Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:14 pm
Whether or not the world is, we specifically need to know whether Kore is.
The fact that he is getting around it suggests that either A: Ears' view is currently mistaken - or - B: Herbert has made this world with the belief that noone Kore has killed is truly innocent.Zathyr wrote:According to Big Ears "You can't kill innocents and still be a Paladin, ever." I think that's our closest to an authority on in-world Paladin mechanics. Under normal circumstances, anyway. Kore is obviously getting around that somehow.
http://www.goblinscomic.org/09242006/
He wasn't evil by our standard. But he WAS evil by Kore's standard. (or at least potentially evil) In a "game world" where people are seen as objects and not individuals, there is the Kore argument that he could have been corrupted to sympathize and feel empathy with creatures who are by definition "evil", and as such the Bladebeard child is no longer "good" and may well be "evil". The game world has 3 options... "good", "neutral" and "evil". There is no designation for someone who is "more good" or "more evil".SoulReaver wrote:All this is pretty much refuted by him killing a kidnapped Bladebeard child. He wasn't evil by any standard.
That is my point.... there is no "potentially evil" or "mostly evil" or "more evil". There is only "good", "neutral" and "evil".SoulReaver wrote:I don't think "potentially evil" is a thing in D&D.
My point is that "divine powers of good and evil" don't give a damn about what Kore thinks. He killed an innocent dwarven child. By both old and new rules that's a horrible act.
We see it as different.Zathyr wrote:Slaughtering the goblins at the warcamp is not the same as murdering a scared little child. Not by a long shot. Goblins and humans are basically kill on sight to each other in this world. It is cultural. It is war. Is it justified? Is it good? Eh, probably neutral, probably justified. They all had deadly weapons and they all were an immediate threat to one another. On the other hand, Targoth had a toy sword and was quaking in fear - no one was under any threat from him.
Murdering someone who is evil is not necessarily a good or lawful act. Killing someone who is good is not necessarily an evil or unlawful act. The alignment of the victim doesn't matter. Let's not muddy the waters there.
Kore has tortured people. Kore has murdered innocents. These are facts. Whatever convoluted justifications he or even Herbert uses shouldn't matter. Kore should not still be a paladin. And yet, for some unknown reason, Kore is still a paladin.
I think that Kore's curse will be important, although he views it as a blessing.Wolfie wrote:Ah, we are "forgetting" one component here.
The curse.
The other paladins didn't have the curse that Kore has. (He has a face only Herbert could love because of it.) THunt explains the curse and the reason Kore keeps his powers is explained. I'd lay money on that.
No other paladin within Goblins Comic has knowingly and willingly slaughtered an innocent and retained their abilities. And BE's comments indicate that "paladins don't kill innocents" is the norm for Thuntverse. I know you are speculating that there are off-stage paladins who have done so in the past and retained their powers, but I think that's a big leap.MakesNoSense wrote:I think that Kore's curse will be important, although he views it as a blessing.Wolfie wrote:Ah, we are "forgetting" one component here.
The curse.
The other paladins didn't have the curse that Kore has. (He has a face only Herbert could love because of it.) THunt explains the curse and the reason Kore keeps his powers is explained. I'd lay money on that.
But, if the other paladins did not have the curse, that should have meant that they would lose their status for slaughtering innocents.
But they did not. Their status remained intact.
That does bring up an important question: who is Kore trying to save? But definitely this. As Thaco said, Kore is killing innocent people because he thinks that evil is a disease.Zathyr wrote:See, the difference I was driving at is: if the creature is an immediate threat to you, you can act in self-defense. Or a clear, immediate threat to someone else, you can act in defense of that other person. But what Kore is doing with this "potential evil" malarkey is like pretending that he's defending others before any clear and present danger is established.
I have to disagree with you there. Chief was defending himself. Kore attacked first, while the goblins posed no threat to him. They were just crossing a river and he shot Chief in the back. He stayed behind to protect his friends. You don't get much more innocent than that.And some of the steps he takes in the process.. Killing Chief was justifiable.
Especially since the goal of the torture was to lure more innocent lives to their death.Torturing him was not,
Yeah. I'd argue that any system of "morality" that makes excuses for such an action is pretty much meaningless.nor was killing little Targoth.
Kore's judgment shouldn't be a factor here. It's the greater power that Kore serves which decides what is and is not fall-worthy.MakesNoSense wrote:He wasn't evil by our standard. But he WAS evil by Kore's standard.
It seemed much more like a one-off joke to me. But regardless, as others have pointed out, he was up against armed creatures that meant him harm.MakesNoSense wrote:First of all - the Paladin did not live beyond the first comic, but given that he was only in one comic - AFTER attacking the goblins - and was identified specifically as a paladin, not just a random adventurer (having a Paladin's handbook and not an Adventurer's handbook) I think it is reasonable to assume he left with powers intact (if exhausted). I also think it was very telling that he had to read a handbook, which included the instructions of "run away" just because the monsters might kill you. It was very much "game world" oriented, not "realistic world" oriented.
Yes, but as others have pointed out those are warcamps. Those are armed combatants that generally mean adventurers harm. ThereÔÇÖs no indication that it is common and accepted and ÔÇ£goodÔÇØ for adventurers to torture their victims, target unarmed children or otherwise willingly and knowingly kill innocent creatures of any race.Second of all - adventurers attacking goblin warcamps seems to be a common and accepted part of the world.
First of all, again, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about killing armed warcamps that mean adventurers harm. The rest of us are talking about knowingly and willingly killing innocents, including torturing those who no longer pose a threat and killing unarmed children.If Paladin's were losing their status over it, it is reasonable to assume that word would have gotten out and "good" aligned adventurers would have known that there was something wrong.
Then YAB, Big Ears, Thaco and ÔÇ£many othersÔÇØ should not be surprised. And your conclusion ignores another fact: Big Ears is a paladin. That canÔÇÖt reconciled with the way you describe the campaign world. If it were ÔÇ£goodÔÇØ to kill goblins in this campaign world, regardless of their innocence, then there shouldnÔÇÖt be any goblin paladins.Given these 2 points, I believe there is enough evidence to indicate that "killing goblins because they are goblins" is considered an acceptable "good" act by the "forces of good" which drive Herbert's campaign world.
And the goblins are more than willing to strike first, as they did with the paladin, even if though the paladin didnÔÇÖt seem to pose any real threat.The goblin's are hiding away, and the adventurers are hunting them down. The adventurers are not being provoked, they are just hunting around for groups of "acceptable targets" for the purpose of "getting xp".
That would be true . . . if they were doing so knowingly and willingly. It doesnÔÇÖt appear that they are. They are acting on ignorance, just as MM and Forgath were. Again, remember what Forgath did when he realized his mistake.By the definitions we are applying here, discussing in more detail with Kore, all of these adventurer's would have trouble justifying a "good" alignment.
I donÔÇÖt understand what computer games have to do with it. Goblins isnÔÇÖt based on a computer game. Dynamic, interactive dialogue is kinda the point of playing a pen-and-paper RPG over a video game.As a computer game, there is no dynamic, interactive dialogue.
Even if that were true, Thuntverse is obviously more closely related to an actual RPG than the ÔÇ£monsters are sacks of xpÔÇØ scenario you describe. ThatÔÇÖs been a major part of MMÔÇÖs character development.There are just monsters to kill. We disagree with Kore from a "true role-playing" perspective. But, there are lots of campaigns run, and all sorts of various "RPG computer games" where most of Kore's basic actions would not remove his paladin status. The "evil" we find in Kore is in knowing his personality, in hearing his reasons for killing the bladebeard boy or for torturing chief. However, we don't find it "evil" if a paladin character kills a bunch of NPCs in their "lairs".
I doubt it is anything so meta, but weÔÇÖll see. Personally, I think there is going to be a story reason for KoreÔÇÖs status, not a curse that circumvents story for a ÔÇ£sacks of xpÔÇØ videogame cheat.This does not mean that I believe Kore is a good person, nor do I believe that he is a true paladin based on his actions. However, could his "curse" (or from his perspective, his "blessing") be something along these lines?
Why would such a world even have alignments? ThatÔÇÖs a lot of ifs, and IÔÇÖm still not seeing the reasoning behind the videogame POV.I would like to pose this hypothetical question for everyone to answer directly - *IF* we pretended this was a computer game, and not Herbert's campaign world - *AND* as such, we could ignore the conversations/in-depth personalities of all of the characters. Meaning, if we judged Kore on the "basic game actions" only and not the glimpse into the personality. - What alignment would Kore be considered?
But the further we go, the less relevant the experiment becomes to Thuntverse.Please remember, the dialogue is only flavour for a story. The "torture" of chief is similar flavour. Let us (for the purpose of an experiment)
I donÔÇÖt know if I can even comment on such a thought experiment. IÔÇÖve never played such a game, and I donÔÇÖt understand why such a game would have alignments. Why have alignments if there are no moral decisions? And how does this videogame relate to Goblins? YouÔÇÖve stripped away everything that makes it a story.judge Kore as a player in a computer game. He is a dwarven paladin who kills all of the monsters their secret hideout. Included in that group of monsters is a dwarf which is friendly with the monsters. He gets a map to a goblin camp. Goes and kills all of the goblins and gets information for where more goblins live so he can kill more goblins. When he has monsters who run from him, he stops to heal one so he can continue the fight and hopefully the others come back so he can fight and kill them too. If all we see is a player character who kills in "evil lairs" and targets "monsters", is he "good" or "evil"?
There are only two greater powers that fuel paladin powers: the raw, elemental forces of Good and Law, in-and-of-themselves. Deities, other greater powers, etc. donÔÇÖt factor in, so no (besides the DM) ÔÇ£decides what is and is not fall-worthy.ÔÇØMakesYouSmell wrote:Kore's judgment shouldn't be a factor here. It's the greater power that Kore serves which decides what is and is not fall-worthy.MakesNoSense wrote:He wasn't evil by our standard. But he WAS evil by Kore's standard.
If Kore follows the Axe and gets his paladinhood from it, then he isnÔÇÖt a core paladin. Thunt has said that Kore is a core paladin.I still follow the belief that Kore is a Paladin of Prissan, and as such the Ax itself makes these decisions. Being only semi-sentient, evil is evil no matter how small. It would take a being of absolute, isolated innocence to get a pass. That's gotta be hard to find.
Kore serves the Ax, the Ax imprisons evil. As long as Kore only devours the souls of those with some degree of taint then he retains his status. The Ax does not judge him to have fallen.
However... if there is a new revelation that Kore's blind war against all evil unto its smallest forms is itself evil and weakening the Ax, then this theory holds less water than I've given it.