Confusion about the evil races *SOD spoilers*

[Xantospoc]

I have to ask such a question.


One of the main problem in the OotS world is the problem that the always evil race have been created as XP fodder for heroes and the Dark One wants to stop this, thinking that, if the Snarl is going to unmake the world, he may be able to say his opinion and give more equality among Evil races.

Yet there are already Evil Gods: Tiamat, Loki, the Rat... what were they doing when they created their own race. Couldn't they protest before against the other Gods, or at least find some loophole to avoid this situation


I love Rich's work, but when I read SOD (or rather, the spoiler of SOD) this has come up as something which bugs me. I don't want to consider it a plot hole, but I'd like to have it clarified....

[Morquard]

I have to ask such a question.


One of the main problem in the OotS world is the problem that the always evil race have been created as XP fodder for heroes and the Dark One wants to stop this, thinking that, if the Snarl is going to unmake the world, he may be able to say his opinion and give more equality among Evil races.

Yet there are already Evil Gods: Tiamat, Loki, the Rat... what were they doing when they created their own race. Couldn't they protest before against the other Gods, or at least find some loophole to avoid this situation


I love Rich's work, but when I read SOD (or rather, the spoiler of SOD) this has come up as something which bugs me. I don't want to consider it a plot hole, but I'd like to have it clarified....
You seriously consider Dragons (Tiamat's guys) to be XP fodder for low level heroes? :)
And the DO doesnt want to destroy the world, but rather blackmail the other gods into goblin-equallity

[Ancalagon]

I have to ask such a question.


One of the main problem in the OotS world is the problem that the always evil race have been created as XP fodder for heroes and the Dark One wants to stop this, thinking that, if the Snarl is going to unmake the world, he may be able to say his opinion and give more equality among Evil races.

Yet there are already Evil Gods: Tiamat, Loki, the Rat... what were they doing when they created their own race. Couldn't they protest before against the other Gods, or at least find some loophole to avoid this situation


I love Rich's work, but when I read SOD (or rather, the spoiler of SOD) this has come up as something which bugs me. I don't want to consider it a plot hole, but I'd like to have it clarified....

Your confusion comes from a mistake you make:
The "evil races" were never created as "xp fodder for lowbies". The goblin-races were created as that.
"Evil races" contains the "goblin races" as subcategory, but they are not equal. So, the evil gods were totally fine with creating new, xp-fodder races - an evil cleric starts on level one in the same way as a good cleric does.

[Optimystik]

The thread is spoilered so I see no need to spoiler my post.

The goblins were actually created by the good deities. We see Tiger and Freya discussing the ridiculous level adjustment on hobgoblins, for instance, and later (after his apotheosis), the Dark One is seen yelling at Marduk about the suboptimal Monster PC rules.

[NerfTW]

As pointed out, the issue is not all evil races, it's the low level mooks that inhabit caves, dungeons, and swamps that are the bread and butter of any level one adventure.

They were created to allow clerics and druids the ability to level up, and are therefore forced to stay scattered, weak, and easy prey. The Dark One tried to change this initially by forming a goblin nation, but was assassinated.
(One can assume that while no mortals know the real origin of the goblins/kobolds/etc, they are savvy enough to understand that no weak low level mooks = no high level clerics)

It's not really that they were created as XP fodder, it's that they were purposely placed in a position where they wouldn't be able to gain enough of a foothold to form cities or protection.

[Jaltum]

The truth is, it is kind of weird, and we don't know. The flip side of this is that it's weird that the Good deities agreed to create evil races for such a flippant purpose.

My pet theory is that early on the gods didn't take their world very seriously; 'good' and 'evil' gods worked together cheerfully, and treated mortals like toys. This changed, later, for whatever reason. We know Tiamat became the patron deity of the lowly kobolds, for instance. I figure the Good gods may regret creating the goblinoids and other monstrous races now, but it's too late to undo it by divine means.


The "evil races" were never created as "xp fodder for lowbies". The goblin-races were created as that.

Not so. Kobolds, orcs and lizardmen, too, and many others in other books.

