Yes but those exceptions prove their free will. By definition, there would be no exceptions for Demons or Devils or other things that are innately evil. With free willed beings a simple massacre is not acceptable, its called genocide.
Well, considering how many goblins and other free-willed beings you slaughter, at some point you have to accept a break from real-world morality or become a pacifist who only kills zombies.
I never have a problem killing anyone who tries to kill me first. Depending on the setting, the nature of specific races and the nature of evil may vary a lot.
It all goes back to what I always think of as the "baby Goblin" debate. And I've literally seen it ruled both ways. I've played in games where the DM ruled Goblins were innately evil and all needed to be destroyed; and games where the DM ruled Goblins were violent and corrupt, but occasionally capable of good... THAT makes for a much more complex setting! But in the Forgotten Realms Drow are clearly capable of free will. They are violent and dangerous, and should always be treated with caution; but that doesn't mean they should automatically be slaughtered.
You're a heavily armed adventurer. To goblins, the very act of you approaching them means you're about to slaughter them. Self-defense goes both ways here. And murder is an overreaction when you could easily put them to sleep and move on or evade them in the first place. After all, if a little kid comes up and starts kicking you in the shins, you're not going to blow his brains out with a gun, are you?
My point is not that you shouldn't kill goblins... but you have to decide what kind of game you want, and if you want your BG to have lots of combat then you have to dehumanize them or else you end up with a game where you have nothing to kill.
I see drow as the same as goblins, only more dangerous. There are definitely good members on both sides and they're certainly capable of redemption. But if your paladin is willing to take out a goblin tribe, a drow city is not so different.
Combat, surrender, peace negotiations are potentially dangerous situations.
IRL few things are trickier for an invading army than making peace with the conquered. But that's not license to slaughter or pillage, it just means its a difficult situation. A good aligned party should absolutely consider it worth the "trouble" of finding and protecting those innocent of wrong doing. Obviously much of my attitude comes from years of PNP play. A CRPG will simply present you with a limited number of options. But I very much like that the BG series does so often give us a chance to make peace, not war. This should be appealing to good characters and parties. Because, by definition, unrelenting violence and hostility is EVIL! Obviously anyone can play that way if they want to, but don't kid yourself and call it good, it isn't!
I'm not sure whether you're adding on to my post or trying to refute it, but if it's the latter we aren't arguing the same issue.
Let's not get caught up in real-world morality, because a lot of things work differently in BG and your character probably has his or her own moral code that differs from ours. But if the character does believe in peaceful resolutions to conflicts, then they have no more business killing goblins than they do wiping out drow. Drow are arguably more evil than goblins, because goblins are kind of simple-mindedly violent while drow are capable of astonishingly inventive acts of cruelty. And, if up until now your character has been gleefully punting little green guys left and right in the name of Good, why would he suddenly become squeamish when they're tall dark and handsome?
That's not to say you must attack Ust Natha; certainly a smart paladin would realize that conquering an entire city is nigh impossible (and for this reason I like the SCS component that actually makes it so) and seek more practical alternatives. But if he refuses to seek peaceful solutions for goblins, that shows his true colors as much as drow genocide.
Obviously fantasy world morality is different from real world for a variety of reasons. The main parallel I was trying to draw was just the difficulties of making peace in an already volatile situation. The moral differences between Goblins and Drow may vary a lot with setting; I could imagine a DM making different free will decisions on the two races based on their own situations, but every instance I can think of the DM tended to rule the same for both (either innately evil or free willed, no "split decisions" I can think of). Specific to the Forgotten Realms I don't know the judgement on Goblins (or Orcs or Hobgoblins!). I only know of good aligned Drow, not any of the others. But it sure would make for a fun game if exceptions were possible.
Not sure why people keep saying that you gleefully kill goblins left and right with no moral quandry. Most of the intelligent monsters that you kill, attack you first. In almost no case do you initiate combat against a non-hostile monster without some kind of dialogue that gives you the option out. True, people aren't casting sleep spells and then running away, but that would be unrealistic in the game's design. Defending yourself from monsters who are already attacking you is not the same as weapon clicking on friendlies just to get xp, or purposefully inciting a conflict through dialogue options.
Consider it this way: In Neera's wilderness zone, you walk through an entire village of goblins. You can choose not to kill a single one of them, they never become hostile to you outside of the cave. Most players are probably not killing goblins willy nilly just because they can.
