Redcloak, a tragic hero? [SoD spoilers]

[Katana_Geldar]

After reading Start of Darkness, Redcloak has become one of my favourite characters in the strips amd this has started me thinking seriously about him. I've usually seen Redcloak as a Vader-like character, he did what he thought he had to do with the best intentions, then realises he's in it up to his neck and there's no going back.

But I couldn't think there was a bit more, so I compared him to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero), it's not Cuddon but it will do for the job. Funny to see Darth V himself is on that list too.

Now, we need to strike the fact that he's a main character for obvious reasons (he's not a PC) as well as the fact that Redcloak is in the middle of his story so there's neither the retribution nor the events surrounding his death.

Some of them fit, such as:

* Hubris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris), the whole Dark One plot is pretty much all hubris.
* "The hero discovers that he is a result of his own actions, not by things happening to him." Check, like his decison to continue being teamed up with Xykon.
* "The hero is faced with a serious decision." Check, like the death of his brother and choosing to remain with Xykon.
* The suffering of the hero is meaningful, because although the suffering is a result of the hero's own volition, it is not wholly deserved and may be cruelly disproportionate." Check, Redcloak didn't ask for this whole Gates quest, though he chooses to go on it and has had to sacrifice many things to do what he thinks must be done.
* "The hero learns something from his/her mistake". To some extent, as this usually comes at the end and the only time I have seen it was with the elephant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)
* The hero sees and understands his doom, and that his fate was revealed by his own actions." Again, Redcloak is mid-journey but his realsation after he kills his brother counts.

Any thoughts?

[hamishspence]

It is certainly a valid position. Nobody ever said Tragic Heroes had to be Good or Neutral, after all.

I'm inclined to say that Redcloak fits.

[factotum]

I don't think Redcloak counts as a hero. To be a hero suggests he's working for someone else, and I don't think Redcloak does anymore--if he truly had the wellbeing of the goblinoid races at heart, he wouldn't be taking Xykon within a thousand miles of them! No, Redcloak may have been truly altruistic to begin with, but now his entire motivation seems to be that he can't go back after all the horrendous things he's done. It's really a selfish motivation he has now--the motivation to not admit he was wrong!

[hamishspence]

Emphasis on the "tragic" in the same sense that Darth Vader was. Yes, a selfish "I want to rule" is a big part of why he does things, but not the only part.

[Katana_Geldar]

A tragic hero does not meant that the character was first a hero or is currently one, a lot of them go that way in the end but it's a Redemmption Equals Death.

Factotum, you've pretty much agreed with everything I said above.

There is another well-known tragic hero in a similar situation to Redcloak: Brutus in Julius Caesar. He wanted to kill the other JC for the right reasons but ended up as corrupted as Cassius and Decius.

Vader was also in a similar situation, betraying almost everyone he knew for the one he loved, but coming to a realisation that it was his own selfishness that brought him to this point and he was trapped for ever by the "deal made with the devil".

I think Faust has a similar theme, but I am not familiar with it.

See the pattern?

Of course, there are tragic heroes who just go that way because of selfish intentions, they outnumber the ones with the good I think. Othello, Lear, Medea, that Scottish gent...Hamlet is an exception as he never really had the time and spent most of the play dithering.

[Optimystik]

Of course, there are tragic heroes who just go that way because of selfish intentions, they outnumber the ones with the good I think. Othello, Lear, Medea, that Scottish gent...Hamlet is an exception as he never really had the time and spent most of the play dithering.

If your "scottish gent" is Macbeth... well, I don't think anybody felt much sympathy for him.

[Cleverdan22]

If your "scottish gent" is Macbeth... well, I don't think anybody felt much sympathy for him.

Way to say it. Now we have bad luck.

Yeah, back to the OP, I actually agree. Certainly he isn't a "hero" by any "good" viewpoints, but he is certainly a tragic hero character. Just look at Alex of A Clockwork Orange. He is also a tragic hero.

[Katana_Geldar]

You said it! I didn't want to bring bad luck to the thread, which is why I called him "that Scottish gent".

More on topic, despite the whole notion about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the sort of tragic heroes that are like this seems to be in the minority.

[Sewblon]

Tragic, yes, hero, no. He had arguably noble intentions at first, but he never seemed to care about the fates of non-goblins. He is willing to destroy the multiverse to fulfill his plan. He claimed that the good alignment is just a pyramid scheme. And he resigned himself to serving to Xykon, the most evil person he ever met, so that he would never need to admit fault. He may become a tragic hero if he gets a redemption=death ending, but right now he is a villain, a relatively complex and sympathetic villain, but still a villain.

[Katana_Geldar]

Do I have to say this again? Tragic hero =/= hero.

[TheBST]

True, but Redcloak is one of the antagonists of this story so I don't think he counts.

Plus how a character meets their end is the real measure of whether they're a 'tragic hero'. It's too early to say.

[Blue Ghost]

If your "scottish gent" is Macbeth... well, I don't think anybody felt much sympathy for him.

The guy was a jerk, but he fits the definition of a tragic hero to a letter.
I think Redcloak may qualify as a tragic hero, but as TheBST said, we'll need to wait and see how he turns out. It is rather unusual for an antagonist to be a tragic hero, but I don't think that disqualifies Redcloak, as a subplot can be a tragedy as well.

[NamonakiRei]

Too slow for TV Tropes. :smallwink: If you scroll down to webcomics, you'll see it here. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TragicHero)

[Katana_Geldar]

Well, there is Vader, and TVTropes says the Tragic Hero can be an antagonist.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Other than the "hero" bit, this fits Redcloak really well. Something I really like about this comic is how...Deep all the characters are.

[Katana_Geldar]

*facepalm*

[CoffeeIncluded]

...What did I do?

[Katana_Geldar]

Do I have to say this again? Tragic hero =/= hero.

Ignored that.

[Optimystik]

You said it! I didn't want to bring bad luck to the thread, which is why I called him "that Scottish gent".

More on topic, despite the whole notion about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the sort of tragic heroes that are like this seems to be in the minority.

Saying "Macbeth" is unlucky? Since when? :smallconfused:

[Larkspur]

Don't you need to be doomed by a single flaw, though? It's not at all clear what Redcloak's would be- there was never a possible course of action he could have taken that wouldn't have left him screwed. All his choices have always sucked.

He had options that would have sucked less for other people, but he himself was pretty much doomed by fate. See below:

Choice A:
1. Pick up Crimson Mantle- get drafted into apocalyptic divine plan
2. Don't pick up Crimson Mantle- get killed by Sapphire Guard along with little brother

Choice B:
1. Implement Plan- risk life constantly with little hope of reward, no girlfriend
2. Ditch Plan- eventually get exterminated by Sapphire Guard for being the wrong species

Choice C:
1. Join up with Xykon- have to put up with collateral damage, bullying, and bad jokes
2. Don't join up with Xykon- get killed off by Sapphire Guard or Lirian's allies

Choice D:
1. Lichify Xykon- have to deal with psychotic lich
2. Don't lichify Xykon- remain trapped in a cave forever, while friends + brother gradually age and die

Choice E:
1. Stick with Xykon- have to deal with psychotic lich
2. Ditch Xykon and keep Mantle- get tracked down by Xykon
3. Ditch Xykon and fob Mantle off on someone else- become a horrible person

Choice F:
1. Ditch Plan, move in with brother- get tracked down and drafted by Xykon
2. Persist with Plan in absence of Xykon- make no progress, no girlfriend

Choice G:
1. Let brother try to assassinate Xykon- brother fails, everyone dies in pogrom
2. Kill brother to prevent assassination attempt- have to kill brother

Any way you look at it, he loses. Unless his tragic flaw is being born a goblin, I'm not seeing it.

[Nimrod's Son]

Saying "Macbeth" is unlucky? Since when? :smallconfused:
Like, forever. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play)

[Katana_Geldar]

In the OP I mentioned Redcloak's tragic flaw: hubris.

[Optimystik]

Like, forever. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play)

Wow, that's completely ridiculous. I had no idea people were that silly.

In any case, we're not in a theater, soooooo... Macbeth Macbeth Macbeth :smalltongue:

Back on topic and Redcloak: the part of the TH article I found interesting was that the character's downfall need not be total i.e. there is a chance for redemption. Yes he did some awful things in SoD, but I hope he is redeemed. This would prove Right-Eye's belief correct: "it's never too late to atone for a mistake."

Other parts apply to him too: "of noble birth/standing or rises to nobility": Supreme Leader of the Goblins probably counts, and definitely Chosen of the Dark One.

