Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Goblin nursery massacre


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: Did Sigmund Ringforger heartlessly massacre a nursery full of kids? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

Did Sigmund Ringforger heartlessly massacre a nursery full of kids?

  1. Yes, he's a monster! (14 votes [46.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.67%

  2. No, it's ok. Apparently goblin kids don't count! (16 votes [53.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:56 PM

To facilitate discussion of the largest single massacre of younglings in the history of the site, I thought I'd do a quick poll. The question has been phrased to not at all be a leading one... It may also be just slightly tongue in cheek...
  • 0

#2 thad

thad

    Player Subordinaire

  • Members
  • 383 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 05 September 2012 - 04:37 AM

Where's the 'it's ok, but he really is a monster' option?
Or the 'he's a PC dammit, ethics doesn't count'?
  • 0

#3 BigJackBrass

BigJackBrass

    Whartson Hall Gamer

  • Administrators
  • 4,601 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationStalybridge

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:49 AM

Or the 'he's a PC dammit, ethnics doesn't count'?

Well, let's not bring race into this... ;-)
  • 0

#4 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:47 AM

As of right now the votes are 50/50, which allows Sigmund to rest easy knowing he did the Neutral thing :P
  • 0

#5 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:10 PM

As of right now the votes are 50/50, which allows Sigmund to rest easy knowing he did the Neutral thing :P


You're, erm I mean Sigmund's, holding up pretty well there. Surprisingly good support for someone who perpetrated a massacre of (admittedly goblin) children!!! :wink:

In my defence for starting the poll, I do believe it was you who said "let the debate begin" on the other thread... :D

Ps. Revenge polls are bad form, so don't even go there. Ta. 8)
  • 0

#6 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:33 PM

There is a slight lead to the Sigmund is a monster category, but still surprisingly close. I was actually pretty sure I'd be overwhelmingly chastised for Sigmund's actions here.

Personally though, I think it's a good defining event for Sigmund thus far. He has the flaws of traditional dwarfish racism, extended to some extremes with goblins (and likely orcs if they show up) and he is not Good. He's generally polite and well-meaning, but he isn't above putting some morals to the side and doing what he thinks is 'right' for the party and community.
  • 0

#7 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:00 PM

I think Sigmund's come out very well in the poll. He's a straight-down-the-line kind-a-guy and people respect that.

As for the forum members who voted saying it's ok to massacre goblin kids, well... ;)
  • 0

#8 cammcv

cammcv

    Toad

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Locationmelbourne aus

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:27 PM

goblins dont count becuse bobble heds dont count :twisted: :evil:
  • 0

#9 Thing

Thing

    a Bad Man

  • Administrators
  • 12,601 posts
  • LocationNear Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:39 PM

I am a bit torn to vote. In a classic D&D and fantasy realm you do have absolute, discreet good and evil and in view of the alignment system Sigmunds actions are just fine.

Plus leaving the kids after killing all the adults would not have gone well, and there wasn't a likelyhood of being able to foster raise them.

Then again, slaughter of the "innocents".

But either way, it may be fun to digg Sigmund in character about it;)
  • 0

#10 eformo

eformo

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 566 posts
  • LocationWaco

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:48 AM

I take it that killing people is generally a bad thing, innocent people even more so.

But these aren't people, they are goblins. It's not like there's any chance of them being not-evil. Since evil is invariably predicated of each and every one, it's the morally obligatory thing to do.
  • 0

#11 LightPagoda

LightPagoda

    Captain One

  • Members
  • 461 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:03 AM

Depends on how tightly creatures in Hal's world stick to the alignments. I tell my players when I run a game that non-magical intelligent creature alignments are an average of their society rather than necessarily 'genetic'. Things like intelligent undead and abominations are evil because of what they are generally while things like kobolds and goblins are evil because of their society. The deck is heavily stacked against goblins of course but it would be possible for a neutral one to pop out. Hal may be running his creature alignments more traditionally in which case all those babies were destined to become Evil and squashing them early was the right choice.
  • 0

#12 Thing

Thing

    a Bad Man

  • Administrators
  • 12,601 posts
  • LocationNear Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:25 AM

I commend you, LightPagoda, on telling your players how that works in your game world. In RPGs and fantasy literature it is rather convenient to have races and people that are just flat out evil, otherwise making a career of seeking them out and killing them becomes highly questionable.

