Goblins and the evolution of Gaming Morality

[Jason]

It's called a joke, Jason.

Yeah, but sometimes it's hard to tell how serious someone really is being behind their joke.

[Worldsong]

I think Miko's Fall being that spectacular could also due to it being a horrible thing from a practical point as well even in the short term.

Slaughtering goblins at least has the advantage of preventing them from doing the Plan. Killing your liege when an entire hobgoblin army is right on your ass because of a glorified hunch has absolutely no upsides.

"You ****ed up so badly that we decided it deserved a parade."

[M1982]

3E paid some lip service to the idea that not all members of "monster races" are evil, 4E removed all of that and 5E flat-out rejected them as anything other than monsters during development. Like I said: the reason WotC has been making some small step towards maybe doing something about it in the past year is because they can't afford to keep ignoring the issue.

It wasn't 4e (yeah 4e made the gnolls demonic, but even then had then as PC race), but 5e that really reversed all the previous developments to make Orcs and Goblins more than mere monsters.

That's why the latest 5e turn to change this once again feels so hollow.

5e, starting with the sundering RSE leading up to 5e, did it's best to make the monstrous demihumans back into mere monsters. Cattie Brie was reincarnated with a divine verdict from Mielikki (of all deities) that all goblins are evil and should be put to the sword. Including their babies (yes, slaying baby goblins was specifically mentioned in the Sundering novels). She even made Drizzt questioning the good goblin he once meet and befriended.

Also the wiped the kingdom of many arrows from the map at the start of 5e, so no more huge source of civilized orcs trading with the other powers of the north as equals.

Then they released Volo's and portrayed the orcs as religious fanatics living to please their dark pantheon.

5e made them this way specifically. So all the more recent talk about how Gruumsh is bad as a racial deity and orc culture should be more diverse and not defined by him and his gang, etc. is in stark contrast to their deliberate change to make orcs this way in the first place.

Yes, all those orc deities existed since 2e (or even earlier), but they never had much more than their entries in monster mythology and some name dropping here and there. Other then Gruumsh none of them ever played a large role in D&D to the point that many players probably didn't even know there even was an orc pantheon beyond Gruumsh.

Then 5e designers thought it a good idea to bring those deities front and center and have all of orc culture in 5e rotate around them.

And then suddenly they jump on the "always evil orcs is wrong. Always Gruumsh dominated orcs is wrong" bandwagon.

So sorry if I can not believe this to be a change of heart but a straight up marketing ploy.

shortly before 5e: market research indicates our customers don't like how we civilized orcs and goblins. Make them evil kill on sight sacks of XP again, it will boost sales
during 5e: market research indicates our customers don't like the "fantasy racisim" in the always evil races. Let's quickly distance ourselves from it. It will bo

[woweedd]

"You ****ed up so badly that we decided it deserved a parade."

According to Rich, that is more or less why. I think his statement was "It's equivalent to the CEO of your multinational corporation coming to your cubical to fire you personally, because you screwed up THAT badly".

[sotanaht]

So almost from the get go you've got monsters with families and children

Not necessarily. The most obvious situation is like that of the 40k Orks, who grow from fungal spores without any real concept of "parents". More realistic is a race modeled after any real-world animal that does not directly care for its young, a common trait of many animal classes including most reptiles, fish, and insects. Warhammer Skaven might be a good example of how that might play out. Even if they do raise their own children, allowing them to be "good" means assigning human morality to things that are NOT human. That may be appropriate for some species, but just because they have "families" doesn't imply anything.

It can be somewhat difficult to justify the concept of civilization for a species that lacks any concept of family, but it can be similarly difficult to imagine how a proper civilization could form for any species not almost identical to humans in form and function, so that's something that can often be ignored in a narrative if only for the sake of allowing variety.

[danielxcutter]

"You ****ed up so badly that we decided it deserved a parade."

Hah! Is this a reference?

It wasn't 4e (yeah 4e made the gnolls demonic, but even then had then as PC race), but 5e that really reversed all the previous developments to make Orcs and Goblins more than mere monsters.

That's why the latest 5e turn to change this once again feels so hollow.

5e, starting with the sundering RSE leading up to 5e, did it's best to make the monstrous demihumans back into mere monsters. Cattie Brie was reincarnated with a divine verdict from Mielikki (of all deities) that all goblins are evil and should be put to the sword. Including their babies (yes, slaying baby goblins was specifically mentioned in the Sundering novels). She even made Drizzt questioning the good goblin he once meet and befriended.

Also the wiped the kingdom of many arrows from the map at the start of 5e, so no more huge source of civilized orcs trading with the other powers of the north as equals.

Then they released Volo's and portrayed the orcs as religious fanatics living to please their dark pantheon.

5e made them this way specifically. So all the more recent talk about how Gruumsh is bad as a racial deity and orc culture should be more diverse and not defined by him and his gang, etc. is in stark contrast to their deliberate change to make orcs this way in the first place.

Yes, all those orc deities existed since 2e (or even earlier), but they never had much more than their entries in monster mythology and some name dropping here and there. Other then Gruumsh none of them ever played a large role in D&D to the point that many players probably didn't even know there even was an orc pantheon beyond Gruumsh.

Then 5e designers thought it a good idea to bring those deities front and center and have all of orc culture in 5e rotate around them.

And then suddenly they jump on the "always evil orcs is wrong. Always Gruumsh dominated orcs is wrong" bandwagon.

So sorry if I can not believe this to be a change of heart but a straight up marketing ploy.

shortly before 5e: market research indicates our customers don't like how we civilized orcs and goblins. Make them evil kill on sight sacks of XP again, it will boost sales
during 5e: market research indicates our customers don't like the "fantasy racisim" in the always evil races. Let's quickly distance ourselves from it. It will bo

Or possibly they didn’t actually look at much at the market at first. I wonder how much was executive meddling and how much was personal bias on part of the devs.

According to Rich, that is more or less why. I think his statement was "It's equivalent to the CEO of your multinational corporation coming to your cubical to fire you personally, because you screwed up THAT badly".

That’s what he said, yes.

Not necessarily. The most obvious situation is like that of the 40k Orks, who grow from fungal spores without any real concept of "parents". More realistic is a race modeled after any real-world animal that does not directly care for its young, a common trait of many animal classes including most reptiles, fish, and insects. Warhammer Skaven might be a good example of how that might play out. Even if they do raise their own children, allowing them to be "good" means assigning human morality to things that are NOT human. That may be appropriate for some species, but just because they have "families" doesn't imply anything.

It can be somewhat difficult to justify the concept of civilization for a species that lacks any concept of family, but it can be similarly difficult to imagine how a proper civilization could form for any species not almost identical to humans in form and function, so that's something that can often be ignored in a narrative if only for the sake of allowing variety.

I suppose. But most “monstrous races” basically do act like humans with different colors and stuff in D&D.

[Crusher]

Eh. The tough part about generalizing about D&D in general is that there are lots of different settings with wildly different expectations. Forgotten Realms is kind of the default, and iirc Greyhawk is mostly similar, but Dark Sun is all grimdark, and Eberron embraced the "everyone's a person" ethos from day one. And even within those settings different DMs choose to focus on different things and different groups of players have fun with different kinds of experiences.

*Someone* has to be the antagonist and they have to have minions of some sort. When I was younger, I was happy to have groups hack through masses of clearly distinguished enemies and orcs are perfectly good for that. As I've gotten older I've found I appreciate nuance more. I like putting the characters in morally ambiguous situations and see what they decide to do. NPCs that would normally seem like antagonists, but for various reasons happen to have aligned goals and the party has to make hard decisions about whether the help is worth it.

Obviously I don't do that *all* the time, they aren't Jesuit monks obsessed with parsing moral dilemmas to the tenth decimal point, that gets old too (and pretty quickly. Its best used in small doses at key dramatic moments, especially if you've been gradually dropping hints leading towards it). It just adds some spice. Eberron has been great for that.

[hamishspence]

I suppose. But most “monstrous races” basically do act like humans with different colors and stuff in D&D.