"Supernatural involvement": Par for the course in D&D, but the cloak is supernatural even by D&D standards, due to being an artifact (and most importantly, by dumping the Dark One's entire plot in his head in an instant.)

[pasko77]

Well of course. I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.
Redcloak is definately a tragic hero*, and SoD is definately one of my favourite comics ever.

*except for the "hero" bit. Wait, what?:smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Sotharsyl]

I completely agree that RC is a tragic hero.

[FoE]

Anti-Villain seems more appropriate.

[Sholos]

I think the term implies that the character is either a hero in the colloquial sense of the word, or is the protagonist going down a horrible path (like MacBeth). Redcloak fits neither definition. He is a villain and an antagonist. He might just fit well-intentioned extremist, but he's never been hero quality.

As to the whole "saying MacBeth is unlucky" thing, it's only unlucky if you're part of a play, or in a theater. It's fine anywhere else.

[Nilan8888]

I agree as well the the anti-villian designation.

I have yet to get my hands on all the material, but on one hand the point about the tragic flaw might be one stickling point. Hubris was mentioned as a tragic flaw, but did hubris factor into the decisions Larkspur gave? Is hubris all that applicable when you're choosing between two positions in which you lose in BOTH scenarios? And when I say lose, I really mean lose -- I don't mean (as per V below) that the goals sacrificed are the ones only created by... well... your own hubris.

V suffers from hubris, definately. Of course V ended up acknowledging it (and perhaps ironically only began to realize it the moment he made his 'deal'). But I'm not so certain it's necessarily hubris to choose the lesser of two evils. But perhaps I need to read up more.

And on the other hand, it's still very difficult to picture even a tragic hero that wants to exterminate all forms of life that it doesn't belong to (up with Goblins, down with everyone else). A tragic hero might not be a hero, but they have to be symapthetic in the and... that's a real tough one to reconcile. Then again, as was stated, it's pretty hard to sympathize with ol' McB (great tragedy my arse, The Scot deserved what he got!).

[jidasfire]

Yeah, back to the OP, I actually agree. Certainly he isn't a "hero" by any "good" viewpoints, but he is certainly a tragic hero character. Just look at Alex of A Clockwork Orange. He is also a tragic hero.

This is probably nitpicking, but Alex isn't really a tragic hero. For one thing, he has no noble qualities whatsoever. For another, he has no tragic flaw, unless you count brutal sociopathy as such, but since that comprises most of his personality, I wouldn't. Finally, while he does suffer, everything works out all right for him in the end, and not because he learns a lesson or redeems himself.

As to the actual question, Redcloak actually does fit the definition of a tragic hero pretty well. Hero was meant in those days to represent the main character, rather than a person with noble qualities, though of course now the two are synonymous. The only problem is he isn't the main character in Order of the Stick, so in that sense he fails. But otherwise, yeah.

[Katana_Geldar]

Sholos, please read the OP again, a tragic hero is not the same as a hero, nor does the hero need to be a protagonist as Vader has been defined as one. I feel like a broken record here. :smallsigh:

As for being an anti-villian, this is an alternative view of Redcloak (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain).

The tradition of the tragic hero is much older and more established than the anti-villain though.

[Sholos]

Sholos, please read the OP again, a tragic hero is not the same as a hero, nor does the hero need to be a protagonist as Vader has been defined as one. I feel like a broken record here. :smallsigh:

It's very simple to argue that Star Wars is just as much about Vader as it is about Luke. Especially with the prequels in existence. Not so much for Redcloak.

Also, TVTropes saying Vader is a hero doesn't make him one. TVTropes is not necessarily always accurate, just like the other Wiki isn't always a good place to grab information from.

At the very best, Redcloak can be seen as a Well-Intentioned Extremist, but he's no hero in any sense of the word.

[Harry Tuttle]

The tradition of the tragic hero is much older and more established than the anti-villain though.

I think you just undermined your point a bit. OOTS is a piece of modern fiction not a Hellenic or Elizabethan tragedy. Redcloak is a more complex character than Odysseus or Brutus and in many ways inverts the classical hero (and/or villain) trope be it tragic or not. He seems, to me, to exhibit as many characteristics of a Byronic Hero - cunning and underhanded, introspective and aware of his shortcomings, an outlaw set against normal society, charismatic yet cynical, destructive but with the seed of a noble goal at heart - as he does a Tragic Hero. That is to say... he's deeper than a simple tragic hero or even a Byronic hero. He's an antihero, as are most characters in modern fiction to one degree or another. Or anti-villain if you will. The only difference is screen time.

Now, does Redcloak's character include elements of the tragic hero? Yer dang skippy he does.

[Larkspur]

Wouldn't the hubristic choice be disobeying the orders of his god?

He seems more to be cast in the Aeneas mode of "pious to the point of idiocy," if we're referencing classical heroes.

Come to think of it, maybe that is his tragic flaw. Sort of like how on job applications you put down "I work too hard" when they ask you about your biggest fault.

[Sholos]

He's an antihero, as are most characters in modern fiction to one degree or another. Or anti-villain if you will. The only difference is screen time.

I think you have the definitions confused with protagonist and antagonist. You can have a villain who has more screen time than the hero. Look at Dr. Horrible.

[Nimrod's Son]

Wow, that's completely ridiculous. I had no idea people were that silly.
:vaarsuvius: I find it to be entirely in keeping with what I know of them.

[xyzzy]

I must point out: we are in a theater, so saying the name of the Scottish play is quite unlucky. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players," and stages reside in theaters, hence we are all actors in a theater production.

Also, the only thing disqualifying Redcloak from being a Byronic hero is that he's not a total playa, but that's one of the most important elements. If he ever has any romantic interactions then we can judge those to apply another literary label to him! :smallbiggrin:

[Nimrod's Son]

We saw one. It involved him saying, "Nice to meet you" and heading for the door.

[Katana_Geldar]

Byronic hero? Nice one, but he's no Edward Rochester :smallbiggrin:

And Sholos, no one is saying that Redcloak is a protagonist, a tragic hero is not necessarily a protagonist. Tv Tropes does not say Vader is a tragic hero, but Wikipedia and I do.

If you have to pin a tragic hero down to one trait, it is the tragic flaw which Redcloak has, and the oldest of them all, hubris. And why is saying the tradition of a tragic hero is old undermining my point? If Burlew wants to go back to an old tradition such as this, more power to him I say.

[lothos]

Wow, that's completely ridiculous. I had no idea people were that silly.

In any case, we're not in a theater, soooooo... Macbeth Macbeth Macbeth :smalltongue:
(snip)

Ok, so who else has flashbacks to the Blackadder the third (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder#Series_3:_Blackadder_the_Third) episode "Sense and Senility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Senility)".

On the thread topic though - like the idea, I find myself in broad agreement.

[Sholos]

And Sholos, no one is saying that Redcloak is a protagonist, a tragic hero is not necessarily a protagonist. Tv Tropes does not say Vader is a tragic hero, but Wikipedia and I do.
Actually, the phrase "tragic hero" does not appear anywhere in the Darth Vader article. "Tragic character" does, but that's an entirely different thing. Redcloak is certainly tragic, but he's not a hero.

Since we're using Wikipedia, let's go look at the Tragic Hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero) page. The first sentence reads, "A tragic hero is the main character in a tragedy ...". I think we can stop there. Redcloak is not the main character, and OOTS is certainly not a tragedy.

I notice that Darth Vader is on the list at the end. I think that it's possible to make the argument that he is a tragic hero in the prequels, but before those, all you could say was that he was a redeemable villain. He's completely different than every other name on that list. Though I do have to wonder why Bruce Wayne is on there. As far as I know, he hasn't had a downfall.


If you have to pin a tragic hero down to one trait, it is the tragic flaw which Redcloak has, and the oldest of them all, hubris. And why is saying the tradition of a tragic hero is old undermining my point? If Burlew wants to go back to an old tradition such as this, more power to him I say.

If you "pin a tragic hero down to one trait", you've completely lost the definition of a tragic hero. It's like saying that the word "set" only refers to a collection of similar items (for a bit of fun, go look set up in the dictionary). There's a lot that goes into making a tragic hero, and the tragic flaw is just one part of the whole.

As for saying that the tradition is old, it doesn't really undermine your point, but it doesn't support it, either. There's nothing inherently better or worse about using old traditions, unless they were bad ones (like Silver Age comics' tendency to have heroes explaining their power usage every other panel).

[Conuly]

I think we can stop there. Redcloak is not the main character, and OOTS is certainly not a tragedy.

While Redcloak isn't the main character, we can't say that OotS isn't a tragedy until it's ended, can we? I mean, if they all should suddenly die in a suitably tragic way - bam, we were reading a tragedy this whole time!

