One of my characters had the missfotune to be born a gnome, they sought enlightenment from kurtulmak. He eventually killed himself so that the cleric could cast reincarnate and he came back a blessed kobold
Yeah, like I don't see a reason for that at all, like people don't call gorillas more people than elephants irl so it sorta comes out of no-where. People generally see gorillas as just beasts while seeing elephants as empathetic intelligent beings. The humanoidness is just a trope for costumes and so that the creatives don't need to do SpecEvo (As well as because of some religions saying that intelligent beings must be humanoid because we were created in gods image, or try to validify it with convergent evolution to an absurd degree as if different animals have never had different solutions to the same problem.) Our shape has nothing to do with our personhood, that's completely silly with no reason, you wouldn't say an alien isn't a person just cus they walk on there hands and have no feet with six arms, you wouldn't call a yaetuan a non-person for being as alien as it is, you wouldn't download a- call the cars from the movie Cars not people, you wouldn't call an eldritch horror a non-person because it is comprised of infinite tentacles phasing through each other, so why a dragon? Let's just say something controversial, babies are not people, they will become people but as babies they are animals. Naturally we reject this idea as it is in human nature to protect babies and human pride to say we were never animals at any stage of our being but babies just mess up definitions of people since we do mental gymnastics to include them causing hypothetical beings to be excluded who definitely give off a human vibe and fit all the other categories. In conclusion I feed babies to my dragon god and there is nothing wrong with that, its just how life is I'm afraid.
People want to fight people because fighting animals is boring, but they don't want the said people to be people, because that results in awkward ethical issues; enter the goblin/orc/demon/darkspawn/kobold/gnoll etc.
I don't really feel awkward ethical issues from killing other people. If they're evil enough, I don't care what they look like, they're dying lmao. Also I feel like demons fall into a different category from the others slightly, goblins and orcs are sometimes classified as being 'less than human' but I never get that vibe from demons.
I haven't seen many DnD groups baulk at fighting a group of bandits, an evil magic user or the enemy kingdom next door come to that. If anything the all goblins are evil trope just allows people to explore the question of what to do about the one who isn't or the one that you accidentally knocked out and now have to release or murder. And dealing with such ethical problems within the game is healthy and generally much loved as long as you can get back to killing the bad guys next week and unwind some of that pent up aggression from work and modern life.
Easy if you go with the one person's hero is another's monster in a war (example the grunts in halo screaming "it's the deamon" and the like all you need is to unreliable narrator the reason for the war and boom human enemy's with the more complications wiped away in a socially acceptable way
@@chickensky1121 Ok, but if they are humans, then are they actually evil, or are they just forced into _doing_ evil? Like if you have a kingdom ruled by a cruel lich, and he sends soldiers after you, is every one of those soldiers evil? Or could they just have their own lives and perhaps those of their families on the line for refusing to fight in the lich's name? Do you have to slaughter them, or can they be convinced to surrender, perhaps escape and live fulfilling lives? It's a lot easier when you can just know for a fact that the entire enemy group is violent psychopaths that have no better future ahead of them.
At least in 5e, goblins are unequivocally people. They have the humanoid creature type, which is the only type that's affected by Charm Person or Hold Person, so they are people according to the laws of the universe of D&D. Of course, the real question is whether the other people living in that universe consider them to be people, which seems to be a general "no." It seems fairly obvious that the people who live in the forgotten realms consider Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, and similar humanoids to be monsters, not people, regardless of the actual game mechanics. An interesting question, though, is whether those creatures consider Humans, Elves, and so forth to be "people" or "monsters?" If you look at most published adventures, it seems like Goblins, Orcs, and other "monster races" will often work together against the "civilized races" to achieve common goals. Which would seem to imply they consider each other to be "people,' but not the standard fantasy races. So, the bias goes both ways.
@@DabroodThompson While true, there are human cultures that eat other humans in real life, so I wouldn't consider being willing to eat other people as a factor to consider when determining personhood.
@@DabroodThompson Well, if you don’t consider something a person you might try to eat it, as that thing would be either a monster or an animal, and generally speaking people do eat animals. This actually implies that the standard fantasy races either view goblins and the like as people whose life don’t matter, or as animals/monsters that aren’t worth eating (as they may carry disease, but if this was the case, a human eating a goblin should face way less stigma than a human eating another human for example)
@@juanmejiagomez5514 I mean, how many cases are there of humans eating goblins? People in the real world are more stigmatized for eating, say, rats or pigeons than for eating chicken.
Was my line of thought too: The difference between Charm Person and Charm Monster is... humanoid. If it has Humanoid on the character sheet, it is a 'person' by the Mechanics. As for the Fluff of things: When humans are the dominate lifeforms, they demonize each other over minor physical differences. In a Universe where Humans can take that mentality to the next step...? yeah, everything is Monsters. Especially Us.
Even back in 1979 goblins were people. People you killed on sight, usually, but still people. We no more considered the morality of killing them than we would shooting a Space Invader in the arcade. The game has grown since, and mostly for the better. Goblins (and orcs and their various kindred) have evolved from being simple monsters into full-fledged races. Terry Pratchett tackled this very moral issue in his novel "Snuff."
Meanwhile the goblins are asking "Are adventurers people? They live only to kill us and steal our things. They are not responsive to any attempts to communicate in goblin or gesture, at least in any way that would indicate an ability to control their violence. They show some limited markers of civilisation such as hoarding, though they lack any grovelling that might indicate complex hierarchical organisation. It is a complex question."
I mean PERSONALLY, in all of my encounters with any sentient beings, I NEVER strike first, only after I or my party or someone else has been attacked, so IMO if the goblins are going to blame anyone, they should be blaming the Dungeon Masters LMAO.
@@chickensky1121 It would be incredibly meta if a DM decided that actually goblins are perfectly peaceful and harmless, _unless_ dancing to the whims of a cruel extra-planar being who is constantly compelling them to attack balanced parties of adventurers for reasons that they cannot understand.
@@chickensky1121 that's the reason I almost always make characters linked to the Feywild. The rules of the Fey make a really funny and simple way to communicate "here is the line, DM. Please dont trespass it if you want to make a peaceful interaction" to DMs who have the "my NPCs attack to kill but I'll guilty trip my players if they do the same" mindset.
I don't know if you missed it in the editing here, but there seems to be an error at 23:02 . the slideshow of goblin pictures appears on screen early, leading to some unintended comedy at 23:09
Wow yeah that's an editing mistake. Must have shifted the timeline without the clips lol. I will admit, it's very funny gesturing at nothing. Afraid there's no fixing without re-uploading so I'm stuck in my mistake. Good spot!
I miss the images completely the first time watching it and then I was like what is he pointing to. So I went back and watched some more and I thought is he pointing the things on the shelf? Finally I went back far enough that I saw the images and they are going by more than quickly would have fit in their appropriate places.
@Grungeon_Master Maybe this is silly, but this feels like a circumstance to embrace the inner goblin. Everyone has some aspect of being a bit messy at times, and there is nothing wrong with occasionally unapologetically letting that just exist and having a good laugh at the imperfection. It is like the goblin vs elf debate, where often the imortal perfect elf should be the more inhuman. And I think often a fear of goblins in modern culture can be that fear of imperfection. It is fitting for the bit that was looking for the human elements inside a goblin.
I'd probably change is sentient to sapient. The capacity to feel is less important than the capacity to think. Then ditch morality, as being a person is not the same as being a good person, or even a tolerable one.
The question of morality is not so much that being a good person makes you a person, but rather being capable of being a good person. Even then, it's not complete, and it's not the entirety of the qualifiers.
I think the _potential_ for morality is necessary for something to be considered a person. If goblins can understand morality and live moral lives, then the potential offers them personhood. If, on the other hand, they are _incapable_ of moral understanding, then there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
Correct. There are animals with literally three neurons that can be considered "capable of feeling". Plants exhibit behaviours that can only reasonably be described as "feeling". Even if we limit the definition of "feeling" to internal sensations that have evolved to influence more complex behaviours than reflex can govern, like fear, this is a poor definition of personhood because there are animals that experience these sensations that even Buddhists don't mind killing. The best line I've ever seen between "person" and "not person" is the capacity for sensation on an existential level; not just feeling sensations, but rationalising them and placing them within a worldview that includes concepts of morality and purpose (bearing in mind that believing that there is no such thing as morality or purpose is still exhibiting the ability to form and analyse concepts of morality and purpose). Personhood is the ability to ask "why am I able to suffer?" and "why should I suffer?". Your stereotypical Goblin I'd argue does not possess these capacities to even the slightest degree. A goblin is not capable of asking these questions. It has no concept of morality - it hasn't just decided not to care about morality, it has no understanding whatsoever of the idea of morality. The closest thing to morality it has a concept of is obedience; If you refrain from following a particular instinct, I will not hurt you and might reward you.
@@okamiv5 It's a weird hangup in the English language were people keep mistaking sentient for "capable of thought", when it really is a far lower standard that nearly all animals meet. And possibly some non-animals.
Monster Manual makes it pretty cut and dry. Page 4: “A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.” Goblins are monsters. Humans are monsters. Both are also people. The terms are not interchangeable. Is a bandit not a person anymore? If a goblin joins an adventuring party, does it cease to be a monster? All people are monsters, by virtue of appearing in the Monster Manual, but not all monsters are people. Goblins have language, religion, and other elements of a culture. Thus, they’re people. And also monsters.
There are also weird cases like dragons, devils, mind flayers, and hags which are smart but I dunno if I would call them people because they lack a lot of what makes a person, whereas a goblin can integrate into a society as an citizen equal to everyone I really dont think the others could. Devils and hags seem to be without any kind of remorse or empathy, mind flayers means of reproduction, diet, and status as a hivemind makes them unsuitable, and dragons are simply too far above a mortal for them to really be equal even assuming they are willing to care about us at all. Being a person is about more then intelligence, but even if a being isnt a person I dont think that means its ok to treat them like an animal either.
yeah, i love this kind of definition of a monster, and i love it when certain humans are listed in the "list of monsters," and that puts goblins pretty neatly into both camps
To your (presumably) rhetorical questions about whether a bandit is no longer a person, actually, historically the answer would be kind of yes. When someone became an outlaw this effectively meant they were no longer a person. This renders a bandit to the same level of a beast and they would have the same rights. Any lawful person could basically do whatever they wanted to them, absent some things like torture. Theft and killing were on the table though. I use the term killing here very precisely, as it cannot be said to be murder, an unlawful killing, as they have placed themselves outside of the law, the rules governing civil society.
A note about Forgotten Realms, goblins were not created evil by "their god". They were actually fey (fairies) that were stolen by Maglubiyet through conquest. Goblins are victims of conquest with their history erased. They can be freed from him.
This is one of many flip-flop retcons that goblins have undergone in forgotten realms alone. They've been created evil, bred as a slave race by hobgoblins and alchemically constructed all in the same setting.
@@someguy3861 I believe retcons do have valid explanations in the Forgotten Realms, such as when the entire cosmology has changed. And obscuring truths via gods is probable.. Goblins that were inspired by Tolkien, which had the goblins/orcs a result of an evil 'god' altering existing beings, seems fair to have a similar origin. Goblinoids that have a collective culture around pillaging via a god, it makes sense for themselves to have been pillaged.
To be fair, even with original lore (well, unless we go to some of the early OD&D or 1E books I guess), FR goblins aren't "inherently evil" even considering that they have been created by an evil god. Not sure what explanation there would be in-setting for an evil deity to do that (pretty sure the writers just never bothered to give such a specific explanation for this), but, for some reason, none of the D&D non-supernatural humanoid races have ever been "inherently" something; their alignment tendency has always been a matter of religion (therefore, culture), and never of biological/spiritual tendencies. _I guess_ that some books imply a sort of spiritual alignment tendency imbued by the creator deity, but it's always very, very secondary to the cultural upbringing and life experiences of the individual. Usually, what happens is that there are races that are imbued with "natural" instincts that make it easier to commit evil than good (for example, orcs are inherently violent, and pre-5E gnolls inherently gluttonous (and violent)), but never explicit "this race is imbued with Evil". Books that outright go out and say "Goblins/Orcs/whatever are inherently Evil and must fight their evil instincts" are exceptions rather than the rule (one of them, ironically enough, being 5E's Volo's Guide To Monsters, an otherwise excellent book). The whole "must fight its evil instincts regardless of culture and upbringing" has always been tieflings' thing, which makes sense because they are actually descendants of embodiments of Evil. And even then, tieflings aren't straight up "automatically born Evil and then shift over time", it's just a matter of instincts - the same way humans are psychologically geared toward not wanting to make other people suffer, a tiefling would be geared toward doing just that - and only straight up half-creatures like cambions retain their parents' "inherently [alignment] since birth".
I feel like if we hold goblins to a moral standard, we are on some level admitting to seeing them as people! We in the real world regard bears as dangerous, but we do not wage war against them, or perceive them as evil. If a goblin stabs you, and you conclude he has not merely harmed you, but has *done wrong by you* or otherwise committed a moral transgression, you are necessarily acknowledging him as a person.
I'll play devil's advocate, for a fundamentally non-liberal perspective. From this perspective, the question of personhood isn't about rights, but rather responsibilities. We would grant personhood as a way of recognizing that an individual or group is capable of meeting the behavioral standards of our society. Note that the threshold is capability, not inclination. The reason a thief is punished differently than a wandering animal is the understanding that the thief knows what he's doing is wrong. The animal might eat your crops or smash your fence, but without any awareness of the transgression. Nonpersons require a greater degree of proactive control to include in society. We must provide barriers, provide sustenance, shelter where necessary. Persons, on the other hand, can be expected to more or less provide for themselves. Special categories may be allowed personhood and dependence at the same time, like children. But in general, a person must be responsible for themselves, or bear reactive consequences for transgression. A society would benefit from being as expansive as practically possible, with the status of personhood. This isn't a matter of benevolence or righteousness, but simply because it is easier and more productive. We don't have to like goblins, include them in our social circles, or any other voluntary association but granting them the status of personhood allows the potential benefit from those who choose to integrate, and simultaneously a path for systematic punishment for those that attempt to carry on predatory or parasitic lifestyles.
Goblins are people, and it's okay to kill them. Orcs are people and it's okay to kill them. Trolls are people, and it's okay to kill them. Humans are people, and it's okay to kill them. Elves are people, and it's okay to kill them. Dwarves are people, and it's okay to kill them. Sapient humanoids are as equally valuable a source of loot and XP as Beasts, Vermin, Undead, Aberrations, Dragons, Plants, Giants, Fey, Constructs, and Outsiders.
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 you mean humans, right? The game is a representation of what its players seek to do to pass the time. Violence is much older than gaming. Sorry to burst your bubble 🤷🏽♂️ edit: TL;DR: hate the player, not the game. This saying is quite literal in this context 😆
In the anime Goblin Slayer, the cut off is for those races who's prayers were recognised by the gods. This leads to races like goblins being classed as Non Prayer Characters, i.e. NPC's.
That's awful. Imagine being a god in that setting. > do a nice thing for once and answer someone's prayer, as a treat > people read way too much into it and start classifying the people you missed as subhuman > one of them even starts identifying as the embodiment of ethnic violence so much other worlds start referring to yours by his name > never want to answer a prayer again afterwards, making the narrative that gobbos are these god-forsaken creatures even worse The only winning move is not to play indeed. No wonder we live in such a godless world ourselves.
@@jokhard8137tbf The most popular religion on earth seems to be set up to send 70% of humanity to eternal damnation just for not wanting to play their game.
This is also typically how every religious war gets framed. Side A believe they're real people because god A surely supports them, while side B are non-people who worship nothing real. Side B believe they're real people because god B surely supports them, while side A are non-people who worship nothing real.
in retro dnd goblins are chaotic evil, humanoids, but can be any alignment. its mostly a question of nature v.s nurture on how a goblin will act. if they live in a civilized society they will adopt those traits to survive and thrive in that environment, but they will always have innate tendencies that can drive them towards chaos and doing bad, but for most parts they can control those tendencies to live peaceful civilized lives. but when they are the majority of their society they will fully embrace their nature, no filter, and build their entire society nurturing those chaotic evil tendencies. so goblins are almost always chaotic evil, but not always. a creatures inner nature and evil races makes for great story telling, this is why its significant when an orc becomes a palidan, or a Goblin to put themselves in danger to save their friends when it is in their nature to be cowardly. an Aarakocra to engage their fear of confined spaces and enter into a space when its important to do so.
Agreed! I'm honestly rather tired of the "every fantasy/scifi race is just differently shaped/colored humans from a different culture". No. Give them different common natures, and then open them up for individual variation. Yes, the typical goblin has strong tendencies towards violence, treachery, greed, and cowardice. No, these traits can be much weaker or stronger or even nonexistant depending on the individual goblin, but if they're part of a culture that embraces those traits, they're probably going to follow through. Want to raise an orphan goblin? You're rolling the dice, weighted by how you treat and teach them. Maybe they'll shank you and steal off into the night. Maybe they'll care about their friends and family and keep their nose down but engage in crime. Maybe they'll be an upright, decent sort. Or maybe they'll become a great hero to prove the world wrong.
@@DanielMWJ I feel like there's a lot of room to work with the standard "evil races" as being influenced by their gods. I have a half-orc who was raised in an orphanage by a dwarf and seeks his people... and has recently gained the attention of Gruumsh through the violence adventurers get into. There is also interesting stuff for ingrained traits that can be expressed in different ways. Like in Eberron, orcs FEEL. They're prone to big emotions and totally devoting themselves to things. Some of the greatest paladins of the Silver Flame are orcs. So are some of the vilest champions of the Rakshasa Kings. That's the way I went for a goblin raised by gnomes. She's got the goblin propensity towards a strict, linear hierarchy, but not the usual cruelty. Everybody in the party knows exactly where they belong (she sees herself at the bottom), but they don't need to bully those beneath them like they normally would in goblin society.
