Do you think the state of Goblinkind will be resolved? (Likely SOD spoilers) [Archive]

Gift Jeraff

2010-01-27, 11:22 PM

Equality. Right.

Except that the goblins and Redcloak still worship gods of evil that require the blood sacrifice of the other humanoids.

So while it might not be entirely fair to categorize all goblins as the same, it's kind of hard to look down on humans killing gobbos when it isn't really a religious requirement for them to kill other species. Gobbos kill humans because they profit by it. Humans do the same . . . except they wouldn't need to if it weren't for the fact that the Gobbos would screw them over first.

As it is, Redcloak still conditionally wants all humans dead. He's not exactly a Martin Luther King Jr-type. Unless something changes that dramatically, I don't foresee a happy ending for the gobbos.
Whoever said Redcloak will lead them into equality? I imagine him dying and making his last words to Jirix or whoever being similar to Right-Eye's ideas that it's not a competition, that the Dark One only cares about petty revenge (all of the gods have been shown to be in the wrong), et cetera.

And it's never said he wanted all humans dead. He just wants "a level-playing field." He just happens to be a total hypocritical racist.

Querzis

2010-01-27, 11:22 PM

Except that the goblins and Redcloak still worship gods of evil that require the blood sacrifice of the other humanoids.

...no they dont. They worship the Dark One and we sure never saw anyone do sacrifice for him. I really dont know where you got that from.

So while it might not be entirely fair to categorize all goblins as the same, it's kind of hard to look down on humans killing gobbos when it isn't really a religious requirement for them to kill other species. Gobbos kill humans because they profit by it. Humans do the same . . . except they wouldn't need to if it weren't for the fact that the Gobbos would screw them over first.

...What the hell? Did you even read SoD? The goblins didnt start it! And the goblins at least have the decency to take prisonners, unlike the humans.

As it is, Redcloak still conditionally wants all humans dead. Unless something changes that dramatically, I don't foresee a happy ending for the gobbos.

I agree with you about Redcloak, hes a delusional hypocrite. While Right-eye was more wise and peaceful then any human we saw in SoD by the end of the book. I dont get why you're judging all the goblins on Redcloak, none of them seems to even know about the Snarl and the Plan (except maybe Jirix).

VampireRot

2010-01-27, 11:23 PM

Equality. Right.

Except that the goblins and Redcloak still worship gods of evil that require the blood sacrifice of the other humanoids.

So while it might not be entirely fair to categorize all goblins as the same, it's kind of hard to look down on survivalism when your tribe doesn't really go out of its way to make the killing/suffering of the other tribe a religious requirement.

As it is, Redcloak still conditionally wants all humans dead. Unless something changes that dramatically, I don't foresee a happy ending for the gobbos.

Since when is going out of your way to make the killing/suffering of the other tribe a requirement to worship The Dark One? Sure, hes an evil god, but does that automatically mean that sacrifice (virgin or not) is required? No, the only things we know about The Dark One's religion is that it's (technically) evil, he advises goblins to stay away from humans (as they are a morally bankrupt race), and that his plan is to make goblinoids equal to humanoids by threatening gods with the Snarl.

And no, Redcloak does not want all humans dead. He spares the lives of captured Azurites, as slaves of course, but its still more merciful than death. And, he does not have it in him to throw the group of slaves into the rift for the Snarl to unmake during the O-Chul torture secession.

EDIT: NINJAS! But I'll leave it anyway. I like ranting.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-27, 11:29 PM

Since when is going out of your way to make the killing/suffering of the other tribe a requirement to worship The Dark One? Sure, hes an evil god, but does that automatically mean that sacrifice (virgin or not) is required? No, the only things we know about The Dark One's religion is that it's (technically) evil, he advises goblins to stay away from humans (as they are a morally bankrupt race), and that his plan is to make goblinoids equal to humanoids by threatening gods with the Snarl.
Because the gods are real and give actual power for meeting said requirements for worshipping them.

Seriously, there's a comic about a goblin cleric saying that his son should drink the blood of the innocent and that he should like it. That isn't simply a point of killing a race simply because they might pose a threat to your own, but because it's culturally acceptable for them to do so.

Nearly all gobbos merely see being "evil" as a cultural thing. The whole point is to screw over the other races in the most over-the-top ways. (It is funny to whip the slaves. Or there is a definite advantage in betraying good adventurers in order to get a letter of recommendation to Evil colleges.)

And no, Redcloak does not want all humans dead. He spares the lives of captured Azurites, as slaves of course, but its still more merciful than death. And, he does not have it in him to throw the group of slaves into the rift for the Snarl to unmake during the O-Chul torture secession.
As in, he'll keep around enough slaves to use them as little more than cattle.

There's little leeway in saying that he wants anything short of genocide. As O-Chul points out that being ruled goblins would only offer the "comfort of the graves," Redcloak wholeheartedly agrees.

He essentially wants a world where gobbos are perfectly justified in using all other species as slaves/cattle. The rest that don't fulfill these functions are unnecessary and will be killed.

VampireRot

2010-01-27, 11:42 PM

Because the gods are real and give actual power for meeting said requirements for worshipping them.

Seriously, there's a comic about a goblin cleric saying that his son should drink the blood of the innocent and that he should like it.

Many more gobbos merely see being "evil" as a cultural thing. The whole point is to screw over the other races in the most over-the-top ways.

As in, he'll keep around enough slaves to use them as little more than cattle.

There's little leeway in saying that he wants anything short of genocide. As O-Chul points out that being ruled goblins would only offer the "comfort of the graves," Redcloak wholeheartedly agrees.

He essentially wants a world where gobbos are perfectly justified in using all other species as slaves/cattle. The rest that don't fulfill these functions are unnecessary and will be killed.

The blood-drinking part? A gag. :smallbiggrin: Meant to make fun of the stereotyped "Always Chaotic Evil" goblins. Which they are, as the whipping of elderly slaves shows. But what I meant was that, yes, you technically must be evil to worship the Dark One. In the OotSverse, just being a goblinoid makes you "evil", but doesn't mean you're going around sacrificing people.

For example (SoD spoilers): Right-eye's village. They don't seem to be very evil, yet they still worship the Dark One. Because along with being an evil god, he is the goblin god, and he has goblinkinds best interests in mind.

And it wasn't genocide that put Azure City in its position, it was war. To gain control of the gate, so the Dark One could negotiate for Goblin Equality using the Snarl as a bargaining chip, as that is The Plan. Not "World Domination", though Redcloak does not seem to have a problem with that either.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-27, 11:49 PM

The blood-drinking part? A gag. :smallbiggrin: Meant to make fun of the stereotyped "Always Chaotic Evil" goblins. Which they are, as the whipping of elderly slaves shows. But what I meant was that, yes, you technically must be evil to worship the Dark One. In the OotSverse, just being a goblinoid makes you "evil", but doesn't mean you're going around sacrificing people.
No, it pretty much does, since every mook we've seen does it pretty much to profit at the expense of others. Just because. The only exception being the hydra-cooking gobbo.

The point of OotS is that the stereotypes are literally true.

For example (SoD spoilers): Right-eye's village. They don't seem to be very evil, yet they still worship the Dark One. Because along with being an evil god, he is the goblin god, and he has goblinkinds best interests in mind.
Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction.

And it wasn't genocide that put Azure City in its position, it was war. To gain control of the gate, so the Dark One could negotiate for Goblin Equality using the Snarl as a bargaining chip, as that is The Plan. Not "World Domination", though Redcloak does not seem to have a problem with that either.
War is a means to an end. Redcloak seems to want genocide. So it is disturbing enough that he equates genocide as a solution to the "human problem."

