Non-evil monsters in RL- should they exist?

[Willowhugger]

Your opinions, pros and cons?

It's inspired by last night's game where The Weathermay Twins stumble onto a newly forming domain that has taken over most of Arkandale's human settlements and at the end, discover almost all of them are Golems. After they (and the party) nearly were killed, the Magistrate had fun poking fun that humans are worse than they who aren't bothering anyone.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I think non-evil monsters should and do exist in Ravenloft, not everything is tainted by the world about them. Though I wouldn't call them monsters if they are not evil heheheh.

[Jasper]

Every creature should have the oportunity to be good but its mainly a Nature VS Nurture thing. A goblin rasied in the goblin home and told all its life to kill, main, destory and generaly cause havok will 99/100 times grow up 100% evil. On the flip side one that was rasied in the care of a Hallan witch would 99/100 time grow up to be kind and caring.

Now something are inborn evil- Fiends, shadow versons of creatures and abborations. Its in thier very being to cause harm to all living creatures and no amount of nurturing will change that.
It would be like trying to get a dog to stop chasing cats. You might suceed on the serface but deep down that do will allways want to chase that cat.

[Igor the Henchman]

There already are. Fenhounds. Ravenkin. Bruja. The Seelie Court. Good-aligned ghosts. In Ravenloft, however, "good" monsters are treated with a twist. When thinking "good monster" players usually expect helpful creatures who aid their progress in the adventure. In Ravenloft, creatures of "good" are just as likely to hinder the PC's progress as they are to help. The good-aligned ghost will harass you and draw dangerous attention to you, to make you resolve the mystery of her death. A Fenhound might hunt you down for a minor transgression commited on their bog. A seelie fey would seek to "preserve" your talents by making you into a changeling. Bruja and Ravenkin will manipulate you to advance their own goals. Even though all these creatures are techincally good... that doesn't mean you can trust them.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Not to mention the vital role of benign monsters as the victims of human paranoia and bigotry. Broken ones, mongrelfolk, ravenkin and so forth let DMs call attention to the evil side of ordinary humanity's nature, and provide a critical counterpoint to the simplistic view that what's ugly and inhuman in Ravenloft automatically has to be evil.

[Dion of the Fraternity]

Or, you could do with an alternative which I do IMCs: take out ALL moral alignments from all creatures, NPC's and churches altogether.

[Willowhugger]

Or, you could do with an alternative which I do IMCs: take out ALL moral alignments from all creatures, NPC's and churches altogether.

Doesn't really change Strahd is an evil bastard.

My ever retort to these kind of decisions

[tec-goblin]

After all, if there is no chance that the goblin can be redeemed, then the PCs would slaughter them without remorse.
Now they slaughter them and suffer from power checks in the midtime

[Jester of the FoS]

Monsters are like animals. Some can be 'domesticated' by a kind and nurturing environment while some are always 'wild' and have a primal nature that will always threaten those around them.
Raising a goblyn is like raising a wolf; it may seem nice and managable until you piss it off and it goes for your throat.

Some, those that were human or raised as humans, might have a strong moral code that pushes them against their natures. Were, vampires and the like are most often portrayed as fighting this. I recokon the same could apply to hags, red widdows, paka, walking dead, etc.

[Nathan of the FoS]

I would say that Ravenloft is the perfect place for surprisingly un-evil monsters (by which I mean, monsters which the PCs will be surprised to find are NOT evil), since moral ambiguity is such an important potential element of the setting.

[Dominique]

I'm all for non-evil monsters. First off, it makes Ravenloft much more interesting (and realistic, for that matter) if there are strange, non-human creatures who recognize the fact that they're living in a horrible place and want to do their best to change it . . . but might have their own ways of doing so. Second off, it can lead to such tasty plot hooks--the paranoid villagers who are trying to kill the bruja who helped the PCs earlier because they think she's a hag; the werewolf in human form who tricks the PCs into fighting the "horrible raven monsters who killed my family," only to lead to the PCs discovering that they've been duped; all the classics. Finally, it really fits in with the whole Gothic theme of the setting. How many Gothic horror stories are there wher emonsters try desperately to be men? True, they tend to fail, but it again makes things much more complex and interesting if they have a chance of success. I, for one, am all for it. Now, if people start trying to bring in vampires with souls or caring, sharing powrie, I might get a little twitchy . . .

[Gemathustra]

Monsters are like animals. Some can be 'domesticated' by a kind and nurturing environment while some are always 'wild' and have a primal nature that will always threaten those around them.
Raising a goblyn is like raising a wolf; it may seem nice and managable until you piss it off and it goes for your throat.

Do remember that goblYns used to be people who were mutated into cannibalistic freaks through dark magics, and that goblIns are the ever-popular cannonfodder flunkies imported from Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.

[Jester of the FoS]

First generation goblyns were humans. Second generation... not so much.

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Technically, there is no such thing as a second generation goblyn because they are asexual. They reproduce by magic, such as Arawn's Cauldron.

[Stygian Inquirer]

What would Ravenloft be without Jander Sunstar?