Right eye (Start of Darkness spoilers) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ancalagon

2009-05-20, 12:01 PM

From a moral standpoint the first situation is not ambigious at all.

A grown up from a rainding party that kills all goblins around just because they are there and also attack and slaughter children in that process... goblins aren't even necessarily evil, check out righteye. No matter what his racial entry in the monster manual said, he surely did not really qualify as "evil".
The paladins were the ones who were walking on a very thin line there, only supported by a crude alignment-system.

This time, it's fairly clear who got what he asked for (and is lucky he actually did not get everything of that).

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 12:05 PM

Code Black

2009-05-20, 12:10 PM

Yeah, the symbolism in regards to the SoD is really coming to the fore right now. There have been more and more references to it in the past few strips, and right now we have what can only be either foreshadowing or a metaphor of some sort.

I wonder if Redcloak being Left-Eye rather than Right-Eye has any symbolic meaning.

Optimystik

2009-05-20, 12:12 PM

From a moral standpoint the first situation is not ambigious at all.

The fact that they committed that atrocity and kept their paladin abilities is what makes it ambiguous, but I'm not going to derail this thread over it.

I wonder if he'll regenerate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm) the eye, or leave it the way it is as a tribute to his brother?

Zolem

2009-05-20, 12:18 PM

Zerg Cookie

2009-05-20, 12:20 PM

Well, if Right-eye wanted to lead the goblins to peaceful prosperity, what does that say about 'Left-eye'?

Left-Eye wants to tear all non-goblinoid civilizations apart

RC and RE are very different. Redcloak is LE, while Right-Eye is CG (No evidence, but that's the way I see him)

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 12:25 PM

The fact that they committed that atrocity and kept their paladin abilities is what makes it ambiguous, but I'm not going to derail this thread over it.Don't call any act of a LG Paladin an "atrocity" if you actually care about not derailing a thread.
I wonder if he'll regenerate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm) the eye, or leave it the way it is as a tribute to his brother?He got away, so he's free to cast whatever healing he needs. The eye should be a minor, and temporary, inconvenience at worst.

Ancalagon

2009-05-20, 12:36 PM

The fact that they committed that atrocity and kept their paladin abilities is what makes it ambiguous, but I'm not going to derail this thread over it.

I wonder if he'll regenerate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm) the eye, or leave it the way it is as a tribute to his brother?

We all have seen that alignment gets handled much more versatile in OotS as the cliche of it... I guess that scene there was to show how "evil" good people with "good intentions" can be.
Anyway, my theory still is that Redcloak cannot regenerate the eye because it got plucked out with smite evil instead of losing it to a "normal" attack.

Silverraptor

2009-05-20, 12:41 PM

He got away, so he's free to cast whatever healing he needs. The eye should be a minor, and temporary, inconvenience at worst.

He doesn't have his amulet, so I don't think he can cast any spells without it.

DSCrankshaw

2009-05-20, 12:43 PM

There's a good chance he'll be playing a part soon. MitD mentioned him recently, and this is pretty poetic. I think we'll be seeing Right Eye again soon, probably mocking Red Cloak. (Left eye?)

That's pretty unlikely, considering
Redcloak killed Right Eye and raised him as a zombie.

The Wanderer

2009-05-20, 12:58 PM

That's pretty unlikely, considering
Redcloak killed Right Eye and raised him as a zombie.

Which doesn't mean that Redcloak can't be visited by a ghost, or imagine a conversation, or...

Texas_Ben

2009-05-20, 01:18 PM

I wonder if he'll regenerate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm) the eye, or leave it the way it is as a tribute to his brother?
Sure he *could* regenerate it, but that would be silly. Everybody knows that if you gouge a baddie's eye out he has to go around either disfigured or with an eyepatch.
Regenerate? It's just not done!

Linkavitch

2009-05-20, 01:18 PM

He got away, so he's free to cast whatever healing he needs. The eye should be a minor, and temporary, inconvenience at worst.

Except he doesn't have his holy symbol anymore. He could get one of the other goblin clerics to do it though.

NerfTW

2009-05-20, 01:29 PM

They weren't treading a fine line in SoD, because the gods in OOTS specifically state that demi-humans can be killed with impunity. There's really no debate, they state it quite clearly when creating the races, and when the Dark One meets them.

