game world and satirizing the callous nature of adventurers.Sure, and YokYok was LG too. However, YY was engaged in open murder upon a defenseless sentient to revenge his serial killer dad. That's over and above his aiding and abetting mass murder as one of Nale's crew. Those are serious lines to cross for someone claiming to be LG, and as callous as the adventurers were, they weren't wrong.


But people aren't always defensive about the 'evil' races. A pre-emptive strike at a culture or refusing to acknowledge claims over land because of someones race is the cause for lots of warfare, both in RL and the D&D world. If a group of adventurers defends a city from an Orcish raid, they are usually justified. But if a group of adventurers finds a Kobold camp or trespasses on Kobold land and kills them then the adventurers unwittingly justify the Orcish raid by being no better than the Orcs themselves. If an adventurer can raid a camp of Gnolls and not be evil than an Orc can raid a caravan and not be evil.RL doesn't give us much to compare because we don't have entire races that are "usually evil" right out of the box. Most adventurer scenarios I've seen come down to "monsters are doing something evil, please stop them". This especially includes efforts to stop "The Plan".


Anyway, good has to take a higher ground than evil or it is not good anymore. Good is holding yourself to a higher set of values. Good is respecting the lives of your enemies and not just your allies. Sure, I'll buy that... but at the end of the day we still have the whole "usually evil" problem. If the entire world were run by some LG authority, it'd still need to come down hard on the goblins FAR more often than it would on some good, neutral or undefined race.

[SowZ]

You're talking about The Commander, but you're also talking about the established law of Goblotopia. That raid to free the human prisoners? Their crime was to have PC class levels.

Yes and no. If the only thing we knew about Roy was he left Elan to die, then we could call him evil and be done with it. Similarly, if the only thing we knew about The Commander was that he was racist, then we could just call him evil and be done with it.

However: He fights an evil city/organization with great risk to himself. He frees slaves. He associates with a Paladin.

At the moment I'm inclined to call The Commander Neutral, but there's certainly room for moment.

Pointing to the goblins who have commited crimes does nothing to alleviate the commanders guilt. Besides, an elf killing a goblin soley for being a goblin is not less evil than a goblin enslaving humans. If the commander can avoid being evil despite his genocial actions, so can the goblins. We know little about the Commander doesn't defend his actions, and if it does we can use that same defense on the goblins themselves.

I am not pointing to something the Commander considered doing, (in Roy's case.) He didn't talk about or contemplate killing the goblin. He killed him. And yes, if Roy had left Elan to the bandits he would have no longer been Lawful Good. The Deva said as much.


1.) Claiming there might be off screen events to make him less evil doesn't impress.

2.) There's a limit to the amount of information we have, but saying "we can't say" is only fair if you apply it to both sides. Maybe The Commander did a detect evil, we can't say. See how unuseful that is?
The halflings are your analogy, not mine, and to be true to the current situation you need to have creatures who were arrested for being more evil than lawful.

3.) Actually they seemed pretty cold blooded about it. The Commander's joke was to his fellow.

4.) Xykon is evil because of how he behaves. Ditto Nale. Ditto Redcloak. Ditto the rest of the goblins. Ditto even the Dragons and the rest of the creatures who are "always evil".

Further no one is calling the Commander's action "good".

Yes, the cycle makes things worse, it's one of Rich's themes, and Redcloak is certainly part of the cycle.

5.) But the goblins were evil before the cycle started, and if we end the cycle right now they'll still be evil. Gobblotopia might free them from the cycle, especially if Redcloak crushes the resistance. But Gobblotopia has made them more powerful, but not less evil.

6.) Redcloak might be the way he is because of the cycle, but those goblins whipping the slaves for their sadistic amusement? They're the way they are because they're typical goblins.

7.) Sure, and YokYok was LG too. However, YY was engaged in open murder upon a defenseless sentient to revenge his serial killer dad. That's over and above his aiding and abetting mass murder as one of Nale's crew. Those are serious lines to cross for someone claiming to be LG, and as callous as the adventurers were, they weren't wrong.

8.) RL doesn't give us much to compare because we don't have entire races that are "usually evil" right out of the box. Most adventurer scenarios I've seen come down to "monsters are doing something evil, please stop them". This especially includes efforts to stop "The Plan".

9.) Sure, I'll buy that... but at the end of the day we still have the whole "usually evil" problem. If the entire world were run by some LG authority, it'd still need to come down hard on the goblins FAR more often than it would on some good, neutral or undefined race.

