Rant on Redcloak: The Tragic Villain of OotS

[beknirvana]

First of all, this post is going to contain some MASSIVE spoilers from Start of Darkness. I would break this up with little boxes, but there are just too many, it would mess up the whole post so I’m just going to hide the whole thing.

Ye have been warned.


What O-Chul did to Redcloak was not only a reference to what happened in Start of Darkness; it was a complement that shows the massive change in Redcloak and the view towards the Goblins. In SoD, the day that “Redcloak” gets initiated into the priesthood of the Dark One, the Sapphire Guard attacks his village in order to kill The Barer of the Crimson Mantle, which they succeeded in doing. After he is slain, the paladins go about wiping out the entire village. They attack unarmed women and children. The acolyte who was initiated that day say his mother trampled by a horse, his little sister stabbed while hiding in a cave, his bothers and uncle taken down fighting of paladins, and his little brother stabbed in the eye with a katana. The acolyte put on the Crimson Mantle that day and left the village with his wounded little brother and took one step closer to becoming the Redcloak we see in the comic presently.

As a reader, something feels wrong about what happened in that scene. It is a slaughter. Many guilty, more innocent. Sapphire Guard and order of Paladins. PALADINS! Holy warriors blessed by the 12 gods, who seemed to approve of the slaughter because not a single paladin lost their powers even as they killed unarmed women and children. At worst this is a dark act, and at best it is morally gray (in a black and white book). The Dark One’s plans involve releasing the snarl, and anyone who wants to set that free is a threat to existence and needs to be eliminated. And by killing every living goblin in the village, the Sapphire Guard ensured that there would not be a new barer (this failed because Redcloak got away). Even if the plan of the Dark One would threaten existence, what the Sapphire Guard did that day still feels wrong. All sympathy is with the goblins, not with the paladins.

This sense of sympathy with the goblins lasts far into the series. Redcloak hates the Sapphire Guard and Azure City for what happened to him. In 422 Redcloak dedicates the fight to his mom, and now sympathy is on both sides, with the humans and the heroes and Redcloak and the villains. Again, morally gray. The fall of Azure City was constructed by someone whose life had been ruined by the Sapphire Guard, in a way sewing the seeds of their own destruction. In a way, it feels like just rewards.

But now times have turned. Redcloak is still the same. He hates humans just as much as he did since that day, only now he has the power to do something about it. And instead of breaking the cycle of hatred, he is making it go faster through his revenge. He has tons of humans in prison that he is willing to throw into the snarl. His hobgoblins are cruel to the human slaves. And Redcloak is keeping O-Chul prisoner, torturing him every day, adding new scars to the paladin’s visage, and with no purpose other than to buy time for the new goblin nation and Redcloak’s desire for revenge against the Sapphire Guard. O-Chul stabbing Redcloak in the eye is one of those “cheer at your monitor” type moments where any sympathy the goblin had from Start of Darkness is now gone. It is clear; Redcloak is a villain all the way through.

Redcloak is more than that though, he is a failure. He has made bad choice after bad choice. His vengeance against the Azurites was just one more bad call. Redcloak unleashed a pestilence against the goblin race when he allied with Xykon (Right-eye’s idea, Redcloak’s call). Then Redcloak made him even more powerful by making his a lich. Xykon is really Chaotic Evil. He cares about nothing but himself, and will destroy everything else in the way. This includes mostly humans, but includes goblins too. Xykon would kill goblins without care before he became a lich, and somehow he cares less now that he is undead, setting them up as adventurer fodder, watching them die for his entertainment, even sending them into the gate (this is why Redcloak freaked out when he realized that he was like Xykon by sending the hobgoblin’s in as fodder). Xykon even ordered the destruction of a peaceful goblin village, much like the Sapphire Guard. Right-Eye saw this as a problem, but Redcloak went with along with it. Redcloak knew all this, but put all his chips on Xykon. Xykon was the way to the plan, and nothing would get in the way. This was the worst choice of all. Because of it, hundreds of goblinoids have died. Redcloak even killed his own brother to preserve the plan and if Redcloak did anything to stop it, all those deaths would have been in vain. And in the greater scheme of things, Redcloak thinks it was all done for the right reasons, even if he knows at times he was doing the wrong thing. It’s tragic in a way. The barer of the Crimson Mantle failed to bring a better life for his people. Right-Eye figured out a way to make it work; to forsake the Dark One’s principles and the plan and live a peaceful life. Redcloak saw there merit in this, but was unable to go for it because of his mistake; Xykon. Xykon came back and impressed the goblins back into his services. Redcloak’s legacy killed the chance the goblin’s had for peace.