My challenge with a lot of these discussions is the fact that we use a anthropocentric "human lens" when looking at these questions. We see ourselves as having "free will" and apply that to others... and of course we can't really cleanly define what free will is. But look at a human who is a criminally insane... a psychopath as an example. It isn't that a psychopath makes a decision to not feel empathy or remorse, they are literally incapable of such things. A full blown criminally insane psychopath doesn't choose to be impulsive, their brain is wired towards disinhibition. But only a small percent of humans are psychopaths... and even then it is hard to tell to what extent their ability to feel empathy is. What their ability to control impulses are. And, Goblins are biologically not human. They have different brains, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that in a fantasy world, all goblins are psychopaths. Not because of a bigoted view towards them, but because that's how their brains work. The "empathy" and the "impulse control" parts of the brain might simply not exist. Saying this is true in a fantasy world makes us uncomfortable, because a goblin looks and acts like a "person". And if we make the statement "a goblin is incapable of acting in a way that isn't violent and destructive"... then it challenges our concept of free will, and it gets too close to how humans have said similar things about other humans... we don't want it to be true for goblins because of how unethical it is to suggest such a thing about humans.
This is completely alleviated by the presence of all human races, though. In the D&D game, the word "human" covers all the varieties of humans we have on Earth. They have always been treated as one race in D&D. Just like Monty Python's Life of Brian isn't about Jesus, and the movie even makes this point by including Jesus at the very beginning. A goblin need not be anything other than a goblin.
@@Thagomizer From a practical point, absolutely. But people's response to things like this are very often from a "gut instinct" perspective. We just "feel" that something is immoral or wrong, and then we try to layer a logical explanation on after the fact. You can stop and say "wait a second, why is my gut saying this is wrong?" And then think about it rationally, and override your instinct, but the feeling that something is wrong still nags you. Some people can easily push that nagging feeling aside and say "that doesn't apply here". Some people find it very hard. But finding it too easy to push the feeling aside can be dangerous... which brings us back to sociopaths and psychopaths. They are very capable of rationalizing any behaviour without that little voice in the back of the head sending off warning signals.
There are humans without impulse control or empathy. But it would seem absurd to not call them people. If the goblins are raiding and pillaging you then their personhood is irrelevant. They are warring against you, you will slay them or you will die.
@@tnatstrat7495 I'm not suggesting that they aren't people, it was only relevant to one of the criteria that the Grungeon Master was discussing. Yes, there are humans without impulse control... that's specifically what I was saying. Even though these humans are persons, they don't have the same rights as other people. Their rights are typically restricted as a criminal (when they eventually commit a crime). At appx 17:17, the Grungeon Master discussed the concept of a creature that is ontologically evil, and how that creature would be treated on a similar moral level like criminals. If humans are raiding and pillaging you, then their personhood is irrelevant... if any creature is threatening you, their personhood is irrelevant. So that has nothing to do with goblins specifically. The question from a moral or ethical standpoint is, what do you do with the goblin that isn't currently threatening you? What do you do with the orphaned helpless goblin child? If that goblin child is guaranteed to grow up to be a psychopath... YOU do have moral agency as a human dealing with that goblin child, even though the child might not, and you need to make a moral choice.
One of my stories includes an academic organization of monster hunters, and because academia is JUST LIKE THAT, they've got extensive and specialized taxonomy that they fully acknowledge differs from lay usage. Personhood is defined by sapience. But this story taking place in the 1920s and largely in the UK, there are some problematic methods of defining sapience, as well. A monster is any supernatural creature capable of posing a threat to humans. Hostility or evil isn't necessary, only capacity, and monstrosity and personhood aren't mutually exclusive. A monster can even be physiologically human. Obviously, these fellows cause a lot of offense calling people monsters "in a purely technical sense, I assure you!"
Oh BOY yeah, that particular definition of "monster" is entirely going to cause some real angst and drama! XD It also feels *VERY* British. I kinda wanna read it now!
You... just describe Soul Eater. Like, 1:1, down to the "a monster can be physiologically human" bit. O_O! (Also, in case you're interested: read the comic, don't watch the cartoon)
I've heard them called "humanity, without the tragedy". That seems truthy to me. Still, it depends on the setting. Anime goblins, D&D goblins, Pathfinder Goblins, etc. Still, without person-like goblins, how can we have our shortstack goblin waifus?
In the webcomic "Order of the Stick", goblinoids were create for the sole purpose of providing appropriate low-level challenges for low-leveled members of more favored races. The gods' apathy toward the wellbeing of the goblinoid races resulted in them being severely disadvantaged compared to others. As a result, goblins are frequently preyed upon by other races and are relegated to living in inhospitable environments.
Not quite true. They are used that way and are treated unfairly, but their creator deity, Fenris, the northern god of monsters, intended for them to be mightier than the "good" races, but swiftly got bored of them.
It's also worth mentioning, though, that in OOTS goblins are still considered morally responsible for the evil the inflict, and that's a very important thing because it's part of the main conflict between one of the main antagonists (unsurprisingly, a goblin, cleric of the Dark One) and one of the main protagonists (a dwarf, cleric of Thor). Admittedly, it's a conflict that comes up _very late_ in the comic (unless substantial progress has been made since the last time I read it, it's literally brought up in what's the currently ongoing arc), but it's still very important. The point is that, in OOTS, goblins are responsible for their own prejudice (kind of like how it goes in main D&D): they acted evil at the beginning of history, acting that way brought them to a disadvantaged position where everybody hates them, and they then started autocommiserating themselves and lashing back, perpetrating a cycle of hatred. Also, for anyone who's reading this but hasn't read OOTS, _the author is not drawing any parallel between any real ethnic group and the goblins' history._ I'm specifying this because I know someone will read this and say "Oh, this comic's author is a racist, he's clearly talking about [insert ethnic group here]" or "Oh, this comic's author is based, he's clearly talking about [insert ethnic group here]". The goblins' history is not meant as a parallel of real world ethnic discrimination, it's just meant to thematically tie in to the story of said goblin antagonist, whose thematic role in the story is as the antagonist who justifies the evil they commit with the evil they received (in fact, he is indeed depicted as a victim in his background; it's his current actions in the story that make him evil).
In a mechanical game sense, I say if they have an intelligence less then 3 & a wisdom less than 3 they are no longer people. If they have higher than that in those stats but less than 5 they are sub-people. If they have 5 or higher in those things than they are people YET can morally still be Monstrous depending on their behavior. However, that is a far different more complicated situation/discussion. 0:01
Whether goblin is a person depends on a specific depiction of them, but majority of the ones i've seen clear that bar. To me for something to be considered a person, at some point of it's life it must: -poses theory of mind -be capable of some form of back and forth communication -display "purposeless" individual behaviors and preferences not inherent to the group -have opinions on certain subjects -be capable of participating in some form of a community -be capable of comprehending abstract social constructs (religion, money, laws, organizations) and act with consideration of them -be capable of changing mind on something based on arguments communicated by other being, instead of their own experience. If an individual at given point in time doesn't display some of those traits, it should be still considered a person, but have limited access to certain non-essential rights and responsibilities.
I typically consider Goblins to be people, especially by your scale. My current TTRPG setting, however, plays with that and says "they aren't"... While still giving them a personality. Lemme explain. In my setting, goblins are literally magical constructs created by the goddess of mischief. They're goofy adorable tricksters who play pranks (some of which are quite dangerous)... But they don't feel pain, respawn in a puff of smoke elsewhere when killed, and are barely capable of reasoning beyond the next 2 hours. Fighting is basically a sport for them. They're silly cannon fodder for adventurers to deal with every once in a while. So far, my party loves them, because they're funny, fun to fight, and also can be fought guilt-free. That said, "What makes someone a person" is explored more heavily by the Fae and the People that were born from the Fae (the Demetri, I called them), as they're major factors in the story I have. The Fae are "half-people". They are basically stories that were made flesh, and given some actual "Will". They're still basically shackled to their roles, but they can play their role in whatever whay they please. The Demetri, on the other hand, are fully, 100% people... But many people see them as just "Faerie minions". Things with no real will, replacements left behind after a Faerie stole someone's soul (pretty much universally untrue). So, while Goblins in my setting are silly mooks to mow down... I do explore "What makes someone a person", often with some real angst to it. While I, as the worldbuilder define personhood within it to be: "Possesses Sapience and Free Will (Which is a quantified thing in my setting)". So Humans, Orcs, Primal Dragons, Demetri, my replacement for the Dwarves, etc count... And while Goblins, Faerie Minions (magical constructs made by a Fae), Wild Dragons, Gods, and Titans do not. But there's also those interesting grey areas of the Fae (Who are both Free and Fated) and Vampires (Who are Sapient, and are Free Beings... But whose condition is caused by having been revived after their "soul" has moved on.) I try to aim for a broad and varied mix between each category. So, some humans who are truly irredeemable, some Goblins and God who are sympathetic, some Fae and Vampires who are evil, and some who are just plain trying their best, or just want to be left alone. I want some conflicts to have easy answers, and others to cause some real angst. :P
Would that then mean a vampire is not the same sort of person they were before? Sort of like how Ice King is practically his own being separate from Simon Petrikov, Gunther, and all the previous wearers of the crown? He has lost alot of his original personality due to the crown’s influence to the point what he was before effectively nonexistent before Betty’s wish kept him alive. One could say that Ice king is its own being worthy of respect.
I always interpreted them as being one of many races with incompatible and inherently hostile cultures. Human history has called people sub human for much less than what goblins are typically depicted for doing. Even post enlightenment as faith declinened ideology killed more than faith ever has. As so, I think most societies and cultures would mutually eradicate goblins or only give them the worst lands. Their insular in mistrusting culture, along with short lives, leads to very few venturing to integrate into settled societies.
Ah, you've bought into the anti-goblin propaganda. Perhaps a better question to ask yourself is who profits most from having you so casually prepared to genocide the goblins?
@ChrisSham Written as if having a hostile group of insular pillagers wouldn't immediately paint a target on their back. Irl pillagers and raiding groups were so hated to the point that settled societies killed them off over centuries. Steelmanning the argument, killing or routing a hostile force away lets you develop your land more safely, research more sophisticated defenses and weapons, settlers could be given land for their own benefit so long as they defend it, caravans of merchants are more willing to trade, and it can unify regional tensions with a common threat. Goblins, as classically depicted, benefit nobody but themselves. Even in the case I use (prevalant incompatible culture), their deleopment stagnates for centuries until they die out or adapt to the changing world. Like how slaving societies became poorer as they often rejected industrialization.
"Faith declined cultures killed more than faith" gonna need a source on that one chief, its a very bold claim considering the cults that require human sacrifice, The Roman empire, crusaders, manifest destiny Americans, Nazi germany, Israel and y'know, the entirety of history. Although for most of them religion is more-so a tool than a reason, but it does make the people easily radicalized to the far-right and faith is the reason the individuals fight.
@JubulusPrime I said Ideology for a reason, and I don't know why you changed my words. Communism and Fascism were led by atheists and killed opponents out of ideological zelotry. While yes, the crusades, Jhihads, and Aztecs all used faith to wage war, it's ignoring the whole picture of their functions. Christians alone invented hospitals, archived aincent greek and roman works, advanced and funded scientific research through the middle ages. All religious wars together, including wars where religion wasn't the main cause, sits around 50 million on the high end. Chairman mao killed that alone at minimun, stalin 20m, hitler around 15, . Mind you, those alone were in the course of about 30 years from the 40s to 70s. My point is that ideology is more dangerous than faith in the grand scheme of wars and the like.
I like Biblaridion's definition of Sapience as Ability to create and use tools. On the low extreme of Sapience is ants: the behavior is not a conscious decision, but instead hardwired into their genetics. Smart dogs are somewhere in the middle. They can use tools if they're taught, and maybe figure out solutions themselves. On the high end, crows (and especially New Caledonian Crows in particular) can solve a problem by inventing a brand new tool from scratch specifically designed for that problem. The high extreme of humans are Obligate Sapience: our survival relies almost entirely on our ability to invent new tools for me problems to such an extent that we re-structure our entire environment around our tool-use. A lot of fantasy including Faerun actually puts goblins around the range of smart dogs in this sense, by having them explicitly unable to create their own gear. Why are the so frequently depicted with ill-fitting and rusty equipment? Because they can only get it by stealing it from "real people". I... REALLY dislike this. A lot of "ancient aliens" conspiracies hinge on being unable to imagine that a group the believer is bigoted against could possibly create impressive structures without "more advanced" assistance. So I also interpret my goblins as fully Obligate Sapients along with Humans, Dwarves, Elves, and Lizardmen... So 6/6.
@@simonjay9758 One simple way is to see if the animal is capable of adapting/improvising when the behavior doesn't fit as expected. As an example (not tool use per se but demonstrates the idea well), racoons wash their food in running water before they eat it. If you give a raccoon cotton candy, it will take it to a stream and watch it vanish in its hands. It will grab another clump, wash it again, and see it vanish every time. At no point does the raccoon try NOT washing the cotton candy, because the washing behavior is NOT socially learned, but instead an inborn genetic trait.
@@TheRenegade... From a scientific perspective, that would be a description of Sociality, not Sentience or Sapience (which *are* seperate ideas). Loosely defined, Sentience is attempting to measure consciousness or self-awareness, and we're learning isn't as useful a metric as we thought. Sociality on the other hand is much more useful. Although, also that definition is lacking, because a lot of social behavior *is* heavily influenced by genetics. That said, it is a pretty decent description of humans, wolves, and whales and probably some others I know less about, because although we absolutely are still evolving through genetic adaptation as well, social evolution can adapt MUCH faster, by orders of magnitude. But Sentience is definitely not the word for it.
Love this discussion. The Dungeon Master decides if they are people or monsters. As a DM, I've run it both ways. When justifying it in world, if you're running them as people, they breed true, they have souls, and they have free will. If they aren't, I like to consider them malice born of minor mortal evils. They don't have little goblin babies, they are born of cruel mortal whims of violence or mayhem. Do you wish your boss would break his leg? Do you want to punch someone who disagrees with you in the face? Do you see something dangerous, pass it by, and think "well, at least I won't have to deal with that!" Each of those thoughts makes a new goblin monster. As they are minor manifestations of mortal evil, they then go on to perpetrate those acts, and any culture which is attributed to them in this case is usually a dark reflection of a mortal one,
The concept of monsters being molded from evil thoughts is quite interesting. Its kind of similar to recent zelda games where the monsters are just malice taking physical form to inflict torment upon the people and beasts of the land. Another interesting aspect of the monsters in those games is that they cant truly die. They are like evil itself, impossible to destroy and can only be held back. Even when their bodies are destroyed, their organs still pulsate with evil intents, waiting for a powerful evil to bring them back for another fight.
That's a terrifying setting to live in. Imagine the power perpetuation and thought policing if thinking justified negative thoughts about abusive institutions literally manifested evil into the world 😅
You can easily have the benefits of self-propagating goblins this way, too: Goblins appear where malice accumulates, and themselves spread malice, so goblins passively cause more goblins to appear. A few weeks before a big raid, they gather together in clustered dens to maximise the number of new goblins spawned.
I said it once and I'll say it again: I simply love your philosophical take on fantasy. Your videos always take me back to my years at the university in the most fantastical way. Congratulations for your amazing channel!
Me after watching LotR: Goblinoids are clearly monsters! They are pure evil, made by an objectively real evil deity! Me after looking up "goblin girl" on Rule34: Ok, hear me out...
@AbstractTraitorHero lotr calls them a wicked people, a despicable kind, and many, many other things. Have you read the books recently? Let alone the silmarillion because, damn, they get really anti-goblinoid there
@@thelordofcringe Yeah, we both know that Tolkien has always been someone who struggled to believe in evil in that way towards sapient beings. Point being, LOTR is honestly a setting where you could post the series focus on a goblin or orc and put them in a different role believably.
@AbstractTraitorHero no, you really couldn't. The orcs and goblins literally become dumber when decoupled from the will of a higher power, like Sauron. The creation of more independent thinking minions (Uruks and Uruk-Hai) is so disruptive it leads to chronic infighting and mass slaughter within the ranks between the various orcs, uruks, goblins, and so on. Every time an intelligent leader figure to these groups is slain, they utterly collapse on themselves. Whether it's the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, or in LOTR, the closest thing to a "person" we see are the Uruks, and even then their drive, their instincts, and their goals are rarely self preservation, but instead the pursuit of pleasure, almost always specifically by bringing harm to others. Thats not just cultural, that's a non-human mind. Elves, dwarves, etc all have essentially human minds. Non-human minds can be "people" but you also can't give them the benefit of the doubt in the way you do with the aforementioned. Also, iirc, didnt the men and dwarves wipe out the Goblins in the misty mountains in the appendices? Might be misremembering, maybe they just recolonized them. Either way, Tolkien's notes on what follows dont have goblins and orcs magically being better. But the people under Sauron DO get better. The Haradrim and southern men become friends and trade with Gondor.
I feel like part of the expoitability of your framework stems from the act that is intended to be applied to the individual, rather than the collective. If it was teatructured to address the class of beings (e.g. Humans, Goblins, Dwarves) rather than to individuals (e.g. George), then it might be simplified and made harder to abuse. An individual may only need to prove their membership to a classification, rather than run the gauntlet alone. This avoids the baby question, and avoids ablist bias.
With regards to your argument on placing goblins in camps, you not only created fantasy cultural erasure but fantasy colonialism, as your argument is structured from a position of power. The reality should be that a goblin individual is a foreign national, and as such, is subject to the norms of their host country, regardless of their native culture. They choose to change their behavior. Same occurs between nations -- they choose to define the nature of what is acceptable interaction between two cultures when they establish diplomatic ties. This is true regardless of the race/species/ethnicity of the parties in question. There is no need to 'convert' goblin culture, from an ontologically evil perspective or not. Do not nations have established relationships with Thay? Individual groups of goblins may choose to establish their own statehood in regards to interactions with states around them, without needing to speak on behalf of all goblins, just as one nation speaks for its members and not for all beings of their primary species.
I feel that the general state you are responding to is, inherently, a basis on us, like you state -- 10/10 there. However, it's based on our worse impulses -- our desire to other folks, so as to justify their abuse. Good video -- as you might have guessed, I feel you could have hit that point harder
The question can be extended to if a human is always a person. One of the worst punishments in the medieval age was being declared lawless. Nobody, including your own family were allowed to treat you as a person and anyone could commit any crime against you without worry about the law. You could no longer own anything.
I once played a Dwarven Cleric/Chef who legitimately believed that Goblins were not people, he would slaughter them mercilessly and even cook them into food dishes. He was a Neutral Good character, he wasn’t evil because he genuinely believed Goblins were not “people” so in his own mind he was no worse than any other butcher. This worldview was affected by his own PTSD, having grown up victimized by Goblin raids having lost his family. He was very charismatic and kind, and was eventually able to not only convince most of the town that Goblins were not only not people, but also that they were delicious and good to eat.