1.) I am not claiming there are off screen events to make him less evil. Why do I even have to say less evil? There are no on screen events to make him evil in the first place! You are the one making the positive claim, (he is evil,)so the burden of proof is on you. I am simply stating we can't know either way.

2.) No, we saw the exchange between the Commander and Goblin and insinuating that there was a panel that was left out is equal parts silly and lazy. You keep acting like I am making a positive claim, as if the evil actions he commited might be outweighed if he did good things in his life. I am not. We saw a grand total of none of the Goblins life before imprisonment or any exchange in which he commited an evil act. You made up the whole he was arrested for being more evil than lawful thing. I am not making an assumption about his alignment, that's on you.

3.) Which goes to show how flippant he is about murdering prisoners.

4.) I've seen no evidence that always evil creatures are actually evil. Again, the words evil and good in D&D don't mean anything if they aren't backed by standards. If the goblins are evil based on how we've seen them act, that means a lot of people are evil that I think you would argue aren't evil, no matter what the flawed gods of OOTS claim.

5.) If they were created by the gods as evil, then the gods started the cycle. If not, you have no evidence that the goblins were 'evil' before the cycle.

6.) Again with assumptions. We don't know about these goblins. But based on the setting goblins are consistently persucuted by other races. Of course goblins get pleasure out of lording over those who used to persecute them.

7.) Yes, the adventurers were wrong because they didn't know any of those things and weren't even attacking a specific Kobold but were willing to wantonly kill any of a given species they saw. Had this been a human attacking Belkar, (even though the Adventurers only knew he was 'threatening',) and Belkar had put up a bounty, yeah, the adventurers probably would have helped him. But they would have to try and warn the guy to stop or at least not kill someone not fighting back. Because I can't go into a city and scream, 'kill this guy for a thousand dollars!' Unless the persons skin is a certain color and their teeth are too sharp, of course. This is a blatant example of how the attitude about monsters and evil causes good people to be murdered. How can the adventurers not be in the wrong? Was it wrong of Yokyok to try and kill Belkar? Had a goblin killed Haley's father and Haley saw the goblin and then she shot it in the city you would not be saying it was wrong of her. Is it wrong for a good kobold to attack an evil Halfling because he should know his place?

8.) If Goblins really were created for XP and to be evil and to be killed, then the Plan is totally reasonable. What else can the goblins do? Accept their place and turn over and be stabbed? I tend to think it is deeper than that and they weren't created soley for that reason.

9.) Well, if that's how it is that's how it is. If Goblins commited evil more often in a world with equality and they have to be punished more often so be it. But to be good a person would only be able to punish them for things they did or attempted to do.

[Leecros]

But based on the setting goblins are consistently persucuted by other races. Of course goblins get pleasure out of lording over those who used to persecute them.


That...That doesn't make whipping slaves any less evil...:smallconfused:

[SowZ]

That...That doesn't make whipping slaves any less evil...:smallconfused:

When did I say it did? That argument was at all about, "The goblins are good," or even, "whipping slaves isn't evil." It was about how there are other explanations as to why Goblins enjoy whipping slaves other than, "They are inherently evil."

[ti'esar]

If Goblins really were created for XP and to be evil and to be killed, then the Plan is totally reasonable. What else can the goblins do? Accept their place and turn over and be stabbed? I tend to think it is deeper than that and they weren't created soley for that reason.

Saying that "the Plan" is totally reasonable under any circumstances is a highly debatable statement, but this really is an important point. The vast majority of the debate here seems to assume that the claim that goblins were deliberately created as XP fodder for PC races can be taken at face value. It can't.

All the information on this comes from the Dark One, an evil god who very likely could have his own agenda. And even if the Dark One is being honest, he is an ascended goblin who was not present at the creation, and could therefore have been lied to himself.

In fact, we even have some empirical evidence against this - IIRC, it's not just goblins but all the "monster" races that were supposedly created as XP fodder. Yet on the Western Continent, lizardfolk (usually thought of as "monsters") and kobolds (definitely considered monsters) are shown to live in an integrated society with humans, without any problems shown to be coming from this apparent violation of the divinely ordered scheme of things.

[veti]

Saying that "the Plan" is totally reasonable under any circumstances is a highly debatable statement, but this really is an important point. The vast majority of the debate here seems to assume that the claim that goblins were deliberately created as XP fodder for PC races can be taken at face value. It can't.