[Sotharsyl]

As previously explained only a subcategory of the evil races were formed as xp fodders I have not read SoD, but I know the general gist of it yet not knowing which gods of what alligment created the fodder races I propose 2 fan theories:
Good option: good gods created the fodders but thought "hey my people are good compasionate seeking power for powers sake is neutral/evil they'll need a motive to kill them, me the god saying so may not convince them all stupid evil gods their followers kill so easilly they'l jump on this and the good guys will get left behind, stupid evil gods I would destroy them to end their evil but we're equal in power wait a minute":smallbiggrin:
Evil option:"-Yes I created this race so our guys will level up faster,what do you mean senseles lose of life...Look I'l make them evil ,your conscience allows you the "destoying evil" excuse right":smallamused:

[Kish]

The truth is, it is kind of weird, and we don't know. The flip side of this is that it's weird that the Good deities agreed to create evil races for such a flippant purpose.

My pet theory is that early on the gods didn't take their world very seriously; 'good' and 'evil' gods worked together cheerfully, and treated mortals like toys. This changed, later, for whatever reason. We know Tiamat became the patron deity of the lowly kobolds, for instance. I figure the Good gods may regret creating the goblinoids and other monstrous races now, but it's too late to undo it by divine means.
I find it effectively impossible to believe that the good gods couldn't tell their worshipers, "Start treating goblins like a PC race," if they universally agreed they wanted to.

[Jaltum]

It's not just how other races treat them, though; it's an entire self-perpetuating system. Redcloak says the gods gave them "every geographic, economic and even physical disadvantage they could think of to ensure that they would cling to the outskirts of other civilizations in their hovels and act as raiders and brigands."

We can't take Redcloak's word as gospel, but that does seem to be the case.

EDIT: And we can't be sure even the Good gods agree that the right answer is to greet them with open arms. The Twelve Gods seem a-okay with goblin massacres, definitely. But that could still be a manifestation of regret.

Or not, of course, but I feel like if the comic ends without ever addressing this very nasty piece of work by the supposedly Good gods SOMEHOW, things are going to feel... off.

EDIT2:

As previously explained only a subcategory of the evil races were formed as xp fodders

The default PC races are all good or neutral. But you're right--it's probably more important to Loki to get a high-powered evil human cleric than to nurture the potential evil of a lizardman civilization. Evil can beat up on Evil without becoming Good, after all, so the alignment of the fodder races is irrelevant to the gods. They just happen to be evil because their role as brigands and raiders is evil.

[David Argall]

This is common thinking, but what is being assumed here is that propaganda is fact.

Redcloak tells us the story the evil races like to believe. There is no reason to think this is at all accurate. There is reason to think it false.

Think about it. The good races are the ones doing the killing and oppressing of the evil races? Does that really make sense?
Nor does it fit the facts of the comic. Our evil races act in evil manner. The other races do not show the claimed hostility to the evil races. The prime case also comes from SoD. Right-eye's village is close to a much larger population of humans, within a day's march at the most. Yet the village has not been attacked in over a decade, and Right-Eye has no problem in bringing his children into the midst of a host of humans. By Redcloak's story, that village is free XP, just waiting to be harvested, but nobody is attacking. The village is surviving until Xykon shows up.
Right-eye tells us that a major difference is that the village is not raiding the humans. In other words, it is not humans harvesting the evil races for XP, but a situation of tolerance [of unknown degree] where the evil races are not attacked until they act in an evil manner [which is how they routinely act].

Redcloak may well believe what he is saying, but we should not.

[hamishspence]

In both SoD, and Origin of PCs, the presumption appears to go the other way- orcs being attacked just because they are there, rather than anyone trying to find of why they are there, until Roy enquires.

Paladins conducting campaigns into the swamps to drive out the goblins, after they have driven the into the swamps.

War & XPs
Adventurers responding to the "kobold menaces halfling" advert with no enquiries whatsoever as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.

"Redcloak's story is propaganda" is a hypothesis- and, if anything, the balance of evidence that we see argues for Redcloak's story being true, not against.

[Optimystik]

Right-eye tells us that a major difference is that the village is not raiding the humans. In other words, it is not humans harvesting the evil races for XP, but a situation of tolerance [of unknown degree] where the evil races are not attacked until they act in an evil manner [which is how they routinely act].

Yet Redcloak's village didn't do anything wrong either, and they were attacked. You could make the argument that they were harboring the mantle-bearer, but the children didn't deserve slaughter for that.

There's also the humans' attitude toward the orcs in Origin. (OtOoPCs spoilers:)

Paladin: "We're almost to the town of Nextdoor, where the mayor has hired us to wipe out a camp of orcs."
Roy: "Have they been raiding the area?"
Paladin: "Sort of. They attacked the General Store in town, and killed 3 parties of adventurers before us."