Consider this also: In many cases the game puts unique and powerful magic items in the possession of relatively neutral humanoids who can be appeased or avoided. Choosing to kill them just to get their items - now that is verging on evil, even if you are playing as "good". I'm thinking of the groups of mercenaries you run into in the wilds who taunt you but can be talked down, or items like the Helm of Glory where you have to break into someone's house so they will attack you and you can kill them. This would be a more interesting conversation, really. Is it evil to incite Sendai to fight you just so that you can get her Studded Leather Armor +2?
Is it evil to incite Sendai to fight you just so that you can get her Studded Leather Armor +2?
I would definitely say yes. She is maybe stupid but you can easily avoid to fight her. I never fight her with good/neutral characters. She is provoking you but she would not attack you if you were not challange her to do it. And there some other similar situations in BG1. (This is also a reason why I think that playing an evil character is not so heavily penalized as many people think. Because good/neutral characters, if they were roleplayed according their alignment, would definitely loose some magical items and experience.) In BG2 I have a problem, when I´m playing a good character, to kill the carrion whose blood is needed to complete Lilarcor puzzle. Good character would probably not kill a pet of man who is helping you even if the pet is carrion.
@atcDave I understand what you're saying - due to game mechanics it's not really possible to un-hostile creatures and your only options are a temporary solution (sleep and run away) or death. That's a limitation of the game, combat-oriented as it is, which means a nonviolent solution is not really satisfying... though I stand by my position that morally it's the same as seeking a nonviolent solution with the drow even if the game only rewards you for one and not the other.
@Time4Tiddy Despite your indirect tone it sounds like you wish to address my posts so I'll reply to you.
You have to remember that when you enter Ust Natha, you are disguised by the dragon as a drow that they are expecting. As soon as your cover is blown, they will happily slaughter you to a man. No, there's no equivalent mission for the goblins but that doesn't mean they are somehow more evil than the drow because of it. Purposefully dropping your disguise in the drow city in order to fight them is not really any "worse" than purposefully breaking your stealth in a goblin encampment. Whether that's amoral is up to you, but just because the goblins have red circles about them and the drow have blue ones is simply a matter of game mechanics and not sufficient argument in my opinion to rule one as "self-defense" and the other as "instigation"; they will both attack you on sight as soon as you're revealed.
The last situation that you mention (Helm of Glory) is one that I think shows the limitations of using the red circle as your moral compass. I would argue that yes, breaking into peoples' houses and then killing them is evil, by my standards, even if it's technically "self-defense". But you can certainly justify it for your character if you want.
Actually the goblins do not attack you on sight, or at all. My point was mainly that it's not evil to defend yourself against attacking monsters (red and coming at you, casting at you), but it's evil, or at least chaotic neutral, to MAKE them turn red when you could have avoided it. And I'm not necessarily saying one is better than another, I certainly have killed everyone who drops good loot in most of my playthroughs. There are at least five-six instances like I've described where either mercenaries could be talked down or breaking into someone's house results in combat.
In BG2 I have a problem, when I´m playing a good character, to kill the carrion whose blood is needed to complete Lilarcor puzzle. Good character would probably not kill a pet of man who is helping you even if the pet is carrion.
That puzzle also requires you to kill or rob the nonviolent kobolds. Also in BG2, if you want to complete the Pantaloons puzzle, you have to keep the kidnapping victim for yourself and ransom her yourself. At least you get a reputation drop for that.
@Time4Tiddy If it is not evil to kill someone that is attacking you, then why the rep drops on two certain paladins? One that attacks you due to your nature, and one due to your profession regardless of alignment.
@Time4Tiddy If it is not evil to kill someone that is attacking you, then why the rep drops on two certain paladins? One that attacks you due to your nature, and one due to your profession regardless of alignment.
Well in at least one of those circumstances YOU ARE evil, so worrying about the fine points of it seems, well, pointless. I'm not familiar with the other. Funny, I've never been attacked by a Paladin in either game. Well apart from the Ajantis tragedy.
@atcDave The gibberling paladin attacks you without provocation if a thief talks to her(North of Gnoll Fortress) and deals a whopping -6 rep A Paladin in the city simply attacks you because of the way you as a person are. He does not know you whatsoever, and attacks because he feels like it. Deals a big rep hit too, even if you only have one evil person in the party he will attack EVERYONE. He seems of the type that would attack Drizzt due to him being a Drow. aka Lawful Stupid.