And so the cycle spins "Dwarves are not people!" Says the last remaining goblin who hid under the floorboards when he was a child as his family was eaten by the savage beasts of the dwarf village.
Yeah, when we're looking at D&D specifically where creature types and alignments are explicitly stated and encoded into the universe then philosophical quandaries go out the window.
Feel like this question has a quite easy answer: Anything that has the capacity to expresses sentience, exhibit behavior that transcends its primal needs, and demonstrates the intelligence to manipulate its environment and other beings (through domestication or diplomacy) within it. A being's state of life, or lack of life, is irrelevant to whether it is person or not.
I have run an entire campaign where the two players were a goblin and a worg. The worg was interesting because she could speak worg, goblin, orc and common. (Worgs usually start out with the languages of goblin and worg.) Worgs have their own society and often agree to work with goblins or orcs as mounts or companions. The player of the worg delighted in starting conversations with NPCS and confusing them as a talking wolf. I allowed the warg player to advance in hit dice as a monster. But running this concept today I would use the sidekick rules in Tasha's Guide. I ran them through pre-written adventures with goblins as the foes. But instead of dealing with the goblins as enemies, they used diplomacy and bargaining to recruit them to their village. This ended the treat in the adventure and grew a community of goblins that traded with other people instead of raiding or going to war. Their main trade goods were various goblin made alcohols, including Goblin Raspberry Ale, Giant Centipede Venom Whiskey, and Goblin Grog. Their village was eventually made up of goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, wargs, orcs, ogres, and one oni (also called an ogre mage). The players loved playing as their goblin rogue and warg. It was a lot of fun to run as well.
Computer person here: one caveat is add in for the AI vs person on sensing. You need to make sure your testing senses your target has access to where those senses function. Certain AI do have visual and auditory sensory input and can respond to those images/sounds. If you counter that you run the risk of someone countering the test because humans don't respond to EM fields like sharks or being prodded for pain where we have no nerve endings.
So I play a homebrew Awakened Owlbear Barbarian with the Outlander background. Her backstory is that she comes from an owlbear village far from civilization. As such, I included that her tribe is on trading terms with local goblins and goblinoids. A result of this is that the first time she saw a human she thought it was a weird goblin because that's the standard she's familiar with for anything we'd consider "humanlike" in appearance. While she's certainly not evil, she doesn't have any moral hangups about eating sapient foes without human(goblin) features. Eating kobolds has become a running joke in the campaign an a kobold assassin was swallowed whole as a finishing blow last session. Oh, but dead friends are ritualistically eaten in lieu of burial rites. They're Owlbears after all
@@Grungeon_Master Their videos generally are great, but the stuff they've been doing recently about many pieces of media in conversation with each other around a topic have been phenomoninal.
They are people who commit a specific flavor of evil acts against humans in most encounters. If a family of human farmers have decided to grow a vegetable garden at the edge of town, the goblins don't show up to extort a certain number of bags of carrots per week. The only thing that is going to interest them food-wise are the farmers themselves. They might talk to them before eating them, because they are intelligent, speaking people who eat other intelligent, speaking people.
My players asked this exact question last session. My answer, the goblin is a person if it has a state issue id. Same as dogs, horses, and humanoids. Due to the last war being organized through liberal use of the speak with animals spell, all citizens are now strongly suggested to wear dog tags, no matter their species. There is a provision for nomadic peoples to be exempt from these laws, but all others are considered monsters.
@@detsaw23 Thats because most every government has ways to manipulate their population into being okay with murdering or screwing over some other people for their resources or labor.
In the campaigns I run, I draw a line based on mostly vibes - everything before that line is incapable of learning language of any kind, while anything above that line, assuming no magical items or effects impacting them, psychologically equivalent to all other creatures. Hags are evil because they need to do evil for nourishment (they feed off suffering), so the ones that refuse starve to death. Chromatic dragons are evil because they are magically bound to Tiamat, who warps them to her whims bit by bit. Orcs and goblins are brutal because their culture incentives cruelty and violence. Elves are racist.
there's nothing wrong or unfortunate with a system being set up on black and white binaries. at the end of the day things in any fiction or game need to be able to be defined, otherwise we would get nowhere. The game would be plagued by the same existential and moral quandaries that humankind faces, it would grind to a halt and cease to be fun. when someone picks up helldivers and kills bugs, they do NOT want someone to show up and ask "but are the bugs individuals?" or "do you feel guilty for killing those baby insects" and thats absolutely fine. while some games and settings encourage the exploration of these deep and important gradients of morality, and thats FINE. It is equally FINE to eschew this discussion and create rules and binary definitions within a game or setting.
If it is self aware as an individual, can act that way and maybe for sake of actually acknowledging it, can communicate on the level of talking, then it is a person as far as I am concerned. It can still be a crappy person or maybe equivalent to criminals/murderers might be dealt with as such or be equivalent to a "savage" from the perspective of the civilized folk.
11:20 With respect, 15th Century Spain had a reason to question the humanity of Muslims after spending hundreds of years being enslaved, abused, and regularly castrated by them. While I don't condone their behavior, especially towards groups like the Jews who were not behind their suffering, the reaction is an entirely human one. They sought Ideological Purity, because it was the Ideologies of Foreign Powers that made commodity and brutal sport of them. When one is dehumanized over a prolonged period, it becomes difficult to respect the humanity in anyone else. Claiming it was some random act of bigotry over the appearance of other people is equally dehumanizing of the suffering Europeans endured under the Moors.
@@HelotOnWheelsall his city watch books are like that. Are dwarves people? Are trolls people? Can Vampires be a part of society? Goblins are gross and disgusting, is there more to them then this? Do they live in caves because they get slaughtered if they venture out? Orks are known killers. Does that mean they have to be? Who knows they’re killers? Do they actually know? Intergrating these peoples into society helps society, but is there anything to do about those peoples losing their culture and replacing it with the multicultural culture. Pratchett is fantastic at this stuff. He loved the idea of goblins being people so much he made several mods for Elder Scrolls to make goblins friendly.
The easiest way to be able to kill another sentient creature is to dehumanise them. Make them less than. Its not really about what a person is but really about what is an equal. Goblins aren't seen as equals. "Heros" are happy at low levels to talk to goblins when one or two gobbos with a good hit can kill them. Once the "heros" pass them in strength then the goblins are no longer equal and so its open season. If the dm builds and integrates other races/species into their world as doing human jobs and holding human ranks and having some reason not to be openly evil like in the old days.
I almost can't stand books and shows that have people casuallling killing goblins (ones that can talk and use and make items) because of the wandering inn. Playing Baldur's Gate 3 I amost ended up siding with Minathra just because of all the goblins lol.
I did find it interesting how quickly the characters in bg3 accepted killing all the goblins. When you get to the grove, you’re shown examples of racism against tieflings, which is portrayed as wrong, or at least ignorant. But then you’re immediately told to wipe out a different group of people. If you take time to infiltrate the goblins instead of just immediately attacking, you’ll see that they talk to you like all the other npc races will. They have social structure, they play games, they raise kids, they even have religious debates. But as far as I know, there’s no way to negotiate with them, or to avoid killing them unless you turn off lethal damage and knock them out, but that’s more of a mechanic change than a story change. Wyll, the hero of the coast, the most morally right character portrayed in the game (kind of) actually approves of you letting a goblin prisoner get executed without any kind of trial or hearing or anything. Killing all the goblins is even portrayed as the “right” thing to do by the game. There’s a line from the githyanki inquisitor where if you save the grove, he’ll say something along the lines of “you’ve spilled so much goblin blood it’ll soak their children’s nightmares”. So people know that they’re sentient, have a culture and a cultural memory, but still have no problem committing genocide against them.
The fact that the goblin children are the only children in the game that can be attacked sat VERY poorly with me when I realized. Went to do an evil playthrough, and when you raid the grove, you get to the kids' hideout and just find their bodies. But in a "good" playthrough, you're expected to kill the goblin children who are taunting the bear. When you free the bear, there's no way to convince him to attack the adults and spare the children. It was just... unsettling.
@@quiestinliteris Wait, you can't kill the tiefling children in BG3? I'm pretty sure you can (not... gonna try myself, don't have the strength to do it, still they have HP and stuff and literally every other NPC can be attacked, so I don't see a reason why they couldn't).
Honestly the best test for personhood is simply "can a being knowing the full context of what a person is, decide that they are one out of their own free will". like sure without the ability to read minds, you can't actually apply the test, but for me at least the core aspect of personhood is free will and the intelligence to comprehend it.
I find your comparison to the Spanish inquisition interesting, seeing as that time of persecution was done in response to an era of islamic rule of the era "You were mean to us, so now we get to be mean to you" kind of thing Which, seeing as goblins tend to live a raider/bandit kind of live style actually matches up quite well People don't treat them like people for the things they do to others
Opening the possibility of a Goblin Inquisition, a Goblin Reformation, and Goblin Antipopes. Which, if you want to play a big picture game, are pretty fun ideas .
Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula was actually very accepting of non-Muslims, and was a place where Jewish culture especially was able to flourish. Hardly any persecution of Christians took place, anyway.
1:40 I am gonna give my opinion as a dm of 10+ years. a person is anything that can speak or read a language or has an int over 3. so grog is a person because he can speak/read but a wolf isn't because its int is 3. I tend to run games where monstrous humaniods to use some old-school terms play a big role in the world. sirens are just evil fish folk, koatoa are a civilization. giant elks and eagles are hunted not because of their big prey but because it's viewed as a test of skill to take down an animal as intelligent as you but that has all the advantages of a wild beast. and diving into the cultural political and moral questions that brings up. this also fits my general preference for running a more mtg-style alignment system. I have a homebrew 9 color alignment system. my homebrew setting as a trope of 3 groups of 3 in its numerology. for example the 3 fingers, white finger grey finger and black finger are psychopomps kinda. white finger brings souls into the world, black finger takes souls from the world to the afterlife and grey finger takes souls back to life be it undead or not. they are part of a group of 9 gods. the forgers(they create souls) the psychopomps and the gods of the afterlife. forming a triad of creation transition and rest.
Where did the frog dice box come from? Also this is such an increasingly complex question in fantasy. Say your druid can talk to animals, or plants--and those entities have their own thoughts, feelings, maybe goals. Is a tree a person? It certainly lacks some of the personhood we recognize but perhaps these beings have their own categories and aspects of sapient experience that are utterly alien to us but worth consideration. Does a tree think we're a person?
I've always defined "personhood" (passing the sapience and sentience test) as different from "monster". To me, "monsters" are something that has to be stopped, normally due to destruction or other negative things they cause. For example, both goblins and demons pass the "personhood" test, but don't seem to want to make things better for society as a whole\want to cause destruction, so they are "monsters". Not only does this allow for more nuanced conversations and games, but also avoids the "savage vs civilized" problematic elements that seem baked into the basic fantasy setting.
Not really, its just the same savage vs civilized debate with a different coat of paint. The way I handle this is either I give them a reason to be antagonistic towards humans (for example humans genociding and destroying their natural environment) or I make it super impersonal and just make them into automatons or parasitic life-forms like xenomorphs and the terminators. One take I had on goblins was I essentially made them into the Wood Elves archetype, there are various races of goblins some are forest-dwellers, others create burrows, and the larger goblins are wolf-riding nomads, they despise humans and their elvish cousins for the atrocities they have committed against them in the name of colonialism and nationalism. The other take I had was goblins are essentially kind of a biomechanical automaton created by demonic forces to fill the ranks of their armies, they are created in these biopunk gestation pits and they emerge like rotten butterflies from their cocoons. However some goblins develop sentience or have memories from past lives, their eyes go from red to a beady black and they are either killed by either side or live in perpetual isolation.
I would disagree. Goblins aren't the only creatures who could exist who are more interested in destroying other things. For example Demons or some types of Fae. The reason I chose to change it is because there is a difference between "there is a creature who objectively wants to bring ruin to things around it" and "there is a person/group who wants to bring ruin to those around it", and that's an important distinction from a narrative and world building perspective. You seem to have chosen to adopt a specific version of a savage vs civilized in the form of the goblins, and that's valid. But that's not the only lens or scope to look at the debate. If you have people or creatures who aren't interested in sharing space or actively destroy other things, how do you deal with it? You can, obviously, just not have that. But I prefer to have high fantasy stuff, and as such have to answer questions of "If there is creatues who make Nazis look nice, but those creatures do have cities and pass the personhood test, what do you do?" Not only does it allow for all sort of plots and narratives, it allows for a exploration of the more mundane real world equivalents of ideologies who are not tolerant to others.
@@derpherp1810no it isn’t. Devils cause destruction because they MUST do so in order to, steal souls, and they must do that to not starve. This is different from the hypothetical idea of a “savage” where they cause destruction because they don’t know better.
Actually he wouldn't. He encourages goblins to be total monsters so that there's no hope of peace with them and the other species, ensuring there will always be war and they'll have no choice but to follow him.
@@EldritchCrow13well, if all the "civilized" people are holding goblins responsible for the actions of their creator then maybe they're not as civilized as they think -Hazurite (goblin ethisist)
In my world buildong project, all life can be devided into 4 major categories (technically 7) kind, monsters, plants and animals, Monsters can the be split into monsterkin reffering to humanoid or atleast mostly sentient monsters with greater reasoning and fully mindless monsters, all monsters are evil, its in there nature, they are creations of the chief god chaos as a drive for growth, challenge and against complacency. Kind is a status of sapience and sentience species and races that is effectively an official badge of "i dont have a shard of chaos that drives me to evil.
i think the exact same thing on the video can be said about a lot of other species, like hobgoblins, orcs and kobolds. they're all considered 'evil' creatures in DnD, though i think they shouldnt be at all. i do prefer PF2E, where all of these have the humanoid trait, meaning they are considered people, so i could be biased. also, in pf2e those are not inherrently evil!
In my game world, goblins are very different... fundamentally, but not visually. They are extensions of the 'god' which created them; they do not have independent souls, and as such they rank as follows: able to communicate -- arguable (similar to a dog) display clear sentience -- arguable (similar to a dog) be part of a moral community -- no (similar to a finger) capacity for self determination -- no (similar to a finger) recognizable as a person -- arguable (ranks low among various versions of goblins) they were specifically made to *not* qualify as people, and yet... the requirements being so loose, and human capacity for compassion being so high, they still rank far higher than expected.
7:43, around here the channel seems to mix the definitions of citizen and persone. Is important not to ignore the distinction. Since a person can be a non-citizen, for instance a foreigner, who generally speaking don't have political rights. Refugees are usually not allowed to participate in political actions of any kind, theoretically, but they have all other rights being a person usually grants. Citizenship complicates this already cloudy debate unnecessarily, as far as I can see. To me, personally, it is actually a clear cut. Practically the easiest possible think to answer, as far as Ethical questions go. Goblins are person, human newborn babies are not, sentient AIs if or when they emerge into existence will be people, our current dogs and cats are not. Nazis are people, Jews are people, Palestinians are people, the average adult. And not "gradualness" is acceptable or make sense in the concept of personality. According to my moral intuitions have some people being more people than others is, in itself, destroy the category of personality to a point that makes it meaningless and useless. And by consequence makes all Ethical debate nonsensical. People are all the instances able to swim in the ocean of meaning. Able to interact with meanings and not just fake semantic by smart organization of syntax. So, people are those who use language. Not "communicate", in some sense both amebas and thermostats "communicate", and I am not taking seriously anyone who says those are examples of kinds of people. Understand and elaborate meaning, linguistic meaning. It makes you a person in the most strict sense possible, and goblins do that. Human newborns don't. I respect the right of parents to not have their babies killed. The right of communities to not have their potential future members killed. I do not have any respect whatsoever for the right of newborn humans to not being killed. This right is 100% non-existent, as far as I am concerned. And given the 2 previous observations in this paragraph there is no practical problem in admit that. Given the second such admission don't even force my hand in the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, if both parents want the abortion. But I must mention that fantasy gives us an alternative solution much more confortable for this question. You only have to separate those beings that have souls from those that lack that quality. If you have an immortal soul, in a universe where that is objectively verifiable, then you should be considered a person. Shouldn't you? But, not a citizen of a given community, necessarily! There is a secondary and more restrict sense of person, that is the "legal definition". And that one is way more simple than mine, really. A person in a given juridic system is anyone defined by law as a person. The "civil death"_ transformation of a free individual in a slave_ strips you precisely of that kind of personhood. The slave is, by legal definition, non-person. Slaves are, necessarily, people still, in that other sense of the word. A slave is a "beast of burden" only in metaphoric sense. As long as he speaks. One idea that I took from the book Ismael was to make a fantasy setting where every living thing is a person. All animals and plants speak, and are as sentient as humans and goblins are. So, humans keep farm animal that they feed and take care of. To eat their eggs and their meat. And have conversations with those prisoners under their power. And all humans must do things like that, because there is no other way to stay alive. I never managed to get that setting ready to run an adventure in it. Unfortunately.
I find that really weird to think babies aren't people. Personally personhood is like sentience and sapience, thus is evaluated for the average representative but the status is shared with all members of the group (or if talking about individual as the average of his life, including its future). So as a human babies are people because the average human is an adult person, and as an individual a baby is a person because it will be one in the future (unless weird things).