This is not the end of Redcloak’s journey. He will keep going, probably until the last book of the comic. He is a flawed person who keeps doing the wrong thing because he thinks it right. And Rich writes him with actual humanity, which is kind of ironic considering how the character hates humans.

This is why I love this comic.

[Froogleyboy]

I bet Right-Eye is looking up and saying "Carma bitch!"

[Assassin89]

It is also significant to note that
As a mortal, the Dark One waged war, perpetuating the cycle of hate, rather than pursuing peaceful means until it was too late for him.

If Redcloak realizes that his brother was right, he might get some sympathy from me.

[beknirvana]

I bet Right-Eye is looking up and saying "Carma bitch!"

Karma is more of a bitch than that. A thought I had after walking away:

SoD SPOILERS
In Start of Darkness the goal of "the plan" was to get a level playing field for goblins by using the snarl as a weapon. Right-Eye abandoned the plan and started his own village free of the plan. As such he got a level playing field and the goblins scratched a living off of it. He got closer to Redcloak's goal than Redcloak ever did and didn't sacrifice a singe goblin to do it. That is karama being a bitch


It is also significant to note that
As a mortal, the Dark One waged war, perpetuating the cycle of hate, rather than pursuing peaceful means until it was too late for him.

If Redcloak realizes that his brother was right, he might get some sympathy from me.

Good catch. I missed that.

[Cracklord]

It is also significant to note that
As a mortal, the Dark One waged war, perpetuating the cycle of hate, rather than pursuing peaceful means until it was too late for him.

If Redcloak realizes that his brother was right, he might get some sympathy from me.

He tried to negotiate and was assassinated.
Viva La Revolution.

[Forbiddenwar]

Excellent analysis. I completely agree and you express it much better than I ever could.

Red cloak's humanity and complexity makes him a full figured character and one of the most memorable villians.

Why do we do anything? Why do heroes and villiand act the way they do?

Because it seems like a good idea at the time.

That is universal.

[Draz74]

As to where it's all leading, my prediction is: Whether or not Redcloak ever gets any kind of redemption at the end of the comic,
he will eventually have to overcome his problem with admitting that something he has already done was a bad decision even if it was for "the Plan."

I guess that's not much of a spoiler, but hey, give me a break; I just barely finally read SoD and I'm still taking in the new information about our villainous characters. :smallwink:

[beknirvana]

It is also significant to note that
As a mortal, the Dark One waged war, perpetuating the cycle of hate, rather than pursuing peaceful means until it was too late for him.
from me.

I had a thought on this relating to a quote Tigh said on Battlestar Galatica: "If you go back far enough then you could blame some virus for splitting in two."

So lets take a look back.

Gods create monster races with the purpose of being inferior, thus betraying them from the start.
The Dark One rises up through war against humans killing hundred, as such angering the human leaders who
at a peace conference, kill The Dark One.
This causes another massive war which rises the Dark One as a god, who was the target of the older gods from the second he gained divinity. The Dark One finds the truth about the creation of monster races and because of this instructs his followers to distrust humans. Until he finds out about the snarl. Then he begins "the plan."
The Crimson Mantle comes into existence and is passed from barer to barer until it finds its way to Redcloak at the slaughtering of his village.
Redcloak attacks Azure city for revenge.
Redcloak is attacked for brutal treatment of the city. 547 foreshadows a possible revolt amongst the people and allows the resistance to retake Azure city. Killing and displacing more hobgoblins. This would continue the cycle again (and mean that Redcloak's actions have lead to the death of more goblins). This conflict goes back to the beginning of time and both sides perpetuate it and neither are willing to let it go. And all it does is hurt more and more people.

I hate speculating (hypocrisy incoming) but I don't think Redcloak is going to be the last bearer of the Crimson Mantle. Xykon has an ace in the hole. What he said to the MitD about if Redcloak betrayed him is a chekhov's gun. Redcloak will not survive until the end of the series. I speculate that Jirix (he has a name, ergo he is important) will pick up the mantle after Redcloak. He seems to have the same idealism as a young Redcloak without the trauma that drives Redcloak to vengeance. He could possibly be the one to break the cycle.

