"Goblins" vs. goblins in OotS

[Ancalagon]

I feel so stupid for just realising it now, but the Goblins from "goblinscomic.com" have the very same problem as the Goblins in OotS.
They are nothing but cheap xp and as Redcloak, they think they want to do something about it, they just do not accept their low role in the world.

But in contrast to Redcloak, they chose a different approach: They chose to take levels and become good adventurers. Redcloak on the other hand feels he has the right to crush all humans and everyone who stands in his way to achieve his goal (having more freedom than he "should" have, based on how the world is supposed to work).

I find that is a rather interesting difference, while the same reasons stand behind the descisions to "stop being a victim". Maybe Redcloak should have a serious talk with those other guys?

[hamishspence]

Redcloak has thought about trying peaceful means: SoD

Redcloak was tempted to try the "settle down in a peaceful village, going along to get along" approach in SoD. Then Xykon turned up, dragooned the goblins of that village into his service, and torched the buildings.

The "Good adventurer" approach would be highly tricky, given the attitudes of some of the characters in OOTS,

SOD:
Eugene, speaking of Xykon killing his minions for his own amusement:"A bunch of evil humanoids? Sounds like a fate they richly deserve- what's the problem?"


or for orcs in Origin:

Paladin:"They're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment problems"

[Azukar]

Redcloak was tempted to try the "settile down in a peaceful village, going along to get along" approach in SoD. Then Xykon turned up, dragooned the goblins of that village into his service, and torched the buildings.


Can anyone say, "Spoiler Tags"?

[Ancalagon]

"A bunch of evil humanoids? Sounds like a fate they richly deserve- what's the problem?"
or for orcs
"They're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment problems"

Well, that's the same for Goblins. You even have an "evil paladin" over there, who can kill them without falling because of that.

[hamishspence]

yes- SoD is pretty well known here now, but if spoilers are necessary, I've put them in spoiler tags.

[Dagren]

yes- SoD is pretty well known here now, but if spoilers are necessary, I've put them in spoiler tags.I thought the convention was that anything from the books is usually spoilered? I'm pretty sure that covers your quotes too.

[RMS Oceanic]

Dagren has it right. Unless you explicitly state that there are SoD/OTOOPCs spoilers in the threat title, you should spoiler the stuff.

[hamishspence]

Done: Though a thread talking about Redcloaks attitudes and activities is the sort of think one would expect to have spoilers in.

[yanmaodao]

I feel so stupid for just realising it now, but the Goblins from "goblinscomic.com" have the very same problem as the Goblins in OotS.
They are nothing but cheap xp and as Redcloak, they think they want to do something about it, they just do not accept their low role in the world.

But in contrast to Redcloak, they chose a different approach: They chose to take levels and become good adventurers. Redcloak on the other hand feels he has the right to crush all humans and everyone who stands in his way to achieve his goal (having more freedom than he "should" have, based on how the world is supposed to work).

I find that is a rather interesting difference, while the same reasons stand behind the descisions to "stop being a victim". Maybe Redcloak should have a serious talk with those other guys?

Agreed, which is why Redcloak, though sympathetic, is still Evil. In fact, we don't even have to compare across comics. There is a clear difference between Redcloak and Right-Eye, I feel.

[Ancalagon]

Agreed, which is why Redcloak, though sympathetic, is still Evil. In fact, we don't even have to compare across comics. There is a clear difference between Redcloak and Right-Eye, I feel.

Redcloak is "evil", not "Evil". Since you talk about Redcloak and Righteye, I assume you know the difference. ;)

[Morty]

Goblins from the Goblins comic aren't exactly doing great at the moment. They're still targets in the eyes of "civilized humanoids", they're just strong targets rather than 1/3 CR mooks. So perhaps their method isn't so good either.

[Kurald Galain]

I feel so stupid for just realising it now, but the Goblins from "goblinscomic.com" have the very same problem as the Goblins in OotS.
Um, how about "no"? Redcloak is a high priest, ruler of his own city, and leader of a medium nation, and owes this ascension mostly to himself. The goblins-goblins are just low-level cannon fodder, and owe their survival mostly to a series of deus ex machinas, and the fact that humans in that comic aren't all that bright.

[Ancalagon]

How about a "simply no"?


Um, how about "no"? Redcloak is a high priest, ruler of his own city, and leader of a medium nation, and owes this ascension mostly to himself.

A) "The Goblins" are not ruler of a city, leader of a medium nation. That's NOT how "the goblins" started. They were just the cannon fodder you mention below and apart from the hobgoblin-tribe Redcloak is with right now, they stull are.
Also "Redcoak" does not equal "the goblins".


The goblins-goblins are just low-level cannon fodder, and owe their survival mostly to a series of deus ex machinas, and the fact that humans in that comic aren't all that bright.

And... how exactly is that differnt from the goblins who live in places that are worse than those of the dirt-farmers?

[King of Nowhere]

I never read "goblins", but the status of those that are labelled as "evil humanoids" is one of the biggest flaws of the standard fantasy setting.
I mean, in the Lord of the rings they just appear to get massacred by the heroes. They only serve as enemy. No one ask them what they would like, why they fight, if it could be solved with words. They live in awful places I never understood what they were supposed to eat. Ok, Lotr mentions they have farms with slaves in the south of Mordor, while I never saw that explained in forgotten realms (I never read it, only played videogames taking place in it. But I'm pretty sure the goblins living in the spine of the world near Icewind dale should never be able to grow enough to threaten the humans).
It's not so strange to think they would dream a better world, and try to achieve it with various means.

[Tingel]

I never read "goblins", but the status of those that are labelled as "evil humanoids" is one of the biggest flaws of the standard fantasy setting.
I mean, in the Lord of the rings they just appear to get massacred by the heroes. They only serve as enemy. No one ask them what they would like, why they fight, if it could be solved with words.
In LotR orcs etc. have no free will, no sense for morality, beauty, sanctity or mercy. They are unholy creations, perversions of nature and everything that is good and holy. They only hate, they only destroy. They are actual monsters. Considering this, there is no ethical problem with killing them.

Modern D&D has turned all evil races into strange-looking humans, creating something along the lines of Star Trek's racial cabinet. Tolkien however did it right, so your criticism of his work is unfounded.

[Calinero]

Actually, it was apparently one of Tolkien's greatest regrets that he created an entire race of intelligent creatures that were all, without exception, irredeemably evil. It didn't sit well with him. But yes, they were basically creations of evil, not beings that could in theory choose to become good.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I don't know how to cut so SPOILER


:redcloak: is a sympathetic villion, but he is still evil. When push comes to shove; he is not going to heaven, he has a long list of crimes, the least of which is throwing away the lives of millions of Goblins, allowing :xykon: to do it even before he became a lynch.

And lets not forget murdering his own brother who had wanted nothing more then to end :xykon: after :xykon: had caused the death of his son; :redcloak:'s nephew.

The Gobin's are without a doubt good; would come up good if a paladin used detect evil; no lead sheet required. One of them is even a paladin; a really awesome paladin that could someday become O'Chul's apprentice (once he hits level 15 or so).
They avoid killing more then is needed; and are fighting a clearly evil foe.
I suspect that if they ever met, there would be some awesome dialogue, and then they would have to kill :redcloak:.

[SadisticFishing]

Nah, the Goblins goblins aren't actually Evil. The OotS ones, as a general rule, are. It may be because the Universe made them so, but that changes not the fact that they ARE usually neutral evil.

[Tingel]

before he became a lynch.
A sympothic lynch?

[Callista]

Remember "usually neutral evil" just means that that's the most common alignment. Humans could be pegged as "usually true neutral", and you can see how many people deviate from that. Some evil aligned creatures don't outright deserve death; some can be redeemed; some simply don't need to be killed because there's some other way to stop them from hurting anyone. It's not so easy as just looking it up in the monster manual... well, not unless you're talking about fiends and such. Being made of the essence of evil is a pretty safe bet that it's up to no good.


Well, that's the same for Goblins. You even have an "evil paladin" over there, who can kill them without falling because of that.Yeah, Kore is probably a paladin of tyranny or something. The morality in the Goblins world is nowhere near THAT gray.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Humans could be pegged as "usually true neutral", and you can see how many people deviate from that. .

Humans could be pegged. They aren't. "Often true neutral" would be more accurate, and even that label is off the mark. "Often (alignment)" is the weakest form of racial adherence to said alignment - and dwarves have "often lawful good", meaning that 60% of the time they won't be lawful good (usually some other lawful) Humans aren't true neutral enough to be described as "often" or "usually" as the MM describes them. Don't use a dictionary definition when there's a definition in the rules. (EDIT: Since it's not obvious in the SRD, the specific MM page is 305. Usually is >50%, which I strongly object to with humans and true neutral. Often is a plurality (40% or so), and Always is always, with unique or rare exceptions.)

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

@ Tingel: He was not always undead. When :xykon: met :redcloak: & :roach:
he was human.

[tribble]

@ Tingel: He was not always undead. When :xykon: met :redcloak: & :roach:
he was human.

he was making fun of a spelling error.

[King of Nowhere]

In LotR orcs etc. have no free will, no sense for morality, beauty, sanctity or mercy. They are unholy creations, perversions of nature and everything that is good and holy. They only hate, they only destroy. They are actual monsters. Considering this, there is no ethical problem with killing them.

Modern D&D has turned all evil races into strange-looking humans, creating something along the lines of Star Trek's racial cabinet. Tolkien however did it right, so your criticism of his work is unfounded.

Maybe I recall incorrectly, but weren't the orcs free willed? The first orcs were generated by dark magic, but now? Do they keep being generated by magic, or do they birth as normal people? The movie shows them being generated, but in the book there's no mention of it. Anyway, if that's the case, I retreat my criticism. I have no problems accepting that from creatures that are magically bounded, as I accept from trollocs.
In the other case, my point stands.
Still, in D&D setting orcs are normal creatures with no magical influence on them, and I'm mostly referring to it.

[Seonor]

Universal Goblin Solidarity (http://erfworld.com/store/Universal-Goblin-Solidarity.html).

[Yiuel]

Actually, it was apparently one of Tolkien's greatest regrets that he created an entire race of intelligent creatures that were all, without exception, irredeemably evil. It didn't sit well with him. But yes, they were basically creations of evil, not beings that could in theory choose to become good.

Somehow, when I read LotR, especially the arc between Frodo's capture and the two hobbits' final encounter with orcs, I sensed that Tolkien was just about to give them a more mixed nature. Shagrat and Gorbag don't seem lacking free-will or whatever has been said about orcs in the Professor's books. Instead, they remind me of our friend Redcloak, people unjustly treated as cannon fodder by a higher power.

[vincible]

Maybe I recall incorrectly, but weren't the orcs free willed? The first orcs were generated by dark magic, but now? Do they keep being generated by magic, or do they birth as normal people? The movie shows them being generated, but in the book there's no mention of it. Anyway, if that's the case, I retreat my criticism. I have no problems accepting that from creatures that are magically bounded, as I accept from trollocs.

They were created by Morgoth (Sauron's old boss) twisting and corrupting elves. Now they breed normally. In the trilogy, they're all influenced magically by Sauron, and it's not clear what they'd be like without that influence. In light of their origins they'd still probably not be "nice" but they would perhaps not be as nasty.

[Ancalagon]

Orcs in Tolkien's works had free will.

"Orcs" is just a symbol for a certain behaviour. Cutting down trees for fun or without real need or for greed, burning tires, destroying the environment, not being gentle with what grows, being rude and cruel... all that is what "orcs" are. Tolkien was more thinking of humans and the industrialisation instead of some fantasy-creatures when he wrote about "orcs".

You can become an orc, too. So being an orc was never about free will at all.

[Random832]

"Orcs" is just a symbol for a certain behaviour. Cutting down trees for fun or without real need or for greed, burning tires, destroying the environment, not being gentle with what grows, being rude and cruel... all that is what "orcs" are. Tolkien was more thinking of humans and the industrialisation instead of some fantasy-creatures when he wrote about "orcs".

Nope. Tolkien didn't do allegory. The orcs were orcs.

[Ancalagon]

Nope. Tolkien didn't do allegory. The orcs were orcs.

Nope: Read the his 4th-age material from the Forgotten Tales. Orcs are exactly what I described.

edit: Ok, orcs are of course orcs and no men in the story, but you might be aware that a story can carry more content than what is exactly written. Orcs can be orcs, but they still can carry an allegory to the real world. And Tolkiens works are FULL of that. If "Isengard" isn't a sign of the industrialisation (especially in the context of what Saruman does to the shire (read the books, it's not in the movies) and if the men who come there under his command are not "orcs"... the "shire-eiplogue" is one of the most important things of the story, since it shows "he, people, look: This is NOT only about slaughtering evil orcs, those orcs and what they stand for... that's in us and our chosing if we want to live in such a world", sadly, there was no space for that in the movies.

Also, orcs are "perverted elves". Now take a look at what elves are in Tolkiens works (that also has the consequence why they HAD to leave the world before turning it over to men (at the end of the third age), a world, which became our world in the end), and tell me again "orcs" are not "a symbol for anything".

[Tingel]

Orcs in Tolkien's works had free will.

"Orcs" is just a symbol for a certain behaviour. Cutting down trees for fun or without real need or for greed, burning tires, destroying the environment, not being gentle with what grows, being rude and cruel... all that is what "orcs" are. Tolkien was more thinking of humans and the industrialisation instead of some fantasy-creatures when he wrote about "orcs".

You can become an orc, too. So being an orc was never about free will at all.

On what source are you basing this? Nowhere in Tolkien have I ever encountered anything along those lines.

"If you're rude and cruel and disregard the environment, you turn into an orc."

That's what you claim, but it seems to contradict the books.

Orcs are the way you described, but you confuse cause and effect. You behave like an orc because you are one; you do not become an orc because you behave like one.


Also, lacking free will doesn't mean that the orc is mind-controlled or anything. An animal also doesn't have free will, but that doesn't mean its actions are controlled by someone else. Instead, it simply follows its instincts, its nature, without the ability to determine who and what it wants to be. An orc is violent and destructive, it can only hate. It cannot feel love, pity or joy, and it doesn't understand the concepts of friendship, beauty or sanctity. Everything an orc does not understand it hates, and everything it hates it seeks to destroy. That is how Tolkien described his orcs, and that is how they should be in my opinion. Orcs are monsters.

If however orcs are basically just ugly, angry humans (as modern D&D says), then they obviously have the same dignity and the same rights as any other humanoid.

[Ancalagon]

On what source are you basing this? Nowhere in Tolkien have I ever encountered anything along those lines.

Check out my post on the last page, if you did not see it. Also, Isengard, someone? That's the smoking, english chimneys of the upcoming industry in the early 20th century... and if you say you did not read it in the lord of the rings, you really should read it again. You might find lots of subcontext in and in between the lines.

And if you want, you can google for stuff around Tolkiens works, there's quite some research on him and his works and meanings of his works out there. (Apart from his own words in his letters and forgotten tales, that is).

[Random832]

...but they still can carry an allegory to the real world. And Tolkiens works are FULL of that.

Says you.
Tolkien hated allegory - why would he write it?

[Ancalagon]

Ok, sorry, it was "The Peoples of Middle-Earth":

"If the smallest child of a woodman feels the cold of the winter, the proudest tree is not wronged, if it is bidden to surrender its flesh to warm the child with fire. But the child must not mar the tree in play or spite, rip its bark or break its branches. And the good husbandman will use first, if he can, dead wood or and old tree; he will not fell a young tree and leave it to rot, for no better reason than his pleasure in axe-play. That is orkish.
[...] the roos of Evil lie deep, and from far off comes the poison that works in us, so that many do these things - at times, and become indeed like the servants of Melkor. But the Orcs did thse things all the times; thy did harm with delight to all things that could suffer it, and they where restrained only by lack of power, not by either prudence or mercy."

Tolkien on what orcs were and men (to use his term) can surely be the same. It's not about orcs, it's about "evil".

[Tingel]

Your arguments are missing the point. I never intended to cast any doubt on your claim that orcs (as one of their many aspects) somewhat personify the destruction of the countryside in the wake of the industrialisation (see my above post). Orcs are destroyers without any sense of beauty or sanctity (see my above post).

What I am contesting is your surprising claim that being an orc is basically a way of life. You claim that if I act like one, I am one. That is what I am asking for a source for.


EDIT concerning you last post: Humans that act like orcs are described as orcish as a metaphor, just like in the real world we can call a gluttonous person lacking self-control a pig. Yet he is not really a pig, he is a man.

You seem to miss the metaphorical point.

[Ancalagon]

Says you.
Tolkien hated allegory - why would he write it?

Who said he hated allegory? And even if he hated it, the books are full of it. He hated all the things that destroyed nature and peace (he claimed to be an hobbit).

[Ancalagon]

What I am contesting is your surprising claim that being an orc is basically a way of life. You claim that if I act like one, I am one. That is what I am asking for a source for.

Ah, ok. I phrased badly in that regard. You do not become "physically" an orc, you only become "like an orc" or become "basically an orc", but of course you do not "transform into one and grow long, bad ears".
What I mean that "being orcish" is a way of life that you can follow. And, if you basically behave like an orc, where's the big difference? It's there, but slim...

[Tingel]

Ah, ok. I phrased badly in that regard. You do not become "physically" an orc, you only become "like an orc" or become "basically an orc", but of course you do not "transform into one and grow long, bad ears".
What I mean that "being orcish" is a way of life that you can follow. And, if you basically behave like an orc, where's the big difference? It's there, but slim...
If a person (a man, a hobbit, a dwarf, an elf) behaves like an orc, he is evil, but it is his free choice. He can be redeemed, since it is not his nature to be orcish, it is his sin.

