Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[Worldsong]

Again, that's at least partly attributable to making it a class in the first place. If it's a job, then you can have people who do it well, people who do it poorly, people who go about it earnestly and people who do the bare minimum.

The archetype role that is being filled by all these bad paladin characters could just as easily be represented by clerics with no really material difference, other than I guess the fact that there are weapon restrictions on clerics that paladins don't have, if I recall correctly.

Obviously, as you have shown here and in the other threads, these kinds of paladins are not unprecedented, but for me and at least some of the others who have issues with these depictions it's because the spirit is what makes the paladin for us.

I'd say the problem is that no matter how you dress it up, as long as being a paladin grants you (useful) abilities people are going to play paladins for the sake of the abilities and then either be apathetic towards the spirit of the paladin or do their best to skirt around it.

Not counting the players who actively delight in subverting expectations and going against the spirit of things, but those players are going to try and mess things up no matter what you do to try and stop them.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm pretty sure Dr. Zero just described why sensible Evil characters don't go around stabbing people at random

Yes

and then tried to claim that Neutral and Good characters are the same.

Uhm... no

EDIT:
Or Neutral and Good characters are fake.

Almost.
More correctly, that "Good, never using violence" Celias can exist only because either they can fly very fast or because they implicitly delegate the use of violence to someone else. And then turn their head to the other side.

Everything else said by people who live under the protection of armies and of laws enforced by police forces and so on is just hypocrisy.

This without even taking in consideration their very violent immune systems against poor germs. Disable it using proper medicines, and let the germs live in peace!

[Dion]

So are we back to the basic discussion:

Person One: The comic is asking “what is good and evil”.

Person Two: That’s so dumb. Everyone already knows what good and evil are.

Person One: No, not everyone agrees. It’s a nuanced discussion.

Person Two: I know what good and evil are. The author is wrong for discussing it.

Person Three: It’s good to kill babies!

[Worldsong]

More correctly, that "Good, never using violence" Celias can exist only because either they can fly very fast or because they implicitly delegate the use of violence to someone else. And then turn their head to the other side.

Everything else said by people who live under the protection of armies and of laws enforced by police forces and so on is just hypocrisy.

This without even taking in consideration their very violent immune systems against poor germs. Disable it using proper medicines, and let the germs live in peace!

There's a wide gap between "Never use violence, ever" and "The only reason we're not killing each other is because it might result in me being dead."

A very wide gap.

[Dr.Zero]

There's a wide gap between "Never use violence, ever" and "The only reason we're not killing each other is because it might result in me being dead."

A very wide gap.

And, again, "we are not killing each other" is not what I said.
But I think I replied to that already some posts above.

Here exactly

If you change "all murder each other" to "you can safely move around with a low probability to be murdered by a random stranger", yeah, pretty much.

It is the world you live on, though. If you don't notice it, it is because, well, the threat to be dragged to a jail works quite well. But it's not that you are defended by your good will, you're defended by people paid (by you, too) to keep the order and force respect of the law. You're just delegating the violence needed to defend your life. As Celia was willing to delegate the "proper punishment" over Belkar to Haley, as long as she might think of herself being not involved in his death.

And, again. You, while write there, are using violence. In the form of some policemen, paid by you, sent by your government, to drag someone in jail to avoid any damage to you or other law abiding member of your community.
There, that guy dragged in jail with force? Done by you.
That other staying in jail for 20 years? Done by you.
Etc.

[Jason]

Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".

The alignment rules are vague enough that they are open to some interpretation, but the villain paladins shown in the comic are pretty obviously in violation of the letter of the rules as well as the spirit. As has been discussed, The Giant's point in creating and showcasing them was to show why it's wrong to play paladins like that.

According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.

I maintain that if he was not exaggerating for effect then he has been exceptionally unlucky in who he has shared a table with.

Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice"

On the internet, in 2005, 30 years after the last time he had anything to do with the designing and writing of D&D. Gygax was also fairly notorious for trolling people.

If you want to know what the intent and goals of the alignment system were when it was designed, you should look at contemporary accounts on the subject, not 30-years-later internet ramblings.