[hamishspence]

Anakin was the tragic hero of the prequels, but the Villain of the original films.

In the same way, one could say that:

Redcloak is the tragic hero of SoD, but the Villain (or at least, the secondary Villain) of the main strip.

[Sholos]

While Redcloak isn't the main character, we can't say that OotS isn't a tragedy until it's ended, can we? I mean, if they all should suddenly die in a suitably tragic way - bam, we were reading a tragedy this whole time!

The comic would have to take a very serious change in tone for that to happen, and I just don't see it. There might be tragic moments, but I have to believe that it's headed somewhere good.


Anakin was the tragic hero of the prequels, but the Villain of the original films.

In the same way, one could say that:

Redcloak is the tragic hero of SoD, but the Villain (or at least, the secondary Villain) of the main strip.

I'll agree that you could call Redcloak a tragic hero in SoD.

[B. Dandelion]

I wouldn't have trouble calling him a tragic hero, but where is "hubris" coming from? The Dark One's plan indicates hubris on the part of the Dark One.

[Optimystik]

I wouldn't have trouble calling him a tragic hero, but where is "hubris" coming from? The Dark One's plan indicates hubris on the part of the Dark One.

"If I thought he was a threat to the goblin people, I would destroy him myself, but I don't think he is." Redcloak believing he could handle Xykon so easily should he pose a threat was certainly hubris.

Also, "we make his phylactery something I always have, like my holy symbol. We don't let him hide it." RC's master plan for controlling Xykon failed so miserably because he was utterly convinced it would work, and thus Did Not Do The Research*; again, hubris.

*"LICHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!"

[B. Dandelion]

"If I thought he was a threat to the goblin people, I would destroy him myself, but I don't think he is." Redcloak believing he could handle Xykon so easily should he pose a threat was certainly hubris.

Also, "we make his phylactery something I always have, like my holy symbol. We don't let him hide it." RC's master plan for controlling Xykon failed so miserably because he was utterly convinced it would work, and thus Did Not Do The Research*; again, hubris.

*"LICHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!"

Errors in judgment are hubris? Redcloak thought he could handle Xykon when he was human and, at that point in time, completely helpless. The phylactery plan failed in part because he'd specifically anticipated that Xykon would be too stupid to realize differently. Underestimating someone else isn't necessarily the same thing as overestimating yourself, which is hubris.

[Optimystik]

Errors in judgment are hubris? Redcloak thought he could handle Xykon when he was human and, at that point in time, completely helpless.

Errors in judgment related to your overstating own capabilities are hubris, yes. Xykon being powerless is irrelevant at that point in the story, as Redcloak had already made up his mind to restore his powers and so should have been calculating all his subsequent moves with a fully-powered Xykon in mind. "I've already found a solution," he irritatedly tells his brother, "you're just trying to talk me out of it."


The phylactery plan failed in part because he'd specifically anticipated that Xykon would be too stupid to realize differently. Underestimating someone else isn't necessarily the same thing as overestimating yourself, which is hubris.

The difference between overestimating himself and underestimating Xykon are largely semantic. In the end, the result is the same.

Besides, you are mistaken; it wasn't that he failed to anticipate Xykon would realize that the phylactery could have been made from anything. Rather, what he failed to anticipate is that a phylactery is useless in controlling a lich's behavior. Since his entire argument to convince Right-Eye was based on that point, it's the sort of thing he really should have made certain of.

[B. Dandelion]

Xykon being powerless is irrelevant at that point in the story, as Redcloak had already made up his mind to restore his powers and so should have been calculating all his subsequent moves with a fully-powered Xykon in mind.

The argument in question revolved around the degree to which they could rely on and/or trust Xykon. My interpretation of the line was that he hadn't thought Xykon was a threat and if he had, he would destroy him himself, then and there. The fact that Right-Eye immediately responded to this by saying he hadn't been suggesting they SHOULD kill him plays into this.


The difference between overestimating himself and underestimating Xykon are largely semantic. In the end, the result is the same.

You could say the same of all motive. If you kill someone because you believe them to be evil, or because you wish to loot the contents of their wallet, are they any less dead? Yet do we view those two murderers as exactly the same?


it wasn't that he failed to anticipate Xykon would realize that the phylactery could have been made from anything.

Yet he realized that too. "That was your big plan for controlling me, wasn't it?"


Rather, what he failed to anticipate is that a phylactery is useless in controlling a lich's behavior. Since his entire argument to convince Right-Eye was based on that point, it's the sort of thing he really should have made certain of.

That was a supremely boneheaded move on his part, yes. It's not like he was working with an excess of available choices either though.

[Katana_Geldar]

Hubris is actually pride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris), not making mistakes but pride that usually will lead to a reitribution that is felt without any regard for basic morality.

[B. Dandelion]

Uh, Katana, I know what hubris means. Arrogance and overconfidence are traits that go with it hand-in-hand. Making mistakes is not the problem. Being unable to concede that this is even a possibility, on the other hand, may indeed be a symptom of pride.

[Katana_Geldar]

Sorry, thought there was a little confusion.

[Optimystik]

The argument in question revolved around the degree to which they could rely on and/or trust Xykon. My interpretation of the line was that he hadn't thought Xykon was a threat and if he had, he would destroy him himself, then and there. The fact that Right-Eye immediately responded to this by saying he hadn't been suggesting they SHOULD kill him plays into this.

Just because Right-Eye didn't want to kill him doesn't mean he thought Xykon should be trusted, either. Just that helping him get his powers back would be a bad idea. "This looks like square one to me."

In the end, he deferred to his brother, who is supposed to be the thinker between them. Redcloak failed.


You could say the same of all motive. If you kill someone because you believe them to be evil, or because you wish to loot the contents of their wallet, are they any less dead? Yet do we view those two murderers as exactly the same?

That analogy doesn't apply here. Underestimating your opponent and overestimating yourself are functionally the same act because they BOTH result from you having a high opinion of your abilities relative to your opponent's. Thus, both are hubris.

Killing someone out of righteousness and killing them out of greed are functionally different because they have different starting points.


Yet he realized that too. "That was your big plan for controlling me, wasn't it?"

All the more foolish of Redcloak.


That was a supremely boneheaded move on his part, yes. It's not like he was working with an excess of available choices either though.

No, he wasn't, but he in particular also had an eternity to find a way out of there. He came up with the lichdom idea within a whopping few minutes of imprisonment, and then refused to even brainstorm other alternatives. Xykon's glee alone at the prospect should have been cautionary to him.

On top of everything, his response to his brother's concerns was plainly irrational; an ad hominem about his childhood behavior. Definitely hubris.

[B. Dandelion]

Just because Right-Eye didn't want to kill him doesn't mean he thought Xykon should be trusted, either.

I'm not sure where you get "Right-Eye trusted Xykon" out of that. Redcloak says, 'if I didn't trust him not to hurt our people, I'd kill him right here and now', and Right-Eye goes, 'whoa, that's not where I was going with this.' Ergo, Xykon's status as a vulnerable human being was relevant.


Just that helping him get his powers back would be a bad idea. "This looks like square one to me."

In the end, he deferred to his brother, who is supposed to be the thinker between them. Redcloak failed.

This really fails to address anything I posted. Redcloak made a bad move here, we're both in agreement. Right-Eye deferred to him because he implicitly held Redcloak's intelligence in higher esteem than his own, but that tells us what Right-Eye thinks of his brother's intelligence. Not what Redcloak thinks of his own intelligence.


That analogy doesn't apply here. Underestimating your opponent and overestimating yourself are functionally the same act because they BOTH result from you having a high opinion of your abilities relative to your opponent's. Thus, both are hubris.

If you, an acclaimed chess player, anticipate that a kindergardener won't be able to beat you, and some random 5-year-old proves you wrong, are you a tragic victim of your own hubris?

Whereas if you, a hotshot 15-year-old at the head of all your classes, anticipate that with your obvious raw intellectual capacities you should be able to take on even a world-renowned chess player, (even though you've never played), and do so only to lose humiliatingly, are you?

Functionally, the protagonists in both scenarios are losers. But it's highly unlikely we'd attribute that loss to identical causes. The chess player underestimated an opponent that turned out to be an unexpected prodigy, where the teenager was overconfident and deluded by his own arrogance. The chess player may or may not have been proud, but the teenager definitely was, and the difference is all about whose abilities are being misjudged.


No, he wasn't, but he in particular also had an eternity to find a way out of there. He came up with the lichdom idea within a whopping few minutes of imprisonment, and then refused to even brainstorm other alternatives. Xykon's glee alone at the prospect should have been cautionary to him.

What part of that isn't adequately covered by "boneheaded" or "stubborn"?