Good point. I've also been thinking that the Dark One's account basically paints "the gods" as a monolithic group acting in concert (to screw the goblin races), whereas the story Shojo tells - which, I'm inclined to think, is probably the mainstream teaching of human (and demi-human) theology - shows "the gods" as anything but united.

Which specific god said "My turn! Goblins."?

You could argue that, whoever drew up the blueprint, all gods share the responsibility because they acquiesced to the idea. But the whole creation story makes a big deal about how "the gods" were willing to agree to anything at that point, just to contain the god-killing abomination.

[Kish]

In fact, we even have some empirical evidence against this - IIRC, it's not just goblins but all the "monster" races that were supposedly created as XP fodder. Yet on the Western Continent, lizardfolk (usually thought of as "monsters") and kobolds (definitely considered monsters) are shown to live in an integrated society with humans, without any problems shown to be coming from this apparent violation of the divinely ordered scheme of things.
This would be a much more compelling argument if lizardfolk lived as citizens in Cliffport, or pre-conquest Azure City, or any city that isn't itself a monstrous city, de jure ruled by a red dragon and de facto ruled by a man who recognizes that he's an antagonist in a fantasy story.

That is, the part about lizardfolk would be more compelling. The part about kobolds, I think we can declare dead on arrival due to the means of Yokyok's death; the empirical evidence is unassailable and isn't going your way.

[ti'esar]

This would be a much more compelling argument if lizardfolk lived as citizens in Cliffport, or pre-conquest Azure City, or any city that isn't itself a monstrous city, de jure ruled by a red dragon and de facto ruled by a man who recognizes that he's an antagonist in a fantasy story.

That is, the part about lizardfolk would be more compelling. The part about kobolds, I think we can declare dead on arrival due to the means of Yokyok's death; the empirical evidence is unassailable and isn't going your way.

My point is that the existence of any society where "monster" and PC races live in a more-or-less peacefully integrated fashion, and have apparently done so for some time, argues against the idea that the status of monster races is divinely ordained. Obviously there are plenty of places where this is not the case, but if the PC-monster divide was permanent and unalterable, there would be no places at all where it was.

As far as your first point goes, lizardfolk and humans are shown to be living together in multiple regions of the Western Continent, such as Sandsedge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) and the unnamed settlement in 710 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0710.html) (although that might have been part of the EoB). And although I'll concede that we've only seen a kobold presence in the EoB, my overall impression has been that the various Western despots-of-the-year don't particularly change up local society beyond a superficial level, so I'd expect those kobolds were there, if perhaps less prominent, back when it was Tyrinaria or whatever came before that.

[SowZ]

But lizardfolk and kobolds living integrated in human society without seeming to be any more violent than anyone else is an argument that outside of racial based oppression, the 'evil' races can live among the 'goodly' races. Some may argue that we see integrated lizardfolk in an already evil society, but that isn't what the argument is about. It's about the ability to live peacefully with others.

But anyway, since the societies that would be influenced by the so called 'good gods' aren't inegrated in the first place, that does punch a hole in your argument.

Now, I am not saying I agree that Goblins were created as XP. But if they were, I see no real reason why the plan would be wrong. What other alternative do they have? The gods don't desire and will work against any kind of peace and changing the nature of goblins isn't possible without Divine Intervention. Basically, they have three options. ONE- Do their best to wipe out their competition. This is just as evil as humans or elves wiping out the goblins and I think we can agree this is not a desirable outcome. Besides, of the goblins that have attempted this they haven't succeeded an aren't likely to. TWO- Just die. I don't think you can expect a species to kill itself. It isn't reasonable to give them such a ludicrous ethical responsibility. Besides, if they had the moral forethought to say, "We are an evil, negative force in the world and so it would be better off if we were dead," they wouldn't be evil in the first place! THREE- Change status quote. We've already established that divine intervention would be needed to change the norm. Goblins are going to keep killing humans and humans are going to keep killing goblins. It is moral that this should be challenged. Every sapient being has rights, even a god. But should a person, say, attack someone else unprovoked, he has chosen to suspend some of his rights by violating the rights of someone else. By assaulting the fundamental character of a species, like goblins, the gods suspend their rights and invite themselves to retribution. And they deserve it.

Now, this is all assuming the Dark One's estimations are correct which I am not saying.

But if creatures are made 'evil' or made 'good' then good and evil lose all meaning and value. By arguing in such absolute morality, like goblins are born evil, you are inadvertantly arguing against the validity of morality at all! That is, at least morality the way it is being presented. It is impossible to do things 'right' or do things 'wrong' if one is born evil.

Seeing as some Paladin's fell for slaughtering the goblins of Redcloak's village, at the very least some gods don't agree with monsters being made inherently evil for XP. It is possible most or all of the creator gods don't.

[Dark Matter]

Pointing to the goblins who have commited crimes does nothing to alleviate the commanders guilt.True.

Besides, an elf killing a goblin soley for being a goblin is not less evil than a goblin enslaving humans.We don't have "a goblin enslaving humans". We have a city of goblins enslaving humans.

If the commander can avoid being evil despite his genocial actions, so can the goblins. We know little about the Commander doesn't defend his actions, and if it does we can use that same defense on the goblins themselves.This is largely nonsense. Yes, goblins can be non-evil. Yes, they could balance their evil acts with good acts. So, what evidence do we have that they've done so? What good acts have goblins done in the strip at all?

Right-eye comes to mind, but in order to be non-evil he had to turn away from his god and give up The Plan. We have very little actually in the strip itself. When goblins commit vile actions against other goblins, we never see any thought balloons on how this is exceptional or frowned upon behavior. When goblins commit vile actions against humans we see encouragement by other goblins.

It is possible there is off screen action which would make the goblins less evil, but we need some evidence it actually exists.

1.) I am not claiming there are off screen events to make him less evil. Why do I even have to say less evil? There are no on screen events to make him evil in the first place! You are the one making the positive claim, (he is evil,)so the burden of proof is on you. I am simply stating we can't know either way.You've been claiming up that racism is evil (I agree). Our on screen evidence is that he was locked up for beating up goblins based on the color of their skin. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html

So, the only thing we know about the goblin is he's a racist and doesn't follow orders. You have suggested he might have been jailed for "XYZ" off screen actions, but those are not in evidence.

4.) I've seen no evidence that always evil creatures are actually evil.Goblins are not "always evil", they're "usually evil". It's well within the rules for Goblin Paladins to exist.

The always evil creatures that we've seen are Xykon, Sabine, Quaar, and the Ancient Black Dragon. Which of those are you claiming isn't "actually" evil?

5.) If they were created by the gods as evil, then the gods started the cycle. If not, you have no evidence that the goblins were 'evil' before the cycle.The goblins were created Evil by the gods. The cycle of violence (with it's karmic retribution) is between the Saphire Guard and the goblins. The Saphire Guard was founded by Soon after the creation of the gates.

6.) Again with assumptions. We don't know about these goblins. But based on the setting goblins are consistently persucuted by other races. Of course goblins get pleasure out of lording over those who used to persecute them.It wasn't presented that way any more than The Commander killed the goblin because he needed to. The way it was presented, the goblins were sadists, and the Commander is a racist. That's over and above all the vile deeds we've seen goblins inflict on other goblins.

7.) Yes, the adventurers were wrong because they didn't know any of those things and weren't even attacking a specific Kobold but were willing to wantonly kill any of a given species they saw. Had this been a human attacking Belkar, (even though the Adventurers only knew he was 'threatening',) and Belkar had put up a bounty, yeah, the adventurers probably would have helped him. :snip:You don't know what they knew or didn't know. The strip humorously shows none of the adventurers even reading Belkar's post (which is on the wrong side of the door for them to see).

Was it wrong of Yokyok to try and kill Belkar? Had a goblin killed Haley's father and Haley saw the goblin and then she shot it in the city you would not be saying it was wrong of her. Is it wrong for a good kobold to attack an evil Halfling because he should know his place?Belkar deserves to die for what he's done and have his head mounted on a pole as a warning to others. However, Roy was correct when he pointed out it'd be evil to just cut his throat when he was asleep.

Belkar's race and alignment don't enter into it.
Yokyok's race and alignment don't enter into it.

I'm reluctant to call anything Belkar does non-evil, but he didn't do anything with YY or his father that Roy couldn't have done. Belkar was defending himself against Yikyik (who was a serial killer working as one of Nale's mass murderers). Killing him was a non-evil act, if Roy had done it I'd even call it Good.