And yes, I meant as a spirit.

Fafnir13

2009-05-20, 01:34 PM

Just curious, but does 3.5 actually have rules for what just happened or was it only awesome artistic license?

Griever3216

2009-05-20, 02:07 PM

I believe "Left-Eye" is here to stay. There is too much symbolism in it for the Giant to introduce it in one strip and then remove it again. There are many reasons why RD will not regenerate his eye and it has to do with either honing the memory of his brother, or keeping it as a reminder of how much he hates the paladins.

The Rose Dragon

2009-05-20, 02:13 PM

Except he doesn't have his holy symbol anymore. He could get one of the other goblin clerics to do it though.

Or, this might be a stretch, he can get another cleric's holy symbol. Since holy symbols don't require attunement to use.

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 02:24 PM

Rules for taking out someone's Eye- no. Recommendations for creating your own rules- yes.

called shots, maybe.

Kish

2009-05-20, 02:55 PM

Sure he *could* regenerate it, but that would be silly. Everybody knows that if you gouge a baddie's eye out he has to go around either disfigured or with an eyepatch.
Regenerate? It's just not done!
You don't summon elementals outside the four classical elements, either.

Porthos

2009-05-20, 03:00 PM

They weren't treading a fine line in SoD, because the gods in OOTS specifically state that demi-humans can be killed with impunity.

They do? Not that I recall from my reading of the book. :smallconfused:

(pedantic spoilers:)

Sure, the Goblins claim that the gods in OotS specifically state that. But what actually makes them right? For all we know, their complaining is just due to the fact that they got a raw deal and want to blame someone for it (in this case, the very gods themselves).

Till I see it from Third Person Narration (like the vast majority of the actual comic), that whole scene (while making a brutally funny point about how a lot of games treat interspecies relations) is just a load of propaganda. :smallwink:

Ichneumon

2009-05-20, 03:02 PM

It would make for a rather bad story, not just being original or cliché-breaking, but just a rather bad story to let something a major as losing an eye be undone that easy and quickly through magic.

The Rose Dragon

2009-05-20, 03:03 PM

You don't summon elementals outside the four classical elements, either.

Actually, you do. Shadow Elemental, Ice Elemental, Smoke Elemental, Mud Elemental, Ooze Elemental, Wood Elemental, etc. All from official D&D sourcebooks.

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 03:06 PM

These are Para-elementals, mostly.

Taint elemental in Heroes of Horror

Optimystik

2009-05-20, 03:14 PM

Don't call any act of a LG Paladin an "atrocity" if you actually care about not derailing a thread.

Eh, maybe I lied.

Anyway, my theory still is that Redcloak cannot regenerate the eye because it got plucked out with smite evil instead of losing it to a "normal" attack.

SoD
Considering that he could have brought back Right-Eye's eye YEARS later, I don't think there's many restrictions on the spell.

Except he doesn't have his holy symbol anymore. He could get one of the other goblin clerics to do it though.

Unlikely that they have 7th level spells, but he could just co-opt their holy symbol.

Just curious, but does 3.5 actually have rules for what just happened or was it only awesome artistic license?

Not as such, but you can make your own. The regenerate spell is there to give you that option.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-20, 03:19 PM

SoD
Considering that he could have brought back Right-Eye's eye YEARS later, I don't think there's many restrictions on the spell.
It wasn't a smitten loss though. Regardless, no rule says RC can't get his eye back.

Doug Lampert

2009-05-20, 04:19 PM

unfortunately, the only D&D source which explicitly states Good characters of any type are commiting an evil act by doing this (So paladins should Fall) is BoED.

Which not everyone accepts, because despite being WOTC 3.5, is "not core"

Though several strongly imply it (Heroes of Horror, Drow of the Underdark, Eberron campaign setting)

Actually, the PHB is pretty damn clear!

Good protects the innocent, and Goblins (per the MM) are only usually evil, so it isn't inborn and infants and small children can't be assumed evil and killed on sight. Small children are almost by definition innocents.

It requires a gratuitous missreading of the alignment rules to allow killing of non-combatant goblin children as "good". Orcs are even worse since they're only an often alignment! We know that an outright MAJORITY of even adult orcs are not actually chaotic evil (they may or may not be evil at all, the book doesn't tell us anything much about the distribution other than CE is a plurality but not majority).

