Dark One's alignment [SoD spoilers] [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Kish

2009-10-07, 11:07 AM

After reading SoD I can't see how The Dark One is evil.

He was a "wise and benevolent ruler". From the goblins' point of view, yes, but doesn't sound like a tyrant. Encouraged goblins "to treat each other as brothers and sisters".

Then, when he gathered an army big enough to threaten humans, he didn't attack them, but met them and tried to negotiate "fair distribution of land" and spoke to them in a friendly way: "we are all children of the gods..."

Then, as a god, he advised his people to avoid humans - not to kill them all. His Plan is, again, not to destroy all other races or make them into slaves, or to destroy gods, but the same old "fair distribution of resources" - and this is after he learned the truth about the goblins' creation and had a good reason to be pissed off.

I can't see anything Evil here. He looks almost LG, although LN works too (and then there's no problem with Redcloak being his cleric).

Possible explanations:

1. Rich invented The Dark One's and goblins' story later, after introducing The Dark One as an evil god in OoTS. Initially, the content added by SoD wasn't planned. I do not know the timing, but this looks like the best explanation.

2. Humans and other powerful races determine what is considered evil. Goblins=evil, their god = evil by definition.

3. Gods' alignments work in a different way than mortals' and are determined by something else than what's easily seen. (There were discussions about Thor, who can't be Chaotic if alignment restrictions for clerics apply, but acts in a way that looks Chaotic sometimes.)

What do you think?
I think 4. Evil doesn't mean "one-dimensional Snidely Whiplash caricature." I believe the Dark One, as a living goblin, was, if not quite as saintly as Redcloak thinks, not as monstrous as some people suggest either. (There is, for that matter, no indication that he was an evil mortal, only that, after being sacrificed and empowered by mass slaughter, he rose as an evil god.)

So why is he evil (now)? Well, first, he's willing to let everyone--goblinoids, the occasional adventurer like Roy who rejects the idea of genocide, the worshipers of his allies Tiamat, Rat, and Loki--be destroyed, down to their souls, and treat it as a win because the group that comprises his precious worshipers could be a PC race in the next world. "No humanoid race will get the shaft," Redcloak said; what about intelligent nonhumanoids? XP fodder for the new goblin adventurers, apparently.

Second, his Plan apparently takes no issue with the mass slaughter of his people by Xykon. Redcloak's Crimson Mantle has given him information before, including the whole plan; if the Dark One cared about the individual lives of goblins beyond the power they give him as his worship, then by now, it would have given Redcloak the message, "SMASH THE PHYLACTERY."

FoE

2009-10-07, 11:14 AM

ericgrau

2009-10-07, 11:18 AM

Justified evil is the only evil that actually exists outside of Saturday morning cartoons and newspaper scare tactics. He has his excuses, his reasons why he thinks his actions are right, but he's still evil. Rich did it right, and the Dark One is most likely lawful evil, or another evil.

B. Dandelion

2009-10-07, 11:24 AM

"No humanoid race will get the shaft," Redcloak said; what about intelligent nonhumanoids? XP fodder for the new goblin adventurers, apparently.

Nitpick: He says "humanoids" on page 48 but "all the sentient races" on 46, so that's not necessarily true.

Everything else I agree with.

Morty

2009-10-07, 11:24 AM

Though I haven't read SoD, I find Kish's explanation the most sensible one.

Optimystik

2009-10-07, 12:12 PM

So why is he evil (now)? Well, first, he's willing to let everyone--goblinoids, the occasional adventurer like Roy who rejects the idea of genocide, the worshipers of his allies Tiamat, Rat, and Loki--be destroyed, down to their souls, and treat it as a win because the group that comprises his precious worshipers could be a PC race in the next world. "No humanoid race will get the shaft," Redcloak said; what about intelligent nonhumanoids? XP fodder for the new goblin adventurers, apparently.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it applies to all the other gods too, even the supposedly "good" ones. Thor and co. don't seem to care about any intelligent races being XP fodder either, but they aren't evil (at least, not in a gameworld sense.) Indeed, it seems like Freya even collaborated with Loki in coming up with the idea, and Marduk helped shaft the monstrous humanoids to make them more vulnerable to adventurers... so no deity's hands are clean on this one.

It's possible that we don't have the whole story on creation, but I hope that we'll at least get hints as to what the truth might be before the big reveal (if there is one) so we aren't totally blindsided with "Redcloak was living a lie!" Failing that, an explanation on how the good gods can be jerks and still good is in order.

Second, his Plan apparently takes no issue with the mass slaughter of his people by Xykon. Redcloak's Crimson Mantle has given him information before, including the whole plan; if the Dark One cared about the individual lives of goblins beyond the power they give him as his worship, then by now, it would have given Redcloak the message, "SMASH THE PHYLACTERY."

This I agree with totally, and it's definitely the biggest indicator of the Dark One's attitude. Right-Eye makes this point quite explicitly in the moments before his death.

Larkspur

2009-10-07, 08:55 PM

The Dark One is totaly Evil, probably NE, but this argument that he must not care about the goblinoids because he hasn't told Redcloak to ditch Xykon is absurd.

Xykon is the reason Team Evil is actually kind of winning. They need him for the Plan to go anywhere, and the Dark One thinks the Plan is the solution to the goblins' predicament. That's why he came up with it in the first place.*

* Or so he claims. We have no compelling reason beyond his alignment to doubt this.

Equating his decision to tolerate some collateral damage in pursuit of a victory to not caring about the goblins is ridiculous- it's like claiming Churchill didn't care about England because he was willing to expose Coventry to keep the Germans from switching their codes. This is a war; the commanders have to sacrifice people sometimes in order to win in the end.

If you're Right-Eye and you think the whole thing is hopeless, then obviously you're not going to approve of those sacrifices. That doesn't mean the people who do endorse the Plan are acting in bad faith.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 01:06 AM

If you're Right-Eye and you think the whole thing is hopeless, then obviously you're not going to approve of those sacrifices. That doesn't mean the people who do endorse the Plan are acting in bad faith.

Doesn't an evil deity imply "bad faith?" :smalltongue:

(Okay, that pun was in bad faith.)

But the issue here is whether the Dark One is evil, not whether he is justified. Considering intelligent lives to be "collateral damage" IS evil, no matter how justified you may feel he is in doing so.

Fiery Diamond

2009-10-08, 01:20 AM

But the issue here is whether the Dark One is evil, not whether he is justified. Considering intelligent lives to be "collateral damage" IS evil, no matter how justified you may feel he is in doing so.

This. This is very, very, true. Also, it would be a good idea to stay away from the references to real-world political figures, since that could get...messy.

Elfey

2009-10-08, 01:40 AM

The Dark One is evil, but that whiny necessary for a cause evil. The good Gods are at best merely jerks. The world exists for amusement. Goblins were created as fodder, The Dark One fights this, but is willing to go to insane levels and may have forgotten his purpose of leading the goblins in doing so. A weapon that can kill all creation is not something a sane person creates.

I think both the Dark One and Redcloak can receive their wish, but it won't be like either of them thought it would.

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 09:31 AM

Considering intelligent lives to be "collateral damage" IS evil, no matter how justified you may feel he is in doing so.

What? No; it isn't, it's a definition. If you kill people by accident in pursuit of a military objective you need a phrase to describe it; "collateral damage" happens to be that phrase. Causing collateral damage may be evil; considering people to be collateral damage is just accurate, assuming they are in fact civilians killed in pursuit of your military objective.

As for causing collateral damage, every war seems to result in it, so unless you think pursuing any war, be it defensive or even existential, is inherently evil, you don't think collateral damage is evil. The Dark One is in a position where goblin civilians are going to be killed either way; I don't see how accepting that and choosing the least bad option is evil. Some civilians must have died in the battle for Azure City; was Hinjo evil for not immediately surrendering? Or the Conventry example.

That said, the phrase is a little inaccurate in this case, since the dead goblins weren't really civilians when they got killed; the first lot were volunteers and the second lot were conscripts. But they weren't conscripted by the Dark One or Redcloak, so let's call the draft itself collateral damage.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 10:03 AM

What? No; it isn't, it's a definition. If you kill people by accident in pursuit of a military objective you need a phrase to describe it; "collateral damage" happens to be that phrase. Causing collateral damage may be evil; considering people to be collateral damage is just accurate, assuming they are in fact civilians killed in pursuit of your military objective.

As for causing collateral damage, every war seems to result in it, so unless you think pursuing any war, be it defensive or even existential, is inherently evil, you don't think collateral damage is evil.

You're mistaking my position here. I agree that causing collateral damage (i.e. deaths) can be unavoidable in any conflict. However, the effect on alignment depends on the actor's attitude towards that collateral damage.

The Dark One's attitude, in this case, is at best a resounding shrug. He doesn't appear to care in the slightest about the individual lives of goblins. No Good deity, and very few Neutral ones, would be so cavalier with the lives of their charges.

More to the point, it is not just the deaths of the goblins that Right-Eye was speaking of when he mentioned the Dark One's insensitivity - it was their suffering and slavery. And causing gratuitous suffering is always Evil.

That said, the phrase is a little inaccurate in this case, since the dead goblins weren't really civilians when they got killed; the first lot were volunteers and the second lot were conscripts. But they weren't conscripted by the Dark One or Redcloak, so let's call the draft itself collateral damage.

They were conscripted via Redcloak's actions, and he himself was acting at the behest of the Dark One. The fact that Xykon is the most direct connection between the goblins and their suffering does not absolve either of the others from wrongdoing.

If I give a very sadistic youth a gun, and know him to be such, and he goes on to murder a shopkeeper, I'm just as much at fault as he is for what happened.

King of Nowhere

2009-10-08, 10:20 AM

Second, his Plan apparently takes no issue with the mass slaughter of his people by Xykon. Redcloak's Crimson Mantle has given him information before, including the whole plan; if the Dark One cared about the individual lives of goblins beyond the power they give him as his worship, then by now, it would have given Redcloak the message, "SMASH THE PHYLACTERY."

I disagree with this. The idea that a god is [insert tag] because he didn't do something proves nothing. We don't have much knowledge on how much the deities can manifest themselves, but they surely have strong limits; if the twelve gods didn't manifest to Miko to stop her when she was going to kill Shojo, probably the dark one can't tell redcloak what to do.
For all we know, the dark one may disagree with what Redcloak is doing.
Some may argue that the cloak and being high priest offers a stronger connection with the deity, but that's pure speculation unsupported by facts.
Some may also argue that the dark one could revoke the spells to redcloak, but he don't have any other high priest of decent level, and redcloak is the only one who ever came close, and still have a chance to, take a gate.

Justified evil is the only evil that actually exists outside of Saturday morning cartoons and newspaper scare tactics.

I disagree, most evil that exist in the real world is just egoistical evil that pursue his goals without caring for the others. Then there are those who are fanatically devoted to a cause, to the point of harming others in the pursue of said cause. Even a few sadistic people, but I doubt they go much out of their way to harm people anyway.

Kish

2009-10-08, 10:24 AM

For all we know, the dark one may disagree with what Redcloak is doing.
Some may argue that the cloak and being high priest offers a stronger connection with the deity, but that's pure speculation unsupported by facts.

We've seen Thor talk directly to Durkon, remember? I'm sorry, but suggesting that a deity can't speak directly to his priests by default in a D&D setting is just silly, and suggesting that a deity can't convey disapproval to his priests in the OotS setting is even sillier.

Cleverdan22

2009-10-08, 11:07 AM

My idea is that the dark one wasn't evil (and possibly was good) in life, yet he became evil after ascending to godhood. What he's doing with the plan is pretty much evil. He share the same kind of evilness with Redcloak. It's not something I would define "evil", but it is undeniably evilness.

This. I can't think of much more to say past this.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 11:50 AM

I disagree with this. The idea that a god is [insert tag] because he didn't do something proves nothing. We don't have much knowledge on how much the deities can manifest themselves, but they surely have strong limits; if the twelve gods didn't manifest to Miko to stop her when she was going to kill Shojo, probably the dark one can't tell redcloak what to do.

I think the limit on the deities is interfering with free will. The 12 gods therefore couldn't actually keep Miko from killing Shojo, but could certainly punish her afterward to show their displeasure.

Justified evil is the only evil that actually exists outside of Saturday morning cartoons and newspaper scare tactics. He has his excuses, his reasons why he thinks his actions are right, but he's still evil. Rich did it right, and the Dark One is most likely lawful evil, or another evil.

Unjustified evil exists in the real world all the time. Look, for instance, at any ponzi scheme or pyramid scam - it is pure greed unmotivated by any kind of higher purpose. Typically, the person perpetrating these things gets rich quickly, but keeps it going despite already having enough to live on comfortably for the rest of their lives, solely out of avarice. The whole thing then (inevitably) collapses.

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 01:13 PM

The Dark One's attitude, in this case, is at best a resounding shrug. He doesn't appear to care in the slightest about the individual lives of goblins. No Good deity, and very few Neutral ones, would be so cavalier with the lives of their charges.

Where is the evidence for this? There's none!

Gods in this world are not omnipotent; the Dark One can't just snap his fingers and magically give them a powerful arcane caster who's not a psychopath. He may feel, as Redcloak and I do, that Xykon is their best out of a set of very bad alternatives.

Surely you're not going to argue that Redcloak is indifferent to the (non-hobgoblin) casualties? Yet he's still backing Xykon. Not all his reasons are sound, but none of them consist of indifference- in fact, two of the major ones are a) an unwillingness to write off the dead as a sunk cost and let their deaths be futile and b) an unwillingness to risk a reprisal by betraying Xykon.

And I'm not indifferent to the collateral damage, and I also think sticking with Xykon is the right decision. So whether or not you agree with it, it's clearly a possible position to have.

And causing gratuitous suffering is always Evil.

The key word in this sentence being gratuitous. Suffering pursuant to ending pogroms is not gratuitous.

They were conscripted via Redcloak's actions, and he himself was acting at the behest of the Dark One. The fact that Xykon is the most direct connection between the goblins and their suffering does not absolve either of the others from wrongdoing.

They were conscripted because Redcloak went to visit his brother. How was the Dark One to blame for that? But yes, I agree their conscription was itself an unintended consequence of the Plan; that's why I'm willing to count them as collateral damage rather than military casualties. As I just said.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 01:29 PM

Where is the evidence for this? There's none!

The evidence that he APPEARS not to care are rampant. Whether he actually does and has his hands tied by some metadivine mandate, actually does but is uncertain how to better protect the goblins' interests, or is really a tosser is what we don't have evidence for.

Gods in this world are not omnipotent; the Dark One can't just snap his fingers and magically give them a powerful arcane caster who's not a psychopath. He may feel, as Redcloak and I do, that Xykon is their best out of a set of very bad alternatives.

As I said before, that speaks to justification, not alignment. Choosing the best of a set of evils... is still choosing evil. That's what this thread is about.

Surely you're not going to argue that Redcloak is indifferent to the (non-hobgoblin) casualties? Yet he's still backing Xykon. Not all his reasons are sound, but none of them consist of indifference- in fact, two of the major ones are a) an unwillingness to write off the dead as a sunk cost and let their deaths be futile and b) an unwillingness to risk a reprisal by betraying Xykon.

And I'm not indifferent to the collateral damage, and I also think sticking with Xykon is the right decision. So whether or not you agree with it, it's clearly a possible position to have.

The dead are always a sunk cost. Their fate has no further impact on the living. Right-Eye's speech was not about the goblins who had died, it was about the ones that were alive and under Xykon's bony heel. "This alliance with Xykon is destroying our souls." Whatever non-evil the goblins could have claimed is rapidly evaporating the longer they stay in the army. We saw no goblins whipping human slaves before the war, and the list of atrocities they commit in X and R's service is only going to increase.

Sticking with Xykon can't possibly be the right decision if it ends up corrupting goblins who would not have otherwise committed evil acts.

The key word in this sentence being gratuitous. Suffering pursuant to ending pogroms is not gratuitous.

It is when there is an alternative. Right-Eye had that alternative, but Xykon ended the experiment early. And he did so as a direct result of Redcloak's actions.

They were conscripted because Redcloak went to visit his brother. How was the Dark One to blame for that? But yes, I agree their conscription was itself an unintended consequence of the Plan; that's why I'm willing to count them as collateral damage rather than military casualties. As I just said.

I didn't blame the Dark One for the goblins being conscripted; I blamed Redcloak. But if you recall, he went to try and get his brother back in the fold, NOT to leave the Dark One's Plan behind.

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 02:15 PM

The evidence that he APPEARS not to care are rampant.

No, it isn't. All we know is that he doesn't think Redcloak should split from Xykon. Why he thinks this, we have no idea. Right-Eye's explanation is possible, but no more plausible than a more charitable interpretation. If Redcloak's crayon story is at all accurate, the charitable interpretation is more plausible, given what we know of his character.

As I said before, that speaks to justification, not alignment. Choosing the best of a set of evils... is still choosing evil.

Not even by D&D alignment rules. If all your options are evils and you pick the least bad, you don't forfeit good alignment. That's why, say, Roy is not penalized for keeping Belkar in the party rather than slitting his throat while he sleeps.

Otherwise Hinjo would have fallen for ordering his troops to defend the city- after all, he was ordering conscripts to their deaths.

The dead are always a sunk cost. Their fate has no further impact on the living.

Aside from propaganda, but yes, I largely agree with you. That's precisely my point. Redcloak's concern for them is pure sentiment; you can't possible claim he doesn't care about the casualties when he's (in your view) making a mistake because he's so upset about them!

Sticking with Xykon can't possibly be the right decision if it ends up corrupting goblins who would not have otherwise committed evil acts.

What if it saves more innocents than it corrupts in the long run?

It is when there is an alternative. Right-Eye had that alternative, but Xykon ended the experiment early.

But we don't know it would have been a viable experiment. 17 years success says yes, Dark One's opinion*, authoral description of the Sapphire Guard and most of human history says no. I'd say the odds were for failure, and it doesn't count as an alternative if it's doomed to fail.

* for what it's worth

But if you recall, he went to try and get his brother back in the fold, NOT to leave the Dark One's Plan behind.

He went to go sleep on his couch. He wasn't seriously trying to recruit Right-Eye; he was wandering around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do next, since he couldn't learn any gate locations.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 02:51 PM

No, it isn't. All we know is that he doesn't think Redcloak should split from Xykon. Why he thinks this, we have no idea. Right-Eye's explanation is possible, but no more plausible than a more charitable interpretation. If Redcloak's crayon story is at all accurate, the charitable interpretation is more plausible, given what we know of his character.

Even going by the crayon interpretation, the Dark One is wrong. "Humans are a morally bankrupt race," he preached... yet somehow goblin families got to go to the circus with humans without any problems. So at best, he has no idea what he's talking about, and at worse he was outright lying.

Not even by D&D alignment rules. If all your options are evils and you pick the least bad, you don't forfeit good alignment. That's why, say, Roy is not penalized for keeping Belkar in the party rather than slitting his throat while he sleeps.

Plainly incorrect. Picking the least evil means you shift and have to atone, not that no action whatsoever is necessary on your part. To quote Hinjo: "they wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile."

A justified evil is no less evil. For someone who cares about their alignment, doing nothing afterward is unacceptable.

Otherwise Hinjo would have fallen for ordering his troops to defend the city- after all, he was ordering conscripts to their deaths.

Terrible analogy. Hinjo never forced anyone, not even the prisoners, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) to defend Azure City against their will. Xykon, however, definitely forced the goblins to enlist.

Aside from propaganda, but yes, I largely agree with you. That's precisely my point. Redcloak's concern for them is pure sentiment; you can't possible claim he doesn't care about the casualties when he's (in your view) making a mistake because he's so upset about them!

This thread is not about Redcloak's concern, but the Dark One's. I know Redcloak's concern is genuine, he's just extremely misguided. The Dark One should know better, as he is the Planner (capital P) between the two.

What if it saves more innocents than it corrupts in the long run?

That makes no sense. How could engendering a culture of cruelty in the goblin race possibly result in more innocents?

Observe the attitude of the new goblin society (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) Redcloak is forming. Would anyone in Right-Eye's village have behaved like that?

But we don't know it would have been a viable experiment. 17 years success says yes, Dark One's opinion*, authoral description of the Sapphire Guard and most of human history says no. I'd say the odds were for failure, and it doesn't count as an alternative if it's doomed to fail.

* for what it's worth

"Authoral description of the Sapphire Guard" has them hunting down the wearer of the cloak, not every last goblin on the face of the earth. Worse, Redcloak knows this. If he'd really wanted his brother's village to have thrived, he would have stayed away.

He went to go sleep on his couch. He wasn't seriously trying to recruit Right-Eye; he was wandering around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do next, since he couldn't learn any gate locations.

The second his brother mentions the next generation, he jumps in: "Only by seizing equality-!" He had no intention of abandoning the Plan, particularly since he kept the cloak. Maybe he didn't plan on dragging his brother into it, but since his brother explicitly asked to be left out of it, he was being very disrespectful to Right-Eye's wishes just by showing up like he did.

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 04:05 PM

Even going by the crayon interpretation, the Dark One is wrong. "Humans are a morally bankrupt race," he preached... yet somehow goblin families got to go to the circus with humans without any problems. So at best, he has no idea what he's talking about, and at worse he was outright lying.

Well, assuming crayon accuracy, he does know what he's talking about. He went to parley and they assassinated him. And then the Sapphire Guard got created and launched pogroms. He's made an unfair extrapolation from the behavior of a few evildoers to the entire species, but it's not like he pulled it out of thin air.

And that's not evil either, it's just dumb. Durkon hasn't forfeited his alignment for hating on trees.

Being willing to kill a bunch of random people to save your own tribe is evil, so I'm not disputing the Dark One's Evilness. I'm just saying Xykon isn't evidence for it.

Picking the least evil means you shift and have to atone, not that no action whatsoever is necessary on your part. To quote Hinjo: "they wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile."

A) Paladins run on stricter rules than alignment does.
B) It's for when you make the wrong call, not for making any decision. See Roy and Belkar.
C) Atonement is for afterward. This isn't afterward yet.

A justified evil is no less evil.

Er, no, it is. That's what justification means. For instance, killing someone on a whim is evil. Killing someone to stop them from setting a baby on fire is less evil, though more evil than incapacitating them without killing them. In fact, it's so unevil we'd probably call it "good." That's how it works. That's why the thing that screws up your alignment is killing innocents, not just killing- justification alters the evilness of any given action.

Terrible analogy. Hinjo never forced anyone, not even the prisoners, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) to defend Azure City against their will. Xykon, however, definitely forced the goblins to enlist.

We actually have no idea whether he conscripted the able-bodied non-felons or not- he never evacuated them, so I was assuming they were in the army. But that wasn't my point- the evil I meant was the "ordering people to their deaths" bit, not the conscription bit. The point is, it was a bad outcome. If he'd ordered people into mortal danger on a whim he'd fall for it, but he doesn't, because it was the best outcome out of several bad outcomes.

I know Redcloak's concern is genuine, he's just extremely misguided. The Dark One should know better, as he is the Planner (capital P) between the two.

A) If you can accept that Redcloak is misguided, why is it so hard to believe that the Dark One might also be misguided?
B) All of this is assuming the Plan is a bad idea, and the results on that are not yet in.

That makes no sense. How could engendering a culture of cruelty in the goblin race possibly result in more innocents?

Well, they just wiped out the Sapphire Guard. Let's say they've sacrificed three villages to corruption. All we need for a net gain is for the Sapphire Guard to exterminate four villages in the alternate timeline in which they survive, and presto, a net preservation of goblinoid innocents by Team Evil.

"Authoral description of the Sapphire Guard" has them hunting down the wearer of the cloak, not every last goblin on the face of the earth.

Not according to War and XPs. Describing the SGs: "Most damning of all, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods."

Other humanoids weren't involved in the Plan, so it was obviously a broader genocidal campaign than just wiping out knowledge of the Crimson Mantle.

Worse, Redcloak knows this. If he'd really wanted his brother's village to have thrived, he would have stayed away.

He wanted to crash on the couch for a few days. The jackass who thought he should move in permanently was Right-Eye. But I agree, that plan was idiotic, and Redcloak was an idiot for agreeing to it at the end. Good thing Xykon showed up, or the niece would probably be dead too right now.

Family members are allowed to criticize each other's dumb life choices; it's what they're supposed to do. Redcloak was no more disrespectful of Right-Eye than Right-Eye was of him by trying to make him drop the Plan.

Porthos

2009-10-08, 04:14 PM

Not according to War and XPs. Describing the SGs: "Most damning of all, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods."

Gods know that the last thing I want to do is get in yet another alignment/morailty debate.

Still.

I would point out that you might just be reading that line a wee bit too expansively. What we do know about the SG is that they were very fanatical about making sure that there was not a single trace of mention of the Gates.

Anywhere.

And there is nothing in the quoted line that actually goes beyond the already known reason why the SG is around.

Multiple Goblin Villages? Multiple times they killed the Breaer of the Crimson Mantle.

Other Humanoids? Anyone else who even had a thought about knowing about the Gates.

There's already a lot, karmically speaking, to damn the Saphirre Guard. Lets not go around and invent even more charges to throw at them, eh?

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 05:45 PM

Other Humanoids? Anyone else who even had a thought about knowing about the Gates.

And their villages, apparently.

I never said they wanted to wipe every goblin off the face of the planet, but it's beyond evident that merely not being an active participant in the Plan was not enough to save anyone. Right-Eye knew way too much to be spared, which meant that his whole village was doomed as well.

Plus a situation in which people are gleefully willing to exterminate you, your neighbors and your neighbors' children over a piece of information is not conductive to forming a peaceful farming community. We note that even Miko never suggested tracking down everyone Roy mentioned the gate to and exterminating them, so there's clearly a pretty deadly species bias at work here.

The question was "Was Right-Eye's village safe in the long term?" not "Did the Sapphire Guard wish to annihilate every goblin ever?" and the answer to that question is no.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 08:07 PM

Well, assuming crayon accuracy, he does know what he's talking about. He went to parley and they assassinated him. And then the Sapphire Guard got created and launched pogroms. He's made an unfair extrapolation from the behavior of a few evildoers to the entire species, but it's not like he pulled it out of thin air.

Still assuming crayon accuracy, he was assassinated by three cowardly rulers, not the entire human race. Yet his judgment of their behavior was not qualified or limited in any way. He was generalizing, therefore he was wrong.

And that's not evil either, it's just dumb. Durkon hasn't forfeited his alignment for hating on trees.

If you can't see the difference between a tree and a sentient humanoid, we're not going to have much common ground here.

Being willing to kill a bunch of random people to save your own tribe is evil, so I'm not disputing the Dark One's Evilness. I'm just saying Xykon isn't evidence for it.

If you don't dispute that, why are we arguing? That's the whole point of this thread!

A) Paladins run on stricter rules than alignment does.
B) It's for when you make the wrong call, not for making any decision. See Roy and Belkar.
C) Atonement is for afterward. This isn't afterward yet.

1) Atonement isn't just for paladins and clerics, if FC2 is any guide. Even if it isn't, all it means is that they don't need the spell - clearly being sorry is still part of being forgiven for evil in OotS.
2) Roy didn't have to atone because Belkar's actions were ruled not to apply to him, not because Belkar wasn't committing Evil. But if you'll recall, a condition of that ruling is that he has to keep Belkar leashed and away from innocents.
3) "Afterward?" After what? The goblins die? It'll be far too late by then.

Er, no, it is. That's what justification means. For instance, killing someone on a whim is evil. Killing someone to stop them from setting a baby on fire is less evil, though more evil than incapacitating them without killing them. In fact, it's so unevil we'd probably call it "good." That's how it works. That's why the thing that screws up your alignment is killing innocents, not just killing- justification alters the evilness of any given action.

Er, no, it's not. Killing someone who's about to set a baby on fire isn't evil at all, much less justified evil. For killing to even be morally questionable, the target can't deserve it.

Justified evil is more along the lines of the paladin that has to burn down one plagued village to save the countryside. It's not their fault they're sick, but it's the only way to save more lives. THAT'S a necessary act that nonetheless requires atonement.

We actually have no idea whether he conscripted the able-bodied non-felons or not- he never evacuated them, so I was assuming they were in the army. But that wasn't my point- the evil I meant was the "ordering people to their deaths" bit, not the conscription bit. The point is, it was a bad outcome. If he'd ordered people into mortal danger on a whim he'd fall for it, but he doesn't, because it was the best outcome out of several bad outcomes.

No, he didn't fall because they always had a choice to disobey him. He commanded loyalty; he didn't demand obedience. There's a difference between a ruler and a tyrant, you know.

A) If you can accept that Redcloak is misguided, why is it so hard to believe that the Dark One might also be misguided?
B) All of this is assuming the Plan is a bad idea, and the results on that are not yet in.

A) Because as a deity, he has much less room for error. He put himself in charge of his people's welfare, so he is accountable for the state of their souls.
B) In the long run it may or may not be. All I'm judging it on are the effects it's having now.

Although, call me crazy, but I distinctly doubt that holding the gods hostage or resetting all of creation will seriously get pulled off successfully in the story.

Well, they just wiped out the Sapphire Guard. Let's say they've sacrificed three villages to corruption. All we need for a net gain is for the Sapphire Guard to exterminate four villages in the alternate timeline in which they survive, and presto, a net preservation of goblinoid innocents by Team Evil.

Except they wouldn't be innocent anymore, by definition. It's not their lives I'm worried about, it's their souls.

He wanted to crash on the couch for a few days. The jackass who thought he should move in permanently was Right-Eye. But I agree, that plan was idiotic, and Redcloak was an idiot for agreeing to it at the end. Good thing Xykon showed up, or the niece would probably be dead too right now.

Do you honestly believe that? That Right-Eye's family would have died if Xykon hadn't reappeared?

The mere fact you can say the phrase "good thing Xykon showed up" without any sarcasm at all is almost frightening.

Family members are allowed to criticize each other's dumb life choices; it's what they're supposed to do. Redcloak was no more disrespectful of Right-Eye than Right-Eye was of him by trying to make him drop the Plan.

The difference is that Right-Eye's village wasn't getting any goblins killed. Redcloak's plan was.

The question was "Was Right-Eye's village safe in the long term?" not "Did the Sapphire Guard wish to annihilate every goblin ever?" and the answer to that question is no.

To quote a familiar sentiment: "the results on that are not yet in."

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 09:07 PM

If you don't dispute that, why are we arguing? That's the whole point of this thread!

Ahem:

The Dark One is totaly Evil, probably NE, but this argument that he must not care about the goblinoids because he hasn't told Redcloak to ditch Xykon is absurd.

My disagreement is with your premise, not your conclusion.

1) Atonement isn't just for paladins and clerics, if FC2 is any guide. Even if it isn't, all it means is that they don't need the spell - clearly being sorry is still part of being forgiven for evil in OotS.
2) Roy didn't have to atone because Belkar's actions were ruled not to apply to him, not because Belkar wasn't committing Evil. But if you'll recall, a condition of that ruling is that he has to keep Belkar leashed and away from innocents.
3) "Afterward?" After what? The goblins die? It'll be far too late by then.

1) I just meant paladins have a higher standard- they have to atone for actions that wouldn't shift their alignment, like slaying an innocent to save other innocents.
2) How is this not analogous?
3) After the success of the Plan, presumably- that is what they need to use Xykon for.

No, he didn't fall because they always had a choice to disobey him. He commanded loyalty; he didn't demand obedience. There's a difference between a ruler and a tyrant, you know.

He would have been totally okay with his soldiery deserting in wartime? What???? No, I'm pretty sure the Azurites punish deserters just like every other army to exist ever.

A) Because as a deity, he has much less room for error. He put himself in charge of his people's welfare, so he is accountable for the state of their souls.
B) In the long run it may or may not be. All I'm judging it on are the effects it's having now. Although, call me crazy, but I distinctly doubt that holding the gods hostage or resetting all of creation will seriously get pulled off successfully in the story.

A) He can still be wrong though, surely? Not malicious but just wrong? And technically they put him in charge of their welfare; he didn't ask to be deified.
B) The effects it's having now are a) they ended the pogroms and b) they have a nice, prosperous port city to occupy. Even if we concede some degree of moral decay (although frankly the hobgoblins seemed a fairly sadistic lot to begin with), that seems like a net win for the goblins. I'd say he's doing pretty well by them.

As to the long term- I doubt they'll "win," but I also don't see how Rich can end the comic without doing something to resolve the Goblinoid Problem, so they're probably going to wind up better off than they would have if the Dark One had never attempted the Plan. (And this will be true even if the Dark One turns out to be completely malicious- it's just not going to be a satisfying ending if the goblins remain completely screwed.)

Except they wouldn't be innocent anymore, by definition. It's not their lives I'm worried about, it's their souls.

How are the children of some random other village not innocent? They didn't have anything to do with the implementation of the Plan. And don't you think we should save their lives first and then worry about their souls? By this reasoning it's great the SGs cut down R&R's little sister because she never had a chance to lose her innocence- that seems a creepy sort of logic to me.

Do you honestly believe that? That Right-Eye's family would have died if Xykon hadn't reappeared?

Oh, I absolutely believe that village was toast. Maybe not that year, or that decade, or even that generation, but within two or three generations, definitely. And maybe they wouldn't all die, because pogroms don't really work that way, but some high level of attrition from the neighbors or random human adventurers or the SGs? Definitely.

The SGs tried to kill Right-Eye as a baby because he was in the same village as the Crimson Mantle. You really think they're going to let an adult ex-accomplice of Xykon's wander around unmolested forever? The quip about Xykon was semi-sarcastic, but I think their long-term prospects were abysmal in either case. You're right, the results aren't in (and won't ever be), but we can extrapolate.

The difference is that Right-Eye's village wasn't getting any goblins killed. Redcloak's plan was.

That's got nothing to do with how polite it is to complain about your brother's life choices, though.

Acero

2009-10-08, 09:10 PM

After reading SoD I can't see how The Dark One is evil.

What do you think?

dude, hes the DARK ONE

not the nice one, friendly one, etc.

gotta b evil, unless his parents named him that (unlikely)

could b a joke?

might as well make it illegal to speak his name

Herald Alberich

2009-10-08, 09:51 PM

dude, hes the DARK ONE

not the nice one, friendly one, etc.

gotta b evil, unless his parents named him that (unlikely)

could b a joke?

might as well make it illegal to speak his name

Haven't read SoD, but TV Tropes tells me he was called that for the color of his skin.

Yes?

Larkspur

2009-10-08, 10:35 PM

Haven't read SoD, but TV Tropes tells me he was called that for the color of his skin.

Yes?

Yes, although he could have been called The Violet One or something, so one suspects it was entirely coincidental.

Optimystik

2009-10-08, 10:50 PM

Ahem:

My disagreement is with your premise, not your conclusion.

Then why would you think... wait...

You're not going to tell me you think he's Evil just because he's a goblin, are you? :smallsigh:

1) I just meant paladins have a higher standard- they have to atone for actions that wouldn't shift their alignment, like slaying an innocent to save other innocents.
2) How is this not analogous?
3) After the success of the Plan, presumably- that is what they need to use Xykon for.

1) Slaying (or in this case, corrupting) an innocent to save other innocents would shift their alignment. Slaying an innocent always does, by RAW.

He may have a good reason for it, but that doesn't mean you're exempt from atoning. This is the standard I'm applying to Redcloak and the Dark One.

2) How IS it?

3)

He would have been totally okay with his soldiery deserting in wartime? What???? No, I'm pretty sure the Azurites punish deserters just like every other army to exist ever.

Good armies generally don't punish defenders that retreat in the face of impossible odds.

As for the soldiers that left... he didn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html)

A) He can still be wrong though, surely? Not malicious but just wrong? And technically they put him in charge of their welfare; he didn't ask to be deified.
B) The effects it's having now are a) they ended the pogroms and b) they have a nice, prosperous port city to occupy. Even if we concede some degree of moral decay (although frankly the hobgoblins seemed a fairly sadistic lot to begin with), that seems like a net win for the goblins. I'd say he's doing pretty well by them.

A) That he was "elected" in no way lessens his responsibility for their welfare. And for a deity to be unaware or mistaken as to the state of his people's souls is at best gross negligence.
B) First, "ending the pogroms" is not a win if all it does is further conflict and result in more goblin deaths. Team Peregrine, remember? Doesn't seem like it's all over to me, even with the paladins dead. Second, their "nice, prosperous port city" is still dangling on a thread, and their extremely unstable epic lich overlord is holding the scissors. Very well indeed...?

As to the long term- I doubt they'll "win," but I also don't see how Rich can end the comic without doing something to resolve the Goblinoid Problem, so they're probably going to wind up better off than they would have if the Dark One had never attempted the Plan. (And this will be true even if the Dark One turns out to be completely malicious- it's just not going to be a satisfying ending if the goblins remain completely screwed.)

If the goblin people end up better off, it will be in spite of the Plan, not because of it. The Plan is little more than divine terrorism, and making it pay off in the end would be a very odd message for the Giant to send.

How are the children of some random other village not innocent? They didn't have anything to do with the implementation of the Plan. And don't you think we should save their lives first and then worry about their souls? By this reasoning it's great the SGs cut down R&R's little sister because she never had a chance to lose her innocence- that seems a creepy sort of logic to me.

I'm in no way sanctioning the heinous actions of the Sapphire Guard. You can't deny that the state of their souls is more important than the state of their lives though, not in D&D. Whatever suffering they would endure in life, is nothing compared to enduring the same for eternity... and in addition, they would earn the reputation that has been thrust on them unfairly, AND in becoming evil they would perpetuate such suffering to others who don't deserve it, just as they are doing now with the Azurite slaves.

Oh, I absolutely believe that village was toast. Maybe not that year, or that decade, or even that generation, but within two or three generations, definitely. And maybe they wouldn't all die, because pogroms don't really work that way, but some high level of attrition from the neighbors or random human adventurers or the SGs? Definitely.

And you're basing this on...?

Every village they attacked had a Redcloak in it.

The SGs tried to kill Right-Eye as a baby because he was in the same village as the Crimson Mantle. You really think they're going to let an adult ex-accomplice of Xykon's wander around unmolested forever? The quip about Xykon was semi-sarcastic, but I think their long-term prospects were abysmal in either case. You're right, the results aren't in (and won't ever be), but we can extrapolate.

Here's some extrapolation for you: if they're not in the same village with the Mantle, the SG would have no reason to go after Right-Eye or any of the goblins with him.

factotum

2009-10-09, 01:26 AM

Then why would you think... wait...

You're not going to tell me you think he's Evil just because he's a goblin, are you? :smallsigh:

Speaking personally, I think the Dark One is evil because Redcloak told us so! I forget where, but he definitely says "He is technically an EVIL god, after all". Redcloak ought to know what alignment his god is...

Zxo

2009-10-09, 04:41 AM

Ok, I started the topic saying I couldn't see how The Dark One is evil, now I can see it - because of one thing: the Snarl. Messing with the Snarl in any way is so dangerous and can have such disastrous consequences that Dark One's Plan shows his total disregard for lives of all species, goblins included (world will be destroyed? We'll start a new one with a better deal for goblins). Redcloak allying with Xykon and sacrificing everything, even his brother's life, mirrors The Dark One's attitude.

Conquest and sacrificing lives of soldiers isn't evil (and goblins were attacked first) and I think the mortal Dark One was Lawful Neutral (Lawful, because he believed the human rulers would not hurt him during official negotiations - they must have promised him that he would be safe, that's the only explanation why he went there). He became Evil after learning about goblins' origins and that was his Start of Darkness.

I also think there's irony in the aftermath of SG's attack on the village. They did it to stop the Plan, but they helped to start it. There were generations of goblin high priests wearing the Mantle and nothing happened, probably because they already had families and other things in life they cared about and were mature enough to not become fanatics, only when the young, unprepared Redcloak who just lost nearly everything got the Mantle he went mad enough to do all he did - and he "swiftly moved up in the church's hierarchy" because SG killed all the others.

Haarkla

2009-10-09, 05:28 AM

If we can take Redcloaks story at face value then I would have to say the Dark One is Lawful Neutral.

Larkspur

2009-10-09, 11:09 AM

You're not going to tell me you think he's Evil just because he's a goblin, are you?

I trust Redcloak to know his patron's alignment. Plus D&D morality is set up to favor the status quo- if you're to willing to hurt the privileged in order to change it you pay an alignment penalty. Screwing with the Snarl certainly qualifies.

1) Slaying (or in this case, corrupting) an innocent to save other innocents would shift their alignment. Slaying an innocent always does, by RAW.

Huh. I stand corrected, then. So the difference is just that paladins fall for any evil deed whereas Roy can plan nasty practical jokes and get away with it?

Roy keeps Belkar around despite the fact that he occasionally gets loose and murders someone because Belkar's a useful fighter, but he tries to prevent Belkar from killing people as much as possible while keeping him in the party. Redcloak/the Dark One keep Xykon around despite the fact that he occasionally gets bored and murders some goblins because he's a useful fighter/arcane caster, but Redcloak tries to prevent Xykon from killing goblins as much as possible while keeping him in the party. The only difference between the two situations is that Redcloak has slightly less control over Xykon.

Good armies generally don't punish defenders that retreat in the face of impossible odds.

I was talking about soldiers who wanted to desert before the battle, not people who retreated once their line broke or nobles with private armies over whom Hinjo had no control. In other words, could Kazumi have deserted the day before the battle with no negative consequences? I'm guessing no.

A) That he was "elected" in no way lessens his responsibility for their welfare. And for a deity to be unaware or mistaken as to the state of his people's souls is at best gross negligence.

Since ethnic gods traditionally get to second their people to separate afterlives, the alignment status of the goblins' souls is probably not a critical concern for the Dark One because it probably makes no difference. One assumes he gets the Evil ones at least; Redcloak wouldn't be gushing about martyrdom if he thought he was bound for a horrible afterlife. (Again, maybe the Dark One has lied to him about this, but we have no reason to assume that.) This goes to your salvation > survival point too- in general in D&D, yes, but in this case probably not.

Plus goblinoids are Usually E by default. If they all get killed in pogroms straightaway most of them are doomed, so even if they don't go to the Dark One after death the best bet is to keep them alive as long as possible so they have a chance to repent and save themselves from the hells.

B) First, "ending the pogroms" is not a win if all it does is further conflict and result in more goblin deaths. Team Peregrine, remember? Doesn't seem like it's all over to me, even with the paladins dead.

How is Team Peregrine killing the soldiers of an occupying force not a better sort of conflict than the Sapphire Guard killing civilian children? I consider that a dramatic improvement even if conflict persists.

Second, their "nice, prosperous port city" is still dangling on a thread, and their extremely unstable epic lich overlord is holding the scissors.

More preparing to yank away the chair supporting it. Even so, it's better real estate than their crappy fortress-in-a-desolate-wasteland where they were hanging out before. Holding it may be a problem, but it's a better sort of problem.

If the goblin people end up better off, it will be in spite of the Plan, not because of it. The Plan is little more than divine terrorism, and making it pay off in the end would be a very odd message for the Giant to send.

The Plan raised awareness. Would anyone in the Order of the Stick (or the readers, for that matter) give a crap about the goblins' situation if it weren't for Redcloak? If their situation improves (as I think it must in order for the narrative to have a clean ending) it will either be because the hobgoblins have altered the planetary political configuration or because the main cast are now alerted to the problem and want to fix it. None of that could have happened without the Plan and Xykon.

they would perpetuate such suffering to others who don't deserve it, just as they are doing now with the Azurite slaves

The Azurite slaves were bankrolling a genocidal paramilitary organization, so you'll excuse my limited sympathy now that the chickens have come home to roost. The occupation has been brutal and they certainly don't deserve to be enslaved, but they're hardly innocent victims. It's not like they've been going around bothering random cities at the Dark One's behest.

Every village they attacked had a Redcloak in it.

That's not true. The SGs were involved in some internecine thing with the hobgoblins long before Redcloak showed up, and they were exterminating unspecified villages of unspecified other humanoids. None of these people had the Crimson Mantle. They may have threatened the Gate in other ways (or they may have done nothing; we simply don't know), but it's not the case that the absence of the Mantle was enough to save people.

It was their stated mission to obliterate all knowledge of the Gates. And Right-Eye knew a lot.

Conquest and sacrificing lives of soldiers isn't evil

Well, conquest usually is, to be honest. Unless you're trying to move rather than colonize, because some jerk of a god stuck you in a swamp and you can't survive there without resorting to banditry. Or you are conquering a city that has been sending out death squads. In those two cases you're probably in the clear.

In summary, I agree with everything you said, Zxo.

Optimystik

2009-10-09, 11:51 AM

I trust Redcloak to know his patron's alignment. Plus D&D morality is set up to favor the status quo- if you're to willing to hurt the privileged in order to change it you pay an alignment penalty. Screwing with the Snarl certainly qualifies.

Screwing with the Snarl is Evil because it knowingly puts the entire world in danger of destruction, not because it simply might "shake up the status quo." (That part's Chaos, not Evil.)

Huh. I stand corrected, then. So the difference is just that paladins fall for any evil deed whereas Roy can plan nasty practical jokes and get away with it?

Roy's just a fighter, he has nothing to Fall from. But he can change his afterlife destination through evil. Perhaps the goblins can't, and they'll go to the Dark One regardless of what they do, but the presence of other races in Celestia (and the fact that OotS uses the Greyhawk cosmology rather than the FR one) says otherwise.

Roy keeps Belkar around despite the fact that he occasionally gets loose and murders someone because Belkar's a useful fighter, but he tries to prevent Belkar from killing people as much as possible while keeping him in the party. Redcloak/the Dark One keep Xykon around despite the fact that he occasionally gets bored and murders some goblins because he's a useful fighter/arcane caster, but Redcloak tries to prevent Xykon from killing goblins as much as possible while keeping him in the party. The only difference between the two situations is that Redcloak has slightly less control over Xykon.

You have those backward. Roy's explicitly states (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) his primary reason for keeping Belkar close is controlling his impulses. "The jail travels with him, with me as Head Warden." Meaning that if they had found a jail that could actually HOLD Belkar, they would have locked him up, useful fighter or no useful fighter. Belkar's skill is a secondary benefit, not the primary one. "Until then, his combat potential is being used to fight an even greater Evil than himself. It's like a work release program, really."

Xykon's situation is thus not similar, at all. Redcloak doesn't care how many goblins Xykon kills, gets killed, or corrupts as long as the Plan is carried out.

I was talking about soldiers who wanted to desert before the battle, not people who retreated once their line broke or nobles with private armies over whom Hinjo had no control. In other words, could Kazumi have deserted the day before the battle with no negative consequences? I'm guessing no.

The only possible reason that could be relevant is if she was conscripted. If she joined the military willingly, your argument becomes moot.

And even if they do punish people that want to leave the army, that's still not an example of tyranny unless they kill deserters. Show me where they do that, and we can talk.

Since ethnic gods traditionally get to second their people to separate afterlives, the alignment status of the goblins' souls is probably not a critical concern for the Dark One because it probably makes no difference. One assumes he gets the Evil ones at least; Redcloak wouldn't be gushing about martyrdom if he thought he was bound for a horrible afterlife. (Again, maybe the Dark One has lied to him about this, but we have no reason to assume that.) This goes to your salvation > survival point too- in general in D&D, yes, but in this case probably not.

Purely ethnic afterlives are a Forgotten Realms invention. In Greyhawk (whose cosmology is used in OotS), afterlife depends purely on alignment, not who your patron is.

Plus goblinoids are Usually E by default. If they all get killed in pogroms straightaway most of them are doomed, so even if they don't go to the Dark One after death the best bet is to keep them alive as long as possible so they have a chance to repent and save themselves from the hells.

Don't even start with this, I'm not going to agree with you. If you honestly try to tell me that Redcloak's sister went to hell because of a monster manual entry there's no point in any further discussion.

How is Team Peregrine killing the soldiers of an occupying force not a better sort of conflict than the Sapphire Guard killing civilian children? I consider that a dramatic improvement even if conflict persists.

Because the children killed by the SG are innocent. Every goblin killed by Peregrine now will be Evil in fact and in deed.

More preparing to yank away the chair supporting it. Even so, it's better real estate than their crappy fortress-in-a-desolate-wasteland where they were hanging out before. Holding it may be a problem, but it's a better sort of problem.

Best of all would be a village where they had learned to live with humans peacefully. Oh wait.

The Plan raised awareness. Would anyone in the Order of the Stick (or the readers, for that matter) give a crap about the goblins' situation if it weren't for Redcloak? If their situation improves (as I think it must in order for the narrative to have a clean ending) it will either be because the hobgoblins have altered the planetary political configuration or because the main cast are now alerted to the problem and want to fix it. None of that could have happened without the Plan and Xykon.

You're assuming that Right-Eye's village, and more like it, couldn't have accomplished a similar political transformation without goblins being made to suffer and give in to Evil. I disagree with you.

The Azurite slaves were bankrolling a genocidal paramilitary organization, so you'll excuse my limited sympathy now that the chickens have come home to roost. The occupation has been brutal and they certainly don't deserve to be enslaved, but they're hardly innocent victims. It's not like they've been going around bothering random cities at the Dark One's behest.

The Azurite citizens had no idea about the gates or any of the Guard's activities. Furthermore, they weren't involved in killing any goblin children. The saying is "eye for an eye," not "foot, hand, and eye for an eye."

That's not true. The SGs were involved in some internecine thing with the hobgoblins long before Redcloak showed up, and they were exterminating unspecified villages of unspecified other humanoids. None of these people had the Crimson Mantle. They may have threatened the Gate in other ways (or they may have done nothing; we simply don't know), but it's not the case that the absence of the Mantle was enough to save people.

I didn't see anything like that in the strip. As far as I can tell, the hobgoblins kept to themselves and only bullied other goblins.

It was their stated mission to obliterate all knowledge of the Gates. And Right-Eye knew a lot.

And they would know this how? You know, without a powerful evil artifact to home in on.

Larkspur

2009-10-09, 03:35 PM

Screwing with the Snarl is Evil because it knowingly puts the entire world in danger of destruction, not because it simply might "shake up the status quo." (That part's Chaos, not Evil.)

Yes, that's why I said "willing to hurt the privileged."

Re: Xykon and Belkar- Belkar is a known serial killer. Forget jail; if Roy was interested in justice he'd let someone execute the little bastard for his crimes and have done with it. Roy's keeping him around because he's useful and it's ill-mannered to murder a party member, not because he wants to play parole officer to psychotic halflings.

The only possible reason that could be relevant is if she was conscripted. If she joined the military willingly, your argument becomes moot.

My argument was that even non-tyrants don't let people do whatever the heck they want, and sometimes they have to order their troops to their deaths. This is not a nice thing to do to a volunteers either, you know. That's why it has to be a response to some greater threat, or it's evil. I'm not sure how that point is mooted by the circumstances of Kazumi's enlistment.

Nor my immediate point that no one was offering soldiers the choice of a career change the night before the battle.

In Greyhawk (whose cosmology is used in OotS), afterlife depends purely on alignment, not who your patron is.

In OotS your processing is determined by which pantheon you worship. A lot of the gods are conventionally aligned and multi-ethnic- Roy worships the same Northern Pantheon as Durkon- so a communal afterlife makes sense. But it doesn't seem like a tremendous stretch of the campaign setting for gods like Tiamat to have special afterlives set up for their followers, if only because it's hardly in their interest to send reinforcements over to the fiends.

Don't even start with this, I'm not going to agree with you. If you honestly try to tell me that Redcloak's sister went to hell because of a monster manual entry there's no point in any further discussion.

Redcloak's sister was below the age of reason and exempt from alignment consequences for her actions, according to the Deva.* She's probably in Celestia very lonely because none of her relatives are there with her. (Or she's with the Dark One.) But Usually Neutral Evil, while telling us nothing about the alignment of any individual goblin**, does tell us that the majority of the species as a whole are Neutral Evil, yes? That's what it means.

* Although this doesn't necessarily mean she's safe. You can't get a high enough population percentage to rate Usually NE if only male fighters are NE, so some of the civilian women at least must be NE as well. Quite possibly many goblins are born NE by default. Chromatic dragons are Always Evil from the instant of their birth, so it seems like you can have an Evil alignment without ever committing an evil act.

And it's not that all humanoid children are default Neutral, because Roy's little brother is in the LG afterlife. So it may that Redcloak's sister is NE and can't even improve her alignment because as a child her actions don't count. That would be utterly sick, but it's not inconsistent with what we know of the campaign setting.

** In fact none of the ones we know are; Redcloak is LE and Right-Eye is probably CN.

Given a random village of people who are innocent but may be NE by default and thus doomed to the hells, we ought to favor scenarios that keep them alive as long as possible to maximize their chances of repentance.

Because the children killed by the SG are innocent. Every goblin killed by Peregrine now will be Evil in fact and in deed.

So... It's better to have a situation in which children are killed than a situation in which bad guys are killed? That is some warped reasoning, Op.

(And while occupations tend to result in moral decay on the part of the occupiers, it's unfair to claim every hobgoblin must be Evil now. The one baffled by the whipping seemed pretty decent.)

You're assuming that Right-Eye's village, and more like it, couldn't have accomplished a similar political transformation without goblins being made to suffer and give in to Evil.

Well, I can't prove it, but I note that we've seen a bunch of humanoids involved with the gates, and 0 involved with the goblinoid rights movement. Roy's sympathy is limited to not murdering them, which is a good first step but not what you'd call activism.

The Azurite citizens had no idea about the gates or any of the Guard's activities. Furthermore, they weren't involved in killing any goblin children. The saying is "eye for an eye," not "foot, hand, and eye for an eye."

If you finance a bunch of paramilitaries that you regularly send abroad to do dark deeds in distant lands, it is your responsibility to know what they are doing in your city's uniform and on your payroll. If you can't keep track of your death squads, then you deserve to have you city sacked and your government replaced by someone who can. You don't deserve to be whipped or enslaved, but the occupation they had coming.

The various genocides/wars of the Sapphire Guard are Word of God from War and XPs. I quoted some of it above. We didn't see it happen in strip, but I assume Rich knows what he's talking about.

And they would know this how? You know, without a powerful evil artifact to home in on.

They've got diviners, they can capture and torture some of Xykon's other minions for information, they can interrogate the demon roaches. Miko was able to find the flumphs to interview; the Sapphire Guard are competent detectives. I'm sure they'd have managed to track Xykon's third-in-command down somehow. Redcloak did, and he didn't have their resources.

Optimystik

2009-10-09, 03:54 PM

Yes, that's why I said "willing to hurt the privileged."

Re: Xykon and Belkar- Belkar is a known serial killer. Forget jail; if Roy was interested in justice he'd let someone execute the little bastard for his crimes and have done with it. Roy's keeping him around because he's useful and it's ill-mannered to murder a party member, not because he wants to play parole officer to psychotic halflings.

No, Roy has no authority to execute Belkar. He also has no reason to do so unless Belkar is in the process of committing an execution-worthy crime. He IS playing parole officer, and says so explicitly in his review. That's exactly what a "work release program" is.

My argument was that even non-tyrants don't let people do whatever the heck they want, and sometimes they have to order their troops to their deaths. This is not a nice thing to do to a volunteers either, you know. That's why it has to be a response to some greater threat, or it's evil. I'm not sure how that point is mooted by the circumstances of Kazumi's enlistment.

For the last time: she wasn't drafted. The goblins were. Ordering voluntary soldiers into danger and ordering involuntary ones have different consequences for alignment.

In OotS your processing is determined by which pantheon you worship. A lot of the gods are conventionally aligned and multi-ethnic- Roy worships the same Northern Pantheon as Durkon- so a communal afterlife makes sense. But it doesn't seem like a tremendous stretch of the campaign setting for gods like Tiamat to have special afterlives set up for their followers, if only because it's hardly in their interest to send reinforcements over to the fiends.

"Processing" is not the same as destination. The Azurites worshipped a completely different pantheon than Roy, yet we see them all climbing the same mountain behind Celestia's gate. In OotS, destination depends on alignment, not deity.

Note that none of the Northern gods are even mentioned during Roy's review. It's all about the deeds he committed in life.

Redcloak's sister was below the age of reason and exempt from alignment consequences for her actions, according to the Deva.* She's probably in Celestia very lonely because none of her relatives are there with her. (Or she's with the Dark One.) But Usually Neutral Evil, while telling us nothing about the alignment of any individual goblin**, does tell us that the majority of the species as a whole are Neutral Evil, yes? That's what it means.

I told you I'm not going down this road with you and I meant it. If you think Right-Eye's village (or worse, Redcloak's) was a pack of evildoers then we have nothing to discuss.

So... It's better to have a situation in which children are killed than a situation in which bad guys are killed? That is some warped reasoning, Op.

You'd rather have a situation where an entire people goes to hell automatically? Sounds even more warped to me, Lark.

(And while occupations tend to result in moral decay on the part of the occupiers, it's unfair to claim every hobgoblin must be Evil now. The one baffled by the whipping seemed pretty decent.)

And yet he was going to whip anyway.

Well, I can't prove it, but I note that we've seen a bunch of humanoids involved with the gates, and 0 involved with the goblinoid rights movement. Roy's sympathy is limited to not murdering them, which is a good first step but not what you'd call activism.

The goblinoid rights movement never had time to form. The village it would likely have sprung from, with its very own goblin wizard, never got the chance.

If you finance a bunch of paramilitaries that you regularly send abroad to do dark deeds in distant lands, it is your responsibility to know what they are doing in your city's uniform and on your payroll. If you can't keep track of your death squads, then you deserve to have you city sacked and your government replaced by someone who can. You don't deserve to be whipped or enslaved, but the occupation they had coming.

Call me crazy, but I can't think of many monarchies that had an oversight board and a newsletter.

By the way, the Sapphire Guard? They're secret. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html)

The various genocides/wars of the Sapphire Guard are Word of God from War and XPs. I quoted some of it above. We didn't see it happen in strip, but I assume Rich knows what he's talking about.

See above. The people didn't know.

They've got diviners, they can capture and torture some of Xykon's other minions for information, they can interrogate the demon roaches. Miko was able to find the flumphs to interview; the Sapphire Guard are competent detectives. I'm sure they'd have managed to track Xykon's third-in-command down somehow. Redcloak did, and he didn't have their resources.

Oh yes, very competent. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)

But I digress. Right-Eye's village stood for years. Why would they suddenly descend out of the blue? Did he find a cloak of his own? Or maybe those levels in commoner put him over the threshold for Legend Lore. :smallamused:

Larkspur

2009-10-09, 09:47 PM

No, Roy has no authority to execute Belkar. He also has no reason to do so unless Belkar is in the process of committing an execution-worthy crime. He IS playing parole officer, and says so explicitly in his review. That's exactly what a "work release program" is.

Roy has no authority; the government of Azure City did. Roy still intervened on Belkar's behalf. And we all agree, he IS playing parole officer. The point of contention is why. Is he doing it because he believes Belkar can be rehabilitated and deserves a second chance, or because he believes Belkar is a useful melee fighter and it would be a shame to loose him? Roy isn't stupid, which means it's Option B.

For the last time: she wasn't drafted. The goblins were. Ordering voluntary soldiers into danger and ordering involuntary ones have different consequences for alignment.

A) We don't know one way or the other
B) Yes, I agree, but that's never been my point. My point is that the act of ordering the soldiers into danger, be they volunteers or conscripts, is not in itself evil- it depends on why you're doing it.
C) Conscription, and thus ordering conscripted troops into battle, is not traditionally considered Evil- by this reasoning FDR and Lincoln were Evil for fighting WW II and the American Civil War. Again, it depends on why you imposed a draft.

"Processing" is not the same as destination. The Azurites worshipped a completely different pantheon than Roy, yet we see them all climbing the same mountain behind Celestia's gate. In OotS, destination depends on alignment, not deity.

Destination for some LG people! We have no idea where everyone else goes, and the fact that they split their immigrants by pantheon at all indicates that your choice of patron is not completely irrelevant. Having a Snarl that ate the Greek gods isn't exactly part of the Greyhawk cosmology, you know. OotS is a homebrew; it could draw from multiple sources.

I told you I'm not going down this road with you and I meant it. If you think Right-Eye's village (or worse, Redcloak's) was a pack of evildoers then we have nothing to discuss.

Of course I don't think they're evildoers! Didn't I just say twelve times that they were innocent? But that Usually Neutral Evil* percentage have to come from somewhere. We have two possibilities- either all the nice goblins just happen to be concentrated in R&R's original village and there are purely evil populations wandering around elsewhere (which strikes me as both unlikely and morally repellent), or all the goblin villages are roughly similar to R&R's, and are somehow comprised largely of "NE" individuals despite the absence of any Evil behavior on their part.

The latter would mean the alignment system is badly warped, but in a world where paladins don't fall for murdering children (hell, in a world in which racial biases in alignment exist at all, because seriously, WTF is up with that?), we can probably take that as a given.

If these completely innocent "NE" people wind up in the hells- I didn't set up the cosmology, did I? I believe the phrase I used to describe it was "utterly sick." But we do have to consider that possibility.

* Yes, OotS goblins are taller and greener than they should be, but we don't have compelling reasons to doubt the alignment stats- the hobs seem pretty Usually LE, for instance.

