Humanoid units in human armies

[A_dark]

In the 2nd ed rulebook in page 63 it reads that mustering humanoid armies is considered an evil act. That is, if you are teh regent of Tailinie and conquer Thurazor and decide to muster goblin units, you are doing evil stuff....

Would the same apply for mages who summon goblin units with the Summoning Spell and use them for their purposes? Would it be more apropriate for a human good mage to research a spell summoning halflings or other humans or whatever? Or perhaps a spell summoning animals, if the mage feels a bit druidic or even summoning some sort of spirits non-evil undead?

[Osprey]

Ah, and everyone was saying how eveil it would be for a regent to kill off all the humanoids?

Yet fraternizing or sponsoring humanoids is also evil.

SO - who wants to be an evil regent in Anuire? Sounds like the way to go to me! :)


Would the same apply for mages who summon goblin units with the Summoning Spell and use them for their purposes? Would it be more apropriate for a human good mage to research a spell summoning halflings or other humans or whatever? Or perhaps a spell summoning animals, if the mage feels a bit druidic or even summoning some sort of spirits non-evil undead?

in the BRCS they addressed this and said mages can summon whatever creatures best suit them. I often include elementals as the more typical "troops" for non-evil, humanoid-averse source regents. Dire animals, giants, and yeah, even spirit warriors or something similar works well too. I'm a big fan of keeping it wide open and letting each mage specify according to his/her tastes.

Osprey

[graham anderson]

I don't see this as an evil act but it can have bad effect morale problems for your army reduced apinion of your people etc.

[The Jew]

It seems to me that how such an action should be viewed is based on the larger context. If your people have been raided or butchered by said humanoids for generations, then that would be considered bad, if not down right evil, by the regents populace and would have ramifications. But if this was also a while after the area had been conquered and the regent had made a real effort to either integrate the humanoids into the realm, so as to build their loyalty and so forever end the threat they pose, or to use the humanoids as a conquered people to exploit for gold, resources and now troops for the benefit of the realms human populace, then it would be viewed quite differently. It's all about context. I personally don't believe in absolutes.

[RaspK_FOG]

I generally think that putting such actions in tight ideals is wrong. For example, killing others is evil; moving them out of their homes is evil; but, there may well be justification and reasons enough for someone to do something. You cannot simply adjudicate based on only point of view.

[Osprey]

For example, killing others is evil

Does this really hold true for the typical D&D PC? Why are there any good-aligned PC's at all then? How many monsters killed can be justified contextually without forcing an alignment change?

While I agree with you IRL, D&D forces us to accept that there IS in fact a very different set of morals and ethics than in our world, otherwise no one could be called "good" after killing gods know how many monsters, villains, and what not. And just how many times do you think diplomacy was thrown to the wind, because "hey, it's a goblin" [or troll, or displacer beast, or whatever, and people know they're "evil"].

[RaspK_FOG]

That's exactly what I mean! While killing is evil by all means, saying that every person who has ever killed anything is evil is wrong. If that was the case, we should die of hunger and thirst or become abominations! since evil plant life is alive. Still, you cannot just kill any creature and say that the one who did it is not evil: the fine line here is that, while the act is ALWAYS evil, the person who did it might not be evil, since he did it on a specific set of criteria.

For example, while most goblins are just monsters, it would be monstrous indeed if you just killed one who asked of you to spare his life if you have not seen it do anything evil or thuggish. What if that goblin was a polymorphed person?

[Sthenelos]

It also would seem that while the basic image remains, goblins are, unlike the standard AD&D goblin, not presented as being universally evil in the BR material, with seemingly far more potential for establishing a civilization than the hyena-like social structure they are elsewhere presented as having. So while your subjects and soldiers could feel unhinged, it could also be possible to enroll some of the humanoid neighbour's dissidents without being necessarily considered as evil.

[tcharazazel]

This first part may seem off topic, however, im just hitting at what i believe to be the root of the problem here.