VampireRot

2010-01-27, 11:55 PM

No, it pretty much does, since every mook we've seen does it pretty much to profit at the expense of others. Just because. The only exception being the hydra-cooking gobbo.

The point of OotS is that the stereotypes are literally true.

Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction.

War is a means to an end. Redcloak seems to want genocide. So it is disturbing enough that he equates genocide as a solution to the "human problem."

You should read SoD, its a good story and it really fleshes out Redcloak and the Dark One's plan a lot. :smallwink:

And genocide is a solution. Not the one they're using, which is to "convince" the gods to change reality around a bit to give goblinoids a level playing field with humanoids. Since you haven't read SoD, I should tell you in the OotSverse the goblinoids were literally created as XP fodder for clerics, druids, and paladins, and the evil alignment was given so there were no moral qualms about XP-driven genocide.

Mystic Muse

2010-01-27, 11:58 PM

Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction.

No contradiction here. The Dark one is pretty much the only one willing to represent goblins due to the fact he is one. the gods originally created the goblins as xp fodder for their clerics. They also made them evil so that their clerics and Paladin's didn't have to worry about changing alignments.

Querzis

2010-01-28, 12:02 AM

No, it pretty much does, since every mook we've seen does it pretty much to profit at the expense of others. Just because. The only exception being the hydra-cooking gobbo.

The point of OotS is that the stereotypes are literally true.

No they arent. Rich usually go out of his way to make stereotypes false.

Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction.

Yeah so that doesnt surprise me. I dont even know why you're posting in a thread that has «likely SoD spoilers» in the title though. Firstly, no the goblins didnt start it. The gods did. Thats why the Dark One (when he became a god, since in case you dont know, the Dark One was a normal goblin who became a god...after he was assassinated during peaceful negociation attempt with the humans nations) and Redcloak are so pissed of actually. And secondly, even Redcloak is treating humans better then the humans did to the goblins in SoD. Once again, the goblins at least have the decency to take prisonner and not kill civilians.

War is a means to an end. Redcloak seems to want genocide. So it is disturbing enough that he equates genocide as a solution to the "human problem."

No its not. Redcloak coudnt care less if humans lives, he took revenge on the Sapphire guards (for obvious reason if you read SoD) but he sure doesnt kill defenseless humans. All he want is that goblins become equal to humans. Now everything he did for that goal is what make him a delusional hypocrite but his goal sure never was the genocide of the human species.

Cisturn

2010-01-28, 01:18 AM

Redcloak is one of my favorite characters but i think both sides are going a little overboard. RC wanted revenge on the Sapphire Guard, which he got, but i don't think that equates to humans in general. I think the big difference is between disliking humans and wanting to see every last one of them die. In the end I think Redcloak while probably not actively looking to commit genocide against us, probably if there were no other alternatives.

LuisDantas

2010-01-28, 03:45 AM

While I disagree that Goblinkind is inherently evil in any way, shape or form, even if I agreed it would be simple enough to have that changed until the end of the strip.

After all, this is a world where the gods are both real and quite accessible. And the main plot is about the fight against a creature capable of completely undoing gods which seems to also have access to a whole world inside it.

Having goblins and hobgoblins switch deities is not at all outside the realm of possibilities. Having them seeking refuge in another world isn't, either. Heck, having the Dark One become wiser and more compassionate is quite possible as well.

Ancalagon

2010-01-28, 06:05 AM

TriForce

2010-01-28, 07:38 AM

the entire goblin race is rich his way of messing up our perception of the alignments in both the oots and dnd in general, and as everyone can see, hes doing a damn good job at it :smallbiggrin: the main point you need to consider is that RC backstory is prettty detailed, and its pretty clear hes not a stereotype "kill em all" villain. he has real motivation and reasoning behind his action, and i havent seen one strip where he randomly kills humans ( he did kill random gobbo's tough, but i blame xykons influence) so dont the goblins here are like the ones in most other stories you see them, these really can live peacefully if left alone ( altough they dont always do ofc, but you could say the same for humans)

Ancalagon

2010-01-28, 07:48 AM

( he did kill random gobbo's tough, but i blame xykons influence)

SoD makes PRETTY clear that all those death's go on Redcloak's account. He cannot blame Xykon for it. Xykon had his hand (first with flesh, then without around bones) in it, but Redcloak is the one who is to blame.
And the current comic (701) makes pretty clear he still evades that thought.

TriForce

2010-01-28, 07:56 AM

oh im not contesting RC's to blame for those deaths, im just stating i think he did so for a good part becouse he has been hanging out with xykon too much

Ancalagon

2010-01-28, 08:00 AM

oh im not contesting RC's to blame for those deaths, im just stating i think he did so for a good part becouse he has been hanging out with xykon too much

Of course. And why did he hang out with Xykon? And did he knew that "hanging out" with Xykon was bad? And he, constantly, made it worse and worse and worse.

I think he's to blame for the goblin deaths. And, even worse, he - and no one else is to blame for Xykon. Without Redcloak, that evil mage would have died a long time ago but Redcloak made him immortal, he made him more powerful, he gave him the knowledge to threaten existence itself... and it all was clear at every stage that Xykon is a bad, bad man.

Redcloak is the guy to blame. And after the first few years, there are no excuses anymore that are in any way "valid" enough to ease anything for and about Redcloak.

LuisDantas

2010-01-28, 08:20 AM

The interesting thing is that the most happy ending would create a new problem for the gods (and their clerics, druids etc)... the goblins were made for a reason so if that reason goes away... the gods need a new solution.
Don't tell me that won't create new headaches!

I fail to follow you. Perhaps because I think of the whole alignment system as unnecessary at best.

Why would it be a problem if the goblins had a happy ending?

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 08:21 AM

It will be resolved, but at this point only Rich knows exactly how.

The interesting thing is that the most happy ending would create a new problem for the gods (and their clerics, druids etc)... the goblins were made for a reason so if that reason goes away... the gods need a new solution.
Don't tell me that won't create new headaches!

Well, making a "fodder race" wasn't the gods' main mistake. Their main mistake was making those races sentient.

The "headache" could be solved if they put the evil clerics to work animating weak undead for the other clerics to fight, it would solve both problems. Zombies/Skeletons/Ghouls are renewable, lack sentience, and are low CR - thus giving clerics a boost to the mid levels where they can take on hags, ogres and such.

A mid-high level cleric can easily afford the exp and gp to create a dozen CR 1 zombies and skeletons. He can then replace his loss by slaying a chimera, or something. It's a perpetual motion machine.

I fail to follow you. Perhaps because I think of the whole alignment system as unnecessary at best.

Why would it be a problem if the goblins had a happy ending?

I think what he was getting at was that we would still need creatures at the bottom of the totem pole for starting adventurers to take on. (The rest of my post addressed this issue.)

Super_slash2

2010-01-28, 08:22 AM

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 08:27 AM

I too, think that Redcloak getting to talk to Roy would be a pivotal moment in the strip. Just being exposed to an LG Human that isn't (a) a fanatical murdering paladin and (b) actually cares about lesser races, could give Redcloak some much-needed perspective.

I think we'll have to wait on such a meeting for quite a while, though.

MReav

2010-01-28, 08:41 AM

Equality. Right.

Except that the goblins and Redcloak still worship gods of evil that require the blood sacrifice of the other humanoids.

No, there are goblins who worship demons who require blood sacrifice, and Redcloak is not one of them.

Morty

2010-01-28, 09:09 AM

Reactions of the whole Order to Redcloak's story are going to be interesting. Roy's likely to be sympathetic to the goblins, if not for Redcloak himself. I'd say V would be apalled at the prospect of making lowly goblinoids equal to elves, but after the Splice, I'm not so sure. Durkon will certainly reject the very idea that Thor might have done something wrong. Belkar won't care provided he's still alive when/if the Order talks to Redcloak and I'm not sure about Elan and Haley

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 09:16 AM

Elan will likely be sympathetic - after all, he wasn't "speciesist" vs. the orcs, and is likely to be even more accepting of the other races after having met Therkla.