You'd rather have a situation where an entire people goes to hell automatically? Sounds even more warped to me, Lark.

Well, hold on. The hobgoblins aren't going to hell automatically; they''re going because they've been running a horrible occupation. That's what we're basing the corruption charge on, right? (And we can't blame that on Redcloak; I can't imagine he gave orders to whip the weakest prisoners.) Whereas the goblins in the villages are probably all innocent, regardless of their nominal alignment, but it seems a bunch will wind up in hell anyway.

As to the disproportionate numbers of goblinoids winding up in hell- I think the whole setup is appalling. That's why I'm rooting for the Plan- the goblinoids have serious problems on the level of world-building which cannot be resolved merely by forming peaceful farming settlements. If we take the Usually Neutral Evil bit as prescriptive rather than descriptive, it seems like they'll be screwed regardless of the lifestyle they adopt unless the Dark One gets in there and forces the other deities to alter their description in the Monster Manual.

The goblinoid rights movement never had time to form. The village it would likely have sprung from, with its very own goblin wizard, never got the chance.

So, it can only exist if it's led by Right-Eye? People couldn't figure out there's a problem on their own? It seems pretty obvious from the outside. (And it's hard to believe Right-Eye was the first to come up with the idea of living in peace- for one thing, R&R's original village appeared to be doing so.)

Re: the secrecy of the Sapphire Guard: the Azurites may not have known about their mandate, but they certainly knew they had soldiers that left the city and did stuff and came back. They'd have heard rumors from outsiders if nothing else.

I agree that they had no oversight, but that doesn't matter. If your country is a dictatorship and it attacks another country/ethnic group/whatever, the victims are entitled to fight back, regardless of how much responsibility your civilians bear for the war. That's one of the reasons dictatorships suck- you still bear national responsibility for decisions that you may disagree with. It's a problem in democracies too, come to think of it.

But I digress. Right-Eye's village stood for years. Why would they suddenly descend out of the blue? Did he find a cloak of his own? Or maybe those levels in commoner put him over the threshold for Legend Lore. :smallamused:

They descended out of the blue on Redcloak's village. They might not find Right-Eye for years, but that doesn't mean they're not looking, just that more of them need levels in Search.

Haarkla

2009-10-10, 09:08 AM

Of course I don't think they're evildoers! Didn't I just say twelve times that they were innocent? But that Usually Neutral Evil* percentage have to come from somewhere. We have two possibilities- either all the nice goblins just happen to be concentrated in R&R's original village and there are purely evil populations wandering around elsewhere (which strikes me as both unlikely and morally repellent), or all the goblin villages are roughly similar to R&R's, and are somehow comprised largely of "NE" individuals despite the absence of any Evil behavior on their part.

...

If these completely innocent "NE" people wind up in the hells- I didn't set up the cosmology, did I? I believe the phrase I used to describe it was "utterly sick." But we do have to consider that possibility.
There is no such thing as completely innocent Neutral Evil people.

What "usually NE" means is that 51% + of goblins have committed enough evil deeds, probably due to a malevalent sense of humour, to be considered NE.

A dishonest goblin shopkeeper, a goblin petty theif, or a goblin who often played harmful practical jokes could be considered evil.

Relatively few evil creatures are guilty of capital crimes.

Larkspur

2009-10-10, 10:02 AM

There is no such thing as completely innocent Neutral Evil people.

What "usually NE" means is that 51% + of goblins have committed enough evil deeds, probably due to a malevalent sense of humour, to be considered NE.

A dishonest goblin shopkeeper, a goblin petty theif, or a goblin who often played harmful practical jokes could be considered evil.

Relatively few evil creatures are guilty of capital crimes.

Well, there's such thing as completely innocent Chaotic or Lawful Evil people- newborn chromatic dragons. So I don't see why it should be theoretically impossible to be a completely innocent NE person.

And indeed in children we seem to have the possibility- they're technically innocent because their actions don't count against them until they reach their majority, but they nevertheless appear to have alignments other than True Neutral. If you can have an LG five year old, it seems like you should also be able to have an LE one. You can't be born NN and fall to NE, but you might be able to be born NE.

That's incredibly creepy, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility given Roy's brother. (Another, nicer possibility is that kids are viewed as unaligned and placed with their parents automatically, but this still would leave many of the goblin kids in hell.)

Still more creepy is the way the hells work, such that a stingy landlord and a child rapist are accorded the same punishment. Still, I think we have to be careful about setting the Evil bar too low- you have to be indifferent or in favor of the suffering of others. If you shortchange people but you wouldn't steal their wallet given an opportunity, you're probably just a CN jerk.

Kish

2009-10-10, 10:14 AM

And indeed in children we seem to have the possibility- they're technically innocent because their actions don't count against them until they reach their majority, but they nevertheless appear to have alignments other than True Neutral. If you can have an LG five year old, it seems like you should also be able to have an LE one.

It's the basic premise here that I think is flawed. Whatever Eric's reason for being in Celestia, I think "because both his parents were the alignment to go there" (or even "because his mother was") is way more likely than, "Because he was the most saintly child in the history of the universe."

(Another, nicer possibility is that kids are viewed as unaligned and placed with their parents automatically, but this still would leave many of the goblin kids in hell.)

That's true.

Conuly

2009-10-10, 11:39 AM

A dishonest goblin shopkeeper, a goblin petty thief, or a goblin who often played harmful practical jokes could be considered evil.

Right. I've never heard of a good character who was a petty thief or who played harmful practical jokes.

Optimystik

2009-10-11, 03:51 AM

Roy has no authority; the government of Azure City did. Roy still intervened on Belkar's behalf. And we all agree, he IS playing parole officer. The point of contention is why. Is he doing it because he believes Belkar can be rehabilitated and deserves a second chance, or because he believes Belkar is a useful melee fighter and it would be a shame to loose him? Roy isn't stupid, which means it's Option B.

You forgot Option C: "If I allow these low-level, braindead NPCs in Town X to keep him locked up, many innocents will die. He would never have been in Town X if it weren't for my mission, so it would be my fault." He says as much to the deva.

I'm avoiding the growing political discussion.

Destination for some LG people! We have no idea where everyone else goes, and the fact that they split their immigrants by pantheon at all indicates that your choice of patron is not completely irrelevant.

"Some?" Which dead LG people have you seen in this strip that are in another afterlife besides Celestia?

Of course I don't think they're evildoers! Didn't I just say twelve times that they were innocent? But that Usually Neutral Evil* percentage have to come from somewhere.
...
* Yes, OotS goblins are taller and greener than they should be, but we don't have compelling reasons to doubt the alignment stats- the hobs seem pretty Usually LE, for instance.

So let me get this straight: Your entire argument for the Plan's necessity is based on a Monster Manual entry, you find several inconsistencies with that same entry, and you don't see the ridiculousness of holding to that position?

Well, hold on. The hobgoblins aren't going to hell automatically; they''re going because they've been running a horrible occupation. That's what we're basing the corruption charge on, right? (And we can't blame that on Redcloak; I can't imagine he gave orders to whip the weakest prisoners.) Whereas the goblins in the villages are probably all innocent, regardless of their nominal alignment, but it seems a bunch will wind up in hell anyway.

"The tone at the top" is not just a phrase, you know. Redcloak may not have specifically ordered the whipping of humans, but it's still his responsibility as the "shepherd of the goblin people" to worry about their souls. Yet not only does he not bat an eye at his people's depraved behavior, he's even engaging in quite a bit of his own torture.

Their bad behavior didn't just start in the occupation either; killing retreating soldiers is Evil behavior also.

As to the disproportionate numbers of goblinoids winding up in hell- I think the whole setup is appalling. That's why I'm rooting for the Plan- the goblinoids have serious problems on the level of world-building which cannot be resolved merely by forming peaceful farming settlements. If we take the Usually Neutral Evil bit as prescriptive rather than descriptive, it seems like they'll be screwed regardless of the lifestyle they adopt unless the Dark One gets in there and forces the other deities to alter their description in the Monster Manual.

Your premise is quite contradictory here. If, post-Plan, the Dark One is able to make goblins that aren't "Usually Evil" and thus save them from perdition, then that means that the MM description doesn't actually apply to them. But your support for the Plan is based on your belief that the MM description DOES apply to them, regardless of their actual behavior. So which is it?

So, it can only exist if it's led by Right-Eye? People couldn't figure out there's a problem on their own? It seems pretty obvious from the outside. (And it's hard to believe Right-Eye was the first to come up with the idea of living in peace- for one thing, R&R's original village appeared to be doing so.)

Whether another goblin could figure it out isn't the point; they're not going to sit down long enough to do so if their spiritual leader is signing them all up for an anti-humanity crusade. They're definitely not going to get the chance if they get killed en masse by a psycho lich and incensed elves/humans.

Re: the secrecy of the Sapphire Guard: the Azurites may not have known about their mandate, but they certainly knew they had soldiers that left the city and did stuff and came back. They'd have heard rumors from outsiders if nothing else.

So? We know that the CIA leaves the country, does stuff, and comes back too. The specifics of what they do aren't even common knowledge here, where we have oversight boards and a democracy. How would they be any more transparent in a quasi-feudalistic monarchy?

I agree that they had no oversight, but that doesn't matter. If your country is a dictatorship and it attacks another country/ethnic group/whatever, the victims are entitled to fight back, regardless of how much responsibility your civilians bear for the war. That's one of the reasons dictatorships suck- you still bear national responsibility for decisions that you may disagree with. It's a problem in democracies too, come to think of it.

One would think that those victims, having endured the horror of pogroms themselves, would be a bit more sympathetic towards fleeing soldiers and prisoners of war. Certainly Redcloak should be.

They descended out of the blue on Redcloak's village. They might not find Right-Eye for years, but that doesn't mean they're not looking, just that more of them need levels in Search.

It doesn't mean they are, either.

Azukar

2009-10-11, 03:56 AM

Man oh man, I wish we could put a ban on increasingly-lengthy point-by-point refutations of everything the previous poster wrote... Or at least sideline them into some kind of private chat room.

Anyway, my two cents says that there's a spectrum of evil-ness, just as there is a spectrum of good-ness. Q'arr is evil by definition, but is fairly amiable; it's easy to imagine him bargaining and trying to reach agreements that favour his cause without necessarily laying waste to everything in his path, even if he had the means.

Optimystik

2009-10-11, 04:03 AM

Man oh man, I wish we could put a ban on increasingly-lengthy point-by-point refutations of everything the previous poster wrote... Or at least sideline them into some kind of private chat room.

If wishes were horses...

(my last post was the shorter version, if that makes you feel better)

Anyway, my two cents says that there's a spectrum of evil-ness, just as there is a spectrum of good-ness. Q'arr is evil by definition, but is fairly amiable; it's easy to imagine him bargaining and trying to reach agreements that favour his cause without necessarily laying waste to everything in his path, even if he had the means.

There is a spectrum in D&D, but there are also hard lines. Rather like Dante's Inferno, the degree of Evil you devoted yourself to in life simply changes which part of Hell you get assigned to. In the end, you're still a dretch.

Larkspur

2009-10-11, 10:11 AM

Man oh man, I wish we could put a ban on increasingly-lengthy point-by-point refutations of everything the previous poster wrote... Or at least sideline them into some kind of private chat room.

I find scrolling quite helpful in these situations and recommend it highly.

I'm avoiding the growing political discussion.

Don't make bizarre assertions if you're unwilling to support them!

Re Celestia: we've seen exactly one afterlife, because it's the one Roy went to. LG worshipers of the elvish deities or whatever could end up somewhere else and we wouldn't know. We can't assume this, but since we do know OotS cosmology deviates significantly from Greyhawk, it's worth considering the possibility.

So let me get this straight: Your entire argument for the Plan's necessity is based on a Monster Manual entry, you find several inconsistencies with that same entry, and you don't see the ridiculousness of holding to that position?

No. Something on the scale of the Plan is necessary anyway because Right-Eye's plan simply won't work. But the blackmailing the gods section of the Plan is necessitated by the racial alignment biases, yes. Unless we think racial alignment biases are totally non-operational in OotS- and we've seen no evidence whatsoever for that- then the "monster" races are faced with a problem on the level of world-building that can only be solved on that level. (Again, assuming the Monster Manual is prescriptive rather than descriptive.)

Regarding the goblins specifically, the Monster Manual obviously exists within OotS as the characters themselves use it as a reference book. Therefore, I think we have to take it as a default. The fact that the goblins deviate from their entry in some respects means that it's a flexible default, and you could perhaps make a case the OotS goblins are Often NE or something, but given their behavior and the ways other characters treat them, it doesn't make sense that they have no Evil bias at all.

"The tone at the top" is not just a phrase, you know. Redcloak may not have specifically ordered the whipping of humans, but it's still his responsibility as the "shepherd of the goblin people" to worry about their souls. Yet not only does he not bat an eye at his people's depraved behavior, he's even engaging in quite a bit of his own torture.

Not disagreeing there, but except for confused!guy we've seen zero dissent about the atrocities, and at the end of the day the hobgoblins are responsible for their own conduct, which as you rightly point out has been lousy since the moment they attacked. So given a choice I'd rather see them die than children, yes.

If, post-Plan, the Dark One is able to make goblins that aren't "Usually Evil" and thus save them from perdition, then that means that the MM description doesn't actually apply to them. But your support for the Plan is based on your belief that the MM description DOES apply to them, regardless of their actual behavior. So which is it?

As far as I can tell, the goal of the Plan is to revise the Monster Manual.

Whether another goblin could figure it out isn't the point; they're not going to sit down long enough to do so if their spiritual leader is signing them all up for an anti-humanity crusade.

I actually meant the humans figuring it out, but as far as that goes, Redcloak recruited one village. One. Out of lots. There were plenty of goblins in a position to live peacefully with everyone- and in fact they probably were doing so, but guess what? The Sapphire Guard showed up and murdered everyone anyway! Would they have done that to a human village?

And there's no anti-humanity crusade; if anything, the Plan is remarkable for the narrowness of its focus. If Soon hadn't hidden his gate among a bunch of civilians, there would be no civilian casualties at all (assuming Team Evil didn't accidentally blow up the planet, obviously.)

So? We know that the CIA leaves the country, does stuff, and comes back too. The specifics of what they do aren't even common knowledge here, where we have oversight boards and a democracy. How would they be any more transparent in a quasi-feudalistic monarchy?

I'm not arguing the Azurites could or did know what the SGs were up to- my point is that it doesn't matter. It's done with their tax dollars in their name; they're still responsible. If they don't trust their leaders to spend their money and their reputation wisely, then they have a responsibility to revolt and replace them. If they abrogate that responsibility or trust their leaders when they shouldn't and their country does something internationally obnoxious, for instance committing genocide, then the responsibility for good Azurite governance defaults to foreign powers, who then have a right to conquer the city and replace the regime with one that won't invade foreign regions to commit genocide.

None of this justifies war crimes, and the hobgoblins have been less than stellar on that front (although still miles ahead of the Sapphire Guard), but the invasion itself was justified.

hamishspence

2009-10-11, 03:36 PM

There is a spectrum in D&D, but there are also hard lines. Rather like Dante's Inferno, the degree of Evil you devoted yourself to in life simply changes which part of Hell you get assigned to. In the end, you're still a dretch.

Might depend on how much evil the being has done, as well as their alignment.

Acheron is on the LE/LN border- this might suggest some LE beings don't go to Hell, where their fate is to have their personalities erased and be reborn as mindless lemures, but to Acheron, to fight eternally on a grim battlefield, or (if goblins) to serve in the courts of the goblin deities, who make their home in Acheron in core D&D.

Maybe The Dark One resides somewhere similar.

Optimystik

2009-10-11, 05:27 PM

Don't make bizarre assertions if you're unwilling to support them!

What assertion am I unwilling to support?

Re Celestia: we've seen exactly one afterlife, because it's the one Roy went to. LG worshipers of the elvish deities or whatever could end up somewhere else and we wouldn't know. We can't assume this, but since we do know OotS cosmology deviates significantly from Greyhawk, it's worth considering the possibility.

In what way does the cosmology "deviate significantly from Greyhawk?" The deities might, but not the cosmology (i.e. which plane corresponds to which alignment.)

In fact, the deities aren't that different either. There are stats for the Greek and Norse gods in D&D, Tiamat is evil, Marduk is good... the similarities far outnumber the differences.

As for Celestia, you're wrong: it's not the only afterlife we've seen. We know that the Abyss, the Nine Hells, and even the Grey Wastes (CE, LE and NE respectively) exist in OotS, and even the Blood War, another fixture of Greyhawk, is present and a major plot point. And finally, we can surmise that there is a CG afterlife from Elan's song for Roy,

No. Something on the scale of the Plan is necessary anyway because Right-Eye's plan simply won't work.

Repeating that claim ad nauseam doesn't make it true. The fact is that we don't know how well it would have worked because Xykon never gave it a chance.

Regarding the goblins specifically, the Monster Manual obviously exists within OotS as the characters themselves use it as a reference book. Therefore, I think we have to take it as a default. The fact that the goblins deviate from their entry in some respects means that it's a flexible default, and you could perhaps make a case the OotS goblins are Often NE or something, but given their behavior and the ways other characters treat them, it doesn't make sense that they have no Evil bias at all.

So, a "flexible default" means that you can accept the parts that you like and ignore all the differences, is that right?

Everything in OotS suggests that Rich wants to move away from the "Monster Manual morality" that you are relying so heavily on. In addition to the goblins, we have Roy's speech about the Orcs in Origin (another "Usually Evil" race, if you recall) and V's slaughter of the Black Dragons in the main strip (which has unequivocally been classed an evil act.) Using the MM alone, those situations would have been fine; since they aren't, clearly the MM is not the go-to source for morality in this universe.

Not disagreeing there, but except for confused!guy we've seen zero dissent about the atrocities, and at the end of the day the hobgoblins are responsible for their own conduct, which as you rightly point out has been lousy since the moment they attacked. So given a choice I'd rather see them die than children, yes.

And I'd rather they have a choice about what afterlife to end up in than to get shuttled to Hell en masse.

As far as I can tell, the goal of the Plan is to revise the Monster Manual.

But according to you, the MM's entry is absolute, so that would be impossible. If you admit they can deviate from the Monster Manual, how then would they all automatically end up going to Hell regardless of deeds?

I actually meant the humans figuring it out, but as far as that goes, Redcloak recruited one village. One. Out of lots. There were plenty of goblins in a position to live peacefully with everyone- and in fact they probably were doing so, but guess what? The Sapphire Guard showed up and murdered everyone anyway! Would they have done that to a human village?

Which village did the SG murder that didn't have a Redcloak in it? Please show me.

Again, I'm not sanctioning their behavior, but neither should we be ascribing actions to them that have no basis in the narrative.

And there's no anti-humanity crusade; if anything, the Plan is remarkable for the narrowness of its focus. If Soon hadn't hidden his gate among a bunch of civilians, there would be no civilian casualties at all (assuming Team Evil didn't accidentally blow up the planet, obviously.)

By that logic, terrorism is fine as long as it doesn't take place in a populated area. Because that's what the Plan is - terrorism.

I'm not arguing the Azurites could or did know what the SGs were up to- my point is that it doesn't matter. It's done with their tax dollars in their name; they're still responsible. If they don't trust their leaders to spend their money and their reputation wisely, then they have a responsibility to revolt and replace them.

This is ridiculous. If you don't know what your leaders are up to with your tax dollars and have no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing, how would you know that a revolt is necessary?

None of this justifies war crimes, and the hobgoblins have been less than stellar on that front (although still miles ahead of the Sapphire Guard), but the invasion itself was justified.

And we've just come full circle; justified evil is still evil. And I don't even agree that invading the city and slaughtering innocent humans was justified.

Acheron is on the LE/LN border- this might suggest some LE beings don't go to Hell, where their fate is to have their personalities erased and be reborn as mindless lemures, but to Acheron, to fight eternally on a grim battlefield, or (if goblins) to serve in the courts of the goblin deities, who make their home in Acheron in core D&D.

Maybe The Dark One resides somewhere similar.

Acheron is a possibility, but isn't a much nicer place than Hell to end up for eternity.

Larkspur

2009-10-11, 08:23 PM

What assertion am I unwilling to support?

Conscription under any circumstances == automatic Evil. Maybe you really do think that, but it's certainly not a standard view.

In what way does the cosmology "deviate significantly from Greyhawk?" The deities might, but not the cosmology (i.e. which plane corresponds to which alignment.)

The cosmology is the whole nature and origins of the world and its inhabitants. Unless the world in Greyhawk is a shell around another world guarded by a Snarl, there's a pretty significant deviation. If we believe the Dark One's account of the origins of the monster races, there's another huge deviation which screws up the entire alignment system by indicting the so-called "Good" gods in the creation of a tremendous evil.

As for Celestia, you're wrong: it's not the only afterlife we've seen. We know that the Abyss, the Nine Hells, and even the Grey Wastes (CE, LE and NE respectively) exist in OotS, and even the Blood War, another fixture of Greyhawk, is present and a major plot point. And finally, we can surmise that there is a CG afterlife from Elan's song for Roy

And in what strips did we see these?* We know they exist; we have no idea who's in them or how the judging works. Also, what hamish said about the goblin gods holding court in the lower planes.

* Except for the IFCC offices, but those could be anywhere.

Repeating that claim ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

Yeah, but you know by now I think it, so pretending I'm in favor of the Plan only on the basis of the alignment biases is an absurd argument on your part.

So, a "flexible default" means that you can accept the parts that you like and ignore all the differences, is that right?

No, a flexible default means that the people going around saying "All the goblins should be exterminated because the Monster Manual says Usually NE!" are clueless, but your null hypothesis should be that the Monster Manual is accurate and if you want to assert that OotS deviates, you need to prove it. Height and greenness are easily proven, but I think the balance of the evidence is in favor of the goblins being Usually or Often NE, if only because I can't believe paladins would murder human kids.

In addition to the goblins, we have Roy's speech about the Orcs in Origin (another "Usually Evil" race, if you recall) and V's slaughter of the Black Dragons in the main strip (which has unequivocally been classed an evil act.) Using the MM alone, those situations would have been fine; since they aren't, clearly the MM is not the go-to source for morality in this universe.

What? No, they're not fine! Killing innocent Evil creatures still qualifies as an Evil act- your license to kill is based on the target's innocence/non-innocence, not on their alignment. Otherwise stabbing Belkar in his sleep would be perfectly okay. It's nothing to do with the Monster Manual! The condemnation of V's genocide doesn't prove Black Dragons aren't Always Chaotic Evil, it proves that OotS follows the core rules when it comes murder.

And I'd rather they have a choice about what afterlife to end up in than to get shuttled to Hell en masse.

They have a choice! No one forced them to whip the prisoners. Hell, no one forced them to follow Redcloak- he won the Supreme Leadership according to their laws, but if they didn't want to follow him they could have revolted. There's a ton of them; they could have stuck him full of arrows before Xykon even regenerated. But they adore him. The only one we've ever seen question an order is confused!guy, and as you pointed out he caved pretty quickly. Redcloak is to blame for the general situation, but their choice to follow orders (and torture people above and beyond the call of duty) is on their own heads.

(Plus for all we know the goblin kids go to hell anyway, so that may not be a difference between the scenarios.)

But according to you, the MM's entry is absolute, so that would be impossible. If you admit they can deviate from the Monster Manual, how then would they all automatically end up going to Hell regardless of deeds?

Whatever version of the Monster Manual the gods are using is absolute. The gods made the goblins green and tall, so they've revised the standard MM already. The Dark One is trying to get another revision that will fix the location and possibly the alignment problem.

As for hell, I don't know where they end up; I'm just trying to figure out how a population that's got to be about two-thirds women and children could manage to be Usually (or even Often) Evil. I find hard to believe that all those civilians could have done anything evil enough to qualify, so there's got to be some non-deed based determination going on.

Which village did the SG murder that didn't have a Redcloak in it? Please show me.

The ones Rich describes in the text in War and XP.

By that logic, terrorism is fine as long as it doesn't take place in a populated area. Because that's what the Plan is - terrorism.

Terrorism is trying to achieve political objectives by scaring civilians. By definition, you can't have terrorism in an unpopulated area.

And the Plan is absolutely not terrorism. Threatening to kill the individuals directly responsible for a continuing atrocity if they don't knock it off isn't terrorism. It may be an impolite negotiation strategy, but it's not terrorism. No civilians are involved here.

Vigilante justice, maybe, but the Dark One already asked nicely, and it's not like he can take the other gods to court.

This is ridiculous. If you don't know what your leaders are up to with your tax dollars and have no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing, how would you know that a revolt is necessary?

If you couldn't guess your government was committing genocide you needed to be more suspicious. But like I said, Taro Azurite's complicity or lack thereof is irrelevant in the consideration of whether or not foreign powers have a right to overthrow his genocidal government.

Countries aren't allowed to just go around committing genocide against other nations. There has to be some form of redress. If the locals catch their government in time and stop the process themselves, that's great. If they don't, it becomes the responsibility of others. There's a case to be made for random third parties not involving themselves, but are you seriously claiming the victims have no right to retaliate???

What was Redcloak supposed to do to prevent what happened to his village from happening again, by your moral standards?

Optimystik

2009-10-11, 11:42 PM

Conscription under any circumstances == automatic Evil. Maybe you really do think that, but it's certainly not a standard view.

I do think Conscription is evil. But you're accusing Hinjo of doing it when there's zero basis for that claim. Conscript: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscript) "to draft into military or naval service." Merely giving orders is not conscription, since for you to be able to give orders, they would already have to be members of the military, correct?

The cosmology is the whole nature and origins of the world and its inhabitants. Unless the world in Greyhawk is a shell around another world guarded by a Snarl, there's a pretty significant deviation.

That has nothing to do with morality, however.

If we believe the Dark One's account of the origins of the monster races, there's another huge deviation which screws up the entire alignment system by indicting the so-called "Good" gods in the creation of a tremendous evil.

The gods are at fault here. I never claimed otherwise. Unfortunately, they aren't involved in choosing afterlives either, both in Greyhawk and here.

And in what strips did we see these?* We know they exist; we have no idea who's in them or how the judging works. Also, what hamish said about the goblin gods holding court in the lower planes.

* Except for the IFCC offices, but those could be anywhere.

Anywhere in the Lower Planes.

Yeah, but you know by now I think it, so pretending I'm in favor of the Plan only on the basis of the alignment biases is an absurd argument on your part.

The alignment biases form your "moral indifference argument"; that goblins are damned if they do and damned if they don't, isn't that right?

No, a flexible default means that the people going around saying "All the goblins should be exterminated because the Monster Manual says Usually NE!" are clueless, but your null hypothesis should be that the Monster Manual is accurate and if you want to assert that OotS deviates, you need to prove it. Height and greenness are easily proven, but I think the balance of the evidence is in favor of the goblins being Usually or Often NE, if only because I can't believe paladins would murder human kids.

The three natural goblin settlements we've seen (Redcloak's village, Right-Eye's village and the hobgoblin one) contained no evildoers, with the possible exception of Redcloak's mentor. So what "evidence" could you possibly be referring to?

What? No, they're not fine! Killing innocent Evil creatures still qualifies as an Evil act- your license to kill is based on the target's innocence/non-innocence, not on their alignment. Otherwise stabbing Belkar in his sleep would be perfectly okay. It's nothing to do with the Monster Manual! The condemnation of V's genocide doesn't prove Black Dragons aren't Always Chaotic Evil, it proves that OotS follows the core rules when it comes murder.

I'm glad we agree on this much, at least. But how can you agree that alignment descriptions hold no weight when it comes to actual morality, then use those same descriptions to argue that goblins will be going to Hell regardless of their behavior?

They have a choice! No one forced them to whip the prisoners. Hell, no one forced them to follow Redcloak- he won the Supreme Leadership according to their laws, but if they didn't want to follow him they could have revolted. There's a ton of them; they could have stuck him full of arrows before Xykon even regenerated. But they adore him. The only one we've ever seen question an order is confused!guy, and as you pointed out he caved pretty quickly. Redcloak is to blame for the general situation, but their choice to follow orders (and torture people above and beyond the call of duty) is on their own heads.

That's ludicrous. Upon assuming the SL title, Redcloak became both their military and spiritual leader. If he doesn't set an example, expecting his people to act differently than him all on their own, when he supposedly speaks directly to their deity, makes no sense.

(Plus for all we know the goblin kids go to hell anyway, so that may not be a difference between the scenarios.)

If Redcloak's sister went straight to Hell, then I agree with you the system is badly broken. But we have no reason to think this is so and several reasons to think it's not.

Whatever version of the Monster Manual the gods are using is absolute. The gods made the goblins green and tall, so they've revised the standard MM already. The Dark One is trying to get another revision that will fix the location and possibly the alignment problem.

As for hell, I don't know where they end up; I'm just trying to figure out how a population that's got to be about two-thirds women and children could manage to be Usually (or even Often) Evil. I find hard to believe that all those civilians could have done anything evil enough to qualify, so there's got to be some non-deed based determination going on.

Your conclusion is circular: They're listed as Evil, so there must be some reason for that besides their deeds, and the reason you've found is that they're listed as Evil.

Until I have reason to think their deeds are irrelevant to their destination, I'm going to lump them in with every other humanoid race we've seen. After all, we have empirical evidence that Elves can go to Hell, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) and their gods certainly don't reside in the lower planes. Why then can't Goblins go to the Upper planes?

The ones Rich describes in the text in War and XP.

Mind quoting that?

Terrorism is trying to achieve political objectives by scaring civilians. By definition, you can't have terrorism in an unpopulated area.

And the Plan is absolutely not terrorism. Threatening to kill the individuals directly responsible for a continuing atrocity if they don't knock it off isn't terrorism. It may be an impolite negotiation strategy, but it's not terrorism. No civilians are involved here.

You're incorrect on both counts. One, the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) is not restricted to civilians (and in fact doesn't even mention them); two, even if it WAS, noncombatants ARE put at risk by the Plan.The Snarl may destroy the entire world as a result of Redcloak's/The DO's meddling. They simply don't care.

Vigilante justice, maybe, but the Dark One already asked nicely, and it's not like he can take the other gods to court.

I'm not saying he should sit back and do nothing. But he hasn't even tried Right-Eye's method; building his people up instead of tearing others down. Why is resorting to terrorism immediately the right choice?

If you couldn't guess your government was committing genocide you needed to be more suspicious.

The true natures of many such atrocities throughout history were hidden from the common people with ease. That doesn't make it right to punish the many for the sins of the few.

There's a case to be made for random third parties not involving themselves, but are you seriously claiming the victims have no right to retaliate???

No, I'm saying they have no right to retaliate against people that have done nothing wrong.

