Who's the real hero/villain of this story? (spoilers)

[Moff Chumley]

After finally reading Start of Darkness, I'm completely up to date. I've been forced to come to the conclusion that the only truly blameless character is Roy, and the only truly Evil* character is Xykon. Now, I'm one of the more absent-minded members of this fine forum, so I have no doubt there's people I'm missing on both sides of this equation. So who else meets these criteria, and why?

*In this context, I mean evil for no reason other than personal gain or entertainment.

[Babale]

I haven't read SoD, but aren't Durkon and Elan both heros? Yes, they both have nothing better to do than help Roy, but still...

[Sewblon]

Roy admitted that at first he went after Xykon for all the wrong reasons, he also tried to leave Elan for dead, and lied to the Sapphire Guard, he is fundamentally a good guy, but he is far from blameless. Redcloak is perfectly willing to destroy the gods, or the universe for the sake of The Plan, so in a sense, he is more evil than Xykon. No one in this story is really blameless, everyone, even the gods themselves, played a part in bringing about the unfavorable circumstances that the Stickverse is currently in.

[bluewind95]

Roy, I think, has quite attoned for having gone after Xykon for all the wrong reasons, as well as leaving Elan for dead. I think he classes as "blameless" (though I think that the OP may more mean "selfless"?). Elan probably would fit in too. His reasons for joining were naive... but even after he's grown, he continues. He could have run off on the party with Haley, deciding to quest only for her father. Durkon can't return to his lands for a while, but instead of just living the good life, there he is adventuring. So he'd fit too, I think. V might have started out on the wrong path... but perhaps he might actually become a fit for that. He seems to be on that path now.

[Sewblon]

Roy, I think, has quite attoned for having gone after Xykon for all the wrong reasons, as well as leaving Elan for dead. I think he classes as "blameless" (though I think that the OP may more mean "selfless"?). Elan probably would fit in too. His reasons for joining were naive... but even after he's grown, he continues. He could have run off on the party with Haley, deciding to quest only for her father. Durkon can't return to his lands for a while, but instead of just living the good life, there he is adventuring. So he'd fit too, I think. V might have started out on the wrong path... but perhaps he might actually become a fit for that. He seems to be on that path now. I think that you and I mean different things by the word "blameless."

[Optimystik]

An alignment thread by another name... :smalltongue:

Tsukiko seems quite firmly in the "personal gain and entertainment" camp, as do Nale and Sabine.

I would consider Elan a bit more "blameless" than Roy; due to innocent naivete, if nothing else.

[Turkish Delight]

After finally reading Start of Darkness, I'm completely up to date. I've been forced to come to the conclusion that the only truly blameless character is Roy, and the only truly Evil* character is Xykon. Now, I'm one of the more absent-minded members of this fine forum, so I have no doubt there's people I'm missing on both sides of this equation. So who else meets these criteria, and why?

*In this context, I mean evil for no reason other than personal gain or entertainment.

Belkar is pretty evil for no reason other than personal gain or entertainment, as well. And the IFCC, of course, are truly Evil by their very nature.

If there is a 'real' protagonist to the story, though, it's certainly Roy. And if there is a 'real' antagonist, it's certainly Xykon. But that's largely not important; it's more of an ensemble thing, where everyone gets their moment in the spotlight except Durkon.

[Sewblon]

Belkar is pretty evil for no reason other than personal gain or entertainment, as well. And the IFCC, of course, are truly Evil by their very nature.

If there is a 'real' protagonist to the story, though, it's certainly Roy. And if there is a 'real' antagonist, it's certainly Xykon. But that's largely not important; it's more of an ensemble thing, where everyone gets their moment in the spotlight except Durkon. I think when Durkon broke up with Hilgya she cast a homebrew curse on him that transformed him into Schrodinger's Dwarf simultaneously both being in the story and not being in the story, so it makes sense that he hasn't gotten any focus since the first book.

[Mystic Muse]

R Redcloak is perfectly willing to destroy the gods, or the universe for the sake of The Plan, so in a sense, he is more evil than Xykon.

I'd like to contend that Redcloak was sort of forced into his current role (although by turning Xykon into a Lich he also sort of put himself there). Also, the "good" gods are largely B******s and jerks. All The dark one wants is a level playing field instead of having his race have no other use than to give clerics XP.

I'm not saying he's a hero and I'm not saying he's not evil. (or at least I'm not trying to) I'm just saying that certain events that could have been changed pretty easily put him where he is now. (If the "good" gods had listened to the dark one instead of massacring the goblin village there wouldn't BE a plot to threaten/destroy them anyway.

[Zevox]

Redcloak is perfectly willing to destroy the gods, or the universe for the sake of The Plan, so in a sense, he is more evil than Xykon.
This is incorrect.
The Dark One's Plan involves controlling a gate so as to threaten the other gods into giving goblins a fair shake. None of them need to be destroyed for that to work - though it is possible that one or more would be in order to show he is willing to carry out his threat.

And certainly neither Redcloak nor the Dark One intend to destroy the universe. They don't even intend to destroy the current world, though apparently some posters here are somehow under the mistaken impression that such is their "plan B" due to not paying attention to the fact that Redcloak discussed that with Right-Eye simply to inform him of what would happen if the Snarl was let loose by accident.
Zevox

[Sewblon]

I'd like to contend that Redcloak was sort of forced into his current role (although by turning Xykon into a Lich he also sort of put himself there). Also, the "good" gods are largely B******s and jerks. All The dark one wants is a level playing field instead of having his race have no other use than to give clerics XP.

