If the roles were reversed

[Adonis1x23]

I believe this ruthless slaughter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html) best shows how messed up d&d morality is.

Innocent soldiers, just going about their duty to protect a prison, are ruthlessly slaughtered by a bunch of felons.

For the sake of alignment, the ones viciously attacking are considered good, which their deities support, just because goblins are perceived as being evil as a whole.

If the roles were reversed, the goblins would be doing an evil act.

I hope the goblins can keep their nation, and can finally gain the same respect the other "good" races have inherently.

[The Extinguisher]

You mean if the Azurites invaded the goblin nation, and enslaved the population?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we'd be cheering for the Goblins.

[Norin Warstone]

The goblins only got their nation by slaughtering the original inhabitants. Sounds pretty evil to me.

[Elfey]

*Felons seeking to free War Criminals who will attempt to kill every last one of the race holding them accountable for their warcrimes. Like killing of women and children in wholesale slaughter.

[Adonis1x23]

The goblins have never had much of a chance to begin with. The azurites have been killing goblins for years, heck everyone has been attacking the goblins since the beginning. How can they hope to form their own prosperous civilization if EVERYONE is out to kill them.

Also, the Sapphire Guard has slaughtered their fair share of innocent goblins.

[Optimystik]

I hope the goblins can keep their nation, and can finally gain the same respect the other "good" races have inherently.

I hardly think that just freeing the slaves will somehow prevent this from happening all by itself...

[Graymayre]

Innocent soldiers? Really?

Being a soldier is a job. This job entails that they kill other people, and that other people try to kill them. Regardless of the morality of murder, those goblins died because of an occupational hazard. They were no more innocent than their attackers.

[hamishspence]

The goblins only got their nation by slaughtering the original inhabitants. Sounds pretty evil to me.


So far, the only people we have evidence of them slaughtering, is the Azurite army.

The fact that they enslaved the civilians rather than slaughtering them, may simply be "pragmatic evil" but it nonetheless, shows some restraint.

SoD:
By contrast, the Sapphire Guard showed no qualms whatsoever about slaughtering goblin "civilians"- if small goblin children are deemed to be civilians.

[Saph]

*rolleyes*

Seriously, what does Gobbotopia have to DO to make it clear that they're an Evil-aligned nation? So far they've gone in for invasion, slavery, torture, and necromancy, and apparently that still isn't enough to convince some people.

I suppose it's a credit to Rich's writing skill that he can take pretty much any character, no matter how annoying, useless, or clearly evil, and manage to present them in such a way that people are still sympathetic to them.

[hamishspence]

Its more that when "Good" factions show a bit less restraint than evil over some things, that it raises eyebrows.

SoD:
That, and going by the behaviour of the gods in SoD (if Redcloak's account to Xykon is anything like accurate), the goblins have a big legitimate grievance.

[Saph]

Its more that when "Good" factions show a bit less restraint than evil over some things, that it raises eyebrows.

:smallsigh:

"Hey, the Sapphire Guard killed some goblins 20 years ago, therefore the fact that a different group of hobgoblins are enslaving the citizens of Azure City shows restraint!"

No. It doesn't.

[Lecan]

{Scrubbed}

[Draconi Redfir]

the fact that a low-level goblin woizard summoned dancing KNIGHTS is enough to boost my respect for them 100%:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

:smallsigh:

"Hey, the Sapphire Guard killed some goblins 20 years ago, therefore the fact that a different group of hobgoblins are enslaving the citizens of Azure City shows restraint!"

No. It doesn't.

People who exterminate civilians, are less restrained than people who enslave civilians.

There is precedent for seeing it this way- in The Science of Discworld 2, in the discussions of the evolution of society, enslaving your enemies is considered a bit more progressive, than exterminating them.

SoD:
The Sapphire Guard had an enemy. Their method of dealing with him- destroy his whole village and everyone in it, down to the last child, and carry on destroying even after they had killed their enemy.

[Saph]

People who exterminate civilians, are less restrained than people who enslave civilians.

Are you listening to yourself? The hobgoblins are slavers, and your first reaction when people point this out is to try to defend them by comparing them to a bunch of other people who are all dead.

Here's a hint: if the best argument you can come up with is "but that other guy once did something worse!" it's a sign you should rethink your position.

[rainbowjo]

SoD
Killing all of the goblins was necessary, hasn't Redcloak proved that letting one goblin survive lets the plan survive? Sure it wasn't a good thing to do, but it was the smart way to do it.


And anyways, I dont have the comic numbers, but may I just point out the part where Redcloak was planning to sacrifice 14 human slaves. Not even kill but destroy their souls? And the fact that Xykon has exausted the entertainment gained by watching the slaves fight to the death leads me to believe that no, its not just slavery. They live on the whims of Xykon, Tsukiko, and Redcloak, who seem to be keeping them alive to make them suffer longer. Sounds pretty evil to me.

Gogo Elves & Azurites

[hamishspence]

We'll see how it turns out.

I would prefer a situation where the slave population is freed, and rejoins the rest of the Azurites, without destroying Gobbotopian civilization entirely.

Maybe they will concede Azure City itself, in return for the rest of the nation being recognized, and it being forbidden to hunt goblins for XP.

[Herbstfarben]

Hunt Goblins for XP? Have you even read the last comic?

{Scrubbed}

[Optimystik]

Hunt Goblins for XP? Have you even read the last comic?

{Scrubbed}

XP is a largely incidental benefit of slaying the goblins in this strip.

[hamishspence]

I'm talking about the position of goblinoids, orcs, etc. as a whole, as presented in SoD and Origin of PCs.

For them to cease being treated as monsters, fit only to be killed for XP, would be nice- don't know if the story will turn out that way though.

[Darkhands]

We'll see how it turns out.

I would prefer a situation where the slave population is freed, and rejoins the rest of the Azurites, without destroying Gobbotopian civilization entirely.


Aren't they just breaking into the jail? I don't think they're there to try and take down the whole city just now.

[hamishspence]

the phrase "Liberation commencing" when Team Peregrine first teleported in, does suggest this is the overall goal.

I'm actually hoping that the elves and the resistance will succeed at freeing prisoners, slaves, etc,

but I'm a lot less keen on the notion of returning to the status quo, where goblins are "monsters to be hunted".

[Optimystik]

the phrase "Liberation commencing" when Team Peregrine first teleported in, does suggest this is the overall goal.

It could just mean "liberation of the Azurites that are being held in Gobbotopia."

[Morthis]

Are you listening to yourself? The hobgoblins are slavers, and your first reaction when people point this out is to try to defend them by comparing them to a bunch of other people who are all dead.

Here's a hint: if the best argument you can come up with is "but that other guy once did something worse!" it's a sign you should rethink your position.

I don't think that was the point of the discussion. Rather, those "some people" who did something worse are considered good aligned, and remain good. We know this because they are paladins and they do not fall, meaning what they did is perfectly acceptable for good aligned characters. Now if evil aligned characters do the same thing, which they did with Azure City but on a much larger scale, it is considered an outrage. In Azure City's case many of the civilians even escaped on the boats, compare that to how it went for the goblins in SoD.

[hamishspence]

I was interpreting it as "Liberating the whole city from the goblins- as in, taking it back" but I suppose it could be interpreted as liberating the people.

[Saph]

Maybe they will concede Azure City itself, in return for the rest of the nation being recognized, and it being forbidden to hunt goblins for XP.

Right. The citizens of Azure City have just seen a brutal Lawful Evil army invade and destroy their city, kill their soldiers, and enslave and torture everyone who didn't manage to flee. I'm sure their attitudes towards goblins will be much more positive now.

[Optimystik]

Right. The citizens of Azure City have just seen a brutal Lawful Evil army invade and destroy their city, kill their soldiers, and enslave and torture everyone who didn't manage to flee. I'm sure their attitudes towards goblins will be much more positive now.

By the same token, their attitudes towards their own leadership degraded as well. I wonder how they would react to learn that the violence visited upon them was a result of a clandestine organization that murdered women and children under their city's banner?

In short, there is blame on both sides - the cycle has to stop somewhere.

[Saph]

In short, there is blame on both sides - the cycle has to stop somewhere.

Why would it? The hobgoblins are Lawful Evil and think violence and subjugation is great. The Azurites have just been given extremely good reason to hate the hobgoblins in return. I can't see either of the sides wanting to make peace, much less both.

[Herbstfarben]

Indeed. Stop this madness of freeing slaves.

[Shale]

By the same token, their attitudes towards their own leadership degraded as well. I wonder how they would react to learn that the violence visited upon them was a result of a clandestine organization that murdered women and children under their city's banner?

At the moment, having recently been invaded and enslaved by an army of evil hobgoblins, with kill-or-be-killed (or at best enslaved with a side of torture and interrogation) as the rule of the day, I doubt they'd be too receptive to a "killing goblins is bad" argument. Especially when that's not even the whole truth - the proximate cause of the invasion was to allow an evil sorcerer to invade their castle and use their magical planet-protecting gemstone to try and take over the world.

[hamishspence]

Right. The citizens of Azure City have just seen a brutal Lawful Evil army invade and destroy their city, kill their soldiers, and enslave and torture everyone who didn't manage to flee. I'm sure their attitudes towards goblins will be much more positive now.

Probably not. Still, the cycle has to end at some point- ideally not with either side being destroyed.

To quote War & XPs:


The immediate hatred displayed by Redcloak and Miko toward each other is part of the idea that these two groups- goblins and humans, particularly Southern humans- have been battling back and forth for centuries.
At this point it has become impossible to tell who started the hostilities, each side remembers nothing so much as their last defeat by the other. And so the cycle of violence continues, generation after generation.
Did the humans start it by crusading against the goblins, or did the goblins start it by trying to harness the rifts? Or did the humans start it by putting the goblins into a position where they felt they had no recourse but to try to harness the rifts?

Given the use of the term "centuries" this implies it wasn't just the Sapphire Guard that have been fighting goblins- they were only founded recently.

[Optimystik]

Why would it? The hobgoblins are Lawful Evil and think violence and subjugation is great.

Whose fault is that? They have precious little in the way of moral guidance.

The one being capable of changing that behavior is their Supreme Leader... and he doesn't seem to have any plans to upset that particularl apple cart.

[hamishspence]

There is also their deity.

He might be able to change their beheviour- if he shows the inclination.

We've already seen Jirix's claim that the battles of the future, for him, will be battles of diplomacy, rather than physical ones.