What about Firkraag? He won't attack you unless you attack him first. He's an ancient and clearly sentient being. He is guilty of extortion and kidnapping. Does that warrant a death sentence? Isn't killing him just because you want Carsomyr an evil act? Just because you're ordered to kill him by the Radiant Heart doesn't justify it, either - military orders to commit an evil act don't excuse the evil act.
You have no need to kill Thaxylsyllya, either. She sits in her chambers in the ancient ruins above the Umar HIlls and doesn't bother anybody. I guess you could make an argument that all undead deserve the "true death" because they're abominations.
I have a really hard time killing dragons just because they're dragons. It disturbs me how many of them are willing to parlay, but are attacked on sight, just because.
Things like Dragons are moral traps. They ravage civilized lands, destroy lives, kill people; and are smart enough not to initiate combat with those who could hurt them. Parley with dragons puts you in the place Neville Chamberlin. Sometimes you need to bring the fight...
Seeing that lawful good paladins have a tendency to blindly attack drow, this could be seen as a (somewhat misguided) act of goodness. In the realms, drow are evil by nature, no matter how we human players with metaknowlege about Drizzt want to look at it.
Actually the goblins do not attack you on sight, or at all. My point was mainly that it's not evil to defend yourself against attacking monsters (red and coming at you, casting at you), but it's evil, or at least chaotic neutral, to MAKE them turn red when you could have avoided it. And I'm not necessarily saying one is better than another, I certainly have killed everyone who drops good loot in most of my playthroughs. There are at least five-six instances like I've described where either mercenaries could be talked down or breaking into someone's house results in combat.
I'm not referring to Neera's goblin town as those aren't hostile. A better example would be the xvart town and I wish I had used that one but my point is still: the red circle does not absolve you of your actions nor does the blue circle mean you cannot justify attacking them.
For example, pickpocketing - you could argue that a good character would not pickpocket in the first place and the point is moot, but that's sidestepping the question. Whether or not the initial act was wrong, that does not mean that you're justified in killing the now-hostile person.
Another example would be "stealing" - there are some stores where the storekeeper will accuse you of stealing just for looking at what's on his shelves. The guards show up and if you fail to bribe them they become hostile. I would say it's evil to kill them here as well.
The werewolf island - many of the inhabitants (eg the little girl) are Good or Neutral. They turn into werewolves when you try to leave the island but I don't think that makes it okay to kill the little girl when you can just run past.
Misunderstandings - I fought Baron Ployer in the street and when he died everyone nearby turned hostile. I'm not sure if that's a bug but it makes sense they would attack because it looks like I just killed a random guy in his house. It certainly doesn't mean I'm now free to go on a killing spree.
The designers of the game have tried to make anything hostile "acceptable to kill" and by and large they've been successful. However, morality is a concept external to the game and relying on the game mechanic of the red circle to dictate whether or not killing something is "moral" is asking the game to decide for you rather than deciding for yourself.
What about Firkraag? He won't attack you unless you attack him first. He's an ancient and clearly sentient being. He is guilty of extortion and kidnapping. Does that warrant a death sentence? Isn't killing him just because you want Carsomyr an evil act? Just because you're ordered to kill him by the Radiant Heart doesn't justify it, either - military orders to commit an evil act don't excuse the evil act.
Guilty of extortion and kidnapping...in the two days that you've known him. Also, let's not forget that he casts illusions on people so they'll slaughter eachother (notably on paladins). I'm pretty sure the Radiant Hearts don't issue a death warrant because of the colour of his scales. It probably has more to do with decades of terror and slaughter that are undoubtably behind him.
@atcDave The gibberling paladin attacks you without provocation if a thief talks to her(North of Gnoll Fortress) and deals a whopping -6 rep A Paladin in the city simply attacks you because of the way you as a person are. He does not know you whatsoever, and attacks because he feels like it. Deals a big rep hit too, even if you only have one evil person in the party he will attack EVERYONE. He seems of the type that would attack Drizzt due to him being a Drow. aka Lawful Stupid.
Interesting, I went with a swashbuckler as my party leader trying specifically to lower rep in order to keep Dorn in my party, and she offered me the gibberling quest. Are you sure it's a thief and not due to having a low rep or low charisma? My swashie has a 19 cha from wearing nymph cloak.