On top of everything, his response to his brother's concerns was plainly irrational; an ad hominem about his childhood behavior. Definitely hubris.

Irrational = proud? Once again, a bad decision, or bad decision-making abilities, does not automatically imply hubris. You have to demonstrate that it was hubris which drove a person to it.

[Nilan8888]

That analogy doesn't apply here. Underestimating your opponent and overestimating yourself are functionally the same act because they BOTH result from you having a high opinion of your abilities relative to your opponent's. Thus, both are hubris


Hold on, flag on the play: sorry to butt in but I've had debates on this very thing not so long ago and I gotta agree with Dandilion on this, those two acts are NOT the same thing.

Remember there is such a thing as OVERestimating your opponent as well and making mistakes on that account. It also completely discounts, for instance, the character of Claudius in 'I Claudius'.

Claudius became Emepror of Rome in this story (and some would say in history as well) not just because ONE person underestimated him -- probably Livia if you were to select just one -- but because almost EVERYONE underestimated him. And that was what Claudius wanted them to believe since it was largely how he stayed alive.

But if that's the case, you've essentially accused EVERYONE in the Augustan family, and many more, of hubris. Now come on: are they all guilty of the same thing? Augustus thought Claudius was a fool, Livia did, Tiberius did, Sejanus did, even his own mother did. Hubris is not a passive thing and it shouldn't be so easily doled out. It stops being hubris for a given individual when it's just an accepted norm of an entire society.

[Optimystik]

I'm not sure where you get "Right-Eye trusted Xykon" out of that. Redcloak says, 'if I didn't trust him not to hurt our people, I'd kill him right here and now', and Right-Eye goes, 'whoa, that's not where I was going with this.' Ergo, Xykon's status as a vulnerable human being was relevant.

I'm not talking about trust. I'm talking about pride.

"Hey, that guy's been a total jerk. We should cut him out of the loop."
"If I thought he was a real danger, I'd kill him."
"Whoa, I'm not saying we need to go that far. Just not rely on him anymore."
"Relax, I can handle him."
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Everything'll be fine!"


This really fails to address anything I posted. Redcloak made a bad move here, we're both in agreement. Right-Eye deferred to him because he implicitly held Redcloak's intelligence in higher esteem than his own, but that tells us what Right-Eye thinks of his brother's intelligence. Not what Redcloak thinks of his own intelligence.

What Redcloak thinks of his own intelligence/abilities is implicit in his dismissal of his brother's very justified concerns. He's basically saying "Relax, I can handle this" without having done nearly enough forethought. How is that anything but pride?


If you, an acclaimed chess player, anticipate that a kindergardener won't be able to beat you, and some random 5-year-old proves you wrong, are you a tragic victim of your own hubris?

Whereas if you, a hotshot 15-year-old at the head of all your classes, anticipate that with your obvious raw intellectual capacities you should be able to take on even a world-renowned chess player, (even though you've never played), and do so only to lose humiliatingly, are you?

Functionally, the protagonists in both scenarios are losers. But it's highly unlikely we'd attribute that loss to identical causes. The chess player underestimated an opponent that turned out to be an unexpected prodigy, where the teenager was overconfident and deluded by his own arrogance. The chess player may or may not have been proud, but the teenager definitely was, and the difference is all about whose abilities are being misjudged.

Fair enough. But you illustrated my core point admirably; Redcloak is the hotshot here, not the acclaimed player. He has never dealt with a lich in his life, nor made a phylactery, yet he is convinced that he can easily control one. Thus, hubris.


What part of that isn't adequately covered by "boneheaded" or "stubborn"?

The part that, had he not been so proud, he might have second guessed himself.


Irrational = proud? Once again, a bad decision, or bad decision-making abilities, does not automatically imply hubris. You have to demonstrate that it was hubris which drove a person to it.

What I meant there was that he valued his own opinion so highly that he was able to dismiss his brother's on paper-thin grounds (i.e. his behavior as a child.)

[B. Dandelion]

I'm not talking about trust. I'm talking about pride.

"Hey, that guy's been a total jerk. We should cut him out of the loop."
"If I thought he was a real danger, I'd kill him."
"Whoa, I'm not saying we need to go that far. Just not rely on him anymore."
"Relax, I can handle him."
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Everything'll be fine!"

It reads every bit as much as Redcloak simply trying to acknowledge the validity of Right-Eye's concerns as some kind of boast. 'If I thought he was as untrustworthy as you said he was, I would be the first to agree, but I don't.'


What Redcloak thinks of his own intelligence/abilities is implicit in his dismissal of his brother's very justified concerns.

He believes he has the superior argument, and defends it. That doesn't preclude the possibility of changing his mind. Consider that Redcloak did not continue until he had convinced Right-Eye to explicitly agree.


He's basically saying "Relax, I can handle this" without having done nearly enough forethought. How is that anything but pride?

Because I don't agree that this is what he's saying.


Redcloak is the hotshot here, not the acclaimed player. He has never dealt with a lich in his life, nor made a phylactery, yet he is convinced that he can easily control one. Thus, hubris.

Again, it goes to a question of motive. The hotshot kid in the hypothetical is explicitly motivated by pride. With Redcloak it's only speculated -- he doesn't even have to prove that teaming up with Xykon was the right thing to do, because that was Right-Eye's idea to begin with. For another, he wasn't totally wrong. Xykon DID know zilch about liches, but managed to pick up on something Redcloak himself hadn't realized, giving him more in common with the surprise prodigy than the experienced pro.


The part that, had he not been so proud, he might have second guessed himself.

Always second-guessing yourself isn't necessarily and automatically a good thing, and indecisiveness is not an indication of true humility.


What I meant there was that he valued his own opinion so highly that he was able to dismiss his brother's on paper-thin grounds (i.e. his behavior as a child.)

I took that as teasing, since it was kind of a compliment (how you've grown!), and for another he followed it up with his more serious rebuttal.

[Optimystik]

It reads every bit as much as Redcloak simply trying to acknowledge the validity of Right-Eye's concerns as some kind of boast. 'If I thought he was as untrustworthy as you said he was, I would be the first to agree, but I don't.'

His exact words are "I would kill him myself." It definitely sounds overconfident to me. And since he's made up his mind to restore Xykon's powers, he should logically be weighing his skills against a restored Xykon, not a powerless one.

If you're locked up with a criminal you plan to escape with, and your escape plan involves giving him a gun, and you KNOW he's more skilled with a gun than you are, telling yourself "I can take him" should be done with the armed criminal in mind, not the helpless one.

Redcloak is therefore either completely illogical or foolishly proud. I chose the latter because he seems so logical otherwise. I do agree with you that the Dark One's plot indicates his OWN hubris.


He believes he has the superior argument, and defends it. That doesn't preclude the possibility of changing his mind. Consider that Redcloak did not continue until he had convinced Right-Eye to explicitly agree.

He convinces his brother by basically saying "I know more about this than you, and I can handle him easily."


Because I don't agree that this is what he's saying.

Then we're at an impasse.


Again, it goes to a question of motive. The hotshot kid in the hypothetical is explicitly motivated by pride. With Redcloak it's only speculated -- he doesn't even have to prove that teaming up with Xykon was the right thing to do, because that was Right-Eye's idea to begin with. For another, he wasn't totally wrong. Xykon DID know zilch about liches, but managed to pick up on something Redcloak himself hadn't realized, giving him more in common with the surprise prodigy than the experienced pro.

Hold the phone. Yes, it was Right-Eye's idea in the beginning, but Lirian's cell was a reset button. The idea to continue backing Xykon became Redcloak's from that point on; Right-Eye can't possibly be blamed for that.

As for Xykon, even knowing zilch about liches, he is definitely the experienced pro here. Even had he not learned one thing about lichdom after becoming one, and thought Redcloak's threat in the diner would be effective, he's still an epic sorcerer who just had his powers fully restored. His magic alone was more than a match for Redcloak (who couldn't even cast level 6 spells yet at that point), never mind the advantage provided by his undead attributes (immune to Redcloak's various death spells, and RC wasn't high enough to use Disintegrate yet.) For Redcloak, who was at most level 10, to think he could so easily handle someone so powerful is the height of hubris - foolish arrogance.


Always second-guessing yourself isn't necessarily and automatically a good thing, and indecisiveness is not an indication of true humility.

But considering you might be mistaken (i.e. not automatically believing your own rhetoric) is.


I took that as teasing, since it was kind of a compliment (how you've grown!), and for another he followed it up with his more serious rebuttal.

There was still an undercurrent of "I always think things through better than you have, so why should I listen to you now?" To me, that was plainly arrogance.