I understand the feeling@@evanpereira3555, but after contemplate the subject your notion of "evaluated for the average representative but the status is shared with all members" become more weird to me than admit that some babies are not people. Some, because at given moment a baby starts formulating sentences, not necessarily grammatically impecable but well structured and with meaning. From that moment on, a baby is a person. Your notion of "average representative" and "shared with all members" is familiar to me. Because it is similar to the notion of communion of saints in Catholic faith, and even not being Catholic I got some notion about their theology from growing up in a very Catholic country. "The group" in this case is the group of members of this religion, and instead of "personhood" what is "shared" by being a member in that club is salvation. By following a few rules and being in this club you get to collect dividends from the spiritual investments done by all Catholics, even if you don't invest much yourself. The personhood problem was in the past solved in similar way. People would take those people from their own religion as more important than others. But they would grant personhood according to the rules of their religion, because being a person is having a spirit given by God. It solves the problem, really well, if you don't mind having an arbitrary solution. And the use of biological specie as your group of reference is as arbitrary as any true given by revelation. Why should your "group" be "the humans", instead of "the mammals"? Why not "the hot blooded"? Or, in the oposite direction, if you don't mind me asking, why not "the Germans"? How about "The black people"? Or "the Jew"? If your criteria is not the participation in language, then what is your criteria? To me, looks like that your criteria is tradition, and the feeling of comfort that tradition brings to you (I could easily say "us" instead of "you", my cultural background is not distant from yours in that aspect). Personal feelings of confort are not a good guide in matters of Ethics. Because the point is look for what is Universal in regard to what is good and right. When I look for that what I see_ regardless of how I feel about_ is language. To say those who may meet the criteria do not qualify, and some who don't meed the criteria will qualify, because what is necessary and suficiente to pass the test is being member of your family. And related to you as closely as you decided to define that blood relation as meaningful (because in the end of day all living things on Earth are our cousins, just some a bit more distant cousins than others). Well, I mean no disrespect to you, but to say that sounds a lot like advocate in favour of corruption. What is more or less the same impression I have about the communion of saints, by the way. No. Newborn human babies do not pass any test of humanhood that your average adult cat fails. To give them this status when we deny it to adult cats, just because we are closely related to the worse candidate, would be dishonest. It looks like a meaningless dishonesty now, because we are in a moment of History when humans are the only talking things in the know Universe. However, that is a precarious circumstance. I don't expect it to change in my life time, but I could be wrong. Once we have sentient AIs and/or uplifted species able to talk, and elaborate ideas, we will assume they are not people. Mutilate and slave them, for our comfort and safety. What is not one inch better than what the Spanish and Portuguese did with the first natives they found in the American Continent. If we keep your concept of collectively "shared" right to personhood, becomes impossible to stablish a different behaviour. And non-human talking folk will have every reason to do anything in their power to extinguish humanity. As a way to avenge their martyrs. The average human being would do the same, if the roles were reversed.
@@thiagom8478 The part about religion is strange/ I don't really understand it so I pass. But I understand that I should have explain my group idea better. So to put it simply we should go from the most general to the most specific until we get yes as the answer of "Is it people ?" (and not the other way around). Animals aren't people so we continue, the average mammal is a quadrupedal who doesn't lay an egg (we can see that both bipedal like humans or egg-laying like hedgehog are outliers) still not a person so we continue. Until we arrive at humans, which the average one is a person, so all humans are. Thus the following questions aren't necessary, the Germans are people because they're humans (We can also see that the previous group of the hominids have a debatable status, actually some people view them as people too but those are a minority and the other hominids don't seem to advocate for personhood.) Babies are people because humans are, and goblins could be either because they're part of a group that is people (idk created by a god for example) or the average goblin is a person (free will, part of a/the society, could be an interlocutor, etc...). But since for you language is what define a person, I have a question : is an unconscious human in a coma (or other adult that can't communicate) a person ?
I have to ask you to stop at your first step, @@evanpereira3555. "Animals aren't people, so we continue" ...by what criteria? What you say when someone asks you to prove that animals are not people? Why not? My impression is that you are assuming in your argumentation what this argumentation is supposed to prove. You included your pre conceived definition of what being a person means in those steps, and you did that implicitly. Without mentioning that is what you are doing. What is equivalent to say "they are not people because they don't have personality". As for your question, I consider that if someone becomes a person by entering language that status only ends with death. But I understand (and admit) that is arguable in the case of someone who lost the potential to not only communicate but even think. Some severe brain damage that happened to destroy the potential for language. Or a magic spell of any kind that transform the person in a bat (for instance) with all the pros and cons of having a bat's hardware, instead of a human one. As long as the damage/transformation is defined as irreversible. An adult human who is sleeping or in coma is a person, sleeping or in coma. If this is a person. An adult born whit a defective brain who never was nor will be able to achieve language is not a person, same as a newborn baby and a cat.
@@thiagom8478 maybe you missed it but I explained that a personhood is a consensus by the different parties about the average individual (blessed by a deity, part of the society, free will, conscious, etc...). Animals aren't people because it the consensus across all animals (some antispecist think that but for example cat don't see ants as "cathood", but interestingly it seems they give some "cathood" status to their fellow humans). Anyway for your idea about language, if the status of person only end with death (even if language and communication could be lost), why this status couldn't also be acquired from birth by the criteria that language will be gained ? It isn't like babies (without illness) could not acquired language, they always will.
Peter Singer doesn't put animals in the person camp to my knowledge. He only says sentient individuals should have interests that should be protected. It doesn't mean they have the same rights. He's not advocating fot giving cows the right to vote, but for giving them the right to live, and with as little suffering as possible
You're right. In my efforts to summarise, I appear to have misrepresented his perspective. I sympathise a lot with Singer's arguments, myself, so that's additionally disappointing.
@@Grungeon_Master It's alright, mistakes are bound to happens at some point. It does you a lot of credit to admit it. And the video is high quality and interesting as usual. Thank you for that
Devils and Angels also exist in D&D. Beings like Orcs, Goblins, etc were canonically created by gods of things like war, torture, and things like that and they usually as a whole continue to worship those gods. Even if they are people, it makes sense that they're still basically just enemies to be slain.
All in all I agree with the perspective presented. As a worldbuilder myself I also have no qualms at creating "monstrous" races which also are people, to my mind at least. Objective morality is a lie and stuff exists just because it can, is plausible in the world, and I decided I don't dislike how it meshes with the rest unless it is too justifiable in the worldbuilding, then it exists as well. The various actors all need to deal with each others presence and do this in very different and sometimes more sometimes less nuanced ways. Our world was always flawed as well as complex and our perception as well as actions rarely reflect(ed) reality, I think fictional worlds should be like that as well.
I use the definition of "if it creates a culture, it's a person" (or if it's part of a culture) in my world. So Goblins, Orcs and may more are persons in my fantastic world. There are even gods that follow that logic, others may follow other intents so .. there is always grey in grey, no true good or evil. All is somewhere inbetween.
Now we're gettin somewhere! So, what is a proper Lawful Good hero to do about goblins or orcs (etc) raiding? I do tend to think re-education is THE way, but if forcing thieves to take up the human persuits of agriculture, metallurgy, and such is immoral do you just leave out offerings and hope they will be content with that gift? Modern gamers want to take the canonical raiders and make them civilized, but they don't want to talk about how we get from point A to point B. See, that is the exact type of adventure which interests me because it hits so close to home. I constantly wonder how we could get drivers to not want to homicide me as I cross at a walk signal or there was the time I was accosted in The Hood and left wondering if police just allow this kind of behavior to go on... and again, what can be done? (I was, incidentally thinking about The Book Of Exalted Deeds mere moments prior to being punched several times by a drunk homie).
I like the axiom from The Dresden Files: Monsters have nature, Mortals have choice Still opens up for debate but if something doesn't act beyond it's 'nature' then it does not belong in the 'mortals' club
Love all your videos, but i think this is my new favorite. Everytime i thought i saw.an unseen ethical quandary coming you managed to slode in a perfect discussion of it. I think a comparison with other races such as giants, thrikeen, yuanti, etc. Would have been interesting too make the slope even more alippery if you will. Thanks again Tom!
0:56 "...a recent analysis on TH-cam..." And you don't credit that video? What the heck, man. I think the video you're referencing is "The Goblin Hypothesis", by Curious Archive. Do better next time!
I mean, technically, if taking things by force and trickery is an integral part of goblin culture, that really just means they get *really* into rugby.
It all depends on how humanized they are portrayed. But most of the time, they're just enemy fodder for the protagonists and also cartoonishly evil and violent.
In a couple unpublished fantasy novels I wrote, goblins are merely puppets made of magic controlled by anyone with the power and skill to conger them 😊
I've had this question before, and I do actually have an answer and I personally like how it impacts the setting. Here's how I see it for my fantasy setting: The gods created sentient life by incrementally evolving and enlightening specific species over time. Gnomes, elves, and dwarves were their first fully uplifted species. Then after humans were made the gods began to quarrel amongst each other (significantly more than usual) and seeing as mortals are their used as their proxies they began to uplift more and more species in a quantity over quality manner. Thus the various beastmen and orc-kin were created, including the goblins in question. However because of the hap hazard nature of their uplifting many not all every member of a sentient species was fully enlightened, creating a split between the feral and enlightened versions of the species. The difference between them is like that of a modern person VS a cartoon neanderthal, the feral version of the race would be physically much more powerful but much less inelegant. The way I use this in the story to both create a ferocious mindless army for characters to fight with a little less moral quandaries than if they were to fight other sentient races. And to basically be used as tools and weapons by factions who care even less about such moral quandaries. The way I see it most beastmen have a world population of roughly 50/50 enlightened to feral. And many of the enlightened beastmen have very good at manipulating the feral beast man. However at the same time the enlightened beastmen try to distance themselves from their ferral counterparts as much as possible, they love to wear fine cloths use elaborate speach patterns to seam more refined and civilized than they are. For the orc-kin, they're much the opposite. They were created much latter then most of the beast men and their enlightened versions are the minority at roughly 20% of the population. Many enlightened orc-kin feel as though they've been cheated by the gods and older enlightened races so they lead their feral counterparts in vast armies to tear down what every one else has built in order to start anew on a level field. Here's the weird one. Gnomes sort have been uplifted further than the other races and have traveled so far down the monster>man spectrum that they've circled around and appeared on the other end. Now some gnomes are hyper intelligent monsters who see all the other races as primitive monstrous animals.
What count in that "anything" ? The cow from which become food ? An ant or snail you accidentaly step on ? A tree you cut down to make your House ? A flower you picked up to give to your Mother ? Because all of those are thing that People kill all the time
The thing is that in a story the goblins could be like that not due to there nature but instead because of there culture or it is human propaganda saying the goblins are like that, if we were a human in a fantasy world we shouldn't jump to calling them evil imo as it could always be anti-goober propaganda.
I would argue that when Goblins do threaten your safety & loved ones, the question of personhood & the perception of how you answer that threat become secondary concerns at most. Also, it sounds like you're only approaching this from a 21st century western perspective. Having to decide whether you want to re-educate or confine an entire culture is a luxury that only those who can annihilate it with a word can afford.
You could however imagine a human and goblin village whose range overlaps each other and come into conflict over resources. Then the question is how should each village respond to this conflict? What does diplomacy look like? Can it change depending on collective policy and individual agency? We are humans so we know what humans are like. We have myriad examples of this playing out between humans to pull from. But then what is a goblin? And what are goblins like? Becomes relevant to how communities can approach this problem, and how us as readers believe the problem should be solved, morally or what have you.
As a DM in the old days, my fellow DM suggested my players might be sued by a dead evil human whom they raided because the dungeon was a part of a Lawful neutral kingdom. It was fun and he became one of their nemesis enemies. Your aliens as tiny little spheres was basically the plot of a Star Trek Voyager episode. Regarding seeing Goblins (and other demihumans) as "people" rather than monsters, while some DMs do sometimes show exceptional demihumans as not like their people (e.g. Drizzt), it's impractical to approach EVERY encounter with such creatures like that way and still have a semi-normal D&D game. Also EVERY demihuman race is based on humans of one kind or another. It's all we know.
My absolute favorite portrayal of goblins is in the fantasy series The Wandering Inn in which the idea of goblins being people is thoroughly explored and also made into a pure tragedy. Goblins in this story live in absolute poverty and are hunted on sight by all other races. It’s made me wonder if all goblins are just an incredibly marginalized and oppressed people in a lot of media. Goblins learn young not to cry because “tears are a waste of water”.
How is personhood, prejudice and xenophobia explored between two cultures of 'people' when one culture traditionally EATS the people of another culture. In my world, I have a gnoll city-state that has tense diplomatic relations with its neighbours who associate them with classical savagery, but whenever my players go there I always make a point to show most of the gnolls as regular people going about their daily lives, farmers, white-collar workers. But there is a treaty where most of those neighbouring nations execute their criminals by delivering them to the gnoll city to be eaten. There is a traditional, hunger-games-esque 'hunt' whenever this happens, and thus gnoll savagery is treated in my world as a culturally unique form of recreation, with a strict code of ethics surrounding it - "we only eat bad people". Otherwise, humanoid meat is treated as a delicacy to gnolls and is served to nobility and at fancy diplomatic meetings when Orc nations come to visit, like Caviar or Wagyu or Lobster
"They are objectively idiots", yeah except that humans in most D&D settings are the overwhelming majority and constitute the bulk of 20th level spellcasters and are the most played race for the most robust class (fighter). There's more to being the best than having a d4 unarmed attack or a flying speed. Humans are adaptable and tenacious (and they get to start with an extra feat).
Now I'm thinking of a ttrpg campaign that starts like a generic dungeon crawl with goblin enemies but as the party keeps going down the cave they find themselves in a hitherto unknown underground advanced civilization of goblins, an entire kingdom of feuding tribes that they get involved in the inner world and politics of. Maybe they end up helping a young chiefling unite the tribes against an evil goblin warlock or somesort.
It was a bit of a dodgy prospect making 5 different categories of person-hood. If someone only had 3/5 of those qualifications of person-hood, by your reckoning, they'd be 3/5 of a person, which is an incredibly racially charged proposition for Americans.
@@thegarunixking1101 back in the day there was discourse on how many senators each state would get since the south had a large population of slaves, it was eventually ruled that slaves were 3/5 of a person. I get the joke he’s trying to make but it kind of falls flat.
It depends more on perception of the people. This is why slavery comes and goes irl so often. It's those that run society who determine who is a person or not. Usually citizens, specifically merchants, are a major part of this classification. Hence why you get exceptions of a single goblin that is allowed to be considered a person. In one world I've been building, there is a monster race. Depending which game you play first, they're either be one of 3 human races, or the barbaric monsters to kill on sight. There will be other humanoid races of sentience, but only 3 are human. (Technically 4, one labled protohuman that evolved into one of the 3 in the civilization type games)
This is why the ONLY possible definition of a person that isn’t problematic is “Any being that is both sentient and sapient” If a being is not those things then it cannot object to not being called a person.
I do hope this comment section doesn't become a complete cesspit of idiocy. I am sure the average T.T.R.P.G player is mature enough to approach this issue with the thoughtfulness that Tom does.
One hour after the video was posted and I've counted three commenters who failed to be normal. One of them simply posted his interpretation of the dictionary definition of "Person" which is "just humans."
"Propensity for trickery, thievery and killing things"
Goblins are just player characters then.
The best opponent is a mirror.
Shadow Link, Shadow & Metal Sonic, the Shadows in Persona... There's a lot of shadows.
@nullpoint3346 Ironically the actual shadows in D&D are basically just mindless killing machines
The answer is no
Gnomes aren't people
Sincerely
-Kobolds
Kobolds who are definitely monsters, don't get a vote. 😂
@@BrentHollett Kobold Lives Matter.
@@BrentHollettthat’s a gnome excuse to continue violence on kobolds!
One of my characters had the missfotune to be born a gnome, they sought enlightenment from kurtulmak. He eventually killed himself so that the cleric could cast reincarnate and he came back a blessed kobold
Hell yeah. Based kobalds
My definition of personhood do not require being a humanoid. D&D dragons would count even if those that lack the ability of chapechange.
Yeah, like I don't see a reason for that at all, like people don't call gorillas more people than elephants irl so it sorta comes out of no-where. People generally see gorillas as just beasts while seeing elephants as empathetic intelligent beings. The humanoidness is just a trope for costumes and so that the creatives don't need to do SpecEvo (As well as because of some religions saying that intelligent beings must be humanoid because we were created in gods image, or try to validify it with convergent evolution to an absurd degree as if different animals have never had different solutions to the same problem.)
Our shape has nothing to do with our personhood, that's completely silly with no reason, you wouldn't say an alien isn't a person just cus they walk on there hands and have no feet with six arms, you wouldn't call a yaetuan a non-person for being as alien as it is, you wouldn't download a- call the cars from the movie Cars not people, you wouldn't call an eldritch horror a non-person because it is comprised of infinite tentacles phasing through each other, so why a dragon?
Let's just say something controversial, babies are not people, they will become people but as babies they are animals. Naturally we reject this idea as it is in human nature to protect babies and human pride to say we were never animals at any stage of our being but babies just mess up definitions of people since we do mental gymnastics to include them causing hypothetical beings to be excluded who definitely give off a human vibe and fit all the other categories.
In conclusion I feed babies to my dragon god and there is nothing wrong with that, its just how life is I'm afraid.
Yeah, dragons is people, but also evil dragons are evil, and therefore given no benefit of the doubt.
@@JubulusPrime
Adult humans animals too. Know you meant non-person animal but I feel now of all times the distinction is relevant
@timogul but *can* a person be ontologically Evil?
@@timogul humans are often evil too, sooo..
People want to fight people because fighting animals is boring, but they don't want the said people to be people, because that results in awkward ethical issues; enter the goblin/orc/demon/darkspawn/kobold/gnoll etc.
I don't really feel awkward ethical issues from killing other people. If they're evil enough, I don't care what they look like, they're dying lmao.
Also I feel like demons fall into a different category from the others slightly, goblins and orcs are sometimes classified as being 'less than human' but I never get that vibe from demons.
I haven't seen many DnD groups baulk at fighting a group of bandits, an evil magic user or the enemy kingdom next door come to that. If anything the all goblins are evil trope just allows people to explore the question of what to do about the one who isn't or the one that you accidentally knocked out and now have to release or murder. And dealing with such ethical problems within the game is healthy and generally much loved as long as you can get back to killing the bad guys next week and unwind some of that pent up aggression from work and modern life.
Easy if you go with the one person's hero is another's monster in a war (example the grunts in halo screaming "it's the deamon" and the like all you need is to unreliable narrator the reason for the war and boom human enemy's with the more complications wiped away in a socially acceptable way
@@chickensky1121 Ok, but if they are humans, then are they actually evil, or are they just forced into _doing_ evil? Like if you have a kingdom ruled by a cruel lich, and he sends soldiers after you, is every one of those soldiers evil? Or could they just have their own lives and perhaps those of their families on the line for refusing to fight in the lich's name? Do you have to slaughter them, or can they be convinced to surrender, perhaps escape and live fulfilling lives?
It's a lot easier when you can just know for a fact that the entire enemy group is violent psychopaths that have no better future ahead of them.
@@chickensky1121yeah demons always seemed more like entities than anything
At least in 5e, goblins are unequivocally people. They have the humanoid creature type, which is the only type that's affected by Charm Person or Hold Person, so they are people according to the laws of the universe of D&D.
