Redcloak

[Guilliaume]

I was thinking, and I got into a discussion with a contemporary.
Is Redcloak really that bad a guy? I mean he worships an Evil god which makes him evil by default. But he's evil because hes prescribed to be. The setting has Monstrous races being created as fodder and XPs for the PCs by the gods. So on the bidding of his god, who was once mortal and murdered by PC races for being quote unquote evil, Redcloak wants goblins to be treated as equals and not discriminated against. Seems like a freedom fighter from that description

Don't get me wrong, he raises undeads, and willingly consorts with the evilest of evil undeads. But really those are tools. My memory of that part of the comic fades me at this moment was he the torturer? And its not cool to hold the world hostage to get the gods to give goblins a fair shake. I feel like his sympathetic side gets in the way of his being a bad guy. Am I alone? So very alone?

[Thanatosia]

Get Start of Darkness, it sheds a ton of light on Redcloaks character..... it makes some people realy hate him, and it makes others feel even more sympathetic, but it leaves no doubt or question that Redcloak IS evil, the line in the sand that he crosses for his moral event horizon is crystal clear, and the ignobility of his ultimate reason for crossing it are laid bare by Xykon so confusion about it could stand.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Recloak is Evil, there's no question about that.

He's not a nice person, either, really. His goal is good, but does the end justify the means in this case? Where the means are mass murder and such?

Don't get me wrong, Redcloak is probably one of the better people one Team Evil, but that doesn't make him not-Evil.

[ScottishDragon]

Doing evil for a noble cause doesn't stop it from being evil.

[pinwiz]

My friend and I had a debate about this not an hour ago. It is an interesting question, and I believe that the answer is that he is evil. The way he is presented makes him justifiably evil, but evil none the less. Leading hobgoblins to their deaths over a childhood grudge is pretty darn evil in my book. Also, torturing O-Chul leaves no doubt in my mind as to RC's evilness.

[denthor]

Redcloak is evil for a good cause.

He is the ends justify the means.

If you want something to help the people killing a few thousand humans is not a problem if it helps everybody else out.

He is killing a baby that could grow up and have the people rally around him as the once son of a king therefore a future king.

He is serving a god that came into being by having an entire crusade wage in his name that did not need to be fought.

[RickDaily12]

Is Redcloak Evil? Yes, this CANNOT be debated. He is Evil, and will always be Evil.

But what Guilliaume has asked is that if he is consciencally evil, not morally evil. And I agree completely, that yes, SoD is a BIG helper in understanding this conversation.

The questions that need to be addressed, in this case, are his motives for doing what he does. For starters, being a murderer is not going to warrant enough. Redcloak has never killed anyone for the sake of killing someone. With this said, he has killed for vengance, and in cold blood. BUT, in BOTH cases, these people were enemies proven to be a very likely future threat... and well, he got P.O-ed at them for very understandable circumstances.:smalltongue:

So I'd say that as far as killing other people, his motives are more extreme than that of a Good aligned person, but the direct reasoning behind it is no different at all. Those paladins posed to kill him.

And as far as things like SoD, they caused the deaths of his friends and family CONSTANTLY. This was BEFORE making a movement, clearly hostile, towards him.

They STILL cause the deaths of his friends. Plus, it's not just for self-defense, but a Good aligned person is no different in this- he has also killed, or threatened to, to press on with his mission. The words might have been different, the situation was MUCH more extreme, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) but he needed to use whatever tactic to keep the quest alive. Would Vaarsuvius do anything different? Would any Neutral character would? I've adventured with Paladins. They still tortured Evil characters to find more information for a quest.

Plus, he's doing what he believes will help the goblin people. He's not trying to take over the world "just because he wants to". He's trying to do what the Dark One couldn't.

After all, the guy died when he tried negotiating with the humans, elves, and dwarves. He had given everything he could to find a peaceful solution with the other races in an honorable diplomatic way, and they just assassinated him. As far as what he attempted to do one that day, and how the goblins responded to his death, with the big butchering thing, I feel NO sympathy to the other races.

He's doing "The Plan" because the Dark One truly believes there is no other way for Goblins to live safe and well lives. If the humans wouldn't listen to him by their own free will, how could they possibly say "no" to negotation when their Gods directly command them hear them out, despite being threatened with their existence?

I respect Redcloak's goal, just not his methods. If you judge him by his ethics, then there is no way you can call him a great fun trustworthy guy. Especially with the other races. But when you judge him through his personality, he truly is a lot more noble and caring than others. DEFINTELY more than Miko, I'd say.

[derfenrirwolv]

Evil isn't so much about what you want as how far you're willing to go to get it.

Redcloak is willing to embark on a plan that has a significant chance of destroying the souls of every creature living on the PLANET, as well as possibly the souls of everyone who's ever lived. Redcloak has a good point, but destroying the immortal souls of millions is going way.. way too far.

[Thanatosia]

He's doing "The Plan" because the Dark One truly believes there is no other way for Goblins to live safe and well lives.
I get the distinct impression that you've read Start of Darkness, so I think you know full well thats not the real reason he's doing "The Plan" at this point.

Semi-Spoiler - no direct details from SOD included below, but reading it will make you recognize what direction Redcloak is headed in SOD earlier then the comic really intends you to understand I think:
The real reason is because he's psychologically suceptable to a logical flaw known as the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs%23Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_falla cy&usg=AFQjCNHT2Bu4SPY_jET3nVpbDX1rQq7S8Q&ei=sX2QS5i5HpH4tAPOnez8Aw&sa=X&oi=section_link&resnum=1&ct=legacy&ved=0CAgQygQ), and is simply unable to walk away from it at this point because of his tormented conscience for all the things he's done in the name of "The Plan"

[RedCloakLives!]

Imagine: Red Cloak the young peacenik, carrying an armload of flowers, skips merrily up to the blue bed sheet wearing lynch mob. Quoth he:

"Hi, Mr. Paladin, would you be my friend? Here's a daisy for you! Please stop murdering u-----"

SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH


As previously demonstrated, Red Cloak is the true hero of the story! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112367)

:smallwink:

[Fallbot]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if he was truly dedicated to improving the lot of the goblin people, and wasn't motivated by the sunk-cost fallacy, ensuring the success of Gobbotopia would be a good start. But instead of that, he is willing to continue with the plan and risk the lives and souls of every single creature on the planet.

You could argue that he's continuing only at the behest of the Dark One, but his conversation with his reflection in 701 suggests otherwise. His motivations are selfish, even if he doesn't see it that way. Don't get me wrong, he's still an interesting and somewhat sympathetic character, but he's evil, even if we look beyond the entry in the monster manual.

[hamishspence]

According to DStP, he established Gobbotopia as a goal "over and beyond the goal to control The Snarl"

His delaying is deliberate- he is focussed on building Gobbotopia, as much as The Plan.

now, however, Xykon has explicitly stated it's time to go- as soon as they find his phylactery.

Until the end of War & XPs- Redcloak's main interest appeared to be furthering the Plan. However, since then, most of his time has been spent on ensuring the success of Gobbotopia.

He can't do that anymore, though- not without provoking Xykon. Hence, handing it over to Jirix.

[RickDaily12]

I get the distinct impression that you've read Start of Darkness, so I think you know full well thats not the real reason he's doing "The Plan" at this point.

Semi-Spoiler - no direct details from SOD included below, but reading it will make you recognize what direction Redcloak is headed in SOD earlier then the comic really intends you to understand I think:
The real reason is because he's psychologically suceptable to a logical flaw known as the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs%23Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_falla cy&usg=AFQjCNHT2Bu4SPY_jET3nVpbDX1rQq7S8Q&ei=sX2QS5i5HpH4tAPOnez8Aw&sa=X&oi=section_link&resnum=1&ct=legacy&ved=0CAgQygQ), and is simply unable to walk away from it at this point because of his tormented conscience for all the things he's done in the name of "The Plan"

And if you remember, Redcloak wasn't always the first Crimson Mantle bearer. Therefore, the moment he's picked that cloak, he still had the chance to walk away from this threat of the Snarl.

Did he? No.

In fact, I don't even think anything crucial to the point where the Plan would HAVE to continue on regardless of the circumstances didn't happen until WAY later in that book.

It should be obvious that I'm refering to ten years after Redcloak took the Crimson Mantle from his master after the Paladin attack that killed everyone he was close to, to when the battle of Lirian's Gate had fallen. If the real reason was because too much damage in the Plan was already done, to the point that quitting now would likely result in... (what, exactly?:smallconfused: Death? Hatred? Eternal Damnation?) I don't think that even started until AFTER Lirian's Gate burned to the ground. When he created Xykon, who threatened to eliminate him if he got in the lich's way, and the fact that he was already responsible for universal destruction, so the point in stopping no longer mattered since the ruler of the other four gates were already after his head.

So if you can spot something between this ten year gap that proves me wrong, then I'm sticking to what I just said: Between this period of time, nothing would stop Redcloak from quitting the Plan. Nothing. Nothing got that serious at that point in time.

So you've really got it the other way around. The Plan wasn't created to never be turned down. Or rather, it was created to benefit the goblins. The distance Redcloak has gone would make it difficult to stop, if even possible, sure. This might be ONE of the bigger reasons why he is continuing even after creating Gobbotopia. But there is no way you can look people in the eye and say that the main motive for the creation of the Plan is NOT for the sake of the goblins. It has ALWAYS been for the sake of the goblins. If you look the facts over again, you will see that it directly says this. Therefore, I can't agree with you. You need to read everything about the Plan once more.

[TriForce]

redcloak is easely comparable with hitler, both in motivation and in actions hes willing to take to make his goals reality

now i know there are some birth-defects walking around that would argue hitler isnt evil, but the new messiah, but the general opinion of people WITH a IQ higher then room temperature is that he wasnt a nice guy, same goes for redcloak, stop debating this, its not debatable. you can make a better case for a cube has no angles then a redcloak thats not evil

[Snake-Aes]

Poor Hitler. Why does everyone have to summon him? Leave his grave alone.

Redcloak is evil.
His ultimate plan is one that we can identify to, as it's a disfavored group struggling for equality.
That doesn't mean Redcloak is not evil.
There are thousands of examples of that exact "dissonance" in both fantasy and reality. Abyss... half of the good stories about paladins gone blackguards are of paladins who did evil with some noble cause behind it.

[fwiffo]

I declare this a "is <x> morally justified" thread and summon the ghost of moderators past.

[hamishspence]

Poor Hitler. Why does everyone have to summon him? Leave his grave alone.

I think Ozymandias is a safer parallel- Commit mass murder- and endanger the world- in order to "Save The World From Nuclear War."

Redcloak- endanger the world- in order to "Save Goblins From Being XP Fodder."

[The Extinguisher]

Redcloak is evil. Redcloak is a terrible person. Redcloak is a coward who can't admit he made a mistake trusting Xykon, and cost the lives of everyone who was close to him.

Bascially, yeah, he's evil.

[Durgok]

Depends on what view you take... Evil (when not talking about the hard-lined alignments) is very subjective.

To the Hobgoblins and Goblins in Gobbotopia is Redcloak evil? Probably not.

In Xykon's eyes Redcloak is probably about as evil as Polly Pocket.

To other people doing terrible deeds they might see Redcloak as the good guy.


This is most likely the reason why there are the hard-lined alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, to somewhat help clear up the confusion of subjectivity.

[Draconi Redfir]

Redcloak persues a good-aligned cause Via evil-aligned means, so really the whole thing is just True neutral.

[factotum]

Redcloak persues a good-aligned cause Via evil-aligned means, so really the whole thing is just True neutral.

Depends on the balance. The potential Evil here (destroying the world and everyone in it) is considerably greater than the stated Good benefits (giving a better life to the goblinoid races), especially when we consider that some of the goblins didn't seem to be living such a hard life--the hobgoblin city in the mountains, for example; to support 30,000 warriors plus whatever number of women, elderly and children, they must have had a pretty good infrastructure set up.

[The Extinguisher]

Redcloak persues a good-aligned cause Via evil-aligned means, so really the whole thing is just True neutral.

That's not quite how it works out there.

Actions are more important then intent. And sure, Redcloak's ideas SEEM good at first, but based on how he treats those left in Azure City, and a few statements in SoD* he definitely doesn't want Goblins to be equal. He wants them ruling.

* specifically:

Right Eye: "It's not a competition"
Redcloak: "Of course it is"

[multilis]

" Redcloak has never killed anyone for the sake of killing someone"

He puts at risk of killing even his own allies, partially for fun/not being annoyed, he is in many ways X lite.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0457.html - laughs with X later over "forgetting" to tell elemental not to kill his ally.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0433.html He used clerics for making zombies out of goblins rather than heal them, because "we are bad guys". - ie evil.

***

IMO people like making excuses for "fun" characters, eg the same people who are critical at Miko for doing xxxx often love Belkar for doing worse "surrender, ha come my little packets of xp".

If Redcloak puts ally Tsukiko at risk for *fun*, even after his "growth" about treating goblins better, why should we expect him to be any better with other non goblins?

He is also a self described "speciest", sort of like genocidal but all humans rather than just one race.

[hamishspence]

He is also a self described "speciest", sort of like genocidal but all humans rather than just one race.

There is an enormous assumption here: Racist = Genocidal.

Which is seriously flawed.

I don't think any of the strips, or SoD, have ever suggested Redcloak wants the genocide of humans.


And sure, Redcloak's ideas SEEM good at first, but based on how he treats those left in Azure City, and a few statements in SoD* he definitely doesn't want Goblins to be equal. He wants them ruling.

He was complaining about the severe inequality of wealth (attributed earlier in the book to the direct influence of the gods) not about the fact that "goblins don't rule the world"

[Ancalagon]

Depends on what view you take... Evil (when not talking about the hard-lined alignments) is very subjective.

No, it's not. Not even in "real" but much, much less in D&D where "evil" is a fixed concept of the universe. Especially in D&D it's less debatable than in any other (RPG)-system I know.


To the Hobgoblins and Goblins in Gobbotopia is Redcloak evil? Probably not.

What makes you say that? He might work for the good of the goblins and thus they won't see his goal as evil.
But his means still are. He tortures, invades, kills. He is not a nice person. He's the High Cleric of an evil god.