[B. Dandelion]

Then we're at an impasse.

Look, I just think it's a selective interpretation of one event, which doesn't seem to fit with his character as I've seen displayed elsewhere. Heck, the first establishing trait we ever had of Redcloak (in SoD) was humility:

"I expect great things of you, young man."
"Oh, I just want to serve the community in some small way, Revered Master."
"And that's exactly why I expect great things."

And then all the "oh but I'm not worthy!" bit later on, even talking to himself and hoping he "doesn't get in trouble for this." This is not a kid who thinks highly of himself, or has any real personal ambitions to speak of. He has so few personal ambitions that his pursuit of the Plan set by his god eventually strips him of his very identity -- his life.

This has carried over to the strip itself, where he often appears (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html) puzzled (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html) by the "holy !@#$" expressions on nearby people's faces when he's just managed something particularly impressive. In that former example he even goes so far as to suggest it is not his own skill that makes it impressive but the lack of skill displayed by others (who didn't pass Chemistry), which once again goes back to the overestimating oneself vs. underestimating others debate.


Hold the phone. Yes, it was Right-Eye's idea in the beginning, but Lirian's cell was a reset button. The idea to continue backing Xykon became Redcloak's from that point on; Right-Eye can't possibly be blamed for that.

That's... not where I was going with that. Redcloak doesn't have to prove via his own ego that teaming up with Xykon was a good idea to begin with, because it was Right-Eye's idea. Considering that his reluctance to turn back on Xykon later on amounted to a sunk cost fallacy, and fear of being blamed for the deaths of all the goblins who'd perished with him at the helm, it's relevant that it wasn't an issue here. From this point on it was.


As for Xykon, even knowing zilch about liches, he is definitely the experienced pro here. Even had he not learned one thing about lichdom after becoming one, and thought Redcloak's threat in the diner would be effective, he's still an epic sorcerer who just had his powers fully restored. His magic alone was more than a match for Redcloak (who couldn't even cast level 6 spells yet at that point), never mind the advantage provided by his undead attributes (immune to Redcloak's various death spells, and RC wasn't high enough to use Disintegrate yet.) For Redcloak, who was at most level 10, to think he could so easily handle someone so powerful is the height of hubris - foolish arrogance.

Your logic here appears to be that if it has superior firepower, you should never dream you could outsmart it.


But considering you might be mistaken (i.e. not automatically believing your own rhetoric) is.

True. But it would be more convincing if you could pull up an example or two more of this kind of behavior.


There was still an undercurrent of "I always think things through better than you have, so why should I listen to you now?" To me, that was plainly arrogance.

How does stealing (or not stealing, as the case may be) birthday cake play into "thinking things through better"?

[Optimystik]

Look, I just think it's a selective interpretation of one event, which doesn't seem to fit with his character as I've seen displayed elsewhere. Heck, the first establishing trait we ever had of Redcloak (in SoD) was humility:

He was humble, sure. But if you'll recall, at that point in the strip he wasn't a tragic hero yet either. We're talking about his attitude shift as the book went on, it's unrealistic to expect his first appearance to display all the traits. Macbeth was certainly humble (and very, very unwilling to lead) at the outset too.


This has carried over to the strip itself, where he often appears (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html) puzzled (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html) by the "holy !@#$" expressions on nearby people's faces when he's just managed something particularly impressive. In that former example he even goes so far as to suggest it is not his own skill that makes it impressive but the lack of skill displayed by others (who didn't pass Chemistry), which once again goes back to the overestimating oneself vs. underestimating others debate.

You're misattributing again. Let's say I'm Einstein and I split the atom, then turn to my astonished onlookers say "What? it's not my fault you fools didn't learn particle physics." It may indeed be the layman's fault that he didn't acquire that level of technical knowledge, but that fact doesn't make me any less arrogant for saying it that way. The periodic table isn't something you'd expect a regular cleric (assuming the goblin behind him even WAS a cleric) to know, any more than particle physics is something you'd expect a layperson to know.


That's... not where I was going with that. Redcloak doesn't have to prove via his own ego that teaming up with Xykon was a good idea to begin with, because it was Right-Eye's idea. Considering that his reluctance to turn back on Xykon later on amounted to a sunk cost fallacy, and fear of being blamed for the deaths of all the goblins who'd perished with him at the helm, it's relevant that it wasn't an issue here. From this point on it was.

But that's what I'm saying too. When I brought up Xykon, I was of course talking about everything that happened from the moment RC decided to make him a lich. Neither goblin could be blamed for signing him on before that, because they weren't aware of how much of a monster he was until then. (Arguably, they still didn't know how much, but they had enough info at that point to make a reasonable decision.) So we agree on this point.


Your logic here appears to be that if it has superior firepower, you should never dream you could outsmart it.

"I'd destroy him myself" speaks to outgunning it, not outsmarting it.


True. But it would be more convincing if you could pull up an example or two more of this kind of behavior.

"Relax, it won't fail." Complete with smirk and dismissive hand wave. Like quelling a child by telling him there ARE no boogeymen in the closet.


How does stealing (or not stealing, as the case may be) birthday cake play into "thinking things through better"?

Exactly; it doesn't. Why on earth would Redcloak even think it relevant? It's an ad hominem.

In any case, my "thinking things through" comment was actually referring to their final argument, just before Right-Eye tried to kill Xykon once and for all. "Let's talk this out before you act rashly, as usual." They had the exact same argument there that they had in Lirian's prison, with Right-Eye upset about the dead goblins (only with his family in the mix now) and Redcloak clinging to his same sunk cost fallacy.

[B. Dandelion]

Let's say I'm Einstein and I split the atom, then turn to my astonished onlookers say "What? it's not my fault you fools didn't learn particle physics." It may indeed be the layman's fault that he didn't acquire that level of technical knowledge, but that fact doesn't make me any less arrogant for saying it that way. The periodic table isn't something you'd expect a regular cleric (assuming the goblin behind him even WAS a cleric) to know, any more than particle physics is something you'd expect a layperson to know.

Except he wasn't speaking of the person next to him not being able to do it, and thus insulting their capabilities. I don't think the general was even a spellcaster at all. He was reacting to their surprise and commenting on the reason they'd never seen such a thing.


"I'd destroy him myself" speaks to outgunning it, not outsmarting it.

But we were referring to the phylactery plan. In fact, if Redcloak thought he could just obliterate Xykon all by himself, why would they even need the phylactery plan?


"Relax, it won't fail." Complete with smirk and dismissive hand wave. Like quelling a child by telling him there ARE no boogeymen in the closet.

That's A) your editorial and B) not what I asked for. If hubris is his tragic flaw, can't you come up with one single example beyond this one?


Exactly; it doesn't. Why on earth would Redcloak even think it relevant? It's an ad hominem.

If it's not relevant, than it's a generalized "you suck" kind of thing, but what you've been saying is that there's an "undercurrent" or a "suggestion" of "I always think things through better than you, which is why I should not listen to you." Now you're saying it's not in there at all. Of course it's not. It's a generalized, random thing he brought up to tease Right-Eye.


In any case, my "thinking things through" comment was actually referring to their final argument, just before Right-Eye tried to kill Xykon once and for all. "Let's talk this out before you act rashly, as usual." They had the exact same argument there that they had in Lirian's prison, with Right-Eye upset about the dead goblins (only with his family in the mix now) and Redcloak clinging to his same sunk cost fallacy.

How, exactly, was I supposed to infer this? Redcloak actually does talk about thinking things through in that last argument, something he NEVER mentions in the other argument except that you're trying to say a random reference to cake is supposed to hark to this...um, okay.

[Optimystik]

Except he wasn't speaking of the person next to him not being able to do it, and thus insulting their capabilities. I don't think the general was even a spellcaster at all. He was reacting to their surprise and commenting on the reason they'd never seen such a thing.

Not the capabilities of the person next to him specifically, no; just every spellcaster in his fantasy universe that had never achieved passing grades in chemistry.


But we were referring to the phylactery plan. In fact, if Redcloak thought he could just obliterate Xykon all by himself, why would they even need the phylactery plan?

Because a key part of destroying a lich is keeping tabs on its phylactery.

From your interpretation: Why on earth would he talk about being able to destroy a feeble bald old man with a skin rash?


That's A) your editorial and B) not what I asked for. If hubris is his tragic flaw, can't you come up with one single example beyond this one?

*Throws up hands*
I find a very telling example and all you can say is "Find another one!" without giving a reason whatsoever. If you disagree with my "editorial," some grounds would be nice.