I'm not saying he's a hero and I'm not saying he's not evil. (or at least I'm not trying to) I'm just saying that certain events that could have been changed pretty easily put him where he is now. (If the "good" gods had listened to the dark one instead of massacring the goblin village there wouldn't BE a plot to threaten/destroy them anyway. Yes the gods unambiguously dropped the ball on this one. But surely Redcloak has ways to better the lot of the humanoids that don't risk destroying the universe.
This is incorrect.
The Dark One's Plan involves controlling a gate so as to threaten the other gods into giving goblins a fair shake. None of them need to be destroyed for that to work - though it is possible that one or more would be in order to show he is willing to carry out his threat.

And certainly neither Redcloak nor the Dark One intend to destroy the universe. They don't even intend to destroy the current world, though apparently some posters here are somehow under the mistaken impression that such is their "plan B" due to not paying attention to the fact that Redcloak discussed that with Right-Eye simply to inform him of what would happen if the Snarl was let loose by accident.
Zevox

He did acknowledge that the destruction of the universe is, if nothing else, a distinct risk of The Plan, and one that he is obviously willing to take.

[The Extinguisher]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

[Optimystik]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

You're not the only one - the problem is that I find it just as hard to sympathize with either the paladins or the gods in turn. Crapsack World indeed.

Of course, the story we have came from the Dark One, so it may be just so much propaganda, but we'll have to wait and see.

[magic9mushroom]

An alignment thread by another name... :smalltongue:

Tsukiko seems quite firmly in the "personal gain and entertainment" camp, as do Nale and Sabine.

I would consider Elan a bit more "blameless" than Roy; due to innocent naivete, if nothing else.

Sabine is a devil. No devil works for themselves except Asmodeus.

[factotum]

Exactly how is Durkon not blameless? He committed no crime, did no evil to be thrown out of Dwarven lands--he got chucked out because of a prophecy! If anyone in the Order truly counts as blameless it's him.

[Asta Kask]

Exactly how is Durkon not blameless? He committed no crime, did no evil to be thrown out of Dwarven lands--he got chucked out because of a prophecy! If anyone in the Order truly counts as blameless it's him.

Crimes of an aesthetic nature?

[Sewblon]

Exactly how is Durkon not blameless? He committed no crime, did no evil to be thrown out of Dwarven lands--he got chucked out because of a prophecy! If anyone in the Order truly counts as blameless it's him. He was prejudiced against humans for a little while in Origins, he is still prejudiced against trees, and in a bonus strip he saw two women making out, and did not attempt to have a threesome with them. In the third case, he unambiguously failed to live up to Thor's ideals.

[Optimystik]

Sabine is a devil. No devil works for themselves except Asmodeus.

Sabine is a succubus. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html) Succubi are demons, not devils. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus)

Her presence in the IFCC is easily explained - she's attracted to Lawful types (Nale, Miko, Roy) thus is in favor of ending the blood war.

And regardless of who she works for, "personal gain and entertainment" is still the likely motive.

[lothos]

I think one of the things I like to much about this story is how rich all the main characters are, how none of them are "perfect" saints and even though some of the bad guys are wholly and irredeemably evil, they have believable motivations.

Also, it's a measure of how textured the characters are that there is so much debate over this and of course the endless alignment discussions.

My take is that any of the order (aside from Belkar of course) could be considered heroes of one sort or another. Even Haley, who started out as a greedy rouge still cares about people and helps people without expecting a reward.

V certainly isn't blameless or even unnecessarily good, but he doesn't set out to be evil and in many ways is still a hero. How he acts later in the story will determine for me if he truly is a hero, if he can atone for his dealings with the IFCC.

Outside the order, I'd consider O'Chul and most of the sapphire guard (not Miko) to be heroes. Again, the sort varies. O'Chul is the most "obvious" classical hero but Lien, Hinjo and others all did heroic things. Even Soon.

Some of the heroes may not be perfect, but overall they act heroically on balance.

I guess it depends what standard you hold up for heroism and Villainy.

[magic9mushroom]

Sabine is a succubus. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html) Succubi are demons, not devils. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus)

Her presence in the IFCC is easily explained - she's attracted to Lawful types (Nale, Miko, Roy) thus is in favor of ending the blood war.

And regardless of who she works for, "personal gain and entertainment" is still the likely motive.

Ah, crap. Brainfade. I got confused because of that scene where she went to report to her superiors.

[Asta Kask]

Some of the heroes may not be perfect, but overall they act heroically on balance.

Perfect heroes are fairly boring. That's the problem with Galahad in Mallory - it doesn't take long before you fall into a coma upon seeing his name.

[XBobbis]

I think the answer to this is...

Redcloak.

[Irbis]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

Ever heard the term "war reparations"?


Exactly how is Durkon not blameless? He committed no crime, did no evil to be thrown out of Dwarven lands--he got chucked out because of a prophecy! If anyone in the Order truly counts as blameless it's him.

Well, if racist, zealous, narrow-minded patriarchal bigots (that are far more lawful than good)* are blameless, which they are not, IMHO, then he might be one.

*Durkon was one in OtOtPCs - well, since then he learned to not show this so much, but still, his inhuman treatment of Hilga and joy when Roy was horribly killed placed him firmly among the most detestable characters of this comic for me, with Miko at his side.

[Turkish Delight]

and joy when Roy was horribly killed placed him firmly among the most detestable characters of this comic for me, with Miko at his side.

....

What? He was happy because Roy died fulfilling his duty, not because he's just a heartless monster who laughs at his friends when they die horribly.

Weird.

[Morty]

One of the things I like about OoTS is that it's not a chessboard where black and white are clearly separated. Even the Snarl turned out to be more than just a destructive MacGuffin to be used by villains.

[Kish]

And of course his treatment of Hilgya was inhuman. He isn't human.

[Moff Chumley]

To clear things up: to use the chess metaphor, I don't mean who's black and who's white, I mean who's blackest and who's whitest? To me, the criteria for being good is, fundamentally, respect. Respect for yourself, for your friends, for complete strangers, for the law, et cetera. The difference between various shades of good is which order you prioritize that. Similarly, evil is a lack of respect. *shrug*

[hamishspence]

"respect for life" is certainly in the PHB as a fundamental Good trait.

However, respect for other things may vary depending on the character.

Respect for rules, traditions, laws, order, etc tends to be more a function of Lawful characters.

Though, going by BoVD, respect for property is more Good than just Lawful- lack of respect for property is associated with Evil, not just Chaos.

In a sense, if you don't respect a person's right to property, you don't have much respect for a person's right to life- in some philosophies.

BoED in particular stresses respect for life even of enemies- you don't kill them if it is unnecessary, nor indulge in cruelty toward them.

Savage Species mentions that evil beings may respect the lives of friends, family, society, but have a serious lack of respect for those "outside their in-group"

[Mystic Muse]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

Am I the only one who remembers that Recloak was willing to give that up before Xykon came calling again? quoted DIRECTLY from SOD "in all seriousness right-eye you should let him be a wizard if he really wants." "why so he can come work for you on your "plan" someday?" "no, because I'd hate to live in a village without a local wizard. ""live in" what are you saying ?" "I'm saying that standing together, side by side as a family? it was nice. Maybe it is time for me to rethink my grand designs. Maybe I should be trying to build our people up instead of tearing other people down. Maybe I can do the most good for our people by helping this little farming village and all the ones near it achieve their true potential.And uh... maybe you can invite your wife's cousin back for dinner so I can apologize

[hamishspence]

this is worth remembering.

SoD:

From Redcloak's perspective, Xykon was too dangerous to take risks with. Right-eye might have beaten him, but the chance was dangerously low, and if he didn't, the remaining goblins in Xykon's service would pay the price, and the Plan would possibly be permanently ruined.

That, and Redcloak had lost so many goblins in the process, that he wasn't willing to write them off as lost to a failed attempt- but instead wanted them to have "not died in vain"

Doesn't mean he's right, but his thinking is understandable.

[Kish]

this is worth remembering.

SoD:

From Redcloak's perspective, Xykon was too dangerous to take risks with.

When that risk was something other than, "Stay with him and hope against all the evidence that he won't kill the rest of the goblins he's enslaved for any reason or for none."

[MReav]

this is worth remembering.

SoD:

From Redcloak's perspective, Xykon was too dangerous to take risks with. Right-eye might have beaten him, but the chance was dangerously low, and if he didn't, the remaining goblins in Xykon's service would pay the price, and the Plan would possibly be permanently ruined.

That, and Redcloak had lost so many goblins in the process, that he wasn't willing to write them off as lost to a failed attempt- but instead wanted them to have "not died in vain"

Doesn't mean he's right, but his thinking is understandable.

Except that Redcloak might have helped swing the battle even more if he would have just nuked Xykon. Remember Right-Eye's line (paraphrasing): "Then make sure I don't fail" I always took that as an invite to betray Xykon with him.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak was a long-term thinker rather than a short-term one.

And quite possibly, prone to stick with a plan even when logic might recommend he discard it-

possibly due to unwillingness to admit he'd made a bad choice of ally in The Plan, possibly because he thought "better to lose a lot of goblins to Xykon, if it keeps the Plan on track, than try and leave Xykon, and risk that the Plan never get off the ground again.

[TruorTupnm]

Redcloak is the hero, due to selflessly leading the goblins to awesomeness. Alternatively, the Monster In The Darkness will be the hero, due to popping up at the last second for an ultimate sacrifice bit.

Elan is the main villain, due to creating Banjulhu, who will totally come back to mate with the Snarl. Or something. *insert rolling eyed dude*

[Oooohaloophole]

I think the true villian is the dark one. Why? well because hese so stupid!

Hello im mr dark one, I wish to prove to humans that My ENTIRE (ENCLUDING THE BERSEKT CRAZY ONES) Race is TRULY GOOD! And how do I prove so? By starting a war, cause nothing says peace like bullying your enemy into submission. Then I expect that every single one of my hiers will adopt my likehood and not think about trashing the neighboring kindom (You know, what goblins usualy LOVE to do).

And anybody with at least a single drop of sympathy for redcloak listen to this:

Hey redcloak, those azurates are pretty evil. They killed your entire village... of probably 200 people! How horrible ! wiat a sec... wherent they the ones that killed 300 hobgoblins for the sake of entertianment, reanimate them as ghouls and have them devour their friends and family? Oh wiat....that was you...

[Sewblon]

Redcloak is the hero, due to selflessly leading the goblins to awesomeness. Alternatively, the Monster In The Darkness will be the hero, due to popping up at the last second for an ultimate sacrifice bit.