In Xykon's eyes Redcloak is probably about as evil as Polly Pocket.
No. Xykon is very, very aware that and how evill Redcloak is. It's a common misconception (it seems to be one in this forum at least) that "if X is much, much more evil than Y, then Y cannot be very evil". That's simply a wrong assumption.
Apart from that: Xykon even tells Redcloak he is "evil". Read SoD.


To other people doing terrible deeds they might see Redcloak as the good guy.
Hum? Who?
Linear Guild? IFCC? Xykon? Tsukiko?


This is most likely the reason why there are the hard-lined alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, to somewhat help clear up the confusion of subjectivity.

There is no subjectivity about Redcloak's evil. He wants the goblins to have a fair share of the world, fine. But just see what he does to achieve them. See how he reacts. Check out how he killed his SPOILER for it.

You might argue you understand Redcloak or that his final goal is a good one but I really think that someone who claims Redcloak was not evil is simply... wrong.

[Snake-Aes]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WickedCultured


Now to go away from tropes...
Who here read or watched Rurouni Kenshin? Remember Shishio? Burned to the core, evil like Xykon, a raving lunatic after a few seconds of thought...And loved by his men into deific levels.

Evilness/Goodness have nothing to do with likability.

[licoot]

Redcloak is not evil, he nearly sees no other way of helping the goblin people other then doing some evil deeds. Him being evil or not is dictated by how you define evil

[Snake-Aes]

Redcloak is not evil, he nearly sees no other way of helping the goblin people other then doing some evil deeds. Him being evil or not is dictated by how you define evil

He is evil. He recognizes himself as evil. His deeds are all of evil nature. The fact he wants goblinoid equality doesn't change the fact he's evil.


Since people don't seem to be capable of abstracting deeds on their own, let's bring yet another lame real life cliché. Terrorists. Terrorism is one way of making yourself heard. Most of them do what they do for something they believe to be right, and generally IS something good for the population they "represent". They're still evil.

[hamishspence]

While its best not to bring up real life in this sort of discussion- the same comparison could be made to Azure City- especially in SoD.

A state, with a secretive order that commits atrocities abroad- whose leader authorizes those atrocities- they only way to deal with such a state, which commits acts that look awfully like terrorization, is to invade it.

[Ancalagon]

Yet the interesting thing about Azure City is that it simply WAS a good city. And the ruler was good as well as the Paladins.

The entire thing is more complex than some people here seem to want to admit.

[Guilliaume]

I thought about the terrorism thing. I don't think it holds up. I think that comes down to ones own preconceived notions about the group in question. "They're good people, then they're Freedom Fighters; They're bad, then they're terrorists." Which I think sums up my thoughts on alignment as well. I believe intent is more important than actions, but that's just me. Goblins aren't people and thus its very easy to commit Fantastic Racism against them. Which is what happens in SoD.

I play in a pretty black and white game but I like shades of grey. 'Usually good' races bother me because there is little back room politics. It gets boring fighting the evil -darker- sub races, Drow, Duergar, so on. Wow this turned into a completely different rant.

[hamishspence]

Elves might be "usually chaotic good"- but going by the Forgotten Realms novels, there is an enormous amount of back-room bickering.

"Usually X" can, with the right writer, allow for a lot of variation.

[Snake-Aes]

Elves might be "usually chaotic good"- but going by the Forgotten Realms novels, there is an enormous amount of back-room bickering.

"Usually X" can, with the right writer, allow for a lot of variation.

"Usually" just means 50%+ fits it.


But Redcloak is evil. The only thing he has for himself that would say otherwise is that his backstory didn't start well and his ultimate goal is goblin equality.
Pro-RC-Being-Good people seem to ignore he's completely willing to destroy the world if it'll achieve his goal. Or that "equality" is the minimum. And that he has absolutely no qualms torturing someone if it's convenient to him(read: CONVENIENT. That's why he totured O-Chul. Convenience). And that he created Xykon.
Redcloak is the new Belkar for alignments.

[SoC175]

Between this period of time, nothing would stop Redcloak from quitting the Plan. He is a cleric and it's the will of his deity.

[Ancalagon]

This feels a bit like "Redcloak could look right into the camera and say 'See, I'm Lawful Evil' and people still would argue that he actually was good". :)

[Ancalagon]

He is a cleric and it's the will of his deity.

Even more, the events from SoD will keep him from that. We have not seen the necessary character development for such a step.

The first hint MIGHT have been "out there". But it's not yet enough to actually say something.

[Durgok]

No, it's not. Not even in "real" but much, much less in D&D where "evil" is a fixed concept of the universe. Especially in D&D it's less debatable than in any other (RPG)-system I know.

Not talking about the hard-lined alignments. Of course the subject of being evil is subjective. It all depends on who is talking about what. What Miko did by many people's views by killing Shojo was considered Evil. By her gods it was considered evil. But it was not considered evil by her. That alone shoulders evidence that aside from base-lining a standard for alignment how people perceive actions is ultimately subjective. I was not talking about Dungeons and Dragons alignment system by that particular statement.




What makes you say that? He might work for the good of the goblins and thus they won't see his goal as evil.
But his means still are. He tortures, invades, kills. He is not a nice person. He's the High Cleric of an evil god.

If you take the working with Xykon, and the plan that may involve destroying the universe and forget about them for just a minute... Who's to say the god he worships is evil? (Once again not talking about the Alignment system.) Who ultimately decided what is evil and what is not? Obviously killing another living creature is not an always-evil act (as the good guys do it continuously)



No. Xykon is very, very aware that and how evill Redcloak is. It's a common misconception (it seems to be one in this forum at least) that "if X is much, much more evil than Y, then Y cannot be very evil". That's simply a wrong assumption.
Apart from that: Xykon even tells Redcloak he is "evil". Read SoD.

Alright, I'll give you that, I haven't read SoD yet (waiting on it to arrive), but what I had originally meant in my statement was that as far as Xykon is concerned I believe that Xykon feels that Redcloak (compared to him [which I initially did not provide in my last post]) is not very evil at all.



Hum? Who?
Linear Guild? IFCC? Xykon? Tsukiko?

People who (in that universe) commit genocide of "good-aligned" creatures and have a cause to do so on a daily basis might actually believe they are the good guys, and when they see someone such as Redcloak doing something to assist their cause they may see him as one of the "Good Guys".




There is no subjectivity about Redcloak's evil. He wants the goblins to have a fair share of the world, fine. But just see what he does to achieve them. See how he reacts. Check out how he killed his SPOILER for it.

You might argue you understand Redcloak or that his final goal is a good one but I really think that someone who claims Redcloak was not evil is simply... wrong.

Nowhere did I state any personal implications about how I feel towards whether or not Redcloak's actions were good or evil, I was just stating that when you take the alignment system out of play Evil becomes subjective to who is viewing the situation.

My entire previous post (and the majority of this one) was entirely based on suspending the belief of the hard-lined alignments, and of the right-wrong system of our base morality and simply see that Evil isn't always evil depending on who is shining the light on it.

Essentially I was playing Devil's Advocate.

[Snake-Aes]

Durgok, that's a logic that doesn't apply to a fixed concept. Evil and Good are well defined and if anyone perceives it as something else, then that someone is simply perceiving it wrong. Liking it or not is a separate deal.

[Kish]

If you take the working with Xykon, and the plan that may involve destroying the universe and forget about them for just a minute... Who's to say the god he worships is evil?

The answer to that question lies in Start of Darkness. At least one person says so whom I'm inclined to believe on the subject.


Alright, I'll give you that, I haven't read SoD yet (waiting on it to arrive), but what I had originally meant in my statement was that as far as Xykon is concerned I believe that Xykon feels that Redcloak (compared to him [which I initially did not provide in my last post]) is not very evil at all.

Xykon is "real Evil with a capital E." Redcloak is "whiny 'evil, but for a good cause' crap."

Yes, Xykon is worse than Redcloak. And, because Redcloak can (and does!) say "I'm not as bad as him," Redcloak considers himself to have license to do worse things than he might if he was looking at his own actions through an absolute rather than relative filter.


People who (in that universe) commit genocide of "good-aligned" creatures and have a cause to do so on a daily basis might actually believe they are the good guys, and when they see someone such as Redcloak doing something to assist their cause they may see him as one of the "Good Guys".

How many of the goblins from the Dungeon of Dorukan survived, again? Oh, right. One, counting Redcloak.


My entire previous post (and the majority of this one) was entirely based on suspending the belief of the hard-lined alignments, and of the right-wrong system of our base morality and simply see that Evil isn't always evil depending on who is shining the light on it.

Essentially I was playing Devil's Advocate.
See what you think when you've read Start of Darkness.

[Ancalagon]

[B]My entire previous post (and the majority of this one) was entirely based on suspending the belief of the hard-lined alignments, and of the right-wrong system of our base morality and simply see that Evil isn't always evil depending on who is shining the light on it.

That surely is true. But you also have to consider if you can apply this in a specific case. And in this case, it's not true. Redcloak is evil beyond the "We can argue about it".



Alright, I'll give you that, I haven't read SoD yet (waiting on it to arrive), but [...]

In this case you are lacking very, very crucial information. See you again when you have read it.


Essentially I was playing Devil's Advocate.

Hum... well... hum... don't do something like that again. It's only cool if you actually have all information you need to have. So you admit that you don't actually believe your own theory?

[Yarram]

Is Redcloak Evil?
By the DnD alignment system, he is a Goblin, and therefore evil.
The DnD alignment system has gone through much debate in the past over is validity.

If we go by, "Evil is the action, not the person." Are the Paladins not just as evil, who slaughtered his family?
This is the same question as every historical one featuring two sides from two different countries. It's not a question of Good and Bad. It's just different two different cultures that don't understand each other fighting.

