Tsukiko: evil or already Evil? (SoD spoiler likely)

[Ancalagon]

Well, the title basically says it all.

Is Tsukiko "evil" or has she already gone all the way and can be considered "Evil".

(If you don't get what the difference is, you might want to get SoD.)

[Kish]

She's deluding herself that Xykon wouldn't kill her out of hand if he ever thought it was marginally more amusing than not doing so, so...I'll say "evil."

[Antacid]

She's deluding herself that Xykon wouldn't kill her out of hand if he ever thought it was marginally more amusing than not doing so, so...I'll say "evil."Redcloak (and Jirix) know that very well, and I don't think it makes them more evil.

Being delusional makes Tsukiko more capital-C Crazy, not less capital-E Evil.

[Murdim]

She's clearly evil. She seems pretty sincere in her sympathy towards the undead and in her... affection for Xykon. Capital E Evil characters, like Xykon or even Belkar, are far, far beyond those two concepts.

[DSCrankshaw]

She's clearly evil. She seems pretty sincere in her sympathy towards the undead and in her... affection for Xykon. Capital E Evil characters, like Xykon or even Belkar, are far, far beyond those two concepts.

See, that doesn't work. Even Evil characters can feel compassion. Even Belkar cares for someone--in his case, Mr. Scruffy. That doesn't make him less Evil.


Being delusional makes Tsukiko more capital-C Crazy, not less capital-E Evil.

Quoted for truth. That, my friend, is sig-worthy. Y'know, if I had a sig.

[Gift Jeraff]

She's clearly evil. She seems pretty sincere in her sympathy towards the undead and in her... affection for Xykon. Capital E Evil characters, like Xykon or even Belkar, are far, far beyond those two concepts.

This. She's "evil, but for a good cause" in her own mind. It just so happens that, as Antacid said, her mind is bona fide Crazy with a capital C. :smalltongue:

[Studoku]

She's evil without the captital e but Hot with a captial H.

[TriForce]

you seem to think that there is a difference between evil for the hell of it, and evil becouse you can talk yourself into it being right. but to be honest, that difference doesnt exist. if i shoot a guy for the hell of it, or if i shoot a guy becouse i dont like the colour shirt he is wearing, does that make a difference? being able to justify anything isnt a sign of a consience, its a sign of either stupidity or insanity. so in short, belkar, xykon, tsukiko are all evil, weither you like a capital E or not is your own choice.

[Murderous Hobo]

being able to justify anything isnt a sign of a consience, its a sign of either stupidity or insanity.

That doesn't really make sense. Being able to justify your actions is the whole difference between stupid evil and regular evil. Tsukikos love for the undeath make her actions actually quite sensible. The same can be said about Wrong Eye.

edit:

Did you mean "not being able too justify..." ?

[Murdim]

See, that doesn't work. Even Evil characters can feel compassion. Even Belkar cares for someone--in his case, Mr. Scruffy. That doesn't make him less Evil.
Yes, but it isn't the main motive for his actions. Belkar's self-professed reason for living is to kill stuff to death ; that he finds some people and animals funny to have around doesn't change the fact that his life is centered on doing Evil for the heck of it.

But, Tsukiko and Redcloak ? Of course, they're evil. Of course, they do horrible things all the time. Of course, they'll "ping" on a Detect Evil spell the exact same way as Belkar and Xykon. But they're not embracing Evil for all its worth, far from it. And that's why Xykon calls them evil, in contrast to his own Evil-ness.

That doesn't make them any less of a villain, though. Victimizing them would be absurd. Even Hitler was just "evil", yet he's universally considered as one of the worst monsters in the history of humanity, incomparably worse than your average "for the evulz" sociopath. The real difference between evil and Evil is qualitative, not quantitative. As a frigging evil deity, the Dark One probably has a much, much greater "level of evilness" than Belkar ; yet, which is the evil one, and which is the Evil one ?

[Zevox]

Just plain "evil." She's quick to resort killing, has no problems working with Xykon, had no problems betraying the Azurites, etc. But she's not like Xykon. She doesn't go around killing for her amusement, or trying to conquer the world because that's how to build an Evil reputation, and I doubt she'd consider destroying the world if she got "really, REALLY bored." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) She could become such in the future I suppose, but for now she mostly seems delusional due to the way her necrophilia is interacting with the ways the Azurites and Xykon deal with the undead.

She's not Evil for Evil's sake, more so evil because it's the only way she knows how to act and still be able to embrace her desires as she wants to.

Zevox

[Querzis]

I dont think that any of the character in the comic are on Xykon level of Evil. Trying to compare any of the other characters evil to Xykon evil is just not fair. Tsukiko is not on Xykon level but shes still far above Redcloak level of 'evil for a good cause'. In other words, I would say shes Evil if compared to Redcloak but evil if compared to Xykon.

[Vemynal]

As far as I'm concerned Tsukiko is so low-key evil shes lower on the bar then Redcloak

Xykon mentioned sacrificing his very humanity for power, Redcloak's evil for a cause is even eviler then "Evil because humans are jerks!"

I love the character and she is evil, just not *Evil*

and Belkar is more evil because he thinks its funny, i'd put him between Redcloak and Tsukiko

[Kish]

you seem to think that there is a difference between evil for the hell of it, and evil becouse you can talk yourself into it being right.
That is the distinction made in Start of Darkness, yes...