- the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Biased towards the players". In a very real sense D&D has always been biased towards the players in all of its rules. Since the point of the game is to entertain the players this should not be surprising.
How is the alignment system biased against, say, goblins?

[Ionathus]

And, again. You, while write there, are using violence. In the form of some policemen, paid by you, sent by your government, to drag someone in jail to avoid any damage to you or other law abiding member of your community.
There, that guy dragged in jail with force? Done by you.
That other staying in jail for 20 years? Done by you.

I'm not Celia. What's your point here? "Violence is sometimes necessary to maintain peace?" Because there's a gulf the size of infinity between that argument and "Violence is necessary when dealing with The Other and we should never try to negotiate."

If you're willing, I'd appreciate an explanation of how your arguments here relate back to the subject matter, because I worry I'm misinterpreting you.

So are we back to the basic discussion:

Person One: The comic is asking “what is good and evil”.

Person Two: That’s so dumb. Everyone already knows what good and evil are.

Person One: No, not everyone agrees. It’s a nuanced discussion.

Person Two: I know what good and evil are. The author is wrong for discussing it.

Person Three: It’s good to kill babies!

And the wheel turns ever onward.

[Dion]

the villain paladins shown in the comic are pretty obviously in violation of the letter of the rules as well as the spirit.

Not to be obtuse, but what specific actions did they take that broke rules I can find in the base set?

[Severance]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

Allow me to rephrase your post in a way that actually depicts the point being made:

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your blame to who's responsible.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s responsible for this” or something similar?

And the answer is: yes. That's how you do it.
You point the finger at who directly had a hand in creating the problem, not towards people who did nothing wrong but just happen to be benefitting from it in some distant way.
They don't carry any obligation nor guilt to fix that, as I've seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm not Celia. What's your point here? "Violence is sometimes necessary to maintain peace?"

Not sometimes, continuosly.
Not because every one else is dangerous, but because there will be always someone dangerous for you or me or anyone else.
And that we all use violence by proxy. Even you, while you're sitting there.

Because there's a gulf the size of infinity between that argument and "Violence is necessary when dealing with The Other and we should never try to negotiate."

Surely there is a vast gulf.
How that relates to finding who is guilty of something specific and -if convenient- punishing the guilty ("whose fault is this"), which introduced the whole "sense of justice" I replied to Dion -and the following replies- is a thing I cannot understand.

Maybe if you explain what you found disturbing, or at least untrue, in my replies, I might understand how the two things relate.

[Jason]

Not to be obtuse, but what specific actions did they take that broke rules I can find in the base set?

It depends on which evil Paladin you're talking about, but the main one the paladins who massacred Redcloak's village broke was "a paladin’s code requires that she...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The Giant has made it clear in his commentary that the goblin children were innocents. So by the rules any paladin who participated in the massacre of the goblin children or who failed to punish someone who killed those goblin children broke the paladin's code and should have fallen.

[Rrmcklin]

It seems one of the issues with this discussion is that a lot of people seem to have minority view on what being good entails and/or just don't care about being good at all.

A lot (though not all) of the frustration from Roy and Durkon's conversations seems to stem from the fact that many people think "doing the bare minimum and not being interested in doing more" counts as good. To me, that kind of seems to be missing the point of good entirely. And it also seems that when that's pointed out some people are reacting as if the claim is that everyone who doesn't agree is "bad" or "evil", when that also doesn't seem to be the point being made either.

Obviously moral and philosophical debates are going to be tricky, but I'm not really sure how this goes anywhere if so many people come into the discussion thinking that the characters should only care about doing as little as possible or that the whole reason everyone in the world doesn't go around murdering and killing is for purely practical reasons and morality means nothing.

[Dion]

And the answer is: yes. That's how you do it.
You point the finger at who directly had a hand in creating the problem, not towards people who did nothing wrong but just happen to be benefitting from it in some distant way.
They don't carry any obligation nor guilt to fix that, as I've seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?

Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?