[Ancalagon]

Is Redcloak Evil?

Yes. He is.

What makes you think he could be not-evil? Apart from a few generlisations about good, evil, and motives?

Redcloak has a noble motive but that's it. Actually, I find it a bit disturbing how many people seem to think that as soon as you are not a walking cliche of a villlian but have a more complex background and motives that it's not evil anymore what you do.

[Snake-Aes]

Is Redcloak Evil?
Yes.


By the DnD alignment system, he is a Goblin, and therefore evil.

No. Goblins are USUALLY evil. There's no hardcoded evilness in Redcloak. He is evil on his own personal choice. It's how he grew.


The DnD alignment system has gone through much debate in the past over is validity.

Yet it's still in use, acknowledged in it's absolute value by the oots world and Redcloak himself openly admits to being evil.


If we go by, "Evil is the action, not the person." Are the Paladins not just as evil, who slaughtered his family?

Given they didn't Fall, we are missing *something* to determine it. There were a few borderline cases like the one that was betting on poking the right parts.


This is the same question as every historical one featuring two sides from two different countries. It's not a question of Good and Bad. It's just different two different cultures that don't understand each other fighting.It IS a question of good and bad because those things are absolute. This is not real world.


And I repeat: Good and Evil do not determine likability or goals.

[Kish]

Yes.

No. Goblins are USUALLY evil.
And, in fact, Redcloak is not his racial alignment, as goblins are Usually Neutral Evil and Redcloak is Lawful Evil.

Start of Darkness is, among other things, about Redcloak's journey from "technically evil" to "evil."

[Yuki Akuma]

Start of Darkness is, among other things, about Redcloak's journey from "technically evil" to "evil."

This.

Xykon was pretty much always an evil little psychopath, even when he was about four years old.

Start of Darkness is about Redcloak's, uh, Start of Darkness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StartOfDarkness). It just also happens to tell Xykon's history too.

[Guilliaume]

Yes.

No. Goblins are USUALLY evil. There's no hardcoded evilness in Redcloak. He is evil on his own personal choice. It's how he grew.


One of these statements immediately ignores and is the opposite of the previous one.

I disagree with the people who say that Redcloak is evil because of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Or how his actions regarding his relative make him evil. I'm sure that people are not saying that RC is evil because he follows a logical fallacy. That would make anyone who plays poker and can't walk away from a hand evil as well. I feel that the people here are using the Appeal to Authority fallacy citing ignorance of the people who haven't read SoD. Basically, We Fail Logic Forever!


He clearly does things that people consider wrong or immoral, but is wrongness Evil?

Mostly, I feel the only resolution (and this is the internet and thus this argument can only last 1 week or the Sun will implode) to this argument is to list Redcloak's deeds and then decide whether they are evil or not. First one: he has tortured. Is torture evil? I'll say it's wrong. But Evil?

[Kish]

One of these statements immediately ignores and is the opposite of the previous one.

Both statements include, or consist of, the statement, "Redcloak is evil." There is no contradiction unless you write in the words, "Redcloak is not evil unless being a goblin inherently makes him evil." Beyond that--what would it take for you to consider Redcloak evil? Would he have to be a Xykonish caricature? Is no character with comprehensible motivations evil? Did you say "relative" rather than "brother" for a reason? Have you read Start of Darkness, and yes, it does matter to how well-formed someone's opinions on Redcloak can be (the fact that you brought up the names of fallacies to support your otherwise-unsupported assertion that it doesn't aside)?

First one: he has tortured. Is torture evil? I'll say it's wrong. But Evil?
...andddd there goes the thread.

[Ancalagon]

He clearly does things that people consider wrong or immoral, but is wrongness Evil?

I have seen this argument before but what this usually ignores is the fact there are certain grades of "wrongness".

The argument usually goes "Is wrong or immoral = evil?" and the implied answer is "No, of course not".
You just made that very example with basically putting "murder" and "poker" in the same box.

So here is my answer: "Wrong" does not have to mean "evil". On a scale from 1 to 10 of "wrongness", things that rate 2 are surely not "evil". But things that are "wrong enough"... surely are evil.

Please stop argueing from a general point ("Is wrong evil?") a very specific one ("Is Redcloak evil because he does wrong"). As that is, as you expressed it, "We fail logic forever".

Which leads to: You are wrong, but not evil.
Getting angry at me for disregarding your position as totally wrong and wanting to beat me for it would also be be wrong. And evil.

Redcloak is "wrong enough" about a lot of things to count as "evil".

[Ancalagon]

I feel that the people here are using the Appeal to Authority fallacy citing ignorance of the people who haven't read SoD.

Well, the probem is that it is not about "authority" at all. It is about the *fact* that SOD contains *crucial* information about Redcloak. And it usually shows in these debates if people are able to reference that crucial information or not.