Then again that's just a guess. I don't have much to it so I am totally going to be a paper tiger on this one and not strengthen it.

[Axl_Rose]

The following SPOILER boxes pertain to SOD.

OP, you make some good points. But you also make some inaccurate ones. For one thing, RC was not willing to throw humans into the Snarl; indeed he never did. He was merely bluffing, in the hopes of getting O'chul to say something, anything.

Next, re: your criticism of RC's misguided actions: hindsight is 20/20. Yes, now that we look back on it,

it was a bad idea to turn Xykon into a lich, but you can't blame RC for doing it at the time. At the time it didn't seem like quite that bad an idea. How could one predict that Xykon would have been even more of a prick towards the Goblins?


On a side note, I was always wondering why RC didn't use some of his own spells to blast out? I know he told Right Eye that as a cleric, he didn't have that many destructive spells but surely he had some; afterall, he did have flame strike.


So I wouldn't call RC a complete failure. He did cross the line with the daily torturing of O'chul, though, IMO.

@Assassin89: Something you need to have clarified:


As a mortal, The Dark One did NOT perpetuate the cycle of violence. If anything, he tried to end it peacefully. It was the humans that sent an assassin to kill him during diplomatic negotiations

[beknirvana]

As to where it's all leading, my prediction is: Whether or not Redcloak ever gets any kind of redemption at the end of the comic,
he will eventually have to overcome his problem with admitting that something he has already done was a bad decision even if it was for "the Plan."

I guess that's not much of a spoiler, but hey, give me a break; I just barely finally read SoD and I'm still taking in the new information about our villainous characters. :smallwink:

Thats a tricky question, the notion of redemption.

My gut reaction is that I don't think Redcloak can be redeemed. Re-read Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end. If Redcloak stops Xykon, it would mean that all the dead goblins, the murder of his brother, all of the atrocities on Redcloak's hand will be for naught. And Redcloak doesn't have the balls to accept that.

BUT

What Redcloak said to Jirix makes me rethink that. Redcloak does not trust Xykon at all, and knows exactly how big of a monster he is. And then there is the Chekhov's gun in SoD involving the MitD. That had to be set up there for a reason .

As Soon said, "Redemption is a rare and special thing, after all. It is not for everyone." I think Redcloak may very well die trying to redeem himself. Then again, he may not. Heck, I can even see Redcloak dying before the end of this arc (unlikely, but his deception of Xykon may set off the Chekhov's gun). Just a stray thought.

PS- I am referencing Chekhov's gun alot. The playwright Anton Chekhov said that if there is a gun on stage in act 1, it better go off by act 3. It means that if there is something set up early, it better pay off by the end. Rich knows of this term, and has even played around with it. (the comentary in War and XPs notes that the talisman Celia gave Roy was a red herring disguised as a Chekhov's gun. I don't think Rich would do that twice though).

[The Extinguisher]

I always find the argument against the paladin attack rather shallow. For example, the two survivors were children. And look what happened with that. The Crimson Mantle could have been passed on to any goblin.

Secondly, all hope of Redcloak being a sympathetic villain was shot in the final scene. He is doing this not to make a better world for the goblins, but to appease himself for all the horrible things he's done.

You can complain all you want that the goblin's got the short end of the stick, and that's true, but The Plan is not the best way to go about it, an is far from good intentions. Look at Right-Eye's village. If anything, the goblins should have been working towards that. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. Redcloak had the option to work towards that, but instead chose the path of least resistance.


That's my take on it. I don't see Redcloak as a tragic villain. He brought it upon himself and it's far too late for him to be redeemed. He had his chance and blew it.

[beknirvana]

The following SPOILER boxes pertain to SOD.

OP, you make some good points. But you also make some inaccurate ones. For one thing, RC was not willing to throw humans into the Snarl; indeed he never did. He was merely bluffing, in the hopes of getting O'chul to say something, anything.



Next, re: your criticism of RC's misguided actions: hindsight is 20/20. Yes, now that we look back on it,

it was a bad idea to turn Xykon into a lich, but you can't blame RC for doing it at the time. At the time it didn't seem like quite that bad an idea. How could one predict that Xykon would have been even more of a prick towards the Goblins?


On a side note, I was always wondering why RC didn't use some of his own spells to blast out? I know he told Right Eye that as a cleric, he didn't have that many destructive spells but surely he had some; afterall, he did have flame strike.


So I wouldn't call RC a complete failure. He did cross the line with the daily torturing of O'chul, though, IMO.