Of course, the real question is whether the other people living in that universe consider them to be people, which seems to be a general "no."
It seems fairly obvious that the people who live in the forgotten realms consider Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, and similar humanoids to be monsters, not people, regardless of the actual game mechanics.
An interesting question, though, is whether those creatures consider Humans, Elves, and so forth to be "people" or "monsters?"
If you look at most published adventures, it seems like Goblins, Orcs, and other "monster races" will often work together against the "civilized races" to achieve common goals. Which would seem to imply they consider each other to be "people,' but not the standard fantasy races. So, the bias goes both ways.
The difference being, that the Goblins will *eat* the civilized races, but generally the opposite isn't true.
@@DabroodThompson While true, there are human cultures that eat other humans in real life, so I wouldn't consider being willing to eat other people as a factor to consider when determining personhood.
@@DabroodThompson Well, if you don’t consider something a person you might try to eat it, as that thing would be either a monster or an animal, and generally speaking people do eat animals. This actually implies that the standard fantasy races either view goblins and the like as people whose life don’t matter, or as animals/monsters that aren’t worth eating (as they may carry disease, but if this was the case, a human eating a goblin should face way less stigma than a human eating another human for example)
@@juanmejiagomez5514 I mean, how many cases are there of humans eating goblins? People in the real world are more stigmatized for eating, say, rats or pigeons than for eating chicken.
Was my line of thought too:
The difference between Charm Person and Charm Monster is... humanoid.
If it has Humanoid on the character sheet, it is a 'person' by the Mechanics.
As for the Fluff of things:
When humans are the dominate lifeforms, they demonize each other over minor physical differences.
In a Universe where Humans can take that mentality to the next step...? yeah, everything is Monsters.
Especially Us.
Even back in 1979 goblins were people. People you killed on sight, usually, but still people. We no more considered the morality of killing them than we would shooting a Space Invader in the arcade. The game has grown since, and mostly for the better. Goblins (and orcs and their various kindred) have evolved from being simple monsters into full-fledged races. Terry Pratchett tackled this very moral issue in his novel "Snuff."
Most of the goblins a player character encounters are bandits. You kill bandits.
Meanwhile the goblins are asking "Are adventurers people? They live only to kill us and steal our things. They are not responsive to any attempts to communicate in goblin or gesture, at least in any way that would indicate an ability to control their violence. They show some limited markers of civilisation such as hoarding, though they lack any grovelling that might indicate complex hierarchical organisation. It is a complex question."
I mean PERSONALLY, in all of my encounters with any sentient beings, I NEVER strike first, only after I or my party or someone else has been attacked, so IMO if the goblins are going to blame anyone, they should be blaming the Dungeon Masters LMAO.
Highly depends on the setting, really.
Stealing would be proof of personhood to a goblin
@@chickensky1121 It would be incredibly meta if a DM decided that actually goblins are perfectly peaceful and harmless, _unless_ dancing to the whims of a cruel extra-planar being who is constantly compelling them to attack balanced parties of adventurers for reasons that they cannot understand.
@@chickensky1121 that's the reason I almost always make characters linked to the Feywild.
The rules of the Fey make a really funny and simple way to communicate "here is the line, DM. Please dont trespass it if you want to make a peaceful interaction" to DMs who have the "my NPCs attack to kill but I'll guilty trip my players if they do the same" mindset.
I don't know if you missed it in the editing here, but there seems to be an error at 23:02 . the slideshow of goblin pictures appears on screen early, leading to some unintended comedy at 23:09
Wow yeah that's an editing mistake. Must have shifted the timeline without the clips lol. I will admit, it's very funny gesturing at nothing. Afraid there's no fixing without re-uploading so I'm stuck in my mistake.
Good spot!
@@Grungeon_Master It happens to everyone, don't sweat it.
I miss the images completely the first time watching it and then I was like what is he pointing to. So I went back and watched some more and I thought is he pointing the things on the shelf? Finally I went back far enough that I saw the images and they are going by more than quickly would have fit in their appropriate places.
@Grungeon_Master Maybe this is silly, but this feels like a circumstance to embrace the inner goblin. Everyone has some aspect of being a bit messy at times, and there is nothing wrong with occasionally unapologetically letting that just exist and having a good laugh at the imperfection.
It is like the goblin vs elf debate, where often the imortal perfect elf should be the more inhuman. And I think often a fear of goblins in modern culture can be that fear of imperfection.
It is fitting for the bit that was looking for the human elements inside a goblin.
I'd probably change is sentient to sapient. The capacity to feel is less important than the capacity to think. Then ditch morality, as being a person is not the same as being a good person, or even a tolerable one.
Thank you! This confusion over the two words kills me
The question of morality is not so much that being a good person makes you a person, but rather being capable of being a good person. Even then, it's not complete, and it's not the entirety of the qualifiers.
I think the _potential_ for morality is necessary for something to be considered a person. If goblins can understand morality and live moral lives, then the potential offers them personhood. If, on the other hand, they are _incapable_ of moral understanding, then there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
Correct. There are animals with literally three neurons that can be considered "capable of feeling". Plants exhibit behaviours that can only reasonably be described as "feeling". Even if we limit the definition of "feeling" to internal sensations that have evolved to influence more complex behaviours than reflex can govern, like fear, this is a poor definition of personhood because there are animals that experience these sensations that even Buddhists don't mind killing.
The best line I've ever seen between "person" and "not person" is the capacity for sensation on an existential level; not just feeling sensations, but rationalising them and placing them within a worldview that includes concepts of morality and purpose (bearing in mind that believing that there is no such thing as morality or purpose is still exhibiting the ability to form and analyse concepts of morality and purpose). Personhood is the ability to ask "why am I able to suffer?" and "why should I suffer?".
Your stereotypical Goblin I'd argue does not possess these capacities to even the slightest degree. A goblin is not capable of asking these questions. It has no concept of morality - it hasn't just decided not to care about morality, it has no understanding whatsoever of the idea of morality. The closest thing to morality it has a concept of is obedience; If you refrain from following a particular instinct, I will not hurt you and might reward you.
@@okamiv5 It's a weird hangup in the English language were people keep mistaking sentient for "capable of thought", when it really is a far lower standard that nearly all animals meet. And possibly some non-animals.
Monster Manual makes it pretty cut and dry. Page 4:
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.”
Goblins are monsters. Humans are monsters. Both are also people. The terms are not interchangeable. Is a bandit not a person anymore? If a goblin joins an adventuring party, does it cease to be a monster? All people are monsters, by virtue of appearing in the Monster Manual, but not all monsters are people. Goblins have language, religion, and other elements of a culture. Thus, they’re people. And also monsters.
"All people are monsters, by virtue of appearing in the Monster Manual, but not all monsters are people."
Nicely Said!
There are also weird cases like dragons, devils, mind flayers, and hags which are smart but I dunno if I would call them people because they lack a lot of what makes a person, whereas a goblin can integrate into a society as an citizen equal to everyone I really dont think the others could. Devils and hags seem to be without any kind of remorse or empathy, mind flayers means of reproduction, diet, and status as a hivemind makes them unsuitable, and dragons are simply too far above a mortal for them to really be equal even assuming they are willing to care about us at all.
Being a person is about more then intelligence, but even if a being isnt a person I dont think that means its ok to treat them like an animal either.
yeah, i love this kind of definition of a monster, and i love it when certain humans are listed in the "list of monsters," and that puts goblins pretty neatly into both camps
To your (presumably) rhetorical questions about whether a bandit is no longer a person, actually, historically the answer would be kind of yes. When someone became an outlaw this effectively meant they were no longer a person. This renders a bandit to the same level of a beast and they would have the same rights. Any lawful person could basically do whatever they wanted to them, absent some things like torture. Theft and killing were on the table though. I use the term killing here very precisely, as it cannot be said to be murder, an unlawful killing, as they have placed themselves outside of the law, the rules governing civil society.
i feel like there is unintentionally a message here about humans being the monsters all along
They don’t have feathers and are bipedal. They are people
Diogenes just started plucking a chicken...
Diogenes the Goblin Lord: "BEHOLD! A Man!"
Kenku, in the corner :
This guy hates birds
*Sad Aarokocra Noises*
A note about Forgotten Realms, goblins were not created evil by "their god". They were actually fey (fairies) that were stolen by Maglubiyet through conquest. Goblins are victims of conquest with their history erased.
They can be freed from him.
This is one of many flip-flop retcons that goblins have undergone in forgotten realms alone. They've been created evil, bred as a slave race by hobgoblins and alchemically constructed all in the same setting.
@@someguy3861 I believe retcons do have valid explanations in the Forgotten Realms, such as when the entire cosmology has changed. And obscuring truths via gods is probable.. Goblins that were inspired by Tolkien, which had the goblins/orcs a result of an evil 'god' altering existing beings, seems fair to have a similar origin. Goblinoids that have a collective culture around pillaging via a god, it makes sense for themselves to have been pillaged.
To be fair, even with original lore (well, unless we go to some of the early OD&D or 1E books I guess), FR goblins aren't "inherently evil" even considering that they have been created by an evil god.
Not sure what explanation there would be in-setting for an evil deity to do that (pretty sure the writers just never bothered to give such a specific explanation for this), but, for some reason, none of the D&D non-supernatural humanoid races have ever been "inherently" something; their alignment tendency has always been a matter of religion (therefore, culture), and never of biological/spiritual tendencies. _I guess_ that some books imply a sort of spiritual alignment tendency imbued by the creator deity, but it's always very, very secondary to the cultural upbringing and life experiences of the individual. Usually, what happens is that there are races that are imbued with "natural" instincts that make it easier to commit evil than good (for example, orcs are inherently violent, and pre-5E gnolls inherently gluttonous (and violent)), but never explicit "this race is imbued with Evil". Books that outright go out and say "Goblins/Orcs/whatever are inherently Evil and must fight their evil instincts" are exceptions rather than the rule (one of them, ironically enough, being 5E's Volo's Guide To Monsters, an otherwise excellent book).
The whole "must fight its evil instincts regardless of culture and upbringing" has always been tieflings' thing, which makes sense because they are actually descendants of embodiments of Evil. And even then, tieflings aren't straight up "automatically born Evil and then shift over time", it's just a matter of instincts - the same way humans are psychologically geared toward not wanting to make other people suffer, a tiefling would be geared toward doing just that - and only straight up half-creatures like cambions retain their parents' "inherently [alignment] since birth".
I feel like if we hold goblins to a moral standard, we are on some level admitting to seeing them as people! We in the real world regard bears as dangerous, but we do not wage war against them, or perceive them as evil. If a goblin stabs you, and you conclude he has not merely harmed you, but has *done wrong by you* or otherwise committed a moral transgression, you are necessarily acknowledging him as a person.
Humans waged war on emus
@@lordmew5 That was not actually a war, and I blame youtube for spreading this misconception.
@@lordmew5and wild hogs
That's my stance as well.
I'll play devil's advocate, for a fundamentally non-liberal perspective.
From this perspective, the question of personhood isn't about rights, but rather responsibilities.
We would grant personhood as a way of recognizing that an individual or group is capable of meeting the behavioral standards of our society.
Note that the threshold is capability, not inclination.
The reason a thief is punished differently than a wandering animal is the understanding that the thief knows what he's doing is wrong. The animal might eat your crops or smash your fence, but without any awareness of the transgression.
Nonpersons require a greater degree of proactive control to include in society. We must provide barriers, provide sustenance, shelter where necessary.
Persons, on the other hand, can be expected to more or less provide for themselves. Special categories may be allowed personhood and dependence at the same time, like children. But in general, a person must be responsible for themselves, or bear reactive consequences for transgression.
A society would benefit from being as expansive as practically possible, with the status of personhood. This isn't a matter of benevolence or righteousness, but simply because it is easier and more productive.
We don't have to like goblins, include them in our social circles, or any other voluntary association but granting them the status of personhood allows the potential benefit from those who choose to integrate, and simultaneously a path for systematic punishment for those that attempt to carry on predatory or parasitic lifestyles.
Goblins are people, and it's okay to kill them.
Orcs are people and it's okay to kill them.
Trolls are people, and it's okay to kill them.
Humans are people, and it's okay to kill them.
Elves are people, and it's okay to kill them.
Dwarves are people, and it's okay to kill them.
Sapient humanoids are as equally valuable a source of loot and XP as Beasts, Vermin, Undead, Aberrations, Dragons, Plants, Giants, Fey, Constructs, and Outsiders.
And this, in a nutshell, is why I hate Dungeons and Dragons.
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 you mean humans, right? The game is a representation of what its players seek to do to pass the time. Violence is much older than gaming. Sorry to burst your bubble 🤷🏽♂️
edit: TL;DR: hate the player, not the game. This saying is quite literal in this context 😆
In the anime Goblin Slayer, the cut off is for those races who's prayers were recognised by the gods. This leads to races like goblins being classed as Non Prayer Characters, i.e. NPC's.
That's awful. Imagine being a god in that setting.
> do a nice thing for once and answer someone's prayer, as a treat
> people read way too much into it and start classifying the people you missed as subhuman
> one of them even starts identifying as the embodiment of ethnic violence so much other worlds start referring to yours by his name
> never want to answer a prayer again afterwards, making the narrative that gobbos are these god-forsaken creatures even worse
The only winning move is not to play indeed.
No wonder we live in such a godless world ourselves.
@@jokhard8137tbf The most popular religion on earth seems to be set up to send 70% of humanity to eternal damnation just for not wanting to play their game.
This is also typically how every religious war gets framed. Side A believe they're real people because god A surely supports them, while side B are non-people who worship nothing real. Side B believe they're real people because god B surely supports them, while side A are non-people who worship nothing real.
@@jokhard8137that just sounds like any single religion during well any age really.
Also, there are gods that only answer to a certain species or only a certain kind of species. Like Magluybiyet who is only a god of the goblinoids.
in retro dnd goblins are chaotic evil, humanoids, but can be any alignment. its mostly a question of nature v.s nurture on how a goblin will act. if they live in a civilized society they will adopt those traits to survive and thrive in that environment, but they will always have innate tendencies that can drive them towards chaos and doing bad, but for most parts they can control those tendencies to live peaceful civilized lives.
but when they are the majority of their society they will fully embrace their nature, no filter, and build their entire society nurturing those chaotic evil tendencies. so goblins are almost always chaotic evil, but not always.
a creatures inner nature and evil races makes for great story telling, this is why its significant when an orc becomes a palidan, or a Goblin to put themselves in danger to save their friends when it is in their nature to be cowardly. an Aarakocra to engage their fear of confined spaces and enter into a space when its important to do so.
Agreed! I'm honestly rather tired of the "every fantasy/scifi race is just differently shaped/colored humans from a different culture". No. Give them different common natures, and then open them up for individual variation. Yes, the typical goblin has strong tendencies towards violence, treachery, greed, and cowardice. No, these traits can be much weaker or stronger or even nonexistant depending on the individual goblin, but if they're part of a culture that embraces those traits, they're probably going to follow through.
Want to raise an orphan goblin? You're rolling the dice, weighted by how you treat and teach them. Maybe they'll shank you and steal off into the night. Maybe they'll care about their friends and family and keep their nose down but engage in crime. Maybe they'll be an upright, decent sort. Or maybe they'll become a great hero to prove the world wrong.
@@DanielMWJ I feel like there's a lot of room to work with the standard "evil races" as being influenced by their gods. I have a half-orc who was raised in an orphanage by a dwarf and seeks his people... and has recently gained the attention of Gruumsh through the violence adventurers get into.
There is also interesting stuff for ingrained traits that can be expressed in different ways. Like in Eberron, orcs FEEL. They're prone to big emotions and totally devoting themselves to things. Some of the greatest paladins of the Silver Flame are orcs. So are some of the vilest champions of the Rakshasa Kings. That's the way I went for a goblin raised by gnomes. She's got the goblin propensity towards a strict, linear hierarchy, but not the usual cruelty. Everybody in the party knows exactly where they belong (she sees herself at the bottom), but they don't need to bully those beneath them like they normally would in goblin society.
I feel attacked...
My challenge with a lot of these discussions is the fact that we use a anthropocentric "human lens" when looking at these questions.
We see ourselves as having "free will" and apply that to others... and of course we can't really cleanly define what free will is.
But look at a human who is a criminally insane... a psychopath as an example. It isn't that a psychopath makes a decision to not feel empathy or remorse, they are literally incapable of such things. A full blown criminally insane psychopath doesn't choose to be impulsive, their brain is wired towards disinhibition.
But only a small percent of humans are psychopaths... and even then it is hard to tell to what extent their ability to feel empathy is. What their ability to control impulses are.
And, Goblins are biologically not human. They have different brains, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that in a fantasy world, all goblins are psychopaths. Not because of a bigoted view towards them, but because that's how their brains work. The "empathy" and the "impulse control" parts of the brain might simply not exist.
Saying this is true in a fantasy world makes us uncomfortable, because a goblin looks and acts like a "person". And if we make the statement "a goblin is incapable of acting in a way that isn't violent and destructive"... then it challenges our concept of free will, and it gets too close to how humans have said similar things about other humans... we don't want it to be true for goblins because of how unethical it is to suggest such a thing about humans.
This is completely alleviated by the presence of all human races, though. In the D&D game, the word "human" covers all the varieties of humans we have on Earth. They have always been treated as one race in D&D. Just like Monty Python's Life of Brian isn't about Jesus, and the movie even makes this point by including Jesus at the very beginning.
A goblin need not be anything other than a goblin.
@@Thagomizer
From a practical point, absolutely.
But people's response to things like this are very often from a "gut instinct" perspective. We just "feel" that something is immoral or wrong, and then we try to layer a logical explanation on after the fact.
You can stop and say "wait a second, why is my gut saying this is wrong?" And then think about it rationally, and override your instinct, but the feeling that something is wrong still nags you.
Some people can easily push that nagging feeling aside and say "that doesn't apply here". Some people find it very hard.
But finding it too easy to push the feeling aside can be dangerous... which brings us back to sociopaths and psychopaths. They are very capable of rationalizing any behaviour without that little voice in the back of the head sending off warning signals.
There are humans without impulse control or empathy. But it would seem absurd to not call them people.
If the goblins are raiding and pillaging you then their personhood is irrelevant. They are warring against you, you will slay them or you will die.
@@tnatstrat7495
I'm not suggesting that they aren't people, it was only relevant to one of the criteria that the Grungeon Master was discussing.