[Rrmcklin]

Fenrir/s also isn't actually responsible for the problems the goblinoids actively face. His negligence allowed things to progress to this point, but the fact remains that it was still humans of the Sapphire Guard actively going on raids and destroying goblin and hobgoblin villages, and it was the dwarves who apparently drove the bugbears into the frozen tundra.

Going "it's all Fenrir/s" fault is ignoring all that has happened since then, and is continuing to happen. And as far as obligation goes - we all probably profit from the misfortune of others in someone, and it might be impossible to complete stop that because the world will never be perfect. But if you find out about the problem and could make it even a little better but go "I have no obligation to stop profiting off your suffering", yes, I'd say that's a moral failing. It doesn't make someone irredeemably evil or anything, but I'd say it is fair to hold such things against people.

[Ionathus]

Hold on a sec, changing the context to "all goblins" is moving the goalposts, isn't it?

The predicament presented in the comic is for the goblins we have on screen.

No. The predicament is explicitly for all goblinoids. It has always been all goblinoids, since the moment Redcloak put on the cloak and learned the "truth."

Thor was talking about the creation of all goblins. Redcloak is fixated on a deeply personal sense of revenge, but he has always claimed to be working for the betterment of all goblins. The fact that his motives are selfish and informed by his own personal trauma doesn't change the fact that when he talks about goblins, he talks about all of them, and that's what Durkon heard and responded to.

Not sometimes, continuosly.
Not because every one else is dangerous, but because there will be always someone dangerous for you or me or anyone else.
And that we all use violence by proxy. Even you, while you're sitting there.

Surely there is a vast gulf.
How that relates to finding who is guilty of something specific and -if convenient- punishing the guilty ("whose fault is this"), which introduced the whole "sense of justice" I replied to Dion -and the following replies- is a thing I cannot understand.

Maybe if you explain what you found disturbing, or at least untrue, in my replies, I might understand how the two things relate.

Mostly, I'm disturbed by this fixation on punishment. As Dion pointed out, punishing the original guilty party is rarely - if ever - the best way to improve things for the victim. Jail time, execution, torture -- these are all either base instinctual revenge or a deterrent against future crime (either by that same guilty party or by other witnesses). Thinking that vengeance/retribution is a self-evident good is a short road to cartoonish Hatfield/McCoy feuds.

Which, incidentally, some people have pointed out as a problem for the goblinoid situation in the past. Goblins kill PC races, PC races kill goblins in response, lather, rinse, repeat. Breaking that cycle is the challenge. On both sides.

Basically, blaming Fenrir isn't going to change anything for the goblins. Their situation still sucks, even if they would know who's specifically responsible.

[Dion]

The Giant has made it clear in his commentary that the goblin children were innocents. So by the rules any paladin who participated in the massacre of the goblin children or who failed to punish someone who killed those goblin children broke the paladin's code and should have fallen.

Hmm... yes, that is a contradiction that’s difficult to resolve!

1) The Giant has said that he considers goblin non-combatants to be innocent.

2) The Giant has built a world where most gods and most humans see all goblins, including non-combatants, as nuisance xp bags, and slaughter them without repercussions (similar to how much of the TSR and WotC supplementary material and many gaming tables play goblins.)

And you’re trying to reconcile: how can both those things be true at once? Clearly The Giant has made a mistake!

The answer is a bit of a twist: The Giant has constructed an artificial world with moral values he personally disagrees with.

Consider the novel Huck Finn by Mark Twain. In Huck Finn, Jim is a slave and property. From the moral values of view of the universe Mark Twain has constructed, Jim no value as a person, and is basically just $800 worth of property that Huck has absconded with..

Mark Twain clearly does not agree with the moral values of the universe he is describing, and spends the entire book demonstrating why those moral values are wrong.

The Giant is trying to do the same thing. He has constructed a world with moral values that he personally disagrees with, and he is showing you why the moral values of that world are wrong.

So, it isn’t a contradiction to say “the moral values of the world the Giant constructed disagree with the Giant’s personal moral values”, because that’s the whole point of the strip.

[Jasdoif]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

Eh, it's an effective enough heuristic; using emotional investment to promote taking otherwise unacceptable actions, directed at the perceived source of a problem, with the intent of mitigating the source's ability to continue causing problems.