What was Redcloak supposed to do to prevent what happened to his village from happening again, by your moral standards?

Take off the damn cloak! Shocking, I know.

Kish

2009-10-11, 11:54 PM

Anywhere in the Lower Planes.
Just wait for it to turn out that, in order to avoid all the fiends who fight in the Blood War, the IFCC make their home office in the Outlands.

Optimystik

2009-10-12, 06:49 AM

Just wait for it to turn out that, in order to avoid all the fiends who fight in the Blood War, the IFCC make their home office in the Outlands.

It would be a Rich-worthy tweest.

Maybe they have offices in Sigil (and a particularly incendiary decorator)?

Larkspur

2009-10-12, 02:50 PM

I do think Conscription is evil. But you're accusing Hinjo of doing it when there's zero basis for that claim. Conscript: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscript) "to draft into military or naval service." Merely giving orders is not conscription, since for you to be able to give orders, they would already have to be members of the military, correct?

Given the circumstances and the composition of the Azurite army I think conscription was highly probable, but you're right, we don't know for certain. Since the conscript/volunteer status of the troops was completely irrelevant to my main point, I'm not sure why we're still arguing about this.

Re: cosmology, morality and the afterlife:

The moral balance of the entire planet is screwed up by the "Good" gods' actions and you think that has no impact on OotS morality or the alignment system?

To give an example- Miko still uses Detect Evil like it should mean something. Presumably this means that the Sapphire Guards aren't Evil; otherwise they couldn't trust the spell to reveal "bad guys" anymore.

How the hell did they manage to murder children and not switch alignments? Even if you accept that the 12 Gods control falling so they can drop to Lawful Evil and remain paladins, why don't they show up on their own Detect Evil scans? It seems much more likely that they are in fact, still Lawful Good.

(How, for that matter, are any of the non-Dark One deities still Good?)

We could adopt the Sadistic Fishing position that all the goblins deserve to die automatically and killing babies doesn't affect your alignment, but that a) violates Core and b) violates everything Rich seems to be trying to say about morality.

So I think we instead have to accept that the OotS alignment system is broken, and it isn't responding to people's deeds the way it should be.

And this is why the goblins' souls may be screwed no matter what- because your afterlife is based on your alignment, not your behavior. If you're NE you go to hell regardless of your deeds.

Of course, goblins that manage not to be NE would be fine (unless the Dark One grabs them all anyway), but a non-NE alignment may be something goblins have to actively achieve, rather than having it as a default the way humans do.

Evidence for Usually/Often Evil status:
(I'm going to do it for all the goblinoids, because we don't see very many groups total- but presumably what applies to one is generally relevant)

* R&R frequent an "Evil" diner long before they actually manage to do anything Evil
* No one, even Right-Eye, has ever objected to the Plan on the merits ("Is it really okay for us to risk killing the entire planet?"), just on the feasibility
* Right-Eye was totally indifferent to Xykon's lizard-people killing
* Right-Eye's peaceful neighbors are apparently in the priesthood of some bogus demon who drinks the blood of the innocent. No way Redcloak set those guys up with someone other than his patron, so that must have been that famiy's original religion.
* Right-Eye's peaceful neighbors seem to be relatively sanguine about being in Xykon's service by the time the Order show up
* Everything the hobgoblins have done since Team Evil recruited them
* Elan's island orcs were pretty innocuous, and they were still eager to make a human sacrifice
* Belkar's "Let's find people who look different from us and kill them!" comment makes no sense unless this is a world in which that's a standard rationale for adventuring parties. Plus there's Roy's orc murdering ex-party mate, and the Sapphire Guard casually murdered children. No one could get away with treating a good-aligned race like that without alignment forfeits, so either the alignment system is broken to the point of being utterly meaningless or the goblins are Usually Evil enough that people got into the habit of killing them on reflex and genocide no longer strikes them as morally problematic.

It does seem like the goblinoids have either a genetic or a cultural bias towards evilness, and the other races certainly treat them as if this were the case. None of which makes genocide acceptable, obviously, or means that the villages were bothering anyone.

That's ludicrous. Upon assuming the SL title, Redcloak became both their military and spiritual leader. If he doesn't set an example, expecting his people to act differently than him all on their own, when he supposedly speaks directly to their deity, makes no sense.

So Redcloak, who received the orders directly from the Dark One, is supposed to figure out that they are evil and disregard them, but the people who got them second-hand are incapable of doing this because...?

That's absurd. Everyone has a responsibility to act morally, not just the people on top. Giving bad orders is worse than just following them, but it's not okay to commit war crimes just because you're ordered to.

Your conclusion is circular: They're listed as Evil, so there must be some reason for that besides their deeds, and the reason you've found is that they're listed as Evil.

Well, exactly. That's what makes the system stupid. But to disprove the conclusion you've got to disprove either the Usually Evil listing or the lack of Evil deeds to warrant it.

Mind quoting that?

I did upthread somewhere.

You're incorrect on both counts. One, the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism) is not restricted to civilians (and in fact doesn't even mention them); two, even if it WAS, noncombatants ARE put at risk by the Plan.The Snarl may destroy the entire world as a result of Redcloak's/The DO's meddling. They simply don't care.

Hm. The OED has a weird definition of terrorism that doesn't remotely reflect standard usage, but okay. By that definition, yes, the Plan is terrorism. Of course, so was Hinjo's defense of Azure City against the hobgoblins, since he was trying to achieve a political goal (retention of self-rule) by force. This definition of terrorism encompasses all conventional warfare and attempts by the police to enforce the law, so you can see why I'm a little leery of it, but I yield the point.

To answer point 2, the noncombatants put at risk by the Plan don't even know it exists. So it's supposed to influence their politics how, exactly?

But he hasn't even tried Right-Eye's method; building his people up instead of tearing others down. Why is resorting to terrorism immediately the right choice?

Well, the Dark One tried it. And given the total non-progress of the Plan prior to Redcloak's tenure as Mantlebearer, it would appear most of the other goblins on the planet had tried it. Without notable success, I hasten to add.

No, I'm saying they have no right to retaliate against people that have done nothing wrong.

So how exactly is he supposed to get rid of the Sapphire Guard, if he doesn't remove the government that sent it on his missions? Or perhaps he should just walk up to the gate and say, "Your paladins committed genocide! Would you please remove Lord Shojo from power and try him and the entire command structure for crimes against goblinity?" I'm sure that would a) go over well and b) be completely successful.

Take off the damn cloak! Shocking, I know.

Wait, so it's Redcloak's responsibility to alter his clothing choices so that people don't murder his neighbor's children? And the moral burden of this rests on him? Talk about blaming the victim!

@Kish: LOL

veti

2009-10-12, 05:03 PM

So I think we instead have to accept that the OotS alignment system is broken, and it isn't responding to people's deeds the way it should be.

The OotS story does an excellent job of highlighting the questions that arise when you try to combine the (separate) concepts of "morality" and "alignment".

Is it okay to judge people by the colour of their skin and the pointiness of their teeth? What is the relationship between "evil" and "free will", or "free will" and "destiny"? Does the existence of gods justify things that could not be justified without them? How can your alignment be affected by the actions of others?

Of course it's easy to come up with simple answers to all these questions, but simple answers gloss over a lot of complications and implications. The OotS story explores some of those complications. That's why I love it.

The interesting question in OotS is not "is the Dark One evil?" He is. The interesting question is "what does that mean?" Disregard for sentient life, disregard for suffering, yeah, yeah - but is he really any worse, in these areas, than the "good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html)" gods?

Hm. The OED has a weird definition of terrorism that doesn't remotely reflect standard usage, but okay.

Whoa. Don't blame the OED - dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage Dictionary. A more legalistic definition is here (http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm):

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

So yeah, it does have to be directed against civilian ("noncombatant") targets. I'm not sure quite what a "subnational" group is, though.

Conuly

2009-10-12, 05:55 PM

Pretty sure it means they don't have an internationally recognized government. So if the US bombs your town, that's not terrorism. If Greenpeace or al Qaeda or the IRA bombs your town, it is.

Larkspur

2009-10-12, 08:41 PM

Whoa. Don't blame the OED - dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage Dictionary.

No, no, I OED'd it because dictionary.com is a bit crap. But OED's definition didn't have noncombatant targets or subnational groups either. So Op is technically correct, it's just that no one has used "terrorism" that way since... well, probably since ever, because that definition is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.

Optimystik

2009-10-13, 11:15 AM

Given the circumstances and the composition of the Azurite army I think conscription was highly probable, but you're right, we don't know for certain. Since the conscript/volunteer status of the troops was completely irrelevant to my main point, I'm not sure why we're still arguing about this.

You were trying to equate Hinjo and Team Evil based on their treatment of their armies. We know Team Evil used conscription, and you were trying to surmise that about Azure City based on highly suspect evidence. If I'm mistaken in this summary, please tell me how.

Re: cosmology, morality and the afterlife:

The moral balance of the entire planet is screwed up by the "Good" gods' actions and you think that has no impact on OotS morality or the alignment system?

To give an example- Miko still uses Detect Evil like it should mean something. Presumably this means that the Sapphire Guards aren't Evil; otherwise they couldn't trust the spell to reveal "bad guys" anymore.

How the hell did they manage to murder children and not switch alignments? Even if you accept that the 12 Gods control falling so they can drop to Lawful Evil and remain paladins, why don't they show up on their own Detect Evil scans? It seems much more likely that they are in fact, still Lawful Good.

(How, for that matter, are any of the non-Dark One deities still Good?)

We could adopt the Sadistic Fishing position that all the goblins deserve to die automatically and killing babies doesn't affect your alignment, but that a) violates Core and b) violates everything Rich seems to be trying to say about morality.

So I think we instead have to accept that the OotS alignment system is broken, and it isn't responding to people's deeds the way it should be.

And this is why the goblins' souls may be screwed no matter what- because your afterlife is based on your alignment, not your behavior. If you're NE you go to hell regardless of your deeds.

This is a large block of text to quote, but I'm glad you brought this up, because this is a key linchpin of the OotS setting.

All evidence suggests the OotS gods have nothing to do with morality. I've repeatedly said they are jerks, even the so-called "good ones." The mere act of creating "fodder races" should be outside the purview of truly Good gods, yet we find not just their sanction, but their direct involvement and collaboration with Evil gods on the process. So I agree with your assessment of the OotS gods - I see them as little more than overpowered children.

There are two problems that this explanation does not address, however. First, the gods do not seem to have any hand in the judging process - it is left entirely up to the devas. Second, Roy's deva explicitly states that piety is not an issue unless you're a cleric. This means that deeds are the only basis on which souls are judged.

Second, Monster Manual descriptions also have nothing to do with actual morality treatment in OotS. Vaarsuvius is a prime example; Elves are "Usually Chaotic Good" by your vaunted Monster Manual, yet Vaarsuvius' deeds the only factor required to damn him to Hell, according to two very reliable and opposing sources - the IFCC and the bureaucratic deva. In addition, Elves also have their own deity or deities, who presumably does not reside in Acheron or anywhere remotely like it, but . Therefore, you have zero justification for claiming that goblin deeds are irrelevant to their final destination. If an Elf can go to Hell, why can't a Goblin go to Heaven?

So Redcloak, who received the orders directly from the Dark One, is supposed to figure out that they are evil and disregard them, but the people who got them second-hand are incapable of doing this because...?

That's absurd. Everyone has a responsibility to act morally, not just the people on top. Giving bad orders is worse than just following them, but it's not okay to commit war crimes just because you're ordered to.

I never suggested goblins were incapable of exercising their own judgment. They are just unlikely to.

Look at the goblin who arrived in the granary. He questions the necessity of beating slaves, yet is swiftly indoctrinated into the culture. Redcloak is the only individual goblin with the power to change that culture. If he doesn't set the example, who will?

Well, exactly. That's what makes the system stupid. But to disprove the conclusion you've got to disprove either the Usually Evil listing or the lack of Evil deeds to warrant it.

The listing is clearly what's at fault here, as it holds no weight when it comes to actual morality and afterlife destination. See above.

Well, the Dark One tried it. And given the total non-progress of the Plan prior to Redcloak's tenure as Mantlebearer, it would appear most of the other goblins on the planet had tried it. Without notable success, I hasten to add.

No, he didn't. Not once since becoming a deity has he tried a collaborative approach. His policy was first "don't trust or treat with any other races!" and then expanded to "help me get my hands on the god-destroying ball of terror!" A fine one for race relations, he is.

Another point arises; if the Dark One was so goody-goody in life, doesn't it strike you as odd that he was immediately taken in by the evil gods? It doesn't add up.

So how exactly is he supposed to get rid of the Sapphire Guard, if he doesn't remove the government that sent it on his missions? Or perhaps he should just walk up to the gate and say, "Your paladins committed genocide! Would you please remove Lord Shojo from power and try him and the entire command structure for crimes against goblinity?" I'm sure that would a) go over well and b) be completely successful.

Why is "getting rid of the Sapphire Guard" the immediate solution? There are other ways of stopping their attacks, and the most obvious one that comes to my mind is taking off the unholy artifact and ceasing to be a threat to the world's very existence.

Wait, so it's Redcloak's responsibility to alter his clothing choices so that people don't murder his neighbor's children? And the moral burden of this rests on him? Talk about blaming the victim!

His "clothing choices" are the reason his neighbor's children are being murdered in the first place. If he really cared about his people, both their lives and their souls, he'd at least stay away from them.

Larkspur

2009-10-13, 01:40 PM

You were trying to equate Hinjo and Team Evil based on their treatment of their armies. If I'm mistaken in this summary, please tell me how.

My point was that risking the lives of your troops to achieve some end != Evil or not caring about your troops. If either of these things were true, Hinjo's defense of Azure City would be Evil. That's the whole argument. Conscription doesn't come into it, and I'm not equating Hinjo's actions to Team Evil's except insofar as they both ordered troops into battle.

All evidence suggests the OotS gods have nothing to do with morality.

You're missing the point, though. If they've got no control over the alignment system how come they haven't forfeited their Good alignment through their actions?

And how come the Sapphire Guard haven't?

If there isn't some weird interplay going on between the gods and the alignment system on a higher level than individual soul judging, all this is inexplicable.

Roy's deva explicitly states that piety is not an issue unless you're a cleric. This means that deeds are the only basis on which souls are judged.

What? No, it just means that piety isn't an issue unless you're a cleric. It says nothing about what does matter- deeds clearly do, but your race or your arbitrarily assigned alignment may too. We've never seen a goblin judged, so we don't know.

Now, obviously you can switch alignments through your actions, as with V*, and I suspect an LG goblin would at least be offered the option of Celestia instead of Archeron. I'm not worried about the fate of the Good goblins; they probably do go to Heaven.

*(The elvish afterlife is probably CG if it exists; I doubt the elf gods would be willing to take V, so s/he's getting dumped in hell in any case.)

I'm worried about the average goblin housewife. She must be NE to make the Monster Manual stats add up properly, but it seems unlikely she's ever actually hurt anyone. She's NE by birth or culture, in other words, not by her deeds. But because the afterlife is allotted by alignment, she's as damned as Belkar. This seems unjust.

The MM listings say nothing about any individual's morality, fate or alignment, but even if they are merely descriptive they are describing the race as a whole. So we can safely say the majority of goblins are going to hell, and in many cases it's unlikely to be for a good reason.

Redcloak is the only individual goblin with the power to change that culture. If he doesn't set the example, who will?

Jirix? They have leaders among their own people, after all. I agree Redcloak has greater authority and thus greater responsibility, and he absolutely deserves his LE designation and a war crimes trial, but they've chosen to follow him, and to be worse than he is. That's on them.

Another point arises; if the Dark One was so goody-goody in life, doesn't it strike you as odd that he was immediately taken in by the evil gods? It doesn't add up.

No, that part makes sense. The Good gods are in control of their pantheons and want to maintain the status quo; the Evil gods have a vested interest in disrupting it and trying to rearrange the power structure to their advantage. The creation of a new, pissed off deity benefits them. (And that's ignoring the ones like Loki who love disruption for its own sake.)

The real question is, if he's so goody-goody why is he Evil? (It's also interesting it's never occurred to Redcloak to wonder about this, but I think that goes back to the default NE thing- many of the people around him growing up were probably nominally Evil goody-goodies, too.)

Why is "getting rid of the Sapphire Guard" the immediate solution? There are other ways of stopping their attacks, and the most obvious one that comes to my mind is taking off the unholy artifact and ceasing to be a threat to the world's very existence.

A) Because when I see an organization committing genocide, my immediate solution is to abolish that organization, not to try to get the victims to alter their behavior so Daddy won't have to hit them anymore.
B) Because I'm in favor of this crazy thing called "justice" whereby there should be negative consequences for committing genocide, if only to discourage others from committing more genocide in the future.
C) Because we have Word of God (which you persist in ignoring) that the SGs weren't just going after the Mantlebearer and associates, and therefore simply taking off the unholy artifact would not solve the problem.
D) Because it's not at all obvious the SGs understand the Crimson Mantle is the source of the Plan. After all, they did just leave it lying on the ground for a random acolyte to pick up. Maybe it was the Dark One's head cleric they were after; what would you have Redcloak do then?
E) Because the Crimson Mantle is just a cloak. The Mantlebearer doesn't have to implement the Plan, and it's the Plan that's the problem, not the cloak. People have the right to wear whatever clothes they please, even clothes containing blueprints for the apocalypse. If someone attacks a Gate, people have a right to stop them, but they don't have a right to stop the Dark One's head cleric from wearing a particular garment.

Given that Redcloak knew he had sociopaths stalking him he should have stayed away from civilians, and offering to move in with his brother was asinine. But let's be absolutely clear: Genocide is not the fault of the victims. The people with the moral responsibility to alter their behavior are the perpetrators, not the person used as a pretext for the pogrom.

Porthos

2009-10-13, 02:38 PM

I'm worried about the average goblin housewife. She must be NE to make the Monster Manual stats add up properly, but it seems unlikely she's ever actually hurt anyone. She's NE by birth or culture, in other words, not by her deeds. But because the afterlife is allotted by alignment, she's as damned as Belkar. This seems unjust.

The MM listings say nothing about any individual's morality, fate or alignment, but even if they are merely descriptive they are describing the race as a whole. So we can safely say the majority of goblins are going to hell, and in many cases it's unlikely to be for a good reason.

Errr... Aren't you saying that DnD Sux here, not The Gods of OotSWorld Suck? :smalltongue:

But even if we take that point seriously you're engaging in a logical fallacy.

DnD: Goblins are Often Evil because more likely than not, they will act/look-at-the-universe in an evil way.
You: A Goblin Housewife will be Evil because The Statistics Say So, not because of her individual actions.

I'm tempted to point out a certain TV Tropes page about failing logic forever here, you know. :smallwink:

Look, the Monster Manual doesn't claim that Goblins are Usually Evil "Just Because". They don't claim that Goblins are "Usually Evil" so characters have license to slaughter them. They claim that, to pick a non-random example, that Goblins are Usually Evil because, for whatever reason, more of them do evil things or act in evil ways.

Now you can claim this is entirely unrealistic. You can claim that this is the sign of a horrible game. You can claim that this is a whole bunch of things. And in some cases I'd even agree with you (I think that parts afterlife system of DnD are whacked out, and am not shy to say so). But to claim that a Goblin Housewife is evil just because the Stats Say So is a Logical Leap Too Far. There is literately nothing in DnD that says a Random Goblin Housewife will be evil Just Because.

Unless one is playing with a lazy DM of course. :smallwink:

====

PS: I would point out that Belkar and Random Goblin Housewife going to the same afterlife isn't technically true. Disagree as much as I do with some of the more.... controversial and illogical.... aspects of the DnD afterlife, I would point out that going to the Goblin Afterlife on Acheron is a tad different that going to Hag Chow Central in Baator or the Abyss. :smallwink:

Prowl

2009-10-13, 03:32 PM

Everyone's missing the forest for the trees here.

If you haven't noticed yet, this comic does a wonderful job of poking the traditional alignment spectrum in the eye. Pointing out how the alignment system just doesn't make sense (if indirectly in most cases) has been going on long enough to qualify for "running joke" status.

Arguing over alignments in this comic means the joke went over your head... repeatedly.

Larkspur

2009-10-13, 03:42 PM

Errr... Aren't you saying that DnD Sux here, not The Gods of OotSWorld Suck? :smalltongue:

Yes. But there's a difference between setting up a game world in which you level up by murdering certain races of sentient beings (not morally optimal, but doing no real harm and giving millions of people years of amusement) which is what Gary Gygax did, and setting up real people to be slaughtered, which from their perscpective is what the OotS gods did.

And that criticism of D&D worldbuilding isn't unique to me- Rich is making it too, to a certain extent. That's one of the major points of SoD.

DnD: Goblins are Often Evil because more likely than not, they will act/look-at-the-universe in an evil way.
You: A Goblin Housewife will be Evil because The Statistics Say So, not because of her individual actions.

I'm not disputing that there's something Evil about the average goblin that's aligning them NE- you saw the whole list of examples of Evil behavior I cited for Op. But no population can consist entirely of fighters; the majority of the goblins must be civilians of some kind, without opportunities to do much harm. Now, maybe they all beat their children or something and they really have done some deed Evil enough to merit that alignment, but from what we've seen I'm guessing not. I'm guessing it's based on either a cultural or genetic predisposition to sadism and indifference to the suffering of others, and/or they're providing material support for a raiding culture and taking alignment penalties for it. I don't see any other way you could get a racial alignment bias- if it were really unrelated to their species they should be Often Neutral or evenly split, like humans.

Either way it seems they're being punished for being born goblins, which is pretty sick.

@Prowl: Um, I'm pretty sure we all agree about everyone's actual alignment. The debate is over the implications of the warped alignment system.

Porthos

2009-10-13, 03:58 PM

I'm guessing it's based on either a cultural or genetic predisposition to sadism and indifference to the suffering of others, and/or they're providing material support for a raiding culture and taking alignment penalties for it.

You'll drink the blood of the innocent and LIKE it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html). :smalltongue:

As for other points... Meh. Not "meh" to you, I hasten to point out. :smallsmile: "Meh" because I have severe problems with the Hag Worm Chow destiny that seems to be a focus of a lot of these afterlife in DnD discussions. There's a reason why I intensely dislike FC I & II, and these sorts of discussions just makes me dwell on those things even more. And life's too short to constantly dwell on things that annoy a person. :smallwink:

Anyway, I would point out that if one views the world as a Struggle To Prove That Might Is Right and that Life Is An Eternal Battle To Prove Oneself Better Than Others*, then perhaps going to an afterlife where you get to act out on those philosophies isn't the worst thing in the world.

* <Or To Prove That One Is Supposed To Dominate Over Another, Or That Life Is A Darwinian Struggle To Lie, Cheat, and Steal Everyone Else Out of Their Stuff To Provide A Better Life For Yourself, et etc>

Again, and I'm as much of the problem as everyone else, people like to focus on the quite horrific afterlives of The Nine Hells and the Abyss. Less attention is payed to the actual DnD established afterlives for Orcs, Goblins, what have you. From what I can tell, Orcs, Goblins, etc go to an afterlife where they get to have an eternal battle in the service of their god(s). Maglubiyet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglubiyet) would seem to be an excellent example here. As would Gruumsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruumsh).

It may not be Mount Celestia... But it's certainly a heck of a lot better than being Hag Chow. :smalltongue:

EDIT:::

After reading the entry on Gruumsh, I am reminded that there is truly nothing knew under the sun. :smallsmile:

Some orcish clerics deny this tale, dismissing it as elven propaganda, and claim that Gruumsh always had one eye.

Gruumsh created the orcs in his image to be his servants in the world but was cheated out of a home for his people by the other gods, according to the following excerpt by Roger E. Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_E._Moore) (from Unearthed Arcana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearthed_Arcana)):

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven deities drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!"

There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it over the world. The shaft blotted the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No! You Lie! You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps. One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell…here!," he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening a mighty rift and chasms. "And here!," and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!," and the black spear gouged the meadows and made them bare.

"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

Sound a tad familiar? :smalltongue:

Optimystik

2009-10-14, 12:34 AM

My point was that risking the lives of your troops to achieve some end != Evil or not caring about your troops. If either of these things were true, Hinjo's defense of Azure City would be Evil. That's the whole argument. Conscription doesn't come into it, and I'm not equating Hinjo's actions to Team Evil's except insofar as they both ordered troops into battle.

Then we agree on that point, at least.

You're missing the point, though. If they've got no control over the alignment system how come they haven't forfeited their Good alignment through their actions?

And how come the Sapphire Guard haven't?

If there isn't some weird interplay going on between the gods and the alignment system on a higher level than individual soul judging, all this is inexplicable.

You're the one missing the point; It isn't the interplay between the gods
and the alignment system, but the lack thereof, that defines OotS. Miko and the rest of the Sapphire Guard are classic examples - they were allowed to get away with behavior that no true paladin would sanction.

In OotS, the gods, not the alignment system, judge paladins' adherence to the Code. We have direct evidence of this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) Thus Paladins can be jerks, and even act in a non-LG way, and still keep their powers as long as they don't oppose their deities' wishes in OotS - just as good gods can be jerks.

But there's one aspect of alignment in OotS we can be sure is played straight - afterlife destination. Both Roy and Vaarsuvius have proven this is the case. So the atrocities of the Guard can't be used as an excuse for goblin moral equivalency.

What? No, it just means that piety isn't an issue unless you're a cleric. \It says nothing about what does matter- deeds clearly do, but your race or your arbitrarily assigned alignment may too. We've never seen a goblin judged, so we don't know.

Now, obviously you can switch alignments through your actions, as with V*, and I suspect an LG goblin would at least be offered the option of Celestia instead of Archeron. I'm not worried about the fate of the Good goblins; they probably do go to Heaven.

*(The elvish afterlife is probably CG if it exists; I doubt the elf gods would be willing to take V, so s/he's getting dumped in hell in any case.)

I'm worried about the average goblin housewife. She must be NE to make the Monster Manual stats add up properly, but it seems unlikely she's ever actually hurt anyone. She's NE by birth or culture, in other words, not by her deeds. But because the afterlife is allotted by alignment, she's as damned as Belkar. This seems unjust.

The MM listings say nothing about any individual's morality, fate or alignment, but even if they are merely descriptive they are describing the race as a whole. So we can safely say the majority of goblins are going to hell, and in many cases it's unlikely to be for a good reason.

You're contradicting yourself quite blatantly here. Do deeds matter or not? Can the goblin housewife affect her destiny or not? If one goblin can, then they all can.

The MM stats were designed for regular D&D - they are meaningless in OotS. The mere fact that judgment happens on an individual level means there is no racial bias, good or bad. D&D goblins and OotS goblins are significantly different, in both form and attitude; why is it so hard to accept that their alignments can differ as well?

Jirix? They have leaders among their own people, after all. I agree Redcloak has greater authority and thus greater responsibility, and he absolutely deserves his LE designation and a war crimes trial, but they've chosen to follow him, and to be worse than he is. That's on them.

Some of their fate is their own responsibility, yes; but if Redcloak or even the Dark One were that interested in correcting their bad behavior, don't you think they could find a way?

No, that part makes sense. The Good gods are in control of their pantheons and want to maintain the status quo; the Evil gods have a vested interest in disrupting it and trying to rearrange the power structure to their advantage. The creation of a new, pissed off deity benefits them. (And that's ignoring the ones like Loki who love disruption for its own sake.)

The real question is, if he's so goody-goody why is he Evil? (It's also interesting it's never occurred to Redcloak to wonder about this, but I think that goes back to the default NE thing- many of the people around him growing up were probably nominally Evil goody-goodies, too.)

Your assessment of the evil gods is fair. As for the Dark One, I refer you to Porthos' quote on the story of Grummsh. Every deity, even Lloth, has a great dogma to show why they're different from the other evil gods. I simply don't believe the crayon story as Redcloak has seen it.

A) Because when I see an organization committing genocide, my immediate solution is to abolish that organization, not to try to get the victims to alter their behavior so Daddy won't have to hit them anymore.
B) Because I'm in favor of this crazy thing called "justice" whereby there should be negative consequences for committing genocide, if only to discourage others from committing more genocide in the future.
C) Because we have Word of God (which you persist in ignoring) that the SGs weren't just going after the Mantlebearer and associates, and therefore simply taking off the unholy artifact would not solve the problem.
D) Because it's not at all obvious the SGs understand the Crimson Mantle is the source of the Plan. After all, they did just leave it lying on the ground for a random acolyte to pick up. Maybe it was the Dark One's head cleric they were after; what would you have Redcloak do then?
E) Because the Crimson Mantle is just a cloak. The Mantlebearer doesn't have to implement the Plan, and it's the Plan that's the problem, not the cloak. People have the right to wear whatever clothes they please, even clothes containing blueprints for the apocalypse. If someone attacks a Gate, people have a right to stop them, but they don't have a right to stop the Dark One's head cleric from wearing a particular garment.

A) This is fine, except harming all the innocent civilians standing between you and that organization is terrorism and will send your people's souls to Hell. My advocation of another way is not an attempt to protect the Sapphire Guard, but the goblins themselves.
B) Does your "justice" include murdering humans that have never been part of the Guard, or are even aware of its existence? Crazy indeed.
C) I'm not ignoring this, but as I don't have War & XPs and you're neglecting to post an exact quote I can't discuss it. A paraphrase colored by your own interpretation won't do. Even if the SG are nothing but bloodthirsty marauders, however (and they pretty much are) that doesn't mean the Azurites have to pay for their sins.
D) They know all they need to - the mantle marks the one who is trying to undo creation. They don't need to know that it has powers in its own right. (Another possibility: after Redcloak's master was killed, only he could see it. )
E) It's not just a "garment" - it's a banner that every single Paladin in the Guard recognizes. Since the Guard's whole purpose is protecting the Gates and they ALL know that the Mantle is bad news, it's obvious that they connect the red cloak with a longstanding plan to harm the Gates in some way. Fashion has nothing to do with it.

Given that Redcloak knew he had sociopaths stalking him he should have stayed away from civilians, and offering to move in with his brother was asinine. But let's be absolutely clear: Genocide is not the fault of the victims. The people with the moral responsibility to alter their behavior are the perpetrators, not the person used as a pretext for the pogrom.

I'll be absolutely clear too: I'm not defending the Sapphire Guard. I'm defending the innocent Azurites being tortured, whipped and killed by goblins.

Here's a very telling point: The Azurites are still being punished LONG AFTER the Guard has been very clearly dismantled. Is that part of your "justice" as well?

Larkspur

2009-10-14, 07:58 AM

You're the one missing the point; It isn't the interplay between the gods and the alignment system, but the lack thereof, that defines OotS. Miko and the rest of the Sapphire Guard are classic examples - they were allowed to get away with behavior that no true paladin would sanction.