Yes, there are humans without impulse control... that's specifically what I was saying. Even though these humans are persons, they don't have the same rights as other people. Their rights are typically restricted as a criminal (when they eventually commit a crime). At appx 17:17, the Grungeon Master discussed the concept of a creature that is ontologically evil, and how that creature would be treated on a similar moral level like criminals.
If humans are raiding and pillaging you, then their personhood is irrelevant... if any creature is threatening you, their personhood is irrelevant. So that has nothing to do with goblins specifically.
The question from a moral or ethical standpoint is, what do you do with the goblin that isn't currently threatening you? What do you do with the orphaned helpless goblin child? If that goblin child is guaranteed to grow up to be a psychopath... YOU do have moral agency as a human dealing with that goblin child, even though the child might not, and you need to make a moral choice.
Clinical psychopaths are still people with rights
One of my stories includes an academic organization of monster hunters, and because academia is JUST LIKE THAT, they've got extensive and specialized taxonomy that they fully acknowledge differs from lay usage.
Personhood is defined by sapience. But this story taking place in the 1920s and largely in the UK, there are some problematic methods of defining sapience, as well.
A monster is any supernatural creature capable of posing a threat to humans. Hostility or evil isn't necessary, only capacity, and monstrosity and personhood aren't mutually exclusive. A monster can even be physiologically human.
Obviously, these fellows cause a lot of offense calling people monsters "in a purely technical sense, I assure you!"
Oh BOY yeah, that particular definition of "monster" is entirely going to cause some real angst and drama! XD It also feels *VERY* British.
I kinda wanna read it now!
You... just describe Soul Eater. Like, 1:1, down to the "a monster can be physiologically human" bit. O_O!
(Also, in case you're interested: read the comic, don't watch the cartoon)
next thing you say that those pointy ears needs rights as well.
Rockeater detected.
@@themenagerie5247So you don’t like salt?
Elves never deserved rights
Goblins are pointy ears
They don't really need rights granted to them by lesser beings.
the goblin images when asking "is this goblin a person" (at 23:20) are out of sync
Or maybe they're just invisible 🤔
@@thecondescendinggoomba5552 we do love a invisible goblin! reminds me of the mind goblins from spelljammer
It's a f(cr)eature not a bug(bear)?
@@janecowie3626 "Mind goblin"? Never heard of that. What's a "mind goblin"? :3 ?
@@drakegrandx5914 mind goblin deez nuts
"Monster" has always been a D&D catch-all term for any foe the PCs may encounter.
I've heard them called "humanity, without the tragedy". That seems truthy to me. Still, it depends on the setting. Anime goblins, D&D goblins, Pathfinder Goblins, etc. Still, without person-like goblins, how can we have our shortstack goblin waifus?
Beastiality
In the webcomic "Order of the Stick", goblinoids were create for the sole purpose of providing appropriate low-level challenges for low-leveled members of more favored races.
The gods' apathy toward the wellbeing of the goblinoid races resulted in them being severely disadvantaged compared to others.
As a result, goblins are frequently preyed upon by other races and are relegated to living in inhospitable environments.
Not quite true. They are used that way and are treated unfairly, but their creator deity, Fenris, the northern god of monsters, intended for them to be mightier than the "good" races, but swiftly got bored of them.
And then they begin following the Dark One
It's also worth mentioning, though, that in OOTS goblins are still considered morally responsible for the evil the inflict, and that's a very important thing because it's part of the main conflict between one of the main antagonists (unsurprisingly, a goblin, cleric of the Dark One) and one of the main protagonists (a dwarf, cleric of Thor). Admittedly, it's a conflict that comes up _very late_ in the comic (unless substantial progress has been made since the last time I read it, it's literally brought up in what's the currently ongoing arc), but it's still very important.
The point is that, in OOTS, goblins are responsible for their own prejudice (kind of like how it goes in main D&D): they acted evil at the beginning of history, acting that way brought them to a disadvantaged position where everybody hates them, and they then started autocommiserating themselves and lashing back, perpetrating a cycle of hatred.
Also, for anyone who's reading this but hasn't read OOTS, _the author is not drawing any parallel between any real ethnic group and the goblins' history._ I'm specifying this because I know someone will read this and say "Oh, this comic's author is a racist, he's clearly talking about [insert ethnic group here]" or "Oh, this comic's author is based, he's clearly talking about [insert ethnic group here]". The goblins' history is not meant as a parallel of real world ethnic discrimination, it's just meant to thematically tie in to the story of said goblin antagonist, whose thematic role in the story is as the antagonist who justifies the evil they commit with the evil they received (in fact, he is indeed depicted as a victim in his background; it's his current actions in the story that make him evil).
In a mechanical game sense, I say if they have an intelligence less then 3 & a wisdom less than 3 they are no longer people.
If they have higher than that in those stats but less than 5 they are sub-people.
If they have 5 or higher in those things than they are people YET can morally still be Monstrous depending on their behavior. However, that is a far different more complicated situation/discussion. 0:01
Whether goblin is a person depends on a specific depiction of them, but majority of the ones i've seen clear that bar.
To me for something to be considered a person, at some point of it's life it must:
-poses theory of mind
-be capable of some form of back and forth communication
-display "purposeless" individual behaviors and preferences not inherent to the group
-have opinions on certain subjects
-be capable of participating in some form of a community
-be capable of comprehending abstract social constructs (religion, money, laws, organizations) and act with consideration of them
-be capable of changing mind on something based on arguments communicated by other being, instead of their own experience.
If an individual at given point in time doesn't display some of those traits, it should be still considered a person, but have limited access to certain non-essential rights and responsibilities.
I typically consider Goblins to be people, especially by your scale. My current TTRPG setting, however, plays with that and says "they aren't"... While still giving them a personality.
Lemme explain. In my setting, goblins are literally magical constructs created by the goddess of mischief. They're goofy adorable tricksters who play pranks (some of which are quite dangerous)... But they don't feel pain, respawn in a puff of smoke elsewhere when killed, and are barely capable of reasoning beyond the next 2 hours. Fighting is basically a sport for them. They're silly cannon fodder for adventurers to deal with every once in a while. So far, my party loves them, because they're funny, fun to fight, and also can be fought guilt-free.
That said, "What makes someone a person" is explored more heavily by the Fae and the People that were born from the Fae (the Demetri, I called them), as they're major factors in the story I have.
The Fae are "half-people". They are basically stories that were made flesh, and given some actual "Will". They're still basically shackled to their roles, but they can play their role in whatever whay they please. The Demetri, on the other hand, are fully, 100% people... But many people see them as just "Faerie minions". Things with no real will, replacements left behind after a Faerie stole someone's soul (pretty much universally untrue). So, while Goblins in my setting are silly mooks to mow down... I do explore "What makes someone a person", often with some real angst to it.
While I, as the worldbuilder define personhood within it to be: "Possesses Sapience and Free Will (Which is a quantified thing in my setting)". So Humans, Orcs, Primal Dragons, Demetri, my replacement for the Dwarves, etc count... And while Goblins, Faerie Minions (magical constructs made by a Fae), Wild Dragons, Gods, and Titans do not. But there's also those interesting grey areas of the Fae (Who are both Free and Fated) and Vampires (Who are Sapient, and are Free Beings... But whose condition is caused by having been revived after their "soul" has moved on.)
I try to aim for a broad and varied mix between each category. So, some humans who are truly irredeemable, some Goblins and God who are sympathetic, some Fae and Vampires who are evil, and some who are just plain trying their best, or just want to be left alone.
I want some conflicts to have easy answers, and others to cause some real angst. :P
Would that then mean a vampire is not the same sort of person they were before?
Sort of like how Ice King is practically his own being separate from Simon Petrikov, Gunther, and all the previous wearers of the crown?
He has lost alot of his original personality due to the crown’s influence to the point what he was before effectively nonexistent before Betty’s wish kept him alive. One could say that Ice king is its own being worthy of respect.
I always interpreted them as being one of many races with incompatible and inherently hostile cultures. Human history has called people sub human for much less than what goblins are typically depicted for doing. Even post enlightenment as faith declinened ideology killed more than faith ever has. As so, I think most societies and cultures would mutually eradicate goblins or only give them the worst lands. Their insular in mistrusting culture, along with short lives, leads to very few venturing to integrate into settled societies.
Ah, you've bought into the anti-goblin propaganda. Perhaps a better question to ask yourself is who profits most from having you so casually prepared to genocide the goblins?
@ChrisSham Written as if having a hostile group of insular pillagers wouldn't immediately paint a target on their back. Irl pillagers and raiding groups were so hated to the point that settled societies killed them off over centuries. Steelmanning the argument, killing or routing a hostile force away lets you develop your land more safely, research more sophisticated defenses and weapons, settlers could be given land for their own benefit so long as they defend it, caravans of merchants are more willing to trade, and it can unify regional tensions with a common threat. Goblins, as classically depicted, benefit nobody but themselves. Even in the case I use (prevalant incompatible culture), their deleopment stagnates for centuries until they die out or adapt to the changing world. Like how slaving societies became poorer as they often rejected industrialization.
"Faith declined cultures killed more than faith" gonna need a source on that one chief, its a very bold claim considering the cults that require human sacrifice, The Roman empire, crusaders, manifest destiny Americans, Nazi germany, Israel and y'know, the entirety of history.
Although for most of them religion is more-so a tool than a reason, but it does make the people easily radicalized to the far-right and faith is the reason the individuals fight.
@JubulusPrime I said Ideology for a reason, and I don't know why you changed my words. Communism and Fascism were led by atheists and killed opponents out of ideological zelotry. While yes, the crusades, Jhihads, and Aztecs all used faith to wage war, it's ignoring the whole picture of their functions. Christians alone invented hospitals, archived aincent greek and roman works, advanced and funded scientific research through the middle ages. All religious wars together, including wars where religion wasn't the main cause, sits around 50 million on the high end. Chairman mao killed that alone at minimun, stalin 20m, hitler around 15, . Mind you, those alone were in the course of about 30 years from the 40s to 70s. My point is that ideology is more dangerous than faith in the grand scheme of wars and the like.
@@almostanarchybro9129 "Christians invented hospitals" lmao, there are writings of hospitals from at least the 4th century BC
If they can be affected by the "Hold person" spell, then they are a person, simple as.
In asgard's wrath, if your follower can do a finisher on them.
5e added playable centaurs that aren't affected by Hold Person, they count as Fey instead.
Okay, what about giants? They are just people but larger.
@@ghurcbghurcb then cast Hold bigger person. Simple as that.
@@saine-grey Then the Fey are clearly not persons, more like vibe-based entities that barely even exist
I like Biblaridion's definition of Sapience as Ability to create and use tools. On the low extreme of Sapience is ants: the behavior is not a conscious decision, but instead hardwired into their genetics.
Smart dogs are somewhere in the middle. They can use tools if they're taught, and maybe figure out solutions themselves.
On the high end, crows (and especially New Caledonian Crows in particular) can solve a problem by inventing a brand new tool from scratch specifically designed for that problem.
The high extreme of humans are Obligate Sapience: our survival relies almost entirely on our ability to invent new tools for me problems to such an extent that we re-structure our entire environment around our tool-use.
A lot of fantasy including Faerun actually puts goblins around the range of smart dogs in this sense, by having them explicitly unable to create their own gear. Why are the so frequently depicted with ill-fitting and rusty equipment? Because they can only get it by stealing it from "real people".
I... REALLY dislike this. A lot of "ancient aliens" conspiracies hinge on being unable to imagine that a group the believer is bigoted against could possibly create impressive structures without "more advanced" assistance.
So I also interpret my goblins as fully Obligate Sapients along with Humans, Dwarves, Elves, and Lizardmen... So 6/6.
Goblins are imo held back by the evil of their god & have shown intelligence at times in a lot of ways!
I once saw someone defining a sentient species roughly as one that evolves through social adaptations rather than genetic adaptations
How do you determine if tool use is hardwired or not?
@@simonjay9758 One simple way is to see if the animal is capable of adapting/improvising when the behavior doesn't fit as expected. As an example (not tool use per se but demonstrates the idea well), racoons wash their food in running water before they eat it. If you give a raccoon cotton candy, it will take it to a stream and watch it vanish in its hands. It will grab another clump, wash it again, and see it vanish every time. At no point does the raccoon try NOT washing the cotton candy, because the washing behavior is NOT socially learned, but instead an inborn genetic trait.
@@TheRenegade... From a scientific perspective, that would be a description of Sociality, not Sentience or Sapience (which *are* seperate ideas). Loosely defined, Sentience is attempting to measure consciousness or self-awareness, and we're learning isn't as useful a metric as we thought.
Sociality on the other hand is much more useful. Although, also that definition is lacking, because a lot of social behavior *is* heavily influenced by genetics. That said, it is a pretty decent description of humans, wolves, and whales and probably some others I know less about, because although we absolutely are still evolving through genetic adaptation as well, social evolution can adapt MUCH faster, by orders of magnitude. But Sentience is definitely not the word for it.
Love this discussion. The Dungeon Master decides if they are people or monsters. As a DM, I've run it both ways. When justifying it in world, if you're running them as people, they breed true, they have souls, and they have free will. If they aren't, I like to consider them malice born of minor mortal evils. They don't have little goblin babies, they are born of cruel mortal whims of violence or mayhem. Do you wish your boss would break his leg? Do you want to punch someone who disagrees with you in the face? Do you see something dangerous, pass it by, and think "well, at least I won't have to deal with that!" Each of those thoughts makes a new goblin monster. As they are minor manifestations of mortal evil, they then go on to perpetrate those acts, and any culture which is attributed to them in this case is usually a dark reflection of a mortal one,
I don't see why they couldn't breed and have families. Animals can do that, but most animals are not people.
The concept of monsters being molded from evil thoughts is quite interesting. Its kind of similar to recent zelda games where the monsters are just malice taking physical form to inflict torment upon the people and beasts of the land.
Another interesting aspect of the monsters in those games is that they cant truly die. They are like evil itself, impossible to destroy and can only be held back. Even when their bodies are destroyed, their organs still pulsate with evil intents, waiting for a powerful evil to bring them back for another fight.
That's a terrifying setting to live in. Imagine the power perpetuation and thought policing if thinking justified negative thoughts about abusive institutions literally manifested evil into the world 😅
@@solsystem1342 there would also be the issue where showing ruthlessness or cruelty toward the monsters would only create more.
You can easily have the benefits of self-propagating goblins this way, too: Goblins appear where malice accumulates, and themselves spread malice, so goblins passively cause more goblins to appear. A few weeks before a big raid, they gather together in clustered dens to maximise the number of new goblins spawned.
I said it once and I'll say it again: I simply love your philosophical take on fantasy. Your videos always take me back to my years at the university in the most fantastical way. Congratulations for your amazing channel!
On behalf of my people, I take umbrage with "kinda grimy"...
Some of us are VERY grimy thank you very much.
Me after watching LotR: Goblinoids are clearly monsters! They are pure evil, made by an objectively real evil deity!
Me after looking up "goblin girl" on Rule34: Ok, hear me out...
Honestly even LOTR really is hesistant to call them pure evil & how they were originally made is a thing of tragedy.
@AbstractTraitorHero lotr calls them a wicked people, a despicable kind, and many, many other things. Have you read the books recently? Let alone the silmarillion because, damn, they get really anti-goblinoid there
@@thelordofcringe Yeah, we both know that Tolkien has always been someone who struggled to believe in evil in that way towards sapient beings. Point being, LOTR is honestly a setting where you could post the series focus on a goblin or orc and put them in a different role believably.
@AbstractTraitorHero no, you really couldn't. The orcs and goblins literally become dumber when decoupled from the will of a higher power, like Sauron. The creation of more independent thinking minions (Uruks and Uruk-Hai) is so disruptive it leads to chronic infighting and mass slaughter within the ranks between the various orcs, uruks, goblins, and so on. Every time an intelligent leader figure to these groups is slain, they utterly collapse on themselves. Whether it's the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, or in LOTR, the closest thing to a "person" we see are the Uruks, and even then their drive, their instincts, and their goals are rarely self preservation, but instead the pursuit of pleasure, almost always specifically by bringing harm to others. Thats not just cultural, that's a non-human mind. Elves, dwarves, etc all have essentially human minds. Non-human minds can be "people" but you also can't give them the benefit of the doubt in the way you do with the aforementioned.
Also, iirc, didnt the men and dwarves wipe out the Goblins in the misty mountains in the appendices? Might be misremembering, maybe they just recolonized them. Either way, Tolkien's notes on what follows dont have goblins and orcs magically being better. But the people under Sauron DO get better. The Haradrim and southern men become friends and trade with Gondor.
Goblin Slayer looked in dissapointment
I feel like part of the expoitability of your framework stems from the act that is intended to be applied to the individual, rather than the collective. If it was teatructured to address the class of beings (e.g. Humans, Goblins, Dwarves) rather than to individuals (e.g. George), then it might be simplified and made harder to abuse. An individual may only need to prove their membership to a classification, rather than run the gauntlet alone. This avoids the baby question, and avoids ablist bias.
With regards to your argument on placing goblins in camps, you not only created fantasy cultural erasure but fantasy colonialism, as your argument is structured from a position of power. The reality should be that a goblin individual is a foreign national, and as such, is subject to the norms of their host country, regardless of their native culture. They choose to change their behavior. Same occurs between nations -- they choose to define the nature of what is acceptable interaction between two cultures when they establish diplomatic ties. This is true regardless of the race/species/ethnicity of the parties in question. There is no need to 'convert' goblin culture, from an ontologically evil perspective or not. Do not nations have established relationships with Thay? Individual groups of goblins may choose to establish their own statehood in regards to interactions with states around them, without needing to speak on behalf of all goblins, just as one nation speaks for its members and not for all beings of their primary species.
I feel that the general state you are responding to is, inherently, a basis on us, like you state -- 10/10 there. However, it's based on our worse impulses -- our desire to other folks, so as to justify their abuse. Good video -- as you might have guessed, I feel you could have hit that point harder
The question can be extended to if a human is always a person. One of the worst punishments in the medieval age was being declared lawless. Nobody, including your own family were allowed to treat you as a person and anyone could commit any crime against you without worry about the law. You could no longer own anything.