As The Giant put it:

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

[danielxcutter]

That’s what I was thinking about, yes.

[Worldsong]

Hah! Is this a reference?

Surprisingly, no. It's just what popped into my head.

Of course it could be a reference and I just forgot where it came from.

[Dragonus45]

I see. Does anyone know why?

Because they caught a lot of flack for how complicated 3.5 was and the big clustercluck that was the OGL and decided to simply things as much as possible in both mechanics and flavor while trying to capture the feeling of older editions and wound up wildly overcorrecting in a bunch of ways.

[danielxcutter]

Because they caught a lot of flack for how complicated 3.5 was and the big clustercluck that was the OGL and decided to simply things as much as possible in both mechanics and flavor while trying to capture the feeling of older editions and wound up wildly overcorrecting in a bunch of ways.

Yeah, while 5e is infinitely more newbie-friendly than 3.xe ever was, I'd say it's a bit too watered-down for my tastes. And the part about the fluff makes sense too.

[Shadowknight12]

I read the opening post and I feel a bit confused, because it feels like there's an overarching point to it, but all it really says is "things used to be like this and now they are like that", which is more of an observation than anything else.

[JonahFalcon]

I may remind people that for all the discussion of morality, D&D is still just a game, and there are rules so that the fights are entertaining, but unrealistic -- like the fact that die rolls affect people's fates ("Wait a minute, I rolled a 22!")

It runs on "we're fighting them, they bad, let's kill them for XP."

[Shadowknight12]

It runs on "we're fighting them, they bad, let's kill them for XP."

A lot of people find that it doesn't suit their tastes, and it's not even something restricted to the game itself, but to the fantasy/science fiction genre as a whole.

[Ionathus]

I may remind people that for all the discussion of morality, D&D is still just a game, and there are rules so that the fights are entertaining, but unrealistic -- like the fact that die rolls affect people's fates ("Wait a minute, I rolled a 22!")

It runs on "we're fighting them, they bad, let's kill them for XP."

It literally only runs on that if you decide it runs on that. You don't personally define the parameters of something that's as broadly played and adapted as D&D is: a significant portion of the playerbase – as well as the game's current designers – would disagree with your definition.

[arimareiji]

It literally only runs on that if you decide it runs on that. You don't personally define the parameters of something that's as broadly played and adapted as D&D is: a significant portion of the playerbase – as well as the game's current designers – would disagree with your definition.

Not to mention the author, but it seems like we accidentally left him behind at the last rest stop.

Three states ago.

What a long, strange trip it's been. (^_~)

Spoiler: bonus content, Don't Split the Party (Round 7 foreword)

Show

Vaarsvuvius then repeats and amplifies this misconception when he/she casts the custom-made familicide spell in #639, essentially speaking for all players who say, “All monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill.” But hopefully when the reader sees the scale on which Vaarsuvius carries out the devastation, the error of this thinking is more obvious. If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons.

[brian 333]

What we have intentionally glossed over in this topic is the simple question:

What if, in a particular setting, goblins really are irredeemable, rapacious monsters?

We have approached this topic fr6m the assumption that goblins are just like us, except for circumstance. This is also the author's theme in the comic. But assume that if you take a goblin child, raise it in kindness and wealth, give it an education and gainful employment, and it still becomes a murderous monster?

What are the moral implications of allowing such a goblin colony to thrive?

[Worldsong]

What we have intentionally glossed over in this topic is the simple question:

What if, in a particular setting, goblins really are irredeemable, rapacious monsters?

We have approached this topic fr6m the assumption that goblins are just like us, except for circumstance. This is also the author's theme in the comic. But assume that if you take a goblin child, raise it in kindness and wealth, give it an education and gainful employment, and it still becomes a murderous monster?

What are the moral implications of allowing such a goblin colony to thrive?

I believe that's called Goblin Slayer.

[danielxcutter]

I believe that's called Goblin Slayer.

The problem is that OotSverse goblins are not much the same as those goblins, yet people advocate for treating them as if they were.