But they also use Detect Evil. Go read my original post again- the problem isn't just that they don't fall, which I agree could be explained by handing the gods control of paladinship so they no longer needed to remain LG. The problem is that they, and the gods, still seem to have Good alignment.[/I

Every time Miko does Detect Evil in the presence of her comrades, everyone who participated in one of those raids should light up like a beacon. But they clearly don't, because she still views it as a meaningful method for deciding whether or not to kill people. Why don't they?

But there's one aspect of alignment in OotS we can be sure is played straight - afterlife destination. Both Roy and Vaarsuvius have proven this is the case.

No one has a vested interest in screwing with their destination.

Do deeds matter or not? Can the goblin housewife affect her destiny or not? If one goblin can, then they all can.

Deeds do matter. The question is what happens if she hasn't done deeds good or evil enough to shift her alignment. Is she default Neutral, the way a human would be, or is she default Evil?

The mere fact that judgment happens on an individual level means there is no racial bias, good or bad.

What? No! Otherwise you couldn't have Good Orcs or Evil Elves or whatever in Core. Judgment always happens on an individual level; that's completely tangential to this whole discussion.

Redcloak or even the Dark One were that interested in correcting their bad behavior, don't you think they could find a way?

When did I ever argue they gave a crap? Of course they could change the tone; they obviously don't view it as a problem. Since Redcloak presumably knows what happens to goblins when they die, that's interesting.

I simply don't believe the crayon story as Redcloak has seen it.

Oh, neither do I, but the fact remains that the goblins are stuck in the crappy territory and the alignment system is unpleasantly warped. So regardless of how exactly the Dark One got deified, something has to be done.

A) This is fine, except harming all the innocent civilians standing between you and that organization is terrorism and will send your people's souls to Hell. My advocation of another way is not an attempt to protect the Sapphire Guard, but the goblins themselves.
B) Does your "justice" include murdering humans that have never been part of the Guard, or are even aware of its existence? Crazy indeed.
C) I'm not ignoring this, but as I don't have War & XPs and you're neglecting to post an exact quote I can't discuss it. A paraphrase colored by your own interpretation won't do. Even if the SG are nothing but bloodthirsty marauders, however (and they pretty much are) that doesn't mean the Azurites have to pay for their sins.
D) They know all they need to - the mantle marks the one who is trying to undo creation. They don't need to know that it has powers in its own right. (Another possibility: after Redcloak's master was killed, only he could see it. )
E) It's not just a "garment" - it's a banner that every single Paladin in the Guard recognizes. Since the Guard's whole purpose is protecting the Gates and they ALL know that the Mantle is bad news, it's obvious that they connect the red cloak with a longstanding plan to harm the Gates in some way. Fashion has nothing to do with it.

A) We don't know what happens to their souls, and this is only terrorism because you have a weird definition of terrorism that encompasses "conventional warfare." They could have taken Azure City without deliberately targeting a single civilian. (They didn't, but that's a separate problem.)
B) In battle? Yes, my definition includes killing soldiers whom the genocidal paramilitary organization happens to be hiding behind if that's required to bring the murderers to justice. It's regrettable, but necessary to prevent the death of goblin [I]civilians, who get priority. This is what statehood means, unfortunately- a degree of collective responsibility.
C) It's upthread; you can go find it. I don't have the book either, but I'm quoting what hamish quoted from it verbatim.
D) (They just killed the guy; you'd think they say to themselves "Maybe we better strip him of that symbol of his power that is obviously magical because it just went invisible.")
While the Mantle is part of their search image it might not be the only thing they're looking for. What if they scry for "Dark One's head cleric" and Redcloak pops up on the mirror? Should he renounce his profession and religion too, just to make these people stop hunting him?
E) It's a banner that Miko recognized. For all we know she was out raiding; she'd probably enjoy it. Anyway, regardless of what they associate with it, clothing is not sufficient reason to murder someone and all of their neighbors. Grounds to scry on the Mantlebearer and see if he seems to be doing anything Planny, sure. Grounds to kill him? No, because it's not evidence of actually wrongdoing. It's just a cloak.

Here's a very telling point: The Azurites are still being punished LONG AFTER the Guard has been very clearly dismantled. Is that part of your "justice" as well?

No, which is why I've been condemning that from the start. (Although even well-intentioned invaders would have a problem, since they need to set up a new civil government and almost the entire civilian population fled the city. I think they do have to continue occupying the city for a bit; otherwise Hinjo et al. are just going to come back when they pull out, and they don't really have the resources to go arrest him and try him properly. Plus the city is full of partisans. But obviously the whipping and so on is unnecessary.

However, it's worth pointing out that however decent they may seem, Shojo and Hinjo are the men who signed off on the genocide. So there's a fundamental impediment to democracy here; the Azurite civilian population is pretty squarely behind a government-in-exile that needs to be overthrown.)

Optimystik

2009-10-14, 09:43 AM

But they also use Detect Evil. Go read my original post again- the problem isn't just that they don't fall, which I agree could be explained by handing the gods control of paladinship so they no longer needed to remain LG. The problem is that they, and the gods, still seem to have Good alignment.

Every time Miko does Detect Evil in the presence of her comrades, everyone who participated in one of those raids should light up like a beacon. But they clearly don't, because she still views it as a meaningful method for deciding whether or not to kill people. Why don't they?

How do you even know she uses Detect Evil on other Paladins? From her intro to SoD, she considers the very class inviolate, so why would she be checking them?

And even if they don't detect as evil, the spell is clearly flawed in OotS (and every other world with subjective morality, by BoED.)

No one has a vested interest in screwing with their destination.

We have no evidence that anyone wants to mess with the goblin destination either. Their reward/punishment is based solely on their own actions.

Deeds do matter. The question is what happens if she hasn't done deeds good or evil enough to shift her alignment. Is she default Neutral, the way a human would be, or is she default Evil?

If deeds do matter, then you've answered your own question. No deeds = No alignment.

What? No! Otherwise you couldn't have Good Orcs or Evil Elves or whatever in Core. Judgment always happens on an individual level; that's completely tangential to this whole discussion.

It's central to this discussion. If judgment is individual, then goblins are responsible for their morality and can't claim the "moral equivalency" ("damned if you do...") defense. "I'm going to hell anyway, so I might as well whip humans" doesn't apply in a deeds-based morality. And that means Redcloak and the Dark One both bear some culpability in not shepherding their people properly.

When did I ever argue they gave a crap? Of course they could change the tone; they obviously don't view it as a problem. Since Redcloak presumably knows what happens to goblins when they die, that's interesting.

"Presumably" is the operative word here. As far as we know, Redcloak has never seen the goblin afterlife for himself. It's important to remember that Redcloak knows whatever the Dark One wants him to know in this regard. For all he knows, every goblin that "died for the cause" could be writhing in agony. (This is a distinct possibility if the Dark One lives anywhere remotely like Acheron.)

Oh, neither do I, but the fact remains that the goblins are stuck in the crappy territory and the alignment system is unpleasantly warped. So regardless of how exactly the Dark One got deified, something has to be done.

No matter the cost? If the goblins end up turning to Evil themselves, then undoing creation will be their only hope. And even THAT won't save the ones that die and get damned early, because the Snarl doesn't dismantle the Outer Planes.

A) We don't know what happens to their souls, and this is only terrorism because you have a weird definition of terrorism that encompasses "conventional warfare." They could have taken Azure City without deliberately targeting a single civilian. (They didn't, but that's a separate problem.)
B) In battle? Yes, my definition includes killing soldiers whom the genocidal paramilitary organization happens to be hiding behind if that's required to bring the murderers to justice. It's regrettable, but necessary to prevent the death of goblin civilians, who get priority. This is what statehood means, unfortunately- a degree of collective responsibility.
C) It's upthread; you can go find it. I don't have the book either, but I'm quoting what hamish quoted from it verbatim.
D) (They just killed the guy; you'd think they say to themselves "Maybe we better strip him of that symbol of his power that is obviously magical because it just went invisible.")
While the Mantle is part of their search image it might not be the only thing they're looking for. What if they scry for "Dark One's head cleric" and Redcloak pops up on the mirror? Should he renounce his profession and religion too, just to make these people stop hunting him?
E) It's a banner that Miko recognized. For all we know she was out raiding; she'd probably enjoy it. Anyway, regardless of what they associate with it, clothing is not sufficient reason to murder someone and all of their neighbors. Grounds to scry on the Mantlebearer and see if he seems to be doing anything Planny, sure. Grounds to kill him? No, because it's not evidence of actually wrongdoing. It's just a cloak.

A) We don't know, but the evidence points my way - that deeds, not races, are the deciding factor.
B) Even after said "paramilitary organization" is abolished? At what point does revenge become a pogrom itself?
C) Uh, all hamish said was that goblin deities hold court in Acheron. He didn't say anything about War & XPs in this thread. If you quote me Rich's statement I'll gladly discuss it, but otherwise I have to assume you misread or even invented it.
D) As he serves an Evil deity, and one that doesn't care about his race to boot (I heavily favor Right-Eye's conclusion) I'd say yes, he should. Even if he chooses not to, he has an obligation to his people not to increase their chances of receiving unwelcome attention, or to helping build them up so that they can
E) Hinjo and every other Paladin recognized it too (including SOON.) This isn't about Miko.
If you see an evil cleric waltzing around with the Hand of Vecna, or a Sphere of Annihilation, of course that's grounds to kill him, just as a terrorist walking around with a nuclear bomb shouldn't be given the chance to use it either. The cloak is a clear sign that says "I'm trying to destroy the world" as far as the paladins are concerned. If Redcloak walks around wearing it, he only has himself to blame for making people arrive at that conclusion.

No, which is why I've been condemning that from the start. (Although even well-intentioned invaders would have a problem, since they need to set up a new civil government and almost the entire civilian population fled the city. I think they do have to continue occupying the city for a bit; otherwise Hinjo et al. are just going to come back when they pull out, and they don't really have the resources to go arrest him and try him properly. Plus the city is full of partisans. But obviously the whipping and so on is unnecessary.

That's your problem - you think the goblins are so concerned about "justice" that they would actually think of arresting or trying the people directly responsible for their misfortune. I think this kind of conduct is beyond them. Slaughtering fleeing soldiers is not justice, and whipping noncombatant slaves is definitely not justice. Their so-called "retaliation" ended long ago, yet their atrocities persist, and their moral leadership is heedless.

However, it's worth pointing out that however decent they may seem, Shojo and Hinjo are the men who signed off on the genocide. So there's a fundamental impediment to democracy here; the Azurite civilian population is pretty squarely behind a government-in-exile that needs to be overthrown.)

Shojo did; you have no evidence of Hinjo's involvement with the attacks. And since when is Azure City a democracy anyway?

Larkspur

2009-10-14, 11:06 AM

How do you even know she uses Detect Evil on other Paladins? From her intro to SoD, she considers the very class inviolate, so why would she be checking them?

Because it's a mass action spell that shows you every Evil in the area, not just your target? If she ever cast it while in a party with any paladin who went on one of those raids, she would have triggered it.

And even if they don't detect as evil, the spell is clearly flawed in OotS.

Why? It's meant to check alignment, not morality; that's why it works on objects too. And it does detect Evil; it detects Evil people, and Evil crowns, and Evil baby dragons. Whether it detects evil people is a separate question.

We have no evidence that anyone wants to mess with the goblin destination either.

Yeah, but the gods certainly want to mess with the Sapphire Guards'.

If deeds do matter, then you've answered your own question. No deeds = No alignment.

Except that isn't true. It doesn't apply, for instance, to infant chromatic dragons, (which also have the potential to reform and just virtually never exercise it). What makes the humanoids so special that they all start out Neutral where other sentient races start out Good or Evil?

It's central to this discussion. If judgment is individual, then goblins are responsible for their morality and can't claim the "moral equivalency" ("damned if you do...") defense. "I'm going to hell anyway, so I might as well whip humans" doesn't apply in a deeds-based morality.

That defense doesn't apply to any morality. Whipping people is immoral regardless of what effect it has on your afterlife. Which is why I've never argued that Redcloak was acting appropriately with regard to the occupation policy. It may not be out of lack of concern for goblins' souls, though.

As far as we know, Redcloak has never seen the goblin afterlife for himself. It's important to remember that Redcloak knows whatever the Dark One wants him to know in this regard.

He's got Plane Shift; he could go check. I doubt he has, but it seems likely that someone has at some point.

No matter the cost?

No, but annihilation of the world and everyone on it is after all a finite cost. I'm not sure the situation is bad enough to merit paying that cost, but I can't say for certain it isn't, either- Redcloak is the person on the ground, not me, and I didn't find Right-Eye's position particularly persuasive (or political- remember, the person who thought of the "building the goblins up not tearing other people down" plan for Redcloak's ministry was Redcloak himself. Right-Eye just wanted to get him laid.)

And even THAT won't save the ones that die and get damned early, because the Snarl doesn't dismantle the Outer Planes.

"No afterlife punitive or otherwise"??

A) We don't know, but the evidence points my way - that deeds, not races, are the deciding factor.
B) Even after said "paramilitary organization" is abolished? At what point does revenge become a pogrom itself?
C) Uh, all hamish said was that goblin deities hold court in Acheron. He didn't say anything about War & XPs in this thread. If you quote me Rich's statement I'll gladly discuss it, but otherwise I have to assume you misread or even invented it.
D) As he serves an Evil deity, and one that doesn't care about his race to boot (I heavily favor Right-Eye's conclusion) I'd say yes, he should. Even if he chooses not to, he has an obligation to his people not to increase their chances of receiving unwelcome attention, or to helping build them up so that they can
E) Hinjo and every other Paladin recognized it too (including SOON.) This isn't about Miko.
If you see an evil cleric waltzing around with the Hand of Vecna, or a Sphere of Annihilation, of course that's grounds to kill him, just as a terrorist walking around with a nuclear bomb shouldn't be given the chance to use it either. The cloak is a clear sign that says "I'm trying to destroy the world" as far as the paladins are concerned. If Redcloak walks around wearing it, he only has himself to blame for making people arrive at that conclusion.

A) Not the main point. The main point is that conventional warfare isn't damning.
B) The instant you start deliberately killing civilians- going after Hinjo's junk crossed that moral event horizon. However, since the Sapphire Guard couldn't be abolished until after Team Evil took the city, the invasion itself was justified. (Plus the leader is still at large, so despite Redcloak's fork comment I'm not sure we can claim they're abolished even now.)
C) Oh, for frick's sake. Hamish reported it originally in another thread:

Does Azure City bear partial culpability for the actions of its paladins? Possibly. It is listed in War & XPs under how it failed to live up to its ideals:

Scratch the surface and you will find a leader who ruled with lies, a paladin who believed herself infallible, and a ruling class who was willing to abandon the common people when push came to shove. Most damning of all, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.
I quoted his quote in this thread. Twice, I think.
D. No one has an obligation to convert to prevent a pogrom! Op, do you hear what you're saying here at all?? According to you, the victims have a moral obligation to do whatever their oppressors demand in order to avoid provoking retaliation, and if they don't the moral responsibility for the deaths is on them! No! No, no, no, no, absolutely no.
Yes, you have an obligation to recognize when your community is vulnerable to collective punishment and not act irresponsibly. But there are limits to how far that responsibility extends, and they stop way short of exercising natural rights like freedom of religion.
E. A nuclear bomb is a weapon, and presents a clear and present danger. The Crimson Mantle is an article of clothing and a badge of office, and it says no more about his intentions than the Pope's hat. It's not an invitation to kill on sight- for that you'd need some demonstration of intent. In Redcloak's case the Sapphire Guard have it, but that has nothing to do with the cloak. Or do you think they would have been right to kill him the instant he put it on, as a fourteen year old kid with no misdeeds to his name?

That's your problem - you think the goblins are so concerned about "justice" that they would actually think of arresting or trying the people directly responsible for their misfortune. I think this kind of conduct is beyond them. Slaughtering fleeing soldiers is not justice,

I think no such thing. What I think is that they are only morally culpable for the actions that arise as a consequence of their disregard for life and civil liberties, not those actions which would also occur if they were all Lawful Good. Like, you know, stopping genocide. Which in this case required capturing Azure City.

Slaughtering fleeing soldiers is what you do to fleeing soldiers if they don't surrender. Which the Azurites never did.

Slaughtering fleeing civilians, however, is unacceptable.

Shojo did; you have no evidence of Hinjo's involvement with the attacks. And since when is Azure City a democracy anyway?

Hinjo is the leader of the SGs. Unless they've issued a formal apology or something that we don't know about, he's inherited the moral responsibility until such time as a trial clears him.

Azure City isn't a democracy, but if one were a Lawful Good modern occupation force one would presumably attempt to set one up for them. And even that Lawful Good occupation force would have a serious problem because the probable winner of an election is at least nominally a war criminal.

hamishspence

2009-10-14, 11:33 AM

Or do you think they would have been right to kill him the instant he put it on, as a fourteen year old kid with no misdeeds to his name?

No misdeeds on screen, certainly.

There are those theories that offscreen, the goblins had been raiding, killing, sacrificing innocents at Redcloak's induction ceremony and we only see the last minutes of it after the victims have been taken away, etc.

And that Redcloak's statement is supposed to be emphasised "What did we do to them?" with him having done lots of evil to people who aren't Azurites.

These "offscreen great evils" theories seem like special pleading though.

Optimystik

2009-10-14, 01:16 PM

Because it's a mass action spell that shows you every Evil in the area, not just your target? If she ever cast it while in a party with any paladin who went on one of those raids, she would have triggered it.

Wrong again, it's a cone-shaped emanation, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) which in OotS manifests as a short-range eyebeam. She'd have to be looking right at her fellow paladins, and you still haven't explained why she'd be scanning them in the first place. Not to mention, she always adventures alone anyway.

But most importantly, none of the paladins currently in the Guard were at Redcloak's village. It happened far too long ago for that. So any scanning or detection questions are moot.

Why? It's meant to check alignment, not morality; that's why it works on objects too. And it does detect Evil; it detects Evil people, and Evil crowns, and Evil baby dragons. Whether it detects evil people is a separate question.

There you go distinguishing alignment and morality again! Pity for you that the afterlife doesn't.

I'm not even going to bother responding to "evil baby dragons."

Yeah, but the gods certainly want to mess with the Sapphire Guards'.

How do you know? We don't know the fate of the ones that murdered Redcloak's family, and the ones that went to heaven (a) weren't at Redcloak's village, and (b) died as martyrs fighting a horrifically evil lich, which is probably good enough to outweigh anything else they might have done in their crusades.

Except that isn't true. It doesn't apply, for instance, to infant chromatic dragons, (which also have the potential to reform and just virtually never exercise it). What makes the humanoids so special that they all start out Neutral where other sentient races start out Good or Evil?

How do you know dragons start out as evil? A tendency is just that; a tendency.

That defense doesn't apply to any morality. Whipping people is immoral regardless of what effect it has on your afterlife. Which is why I've never argued that Redcloak was acting appropriately with regard to the occupation policy. It may not be out of lack of concern for goblins' souls, though.

If he were truly concerned about their souls, he'd be trying to keep them from stooping to the level of the dastardly humans he holds so much in contempt. Of course, there is the possibility that he actually swallowed the Dark One's malarky, in which case the Dark One himself is at fault. Hey, we just got back to the thread title!

He's got Plane Shift; he could go check. I doubt he has, but it seems likely that someone has at some point.

It seems far more likely that someone has not. Recall also that Plane Shift is (a) very imprecise (Precise planar travel requires the 9th-level Gate) and (b)

No, but annihilation of the world and everyone on it is after all a finite cost. I'm not sure the situation is bad enough to merit paying that cost, but I can't say for certain it isn't, either- Redcloak is the person on the ground, not me, and I didn't find Right-Eye's position particularly persuasive (or political- remember, the person who thought of the "building the goblins up not tearing other people down" plan for Redcloak's ministry was Redcloak himself. Right-Eye just wanted to get him laid.)

First off, you're wrong about Right-Eye - he was dedicated to improving the lot of his people. "You start thinking about what's best for the next generation." "Most people think about a college fund when they say that." "I built most of these buildings myself!" He just aimed lower than Redcloak did because he didn't particularly care about equality as long as the goblins had a good life. "It's not a competition you know."

Second, Redcloak, your person on the ground, did actually come to the conclusion that building his own people up might be the better solution. He merely gave it up due to Xykon's very persuasive "arguments." But now that they have a goblin city and Xykon doesn't seem to care what he does with it, shouldn't he be trying to put that idea back on the rails again instead of squandering his people's chances at redemption?

"No afterlife punitive or otherwise"??

...For those goblins that get wiped out by the Snarl's release. Not the ones that die, and go to the afterlife, before the Plan is ever realized... if it indeed will be.

A) Not the main point. The main point is that conventional warfare isn't damning.
B) The instant you start deliberately killing civilians- going after Hinjo's junk crossed that moral event horizon. However, since the Sapphire Guard couldn't be abolished until after Team Evil took the city, the invasion itself was justified. (Plus the leader is still at large, so despite Redcloak's fork comment I'm not sure we can claim they're abolished even now.)
C) Oh, for frick's sake. Hamish reported it originally in another thread:

I quoted his quote in this thread. Twice, I think.
D. No one has an obligation to convert to prevent a pogrom! Op, do you hear what you're saying here at all?? According to you, the victims have a moral obligation to do whatever their oppressors demand in order to avoid provoking retaliation, and if they don't the moral responsibility for the deaths is on them! No! No, no, no, no, absolutely no.
Yes, you have an obligation to recognize when your community is vulnerable to collective punishment and not act irresponsibly. But there are limits to how far that responsibility extends, and they stop way short of exercising natural rights like freedom of religion.
E. A nuclear bomb is a weapon, and presents a clear and present danger. The Crimson Mantle is an article of clothing and a badge of office, and it says no more about his intentions than the Pope's hat. It's not an invitation to kill on sight- for that you'd need some demonstration of intent. In Redcloak's case the Sapphire Guard have it, but that has nothing to do with the cloak. Or do you think they would have been right to kill him the instant he put it on, as a fourteen year old kid with no misdeeds to his name?

A) What happens to their souls is the main point. If you have evidence that goblins are treated differently in the afterlife than any other race, by all means present it.
B) So the exactly 4 paladins left alive constitute the Sapphire Guard, never mind that there isn't even a sapphire left to guard? And even if you say yes, in what way is continuing to beat the civilians that didn't even know of the guard's existence justice?
C) I see nothing in that quote that says ANY of the goblin villages exterminated absolutely had no mantle of their own. That's nothing more than your own interpretation. As for the other humanoid races, they had their own little doomsday projects going on - read the Lizardfolk plot in SoD. I'm not condoning the SG's actions, but neither is there any proof that Right-Eye's village was in danger based just on that quote.
D) Redcloak is not a victim. He is the oppressor. That mantle was the reason his own village was attacked, and what does he do? Puts it on himself! And then, in a perversion of justice, commits the exact same atrocities that he is trying to stop! Is this right to you?
E) The mantle very clearly announces his intentions as far as the Sapphire Guard is concerned. Their prophecies state that the person wearing it is trying to undo creation. Redcloak KNOWS THIS, since he was present when the paladins announced it at his village, so he can't claim ignorance.

I think no such thing. What I think is that they are only morally culpable for the actions that arise as a consequence of their disregard for life and civil liberties, not those actions which would also occur if they were all Lawful Good. Like, you know, stopping genocide. Which in this case required capturing Azure City.

Even if I were to concede that capturing Azure City was essential to protecting goblin interests, needlessly enslaving and beating it's citizenry is not. Furthermore, their post-war activities have directly opened them to even more pogroms thanks to the Resistance and Team Peregrine.

Slaughtering fleeing soldiers is what you do to fleeing soldiers if they don't surrender. Which the Azurites never did.

Slaughtering fleeing civilians, however, is unacceptable.

That's preposterous. A rout implies surrender, or at the very least unwillingness to continue fighting. The Azurites weren't falling back for tactical reasons, they were running for their lives. What the goblins did is grant no quarter or mercy, a distinctly Evil act.

Hinjo is the leader of the SGs. Unless they've issued a formal apology or something that we don't know about, he's inherited the moral responsibility until such time as a trial clears him.

He WAS the leader, you mean; there IS no Sapphire Guard now. And he certainly wasn't in charge of them while your pogroms were going on, because Shojo was. Again you are assigning blame to people that would have no way of knowing what the true culprits were up to.

Azure City isn't a democracy, but if one were a Lawful Good modern occupation force one would presumably attempt to set one up for them. And even that Lawful Good occupation force would have a serious problem because the probable winner of an election is at least nominally a war criminal.

Lawful Good = democracy? What on earth are you basing that on? Any system can be Lawful Good if its ruler is benevolent and there is justice. You're grasping at straws here.

hamishspence

2009-10-14, 01:54 PM

Granting no quarter when asked for is very distinctly evil-

(Soldier drops his weapon)
Soldier: "I surrender"
(Attacker stabs him)

Not sure if it applies to soldiers who are armed, and haven't asked yet.

The soldiers in the Flashback scene aren't holding weapons, when the hobgoblins run into them.

But when the actual rout takes place, several of the people jumping down from the wall, are still carrying shields, or halberds.

Is it at all likely, that the fleeing soldiers sheathed their swords before they fled?

Optimystik

2009-10-14, 02:57 PM

Not sure if it applies to soldiers who are armed, and haven't asked yet.

The ones that were killed fleeing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html) either no longer had weapons at all, or never got the chance to draw them in defense. I'm willing to bet the former.

In any case, they don't have to ask for quarter to get it. BoED:

"In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless.

A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters
must offer mercy and accept surrender...

The text specifically requires "offering quarter" and "offering mercy," meaning that the onus is not on the creature merely to accept such requests, but on giving the routed enemy a chance to make that request. Now, Lark can argue that goblins aren't trying to be Good, but he can't argue that their behavior towards the fleeing citizens was just.

Larkspur

2009-10-14, 03:07 PM

Wrong again, it's a cone-shaped emanation, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) which in OotS manifests as a short-range eyebeam. She'd have to be looking right at her fellow paladins, and you still haven't explained why she'd be scanning them in the first place. Not to mention, she always adventures alone anyway.

Yes, I always put the person trying to concentrate on a two-three round non-offensive spell at the front of my party when I'm looking for bad guys. For none of these guys ever to show up on anyone's scan, they would have to all never get accidentally caught in an eyebeam for 34 years. That seems unlikely to me. And the issue isn't with Miko specifically (although she must have worked with others at some point or they couldn't know how heinous she is), it's any paladin in the guard. They're all convinced of their own righteousness; there's no way Hinjo or O-Chul are concealing the knowledge that half their comrades scan as Evil.

We don't have any reason to think the raiding has stopped, and Redcloak's village was only 34 years ago, so the perpetrators could easily still be in the Guard. Assuming they were 30 at the time they're not even retirement age.

There you go distinguishing alignment and morality again! Pity for you that the afterlife doesn't.
Um, you're basing this on what? Roy's deva was trying to confirm his alignment so she could let him in; that's why she talked about how lawful he was. Lawfulness isn't a morality issue.

the ones that went to heaven (a) weren't at Redcloak's village
How do you know? It's been 34 years, they could have gone gray or bald.

(b) died as martyrs fighting a horrifically evil lich, which is probably good enough to outweigh anything else they might have done in their crusades

I'm not sure it works that way. Redemption requires you to admit you've done something wrong, after all. Miko died a martyr saving the city from an (already defeated) horrifically evil lich, and she didn't go to Celestia.

How do you know dragons start out as evil? A tendency is just that; a tendency.

The word "Always" in their alignment description? Given V's estimate of the total black dragon population, the new eggs have to hatch Evil or every clutch would inject enough Neutrality into the population to briefly drop it down to Usually. So they hatch Evil, and completely innocent. The metaphysical implications of that I'll leave to you.

Of course, there is the possibility that he actually swallowed the Dark One's malarky, in which case the Dark One himself is at fault.

Possibility? It's frickin' Redcloak.

That said, we still have no compelling reason to think anything bad happens to their souls.

(b) ? And it occurs to me you needn't even Plane Shift; just raise someone. Vague memories like Roy's from Celestia, but certainly enough to tell you whether they were being tortured. There's too much traffic between planes for people to be ignorant about the afterlife in this world.

"You start thinking about what's best for the next generation." "Most people think about a college fund when they say that." "I built most of these buildings myself!"

One and two are both for his own kids. Carpentry is his profession. Redcloak heals people (sometimes); it doesn't make him a bodhisattva. Right-Eye doesn't even urge any of the other goblins to defect when he leaves Xykon (and actually urges Redcloak to dump the Mantle on some other poor sucker). His solitary moment of political consciousness was his attack on Xykon, and even then it's evident his primary concern is avenging his family.

Second, Redcloak, your person on the ground, did actually come to the conclusion that building his own people up might be the better solution. He merely gave it up due to Xykon's very persuasive "arguments."

Because the Plan had been stymied for 18 years. We have no idea whether he'd have come with Xykon voluntarily, given a choice.

But now that they have a goblin city and Xykon doesn't seem to care what he does with it, shouldn't he be trying to put that idea back on the rails again instead of squandering his people's chances at redemption?

Um, I really doubt Hinjo would be eager to normalize relations even if he didn't let them abuse the slaves. Redcloak is being a bastard, but there are unlikely to be any geopolitical implications.

Do we know the Snarl doesn't threaten the other planes? The gods were certainly pretty freaked.

A) What happens to their souls is the main point. If you have evidence that goblins are treated differently in the afterlife than any other race, by all means present it.
B) So the exactly 4 paladins left alive constitute the Sapphire Guard, never mind that there isn't even a sapphire left to guard? And even if you say yes, in what way is continuing to beat the civilians that didn't even know of the guard's existence justice?
C) I see nothing in that quote that says ANY of the goblin villages exterminated absolutely had no mantle of their own. That's nothing more than your own interpretation. As for the other humanoid races, they had their own little doomsday projects going on - read the Lizardfolk plot in SoD. I'm not condoning the SG's actions, but neither is there any proof that Right-Eye's village was in danger based just on that quote.
D) Redcloak is not a victim. He is the oppressor. That mantle was the reason his own village was attacked, and what does he do? Puts it on himself! And then, in a perversion of justice, commits the exact same atrocities that he is trying to stop! Is this right to you?
E) The mantle very clearly announces his intentions as far as the Sapphire Guard is concerned. Their prophecies state that the person wearing it is trying to undo creation. Redcloak KNOWS THIS, since he was present when the paladins announced it at his village, so he can't claim ignorance.