This is quite aside from the point that since the PHB is also clear that callous indiference to the wellfare of others is Evil, and that alignment is about attitudes, that it's perfectly possible to be Evil but never have committed a crime, much less a capital crime. (Probably not very likely, but perfectly possible.)

The only posible excuss for tSoD massecre is that the goblins in question were harboring an artifact intended to destabilize the world and endanger the gods, and there may well have been a prophesy or something about leaving no survivors, but if either of those was motivating the paladins they were inexcusably clumsy. Broadly, if the bulk of the characters involved were actually paladins it indicates that Rich is using a substantially non-standard alignment system (as in fact many gamers do, since, I just kill all "monsters" and claim to be good is a popular play style).

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 04:23 PM

HoH, BoED and Champions of Ruin are pretty wordy on this- similar view.

Arguably, if the act can bring a murder conviction, its Evil, since Fiendish Codex 2 defines Murder as a corrupt act.

Sigil would be textbook example of a non-evil city where killing a fiend can bring murder charges.

Helanna

2009-05-20, 05:16 PM

It would make for a rather bad story, not just being original or cliché-breaking, but just a rather bad story to let something a major as losing an eye be undone that easy and quickly through magic.

I don't think so. I think it would be weirder if Redcloak didn't try to regenerate his eye - magic is an accepted method of healing serious wounds, and he almost certainly has access to the necessary magic. The symbolism wouldn't be lost if he regenerated his eye; after all, not everybody's read SoD so it's possible that it's just another reference. Even if the wound disappears, the meaning is still there.

The Blackbird

2009-05-20, 05:31 PM

Aww, Redcloak wants be like his little brother.

How sweet.

Unless he regenerates it.

NamonakiRei

2009-05-20, 05:51 PM

Well, if Redcloak regenerates his eye, that will set him appart from Right-Eye even more. Right-Eye refused to the regeneration.
Just saying.

I Hope Redcloak will see the symbolism of this and start thinking about changing a bit his vision of things, see them in a new light, with more open eyes(Geez, how many eye-related puns can I accidentally make?)

I also hope Redcloak will cast regenerate- but still knowing the symbolism this has. After all, it is almost plot-relevant that Redcloak regenerates his eye(Well, no, that's an exageration, but...) because if he doesn't, Xykon might remember a certain someone... and maybe he won't like at all how alike he and Redcloak look now... and I won't really say all I'm thinking right now... it'd make too long a post.

Besides, if he keeps the small eye(left eye... pun intended:smalltongue:), he will lose a part of the cuteness factor (Sticky-world goblins are cute :smallbiggrin:)

Note: Both Redcloak and Right-Eye have lost their right eyes to paladins of the Saphire guard, if the SoD cover I am looking at right now is correct :smalltongue: So no Left-Eye for you!

Aaand: Blackbird... was that sarcasm I read? :smallannoyed:Oh, I hadn't seen the white text... but still...

The Rose Dragon

2009-05-20, 05:55 PM

Note: Both Redcloak and Right-Eye have lost their right eyes to paladins of the Saphire guard, if the SoD cover I am looking at right now is correct :smalltongue: So no Left-Eye for you!

Your right. His left.

Optimystik

2009-05-20, 06:02 PM

Well, if Redcloak regenerates his eye, that will set him appart from Right-Eye even more. Right-Eye refused to the regeneration.
Just saying.

Right-eye refused it for a reason:
In case his assassination attempt on Xykon failed, he could regrow his eye later and blend in to the goblin masses, escaping retribution until his next attempt. Redcloak killed him rather than let him risk the goblin people like that.

Redcloak doesn't have that reason. One eye or two, he stands out too much among the other goblins (especially now that they're all HOBgoblins.)

NamonakiRei

2009-05-20, 06:18 PM

Huh... okay... that definitley sets a difference. I was just saying :smalltongue: and you seemingly just re-stated that there's an important difference between the two. Redcloak would never do such thing. Though I hope he does, in time...
Also, then... cutness factor IS STAYING!!!
And you're right. Green stands out in orange. :smallsmile:

The Blackbird

2009-05-20, 06:45 PM

Aaand: Blackbird... was that sarcasm I read? :smallannoyed:Oh, I hadn't seen the white text... but still...

