The Goblins Fan Forum

The main problem with the theory, as much as I like it, is that it is the most difficult to reconcile with the fact that Kore still has his paladin powers. If he is consciously and willingly committing evil acts, so much so that he even understand himself to be evil, what's with the abilities? Other theories have the out of relying on his curse or other influences so that his actions are not knowingly and willingly evil ones.

YardMeat wrote:The main problem with the theory, as much as I like it, is that it is the most difficult to reconcile with the fact that Kore still has his paladin powers. If he is consciously and willingly committing evil acts, so much so that he even understand himself to be evil, what's with the abilities? Other theories have the out of relying on his curse or other influences so that his actions are not knowingly and willingly evil ones.

I was thinking that Kore is fallen, and is taking the powers he uses from the Paladins he's collected.

That still doesn't explain why the Axe considers him to be a Paladin.

SoulReaver wrote:That still doesn't explain why the Axe considers him a Paladin.

Can't that have been "borrowed" too? Like, the when the Axe is around Kore it senses a huge number of classes (and monsters) all at once including Paladin, so it gets confused?

It still hurt Fumbles, who is 1/11th Paladin.

Zathyr wrote:It still hurt Fumbles, who is 1/11th Paladin.

2/11ths http://www.goblinscomic.org/02032006/

MakesNoSense wrote:

Zathyr wrote:It still hurt Fumbles, who is 1/11th Paladin.

2/11ths http://www.goblinscomic.org/02032006/

2/11ths of a Paladin level, but his total class balance is still 1/11th each core class.

No, he leveled up, and put everything to two eleventh...
Panel 9:
Fumbles (Senor Vorpal Kickass'o): And since I'm now 2/11th of a level in every class, I got a new feat!

1/11 Paladin + 1/11 Warrior + 1/11 Barbarian + ... = 1 Se├▒or Vorpal Kickasso.
lvl 2/11 Paladin + lvl 2/11 Warrior + lvl 2/11 Barbarian + ... = lvl 2 Se├▒or Vorpal Kickasso.

No, 2/11 of everything is 2 level 1 Vorpals. 2/22 of everything is one level 2 Vorpal.

Gonna go with - Kore is his own god.

At some point, he gained the ability to collect souls, and his long-standing dissatisfaction with the deities of his world led him to the decision that he should become the god he wants to exist. He knew that he could gain power by imprisoning souls within himself, but he couldn't do that to GOOD people, because then he'd be evil. So he uses a definition of "good" that means almost everybody is evil (and I'm sure he believes his definition).

But the fact that HE is the powerful entity he worships, and he is the entity whose definition of good he follows, means that he retains the powers and abilities of a paladin.

Paladins get their abilities from the primordial powers of Good and Law, not a Deity.

Good isn't a philosophy or point of view in D&D. It's a divine force in-and-of-itself, which shapes the cosmos.

Wolfie wrote:Paladins get their abilities from the primordial powers of Good and Law, not a Deity.

I need to start linking to this stuff in my signature so that I can just point at it when necessary.

Edit: Wow, that sounded waaaaaay snippier than I meant for it to. Let me rephrase that: Later today, I'll try to remember to create a new signature where I link to posts that explain this in detail so that I can easily reference it when the issue comes up.

YardMeat wrote:Good isn't a philosophy or point of view in D&D. It's a divine force in-and-of-itself, which shapes the cosmos.

Wolfie wrote:Paladins get their abilities from the primordial powers of Good and Law, not a Deity.

I need to start linking to this stuff in my signature so that I can just point at it when necessary.

Edit: Wow, that sounded waaaaaay snippier than I meant for it to. Let me rephrase that: Later today, I'll try to remember to create a new signature where I link to posts that explain this in detail so that I can easily reference it when the issue comes up.

I think we had this discussion already

MakesNoSense wrote:

YardMeat wrote:Good isn't a philosophy or point of view in D&D. It's a divine force in-and-of-itself, which shapes the cosmos.

Wolfie wrote:Paladins get their abilities from the primordial powers of Good and Law, not a Deity.

I need to start linking to this stuff in my signature so that I can just point at it when necessary.

Edit: Wow, that sounded waaaaaay snippier than I meant for it to. Let me rephrase that: Later today, I'll try to remember to create a new signature where I link to posts that explain this in detail so that I can easily reference it when the issue comes up.

I think we had this discussion already

A few times, but it still keeps coming up, hence the comment about linking to the full explanation in my signature.

(Edit: adding this part, including the semantics, just to make sure there is no confusion. I'm not telling anyone how to use these words and concepts in their personal lives or in their games. I'm just using the concepts and words as they are described in the core.)

According to the core rules, and Thunt has said Kore is a core paladin, there are two types of divine powers that fuel divine magic: gods and divine forces. Paladins get their abilities from the divine forces of good and law, just as druids get their powers from the divine force of nature. In addition to this, the PHB clarifies that good and evil are not a matter of philosophy or point of view in D&D.

As far as the semantics go, I'm just using the words as they are used in the book. In 3rd edition D&D terms, deities are divine forces are two distinct things, and most types of divine casters (paladins, rangers, druids and some clerics) get their magic from a divine force rather than a deity. Deities and divine forces are both divine sources of divine magic, but they are distinct from one another. How they are distinct is up for interpretation but, using the terminology of the PHB, paladins do not get their abilities from deities, nor is good a matter of philosophy that needs someone to "decide" its inner workings.

This drives a lot of people to ask, "who decides what's good," but asking that in D&D is like asking "Who decides what's fire?"

Good and evil are objective in D&D, not a matter of point of view or philosophy:

PHB page 103 wrote:Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.

Divine spells comes from a divine source. There are two different kinds of divine sources: deities and divine forces. Paladins get their divine magic from divine forces (those of Good and Law), not deities.

PHB page 179 wrote: Divine Spells

Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.

YardMeat wrote:Good and evil are objective in D&D, not a matter of point of view or philosophy:

PHB page 103 wrote:Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.

Divine spells comes from a divine source. There are two different kinds of divine sources: deities and divine forces. Paladins get their divine magic from divine forces (those of Good and Law), not deities.

PHB page 179 wrote: Divine Spells

Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.

To add into this, for as much as an individual character cannot determine what is "good" or what is "evil" - that is something that the DM running the game has to decide.

For instance (to give an example) - if a Paladin was put into a situation where he saw a boulder falling down a mountain-side, rolling right in the direction of a very important village full of people. The Paladin has the ability to react in time to divert the path of the boulder, but in doing so, would cause the boulder instead to run into a shepherd tending his flock. By his deliberate inaction, he knows that many people in the village will die. By his action, he knows that he will save the village, but will instead cause the death of an innocent shepherd. As the Paladin was sick recently, and has lost his voice, he has no means of warning anyone of the oncoming boulder, and it is a given that there will be a death either way.

What is the "good" thing to do? To save the greater number of people from an important (for whichever reason, but assume it has great importance) village at the expense of killing one person who would have otherwise been safe? Or to let the greater number of people of the important village die?

You can tweak the conditions slightly to make one side or the other weigh heavier on the conscience, but the reality is that the DM will have a concept of what the "good" action would be which may or may not be the same as the view of the paladin's player - much less assuring a match with the staff who wrote the PHB.

For the record, I'm not trying to start a moral debate on what is good and what is not... but you can make the village a city, or an important fortress that protects the valley from aggressive neighbors or whichever.... the point is that you can start from letting the boulder run on its course where it injures noone and diverting to kill the shepherd (where pretty much everyone agrees inaction = good and action = evil) to a point where letting the boulder run will cause an explosion that will somehow wipe out everyone in the world except for the lone shepherd (where pretty much everyone agrees that inaction = evil and action = good with appropriate compassion for the poor shepherd you are squashing). Somewhere in-between, and it is probably different for every person, especially if you change the shepherd into a criminal etc... which does nothing except essentially show that what is "good" from the perspective of one person is not always "good" from the perspective from another. But as someone has to speak for the "universe" in adventure worlds, it operates by the standards of the DM running the campaign.

You know... Kore may only have the abilities of a Paladin because he carries a Magic artifact like the Shield of the Sun which gave a person the spells of a level 20 Paladin.... he may have something similar and this artifact may confuse the sword because he is technically a level 20 paladin while wielding his shield.

drachnor wrote:You know... Kore may only have the abilities of a Paladin because he carries a Magic artifact like the Shield of the Sun which gave a person the spells of a level 20 Paladin.... he may have something similar and this artifact may confuse the sword because he is technically a level 20 paladin while wielding his shield.

I believe (but I don't know, because it happened before I started reading the comic) that Thunt has told people that Kore is an actual paladin, as per the core rules, from the rulebook.

The "Shield of the Sun" theory has been proposed a few times already. And THunt specifically confirmed that Kore is a core rule paladin. No specific artefacts give him these powers..