Later we find out that the orcs didn't attack the store. ("Storekeeper scream! Run away. Gronk left copper pieces on counter and returned to camp.") In addition, each party of adventurers attacked the orcs first.

That attitude fits Redcloak's story perfectly, and gives us reason to believe it.

EDIT:


War & XPs
Adventurers responding to the "kobold menaces halfling" advert with no enquiries whatsoever as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.

That, too. Curse you ninja, etc. :smallwink:

[Jaltum]

For the record, I don't think Redcloak's story is the last word on the subject. It casts too much of a dystopian pall on the rest of the comic world. But it does raise questions that need to be answered to remove that pall, and if the answer is "Oh, well, none of that's true," it won't be very satisfying. The time for a solution that facile would've been in SoD, with Redcloak rejecting it.

We get far too little exposition about the origins of the world to have some of it turn out to be flat-out false. Incomplete, on the other hand, is completely believable.

Right-Eye's village only proves that some humans, at least, are capable of living in peace with goblins/don't have the XP fodder mindset, when they are interacting with goblins who have enough resources to live in peace. Which we knew already; Roy in OtOoPCs is another example. Redcloak's relatively high level probably helps them both to have enough resources and to live in peace; he's a Rogue, after all, and probably can make a pretty decent Bluff/Diplomacy check.

I do wonder what would've become of Right-Eye's village if Xykon hadn't shown up when he did, since Redcloak killed humans stealing the MitD. (And it's interesting that Ridi is not only okay/wants in on the theft, which is unsurprising--his dad being a rogue--but looks on with a smirk as Redcloak kills them, despite a lifetime living in peace with humans.)

[Beren]

I'm thinking that a lot of the philosophical incongruities in OOTS is an intentional joke that reflects some of the consequences of what the world would be like if it went by D&D rules; in particular, the consequence of simply assigning the labels "good" and "evil" to individuals and races without any nuance of thought or shades of grey or consideration of circumstances. At least, that's my take on it: it's a joke, and I'm actually quite amused by it.

[Optimystik]

The mistake the gods made in SoD was not creating a fodder race, but making that race fully sentient and self-aware. Giving something the capacity for hopes and dreams, then designating it as target practice for your other creations is shortsighted at best, and downright cruel at worst.


I do wonder what would've become of Right-Eye's village if Xykon hadn't shown up when he did, since Redcloak killed humans stealing the MitD. (And it's interesting that Ridi is not only okay/wants in on the theft, which is unsurprising--his dad being a rogue--but looks on with a smirk as Redcloak kills them, despite a lifetime living in peace with humans.)

Technically, he smirks at the Shatter, not necessarily the death of the humans. He seems pleased at any magical display (observe his reactions to the cloak, Insect Plague, and being healed later,) and they didn't die when Redcloak cast the spell. In any case, Ridi is the family rebel and his attitude is not necessarily indicative of the other goblins'.

Further proof of Ridi's attitude toward magic: "Dad, Uncle was awesome! He summoned a bug swarm, and fried some poodles, and-" Not, notably, "Uncle was awesome! He killed those humans!"

[Larkspur]

And the circus people were keeping the sentient MitD in a box and using him for unpaid labor. The MitD isn't bright enough to see a problem with this, but the goblin kids might be, so Ridi would have reasonable grounds for disliking the circus people.

Back to the original point- those chromatic dragons need to eat, you know. The evil gods seemed to support the Dark One because he's a potentially useful game changer rather than out of any particular sympathy for his cause. They're evil, after all. It's not going to bother them that some race is being used for XP fodder. Why wouldn't they agree to create some goblinoids to level up their clerics?

Heck, for all we know, the goblinoids were originally Loki's idea. It's the kind of superficially helpful but ultimately really counterproductive plan he tends to come up with.

[Bibliomancer]

Heck, for all we know, the goblinoids were originally Loki's idea. It's the kind of superficially helpful but ultimately really counterproductive plan he tends to come up with.

So the Loki of this world has already eaten a giantess' heart?

It's also quite possible that the species evolved/manifested naturally, and the good gods merely intervened to make them less of a threat and only later realized their potential as xp.

[NerfTW]

Completely impossible, because the world is only about 1200 years old.

They were created, just like Dwarves, Humans, and Elves. Whether or not Red Cloak's version of events is accurate remains to be seen. But there hasn't been time for the evolution of entirely new races in the Stick-verse.

[Optimystik]

Heck, for all we know, the goblinoids were originally Loki's idea. It's the kind of superficially helpful but ultimately really counterproductive plan he tends to come up with.

He is seen complaining (rather loudly) about his weak clerics before the monstrous humanoids are created, but the one deity we know to have had a hand in their creation was Tiger. (Freya asks him why hobgoblins have an LA when they're already so weak.)


It's also quite possible that the species evolved/manifested naturally, and the good gods merely intervened to make them less of a threat and only later realized their potential as xp.

No, SoD explicitly says they were created for the express purpose of being XP fodder for clerics. They were also created well after the second world was underway and every PC race had already been established.

[Larkspur]

He is seen complaining (rather loudly) about his weak clerics before the monstrous humanoids are created, but the one deity we know to have had a hand in their creation was Tiger. (Freya asks him why hobgoblins have an LA when they're already so weak.)

I wasn't blaming him; I was just saying it's his sort of plan. Bad ideas of the Aesir often follow a pattern of [self-created problem -> "Loki! Solve our problem for us!" -> superficially appealing yet immoral and unwise idea -> "Great idea, Loki! Let's do that!" -> inevitable backfiring disaster -> "Curse you, Loki! Fix this or we'll kill you!" -> Loki fixes it at some personal cost].

(Loki isn't really the dysfunctional party here.)

But I agree, Tiger's the only deity we know was culpable (assuming that was what actually happened and not Redcloak's embellishment).


No, SoD explicitly says they were created for the express purpose of being XP fodder for clerics. They were also created well after the second world was underway and every PC race had already been established.

Technically, SoD said Redcloak said the Dark One said this- we never actually saw it happen.

[David Argall]

In both SoD, and Origin of PCs, the presumption appears to go the other way- orcs being attacked just because they are there, rather than anyone trying to find of why they are there, until Roy enquires.
Origin Our origin orcs...chase off people who might get better tickets than they do...acknowledge sudden violence and an antisocial nature... attack Roy & Durkon. [That Roy was about to attack them is irrelevant since the orcs neither knew that, nor cared.] It appears the locals had good reason to doubt the orcs were going to be good neighbors. We might note here that Roy's solution was apparently also acceptable to the town humans as well.
So we find a misunderstanding caused by an apparently justified fear rather than an attempt to oppress the orcs.
Now we also have an encounter or two with kobolds in Origin. The kobolds see the party and attack. Then when Roy conducts a study of what to do next time, the first thing he specifies that the other side is hostile, a detail that is unimportant if the purpose of evil humanoids is just to be killed.


Paladins conducting campaigns into the swamps to drive out the goblins, after they have driven the into the swamps.
The goblins were dedicated to the capture and misuse of the gate. They were not innocents.


War & XPs
Adventurers responding to the "kobold menaces halfling" advert with no enquiries whatsoever as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.
They had the right of it however. Yokyok was attacking with intent to kill someone who was refusing to kill him. That is what it looked like, and that is what it was. Simple self defense [of the "innocent" party]. Nor do we see much in the way of evidence that the adventurers were motivated by the race of the kobold as opposed to gold and XP, which can be gained by killing humans.


"Redcloak's story is propaganda" is a hypothesis- and, if anything, the balance of evidence that we see argues for Redcloak's story being true, not against.
DCF-we have goblins describing themselves as evil and doing evil deeds.
NCPB-We have hobgoblins and ogres calling themselves evil and doing evil deeds.
W&XP-it's hard to identify evil deeds and intent in the midst of battle, but Our approaching hobgoblin army in 422 affirms their true evil nature.
next book-Our slavedrivers talk about being evil, and how much fun it is to whip the slaves.
The balance seems to be heavily against Redcloak's claims.



Yet Redcloak's village didn't do anything wrong either, and they were attacked.
We do not know that, and should expect the reverse.

Origin

In addition, each party of adventurers attacked the orcs first.
We do not know who attacked first. As noted, in the case of Roy's group, it was the orcs who did. While it is reasonable to assume the adventurers did, it is only an assumption, and not supported by any serious evidence.



if the answer is "Oh, well, none of that's true," it won't be very satisfying. The time for a solution that facile would've been in SoD, with Redcloak rejecting it.
NCPB p. 194b, Redcloak calls Good a pyramid scheme, and NG a tax dodge. That is hardly what we would expect from a reliable source.