Elan is the main villain, due to creating Banjulhu, who will totally come back to mate with the Snarl. Or something. *insert rolling eyed dude* Speaking of which,http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0080.html doesn't his attempt to smite Roy reveal that Elan is a little bit evil?

[Conuly]

Hello im mr dark one, I wish to prove to humans that My ENTIRE (INCLUDING THE BERSERK CRAZY ONES) Race is TRULY GOOD! And how do I prove so? By starting a war, cause nothing says peace like bullying your enemy into submission.

There's no evidence that The Dark One wanted to "prove his race was good". How could he do that, anyway? As you pointed out, any group of people will have some "crazy berserk ones". All he seems to have tried to do (from Redcloak's telling, of course) was negotiate for better conditions for his people without discussing alignment or morality at all.

And to do that, he started off building an army - which, according to Redcloak, he didn't intend to actively send into war - so he could argue from a position of power. Maybe not the brightest move ever, but would arguing from a position of weakness have been better? Passive resistance only works when the people you're resisting care about how it looks when they hurt you. If they have no shame, no compunction, no repercussions from harming you, they'll just keep on doing it.


Then I expect that every single one of my heirs will adopt my likehood and not think about trashing the neighboring kingdom (You know, what goblins usually LOVE to do).

We don't know what The Dark One's plans were for after he secured better conditions for the goblins, nor do we know exactly what he told the goblins to do after he became a god. Redcloak says he told goblins to "avoid dealings with humans", but that's about it. And we know that he became a god after the goblins slaughtered humans ruthlessly in revenge for his murder (admittedly a ludicrously stupid move, but maybe they thought they had nothing left to lose), but we don't know what The Dark One thought about this during or after it happened.

Furthermore, we *don't* know that goblins "usually LOVE" to "trash the neighboring kingdoms". We have no idea what they do when left to their own devices. Redcloak was completely baffled as to why paladins would want to slaughter his village - when even Belkar knows what reasonable retribution is, this seems shocking if his village was in the habit of "trashing" their neighbors. Right-Eye lived *near* humans - if he liked to go out and randomly harm humans, that would hardly have been a prudent place to live. The Hobgoblin army had a training camp, but we've never once heard anybody say that they used to conduct regular raids, and they weren't *that* well hidden, either.

Is it possible that goblins, as a whole, actually commit massive genocide for no other reason than because it's fun? Sure, I guess. But where is the evidence? (Do they even have the strength to do such a thing? I really doubt it. In the real world, whole communities have perished because their neighbors believed blood libel about them - and no, this isn't limited to the most obvious ethnic group, either. How long could goblins survive if they *really* went around killing people, as an oppressed minority?)


Hey redcloak, those azurates are pretty evil. They killed your entire village... of probably 200 people! How horrible ! wiat a sec... wherent they the ones that killed 300 hobgoblins for the sake of entertianment, reanimate them as ghouls and have them devour their friends and family? Oh wiat....that was you...

1. Redcloak did that for Xykon's amusement, not his own, because
2. Redcloak has fallen for the Sunken Cost Fallacy and
3. had convinced himself that their deaths were necessary for the cause (however absurd that argument is) and anyway
4. has repented of that specific action and seems to actively be trying... somewhat... to improve himself in that regard.

[Almaseti]

When you think about who the real hero is, I have to ask you... who's sure to get a happy ending? Elan might be an idiot a lot of the time, but he's always good-natured, to the point where I don't think he actually realizes what a jerk Belkar generally is.

And Belkar is evil, yes, but even those who hate him can probably agree that he can't hold a candle to Xykon's utter dickery. Belkar is at least capable of caring about living things other than him, even if it's just a cat. Though admittedly, it was only Xykon and Belkar who were unaffected by Elan's dirge for Roy, so maybe the haters have a point. Tsukiko seems to be as much rebellious teenager as sociopath, and maybe she could have been an okay (maybe not nice) person if she'd grown up somewhere that saw her necrophilia as a disease rather than a punishable offense and treated her accordingly. Redcloak... well, we all know what's going on with him. Beyond that, it's just beings who are evil by nature, rather than choice.

[Lamech]

Who is the real villian? The people like the twelve gods. Those are the real villians. Its a side effect of sanctioning geneocide.

The hero is probably someone like O-Chul. Facing down evils that he knows he doesn't have a chance against, and what not. Instead of trying to get the MitD to save himself earlier, he did his best to learn all of Xykon's spells and turn the MitD (Which seems like the OotS main shot at victory right now.)

[Kome]

To answer the thread title's question:

Xykon is the most threatening antagonist and therefore the "real" Villain. His power is sufficient that he can more or less do as he pleases, and he does, without giving a darn about anyone or anything else. He is someone to be feared and ultimately needs to be destroyed if Elan is to have his happy ending.

Redcloak is the "real" Villain in the sense of the story. His actions have more or less been the ones responsible for the main story arc. And, despite all that's happened to him, I don't find Redcloak sympathetic at all and I sincerely hope he meets a horrible end. He has consistently thrown away opportunities to redeem himself (as opposed to Xykon, who just laughs it off without consideration). He's no longer "evil, but for a greater good" he's just cowardly and narrow-minded (he's only arrogant because he has the massive cudgel that is Xykon; without that, he'd be akin to a sniveling teenager who cries about how unfair life is). At least Xykon has admitted mistakes. That gives him opportunity to grow and become a more dangerous adversary. Redcloak... he just keeps making decisions that cast him in a worse light and relies almost entirely on the power Xykon has to get through the day.