SoD:
While The Dark One is characterised as "wise and benevolent" in life, and as having tried to achieve a better state for the goblinoids peacefully, its not clear how true this account is.

He's also accused of being "petty and spiteful" for failing to rein in Redcloak.

[Zevox]

Innocent soldiers,
I believe you're mixing up the concepts of "innocent civilians" and "soldiers." The former are, by most standards, never considered acceptable targets of violence. The latter, on the other hand, are hired to deal with violence, and are legitimate targets for those opposing the nation or group that hired them. The job of those soldiers, after all, is to capture or kill those opposing their employers.


are ruthlessly slaughtered by a bunch of felons.
You mean the resistance movement of the city's original inhabitants and their new allies? Whose goal is to free prisoners who are likely slaves? And this "ruthless slaughter" is, again, being done against armed and armored soldiers?


For the sake of alignment, the ones viciously attacking are considered good, which their deities support, just because goblins are perceived as being evil as a whole.
No, they're not. The shafting that the Goblins got given by the Gods has nothing to do with the morality of this situation.


If the roles were reversed, the goblins would be doing an evil act.
No, they wouldn't, assuming the roles were completely reversed (Humans unjustifiably invading, conquering, and occupying a Goblin nation, Goblin resistance movement attempting to liberate probably-enslaved prisoners).


I hope the goblins can keep their nation
Honestly, I do as well, but the Goblins' situation that causes me to hope for that doesn't make the resistance here unjustified or immoral.

Zevox

[Saph]

Whose fault is that?

Why are you asking me?

You said that the cycle has to end somewhere, and I told you why I don't think it's very likely.

[hamishspence]

No, they're not. The shafting that the Goblins got given by the Gods has nothing to do with the morality of this situation.

true- but it's one of the reasons Redcloak went after the Azure City gate in the first place- so that The Dark One can undo the aforementioned shafting.

However, he might not stop at that- he might want goblin world domination as well, and the risks involved are somewhat alarming.


Honestly, I do as well, but the Goblins' situation that causes me to hope for that doesn't make the resistance here unjustified or immoral.

Also true- so far, the resistance & their allies haven't done anything morally wrong.

[Saph]

Honestly, I do as well.

People keep saying this.

Here's a simple question for those of you who are hoping the Goblins can keep their nation: are you hoping that they can continue as a successful militaristic Lawful Evil slave-employing society? Or are you hoping that they're going to change their way of living and become Neutral? Because the second is unlikely, to put it mildly.

[hamishspence]

They have reasons to drop the slave-owning- Cliffport. Which is trying to "influence their position via economic engagement".

Maybe they could extract a "goblinoids have the same "right to not be killed" as other beings" concession in the neighbouring lands, in return- no more adventurers slaughtering goblinoids for XP.

Also, going by Jirix's speech, they may be scaling back on the militaristic, as well- he wants to be a "legitimate peacetime leader".

From SoD- we've seen that goblins, in the absence of attack (for a while) can manage to not raid their neighbours. Right Eye's village, specifically. Maybe hobgoblins can manage the same.

Could Jirix be to the hobgoblins, what Right Eye was to the goblins of the village he founded? We'll see.

[Optimystik]

Why are you asking me?

It was a rhetorical question, actually. :smallsmile:


You said that the cycle has to end somewhere, and I told you why I don't think it's very likely.

If the cycle doesn't end, there isn't much point to... well, any of this. The goblins in this setting clearly deserve to be PCs - they are resolute, resourceful and very much sapient - why would Rich write them that way, only to end with "and they battled unhappily ever after, the end"?

[Saph]

If the cycle doesn't end, there isn't much point to... well, any of this. The goblins in this setting clearly deserve to be PCs - they are resolute, resourceful and very much sapient - why would Rich write them that way, only to end with "and they battled unhappily ever after, the end"?

Because something OotS does quite well is take the standard D&D setting, and work with it. So you get constant warfare between the PCs and the monster races, and an exploration of the consequences of that.

But OotS doesn't generally mess with the basic rules of the setting. Case in point; goblins are still, generally, Evil. So barring some massive shift of the hobgoblin race and culture, they aren't going to stop being militaristic Lawful Evil. And that's going to make any kind of peaceful co-existence pretty temporary.


Could Jirix be to the hobgoblins, what Right Eye was to the goblins of the village he founded?

And what's your position going to be if the answer is no? Do you still think goblins having their own civilisation is a good thing if it doesn't come with any change in their typical alignment?

[slayerx]

I believe this ruthless slaughter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html) best shows how messed up d&d morality is.

Innocent soldiers, just going about their duty to protect a prison, are ruthlessly slaughtered by a bunch of felons.

For the sake of alignment, the ones viciously attacking are considered good, which their deities support, just because goblins are perceived as being evil as a whole.

If the roles were reversed, the goblins would be doing an evil act.

I hope the goblins can keep their nation, and can finally gain the same respect the other "good" races have inherently.

Hooray for Slavery!



People who exterminate civilians, are less restrained than people who enslave civilians.

There is precedent for seeing it this way- in The Science of Discworld 2, in the discussions of the evolution of society, enslaving your enemies is considered a bit more progressive, than exterminating them.
Y'know in a way... when you consider that death results in going to an everlasting heaven where as slavery results in a life time of pain and labor BEFORE your enviable death... slavery kind of does seem like a fate worse than death; i mean in both cases you die, but with slavery you have to go through a life time suffering first...

It would be a different case if the goblins planned for the slavery to only be temporary (so death while still a slave was not inevitable) and/or were giving the slaves much better living and working conditions (no freedom, but no real suffering either)... but that's just not the case

it gets kind of grey... which is why i don't think too hard about which is really more evil and just leave it at "even if you argue that it less evil, IT IS STILL EVIL and thus NOT EXCUSABLE"



What would be REALLY progressive is not enslaving or killing the citizens but instead absorbing them within your own society... Second class citizenship would have been a real step forward; full citizenship would be better but might be asking for too much in a post-war situation (might need to give it a few years)...

But hey, it is clear that all humans are really evil that gets called good while all goblins are just victims and therefore we would should not expect BETTER of them and give them a free pass on ALL evil deeds... ... If something bad has happened to your race that gives you full permission to be as evil as you want in retaliation; regardless of whether or not the people you are doing evil to are actually guilty of doing anything wrong to you... who the hell gives a damn about having REAL moral high ground to stand on, anyway?...

[Morty]

Because something OotS does quite well is take the standard D&D setting, and work with it. So you get constant warfare between the PCs and the monster races, and an exploration of the consequences of that.

But OotS doesn't generally mess with the basic rules of the setting. Case in point; goblins are still, generally, Evil. So barring some massive shift of the hobgoblin race and culture, they aren't going to stop being militaristic Lawful Evil. And that's going to make any kind of peaceful co-existence pretty temporary.

I find it unlikely that after SoD and all other setup in this regard Rich is going to end the story with "and so, goblins failed and they continued to be XP fodder for low-level adventurers". Which isn't to say that the resistance is somehow unjustified in freeing slaves. But I highly doubt Rich is writing OoTS as a generic D&D story about good humans and elves versus evil goblins.

[RecklessFable]

I think a lot of folks here are overly optimistic about what Pax Gobbotopia would really entail.

This idea of making Gobs able to be "good" touched on in a short story by R.A. Salvatore where a human was enslaving a goblin who turned out to actually be "good" in Drizzt's eyes. Ok, fine, we get it. In theory, if you want to write your own game world (or change the existing one, Rule ZERO and all that) Gobs can be kind, altruistic, etc... they can be good.

If Rich wants to go in that direction, he can write it that way. But right now, a Goblinoid army invaded and destroyed a good-aligned city, enslaved the survivors and performed necromancy on the rest. Other than wanting "peace" and "trade" they have demonstrated nothing that makes them non-evil. And Peace is not necessarily a "Good" ideal in DnD, since most war gods are Neutral...

Oh yeah, and their propaganda pamphlets seem to indicate they are also basing their society on a foundation of lies...

Yeah, folks are taking the whole "Rooting for the Underdog" thing way too far.

As for the SoD arguements:
The story was told by Redcloak! You know, the guy who killed and animated his own brother in order to rationalize away his own mistakes! He's telling us the story from the point of view of the champion of the Dark One. Of course it is set up as propaganda to make Gobs looks like the wronged ones!

[Asta Kask]

Hooray for Slavery!

No thanks - I don't believe in marriage.

[Saph]

But I highly doubt Rich is writing OoTS as a generic D&D story about good humans and elves versus evil goblins.

Your words, not mine. The humans and elves probably vary in alignment, but the hobgoblins most definitely are Evil, and so far that hasn't changed.

[TriForce]

perhaps a stupid qustion, but for the people who hope they keep azure city:

why? becouse so they have a official city to call their own? or nation? they didnt need AC for that, they had a valley full of hobgoblins in a unspecified location, and looking at the fact that it had a wall and houses, im guessing it was there for a while. so redcloak could have just made that their nation, and without any slaves there, it would have had a much larger chance of getting accepted.

the invasion and enslavement of AC wasnt to get goblins recognized, it was vengeance at best, and pure evil bloodlust at worst. so why do you people want them to keep it so desperatly?

[Shale]

There's a big difference between having a settlement in a valley in the middle of nowhere and controlling an established city with trading routes and a port.

[Optimystik]

Because something OotS does quite well is take the standard D&D setting, and work with it. So you get constant warfare between the PCs and the monster races, and an exploration of the consequences of that.

But OotS doesn't generally mess with the basic rules of the setting. Case in point; goblins are still, generally, Evil. So barring some massive shift of the hobgoblin race and culture, they aren't going to stop being militaristic Lawful Evil. And that's going to make any kind of peaceful co-existence pretty temporary.

You're wrong - there are major differences between OotS and D&D culture. Monster races in D&D are not aware of/do not care about the inherent disparity between their lives and those of other races. I can't picture a D&D goblin saying "humans got all the good dirt, lucky bastards*" any more than I can picture D&D goblins taking their children to the circus alongside D&D humans.

I personally feel that Rich's decision to make OotS goblins Medium was a conscious one - to make us take them more seriously than his "comic relief" small races (halflings, gnomes, and kobolds.) Pre-Cerberus, this could have been done to make them more intimidating (the goblin cleric would have been laughable shouting "Unholy Blight!" while coming up to the party's midriffs) but later has had the side-effect of showing how they're all Not So Different.

