SOD debate between me and my friend. (spoilers I guess)

[Mystic Muse]

okay. me and my friend are debating whether SOD is actually a valid part of the story or a biased story told by redcloak. I personally think it's valid but he seems to think that redcloak is telling the story and therefore it's biased (particularly the part about the Paladins slaughtering Goblin women and children without mercy and without falling.)

what's the playground's opinion on this matter?

[Warren Dew]

Why not both?

[Da'Shain]

The Giant's been pretty clear so far on when something is actually happening and when it's simply a story being told, switching art styles in order to do that. SoD is in the same art style as the main comic, so therefore it's the same level of validity, at least by that particular yardstick.

Plus, if Redcloak was only telling the story there would be several portions that make no sense for him to have known about (Xykon's childhood, Roy and Eugene's talk at Bash U, Right-Eye's excursion to meet Eugene), and several more portions that he likely would have "embellished" if given the chance (his own part in Right-Eye's death and Xykon's subsequent speech springing immediately to mind).

[Nu]

Based on the commentary given in War and XPs, I say it's real. The 12 Gods did sanction that slaughter (by not stripping the paladins of their powers), and then Azure City got what was coming to them--I believe something to that effect was said. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but I don't really see anything to indicate unreliable narration in OOTS, outside of flashbacks (in crayon).

[Mystic Muse]

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

[Morthis]

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

How would Right-Eye have sustained the injury that gave him that name? I mean it's of course possible it was sustained some other way, but it does appear that this is the true story.

[Mystic Muse]

Maybe he's a goblin eye of the Dark one? (Orc Eye of Gruumsh)

[Da'Shain]

Does he have any sort of actual argument for his position, aside from "Hey it could just be a story"?

[Kish]

Your friend is drowning in wishful thinking.

Ask him to prove anything that happened in the main comic is not a lie told by Roy. "Redcloak gets to draw the panels in Start of Darkness" is exactly as likely and supported as "Roy gets to draw the panels online."

[Warren Dew]

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

All we see is paladins slaughtering goblins. Whether any of the goblins are innocent is never established.

I think the scene probably happened, but there may have been other scenes that showed that the goblins were not so innocent. Those scenes were left out of the story.

[Zevox]

The only part of Start of Darkness Redcloak is narrating is the crayons-of-time flashback sequence. The rest is still told from a 3rd-person perspective, like everything else in The Order of the Stick, and as such is as much unbiased story events as everything else.

As Kish indicates, if your friend seriously maintains that the story is being told by Redcloak throughout, he would also have to think that the main comic is being told by Roy or someone similar, as there is exactly as much evidence supporting that (i.e. that Roy is the main character of the strips, as Redcloak is in SoD).

There's also the matter that many parts of SoD focus on Xykon and parts of his life Redcloak couldn't know about (particularly those from before they met), so it'd be ridiculous to maintain that Redcloak is narrating everything in that book.

Zevox

[The Wanderer]

okay. me and my friend are debating whether SOD is actually a valid part of the story or a biased story told by redcloak. I personally think it's valid but he seems to think that redcloak is telling the story and therefore it's biased (particularly the part about the Paladins slaughtering Goblin women and children without mercy and without falling.)

what's the playground's opinion on this matter?

I think it's pretty obviously not a story told by Redcloak. There are multiple times where events happen that Redcloak is not a part of and would have no way of knowing about. Take the bits with Eugene Greenhilt for example, or do you think even a pre-lich Xykon told Redcloak about bringing his dog back to life, and then Redcloak would tell it to someone else?

Not to emntion that there's no framing device to suggest Redcloak as the narrator or anything else, so yeah... it's just as valid and impartial as our view of the OOTS world in the normal comic.

[derfenrirwolv]

Sorry, the paladins did it. Thats the problem with D&D morality, which is at least half the plot of start of darkness if not the entire comic.

Goblins are born evil. They have an innate tendency to do evil things. They were made that way specifically so it would be ok for low level paladins to massacre them without having to think about it to much.