While killing is evil by all means, saying that every person who has ever killed anything is evil is wrong. If that was the case, we should die of hunger and thirst

Exactly!!! How else would you survive on a daily basis? Unless you're living off futuristic pills, you have to kill to survive! If you think the Christian god didn't want people to kill things then why the hell would he put them in a place that forced them to kill to live!?!?! Hell, the god even tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son, and when he proved he would, had him sacrifice a goat instead.

Heheh, damn, reminds me of the story of Buddha, you innocent people really need to go out and see the real world, with its pain, sufferring and death. After you've seen the horror of life, I seriously doubt you'll maintain that childish belief that killing is evil.

One simple example comes to mind, what if you and your friend are out backpacking several days from anything and he gets attacked by a very hungry moutain lion. Would you try to kill the mountain lion? If you do manage to either kill or scare away the mountain lion, your friend lies there bleading to death from several bites and claw rakes, to his legs, chest and face. Its obvious that he will die without immediate medical assistance, however, you both know that he won't be able to get any... As he lies there screamin in pain, he asks you to kill him... would you? Would you put you friend out of his misery, or would you lie to him and give him the false hope that help will come, or just say to him sorry that's against my beliefs, so suck up your chest, well, what's left of it, quit your whining and take it like a man.

Another example is if a friend/family member dying slowly from a disease that is incurable. would you help them to die sooner, or have them suffer through treatment after failed treatment just so you can selfishly spend more time with them, even though the person has asked you repeatedly to let them die...

To try and follow the rules of a diety interpreted by man is just foolish... better to follow the rules of nature as it skips the middle man, who will likely throw in some things for his own gain. Because if you follow the Christian faith, or just about any for that matter, who do you think made the laws of nature? Your god that's who. The rules of nature are quite simple, and one of the primary rules is that you have to kill to survive, whether it's to eat or in self defense, it is a part of life. If you want to be respectful towards your kills the pick up some of the traditions of the Native Americans who give thanks to their kills that they plan to eat for giving their lives so the Native Americans can live.

So, if you want to be like a sheep, then expect to get fleeced repeatedly and then killed when you no longer are of any use.


Ok, with that said then. To tie this back into the topic, these types of beliefs DO NOT BELONG in the D&D world. If you cannot read the alignment descriptions and accept them as the moral rules for the D&D reality that has been created for our gaming pleasure, then you need to learn to let go of the beliefs you cling to in this reality, when you are playing games in a different reality. This will help you to appreciate your reality more actually, and if you wanted to create a new set of alignments for you games, then by all means go for it! Just remember that they will just be for your house rules.



For example, while most goblins are just monsters, it would be monstrous indeed if you just killed one who asked of you to spare his life if you have not seen it do anything evil or thuggish. What if that goblin was a polymorphed person?

Hahaha, that's a great example, however, who the hell wouldn't ask you to spare his life if you happened upon him and caught him? You would be follish to trust the word of that person/monster/whatever, as he will say anything to save his life. That's what the zone of truth and discern lies is all about, heheh. Then you could believe him, otherwise... whos to say that when you turn your back to leave he doesnt put a dagger in it?

[A_dark]

Erm... euthanasia is a more complicated matter than what you present it as.... This is not relevant to the question I asked, but I am tempted to make some points.

The person who suffers from incurable diseases or who has a post-traumatic shock, is he in the right state of mind to make a decision on his own life? Would you trust a person with depression, possibly suicidal, to make such a decision? There are psychiatric syndromes associated with the Intensive Care Unit (it is called ICUitis and you can probably find info about it on the net) and there are psychiatric syndromes associated with incurable disesases. Would you trust these people to make choices regarding their lives?

I am personally not decided on the matter (even though I need to make up my mind eventually, cos I am a medical student)

Back to our matter....

The problem with this question is that the rulebook explicitly classifies mustering humanoids as an evil act! It is not applying modern-day morality to medieval society, but rather applying the rules/guidelines of the book... Unless we accept that the game designers applied the modern day morality....

Wouldn't a good person give the benefit of a doubt to the goblin in the example with the instructions? I think I agree with Raspkfog's approach that killing for no reason, but simply because of mistrust is a sign of someone being evil, rather than just being smart as you suggested tchar...