If it's not relevant, than it's a generalized "you suck" kind of thing, but what you've been saying is that there's an "undercurrent" or a "suggestion" of "I always think things through better than you, which is why I should not listen to you." Now you're saying it's not in there at all. Of course it's not. It's a generalized, random thing he brought up to tease Right-Eye.

No, no. I've been saying that his undercurrent is "My opinion is inherently superior to yours." He bases this conclusion on very flimsy premises, yet sticks to it. In Lirian's prison, he bases it on Right-Eye's tendency never to admit to his mistakes; before the final battle, he bases it on Right-Eye's rash behavior as a youth.


How, exactly, was I supposed to infer this? Redcloak actually does talk about thinking things through in that last argument, something he NEVER mentions in the other argument except that you're trying to say a random reference to cake is supposed to hark to this...um, okay.

I'm not trying to get you to infer Redcloak's reasons. As I've said repeatedly, they're insubstantial and illogical. His hubris is based on his conclusion - that he doesn't need to heed his brother's very valid concerns because he considers himself the thinker between them, based primarily on Right-Eye's boyhood escapades.

[Larkspur]

Neither goblin could be blamed for signing him on before that, because they weren't aware of how much of a monster he was until then.

I'd disagree, actually. I get the impression Redcloak knew from Day 1, but decided to go with it anyway once Right-Eye jumped out of the bush and committed them. Sort of "Oh well, I guess this is the plan now, so sure, let's sign on the psychotic lizardfolk-killing sorcerer!"

A very early manifestation of his sunk cost thing, I think.

[B. Dandelion]

Not the capabilities of the person next to him specifically, no; just every spellcaster in his fantasy universe that had never achieved passing grades in chemistry.

As opposed to he himself, who was thus not doing anything special. He's downplaying his own abilities to react like that. The people nearby are impressed and he tells them not to be. All he did was graduate Chemistry. Big deal!


Because a key part of destroying a lich is keeping tabs on its phylactery.

Sure, but it is clear that Redcloak thought he could kill Xykon by smashing the phylactery, even without defeating him first. If Redcloak could just zap him into dust anytime he felt like it, finding the phylactery might be a pain, but it grossly nerfs his ability to seriously harm them. As a failsafe, it's weak. Not useless, but weak.


From your interpretation: Why on earth would he talk about being able to destroy a feeble bald old man with a skin rash?

Because he wasn't arguing over whether he could but should? If he can't be trusted...


*Throws up hands*
I find a very telling example and all you can say is "Find another one!"without giving a reason whatsoever. If you disagree with my "editorial," some grounds would be nice.

I really could have sworn that was what I have been doing. To sum up, I find your "editorial," as in your personal interpretation here, as a very selective way to perceive things which is as easily read another way. Given that, if I see no other reason to call Redcloak arrogant, I have no reason to find your interpretation more in tune with his overall character than my own. I ask you for more examples. Surely it can't be that hard, if it's as important to his character as you say.


No, no. I've been saying that his undercurrent is "My opinion is inherently superior to yours." He bases this conclusion on very flimsy premises, yet sticks to it. In Lirian's prison, he bases it on Right-Eye's tendency never to admit to his mistakes; before the final battle, he bases it on Right-Eye's rash behavior as a youth.

A history of rash behavior is an ad hominem, but not a flimsy one. You also keep changing the significance of the cake (oh and can I just add that it was Right-Eye who made the insane jump from "admitting misdeeds" to "taking the last piece of cake?" because actually that makes him the one who's throwing around ad hominems, assuming his brother is automatically referring to something so petty?). Before it was a connection to his rash behavior, now you're saying that Redcloak was explicitly calling Right-Eye a liar for claiming he could admit to his own mistakes.


I'm not trying to get you to infer Redcloak's reasons.

That wasn't what I asked. I said, how am I supposed to connect those two conversations together based solely on some comment about cake? It's beyond me.


As I've said repeatedly, they're insubstantial and illogical. His hubris is based on his conclusion - that he doesn't need to heed his brother's very valid concerns because he considers himself the thinker between them, based primarily on Right-Eye's boyhood escapades.

Redcloak never calls himself the "thinker". He thinks he's more methodical and careful. He does indeed bring up an ad hominem against his brother in their final argument. What you have failed to do is connect those two conversations together, to say that Redcloak's objections against Right-Eye in the pit were only ad hominems, and all you have to go on is some insane throwaway line about cake that Redcloak HIMSELF wasn't even the one to make.


I'd disagree, actually. I get the impression Redcloak knew from Day 1, but decided to go with it anyway once Right-Eye jumped out of the bush and committed them. Sort of "Oh well, I guess this is the plan now, so sure, let's sign on the psychotic lizardfolk-killing sorcerer!"

A very early manifestation of his sunk cost thing, I think.

Yeah, the comment about changing horses mid-stream definitely hits me as that too. But I don't think he realized quite the magnitude of badness Xykon represented until the second diner scene.

[Optimystik]

As opposed to he himself, who was thus not doing anything special. He's downplaying his own abilities to react like that. The people nearby are impressed and he tells them not to be. All he did was graduate Chemistry. Big deal!

Knowing Chemistry IS a big deal in D&D. Instead of being limited to 4 elements, he has access to... 80? 100? more?

And he is clearly disparaging the other casters who have limited their feeble minds to the classical elements. "Some of us got passing grades in chem" sounds on par with "Some of us actually applied ourselves in school" - implying that because he knows how to do something that impresses an onlooker, other casters that don't are just dumber.


Sure, but it is clear that Redcloak thought he could kill Xykon by smashing the phylactery, even without defeating him first. If Redcloak could just zap him into dust anytime he felt like it, finding the phylactery might be a pain, but it grossly nerfs his ability to seriously harm them. As a failsafe, it's weak. Not useless, but weak.

The "destroy him myself" comment came well before the "we won't let him hide his phylactery" argument. The phylactery wasn't even in the conversation at that point.


Because he wasn't arguing over whether he could but should? If he can't be trusted...

But neither of them were saying they should destroy him. Why bring it up at all? It makes more sense that he was saying he could destroy him.


I really could have sworn that was what I have been doing. To sum up, I find your "editorial," as in your personal interpretation here, as a very selective way to perceive things which is as easily read another way. Given that, if I see no other reason to call Redcloak arrogant, I have no reason to find your interpretation more in tune with his overall character than my own. I ask you for more examples. Surely it can't be that hard, if it's as important to his character as you say.

You can't find examples of arrogance from Redcloak? You're clearly not trying. "There's such a thing as overthinking." "And if you try really hard, you might get there some day." Again he dismisses a valid objection from his brother out of hand, and again does so wearing a condescending smirk.


A history of rash behavior is an ad hominem, but not a flimsy one. You also keep changing the significance of the cake (oh and can I just add that it was Right-Eye who made the insane jump from "admitting misdeeds" to "taking the last piece of cake?" because actually that makes him the one who's throwing around ad hominems, assuming his brother is automatically referring to something so petty?). Before it was a connection to his rash behavior, now you're saying that Redcloak was explicitly calling Right-Eye a liar for claiming he could admit to his own mistakes.

That Right-Eye knew immediately what Redcloak was talking about means that he has dealt with that very accusation numerous times before, so it's not an "insane jump." His exasperated cry of "let it drop!" further supports this.

I agree that it's petty, yet it seems to be something Redcloak keeps bringing up... making he himself petty.


That wasn't what I asked. I said, how am I supposed to connect those two conversations together based solely on some comment about cake? It's beyond me.

You're free to split hairs, or in this case crumbs, as much as you like. The cake comment isn't important.

The connection between those conversations, AGAIN, is that he dismisses his brother's very valid objections for paper-thin reasons in both of them.


Redcloak never calls himself the "thinker". He thinks he's more methodical and careful. He does indeed bring up an ad hominem against his brother in their final argument. What you have failed to do is connect those two conversations together, to say that Redcloak's objections against Right-Eye in the pit were only ad hominems, and all you have to go on is some insane throwaway line about cake that Redcloak HIMSELF wasn't even the one to make.

This is ridiculous. I don't have to connect two ad hominems together for them both to be ad hominems. They stand on their own!

[Katana_Geldar]

Personally, I find his willingness to continue to be willing to keep the gods hostage and be willing to destroy the entire world to fulfil the Dark One's plan to be rather arrogant.

[B. Dandelion]

Knowing Chemistry IS a big deal in D&D. Instead of being limited to 4 elements, he has access to... 80? 100? more?

Elements that all summoners should have to begin with. Ergo they're nothing special. The other summoners are just limited.


And he is clearly disparaging the other casters who have limited their feeble minds to the classical elements. "Some of us got passing grades in chem" sounds on par with "Some of us actually applied ourselves in school" - implying that because he knows how to do something that impresses an onlooker, other casters that don't are just dumber.