So it's perfectly valid to point out that some people simply are not able to argue as they unless they do have that crucial information.

[derfenrirwolv]

Appealing to authority is a completely separate fallacy. "Start of darkness" is not an authority on anything. It is the back story of the villains, and as such contains crucial information regarding Redcloak and his motives. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that someone is making decisions with less information than you.

Appeal to authority requires that either 1) the person is not an expert in the relevant field (like asking a biologist about the history of the harpsichord) or that there is a significant disagreement among experts as to what the reality is (for example preColombian non viking contact between the americas and asia). Adding information is not in any way, shape, or form a fallacy, and is one of the few legitimate means of resolving a debate.

[Snake-Aes]

One of these statements immediately ignores and is the opposite of the previous one.

I disagree with the people who say that Redcloak is evil because of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Or how his actions regarding his relative make him evil. I'm sure that people are not saying that RC is evil because he follows a logical fallacy. That would make anyone who plays poker and can't walk away from a hand evil as well. I feel that the people here are using the Appeal to Authority fallacy citing ignorance of the people who haven't read SoD. Basically, We Fail Logic Forever!


He clearly does things that people consider wrong or immoral, but is wrongness Evil?

Mostly, I feel the only resolution (and this is the internet and thus this argument can only last 1 week or the Sun will implode) to this argument is to list Redcloak's deeds and then decide whether they are evil or not. First one: he has tortured. Is torture evil? I'll say it's wrong. But Evil?
Mr Guilliaume, the parts of my text you quoted were not connected in the way you proposed. I said that redcloak is evil and I said that he being a goblin is not what decided his alignment.
If you are willing to put heinous acts into the "not evil" side of things... Well, i'm afraid there's no point for this discussion to keep going.
Here's a list of things redcloak are willing to do that, out of context, seem nice
1) Defend goblinoid equality
And here what he did on the process
0) Defend goblinoid SUPERIORITY. It's pretty clear at all times, as far as the plan is concerned, that equality is the "least" they want to accomplish. If they can get them to be cr-3 races with cr+7 bonuses tacked in for free alongside with dibs on universal luck, they'll shoot for that without thinking twice.
1) Murdered the hobgoblin leader out of convenience
2) Dismissed the value of their lives by using the clerical powers to animate dead instead of healing
3) Attempted to kill Tsukiko because it would be funny to do so
4) Complied with trapping two souls for an indeterminate amount of time
5) Tortured and threatened to kill hostages for convenience
6) Attempting deicide and "realitycide" in the name of his God
-----
Redcloak is pragmatic, sympathetic, and evil. He even acknowledges that multiple times.



With this repetition of what's been said previously, I retire from this thread.

[Guilliaume]

Is torture evil? I'll say it's wrong. But Evil?

I don't even remember writing this stuff. What was I thinking? Torture is clearly a terrible thing to do to a person. The morning is not my friend.

[hamishspence]

4) Complied with trapping two souls for an indeterminate amount of time
5) Tortured and threatened to kill hostages for convenience
6) Attempting deicide and "realitycide" in the name of his God


4: He wasn't even present for one case of "trapping", and for the other, it took place before he had much chance to protest one way or another.

"Complying with Xykon in general" might be more culpable- but as he pointed out- if they don't work with him, Xykon will treat them as working against him.

5: Tortured O-chul, yes. Tortured the hostages, no. And it's made clear in DStP commentary that he wouldn't have been able to bring himself to kill them.

6: "Attempting deicide" is a slight overstatement- it's closer to "creating a weapon for his god to threaten to commit deicide with"

Redcloak has done a lot of evil things- but let's not overstate what he has actually done.

These seem like things to call him out on:

"Creating an unacceptable risk to the universe" by destroying one gate- and embarking on a path that led to others destroying two gates.

Abuse of hobgoblins- all through Paladin Blues and most of War & XPs, he behaves to them almost exactly the way Xykon behaved to his goblin forces.

Choosing his brother's life, above what he perceived as a better life for the goblin people.

Converting Xykon into a lich.

[Snake-Aes]

4: He wasn't even present for one case of "trapping", and for the other, it took place before he had much chance to protest one way or another.

what's the difference? He's letting that be, even though there's no real gain from doing so.


"Complying with Xykon in general" might be more culpable- but as he pointed out- if they don't work with him, Xykon will treat them as working against him.

5: Tortured O-chul, yes. Tortured the hostages, no. And it's made clear in DStP commentary that he wouldn't have been able to bring himself to kill them.

What would DStP be? And O-Chul was a hostage....

And about the nameless hostages...what kept him from killing them was the sheer cliché feel to it. He had not the tiniest shred of compassion about it.


6: "Attempting deicide" is a slight overstatement- it's closer to "creating a weapon for his god to threaten to commit deicide with"

The crime's basically the same. The Plan's goals directly bring that threat, and deicide is the purpose of the weapon he's trying to create. He'd be punished by attempting deicide. Or, as I also put it in the end of that one...realitycide.