Right-Eye's village only proves that some humans, at least, are capable of living in peace with goblins/don't have the XP fodder mindset,
"Some" here has to amount to a large majority. Every tavern so far visited seems to have large numbers of adventurers in it. So if the humans had an attitude that considered goblins XP to be harvested, there would be people out there doing it. Only if the humans deemed killing random goblins a crime, and/or it didn't earn XP does it make sense that these goblins could survive this close to so many humans.
Right-eye, in describing his village, makes the distinction that they did not do any raids on humans, implying that the normal goblin villages does raid. So we have an immediate presumption that the humans are not attacking goblins, but are merely responding to raids on humans.

[Optimystik]

Origin


Our origin orcs...chase off people who might get better tickets than they do...acknowledge sudden violence and an antisocial nature... attack Roy & Durkon. [That Roy was about to attack them is irrelevant since the orcs neither knew that, nor cared.]

They had just fended off attacks from three other adventuring parties. Their attack on Roy and Durkon was premature, true, but also understandable under the circumstances.


It appears the locals had good reason to doubt the orcs were going to be good neighbors. We might note here that Roy's solution was apparently also acceptable to the town humans as well.

Roy's solution kept the orcs from coming anywhere near the town. Of course they were in favor of it. (As were the orcs, for the same reason.)


So we find a misunderstanding caused by an apparently justified fear rather than an attempt to oppress the orcs.

Justified how? The shopkeep certainly had no reason to run off screaming from a paying customer like he did. It appears he went straight to the Mayor to get adventurers on the payroll too.


Now we also have an encounter or two with kobolds in Origin. The kobolds see the party and attack. Then when Roy conducts a study of what to do next time, the first thing he specifies that the other side is hostile, a detail that is unimportant if the purpose of evil humanoids is just to be killed.

Roy is not the typical adventurer - his very speech in Origin and the response of his party on hearing it proves that. Hamish and I are arguing about the attitudes of the layperson and the gods in OotS, not the comparatively enlightened PCs.



The goblins were dedicated to the capture and misuse of the gate. They were not innocents.

Redcloak was. There was no indication that any of the goblins in his raiding party were dedicated to the Plan, or even knew it. He told them "the Dark One gave him a vision" but not what the vision was. They were there because of repeated paladin "crusades" on their villages; nothing about gates is mentioned.


They had the right of it however. Yokyok was attacking with intent to kill someone who was refusing to kill him. That is what it looked like, and that is what it was. Simple self defense [of the "innocent" party]. Nor do we see much in the way of evidence that the adventurers were motivated by the race of the kobold as opposed to gold and XP, which can be gained by killing humans.

They were right? From where I was sitting, the evil character's plan worked, and he survived. :smallconfused:


DCF-we have goblins describing themselves as evil and doing evil deeds.
NCPB-We have hobgoblins and ogres calling themselves evil and doing evil deeds.
W&XP-it's hard to identify evil deeds and intent in the midst of battle, but Our approaching hobgoblin army in 422 affirms their true evil nature.
next book-Our slavedrivers talk about being evil, and how much fun it is to whip the slaves.
The balance seems to be heavily against Redcloak's claims.

Every last goblin you just mentioned was under Xykon's thumb. Their behavior can't be used to gauge either Redcloak's village OR Right-Eye's.


We do not know who attacked first.
As noted, in the case of Roy's group, it was the orcs who did. While it is reasonable to assume the adventurers did, it is only an assumption, and not supported by any serious evidence.

The very orc that was there gives us an eyewitness account. Leaving the money for his goods even though the shopkeeper ran away, and then being attacked by adventuring parties ever since. He plainly isn't afraid of Roy or his team, so why would he lie?


Right-eye, in describing his village, makes the distinction that they did not do any raids on humans, implying that the normal goblin villages does raid. So we have an immediate presumption that the humans are not attacking goblins, but are merely responding to raids on humans.

YOU have that presumption. I read Right-Eye's statement quite differently; as a comparison between his previous activities, before he and Redcloak met Xykon, and his life now that he's settled down. The two of them used to orchestrate raids on a regular basis (including the one we saw, on the paladin fort), but his comment is meant to show that he no longer lives that life.