It doesn't really work outside of ongoing problems caused by sources that can be meaningfully influenced, is the thing.

[danielxcutter]

What trap?! Just because Redcloak's an Evil villain doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is BS, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Ionathus]

That is exactly my point. The villain Redcloak extends beyond what we've actually seen in the online comic, and Durkon falls into his trap. Thor refutes it, or at least explains why it's not a reasonable way to look at what actually happened. And Durkon refuses to understand.

If your take on the last few strips was actually "Redcloak somehow bamboozled Durkon into rejecting reality", rather than "Durkon talked to both sides (Redcloak & Thor) and realized the truth (and inaccuracy) in both stories, and is now trying to determine a way forward that is fair to all involved", then your interpretation is entirely different from that of the majority of the audience, and therefore I don't think you and I will be able to have a productive conversation about it.

[Jason]

And you’re trying to reconcile: how can both those things be true at once? Clearly The Giant has made a mistake!

No, I'm saying "clearly The Giant is choosing not to follow the rules of D&D in this instance."
The reason for not following the paladin rules and having all those paladins fall on-panel seems to be "so I can illustrate that DMs and players who play paladins this way (i.e. without actually following the paladin rules) are doing it wrong."

[Dion]

No, I'm saying "clearly The Giant is choosing not to follow the rules of D&D in this instance."
The reason for not following the paladin rules and having all those paladins fall on-panel seems to be "so I can illustrate that DMs and players who play paladins this way (i.e. without actually following the paladin rules) are doing it wrong."

I don’t believe it’s against the rules for paladins to kill non-combatant goblins.

I dont think there’s anything in the rules or in the supplementary material that says DMs must treat non-combatant goblins as innocents.

[Rrmcklin]

If your take on the last few strips was actually "Redcloak somehow bamboozled Durkon into rejecting reality", rather than "Durkon talked to both sides (Redcloak & Thor) and realized the truth (and inaccuracy) in both stories, and is now trying to determine a way forward that is fair to all involved", then you are reading an entirely different story than the majority of the audience, and therefore I don't think you and I will be able to have a productive conversation about it.

Seriously, Durkon has not accepted Redcloak's narrative uncritically. He has talked to someone else who was directly involved, and come to the conclusion that although Redcloak is off on certain points, overall he is still right about a great injustice being done and continuing. And he is not the kind of person who can ignore that, even while still resolving to stop Redcloak.

A lot of this only seems to be an issue if you're only paying attention to half of what they say, without the context of the other half.

[danielxcutter]

I suppose "hearing" doesn't mean "listening".

[arimareiji]

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?

Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?

You're a much better diplomat and problem-solver than I am. I don't think I could have composed a productive response to someone rewording me to what they wanted to argue against, and then sticking my name (as it were) on it.

[Jason]

It’s not against the rules for paladins to kill non-combatant goblins.

There’s nothing in the rules that say DMs must treat non-combatant goblins as innocents.

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

[Dion]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

Hmm... yes, that is a contradiction that’s difficult to resolve!

1) The Giant has said that he personally considers goblin non-combatants to be innocent.

2) The Giant has built a world where most gods and most humans see all goblins, including non-combatants, as nuisance xp bags, and slaughter them without repercussions...

No, wait. I think already wrote this post...

Edit: I’ll just re-iterate the important part one last time:

There’s a difference between what the rules *should* be and what the rules *are*.

I think you both and the Giant agree on what the rules *should* be: WotC should make it unambiguous that killing sentient non-combatants is considered evil act by the rules.

However, I think you and the Giant disagree on what the rules *are*: you believe that the rules match your personal moral code, and that the rules say killing sentient non-combatants is already unambiguously an evil act.

The Giant disagrees with your interpretation of the rules. He believes that WotC has consciously avoided making any such statement, and has left it to each individual DM.

[hungrycrow]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

It's worth noting that good outsiders in OotS(at least the ones we've seen address the subject) also consider goblin noncombatants innocents. They just don't notice the underlying issues that push goblin noncombatants into becoming combatants.