Ok- the first one you got me on. But in my defence, I don't think it was a bluff per say. I think Redcloak was willing to throw them in but didn't because:

1) would have been pointless, there was no gain to it. This may be because it was a bluff, or it maybe because Redcloak was wrong and his plan straight up failed.
2) doing it would make him a cleche villain which he hated.
3) by letting them go, he thought (or tried to prove) that he was better than the human, particularly the paladin of the Sapphire Guard. The paladin was willing to let them die, and by letting them go, it was one more mark in Redcloak's mind as to why he was more benevolent than the Sapphire Guard (in itself was wrong, as his plan to break moral backfired, see 547).

Those are fairly weak reasoning I admit, but that's my line of thought.

The second point I don't think I'm wrong on. Check out page 59. Redcloak says he had been kicking around the idea of turning Xykon into a Lich for a year prior to them getting put into that jail. Redcloak had that plan, just the situation forced his hand. And Right-Eye saw it was a bad idea right there, but Redcloak refused to admit he was wrong on that (RC's big hubris, he can't admit he was wrong about anything save for one time and that was interrupted by Xykon).

As to the destructive power of cleric spells- Redcloak has the destruction domain at his disposal, so there may have been something there. But I don't like going there. The old FAQ said "why didn't character do X, Y, or Z action. If he did that then X, Y, or Z wouldn't have happened." Its a self answering question. RC had a plan, went through with it instead of pursuing other means, and as such made a big mistake.

I don't think I'm inaccurate just much as I'm reading it differently and not explaining myself well enough.

[beknirvana]

That's my take on it. I don't see Redcloak as a tragic villain. He brought it upon himself and it's far too late for him to be redeemed. He had his chance and blew it.

I agree with most everything you said except the last part about the tragic villain. I see Redcloak as a tragic villain because he is trying to do the right thing in his mind, but goes about it in a way that makes things worse.

MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR SoD. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET PLEASE DON'T READ THIS.

In SoD, Redcloak is a tragic hero right out of a Greek play. He is spared from the destruction of his village. He takes strength from it (through an artifact given to him by a god), but is cursed with a fatal flaw; his hubris is that he cannot admit he is wrong (as I have said so many times). He strikes up a bargain with Xykon who was at first a tool but became a liability and eventually a master. At times there were opportunities to bail on this, The Plan, Xykon, all of it, but Redcloak never could, because he could not admit he was wrong. Right-Eye had no problem admitting he was wrong, and bailed on the bargain with Xykon, and bailed on the plan and started up a new village. And as you and I both said- it worked. Right-eye had the right idea and Redcloak saw this because all Redcloak ever wanted was that idea of equality. But the possible goblin utopia was crushed by Xykon. That served as a reminder to Redcloak that there was no way out of the deal he made with Xykon- a mistake came back to haunt him. Redcloak could not admit that he was wrong about Xykon or the plan, and in order to protect both he did the most horrible thing he could. But to quote why he did it "I can't allow anything to harm the goblin people...Even you little brother. I'm sorry." If what is right is the future of the goblin people, then Redcloak killed his brother for what he thought were the right reasons." The wrong thing for the right reasons. That is the tragedy of it.

Redcloak is Xykon's bitch because it allows him to justify what he did, but Redcloak is still Redcloak. His goal is still the prosperity of the goblin people and is still going about it as he thinks is best, which is the wrong way. It why he is lying to Xykon to allow the hobgoblins to build up their own nation. It is why he is going along with the plan. The wrong way to the right path, and his hubris prevents him from doing otherwise. I think that counts as tragic.

[The Wanderer]

PS- I am referencing Chekhov's gun alot. The playwright Anton Chekhov said that if there is a gun on stage in act 1, it better go off by act 3. It means that if there is something set up early, it better pay off by the end. Rich knows of this term, and has even played around with it. (the comentary in War and XPs notes that the talisman Celia gave Roy was a red herring disguised as a Chekhov's gun. I don't think Rich would do that twice though).

Personally, I think he might. Rich did say that the prequel books would not be necessary for knowing anything in the main story, it just adds onto our understanding of it. So for anything in SOD to play a big role in the overall story, then at the least theres going to need to be a flashback scene to it in the main comic.

[MReav]

Regarding SOD:

I think Xykon stopped using the Suggestion on the MitD after Redcloak shot down Right-Eye, as he knows Redcloak doesn't have the balls to defy him now.