An orc however is orcish due to his nature, and he does not have a choice about the matter. He cannot be reformed, he cannot repent, since he isn't even able to grasp the moral dimension of his actions. He is more akin to a very smart and violent animal than to a evil person.


However, considering your last post it seems our views aren't that far apart after all.

[Random832]

Who said he hated allegory?
the man himself. (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/tolkien.htm)


And even if he hated it, the books are full of it.
Again - says you.


He hated all the things that destroyed nature and peace (he claimed to be an hobbit).

[Ancalagon]

Again - says you.

Well, a) not only me and b) please check what you quote: That one is about allegorys in regard to the second World War. It's known he did not intend it to be an allegory to that event in world history.
It does not say anything about his views on the side effects of industrial development. Which are clearly shown as negative in the books. Add that he hated modern loud technology (cars, even wikipedia references that) and you get a picture.

He also, in your link, speaks about his work "in general", not parts of it. The LotR (according to him, and I agree there) has no "final message or hidden meaning". That does not mean some parts of it cannot mean something, that your views are not reflected in a work you write (you want to tell me you can write 1000 pages about the basic struggle of good vs. evil and NONE of your views sneak in?).
The posted link simply does not apply to what I claimed, neither pro nor contra, at least I see it that way.
The contrasting work that DOES have a message "in general" would be the Narnia Chronicles and I think Tolkien did not like it for that very reason (he did not and that also destroyed his friendship to Lewis), the Lord of the Rings has no message as the Chronicles and comes without all those christian symbols, but that's still not changing the very strong subcontext of critical views on a bad use/destruction of nature.)

[FeAnPi]

Well, the whole Tolkien thread topic is very interesting but... is it IT?

Wouldn't be better to open a new thread in order (otS) to discuss about that subject?

[vincible]

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27748.html

Tolkien made his opinion clear on a number of occasions, google them.

[multilis]

On Tolkien - seems to me you agree on the details and spirit, but simply disagree on what shade of "allegory"/parallel to pick.

Tolkien like all other fantasy author did take ideas and parallels from our world and stick in his value system (eg Gandalf and Frodo explaining why not to kill Gollum), yet did not intend a 1:1 "allegory" with a *specific* real world situation. (In contrast his friend C. S. Lewis did do 1:1 allegory in Chronicles of Narnia) [Industrialization could apply to England, Roman Empire, and many other situations]

On evil, part of defining in OOTS which could be applied to "judging" goblins would be "disproportionate revenge for imagined slights".

[Ancalagon]

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27748.html

Tolkien made his opinion clear on a number of occasions, google them.

I already addressed that quote earlier. And, a single line of quote, ripped from its context does not count nothing, but, well, not really much more.
Also, that he disliked it does not mean it's not in there. Authors write much more than they actually intent to write, that's just a result of "being the one who writes it".
While I agree Tolkien is correct in the regard there's no allegory in regard to religion(s) or WWII, there is one in regard to the industrialisation - him liking that or not.

[Random832]

Well, a) not only me and b) please check what you quote: That one is about allegorys in regard to the second World War.

No, it's in response to a claim about that, but what he said is clearly about allegories in general.


It does not say anything about his views on the side effects of industrial development.

whatever his views are, the books are not an allegory for them.


While I agree Tolkien is correct in the regard there's no allegory in regard to religion(s) or WWII, there is one in regard to the industrialisation - him liking that or not.

It can't be an allegory without him meaning to put it in - it's a reader interpretation at most, and that says more about the reader than about the writer.

[multilis]

You *both* agree that views expressed in LOTR may be influenced by his view of industrialization of areas including England *and* that this influence may not have been an intentional 1:1 allegory of England.

[Texas_Ben]

It can't be an allegory without him meaning to put it in - it's a reader interpretation at most, and that says more about the reader than about the writer.

What the author intends means nothing at all. The only thing that matters is what the reader gets out of it.

[SadisticFishing]

What the author intends means nothing at all. The only thing that matters is what the reader gets out of it.

Um.. what?

[Devils_Advocate]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that in an alternate universe, someone else wrote Lord of the Rings, exactly as it is in our universe, but the author there fully intended for it to be packed with allegory.

It's exactly the same collection of words in both cases, but authorial intent is different. Does that make it (or them) two different works, rather than the same work produced for different reasons?

If a reading of a work conflicts with the author's intent, does that make it an invalid reading? If so, invalid in what sense?