It's very entertaining for Yokyok to call himself Lawful Good, but what he tried was seriously CE. In no way was his act lawful (the courts were available), and it was also seriously evil (revenge, working with Nale, open murder, and he knew Belkar couldn't defend himself). Other than the humor aspect, once again Roy could have taken Belkar's place without any changes.

8.) If Goblins really were created for XP and to be evil and to be killed, then the Plan is totally reasonable. What else can the goblins do? Accept their place and turn over and be stabbed? I tend to think it is deeper than that and they weren't created soley for that reason.

9.) Well, if that's how it is that's how it is. If Goblins commited evil more often in a world with equality and they have to be punished more often so be it. But to be good a person would only be able to punish them for things they did or attempted to do.Your 8th and 9th statements conflict. Goblins were created to be evil, so unsurprisingly, they are. In your 8th you're saying we should rework the world to accommodate their evil (i.e. the plan) and in your 9th you're fine with them being punished for evil acts.

[The Pilgrim]

It's very entertaining for Yokyok to call himself Lawful Good, but what he tried was seriously CE. In no way was his act lawful (the courts were available), and it was also seriously evil (revenge, working with Nale, open murder, and he knew Belkar couldn't defend himself).

Uh, if Yokyok was being Chaotic, then Roy has been acting Chaotic for the whole strip, since he is out to kill Xykon instead of suing him on the courts. Not better than his Father, who went full into vendetta mode instead of presenting charges for murder against Xykon on Cliffport's Courts. :smallconfused:

However, Celestia's public servants haven't shown any problem with Eugene or Roy in regards to that. :smallamused:


And, well, if Yokyok is being Evil for associating himself with Nale in order to be able to get to a CE adventurer... then Roy IS being Evil for associating with an EVIL (in all capitals) Dictator and accepting his resources in order to get to a LE adventurer. In fact, what about Captain Amon Zora, who refused to kill Nale just because she found out that he was out to kill Tarquin? Evil, too? uh? :smallconfused:

[Mutant Sheep]

And, well, if Yokyok is being Evil for associating himself with Nale in order to be able to get to a CE adventurer... then Roy IS being Evil for associating with an EVIL (in all capitals) Dictator and accepting his resources in order to get to a LE adventurer.

Wait, are you saying Draketooth is Lawful Evil?:smallconfused:

[ti'esar]

I think Yokyok was too much of a joke character to really have a debate about his alignment.

[Morty]

Whatever his alignment, YokYok was butchered in the street for being a kobold. I don't know about any of you, but I'd count it as a point in favour of the "monster races were created as XP fodder" claim.

[zimmerwald1915]

Whatever his alignment, YokYok was butchered in the street for being a kobold. I don't know about any of you, but I'd count it as a point in favour of the "monster races were created as XP fodder" claim.
He had no problem going about his business on the streets of Cliffport, even going around conspicuously armed (seriously, that rapier was bigger than him), until he was called out as a "menace" and a "threat" by Belkar. If Cliffport's people, or heck, even Cliffport's adventurers, automatically saw kobolds as things to be exterminated he would have been jumped long before. Now, that Belkar was able to manipulate Cliffport's adventurers into seeing Yokyok as someone to be killed can possibly be tied to widely-held assumptions about kobolds and halflings in general, but it's nowhere as easy as you're making it out to be.

[Dark Matter]

Whatever his alignment, YokYok was butchered in the street for being a kobold.You're leaving out the part about him trying to openly commit murder on a public street.

Uh, if Yokyok was being Chaotic, then Roy has been acting Chaotic for the whole strip, since he is out to kill Xykon instead of suing him on the courts.There is a world of difference between a LG city, where the law has sway, and a dungeon crawl where it doesn't. Trying to kill Belkar in the middle of a LG city is acting against the rule of law, trying to kill Xykon out in the wilderness (or anywhere for that matter) is trying to increase law.

And, well, if Yokyok is being Evil for associating himself with Nale in order to be able to get to a CE adventurer... then Roy IS being Evil for associating with an EVIL (in all capitals) Dictator and accepting his resources in order to get to a LE adventurer.Roy isn't willingly associating with Tarquin, he's associating with Belkar. And Belkar's murder rate has gone down a lot since that happened. Yokyok on the other hand was enabling Nale.