Haley is a bit more difficult to pin down. She strikes me as the kind of person to see the value in having a fodder race. After all, rogues need low level opponents too, to get better at picking locks through violence. :smalltongue:

factotum

2010-01-28, 10:49 AM

Of course, one wonders how the humanoids levelled up themselves--killing humans as fodder? :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 10:58 AM

Of course, one wonders how the humanoids levelled up themselves--killing humans as fodder? :smallbiggrin:

Not at all - they stayed at low levels, therefore remaining stepping stones for adventurers to leave their entry levels (reaching 4-7ish.)

At this point, the actual, nonsentient monsters can take over the exp requirements - e.g. Daigo and Kazumi, able to hit level 6 by fighting scrags.

The goblins, kobolds etc. primarily occupy the CR 1-3 range.

SaintRidley

2010-01-28, 11:02 AM

I'm thinking that if Belkar dies soon, we may end up seeing him replaced by someone.

Maybe Redcloak's niece took to adventuring. That would certainly make for an interesting new group dynamic.

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 11:18 AM

Conuly

2010-01-28, 12:24 PM

Maybe Redcloak's niece took to adventuring. That would certainly make for an interesting new group dynamic.

It's only been three years and change - maybe as many as four years since we met RightEye's family in SoD. She was a little kid then. How old could she be yet, honestly? I know goblins age faster, but not THAT much faster, surely?

SaintRidley

2010-01-28, 12:29 PM

It's only been three years and change - maybe as many as four years since we met RightEye's family in SoD. She was a little kid then. How old could she be yet, honestly? I know goblins age faster, but not THAT much faster, surely?

Was she? I don't have my copy of SoD on me. I'll definitely want to take a look though. Because it could well be possible she was at the cusp of the age where she would get taller (from kid size to adult size).

SoC175

2010-01-28, 12:42 PM

Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction. Well, you should really do it. Short summary: Everything you wrote about goblins is exactly the opposite of how it really is

Why would it be a problem if the goblins had a happy ending?
Because the deities would need to create new cannon fodder for their clerics

I'd assume he'd have SOME say in things, given how his team saved the world and all. I don't think that the gods would listen to a puny mortal. "Saved the world? Nice for you, now be gone and never forget to be gratefull that we deities allowed you little insects the chance to save your world, rather than simply unmaking all of you and creating a new world to lord over for us"

Ancalagon

2010-01-28, 02:25 PM

I fail to follow you. Perhaps because I think of the whole alignment system as unnecessary at best.

Why would it be a problem if the goblins had a happy ending?

You don't follow because you think I talked about alignments while I did not.
You also did not get that my "new" and "interesting" problem has nothing to do with the ending for the goblins (happy or not). In fact, I think it would be great if the Goblins had a happy ending.

Optimysik, given the history on screwups by the OotS-gods, how likely is it they will come up with a "good" solution after the goblins are not cannon-fodder anymore...? ;)

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 02:45 PM

Optimysik, given the history on screwups by the OotS-gods, how likely is it they will come up with a "good" solution after the goblins are not cannon-fodder anymore...? ;)

The chances that the goblins' situation will remain unchanged is effectively zero, as that would make for a highly unsatisfying story. The exact solution, however, exists only in Rich's head. (For now, at least.)

I agree with you though, that the gods of this world can't come up with such a solution on their own - they are far too childish.

Ancalagon

2010-01-28, 02:54 PM

Actually, I think it would be a very interesting thing if the Goblins get a plain, undisputed Happy Ending - in this case Redcloak would have all the proof that "it is all for a good cause" he ever needed. How... hmm... I lack the proper word... interesting? strange? even plainly *wrong*? would that be?

Morty

2010-01-28, 04:13 PM

Optimystik

2010-01-28, 04:19 PM

The goblins' happy ending doesn't have to be brought about by Redcloak. Someone else accomplishing what he's been trying to accomplish all along only without so many catastrophes along the way might open his eyes.

Some would argue, though, that any future success they experience would not have been possible without his atrocities to pave the way.

Unless of course, that someone is Right-Eye's daughter - which would mean the opposite, that settling down to start a family and giving up the Plan had the greatest benefit for the goblin people.

It will be interesting to see which (if either) the Giant chooses.

AceOfFools

2010-01-28, 06:41 PM

...
The "headache" could be solved if they put the evil clerics to work animating weak undead for the other clerics to fight, it would solve both problems. Zombies/Skeletons/Ghouls are renewable, lack sentience, and are low CR - thus giving clerics a boost to the mid levels where they can take on hags, ogres and such.

...

I think what he was getting at was that we would still need creatures at the bottom of the totem pole for starting adventurers to take on. (The rest of my post addressed this issue.)

So you're solution is to turn every (or at least a lot) of dead people into a grinder so they systematically hacked to bits?

...That's a horrible solution on several levels. Just think about how many people are going to object when their beloved grandmother is taken out, turned into a puppet and then violently destroyed?

On the subject on non-sentient low level challenges there are dire rats (one of my favorites), and giant vermin (literally mindless) that top out at around CR 5ish. Now magnify them up to the levels where cultures can go out to vanquish them by the dozen to get to level 5-7ish, and you're still in a terrible world where if you're not careful you'll be eaten by a giant soldier ants defending the giant worker ants that are stealing your food.

The real problem was the creation of a world that runs on gaming logic. Remember the reason they needed clerics to reach high level was because they needed to fight the interesting monsters the gods had created.

Think about that for a moment. The gods created humans so they could get a kick out of them figure out how to destroy other thinking, feeling creatures they created.

...

And now I've made myself sad.

Pyron

2010-01-28, 07:29 PM

It's only been three years and change - maybe as many as four years since we met RightEye's family in SoD. She was a little kid then. How old could she be yet, honestly? I know goblins age faster, but not THAT much faster, surely?

SOD Spoilers
Right eye was only a kid when the paladins attacked the Goblin Hills. Four years later he's in the swamp ready to sneak attack Azurites.

So, it's possible for his niece be an adventurer at this time.

Ron Miel

2010-01-28, 08:18 PM

There's a happy ending that I can see.

The world inside the rift is a paradise, currently unpopulated, and flowing with milk and honey. The land is ripe for a race to build farms and towns and live in peace. Redcloak will lead his people to the gates of the promised land, but he will never enter it himself. The goblins shall turn away from the Dark One, and good aligned under the guidance of The Snarl.

Ronan

2010-01-28, 08:28 PM

I rather not think about it. Rich has a way of doing OotS in a "quality first" way. I started reading at #400, 402 at max. I believe the end is going to be happy for Elan and Haley(romantic thing) and not all would be resolved, but probably most will. If it ends like it's going now, I'll surely like it. It will be good :smallsmile:. It better be :smalltongue:

isocum

2010-01-29, 01:53 AM

I'm thinking that if Belkar dies soon, we may end up seeing him replaced by someone.

Maybe Redcloak's niece took to adventuring. That would certainly make for an interesting new group dynamic.

i am actually expecting that redcloak will replace durkon. according to prophecies he will return to his homelands posthumously, and bring a great catasrophe. his homelands seems to be around the 5th gate.

my theory is that, during the final showdown on girards gate, redcloak will finally betray xykon, giving oots an edge to win. in that moment iifc will act and durkon and belkar will both die. durkon will be raised as an intelligent undead by xykon, and redcloak will join oots to fix his mess.