A) No, the main point is that the invasion by itself isn't going to hurt their souls, because prosecuting a justified war isn't damning.
B) There are more SGs abroad, and with the leadership intact they can rebuild. And for the hundredth time, hurting the civilians was never just and no one ever claimed it was.
C) We've no evidence more than one Crimson Mantle was made, and the Crayon story strongly suggests otherwise (as does Redcloak's claim to be the head cleric of the Dark One and the Sapphire Guards' reactions to him. How did a kid get to be head cleric for all the goblins if other guys were running around with Mantles of their own and greater seniority?) Now, I've never claimed these other villages hadn't attacked anyone, but it's clear that the Sapphire Guard were doing much more than simply defending their gate from the Mantlebearer by exterminating everyone he came in contact with.
D) Actually, when the SGs attacked they cited the presence of the head cleric (not the Mantle, note) as a secondary motivation- their first reason was "our gods have judged your hearts and found them Evil." Since Redcloak knew nothing of the Plan and his mentor had just said they'd done nothing to provoke an attack, putting on the Mantle as instructed was a perfectly reasonable and rather brave thing to do, regardless of what you think of the Plan itself. I'd expect Hinjo to have reacted exactly the same way if their circumstances were reversed. And since the Plan is, in Redcloak, the Dark One, and my opinion, their best shot at avoiding future pogroms, not taking it off again makes perfect sense too.
None of which justifies the treatment of the Azurite civilians, although since they haven't actually systematically murdered them, the hobgoblins are still doing better than the Sapphire Guard. Plus... it's easy to say that surviving atrocities should make people more empathetic, but the world rarely seems to work that way.
E) Prophecy said someone in the village was trying to undo creation (which is untrue, incidentally, because that's only Plan B, so there's something kooky with that prophecy anyway). It didn't say aught about clothing. And even if it had, why should Redcloak have to ditch his badge of office because it makes some sociopaths twitchy due to an inaccurate prophecy? What if I decided I was going to blow up a subway station in Rome unless the Pope changed his hat; is he obligated to give in to my threat? Again, the responsibility to change is on the perpetrator; not the victim. And I note you did not answer the question about whether they would have been justified in killing Redcloak the second he put the cloak on.

Furthermore, their post-war activities have directly opened them to even more pogroms thanks to the Resistance and Team Peregrine.

Fighting the soldiers occupying a city isn't a pogrom, and the hobgoblin presence in Azure City may well be distracting everyone from the goblinoid civilians. So... wrong on every count, really.

That's preposterous. A rout implies surrender, or at the very least unwillingness to continue fighting.

No, surrender implies surrender. The Azurites were absolutely falling back for tactical reasons, which is why they have a government in exile, a Resistance and they're plotting to retake the city. If you're routed you drop your weapons; you don't go running for the docks to regroup and cover your strategic withdrawal. This is why we have the concept of "covering a retreat" in warfare; because the enemy isn't obliged to just let you run away so you can strike back at them tomorrow.

He WAS the leader, you mean; there IS no Sapphire Guard now. And he certainly wasn't in charge of them while your pogroms were going on, because Shojo was. Again you are assigning blame to people that would have no way of knowing what the true culprits were up to.

There's a few of them left, and he called himself their captain when he attacked Redcloak at the port. Why are you assuming the atrocities weren't ongoing at the time Azure City was attacked? Hinjo is the leader of the same damn paramilitary group that caused all the trouble, and we've seen no sign of an apology, repentance, or even a change in attitude. He's absolutely due a trial for war crimes; if they find nothing happened during his tenure he could be exonerated, but until then the buck stops with him.

At the very least he must know about the pogroms; he'd have access to the records, and it's not like the SGs are ashamed of themselves and would try to conceal it.

Lawful Good = democracy? What on earth are you basing that on?

:smallsigh:It's a thought exercise, Op. My point is that even if the invading army were the most benevolent, modern, Lawful Good force imaginable (and thus by our modern scruples inclined to give the Azurites self-rule), they'd still be up a creek when it came to deciding the occupation policy. Obviously none of that actually applies in this case, since the hobgoblins are none of those things.

David Argall

2009-10-14, 04:00 PM

No misdeeds on screen, certainly.

Not so clear. Redcloak puts on the Red Cloak and thus becomes the dedicated agent of his god. So to the extent we justify the death of the previous redcloak as a form of self defense, Redcloak becomes a legitimate target of such defense.

hamishspence

2009-10-14, 04:03 PM

Wasn't it you that was saying that by definition, self-defence is against immediate threats only, and dealing with nebulous future threats is not any kind of self-defence?

Or is it only when the nebulous future threat happens to be Miko?

I quote:

Self defense also demands the threat be immediate and definite. You don't get to attack somebody today because they might attack you tomorrow.

hamishspence

2009-10-14, 04:07 PM

In any case, they don't have to ask for quarter to get it. BoED:

The text specifically requires "offering quarter" and "offering mercy," meaning that the onus is not on the creature merely to accept such requests, but on giving the routed enemy a chance to make that request.

Remember the goblin children in SOD? Small, unarmed, fleeing? I notice no quarter being offered, no demands to surrender.

Optimystik

2009-10-14, 05:27 PM

Remember the goblin children in SOD? Small, unarmed, fleeing? I notice no quarter being offered, no demands to surrender.

Which is why the SG were wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Lark, I'll get to you later, I need to leave the office.

Porthos

2009-10-14, 05:46 PM

Which is why the SG were wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right.

And this brings up an interesting point.

By Word of God, we have no idea who "fired the first shot" in the Sapphire Guard/Goblin war. In fact Rich leaves the idea unresolved as a deliberate plot point. Rich also goes out of his way not to blame either side. Or rather, he goes out of his way to blame both sides equally.

Which then brings us to this question: Who is responsible for stopping the Cycle of Violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_violence) between the Sapphire Guard and the Goblins?

After all, there's probably more than one child growing up in Azure City right now who lost his mother or father to a vicious and unwarranted attack by a hobgoblin. Who wants to take bets on what that child is going to do when he grows up?

Now without getting all political here, I would suggest that it is up to both sides to try to stop the cycle. Both sides have to decide to stop the carnage (and police their own enough to make sure that it doesn't start up again). And that is not going to happen until A) The Sapphire Guard (or Azure City, if one prefers) is convinced that the Goblins are going to stop their Possibly Destroy The World In An Act of Blackmail plan. And B) The Goblins are convinced that they have a place where they can grow and thrive as a nation/people.

Until both of those situations come to pass, there will be conflict between the SG and the CM. Unless one side wipes out the other, of course.

Justification doesn't even come into it.

Should justification come into it? Perhaps. Problem is, is that both sides feel equally justified in their actions. And when you have that in a war, it's real hard to solve it (as history has shown far too many times). Unless, as I said, the underlying grievances are addressed.

So go ahead and say that the Twelve Gods are all a bunch of rotten savages. Go ahead and say that the Sapphire Guard should all rot in the Abyss. That all might be true. But thinking that doesn't actually help stop the war between those two people, now does it? :smallsmile:

The only thing that is going to stop this war is for both sides to listen to the other. And neither side particularly wants to do that right at the moment.

Larkspur

2009-10-14, 06:00 PM

Oh man, I'd forgotten V trances rather than dreams. I didn't realize that was a flashback. :smallbiggrin: V, you douche. Okay, I'll gladly concede those unarmed guys were unacceptable kills as well.

And BoED rightly places the onus of offering a surrender on the attacker, and Team Evil didn't. Add another mark to their long tally of evil. They should have called Shojo the night before the battle, frankly. On the other hand, oh, look, Roy didn't offer one either. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html) So this is not a standard that anyone except, hilariously, Miko, is actually upholding, and the deva didn't criticize Roy for it.

Also I assume one is not obligated to offer surrender every five seconds in the middle of a battle; presumably you wait for a lull. So- Xykon should have done it in the throne room, Redcloak with the cleric and again with Hinjo at the ship, and obviously the hobgoblins to those unarmed guys, but it's not like they've missed a ton of opportunities here.

You're still allowed to kill retreating armed people, though, once they refuse to surrender. Retreating is a form of refusing to surrender.

ETA:
And that is not going to happen until A) The Sapphire Guard (or Azure City, if one prefers) is convinced that the Goblins are going to stop their Possibly Destroy The World In An Act of Blackmail plan. And B) The Goblins are convinced that they have a place where they can grow and thrive as a nation/people.

Ironically, the implementation of the Plan would actually resolve both these problems- a new homeland for the goblins and making the threat a moot point for the SGs. :smallbiggrin:

Possibly by killing all the parties to the conflict, granted...

Zxo

2009-10-15, 01:55 AM

Regarding SG and their slaughtering of goblins, I can imagine that SG members do not see goblins as fully... well, human obviously isn't the right word here... as part of the group to which moral laws apply. There was a similar attitude among slave masters and conquerors in real world history. Some of them were absolutely LG when dealing with those who were "human" in their eyes and at the same time they could be cruel to "savages" and not feel guilty about it, because they didn't believe that the "savages" had a soul. The SG probably see the goblins as kind of animals/monsters and they've been told that by their gods, who after all created goblins just for xp and wanted their followers to be killing them.

The deva judged Roy based on how hard he tried to be good, and the SG were probably too trying to do their best, limited, like Roy and everyone else, by the beliefs and information they had. That's the only explanation I can see for them getting away with it alignment-wise.

By the way, OotS gods are like the ones from Greek myths - they have immortality and great power, but also all the flaws of character (and judgement) of mortals, flaws sometimes magnified by their power. Didn't they create the Snarl by their disagreement? Weren't they only able to work together in harmony when they had learnt their lesson from the disaster? I think they created sentient races destined for slaughter not because they (gods) were evil, but because they were stupid/immature and didn't think too much about the moral implications (they didn't have to - they have no afterlife to fear). It reminds me of the film "Eric the Viking", where the gods turn out to be a bunch of bored, spoilt children looking for entertainment and not caring much about the fact that they are messing with real lives and cause real suffering.

Lord Loss

2009-10-15, 04:44 AM

I'd say he's neutral, but his worshippers think he's evil, therefore allowing the use of the Evil domain. That or he kind of cracks the alignment system (it's complexity is too low to be any good for political themed D&D, because doing the really wrong thing for the right reasons still nets you a score of Evil!

hamishspence

2009-10-15, 04:55 AM

Pretty much, yes.

One possible allowance is the theory that;

even if you are doing the "really wrong thing" as long as your belief that you are doing the right thing is a reasonable belief you are not doing evil.

Alternatively, is the Heroes of Horror style "evil acts with extremely good intentions, and overall results, tends to result in a neutral alignment"

Nerdanel

2009-10-15, 09:32 AM

I think the Dark One's skin color is a crucial clue. Namely, I think he was a Blue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm), a psionic goblin, born randomly in a world where psionics were extremely rare.

Now, the Dark One couldn't have used the 3.5 psionics, the one d20srd.org has, during his lifetime since that was before the world transitioned to 3.5, and psionics were overhauled in 3.5. However, we can assume with good reason that when the single psionic character in a huge army formed of disparate tribes is the one leading it, psionic powers may just have played a part in getting the army together and beneath the character's command. Since Redcloak didn't know about that psionics were being used in the world without researching it, the Dark One likely used psionics on his fellow goblins without their knowledge or consent.

It is conceivable that the Dark One used his psionic powers to frame the humans for his own assassination if he knew that it would lead into him becoming a god.

Oh, and speculation on the Dark One's current motives:
Destroying the world may be the plan B for Redcloak but not for the Dark One. For all we know, the Dark One might be planning to use Snarl to destroy the world and the divine realms of all the other gods, leaving himself the sole god of the new world, built from scratch by himself.

Yep, the Dark One may be very much evil behind his propaganda.

hamishspence

2009-10-15, 09:34 AM

At least one Blue has already appeared in the strip- flashback, during the interrogation of O-chul.

They also existed in 3.0 as well as 3.5.

And the in-strip one is a lot blue-er than The Dark One.

Optimystik

2009-10-15, 10:41 AM

Yes, I always put the person trying to concentrate on a two-three round non-offensive spell at the front of my party when I'm looking for bad guys. For none of these guys ever to show up on anyone's scan, they would have to all never get accidentally caught in an eyebeam for 34 years. That seems unlikely to me. And the issue isn't with Miko specifically (although she must have worked with others at some point or they couldn't know how heinous she is), it's any paladin in the guard. They're all convinced of their own righteousness; there's no way Hinjo or O-Chul are concealing the knowledge that half their comrades scan as Evil.

We don't have any reason to think the raiding has stopped, and Redcloak's village was only 34 years ago, so the perpetrators could easily still be in the Guard. Assuming they were 30 at the time they're not even retirement age.

And they could just as easily no longer be in the Guard at all. Show me a paladin who was there at the time and I'll gladly cede the point.

The one person we can surmise to have been in the Guard that long is Shojo, who a) wasn't there in person and b) isn't the purest diamond in the pile anyway.

Scanning is not an "always on" ability; it requires conscious activation AND concentration. Beings "convinced of their own righteousness," as you put it, would have no reason to randomly scan each other.

But as I said before, it's all moot, as none of the Guard members in Redcloak's village are still around, and Hinjo himself wasn't even alive at the time. I personally think they would have scanned as Evil for murdering children, but I guess we'll never know.

Um, you're basing this on what? Roy's deva was trying to confirm his alignment so she could let him in; that's why she talked about how lawful he was. Lawfulness isn't a morality issue.

She discussed his lawfulness because his goodness was a foregone conclusion (minus the Elan issue); not because goodness is irrelevant.

How do you know? It's been 34 years, they could have gone gray or bald.

Like who? Show me.

I'm not sure it works that way. Redemption requires you to admit you've done something wrong, after all. Miko died a martyr saving the city from an (already defeated) horrifically evil lich, and she didn't go to Celestia.

She didn't save the city, she finished destroying it. But rather than turn this into a Miko debate, I'll agree that admitting wrong is indeed necessary.

Still moot, as none of the paladins in the throne room were at Redcloak's village.

The word "Always" in their alignment description? Given V's estimate of the total black dragon population, the new eggs have to hatch Evil or every clutch would inject enough Neutrality into the population to briefly drop it down to Usually. So they hatch Evil, and completely innocent. The metaphysical implications of that I'll leave to you.

Your reliance on the "Always" and "Usually" qualifiers for your argument is not borne out by the strip. If you have a problem with that, feel free to e-mail Rich, but don't expect me to jump on board with you.

Deeds determine alignment, not entries.

Possibility? It's frickin' Redcloak.

That said, we still have no compelling reason to think anything bad happens to their souls.

It's a very simple logic to follow.

a) Hell is a bad place.
b) Destination depends on alignment.
c) Alignment depends on deeds.
d) Bad deeds = Bad alignment.
e) Therefore, bad deeds = bad place, for eternity.

(b) ? And it occurs to me you needn't even Plane Shift; just raise someone. Vague memories like Roy's from Celestia, but certainly enough to tell you whether they were being tortured. There's too much traffic between planes for people to be ignorant about the afterlife in this world.

Maybe Jirix, when he comes back, will share some interesting tidbits from the goblin afterlife. We'll have to wait until then to know for sure. Somehow, I think he'll be QUITE eager to consent to be raised, and that in itself will support my argument even if he doesn't remember a thing. :smalltongue:

One and two are both for his own kids. Carpentry is his profession. Redcloak heals people (sometimes); it doesn't make him a bodhisattva. Right-Eye doesn't even urge any of the other goblins to defect when he leaves Xykon (and actually urges Redcloak to dump the Mantle on some other poor sucker). His solitary moment of political consciousness was his attack on Xykon, and even then it's evident his primary concern is avenging his family.

Right-Eye is quite human in this regard - his motivations are divided between his family, and the goblin people as a whole. If he didn't care about the latter, why would he even mention "this alliance with Xykon is destroying their souls?!"

The fact that he has some personal stake in erasing Xykon doesn't make him wrong, or even selfish, for trying to do so, no matter what you may think.

Because the Plan had been stymied for 18 years. We have no idea whether he'd have come with Xykon voluntarily, given a choice.

And 18 years later he has his goblin city. Instead of wasting time with inefficient slave labor, maybe he could try having his people work on some farming and industry of their own? Where's that goblin art and science he's been yakking about? No, instead he hangs on to slaves, inviting more violence against his people, and torturing a paladin just so his walking macguffin Xykon will stay put.

Do we know the Snarl doesn't threaten the other planes? The gods were certainly pretty freaked.

Read the crayon story again. It specifically says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html) they were able to hide from it in their Outer Plane homes. It only destroyed the Material Plane and the gods that were too close to it.

A) No, the main point is that the invasion by itself isn't going to hurt their souls, because prosecuting a justified war isn't damning.
B) There are more SGs abroad, and with the leadership intact they can rebuild. And for the hundredth time, hurting the civilians was never just and no one ever claimed it was.
C) We've no evidence more than one Crimson Mantle was made, and the Crayon story strongly suggests otherwise (as does Redcloak's claim to be the head cleric of the Dark One and the Sapphire Guards' reactions to him. How did a kid get to be head cleric for all the goblins if other guys were running around with Mantles of their own and greater seniority?) Now, I've never claimed these other villages hadn't attacked anyone, but it's clear that the Sapphire Guard were doing much more than simply defending their gate from the Mantlebearer by exterminating everyone he came in contact with.
D) Actually, when the SGs attacked they cited the presence of the head cleric (not the Mantle, note) as a secondary motivation- their first reason was "our gods have judged your hearts and found them Evil." Since Redcloak knew nothing of the Plan and his mentor had just said they'd done nothing to provoke an attack, putting on the Mantle as instructed was a perfectly reasonable and rather brave thing to do, regardless of what you think of the Plan itself. I'd expect Hinjo to have reacted exactly the same way if their circumstances were reversed. And since the Plan is, in Redcloak, the Dark One, and my opinion, their best shot at avoiding future pogroms, not taking it off again makes perfect sense too.
None of which justifies the treatment of the Azurite civilians, although since they haven't actually systematically murdered them, the hobgoblins are still doing better than the Sapphire Guard. Plus... it's easy to say that surviving atrocities should make people more empathetic, but the world rarely seems to work that way.
E) Prophecy said someone in the village was trying to undo creation (which is untrue, incidentally, because that's only Plan B, so there's something kooky with that prophecy anyway). It didn't say aught about clothing. And even if it had, why should Redcloak have to ditch his badge of office because it makes some sociopaths twitchy due to an inaccurate prophecy? What if I decided I was going to blow up a subway station in Rome unless the Pope changed his hat; is he obligated to give in to my threat? Again, the responsibility to change is on the perpetrator; not the victim. And I note you did not answer the question about whether they would have been justified in killing Redcloak the second he put the cloak on.

A) Only killing the Sapphire Guard is justified. Killing civilians and fleeing soldiers is NOT RETALIATION.
B) You're not claiming it is justified, yet you keep rationalizing the war. Well, the war's over, the goblins are still behaving like asshats, and the two beings who can change that aren't doing anything about it. So yeah.
C) More than one mantle? I never claimed that. The mantle's been around, and changed hands, for a very long time. So long in fact, that the Scribble themselves were able to kill one of its wearers (see SoD). It hasn't been handed down through Redcloak's village alone, so I still see no reason why every goblin village attacked couldn't have had a mantle in it.
D) I've already agreed that the Sapphire's gods are jerks, so that being their primary reason comes as no surprise. I have no problem with Redcloak putting the cloak ON, as he didn't know any better then, but nothing is stopping him from removing it except fear and bloodlust.
E) It's more than a "badge of office" or a "garment," and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise.

Now, the SG don't, but they know the person wearing it is trying to mess with the Gate. If you wear a shirt that says "I'm going to sabotage the plane!" in the airport, you have only yourself to blame if you get pulled out of line and cavity searched.

Fighting the soldiers occupying a city isn't a pogrom, and the hobgoblin presence in Azure City may well be distracting everyone from the goblinoid civilians. So... wrong on every count, really.

I'm wrong? There are no "goblinoid civilians." Every (hob)goblin in Azure City was a member of the army. In fact, the only actual goblin in the city is... Redcloak himself. Xykon got all the rest killed. A fine start to the Plan.

I agree that fighting occupying soldiers isn't a pogrom, but it's still quite avoidable for Redcloak, yet he chooses not to do so.

No, surrender implies surrender. The Azurites were absolutely falling back for tactical reasons, which is why they have a government in exile, a Resistance and they're plotting to retake the city. If you're routed you drop your weapons; you don't go running for the docks to regroup and cover your strategic withdrawal. This is why we have the concept of "covering a retreat" in warfare; because the enemy isn't obliged to just let you run away so you can strike back at them tomorrow.

THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html) is what you call "falling back for tactical reasons?" Give me a break.

There's a few of them left, and he called himself their captain when he attacked Redcloak at the port. Why are you assuming the atrocities weren't ongoing at the time Azure City was attacked? Hinjo is the leader of the same damn paramilitary group that caused all the trouble, and we've seen no sign of an apology, repentance, or even a change in attitude. He's absolutely due a trial for war crimes; if they find nothing happened during his tenure he could be exonerated, but until then the buck stops with him.

Let's assume you're right. Shouldn't they be demanding Hinjo's return then? Trying to find him for this "trial" of yours?

Redcloak could find him easily if he wanted to. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm) So there goes that slipshod theory.

At the very least he must know about the pogroms; he'd have access to the records, and it's not like the SGs are ashamed of themselves and would try to conceal it.

How do you know a secret organization even keeps records of goblin extermination? Or that Hinjo, in the handful of days he was actually in a leadership position, even knew of any or where to look?

And all that's assuming their existence wasn't just kept from him by well-meaning underlings. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)

On the other hand, oh, look, Roy didn't offer one either. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html)

Plainly a different situation. The goblins were poised to attack, not running for their lives. I fail to see any parity between the two.

You're still allowed to kill retreating armed people, though, once they refuse to surrender. Retreating is a form of refusing to surrender.

The soldiers running in V's flashback weren't armed. They weren't even running when they were cut down - they were standing still and screaming "Help us!" Are you done trying to rationalize it yet?

Larkspur

2009-10-15, 01:05 PM

And they could just as easily no longer be in the Guard at all. Show me a paladin who was there at the time and I'll gladly cede the point.

Obviously I can't prove it without more information, but gray-haired guy in the back of the throne room has the same haircut as one of the ones we saw survive the raid in the final pan of the carnage. But it's been 34 years- haircuts can change, and we never even knew the original hair colors of the SoD guys. So there's absolutely no way to draw a conclusion one way or another about whether or not any of the guys from that particular raid are still around.

Regardless, they would have all been in the Guard for some length of time. The SGs use Detect Evil. If any of these guys were in a party with someone who was using the ability in order to look for monsters, but happened to be standing in front of them enough to be caught in the eyebeam, they would show up in the scan. No one has to be deliberately screening paladins for Evilness; in 34 years of adventuring this is bound to occur by accident at least once. At that point the organization should have been faced with a metaphysical crisis, but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that ever occurred.

She discussed his lawfulness because his goodness was a foregone conclusion (minus the Elan issue); not because goodness is irrelevant.

My point is, it's not morality alone that decides where you go. Not that it has no impact; obviously it affects alignment and alignment matters.

Your reliance on the "Always" and "Usually" qualifiers for your argument is not borne out by the strip. If you have a problem with that, feel free to e-mail Rich, but don't expect me to jump on board with you.

Well, let's put OotS aside for a second, then.

Will you concede that the Always modifier applies to Core? Given that Core is, you know, the campaign setting the MM describes?

The same problem is going to arise. Things can't be Always Evil unless they are, in fact, always Evil. This means they must have been Evil at the instant of their birth, before they'd ever had a chance to commit any misdeeds.

So at least in Core, alignment cannot be based entirely on deeds. Do we have a reason not to extrapolate this to OotS?

It's a very simple logic to follow.

a) Hell is a bad place.
b) Destination depends on alignment.
c) Alignment depends on deeds.
d) Bad deeds = Bad alignment.
e) Therefore, bad deeds = bad place, for eternity.

Yes, if I took (a)-(c) as givens, that would follow. Since I think (a)-(c) are contestable (and in the case of (c) actually impossible according to the MM), I'm not going to agree with your conclusions.

Maybe Jirix, when he comes back, will share some interesting tidbits from the goblin afterlife. We'll have to wait until then to know for sure. Somehow, I think he'll be QUITE eager to consent to be raised, and that in itself will support my argument even if he doesn't remember a thing. :smalltongue:

So Roy's eagerness to return means Celestia is hell? :smallconfused:

If he didn't care about the latter, why would he even mention "this alliance with Xykon is destroying their souls?!"

Because the "Xykon let your nephews die" argument was cutting no water with Redcloak, and he needed to find something more convincing.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he didn't care about the others. I just don't think it was his primary motivation, or he'd have mentioned it first.

And there's nothing wrong with being motivated by relationships; it's just Neutral. But it undermines his credibility as a political thinker, because he doesn't ask "How is this decision going to affect the goblins as a whole?" he asks, "How will it affect my kids?" Redcloak has a broader perspective.

And 18 years later he has his goblin city. Instead of wasting time with inefficient slave labor, maybe he could try having his people work on some farming and industry of their own? Where's that goblin art and science he's been yakking about? No, instead he hangs on to slaves, inviting more violence against his people, and torturing a paladin just so his walking macguffin Xykon will stay put.

...you think there would be no Resistance if they weren't keeping Azurite slaves?

And the whole reason he was torturing O-Chul was to buy time to create the trading infrastructure required for all that farming and industry you want. It's just that the camera was focused on Haley instead of the new hobgoblin Chamber of Commerce or whatever. They can't trade without having something to trade, and Redcloak's not stupid enough to think spending the Azurite treasury on food imports is a viable long-term economic strategy. So I think we can safely conclude that he is setting up farms and industry and so on.

Read the crayon story again. It specifically says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html) they were able to hide from it in their Outer Plane homes. It only destroyed the Material Plane and the gods that were too close to it.

I take "hoping the Snarl would not discover them" to mean it could, in fact, eat the Outer Planes if it noticed they existed. At least the gods seem to think so.

A) Only killing the Sapphire Guard is justified. Killing civilians and fleeing soldiers is NOT RETALIATION.
B) You're not claiming it is justified, yet you keep rationalizing the war. Well, the war's over, the goblins are still behaving like asshats, and the two beings who can change that aren't doing anything about it. So yeah.
C) More than one mantle? I never claimed that. The mantle's been around, and changed hands, for a very long time. So long in fact, that the Scribble themselves were able to kill one of its wearers (see SoD). It hasn't been handed down through Redcloak's village alone, so I still see no reason why every goblin village attacked couldn't have had a mantle in it.
D) I've already agreed that the Sapphire's gods are jerks, so that being their primary reason comes as no surprise. I have no problem with Redcloak putting the cloak ON, as he didn't know any better then, but nothing is stopping him from removing it except fear and bloodlust.
E) It's more than a "badge of office" or a "garment," and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise.

A) No one said it was.
B) Not disputing any of that. Doesn't mean the war itself was unjustified.
C) "a" mantle implies more than one. Indefinite article and all that.
D) That and, you know, thinking the Plan is a good idea. And his sunk cost thing.
E) It is just a garment. Look, he was still wearing it when he decided to stay in Right-Eye's village, right? And he wasn't working on the Plan anymore. So obviously it's possible to simultaneously wear the Mantle and not try to implement the Plan. Which means the former is not evidence of the latter. Therefore, killing the Mantlebearer merely on account of him bearing the Mantle is unjustified (not that we have any real reason to think the SGs were ever doing this anyway).
Yes, it contains information that is potentially dangerous, and I wouldn't blame the SGs for trying to capture it. But there's a big difference between trying to steal someone's cloak and murdering them over it.

If you wear a shirt that says "I'm going to sabotage the plane!" in the airport, you have only yourself to blame if you get pulled out of line and cavity searched.

You have airport security to blame if you're summarily shot for it, and double if they shoot your kids and everyone else waiting for your flight.

I'm wrong? There are no "goblinoid civilians." Every (hob)goblin in Azure City was a member of the army. In fact, the only actual goblin in the city is... Redcloak himself.

Um, exactly? There are no goblinoid civilians in Azure City. So how does the Resistance threaten them with pogroms?

(Of course there are goblinoid civilians elsewhere, who the SGs will now be too busy worrying about Redcloak to bother.)

I agree that fighting occupying soldiers isn't a pogrom, but it's still quite avoidable for Redcloak, yet he chooses not to do so.

What??? He's the occupier; why should he fight his own troops?

THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html) is what you call "falling back for tactical reasons?" Give me a break.

No, those particular guys dropped their weapons; they were noncombatants at that point, and they got murdered. Hinjo and Lien not so much.

Let's assume you're right. Shouldn't they be demanding Hinjo's return then? Trying to find him for this "trial" of yours?

I think that's that "mercy" thing BoeD was on about. That and Redcloak has rather bigger priorities. Hinjo is only a practical problem if one is planning to restore self-rule to the Azurites, which Redcloak unfortunately is not.

How do you know a secret organization even keeps records of goblin extermination? Or that Hinjo, in the handful of days he was actually in a leadership position, even knew of any or where to look?

They seem meticulous; I'm sure they keep track of goblin settlements so they know where to search for the next head cleric of the Dark One. Hinjo's been de facto leader for a long time, since Shojo was pretending to be insane, and protecting the gate is his job. There's no way he didn't know about the usual SG methodology. If anything the new paladins would have heard about it from the old ones' battle stories and so on.

Plainly a different situation. The goblins were poised to attack, not running for their lives.

Um, those goblins were being attacked. Xykon didn't go bursting in to Roy's throne room. You're supposed to offer a chance to surrender before you attack; that's what having the onus of mercy on the attacker means.

The soldiers running in V's flashback weren't armed. They weren't even running when they were cut down - they were standing still and screaming "Help us!" Are you done trying to rationalize it yet?

:smallsigh:In the very post you just quoted from, a line above the paragraph you quoted:

I'll gladly concede those unarmed guys were unacceptable kills as well.

Try actually reading the post next time, okay?

hamishspence

2009-10-15, 01:18 PM

The OoTS art style has sheathed weapons, such as short swords, be impossible to see until pulled out. The numerous pictures of Miko and Hinjo when they put weapons away confirm this.

Admittedly we can't tell for sure in this case.

BoED follows the Geneva Conventions surprisingly closely-

no targeting non-combatants
all surrenders must be accepted
no poison
no disease
no killing prisoners without due process
no torture

Is there anything about:

"No attacking retreating troopers, or ambushing them"?
"No attacking enemy soldiers if they do not have weapons in hands"?