I once played a Dwarven Cleric/Chef who legitimately believed that Goblins were not people, he would slaughter them mercilessly and even cook them into food dishes. He was a Neutral Good character, he wasn’t evil because he genuinely believed Goblins were not “people” so in his own mind he was no worse than any other butcher. This worldview was affected by his own PTSD, having grown up victimized by Goblin raids having lost his family. He was very charismatic and kind, and was eventually able to not only convince most of the town that Goblins were not only not people, but also that they were delicious and good to eat.
And so the cycle spins "Dwarves are not people!" Says the last remaining goblin who hid under the floorboards when he was a child as his family was eaten by the savage beasts of the dwarf village.
Personhood is defined by the Hold Person spell. Yes, goblins are people.
Yeah, when we're looking at D&D specifically where creature types and alignments are explicitly stated and encoded into the universe then philosophical quandaries go out the window.
@@MrFish1124 They are encoded in the edition, which probably creates whole new quandries.
But dragons aren't people?
@@wadespencer3623 I'd love to be able to charm one with a first level spell, but no 😜
Feel like this question has a quite easy answer: Anything that has the capacity to expresses sentience, exhibit behavior that transcends its primal needs, and demonstrates the intelligence to manipulate its environment and other beings (through domestication or diplomacy) within it.
A being's state of life, or lack of life, is irrelevant to whether it is person or not.
I have run an entire campaign where the two players were a goblin and a worg. The worg was interesting because she could speak worg, goblin, orc and common. (Worgs usually start out with the languages of goblin and worg.)
Worgs have their own society and often agree to work with goblins or orcs as mounts or companions.
The player of the worg delighted in starting conversations with NPCS and confusing them as a talking wolf.
I allowed the warg player to advance in hit dice as a monster. But running this concept today I would use the sidekick rules in Tasha's Guide.
I ran them through pre-written adventures with goblins as the foes. But instead of dealing with the goblins as enemies, they used diplomacy and bargaining to recruit them to their village. This ended the treat in the adventure and grew a community of goblins that traded with other people instead of raiding or going to war.
Their main trade goods were various goblin made alcohols, including Goblin Raspberry Ale, Giant Centipede Venom Whiskey, and Goblin Grog.
Their village was eventually made up of goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, wargs, orcs, ogres, and one oni (also called an ogre mage).
The players loved playing as their goblin rogue and warg. It was a lot of fun to run as well.
Snuff by Terry Pratchett (a Discworld novel) covers this so well!
Computer person here: one caveat is add in for the AI vs person on sensing. You need to make sure your testing senses your target has access to where those senses function. Certain AI do have visual and auditory sensory input and can respond to those images/sounds. If you counter that you run the risk of someone countering the test because humans don't respond to EM fields like sharks or being prodded for pain where we have no nerve endings.
So I play a homebrew Awakened Owlbear Barbarian with the Outlander background. Her backstory is that she comes from an owlbear village far from civilization. As such, I included that her tribe is on trading terms with local goblins and goblinoids.
A result of this is that the first time she saw a human she thought it was a weird goblin because that's the standard she's familiar with for anything we'd consider "humanlike" in appearance.
While she's certainly not evil, she doesn't have any moral hangups about eating sapient foes without human(goblin) features. Eating kobolds has become a running joke in the campaign an a kobold assassin was swallowed whole as a finishing blow last session.
Oh, but dead friends are ritualistically eaten in lieu of burial rites. They're Owlbears after all
I may be reading too far into this but I never expected Curious Archive to be referenced here - is very cool!
I totally missed it
'The Goblin Hypothesis' was a very engaging video. I enjoyed it, though I think it's the first I've seen of theirs.
@@Grungeon_Masterit was indeed very good. You should also watch their most recent video on Elves as well.
@@Grungeon_Master Their videos generally are great, but the stuff they've been doing recently about many pieces of media in conversation with each other around a topic have been phenomoninal.
They are people who commit a specific flavor of evil acts against humans in most encounters. If a family of human farmers have decided to grow a vegetable garden at the edge of town, the goblins don't show up to extort a certain number of bags of carrots per week. The only thing that is going to interest them food-wise are the farmers themselves. They might talk to them before eating them, because they are intelligent, speaking people who eat other intelligent, speaking people.
Depends on the story though, theres no right way to write a goblin, only wrong ways that atleast one person will get mad at.
My players asked this exact question last session. My answer, the goblin is a person if it has a state issue id. Same as dogs, horses, and humanoids.
Due to the last war being organized through liberal use of the speak with animals spell, all citizens are now strongly suggested to wear dog tags, no matter their species. There is a provision for nomadic peoples to be exempt from these laws, but all others are considered monsters.
Actually yeah, considering the speak to animals thingy in fantasy, arn't all creatures people? They show human-like intelligence when they talk.
Most of my characters would be uncomfortable with letting a government tell them who is or isnt a person.
@@tnatstrat7495 and yet, it is something every government does
@@detsaw23 Thats because most every government has ways to manipulate their population into being okay with murdering or screwing over some other people for their resources or labor.
@@detsaw23 Yeah and you shouldnt listen to them.
In the campaigns I run, I draw a line based on mostly vibes - everything before that line is incapable of learning language of any kind, while anything above that line, assuming no magical items or effects impacting them, psychologically equivalent to all other creatures. Hags are evil because they need to do evil for nourishment (they feed off suffering), so the ones that refuse starve to death. Chromatic dragons are evil because they are magically bound to Tiamat, who warps them to her whims bit by bit. Orcs and goblins are brutal because their culture incentives cruelty and violence. Elves are racist.
There would be a few exceptions, like golems, who are (usually) devoid of free will.
assuming that evil is all nurture and no nature, aye? If you ask me the ability to speak does not make one intelligent.
there's nothing wrong or unfortunate with a system being set up on black and white binaries.
at the end of the day things in any fiction or game need to be able to be defined, otherwise we would get nowhere. The game would be plagued by the same existential and moral quandaries that humankind faces, it would grind to a halt and cease to be fun.
when someone picks up helldivers and kills bugs, they do NOT want someone to show up and ask "but are the bugs individuals?" or "do you feel guilty for killing those baby insects" and thats absolutely fine.
while some games and settings encourage the exploration of these deep and important gradients of morality, and thats FINE. It is equally FINE to eschew this discussion and create rules and binary definitions within a game or setting.
Monster is what monster does.
If it is self aware as an individual, can act that way and maybe for sake of actually acknowledging it, can communicate on the level of talking, then it is a person as far as I am concerned.
It can still be a crappy person or maybe equivalent to criminals/murderers might be dealt with as such or be equivalent to a "savage" from the perspective of the civilized folk.
Just after the 4:00 mark, you said that human supremacists in traditional fantasy type media are idiots. For this by itself earns this video a like.
11:20 With respect, 15th Century Spain had a reason to question the humanity of Muslims after spending hundreds of years being enslaved, abused, and regularly castrated by them. While I don't condone their behavior, especially towards groups like the Jews who were not behind their suffering, the reaction is an entirely human one. They sought Ideological Purity, because it was the Ideologies of Foreign Powers that made commodity and brutal sport of them. When one is dehumanized over a prolonged period, it becomes difficult to respect the humanity in anyone else. Claiming it was some random act of bigotry over the appearance of other people is equally dehumanizing of the suffering Europeans endured under the Moors.
5:31 for sake of settin i would say "an ability to NOT follow any evil gods agenda". Gods are big part of dnd world. Muuuuuch bigger than ours
This question is at the heart of Terry Pratchett's book "Snuff," starring Sam Vimes.
Ok, Snuff has just rocketed to the top of my Pratchett to-read list.
He kinda gets into that in Feet of Clay, too.
@@HelotOnWheelsall his city watch books are like that. Are dwarves people? Are trolls people? Can Vampires be a part of society? Goblins are gross and disgusting, is there more to them then this? Do they live in caves because they get slaughtered if they venture out? Orks are known killers. Does that mean they have to be? Who knows they’re killers? Do they actually know? Intergrating these peoples into society helps society, but is there anything to do about those peoples losing their culture and replacing it with the multicultural culture.
Pratchett is fantastic at this stuff. He loved the idea of goblins being people so much he made several mods for Elder Scrolls to make goblins friendly.
The easiest way to be able to kill another sentient creature is to dehumanise them. Make them less than. Its not really about what a person is but really about what is an equal. Goblins aren't seen as equals. "Heros" are happy at low levels to talk to goblins when one or two gobbos with a good hit can kill them. Once the "heros" pass them in strength then the goblins are no longer equal and so its open season. If the dm builds and integrates other races/species into their world as doing human jobs and holding human ranks and having some reason not to be openly evil like in the old days.
The Wandering Inn wants a word.
I almost can't stand books and shows that have people casuallling killing goblins (ones that can talk and use and make items) because of the wandering inn.
Playing Baldur's Gate 3 I amost ended up siding with Minathra just because of all the goblins lol.
I did find it interesting how quickly the characters in bg3 accepted killing all the goblins. When you get to the grove, you’re shown examples of racism against tieflings, which is portrayed as wrong, or at least ignorant. But then you’re immediately told to wipe out a different group of people. If you take time to infiltrate the goblins instead of just immediately attacking, you’ll see that they talk to you like all the other npc races will. They have social structure, they play games, they raise kids, they even have religious debates. But as far as I know, there’s no way to negotiate with them, or to avoid killing them unless you turn off lethal damage and knock them out, but that’s more of a mechanic change than a story change. Wyll, the hero of the coast, the most morally right character portrayed in the game (kind of) actually approves of you letting a goblin prisoner get executed without any kind of trial or hearing or anything. Killing all the goblins is even portrayed as the “right” thing to do by the game. There’s a line from the githyanki inquisitor where if you save the grove, he’ll say something along the lines of “you’ve spilled so much goblin blood it’ll soak their children’s nightmares”. So people know that they’re sentient, have a culture and a cultural memory, but still have no problem committing genocide against them.
The fact that the goblin children are the only children in the game that can be attacked sat VERY poorly with me when I realized. Went to do an evil playthrough, and when you raid the grove, you get to the kids' hideout and just find their bodies. But in a "good" playthrough, you're expected to kill the goblin children who are taunting the bear. When you free the bear, there's no way to convince him to attack the adults and spare the children. It was just... unsettling.
@@quiestinliteris Wait, you can't kill the tiefling children in BG3? I'm pretty sure you can (not... gonna try myself, don't have the strength to do it, still they have HP and stuff and literally every other NPC can be attacked, so I don't see a reason why they couldn't).
Honestly the best test for personhood is simply "can a being knowing the full context of what a person is, decide that they are one out of their own free will".
like sure without the ability to read minds, you can't actually apply the test, but for me at least the core aspect of personhood is free will and the intelligence to comprehend it.
Good thing that in D&D, spellcasters CAN read minds.
In the portion of the video asking if we saw goblins A B and C as people, the images weren't sinced up.
I was squinting at my phone while brushing my teeth to try to see if there was anything being gestured at
I find your comparison to the Spanish inquisition interesting, seeing as that time of persecution was done in response to an era of islamic rule of the era
"You were mean to us, so now we get to be mean to you" kind of thing
Which, seeing as goblins tend to live a raider/bandit kind of live style actually matches up quite well
People don't treat them like people for the things they do to others
Opening the possibility of a Goblin Inquisition, a Goblin Reformation, and Goblin Antipopes.
Which, if you want to play a big picture game, are pretty fun ideas .
@@jaredragland4707 I meant it more the other way around, but yeah, thats cool
Pop off bro
Spanish inquisition targeted mainly Jews, though.
Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula was actually very accepting of non-Muslims, and was a place where Jewish culture especially was able to flourish. Hardly any persecution of Christians took place, anyway.
1:40 I am gonna give my opinion as a dm of 10+ years. a person is anything that can speak or read a language or has an int over 3. so grog is a person because he can speak/read but a wolf isn't because its int is 3. I tend to run games where monstrous humaniods to use some old-school terms play a big role in the world. sirens are just evil fish folk, koatoa are a civilization. giant elks and eagles are hunted not because of their big prey but because it's viewed as a test of skill to take down an animal as intelligent as you but that has all the advantages of a wild beast. and diving into the cultural political and moral questions that brings up. this also fits my general preference for running a more mtg-style alignment system. I have a homebrew 9 color alignment system. my homebrew setting as a trope of 3 groups of 3 in its numerology. for example the 3 fingers, white finger grey finger and black finger are psychopomps kinda. white finger brings souls into the world, black finger takes souls from the world to the afterlife and grey finger takes souls back to life be it undead or not. they are part of a group of 9 gods. the forgers(they create souls) the psychopomps and the gods of the afterlife. forming a triad of creation transition and rest.
23:00 I think the photos may be desynced from your point there. tho its arguably more potent with no images to point to
'what is a person?' A miserable pile of secrets.
Where did the frog dice box come from?
Also this is such an increasingly complex question in fantasy. Say your druid can talk to animals, or plants--and those entities have their own thoughts, feelings, maybe goals. Is a tree a person? It certainly lacks some of the personhood we recognize but perhaps these beings have their own categories and aspects of sapient experience that are utterly alien to us but worth consideration. Does a tree think we're a person?
I've always defined "personhood" (passing the sapience and sentience test) as different from "monster". To me, "monsters" are something that has to be stopped, normally due to destruction or other negative things they cause. For example, both goblins and demons pass the "personhood" test, but don't seem to want to make things better for society as a whole\want to cause destruction, so they are "monsters". Not only does this allow for more nuanced conversations and games, but also avoids the "savage vs civilized" problematic elements that seem baked into the basic fantasy setting.
Not really, its just the same savage vs civilized debate with a different coat of paint.
The way I handle this is either I give them a reason to be antagonistic towards humans (for example humans genociding and destroying their natural environment) or I make it super impersonal and just make them into automatons or parasitic life-forms like xenomorphs and the terminators.
One take I had on goblins was I essentially made them into the Wood Elves archetype, there are various races of goblins some are forest-dwellers, others create burrows, and the larger goblins are wolf-riding nomads, they despise humans and their elvish cousins for the atrocities they have committed against them in the name of colonialism and nationalism. The other take I had was goblins are essentially kind of a biomechanical automaton created by demonic forces to fill the ranks of their armies, they are created in these biopunk gestation pits and they emerge like rotten butterflies from their cocoons. However some goblins develop sentience or have memories from past lives, their eyes go from red to a beady black and they are either killed by either side or live in perpetual isolation.
I would disagree. Goblins aren't the only creatures who could exist who are more interested in destroying other things. For example Demons or some types of Fae. The reason I chose to change it is because there is a difference between "there is a creature who objectively wants to bring ruin to things around it" and "there is a person/group who wants to bring ruin to those around it", and that's an important distinction from a narrative and world building perspective.
You seem to have chosen to adopt a specific version of a savage vs civilized in the form of the goblins, and that's valid.
But that's not the only lens or scope to look at the debate. If you have people or creatures who aren't interested in sharing space or actively destroy other things, how do you deal with it? You can, obviously, just not have that. But I prefer to have high fantasy stuff, and as such have to answer questions of "If there is creatues who make Nazis look nice, but those creatures do have cities and pass the personhood test, what do you do?"
Not only does it allow for all sort of plots and narratives, it allows for a exploration of the more mundane real world equivalents of ideologies who are not tolerant to others.
@@derpherp1810no it isn’t. Devils cause destruction because they MUST do so in order to, steal souls, and they must do that to not starve.
This is different from the hypothetical idea of a “savage” where they cause destruction because they don’t know better.
My name is Maglubiyet. And I approve this message.
Actually he wouldn't. He encourages goblins to be total monsters so that there's no hope of peace with them and the other species, ensuring there will always be war and they'll have no choice but to follow him.
you are the cause of goblin rights ever being questioned
@@EldritchCrow13well, if all the "civilized" people are holding goblins responsible for the actions of their creator then maybe they're not as civilized as they think -Hazurite (goblin ethisist)
@@solsystem1342 I never said the questioning of there rights due to the actions of there conqueror was fair or justified
-nilbog (it’s not a name it doesn’t start with a capital)
In my world buildong project, all life can be devided into 4 major categories (technically 7) kind, monsters, plants and animals,
Monsters can the be split into monsterkin reffering to humanoid or atleast mostly sentient monsters with greater reasoning and fully mindless monsters, all monsters are evil, its in there nature, they are creations of the chief god chaos as a drive for growth, challenge and against complacency.
Kind is a status of sapience and sentience species and races that is effectively an official badge of "i dont have a shard of chaos that drives me to evil.
They’re just little guys
i think the exact same thing on the video can be said about a lot of other species, like hobgoblins, orcs and kobolds. they're all considered 'evil' creatures in DnD, though i think they shouldnt be at all. i do prefer PF2E, where all of these have the humanoid trait, meaning they are considered people, so i could be biased. also, in pf2e those are not inherrently evil!
In my game world, goblins are very different... fundamentally, but not visually.
They are extensions of the 'god' which created them; they do not have independent souls, and as such they rank as follows:
able to communicate -- arguable (similar to a dog)
display clear sentience -- arguable (similar to a dog)
be part of a moral community -- no (similar to a finger)
capacity for self determination -- no (similar to a finger)
recognizable as a person -- arguable (ranks low among various versions of goblins)
they were specifically made to *not* qualify as people, and yet... the requirements being so loose, and human capacity for compassion being so high, they still rank far higher than expected.
7:43, around here the channel seems to mix the definitions of citizen and persone. Is important not to ignore the distinction. Since a person can be a non-citizen, for instance a foreigner, who generally speaking don't have political rights. Refugees are usually not allowed to participate in political actions of any kind, theoretically, but they have all other rights being a person usually grants. Citizenship complicates this already cloudy debate unnecessarily, as far as I can see.
To me, personally, it is actually a clear cut. Practically the easiest possible think to answer, as far as Ethical questions go. Goblins are person, human newborn babies are not, sentient AIs if or when they emerge into existence will be people, our current dogs and cats are not. Nazis are people, Jews are people, Palestinians are people, the average adult. And not "gradualness" is acceptable or make sense in the concept of personality.
According to my moral intuitions have some people being more people than others is, in itself, destroy the category of personality to a point that makes it meaningless and useless. And by consequence makes all Ethical debate nonsensical.
People are all the instances able to swim in the ocean of meaning. Able to interact with meanings and not just fake semantic by smart organization of syntax. So, people are those who use language. Not "communicate", in some sense both amebas and thermostats "communicate", and I am not taking seriously anyone who says those are examples of kinds of people.
Understand and elaborate meaning, linguistic meaning. It makes you a person in the most strict sense possible, and goblins do that. Human newborns don't.
