killing goblins

In a role-playing game, the key thing is to play the role of your character, using their moral system, not your own.

If your character is neutral-evil, hide from the goblins until they’ve killed the annoying paladin in your party, then kill the goblins and take all the loot. If you’re lawful-good, kill the goblins before they reach any of the unprotected villages nearby , or perhaps find a way to lure them away from human settlements. Or perhaps follow them to find where the hideout is so that you can make a plan to deal with the lot of them.

Follow your character’s in-game alignment (moral outlook), take into account any in-game constraints on behaviour (rules of in-game religions & laws imposed by local rulers) and bear in mind your character’s in-game motivations (e.g. desire for wealth, notoriety, need to impress an employer).

Using real-world morality for an in-game situation where it’s not applicable is simply not role-playing.

Oh, I think morality will be part of the story, but I don’t agree that it’s inherently evil to portray characters acting immorally. An author doing that isn’t necessarily doing so as an endorsment of that moral view, but simply to explore possible scenarios and provoke consideration by the reader. That is, the fictional portrayal of something isn’t necessarily an endorsement of it, and can be read thoughtfully without believing it will somehow corrupt the reader. The audience to any piece of art-- be it sculpture, painting, literature or film is going to bring into their consideration their own frame of reference, including morality. They’ll always view these things from their own context and bring into it almost as much as the artist does. Some would argue that great art speaks to fundamental aspects of the human condition which are relatable to the vast majority of people despite the varying contexts they view it from. Culture, time period, education, etc.

So, you can have an alternate reality within a game wherein the consequences of a different morality structure than ours is veiwed/experienced. You as the audience won’t automatically somehow accept that construct as applicable to reality. Like violent video games, the audience goes in understanding they’re operating in a virtual world vastly different than the real one-- there are game rules which don’t apply at all outside of the game.

I would truly like to agree with you. It is counter-intuitive to me as well. But the data and studies don’t support any causual relationship between the availability of porn and rape or sexual violence. The studies I have found claiming casual links have been fairly biased and poorly researched.
Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.
In all four countries there is clear and undisputed evidence that during this period the availability of various forms of pictorial pornography including violent/dominant varieties (in the form of picture magazines, and films/videos used at home or shown in arcades or cinemas) has developed from extreme scarcity to relative abundance. If (violent) pornography causes rape, this exceptional development in the availability of (violent) pornography should definitely somehow influence the rape statistics. Since, however, the rape figures could not simply be expected to remain steady during the period in question (when it is well known that most other crimes increased considerably), the development of rape rates was compared with that of non-sexual violent offences and nonviolent sexual offences (in so far as available statistics permitted). The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape

An interesting issue is the internet and the ease of access now to pornography. Given the dramatic increase in the availablity of all types of porn, if there’s a causation we should have seen an increase in rape. What actually has happened?
“In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use. What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape – and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.”

Now, even the article itself states, and I think correctly, that Kendall goes too for in attributing the decrease to the availability of porn. That is, there is a correlation but not necessarily a causation. But it does support the fact that increased access to pornography does not result in increases in rape or sexual violence.

Wait, wait, wait. Styrgwillidar, you’ve put forward a point of view and then, when challenged, you’ve backed it up with multiple verifiable sources? Is that even allowed on this forum?

Not only should the players kill the goblin raiders ambushing them, but they should also rescue their employer Rockseeker and his guard Hallwinter even if that means killing the whole load of goblins as goblins are nasty little buggers who just love things like torture.


A post that was disapproved on another site:
I’m going to use a specific question, but the core ideas have troubled me
before. I’m running as Dungeons & Dragons game wherein the characters are
encouraged to “clear out” a lair of goblins who have been raiding caravans.
Now, the typical goblin is “chaotic evil,” but a player and I are
disquieted, worried there might be a goblin among them who deviates from
the innate/cultural evil. In other words, we don’t want to kill
indiscriminately lest we kill an innocent. However, sometimes announcing
your presence and demanding surrender is dangerous and/or impossible, and
my question is: is it okay to kill proactively, and also if it’s okay to do
so when the murdered didn’t kill?
As stated, this question is not limited to goblins.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit