Behold of the Azurites... (SoD Spoiler)

[Ancalagon]

... will they get yet another chance to slaughter Goblin Children very soon?

I mean... with such a city that has been there for nearly a year... you would assume there are at least some children somewhere.

[Magicyop]

You're sick. :smallamused:

Actually we think that there has even been time for gobbo children to... grow up? There was an orange-green gobbo in the audience for Redcloak's speech, so possibly a gobbo/hobbo child? Eh. Maybe not.

[hamishspence]

At least one hobgoblin child was present- here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html

its possible there are others- including goblin children.

[Ancalagon]

At least there are (basically) no paladins involved... this time.

[Nimrod's Son]

Actually we think that there has even been time for gobbo children to... grow up?
Goblins age faster than humans, but it's still only been a year. Any goblins that were children at the time of the invasion will likely still be children.


There was an orange-green gobbo in the audience for Redcloak's speech, so possibly a gobbo/hobbo child? Eh. Maybe not.
It's still possible. There's nothing to say he was born in Azure City, after all.

[One Skunk Todd]

... will they get yet another chance to slaughter Goblin Children very soon?

I mean... with such a city that has been there for nearly a year... you would assume there are at least some children somewhere.

Did Azurites appart from the Sapphire Guard ever slaughter goblin children?

[Conuly]

We don't know one way or another. Some of them probably did, if they were adventurers, but that's not limited to Azure City, of course.

[Ancalagon]

Did Azurites appart from the Sapphire Guard ever slaughter goblin children?

If their ruling, most moral paladin class did... it can only get worse from there!

[hamishspence]

We know the Azurite army, as well as the Sapphire Guard, particpated in "keeping the hobgoblins penned up in the mountains" from War & XPs.

[Saph]

Well, if by "slaughter goblin children" you mean "kill some of the Lawful Evil hobgoblin soldiers enslaving the surviving Azurites", then looks like the answer is yes. :)

I'm looking forward to it, personally. The Evil-aligned sides in OotS have been winning a bit too much lately. It'd be nice to see the good guys have something go in their favour for a change.

[carabaldo]

and, if I may, I'd like to remember tha probably a LOT of azurite children were killed in the invasion by the Goblinoids/Undead?
Apart those who escaped their fate thanks to the Mitd, of course

[Optimystik]

Well, if by "slaughter goblin children" you mean "kill some of the Lawful Evil hobgoblin soldiers enslaving the surviving Azurites", then looks like the answer is yes. :)

I'm looking forward to it, personally. The Evil-aligned sides in OotS have been winning a bit too much lately. It'd be nice to see the good guys have something go in their favour for a change.

Other than the Order themselves though, I have trouble knowing who the good guys really are anymore. (And aside from Elan, Durkon and hopefully Roy, even the Order's morality is suspect.)

The gods definitely aren't, the Azurites and SG are both suspect... and I can't even be sure the elves are either.

[hamishspence]

and, if I may, I'd like to remember tha probably a LOT of azurite children were killed in the invasion by the Goblinoids/Undead?
Apart those who escaped their fate thanks to the Mitd, of course

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0418.html

Going by these two- virtually all the Azurite civilians were evacuated.

This might not, however, include the people who dwell in villages around Azure City- and farm the land to feed the city.

[Saph]

Other than the Order themselves though, I have trouble knowing who the good guys really are anymore. (And aside from Elan, Durkon and hopefully Roy, even the Order's morality is suspect.)

The gods definitely aren't, the Azurites and SG are both suspect... and I can't even be sure the elves are either.

All of the remaining Sapphire Guard (four or so, by my count) have proven themselves pretty well by now, and the elves seem to be willing to help them, which at least puts them in the ally camp.

Other than that and the OotS, we may not know for sure who the good guys are, but we definitely can pick out a whole bunch of Evil ones. :)

[Magicyop]

Other than that and the OotS, we may not know for sure who the good guys are, but we definitely can pick out a whole bunch of Evil ones. :)

Can we? I can name basically one: Xykon.

Redcloak is a self-deluding goblin who hates humans, but in fairness, if you had been through the events of SoD, wouldn't you hate humans too? He's still working for the good of his people, even as twisted that motivation may become at some points.

MitD is clearly not evil. If you think he is, read the comic again.

Tsukiko might be closer to true evil, but she seems more like she's a couple marbles short of a collection, rather than evil.

Who, besides Xykon, can we actually name as Evil? (And I don't mean alignmentwise. Sure, Redcloak is lawful evil. But he's not actually an evil person.)

EDIT: I'm sorry, I'm mistaken. Belkar is evil too. But he loves a cat, so not all the way.

[Sanguine]

Can we? I can name basically one: Xykon.

Redcloak is a self-deluding goblin who hates humans, but in fairness, if you had been through the events of SoD, wouldn't you hate humans too? He's still working for the good of his people, even as twisted that motivation may become at some points.

MitD is clearly not evil. If you think he is, read the comic again.

Tsukiko might be closer to true evil, but she seems more like she's a couple marbles short of a collection, rather than evil.

Who, besides Xykon, can we actually name as Evil? (And I don't mean alignmentwise. Sure, Redcloak is lawful evil. But he's not actually an evil person.)

EDIT: I'm sorry, I'm mistaken. Belkar is evil too. But he loves a cat, so not all the way.

The IFCC, The Linear Guild(Thog is debatable since we aren't going on alignment), The Dark One(is debatable), Tiamat, Probably others.

[hamishspence]

If we consider "evil" in this context, to be "delights in the physical or psychological pain they inflict on another"-

both V, and Mama Dragon, may qualify, in that arc.

[slayerx]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0418.html

Going by these two- virtually all the Azurite civilians were evacuated.

This might not, however, include the people who dwell in villages around Azure City- and farm the land to feed the city.

Actually no, those two strips tell us that civilians had priority and that as many as possible were evacuated... depending on how many ships they had and how many people could fit, that could still leave hundreds-thousands being left behind

[Magicyop]

The IFCC, The Linear Guild(Thog is debatable since we aren't going on alignment), The Dark One(is debatable), Tiamat, Probably others.

Ok, you're right about the IFCC, and Nale and Sabine. I disagree about The Dark One, and we've never actually seen Tiamat.

Plus, I think Tiamat doesn't count because Tiamat is an actual D&D god, from the 3.5 Draconomicon.

But still, even with Xykon, the IFCC, Nale + Sabine, (And Belkar, I guess)

That's not a LOT of characters that we can say are definitely evil.

[hamishspence]

true- though I'd be surprised if there were immense numbers of evacuees remaining, after Hinjo arrives.

[Sanguine]

Ok, you're right about the IFCC, and Nale and Sabine. I disagree about The Dark One, and we've never actually seen Tiamat.

Plus, I think Tiamat doesn't count because Tiamat is an actual D&D god, from the 3.5 Draconomicon.

But still, even with Xykon, the IFCC, Nale + Sabine, (And Belkar, I guess)

That's not a LOT of characters that we can say are definitely evil.

We've seen Tiamat(kinda), she gives the Oracle his powers and when he is in the Trance you can see her surrounding him(kinda), also she was in SoD(briefly) and where she was breathing fire through the phone at one of the IFCC.

[Saph]

Who, besides Xykon, can we actually name as Evil? (And I don't mean alignmentwise. Sure, Redcloak is lawful evil. But he's not actually an evil person.)

Of course Redcloak's evil. He kills humans for no particular reason other than their race and has never expressed any kind of regret over it. Having a backstory doesn't make him a good person.

Tsukiko is also pretty obviously evil because . . . well, guess. :)

Pretty much all the hobgoblins we've seen are textbook Lawful Evil - they respect authority, obey orders, oppress anyone weaker than themselves, and enjoy torturing and killing things.

Then there's Belkar, Sabine, Nale, Thog, the IFCC, the Ancient Black Dragon, Kubota, the Death Knight, the Huecuva, Bugsy, Quarr, Samantha . . .

. . . has the "there aren't many Evil characters" theory been sufficiently debunked yet, or do I need to keep listing more? :P

[slayerx]

Then there's Belkar, Sabine, Nale, Thog, the IFCC, the Ancient Black Dragon, Kubota, the Death Knight, the Huecuva, Bugsy, Quarr, Samantha . . .

i do find myself generally leaning in favor of such testing... such as testing people before giving them to right to vote in order to help make sure people are elections are based on competence
Let's not forget the thieves guild and many others we met in greysky city

[Deliverance]

Can we? I can name basically one: Xykon.

Redcloak is a self-deluding goblin who hates humans, but in fairness, if you had been through the events of SoD, wouldn't you hate humans too? He's still working for the good of his people, even as twisted that motivation may become at some points.
The hell, no.

Redcloak is that most terrible evil of them all: the one who believes that the end justifies the means, and he lets petty spite and a desire to justify his atrocities to himself override any moral qualms he may have on a regular basis.

He's the one who preferred reanimating Hobgoblins to healing them and sacrificing them to rock slides, guardian monsters, and whatnot over any more elaborate plan that would save their lives - not until he realized he was becoming a bit too much like Xykon did he reconsider those actions.

He also happens to have dedicated his life to an apocalyptic plan with a low chance of success, and which success will in all likelihood result in the death of every single mortal; Something that he's quite fine with, because perhaps the next world will be better - for whomever end up inhabiting it. While he'd prefer the outcome of the plan where the things are adjusted in this world to the benefit of the dark one, he considers the outcome where the world is destroyed as a success too.

Xykon may consider Redcloak's self-delusional brand of "evil in the cause of good" rather spineless but make no mistake: Redcloak is as evil as they get and while it doesn't make for good super-villain potential it is a much more dangerous brand of evil.

[Morty]

It looks like the Azurites are planning on attacking the prison and are only using the celebration as a moment in which most of the hobgoblins are elsewhere. So no, children casualties are unlikely. Whether or not they'd kill hobgoblin children if they happened to be around is another question altogether.

[Magicyop]

Of course Redcloak's evil. He kills humans for no particular reason other than their race and has never expressed any kind of regret over it. Having a backstory doesn't make him a good person.

Tsukiko is also pretty obviously evil because . . . well, guess. :)

Pretty much all the hobgoblins we've seen are textbook Lawful Evil - they respect authority, obey orders, oppress anyone weaker than themselves, and enjoy torturing and killing things.

Then there's Belkar, Sabine, Nale, Thog, the IFCC, the Ancient Black Dragon, Kubota, the Death Knight, the Huecuva, Bugsy, Quarr, Samantha . . .

. . . has the "there aren't many Evil characters" theory been sufficiently debunked yet, or do I need to keep listing more? :P

1) Yes, Redcloak kills humans for no reason other than their race. Also, when he was a kid, humans killed his entire family just because they were goblins. That doesn't make him good, and I never said he was a good person. I said he wasn't a BAD person. Shades of grey, shades of grey. Being bitter doesn't make you evil.

2) "Well, guess"?! What kind of freaking argument is that? She likes undead, and she's a little bit unscrewed. I haven't seen any evidence that she's purely evil.

3) Respecting authority, obeying orders... sounds like the Military. Any army you name pretty much does that. Where have we seen them torture and kill things in a non war context? And where do they oppress anyone weaker than themselves? They were content to live in their little valley until Xykon and co. came along.

4) A lot of those are very minor characters that I thought we weren't talking about. I'm not talking about characters who were only in a couple strips. You might be right about kubota though, I forgot about him.

5) Belkar, Sabine, Nale- yes. Thog- no. Stupid and loves ice cream and puppies, thinks Nale is his bff. Not evil. IFCC- Probably. We haven't seen them a whole lot yet, but the whole lap up the blood of the righteous thing... Ancient Black Dragon only wanted what she saw as revenge for the killing of her kid and husband. Kubota, scheming politician, but yeah, probably evil. Death Knight was in too few strips to even talk about, as was Huecuva. Who the heck is Bugsy? Do you mean Skullsy? Quarr- suckup, not evil. I mean, technically he's evil, and he's working w/ the IFCC now, but if we're not going by alignments... Samantha wasn't really EVIL, more just a (insert curse word) with magical powers.

6) Thieves Guild: Greedy, not evil. Power hungry, greedy, etc, but evil? Not really.

I'm not trying to say that any of these people are GOOD. I'm trying to say they're not all evil. So many of them are just shades of grey.

[Saph]

I'm not trying to say that any of these people are GOOD. I'm trying to say they're not all evil. So many of them are just shades of grey.

Your grey and most people's black are pretty indistinguishable. :) You don't need to be a maniacal psycho to be evil. You just need to be someone like Redcloak, who's a completely believable, understandable character who also happens to be a genocidal racist. Having reasons for what you do doesn't make you white and it doesn't make you grey, either.

[One Skunk Todd]

If their ruling, most moral paladin class did... it can only get worse from there!

Except most Azurites don't even know the Sapphire Guard exists:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html

[doodthedud]

1) Yes, Redcloak kills humans for no reason other than their race. Also, when he was a kid, humans killed his entire family just because they were goblins. That doesn't make him good, and I never said he was a good person. I said he wasn't a BAD person. Shades of grey, shades of grey. Being bitter doesn't make you evil.

5) Belkar, Sabine, Nale- yes. Thog- no. Stupid and loves ice cream and puppies, thinks Nale is his bff. Not evil.

Being evil in revenge to other people being evil to you does not make you justified in any way, I see no shades of grey. Bitterness that makes you kill people is still evil.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0066.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0351.html

Because he's got somewhat child-like doesn't make him not-evil.

[hamishspence]

Except most Azurites don't even know the Sapphire Guard exists:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html

They know that paladins of the city exist, and seeing as the neighbouring nations (according to War & XPs) object to the violations of their territory by the paladins "in pursuit of personal grudges" -

the only secret thing, is that those particular paladins are members of a secret order- with special reasons for what they do.

As to evilness- I see Redcloak's action in SoD as like a slightly darker version of Dr Manhatten's in Watchmen:

Redcloak killed his brother because he believed that it was vital for the prosperity of the goblin people.

Manhatten killed Rorschach because he believed it was vital for the prosperity of the human species.

[Kish]

I'm not trying to say that any of these people are GOOD. I'm trying to say they're not all evil. So many of them are just shades of grey.
Your concept of "evil" apparently requires no positive qualities at all. I concur with the other people who've posted: Redcloak, Tsukiko, Sam, and so on are all plenty evil--as evil as Roy is good.

A character doesn't need to be one-dimensional to be either good or evil.

[EENick]

.

6) Thieves Guild: Greedy, not evil. Power hungry, greedy, etc, but evil? Not really.

I'm not trying to say that any of these people are GOOD. I'm trying to say they're not all evil. So many of them are just shades of grey.

Oh come ON! Even if we can't say with certainty that every member of said guild was 100% made up of evil monstrocity at the VERY least all its high level members were evil.

The leadership was a murderous lot of blood thirst, dare I say, theives who were perfectly willing to throw away their member's lives for short term combat bonuses AND double cross their agreements in a heart beat! Please if you like, point out to me what I missed that greys out their perfect track record of evil villainy?

They were EVIL! Greedy, evil scum bags! They didn't even have a tragic back story, big picture or any of that usual grabage people try to drag into things. They were evil stock villiain's pure and simple. No deep back story, no understandable hate, no misguided intentions, nothing. The story makes it clear they were bad people, who did bad things, for bad reasons which is, of course, evil! :nale::belkar::xykon::sabine:

[Magicyop]

Oh come ON! Even if we can't say with certainty that every member of said guild was 100% made up of evil monstrocity at the VERY least all its high level members were evil.

The leadership was a murderous lot of blood thirst, dare I say, theives who were perfectly willing to throw away their member's lives for short term combat bonuses AND double cross their agreements in a heart beat! Please if you like, point out to me what I missed that greys out their perfect track record of evil villainy?

They were EVIL! Greedy, evil scum bags! They didn't even have a tragic back story, big picture or any of that usual grabage people try to drag into things. They were evil stock villiain's pure and simple. No deep back story, no understandable hate, no misguided intentions, nothing. The story makes it clear they were bad people, who did bad things, for bad reasons which is, of course, evil! :nale::belkar::xykon::sabine:

I suppose that you'd argue that the man who breaks into jewelry stores to steal necklaces is evil too.

They wanted money, mon-ey. People can do bad things and not be evil. I suppose it all comes down to your interpretation of evil. I believe that there are very few people in the world who are evil, since I see evil as more of a psychological thing from the perspective of the evil-doer. In real life, people who do bad things by the majority of society's standards do not believe they are doing bad things. They are doing what they think is right. Nobody actively thinks, "I'm an awful person. I LOVE hurting people! Hurray for pain and death!" Well, not nobody, but very few people.

Evil can be considered to simply be a disregard for the laws of society and the societal standards by which we all surround ourselves. My villain might be your knight in shining armor. If someone does things that are good for certain people and horrible to others, are they evil? Is that WORSE than doing nothing at all for what you believe in? Can action towards what you believe in and against that which you feel antagonizes you really be considered to be more heinous than total lethargy, doing nothing about what you care about?

The police, every day they help normal citizens and hurt criminals. Can they be considered evil for hating criminals and doing everything to help law abiding citizens, just as Redcloak is considered evil for hating humans and devoting his life to helping goblins. Sure, Redcloak is a pretty twisted individual, and the Thieves Guild are pretty selfish and greedy, but who is really, truly evil?

Sorry if that made no sense. This is something that I really believe in, that evil and good are not as clear as they may seem.

[veti]

2) "Well, guess"?! What kind of freaking argument is that? She likes undead, and she's a little bit unscrewed. I haven't seen any evidence that she's purely evil.

Tsukiko is the new Belkar.

Okay, I haven't been around long enough to remember this, but in Forum legend there was a time when many people refused to believe that Belkar was actually evil, despite all the evidence. Until the Giant came down from on high and pronounced (I paraphrase loosely): "What the freak is wrong with you loons? He's Evil with a capital E, V, I and L. He's about as Evil as a guy who hangs out with a mostly-good party can get away with. I don't know why it bothers you, but suck it up already."

Now we're getting the same kind of denialism about Suki...

Look:

She betrays her city (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html), in a battle against someone whom even you acknowledge is evil. She actually tells him, and I quote, "I want to be evil!"
She actively relishes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0517.html) torturing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html) paladins (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html).
She creates wights, and feeds them on human brains (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html).

Her insanity goes a long way to explain her behaviour, much as Redcloak's does his - but it doesn't make either of them less Evil. It just means we have some insight into why they're Evil.


3) Respecting authority, obeying orders... sounds like the Military. Any army you name pretty much does that. Where have we seen them torture and kill things in a non war context? And where do they oppress anyone weaker than themselves?

Well, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) most obviously.

[hamishspence]

People can do bad things and not be evil. I suppose it all comes down to your interpretation of evil. I believe that there are very few people in the world who are evil, since I see evil as more of a psychological thing from the perspective of the evil-doer.

In D&D- its quite possible for conformity to the laws of society and its standards, to be evil- if the society's goals and perspectives are sufficiently ruthless.

Fiendish Codex 2 outlines Lawful Evil Society- and its much more "normal" than what you are suggesting Evil should be.

Aside from fiends, in D&D very few creatures are "really truly evil" by your standard- yet many would have an Evil alignment- because they harm others enough, routinely, without reasonable justification, to fit.

These others might be "criminals" "members of enemy nations" - and so on. Yet the cruelty indulged in, is unnecessary cruelty- with "deterrence" being just an excuse.