[hroþila]

What we have intentionally glossed over in this topic is the simple question:

What if, in a particular setting, goblins really are irredeemable, rapacious monsters?

We have approached this topic fr6m the assumption that goblins are just like us, except for circumstance. This is also the author's theme in the comic. But assume that if you take a goblin child, raise it in kindness and wealth, give it an education and gainful employment, and it still becomes a murderous monster?

What are the moral implications of allowing such a goblin colony to thrive?

We have also glossed over the simple question of what language five babies would spontaneously begin speaking if they were raised with no linguistic input and basically no interaction. Foster-mothers and nurses would suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for we would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which had been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. What are the moral implications of conducting such an experiment?

I dunno but it's like about as relevant to OotS as your scenario.

[danielxcutter]

We have also glossed over the simple question of what language five babies would spontaneously begin speaking if they were raised with no linguistic input and basically no interaction. Foster-mothers and nurses would suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for we would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which had been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. What are the moral implications of conducting such an experiment?

I dunno but it's like about as relevant to OotS as your scenario.

For what it's worth, I don't think brian was saying that was specifically about OotS.

[hroþila]

For what it's worth, I don't think brian was saying that was specifically about OotS.

No, but what relevance does it have to anything? What kind of thought experiment is that? Why would we trying to come up with convoluted scenarios where murdering children would be morally justified?

[Taevyr]

What we have intentionally glossed over in this topic is the simple question:

What if, in a particular setting, goblins really are irredeemable, rapacious monsters?

We have approached this topic fr6m the assumption that goblins are just like us, except for circumstance. This is also the author's theme in the comic. But assume that if you take a goblin child, raise it in kindness and wealth, give it an education and gainful employment, and it still becomes a murderous monster?

What are the moral implications of allowing such a goblin colony to thrive?

If that's the case in a particular setting (e.g. goblin slayer), we can clearly conclude that those goblins have a rather simplified inherent morality and are thus hardly comparable to the goblins in OOTS besides their name and (presumably) certain physical characteristics, and thus not relevant to this thread. Any further discussing of that theoretical setting/those theoretical goblins could happen in a different thread that isn't about the OOTS goblins specifically.

Essentially, this "what if" is about as relevant as the question "what if all goblins had angelic wings, pooped rainbows and automatically became lawful good half-celestials upon reaching adulthood, even if raised by Xykon out of sheer boredom? What would the moral implications of destroying such a goblin colony be?"

[Ionathus]

What we have intentionally glossed over in this topic is the simple question:

What if, in a particular setting, goblins really are irredeemable, rapacious monsters?

We have approached this topic fr6m the assumption that goblins are just like us, except for circumstance. This is also the author's theme in the comic. But assume that if you take a goblin child, raise it in kindness and wealth, give it an education and gainful employment, and it still becomes a murderous monster?

What are the moral implications of allowing such a goblin colony to thrive?

This is, as others have said, a pointless hypothetical.

[Jason]

We have also glossed over the simple question of what language five babies would spontaneously begin speaking if they were raised with no linguistic input and basically no interaction. Foster-mothers and nurses would suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for we would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which had been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. What are the moral implications of conducting such an experiment?

I dunno but it's like about as relevant to OotS as your scenario.

It has also been essentially tried in real life in some orphanages, to the severe detriment of the experimental subjects. Humans babies who aren't regularly talked to suffer severe developmental and health issues.

[Metastachydium]

It has also been essentially tried in real life in some orphanages, to the severe detriment of the experimental subjects. Humans babies who aren't regularly talked to suffer severe developmental and health issues.

Yeah, who would have thought that would happen? Those filthy humans can be criminally dumb.

[danielxcutter]

It has also been essentially tried in real life in some orphanages, to the severe detriment of the experimental subjects. Humans babies who aren't regularly talked to suffer severe developmental and health issues.

You do know that was sarcasm, right?

[Jason]

You do know that was sarcasm, right?

Sure. But as I said, it has really happened. Go take a read if you would like to be horrified.

[Worldsong]

Sure. But as I said, it has really happened. Go take a read if you would like to be horrified.

I think I'll take your word for it.