Many adventuring parties are homeless wanderers that drift into town and ask about to see if someone wants to pay them money to kill something, or if there is a rumour of riches that can be had by going out and killing their owners/guardians. The line between adventurer and psychopathic vagrant is pretty thin at times.
  • 0

#13 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:02 AM

Plus leaving the kids after killing all the adults would not have gone well, and there wasn't a likelyhood of being able to foster raise them.


If I was trying to defend Sigmund's actions, I would probably go with this. Considering that it'd be less than likely that any townsfolk would be willing to foster one goblin, let alone dozens of them, raising them is a huge burden to subject a party too, and being Good does not mean wanting to be a goblin broodmother. Likewise, letting them suffer in a locked room with nothing to eat but each other may be invariably worse.

I think their deaths would be a necessity in almost any party, it might be different if there were more reasonable options like in Monte Cook's Ptolus where there is the Brotherhood of Redemption that is founded of saving and redeeming evil races, but in this situation the goblin babies are likely to die one way or another unless the party drop everything to raisethem. what matters would be the reaction. Good characters should be extremely remorseful and reluctant and perhaps somewhat scarred by it. Kixy had a fairly good CG level reaction. Not wanting to do the job herself (the chaotic aspect), and feeling very sorry and sad about the whole situation. The Neutral reaction is more resigned, seeing it as a duty or job. The evil reaction is enjoying the whole thing.

There's probably quite a bit to be said that they were children, not babies, a lot of their behavior and such probably already learned, a fun day for them is probably having a handful of small animals or human children tossed into their nursery to be torn apart.
  • 0

#14 Thing

Thing

    a Bad Man

  • Administrators
  • 12,601 posts
  • LocationNear Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:10 AM

Good characters should be extremely remorseful and reluctant and perhaps somewhat scarred by it. Kixy had a fairly good CG level reaction. Not wanting to do the job herself (the chaotic aspect), and feeling very sorry and sad about the whole situation. The Neutral reaction is more resigned, seeing it as a duty or job. The evil reaction is enjoying the whole thing.

That's why Hieronymus only watched part of the action.
  • 0

#15 LightPagoda

LightPagoda

    Captain One

  • Members
  • 461 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:29 PM

The line between adventurer and psychopathic vagrant is pretty thin at times.


I didnt need to bring up the variability of alignment in my Ootak Kingmaker campaign. The group had a standing rule: "If it is smaller than 3 feet, tame it." This applied to various intelligent creatures even. A mite, a kobold and a worg to name a few. Sadly only the kobolds showed some success. Then of course there was the nearly BDSM style troll blood collecting apparatus in the castle basement as well as the deliberate attempt to induce Stockholm Syndrome on some loggers. As to the pschopathic vagrant, I think I need point no further than Dunny from out Traveller campaign. The episode where he tries to 'tame' one the Vargyr (anthro dog alien) pirates comes to mind especially.
  • 0

#16 Vaeron

Vaeron

    Stirge

  • Members
  • 388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

Ah, an exercise in alignment philosphy! Been working on my Dark Heresy game a bit lately, so maybe I'm in more of an Inquisition state of mind than usual. But I'll give this a go.

In a world where good and evil actually exist as attributes that are inherent to normal members of a particular species, perhaps the evil thing would have been letting the goblins live knowing they would in all probability turn to killing and destruction in the future. Expanding it out from goblins, greater evil always results when someone chooses to spare the new vampire because maybe this one won't feast on human flesh. If an act that seems good in the moment, either based on idealism or compassion, later results in more horrific evil than would otherwise have occured, is the act truly good? What are the long term consequences of killing the goblin children? What are the long term consequences of letting them live? Making these small exceptions starts us down the path to Radicalism and -- ahem, yes. Inquisition notwithstanding, I think killing goblins can probably only be a good thing from a fantasy roleplaying perspective.
  • 0

#17 RAYN

RAYN

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 121 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

Okay well if we are saying that what ever the default alignment says is simply what the creature is. But, let me use one example of an evil race gone good would be Drizzt, what if in the goblinings was one who was supposed to help save the world later on. But to be fair I love goblins and feel that they should all be captured up and put on a small farm...like a goblin internment camp...ohhhh idea you could have sponsered hunts to help cull the numbers...never mind yeah just kill them.
  • 0

#18 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

It's 50/50 for and against. I'd say that's pretty good actually given it's a massacre of poor defenceless children we're talking about who could well have grown up to love gardening or poetry or possibly knitting... oh, or maybe also a bit of slayin' n murderin'! 8)

Ps. This poll may have been slightly tongue in cheek...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Gravityscan Badge