[Math_Mage]

Uh, if Yokyok was being Chaotic, then Roy has been acting Chaotic for the whole strip, since he is out to kill Xykon instead of suing him on the courts. Not better than his Father, who went full into vendetta mode instead of presenting charges for murder against Xykon on Cliffport's Courts. :smallconfused:

However, Celestia's public servants haven't shown any problem with Eugene or Roy in regards to that. :smallamused:

Eugene hasn't gotten to the LG afterlife, and I'm betting he never will. As far as Roy is concerned, no court has jurisdiction over Xykon. He's an undead menace out in the wilderness somewhere (or at the head of an invading army), not a common criminal.

I agree that we don't have the info to pin down Yokyok's exact alignment, but I'd definitely put it somewhere south of Good. He was at best willing to turn a blind eye to Nale in order to accomplish his vengeance.

[hamishspence]

I agree that we don't have the info to pin down Yokyok's exact alignment, but I'd definitely put it somewhere south of Good. He was at best willing to turn a blind eye to Nale in order to accomplish his vengeance.

War & XPs does describe him as "noble in the company of villains" but that might simply correspond to "non-evil" rather than "good".

[veti]

Now, I am not saying I agree that Goblins were created as XP. But if they were, I see no real reason why the plan would be wrong.

Can you define "wrong" in that sentence?

I'm finding it hard to imagine a moral yardstick that would make it "okay" to endanger the entire world because you have a complaint about civil rights. If a political protestor in our world started threatening countries with nuclear weapons, we would unite in putting a stop to him; only after that would we start talking about whether he had a point.

Or are you saying that because they're "created evil", it's "right" for them to do evil?

Or are you saying that if the Dark One's theology is correct, then "the plan" really is their best hope? - so this "wrong" is not a moral assessment at all, just a practical one?


Basically, they have three options. ONE- Do their best to wipe out their competition. This is just as evil as humans or elves wiping out the goblins and I think we can agree this is not a desirable outcome. Besides, of the goblins that have attempted this they haven't succeeded an aren't likely to.

Actually, I'd say they are quite likely to if Gobbotopia survives. The demographics are terrifying. Goblins breed much faster than humans; given a large, fertile base, in a couple of generations' time, they will be able to field huge armies. This wasn't a threat when they had to scratch out an existence in mountains and caves and swamps, but given the agricultural base of Gobbotopia... if I were their neighbours, I'd be extremely worried about now.

As for "just as evil" - well yes, and because the goblins are "mostly evil", there's every likelihood that once they have the ability, they'll set about doing it in a much more systematic and deliberate way than humans have ever persecuted goblins.


TWO- Just die.

Yeah... I realise you're including that for completeness, but I don't think it really needs to be argued.


THREE- Change status quote. We've already established that divine intervention would be needed to change the norm. Goblins are going to keep killing humans and humans are going to keep killing goblins.

(I think you mean 'status quo'.) There's no evidence that 'divine intervention' would be required. Right-Eye showed us one example of goblins living peacefully alongside humans. And orcs can get along with humans - we have the example of Roy in OtOOPCs, and the Azurites on chief grukgruk's island (where nobody on either side brought up the others' race as a reason why they couldn't strike a deal).


It is moral that this should be challenged. Every sapient being has rights, even a god. But should a person, say, attack someone else unprovoked, he has chosen to suspend some of his rights by violating the rights of someone else. By assaulting the fundamental character of a species, like goblins, the gods suspend their rights and invite themselves to retribution. And they deserve it.

"The gods", as I've pointed out previously, are not a monolithic entity. If we assume for the moment that goblins were created by an evil, or neutral, god, then it's likely that a lot of other gods disapprove and would be happy to co-operate with a plan that promised to undo the effects of this action, so long as it was within the rules they agreed at the time of creation to protect the integrity of the world.

When you say "assaulting the fundamental character of a species", what do you mean? Is it an "assault" to create a species? - before they were created, they didn't even have a "fundamental character", so it's hard to see how it could be assaulted. It might be called an "assault" to attempt to fundamentally change their nature - but that puts you in the curious position of arguing that it's immoral to attempt to redeem evildoers.


But if creatures are made 'evil' or made 'good' then good and evil lose all meaning and value. By arguing in such absolute morality, like goblins are born evil, you are inadvertantly arguing against the validity of morality at all! That is, at least morality the way it is being presented. It is impossible to do things 'right' or do things 'wrong' if one is born evil.

No, it's perfectly possible to do good and evil actions regardless of how you're made. There's an argument to be had about to what extent you're responsible for your evil actions, if someone has reached into your soul and tweaked your dial over to 'evil' without you having any say in the matter - but if you deny 'free will', then there's really no need for all this agonising at all, we can simply declare 'evil races' to be by definition 'non-sentient' and get on with killing them quite cheerfully.