[Omegonthesane]

Regarding SOD:

I think Xykon stopped using the Suggestion on the MitD after Redcloak shot down Right-Eye, as he knows Redcloak doesn't have the balls to defy him now.
Technically, Xykon's wrong on this count. Redcloak doesn't have the balls to defy the plan, but I'd imagine he'd soon turn on Xykon if a powerful enough caster more sympathetic to his goals joined Team Evil. A gobbo wizard, for example. He could rationalise any earlier failure to pwn Xykon with 'I needed his Cloister to set up the hobgoblin nation' or similar.

Plus, there's still ultimately the fact that Xykon won't be able to control the Snarl when he fulfils his part in Redcloak's plan. That, there, is the biggest betrayal of his trust possible; good thing it's not Xykon's trust that Redcloak lacks the balls to betray.

[Morty]

Man, I hate all those discussions regarding Start of Darkness. I'd love to put my two cents in, but as I haven't read it and I won't, I'd be spouting baseless nonsense for the most time. Still, a question:
I gather that Redcloak's brother managed to make a peaceful goblin village. That's cool. But what do you think are the odds of a larger goblin settlement not being wiped out by adventurers wanting to gain some XP by cleansing a vile nest of evil monsters? That's not a rethorical question.

[Tempest Fennac]

The peaceful village actually seemed to be close to a human settlement due to there being a perminant circus which had a load of humans in the audiance, so a there is a chance that the villae would have grown without any problems.

[beknirvana]

Personally, I think he might. Rich did say that the prequel books would not be necessary for knowing anything in the main story, it just adds onto our understanding of it. So for anything in SOD to play a big role in the overall story, then at the least theres going to need to be a flashback scene to it in the main comic.

I really don't think so. Rich has also said his main storytelling influences is Babylon 5, and one of the key things about Bab 5 was foreshadowing. Things that paid off in Seasons 4 and 5 were set up in Season 1 or 2. Some leads were cool to see pay off in the main comic (the oracle of sunken valley, and the thieves guild were set up in OoPC and the allusions to Dorukan's and Lirian's gate in the main comic were fully explained in SoD) but reading the prequel book(s) was not necessary to enjoy it. It made sense within the enclosure of the main story line but was clarified or set up in the prequel books, which is what I figure is what the intent of having those books be supplemental. However, the thieves guild is a Chekhov's gun that did go off. Those who read OoPC knew about them before the main story line went there. Heck, when Eugine was told he couldn't enter the mountain of in the celestial planes, the text for the reason's why were copy's of panels from SoD and OoPC (colorized for our convince). Again set up, pay off. Durkon's story from OoPC is like that to (to good to even spoil with spoilers, but for those who have read OoPC you know what I'm talking about). That has to be a set up that will pay off later. Rich is using to much foreshadowing in all of his works, prequels included, for anything not to be used. Because of that, I think the prequel books were unsuccessful in their attempts to be supplemental. I can't separate them from the main story because like Bab 5, things set up years ago pay off now (not a dig on the slow update schedule, but there is a lot of story between things). So I think everything in those books is valid as foreshadowing.

[brilliantlight]

In SoD, Redcloak is a tragic hero right out of a Greek play.

I can't argue with you about that. Look at Hercules and Oedipus they had their own weaknesses. One of their main weaknesses is something RC doesn't have which is a very bad temper. That is one advantage he has over them. On the other hand they don't have his genocidal tendencies. Hercules wasn't out there risking the lives of all Greeks and Non-Greeks alike. All in all a character like him could easily fit in a Greek play.

[Volkov]

If right-eye pulled his plan off, the instant that the village would be found by humans, it would be killed with zero survivors.

[Morty]

If right-eye pulled his plan off, the instant that the village would be found by humans, it would be killed with zero survivors.

I haven't read SoD, but I was under the impression the humans were well aware of Right-Eye's village.

[jidasfire]

I haven't read SoD, but I was under the impression the humans were well aware of Right-Eye's village.

They were, and no harm came to the goblins. They sat side-by-side with them at the circus without so much as a funny look.

[Morty]

They were, and no harm came to the goblins. They sat side-by-side with them at the circus without so much as a funny look.

Well, of course, there's the difference between regular humans and crazy tomb-robbers adventurers. But having not read the book, I'll shut up now.

[Volkov]

They were, and no harm came to the goblins. They sat side-by-side with them at the circus without so much as a funny look.

