Is he right, Veeky Forums?

Is he right, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

highered.mheducation.com/sites/0070366055/student_view0/chapter4/chapter_outline.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't care, I'm only here for the rape.

ye.
fuckin greenskins

If another GM tries to pull the moral greyness shit on me again he's getting a kick to the nads. It's fucking DnD, knock it off.

>Unstable manchild going to be an unstable manchild
what a surprise.

he's not wrong

she's just naive and emotional like all women

If the gobbos want to prove they're good, they'll have to do it by force. That's the way it works.

Perhaps they can get some whiteknights to protect them, but then they really have no agency of their own, existing merely on the whims of their superiors.

>she's just naive and emotional like all women

Well isn't that an autocratic sort of view

>It was not my intention to do this in front of you. For that, I'm sorry. But you can take my word for it, your mother had it coming. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting.

We'll, if you're at the point of complete racial genocide, those goblins must be doing some horrible shit

Well from the way things work in that world goblins only exist to grow up, get angry and horny and either succeed in raping the naive lolis that visit them or die to low level adventurers for their xp and loot. I think he's doing them a favour in getting it over with early

>Women
This is how vendettas start, you know. Because somewhere, some dumbass refused to finish the job.

the only good greenskin is a dead greenskin

>>Yeah
>>They were born

>die to low level adventurers for their xp and loot.

Killing them early lowers the available XP and loot, ruining the very infrastructure that underpins goblin farming and adventurer expression. Goblin home invasion is killing the industry.

>not creating another generation of hate
>not doing your part to ensure conflict in the future
>not wanting your sons to have their own war to fight
>not wanting an eternity of violence

what the fuck

Large Leader pls, your understanding of the Boss' will makes less sense than Zeros.

But what of the low level adventures that relied on the goblin for levels? With no way to level up, they will die off. Which means the monsters that prey on low level adventurers will lose their food source and die off, and the mid level adventurers that grind them and so on. This will destabilize the whole ecosystem leading to the extinction of all life in the setting.

Source?

Which is a good thing, if it's another moral greyness "Goblin baby dilemma" setting.

>goblins are the only low-level threat for new heroes to deal with
ComeOnNow.jpg

children would die anyway without their parents. It was mercy kill and she's just too emotional, he just used stupid logic but for good reasons

...

If your entire interaction with a race is that they will kill you and drag you into their caves they're more on par with wolves than humans or dwarves or something

I guess you could take the goblin baby's and try to civilize them or something, but that mostly just seems like it would end in exploiting them (though I guess that's better than killing them) or backfiring in some other way

It's from a manga/LN series called Goblin Slayer.

This user gets it. Albeit I stand by exterminating them regardless because they pose a threat to human life.

He's already an imp Baz.

is it good?

No.

Interesting is it...

oh,

>Literal rapist goblins ( and more species, probably )
>Female adventurers

Female adventurers would be executed for purposely risking increasing the monster population. For what? Feminism?

Yeah, or at least have some ways to make them infertile

This weeb shit is literally edgy rape-bait.

I mean even if they were good goblins. I have the sneaking suspicion that after surviving and openly witnessing the slaughter of their home.

That they would probably be rather fucked in the head goblins.

>eliminate the necessity for teens/young adults to go into life threatening situations for their livelihood
>this is somehow a bad thing

kill all the goblins
we agriculture now

Sure he is.

Of course, it only makes sense to extend this philosophy to other human nations and tribes who are your enemies.

there are other ways to get exp beside killing gobbos, have they ever chopped down trees or had to build community building? No? Well, their choice

Kind of. I mean, you don't half-ass a genocide. That just leaves the survivors to grow up, resent you, and invade again. Whether it's morally right is debatable, but he's certainly got the practical part down.

Goblins need to die.

>Female adventurers would be executed for purposely risking increasing the monster population.

Because intergenus breeding is just so common, right?

>For what? Feminism?
Common sense, more like. Don't want to be raped or executed? Stay at home

Have you never heard of japan? Like fuck if you know nothing about what you're talking about, don't talk.