[Ancalagon]

Redcloak tells us the story the evil races like to believe. There is no reason to think this is at all accurate.

Problem is: Start of Darkness is not told by Redcloak. All indicators we have (foreword by the giant, foreword by Miko) indicates it's told by some 3rd person narrator or even better, simply shown by a camera (and no hidden agenda what is shown and what not).
Every shred of hint we have indicates Start of Darkness is told by Rich Burlew, not by Redcloak, and thus we cannot (well, you can, apparently) assume it's Redcloak-filtered.

That the goblin-village founded by Right-Eye was destroyed by Xykon shows the Goblins (Redcloak, namely) created another threat to the goblins themselves, but that's totally besides the point that Start of Darkness is NO propaganda by Redcloak.
If it WAS told by Redcloak, why would he leave all those little things in that make him look like a clueless jerk that walked with open eyes into something and then was too afraid to fix that when he still could? Start of Darkness is fact, not propaganda.
Unless you can bring up proof or at least hints you are correct.

[Xapi]

Problem is: Start of Darkness is not told by Redcloak. All indicators we have (foreword by the giant, foreword by Miko) indicates it's told by some 3rd person narrator or even better, simply shown by a camera (and no hidden agenda what is shown and what not).
Every shred of hint we have indicates Start of Darkness is told by Rich Burlew, not by Redcloak, and thus we cannot (well, you can, apparently) assume it's Redcloak-filtered.

That the goblin-village founded by Right-Eye was destroyed by Xykon shows the Goblins (Redcloak, namely) created another threat to the goblins themselves, but that's totally besides the point that Start of Darkness is NO propaganda by Redcloak.
If it WAS told by Redcloak, why would he leave all those little things in that make him look like a clueless jerk that walked with open eyes into something and then was too afraid to fix that when he still could? Start of Darkness is fact, not propaganda.
Unless you can bring up proof or at least hints you are correct.

While SoD itself is not told by Redcloak, the tale of the Dark One is shown as being told by Redcloak.

Edit: OTOH, I agree with Optimystic.

[Optimystik]

While SoD itself is not told by Redcloak, the tale of the Dark One is shown as being told by Redcloak.

While this is true, we still have no reason to dismiss his account. Everything he says is in line with Shojo's own story of creation: the disagreement between the gods, the absence of the Eastern gods, and their knowledge of the Snarl. He even mentions the destruction of world one, which very few people know about.

Xykon: Really? Who'd (the Snarl) kill?
Redcloak: Nobody you've ever heard of, trust me.

Even if there is falsehood at the root of his story, it lies with the Dark One, not Redcloak - therefore, Right-Eye would still be correct about him. I will agree with David on one point - his account of the Dark One's rise and benevolent nature reeks of propaganda; if there is a big reveal of inaccuracy in the story, that would be a good place for it.


Edit: OTOH, I agree with Optimystic.

You know, I don't think I'll ever get tired of hearing that. :smallwink:

[Larkspur]

While this is true, we still have no reason to dismiss his account.

No, we haven't, but it's still inaccurate to say "SoD said {blah blah crayon scribbles.}"

On the other hand it's much more accurate than saying the children in Redcloak's village were working on the Plan, so you're ahead of David...:smallamused:

[skim172]

It seems that it's just that the lower humanoids - gobs, hobs, kobs, etc - were created as an afterthought, and then subsequently given every disadvantage the gods could think of.

The confusion arises from the fact that these races are labeled as "evil," and thus one might assume that they are under the protection of the evil gods. In fact, Loki can be seen in SOD complaining his clerics can't do anything but bless water and most likely was glad to develop cheap sources of XP.

The "evil" tag doesn't really play into it. The favored races, good, evil, or neutral, still get that deity protection. The unfavored races, no matter their alignment, are cast aside.

The Dark One became the god of the gobs after his ascension - it is implied they had no deity beforehand.


What one should really ask is why there are no good or neutral unfavored races for the evil clerics to beat up on.


(edit)
Additionally, alignment as it works in OOtS seems more like a label or title one takes on, not a true reflection of the feelings of one's heart. While the gobs may be generally called an Evil race and the Dark One an Evil god, there are clearly instances where the gobs don't behave in a strictly malevolent manner.