In addition, these goblins are aiding, abbeting, and may BECOME the bearer of the crimson mantel. The bearer of the crimson mantel is a threat to the very soul of every living or dead creature thats ever existed. It NEEDS to be stopped at all costs.

[Zevox]

Goblins are born evil.
No, they're not. The only D&D creatures that can be argued to be born with an alignment are those with an "Always" alignment, and Goblins are only "Usually Neutral Evil."

Zevox

[factotum]

This entire argument seems to come back to the one that's been happening on and off since SoD came out--namely, why didn't the paladins Fall for wiping out that goblin village? The simple answer to which is, because their Gods didn't want them to! The commentary in one of the compilation books also mentions that the Sapphire Guard pretty much brought the sacking of Azure City on their own heads, which is additional evidence that the scene in SoD happened as shown.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much- the only things in SoD that might not have happened as written, are the crayon strips.

And those are consistant with the rest of the story- the gods in the crayon strips, don't seem to be acting out of character. Nor are the Order of the Scribble.

[DBJack]

Why would the gods care if their paladins, holy warriors fighting evil in their name, killed members of a race that they invented to be killed? And if these members of a cannon fodder race are being killed to stop the world from being destroyed and risking letting the snarl kill more gods, I'm sure that the gods would actively encourage the paladins to destroy any evidence of the crimson mantle

[KiwiImperator]

I'm of the opinion that we're getting a mixed message. I think everything we 'saw' did happen, but didn't necessarily mean what we thought it meant, for lack of context. I am also extremely wary of any of the crayon sections. I am determined to believe that the matter of the Paladins' apparently reprehensible actions during SoD will be addressed later, and everything will make sense once these final pieces fall into place.

[Snake-Aes]

The only part of Start of Darkness Redcloak is narrating is the crayons-of-time flashback sequence. The rest is still told from a 3rd-person perspective, like everything else in The Order of the Stick, and as such is as much unbiased story events as everything else.

As Kish indicates, if your friend seriously maintains that the story is being told by Redcloak throughout, he would also have to think that the main comic is being told by Roy or someone similar, as there is exactly as much evidence supporting that (i.e. that Roy is the main character of the strips, as Redcloak is in SoD).

There's also the matter that many parts of SoD focus on Xykon and parts of his life Redcloak couldn't know about (particularly those from before they met), so it'd be ridiculous to maintain that Redcloak is narrating everything in that book.

Zevox

Regardless, they're among the fodder species, which puts them within the "oh, we'll give them a stern look for putting bets on who gets an eye poked out first" area.

[factotum]

I'm of the opinion that we're getting a mixed message. I think everything we 'saw' did happen, but didn't necessarily mean what we thought it meant, for lack of context. I am also extremely wary of any of the crayon sections. I am determined to believe that the matter of the Paladins' apparently reprehensible actions during SoD will be addressed later, and everything will make sense once these final pieces fall into place.

How do you explain the Giant's comment that the Sapphire Guard brought the attack on their own heads, then? And the attack on the goblin village didn't take place in crayon-o-vision, so I don't know why you even brought that up.

[The Giant]

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

[warmachine]

I am surprised this friend thinks the paladins didn't act that way considering Miko. Her behaviour makes it clear that paladins aren't always exemplars of compassion. In On the Origin of PCs, a paladin expresses anger at not killing orcs who've done nothing wrong and that story is written from Roy's perspective.

[hamishspence]

It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch.


Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story.


Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

These are very interesting. And do clear up the "why didn't they fall?" question, with "we can't actually be sure that they didn't"- answer.


(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

My current best guesses are- the ones that killed, or tried to kill, young goblins that were not a threat (Right Eye, and his sister) and possibly the leader of the force, after "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

[Ancalagon]

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

You really have my gratitude for providing this explanation.

This finally is the nail in the coffin of the arguments that "what the paladins did was not evil because the gods did not care". I somehow disliked the fact that obviously evil deeds in this story here were deemed to be ok by quite a few people...

Actually, the paladins that crossed the line behaved more like some players ("awesome, three NPCs in a row, I get to use great cleave on those goblin children") and not like some paladins...

[hamishspence]

The Origin of PCs paladin also sounded a bit like a player-

"they're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment penalties"

"I'd kill him myself, but I have to keep a LG alignment to keep my powers"

[Mystic Muse]

well, word of God itself.

Guess this thread is over.

[Ancalagon]

The Origin of PCs paladin also sounded a bit like a player-

"they're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment penalties"

"I'd kill him myself, but I have to keep a LG alignment to keep my powers"

Yes, but in his case the commentary explicitly stated he was there to show how paladins are not to be played/how people misconcept what a paladin is or by what rules they operate. So far, it was obvious (to me) it was the same for the paladins in SoD, but it was not explicitly stated.

[hamishspence]

It did? I don't recall there being that much of a commentary in Origin of PCs- though maybe I missed it.

[TriForce]

i find it interesting that rich gave such a detailed and clear responce on this. especially since he normally doenst mingle much on the forum.

im guessing that that event carries much weight with him, as its more or less the start of the entire comic, and one of the most dramatic events he has written

[hamishspence]

Probably. Of all the antagonists in the comic, Redcloak seems like one of the most "filled out" so to speak.

And after Miko, he's probably one of the ones who generates the strongest disagreements.

A summary of the two most common viewpoints on him (from TV Tropes- sorry about that :smallwink:):


Depending on how the viewer chooses to read things, there are two possible ways to see Redcloak, The Dragon and resident Well Intentioned Extremist from Order of the Stick. The first is that Redcloak and his entire species (goblins) are the victims of Jerkass Gods who declared that they are Always Chaotic Evil for the sole reason that the followers of those gods then could slaughter goblins as XP fodder guilt free. Redcloak himself is the survivor of a raid by Knights Templar paladins that slaughtered most of his family and community, and is intelligent, well intentioned, has kept his standards, is repulsed by acts of Card Carrying Villainy and as the spiritual leader of all goblins, is trying to improve their lot. (By committing an act of Black Mail against the gods by threatening to unleash a world destroying, god killing Eldritch Abomination). In this view, Redcloak may be misguided, but his sole aim is to improve the lot of his people and allow them to build a civilization on equal terms with the other races. (Also regarding this view, they seem to have Word Of God on their side, as Rich Burlew himself once noted that some people are evil, and others are "driven to it by what life has forced them to endure". And that Redcloak may be one of the latter cases).

The second view is that Redcloak is a speciest who has perpetrated just as much Fantastic Racism as he has been victim to, is a kin slayer who, however regretfully, passed the Moral Event Horizon during his Start Of Darkness, is threatening to unleash an Apocalypse on innocent people and his own followers while empowering his Evil Overlord boss Xykon, a sociopathic undead lich of epic power whose sole pleasure in the world is killing. (And, even if Redcloak would succeed, he could never topple Xykon or stop Xykon from simply slaughtering whoever he wanted, however he wanted). In this view Redcloak may end up committing genocide on the entire world, and is merely deluded about both the goodness of his intentions and the depths to which he has fallen.

[Kerrah]

I think the real question is, did this kind of thing happen often? Was it a really bad judgement call by a zealous paladin commander or something they'd been doing systematically before?

[hamishspence]

Going by War & XPs, the Sapphire Guard have been destroying the villages of "goblinoids and other humanoids" a lot.

For the precise wording:


Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods (a point that is seen directly in the pages of Start of Darkness).

[salinan]

I think people claiming that no paladins fell during the raids are going by that wording of the gods' instructions (to 'exterminate entire villages'.) Given it's specifically requested by their gods, it wouldn't make sense for the gods to punish them for doing so.