[Severance]

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?

Identifying the source correctly before taking action? Absolutely.

Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?

I believe it will provide me and my children assurance that our house won't get burned again.
And maybe the indemnity fees I'm owed from the person actually responsible for burning it down, instead of asking money from innocent random passerbies who just happened to warm themselves by the fire.

[dancrilis]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

Where are you seeing that in the rules of the player's handbook.

Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladinÂ’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladinÂ’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Unless you are argueing that they committed a 'willing evil act' (something that the handbook does not define), that they ceased to be 'lawful good' (something that the handbook does not give rules on) or 'grossly violated' the code (something the handbook does not clarify) - then I am not seeing what rules you have him not enforcing.

On a different topic:

Basically, blaming Fenrir isn't going to change anything for the goblins. Their situation still sucks, even if they would know who's specifically responsible.

Personal opinion: Fenris isn't the god to blame.

Spoiler: SOD/HTPGHS

Show

The problem god is The Dark One and placing blame on him is useful.

It was the Dark One who founded a goblin nation and a powerful army and then went to his neighbours and said 'give me stuff and we can live in peace', this lead to a war when they didn't back down and when the goblins lost the conflict (that they effectively started) that lead to the more harsh measures against the goblin people and forced them even further away from civilisation - and that was all on the mortal not divine plane.
If I take out money from an ATM and someone shows up with a group of there friends and say 'don't want your cards, don't want you phone or your keys, don't even want all they money you just took out - but me and my friends here are hungry and would like just half of it and we can all go home in peace ... hint hint' well the guy might be the most polite mugger ever and it might be better for me to agree ... but the guy is still trying to extort me with the threat of violence.

The Dark One created The Crimson Mantle which is the reason that Redcloak's village was attacked - not because they were goblins.
The Goblin purges continued not due to hatred of goblins (which does seem to have been present) but to try and end a threat to the universe - and when the paladins found out that they were likely looking in the wrong place most of them gave up on them.
The Dark One effectively told Redcloak get back to the plan when he was working to establish a peaceful goblin nation.
The Dark One doesn't answer the other gods calls even via a servant - even when he could lay out his terms and hear back from them.
The Dark One knows they cannot betray him without risking another snarl as he seems to know that another could form if they did due to deity conflict - so he doesn't even really need the snarl.

If a goblin embraced Thor's (or Fenris's) dogma and sought to be a cleric would either of them reject the free soul? no indication that they would - but the Dark One's dogma as indicated by Redcloak is that the gods have no use for goblins except as fodder, so why would they shop around.

Ultimately all Redcloak's problems for the goblin people seem like they can be traced to a single source and it isn't Fenris.

[Jason]

No, wait. I think already wrote this post...

Yes you did. So we agree then. He was deliberately not enforcing the rules to illustrate why not following those rules is a bad thing, similar to Mark Twain having Huck Finn decide that if turning Jim in really meant going to hell that Huck would rather go to hell.

Unless you are argueing that they committed a 'willing evil act' (something that the handbook does not define), that they ceased to be 'lawful good' (something that the handbook does not give rules on) or 'grossly violated' the code (something the handbook does not clarify) - then I am not seeing what rules you have him not enforcing.

The paladin code requires you to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Since failing to punish someone who merely threatens innocents is a violation, killing the innocents yourself (inflicting, in effect, as much harm as possible) is obviously a gross violation. Q.E.D.

You could argue "the paladin could commit suicide immediately after slaughtering innocents, and then claim that he had punished the one who killed the innocents and therefore technically did not violate the code," but;
a) none of the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village are shown doing this, and in fact one of them shows up again alive and well (and still a paladin) in How the Paladin Got His Scar; and
b) harming, threatening, or killing innocents also pretty obviously qualifies as a "willful evil action", so the paladin would have fallen anyway.

Personal opinion: Fenris isn't the god to blame.

It might be more accurate to say "Fenris isn't the only god to blame. I agree with you that The Dark One probably has even more of the blame for the current state of goblinkind, and that's assuming most of the story Redcloak told was accurate.