MakesNoSense wrote:To add into this, for as much as an individual character cannot determine what is "good" or what is "evil" - that is something that the DM running the game has to decide.

Definitely, and that's no easy task. The PHB gives some broad guidelines, but those guidelines can conflict in unusual circumstances.

For instance (to give an example) - if a Paladin was put into a situation where he saw a boulder falling down a mountain-side, rolling right in the direction of a very important village full of people. The Paladin has the ability to react in time to divert the path of the boulder, but in doing so, would cause the boulder instead to run into a shepherd tending his flock. By his deliberate inaction, he knows that many people in the village will die. By his action, he knows that he will save the village, but will instead cause the death of an innocent shepherd. As the Paladin was sick recently, and has lost his voice, he has no means of warning anyone of the oncoming boulder, and it is a given that there will be a death either way.

What is the "good" thing to do? To save the greater number of people from an important (for whichever reason, but assume it has great importance) village at the expense of killing one person who would have otherwise been safe? Or to let the greater number of people of the important village die?

You can tweak the conditions slightly to make one side or the other weigh heavier on the conscience, but the reality is that the DM will have a concept of what the "good" action would be which may or may not be the same as the view of the paladin's player - much less assuring a match with the staff who wrote the PHB.

Right, and just as there are conflicting feelings about morality within people who contemplate situations like this, there is a conflict here within the way that good itself is defined in DnD (a conflict, but I wouldn't call it a contradiction). On the one hand, good is supposed to protect innocent life. On the other hand, good is not supposed to take innocent life. Situations like the one above, however unlikely, force a good character to choose between those two instincts to the exclusion of the other.

For the record, I'm not trying to start a moral debate on what is good and what is not... but you can make the village a city, or an important fortress that protects the valley from aggressive neighbors or whichever.... the point is that you can start from letting the boulder run on its course where it injures noone and diverting to kill the shepherd (where pretty much everyone agrees inaction = good and action = evil) to a point where letting the boulder run will cause an explosion that will somehow wipe out everyone in the world except for the lone shepherd (where pretty much everyone agrees that inaction = evil and action = good with appropriate compassion for the poor shepherd you are squashing). Somewhere in-between, and it is probably different for every person, especially if you change the shepherd into a criminal etc... which does nothing except essentially show that what is "good" from the perspective of one person is not always "good" from the perspective from another. But as someone has to speak for the "universe" in adventure worlds, it operates by the standards of the DM running the campaign.

Right, just as the DM determines how many moons their world has and how old it is, a DM can decide how good and evil are going to operate in these extreme conditions. In my own campaigns, I tend to acknowledge competing values in situations like you describe, and there are situations in my games where equally good positions find themselves at odds.

At the end of the day, though, do any of us think that Kore is going to be revealed as a sane character who was committing a well-informed act of good when he killed Chief or the Bladebeard child? Do any of us think that Thunt secretly admires Kore as a hero and a pinnacle of moral wisdom?

YardMeat wrote: At the end of the day, though, do any of us think that Kore is going to be revealed as a sane character who was committing a well-informed act of good when he killed Chief or the Bladebeard child? Do any of us think that Thunt secretly admires Kore as a hero and a pinnacle of moral wisdom?

I don't know, but I'm damned curious to find out!

Let us remember, that "good" and "evil" as it exists in the goblinverse, is not even absolutely how Thunt sees it... it is how he feels Herbet sees it for the purpose of the campaign. Yes, Thunt created everything... but he created the world from "Herbert's" point of view. He may identify extremely closely with Herbert, or he may not. The question is not about what Thunt considers as good, but what Thunt has decided Herbert considers as good. Thunt is not the DM of the campaign, Herbert is. The fact that Herbert is an actual deity in his own campaign world also gives us a little bit of insight into his character as well - it is entirely possible that he is a bit narcissistic, if not a bit of a megalomaniac. We know that he is a bit of a smart-ass (as seen by his challenge offerings for his players) and that he is not adverse to taking things out of logical context to meet the literal requirements so he can house-rule things in. (for example, all of the absurd bonuses he allowed Minmax to get in exchange for his ability to read, put on his pants, etc....).

Does Herbert believe that the force of "good" can be served properly in the manner that Kore believes, as it applies to this campaign world? That, to me, is the real question.

Damn . . . that's a really good point

Yeah, well said, MakesNoSense. Very important point.

Do we know whether or not the world is an original creation by Herbert? Might it be a module?