If Redcloak has just demonstrated something beyond the talents of a regular caster, it's already been proven that he's smarter than they are. By disparaging them, Redcloak makes his own accomplishment something no longer impressive in and of itself but ONLY something impressive in relation to the abilities of others.


The "destroy him myself" comment came well before the "we won't let him hide his phylactery" argument. The phylactery wasn't even in the conversation at that point.

So why was the phylactery the selling point, if all it does is give Redcloak an easier way to accomplish something he was already asserting should be easy?


But neither of them were saying they should destroy him. Why bring it up at all?

Because that was what they were arguing about! Redcloak says he would, if they should, Right-Eye says he doesn't think they should but they shouldn't trust him either.


It makes more sense that he was saying he could destroy him.

Well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that front.


You can't find examples of arrogance from Redcloak?

I asked you for them.


"There's such a thing as overthinking." "And if you try really hard, you might get there some day." Again he dismisses a valid objection from his brother out of hand, and again does so wearing a condescending smirk.

Once again with the editorial ("a condescending smirk"), and ALSO once again relying on what is plainly teasing. Is the fact that Redcloak called the paralyzed Right-Eye a deadweight an indication that he thinks the Rogue class is useless and resents his brother for choosing it? Because that makes as much sense as this.


That Right-Eye knew immediately what Redcloak was talking about means that he has dealt with that very accusation numerous times before, so it's not an "insane jump." His exasperated cry of "let it drop!" further supports this.

I agree that it's petty, yet it seems to be something Redcloak keeps bringing up... making he himself petty.

So do you assert that Redcloak was calling Right-Eye a liar, or not?


You're free to split hairs, or in this case crumbs, as much as you like. The cake comment isn't important.

You're the one hinging your argument on it.


The connection between those conversations, AGAIN, is that he dismisses his brother's very valid objections for paper-thin reasons in both of them.

Which is precisely what you have failed and are STILL failing to establish.


This is ridiculous. I don't have to connect two ad hominems together for them both to be ad hominems. They stand on their own!

You have yet to prove the earlier conversation WAS an ad hominem. All you've been doing is saying it looks like the later conversation (which you have been unable to prove) and thus asserting it, too, is an ad hominem.


Personally, I find his willingness to continue to be willing to keep the gods hostage and be willing to destroy the entire world to fulfil the Dark One's plan to be rather arrogant.

His willingness is to do as his god directed, so while I agree that the idea is very arrogant indeed, I don't find Redcloak himself arrogant for being involved in it. It is in fact his lack of ego, his willingness to bend his entire identity in the pursuit of someone else's objective, that leads him to never even question the plan or its validity.

[Hardcore]

I do not think Redcloak suffer from Hubris.
One need to keep separate Hubris as applied to singular events and as personal trait. We have all at one time or another suffered setbacks because of pride/overconfidence. But we learn we are not THAT good and get a healthy dose of humility. (Good thing as we otherwise would become insufferable).
A character in OOTS that could be accused of Hubris was Miko (if she had not been borderline). She was ALL THE TIME convinced she was the darling of the gods themselves (Pride) and could not understand she could ever be wrong.
Redcloak OTOH KNOW he is choosen by the Dark one, or at least appointed the High Priest of the DO cult (practically speaking). He may have made mistakes concerning how to handle Xykon, but overall he is not thinking he do not need to think to solve his problems.
A good example on this is his planning of the attack on Azure city.

If he is tragic hero it has more to do with all the suffering he has endured on the way to execute the Dark Ones plan.

[Optimystik]

Elements that all summoners should have to begin with. Ergo they're nothing special. The other summoners are just limited.

If Redcloak has just demonstrated something beyond the talents of a regular caster, it's already been proven that he's smarter than they are. By disparaging them, Redcloak makes his own accomplishment something no longer impressive in and of itself but ONLY something impressive in relation to the abilities of others.

Obviously Redcloak IS more talented than other casters. But he's still arrogant about it. The fact that other casters could make use of them if they applied themselves is irrelevant. You too could split an atom if you studied long enough, right or wrong?


So why was the phylactery the selling point, if all it does is give Redcloak an easier way to accomplish something he was already asserting should be easy?

Because the idea wasn't to vaporize Xykon at the first sign of trouble, remember? Redcloak still needed an arcane caster. The idea was to threaten him with it if he acted up.


Because that was what they were arguing about! Redcloak says he would, if they should, Right-Eye says he doesn't think they should but they shouldn't trust him either.

"If he somehow turns out to be a danger, I'll destroy that feeble powerless old man myself" is about the most useless exhortation I've ever heard. He might as well threaten one of the mushrooms in the cave while he's at it. It makes no sense to me that he'd be talking about killing a powerless Xykon.


Well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that front.

And all the others, at this rate.


I asked you for them.

I know that. What baffles me is why you need to.


Once again with the editorial ("a condescending smirk"), and ALSO once again relying on what is plainly teasing. Is the fact that Redcloak called the paralyzed Right-Eye a deadweight an indication that he thinks the Rogue class is useless and resents his brother for choosing it? Because that makes as much sense as this.

You say it's "plainly" teasing, yet he dismisses his brother just as quickly all the same. We're not going to agree.


So do you assert that Redcloak was calling Right-Eye a liar, or not?

When did I mention anyone being a liar? I said he's dismissing his brother's opinion.

Besides which, you're falling into the same logic trap Redcloak did. Even if he was a liar when they were younger, that doesn't automatically make his objections not worth listening to. Redcloak should be evaluating Right-Eye's argument on it's OWN merits, not comparing it to something he did ages ago.


You're the one hinging your argument on it.

Hardly. I've presented numerous other examples of Redcloak dismissing his brother, you've just chosen to latch onto that one for some strange reason. Maybe you like cake?


Which is precisely what you have failed and are STILL failing to establish.

You'll forgive me if your ringing declaration of my failure doesn't carry much weight with me at this point. :smallsigh:


You have yet to prove the earlier conversation WAS an ad hominem. All you've been doing is saying it looks like the later conversation (which you have been unable to prove) and thus asserting it, too, is an ad hominem.

"Admitting error? What's next, apologizing for misdeeds?"

How does Right-Eye being stubborn or even being a liar matter if his concerns about Xykon are justified?

Classic ad hominem.

[B. Dandelion]

Obviously Redcloak IS more talented than other casters. But he's still arrogant about it.

So if he upsells his relative level of talent, he is displaying arrogance, whereas if he downplays his relative level of talent he is... displaying arrogance. Nice tautology you've got there.


Because the idea wasn't to vaporize Xykon at the first sign of trouble, remember? Redcloak still needed an arcane caster. The idea was to threaten him with it if he acted up.

You're the one forgetting. If -- as you assert -- Redcloak believes he could vaporize Xykon all by himself, they already HAVE the desired leverage to use as a threat. Why, then, is the phylactery such a selling point, when its use is entirely redundant?


"If he somehow turns out to be a danger, I'll destroy that feeble powerless old man myself" is about the most useless exhortation I've ever heard. He might as well threaten one of the mushrooms in the cave while he's at it. It makes no sense to me that he'd be talking about killing a powerless Xykon.

It doesn't make sense to you because you obstinately refuse to even consider taking it out of the very context I have been arguing against this entire time. It's not a boast, either of being able to take down a feeble old man OR a powerful sorcerer. They are not talking about what CAN be done. They are talking about what SHOULD be.


I know that. What baffles me is why you need to.

If I earnestly thought Redcloak were arrogant, why would I be arguing against you? Unless I was playing Devil's Advocate -- in which case, why should I do your work for you?


You say it's "plainly" teasing, yet he dismisses his brother just as quickly all the same. We're not going to agree.

He brings up this very moment at the end of the book. He didn't just dismiss it. It's an unwritten rule of siblings that you are never allowed to let your kid brother or sister think they've managed to get one over on you, whether or not you know they did. Lord knows I've felt this from both ends, being the middle child.


When did I mention anyone being a liar? I said he's dismissing his brother's opinion.

You said he is doing it on the grounds that he thinks Right-Eye is unable to admit to his mistakes. Which is what Right-Eye had just gotten done claiming he could. Ergo, you assert he calls his brother a liar.


Hardly. I've presented numerous other examples of Redcloak dismissing his brother, you've just chosen to latch onto that one for some strange reason. Maybe you like cake?

First you tell me I am being unreasonable to ask you to provide for other examples, and now you assert that I'm unreasonable for fixating on this one. You can't even keep your own rhetoric straight. What's in that cake of yours, anyway?