Right-Eye's little village where they live at peace with humans seems to indicate this, as well as the orcs who have no interest but to rock out and party hard. Redcloak, except for his unfortunate alliance with Xykon, seems fairly neutral - he considers humans his enemies because of what he experienced in his youth, not because of his alignment. Or the Paladin in Origin of PC's who says he'd like to murder Durkon but his alignment prevents him - this doesn't quite seem like a virtuous statement. Not to mention the wholesale slaughter of goblin civilians (children included) by the Sapphire Guard that began Redcloak's lonely journey.

In addition, there has been little indication that the gods themselves are at war, Good or Evil, which could suggest that, for the most part, the races of OOtS are not duty-bound to go slaughter the nearest goblin or human village, and that "Good" and "Evil" can coexist, because the respective groups are, mostly, peaceful and virtuous creatures.

So Good, Evil, Neutral appears to be more a label or a set of general behavioral guidelines one takes on, rather than the true moral direction of a soul.

And that makes sense. It would be difficult for us as an audience to empathize with a world where moral choices have immediate, direct, and obvious effects.

[David Argall]

Origin


They had just fended off attacks from three other adventuring parties.
They killed three other adventuring parties. Of course our source is known to be defective, but he is still the best source we have and what other evidence we have is consistent with the idea of the orcs being quite dangerous and violent. We have no solid evidence that the other parties attacked at all. It is not unreasonable to think they did, but we have a very vague picture, and any of a number of peaceful approaches will fit the facts we have.



Their attack on Roy and Durkon was premature, true, but also understandable under the circumstances.
Understandable does not mean non-evil or non-criminal. It is a mitigation of blame, not an absolution.


Roy's solution kept the orcs from coming anywhere near the town. Of course they were in favor of it. (As were the orcs, for the same reason.)
That however implies a certain amount of tolerance on the part of the town. According to our original source, the party was hired to kill the orcs, which it didn't do, but it seems the town still payed. We can think of various alternate explanations, but the presumption is that the town merely wanted to be safe and any damage to the orcs was quite secondary,


Justified how? The shopkeep certainly had no reason to run off screaming from a paying customer like he did.
So why did he? It was obviously against his self interest to not take the coins, not to mention leaving his goods unguarded. So why?
The obvious answer is that he saw the orc as much the same as a tiger wandering thru the door. He fled because he deemed himself in great danger. And why would he think that? As far as we can tell, the orc was not doing anything hostile. So the clerk was reacting to the reported behavior of previous orcs. Our clerk becomes testimony that orcs do act in violent ways quite often.



Hamish and I are arguing about the attitudes of the layperson and the gods in OotS, not the comparatively enlightened PCs.
And that attitude does not seem to be terribly anti-humanoid.




Redcloak was. There was no indication that any of the goblins in his raiding party were dedicated to the Plan, or even knew it. He told them "the Dark One gave him a vision" but not what the vision was.
Actually he did give them some details, but more important is that Redcloak has been leading the goblins for four years. He has told Right-eye much, and likely all, about the Plan. Just why would we think he has kept any secrets from the others?



They were there because of repeated paladin "crusades" on their villages; nothing about gates is mentioned.
Why should it be? The Gate is only a long term means to an end. Right now the goblins are only interested in the short term means of overcoming the paladins, and the long term goal.



They were right? From where I was sitting, the evil character's plan worked, and he survived.
Say you are a cop who witnessed this scene. Now what charges could you make against the adventurers? They were engaging in defense of the halfling, who is not wanted for any crime, and who is fleeing from the kobold. Clear self defense.


Every last goblin you just mentioned was under Xykon's thumb.
which would be relevant if they showed they were being forced to do the evil deeds. Instead they are thrilled.



The very orc that was there gives us an eyewitness account. .. being attacked by adventuring parties ever since.
He doesn't say the orcs were attacked at all. They may well have been, but his language is consistent with the adventures having done nothing but entirely legal activities [such as serving them with eviction notices].



I read Right-Eye's statement quite differently; as a comparison between his previous activities,
which leads to the same conclusion. Right-Eye stops raiding and stops seeing human raids. Thus the attacks by the humans are counter-attacks, not attempts to harvest XP. [This does not necessarily make them non-evil. But it does challenge the idea of goblins as victims.]



Start of Darkness is not told by Redcloak.
Of course not, but we are not interested in SoD here. We are interested in Redcloak's statements in it. And those statements are by definition by Redcloak.