Optimystik

2009-10-15, 04:29 PM

Obviously I can't prove it without more information, but gray-haired guy in the back of the throne room has the same haircut as one of the ones we saw survive the raid in the final pan of the carnage. But it's been 34 years- haircuts can change, and we never even knew the original hair colors of the SoD guys. So there's absolutely no way to draw a conclusion one way or another about whether or not any of the guys from that particular raid are still around.

Regardless, they would have all been in the Guard for some length of time. The SGs use Detect Evil. If any of these guys were in a party with someone who was using the ability in order to look for monsters, but happened to be standing in front of them enough to be caught in the eyebeam, they would show up in the scan. No one has to be deliberately screening paladins for Evilness; in 34 years of adventuring this is bound to occur by accident at least once. At that point the organization should have been faced with a metaphysical crisis, but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that ever occurred.

In 34 years, how many expeditions did the destroyers of Redcloak's village go out on besides the one we saw? That's right, you don't know.

I agree that they should have had a crisis had they scanned each other even during that scene (say, after impaling his baby sister.) But they didn't, so all we have left is speculation.

And Miko, your compulsive scanner, wasn't even alive back then. So yeah.

My point is, it's not morality alone that decides where you go. Not that it has no impact; obviously it affects alignment and alignment matters.

If it's the most important factor, is there a difference that matters?

Well, let's put OotS aside for a second, then.

Will you concede that the Always modifier applies to Core? Given that Core is, you know, the campaign setting the MM describes?

The same problem is going to arise. Things can't be Always Evil unless they are, in fact, always Evil. This means they must have been Evil at the instant of their birth, before they'd ever had a chance to commit any misdeeds.

So at least in Core, alignment cannot be based entirely on deeds. Do we have a reason not to extrapolate this to OotS?

We have several reasons not to extrapolate, most notably the ones hamish pointed out; that OotS incorporates a LOT of BoED and BoVD concepts.

Relying on core D&D for moral guidance is like learning how to play D&D by watching Snakes and Ladders. Sure it teaches you the basic mechanic well enough (rolling a die) but it fails to address any of the complexities. So no, extrapolation is a meaningless exercise.

Yes, if I took (a)-(c) as givens, that would follow. Since I think (a)-(c) are contestable (and in the case of (c) actually impossible according to the MM), I'm not going to agree with your conclusions.

I'm not interested in what the MM says is morally impossible. By the MM, elves go to heaven and goblins go to hell from birth. Good demons and undead are impossible, while evil angels are impossible. Yet this is not the case in actual D&D.

So Roy's eagerness to return means Celestia is hell? :smallconfused:

Jirix is not an adventurer, though I will concede he may have other pressing reasons to don his flesh once more.

Because the "Xykon let your nephews die" argument was cutting no water with Redcloak, and he needed to find something more convincing.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he didn't care about the others. I just don't think it was his primary motivation, or he'd have mentioned it first.

And there's nothing wrong with being motivated by relationships; it's just Neutral. But it undermines his credibility as a political thinker, because he doesn't ask "How is this decision going to affect the goblins as a whole?" he asks, "How will it affect my kids?" Redcloak has a broader perspective.

Too broad, you might say. He's so focused on improving the lot of the goblin people that he's forgotten about what's good for goblins.

...you think there would be no Resistance if they weren't keeping Azurite slaves?

"We came to rescue these prisoners of war, because we are-!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html)

"Okay, okay, name notwithstanding, we're here to free the slaves."

And the whole reason he was torturing O-Chul was to buy time to create the trading infrastructure required for all that farming and industry you want. It's just that the camera was focused on Haley instead of the new hobgoblin Chamber of Commerce or whatever. They can't trade without having something to trade, and Redcloak's not stupid enough to think spending the Azurite treasury on food imports is a viable long-term economic strategy. So I think we can safely conclude that he is setting up farms and industry and so on.

I take "hoping the Snarl would not discover them" to mean it could, in fact, eat the Outer Planes if it noticed they existed. At least the gods seem to think so.

Yet it didn't notice them, not even when they came out and started wrapping it up in a reality box. So your claim that the goblins in hell would be wiped out simply by the Snarl destroying earth has no support.

A) No one said it was.
B) Not disputing any of that. Doesn't mean the war itself was unjustified.
C) "a" mantle implies more than one. Indefinite article and all that.
D) That and, you know, thinking the Plan is a good idea. And his sunk cost thing.
E) It is just a garment. Look, he was still wearing it when he decided to stay in Right-Eye's village, right? And he wasn't working on the Plan anymore. So obviously it's possible to simultaneously wear the Mantle and not try to implement the Plan. Which means the former is not evidence of the latter. Therefore, killing the Mantlebearer merely on account of him bearing the Mantle is unjustified (not that we have any real reason to think the SGs were ever doing this anyway).
Yes, it contains information that is potentially dangerous, and I wouldn't blame the SGs for trying to capture it. But there's a big difference between trying to steal someone's cloak and murdering them over it.

A) No, you only said the war was justified. But without retaliation as an excuse, how could it be justified?
B) See above.
C) So were you planning on addressing my point that the mantle could have changed hands through all those attacked villages, or not?
D) Fair enough: fear, bloodlust, and stupidity then.
E) He was wearing it when he walked into the room to tell Right-Eye his decision; we have no way of knowing if he planned on continuing to wear it for even an hour after that.

You have airport security to blame if you're summarily shot for it, and double if they shoot your kids and everyone else waiting for your flight.

Even after you watch the last guy wearing it get shot? And then magically learn, upon putting it on, that everyone who's ever worn it ever got shot too?

Um, exactly? There are no goblinoid civilians in Azure City. So how does the Resistance threaten them with pogroms?

(Of course there are goblinoid civilians elsewhere, who the SGs will now be too busy worrying about Redcloak to bother.)

Those civilians were safe before Redcloak even attacked AC. Any attacks on goblins would have been aimed at him, not them.

What??? He's the occupier; why should he fight his own troops?

I'm talking about the Resistance and Team Peregrine attacking the goblins here, not Redcloak attacking the goblins.

No, those particular guys dropped their weapons; they were noncombatants at that point, and they got murdered. Hinjo and Lien not so much.

I never even brought up Hinjo and Lien. They weren't killed, remember?

I think that's that "mercy" thing BoeD was on about. That and Redcloak has rather bigger priorities. Hinjo is only a practical problem if one is planning to restore self-rule to the Azurites, which Redcloak unfortunately is not.

So, according to you he attacked Azure City to bring the Sapphire Guard to justice, and now their leader is suddenly no longer a priority? You're contradicting yourself. Is the Guard still a threat or not?

They seem meticulous; I'm sure they keep track of goblin settlements so they know where to search for the next head cleric of the Dark One. Hinjo's been de facto leader for a long time, since Shojo was pretending to be insane, and protecting the gate is his job. There's no way he didn't know about the usual SG methodology. If anything the new paladins would have heard about it from the old ones' battle stories and so on.

They have diviners that can pinpoint the Mantlebearer, they don't need to "keep track of goblin settlements." No matter what authority Hinjo had, you have no evidence that he had any access to any records, even non-secret ones. You claim he knew the "SG methodology"... how? Based on what?

An example of these so-called "battle stories" would be nice.

Um, those goblins were being attacked. Xykon didn't go bursting in to Roy's throne room. You're supposed to offer a chance to surrender before you attack; that's what having the onus of mercy on the attacker means.

They weren't running, though, were they? Now, the character who REALLY didn't accept their surrender... well, let's just say he doesn't have much in common with Roy. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html)

:smallsigh:In the very post you just quoted from, a line above the paragraph you quoted:

Try actually reading the post next time, okay?

How can you say their treatment of everyone except the actual Sapphire Guard itself is unacceptable, yet the war is still justified? Try answering me next time, okay?

veti

2009-10-15, 04:36 PM

There was a similar attitude among slave masters and conquerors in real world history. Some of them were absolutely LG when dealing with those who were "human" in their eyes and at the same time they could be cruel to "savages" and not feel guilty about it, because they didn't believe that the "savages" had a soul.

Bingo. This is the key point that we seem unable to grasp. Everyone instinctively "knows" that there are two types of people: Us, and Them. And They are just not the same as Us. Whether the division is between men and women, Western and Eastern, Christian and Muslim (and others), foreign and domestic, liberals and conservatives, young and old - everyone, I think, believes in it at some level. (Usually at many levels.)

And those differences mean that we're justified in doing things to Them that we wouldn't do to Us. To give examples would be straying into Real-World Politics, but they're not hard to see all around us. All of us claim rights and privileges, for ourselves, that we don't hesitate to deny to others.

In the case of slavers and "savages": it's not so much that the slavers thought slaves didn't have souls, but that they were simply inferior, incapable of looking after themselves, organising themselves and (most importantly) understanding religion and morality. There was no particular theory behind this - it was just obvious. "If you want proof," they might have said, "just look at how they live and how they dress. We take them away from that savage existence, we clothe them and teach them religion and give them purpose and organisation. We're benefactors, really."

Pretty much every real-world empire has been built on that delusion. What's really unusual about the Sapphire Guard is that, as far as we can see, they didn't build an empire - they just hit their targets and bugged out, without trying to enslave or "civilise" the other races. (Although what they were doing with that fort in the swamp is an interesting question.)

hamishspence

2009-10-15, 04:40 PM

Savage Species (3.25 since the prototypes of 3.5 rules are beginning to appear) had some interesting things to say on alignment.

Specifically, that a large proportion of Evil characters are exactly like that- nice to their family, friends, spouse and "in-group" but cruel to the "outgroups" and "enemies"

Redcloak's "first they drove us into the swamps, and now they've come to drive us out of there as well- it stops now" speech is relevant here.

Optimystik

2009-10-15, 04:53 PM

I want to make it clear here that I am not defending the Sapphire Guard. I found their actions appalling, and I sincerely hope for some kind of explanation as to why they didn't Fall on the spot like the bastards they are.

But I can't condone the goblins for unnecessary Evil, either. Their vengeance was justified, but not their brutality towards nameless citizens and soldiers who didn't even know of the Guard's existence, never mind their crimes. If they knew and did nothing, the issue would be muddier, but as written it's crystal clear to me; the goblins are on a moral precipice, and the Dark One and Redcloak are doing nothing to stop it.

hamishspence

2009-10-15, 05:02 PM

yes- the comments about Azure city "failing to live up to its ideals" don;t really cover the soldiers and citizen's quite as well.

The nobility (for abandoning them) the Lord (for his deceptions) Miko (for believing herself infallible, the Sapphire Guard (for the exterminations) and the gods (for sanctioning them) all get called out in War & XPs.

But, going by what Hinjo said, the ordinary citizenry genuinely do not know about the Guard.

Though there are some suggestions that the hobgoblins have raided the northern frontiers of the nation for some time, and it is only Xykon mobilizing the whole lot, that caused them to break through the border so fast.

(The precise phrasing was "the paladins and the regular army have kept us penned up in these mountains for 30 years")

Lamech

2009-10-15, 05:20 PM

The soldiers running in V's flashback weren't armed. They weren't even running when they were cut down - they were standing still and screaming "Help us!" Are you done trying to rationalize it yet? Calling out for help of an ally? I'm sorry? Should the goblins spent time waiting for the ally to get there and kill them? Is it not okay just because the ally might be the twelve gods? No the goblins should kill the soilders ASAP. And no you can't claim no surrender was offered it may have been already. Regardless the hobbos were under no obligation to waste time giving it when an ally might be on the way.

Plainly a different situation. The goblins were poised to attack, not running for their lives. I fail to see any parity between the two.Would you like me to dig up the link of Roy coup de gracing the goblins? I believe that would fit better.

E) It's more than a "badge of office" or a "garment," and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise.The cloak is also a powerful artifact that will pump up any goblin who wears it and give them knowledge of the plan. Obviously if you don't want the plan to happen letting it loose in the world is a bad idea. One does not get to attack someone because they have a weapon, and attacking a person with a weapon is no better than attacking one without. (Unless they keep themselves safe using it, but not the case until we get to redcloak.)

Even after you watch the last guy wearing it get shot? And then magically learn, upon putting it on, that everyone who's ever worn it ever got shot too?The Redcloak mearly says "I know how to sabatoge a plane and I'm armed." Nothing more. We see this when Redcloak was willing to live in the village of Right-Eye. The other bearer we have seen was also in a village full of people; something I would like to point out is only like Redcloaks peaceful stage, not his active moving question stage.
Obtaining knowledge and power (with out hurting innocents) when oppressors are trying to keep it from you is something to be complimented. Not saying you deserve some of the blame for such oppression.

Maybe Jirix, when he comes back, will share some interesting tidbits from the goblin afterlife. We'll have to wait until then to know for sure. Somehow, I think he'll be QUITE eager to consent to be raised, and that in itself will support my argument even if he doesn't remember a thing.Roy was rather eager to get raised. The one testimony we have from the evil afterlife was the dragon being with her family; she wanted to go back.

Redcloak could find him easily if he wanted to. So there goes that slipshod theory.Hunting down a singal war criminal is less important to some than ending the war for good, or getting a fancy superweapon.

Still moot, as none of the paladins in the throne room were at Redcloak's village.This seems unlikely. A great many slain paladins were in the throne room. Unless only certain "evil" paladins were sent on "evil" missions.

Your reliance on the "Always" and "Usually" qualifiers for your argument is not borne out by the strip. If you have a problem with that, feel free to e-mail Rich, but don't expect me to jump on board with you.

Deeds determine alignment, not entries.I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... but direct from the MM "always evil" creatures are BORN evil. They may later change aligment. We can very easily see with a helm of oppisite alignment and a paladin one does not need to commit evil deeds to become evil. Now I do hold the position that both are now fallen paladin and the baby blacks also qualify as innocents. In addition to the innocent childern V also killed half-blacks (RAI they are all most certainly "usally").

I'm not interested in what the MM says is morally impossible. By the MM, elves go to heaven and goblins go to hell from birth. Good demons and undead are impossible, while evil angels are impossible. Yet this is not the case in actual D&D.The MM says no such thing. It says such "always" creatures are born with that alignment and may later change it.

P.S.
WaXP
Some one who has the book confirm this for me.. but in wars and xp rich said that the sapphire guard attacked non-goblin villages. So clearly not all villages had mantles.
On the attacking soilders, one does not first attempt to determine if enemies wearing enemy uniforms might be capturable in times of war. They may be running to saftey, they may be pulling you into a trap, they may be calling in power to kill you or they may live to fight another day. In the case seen in this thread they were calling for help. You kill them. It doesn't matter that they been decieved, and they believe they are fighting for god and country. Yes it sucks. Alot. Yes a great many of truly good people can end up killing each other. The blood is on the hands of the one whose injustice started the war.

Attacking and enslaving the civillians on the other hand had no excuse. The goblins have not been good. We can't say how closely this reflects on the dark one, but it seems to me that the dark one hasn't told Redcloak to stop. I'm pretty sure he can if the twelve agree because those are the two groups with "jurisdiction". (Maybe the twelve want the propaganda. That would just be sick.)

Larkspur

2009-10-15, 06:49 PM

In 34 years, how many expeditions did the destroyers of Redcloak's village go out on besides the one we saw? That's right, you don't know.

We've no idea, but I assume the Sapphire Guard aren't paid to just sit around in the throne room until a lich shows up. One suspects they're out there doing paladiny things. (Like manning a fort thousands of miles from their city...)

And Miko, your compulsive scanner, wasn't even alive back then. So yeah.

Somehow I doubt she's the only SG ever to use Detect Evil.

If it's the most important factor, is there a difference that matters?

If your argument is based on the idea that only morality determines your destination, and that's demonstrably untrue? Yes, that matters.

We have several reasons not to extrapolate, most notably the ones hamish pointed out; that OotS incorporates a LOT of BoED and BoVD concepts.

But BoED and BoVD don't actually violate Core anywhere. What you're proposing would.

By the MM, elves go to heaven and goblins go to hell from birth. Good demons and undead are impossible, while evil angels are impossible.

None of that is true.

Too broad, you might say. He's so focused on improving the lot of the goblin people that he's forgotten about what's good for goblins.

That's a reasonable line of argument, but it does nothing to enhance Right-Eye's credibility as a political analyst. It just undermines Redcloak's.

"We came to rescue these prisoners of war, because we are-!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html)

Oh man, they totally called those guys POWs. Not captured civilians, then. *takes mental note*

They're going after the slaves because they want reinforcements (and want their comrades to no longer be enslaved). That doesn't mean they wouldn't be attacking if there were no slaves. They'll want their city back no matter what.

Yet it didn't notice them, not even when they came out and started wrapping it up in a reality box. So your claim that the goblins in hell would be wiped out simply by the Snarl destroying earth has no support.

...I'm not sure how the Snarl's failure to notice the gods even when they moved back onto the material plane supports the idea that it can't eat the Outer Planes because it failed to notice the gods there. Quite the reverse, I should think.

A) No, you only said the war was justified. But without retaliation as an excuse, how could it be justified?
B) See above.
C) So were you planning on addressing my point that the mantle could have changed hands through all those attacked villages, or not?
D) Fair enough: fear, bloodlust, and stupidity then.
E) He was wearing it when he walked into the room to tell Right-Eye his decision; we have no way of knowing if he planned on continuing to wear it for even an hour after that.

A) The whole "disbanding a genocidal paramilitary organization which is impossible without capturing their headquarters" part?
B) Why are you having so much trouble with the idea that a war can be justified in principle, yet immorally prosecuted in practice?
C) Because while that explains the goblin villages, it doesn't explain the pogroms they committed on other species, nor the tiff with the hobgoblins (who clearly didn't know the Crimson Mantle from a hole in the ground).
E) Why wouldn't he? Protection from disease, eternal youth- not a bad deal.

Even after you watch the last guy wearing it get shot? And then magically learn, upon putting it on, that everyone who's ever worn it ever got shot too?

I would conclude that I needed to go on a quest to depose airport security, not that I was immoral for putting on the t-shirt. (And I would take it off too, because I'm a coward. But Redcloak's a lot braver than me.)

Those civilians were safe before Redcloak even attacked AC. Any attacks on goblins would have been aimed at him, not them.

Like how the attack on his village was only aimed at the head cleric?

I'm talking about the Resistance and Team Peregrine attacking the goblins here, not Redcloak attacking the goblins.

I can't figure out what you're talking about. You're claiming taking Azure City will provoke retaliatory pogroms from the Resistance and Team Peregrine, yet you admit there are no goblinoid civilians in the city. So who's going to get killed in this putative pogrom?

I never even brought up Hinjo and Lien. They weren't killed, remember?

You've been claiming that attacking anyone retreating is automatically wrong. We've been trying to point out that it doesn't work that way. Hinjo and Lien are examples of acceptable retreating targets.

So, according to you he attacked Azure City to bring the Sapphire Guard to justice, and now their leader is suddenly no longer a priority? You're contradicting yourself. Is the Guard still a threat or not?

He attacked Azure City to get at the Gate; destroying the SGs was a bonus. That said, you can want to bring someone to justice and still have bigger priorities. I'm sure Redcloak would love to get his hands on Hinjo, but retaining control of the city and progressing with the Plan are more important. It doesn't mean the SG are no longer a threat (he thinks so; I actually disagree), just that they're no longer the most important threat.

They have diviners that can pinpoint the Mantlebearer, they don't need to "keep track of goblin settlements." No matter what authority Hinjo had, you have no evidence that he had any access to any records, even non-secret ones. You claim he knew the "SG methodology"... how? Based on what?

One assumes the diviners write things down. Anyway, even in the unlikely case that there are no records, Hinjo ought to know about the raids, based on the fact that he's the leader of the organization, and he'd be a pretty poor one if he doesn't know how they operate. Unless there's been a policy change, he ought to know that the policy when you find the head cleric of the dark one in a goblin village is "exterminate every man, woman and child." We haven't seen the records, we haven't heard a story, but what's more plausible?

A) The Sapphire Guard make no records of any of their activities or even their standard operating procedure and the members of the Guard who went on raids have kept their activities completely secret from all their comrades and their new captain even though they felt proud of their success

or B) the SGs keep records like normal people and tell battle stories like normal soldiers, and that Hinjo has heard or seen some of these stories or records at some point in his career

They weren't running, though, were they?

If you're obligated to offer a surrender before you attack, you're obligated to offer a surrender before you attack. Whether or not the guy is running is immaterial. Obviously Belkar was worse, but that's like saying Xykon is worse than Redcloak- it's old news.

Calling out for help of an ally? I'm sorry? Should the goblins spent time waiting for the ally to get there and kill them? Is it not okay just because the ally might be the twelve gods?

Praying doesn't do much (except for Hinjo's retroactive cure for Shojo's insanity). Calling for V, on the other hand, could legitimately be considered a hostile action. And hamish had a point about the sheathed swords.

Would you like me to dig up the link of Roy coup de gracing the goblins?

Oh snap. :smallamused:

One does not get to attack someone because they have a weapon, and attacking a person with a weapon is no better than attacking one without.

Well, that depends on the circumstances in both cases, but I agree with the general point.

Obtaining knowledge and power (with out hurting innocents) when oppressors are trying to keep it from you is something to be complimented. Not saying you deserve some of the blame for such oppression.

Yes! YES! Thank you! Finally, someone gets it!

The one testimony we have from the evil afterlife was the dragon being with her family; she wanted to go back.

That is a fascinating and intriguing point which I had not noticed before. Huh. I wonder if Tiamat has a special afterlife set up for the chromatic dragons?

Unless only certain "evil" paladins were sent on "evil" missions.

Difficult, when you're too myopic to realize your evil missions are evil.

]We can very easily see with a helm of oppisite alignment and a paladin one does not need to commit evil deeds to become evil.

...you are just a wellspring of really good points, aren't you?

On the attacking soilders, one does not first attempt to determine if enemies wearing enemy uniforms might be capturable in times of war. They may be running to saftey, they may be pulling you into a trap, they may be calling in power to kill you or they may live to fight another day. In the case seen in this thread they were calling for help. You kill them. It doesn't matter that they been decieved, and they believe they are fighting for god and country.

That's true by Geneva rules, apparently not by BoED. But like I said, Roy's not keeping the BoED rules either.

Attacking and enslaving the civillians on the other hand had no excuse. The goblins have not been good. We can't say how closely this reflects on the dark one, but it seems to me that the dark one hasn't told Redcloak to stop. I'm pretty sure he can if the twelve agree because those are the two groups with "jurisdiction". (Maybe the twelve want the propaganda. That would just be sick.)

In fairness, we don't know that Redcloak and the Dark One can talk directly. It may be that the only thing the Dark One can do is refuse to fill up his spell slots, and he doesn't want to take such an extreme step for fear of derailing the Plan even though he disapproves of the war crimes. It's unlikely, but not impossible.

Herald Alberich

2009-10-15, 10:57 PM

In fairness, we don't know that Redcloak and the Dark One can talk directly. It may be that the only thing the Dark One can do is refuse to fill up his spell slots, and he doesn't want to take such an extreme step for fear of derailing the Plan even though he disapproves of the war crimes. It's unlikely, but not impossible.

I'm going to stay out of most of this; I can see both sides. But I'd point out that if the Dark One refused Redcloak's requested spells just for one day, and instead filled up all his slots with Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm), that would be a pretty big hint that he wants to have a word with him.

Yes/no questions only, but he'd have all day to play 20 questions, and the "short phrase" clause would help with that.

"Is there a reason you've denied me my spells today?"
"Yes."
"Is there something I've been doing wrong?"
"Yes."

etc.

So I think the Dark One is still onboard with Redcloak's methods.

Optimystik

2009-10-15, 11:37 PM

Zxo

2009-10-16, 02:49 AM

In the case of slavers and "savages": it's not so much that the slavers thought slaves didn't have souls, but that they were simply inferior, incapable of looking after themselves, organising themselves and (most importantly) understanding religion and morality.

Small children are, too, "inferior" in terms of intellect and physical strength, incapable of looking after themselves and organising themselves, but nobody ever (I'm talking about societies, not sick individuals) thought that makes it ok to kill or hurt them. It wasn't about the skills and abilities, but about arbitrarily considering someone to be "human" (and thus having the innate dignity that causes things done to them to have moral value) or not.

Bago!!!

2009-10-16, 07:42 AM

Actually, it's not uncommon in some ancient societies to kill of the children of their foes. To let them live or what not is to invite retribution.

In sparta, the killed off any child that was deformed in anyway.

My point is, it depends on the society and how it approves of things.

As for the Dark One's alignment, I can't really say.
Is it the dark one that tells his people that the other god's merely said that the only reason they were made was because they were chunks of xp? Who said that to whom and who said this to whom? Cause if it's the Dark One saying this to his followers, he could possibly be twisting the truth or fabricating a lie. I haven't read the SoD of course

Nerdanel

2009-10-16, 08:00 AM

At least one Blue has already appeared in the strip- flashback, during the interrogation of O-chul.

They also existed in 3.0 as well as 3.5.

And the in-strip one is a lot blue-er than The Dark One.

I wonder if the flavor text/art of the Blues changed between 3.0 and 3.5...

Anyway, considering that the difference in hue is, while noticeable, not drastic, it could be interpreted to result from natural variation or the Dark One purposefully fudging things for his followers so that they wouldn't make the connection that would degrade the awesomeness of their god and make the secret of his success public for all to counteract.

Everything in those crayon comics is only someone's official story after all...

hamishspence

2009-10-16, 08:24 AM

I wonder if the flavor text/art of the Blues changed between 3.0 and 3.5...

Not that I recall.

Concerning "destroying an atrocity-commiting organization by invading and occuping the country"

I recommend we be extremely careful in discussing it- making it very clear we are discussing OoTS- and going out of our way to avoid real-world comparisons.

Concerning killing children in war- there have been rules against it for a very, very long time. If D&D is closer to modern sensibilities than medieval ones, it is even further away from "kill everyone who might seek revenge" warfare, than it is from warfare which doesn't take that as a tenet.

Optimystik

2009-10-16, 09:36 AM

As for the Dark One's alignment, I can't really say.
Is it the dark one that tells his people that the other god's merely said that the only reason they were made was because they were chunks of xp? Who said that to whom and who said this to whom? Cause if it's the Dark One saying this to his followers, he could possibly be twisting the truth or fabricating a lie. I haven't read the SoD of course

All of the information on the monster races' origins comes straight from the Dark One, with Redcloak as his mouthpiece.

hamishspence

2009-10-16, 10:02 AM

And Right Eye does contradict him- but only on the suggestion that The Snarl can be controlled.

When Xykon leaves and they are talking among themselves, there is no hint of Redcloak not believing what he's saying.

Origin of PCs has that paladin whose attitude to orcs appears to be "they are for killing and getting XP from" suggesting that the

"humanoid monsters are there for XP purposes" concept is believed by more than just the goblins.

Optimystik

2009-10-16, 10:37 AM

Origin of PCs has that paladin whose attitude to orcs appears to be "they are for killing and getting XP from" suggesting that the

"humanoid monsters are there for XP purposes" concept is believed by more than just the goblins.

This is true but - without putting too fine a point on it - that "paladin" was a consummate ***hole and not necessarily representative of the "mainstream" races' attitudes in general. Otherwise Right-Eye's budding village would have been a hotbed of XP long before Xykon arrived.

Interestingly enough, that paladin also kept his powers despite having a very unpaladinly attitude. His actions towards Durkon, at least (i.e. deliberately trying to get him killed) should have had him scanning as Evil too, and dwarves aren't a monster race. Food for thought.

hamishspence

2009-10-16, 10:55 AM

Bago!!!

2009-10-16, 11:29 AM

Wait, so if all the information comes from the Dark One, how do we know he isn't lying or bending the truth?

Optimystik

2009-10-16, 11:31 AM

this is an example of the letter rather than the spirit of moral rules-

the notion that to "not help someone in danger" is not a morally wrong act- not enough to cause a Fall.

or that "sending someone into danger" does not count as "trying to kill them"

Or, simply, the paladin is a textbook example of how poor players play LG- the sort of player who tries to get away with as much as possible.

The paladin is not at fault for "getting away with as much as possible." The gods that let him keep his powers are, just as a DM that rubberstamps everything his players propose has only himself to blame when everyone becomes Pun-Pun and ruins his campaign. And in OotS, we know that the gods enforce paladin status, at least in the South.

Wait, so if all the information comes from the Dark One, how do we know he isn't lying or bending the truth?

We don't (and again I must point to Porthos' post, where he raised the very familiar dogma of the orcish god Grummsh), but I was giving Lark and Lamech the benefit of the doubt for our discussion.

Larkspur

2009-10-16, 11:55 AM

Other races, such as the lizardfolk in SoD, had their own plans to end the world.

Not sure how searching for a gem constitutes a plan to end the world- sounds like a pretty standard D&D quest to me.

Where we are disconnecting is that you portray both the goblin deity and his chief cleric as being somehow powerless to stop this trend of moral decay.

I don't suppose you have a quote where anyone actually said anything like that?

"Oh," I can hear you say, "but the Plan is worth any risk they place on their souls!" To which I reply, no it's not. The Plan is very clearly doomed to fail, both A and B. Plan A, forced equality, will require deposing existing races from their land. Plan B, a global reset, requires wiping out every living thing so the Dark One can be in on the ground floor.

How are either of those things failures? You may not find them desirable outcomes, but if they happened Redcloak would view them as successes.

one thing you cannot claim is that following it would increase the goblins' Evil.

Um, yes. That's why no one ever claimed that.

Small children are, too, "inferior" in terms of intellect and physical strength, incapable of looking after themselves and organising themselves, but nobody ever (I'm talking about societies, not sick individuals) thought that makes it ok to kill or hurt them.

That's... completely wrong. Infanticide was (and in some parts of the world still is) a common means of family planning, and children are routinely beaten in ways that would constitute a criminal assault if applied to an non-consenting adult. And every developed society imprisons children and demands forced intellectual labor of them until the age when they're allowed to leave school; if you did that to an adult, it would be called a gulag.

Re: the Dark One:

We have no idea whether he's telling the truth or not, and some good reasons to doubt him. What we do know is there's something extremely fishy going on with the goblinoids and the alignment system, as evidenced by our various paladin examples.

Optimystik

2009-10-16, 01:10 PM

Not sure how searching for a gem constitutes a plan to end the world- sounds like a pretty standard D&D quest to me.

A gem for their dark god? What do you think they were going to do with it, start a rock garden?

I don't suppose you have a quote where anyone actually said anything like that?

You said, rightfully, that "everybody has a responsibility to act morally." I agree with that. But the goblins have a moral leader, one who can not only communicate directly with their deity on a daily basis, but one who can even pop in and see him if needed. If that person sets a bad example, how likely are they to realize it is bad on their own?

How are either of those things failures? You may not find them desirable outcomes, but if they happened Redcloak would view them as successes.