You'll forgive me if your ringing declaration of my failure doesn't carry much weight with me at this point. :smallsigh:

I'm pointing out the part of your argument that doesn't sell. Period.


"Admitting error? What's next, apologizing for misdeeds?"

How does Right-Eye being stubborn or even being a liar matter if his concerns about Xykon are justified?

So then you do assert that by saying the aforementioned line, he calls Right-Eye a liar?

[Optimystik]

So if he upsells his relative level of talent, he is displaying arrogance, whereas if he downplays his relative level of talent he is... displaying arrogance. Nice tautology you've got there.

When did I say he was arrogant for downplaying his talent? That doesn't even make sense.


You're the one forgetting. If -- as you assert -- Redcloak believes he could vaporize Xykon all by himself, they already HAVE the desired leverage to use as a threat. Why, then, is the phylactery such a selling point, when its use is entirely redundant?

Because after you vaporize a lich, having its phylactery handy is a pretty vital step. I'm pretty sure I've already said this.


It doesn't make sense to you because you obstinately refuse to even consider taking it out of the very context I have been arguing against this entire time. It's not a boast, either of being able to take down a feeble old man OR a powerful sorcerer. They are not talking about what CAN be done. They are talking about what SHOULD be.

That context makes no sense to me. Why would you talk about something you SHOULD do if there's no way you CAN do it? "I should win the lottery tomorrow without buying a ticket."


He brings up this very moment at the end of the book. He didn't just dismiss it. It's an unwritten rule of siblings that you are never allowed to let your kid brother or sister think they've managed to get one over on you, whether or not you know they did. Lord knows I've felt this from both ends, being the middle child.

And nobody is more guilty of ad hominems than children. Well, maybe politicians.


You said he is doing it on the grounds that he thinks Right-Eye is unable to admit to his mistakes. Which is what Right-Eye had just gotten done claiming he could. Ergo, you assert he calls his brother a liar.

He brought it up to show that he didn't believe Right-Eye was sincere! Of course he thought he was lying! You finally got it!


First you tell me I am being unreasonable to ask you to provide for other examples, and now you assert that I'm unreasonable for fixating on this one. You can't even keep your own rhetoric straight. What's in that cake of yours, anyway?

The cake comment was never an assertion. As you yourself pointed out, Right-Eye mentioned it, not Redcloak. Redcloak was bringing up Right-Eye's general character flaw (being stubborn) as a reason for not listening to his objections. I say it's an ad hominem, and you ask for other examples of him dismissing Right-Eye's opinion. I brought up other examples (the forest and the final battle), and you went back to the cake. My rhetoric is very straight, you're just impossible to please.


I'm pointing out the part of your argument that doesn't sell. Period.

And your opinion of what does and doesn't "sell" doesn't matter to me anymore. Period.

Eh, I'm done with this. Excuse Redcloak's hubris all you like.

[B. Dandelion]

When did I say he was arrogant for downplaying his talent? That doesn't even make sense.

If you declare that your level of skill is not expert, but ordinary, you're downplaying it.


Because after you vaporize a lich, having its phylactery handy is a pretty vital step. I'm pretty sure I've already said this.

Convenient, yes. But if you already have the means to vaporize a lich, that's the hard part already taken care of. As a failsafe, the phylactery plan as you would have it is weak -- so why was it such a selling point for Right-Eye?


That context makes no sense to me. Why would you talk about something you SHOULD do if there's no way you CAN do it? "I should win the lottery tomorrow without buying a ticket."

I never said the act was innately impossible. I'm saying the prioritization was on SHOULD before HOW. If the answer to the first question is no, the answer to the second is largely moot anyway.


And nobody is more guilty of ad hominems than children. Well, maybe politicians.

If you dislike someone personally, if they give you good advice you may childishly insult them to their face but actually follow up on it. Siblings do this a lot. Redcloak was able to recall Right-Eye's words thirty years later. He did take them to heart.


He brought it up to show that he didn't believe Right-Eye was sincere! Of course he thought he was lying! You finally got it!

"It" being a straight answer out of you, after something like four tries of asking point-blank. Let's also note that I don't have to scroll up very far at all to find you contradicting yourself here.

"When did I mention anyone being a liar? I said he's dismissing his brother's opinion."


The cake comment was never an assertion. As you yourself pointed out, Right-Eye mentioned it, not Redcloak. Redcloak was bringing up Right-Eye's general character flaw (being stubborn)

What does it have to do with being stubborn? What you asserted before was that he was insinuating he "thought things through" better than his brother. Two seconds ago you were asserting he was calling Right-Eye a liar. Now it's stubbornness? You don't even know what you're arguing, do you? All you are convinced of is that Redcloak is wrong, and the details can change to fit those facts as you see them.


as a reason for not listening to his objections. I say it's an ad hominem, and you ask for other examples of him dismissing Right-Eye's opinion. I brought up other examples

What you did was whiiiiiiiiine about this for three posts and act as if my request was completely unreasonable. In fact, you NEVER brought up other examples in direct response to this, although they did wind up trickling in to the main conversation elsewhere.


(the forest and the final battle), and you went back to the cake.

In the post you made right before this one, you know, the one the post you're quoting is in direct response to, you were STILL complaining about my request for more examples.


My rhetoric is very straight, you're just impossible to please.

Damn me and my "standards!" Who needs 'em!?


And your opinion of what does and doesn't "sell" doesn't matter to me anymore. Period.

Eh, I'm done with this. Excuse Redcloak's hubris all you like.

Passionately declaring your indifference is like boasting about your humility. You can do it, sure, but the very nature of the act makes the falsehood of your claim self-evident. You care enough about my opinion to argue with me about it, but you want to make it personal when you suspect you've lost -- and the personal argument is exactly what I've been telling you this is NOT about. Basically you just confirm that everything I've said about you was true then and remains true now.

But by all means, take your deflated ball and scurry home.

[Optimystik]

What you did was whiiiiiiiiine about this for three posts and act as if my request was completely unreasonable. In fact, you NEVER brought up other examples in direct response to this, although they did wind up trickling in to the main conversation elsewhere.

Whine? I was genuinely confused by your fixation. :smallconfused:

And however you found the examples you were looking for (by actually reading my posts, through "trickling," whatever that even means in a message board context, or however) perhaps you could try actually refuting them?

In any case, don't bother. I've long since given up on convincing you.


But by all means, take your deflated ball and scurry home.

Yawn. If that's the best riling up you can do, I suggest you spend more time in 4chan practicing. Have a good day!

[Zxo]

My understanding of a tragic hero/character is a bit different from what's on tvtropes, and it's based on ancient Greek and Shakespeare's tragedies.

A standard tragic character's story looks like this:

1) he wants to do the right thing - according to his understanding of what the "right thing" is, but it usually is a noble goal the audience can symphatize with, or at least understand (love, patriotism, loyalty to one's family, religious duty)

2) due to external circumstances/forces (which may present him with limited choices and all of them bad in one way or another), or his own lack of understanding/insufficient information, pursuing what he believes to be the right thing leads to disaster, failure, suffering etc, for him and for others, including people he didn't want to hurt

3) he realizes how bad things are and how he caused it and this makes him suffer. This may happen at the very beginning, when the character makes a tragic decision knowing what his choice is likely to result in, or very late (just before dying), or somewhere in between, as a sudden revelation or in stages. One way or another, he suffers.

4) he kills himself (or does something almost equally extreme and painful, like Oedipus blinding himself) out of despair or in an suicidal attempt to make things right.

Redcloak fulfills (1) and (2) and has the potential to be a tragic hero, but we do not know if (3) and (4) will happen and they are the essence of a tragic character. He had one moment of guilt (the hobgoblins), but other than that he doesn't feel bad about what he's doing and still believes everything is going to end well for the goblins, even if not for him personally.

Only after a character died, it makes sense to discuss if he is a tragic hero or not. I do not know if Redcloak is one. He might become one. We can only wait and see.

[Sholos]

I think you should change 4 to: He gets killed. Macbeth is certainly a tragic hero, but does not kill himself. Hamlet, as well, is killed rather than commit suicide (though he may have gone that route anyways).

[David Argall]

I think you should change 4 to: He gets killed. Macbeth is certainly a tragic hero, but does not kill himself. Hamlet, as well, is killed rather than commit suicide (though he may have gone that route anyways).

Oedipus does not die as a result of his being a tragic hero, tho he might be said to have preferred that fate. So 4. has to be changed to more general ruin.

[Zxo]

Sholos, David: you are right. I wrote that template thinking about my favourite tragic stories and forgot about the rest of them. (4) should be changed to something like "dies in a violent way and in despair". Anyway, my point was that we should wait at least for (3) to discuss Redcloak as a tragic character.