Roy is the "real" Hero for the story purposes, in that it's his father's oath that got him on the track to take down Xykon, assemble the party, etc. He is the team leader, and the story tends to focus on him extensively. He is also a bit of an "everyman." A lot of characters tend to have certain personality traits exaggerated, and that can get us to more easily relate to, say, Elan with his childlike innocence or V being an intellectual elitist. We're able to relate to Roy, on the other hand, despite not being exaggerated very much. Good "real Heroes" need that aspect. He has also shown a lot of growth throughout the nearly 700 strips, which any good hero needs to do.

Durkon is, to me, the "real" Hero of the good guys so far (though I must say he is not my favorite character). Despite not getting much air time, Durkon has been pretty stable, clear-headed, and pretty darn logical (except when it comes to trees). He understands duty, family, obligation, loyalty, friendship, and honesty and he's perfectly willing to admit when he's wrong. And he is pretty unerring in what he does. The only possible exception to that I can think of would be when he came head-to-head with V on the boat, and even then I look at that more as him being torn between which of his principles to follow (which is why I think both V and Durkon were right when they apologized to each other).

[Sewblon]

To answer the thread title's question:

Xykon is the most threatening antagonist and therefore the "real" Villain. His power is sufficient that he can more or less do as he pleases, and he does, without giving a darn about anyone or anything else. He is someone to be feared and ultimately needs to be destroyed if Elan is to have his happy ending.

Redcloak is the "real" Villain in the sense of the story. His actions have more or less been the ones responsible for the main story arc. And, despite all that's happened to him, I don't find Redcloak sympathetic at all and I sincerely hope he meets a horrible end. He has consistently thrown away opportunities to redeem himself (as opposed to Xykon, who just laughs it off without consideration). He's no longer "evil, but for a greater good" he's just cowardly and narrow-minded (he's only arrogant because he has the massive cudgel that is Xykon; without that, he'd be akin to a sniveling teenager who cries about how unfair life is). At least Xykon has admitted mistakes. That gives him opportunity to grow and become a more dangerous adversary. Redcloak... he just keeps making decisions that cast him in a worse light and relies almost entirely on the power Xykon has to get through the day.

Roy is the "real" Hero for the story purposes, in that it's his father's oath that got him on the track to take down Xykon, assemble the party, etc. He is the team leader, and the story tends to focus on him extensively. He is also a bit of an "everyman." A lot of characters tend to have certain personality traits exaggerated, and that can get us to more easily relate to, say, Elan with his childlike innocence or V being an intellectual elitist. We're able to relate to Roy, on the other hand, despite not being exaggerated very much. Good "real Heroes" need that aspect. He has also shown a lot of growth throughout the nearly 700 strips, which any good hero needs to do.

Durkon is, to me, the "real" Hero of the good guys so far (though I must say he is not my favorite character). Despite not getting much air time, Durkon has been pretty stable, clear-headed, and pretty darn logical (except when it comes to trees). He understands duty, family, obligation, loyalty, friendship, and honesty and he's perfectly willing to admit when he's wrong. And he is pretty unerring in what he does. The only possible exception to that I can think of would be when he came head-to-head with V on the boat, and even then I look at that more as him being torn between which of his principles to follow (which is why I think both V and Durkon were right when they apologized to each other).

I have almost the opposite take on this story. Xykon is the least sympathetic major character, because that's his job as the principle antagonist. But I actually found Redcloak sympathetic once I read Start of Darkness, since he actually has a valid grievance against the Azurites and humanity in general and he isn't evil because it suits him Like Xykon is, he just doesn't know how else he can get through life at this point. I actually find Roy to be one of the less sympathetic "good guys" He usually comes across as a prisoner of his own overinflated ego, more so than Vaarsuvius since Vaarsuvius actually learned something from the thrashing Xykon gave him/her. I don't think Roy learned much from when Xykon killed him, except only jump on giant moving beasts when the ground is soft and close. In a strictly plot sense Roy is the real hero, but that is about it for him as far as I can tell.

[Skaven]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

I'm with you in this.

At first I was all for him, he wanted -all- the monsterous races to have equality.

Yet at some unspoken moment, he started going for just goblins in equality.. and again, this progressed to the goblins being the ones at the top.

He's worse than those he hates.

[Kome]

Xykon is the least sympathetic major character, because that's his job as the principle antagonist.

Oh, don't mistake me. I don't have sympathy for Xykon, either. But I at least like him as a character for the story. Same reason I like Belkar as a character. Redcloak is not only unsympathetic, he's an idiot. Xykon is just indifferent, like Belkar. I might be upset when Xykon is dealt with just because the story is over. If/when Redcloak is finished, I will be pleased. He is someone who has the capacity to do good, or at least not do evil, but chooses not to.


But I actually found Redcloak sympathetic once I read Start of Darkness, since he actually has a valid grievance against the Azurites and humanity in general

No, he has a valid grievance against the gods (assuming his version of events are accurate) and against the Sapphire Guard. Those are the beings who have slighted him. Heck, in many respects, he has a larger grievance against Xykon than he does any other character he's come across except the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard. The rest of the Azurites, and humanity in general... not so much.


and he isn't evil because it suits him Like Xykon is

Yes, he is. He had opportunity to acknowledge his mistakes and attempt to correct them. He chose not to, because it suited not only his pathetically fragile ego, but because it was simply easier not to.


he just doesn't know how else he can get through life at this point.

Too bad. Lots of real life tyrants, dictators, serial murders and violent criminals of other stripes had bad things happen to them growing up. That does not excuse their crimes or warrant any sympathy after they decided to send hurt or kill other people because it was easier than seeking therapy or growing up or finding another solution to the problems they faced.


I actually find Roy to be one of the less sympathetic "good guys" He usually comes across as a prisoner of his own overinflated ego, more so than Vaarsuvius since Vaarsuvius actually learned something from the thrashing Xykon gave him/her. I don't think Roy learned much from when Xykon killed him, except only jump on giant moving beasts when the ground is soft and close. In a strictly plot sense Roy is the real hero, but that is about it for him as far as I can tell.

Eh, I originally felt kind of the same way, but I think we've seen Roy grow quite a bit. And, considering the 4th wall in this comic is apparently made out of wet paper, Roy is aware that he's the hero of the story. Wouldn't that inflate your ego somewhat?


Am I the only one who remembers that Recloak was willing to give that up before Xykon came calling again?

Remember why Redcloak was ready to give it all up, though. For over a decade, the Bad Guys were going nowhere. They where either inactive or unsuccessful at doing anything gate-related. Then Xykon disappeared for a few years. Redcloak had no big, powerful sorcerer lich on his side that could threaten his enemies and make his Plan a reality. And he had lots of downtime where, without a powerful ally and going nowhere with his Plan, his thoughts turned to other things. He basically had no other option but to stop being a megalomaniac. You don't see Redcloak protesting when Xykon showed up, do you?

[Sewblon]

Oh, don't mistake me. I don't have sympathy for Xykon, either. But I at least like him as a character for the story. Same reason I like Belkar as a character. Redcloak is not only unsympathetic, he's an idiot. Xykon is just indifferent, like Belkar. I might be upset when Xykon is dealt with just because the story is over. If/when Redcloak is finished, I will be pleased. He is someone who has the capacity to do good, or at least not do evil, but chooses not to.



No, he has a valid grievance against the gods (assuming his version of events are accurate) and against the Sapphire Guard. Those are the beings who have slighted him. Heck, in many respects, he has a larger grievance against Xykon than he does any other character he's come across except the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard. The rest of the Azurites, and humanity in general... not so much.



Yes, he is. He had opportunity to acknowledge his mistakes and attempt to correct them. He chose not to, because it suited not only his pathetically fragile ego, but because it was simply easier not to.



Too bad. Lots of real life tyrants, dictators, serial murders and violent criminals of other stripes had bad things happen to them growing up. That does not excuse their crimes or warrant any sympathy after they decided to send hurt or kill other people because it was easier than seeking therapy or growing up or finding another solution to the problems they faced.



Eh, I originally felt kind of the same way, but I think we've seen Roy grow quite a bit. And, considering the 4th wall in this comic is apparently made out of wet paper, Roy is aware that he's the hero of the story. Wouldn't that inflate your ego somewhat?



Remember why Redcloak was ready to give it all up, though. For over a decade, the Bad Guys were going nowhere. They where either inactive or unsuccessful at doing anything gate-related. Then Xykon disappeared for a few years. Redcloak had no big, powerful sorcerer lich on his side that could threaten his enemies and make his Plan a reality. And he had lots of downtime where, without a powerful ally and going nowhere with his Plan, his thoughts turned to other things. He basically had no other option but to stop being a megalomaniac. You don't see Redcloak protesting when Xykon showed up, do you?

I never said that Xykon wasn't a strong character, what makes him unsympathetic also makes him work as a villain, that he doesn't have an excuse for what he does, nor does he need one.

When you consider how many goblins human and demi-human adventurers kill regularly in the Stickverse and D&D in general, Redcloak at least has some reason to complain. Many of his evil acts where just earnest attempts to follow the will and teachings of his god, he is still high priest of The Dark One, so long as he bares that title he has some obligations to him. Yes, in a sense Xykon has hurt him more than anyone else, but that is what prevents Redcloak from acting against him, Xykon crushed Redcloak's spirit. How is Redcloak an idiot? A coward sure, but recruiting Xykon was Righteye's idea, and if he hadn't have made Xykon into a lich he would have been stuck underground for the rest of his life. Yes Redcloak is, in many respects the worst sinner in the story, since he is willing to risk the death of the gods or the destruction of all existence mostly so that he will never need to admit that he was wrong, but I can still understand his motivation and therefore kind of sympathize with him.

Yes being aware that he is the hero of his own fantasy/adventure serial does kind of excuse being arrogant, to a certain extent, but Roy has sabotaged himself too many times to use that excuse. He went after Xykon without researching liches and learning about phylacteries, which allowed Team Evil to get away, he refused to use the sword Elan offered him until he could reforge the Greenhilt sword, which drastically reduced his usefulness to his own team, he tried to fight an epic sorcerer by himself and died because of it, and when the deva tried to warn him about Vaarsuvius's Faustian deal he assumed that she was talking about Belkar and brushed her off. He has no excuse for having not learned his lesson by now.

[Oooohaloophole]

I'm with you in this.

At first I was all for him, he wanted -all- the monsterous races to have equality.

Yet at some unspoken moment, he started going for just goblins in equality.. and again, this progressed to the goblins being the ones at the top.

He's worse than those he hates.