I feel like we are actually saying the same thing. I don't believe red circle = okay to kill, in fact, my point of turning someone red so that you CAN kill them being specifically evil or chaotic neutral. Pickpocketing or breaking into someone's house would count. Same way that the Flaming Fist guards are red and most people run away to avoid further rep loss by killing them.
On the other hand, when a pack of gibberlings is running at you, and your options are either kill them or use a convoluted work around to avoid doing so... It's a game design issue. The xvart village IS a good example, they attack you on sight, but only because you bust into their village and are about four feet taller than them and swinging big weapons. Most likely they are afraid for their families inside those huts. It would have been better if the two xvarts guarding the entrance to the village begged you to leave them in peace.
One thing I would prefer in a game like this, if you are significantly overpowered to the enemy, they should turn yellow and run away or attempt to run away. Sort of an instant fear. Then if you actively hunted them down, you would be more of a murderer. As it is, you can be many levels higher than the monsters, and the xvarts practically one-shot themselves onto your swords. Mindless enemies like undead or oozes should always attack, but really, why would kobolds or xvarts come at you if they saw plate mail and two-handed swords.
@Time4Tiddy Maybe we are, and I misunderstood your first post. My stance is that attacking Ust Natha is really not so different from attacking the xvart village in terms of philosophy even if they are quite different in gameplay. My interpretation of your argument is "well, the xvarts are hostile when you first arrive while the drow are not". And my response is that "despite the gameplay mechanic of the blue circle the drow are no less hostile to you than the xvarts; they just haven't seen you yet because of your disguise".
I agree that gameplay restrictions make a nonviolent solution for xvarts and goblins feel much clunkier than the equivalent in Ust Natha. After all, BG is primarily about combat and I wouldn't have it any other way; peaceful solutions are only available when the designers decided to implement them. These are consequences of the gameplay, and I'm definitely not saying that a paladin should be sleeping xvarts and running away. If anything, I'm arguing the opposite - if your paladin has been mindlessly cleaving any xvarts he comes across, he's not going to suddenly sympathize with the drow. There are of course many other reasons why he might choose to cooperate (I mean come on, it's a centuries-old city battle-hardened by nearly constant war; realistically there is no way you're conquering that) so you can still roleplay a paladin in that situation; I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of giving the drow and not the xvarts the benefit of the doubt.
Note that you can "solve" the xvart village by using stealth or avoiding it altogether, and you can turn invisible and steal the eggs from Ust Natha as well. And I like that in BG2 bandits will ambush you and then change their minds and flee once they see who you are.
Comments
Specific to the Forgotten Realms I don't know the judgement on Goblins (or Orcs or Hobgoblins!). I only know of good aligned Drow, not any of the others. But it sure would make for a fun game if exceptions were possible.
Consider it this way: In Neera's wilderness zone, you walk through an entire village of goblins. You can choose not to kill a single one of them, they never become hostile to you outside of the cave. Most players are probably not killing goblins willy nilly just because they can.
Consider this also: In many cases the game puts unique and powerful magic items in the possession of relatively neutral humanoids who can be appeased or avoided. Choosing to kill them just to get their items - now that is verging on evil, even if you are playing as "good". I'm thinking of the groups of mercenaries you run into in the wilds who taunt you but can be talked down, or items like the Helm of Glory where you have to break into someone's house so they will attack you and you can kill them. This would be a more interesting conversation, really. Is it evil to incite Sendai to fight you just so that you can get her Studded Leather Armor +2?
@Time4Tiddy Despite your indirect tone it sounds like you wish to address my posts so I'll reply to you.
You have to remember that when you enter Ust Natha, you are disguised by the dragon as a drow that they are expecting. As soon as your cover is blown, they will happily slaughter you to a man. No, there's no equivalent mission for the goblins but that doesn't mean they are somehow more evil than the drow because of it. Purposefully dropping your disguise in the drow city in order to fight them is not really any "worse" than purposefully breaking your stealth in a goblin encampment. Whether that's amoral is up to you, but just because the goblins have red circles about them and the drow have blue ones is simply a matter of game mechanics and not sufficient argument in my opinion to rule one as "self-defense" and the other as "instigation"; they will both attack you on sight as soon as you're revealed.
The last situation that you mention (Helm of Glory) is one that I think shows the limitations of using the red circle as your moral compass. I would argue that yes, breaking into peoples' houses and then killing them is evil, by my standards, even if it's technically "self-defense". But you can certainly justify it for your character if you want.