[Narren]

No, it's perfectly possible to do good and evil actions regardless of how you're made. There's an argument to be had about to what extent you're responsible for your evil actions, if someone has reached into your soul and tweaked your dial over to 'evil' without you having any say in the matter - but if you deny 'free will', then there's really no need for all this agonising at all, we can simply declare 'evil races' to be by definition 'non-sentient' and get on with killing them quite cheerfully.

The problem with that is that he see several good (or at least non-evil) goblins. If they were auto-evil, that wouldn't be possible.

[ti'esar]

The problem with that is that he see several good (or at least non-evil) goblins. If they were auto-evil, that wouldn't be possible.

Which proves that goblins do have free will, which is what everyone more or less believes already. How is that a "problem"?

[Emanick]

No, it's perfectly possible to do good and evil actions regardless of how you're made. There's an argument to be had about to what extent you're responsible for your evil actions, if someone has reached into your soul and tweaked your dial over to 'evil' without you having any say in the matter - but if you deny 'free will', then there's really no need for all this agonising at all, we can simply declare 'evil races' to be by definition 'non-sentient' and get on with killing them quite cheerfully.

I think it may be useful to think of "Mostly Evil" races as having inherent desires to harm others, or, alternatively, a severely muted inherent desire for the good of others (with the possible exception of family, for the sake of reproduction). The concept of races with inherent tendencies towards a certain alignment makes no sense if said races have the same instincts as humans.

If we assume that goblins are a Mostly Evil race, then it's natural to conclude that their interest in their own personal welfare is considerably stronger than their interest in the general welfare of others. As such, any pleasure they receive in harming others is unlikely to be diminished by any remorse they may feel at causing said people harm. Remorse is not impossible for them, but their instincts are not naturally inclined towards it, so it is relatively rare for such an impulse to dictate their actions.

I realize that this sort of reading is somewhat inconsistent with the way Rich portrays goblins, and I don't think that's coincidental. Rich seems more interested in portraying goblins as flawed but sympathetic individuals, and though this makes for good storytelling, in my opinion it doesn't create a race that can easily be seen as "inherently bent towards evil." There's a reason why good writers dealing with nonhuman characters tend to "humanize" them - it makes them easier to relate to. Yet in humanizing nonhumans, something is always lost in translation. And that's too bad.

[veti]

I realize that this sort of reading is somewhat inconsistent with the way Rich portrays goblins, and I don't think that's coincidental. Rich seems more interested in portraying goblins as flawed but sympathetic individuals, and though this makes for good storytelling, in my opinion it doesn't create a race that can easily be seen as "inherently bent towards evil." There's a reason why good writers dealing with nonhuman characters tend to "humanize" them - it makes them easier to relate to. Yet in humanizing nonhumans, something is always lost in translation. And that's too bad.

This is purely my interpretation, of course, but I think that Rich doesn't believe races have 'inherent' characteristics other than those firmly based in physiology. I don't believe there is any 'genetic' basis for evil in OOTS. Some creatures are evil for the same sorts of reasons that some humans are evil; some are evil because they've been raised that way; some are 'evil' just because that's the 'side' they're on - their families, their friends, everyone around them is part of the same team, and they never really question it.

A few creatures (black dragons, demons) are 'built to be evil', and again that's reflected in their physical composition. When 'people' are exactly the right size to constitute a tasty main meal, or when your idea of nourishment consists of human souls washed down with pain and misery, you're going to be evil.

If this is correct, then goblins are, psychologically and spiritually, pretty much the same as humans. They're "mostly evil" because, for historical reasons, they're mostly raised in evil societies with evil laws and evil authorities, and that's just the way things are. No "divine ordination" involved.

[ti'esar]

As of the latest strip, I think we can now safely say that this is an academic discussion.

[Prowl]

I'd like to change my answer to "Neutral Dead"

[ORione]

Are zombies inherently Evil, or does their lack of Int make them automatically True Neutral?

[Kish]

Always Neutral Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm), in that by-fiat-because-they're-shambling-not-deathless-corpses way rather than the because-they-think way.

[hamishspence]

Interestingly Draconomicon doesn't do this for Zombie Dragons & Skeletal Dragons- having them as True Neutral despite it being a 3.5 book.