Plus he likes or dislikes goblins like he wears hats. If you look into the splash page where we first see xycon riding the undead dragon, redcloak mentions the fact that he killed 300 Hobgoblins reanimated them as ghouls and forced them to eat thier remianing 50. Pretty cruel. He does this not because Xycon wants this (He saves his green goblin friends from death when they ask Xycon about some money plan) but because Hobgoblins redicule Goblins. Effectively he has piad off the Azurites dept of killing his village.

Right eye is the way to go. If he maneged to make a town which did not want to randomly murder people. The best possible plan (i think) is to first prove to upper rces that goblins if not good can at least handle thier own kingdom without turning on the other upper races later. Starting a war and bullying people into submission only proves to humans that goblins cannot be trusted, because generaly they are an Cruel race. Proving that your at least Semi ok race and the humans will say Ok our new bretheren welcome to the club of upper race.

[Moff Chumley]

Personally, I find Redcloak so mentally and spiritually crushed, that it's hard not to view him sympathetically. Almost his entire family was slaughtered when he was a teenager, and Xykon has had him by the balls, if you will, for decades. I really don't think it's fair to say Reddy is anything more than an accomplice to Xykon.

[Scarlet Knight]

When you think about who the real hero is, I have to ask you... who's sure to get a happy ending?

True heroes are more heroic when there is NO happy ending for them.


Elan might be an idiot a lot of the time, but he's always good-natured, to the point where I don't think he actually realizes what a jerk Belkar generally is.

A great point for goodness, always seeing the best in your friends.


Tsukiko seems to be as much rebellious teenager as sociopath, and maybe she could have been an okay (maybe not nice) person if she'd grown up somewhere that saw her necrophilia as a disease rather than a punishable offense and treated her accordingly.

In OOTS , necrophilia is not a disease, but a life-style. Like...being elven!:smallwink:

[hamishspence]

Plus he likes or dislikes goblins like he wears hats. If you look into the splash page where we first see xycon riding the undead dragon, redcloak mentions the fact that he killed 300 Hobgoblins reanimated them as ghouls and forced them to eat thier remianing 50. Pretty cruel. He does this not because Xycon wants this (He saves his green goblin friends from death when they ask Xycon about some money plan) but because Hobgoblins redicule Goblins. Effectively he has piad off the Azurites dept of killing his village.

He does, however decide that it is wrong to treat the hobgoblins this way, during the Battle for Azure City, after a hobgoblin saves his life.

[Nimrod's Son]

In a sense, Nale is more evil than Xykon. Xykon just wants to get his own way, whereas Nale actively wants to cause suffering at any cost.

[Conuly]

In a sense, Nale is more evil than Xykon. Xykon just wants to get his own way, whereas Nale actively wants to cause suffering at any cost.

Have you read SoD?

[Nimrod's Son]

Have you read SoD?
Many times. I don't see any contradiction there.

In fact, my last post was pretty much a paraphrase of what Rich said in War & XPs:

[Nale] hates, in the purest sense of the word. Xykon can't even be bothered to hate anyone; they're all so far below him, really. He mostly commits evil acts for his own pleasure, while Nale commits evil acts to make other people suffer. Nale may be infinitely less powerful than Xykon, but he's no less evil, in my opinion.

[FoE]

I think I'm the only person who came out of SoD actually disliking Redcloak more. He's arrogant, selfish and cares for nothing but his plan and continuing the perpetual cycle of violence between the Azure City and the goblins. More importantly, he doesn't want a world where goblins are equal. He wants a world where they are better.

I also came out of SoD disliking Redcloak, but for different reasons.

Goblins have been handed an unfair lot in the OotS world. That doesn't justify gambling with the lives of everyone in existence, but I can understand Redcloak's reasons. In any case, he's taking direction from his deity, which happens to be the only god the goblins have.

What makes Redcloak truly despicable is what a loathsome coward he really is. Working with Xykon to improve the lot of the goblin people might be justified if he didn't have any other choice. But Redcloak does.

He could have ended Xykon's threat once and for all after Roy destroyed his body. Hell, he could probably find his own way to destroy Xykon; he's a fairly powerful cleric, after all. And then he could find another arcane magic-user to work with who he could force to follow him. But Redcloak doesn't.

He's a coward who refuses to admit his mistakes. He refuses to even consider that, as Right-Eye said, the Dark One is a spiteful god who allows Xykon to oppress the goblins to further his own agenda. And he's willing to kill his own brother just to avoid facing up to that truth.

This isn't just what Right-eye said; this is the truth from Xykon's own bony lips.

Xykon's a monster, but his evil is self-defeating. He's the kind of villain that hurts a lot of people but never leaves anything long-lasting. Redcloak aids Xykon's atrocities, and in some ways, that makes him just as bad.

[Moff Chumley]

Fair enough. :smallannoyed:

[Oooohaloophole]

He does, however decide that it is wrong to treat the hobgoblins this way, during the Battle for Azure City, after a hobgoblin saves his life.

Like I siad Hats. Oh I feel a little pecish today, ill kill a few thousand Bugbears today. YOU CANT JUST DO THAT! We know that EVERY redshirt has a name life and character (By tsuko and ect.)

[The Extinguisher]

I also came out of SoD disliking Redcloak, but for different reasons.

Goblins have been handed an unfair lot in the OotS world. That doesn't justify gambling with the lives of everyone in existence, but I can understand Redcloak's reasons. In any case, he's taking direction from his deity, which happens to be the only god the goblins have.