Also, about killing animals to feed yourself.... in christianity, this was never forbidden. Senseless killing was forbidden though, because man is supposed to co-exist with nature, not destroy it outright. So, the question would be wether goblins are animals or people and wether the concept of killing people is evil or not in medieval societies....

[tcharazazel]

and didn't humans often treat other more primative cultures as animals? And wouldn't most parts of Anuire consider the primative goblins to be animals then? Hell yah, so Kill em, Kill em all!


As for mustering humanoid troops, then that would really only apply if the human regent who mustered them gets found out that he mustered them, if he has someone else do it under someone else's name... then kudos to him if he pulls it off.

Now, i do have one major point about that mustering humanoids idea of it being an evil act, cause really who would the humans prefer to see die? Their own sons die in a war or a bunch of goblins? Heh, come on... they would love their leader who would be able to kill 2 birds with 1 stone! Hurt their enemies and reduce the goblins whom the people hate, that would be brilliant.

I never said that they should kill them because of mistrust, I was just pointing out that you shouldn't just let him go to put a dagger in your back. In other words, tie em up and throw him in a paddy wagon, if nobody around can determine if he's telling the truth. If he is, then great you found your first honest goblin... bloody mirical, if not well then you just let the law deal with him, heheh, ie execution.

If you are out adventuring, and thus can't easily bring him back to be tested.... then only a fool would leave a potential enemy scout free to go back and tell his brothers in arms your current location. Even a good person would tie him up and possibly interrigate him, while an evil person would torture him to try and get the information they want and then kill him. That would be the difference. I was trying to bring a little more realism to the example.


Cool, a med student :) got 2 of my good friends in med school, one in SF one in USC.

And the only reason euthanasia would be a difficult desicion is if you have the time to think about it, are worried about malpractice/lawsuit or are just like most humans totally selfish. In triage during war or sometimes in the ER you often don't have that time... you have maybe a few moments to determine if they will survive and if not then you just let them die, or help them to die quickly... heheh, that's life.

It's good to keep you moral beliefs, especially as a doctor, and I would recomend writing them down, you'll either get a good laugh when you look back at the list in 5-10 years or you'll be proud of yourself. Living in LA I've only seen a very, very few doctors who maintain any sense of morals as most are interested in getting money.

[Osprey]

So, the question would be wether goblins are animals or people and wether the concept of killing people is evil or not in medieval societies....

Ah, but you've forgotten a third and vital category in D&D: the monsters. neither man nor animal, but usually some fear-inspiring blend of the two, often seeming as an aberration or mutation of the norm, esp. in a human-dominated world. Same with any pastoral culture, too, like the elves, or earth-based such as the dwarves. These races dwell in the ultimate of stable, long-term worlds that do not change much over the centuries. No wonder those who threaten that norm are most harshly dealt with.

The more insipid or "evil" thing about humans being racist and genocidal in BR is that they are already the dominant race. I think the D&D and BR morality sets are both medieval and mythic at once. Like any morality, their roots are formed from the cultures that spawned them. To me this says the D&D world is very medieval in that it is a world riddled with fear of the supernatural, the bizarre, and the horrific. Evil is personified and blatant in many cases, and the tales told by villagers and bards alike are often enough to chill the blood...

But there is also belief in idealized forms of goodness and purity. However, the particular forms that are celebrated tend to be those that already represent that culture's existing values. So the epitomy of a good deity in BR is definitely Haelyn in Anuire, and what is he? A god of war, of killing and bloodshed - but war that is justified.

To me, the key is justification. A war is good so long as people believe it is good. Which means "killing in the name of..." is not only tolerated, but celebrated and personified in the great heroes of legend.

When I run a BR campaign, I go for a combination of in-your-face grittiness and hardship, but try to enwrap the players in the process of mythification, the story of how a person becomes the stuff of legends...