I respect the right of parents to not have their babies killed. The right of communities to not have their potential future members killed. I do not have any respect whatsoever for the right of newborn humans to not being killed. This right is 100% non-existent, as far as I am concerned. And given the 2 previous observations in this paragraph there is no practical problem in admit that. Given the second such admission don't even force my hand in the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, if both parents want the abortion.
But I must mention that fantasy gives us an alternative solution much more confortable
for this question. You only have to separate those beings that have souls from those that lack that quality. If you have an immortal soul, in a universe where that is objectively verifiable, then you should be considered a person. Shouldn't you?
But, not a citizen of a given community, necessarily!
There is a secondary and more restrict sense of person, that is the "legal definition". And that one is way more simple than mine, really. A person in a given juridic system is anyone defined by law as a person. The "civil death"_ transformation of a free individual in a slave_ strips you precisely of that kind of personhood. The slave is, by legal definition, non-person. Slaves are, necessarily, people still, in that other sense of the word.
A slave is a "beast of burden" only in metaphoric sense. As long as he speaks.
One idea that I took from the book Ismael was to make a fantasy setting where every living thing is a person. All animals and plants speak, and are as sentient as humans and goblins are. So, humans keep farm animal that they feed and take care of. To eat their eggs and their meat. And have conversations with those prisoners under their power. And all humans must do things like that, because there is no other way to stay alive.
I never managed to get that setting ready to run an adventure in it. Unfortunately.
I find that really weird to think babies aren't people.
Personally personhood is like sentience and sapience, thus is evaluated for the average representative but the status is shared with all members of the group (or if talking about individual as the average of his life, including its future).
So as a human babies are people because the average human is an adult person, and as an individual a baby is a person because it will be one in the future (unless weird things).
I understand the feeling@@evanpereira3555, but after contemplate the subject your notion of "evaluated for the average representative but the status is shared with all members" become more weird to me than admit that some babies are not people. Some, because at given moment a baby starts formulating sentences, not necessarily grammatically impecable but well structured and with meaning. From that moment on, a baby is a person.
Your notion of "average representative" and "shared with all members" is familiar to me. Because it is similar to the notion of communion of saints in Catholic faith, and even not being Catholic I got some notion about their theology from growing up in a very Catholic country. "The group" in this case is the group of members of this religion, and instead of "personhood" what is "shared" by being a member in that club is salvation. By following a few rules and being in this club you get to collect dividends from the spiritual investments done by all Catholics, even if you don't invest much yourself.
The personhood problem was in the past solved in similar way. People would take those people from their own religion as more important than others. But they would grant personhood according to the rules of their religion, because being a person is having a spirit given by God. It solves the problem, really well, if you don't mind having an arbitrary solution.
And the use of biological specie as your group of reference is as arbitrary as any true given by revelation. Why should your "group" be "the humans", instead of "the mammals"? Why not "the hot blooded"? Or, in the oposite direction, if you don't mind me asking, why not "the Germans"? How about "The black people"? Or "the Jew"? If your criteria is not the participation in language, then what is your criteria? To me, looks like that your criteria is tradition, and the feeling of comfort that tradition brings to you (I could easily say "us" instead of "you", my cultural background is not distant from yours in that aspect).
Personal feelings of confort are not a good guide in matters of Ethics. Because the point is look for what is Universal in regard to what is good and right.
When I look for that what I see_ regardless of how I feel about_ is language.
To say those who may meet the criteria do not qualify, and some who don't meed the criteria will qualify, because what is necessary and suficiente to pass the test is being member of your family. And related to you as closely as you decided to define that blood relation as meaningful (because in the end of day all living things on Earth are our cousins, just some a bit more distant cousins than others). Well, I mean no disrespect to you, but to say that sounds a lot like advocate in favour of corruption.
What is more or less the same impression I have about the communion of saints, by the way.
No. Newborn human babies do not pass any test of humanhood that your average adult cat fails. To give them this status when we deny it to adult cats, just because we are closely related to the worse candidate, would be dishonest.
It looks like a meaningless dishonesty now, because we are in a moment of History when humans are the only talking things in the know Universe. However, that is a precarious circumstance. I don't expect it to change in my life time, but I could be wrong.
Once we have sentient AIs and/or uplifted species able to talk, and elaborate ideas, we will assume they are not people. Mutilate and slave them, for our comfort and safety. What is not one inch better than what the Spanish and Portuguese did with the first natives they found in the American Continent. If we keep your concept of collectively "shared" right to personhood, becomes impossible to stablish a different behaviour.
And non-human talking folk will have every reason to do anything in their power to extinguish humanity. As a way to avenge their martyrs.
The average human being would do the same, if the roles were reversed.
@@thiagom8478 The part about religion is strange/ I don't really understand it so I pass.
But I understand that I should have explain my group idea better.
So to put it simply we should go from the most general to the most specific until we get yes as the answer of "Is it people ?" (and not the other way around).
Animals aren't people so we continue, the average mammal is a quadrupedal who doesn't lay an egg (we can see that both bipedal like humans or egg-laying like hedgehog are outliers) still not a person so we continue.
Until we arrive at humans, which the average one is a person, so all humans are. Thus the following questions aren't necessary, the Germans are people because they're humans
(We can also see that the previous group of the hominids have a debatable status, actually some people view them as people too but those are a minority and the other hominids don't seem to advocate for personhood.)
Babies are people because humans are, and goblins could be either because they're part of a group that is people (idk created by a god for example) or the average goblin is a person (free will, part of a/the society, could be an interlocutor, etc...).
But since for you language is what define a person, I have a question : is an unconscious human in a coma (or other adult that can't communicate) a person ?
I have to ask you to stop at your first step, @@evanpereira3555. "Animals aren't people, so we continue" ...by what criteria? What you say when someone asks you to prove that animals are not people? Why not?
My impression is that you are assuming in your argumentation what this argumentation is supposed to prove. You included your pre conceived definition of what being a person means in those steps, and you did that implicitly. Without mentioning that is what you are doing.
What is equivalent to say "they are not people because they don't have personality".
As for your question, I consider that if someone becomes a person by entering language that status only ends with death. But I understand (and admit) that is arguable in the case of someone who lost the potential to not only communicate but even think. Some severe brain damage that happened to destroy the potential for language. Or a magic spell of any kind that transform the person in a bat (for instance) with all the pros and cons of having a bat's hardware, instead of a human one. As long as the damage/transformation is defined as irreversible.
An adult human who is sleeping or in coma is a person, sleeping or in coma. If this is a person.
An adult born whit a defective brain who never was nor will be able to achieve language is not a person, same as a newborn baby and a cat.
@@thiagom8478 maybe you missed it but I explained that a personhood is a consensus by the different parties about the average individual (blessed by a deity, part of the society, free will, conscious, etc...).
Animals aren't people because it the consensus across all animals (some antispecist think that but for example cat don't see ants as "cathood", but interestingly it seems they give some "cathood" status to their fellow humans).
Anyway for your idea about language, if the status of person only end with death (even if language and communication could be lost), why this status couldn't also be acquired from birth by the criteria that language will be gained ? It isn't like babies (without illness) could not acquired language, they always will.
Peter Singer doesn't put animals in the person camp to my knowledge. He only says sentient individuals should have interests that should be protected. It doesn't mean they have the same rights. He's not advocating fot giving cows the right to vote, but for giving them the right to live, and with as little suffering as possible
You're right. In my efforts to summarise, I appear to have misrepresented his perspective. I sympathise a lot with Singer's arguments, myself, so that's additionally disappointing.
@@Grungeon_Master It's alright, mistakes are bound to happens at some point. It does you a lot of credit to admit it. And the video is high quality and interesting as usual. Thank you for that
Devils and Angels also exist in D&D. Beings like Orcs, Goblins, etc were canonically created by gods of things like war, torture, and things like that and they usually as a whole continue to worship those gods. Even if they are people, it makes sense that they're still basically just enemies to be slain.
All in all I agree with the perspective presented.
As a worldbuilder myself I also have no qualms at creating "monstrous" races which also are people, to my mind at least. Objective morality is a lie and stuff exists just because it can, is plausible in the world, and I decided I don't dislike how it meshes with the rest unless it is too justifiable in the worldbuilding, then it exists as well.
The various actors all need to deal with each others presence and do this in very different and sometimes more sometimes less nuanced ways.
Our world was always flawed as well as complex and our perception as well as actions rarely reflect(ed) reality, I think fictional worlds should be like that as well.
I use the definition of "if it creates a culture, it's a person" (or if it's part of a culture) in my world. So Goblins, Orcs and may more are persons in my fantastic world. There are even gods that follow that logic, others may follow other intents so .. there is always grey in grey, no true good or evil. All is somewhere inbetween.
Now we're gettin somewhere! So, what is a proper Lawful Good hero to do about goblins or orcs (etc) raiding? I do tend to think re-education is THE way, but if forcing thieves to take up the human persuits of agriculture, metallurgy, and such is immoral do you just leave out offerings and hope they will be content with that gift? Modern gamers want to take the canonical raiders and make them civilized, but they don't want to talk about how we get from point A to point B. See, that is the exact type of adventure which interests me because it hits so close to home. I constantly wonder how we could get drivers to not want to homicide me as I cross at a walk signal or there was the time I was accosted in The Hood and left wondering if police just allow this kind of behavior to go on... and again, what can be done? (I was, incidentally thinking about The Book Of Exalted Deeds mere moments prior to being punched several times by a drunk homie).
I think it's probably more likely that a trained alligator is part of your moral community than a human newborn.
I like the axiom from The Dresden Files:
Monsters have nature,
Mortals have choice
Still opens up for debate but if something doesn't act beyond it's 'nature' then it does not belong in the 'mortals' club
Love all your videos, but i think this is my new favorite. Everytime i thought i saw.an unseen ethical quandary coming you managed to slode in a perfect discussion of it. I think a comparison with other races such as giants, thrikeen, yuanti, etc. Would have been interesting too make the slope even more alippery if you will.
Thanks again Tom!
0:56 "...a recent analysis on TH-cam..." And you don't credit that video? What the heck, man. I think the video you're referencing is "The Goblin Hypothesis", by Curious Archive. Do better next time!
Fair point. I will update the description when I get a moment.
I mean, technically, if taking things by force and trickery is an integral part of goblin culture, that really just means they get *really* into rugby.
It all depends on how humanized they are portrayed. But most of the time, they're just enemy fodder for the protagonists and also cartoonishly evil and violent.
In a couple unpublished fantasy novels I wrote, goblins are merely puppets made of magic controlled by anyone with the power and skill to conger them 😊
My goblin girlfriend is a real person, and I love her
InCase has you covered.
I've had this question before, and I do actually have an answer and I personally like how it impacts the setting.
Here's how I see it for my fantasy setting: The gods created sentient life by incrementally evolving and enlightening specific species over time. Gnomes, elves, and dwarves were their first fully uplifted species. Then after humans were made the gods began to quarrel amongst each other (significantly more than usual) and seeing as mortals are their used as their proxies they began to uplift more and more species in a quantity over quality manner. Thus the various beastmen and orc-kin were created, including the goblins in question. However because of the hap hazard nature of their uplifting many not all every member of a sentient species was fully enlightened, creating a split between the feral and enlightened versions of the species. The difference between them is like that of a modern person VS a cartoon neanderthal, the feral version of the race would be physically much more powerful but much less inelegant.
The way I use this in the story to both create a ferocious mindless army for characters to fight with a little less moral quandaries than if they were to fight other sentient races. And to basically be used as tools and weapons by factions who care even less about such moral quandaries.
The way I see it most beastmen have a world population of roughly 50/50 enlightened to feral. And many of the enlightened beastmen have very good at manipulating the feral beast man. However at the same time the enlightened beastmen try to distance themselves from their ferral counterparts as much as possible, they love to wear fine cloths use elaborate speach patterns to seam more refined and civilized than they are.
For the orc-kin, they're much the opposite. They were created much latter then most of the beast men and their enlightened versions are the minority at roughly 20% of the population. Many enlightened orc-kin feel as though they've been cheated by the gods and older enlightened races so they lead their feral counterparts in vast armies to tear down what every one else has built in order to start anew on a level field.
Here's the weird one. Gnomes sort have been uplifted further than the other races and have traveled so far down the monster>man spectrum that they've circled around and appeared on the other end. Now some gnomes are hyper intelligent monsters who see all the other races as primitive monstrous animals.
All I’m saying is if your whole thing is that you’ll kill anything that isn’t you, you’ve revoked your person rights
What count in that "anything" ? The cow from which become food ? An ant or snail you accidentaly step on ? A tree you cut down to make your House ? A flower you picked up to give to your Mother ? Because all of those are thing that People kill all the time
@@Feu_Ghost Ok I mean if you're entire thing is "We kill *everything* that isn't (goblin in this instance)"
The thing is that in a story the goblins could be like that not due to there nature but instead because of there culture or it is human propaganda saying the goblins are like that, if we were a human in a fantasy world we shouldn't jump to calling them evil imo as it could always be anti-goober propaganda.
@@JubulusPrime If there culture is to kill everyone else then they're evil.
I would argue that when Goblins do threaten your safety & loved ones, the question of personhood & the perception of how you answer that threat become secondary concerns at most. Also, it sounds like you're only approaching this from a 21st century western perspective. Having to decide whether you want to re-educate or confine an entire culture is a luxury that only those who can annihilate it with a word can afford.
You could however imagine a human and goblin village whose range overlaps each other and come into conflict over resources.
Then the question is how should each village respond to this conflict? What does diplomacy look like? Can it change depending on collective policy and individual agency?
We are humans so we know what humans are like. We have myriad examples of this playing out between humans to pull from.
But then what is a goblin? And what are goblins like? Becomes relevant to how communities can approach this problem, and how us as readers believe the problem should be solved, morally or what have you.
As a DM in the old days, my fellow DM suggested my players might be sued by a dead evil human whom they raided because the dungeon was a part of a Lawful neutral kingdom. It was fun and he became one of their nemesis enemies. Your aliens as tiny little spheres was basically the plot of a Star Trek Voyager episode. Regarding seeing Goblins (and other demihumans) as "people" rather than monsters, while some DMs do sometimes show exceptional demihumans as not like their people (e.g. Drizzt), it's impractical to approach EVERY encounter with such creatures like that way and still have a semi-normal D&D game. Also EVERY demihuman race is based on humans of one kind or another. It's all we know.
You gotta read Orconomics and the rest of the Dark Profit series
Yes
as a goblin im still tryna figure this out myself. get back to you when i do
ONLY goblins are people. source: a goblin
My absolute favorite portrayal of goblins is in the fantasy series The Wandering Inn in which the idea of goblins being people is thoroughly explored and also made into a pure tragedy.
Goblins in this story live in absolute poverty and are hunted on sight by all other races. It’s made me wonder if all goblins are just an incredibly marginalized and oppressed people in a lot of media. Goblins learn young not to cry because “tears are a waste of water”.
How is personhood, prejudice and xenophobia explored between two cultures of 'people' when one culture traditionally EATS the people of another culture. In my world, I have a gnoll city-state that has tense diplomatic relations with its neighbours who associate them with classical savagery, but whenever my players go there I always make a point to show most of the gnolls as regular people going about their daily lives, farmers, white-collar workers. But there is a treaty where most of those neighbouring nations execute their criminals by delivering them to the gnoll city to be eaten. There is a traditional, hunger-games-esque 'hunt' whenever this happens, and thus gnoll savagery is treated in my world as a culturally unique form of recreation, with a strict code of ethics surrounding it - "we only eat bad people". Otherwise, humanoid meat is treated as a delicacy to gnolls and is served to nobility and at fancy diplomatic meetings when Orc nations come to visit, like Caviar or Wagyu or Lobster
british person lists groups of people/countries who build their society at the cost of others, doesn't list Great Britain.
"They are objectively idiots", yeah except that humans in most D&D settings are the overwhelming majority and constitute the bulk of 20th level spellcasters and are the most played race for the most robust class (fighter). There's more to being the best than having a d4 unarmed attack or a flying speed. Humans are adaptable and tenacious (and they get to start with an extra feat).
Now I'm thinking of a ttrpg campaign that starts like a generic dungeon crawl with goblin enemies but as the party keeps going down the cave they find themselves in a hitherto unknown underground advanced civilization of goblins, an entire kingdom of feuding tribes that they get involved in the inner world and politics of. Maybe they end up helping a young chiefling unite the tribes against an evil goblin warlock or somesort.
It was a bit of a dodgy prospect making 5 different categories of person-hood. If someone only had 3/5 of those qualifications of person-hood, by your reckoning, they'd be 3/5 of a person, which is an incredibly racially charged proposition for Americans.
Is this dark humor? Or is this a joke at all? I’m very confused to be honest with you.
@@THECHEESELORD69I genuinely can't tell. Saying you can't rate humans on a 5 point scale because someone might score a 3 is utter lunacy.
@@thegarunixking1101 back in the day there was discourse on how many senators each state would get since the south had a large population of slaves, it was eventually ruled that slaves were 3/5 of a person. I get the joke he’s trying to make but it kind of falls flat.
Would have hit better if he just said goblins are 3/5 of a person.
It depends more on perception of the people. This is why slavery comes and goes irl so often. It's those that run society who determine who is a person or not. Usually citizens, specifically merchants, are a major part of this classification. Hence why you get exceptions of a single goblin that is allowed to be considered a person.
In one world I've been building, there is a monster race. Depending which game you play first, they're either be one of 3 human races, or the barbaric monsters to kill on sight. There will be other humanoid races of sentience, but only 3 are human. (Technically 4, one labled protohuman that evolved into one of the 3 in the civilization type games)
This is why the ONLY possible definition of a person that isn’t problematic is “Any being that is both sentient and sapient”
If a being is not those things then it cannot object to not being called a person.
I'm sure people will be very normal about this
You give todays people wey too much credit😅
@@viktormadzov5286Sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
I do hope this comment section doesn't become a complete cesspit of idiocy. I am sure the average T.T.R.P.G player is mature enough to approach this issue with the thoughtfulness that Tom does.
@@alexandertiberius1098
I know it was sarcasm, I didnt take it litterally.
Im just too disapointed in people these days not to make such a comment
One hour after the video was posted and I've counted three commenters who failed to be normal. One of them simply posted his interpretation of the dictionary definition of "Person" which is "just humans."