Nah, female adventurers give birth to far bigger number of adventurers who then go out genociding monsters than to half-monster spawns

>Age having anything to do with the morality of killing something
But that's not correct at all.

You leave goblins alive, they grow up and rape some village girl, chewing off a pair of her limbs and sending her broken body to her parents. I doubt you'll ever be able to get any quests in that location anymore. Your hero reputation is ruined, some innocents have died because you were too pussy to finish your job. Btw

>good goblins

The fuck. Are there any?

>Is he right, Veeky Forums?
The world is engineered for him to be right, so yes.

>b-boo hoo the b-big bad author is m-mean to muh favorite race

Goblins deserve death in every world. They are objectively evil.

How can anyone be objectively evil?

If morality is objectively defined in a setting, a-la most of D&D, then it in fact can be. Goblins, standard, are "Evil." They are inherently that way, that's just how the world works.

You're not very good at words, are you?

>act purely in ways that benefit no one (not even themselves) and hurt as many as possible, beyond all logic and reason

they act violently to everyone else, resorting to killing and raping most of the time, never engaging in diplomacy. They are objectively evil, since there is no good side in them

Which ties in to , I don't see how there is an argument there.

>no good side
Why, I guess it's pretty fun to YOLO rape and kill everyone, not considering shitty diplomacy as an option. This makes them dangerous, but it doesn't make them evil.

>goblins are actually black

it all makes sense now!

To clarify, I wasn't the user posting earlier.

He plays Deendee, what do you expect?

>muh moral subjectivism

Libcucks at it again

it means everyone can act accordingly and kill them all without remorse

...

doesn't make him wrong though, see south african republic or zimbabwe

would you say that goblins dindu nuffin then?

Yes, yes, polster, as always you're right, and if you're not it's the ((Jews)), or the mudslimes, or the spics, or the chinks, or the gooks, or the cucks, or the libs, or [...]

But if you kill someone without remorse, that doesn't make him evil, it makes you a sociopath.

No, because in that fictional setting, the author definitely made the fictional goblins do some horrible fictional things and totally deserve whatever fictional revenge/justice/whatever come their way.

>killing objectively evil creatures, thereby benefitting society as a whole
>sociopathic

I don't think jews did anything in those two countries even reverse, they haven't done anything there

Yeah, and while killing them you'll sing national anthem and think about muffins. You'll enjoy it, and justify your enjoyment by social acceptance. Goblins at least do not pretend to be righteous, you psycho.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" it doesn't make you sociopath to answer to them on only language they know

Depends on if Goblin behavior is due to nature or nurture. Goblin children are born into a society of rapist bandits and raised by said society, so it's possible their predatory nature is simply a learned trait. On the other hand, it's possible that's simply Goblin nature, and a Goblin raised by humans would behave like a Goblin. It's the sort of question a wizard with no sense of right or wrong should really get answering.

>not leaving any witnesses, so they would spread a word about what happens to those goblins that talk shit

That edgy knight got it all wrong.

>not leaving any witnesses who could make plans for how to deal with him and try to drum up a horde

Yeah, goblins are all about vendetta and planning.

According to him, they actually are.
>we've destroyed their nest, they'll never forget that
>and the survivors of a nest learn, become smarter

These goblins have to be extraordinary then.

>nature vs nurture

There is a highly likely that on a statistical level (ie: the sort of level we are talking about when discussing societies, cultures, genocide and the like) that nature feeds nurture which shapes nature.

A brutal society makes brutal people, which accelerate and instill the development brutality into the next generation by both education AND artificial selection (those inclined to empathy are perpetually stressed or taken advantage of and if that trait is at all heritable it will be disfavored.)

Of course that's how vendettas start. The Bride understands that intimately, she's on a vendetta of her own. She's determined to have her revenge on Copperhead, but she's also moral enough not to extend that to Copperhead's daughter-- part of the reason she wants revenge in the first place is that she believes her own daughter was killed when the Deadly Vipers attacked her wedding, and she's not about to commit the same monstrosity that she herself wants revenge for.