Champions of Ruin is the book that stresses that routinely doing bad things, no matter how "noble" your motive- leads to evil alignment.

Savage Species is the book that stresses most evil-aligned beings don't usually behave evilly toward everyone- just toward those outside their in-group- or even, only toward those of a small subgroup- "criminals"- "enemies" etc.

[Lecan]

Can we? I can name basically one: Xykon.

Redcloak is a self-deluding goblin who hates humans, but in fairness, if you had been through the events of SoD, wouldn't you hate humans too? He's still working for the good of his people, even as twisted that motivation may become at some points.



I'm sorry, but being willing to literally destroy the entire universe, no matter how noble the end goal, is evil, both alignment- and morality-wise. Sure, he can be a sympathetic villian, but Redcloak is not good and has a long way to go to become so if he ever chose to be. As Soon said, atonement is not for everyone.

I can't figure out the spoiler tags, but if you read the end of SoD, you know for a fact that no person or group of people will ever get in the way of his goal. The ends do not justify the means.

If you want an example of good (morality and alignment), look no further than O-Chul, particularly the scene where Redcloak threatens to murder the Azurite captives to get O-Chul to talk. That truely reveals his character and his understanding of what it means to be both Good and good.

Edited to add emphasis.

[hamishspence]

In SoD, he makes it clear that its a possible result of things going wrong- not an intentional goal.

A "even if things go wrong and the world is destroyed, at least the next world to be made won't be as bad, for goblins, as this one" statement.

By contrast, the Azurites are willing to destroy their own gate rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the goblins.

If their gate had been the last gate, this would suggest it is them, who would rather destroy the world, than let the goblins win.

Redcloak's comment "It's you who keep resetting the Armageddon clock to Daylight Saving Time, not us"


Redcloak threatens to murder the Azurite captives to get O-Chul to talk.


Don't Split the Party describes his reaction to O-chul apparently refusing to talk, in these terms:

"For all his evil deeds, Redcloak can't bring himself to banish a bunch of humans to oblivion when it won't even help his cause"

[veti]

By contrast, the Azurites are willing to destroy their own gate rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the goblins.

If their gate had been the last gate, this would suggest it is them, who would rather destroy the world, than let the goblins win.

The hands of the goblins would be one thing, but the hands of Xykon and the BotCM are another.

I agree there's an interesting paradox here. Many people argue that Redcloak's plan makes him evil, because he's willing to risk destroying the world rather than leaving it in the hands of his enemies. But the Azurites, and the Scribblers, are also willing to risk the exact same thing, and for the exact same reason.

Doesn't bother me, as far as I'm concerned it's just another nail in the coffin of the intellectually-bankrupt idea of "objectively-defined morality"...

[olthar]

1) Yes, Redcloak kills humans for no reason other than their race. Also, when he was a kid, humans killed his entire family just because they were goblins. That doesn't make him good, and I never said he was a good person. I said he wasn't a BAD person. Shades of grey, shades of grey. Being bitter doesn't make you evil.

2) "Well, guess"?! What kind of freaking argument is that? She likes undead, and she's a little bit unscrewed. I haven't seen any evidence that she's purely evil.

3) Respecting authority, obeying orders... sounds like the Military. Any army you name pretty much does that. Where have we seen them torture and kill things in a non war context? And where do they oppress anyone weaker than themselves? They were content to live in their little valley until Xykon and co. came along.

4) A lot of those are very minor characters that I thought we weren't talking about. I'm not talking about characters who were only in a couple strips. You might be right about kubota though, I forgot about him.

5) Belkar, Sabine, Nale- yes. Thog- no. Stupid and loves ice cream and puppies, thinks Nale is his bff. Not evil. IFCC- Probably. We haven't seen them a whole lot yet, but the whole lap up the blood of the righteous thing... Ancient Black Dragon only wanted what she saw as revenge for the killing of her kid and husband. Kubota, scheming politician, but yeah, probably evil. Death Knight was in too few strips to even talk about, as was Huecuva. Who the heck is Bugsy? Do you mean Skullsy? Quarr- suckup, not evil. I mean, technically he's evil, and he's working w/ the IFCC now, but if we're not going by alignments... Samantha wasn't really EVIL, more just a (insert curse word) with magical powers.

6) Thieves Guild: Greedy, not evil. Power hungry, greedy, etc, but evil? Not really.

I'm not trying to say that any of these people are GOOD. I'm trying to say they're not all evil. So many of them are just shades of grey.

1: You may have heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right at some point in time... I.E. revenge may not be as obviously wrong, but it is still evil. Especially since everyone redcloak wants to get revenge on is long dead.

2/4: already really well covered/unimportant

3: That argument didn't work at Nuremberg. I don't see why it should work here.

5: This is the first time you mention alignment, which would invalidate your whole argument because based on alignment they are all clearly evil. That being said, just because someone is delusional or uninformed doesn't make them not evil. Besides, Second to last frame (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html) Thog is clearly evil. As for the other skele, 15th panel (halfway down on the right) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)I take it you don't see reveling in killing and destroying all that is good in the world as evil? If you don't then what is it?

6: Most of the people may be chaotic, but the top is pretty clearly evil. Hell, a stupid assassin is one of their top leadership. I don't really see how an assassin could be not evil.

What does someone need to do for you to consider them evil? Commit genocide?Hell, Hitler was loved by much of his nation who thought he was doing the right thing. Stalin was married twice (though whether his wives loved him might be debatable). Slobodan Milosevic was well loved. All of these people also attempted to commit genocide. Does the fact that some people liked them or believed they were doing the right thing make them not evil?

[Magicyop]

Again, I never said Redcloak was good. Redcloak is twisted, pathetic in a way, and completely cold hearted to everyone but the gobbo people.

But I don't think he's evil. He's not good, either!

Ok, you're right, I can see Tsukiko being evil. You've made a convincing argument.

But I still think that Redcloak, by my definition of evil, is not evil. He is everything that goes against human ideals, sure. But as another poster pointed out, he's not trying to destroy the world, he's basically accepted that this is the best way to get equality for his people and he will stop at nothing to make sure that happens. Plus, he was told to do it by his god. If your god, (Whoever you worship, even if it's not a god, you know what I mean) came to YOU and told you that you had to do something, most people would do it, especially if the person you worship as a deity is telling you that doing it will help you achieve your goal in life.

Also, am I forgetting something? Who is Bugsy? I originally thought you meant Skullsy, but do you mean Buggy Lou? I'm just curious.

EDIT: In response to the post above me, I don't really understand what you're saying. Thog eating ice cream = evil?

Didn't say the Huecuva was not evil, only that I'm not really counting minor characters. Sure, nameless azurite soldier who didn't run when defending the breach was good, but we don't mention him either.

Also, if you look what I said about alignment, I said we're NOT talking about alignment. The technical 'alignment' of someone in OotSworld and how they actually act tend to differ some times.

You ask me to name an assassin who wasn't evil? By my definition of evil or yours? Nearly every assassin in the history of the world has believed they are taking down a tyrant to save their people. Sure, it's pretty awful to the figure of power who gets killed, and those relying on them, but the assassin almost always does it because they believe it is the only right thing to do.

[EENick]

I suppose that you'd argue that the man who breaks into jewelry stores to steal necklaces is evil too.

[snip]
People can do bad things and not be evil.


Yea and people can do bad things and be evil.

I'd argue, since we cannot know anyone's mind that morality can only be judged from the combinations of a person's actions and how they take responsibility for the effects of their actions relative to their capacity to act on the events. Actions themselves might or might not have any inherent moral connections since after all good intentions can produce bad effects it becomes difficult to judge, however we can better judge how people follow up on said actions. In Red Cloak this leaves some room of discussion after all when he become aware of his actions concerning hobgoblins he attempt to correct this and put himself in harms way, in most others it doesn't.

Now that said are you telling me you would argue that a man who regularly forces other to break into the stores of poor people much worse of then himself, robs the place blind then shoots the owners and uses his own men as body shields while he shoot at somone he doesn't like and whom he could very easily avoid without loosing face, makes a deal with the said person that is to everyone's benefit and then plans to shoot them in the head as soon as he can and through out this whole thing isn't show to have any better reason for doing do isn't evil? 'Cause that is a lot closer to what we're talking about here with the guild. If anything that is under stating it.

Further I'd say you are absolutely wrong about people not thinking they don't do things wrong. Most people, in point of fact, are VERY much aware things they do are wrong all the time and they do them anymore. Heck most religions are based on people's awareness of the wrongs they do AS wrong. The vast majority of people to who steal stuff off the internet know it is wrong and just don't care. Apathy doesn't mean people are unaware.

[Lecan]

I never said RC's goal is to destroy the world. It's clear it is not. In fact, his stated goal is quite good. However, if an acceptable possible side-effect of your plan involves the world being destroyed and everyone's souls being erased, you are not good.

If you commit murder, especially on the one person you can trust, you are not good. If you then raise them from the dead, stealing their final just reward, you are worse than not good, you are pretty evil, along with a few other choice words.

If you do all of that because some guy bullied you but you need him for your plan that may or may not lead to destroying the world, well, you're pathetic. But not good.

[Magicyop]

How many times do I have to say this?! I never said RC is good, I said he's NOT. EVIL. But he's also a pretty pathetic, screwy sadist.

Mentality Wrong: Black-White
Mentality Right: Black-Grey-White


Ok, anyway. I suppose you're fairly right about the thieves guild, they're definitely closer to evil than they are to good. I still think that's it's more about what benefits them then simply about hurting people, but I can see how it's reasonable to think they're awfully close to true evil.

[silversaraph]

Any thread involving an evil, regardless if they're asking whether something is evil...


Will turn into an "evil" thread. Obviously. This path makes the most sense of them all. Being on topic is for losers.

[Herald Alberich]

But I still think that Redcloak, by my definition of evil, is not evil. He is everything that goes against human ideals, sure. But as another poster pointed out, he's not trying to destroy the world, he's basically accepted that this is the best way to get equality for his people and he will stop at nothing to make sure that happens. Plus, he was told to do it by his god. If your god, (Whoever you worship, even if it's not a god, you know what I mean) came to YOU and told you that you had to do something, most people would do it, especially if the person you worship as a deity is telling you that doing it will help you achieve your goal in life.

He's convinced that this is the best way, but he's no longer considering less apocolyptic options. Even with a foothold to legitimacy in Gobbotopia, he's continuing on with the Plan. I admit he has little choice between his god and Xykon, but it's not an excuse. And the Dark One is evil too, for being willing to risk a world's worth of mortal souls (including the ones he shepherds) for his goal.


Also, am I forgetting something? Who is Bugsy? I originally thought you meant Skullsy, but do you mean Buggy Lou? I'm just curious.

I wasn't the one who posted that, but I think that's probably it. Trafficking in slaves is fairly universally (these days) regarded as evil.


EDIT: In response to the post above me, I don't really understand what you're saying. Thog eating ice cream = evil?

No, Thog going on murderous rampages merely because he's bored = evil. Stupid evil, but there you are.


You ask me to name an assassin who wasn't evil? By my definition of evil or yours? Nearly every assassin in the history of the world has believed they are taking down a tyrant to save their people. Sure, it's pretty awful to the figure of power who gets killed, and those relying on them, but the assassin almost always does it because they believe it is the only right thing to do.

I dunno, you seem to think that someone can only be evil if they're evil in their own mind, and like it, like Xykon. Evil is a matter of common morality and public opinion. Humans perhaps shouldn't judge each other, but we do. And yes, as this discussion in itself shows, opinions differ (and change over time, as I noted with the slavery thing). Assassination may not be evil, if the target is an evil figure (I'd root for the Valkyrie plotters), but this is rarely the case.

[Deliverance]

How many times do I have to say this?! I never said RC is good, I said he's NOT. EVIL. But he's also a pretty pathetic, screwy sadist.

Mentality Wrong: Black-White
Mentality Right: Black-Grey-White
To be honest, your arguments in this thread appears to be making a case for:
Mentality Wonky: Grey-White [no Black allowed*]

* Unless it itself claims it is black, and then only by courtesy.

and that's fine - but it is somewhat useless to discuss whether a character is evil with a person who has redefined evil out of existence.

Redcloak may be a pretty pathetic screwy sadist as you put it, but at least he accepts that what he is doing is, overall, evil, and that his god is technically an evil god and that, well, people shouldn't be surprised when he, Redcloak, does evil things.

Check his and Xykon's laughs over Redcloack nearly killing Tsukiko deliberately (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0465.html) for one obvious example. Redcloak has done yet another potentially murderous deed and when somebody complains Xykon has this advice, which Redcloak endorses: "Listen, newbie. We are the villains. We play rough. You didn't die, so quit your whining and go do something useful".

[Magicyop]

You say my mentality is grey-white, while I would argue it's even more limited than that: grey.

That's probably not the right mentality, but I have trouble with the very extreme concepts of 'good' and 'evil'. One person's evil is another person's good, is another person's grey-area. If evil is defined by society, then what is evil when two societies conflict?

When we speak of the good-evil spectrum here, we're talking about the measure of a soul. Of a personality, one of the most complex, probably THE most complex thing in the world.(Yes, even more so than the Higgs-Boson!) It's unsurprising that there's a lot of disagreement.

My personal philosophy is that it's very hard to be truly evil or truly good. It's easier in a comic like this than it is in real life, however. But still, very thought provoking. Does true evil mean 51% of the world disagrees with what you do, and true good means 51% agree with what you do? If evil is judged by society, are we talking about the conflicted global society or the slightly more pointed country society? Good and Evil are just words to describe things that we find uncomfortable or bad, or helpful or good.

So my perspective is that the true measure of a soul's good/evil is whether they believe what they are doing is good or evil. The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil.

I know this doesn't work both ways- see Miko Miyazaki. She believed she was the epitome of true good, but... well, you read the comic.

So perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. If a man is judged only by what he thinks of his own actions, than he can act with total impunity for good if he believes in himself. But if a man is judged by his society's standards, there may be conflict, and something that he did for his or another society's good is perceived as evil by his society. So perhaps we must judge true evil not only by either of these criteria, but by them both. The true measure of a soul lies, perhaps, in your motivation for your actions, and in their effect on the people who surround you every day.

I know a lot of people disagree with my point of view, but I think that if we define someone only through the looking glass of their society, our image is flat, and skewed. That's my opinion.

[Kish]

So my perspective is that the true measure of a soul's good/evil is whether they believe what they are doing is good or evil. The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil.

I know this doesn't work both ways- see Miko Miyazaki.

It doesn't work even one way. "All right, then, I'll go to Hell!" said Huckleberry Finn.

That's without getting into the fact that that renders actions meaningless--someone who does all the things Xykon does, but tries to justify them rather than saying, "Yes, there is no fourth wall, I'm evil," is Not Truly Evil.

[Magicyop]

It doesn't work even one way. "All right, then, I'll go to Hell!" said Huckleberry Finn.

That's without getting into the fact that that renders actions meaningless--someone who does all the things Xykon does, but tries to justify them rather than saying, "Yes, there is no fourth wall, I'm evil," is Not Truly Evil.

Thanks for reading the rest of my post. :smallannoyed: If you continued reading, you would see that I said that perhaps the true answer lies somewhere inbetween... I don't want to repeat myself so please go back and read MY FULL POST. Thank you.

[derfenrirwolv]

I'm pretty sure the kids aren't guarding the prison, so we need to wait till the real liberation before figuring out whether than will pull a SOD

[Kish]

Thanks for reading the rest of my post. :smallannoyed: If you continued reading, you would see that I said that perhaps the true answer lies somewhere inbetween... I don't want to repeat myself so please go back and read MY FULL POST. Thank you.
I read it. And addressed it, too. "You're good if society says you're good," would make any social reformer bad. "You're good if you think you're good," would make delusion a crucial moral lynchpin in either direction, so that low self-esteem makes someone evil while narcissism makes someone good. Thus, true morality does not lie in between those two concepts, because it doesn't lie anywhere related to either one of them. If you wish to simply ignore the problem that your "my perspective is that the true measure of a soul's good/evil is whether they believe what they are doing is good or evil. The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil" makes Huckleberry Finn the villain of the novel about him, go ahead, I can hardly force you to address it.

[Darkhands]

You say my mentality is grey-white, while I would argue it's even more limited than that: grey.

That's probably not the right mentality, but I have trouble with the very extreme concepts of 'good' and 'evil'. One person's evil is another person's good, is another person's grey-area. If evil is defined by society, then what is evil when two societies conflict?

When we speak of the good-evil spectrum here, we're talking about the measure of a soul. Of a personality, one of the most complex, probably THE most complex thing in the world.(Yes, even more so than the Higgs-Boson!) It's unsurprising that there's a lot of disagreement.

My personal philosophy is that it's very hard to be truly evil or truly good. It's easier in a comic like this than it is in real life, however. But still, very thought provoking. Does true evil mean 51% of the world disagrees with what you do, and true good means 51% agree with what you do? If evil is judged by society, are we talking about the conflicted global society or the slightly more pointed country society? Good and Evil are just words to describe things that we find uncomfortable or bad, or helpful or good.

So my perspective is that the true measure of a soul's good/evil is whether they believe what they are doing is good or evil. The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil.

I know this doesn't work both ways- see Miko Miyazaki. She believed she was the epitome of true good, but... well, you read the comic.

So perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. If a man is judged only by what he thinks of his own actions, than he can act with total impunity for good if he believes in himself. But if a man is judged by his society's standards, there may be conflict, and something that he did for his or another society's good is perceived as evil by his society. So perhaps we must judge true evil not only by either of these criteria, but by them both. The true measure of a soul lies, perhaps, in your motivation for your actions, and in their effect on the people who surround you every day.

I know a lot of people disagree with my point of view, but I think that if we define someone only through the looking glass of their society, our image is flat, and skewed. That's my opinion.

This is my exact opinion as well, but infinitely better phrased than I could ever possibly attempt. Kudos to you, sir!

[hamishspence]

The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil" makes Huckleberry Finn the villain of the novel about him, go ahead, I can hardly force you to address it.

The distinction here- is in wrongly believing your acts are evil- in the case of Huck.

A person can be deluded into believing they are evil, just as they can be deluded into believing they are good.

[Klev]

You say my mentality is grey-white, while I would argue it's even more limited than that: grey.

That's probably not the right mentality, but I have trouble with the very extreme concepts of 'good' and 'evil'. One person's evil is another person's good, is another person's grey-area. If evil is defined by society, then what is evil when two societies conflict?

When we speak of the good-evil spectrum here, we're talking about the measure of a soul. Of a personality, one of the most complex, probably THE most complex thing in the world.(Yes, even more so than the Higgs-Boson!) It's unsurprising that there's a lot of disagreement.

My personal philosophy is that it's very hard to be truly evil or truly good. It's easier in a comic like this than it is in real life, however. But still, very thought provoking. Does true evil mean 51% of the world disagrees with what you do, and true good means 51% agree with what you do? If evil is judged by society, are we talking about the conflicted global society or the slightly more pointed country society? Good and Evil are just words to describe things that we find uncomfortable or bad, or helpful or good.

So my perspective is that the true measure of a soul's good/evil is whether they believe what they are doing is good or evil. The person who knows that they are evil, that person is, in my eyes, truly evil.

I know this doesn't work both ways- see Miko Miyazaki. She believed she was the epitome of true good, but... well, you read the comic.

So perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. If a man is judged only by what he thinks of his own actions, than he can act with total impunity for good if he believes in himself. But if a man is judged by his society's standards, there may be conflict, and something that he did for his or another society's good is perceived as evil by his society. So perhaps we must judge true evil not only by either of these criteria, but by them both. The true measure of a soul lies, perhaps, in your motivation for your actions, and in their effect on the people who surround you every day.

I know a lot of people disagree with my point of view, but I think that if we define someone only through the looking glass of their society, our image is flat, and skewed. That's my opinion.


So I am curious in your vision are this people not evil:

A) A fanatic that kills children,women from another race/nationality/whatever because his religion says that is correct ?

B) A person that blow a house out of the revenge of his father mudered. In the house besides the murderer there was also two innocent children. The person dont believe that this wrong because his revenge come first.

C) A king that kills any peasant that steps on his foot without any remorse, because he fells that being a king he was the right to do so.

D)Hitler ? I do think he believed that everything about the pure race was true...

[Magicyop]

So I am curious in your vision are this people not evil:

A) A fanatic that kills children,women from another race/nationality/whatever because his religion says that is correct ?

B) A person that blow a house out of the revenge of his father mudered. In the house besides the murderer there was also two innocent children. The person dont believe that this wrong because his revenge come first.

C) A king that kills any peasant that steps on his foot without any remorse, because he fells that being a king he was the right to do so.

D)Hitler ? I do think he believed that everything about the pure race was true...

You're seeing this as a surefire formula for determining IF (___) THAN "GOOD", ELSE "BAD". This is not that, it is a theological discussion based on something which frankly, I'm not sure our puny minds can comprehend.

A) Isn't this a grey situation? This is what I said before, when societies collide. Your society clearly believes that no matter what, the taking of a life is evil. However, in this person's society(their religion) it is the only 'good' thing to do, and they believe[and others in their religion believe] that killing them is right and just. Everyone has different interpretations, and do you really think that something like 'good' or 'evil' just carries over across the entire world?

B) I had to read this several times to understand you, but this is a little different, although it has the same premise as the one above. While still a grey situation, in this case, the person taking revenge very well might know that their revenge is not justified. Sure, they might think that it's righteous, but there's also at least an even chance that they know that taking revenge on their father is wrong, but do it anyway.

C) Again, this is a grey area. Our society is shocked and galled at such a horrible 'tyranny'. The world this supposed king lives in might not feel the same. Are you saying that YOUR perception of good and evil immediately trumps other people's perceptions, just because you're THAT AWESOME? No. You're wrong. Just because you think something is evil does not mean everyone does, and in that case, does it truly fall into the concept of 'evil'?

D) Here we go, that's the classic example. Think about this. From a young age, children are taught, "Hitler = Bad". Controversial as this is, isn't that very much like what Hitler taught the children of germany about you-know-what? Nobody really knows what hitler's exact motivations were, but germany believed he was righteous, and he believed he was righteous, are you saying that an entire nation is wrong just because you disagree?

This is getting FAR to controversial and off-topic, and I know I helped to bring it there, so sorry about that. I'm going to stop posting on this forum because even though my theological posts seem to have some people that agree, they spark a lot of controversy and are extremely off topic. So long.

[Snake-Aes]

Yet again people mixing moralities around...
Call the system good once it punishes the hero for demolishing half of the city on the process of killing the villain, even if everyone else was safe.

[Herald Alberich]

A) Isn't this a grey situation? This is what I said before, when societies collide. Your society clearly believes that no matter what, the taking of a life is evil. However, in this person's society(their religion) it is the only 'good' thing to do, and they believe[and others in their religion believe] that killing them is right and just. Everyone has different interpretations, and do you really think that something like 'good' or 'evil' just carries over across the entire world?

Sure. In order for the concepts of good and evil to have any meaning at all, I must hold that they apply to all people, no matter their own beliefs. At the same time, I cannot simply discount those beliefs and inflict punishments without any consideration. The proper course of action here would be to stop the killings, then educate the society about the universal value of all human life (with philosophical justification) while perhaps handing down a reduced sentence to the actual perpetrators. Hope that reason wins the day from there.

Of course, in this scenario I have that power and the duty to use it; how to gain the power over them is another question.


B) I had to read this several times to understand you, but this is a little different, although it has the same premise as the one above. While still a grey situation, in this case, the person taking revenge very well might know that their revenge is not justified. Sure, they might think that it's righteous, but there's also at least an even chance that they know that taking revenge on their father is wrong, but do it anyway.

Well, then what's the problem? If they know it's wrong, and you know it's wrong, arrest them, charge them, and hope they plead guilty. If they still consider themselves in the right, charge them anyway, for three counts of murder. If there are no innocents killed, a lesser sentence is reasonable (aggravated manslaughter or some such), but they still killed a fellow human being without due process of law.


C) Again, this is a grey area. Our society is shocked and galled at such a horrible 'tyranny'. The world this supposed king lives in might not feel the same. Are you saying that YOUR perception of good and evil immediately trumps other people's perceptions, just because you're THAT AWESOME? No. You're wrong. Just because you think something is evil does not mean everyone does, and in that case, does it truly fall into the concept of 'evil'?

It's not that we're that awesome, but that we're more enlightened. We have grasped the concept that all human life is to be valued. In this case, again, if we have the power to do something about it we should depose the king and teach the society. If not, we shake our heads sadly at this display of, yes, tyranny.


D) Here we go, that's the classic example. Think about this. From a young age, children are taught, "Hitler = Bad". Controversial as this is, isn't that very much like what Hitler taught the children of germany about you-know-what? Nobody really knows what hitler's exact motivations were, but germany believed he was righteous, and he believed he was righteous, are you saying that an entire nation is wrong just because you disagree?

Absolutely. "So many people believe this, so they must be right" is a horribly fallacious argument; truth is not decided by majority vote (not even on Wikipedia, Colbert fans). We teach that "Hitler = bad" because of the things he did. Because of the millions murdered on his orders, and the millions more who were persuaded by his charasmatic lies. Not because he was German, or white, or had a mustache. His teachings were not based on history, but on what would bring him power.

I leave with two quotes. Regardless of the movie's merits, I think this dialogue from Revenge of the Sith is apt:

"Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"
"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"
"Then you are lost!"

Just because Anakin held that viewpoint, doesn't mean he was right. He had been swayed by Palpatine's lies. Our views on good and evil, and other moral and social issues, must be reevaluated by ourselves periodically (even continuously) so that we are sure we are in the right of things.

I'm also aware that it's not always so simple as just good or just evil; you'll not that I advocated reduced sentences due to circumstances above. This line from Wicked has been said to sum up the musical's message:

"There are precious few at ease/with moral ambiguities/so we act as though they don't exist."

I'm saying here that each scenario must be evaluated and judged by our knowledge, carefully, not quickly. Others will disagree with our conclusions. That's what debate is for.

[KiwiImperator]

Jeeze, I came here expecting walls of text, sure, but I didn't come here expecting philosophical treatises. Never change, Playground.

[Optimystik]

The distinction here- is in wrongly believing your acts are evil- in the case of Huck.

A person can be deluded into believing they are evil, just as they can be deluded into believing they are good.

This is, in fact, a standard tactic of Devils according to FC2.

"You're already damned from helping me out before, you might as well just sign this contract and go all the way." (The individual in question is not yet Evil.)

[Adonis1x23]

If we are going to call Red Cloak evil for the way he kills humans, would we not have to call the Sapphire Guard evil for killing goblins--which they have done on a massive scale?

You can't say one group is evil for doing something, and say another group who did the exact same thing isn't.

[factotum]

If we are going to call Red Cloak evil for the way he kills humans, would we not have to call the Sapphire Guard evil for killing goblins--which they have done on a massive scale?

You can't say one group is evil for doing something, and say another group who did the exact same thing isn't.

Motive is important too, you know. The Sapphire Guard killed goblins to protect the world. Redcloak is killing humans partially for petty revenge and partially to forward a plan which could potentially result in the destruction of the world and everybody in it. Certainly one is more evil than the other, even if you consider both acts to be evil ones.

[multilis]

Redcloak wants his clerics to turn his own people into zombies rather than heal them because they are evil side...

...puts ally T at risk of death from elemental because it is funny and evil guys play rough.

Hey look a monster! Lets send some of our fellow goblins over with crackers so he eats them till so full he falls asleep. Isn't that funny.

Belkar evil was measured in kilo-nazis and even "nazis" didn't kill their own for fun.

Redcloak is self described speciest rather than genocidal because he wants to kill all humans rather than a certain race of them.

[Clockworkchaos]

Motive is important too, you know. The Sapphire Guard killed goblins to protect the world. Redcloak is killing humans partially for petty revenge and partially to forward a plan which could potentially result in the destruction of the world and everybody in it. Certainly one is more evil than the other, even if you consider both acts to be evil ones.

There is also the group vs individual nature to consider. Redcloak is a individual and as such must be judged as a whole, the sapphire guard is not. As such one can condemn certain sections of it without believing every single one to be evil.

[hamishspence]

.Redcloak is self described speciest rather than genocidal because he wants to kill all humans rather than a certain race of them.

I've seen this assertion made over and over- and there is no evidence whatsover in the strip for:

"Redcloak wants to kill all humans"

[Closak]

Bah, humans are all genocidal maniacs who kill goblins because they are goblins, they also murder dragons and all manner of other creatures even if they have not done anything.

And to make matters worse, not only do the humans indiscriminately butcher any and all non-humans but they have the gall to get angry when their victims retaliate.

What gives them the right to attack like that and then get mad over the resulting retaliation, if they attack then they darn well deserve said retaliation and have no right to get mad over it.

But no, the humans goes off and start screaming about how they have the right to do anything they want no matter how evil or hypocritical it may be and of how they will brutally murder anything that tries to strike back.

No wonder all the non-human races hate humans.

And then the humans actually have the gall to make themselves out to as the good guys, totally ignoring the fact that they struck first. :smallfurious:

[KiwiImperator]

What gives them the right to attack like that and then get mad over the resulting retaliation, if they attack then they darn well deserve said retaliation and have no right to get mad over it.

It is precisely this kind of reasoning that would excuse the Paladins for their genocidal actions against goblins. One cannot simply arbitrarily decide that because some humans somewhere attacked some goblins, the goblins are justified in killing X^10000 humans, because if that were so, then one could make an equally valid case for the extermination of the entire goblin species, and nobody would have a right to complain about it. What at this point must be a large and noteworthy percentage of all of the goblins in the world are trying to unmake the universe. That trumps the destruction of any number of villages by a mystical organization of Paladins on dint of simple scope. So perhaps the Azurites deserved what they got, but if that's the coin we're flipping, then by the same token the goblins deserve what they're about to get, too.

[hamishspence]

What at this point must be a large and noteworthy percentage of all of the goblins in the world are trying to unmake the universe. That trumps the destruction of any number of villages by a mystical organization of Paladins on dint of simple scope.

Incorrect- The Plan is not about unmaking the universe- if the Plan goes wrong- there is a risk of the universe being unmade: SoD.

The goal is not to unmake the universe, but to gain control of a gate, in order to threaten the other gods with them (not the world) being destroyed if they do not cooperate.

Ironically, so far most of the "universe endangering" has come from people destroying gates to keep them out of the goblins' hands.

And "a large and noteworthy percentage" aren't, in fact, directly involved in The Plan. Only Redcloak is. Even Jirix appears to know very little about it.

[doodthedud]

Redcloak wants his clerics to turn his own people into zombies rather than heal them because they are evil side...

...puts ally T at risk of death from elemental because it is funny and evil guys play rough.

Hey look a monster! Lets send some of our fellow goblins over with crackers so he eats them till so full he falls asleep. Isn't that funny.


He got mad at himself for these and changed his ways midway through the battle of Azure City.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

[Alex Warlorn]

What I find odd is that they felt the need to lie their paladin united commander about killing an unarmed and bound, currently non-hostile non-combatant, in direct circumvention of his orders. If Thanh was like those who slaughtered Redcloak's village, why would they feel the need to lie to him about that?

[factotum]

Er, why have you posted that in this thread? Not really sure what relevance it has to the topic.

[Zxo]

What at this point must be a large and noteworthy percentage of all of the goblins in the world are trying to unmake the universe.

I doubt that the knowledge of the Plan is common among goblins and hobgoblins. They are just following their leader, enjoy conquering a human city, which is understandable given the history from SoD, and they are probably not aware what they are really taking part in.

[doodthedud]

Motive is important too, you know. The Sapphire Guard killed goblins to protect the world. Redcloak is killing humans partially for petty revenge and partially to forward a plan which could potentially result in the destruction of the world and everybody in it. Certainly one is more evil than the other, even if you consider both acts to be evil ones.

"But you can't tell motive, so you can't judge it!!"

Just kidding. That's the sort of thing many responses seem to come down to. Motive not only is a factor, but easily the most important factor. Thank you for the sane response.