OOC Thread

Well, Trina won't come to blows to protect the goblin, but neither will she participate in its slaughter.

While I think the best course of action is to have the Goblin lead us to his tribe, I also have little interest in being held hostage by ‘my character wouldn’t do that’ notions which will be backed up with steel.

Tomorrow I'll work on setting up a sort of Session Zero page where we can discuss this sort of stuff. Hindsight is 20/15, cause you see it so much more clearly.

First of all, this is absolutely just a conflict between the characters. You're not Maon, I'm not Jabrano.

I don't think that even back in 1989 that description meant that absolutely every single last goblin is a murderous animal on a genetic level, no exceptions.

Plus, in 2E AD&D, the extremes of Alignment are a lot less extreme than in most editions, and Chaotic Evil is more "selfish prick" than "murderous lunatic", and not necessarily incompatible with "somewhat useful if unpleasant member of society".
Given how reductive the Alignment system already is, it's especially annoying how CN usually just means Fishmalk and CE just means Fishmalk Serial Killer, and that the Chaotic Alignments tends to be completely devoid of common sense.

Maon's reaction mostly surprised me because he's a Druid and True Neutral. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are supposed to be equally unwanted.
Jabrano of course is LG but was raised to be CE, and overcompensates, but she doesn't see "Being Good" and "Exterminating Evil" as related things.

Incidentally, reading that MM bit about Goblins, it occurs to me that, except for the bits about eating people, that pretty much applies to human civilisation too.

The official stance for this game is that goblins are evil, but evil comes in many shades. Stealing pies and generally harassing a community for no reason other than selfish pleasure is evil. But as adventurers, you've all heard about bands of rabid goblins in the woods that will steal the socks off your corpses. In general, you'll be dealing with with monsters that are evil for evil's sake. But the ones here do seem to be more civilized, minus the whole "stopping a river that a nearby society needs to survive" thing.

Alignment is a thing in this game, more so than in newer editions. You can be affected by it, and some creatures are defined by it. I'd agree that it is odd for a druid to wish ill on creatures that are causing some mischief, but it is their duty to step in when the monsters cross the line and threaten nature or balance. But so long as you stay within the general bounds of True Neutral, play your character the way you want. There are still penalties if you (or anyone, really) act outside your alignment to the point of changing alignment.

That last bit must be the weirdest thing about the whole Alignment deal: this is probably the only RPG that actively penalises characters mechanically for having character development.

I had a TT group that faced a very similar moral dilemma. The party wanted to kill the orc children, but the party paladin (!) resisted. He argued that evil is a product of its upbringing, not a moral code locked into someone by birth. In the end, he convinced the party of his viewpoint, but there was a LOT of discussion.

On another occasion, the party came across some displacer beasts, including two kits. The druid wanted to destroy the lot of them and make a cloak of displacement but the ranger lobbied in defense of the kittens. That argument almost came to real-life blows and I (as DM) had to step in and separate the two. It ended with the druid's player storming out, never to be seen again.

I don't want to see that happen here, so I suggest that we all just take a step back and try to remember that these are just fantasy characters in a game.

Just so you know, I could have gone either way. I wanted to play Maon based on his common knowledge. I disagree with a lot of what was said about 2e in the past. I played 2e when it first came out and beyond. But I also feel that historically the idea of people, including goblinoid races, are a product of their environment is a very recent and modern idea. No one thought that till like the 1960s. It's still debatable since genetic research has made inroads in the area of personality.
I knew there would be some unexpected drama, but I also felt Maon has probably seen the damage caused by all races and is vehemently against such things, knowing that Goblins have a reputation very well earned. Humans are considered evil for being slavers in D&D, and yet historically all countries and cultures participated in slavery. It was common. That does leave a bad taste to admit, but it's true. Maon is not trying to balance good and evil, law and chaos. He is looking at something more significant to him. Human settlements will exist. Nature will take its toll. But some races like Goblins will despoil a place. Humans can too. Admittedly. If he had been from a large tanning factory, poisoning the river, Maon would just as likely want that person dead as well. A little extreme, yes, but where will he learn moderation? Perhaps from the group he is with? Will he understand that there are grades of evil? An act of mercy here and there? He spends most of his time alone and perhaps his independence shows? I think all of our characters have room to grow.

For my part, I didn't feel that there was much of a debate. I think it's fine to respect the lore of the game despite its age and contemporary turmoil surrounding the ethics of said lore.

I wasn't at all upset by Maon's suggestion to kill the goblin.

As far as alignment is concerned, evil is applied with a broad brush, but acts classified as "evil" are never really defined. I'd always felt that this was kind of an odd approach to the game's design. It's one of those things that have been a bit weird to me. Do the goblins see themselves as evil? Do the goblins conceive of evil the same way as other beings? This is a rabbit hole, but looking over this thread I feel like there are a lot of worthwhile insightful comments about this edition of D&D and the rules as written.

To that end, I do believe that changes of alignment are possible in 2e. If memory serves correctly these changes resulted from significant dramatic events, magic, or a succession of small events/choices over a protracted period of time. I could be mistaken as I'm not an expert on this (or any other!) edition of D&D's rules.

I'm not anywhere near being a pro on the matter, but in the Dungeon Master's guide, 1st edition (a valuable reference), Gygax discusses alignments and how they can be reflective of character development. He speaks of how difficult it would be to change one's nature, kind of like switching political parties, but it can and does happen.

I feel that most folks don't really look that deep into the aspect of alignment as a relevant mechanic in the game and tend to simplify this and pass over it. My perspective is to either use it or remove it. Every rule is an option. Every version of D&D is modular in its basic form.

I'm not one of those who reveres Gygax, but he was ahead of his time. Almost no one was doing what he and Arneson set out to do. No other role playing game has ever been more popular than D&D even at its inception and his writings in the DM’s Guide come from thousands of hours of experience in games created and games played along with tons of feedback. His genius is sometimes overlooked.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me what I put down for Odilo’s alignment, I couldn’t tell you. He might very well be LG, but am I playing him that way? Maybe in a 2022 sense.

Edit: He’s CG. The wiggle-room alignment. :D

So, I started writing a post, fell asleep halfway through, and now it's suddenly 2 am and I probably should be more awake before posting.

Been one of those days. Sorry. I'll post some stuff tomorrow.

I know the feeling...lol. Get some rest 🙂

Gang, I'm going to be out and about visiting family this weekend. I'll try to get up a post on Sunday, introducing some new goblins!

Always leave 'em wanting more ;)

Looks like the winter lull has hit GamersPlane. Don't stress too much about getting a post in, I expect this game to ramp right back up after the New Year. In the mean time, read some good fiction, drink some good teas (or wintery-themed ale), and don't forget your vitamin D.

Does this mean the game is on pause?

While this isn't a great answer, it is what it is. It's not a full pause, but rather a slowdown. I'll be around to respond and post, but I wouldn't expect much to happen until we kick it back into full gear.

OK. I'm here and ready, but I'll slow my own posting down.

Same. Always watching.