By Humans I meant adventurers.

[Antacid]

You can complain all you want that the goblin's got the short end of the stick, and that's true, but The Plan is not the best way to go about it, an is far from good intentions. Look at Right-Eye's village. If anything, the goblins should have been working towards that. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. Redcloak had the option to work towards that, but instead chose the path of least resistance.
This is the one interpretation of SoD I definitely don't agree with. According to Redcloak's lore as to the origins of goblinkind, staying on the fringes of civilisation is exactly what the Gods created goblins *for*. Righteye's isolationism merely fulfilled the role assigned to him by the Gods as a low-level threat to PC races, albeit a remote one. Even if the village is okay for a while, the status of goblins as a whole is left unchanged, and it's understandable that as high priest of the sole Goblin god Redcloak would take a broader view of the welfare of his species.

And remember, Redcloak's home village was also built in "forsaken wastelands" and we all know how well that turned out. Had he stayed with his brother the Sapphire Guard would probably have been along after a while just like they were for his master, and his master before that, as long as there is a goblin wearing the crimson mantle. So Redcloak would literally have to choose between loyalty to his God and being left in peace... not really a fair choice given he grew up to be a cleric.
Regardless of whether or not the Plan is inherantly evil or just insanely risky, the rationalisation that the problem goblins have is with the original "design" of the world is pretty solid. I'm certainly surprised that anyone would describe taking on the Gods as being the "path of least resistence", just really, really unlikely to succeed. But RC has accepted that: indeed, it pretty much defines his extreme, uncompromising determination.

[jidasfire]

By Humans I meant adventurers.

The problem with this argument is adventurers run the gamut of personalities and motivations. The author certainly calls attention to the fact that many D&D parties seem to do this without so much as a batted eyelash, and perhaps that's true. No good party I've ever played with has ever gone around butchering villages, and I'm of the mind that doing so is in no way good. Goblins and other monsters were created, not by the gods but by the game designers, as easy chunks of XP one could kill without much guilt (because they were designed to be irredeemably evil). Later authors and such have deconstructed the idea and added a more modern bent to it, implying that it's racist or what-have-you to assume a whole species is bad, but that's what they were designed to be. I have no particular feelings on it either way, except that in this case the author implies that they are more human. As far as adventurers in this setting, I care only about the Order of the Stick, and as shown in his own origin story, Roy doesn't just kill people because it's easier than talking to them. Elan, Haley, and Durkon would not either. V, probably not until his/her recent craziness, and Belkar, well, he would but he's not exactly the moral voice of the story.

I suppose you could argue that the entire concept of adventuring, with its fighting and killing and taking of treasure, is somehow innately bad, but if that's the case, why are you reading a comic about a D&D adventuring party?

[Volkov]

The problem with this argument is adventurers run the gamut of personalities and motivations. The author certainly calls attention to the fact that many D&D parties seem to do this without so much as a batted eyelash, and perhaps that's true. No good party I've ever played with has ever gone around butchering villages, and I'm of the mind that doing so is in no way good. Goblins and other monsters were created, not by the gods but by the game designers, as easy chunks of XP one could kill without much guilt (because they were designed to be irredeemably evil). Later authors and such have deconstructed the idea and added a more modern bent to it, implying that it's racist or what-have-you to assume a whole species is bad, but that's what they were designed to be. I have no particular feelings on it either way, except that in this case the author implies that they are more human. As far as adventurers in this setting, I care only about the Order of the Stick, and as shown in his own origin story, Roy doesn't just kill people because it's easier than talking to them. Elan, Haley, and Durkon would not either. V, probably not until his/her recent craziness, and Belkar, well, he would but he's not exactly the moral voice of the story.

I suppose you could argue that the entire concept of adventuring, with its fighting and killing and taking of treasure, is somehow innately bad, but if that's the case, why are you reading a comic about a D&D adventuring party?

Most parties I dm, to my annoyance are, Detect evil, then kill.

[Omegonthesane]

Most parties I dm, to my annoyance are, Detect evil, then kill.

Do they actually play Paladins? Because it sounds to me like you should be saying something like this:
Player: Detect Evil.
DM: OK, the non-hostile gobbos detect as Evil.
Player: I attack the nearest goblin.
DM: Sure?
Player: Sure.
DM: OK. Roll to hit.
Player: *rolls*
DM: You just murdered a peaceful bystander. You fall from grace and lose all your powers.
Or if they aren't Paladins:
DM: You just murdered a peaceful bystander. You are now Neutral/Evil (delete as per your preference)

[SoC175]

It is also significant to note that
As a mortal, the Dark One waged war, perpetuating the cycle of hate, rather than pursuing peaceful means until it was too late for him.