[irdeggman]

One thing to remember in BR goblins are not the same as the DMG goblins. 2nd ed BR made a distinction. In BR goblins are 'civilized creatures'. While they may be evil and primitive they are in fact civilized and most human cultures in BR have had to deal and negotiate with them at one time or another. So technically in D&D terms BR goblins are actually more demi-human than monstrous humanoid.

This does not mean they didn't go to war with them or that they didn't raid each other, but then again the human cultures did that to each other also.

So in any cultures view they are not animals like sheep and cattle, they may be enemies however. Well except for the elves, but then again they most likely see all of the other races as animals.

[ConjurerDragon]

tcharazazel schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2695

>

> tcharazazel wrote:

> This first part may seem off topic, however, im just hitting at what i believe to be the root of the problem here.

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>While killing is evil by all means, saying that every person who has ever killed anything is evil is wrong. If that was the case, we should die of hunger and thirst

>

And thirst? Mmmh, what exactly do you drink where you live? ;-)



>Exactly!!! How else would you survive on a daily basis? Unless you`re living off futuristic pills, you have to kill to survive! If you think the Christian god didn`t want people to kill things then why the hell would he put them in a place that forced them to kill to live!?!?! Hell, the god even tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son, and when he proved he would, had him sacrifice a goat instead. Heheh, damn, reminds me of the story of Buddha, you innocent people really need to go out and see the real world, with its pain, sufferring and death. After you`ve seen the horror of life, I seriously doubt you`ll maintain that childish belief that killing is evil.One simple example comes to mind, what if you and your friend are out backpacking several days from anything and he gets attacked by a very hungry moutain lion. Would you try to kill the mountain lion? If you do manage to either kill or scare away the mountain lion, your friend lies there bleading to death from severa

> l bites and claw rakes, to his legs, chest and face. Its obvious that he will die without immediate medical assistance, however, you both know that he won`t be able to get any... As he lies there screamin in pain, he asks you to kill him... would you? Would you put you friend out of his misery, or would you lie to him and give him the false hope that help will come, or just say to him sorry that`s against my beliefs, so suck up your chest, well, what`s left of it, quit your whining and take it like a man.

>

Under that conditions I would have not scared the lion off but had him

kill my friend and feed on him - then at least 1 in 3 would have been happy.



>Another example is if a friend/family member dying slowly from a disease that is incurable. would you help them to die sooner, or have them suffer through treatment after failed treatment just so you can selfishly spend more time with them, even though the person has asked you repeatedly to let them die...To try and follow the rules of a diety interpreted by man is just foolish... better to follow the rules of nature as it skips the middle man, who will likely throw in some

> things for his own gain.

>

Ahem - "euthanasie" is something I see as completely wrong, regardless

of christiaity.

Who remembers the episode of Star Trek in which Pille (Bones? in

english, the doctor) killed his father and shortly after a cure for his

disease was found?



>------------ QUOTE ----------

>For example, while most goblins are just monsters, it would be monstrous indeed if you just killed one who asked of you to spare his life if you have not seen it do anything evil or thuggish. What if that goblin was a polymorphed person?

>-----------------------------

>

>Hahaha, that`s a great example, however, who the hell wouldn`t ask you to spare his life if you happened upon him and caught him? You would be follish to trust the word of that person/monster/whatever, as he will say anything to save his life. That`s what the zone of truth and discern lies is all about, heheh. Then you could believe him, otherwise... whos to say that when you turn your back to leave he doesnt put a dagger in it?

>

Not all adventurers have access to that forms of magic at all times - do

you suggest to slaughter all captives just in case? In that case if you

ever get caught yourself do you expect to be ransomed or killed?

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

One thing to remember in BR goblins are not the same as the DMG goblins. 2nd ed BR made a distinction. In BR goblins are 'civilized creatures'. While they may be evil and primitive they are in fact civilized and most human cultures in BR have had to deal and negotiate with them at one time or another. So technically in D&D terms BR goblins are actually more demi-human than monstrous humanoid.

This does not mean they didn't go to war with them or that they didn't raid each other, but then again the human cultures did that to each other also.

So in any cultures view they are not animals like sheep and cattle, they may be enemies however. Well except for the elves, but then again they most likely see all of the other races as animals.