At the same time, she recognizes that in killing the kid's mother in front of her, she's given the kid just cause for her own vengeance, and explicitly acknowledges that to the kid's face, even telling her that she'll be waiting if the kid decides to come after her as an adult. The Bride's own code of honor is more important to her than simple pragmatic survivalism-- maybe because she thinks vengeance is the only thing she has to live for, maybe because she's actually that dedicated to her code-- and that means she has to afford the kid the same opportunity for righteous vengeance that she claims.

This shit again? The exact same image was posted yesterday as well and then OP asked if genocide could be lawful good.

The abridged protocol:
Alignment systems are stupid.
Gygax was fucktard about some things.
OP is a fag.

The problem being is that D&D plans to do that but it never manages to actually hold itself to that. They always want to throw a curveball or a write a snowflake or make a player race out of it and it goes from "always objectively evil" to "I've never met a good one but some people say they have" and then it's not a known, objective fact anymore it's just statistics. And most people are never going to countenance a genocide on statistics as being objectively good.

They either need to make leaving certain races always-evil as company-wide policy or they need to do away with the idea of race alignments to begin with and I sure as hell think the second makes more sense than the first.

Yeah. Never seen a good goblin before and I believe in a universe where goblins are a real thing people would just get tired of them and hire someone to kill them off. Even if one out of every 10,000 goblins could be good it's still too much of a hassle to sort through 9,999 evil goblins to get to that good one.

Have any of you taken basic psychology? Personality is %70 percent genetics, so if a species is genetically shown to always be violent rapists they will always be violent rapists unless raised from birth to counter these specific urges.

According to the Old Testament he is.

Everytime I see a thread like this one I always picture one user samefagging while furiously masturbating on his own words.

>citation needed

What the fuck is that? There's an almost identical scene in Goblins (the webcomic).

highered.mheducation.com/sites/0070366055/student_view0/chapter4/chapter_outline.html
>Here's your mother fucking citation ass wipe.

see mlk, he's an idiot.

Now I'm curious how many people have played female adventurers and decided to take ~9 months off to give birth.
That sounds like a good plot point, but I've never heard a story of characters taking time to tend to their families without the families just getting killed by a shit DM

Has anyone rolled dice for rape during campaign?

Obama please leave.

well, he killed children too, but anyone considered what danger could bring on the world if he let them live? what if insted of fear they will build hatred and decide to kill all humens and somehow they maneged to do this?
from other side she might hava right what if those children would be first goblins that makes peace beetwen humans and other creatures

We never know, what will futer bring upon us, how your decisions will change world around us

We all make choices, but in the end, your choices make us...

Yes. I wouldn't fault him for it and would most likely do the same were I in his shoes.

They're monsters. They will rape and kill people if you let them. I don't have the time to stand in the mouth of that cave and think "Hey, maybe it's a nature vs. nurture thing, with the parents dead, maybe THESE goblins won't hurt anyone."

I can't see the future. I don't know. So I take the sword and do what I have to do. You can't give dangerous things a pass just because they're babies. You're risking other lives just so you can duck responsibility.

You have a job. Do it, do it well, and if you feel bad about it, go have a drink and try to shake it off.

>Summaries of behavioral genetic data yield heritability estimates for major personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience) of about 20-45 percent
>Personality characteristics show heritabilities in 30—50 percent range; hence, showing substantial degree of environmentality—50—70 percent
Oh, look, your source says you're completely wrong.

Nice job not reading the actual source, libtard. Stay deluded I guess

[Psychologists Ooooohing in the back drop]

>not genociding Elves instead

what a tool

>implying they aren't next

Hey, if you can't link me to the part of your source that actually backs you up instead of contradicting you, then that's not my problem.

The real question is will you become a monster to save what is dear to you?

K, np.

>unironically trying to defend irredeemable monsters
>implying that the nature/nurture ratio of humans means that irredeemable monsters are in fact redeemable if you get them young