If it is not evil to kill someone that is attacking you, then why the rep drops on two certain paladins? One that attacks you due to your nature, and one due to your profession regardless of alignment.
Funny, I've never been attacked by a Paladin in either game. Well apart from the Ajantis tragedy.
The gibberling paladin attacks you without provocation if a thief talks to her(North of Gnoll Fortress) and deals a whopping -6 rep
A Paladin in the city simply attacks you because of the way you as a person are. He does not know you whatsoever, and attacks because he feels like it. Deals a big rep hit too, even if you only have one evil person in the party he will attack EVERYONE. He seems of the type that would attack Drizzt due to him being a Drow. aka Lawful Stupid.
You have no need to kill Thaxylsyllya, either. She sits in her chambers in the ancient ruins above the Umar HIlls and doesn't bother anybody. I guess you could make an argument that all undead deserve the "true death" because they're abominations.
I have a really hard time killing dragons just because they're dragons. It disturbs me how many of them are willing to parlay, but are attacked on sight, just because.
Parley with dragons puts you in the place Neville Chamberlin. Sometimes you need to bring the fight...
For example, pickpocketing - you could argue that a good character would not pickpocket in the first place and the point is moot, but that's sidestepping the question. Whether or not the initial act was wrong, that does not mean that you're justified in killing the now-hostile person.
Another example would be "stealing" - there are some stores where the storekeeper will accuse you of stealing just for looking at what's on his shelves. The guards show up and if you fail to bribe them they become hostile. I would say it's evil to kill them here as well.
The werewolf island - many of the inhabitants (eg the little girl) are Good or Neutral. They turn into werewolves when you try to leave the island but I don't think that makes it okay to kill the little girl when you can just run past.
Misunderstandings - I fought Baron Ployer in the street and when he died everyone nearby turned hostile. I'm not sure if that's a bug but it makes sense they would attack because it looks like I just killed a random guy in his house. It certainly doesn't mean I'm now free to go on a killing spree.
The designers of the game have tried to make anything hostile "acceptable to kill" and by and large they've been successful. However, morality is a concept external to the game and relying on the game mechanic of the red circle to dictate whether or not killing something is "moral" is asking the game to decide for you rather than deciding for yourself.
I feel like we are actually saying the same thing. I don't believe red circle = okay to kill, in fact, my point of turning someone red so that you CAN kill them being specifically evil or chaotic neutral. Pickpocketing or breaking into someone's house would count. Same way that the Flaming Fist guards are red and most people run away to avoid further rep loss by killing them.
On the other hand, when a pack of gibberlings is running at you, and your options are either kill them or use a convoluted work around to avoid doing so... It's a game design issue. The xvart village IS a good example, they attack you on sight, but only because you bust into their village and are about four feet taller than them and swinging big weapons. Most likely they are afraid for their families inside those huts. It would have been better if the two xvarts guarding the entrance to the village begged you to leave them in peace.
One thing I would prefer in a game like this, if you are significantly overpowered to the enemy, they should turn yellow and run away or attempt to run away. Sort of an instant fear. Then if you actively hunted them down, you would be more of a murderer. As it is, you can be many levels higher than the monsters, and the xvarts practically one-shot themselves onto your swords. Mindless enemies like undead or oozes should always attack, but really, why would kobolds or xvarts come at you if they saw plate mail and two-handed swords.
I agree that gameplay restrictions make a nonviolent solution for xvarts and goblins feel much clunkier than the equivalent in Ust Natha. After all, BG is primarily about combat and I wouldn't have it any other way; peaceful solutions are only available when the designers decided to implement them. These are consequences of the gameplay, and I'm definitely not saying that a paladin should be sleeping xvarts and running away. If anything, I'm arguing the opposite - if your paladin has been mindlessly cleaving any xvarts he comes across, he's not going to suddenly sympathize with the drow. There are of course many other reasons why he might choose to cooperate (I mean come on, it's a centuries-old city battle-hardened by nearly constant war; realistically there is no way you're conquering that) so you can still roleplay a paladin in that situation; I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of giving the drow and not the xvarts the benefit of the doubt.
Note that you can "solve" the xvart village by using stealth or avoiding it altogether, and you can turn invisible and steal the eggs from Ust Natha as well. And I like that in BG2 bandits will ambush you and then change their minds and flee once they see who you are.