But goblins are (from a human perspective) ugly, mean, petty, cruel, traitrous, and any number of other things that most humans find detestable. So justifying war and atrocity against such a race should be REAL easy to do.

Human history is rife with atrocities against those who are different, esp. when the targets are visibly-distinguishable groups. Goblins are such easy targets for human cruelty and racism in BR, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule to treat them with anything approaching decency or real equality.

The idea that every sentient race should be given equal opportunity, and that to see them as different or inferior is wrong, is a mostly contemporary view that really has no place in a medieval world. "We're all different but it's OK" just doesn't fit any impression of the published BR world that I've ever had. It's one of the things I like about the setting: multiracial mixing is (realistically) exceptional, and for the most part different races keep to themselves and compete with one another rather than cooperate. This seems like the natural way of things as I know it, unless Earth and human history is just some freakish exception to what is going on throughout the rest of the multiverse.

If people want to play hippy-ish PC's who preach "Why don't we all just get along?", that's fine, but don't treat the BR world like it's some great enlightened continent where any civilized person knows it's wrong to kill, and goblins are people too, and every orog deserves a chance...

Please...

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jun 30 2004, 12:52 PM

But goblins are (from a human perspective) ugly, mean, petty, cruel, traitrous, and any number of other things that most humans find detestable. So justifying war and atrocity against such a race should be REAL easy to do.

Human history is rife with atrocities against those who are different, esp. when the targets are visibly-distinguishable groups. Goblins are such easy targets for human cruelty and racism in BR, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule to treat them with anything approaching decency or real equality.

The idea that every sentient race should be given equal opportunity, and that to see them as different or inferior is wrong, is a mostly contemporary view that really has no place in a medieval world. "We're all different but it's OK" just doesn't fit any impression of the published BR world that I've ever had. It's one of the things I like about the setting: multiracial mixing is (realistically) exceptional, and for the most part different races keep to themselves and compete with one another rather than cooperate. This seems like the natural way of things as I know it, unless Earth and human history is just some freakish exception to what is going on throughout the rest of the multiverse.

If people want to play hippy-ish PC's who preach "Why don't we all just get along?", that's fine, but don't treat the BR world like it's some great enlightened continent where any civilized person knows it's wrong to kill, and goblins are people too, and every orog deserves a chance...

Please...
All I said was that they wern't 'monsters'. Enemies is fine, monsters makes them too easy to dismiss.

Also in Mohried the Mhor has proclaimed that any goblins that forswear their evil ways and swear allegience to Mhoried are welcome.

So the 'why can't we all just get along' culture is already in BR.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2695

>

> Osprey wrote:

>

> s keep to themselves and compete with one another rather than cooperate. This seems like the natural way of things as I know it, unless Earth and human history is just some freakish exception to what is going on throughout the rest of the multiverse. If people want to play hippy-ish PC`s who preach "Why don`t we all just get along?", that`s fine, but don`t treat the BR world like it`s some great enlightened continent where any civilized person knows it`s wrong to kill, and goblins are people too, and every orog deserves a chance...Please...

>

It should not be too far fetched to see some Anuireans who wouldn´t kill

goblins unjustified. Dhoesone has a treaty with them even if they don´t

reallly trust Thurazor. Mhoried as someone else already mentioned allows

individual goblins to live unharmed.



And Khinasi would not kill goblins without reason - even goblins can be

valuable subjects, workers, mercenaries - better to have some goblin

mercenaries in your service than the same goblins as raiders coming

across your border ;-)

bye

Michael

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to remind you all that taking this to a real-life theological/religiological level mostly hinders the whole discussion, even though I would be glad to have such conversations with others from a short distance, where arguments can be really discussed thoroughly.



As for the goblinoid races, 3.5e made a wondrous step by saying that goblinoids are a subtype of humanoids, just like dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, and orcs. This makes the whole theme seam a lot more realistic!

The funny thing is that, since core-rule goblins are patently evil, a typical goblinoid ranger might well choose Humanoids (Goblinoids) as his favoured enemy! :P