What makes Redcloak truly despicable is what a loathsome coward he really is. Working with Xykon to improve the lot of the goblin people might be justified if he didn't have any other choice. But Redcloak does.

He could have ended Xykon's threat once and for all after Roy destroyed his body. Hell, he could probably find his own way to destroy Xykon; he's a fairly powerful cleric, after all. And then he could find another arcane magic-user to work with who he could force to follow him. But Redcloak doesn't.

He's a coward who refuses to admit his mistakes. He refuses to even consider that, as Right-Eye said, the Dark One is a spiteful god who allows Xykon to oppress the goblins to further his own agenda. And he's willing to kill his own brother just to avoid facing up to that truth.

This isn't just what Right-eye said; this is the truth from Xykon's own bony lips.

Xykon's a monster, but his evil is self-defeating. He's the kind of villain that hurts a lot of people but never leaves anything long-lasting. Redcloak aids Xykon's atrocities, and in some ways, that makes him just as bad.

There's that too. It's kind of what I was getting at but I am terrible at explaining things. :smallbiggrin:

[salinan]

He does, however decide that it is wrong to treat the hobgoblins this way, during the Battle for Azure City, after a hobgoblin saves his life.
Too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, when Redcloak started all this, he had a genuine grudge against the Sapphire Guard. But along the way he lost sight of what he was trying to do. He's no longer in control of his own destiny, and it's entirely his fault that he lost that control - he willingly gave it up to Xykon, and doesn't have the guts to shake loose again. Xykon is steering the ship, and he doesn't have the same agenda as Redcloak, so effectively, Redcloak has abandoned his original aim. He pretty much made it irrevocable when he killed Right-Eye.

[Mystic Muse]

That doesn't mean he can't gain sight of it again. Just because somebody loses track of their overrall goal doesn't mean the goal itself is gone forever. Just because Redcloak has lost sight of what he's been attempting for so long doesn't Necessarily mean he's completely given up on it. (I use Necessarily here because it's quite possible he has.)

[FoE]

Incidentally, let's not forget the IFCC when considering the 'truly evil' villains of this arc. They're just as bad as Xykon; although they may aim to unite all the fiends, their end game is the destruction of all that is Good. A win for the IFCC is a loss for the universe.

Which, you know, is why the Order of the Stick should just give up now and throw in their lot with the fiends. Stick with the winning team, I say.

[Asta Kask]

I'm with you in this.

At first I was all for him, he wanted -all- the monsterous races to have equality.

Yet at some unspoken moment, he started going for just goblins in equality.. and again, this progressed to the goblins being the ones at the top.

He's worse than those he hates.

Those who fight paladins should take care that they never become one.

[salinan]

That doesn't mean he can't gain sight of it again. Just because somebody loses track of their overrall goal doesn't mean the goal itself is gone forever. Just because Redcloak has lost sight of what he's been attempting for so long doesn't Necessarily mean he's completely given up on it. (I use Necessarily here because it's quite possible he has.)
I'll grant that, yes. However, given all he's been through and the chances he's already passed up to change, I can't see him doing it.

[Oooohaloophole]

That doesn't mean he can't gain sight of it again. Just because somebody loses track of their overrall goal doesn't mean the goal itself is gone forever. Just because Redcloak has lost sight of what he's been attempting for so long doesn't Necessarily mean he's completely given up on it. (I use Necessarily here because it's quite possible he has.)

Once agian, YOU CANNOT DO THAT!
You cannot put on a hat and say "You know what, ill kill a few thousand hobs today for no reason at all" And the Next day say "Cause I just FOUND myself im ok for killing innocents."

[hamishspence]

"Having a revelation" is a part of it.

Redcloak behaved badly toward hobgoblins- then he Had a Revelation (when a hobgoblin saved his life) and ever since, he has been more careful when dealing with them.

He is persuaded into duelling the enemy cleric personally- because he figures by doing this, he is not wasting the lives of his hobgoblin followers.

It is not like Redcloak is switching back and forth.

[Oooohaloophole]

"Having a revelation" is a part of it.

Redcloak behaved badly toward hobgoblins- then he Had a Revelation (when a hobgoblin saved his life) and ever since, he has been more careful when dealing with them.

He is persuaded into duelling the enemy cleric personally- because he figures by doing this, he is not wasting the lives of his hobgoblin followers.

It is not like Redcloak is switching back and forth.

Well the 300-400 dead hobgoblins may want to say otherwise

[hamishspence]

Took place some time before Redcloak's revelation- so, a single change, not multiple back-and-forth changes.

[olthar]

the question of xykon or redcloak as the evilest comes down to the question of lawful vs chaotic evil as the eviler one. If chaotic good is the evilest, then it is xykon, if lawful, redcloak.


Also,

Xykon is out to rule the world.

Redcloak is out to remake the "natural" order of things, with the possibility of world and/or god destruction as a side effect.

(in relation to the immediate debate) If you ignore character growth then Belkar is just comically evil, elan is stupid and useless, and haley is a greedy rogue who cares only about gold.

[Kish]

the question of xykon or redcloak as the evilest comes down to the question of lawful vs chaotic evil as the eviler one.

My answer to all variations on that question is: Each covers a range, and neither is worse than the other one, or they would be Evil Lite and Evil Full. The Lawful/Chaotic axis is independent of the Good/Evil axis.


If chaotic good

I suspect a typo.