Sorta, I'm half and half for Redcloak to come out of this with some revalation, and for him to just regenerate his eye and move on.

Finwe

2009-05-20, 07:48 PM

I think this is that thing called forshadowing.

One eye lost his eye, took on Xykon.

...

*wink*

One-eye? Do you mean http://www.vang1.net/grafikk/leela.jpg?

Super_slash2

2009-05-20, 10:17 PM

The wound would be a constant reminder of his failure to stop O-Chul and any consequences that follow, how his brother's policies differed from his and how he would have let down Right-Eye's beliefs.

If anything he would heal it because keeping it would be too traumatic.

ABB

2009-05-20, 10:35 PM

As to losing an eye and still being a main character, hey, it worked for Col. Tigh...

Dr. Cthulwho

2009-05-20, 11:01 PM

I wonder if Redcloak being Left-Eye rather than Right-Eye has any symbolic meaning.

Well I guess (though it would likely be over-examining things) it could be getting into Latin and Roman language and beliefs.

Originally the word sinister just meant left, but it has evolved to the meaning we have today in English.

This could be since there has been a fair bit of left/right symbolism in the ancient Western world, and things to do with the left were often subject of mistrust and similar feelings due to the superstitions surrounding it.

So with omens and all someone with some notable feature on the left side might be viewed as less then trustworthy, or likely to be bad luck. Or alternatively it would seem like an omen that this individual could be bringer of bad things one day.

Pyron

2009-05-20, 11:03 PM

And did you not notice that Redcloak is now "Left-Eye"? ;)

Not really, but I did note that Red Cloak is the second goblin cleric to lose his eye to a stick.

All hail the stick!

Selene

2009-05-20, 11:38 PM

Note: Both Redcloak and Right-Eye have lost their right eyes to paladins of the Saphire guard, if the SoD cover I am looking at right now is correct

It is not.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/ButterflyFish/SoD_cover.jpg

A scan of my copy.

edited because I can't seem to BBCode resize a giant image on here.

Warlord JK

2009-05-20, 11:40 PM

Isn't the devil supposed to be left-handed? Wonder if there's some symbolism there :smallconfused:.

ABB

2009-05-20, 11:45 PM

Not really, but I did note that Red Cloak is the second goblin cleric to lose his eye to a stick.

All hail the stick!

Not a stick, a bar. A steel bar.

All hail the bar! (Then go have a drink at it :smallbiggrin:)

Egiam

2009-05-21, 01:38 PM

Who's "One-eye"??

Do you mean Right-Eye?

Yes, Thank you.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-21, 01:48 PM

Not a stick, a bar. A steel bar.

All hail the bar! (Then go have a drink at it :smallbiggrin:)

Chief lost his eye to a stick. I'd group both together, though Chief's case was very, very lame.

Selene

2009-05-22, 05:39 AM

Chief lost his eye to a stick.

Not long before One-Eye died. :smallbiggrin:

Goblins and OotS parallels FTW!

Cracklord

2009-05-23, 12:14 AM

Right wing and Left wing?
One is wants Goblin equality, the other wants goblin superiority?

Kornaki

2009-05-23, 12:51 AM

Someone posted in another thread that when Redcloak looks into a mirror, he'll see his brother. I think that has potential here

Haven

2009-05-23, 01:03 AM

The only posible excuss for tSoD massecre is that the goblins in question were harboring an artifact intended to destabilize the world and endanger the gods, and there may well have been a prophesy or something about leaving no survivors, but if either of those was motivating the paladins they were inexcusably clumsy. Broadly, if the bulk of the characters involved were actually paladins it indicates that Rich is using a substantially non-standard alignment system (as in fact many gamers do, since, I just kill all "monsters" and claim to be good is a popular play style).

In "Origins" there was a paladin who said "I'd kill him myself, but I need to maintain a lawful good alignment". Which is obviously not a lawful good outlook. But it seems like, since the gods themselves intervened to take away Miko's powers, you have to do something that they see as evil to get your paladinhood taken away, and it seems like only Rat, if anyone, would have a reason to care about goblins being killed.