Sounds like Rich is now saying that's not exactly what the gods instructed.

[factotum]

Going by War & XPs, the Sapphire Guard have been destroying the villages of "goblinoids and other humanoids" a lot.

For the precise wording:

We can assume the raid on Redcloak's village was the last one, because there's no evidence that the Sapphire Guard ever attacked Redcloak himself apart from that one occasion. That being the case, one wonders if it was also the most savage attack? Maybe the number of Paladins who Fell on that raid led the Guard to think that slaughtering goblin innocents wasn't the way to go--that, and they probably didn't know where Redcloak was, either.

[hamishspence]

What about when Redcloak meets Xykon? At this point (according to him) the Sapphire Guard have driven them into the swamps, and now they've come to drive them out of the swamps.

[factotum]

I assumed it was the sacking of their village that had driven them into the swamps.

[Ancalagon]

It did? I don't recall there being that much of a commentary in Origin of PCs- though maybe I missed it.

Ah, sorry. It's in War & XPs and is about Miko, but it applies as well to the Paladin in Origins: "Being a little to quick to pull the katana... being a lottle too suspicious of everyone's motives...being a little too willing to find the technialities of her alignment rather than living up to the spirit of it. She pushed the and pushed on the bounderies of what it meant to be Lawful Good and a paladin, until one day, she broke through."

Applies in the same way to the guy from Origin. Attempting to defeat the spirit of the class with technical loopholes.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right, even if it doesn't specify him explicitly.

[Ancalagon]

I think the real question is, did this kind of thing happen often? Was it a really bad judgement call by a zealous paladin commander or something they'd been doing systematically before?

I think killing goblins in a systematic way has happened before. But it were more like warcamps, so it's ok. In this case, they went for a camp with children as well because they wanted to hit the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and accepted the collateral damage (no parallel to RL here, please go on!) and were also too eager to "kill evil" and to "use their abilities".

So I think this is the difference: Killing warbands and warcamps or striking back invading goblins (it's not they are innocent in all this) made some Paladins so sure about killing goblins that they literally lost it when they attacked a place where more self-restriction would have been in order.

[hamishspence]

Seems like an interesting possibility.

Maybe we'll see another prequel, based on Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and eventually Miko, that confirms this?

According to War & XPs, the hobgoblins have been "kept penned up in the mountains for 30 years"- could there be a connection?

[Ancalagon]

Maybe we'll see another prequel, based on Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and eventually Miko, that confirms this?

That would be a good sequel, yes. But I still hope more for a collection of short-stories (sequels as well as side-stories of minor characters) in the OotS-world. So my vote does not go in that direction (that is, if I had one ;). But surely beats linear guild or other proposed sequel-options).

[Devils_Advocate]

Goblins are born evil. They have an innate tendency to do evil things. They were made that way specifically so it would be ok for low level paladins to massacre them without having to think about it to much.
Ah, so it's the gods who were cruel bastards, and the paladins are just dealing with the consequences of that (as intended). Yay.


Yes, but in his case the commentary explicitly stated he was there to show how paladins are not to be played/how people misconcept what a paladin is or by what rules they operate.
Given that the paladin in On the Origin of PCs tried to get his own Lawful Good ally killed on the grounds that he was annoying, it strains credulity that he still was a paladin at that point.


A summary of the two most common viewpoints on him
Those both sound quite accurate and not really mutually exclusive.

[factotum]

According to War & XPs, the hobgoblins have been "kept penned up in the mountains for 30 years"- could there be a connection?

Seems possible, considering the attack on Redcloak's village took place 34 years ago (if memory serves). Maybe that even marks a complete change of tactic from the Sapphire Guard--rather than going in and destroying goblinoid villages, they decided to just keep the goblinoids bottled up in a place they couldn't do any harm.

[Project_Mayhem]

Those both sound quite accurate and not really mutually exclusive.

My thoughts exactly

[derfenrirwolv]

well, word of God itself.

Guess this thread is over.

Hello, and welcome to the forums. :smallamused:

[Mystic Muse]

Hello, and welcome to the forums. :smallamused:

let me phrase that. "word of god itself. guess me and my friend's argument is over."

[LuisDantas]

These are very interesting. And do clear up the "why didn't they fall?" question, with "we can't actually be sure that they didn't"- answer.

Indeed. Very interesting indeed.

(About who among the Paladins might have fallen)


My current best guesses are- the ones that killed, or tried to kill, young goblins that were not a threat (Right Eye, and his sister) and possibly the leader of the force, after "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

Quite possibly so. I'd elaborate on that a bit and guess that it is mainly a function of how those Paladins feel about fulfilling their duties. While it is clear that the 12 Gods did order them to kill the Goblins, they are still Paladins and must use their better judgement at all times, even while following genocidal commands.

It is part of a Paladin's duties to kill in certain situations. It is completely anathema to the very concept of a Paladin to enjoy killing if there is a reasonable alternative available. Or so it seems to me.

[factotum]

While it is clear that the 12 Gods did order them to kill the Goblins

I don't think it IS clear. If the Twelve Gods ordered them to do it, then they wouldn't Fall for following those orders (this isn't some Celtic myth where a character is forced to break his geas and thus lose his power because of it). It seems far more likely that there is a general "Kill the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle" order, and this particular troupe of paladins simply took things way too far; they obviously had to kill the Bearer, and anybody in the village who tried to prevent them, but no more than that.

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it IS clear. If the Twelve Gods ordered them to do it, then they wouldn't Fall for following those orders (this isn't some Celtic myth where a character is forced to break his geas and thus lose his power because of it). It seems far more likely that there is a general "Kill the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle" order, and this particular troupe of paladins simply took things way too far; they obviously had to kill the Bearer, and anybody in the village who tried to prevent them, but no more than that.

I may have been mistaken in assuming that the orders did exist, but I maintain that following orders is no warranty against falling. Inteligent beings must use their capability for discernment, after all.

[Dilettante]

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!Thanks for taking the time to post this, Rich.

My wife and I are big fans of the strip, which is pretty impressive since my wife doesn't have a background in RPGs. But when we read Start of Darkness, it very nearly made both of us quit the strip. We soldiered on, but although we've both enjoyed the strip immensely, that one book was a sore point that took away from the rest of it, however slightly. Now I think we can both move on and go back to both enjoying and trusting OotS.

Thank you.

[Optimystik]

My wife and I are big fans of the strip, which is pretty impressive since my wife doesn't have a background in RPGs. But when we read Start of Darkness, it very nearly made both of us quit the strip. We soldiered on, but although we've both enjoyed the strip immensely, that one book was a sore point that took away from the rest of it, however slightly. Now I think we can both move on and go back to both enjoying and trusting OotS.

To be fair, he warned you both in the foreword that very bad things would happen to good people in that book, and also that the villains wouldn't be getting their comeuppance in that book either. So any loss of faith on your parts was entirely on you.

The obvious application of those words was to Redcloak and Xykon, but they can easily fit those paladins that murdered children, as well as their commander.

[Ancalagon]

@Dilettante
Some thought crossed my mind when I just read that post...

My first thought was "Well, d'uh, what do you expect? The foreword says it and it's also obvious this isn't as the online comic".
SoD is a simply awesome story detailing where the villians come from and why they do what they do.

But then it crossed my mind there are three basic groups OotS speaks to:
A) those who mostly come for the giggles (some plainly state the "story" is even annoying in parts and they probably find the character-development end deeper parts (morals etc) to be somewhat superflous,

B) those who come mostly for the story and who think that quite many good points and updates have been litterly ruined by a punchline that "just had to squeezed in",

C) those who enjoy both, to varying degrees between A) and B).

Note: Of course, the groups A) and B) are not set in stone and it's not said that A) cannot enjoy part of the story or a particular character developing or that B) cannot also giggle about the latest flat punchline...

But I have to admit that people from Group A) (or "mostly group A)") really do not get much from SoD, it actually is a lot of things they are NOT looking for.
They got a book from which they expect it to be filled with fun-time like the online strip and get a dark, gritty, and outright evil story.
It does have a few very good jokes but mostly it's... pure story about evil (and Evil). It might be awesome, but that's not why those people usually come to OotS. It's surely a good book... but simply not the Droids they were looking for.

---

My closing comment, after the general ramblings, would be a specific one: Dilettante, I would be very interested to know how you would see the book if you re-read if now AFTER you know what it is and what it is not.

[Dilettante]

To be fair, he warned you both in the foreword that very bad things would happen to good people in that book, and also that the villains wouldn't be getting their comeuppance in that book either. So any loss of faith on your parts was entirely on you.That's true. I never blamed Rich for it, but I did feel uncomfortable with the series after reading it.

It's hard to explain exactly what bothered us so much, but I'll try. Warning: wall of text ahead.

The various deeds that Xykon got up to weren't exactly fun to read, but they were interesting and revealing. Xykon is evil, and I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise in the strips. That's cool.

Redcloak's story was harder to handle. By having paladins slaughtering helpless children, the book was implicitly suggesting that doing so was a Lawful Good act - yet at the same time, the story made it clear that these children were blameless individuals with personalities, and obviously the reader was supposed to sympathize with Redcloak as he saw his family cut down by the cold, uncaring paladins. Did we sympathize more with Redcloak? Sure. Did we see that the issue was more complex that we'd previously thought? Of course. Did we start to wonder if we cared about the Order of the Stick? Yes. Wait, what?

The slaughter threw the alignment system into jeopardy. Clearly, Xykon was evil. And clearly Roy and Durkon were good, with characters like Haley, Redcloak and the Oracle filling in various spots in-between. I have no problem having evil humans or dwarves - heck, it wouldn't be much fun without them. But if the gods of good themselves were tolerating or even demanding the slaughter of innocent children, it meant that their definitions of "good" and "evil" were senseless, or at least not based on anything I would be happy with...because it's the yardstick that the characters in the series use.

If a paladin's "detect evil" shows up positive for black dragons, skeletons, halfling psychopaths and little goblin children, then it's telling you that they're all evil...and the paladins that slaughter little goblin children are good. Once you make that leap of logic, you're faced with the realization that you can't trust anyone's idea of good and evil in the strip: are the Archons and Devas really good? Are the Devils and Demons really evil? If the gods themselves are "shades of grey", what hope is there for the rest of us? Is there anyone at all in the strips who is genuinely a decent person who I would like to meet? I've read books where the main character was an anti-hero, but I always lost interest; I've always needed to be able to sympathize with the protagonist, and after SoD it felt like we had to question that.

In the end, the quality of the writing and the wit and wonder of the series kept us going, and we're both glad we did. But hearing that some of the paladins went too far in SoD, that the gods felt some of their actions were not good, that helps restore a sense of right and wrong that is pivotal to any game that includes an alignment system.

[Kish]

I've read books where the main character was an anti-hero, but I always lost interest; I've always needed to be able to sympathize with the protagonist, and after SoD it felt like we had to question that.
I wonder, have you read On the Origins of PCs? If you haven't, then you should.

[Dilettante]

They got a book from which they expect it to be filled with fun-time like the online strip and get a dark, gritty, and outright evil story.My wife and I both fit into "c". Actually, half the time she'd be in "b", because she just doesn't get many RPG-specific jokes (and has to turn to me for an explanation). I love the humor, but I also love the character building. I think my favorite storyline was Haley regaining her speech, and while I didn't enjoy seeing Varsuvius fall from grace, I loved seeing it (and kept thinking "this is far more believable than Anakin becoming Darth Vader").

The tl;dr to my last post is that I didn't like Start of Darkness because it made me feel that there was nobody in the strip who was truly good. Lots who were truly evil, but nobody who could really be called good without a few asterisks.


My closing comment, after the general ramblings, would be a specific one: Dilettante, I would be very interested to know how you would see the book if you re-read if now AFTER you know what it is and what it is not.I'll let you know. I do plan on re-reading it, and I might be able to convince my wife to do so, too (she did try and convince me to throw it out after first reading it, though).

[Dilettante]

I wonder, have you read On the Origins of PCs? If you haven't, then you should.Yep. It wasn't my favorite book, but it was worth full price. :) Roy and Durkon both showed a lot of goodness in them in it, if that's what you're getting at.

[Kish]

But the bit with the orcs wasn't enough to keep you confident Roy was still the hero (whether the gods were or not)?

[Dilettante]

But the bit with the orcs wasn't enough to keep you confident Roy was still the hero (whether the gods were or not)?No, we were both pretty clear that Roy was good, which is why we kept reading. But we kept going back to "but who's defining good" and similar questions. Durkon? Sure, he's a loyal, honorable, trustworthy dwarf who I'd be proud to call friend. But he's also worshipping a god who sanctions the slaughter of babies. How do I get over the idea that mere mortals are "gooder" than the gods they worship?

It also made me doubt whether the Order of the Stick was doing the right thing. Redcloak's story is one of someone trying to do the right thing through evil acts - and I was starting to wonder whether the OotS was the story of someone (Roy) doing the wrong thing through good acts.

[Joerg]

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line.


Fair enough, and good to know. I just want to note that you created a different impression in the commentary to War & XPs (before strip 474):



Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods [...]. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins' massacres, but even the gods can't stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.


It is not surprising if nearly everyone reading that assumes that no paladin has fallen because of the massacres.

[Dilettante]

I got my wife to give her opinion, which I've added verbatim:

"I think part of it for me was that I originally DID come for the giggles - I don't have the background in RPGs that a lot of everybody else seems to. I mostly came along because [my husband was] coming along, and because it introduced me to the facets of RPGs that [my husband] took for granted and amused me at the same time, without confusing me. I tried to play RPGs before and the rules just ended up leaving me cross-eyed.

In some ways I really like the way Rich has developed the story, in other ways I do feel the story has become WAY more massive than it used to be, and I kind of miss the early lightheartedness, but I don't say that to diss what's going on now.

As for Start of Darkness, I think maybe it just went a lot more into the real 'nature of evil' than I was expecting from what until now had been a COMIC story. I believe Start of Darkness came out somewhere in the general vicinity of the real introduction to the meat of the story - just where it was becoming a much bigger thing, and so, it just wasn't what I was expecting and as my husband said to you earlier, it left me in doubt that the good guys were really doing the right thing. Everybody knows Paladins are lawful stupid, though they don't have to be (see Hinjo), but wholesale slaughter of apparently innocent women and children was a brain- and story-breaker for me."

So apparently I was wrong about why she read the strip...ahem...but, er, I remembered her birthday...

[Optimystik]

I'm still not sure I understand your difficulty :smallconfused: the gods basically being ultrapowerful children is a staple of mythology. Greek, Norse, Sumerian, Chinese, you name it.

OotS at least allows there to be higher principles of alignment that supersede even them.

Has Rich created a crappy world? Yes, and based on multiple indications (including his post above) I feel confident in saying that it was intentional. The thing about good writing is that he can't simply tell us how crappy things are; he has to show us. That means he needs characters that aren't card-carrying villains practicing racism, injustice, and gratuitous violence.

So just hang in there, and wait until you see the end before judging the whole.

[SPoD]

No, we were both pretty clear that Roy was good, which is why we kept reading. But we kept going back to "but who's defining good" and similar questions.

The answer is, "You, the reader." Your view of right and wrong is what is important, not what the gods decide. A lot of what happens in OOTS seems designed to provoke the reader into thinking about what makes someone a good guy or a bad guy--and it's not whether or not they're a god or a paladin or a goblin.


Durkon? Sure, he's a loyal, honorable, trustworthy dwarf who I'd be proud to call friend. But he's also worshipping a god who sanctions the slaughter of babies.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back it up. Thor has never sanctioned any such thing, and has no power over what the Twelve Gods do with their followers. And we have only tentative data on how much Thor was involved in the creation of the fodder races to begin with, or what rules he might set down for his followers when dealing with them.


How do I get over the idea that mere mortals are "gooder" than the gods they worship?

It's pretty easy if you have no faith in the authority of gods in the first place.


It also made me doubt whether the Order of the Stick was doing the right thing. Redcloak's story is one of someone trying to do the right thing through evil acts - and I was starting to wonder whether the OotS was the story of someone (Roy) doing the wrong thing through good acts.

Except Roy isn't trying to oppress the goblins; they don't even really figure into his decision-making. Roy is trying to stop Xykon, and that is pretty much guaranteed to be the right thing to do. The interesting thing will be to see how Roy deals with Redcloak and his people after Xykon is defeated (assuming Redcloak is still alive at that point).

[Ancalagon]

The slaughter threw the alignment system into jeopardy

I think that was the entire point of it. ;)

[Antacid]

well, word of God itself.

Guess this thread is over.Oy... :smallfrown:

[The_Weirdo]

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

Somehow I have a feeling he DOES know this one... :smallwink:

[The Wanderer]

Probably. Of all the antagonists in the comic, Redcloak seems like one of the most "filled out" so to speak.

And after Miko, he's probably one of the ones who generates the strongest disagreements.

A summary of the two most common viewpoints on him (from TV Tropes- sorry about that :smallwink:):


Those both sound quite accurate and not really mutually exclusive.

:smallbiggrin:

So glad everyone likes that description. You wouldn't believe how many times I had to rewrite it and argue with people in the discussion pages to keep that on the Anti Villain page.

Giant, thanks for that very interesting insight into the possible consequences for the actions of the paladins. It gave me at least a very valuable understanding that otherwise didn't really come across.


Originally Posted by Dilettante:
No, we were both pretty clear that Roy was good, which is why we kept reading. But we kept going back to "but who's defining good" and similar questions.


Originally Poster by SPoD:
The answer is, "You, the reader." Your view of right and wrong is what is important, not what the gods decide. A lot of what happens in OOTS seems designed to provoke the reader into thinking about what makes someone a good guy or a bad guy--and it's not whether or not they're a god or a paladin or a goblin.

Agreed, SPoD. I feel that the last sentence in particular has either always been a central theme, or at the least became one since the comic started turning more to drama than comedy. (And you can argue that the point about how species/color doesn't and shouldn't count for anything is made as early as strip 13 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), with everyone's reaction to Belkar).

Most of us, (I'd like to think) would be horrified by a game that consisted of nothing more than going around and killing humans with different skin color or culture so we could take their stuff. Yet most players have few qualms about doing that in a game, provided it's a different species. (But hey, they're different and inferior, so it's ok to kill them, just like it was ok for so many cultures on earth to do that to other people they knew to be different and inferior to themselves). OOTS definitely calls that tendency out, and challenges us to think about our attitudes towards sentient beings, regardless of their differences.

I've always thought that one of the neatest things I've read on this forum was one poster talking about DMing his (or her) games, and being disturbed by the implications of OOTS and the attitudes of his players. So he started making the random mooks his players were encountering humans rather than goblins, orcs, etc. Suddenly, rather than just killing everyone, his players tended towards encouraging the bad guys to surrender, healing ones that lived through the encounter, taking them prison/to jail, and so on.

Sure, most of us who play D&D or read fantasy stories do it for a little lighthearted escapism, but those issues and when we decide that a creature life is worthless are certainly worth thinking about. I'm just glad they've been handled by a writer as talented and considerate as Rich.