Moral Relativism in the OotS fanbase

[Kome]

{Scrubbed}

[sparkyinbozo]

I don't really think Redcloak's support is surprising. He's had a hard life, is bright and entertaining, and his end goal is something (he sees as) benefiting his entire race. His choices might be "evil," but he shows difficulty in making many of them, recognizing a greater good at risk and making him a *caring* bad boy. People love bad boys - Han shot first, after all. All these factors make him attractive.

Most importantly, however, I'm bracing for a 6-gunning of this thread.

[Thanatosia]

I'd suspect more people recognize Redcloak as the monster he is then you give credit for, that does not stop him from having fans, and to limited extents, for people to play advocate to his viewpoints form time to time.

[whitelaughter]

While I have a lot of sympathy for Redcloak, yes he's evil - killing One-eye was the point of no return.
That he grew up in a squalid village raises the question of whether his predecessor gave a stuff about ordinary goblins; with 5th+ level spells, he should have been able to create a very nice little utopia for the goblins.

You raise a very valid point about Goblintopia; the existence of the new goblin nation renders the plan to control the Snarl pointless, as well as insane. (Although the plan does get Xykon out of the new nation).

The fact that 17 nations were happy to acknowledge the new nation also undercuts most of Redcloak's history lesson; exactly how much effort did the Dark One put into negotiating with demihumans if he couldn't even get one?
Granted getting acknowledgement is tricky - real world Taiwan and Israel show that - but he's really been shown up by his own clerics.

[Touchy]

He's a Goblin in a redcloak (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPants), his fans ignore and focus on different things to make him seem like a better person, when he really is not.

[Ozymandias9]

And, quite frankly, it scares me that there is apparently a not insignificant number of people on an esoteric webcomic forum that adheres to such blatant moral relativism as though it were a viable philosophical outlook.

Yeah, it's not philosophically viable at all. Because clearly Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Protagoras, etc. are clearly not viable philosophers.[/sarcasm]

Don't confuse all forms of relativism with personal relativism. There is quite a base of philosophical and anthropological support for other forms of relativist ethical systems, particularly societal relativism and evolutionary relativism.

[LurkerInPlayground]

The OP has a valid point, but I wouldn't use the phrase "moral relativism."

It's a silly label that makes you look silly. Ethics are as complicated as they are because people disagree. And it's spouted too often by the sorts of people who want to start off on an unfounded moral high ground but clearly make terrible ethicists.

Really, it's a case of fans making Redcloak a Woobie. It's what happens with any villain has any motives at all that you can at least empathize with.

[Mystic Muse]

I don't think Redcloak has passed the moral event horizon.

"From this point on the tone of the character has changed, often along with the story itself. To the question "can they possibly be redeemed after having engaged in such a monstrous act?" The answer is a resounding no."

I don't think the answer to "can redcloak ever be redeemed?" is a resounding no quite yet.

It's a distinct possibility he will pass the moral even horizon sometime in the near future though.

[Strawberries]

I read all your post, and while I can’t type six page of reply (for constrictions of time as well as proficiency with the language) I’d like to answer to this as best as I can. If I’m unclear in stating something point it out to me and I’ll clarify.


And let me clarify. It’s one thing to be a fan of Redcloak the character, it’s another entirely to think his actions are right or defensible or justified. His stated goal may be noble or not – a completely separate argument – but what he says he’s doing is different from what he actually does and how he goes about doing it.
First caveat: I’m a big fan of Redcloack as a character, and do think his goals are noble, but not the way he is going about pursuing them. That said, I also have some sympathy about Redcloack as a person, and there are some points in your post I’d like to address.
Second caveat: I’ve not yet read SoD, if you don’t count the spoilers, so I’m somewhat crippled when it comes to discuss Redcloack. However, from what I’ve read, I have a pretty good idea of what happened in the prequel book.

. That’ll be clue 3. When talking to the other gods about it, Tiamat of all gods tells the Dark One not to mess with the Snarl. He decides to do so anyway. Clue 4. Seriously, if Tiamat is scared of something, it’s probably a good idea NOT to mess with it.
I have a problem with your clue 4. Tiamat has nothing to gain and everything to lose by messing with the Snarl. The dark one may very well think the opposite applies for himself. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s easy to sympathize with someone who takes a desperate gambit to better the life of his followers.

We also find out the Dark One preaches speciesism to his followers. The humans are “cowardly, distrustful, and morally bankrupt.” Yes, a lot of us are, but humans aren’t the ones trying to unleash a god-killing abomination that could unravel reality. Nowhere else in the comic do we see any race, or any god of any race, teaching prejudice to anyone else. But these are also separate discussions. Still, something to think about since Redcloak worships this guy. He’s so devout that Redcloak is the only character in this comic to openly admit to being prejudiced and bigoted, though Tsukiko and Belkar have come close with regards to living beings and kobolds, respectively.
Uhm…maybe the other gods aren’t teaching speciesism per se but they created the other species with the precise goal to be killed for xp! How can it possibly be better??

Xykon knows what Redcloak did and basically gives Redcloak an option: grow a spine and admit he was wrong (and die in the process, most likely, but as we’ve seen it’s not like death in a D&D-inspired universe is necessarily a bad nor a permanent thing) or pretend he had no choice in the matter and unquestioningly serve Xykon. Redcloak goes the latter route. Yea, that’s a real sympathetic figure right there: A brother-killing coward who embraces any excuse, no matter how horrid, to avoid admitting error. Clue 6.
Yep, nothing to object here. Though I think it makes Redcloack figure that much more tragic.

His newfound indifference to the lives of his underlings is, well, abhorrent if keep in mind that his entire Plan is to try and give all the goblinoids, including hobgoblins, a better life. He sends hobgoblins to their deaths scaling up a mountain path and to a monster defending the tower (190 and 191). Of course, I still waffle on whether or not at this point Rich knew in his mind the back story for Redcloak yet, so I’m willing to let all of that slide. It’s worth noting, though.
It isn’t until comic 451 that Redcloak figures it out… sort of.
And that’s another of the reasons I like Redcloack a bit. He figures it out. He is capable of growth, and to admit his errors, at least now. He is still delusional about his brother, but I can imagine him having some sort of epiphany about him in the future – and even if it doesn’t happen, the potential is there.

But prior to that, he has a run in with Miko of the Sapphire Guard. […] both are just underlings to a much more competent commander but have a massively exaggerated sense of importance
Not relevant to the argument but…. You really can call Xykon more competent than Redcloack with a straight face? The lich who played Yahtzee before the big battle?? That’s odd.

And with that new, much more equal footing we see… he is continuing along with the “manipulate the Snarl” part of the plan as well. Why? If the 3 open gates already don’t have the Snarl trying to reach across and kill things, even things that come near the rifts (Blackwing, Xykon), what are the odds that the Snarl would attack on command after moving a rift to the plane of the gods and opening it? Redcloak noted how strange it was that the Snarl wasn’t doing anything and yet he still thinks somehow his Plan is going to work?
I think it’s part because his god commands him to do so, and Redcloack is a high cleric, part because he thinks that they won’t be safe if they don’t go ahead with the plan, part because…yeah, have I already mentioned I think Redcloack is a bit delusional?

And that’s what I have a problem with regarding some of the fans of Redcloak. Completely ignoring everything else done by every other character in the comic, you cannot argue rationally that Redcloak is a sympathetic figure. Yes, he had a rough life. He’s experienced a lot of heartbreak and trauma. That does not mean he gets to threaten to destroy the world unless he gets his way. It’s one thing to feel bad that someone endured those kinds of experiences. It’s another to constantly use that as a justification for why he tortures, enslaves, murders, and so forth.
Not justification, but it plays a big part for those of us who say we can empathize with him

The part that gets me is that the contrast is always the Paladins, and the shining example of their villainy is the beginning of SoD when Redcloak’s village is destroyed. The way the fans who defend Redcloak and the goblinoids tout this out to support their position, this can be seen as either a double-standard (when the Paladins do evil against the defenseless it’s wrong, but when the goblins do evil against the defenseless it’s okay) or an overkill variation of “two wrongs make a right” (it’s okay for the goblins to do whatever they want because we saw the Paladins do one bad thing 34 years ago). And, I think I have some understanding of why people think this way.
This is one of the big problems for me. You’re right, there is a bit of a double standard. I condemn the paladins without appeal, yet I can somehow justify Redcloack attack, if not the following slavery and torture. That is because the paladins, being , well, paladins, are in my opinion to be held to a higher standard for their actions. You cannot claim to have devoted your life to serve and uphold the forces of good and then go about that by killing defenseless children. It’s appalling and unconscionable and even more unconscionable is the fact that your supposedly “good” gods don’t punish you for it. Thus, you and the organization you serve, not to mention the gods you worship, lose all form of respect in my eyes. On the other hand, I’m inclined to see with more sympathy the reaction your behavior causes, even if I can’t completely justify it.

{Scrubbed}
Come on now, give us some credit… some of us have put some thought in the matter, you know. And I think calling someone a “moral illiterate” may be a tad harsh. Ethics is a very difficult subject, full of facets. It isn’t black and white as it may seem.

[The Extinguisher]

I don't think Redcloak has passed the moral event horizon.

"From this point on the tone of the character has changed, often along with the story itself. To the question "can they possibly be redeemed after having engaged in such a monstrous act?" The answer is a resounding no."

I don't think the answer to "can redcloak ever be redeemed?" is a resounding no quite yet.

It's a distinct possibility he will pass the moral even horizon sometime in the near future though.

I disagree. I don't think Redcloak can be redeemed. Killing is brother was when he went to far. If he turns back now, he will have to admit to himself that he killed his brother, and that he was wrong for it. And Redcloak is far to much a coward to ever do that.

[Mystic Muse]

I disagree. I don't think Redcloak can be redeemed. Killing is brother was when he went to far. If he turns back now, he will have to admit to himself that he killed his brother, and that he was wrong for it. And Redcloak is far to much a coward to ever do that.

Maybe so. I hope it isn't true but it's most likely the case. I think I'm just a sucker for villain redemption stories.

Now Xykon on the other hand. There's no redeeming that guy. He passed the moral even horizon long ago.

and if Redcloak doesn't get redeemed fine. I just want the goblins to get a fair shake instead of being condemned since birth.

[Strawberries]

Maybe so. I hope it isn't true but it's most likely the case. I think I'm just a sucker for villain redemption stories.

Now Xykon on the other hand. There's no redeeming that guy. He passed the moral even horizon long ago.

and if Redcloak doesn't get redeemed fine. I just want the goblins to get a fair shake instead of being condemned since birth.

You and me both, Kyuubi. I'm a sucker for redemption stories as well. We should start a club :smallbiggrin:

[Conuly]

I'm in the camp of "Redcloak has a good point", even if I can't agree with his methods. (But then, I can't agree with the Sapphire Guard's methods either, and they probably thought THEY had a good point as well.)

But what really stuns me is the number of people saying "Well, he crossed the horizon when he KILLED his BROTHER". Yeah, that was an evil - an actually evil! - thing to do, but really? Making Xykon into a lich? Killing people left and right? Trying to harness a deicidal abomination and accepting that a possible consequence would be the destruction of the entire world (did he hold a vote among all goblins to see if this is okay?), leading goblin after goblin into death and destruction because Xykon couldn't care to help them or not harm them, none of this crossed the line, but one little murder of an old guy who, face it, is probably happier now that he's back with his children and wife? THAT's the moral event horizon? (And this is just listing what he's done that we know of before he killed his brother, of course.)

Where are your priorities, people?

[Mystic Muse]

I'm in the camp of "Redcloak has a good point", even if I can't agree with his methods. (But then, I can't agree with the Sapphire Guard's methods either, and they probably thought THEY had a good point as well.)

But what really stuns me is the number of people saying "Well, he crossed the horizon when he KILLED his BROTHER". Yeah, that was an evil - an actually evil! - thing to do, but really? Making Xykon into a lich? Killing people left and right? Trying to harness a deicidal abomination and accepting that a possible consequence would be the destruction of the entire world (did he hold a vote among all goblins to see if this is okay?), leading goblin after goblin into death and destruction because Xykon couldn't care to help them or not harm them, none of this crossed the line, but one little murder of an old guy who, face it, is probably happier now that he's back with his children and wife? THAT's the moral event horizon? (And this is just listing what he's done that we know of before he killed his brother, of course.)

Where are your priorities, people?


this post is made of win.


You and me both, Kyuubi. I'm a sucker for redemption stories as well. We should start a club :smallbiggrin:

okay. we need a few more people first though. two people isn't really much of a club.

[The Extinguisher]

I'm in the camp of "Redcloak has a good point", even if I can't agree with his methods. (But then, I can't agree with the Sapphire Guard's methods either, and they probably thought THEY had a good point as well.)

But what really stuns me is the number of people saying "Well, he crossed the horizon when he KILLED his BROTHER". Yeah, that was an evil - an actually evil! - thing to do, but really? Making Xykon into a lich? Killing people left and right? Trying to harness a deicidal abomination and accepting that a possible consequence would be the destruction of the entire world (did he hold a vote among all goblins to see if this is okay?), leading goblin after goblin into death and destruction because Xykon couldn't care to help them or not harm them, none of this crossed the line, but one little murder of an old guy who, face it, is probably happier now that he's back with his children and wife? THAT's the moral event horizon? (And this is just listing what he's done that we know of before he killed his brother, of course.)

Where are your priorities, people?

Well, cross the line on any possible chance at redemption, character wise. Of course he was still evil. Redcloak kills Right-Eye because he cannot turn back from everything he's done in the name of the plan, but Right-Eye still gives him that choice, and helping him kill Xykon would have "redeemed" him in that sense. But killing by Right-Eye (and the subsequent speech by Xykon) he will never turn back. It's simply not possible for him now.

That's why I see it has a point of no return. He had been climbing a very steep cliff, but that's the point where he jumped off.


However, don't get me wrong, I do hope the goblins get their own home. Right-Eye had the correct idea. It isn't a competition. I do hope they at least get something like that village again.

[Temotei]

this post is made of win.



okay. we need a few more people first though. two people isn't really much of a club.

I'd join. :smallamused:

On Redcloak: Another thing people love: underdogs. Redcloak is clearly much weaker than Xykon, and if he turns his back on Xykon, he'll probably die. People sympathize with that.

[TriForce]

Well first of all, dont think anyone can consider RC to be NOT evil. if for no other reason then him admitting it himself and it appearantly not bothering him in the least.

but why do people sympathize with him? because he has charisma, and im not talking about the stat right here, im talking about the ability to make people see it the way you want to.

a good comparison is probably hitler, that guy is as much a complete monster as anyone in existance can probably get. hes insane, delusional, hateful and tries to kill of anyone of a certain religion and anyone who tries to help them, only becouse of some tough times in his youth.
still, he managed to get millions of people to like him to the point of worship.

RC is exactly the same, sure, afterwards your looking at what is done and cannot think of anything else as it being horrible, but when you hear him explain why he does the things he does, its hard not to have some sympathy for him, if for nothing else then his goals.

RC is a brilliant character, the way rich even sways people on this forum into feeling some sympathy for him even tough he would burn a baby a day to get what he wants is nothing short of genius.

anyway, as a short awnser to your extremly long post (yes ive read it all) people sympathize with RC becouse rich goes to great lenghts to make him a person you WANT to sympathize with, even tough you should know better

[B. Dandelion]

{Scrubbed}

[ThePhantasm]

*Pokes head in, sees everyone is way too emotional, and leaves discreetly*

[Morty]

So, basically, you don't agree with some people about a character in a webcomic, so you made a huge post in which you call them morally inferior to you and generally wrong. That's the Internet, I guess. B. Dandelion really covered most of what I'd say already.

[Optimystik]

Cliffnotes, please.


okay. we need a few more people first though. two people isn't really much of a club.

I'd advise against making a thread for it. :smalltongue:

[Kome]

Yeah, it's not philosophically viable at all. Because clearly Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Protagoras, etc. are clearly not viable philosophers.[/sarcasm]

Don't confuse all forms of relativism with personal relativism. There is quite a base of philosophical and anthropological support for other forms of relativist ethical systems, particularly societal relativism and evolutionary relativism.

Except Spinoza, Hume, and Nietzsche were incorrect in many significant ways regarding human nature and human instincts regarding morality. Spinoza was correct in stating nothing is inherently good or evil, but completely neglected the fact that without someone around to hear the tree falling in the forest, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound or not.

I'm not throwing away the entirety of their philosophical teachings, since they had some good things to say, but I am willing to discard the things they said that contradict rigorous scientific investigation (and the science of morality and ethics has really blossomed since the modern synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection).

And could you please cite a source that provides “anthropological support” for moral relativism? I’ll admit that of all the social sciences, cultural anthropology is one I spend less time on, but I haven’t come across anything yet. I’d be pleased to be introduced to it.


The OP has a valid point, but I wouldn't use the phrase "moral relativism."

It's a silly label that makes you look silly. Ethics are as complicated as they are because people disagree. And it's spouted too often by the sorts of people who want to start off on an unfounded moral high ground but clearly make terrible ethicists.

Really, it's a case of fans making Redcloak a Woobie. It's what happens with any villain has any motives at all that you can at least empathize with.

I use the term moral relativism because, well, that’s what it is. The people who have a tendency to excuse the evil actions of Redcloak and the goblins are quick to point out the evil by the Sapphire Guard… from 34 years ago. It doesn’t make those Paladins did good or diminish from its evilness, but it is odd that one transgression from so long ago can, for some people, continue to be a justification for multiple large scale transgressions that rival, if not exceed, in magnitude the original.


First caveat: I’m a big fan of Redcloack as a character, and do think his goals are noble, but not the way he is going about pursuing them. That said, I also have some sympathy about Redcloack as a person, and there are some points in your post I’d like to address.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Redcloak as well. I think how Rich has developed the character is stunning! I have never been this incensed by a comic villain except The Joker and Apocalypse. What Rich does with his webcomic is terrific! I’m not trying to blame every bad thing in his life on him. He certainly WAS the victim of some atrocious behavior. But I don’t excuse anything he chooses to do that causes suffering to others because he had traumatic things happen to him long ago, which is what I’m arguing against that a good portion of his fans apparently do.


I have a problem with your clue 4. Tiamat has nothing to gain and everything to lose by messing with the Snarl. The dark one may very well think the opposite applies for himself. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s easy to sympathize with someone who takes a desperate gambit to better the life of his followers.

I see your point, but disagree on the grounds that Tiamat has plenty to gain by trying the same gambit. All the Evil gods do. Think how much more power you’d have if you unleashed the Snarl, temporarily, on the Good gods. The difference is Tiamat and the other gods aren’t nearly as “stupid evil” as the Dark One.


Uhm…maybe the other gods aren’t teaching speciesism per se but they created the other species with the precise goal to be killed for xp! How can it possibly be better??

It’s just one more in a long list of attributes of the Dark One and his followers that one should keep in mind. It’s no better when the humans do it or when the good gods do it.


Not relevant to the argument but…. You really can call Xykon more competent than Redcloack with a straight face? The lich who played Yahtzee before the big battle?? That’s odd.

I can, for the same reason I view Shojo as more competent than Miko. Shojo went behind everyone’s back to manipulate them. Heck, sometimes he didn’t even go behind their backs. But it worked. For over four decades. Xykon has been able to get where he is by paying a little attention and knowing how to pull strings. Sure, his Wisdom is his dump stat, and his Intelligence probably isn’t that high, but with his Charisma score and certain spells he knows how manipulate others who are much smarter (Redcloak, Durokon) or much more powerful (MitD). Competence can take many forms.


Come on now, give us some credit… some of has have put some thought in the matter, you know. And I think calling someone a “moral illiterate” may be a tad harsh. Ethics is a very difficult subject, full of facets. It isn’t black and white as it may seem.

That’s why I used the word “some” as opposed to assuming “all” of the forum-goers who support Redcloak. I am not such an elitist that I assume everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I’m also less concerned about who is right and who is wrong than how people come to their conclusions, and this post was mostly a challenge to people to give me their reasons for thinking Redcloak is justified and deserving of sympathy and so forth.

I figure a lot of people on these forums are giving their opinions and bickering back-n-forth (on this and oh so many other topics regarding the comic) but it’s rare to see people lay all their cards on the table for why they hold their opinions. I wanted to do that. Yes, I chose a somewhat inflammatory thread title and used some provocative language. I figured it would help motivate people to lay all their cards on the table.


But what really stuns me is the number of people saying "Well, he crossed the horizon when he KILLED his BROTHER". Yeah, that was an evil - an actually evil! - thing to do, but really? Making Xykon into a lich? Killing people left and right? Trying to harness a deicidal abomination and accepting that a possible consequence would be the destruction of the entire world (did he hold a vote among all goblins to see if this is okay?), leading goblin after goblin into death and destruction because Xykon couldn't care to help them or not harm them, none of this crossed the line, but one little murder of an old guy who, face it, is probably happier now that he's back with his children and wife? THAT's the moral event horizon? (And this is just listing what he's done that we know of before he killed his brother, of course.)

Where are your priorities, people?

I’m not saying those actions aren’t deplorable, but since the bonds of kinship really do have a much stronger evolutionary history and advantage than any other relationship a social animal has, it’s something (not the only thing, but something) we can point to to demonstrate a total abandonment of one’s senses.


You make a great many assumptions, which range from eye-rolling to outright insulting. I know you don't realize that and I'm not accusing you. But let's make one thing clear here: there are people in this world who are every bit as strongly opinionated as you, and the fact that they don't agree with your viewpoint does not mean they haven't pursued the matter with any less intellectual rigor. Much less that they are not capable of such intellectual rigor.

And your post makes it clear you are not one of them (or if you are, you’re not up for taking on my challenge to defend your position), but thanks for playing. You point out all the instances that can be construed as me being an intellectual elitist instead of seeing the entirety of my post as being a call for people to defend their viewpoint. Rather than take up that challenge to demonstrate that your opinion is well-thought out and defensible, you insult me personally when you can, disregard completely my reasons for having a differing opinion from your own, and fail entirely to do anything more to justify your differing opinion than say some people disagree with my position. However, ignoring all of that, there are a few more specific things in your post I’d like to respond to. I’ll try to do so without being vitriolic, too.


He advises them to not get involved with humans. There is no indication that he desires them to persecute or harass them.

A lot of prejudiced people advise not getting involved with those who are the objects of their prejudice, without advising persecution or harassment. It doesn’t make it not racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, or political persecution. There’s more to prejudice than persecution and harassment. Like that whole “pre-judging” thing.


That's setting the bar rather low, isn't it? This is very much an argument in favor of moral relativism -- the humans should be considered better than the goblins, because they aren't total nihilists? That doesn't mean that they're good.

I’m not arguing the humans are better than the goblins, or even that humans are good. Just that the humans are not all “cowardly, distrustful, and morally bankrupt” as the Dark One preaches.


"Let's not talk about it, except to the extent I talk about it, which is to the extent that it bolsters my argument."

How is possible to construe the fact that Redcloak is the only character to openly admit his speciesism, while pointing out the other two close contenders, as me cherry-picking my argument? I’m not saying Tsukiko and Belkar are NOT prejudiced, just that only Redcloak has out-n-out stated he is.


I find this to be completely warped. A person makes a transgression, ill befalls them for that transgression... yes, absolutely, they brought the pain on themselves, and yet, you do not allow for the possibility that the punishment they endure as a result may in fact be disproportionate to the offense? Also note the dismissive, patronizing attitude on display with "but whatever". "Your opinion is wrong and stupid, but I do not have the time to detail to you all the myriad ways in which this is so, because you are not worth the effort."

Depends on the transgression. Quite frankly, it isn’t difficult to imagine the consequences of ones actions. I’d say in more cases than not, the ill that befalls people from their transgressions tends to be disproportionate to the original offense. People die because they don’t buckle their seatbelt, for crying out loud. But, life isn’t fair. I can feel bad that these things happen to people for actions that ultimately aren’t a big deal, but I also recognize that since they’re not a big deal why would you ignore it?

Of course, turning an already more-powerful-than-you and very-Evil sorcerer into a sentient undead that is even more powerful and can not be controlled is not “not a big deal.” That’s a big deal. That’s even more reason not to ignore every possible outcome of your actions and plan accordingly. And, hey, at this point in the comic’s plot Redcloak is in prison. It’s not like he has many other things to do besides think things through. That he doesn’t, despite being the brother that is known for planning ahead, just makes it even dumber on his part.


Redcloak was really out of choices by that point.

His own fault for putting himself in a position where he “was really out of choices.”


She was a goblin and so we should assume that she would look favorably on the suffering of others. She is intrinsically of lesser worth, and therefore it is not valid that her son should try to leverage her death on those of a morally superior species.

Your sarcasm detector is broken here.


In other words it's relatively evil?

Under what circumstances could slavery not be evil? Relative to other things that have happened, slavery can be argued as “more” or “less” evil, but under no circumstances is slavery “not evil.”


Interestingly, the commentary for Don't Split the Party gives his motive here as "not being able to bring himself" to do it.

You’re right. I didn’t notice that part in the commentary and focused entirely on his line where he says it’ll be good PR to show the prisoners that the goblins were merciful whereas the Paladin was just going to let them die. My bad. Thank you for calling that to my attention. I retract that portion of my post.


Perhaps you are speculating. Perhaps.

I’m choosing my words precisely because what follows is speculative in nature, as opposed to grounded in empirical fact.


That's a lot of melodrama over the fictitious accounts. I would think they ranked lower than the real-life ones.

They do, but since I can’t talk about real-world politics on this forum, I can’t think of a reason why you would expect me to be making a bigger deal out of the real-world examples. I’m on a forum dedicated to a fictitious story. I’m going to discuss that story.


Strawman. I've been here for a while and I've yet to see anyone make the claim, "Redcloak's mommy died, so it's okay if he tortures people!"

Not in so many words, but look at the thread titled “Yes, I’m sided with Readcloak. And what?” There are quite a few people in there who apparently do think Redcloak is justified in what he’s done and doing (in that thread are also tons of people who agree with his goal but not his course of action).


It's a book! That he's read! Everyone, swoon already!

At that point I went from discussing the comic storyline to justify my opinion to speculating as to the reasons the real-life fans had for their real-life opinions. I’m going to reference real-life science that happens to address that kind of stuff. I’m sorry you think academic rigor (even in its most banal form such as I have presented it) is inappropriate, but I’d rather cite something relevant to demonstrate to my detractors that I may actually have a good reason for my position than to not do so.

**edit: I forgot to close some quote-tags. Whoops!**

[LurkerInPlayground]

I use the term moral relativism because, well, that’s what it is. The people who have a tendency to excuse the evil actions of Redcloak and the goblins are quick to point out the evil by the Sapphire Guard… from 34 years ago. It doesn’t make those Paladins did good or diminish from its evilness, but it is odd that one transgression from so long ago can, for some people, continue to be a justification for multiple large scale transgressions that rival, if not exceed, in magnitude the original.
Except that the term really doesn't mean anything. And it attempts to suggest malice where there isn't any.

It's really a simple problem of whether Redcloak is justified in his actions or not. That makes people terrible ethicists, unable to think through and sort out priorities when they miss out on his obvious double standards.

Morality is relative. That doesn't necessarily mean that some morals are a good idea given a situation or even worthy of consideration.

And that's mostly irrelevant because most the people who are defending Redcloak have the same moral values as you, if not exactly the same interpretation or the "right" interpretation.

Even if they don't have the same values as you, it doesn't make them "moral relativists." At worst, you might accuse them of being immoral.

And the thing about Redcloak is that, yes, he has some questionable values. But I don't think you have as much issue with that as the fact that he seems less than honest about sticking to his "principles." He's going to beat you over the head about how he's morally superior to you, even when he's not (i.e. as he did with Miko and O-Chul).

If Redcloak were, say, a straight-off villain with no confusion as to who he is, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Xykon is a remorseless villain. But there's no point getting angry at him because Xykon pretty much knows it. He isn't trying to justify his position on the grounds that he has some higher moral consideration.


Except Spinoza, Hume, and Nietzsche were incorrect in many significant ways regarding human nature and human instincts regarding morality. Spinoza was correct in stating nothing is inherently good or evil, but completely neglected the fact that without someone around to hear the tree falling in the forest, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound or not.
What?

Non-sequitur. Spinoza claims that morality isn't an intrinsic property of things. And you say that he neglects some weird epistemological point? What does one to do with the other?

If anything, you seem to indicate that he DID account for that. Sound only has any meaning if there are observers. Which is pretty much exactly the same for morality. Morality only has any meaning at all because there are observers.

And as far as I'm aware, Nietzsche made very few generalized claims about human nature or their moral instinct, other than that they had an irritating tendency to worship a moral principle as a tradition, rather than rating that principle on its value to society.

[Need_A_Life]

Without writing as long or detailed examination of moral relativism in Oots, I'd like to add my two cents to this discussion.

I'm a fan of Redcloak.
He's a classical anti-hero, using evil means to attain an arguably greater good.

Now, Gobbotopia does use human slaves, they have slaughtered countless people and do worship the Dark One. I agree that things could be more ideal, but from a goblinoid point of view this may be quite justified.

Remember that Goblins (and Orcs, ogres, hobgoblins etc.) were originally created as XP-fodder. Sorry, let me rephrase that to be more unamibuous: The forces of Good created living, sentient beings for their servants to slaughter indiscriminately just so those clerics could do something beyond "Bless Water."

Now, if that's the bar for being a force of Good, I would question why Redcloak hasn't reached Sainthood at this point?
He's never encouraged genocide (no, not even at Azure City. It was a war and people died. Not genocide), he has kept trying to save as many goblins from Xykon as he could (with varying degrees of success) and he's following the beliefs of a deity whose entire Divine Plan is centred around goblins being treated as equals to humans, elves etc.

To re-iterate:
1) Redcloak is Evil
2) Redcloak is fighting for Good
3) Any sort of "redemption" for him would ultimately cheapen the story

[Kome]

Morality is relative. That doesn't necessarily mean that some morals are a good idea given a situation or even worthy of consideration.

Morality can certainly be flexible when it pertains to certain actions in certain contexts, but morality as a whole is not relative. Morality can only be relative if, for every action you can imagine, you can envision circumstances where it could be "good" and other circumstances where it could be "evil." That's sort of the definition. But considering there are, as I mentioned originally, some human moral universals (the list compiled by Donald Brown originally in the late '80s early '90s counted over 150 such and it has been refined since then), that's strong evidence against the blanket statement that "morality is relative."

As a reference, I would recommend not only Brown's book that I mentioned in the OP, but Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, and Steven Quartz & Terrence Sejnowski's Liars, Lovers, and Heroes.


And that's mostly irrelevant because most the people who are defending Redcloak have the same moral values as you, if not exactly the same interpretation or the "right" interpretation.

Even if they don't have the same values as you, it doesn't make them "moral relativists." At worst, you might accuse them of being immoral.

That's sort of what interested me to begin with. If we were to point out a real-life Redcloak, I can't imagine too many people would jump to his/her defense the way so many readily do to fictitious villains. Someone mentioned the "draco in leather pants" phenomenon earlier, and I think that's pretty accurate. I'm just curious as to why that occurs. Sometimes poking the hornets' nest and seeing the reaction is a fun way to get some answers.

[Kish]

Except that the term really doesn't mean anything.
Well, it means something. But what it means is not appropriately used on a webcomic message board in the form, "If you disagree with me, you're a moral relativist. (p.s. This is Bad.)" There are multiple ethical theories, in various shades of absolutism and relativism; I'm not sure the validity and grounding of any of them can be discussed under this board's rules. In any event, Redcloak is evil by the standards of his culture, according to himself, and according to his hobgoblin followers, so moral relativism has nothing to do with him--in this case, the term "moral relativism" does seem to be entirely a stand-in for "bad."

[LurkerInPlayground]

Well, it means something. But what it means is not appropriately used on a webcomic message board in the form, "If you disagree with me, you're a moral relativist. (p.s. This is Bad.)" There are multiple ethical theories, in various shades of absolutism and relativism; I'm not sure the validity and grounding of any of them can be discussed under this board's rules. In any event, Redcloak is evil by the standards of his culture, according to himself, and according to his hobgoblin followers, so moral relativism has nothing to do with him--in this case, the term "moral relativism" does seem to be entirely a stand-in for "bad."
Yeah, you're making me look bad by being so succinct about it.

I really hate it when people use that term as a stand-in for "bad." Particularly since it's just a heavy-handed way of begging the premise while poisoning the well in the process.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Morality can certainly be flexible when it pertains to certain actions in certain contexts, but morality as a whole is not relative. Morality can only be relative if, for every action you can imagine, you can envision circumstances where it could be "good" and other circumstances where it could be "evil." That's sort of the definition. But considering there are, as I mentioned originally, some human moral universals (the list compiled by Donald Brown originally in the late '80s early '90s counted over 150 such and it has been refined since then), that's strong evidence against the blanket statement that "morality is relative."
They're only universal because the needs of humans have commonalities.

But that doesn't even mean that those needs are true and applicable 100% of the time or that these morals have any presence in the universe as some kind of cosmic law.

Even if the principle is "bad" for the rest of humanity, it doesn't mean it doesn't have use for a single individual. Yes, that's pretty evil, but that's irrelevant to the point.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked as the very premise seems to be to insult other forumites albeit with philosophy jargon.