Every shred of hint we have indicates Start of Darkness is told by Rich Burlew, not by Redcloak,
Which brings up a couple of statements from the introduction.
"If you only care about what is needed to get to the resolution of the main plot, then consider this ancillary material."
But where in the strip do we see evidence that Redcloak has any sort of noble goal? Or that the good guys have been doing questionable acts? The idea seems confined to SoD. This is a major revision of the basic story, not ancillary material.

"If the villains didn't sometimes win, then victory over them would not be as sweet..."
But that sweetness is compromised when the villains have a noble goal.


and thus we cannot (well, you can, apparently) assume it's Redcloak-filtered.
So "...this book is, literally, concentrated Evil..." is not Miko-filtered?

That the goblin-village founded by Right-Eye ... but that's totally besides the point that Start of Darkness is NO propaganda by Redcloak. [/quote]
There is no claim that SoD is propaganda by Redcloak, but it does contain propaganda by Redcloak. We are merely concerned with how accurate that propaganda is.

[Larkspur]

And [the attitude of the gods] does not seem to be terribly anti-humanoid.

In what way is creating goblins explicitly as XP fodder not anti-goblinoid?

SoD

Actually he did give them some details, but more important is that Redcloak has been leading the goblins for four years. He has told Right-eye much, and likely all, about the Plan. Just why would we think he has kept any secrets from the others?

Knowledge of the Plan doesn't seem to be shared beyond the clerics- it's not like the citizens of R&R's original village knew about the Plan. Right-Eye is Redcloak's brother and lieutenant; we've no reason to think everyone is privy to the same secrets he is.


Say you are a cop who witnessed this scene. Now what charges could you make against the adventurers? They were engaging in defense of the halfling, who is not wanted for any crime, and who is fleeing from the kobold. Clear self defense.

Belkar is not wanted for any crime? Belkar!?!?!?


But where in the strip do we see evidence that Redcloak has any sort of noble goal? Or that the good guys have been doing questionable acts? The idea seems confined to SoD. This is a major revision of the basic story, not ancillary material.

"At least no more young goblins will have to watch their family slaughtered by blue-clad humans."
"Apparently they save their efficiency for goblin women and children."

Redcloak's grievance, and the Sapphire Guards' cirmes, are made quite clear by the strip itself.


So "...this book is, literally, concentrated Evil..." is not Miko-filtered?

That's commentary, not a filter. A filter would alter the internal content.

[Bibliomancer]

Belkar is not wanted for any crime? Belkar!?!?!?

Now that's exactly the kind of prejudice that will get Belkar killed later on. The adventurers had no reason to suspect that the shifty halfling being chased by a member of another race had done something wrong.

On a different note, if the Dark One were so benevolent, why wouldn't he name himself something that wouldn't inspire fear evil overtones in anyone that heard it? It would have been just as easy to tell everyone to call him the One Who Saves Kittens. It seems rather convenient that his very name serves to stir up tension between the goblinoids and the other races...perhaps the Dark One is merely a front for the Evil Gods to gain control of the world using every villain seen thus far, including these guys. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0239.html)

[Larkspur]

Now that's exactly the kind of prejudice that will get Belkar killed later on. The adventurers had no reason to suspect that the shifty halfling being chased by a member of another race had done something wrong.

No, they didn't. It was just an odd description of Belkar.

(Although the description on the ad as "kobold menace" rather than "sociopathic swordsman" or something does suggest there's some skeevy racial issue going on- you wouldn't describe Nale simply as "human menace" after all.)


On a different note, if the Dark One were so benevolent, why wouldn't he name himself something that wouldn't inspire fear evil overtones in anyone that heard it?

It's based on his skin tone. The only reasons we associate 'dark' with 'bad' are our diurnal bias and real-world skeevy racial issues- in a world with nocturnal sentient species the phrase "Dark One" really shouldn't have the same implications.

[Optimystik]

What one should really ask is why there are no good or neutral unfavored races for the evil clerics to beat up on.

The better question is why the "cannon fodder" races were made so sentient. The hags and ogres don't appear to think anything of their lot as XP chunks; even the orcs have only the barest of metaphysical natures. Goblins and kobolds in regular D&D are nowhere near as self-actualized as the ones in OotS. It makes for a much more interesting story, I acknowledge, but it's also the source of all the strip's non-Snarl conflict, and the best explanation we've seen so far is that the gods were either cruel or careless.

I'll answer David later; I'm tired, and I'll need my strength for that. :smalltongue: