Kore Discussion / Speculation

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Knucklekraken
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 205

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Knucklekraken » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:14 pm

Whether or not the world is, we specifically need to know whether Kore is.
Avatar by Lissa.

User avatar
Zathyr
Smiths Silly Smiles
Posts: 3199
UStream Username: Zathyr

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Zathyr » Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:29 pm

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/
Image And always make sure your dragons are happy little dragons.

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:25 am

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/
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.

To me, reading the story, there have been parallel evolutions from "game world" to "real world". Be it the change from a world where goblins could not be player characters, into a world where they can be player characters. Or a transition from how all goblins are evil, by the default of being a goblin. Or (to me) the most obvious example of the metamorphosis of Minmax as he has transitioned from a munchkined collection of stats and bonuses into a rather complex personality.

I think that currently Herbet is running a world with a duality, where both a "game world" and a "realistic world" currently coexist during the transition period.

I have the belief that Kore, in one fashion or another, represents the "old game world". A world where a goblin is "evil" simply because it is a goblin. In that sort of world, it is not difficult to see how Kore's view of "good", "evil" or "innocent" could have been justified - no matter how corrupt or inappropriate we find it. We also likely find it corrupt or inappropriate to assume that all goblins must be evil just because they are goblins - yet, I can also remember when I first played D&D as a kid and that is exactly how we treated campaign worlds. Goblins, kobolds, orcs, trolls, ogres etc... were the evil bad guys that you had to fight and kill. That way you could play a "great hero". Sure, Kore and Goblinslayer are corrupted beyond those "heroes" we played, but they are not so far away either. It was only as we matured that we began to look beyond assumptions of absolute value by race.

From that perspective, I think Kore is completely in-line with an extreme version of that childish, black-and-white, view of a campaign world. The innocence of the dwarven child Kore killed was - to Kore's way of thinking - corrupted because of his interaction with "evil" monsters. There was a value placed on the "stats" and "status" of the object - not value placed on the individual based upon their own merits. Not so different from how it was "good" for first-level Minmax and Forgath to attack the "evil" goblin camp. Not so different from how Minmax was able to trade his ability to read (despite the fact that Forgath pointed out that everyone in a campaign world is literate) for combat bonuses. Or that Minmax had a valid backstory where he had a bastard sword in his hands from the age of 3. These are just as unrealistic as Kore's view (and potentially, an "old game world" view) of what is "good", "evil" and "innocent". But they still happened.

If Herbert has a dualistic view of his world, where it existed in one fashion previously and is currently evolving, perhaps that old view of "good" is still "acceptable/valid".

But, that is just how I think of things. I'm sure that we will discover more as Thunt continues his story :)

User avatar
SoulReaver
Enjoys Chitchat
Posts: 280
Location: Überwald

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by SoulReaver » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:30 am

All this is pretty much refuted by him killing a kidnapped Bladebeard child. He wasn't evil by any standard.
All hail the power of the stick!

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:41 am

SoulReaver wrote:All this is pretty much refuted by him killing a kidnapped Bladebeard child. He wasn't evil by any standard.
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".

I also believe that we see the comic strictly through the "realistic world" eyes, with plenty of hints on how the "game world" has impacted it.

To put it another way.... did Minmax have a "good" alignment before he met Goblinslayer? After all, he got most of his xp killing the goblin warcamp - which we have every reason to consider as a collection of non-evil inhabitants. As such, by those standards, why is Minmax not considered evil? Because it is a game mechanic, not something which fits nicely into a realistic world. Kore fits into the same game mechanic category to my view of things.

User avatar
SoulReaver
Enjoys Chitchat
Posts: 280
Location: Überwald

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by SoulReaver » Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:25 am

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.
All hail the power of the stick!

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:55 am

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.
That is my point.... there is no "potentially evil" or "mostly evil" or "more evil". There is only "good", "neutral" and "evil".

Was not the massacre of the goblin warcamp by Minmax and Forgath a horrible act by those same standards?

Kore made a statement to the effect that the dwarven child was no longer innocent. This does not mean we agree with it, or that we think Kore is a good standard to judge by. It is Herbert's world, and the "powers of good and evil" which exist there are his interpretation of what he wants that world to be like. I am simply raising the idea that it is not my view of "good" or your view of "good" or even Thunt's view of "good" which matters. It is what Thunt wants Herbert to think of as "good" for the purposes of that campaign setting.

Is "good" measured by the standard of a 'hack-and-slash' computer game? Where the NPCs are all pre-determined for their alignments? Who they might be as individuals is irrelevant, all that matters is the 'tag' on their alignment. What is the difference of a young goblin being raised by orcs and a young dwarf being raised by orcs? If you do the computer game method and assume that orcish culture is an absolute "evil" with no room for variation, then a young dwarf being brought up in that culture would be defined as "evil" by the computer game.

To paraphrase, in D&D, there is no "potentially good". Either the Dwarven Boy must be 'good', 'neutral' or 'evil'.

By those same standards, why did the Paladin from the very first comic not lose his paladin status for attacking the goblin warcamp? Would not other paladin adventurers who attacked the warcamp successfully previously have lost their status post-attack?

are the members of the GAP all "evil"? How can Ears be a paladin if he is evil? Was he "evil" by default until he decided to become a paladin? These are the questions of "good" and "evil" that the comic (to my way of understanding) has chosen to tackle. If those other paladins could have kept their paladin status on a technicality that the warcamp had goblins and all goblins must be evil (despite the new evidence that the comic has shown us otherwise) can Kore not get by on the same technicality? I think that the goblinverse is dealing with challenging those definitions and standards by providing a dualistic world where we view things from the one perspective, in a world that was generally run according to the other perspective.

User avatar
Zathyr
Smiths Silly Smiles
Posts: 3199
UStream Username: Zathyr

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Zathyr » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:49 am

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.
Image And always make sure your dragons are happy little dragons.

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:15 am

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.
We see it as different.

But do these games? If you play a "paladin" in a computer game, and you slaughter a goblin mother and baby, do you lose your "paladin status"? If not, why not?

I am not muddying the waters. The paladins people are describing should have lost their "paladin status" by attacking the goblin warcamp based on the standards of "good" and "evil" people are advocating for. They did not. Why not?

I have offered one explanation of why not, and some people (ok, probably everyone) disagree with it. That is fine, I would never try to force someone to agree with me :) But instead of just dismissing it, please explain in the same game terms why those other paladins in the goblinverse did not lose their "paladin status".

User avatar
Wolfie
She Who Admins
She Who Admins
Posts: 3472
UStream Username: Wolfie213
Location: In a handbasket on a bus... and it's hot

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Wolfie » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:23 am

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.
"This is my therapy dragon, she's for my panic attacks. I attack, everyone panics." (Quote found on http://outofcontextdnd.tumblr.com/)

"If I have a +2 strength sword and I stab you, you won't get a +2 strength, you get wounds" ~Sir Butcher

"How few there are who have courage enough to own their faults, or resolution enough to mend them." ~Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:33 am

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.
I think that Kore's curse will be important, although he views it as a blessing.

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.

The question I am attempting to answer is "why not". Because I do think (personally) that it relevant.

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by YardMeat » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:46 am

MakesNoSense wrote:
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.
I think that Kore's curse will be important, although he views it as a blessing.

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.
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.

User avatar
Wolfie
She Who Admins
She Who Admins
Posts: 3472
UStream Username: Wolfie213
Location: In a handbasket on a bus... and it's hot

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Wolfie » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:48 am

^^ What Yardmeat said.

We haven't seen another paladin other than Ears. We don't strictly know what the norm is, beyond what Ears mentioned about paladins and their powers.
"This is my therapy dragon, she's for my panic attacks. I attack, everyone panics." (Quote found on http://outofcontextdnd.tumblr.com/)

"If I have a +2 strength sword and I stab you, you won't get a +2 strength, you get wounds" ~Sir Butcher

"How few there are who have courage enough to own their faults, or resolution enough to mend them." ~Benjamin Franklin

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by YardMeat » Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:00 pm

Also, if Kore represents Herbert-as-a-DM's views of morality, why hasn't Forgath stopped receiving spells from Herbert-as-a-deity?

And, although BE is the only other paladin we have encountered, other characters have been confused by the fact that Kore retains his powers while still slaughtering innocents. Every in-story mention of his alignment has been, "that doesn't make sense." My money is with Wolfie's. The first time the whole Kore paladin mystery came up is vocalized is also the first time we heard about the curse: http://www.goblinscomic.org/03272006/

User avatar
Zathyr
Smiths Silly Smiles
Posts: 3199
UStream Username: Zathyr

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Zathyr » Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52 pm

There was a paladin in the first page, but he didn't survive past the title. ;) So if he would've kept his paladin status or not is pure conjecture as well.

A paladin who murders a goblin mother and baby would lose their paladin status in one of my games. Goblins are "usually evil" but not irredeemably so. But a paladin going into a goblin warcamp and wiping them out there like Minmax and Forgath did would not fall. They approached the goblins, the goblins attacked, and they attacked back. If they approached the goblins and the goblins attempted to just talk to them and they respond by killing them, then that is probably unwarranted and evil. Are the goblins evil for attacking first? No, they knew, thanks to the fortune teller, that the adventurers were coming to kill them - they have just as much of a right to defend themselves. This kind of thing happens in war - you get good people fighting for noble reasons on both sides, generally because social pressures drive them into conflict. Should adventurers and goblins always attempt diplomacy? Well, apparently in that world attempts to do so haven't gone well; witness Duv.

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. And some of the steps he takes in the process.. Killing Chief was justifiable. Torturing him was not, nor was killing little Targoth.
Image And always make sure your dragons are happy little dragons.

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by YardMeat » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:40 pm

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.
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.
And some of the steps he takes in the process.. Killing Chief was justifiable.
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.
Torturing him was not,
Especially since the goal of the torture was to lure more innocent lives to their death.
nor was killing little Targoth.
Yeah. I'd argue that any system of "morality" that makes excuses for such an action is pretty much meaningless.

User avatar
Lurks_In_Shadows
Cures Light Wounds
Posts: 7630
Location: In the Pharoh's mud pits, making bricks without straw.

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Lurks_In_Shadows » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:09 pm

You know, not only are Kore's actions pretty much evil by most definitions, they are essentially chaotic in nature as well. Even lawful evil types follow the rules. The only rule Kore seems to follow is Kore must win, therefore the ends justify the means. His behavior is essentially the polar opposite of what to expect from a paladin.

User avatar
RocketScientist
Global Moderator
Posts: 5888
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by RocketScientist » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:35 pm

Goblins Alignment: Usually neutral evil. Dwarves Alignment: Often lawful good. Can you see how an older "kill 'em all and collect the XP" mindset might be ok with killing goblin families (not that we've seen that), but not ok with killing dwarven children?

User avatar
Lurks_In_Shadows
Cures Light Wounds
Posts: 7630
Location: In the Pharoh's mud pits, making bricks without straw.

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Lurks_In_Shadows » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:55 pm

Killing yes, torture- no. By its nature, torture requires a lack of empathy with the victim (unless you're one sick, twisted puppy!). More of a self centered, no-one-else-matters attitude. Lawfuls tend to put the group before themselves, and believe that order/rules are necessary. A lawful evil might happily gut you, but may consider stabbing you in the back a dishonorable act (I say! That's just not cricket!). Torture usually would be considered beneath a lawful's ethics (unless it was his job, like an interrogator). Kore's reason for torturing Chief does not meet the standard required for this to be a lawful act. His reason, pretty baldly stated, is he doesn't want to be inconvenienced with chasing the GAP down in a dungeon crawl, so he's going to guilt them into coming back to try to rescue Chief. In this respect, the GAP is more lawful in its actions than Kore is. Kore's action are more in line with a chaotic (or at best, neutral) alignment, as have several past actions (enough so, that if I was the DM and Kore a PC, I'd probably be forced to do something about it).

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:53 am

To add in a couple of points.

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.

Second of all - adventurers attacking goblin warcamps seems to be a common and accepted part of the world. 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.

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.

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". 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.

As a computer game, there is no dynamic, interactive dialogue. 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".

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?

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?

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) 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"?

MakesYouSmell
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 10

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesYouSmell » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:29 am

MakesNoSense wrote:He wasn't evil by our standard. But he WAS evil by Kore's standard.
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.

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.

YardMeat
Voices Opinions
Posts: 437

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by YardMeat » Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:57 pm

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.
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.
Second of all - adventurers attacking goblin warcamps seems to be a common and accepted part of the world.
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.

DonÔÇÖt forget that even Forgath and MM were operating based on ignorance, and Forgath halted the attack the very moment he realized that the goblins might not be evil. The only reason they went back after the goblins is that they uncovered new ÔÇ£evidenceÔÇØ that the goblins were trying to destroy the world.
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.
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.

Second of all, you are ignoring the actual ÔÇ£word [that has] gotten outÔÇØ regarding paladins. YAB, Big Ears, Thaco andÔÇöaccording to ThacoÔÇöÔÇ£many othersÔÇØ understand that paladins shouldnÔÇÖt be able to get away with this stuff.
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.
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.

Another fact your conclusion ignores is that Forgath is a cleric of Herbert. Forgath saved the life of a goblin once he realized his target was not evil. If ÔÇ£killing goblins because they are goblinsÔÇØ were considered ÔÇ£goodÔÇØ and ÔÇ£Herbert-approved,ÔÇØ Forgath should have lost his cleric abilities years ago.
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".
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.
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.
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.
As a computer game, there is no dynamic, interactive dialogue.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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?
Why would such a world even have alignments? ThatÔÇÖs a lot of ifs, and IÔÇÖm still not seeing the reasoning behind the videogame POV.

Besides, what about the dwarven child? In your scenario, do we just ignore the fact that he was a child, unarmed and even that he was a dwarf?
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)
But the further we go, the less relevant the experiment becomes to Thuntverse.
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"?
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.
MakesYouSmell wrote:
MakesNoSense wrote:He wasn't evil by our standard. But he WAS evil by Kore's standard.
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.
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.ÔÇØ
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.
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.

User avatar
MakesNoSense
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 126
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by MakesNoSense » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: Yardmeat's response.

I was attempting to get you to see things from another perspective - the video game analogy was taking another related gaming scenario and showing how there are some people who do play a "lawful good" paladin in ways that are somewhat similar to the "Kore" paladin - if you judge the base actions and not the role-play of the character. To me, this is exactly how Minmax's "player" approached building a character for the campaign - from that same perspective.

I also believe that the whole setup of "goblin culture" - their treasure chest with magic items that goblins can't use amongst other things... are also built from the same perspective. I have always seen the Goblins story as challenging that - of why those perspectives and views are not where you find the best value in role-playing.

I personally think that it would be a great spin on the story, as it could be used to show how Kore's dominance and abuse of the rules cannot, in the end, overcome good role-playing.

Beyond this, did Thunt explain from which edition Kore is a core paladin?

Shard
Remains Silent
Posts: 5

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by Shard » Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:38 pm

I think it is safe to assume every theory has been suggested at one point or another...
But seeing as i do not have the time to read them all,so ill just add mine to the pile:

Kore traps souls, this seems to be widely accepted.
The fact that he can do this is likely from his curse, and irrelevant to the theory:
what if he traps them so they cannot alert whoever runs the afterlife of the atrocious deeds he has performed?
It is never explained how the gods know about what palladins do in order to stay worthy of their powers...

Another theory is that he uses these bound souls as feul for his powers, (kind of like how in the show supernatural
► Show Spoiler
). But that does not explain the axe passing trough him.

my Ôé¼0,02

User avatar
SoulReaver
Enjoys Chitchat
Posts: 280
Location: Überwald

Re: Kore Discussion / Speculation

Post by SoulReaver » Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:45 pm

No gods grant paladins their powers.
All hail the power of the stick!

Post Reply