Now, OotS Hobgoblins are much closer to their D&D counterparts, I agree - and Redcloak even lampshades their LE nature to Xykon. But this can be explained by them having been on the front lines, as it were; their territory bordered Azurite territory, thus they had less chances at a peaceful resolution even if it was equally within their nature to find one.

*Quoted from SoD

[Zevox]

People keep saying this.

Here's a simple question for those of you who are hoping the Goblins can keep their nation: are you hoping that they can continue as a successful militaristic Lawful Evil slave-employing society? Or are you hoping that they're going to change their way of living and become Neutral? Because the second is unlikely, to put it mildly.
Mostly the latter. My hope is for, at the end of the story, a measure of redemption for Redcloak - a point at which The Plan fails, utterly, and he is forced to face up to what he has done, acknowledge how very wrong his actions were, and attempt to move on. For him to cast aside the Crimson Mantle, realize what potential for achieving his goals he already has in Gobbotopia, and try to be a leader who leads his people to the goal of equality he so desires in a better way.

The Azurite survivors already have a new home they can make their own on that island Vaarsuvius brought them to, so they needn't reclaim their former one (though of course the slaves, prisoners, and resistance would need to be liberated and brought to the new land). Yes, the circumstances under which these new nations came to be suck, but that cannot be undone. The best result I can see coming from this is for each to keep their new homes and make every effort to live in peace from here on.

Zevox

[Optimystik]

To change their racial outlook, they need a new tone at the top. My pet theory is that
Right-eye's daughter will take over being their Supreme Leader, complete with her father's moderate stance on other races, in a very Thrall-esque fashion.

[hamishspence]

This idea of making Gobs able to be "good" touched on in a short story by R.A. Salvatore where a human was enslaving a goblin who turned out to actually be "good" in Drizzt's eyes. Ok, fine, we get it. In theory, if you want to write your own game world (or change the existing one, Rule ZERO and all that) Gobs can be kind, altruistic, etc... they can be good.


Actually, I think the R. A. Salvatore novel The Orc King is much closer. The orcs have invaded- the orcs have conquered- yet Drizzt sees something greater in the Orc King- a real desire to found a permanent orc civilization. And at the end of the book, the orcs make peace with their neighbours.


You're wrong - there are major differences between OotS and D&D culture. Monster races in D&D are not aware of/do not care about the inherent disparity between their lives and those of other races. I can't picture a D&D goblin saying "humans got all the good dirt, lucky bastards*" any more than I can picture D&D goblins taking their children to the circus alongside D&D humans.

Eberron goblins seem to be a lot more than the stereotype. They once ruled the continent before the humans invaded, and a powerful hobgoblin mercenary leader managed to found a new nation that is now recognized by its neighbours- through a little double-crossing at the height of the Last War.

[Kish]

I think a lot of folks here are overly optimistic about what Pax Gobbotopia would really entail.

This idea of making Gobs able to be "good" touched on in a short story by R.A. Salvatore where a human was enslaving a goblin who turned out to actually be "good" in Drizzt's eyes. Ok, fine, we get it. In theory, if you want to write your own game world (or change the existing one, Rule ZERO and all that) Gobs can be kind, altruistic, etc... they can be good.
Rule Zero is not necessary for that. Nor is creating one's own game world. A good-aligned goblin in any bog-standard D&D world is no more out of place than an evil elf, or dwarf...or halfling.

And I don't know where the meme that Start of Darkness is "told by Redcloak" any more than the main comic is "told by Roy" comes from. (Well, actually, I'm pretty sure I do: it comes from really, really wanting the comic to be morally simplistic to the point of Redcloak having no more depth than Xykon.)

[Dr.Epic]

I believe this ruthless slaughter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html) best shows how messed up d&d morality is.

Innocent soldiers, just going about their duty to protect a prison, are ruthlessly slaughtered by a bunch of felons.

For the sake of alignment, the ones viciously attacking are considered good, which their deities support, just because goblins are perceived as being evil as a whole.

If the roles were reversed, the goblins would be doing an evil act.

I hope the goblins can keep their nation, and can finally gain the same respect the other "good" races have inherently.

I believe the graphic novel ( and NOT that horrible film) V for Vendetta raised similar questions: is V a rebel or a terrorist? Such issue aren't so black and white.

[hamishspence]

I would say R. A. Salvatore's writing style, and perspective on monstrous races, has changed a lot from his first D&D books.

In The Crystal Shard, his dwarven hero Bruenor sees nothing wrong with torturing orc prisoners to get information about their boss, and Drizzt only suggests the use of magic instead because orcs under the influence of charm spells aren't very informative.

Even in Sea of Swords, there are comments about that one goblin being a unique anomaly, and the normal approach to goblins, being killing.

But by The Orc King, orcs, at least, are being portrayed as deserving of a chance at achieving a long-term civilization.


Maybe The Giant is raising similar issues in OoTS- what are the implications of the way adventurers treat "monstrous races"- and can they ever achieve more than just a life of being hunted by adventurers?

Though this may take second place to Roy's story.

[Optimystik]

Eberron goblins seem to be a lot more than the stereotype. They once ruled the continent before the humans invaded, and a powerful hobgoblin mercenary leader managed to found a new nation that is now recognized by its neighbours- through a little double-crossing at the height of the Last War.

In Eberron, alignment is a loose guideline at best anyway. I'm not convinced there are any stereotypes there. (Well, Elves and Dragons are still convinced they're Better Than Thou, but besides that.)

[hamishspence]

Stereotypes still exist, but they get played with, subverted, exceptions appear, and so on.

Goblins as Oppressed Underclass Workers seems to be the general rule in Eberron cities though.

Similarly, hobgoblins still tend to be portrayed as a bit Lawful and a bit unpleasant- but they end up as security guards, or similar jobs, in places outside their home country, not necessarily as raiders.

[Erts]

Am I the only one who read this post?


{Scrubbed}


Seriously, wth GITP? A guy posts this, and we respond with nothing?

To your point, Lecan: In ancient socities, slavery was actually common. Now, it didn't reach the level of sadism that the goblins have inflicted, so yes, what the goblins are doing is in fact wrong.

Now, I know some people might defend Tsukiko, but those are far and in between. And I'll let you in on a secret:

Most people don't truly believe the theories that they put out. They speculate, and they believe it is possible to be true, but this is the nature of fandoms. The really outlandish theories (XYKON IS ROYS GREAT-GREAT-UNCLE and also a Time Lord from Dr. Who, and the MITD is a actually a little bunny) are more of the fans making a joke.
If you really want to see outlandish theories, go to the Naruto forums.


Anyways, rather than get on either side, I'd point out two things:
One; a realistic setting is complicated. Yes, the Resistance did slaughter goblin soldiers. By the same token, they are soldiers, who probably did fight against the Azurites in the previous battle.
But at the same time, the goblins had little choice but to enslave the Azurites. Usually in war you either drive them away (which wasn't viable as they would retaliate against the goblins) or enslave the populace. Remember, this wasn't a war of a goblin nation against a human one (where, once the battle was won the goblins would force the humans to meet their demands or pay them fees,) this was one for the goblins to even get a nation in the first place. I don't think they had any other choice but too enslave the Azurites, but the Resistance didn't have any other choice but to kill the goblin soldiers.

[Watcher]

No matter the circumstance, slavery is evil. Holding PoWs captive is different, but enslaving them is indisputably evil. The goblins enslaved the Azurites. The Azurites didn't enslave the goblins. The goblins are evil.

[Erts]

No matter the circumstance, slavery is evil. Holding PoWs captive is different, but enslaving them is indisputably evil. The goblins enslaved the Azurites. The Azurites didn't enslave the goblins. The goblins are evil.

Agreed, but one problem is, what are they going to do with these PoWs? They can't ransom them, they can't do anything with them, and they will be around for years and years.
Still, I agree, slavery is evil.

[Deca]

Oh no! Those poor war-hardened soldiers were killed in a war! Truly an act of cruelty.

[Shale]

Agreed, but one problem is, what are they going to do with these PoWs? They can't ransom them, they can't do anything with them, and they will be around for years and years.
Still, I agree, slavery is evil.

Do the same thing the Azure City survivors did with their civilians, and ship them out as refugees. They've got trading partners among the human nations, it wouldn't be hard if they spread them around.

[hamishspence]

Still, I agree, slavery is evil.

D&D rules are a little inconsistant on the subject- but only in Faerun-

FRCS states that "most Heartlands humans find slavery exteremely distasteful at the very least, and more than a few consider it an abomination in the sight of the gods"

On the other hand, the nation Mulhorand, ruled by paladins, practices slavery- but in much less oppressive form than any of its neighbours.

Cityscape suggests that no good nation practices slavery. but allows for the possibility of Neutral nations practicing it.

BoED states that slavery is always evil- even if the society does not consider it so. But it also states Lawful Good characters will not always try to overthrow nations with evil practices- but try and reform them from within, with violent overthrow being a last resort.

Neutral or Chaotic Good characters would probably be OK with overthrow.

[Fish]

I don't think the OP understands the word "felon." A thief who steals your television, who has it stolen from him by a rogue, doesn't get to run to the police and say "but that guy broke the law!"

It wasn't his to begin with, you see. Sort of like Azure City. Goblin Law does not hold simply because they killed the former inhabitants and conquered the territory. The resistance has been convicted of no crime in any court, nor were the slaves. If you think the resistance are felons, under whose laws did they commit felony?

[hamishspence]

I don't think the OP understands the word "felon." A thief who steals your television, who has it stolen from him by a rogue, doesn't get to run to the police and say "but that guy broke the law!"

I recall an awful lot of complaints, when Celia used this reasoning when dealing with Haley:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html

[Erts]

Yes hammishspace, so let me clarify more carefully:
Sadistic slavery where the slaves are treated as less then humans is clearly evil. Whether "humane" slavery (Roman slaves were able to buy their freedom and often friends with their masters) is evil is another topic. The goblins, however, are practicing the slavery first kind.

Still no one responds to Lecan's post! I do not want to be committing post necromancy, but really, no responses?

[Shale]

He (she?) is completely right and people should listen to him. Or her, as appropriate.

[Erts]

He (she?) is completely right and people should listen to him. Or her, as appropriate.

Still, the last paragraph seems to be a personal insult at the forum and fans, not complaining about the actual topic at hand.

[Shale]

Over the top, but still accurate. I mean, we're posting in a topic where "insane, necrophiliac, deluded girls who regularly murder and use necromancy might be good" is part of the stated premise (along with the side using slavery being in the right while the people rebelling against it are evil), and on a forum where the occasional argument has to be made for genocide being bad. Rich has commented on how absurd that is, so that part's accurate too.

[slayerx]

Agreed, but one problem is, what are they going to do with these PoWs? They can't ransom them, they can't do anything with them, and they will be around for years and years.
Still, I agree, slavery is evil.

well you can Exile them, freeing them and forcing them to go live in other cities... Or you can do what most modern nations would do which is absorb the civilians into you're own society. I

f the civilians are able to live their lives normally, then all that's really changed is who is in charge... while there would be resistance movements from diehard nationalist and those that lost family during the invasion (keeping in mind only family that is able to and willing to fight), thousands of the citizens would be too scared to try and fight the new government... they don't want to end up enslaved, imprisoned or outright killed which is the fate of the rebels... in time they may even grow to accept it

[hamishspence]

Still, the last paragraph seems to be a personal insult at the forum and fans, not complaining about the actual topic at hand.

Yes.

Though I agreed with this one part of the post:


Forcing the old, the weak, women and possibly children (those that aren't eaten[!], that is) into slavery is not something you should be applauding. When someone tries to free those people, you should be cheering them on

Even if restraining the surviving Azurites captives is necessary to prevent them coming back and trying to retake the city, the oppression is evil and unnecessary.

But, even if the Azurites retake the city, I'd prefer the goblins to get something of what they've been striving for- a chance to actually be a part of the civilized world in the OoTS setting.

[Erts]

well you can Exile them, freeing them and forcing them to go live in other cities... Or you can do what most modern nations would do which is absorb the civilians into you're own society. I

f the civilians are able to live their lives normally, then all that's really changed is who is in charge... while there would be resistance movements from diehard nationalist and those that lost family during the invasion (keeping in mind only family that is able to and willing to fight), thousands of the citizens would be too scared to try and fight the new government... they don't want to end up enslaved, imprisoned or outright killed which is the fate of the rebels... in time they may even grow to accept it

Usually, that would work... If they were goblins.

In D&D, race usually determines countries. Remember, Redcloak's goal is for a goblin nation.
Of course, even if they did make that offer, how many people would accept it?
In long term, if Gobotopia survives, it is likely that they will absorb the humans or ship them off.

The reason that they couldn't exile them is because the exiles would flock to their allies and a war would start, with the Azurites and their allies attacking the new nation.

[hamishspence]

Or you can do what most modern nations would do which is absorb the civilians into you're own society.

Thing is though- when it's mentioned that by modern standards, the Sapphire Guard's actions in SoD were an atrocity, we get people saying that we can't impose modern standards on D&D paladins.

But apparently, we can impose modern standards on the goblins.

A bit of a double standard.

Still- as it stands, the slavery needs to end.
Hopefully this can be done without destroying Gobbotopia as a whole, in the process.

[Erts]

Thing is though- when it's mentioned that by modern standards, the Sapphire Guard's actions in SoD were an atrocity, we get people saying that we can't impose modern standards on D&D paladins.

But apparently, we can impose modern standards on the goblins.

A bit of a double standard.

Still- as it stands, the slavery needs to end.
Hopefully this can be done without destroying Gobbotopia as a whole, in the process.

I think you and I are in an agreement. The slavery as it is needs to end, and hopefully Gobbotopia will still exist... for now. I still hope that eventually the Azurites will get back their city.

[hamishspence]

From my perspective the ideal scenario would be the Plan failing, without the world being destroyed- maybe the goblins and the heroes fight side-by-side to save the world.

And, the gods fixing some of their mistakes- maybe motivated by realization that creating races to be slaughtered for XP was wrong.

(Assuming Redcloak's account of the creation of World 2.0 is not too inaccurate)

If the result was to be the goblins (and maybe other races) getting their own, slightly smaller nation, an end to them being hunted, and Azure City itself returned to the Azurite refugees, this would be pretty good.

[Liwen]

{scrubbed}

[Erts]

....
I'm going to read it all in a sec, but...
Five bucks says Roland is going to ban this thread. And quickly.
At least a post scrub.

Please, Gunslinger, help us!

[hamishspence]

Maybe just carry on with the topic and hope the thread itself stays open?

I'm thinking that it's possible that future strips may show role reversal in some ways. Maybe we'll see the Resistance behaving in a dubious fashion to achieve their goals?

Hope not, though.

Or at least, to have suggestions of using the nastier methods overridden with "we're better than that"

[Trebuchet]

The OP said D&D morality is messed up. I suppose it is, but it depends on the game, or in this case, writer. Just because the sourcebooks say it is okay to kill "always evil" creatures, that doesn't mean you have to play that way.

So far, this comic has shown people acting good, or evil, but above all, in character. Good characters can do evil, and evil characters can do good, but characters' reasons are personal and usually consistent. The goblins have the city. The Azurites want it back. Each side is willing to commit violence to further their ends. They are at war, and evil or good, each side is acting in character.