Redcloak has done a lot of evil things- but let's not overstate what he has actually done.

These seem like things to call him out on:

"Creating an unacceptable risk to the universe" by destroying one gate- and embarking on a path that led to others destroying two gates.

Abuse of hobgoblins- all through Paladin Blues and most of War & XPs, he behaves to them almost exactly the way Xykon behaved to his goblin forces.

Choosing his brother's life, above what he perceived as a better life for the goblin people.

Converting Xykon into a lich.

yes, these go in with the lot too.

[hamishspence]

DStP- Don't Split The Party. It states that "he cannot bring himself to kill them when it won't even help his cause". He comes up with the "tell them we were the merciful ones" as an afterthought.

Indeed, he seems surprisingly angry about what he perceives as O-chul's lack of compassion for his own people.

When does Redcloak speak of O-chul being a hostage? He's a prisoner- not the same thing.

And he can't exactly stop Xykon from Soul Binding people if Xykon wants to. Not to mentioned that he didn't even know about it- his expression when Xykon pulls out the gem and reveals that he Soul Bound Lirian, is shock.

What would make "deicide" any worse than ordinary murder?

Its worth remembering that neither Redcloak nor the Dark One want to "threaten realitycide"- if it happens, it will be accidental rather than on purpose.

[Snake-Aes]

DStP- Don't Split The Party. It states that "he cannot bring himself to kill them when it won't even help his cause". He comes up with the "tell them we were the merciful ones" as an afterthought.

Indeed, he seems surprisingly angry about what he perceives as O-chul's lack of compassion for his own people.

When does Redcloak speak of O-chul being a hostage? He's a prisoner- not the same thing.

And he can't exactly stop Xykon from Soul Binding people if Xykon wants to. Not to mentioned that he didn't even know about it- his expression when Xykon pulls out the gem and reveals that he Soul Bound Lirian, is shock.

What would make "deicide" any worse than ordinary murder?

Its worth remembering that neither Redcloak nor the Dark One want to "threaten realitycide"- if it happens, it will be accidental rather than on purpose.

Ok so clarifying: he had no reason to kill the hostages after his basic use for the torture was over. This makes him pragmatic. He even attempted to sneak some PR there iwth it...ultimately they're still slaves. And yeah, Xykon is kinda not going to be threatened by him, but from what we saw, he didn't even argue.
Potential Deicide is their bargaining tool. Realitycide is an acceptable consequence. Sounds a little too hard on the evil side of things.

[hamishspence]

Potential Deicide is their bargaining tool. Realitycide is an acceptable consequence. Sounds a little too hard on the evil side of things.

Pretty much- still- it's The Dark One's plan- and its probably shaped heavily by the fact that the last time The Dark One tried negotiating peacefully, he got murdered.

[The Extinguisher]

Pretty much- still- it's The Dark One's plan- and its probably shaped heavily by the fact that the last time The Dark One tried negotiating peacefully, he got murdered.

To be fair, if someone show'd up at my door with a very large army of people who don't really like you, and said "Oh hai, I'm just here to talk", I'd be a little worried.

AND! The crayon sequences are proving time and time again to be unreliable narration.

[hamishspence]

How? The absence of the phylactery in a picture? That does not exactly count as "proving to be unreliable narration"

The gem being handed over to Shojo's father in one pic, but it later being revealed to be part of the gate, with the castle being constructed around an existing gate, might possibly be another example.

Still, we haven't seen anything refuting Redcloak's account.

[Asta Kask]

Pretty much- still- it's The Dark One's plan- and its probably shaped heavily by the fact that the last time The Dark One tried negotiating peacefully, he got murdered.

You murder one lousy emissary and you never hear the end of it...

[RedCloakLives!]

DOUBLE STANDARD CITY!

I see a double standard being applied to Red Cloak.

Let's hold some other characters to the same standard:

(1) O Chul is evil

We may admire his combative skill, his valor, and his cunning. They are tremendous. But Good? He is not.

He joined a fanatic death cult dedicated to committing oppression and genocide. He does not have the excuse of joining when he was young and impressionable, either; he joined, voluntarily, as a thinking adult. What was he thinking!? Whatever he was thinking, whatever his motivations, the end does not justify the means. O Chul is Evil.

In the service of the genocidal cult, how many children has he killed? Evil.

He deliberately manipulated a sentient being with the emotional maturity of a child. Evil.

Or perhaps he's simply psychologically disturbed. After all, he appears to have a thing for self-abasement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0404.html) found in certain forms of derangement.

Someone like him should not be allowed near sharp objects. Oops, too late!

(2) Haley. Never mind, too easy. But man, she is one mean drunk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html)!

End discrimination against goblins! Down with double standards! Break the glass ceiling!
.