They are failures because there's no way they can happen in this narrative. Plan A: The elves/humans get suddenly booted out of their settlements in favor of goblins, instead of learning to accept them gradually. And I suppose they're going to be just dandy with that turn of events? Of course not, that's why the Dark One will keep the Snarl handy to bully them and their gods into submission if they raise objections. Your oppressed have become the oppressors.

Plan B: World is nuked, killing everyone for eternity - including the Order of the Stick. Yeah, probably not going to happen.

Um, yes. That's why no one ever claimed that.

If you agree pursuing the Plan will make the goblins Evil and furthering Right-Eye's method won't, why do you support it? Plainly morality matters to you from our previous discussion. It's a contradiction!

We have no idea whether he's telling the truth or not, and some good reasons to doubt him. What we do know is there's something extremely fishy going on with the goblinoids and the alignment system, as evidenced by our various paladin examples.

Not quite. There's something fishy with the paladin system. The alignment system seems to be played straight, if Roy's judgment by the deva and V's judgment by the IFCC is any guide to go by, and it should be.

I'm not trying to goad you, but I notice you didn't bring up Roy's actions in Strip 11 again. I'm just curious to know whether you neglected to discuss them by accident, or if you actually ceded that point.

Lamech

2009-10-16, 01:43 PM

@ L & L: Rather than make a 20+ quote post to respond to both of you, I'll try to keep this at least somewhat concise.

First, isolated points:

1) "Roy doesn't follow BoED! He killed sleeping goblins!" is a commonly cited event in discussions like these, but you'll forgive me if I don't consider the comic's morality fully developed in strip #11.Thats a fair point.

2) Concerning the oft-cited War & XPs quote of the SG attacking non-goblin races; of course they were. I already addressed this. Other races, such as the lizardfolk in SoD, had their own plans to end the world. Possible, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence for a world ending plot.

3) Mama dragon's statement is indeed an interesting argument, but if you'll recall, love can affect evil characters' afterlife choices. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0593.html) Besides, I view a dragon like an high-level (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html) spellcaster - their souls are likely much more valuable as they are than boiled down to manes and dretches. It's a bit naive to think that goblins will get the same afterlife treatment as dragons will.Thats your thought, but I think the dark one may shower them with puppies and cake. Or less sarcastically, we can't say truly. Maybe the dark one will fuse them to his soul or ressurect them so they can keep up with the worship or give loyal servents a great afterlife or... we have no clue what the goblins will face. Xykon says it suck mama dragon loves it. Neither really had a reason to lie,so it must differ from person to person. More importantly if Xykon was telling the truth powerful mages still want to avoid it, so that kills your "powerful soul theory".

4) A Helm of opposite alignment doesn't change your afterlife destination. Once you're dead, you're no longer wearing it, you see.No? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm) It changes the alignment of the victim. It says nothing about needing stay on to maintain it. It says nothing about being stuck on the victims head, or alignment reverting if being removed.

And now the main point: The Dark One's alignment. I'm glad you both agree with me that the goblins are doing wrong right now, what with the ongoing slavery and all. Where we are disconnecting is that you portray both the goblin deity and his chief cleric as being somehow powerless to stop this trend of moral decay. Funny; they seemed to have no problem riling them up in the first place, but now their powers of persuasion seem to have mysteriously deserted them. But I digress.Redcloak of course has the power. I said unless the twelve gods interfere the Dark One almost certainly does too...

"Oh," I can hear you say, "but the Plan is worth any risk they place on their souls!" To which I reply, no it's not. The Plan is very clearly doomed to fail, both A and B. Plan A, forced equality, will require deposing existing races from their land. Plan B, a global reset, requires wiping out every living thing so the Dark One can be in on the ground floor.The goblins seem discriminated against. There must have been rich goblins, we have in fact seen the hydra head seller. Yet we see NO goblins in human towns and they are widely hated by paladins and the like. So discrimination is keeping goblins down. The american solution to discriminators is to take their stuff, by force if need be; see all those equality laws.

Right-Eye's idea was different. Gradually make the other races accept the goblins and recognize their worth. No war, endlessly repeating cycle of violence, or moral degradation necessary. You're free to doubt the effectiveness of this strategy, but one thing you cannot claim is that following it would increase the goblins' Evil.Lets see... Right-Eye's village wandering along peacefully, Redcloak using his cool magic to help everyone out. Bet his magic item creation is a huge economic boost... and... PALADINS ATTACK HES GOT A CLOAK!!!
No. Right-Eye's path will not lead to peace until a very long time. Yes it may one day work, non-violence can often succeded. But he is under no obligation not to use force against those in the wrong.

I too hope goblins will have equality in the end. And it's even possible that they'll owe some measure of that success to R&R's Plan. But I never claimed the Plan wouldn't have ANY positive effects. I just don't think it's worth the cost. And I also don't think the strip will end with Redcloak saying "I guess it was a good thing I teamed up with Xykon and killed my brother for the Plan after all!" The whole plan was "shift the rift. Snarl kills stuff nearby." And since Xykon and blackwing went right up to it... well. The plan is dead. Regardless nothing good was going to come of the plan. One oppressor for another. Maybe the humans might be enslaved instead of killed, but thats not much better.

Maybe you do think that. If so, by all means bookmark this post.[/QUOTE]

You said, rightfully, that "everybody has a responsibility to act morally." I agree with that. But the goblins have a moral leader, one who can not only communicate directly with their deity on a daily basis, but one who can even pop in and see him if needed. If that person sets a bad example, how likely are they to realize it is bad on their own?To be fair we are not sure if the dark one can pop in. We don't know exactly why the neither set of gods intervened in the battle of azure city. We can make guesses that basically say "Agreements say neither can intervene", but we don't know what it all applies too.
Or are you reffering to Redcloak popping in? Does he have greater plane shift or gate? If not he might be 500 miles off from the Dark One. The lower planes are not exactly a safe place to be. Popping into a meeting with Azmodeuos is likely to get him killed Dark One's servent or not.
And commune takes XP. Redcloak doesn't feel like wasting it for something he is so sure of.

Yes Redcloak is still in the wrong. I'm not saying its not his fault. I'm just saying we can't be sure the dark one approves of Redcloak's actions.

Optimystik

2009-10-16, 02:25 PM

Possible, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence for a world ending plot.

There isn't much evidence against it either. Generally, when the evil god is trying to get something, the paladins do their best to make sure he doesn't get it. That's fairly classic D&D. It may not have been nearly as catastrophic as playing around with the Snarl, but that doesn't mean they should stand by and do nothing.

Also, we see the lizards attack the paladins in SoD, not the reverse. Maybe it was in retaliation, maybe not.

Thats your thought, but I think the dark one may shower them with puppies and cake. Or less sarcastically, we can't say truly. Maybe the dark one will fuse them to his soul or ressurect them so they can keep up with the worship or give loyal servents a great afterlife or... we have no clue what the goblins will face. Xykon says it suck mama dragon loves it. Neither really had a reason to lie,so it must differ from person to person. More importantly if Xykon was telling the truth powerful mages still want to avoid it, so that kills your "powerful soul theory".

No, it doesn't kill my theory at all. Haerta, Jephthon et al. keep their powers and memories (i.e. they weren't tortured and boiled down into manes) but they still have to fetch and carry for powerful demons for eternity all the same. For someone like Xykon, who enjoys being able to use magic whenever he pleases, a fate like that would be undesirable even if zero torture is involved.

My point was that we don't know what fate awaits goblins in the beyond, but we can be pretty sure they won't be stockpiled for splicing purposes. Nor are the memories/abilities of random goblin #376B going to be worthwhile enough to the Fiends to keep intact.

No? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm) It changes the alignment of the victim. It says nothing about needing stay on to maintain it. It says nothing about being stuck on the victims head, or alignment reverting if being removed.

In BoED, a magical alignment change (such as that caused by your helm) that makes a good creature evil is treated on par with a compulsion or domination effect cast by an evil force. As the latter would not impact your afterlife destination, neither should the former. And it makes sense - your actions are not your own.

Redcloak of course has the power. I said unless the twelve gods interfere the Dark One almost certainly does too...
The goblins seem discriminated against. There must have been rich goblins, we have in fact seen the hydra head seller. Yet we see NO goblins in human towns and they are widely hated by paladins and the like. So discrimination is keeping goblins down. The american solution to discriminators is to take their stuff, by force if need be; see all those equality laws.

What is this "America" you speak of? :smallconfused:
(All joking aside, no real-world political discussion please.)
I'm not denying that goblins are currently facing an uphill battle, but the ones in Right-Eye's village were clearly getting along with their human neighbors. So it's not an impossibility. The Dark One and Redcloak are both functionally immortal; what's to stop them from trying?

Lets see... Right-Eye's village wandering along peacefully, Redcloak using his cool magic to help everyone out. Bet his magic item creation is a huge economic boost... and... PALADINS ATTACK HES GOT A CLOAK!!!
No. Right-Eye's path will not lead to peace until a very long time. Yes it may one day work, non-violence can often succeded. But he is under no obligation not to use force against those in the wrong.

He does have that obligation if the only way to get to "those in the wrong" is by hurting and killing those who are not in the wrong.

Had he ever tried simply telling the Azurites what their leadership was up to behind their backs? If he had done so and they refused to listen, then I'd be more on board with the war, as they would have chosen their own fate. But he didn't.

The whole plan was "shift the rift. Snarl kills stuff nearby." And since Xykon and blackwing went right up to it... well. The plan is dead. Regardless nothing good was going to come of the plan. One oppressor for another. Maybe the humans might be enslaved instead of killed, but thats not much better.

Blackwing and Xykon going near the rift is inconclusive. Remember that mortals (and I use the term loosely with Xykon) are theorized to be safer from the Snarl than deities are, as it was born from their hostility towards each other, rather than the world itself.

That said, the rift's contents do hint that the Plan as stated won't work quite as Redcloak hopes. If anything, it might just shift everyone that is "killed," gods included, to a new plane.

To be fair we are not sure if the dark one can pop in. We don't know exactly why the neither set of gods intervened in the battle of azure city. We can make guesses that basically say "Agreements say neither can intervene", but we don't know what it all applies too.
Or are you reffering to Redcloak popping in? Does he have greater plane shift or gate? If not he might be 500 miles off from the Dark One. The lower planes are not exactly a safe place to be. Popping into a meeting with Azmodeuos is likely to get him killed Dark One's servent or not.
And commune takes XP. Redcloak doesn't feel like wasting it for something he is so sure of.

This is all possible, but if Redcloak is so arrogant as to assume that everything he's doing has divine mandate without checking, that's the Dark One's fault as well. As I recall (and Larkspur mentioned in a previous post), Redcloak was a pretty humble boy before donning that artifact.

"Commune takes XP" is a puzzling argument to me. Surely Redcloak has enough by now to spare a whopping 100. 15-16 yes or no questions is an awful lot just to find out if he's on the right track.

Yes Redcloak is still in the wrong. I'm not saying its not his fault. I'm just saying we can't be sure the dark one approves of Redcloak's actions.

But if he does not, all he has to do is say "no spells!" or even "no spells but Commune!" until Redcloak figures out why. Whatever nonintervention agreements may exist among the gods, it's hard to believe they'd interfere with each other's granting of spells.

Larkspur

2009-10-16, 03:51 PM

A gem for their dark god? What do you think they were going to do with it, start a rock garden?

Most people don't want to destroy the world because they need somewhere to live. Even Xykon doesn't. Redcloak is uniquely millennial in his objectivs, and even he isn't trying to destroy the world.

If [a leader] sets a bad example, how likely are they to realize it is bad on their own?

Not terribly likely, if we take history as a guide. When exactly did I say Redcloak couldn't halt their moral decay?

They are failures because there's no way they can happen in this narrative. Plan A: The elves/humans get suddenly booted out of their settlements in favor of goblins, instead of learning to accept them gradually. And I suppose they're going to be just dandy with that turn of events? Of course not, that's why the Dark One will keep the Snarl handy to bully them and their gods into submission if they raise objections. Your oppressed have become the oppressors.

If the Azurites are happy to commit genocide at the behest of their gods, they can bloody well cede a little land without throwing a tantrum. The Plan doesn't involve the humans and the goblins trading places, you know.

Plan B: World is nuked, killing everyone for eternity - including the Order of the Stick. Yeah, probably not going to happen.

But that's only because Team Evil happen to be the antagonists of the strip. If you look at how well they're doing in their own world at Gate destruction, they're 3 for 5 and counting. I don't think it's fair to expect Redcloak to realize he can't win because he's a minor character in a work of fiction, given that the protagonists probably weren't even born when he started working on the Plan.

If you agree pursuing the Plan will make the goblins Evil and furthering Right-Eye's method won't, why do you support it? Plainly morality matters to you from our previous discussion. It's a contradiction!

Morality does matter, but I think preserving the moral character of a few goblins is worth less than saving the entire population from unending oppression.

There's something fishy with the paladin system.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, 'cause I don't want to get into the whole Detect Evil debate again.

Roy's actions in Strip 11 again.

It was Lamech's point; I figured I'd let him deal with it. But if you want a response from me- I take the early strips as canon unless we have a reason to think there's been a characterization shift since. Since Roy was written as Lawful Good Talky Meatshield Leader Guy from Day 1, I'm inclined to interpret those coup de graces as something Rich thinks a Lawful Good person might reasonably do. But I think you have a reasonable case as well.

Right-Eye's path will not lead to peace until a very long time. Yes it may one day work, non-violence can often succeded. But he is under no obligation not to use force against those in the wrong.

The thing is, non-violence only works if the protesters are in a position to apply economic or political pressure to the oppressors. Otherwise they just get killed. And the goblins have no leverage.

The Dark One and Redcloak are both functionally immortal; what's to stop them from trying?

The innocent lives that may be lost while they experiment with nonviolence?

Had he ever tried simply telling the Azurites what their leadership was up to behind their backs? If he had done so and they refused to listen, then I'd be more on board with the war, as they would have chosen their own fate. But he didn't.

People aren't obligated to do insane things to be nice to their oppressors. Really Op, what are the chances that the Azurites were going to listen to a goblin over their entire leadership and the paladins divinely sanctioned by their gods?

That said, the rift's contents do hint that the Plan as stated won't work quite as Redcloak hopes. If anything, it might just shift everyone that is "killed," gods included, to a new plane.

Or stick them on that inner world, yeah. But actually, it doesn't have to eat people to fulfill its blackmail role; the gods just have to think it's dangerous.

This is all possible, but if Redcloak is so arrogant as to assume that everything he's doing has divine mandate without checking, that's the Dark One's fault as well.

We can assume he has sanction. The Dark One can fill up all his spell slots with Commune and force him to call home if he's upset with how things are going- whoever said that on the previous page made a really good point.

And if the 12 gods were going to interfere with Redcloak's spells, I'm pretty sure they'd have blocked all those Destructions he used on their paladins, not Commune.

Conuly

2009-10-16, 05:53 PM

The Plan doesn't involve the humans and the goblins trading places, you know.

Maybe it didn't to start with (or maybe Redcloak assumes it doesn't but hasn't really thought it through), but I'm not sure how it's going to work unless the Plan involves *drastically* redoing how they handle XP. Otherwise, *somebody* is going to end up having to be on the bottom of the food chain, there-for-xp.

Larkspur

2009-10-16, 05:56 PM

Maybe it didn't to start with (or maybe Redcloak assumes it doesn't but hasn't really thought it through), but I'm not sure how it's going to work unless the Plan involves *drastically* redoing how they handle XP. Otherwise, *somebody* is going to end up having to be on the bottom of the food chain, there-for-xp.

Or they could just suck it up and find some non-sentient monsters to kill. It's not okay to kill other people for gp; why should that be the accepted mechanism to attain xp?

Conuly

2009-10-16, 06:18 PM

Or they could just suck it up and find some non-sentient monsters to kill. It's not okay to kill other people for gp; why should that be the accepted mechanism to attain xp?

I don't know. Redcloak's version of events - which one would expect to demonize humans and the older gods as much as possible - has the gods claiming their followers don't have rapid enough XP gains to be worth existing; hence the creation of fodder races. I have no idea *why* their clerics and whatnot couldn't gain XP as fast as they'd like through killing non-sentients, but even Redcloak seems to accept that aspect of the story without making (as you'd expect) any snide comments about how they could gain XP in some other fashion.

Lamech

2009-10-18, 02:01 PM

There isn't much evidence against it either. Generally, when the evil god is trying to get something, the paladins do their best to make sure he doesn't get it. That's fairly classic D&D. It may not have been nearly as catastrophic as playing around with the Snarl, but that doesn't mean they should stand by and do nothing.

Also, we see the lizards attack the paladins in SoD, not the reverse. Maybe it was in retaliation, maybe not.
A dark gem could be any number of things. It could have the soul of the dieties favorite consort, a source of power, or a create food trap. We know the paladins have attacked numerous villages. Maybe they fabricated some excuse, but "they have a cool magic toy" or "they are trying to get a cool magic toy", are essentailly nothing.

Almost every advancement one can make can be turned to evil. Anti-biotics? The biggest soldier killer is gone. Farming? More time to fight. New mines? Ore for weapons. And I'm sure the dark one would love for the goblins to get all those things. The excuse a god of evil wants them to get "X" is essentially no excuse at all; it could be made for medicine or mines or farming.

P.S. In that specific case the lizard folk may be attacking. But that would have nothing to do with events when the paladins wiped out villages.

No, it doesn't kill my theory at all. Haerta, Jephthon et al. keep their powers and memories (i.e. they weren't tortured and boiled down into manes) but they still have to fetch and carry for powerful demons for eternity all the same. For someone like Xykon, who enjoys being able to use magic whenever he pleases, a fate like that would be undesirable even if zero torture is involved.
It seems a dragon gets a better life then those casters. Yet the casters have the more powerful soul. Especially the juvinile dragon's soul. Which means the afterlife has something more effecting it than just how powerful you were.

In BoED, a magical alignment change (such as that caused by your helm) that makes a good creature evil is treated on par with a compulsion or domination effect cast by an evil force. As the latter would not impact your afterlife destination, neither should the former. And it makes sense - your actions are not your own.In OotS it may be seen that way. In fact it probably is. In DnD you just go to were your alignment or god dictates.

What is this "America" you speak of? :smallconfused:
(All joking aside, no real-world political discussion please.)
I'm bringing up the real-world method of dealing with it. But I'll rephrase. In the real world, in numerous contries the method of dealing with discrimination, of certain kinds (hiring, selling houses, loans) is to punish the discriminator. The discriminators assests are taken; if the discriminator refuses to hand over said assests people with guns sieze them and the discriminator is sent to jail.

I'm not denying that goblins are currently facing an uphill battle, but the ones in Right-Eye's village were clearly getting along with their human neighbors. So it's not an impossibility. The Dark One and Redcloak are both functionally immortal; what's to stop them from trying?Paladins trying to kill Redcloak for having a cloak? If he wasn't using it for evil it would just mean he is a powerful goblin.

He does have that obligation if the only way to get to "those in the wrong" is by hurting and killing those who are not in the wrong.If this is about killing Azure City (or similar places) soldiers, this is essentially a rejection of war. Soldiers on both sides believe they are fighting to protect the people of their country from the "enemy". When you go to fight it is all but guarenteed you or your enemy will believe you are fighting to protect your people, and your country is good; only one of you, tops, will be right.
Nor can not harming civillians apply totally. While one may not target peaceful civillians and must attempt to minimize causalties of them when possible*, often times civillians will be used as "human shields". If a country is using slave labor in its weapon factories and in its war mages buildings one may still target those areas. The fact innocent soldiers or civillians got killed is on the hands of the injust sides of the war.

Lets look at this another way, if Redcloak enslaves a few low-level ghosts (of good alignment) and sends them to kill the order what should be the respose? Should the order just give up and die? Can't turn them because Durkon will destroy them. Can't subdue them because they are undead. Can't mind control them. Maybe V can slow them down with his force spells, but eventually the components will be exausted (forcecage) or the ghosts will get lucky (the hand spells).

Had he ever tried simply telling the Azurites what their leadership was up to behind their backs? If he had done so and they refused to listen, then I'd be more on board with the war, as they would have chosen their own fate. But he didn't.That would be highly risky. He would have to polymorph, but then who would believe him? His story would be non-sense. If he came as a goblin, then as soon as the paladins heard about him they would be off killing him. One is not required to risk their life to attempt a minor long shot at insighting revolt during times of war.

But if he does not, all he has to do is say "no spells!" or even "no spells but Commune!" until Redcloak figures out why. Whatever nonintervention agreements may exist among the gods, it's hard to believe they'd interfere with each other's granting of spells.Awww... forgot about that. I stand corrected. The dark one either wants it like this or doesn't care.

*Again we note Redcloak attempted to target civillians.

Optimystik

2009-10-19, 09:35 AM

Larkspur

2009-10-19, 01:11 PM

Concerning the afterlife treatment of evil dragon souls and high-level evil caster souls, the point is moot; goblins are neither and it's highly unlikely that all or even most of them will get special treatment in Hell, not when there's plenty to torture for the fiends' benefit.

Um... what? I agree that the high-level casters are irrelevant, but the not-horrible afterlife of one Always Evil species is highly relevant to the potential not-horribleness of the afterlife of a second Usually/Often Evil species, since it disproves the idea that one's fate is determined solely by actions or alignment.

Possible good arguments against the goblins getting a separate afterlife:
1) Tiamat was there when the world was built; the Dark One came in later and wouldn't be well placed to arrange a special afterlife for his parishoners
2) Humanoids are all judged by the same standards; chromatic dragons are special because they're Always Evil monsters, not a playable race

"Fiends like torturing souls" is not a good argument.

But when the only way of punishing them requires steamrolling civilians I am wont to find or try a better way first. Redcloak and the Dark One did not - terrorism is a last resort, not the first.

A) The attack on Azure City was not terrorism according to the standard usage of the word, however the OED defines it- it was conventional warfare
B) We are still waiting for you to propose a remotely plausible way of punishing the Sapphire Guard that would not have required overthrowing the government of Azure City that was supporting them and giving them their orders

Paladins may be fair game, and even soldiers bear some culpability, but civilians should not be harmed or enslaved.

Civilians were targeted and shouldn't have been, and prisoners were abused and shouldn't have been, but it's worth pointing out that the slaves we saw getting whipped were specifically identified as prisoners of war- ie. not civilians. Using them for forced labor was perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention. Team Evil absolutely committed war crimes, but we shouldn't exaggerate them.

Lamech

2009-10-20, 07:33 AM

B) We are still waiting for you to propose a remotely plausible way of punishing the Sapphire Guard that would not have required overthrowing the government of Azure City that was supporting them and giving them their orders
Lets see... attack the city, prep with prayer beads (+4CL) that stone that gives +1 CL, and death knell. Use the enemies as power for a greater consumptive field. Fly up to paladins protecting the gate. Blashphemy. Another blashphemy on the stuipid ghosts. A wall of blades on Soon, asssuming he is actually powerful enough to still live. Have the MitD eat Hinjo; kill Hinjo yourself when the MitD screws up. Leave. We see disruption to civillians, and a few dead enemy soldiers. Much less then what happened in OotS. Please note this is just an example, I think the attack on the city was justified, but just not the targeting of civillians or later enslavement.

Even if Redcloak can't get his CL up to 33, we do note Tsukiko has a large caster level booster. All the way up to 18.

Civilians were targeted and shouldn't have been, and prisoners were abused and shouldn't have been, but it's worth pointing out that the slaves we saw getting whipped were specifically identified as prisoners of war- ie. not civilians. Using them for forced labor was perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention. Team Evil absolutely committed war crimes, but we shouldn't exaggerate them. Even if they didn't specifically break Geneva, they were enslaving civillians, and whipping them for fun. The first, really just shows that Redcloak doesn't actually care about equality; he could say "We're granting full equality to humans! Hurrah! Everyone is now an equal member of the hobgoblin legions! Which I happen to command. Now anyone with combat training please go over there. Everyone else please procede here for your labor assignments."
The second is fairly obviously wrong, they are whipping an old prisioner for fun.

Optimystik

2009-10-20, 11:51 AM

"Fiends like torturing souls" is not a good argument.

It is actually, though I do also like the ones you came up with for me.

A) The attack on Azure City was not terrorism according to the standard usage of the word, however the OED defines it- it was conventional warfare

All of which is delightfully semantic and in no way alters the goblins' moral situation.

B) We are still waiting for you to propose a remotely plausible way of punishing the Sapphire Guard that would not have required overthrowing the government of Azure City that was supporting them and giving them their orders

Coming up with a way to both achieve the goblins' vengeance and keep their souls from perdition is Redcloak's job, not mine. I highly doubt the Giant would have even had Right-Eye mention the state of the goblins' souls if it wasn't going to be an issue, however.

Random832

2009-10-20, 12:26 PM

Even if they didn't specifically break Geneva, they were enslaving civillians

Are you aware that you just responded to (essentially) "the people they enslaved on-panel were not civilians" with "they were enslaving civilians"?

If you don't agree with that claim, then it makes more sense to refute it (pointing out the evidence that they were civilians) rather than merely ignoring it.

Larkspur

2009-10-20, 01:46 PM

Lets see... attack the city, prep with prayer beads (+4CL) that stone that gives +1 CL, and death knell....We see disruption to civillians, and a few dead enemy soldiers.

While I admire the practicality of this plan with respect to the MitD, the rest of it depends on them knowing that all the paladins were going to be in the throne room, the same throne room they couldn't scry into. A more normal troop deployment would have scattered the paladins amongst the soldiers, in which case they would have needed to defeat the entire army. There was no way for Redcloak to predict in advance that all the paladins would be sequestered in the throne room waiting to become ghost martyrs.

As for the buffs, you attack Azure City with the supplies you have, not the supplies you wish you had. The supplies they had were a horde of hobgoblins. They could hardly go into a store and buy some prayer beads- for that they'd have to attack more innocent civilians.

Without the attack on the main city, they would never have recruited Tsukiko in the first place. And if Redcloak hadn't had a plan to capture Soon's gate (which required defeating the entire Azurite army and capturing the city), he wouldn't have had Xykon's help either. Without Xykon he'd have no hobgoblins, because he'd never have recruited them.

Is there a way for Redcloak to singlehandedly take out the Sapphire Guard? Let's be generous and give him the MitD too. And maybe a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak. I'm still not seeing it.

Even if they didn't specifically break Geneva, they were enslaving civillians, and whipping them for fun. The first, really just shows that Redcloak doesn't actually care about equality; he could say "We're granting full equality to humans! Hurrah! Everyone is now an equal member of the hobgoblin legions! Which I happen to command. Now anyone with combat training please go over there. Everyone else please procede here for your labor assignments."

What civilians have we seen them enslave? They've tried to feed the MitD a few, but we haven't seen any slaves we know are civilians. The only ones we've seen identified one way or the other were POWs. As for equality- these are soldiers in an army that hasn't surrendered yet, in a city with an active Resistance. What's he supposed to do with them, pat them on the head and let them loose? Keeping them imprisoned and treating them according to Geneva standards (which they weren't doing, but that's not the point right now) seems far more humane than recruiting them into the hobgoblin army to fight their own countrymen.

It is actually, though I do also like the ones you came up with for me.

No, it's not. Since there are obviously souls that the fiends don't get to torture (Roy's, Mama D's) the fact that they like to torture souls does not in itself suggest that Soul X is going to be tortured by them.

Coming up with a way to both achieve the goblins' vengeance and keep their souls from perdition is Redcloak's job, not mine.

It's no one's job to choose between "doing something impossible" and "meekly submitting to genocide." People have an obligation to minimize civilian casualties, not an obligation to refrain completely from standing up to an oppressor if there's a remote chance an innocent might get caught in the crossfire.

waterpenguin43

2009-10-20, 05:36 PM

Herald Alberich

2009-10-20, 09:38 PM

Lamech

2009-10-20, 10:20 PM

Are you aware that you just responded to (essentially) "the people they enslaved on-panel were not civilians" with "they were enslaving civilians"?

If you don't agree with that claim, then it makes more sense to refute it (pointing out the evidence that they were civilians) rather than merely ignoring it.

What civilians have we seen them enslave? They've tried to feed the MitD a few, but we haven't seen any slaves we know are civilians. The only ones we've seen identified one way or the other were POWs. As for equality- these are soldiers in an army that hasn't surrendered yet, in a city with an active Resistance. What's he supposed to do with them, pat them on the head and let them loose? Keeping them imprisoned and treating them according to Geneva standards (which they weren't doing, but that's not the point right now) seems far more humane than recruiting them into the hobgoblin army to fight their own countrymen.

While I'm not sure how I missed your point about them not being civillians... The slaves are to slow due to age (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html), as we see in panels one and two of the second page. Clearly Haley never bothered to look up what a prisioner of war is, and assumed it was just a prisioner taken during a war. I suspect it came somewhere after, editing her speech and agreeing on a name, on her list of things to do; and since she didn't do those...

Is there a way for Redcloak to singlehandedly take out the Sapphire Guard? Let's be generous and give him the MitD too. And maybe a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak. I'm still not seeing it.Well if he can actually get the MitD to do his job... Wish, wish, wish the pesky paladins into the sun. Thats really all I got...

While I admire the practicality of this plan with respect to the MitD, the rest of it depends on them knowing that all the paladins were going to be in the throne room, the same throne room they couldn't scry into. A more normal troop deployment would have scattered the paladins amongst the soldiers, in which case they would have needed to defeat the entire army. There was no way for Redcloak to predict in advance that all the paladins would be sequestered in the throne room waiting to become ghost martyrs.Divination and commune make everything better.

As for the buffs, you attack Azure City with the supplies you have, not the supplies you wish you had. The supplies they had were a horde of hobgoblins. They could hardly go into a store and buy some prayer beads- for that they'd have to attack more innocent civilians.Even so, GCF and death knell is almost certainly enough to paralyze every living paladin, and kill almost all of them. Soon would send Redcloak running, but thats what word of recall is for. And Soon would conviently go down very quickly to a Xykon's forcecage, wall of force, blade barrier combo.

As for equality- these are soldiers in an army that hasn't surrendered yet, in a city with an active Resistance. What's he supposed to do with them, pat them on the head and let them loose? Keeping them imprisoned and treating them according to Geneva standards (which they weren't doing, but that's not the point right now) seems far more humane than recruiting them into the hobgoblin army to fight their own countrymen.I suppose he could let them choose...

[Fiends torturing souls] is actually, though I do also like the ones you came up with for me.Its is only an argument that the default is to torture souls they get their hands on. Now say, epic souls may be more valuable intact, and dragon souls may be unaquirable. Jr. is most likely less powerful then V, but V fears the flames of hell regardless. We don't know why dragon souls don't get tortured so it is very possible that any given evil soul or set of evil souls is (or is not) tortured.