I agree that slavery is evil, and Gobbotopia is an evil city, but that isn't what justifies the attack on the prison. The goblins declared themselves the victors, but the Azurites don't seem to agree that the battle is over. The Azurites (and in this case their allies) are at war, and attacking the enemy forces occupying their city. The goblins are justified because they are defending their city. (No, they aren't justified in keeping slaves, but I think this story arc is about territory, not slavery.)

[Erts]

Look, morality is something that humans have had somewhat.
We argue and debate over the comic not because we are obsessive and nitpicky, but because we like to analyze it.

Plus, yes, morality is something which people can use to justify anything, but it is not childish, it's human. It is human to emphasize, to care about others.

And it's not mindless. I have carefully thought about your point before, that right and wrong don't exist, and we should do what would only be in our best interests. And you may call me childish, and you may call me mindless, but I prefer it that way.

And, well, excuse me? Really? You think that morality has only been used as propaganda? Tell that to charities around the world, to people who rely on tips to pay their bills. Tell that to orphanages, and do gooders.
And without wanting to get political for either side, there were plenty of people who did not support the invasions because of their morality, their morales told them not to rush into a war.

[slayerx]

Usually, that would work... If they were goblins.

In D&D, race usually determines countries. Remember, Redcloak's goal is for a goblin nation.

But that's just the thing... who gives a damn about a "goblin nation"?... the goblin's don't need a "goblin nation" they need "equality"... a goblin nation is just one method to try and gain that... Gobbotopia doesn't NEED to be a goblin nation, Redcloak just WANTS it to be that way...

Frankly a country that freely recognizes ALL races would be much more readily accepted by the nations of the world then one that is more exclusive to just the non-PC races... in actuality, such a nation probably WOULD be the best step forward to racial equality


Of course, even if they did make that offer, how many people would accept it?

When you consider how the alternatives are usually death, imprisonment, and exile, A LOT would probably take it... afterall the ONLY real difference in their new lives is the ruler; their lives are mostly unchanged... and other nations would see it as being progressive and be more willing to work with the new goblin nation

that's how it goes in RL... an invading nation takes over, they don't kill the civilians but just let them keep on doing what they have been doing... possibly some oppression to help remind them who's in charge and keep them in line... Do the civilians accept it? not easily... do they fight back against it? only a small fraction are willing to risk their lives to change it

There's kind of a balance... how crappy your new life is VS how good your old life was... the less crappy you're new life is the less willing most people are to risk it to back to the way things are. Most people would rather just life the way they are and let others do the fighting



In long term, if Gobotopia survives, it is likely that they will absorb the humans or ship them off.
Gobbotopia right now shows absolutely no signs of ending slavery



The reason that they couldn't exile them is because the exiles would flock to their allies and a war would start, with the Azurites and their allies attacking the new nation.
Would they?
you may be overestimating the civilians of Azure city... to join their allies and fight to reclaim azure city would mean risking your life and risking death... Considering how a civilian can live a normal life most anywhere in the world, what reason would they have to want to risk their lives for Azure city? Is it really worth fighting for?

Die hard patriots would be willing to fight... those who will risk their lives to fight evil would fight... those who lost friends and family might be willing to fight (though only those ABLE to fight)... but the rest will be glad to just be alive and able to keep living a normal life; and i imagine this would make up the vast majority

This is the same thing we see in more recent centuries when it came to invaders making the civilians part of their society... only a very small fraction of those citizens actually try to seriously fight back... the rest however would rather keep on living, they don't have the will and courage to risk their lives

[hamishspence]

I have carefully thought about your point before, that right and wrong don't exist, and we should do what would only be in our best interests.

I kinda like the notion that right and wrong do exist- but that behaviour people generally consider moral (not being aggressive, but using violence only to defend self and others from aggressors, not trying to gain stuff without earning it, and so on) is in one's self interest as well.

Hence- one should behave in a moral fashion, because it is in one's own self-interest, physical and mental, in the long term.

[Erts]

Fair point slayerx, except with the Redcloak point. I do believe that the goblins genuinely don't like the other races.

Also, they are a evil aligned nation. Not so much evil as in they are sadists, but that they view other races less than goblin.

[Optimystik]

And, the gods fixing some of their mistakes- maybe motivated by realization that creating races to be slaughtered for XP was wrong.

Allow me to modify that - I think fodder-races is a fine concept, so long as they aren't sapient.

Use Outsiders, Undead, Constructs if you have to, but there are plenty of acceptable targets before we get to humanoids, even monstrous ones.

Hell, the Abyss is infinite. Surely there's enough exp there?

[Erts]

I kinda like the notion that right and wrong do exist- but that behaviour people generally consider moral (not being aggressive, but using violence only to defend self and others from aggressors, not trying to gain stuff without earning it, and so on) is in one's self interest as well.

Hence- one should behave in a moral fashion, because it is in one's own self-interest, physical and mental, in the long term.

Agreed. Simple.

Same with Optymistic. The god's probably made them sentient for some unknown reason, or the goblins developed sentience.

[Roland St. Jude]

...Still no one responds to Lecan's post! I do not want to be committing post necromancy, but really, no responses?

People here are generally quite smart, and they avoid flaming or trolling and just report the offending post(s) and carry on with their discussion. That's the best way to avoid Infractions yourself and the best way to give the thread a change to stay open.

Sheriff of Moddingham: Still, this is pretty much an is X morally justified thread, so thread locked.