If Redcloak realizes that his brother was right, he might get some sympathy from me.
No, he didn't.

The Dark One never waged war. He wanted peace even though he had the means to wage and win a war. This choice cost him his life.

[hamishspence]

According to Redcloak, yes.

Evn in Dragonlance, one of the most dramatic "Chromatic dragons are the enemy" settings, there were exceptions, in the novels. Ones where the dragon was a help to the heroes rather than a threat.

Given that it was Shojo who, as head of the SG and ruler of Azure City, sent the paladins to destroy goblin villages, Redcloak's holding the whole city responsible makes sense, in the context.

[Morty]

I suppose you could argue that the entire concept of adventuring, with its fighting and killing and taking of treasure, is somehow innately bad, but if that's the case, why are you reading a comic about a D&D adventuring party?

Well, you know, Redcloak's motives and their merit aside, OoTS kind of parodies the standard setup of D&D campaigns.

[Theodoriph]

Maybe Redcloak's missing eye just represents the divine favour bestowed upon him.


All the cool generals lose an eye...like Hannibal.


I'm not really sure why some ancient peoples considered their leaders losing an eye as a good omen or a blessing from the gods. Perhaps they thought that with only one eye, their leaders would be possessed of some kind of inner clarity and be able to see more clearly.

And well if that's the case, perhaps Redcloak will begin being able to see more clearly.

[Trizap]

I bet Right-Eye is looking down and saying "Karma bitch!"

fixed for accuracy.

[The Wanderer]

Well, of course, there's the difference between regular humans and crazy tomb-robbers adventurers. But having not read the book, I'll shut up now.

SOD spoiler:

It is worth noting that towards the end of SOD, there's a flashback scene that shows that Xykon recruited a party of adventurers from PC races to join his army of orges and the goblins from Right Eye's village (and the surrounding ones) that Xykon forcefully recruited.

Despite being part of Xykon's force, the group of adventurers quickly turned on the goblins and began slaughtering them, including Right Eye's wife and two sons. They weren't stopped until Right Eye and Redcloak themselves could arrive and do it.

While it's up to you how to take it, when you combine it with the bit about Roy's first adventuring party from OOtPCs, (who intended to wipe out a group of young ogres who were just waiting around to watch a concert, and were completely puzzled by Roy resolving the situation peacefully rather than just killing the mosters for XP) it seems doubtful that some adventurer wouldn't have raided the village sooner or later.

[Optimystik]

SOD spoiler:

It is worth noting that towards the end of SOD, there's a flashback scene that shows that Xykon recruited a party of adventurers from PC races to join his army of orges and the goblins from Right Eye's village (and the surrounding ones) that Xykon forcefully recruited.

Despite being part of Xykon's force, the group of adventurers quickly turned on the goblins and began slaughtering them, including Right Eye's wife and two sons. They weren't stopped until Right Eye and Redcloak themselves could arrive and do it.

While it's up to you how to take it, when you combine it with the bit about Roy's first adventuring party from OOtPCs, (who intended to wipe out a group of young ogres who were just waiting around to watch a concert, and were completely puzzled by Roy resolving the situation peacefully rather than just killing the mosters for XP) it seems doubtful that some adventurer wouldn't have raided the village sooner or later.

You misread Right-Eye's statement: "And why were any of them in the camp in the first place? Because Xykon drafted them!"

He was referring to his family that got put in harm's way, not the random adventurers that showed up to attack the goblins for some free exp. Xykon stayed out of the fight because he's a bastard, not because there was a conflict of interest of some kind. You can even see him chuckling on the hilltop during the carnage.

[The Wanderer]

You misread Right-Eye's statement: "And why were any of them in the camp in the first place? Because Xykon drafted them!"

He was referring to his family that got put in harm's way, not the random adventurers that showed up to attack the goblins for some free exp. Xykon stayed out of the fight because he's a bastard, not because there was a conflict of interest of some kind. You can even see him chuckling on the hilltop during the carnage.

Huh, that is a possibility. Can't double check it because my copy of SOD is out on loan, but I thought I remembered something where Right Eyes said Xykon invited the adventurers.