Lord_Drayakir

2010-01-29, 12:39 PM

Of course, one wonders how the humanoids levelled up themselves--killing humans as fodder? :smallbiggrin:

Well, not necessarily. Most of the more primitive races are prone to infighting. So, any orcs with PC or NPC classes could've just as easily gotten them from raiding other orc tribes.

hamishspence

2010-02-02, 11:10 AM

Some would argue, though, that any future success they experience would not have been possible without his atrocities to pave the way.

Unless of course, that someone is Right-Eye's daughter - which would mean the opposite, that settling down to start a family and giving up the Plan had the greatest benefit for the goblin people.

It will be interesting to see which (if either) the Giant chooses.

I wonder what role Right Eye's daughter will play, if any, in the strip?

She might turn up as a "human rights activist" now that Gobbotopia has been established.

Draconi Redfir

2010-02-02, 11:22 AM

It's only been three years and change - maybe as many as four years since we met RightEye's family in SoD. She was a little kid then. How old could she be yet, honestly? I know goblins age faster, but not THAT much faster, surely?

well, acording to this (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20090103.html) webcomic (wich is addmitidly not OOTS but still awsome)
goblins can reach full matureity at at least nine years old. although in that particuler scenario, they rach old age at around thirty.

hamishspence

2010-02-02, 11:27 AM

Optimystik

2010-02-02, 12:04 PM

So you're solution is to turn every (or at least a lot) of dead people into a grinder so they systematically hacked to bits?

...That's a horrible solution on several levels. Just think about how many people are going to object when their beloved grandmother is taken out, turned into a puppet and then violently destroyed?

Who said anything about grandmothers? You can animate undead that are far, far older than that.

You can also animate any low level adventurers that fail the challenge - they sign a waiver for their bodies to be used in that way if they fail, to be allowed to participate - thus granting consent.

And besides, it would be the clerics of the evil gods turning this into a business; they're evil anyway, so they don't have much to lose by being the ones to do this. Think the Golgari from M:TG's Ravnica setting - profitable and self-sustaining necromancy, for the good of all. (Until they run amok and kill everyone. :smallwink:)

On the subject on non-sentient low level challenges there are dire rats (one of my favorites), and giant vermin (literally mindless) that top out at around CR 5ish. Now magnify them up to the levels where cultures can go out to vanquish them by the dozen to get to level 5-7ish, and you're still in a terrible world where if you're not careful you'll be eaten by a giant soldier ants defending the giant worker ants that are stealing your food.

By basing this around animals, you run the risk of upsetting the ecosystem. Either you have so many vermin and rats that there's enough adults for every adventurer to prey on (wreaking havoc with whatever they need to feed on to sustain those numbers), or you have so few that they risk becoming extinct due to adventurer action, not solving the problem at all.

Undead have neither of these problems; the NEP is a limitless source of power for them, and skeletons and zombies don't need to feed.

The real problem was the creation of a world that runs on gaming logic. Remember the reason they needed clerics to reach high level was because they needed to fight the interesting monsters the gods had created.

Think about that for a moment. The gods created humans so they could get a kick out of them figure out how to destroy other thinking, feeling creatures they created.

The OotS gods did not have the wrong idea in making "bottom rung" races. The hags, ogres and what have you do not seem upset at their lot in life.

What they did do wrong, was making some of those races - goblins, kobolds, bugbears, orcs etc. - sentient.

I wonder what role Right Eye's daughter will play, if any, in the strip?

She might turn up as a "human rights activist" now that Gobbotopia has been established.

I predict that she
will succeed where her father and uncle failed. She is the only living goblin besides Redcloak to have seen both sides of the coin firsthand - the fruits of subtle integration, and the futility of interracial violence - plus, Right-Eye's comment about her possibly "being raised by humans" indicates that she'll have even more perspective into how goblins are seen by the others. (Not to mention, how little the Dark One is doing for their welfare.)

Draconi Redfir

2010-02-02, 01:21 PM

Races of Faerun gives 10 years old as the point that they are considered "full adult members of the tribe"

And also gives them the half-orc aging table.

Aside from that, there isn't an "official aging table" for the main goblin races in a 3.0-3.5 book. Though some of the splatbooks presenting other goblin races, have them- MMIV for Varags, Sandstorm for bhukas.

well i know of a table that says bugbears reach adulthood at 13, and old age at 40. admittedly i havent found one for goblins, but bugbears are a start right? :P

hamishspence

2010-02-02, 01:47 PM

The tricky part, is finding one in an officially published WoTC book, rather than a Third Party source.

Bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins, and the rhinoceros-headed Dekanter Goblins (Faerun-only) all use the half-orc aging table in Races of Faerun.

However, its possible that this "may not count" in other settings.

JonestheSpy

2010-02-02, 03:54 PM

I think it would work out..... if Roy actually talked to Red Cloak somewhere down the line.

In SoD, there's a situation where Roy is confronted with an Always-Evil Race and doesn't auto-kill them, instead choosing to give them what they want because he recognized their motives weren't evil.

Since here, Red Cloak's motives ARE evil (by alignment), I doubt Roy will forgive him (I'm not talking about should or could, just whether or not in my opinion it's likely). But he seems the kind of person who would at least understand their cause, even if he doesn't like what they're doing.

Hopefully, Roy does learn what happened to the goblins and helps fight for some equality when/if they win against The Snarl. I'd assume he'd have SOME say in things, given how his team saved the world and all. I can even see him arguing it's practical to not give goblins more reason to hate them all, as well as moral to try and give everyone a fair chance at things, then the goblins wouldn't need to resort to raiding and stuff.

I've been thinking exactly along these lines. And Redcloak obviously doesn't have it in for ALL humans - he's just been busy establishing diplomatic relations with them, relations that he knows are necessary for the success of his new nation. And I think at some point he's going to have to choose between the welfare of the goblin race and Xykon.

I can imagine some sort of treaty worked out - The goblins keep Azure City as weregild for all the innocent goblins killed by the Sapphire Guard, but release all the slaves and captives and vow to not engage in any such practices any more. The Azurites permanently settle the island - presumably their friends the elves would be okay with that, since they abandoned it themselves.

Super_slash2

2010-02-03, 10:30 AM

I don't think that the gods would listen to a puny mortal. "Saved the world? Nice for you, now be gone and never forget to be gratefull that we deities allowed you little insects the chance to save your world, rather than simply unmaking all of you and creating a new world to lord over for us"

I meant the remaining mortal leaders of the world, not The Gods.

I can imagine some sort of treaty worked out - The goblins keep Azure City as weregild for all the innocent goblins killed by the Sapphire Guard, but release all the slaves and captives and vow to not engage in any such practices any more. The Azurites permanently settle the island - presumably their friends the elves would be okay with that, since they abandoned it themselves.

The Azure City paladins wouldnt allow that. They're morally obliged to seek out and destroy evil wherever it lies and they'd probably feel the conquering goblin army needed to be stopped. If not for their future exploits and attempts at destroying the world, then at the very least for having taken over Azure City.

To be honest, I don't expect Goblinkind to have a happy ending. It just doesn't seem to mesh with the vibe I got from the story so far. Also, I don't think Haley would approve. She'd have seen firsthand the goblins' treatment of prisoners when she lead the rebellion. I doubt she'd be too supportive after seeing their practices.

Optimystik

2010-02-03, 10:34 AM

The Azure City paladins wouldnt allow that. They're morally obliged to seek out and destroy evil wherever it lies and they'd probably feel the conquering goblin army needed to be stopped. If not for their future exploits and attempts at destroying the world, then at the very least for having taken over Azure City.

The trouble with that is, there is no more Sapphire Guard. They are obligated to oppose Evil, but not necessarily in the same way as their forebears did. Hinjo is now free to write the remaining paladins (and any future ones) a brand new charter.

Not to mention that there are only a whopping 4 Azurite paladins remaining in the world.

JonestheSpy

2010-02-03, 01:27 PM

Also, there is the Roy factor mentioned above. If the Voice of Reason points out to Hinjo that the goblin nation just wants to exist peacefully and isn't doing anything any more evil than other countries, that they actually had a legitimate complaint against Azure city, and that it would be a huge effort that would cost thousands of more lives to reclaim the territory, I suspect the Azurites would drop it, albeit reluctantly.

Really, I think it boils down to how the goblins behave in the future.

Souhiro

2010-02-04, 03:58 AM

Hell... you forget something important:
GOBLINS, (And goblinoids) WERE CREATED TO MAKE HUMANOIDS EARN EASY XP.

In the end, Gobbotopia will be something like a place to go to adventurers, earn XP, and flee, much like the orc camps at MMRPGs

Asta Kask

2010-02-04, 04:46 AM

Also, there is the Roy factor mentioned above. If the Voice of Reason points out to Hinjo that the goblin nation just wants to exist peacefully and isn't doing anything any more evil than other countries, that they actually had a legitimate complaint against Azure city, and that it would be a huge effort that would cost thousands of more lives to reclaim the territory, I suspect the Azurites would drop it, albeit reluctantly.

I think you sadly overestimate the power of the Voice of Reason.

Manga Shoggoth

2010-02-04, 08:05 AM

I think you sadly overestimate the power of the Voice of Reason.

Well, Roy could always try "Summon Consience"

Thalnawr

2010-02-04, 10:55 AM

Well, Roy could always try "Summon Consience"
I believe he'd have to take a level of paladin for that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html).

Morthis

2010-02-04, 11:34 AM

Never read SoD. So anybody else is free to come along and point out an obvious contradiction.

This really sums it up. SoD really puts things in perspective a bit. It's hard to read SoD and not feel sorry for RC and the goblin race at first (your feelings for RC might change by the end of the book).

War is a means to an end. Redcloak seems to want genocide. So it is disturbing enough that he equates genocide as a solution to the "human problem."

Funny, if you read SoD you'd see the opposite is more likely true. The paladins slaughtered everybody, elderly, women, children, it didn't matter. If it had fanged teeth, it died. Show me where RC has shown that kind of ruthlessness towards the human race?

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 12:20 PM

The OotS gods did not have the wrong idea in making "bottom rung" races. The hags, ogres and what have you do not seem upset at their lot in life.

What they did do wrong, was making some of those races - goblins, kobolds, bugbears, orcs etc. - sentient.

That's the second time in this thread you've claimed that those races (hags, ogres and, earlier, scrags) were not sentient.

Whatever gives you that idea?

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 01:50 PM

That's the second time in this thread you've claimed that those races (hags, ogres and, earlier, scrags) were not sentient.

Whatever gives you that idea?

They, like undead, seem to have no choice as to their behavior toward other intelligent beings. Either that, or they are actively choosing to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0506.html) attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0143.html) travelers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html) who don't attack them first.

Either way, if that is what they are doing, they deserve to be preyed on.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 04:58 PM

They, like undead, seem to have no choice as to their behavior toward other intelligent beings. Either that, or they are actively choosing to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0506.html) attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0143.html) travelers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html) who don't attack them first.

Either way, if that is what they are doing, they deserve to be preyed on.

None of the linked comics supports a case for non-sentience. Heck, in each case they're capable of speech, to a greater of lesser extent. (Though admittedly the ogres wanting to watch Oprah does weaken my argument...)

But let's suppose you meant a conscience. Even then, there is not enough evidence to claim that these races differ in their outlook from goblins or kobolds in any significant way. The first book in particular is filled with examples of goblins attacking without provocation.

The difference is that we have been given a window into the motivations and situation of the goblins. But do not assume that the other races are irredeemable simply because we have not been given similar windows into their own histories and thought processes.

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 05:10 PM

None of the linked comics supports a case for non-sentience. Heck, in each case they're capable of speech, to a greater of lesser extent. (Though admittedly the ogres wanting to watch Oprah does weaken my argument...)

Ha, I see what you did there.

But sentience isn't very useful if they can't override their base urges. Its like calling fiends sentient - technically it's true - but you still can't reason with them, and should indeed cut them down at every opportunity.

Similarly, if monsters can think and speak, but still can't be reasoned with, they are fair game.

Perhaps sentient wasn't a wholly accurate term, but my point stands.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 05:31 PM

Perhaps sentient wasn't a wholly accurate term, but my point stands.

In the case of the fiends, perhaps. (I might contest that thought and the ability to make choices/control urges go hand-in-hand and that such an example doesn't or cannot exist... but that's an argument for another thread).

But I don't think evidence exists to paint ogres et al with the same brush. Judging an entire species on a few bad apples (whose motivation we're not privy to) seems to be in the same category as the Sapphire Guard's casual slaughtering of a goblin town, in my opinion.

hamishspence

2010-02-04, 05:35 PM

Also- weren't the aquatic trolls charmed by Qaar?

Zxo

2010-02-04, 05:50 PM

The first book in particular is filled with examples of goblins attacking without provocation.

Xykon has given them clear orders to attack intruders. Even if they were serving him unwillingly (SoD) this is a very good reason, as it would be suicide to refuse.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 05:53 PM

Xykon has given them clear orders to attack intruders. Even if they were serving him unwillingly (SoD) this is a very good reason, as it would be suicide to refuse.

Again, we know that because we've been afforded a look into their world. Lacking that perspective, we might conclude that they're no better than ogres and deserve to be "put down."

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 05:57 PM

But I don't think evidence exists to paint ogres et al with the same brush. Judging an entire species on a few bad apples (whose motivation we're not privy to) seems to be in the same category as the Sapphire Guard's casual slaughtering of a goblin town, in my opinion.

The difference is clear - we've seen good Goblins (and indeed, Goblins left to their own devices - not being conscripted by Liches, that is - keep to themselves.)

When I see good Ogres, I'll revise my opinion.

Also- weren't the aquatic trolls charmed by Qaar?

I'm not sure if the Scrags were included in that number. None of them seemed Charmed, nor is it likely he charmed them all. Maybe their leader?

Again, we know that because we've been afforded a look into their world. Lacking that perspective, we might conclude that they're no better than ogres and deserve to be "put down."

We got a look into the Ogres' world too. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html)

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 06:03 PM

We got a look into the Ogres' world too. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html)

Sitting around eating and sleeping. Very menacing indeed! :)

When I see good Ogres, I'll revise my opinion.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

silversaraph

2010-02-04, 06:07 PM

Have we ever seen a bugbear in-comic?

Gift Jeraff

2010-02-04, 06:18 PM

It's also worth noting that all of the aquatic humanoids (and humanoid-like) races that attacked the Azurite fleet were charmed into doing so by Qarr.

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 06:23 PM

Sitting around eating and sleeping. Very menacing indeed! :)

I'm sure the dirt farmers found them as benign as you do.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but it is an absence of evidence for your POV.

Have we ever seen a bugbear in-comic?

There is one in the crayon segment of SoD. None online yet.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 06:29 PM

I'm sure the dirt farmers found them as benign as you do.

The old man found them more benign than his wife. Should we stick a sword in her too?

No, but it is an absence of evidence for your POV.

An absence of evidence is an absence of evidence -- for BOTH our POVs. All I'm saying is that not enough evidence exists to make the call.

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 06:35 PM

The old man found them more benign than his wife. Should we stick a sword in her too?

No, he simply found their company less onerous. They still weren't keeping him around to play Parcheesi.

Also, my POV does have evidence; you're merely saying it isn't conclusive.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 06:50 PM

Also, my POV does have evidence; you're merely saying it isn't conclusive.

Yes, that's what I'm attempting to say. You certainly have evidence, I just don't believe it to be sufficient evidence to condemn entire species.

Heck, taking just the first 100 strips, one might conclude that all halflings are three foot tall murder machines.

Basically, monsters-are-people-too is a recurring theme in OOTS, and I think it would be inconsistent to say that applies to one group and not another.

Optimystik

2010-02-04, 07:50 PM

Yes, that's what I'm attempting to say. You certainly have evidence, I just don't believe it to be sufficient evidence to condemn entire species.

Heck, taking just the first 100 strips, one might conclude that all halflings are three foot tall murder machines.

We're at a bit of an impasse. Your claim is unfalsifiable - no amount of brutish ogres Rich depicts in the comic will ever prove there are ones that aren't.

In any event, your 100 strips were pre-Cerberus. Belkar made it abundantly clear he was unique among his kind not long after, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) once the comic did begin considering moral issues.

Basically, monsters-are-people-too is a recurring theme in OOTS, and I think it would be inconsistent to say that applies to one group and not another.

It has to apply to some groups and not others. Without genuine monsters, who will the adventurers fight? It's still a D&D world. That is why I said the gods had the right idea, but extremely poor execution.

Draconi Redfir

2010-02-04, 08:12 PM

Have we ever seen a bugbear in-comic?

no, but heres my (interpritaition) of what a red-fured bugbear with no shirt on would look like. (please note that it is male, and it has no shirt on as it was origunally made for the fanservice thread :smallbiggrin:

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6145/jaxionredfiroots.jpg

Inany event, your 100 strips were pre-Cerberus. Belkar made it abundantly clear he was unique among his kind not long after, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) once the comic did begin considering moral issues.

ummm... you know its 100% possible he made all that stuff up right? i mean, V never did drugs after all.

Timberboar

2010-02-04, 08:18 PM

It has to apply to some groups and not others. Without genuine monsters, who will the adventurers fight? It's still a D&D world. That is why I said the gods had the right idea, but extremely poor execution.

No, it really doesn't have to.

Part of the theme I mentioned above is that individuals should be judged ... well, individually.

So the ogres kidnapped a dirtfarmer. Is that better than the human bandits that ambushed the party?

Is the hag more of a monster than Miko?

Is the ABD worse than Belkar, even?

There's plenty of evil to fight just within humanity itself, if need be. Take, for example, Xykon.

Adventurers have plenty to kill without falling into the two-dimensional storytelling crutch of "they're all bad." When asked about his regrets, Tolkein mentioned that he always felt that making the orcs evil without exception was one of his failings. And I agree.

This conversation is drifting dangerously close to familicide territory, though. If memory serves, you came down on the opposite side in regards to that spell, which begs the question "Why is it wrong to commit genocide against black dragons, but not against ogres?"

Gift Jeraff

2010-02-04, 08:23 PM

Draconi Redfir

2010-02-04, 08:50 PM

Shouldn't a bugbear look like this (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1168175618054506763cZKJpp)? :smallconfused:

But, in all seriousness, I wonder, if we ever see a bugbear in the online comic, if their appearance would be different from SoD. Eyes with the same exact colour as the skin look kinda awkward.

dude thats awsome :P

if a bugbear or two COULD be put in the comic, it would deffinetly be great IMO. i allready know of one webcomic with bugbears in it, and i suspect some unnamed monsters in another webcomic might be bugbears. if i could get a third webcomic showing what bugbears usually look like, i think i could really get an idea what my bugbear charicters would look like.

right now im just look at them as big, red, hairy bigfoots.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-02-07, 12:27 AM

Having read the "Moral Relativism in OotS," I've gotten very little in the summary from of SoD to actually change my opinion.

As much as I hate the phrase "moral relativism," the OP's point and my point appear to remain valid.

While all of you are fixating on the literal "blood sacrifice" thing, it still doesn't change my basic point. Goblins are still too willing to kill everybody else to get ahead. Blood sacrifices are just the outward symbol of that.

The goblins are still lead by a speciest who actively encourages the slavery and torturing said-slaves because it's funny. They're not whipping them merely to make them move fast but because it is amusing. And Redcloak himself has ridden his way to success on the back of many unforgivable mistakes that cross the line from justice to petty vengeance (he DID kill a whole bunch of hobgoblins over a petty prejudice). AND he's still taking an unnecessary risk with the Snarl when he already has a homeland drawn-out on the map.

Ironically, he's blaming the Sapphire Guard for risking world-destruction over what he deems to be an unjust racial quarrel, while he seems to think *his* side is entitled to take that risk. Double standard much? That same conversation with O-Chul pretty much shows that he thinks genocide is okay as long as goblins do it, but not when humans do it. He pretty much forfeits the moral high ground there.

His plan explicitly requires the death of most, if not all, other species. That's what he wants the Snarl's power for. O-Chul guesses as much and Redcloak confirms his accusation. He has his goblin homeland, but it's still not enough. He's out for world conquest and he plans on crushing anything that stands in his way.

In the long-run, I don't see it ending well for the goblin state unless Redcloak dies, his attitude changes or the goblins decide to break from his example. I don't really care if Redcloak has believable or symphathizeable motives or not. He's the villain. Elan would pretty much point out that poetic justice isn't on his side, unless something major happens to change that. (A Darth Vader redeemed moment.)

"But you haven't read SoD!" Apparently I didn't need to. Redcloak is an ass. SoD just explains how he got to be one, but it doesn't change that, in plain evidence, he's willing to screw over #2 for the emotional gratification of #1. I'm really miffed that nobody bothered to actually explain why I was basically wrong and instead was given an argument from authority and shouted down.

View accompanying hand gesture.

Zevox

2010-02-07, 01:01 AM

His plan explicitly requires the death of most, if not all, other species. That's what he wants the Snarl's power for. O-Chul guesses as much and Redcloak confirms his accusation. He has his goblin homeland, but it's still not enough. He's out for world conquest and he plans on crushing anything that stands in his way.
I'm afraid you've been badly misinformed if you believe that.
The PlanTM does not require the death of anything. It is simple: Redcloak will use the ritual imparted to him by the Crimson Mantle to acquire control of one of the gates ("control" meaning he can shift its position magically or open/close it at will). This control will then be transferred to the Dark One. The Dark One will then use it to threaten the other gods, forcing them to treat Goblins more fairly, giving them an equal chance in the world with Humans and the like. The threat will be that if they do not, he will shift the gate to their home planes and open it, allowing the Snarl to unmake them, until those that survive do agree.

Assuming the gods agree to his request right away, none of them would perish. Certainly this would not destroy any mortals. The only way that would happen is if something goes terribly wrong with the ritual and the Snarl is released accidentally.

Also, Redcloak has never given any indication he has any desire for world conquest. That's Xykon's goal. Redcloak's goal is The PlanTM. The fact that they don't share goals - and indeed that Xykon is completely deluded in believing that Redcloak's plan will bring about his goal - is why Redcloak alludes to them not really being on the same side.
Zevox

Conuly

2010-02-07, 01:02 AM

I thought it was hobgoblin who advocated torturing the slaves. Redcloak wasn't there for that conversation, was he?

Nimrod's Son

2010-02-07, 02:26 AM

His plan explicitly requires the death of most, if not all, other species.
As a general rule of thumb, talking about what "explicitly" happens in a book you've never read is a bad idea. :smallwink:

"But you haven't read SoD!" Apparently I didn't need to.
I politely beg to differ. Redcloak is indeed an ass, but not for the reasons you state.

Optimystik

2010-02-07, 10:22 AM

No, it really doesn't have to.

Part of the theme I mentioned above is that individuals should be judged ... well, individually.

So the ogres kidnapped a dirtfarmer. Is that better than the human bandits that ambushed the party?

Is the hag more of a monster than Miko?

Is the ABD worse than Belkar, even?

There's plenty of evil to fight just within humanity itself, if need be. Take, for example, Xykon.

Do you see the common thread in your examples?

ALL of them are high-level (except the bandits, who were made dangerous by their high-level leadership.) How did they get to be the threats that they are?

There may be evil within humanity, but it tends to stay hidden until it can pose a threat - which it does by gaining levels. How are they to do that without monsters?

Adventurers have plenty to kill without falling into the two-dimensional storytelling crutch of "they're all bad." When asked about his regrets, Tolkein mentioned that he always felt that making the orcs evil without exception was one of his failings. And I agree.

Tolkien was building a fantasy storybook world, not a fantasy game world. In a story, the inhabitants can quite happily live in peace for eons upon eons without problems. In a game world, there needs to be conflict, and some of it needs to be brutish and unreasonable. There need to be creatures that want nothing more than to slaughter us all, to give us a reason to band together.

Every edition and campaign setting in Dungeons & Dragons has such creatures, and it has them across all levels. From hungry trolls to undead, games need monsters, and they can't all be sympathetic. How can you be a hero, without villains?

This conversation is drifting dangerously close to familicide territory, though. If memory serves, you came down on the opposite side in regards to that spell, which begs the question "Why is it wrong to commit genocide against black dragons, but not against ogres?"

Who said anything about genocide? I'm only proposing that the ones that attack travelers be killed. If none of them attack travelers, then obviously they should be left alone - but it's in their nature, so they will.

Similarly, any black dragon that attacks humanoids should be killed as well. My problem with familicide was that it targeted dragons that couldn't possible have done anything yet (eggs, young) and ones we couldn't be sure about. The one that was menacing the two adventurers, for instance, I had no problem with dying. The morality of the half-dragon sorcerer's death depends on what spell he was about to cast.

PallElendro

2010-02-07, 10:44 AM

Probably, resolved. Except then, the gods'll have to get some fishy resources out. The world is 3.5, right? Perhaps, if the gods see that level-playing field, they'll shape a new world, where people get to wake up early, and where fighters can have a higher chance at better few rolls [i.e, 4.0...] (4d6, ignore lowest roll), but since the 4.0 rules the gods read got the old races back, and classes, Xykon would probably be houseruled for wizard capabilities, and sorcerer aweomeness. Every race is in the Handbooks, 1 & 2, and some more to compete with. Why not have the Snarl have his prison still Gated, and the Order of the Stick, Linear Guild, and Team Evil have some field here, where they can be watched by an orc god, as mAjor streng7h!

Basically, I wouldn't know. Probably that the goblins have Azure City (Gobbotopia) as a sanctuary, how about "Borderlands", where one creatures out, it's free to kill. Gobbotopia is suffering huge inflation, as you can see, and the extra mini-cities don't cut it. Pretty soon, (Hob)Goblins will have too much population for a county, and will be forced to new regions, where goblin killz are legitimate under border crosses.

Joerg

2010-02-07, 02:01 PM

In a game world, there needs to be conflict, and some of it needs to be brutish and unreasonable. There need to be creatures that want nothing more than to slaughter us all, to give us a reason to band together.

Every edition and campaign setting in Dungeons & Dragons has such creatures, and it has them across all levels. From hungry trolls to undead, games need monsters, and they can't all be sympathetic. How can you be a hero, without villains?

Well, if you look at other role playing games apart from D&D, you'll see directly that this is not true. Indeed, I consider that good / evil labeling as a big failure in D&D.

In other RPGs and their worlds, there are also villains, and heroes can defeat them and their minions - even on low levels - but there is no need to say 'all orcs are Evil' or anything like that. It is enough to say e.g. 'these orcs want to conquer the human lands' or 'these robbers want to take your money'.

hamishspence

2010-02-07, 02:07 PM

In 3.5 especially, there has been a tendency to take an "evil beings are not necessarily deserving of death" approach. Plus "sometimes, the goals of a good being should be thwarted"

BoED (in some parts), the Eberron campaign setting, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil, etc.

The novels have also tended to move in that direction- sometimes, with the same author. R. A. Salvatore tended to portray orcs and goblins as monsters deserving only of death, in earlier books, but in more recent ones, like The Orc King, it's not so simple anymore.

Optimystik

2010-02-07, 02:13 PM

Well, if you look at other role playing games apart from D&D, you'll see directly that this is not true. Indeed, I consider that good / evil labeling as a big failure in D&D.

In other RPGs and their worlds, there are also villains, and heroes can defeat them and their minions - even on low levels - but there is no need to say 'all orcs are Evil' or anything like that. It is enough to say e.g. 'these orcs want to conquer the human lands' or 'these robbers want to take your money'.

I agree with you that racial alignments are bunk, but not that other roleplaying games are somehow more enlightened than D&D in addressing the issue. It's fine to say "THESE orcs are bad" but there have to be sufficient numbers of "these orcs" to sustain an adventuring population. If it's just scattered fringe groups, the game world becomes volatile.

Consider Warcraft - the majority of orcs are honorable and proud - but there are just enough really bad orcs (Blackrocks, Bleeding Hollows, Dragon Maws) that the players can go a-reaving without actually solving the problem in any permanent way.

In this way, they are saying "these orcs" while neatly skirting the issue of why the good orcs don't take a more active role in defending their reputation, and stamping out "these orcs" once and for all. Which is fine - if you kill all the monsters in the game, in what way is it still a game?

Joerg

2010-02-07, 04:02 PM

It's fine to say "THESE orcs are bad" but there have to be sufficient numbers of "these orcs" to sustain an adventuring population. If it's just scattered fringe groups, the game world becomes volatile.

How so? It seems you mean there must be a population of ''evil" orcs? But orcs could, morally, not be different from any other species. Then, ''evil" orcs which can be opponents for the heroes just rise out of a large "non-evil" population in the same way as human villains appear. Or, in a war scenario, the orcs could be defeated, but no human wants to spend the effort now to hunt them to extermination in their own lands.

Or do you mean only that there must be enough villains for the heroes? But that should not be a problem, there is always enough evil in any world.

In this way, they are saying "these orcs" while neatly skirting the issue of why the good orcs don't take a more active role in defending their reputation, and stamping out "these orcs" once and for all.

There is no difference to humans, is there? Just substitute ''orcs" with "blondes" :smallwink: If there are "these blondes", which do evil deeds, why don't the other blondes take a more active role in defending their reputation and stamping out "these blondes" once and for all?

Which is fine - if you kill all the monsters in the game, in what way is it still a game?

There can be enough villains which are not monsters. Take something like 7th sea, a campaign world which can work completely without monsters. Or do you equal villain with monster? In that case, see above.

Optimystik

2010-02-07, 11:56 PM

How so? It seems you mean there must be a population of ''evil" orcs? But orcs could, morally, not be different from any other species. Then, ''evil" orcs which can be opponents for the heroes just rise out of a large "non-evil" population in the same way as human villains appear. Or, in a war scenario, the orcs could be defeated, but no human wants to spend the effort now to hunt them to extermination in their own lands.

Or do you mean only that there must be enough villains for the heroes? But that should not be a problem, there is always enough evil in any world.

Enough evil in aggregate, yes - but without a population or organization, it would not be concentrated in any meaningful way.

Consider the Drow - what makes them dangerous is not their numbers; rather, it's the fact that they, as a species, are almost universally dedicated to being bastards. There are good ones, but they are few and far in between - moreso because their fellows expunge them for being soft.

In a world-context, their attitude is ridiculous, especially given how self-destructive it makes them as a species. But in a game, it ensures there's always something to fight. This is what the OotS gods have created - a game-world, not a story-world - which is why their system jars so sharply with an actual narrative.

There is no difference to humans, is there? Just substitute ''orcs" with "blondes" :smallwink: If there are "these blondes", which do evil deeds, why don't the other blondes take a more active role in defending their reputation and stamping out "these blondes" once and for all?

The difference between orcs and... blondes? (:smallconfused:)... in fantasy, is their leadership.

Savage races get one deity apiece. Kurtulmak. Gruumsh. Laduguer. These beings dictate policy for the entire species.

Blondes - and I'm assuming you mean "human blondes" there - are allowed a much wider array of outlooks than their savage brethren - and that is as true for OotS as it is for D&D.

There can be enough villains which are not monsters. Take something like 7th sea, a campaign world which can work completely without monsters. Or do you equal villain with monster? In that case, see above.

I've never played 7th Sea, but I know D&D. It needs monsters - villainous monsters, if you prefer - to work.

To feel heroic, you need villains to triumph over, and to prevent complications, it needs to be unreasoning Evil. Oh sure, you can have a Bane or Asmodeus here and there, complete with labyrinthine machinations, well-intentioned extremism, and shades of gray... but you also need the Shars and Cyrics that just want to laugh while the world burns.

hamishspence

2010-02-08, 03:41 AM

Optimystik

2010-02-08, 07:31 AM

Some of the "savage races" get a whole bunch of minor deities as well, even if those deities don't really set policy. Especially in Faerun- Grummsh has his wife Luthic, his son Baghrtu, his general Ilneval, and so on.

Laduguer also has Deep Duerra, an ascended duergar queen.

But the minor deities prove my point. What do Bahgtru, Ilneval, Yurtrus, Luthic, Shaargas and Gruumsh have in common? That's right - every single one is Evil. As is Deep Duerra.

The Drow have (had) Eilistraee at least, but her influence simply isn't strong enough to fluctuate the status quo.

And (at least according to Races of the Dragon) while Kurtulmak is the main kobold deity, they worship the dragon pantheon as well, especially Io.

"Kobolds worship Kurtulmak, but individual tribes and kobolds might venerate another dragon deity" is hardly a ringing endorsement for them as a race.

I'm glad you mentioned that book though - Kurtulmak's ascension story has a lot of parallels to that of the Dark One. Could this have been a source of inspiration for the Giant?

hamishspence

2010-02-08, 07:45 AM

Probably not- I think it was new to 3.5, and earlier editions didn't go into that much detail.

I could be wrong though.

Dragon Magazine gave its own origin story- with him being the son of Tiamat.
Still has Garl collapsing stuff on him- but its much less clear cut- the suggestion is that he created the most complex trap of all time, and while he was still in it, and had just completed it, Garl set it off.

Faiths & Pantheons cleric rules often ignore the one-step rule- and Luthic is a prime example. She's NE, but accepts CN and LN clerics.

Optimystik

2010-02-08, 07:48 AM

I wish they'd stuck with that one, instead of making Garl a bastard. :smallannoyed:

Then again, the story in RotD might be propaganda. A very interesting thought. (Gruumsh's eye comes to mind - gods spreading their own tales - could this be what the Dark One has done?)

That story (a colossal prank) does seem a lot more fitting with Garl's nature than spiteful jealousy.

hamishspence

2010-02-08, 07:53 AM

Gnomes in D&D do seem to get that treatment sometimes. Apparently (in the Revenant description in Monsters of Faerun) more revenants (revenge-seeking Neutral-aligned undead) come after gnomes, than anyone else.

On propaganda- its not impossible that The Dark One's interaction with the humans was not as polite as Redcloak depicts it.

More "we need some land- and by the way, I have a very big army sitting on your borders" than "we wish to share, not conquer"

Morthis

2010-02-08, 08:24 AM

The goblins are still lead by a speciest who actively encourages the slavery and torturing said-slaves because it's funny. They're not whipping them merely to make them move fast but because it is amusing. And Redcloak himself has ridden his way to success on the back of many unforgivable mistakes that cross the line from justice to petty vengeance (he DID kill a whole bunch of hobgoblins over a petty prejudice). AND he's still taking an unnecessary risk with the Snarl when he already has a homeland drawn-out on the map.

Allows slavery, we don't know anything about encouraging torture. I highly doubt he gave direct orders to goblin slave drivers to torture humans, rather the slave drivers find it amusing so they do it.

Ironically, he's blaming the Sapphire Guard for risking world-destruction over what he deems to be an unjust racial quarrel, while he seems to think *his* side is entitled to take that risk. Double standard much? That same conversation with O-Chul pretty much shows that he thinks genocide is okay as long as goblins do it, but not when humans do it. He pretty much forfeits the moral high ground there.

This is a very important character flaw for him and is illustrated some in SoD as well.

His plan explicitly requires the death of most, if not all, other species. That's what he wants the Snarl's power for. O-Chul guesses as much and Redcloak confirms his accusation. He has his goblin homeland, but it's still not enough. He's out for world conquest and he plans on crushing anything that stands in his way.

Except SoD explicitly contradicts everything you just said there. This is pretty much exactly why arguing this without having read SoD is so silly.

In the long-run, I don't see it ending well for the goblin state unless Redcloak dies, his attitude changes or the goblins decide to break from his example. I don't really care if Redcloak has believable or symphathizeable motives or not. He's the villain. Elan would pretty much point out that poetic justice isn't on his side, unless something major happens to change that. (A Darth Vader redeemed moment.)

Well this is about the state of goblinkind, not RC. Will RC have a happy ending? I doubt it, although I do picture some sort of Darth Vader redeeming moment as you said. It's entirely possible for RC to die and for goblinkind to become treated more equally.

"But you haven't read SoD!" Apparently I didn't need to. Redcloak is an ass. SoD just explains how he got to be one, but it doesn't change that, in plain evidence, he's willing to screw over #2 for the emotional gratification of #1. I'm really miffed that nobody bothered to actually explain why I was basically wrong and instead was given an argument from authority and shouted down.

Well, based on some of your assumptions, it's clear you don't fully know the events of SoD. You're asking us to tell you all that happened in SoD, but really to engage in a conversation regarding SoD events, you should know what happens.

That said, let me say this quickly.

SoD
Xykon is shown as evil from the get-go. He reanimates his grandma, he has her kill his parents, he takes joy in killing innocents. There is nothing sympathetic about his story, he's portrayed as an ******* from day 1.

RC is first shown celebrating with his village because he joined the clerics. His entire family is there when the paladins show up and begin killing. His mother is killed right in front of him, and the paladins very much treat the slaughter as a joke (joking about getting to use their great cleave feat). RC watches his entire village get slaughtered, including women/children/elderly who are all not fighting back. It ends with RC picking up his little brother (Right-Eye) and looking for his sister, only to watch a paladin impale her.

Now RC's flaws begin to show up after this. Certainly he does a lot of messed up things in SoD, and the ending is especially bad. By the end, many people probably don't feel anywhere near as much sympathy for him.

Rich even comments on that in the introduction. His challenge with SoD was that he did not want to make Xykon appear sympathetic, because he did not want to make Xykon look any less evil. The same can not be said for RC, whose story is a lot more tragic, and the start of it certainly puts his hatred for humans in perspective. Rich's exact wording for this is: "There are people in this world who are driven to evil because what their life has forced them to endure; Xykon is not one of those. Redcloak might be though." Clearly he does not consider Redcloak to be utterly evil, and I very much think it was his intention to create the Redcloak character as one whose goal seems noble enough, but his approach to it is completely wrong.