[Shale]

:xykon: It's not about raw power, it's about how far you're willing to debase yourself before feeling bad. And me? I ripped off my own living flesh so I wouldn't have to admit weakness. You're strictly little league compared to that. That's the difference between bonafide true Evil with a capital "E" and your whiny, "evil, but for a good cause" crap. One gets to be the butch, and the other gets to be the bitch...Bitch.

[Ancalagon]

you seem to think that there is a difference between evil for the hell of it, and evil becouse you can talk yourself into it being right. but to be honest, that difference doesnt exist. if i shoot a guy for the hell of it, or if i shoot a guy becouse i dont like the colour shirt he is wearing, does that make a difference? being able to justify anything isnt a sign of a consience, its a sign of either stupidity or insanity. so in short, belkar, xykon, tsukiko are all evil, weither you like a capital E or not is your own choice.

As I said, reading SoD might help to get the distinction... it's a pretty big point.

[Prowl]

Even Belkar cares for someone--in his case, Mr. Scruffy. That doesn't make him less Evil.

Actually, it DOES make him less evil, just not enough so to really matter in the big picture. He's got quite a list of items on the other side of the ledger.

[Souhiro]

Lower evil, no doubt. She's powerful, yeah, but kinda doofus here. If Xykon drops her, she would cry and crawl, like the dumped teenager she is.

You know, true Evil, Capital Evil (like Capital Good) is about making the way, not following the trail.

[2xMachina]

*wonders if there is a definition for EVIL and eVIL*

[Turkish Delight]

Pretty obviously 'evil.' She thinks she is doing something good by defending the rights of the undead. She thinks Xykon is just misunderstood. She doesn't have the raw selfishness to be Evil yet.

[TriForce]

That doesn't really make sense. Being able to justify your actions is the whole difference between stupid evil and regular evil. Tsukikos love for the undeath make her actions actually quite sensible. The same can be said about Wrong Eye.

edit:

Did you mean "not being able too justify..." ?

no i meant, BEING able to justify, but lets not use that word too much, otherwise roland will consider this another morally justified thread.

i know start of darkness makes a difference between evil for the hell of it, and evil for a reason, but MY point in all of it, as illustrated by the example i made above, is that that difference imho only exists in the readers mind. its a way for readers to give themselves a reason to like a charecter more, even when hes doind something dispicabe like murdering hundreds of innocents or defiling the dead. my entire point was that regardless of the reason (or lack thereof) it doesnt make a person any more or less evil, it just gives the readers a reason to like him/her more

[Ancalagon]

Actually, I think you are wrong.

The distinction is a sub-distinction to make some characters not more likeable than others, but to make them actually worse.

Imo it is not about "See, both are evil, but one is only evil" but instead about "while both are clearly evil and depraved and simply wrong, one is, oh my god, so Evil that it's simply beyond normal evil".

Tsukiko and Redcloak for example both are clearly evil but they do have reasons, they have human traits, they have emotions and could defend what they do.
Xykon on the other hand is evil for evil's sake. He has no motive and surely no humanity at all. He is Evil in a cosmic and pure meaning. And that does not make Tsukiko or Redcloak any "better" or more likeable or less "evil".
It's just that Xykon is so evil that it is... beyond words. And this gets indicated by the capital "E".

[amanojaku]

In the end, reddy has some justification for his "evil". He wants to improve the lot of his goblinoid kind and avenge things done to him and his loved ones by the 'good guys", as in the ref to his mother at the beginning of the attack on AC. He also, during the battle, had an epiphany and became a much better person, caring for more than himself.

Caring for others in a sincere way is not an evil trait and in fact is sort of anti-evil. Redcloak is far less evil than xykon as many of his acts and motivations are about helping other people, not just about his own gratification like xykon.

Also, redcloak did not toss the azurite prisoners to the snarl because nothing would be gained from it, and obviously didn't want to. That makes him one hell of a lot less evil than xykon, who murders for amusement ad would have done it for the hell of it even if ochul had given him the information.

Reddy is not pure evil, he has redeeming qualities acts for the good of his people, making him one of those "Evil only from a humanocentric perspective but actually good from a goblinoid perspective" evil types.

Xykon is an utterly selfish sack of bones that probably has less regard for anyone but himself and his own whims than C. Montgomery Burns and that makes him evil from anyone's perspective.

As for Tsuki, she's a rebellious youth who gravitated to the bad side out of juvenile defiance and is utterly delusional. My god, even the MitD can see the truth better than her. She's a flake job that's crossed the line and needs to be killed sans resurrection.

[Nargrakhan]

I think the word everyone is looking for, would be: sexy.

As in, "Tsukiko is sexy for a stick figure character."

All this talk of evil is ignoring the more obvious adjective. :smalltongue:

[Ancalagon]

I think the word everyone is looking for, would be: sexy.

Nah, at least for me that's not the word I'm looking for.

[B.I.T.T.]

Tsukiko...well she has less of a reason to be evil then Redcloak does. She may be striving to impress Xykon now, but she was obviously doing evil stuff before that or she wouldn't have been arrested. But the thing that keeps me from labeling her as Evil with a capital "E" is her lack of drive. The above mentioned quote from Xykon mentioned that Evil gets to be the butch and evil gets to be the b****.

Tsukiko seems all too happy to be the b**** (so to speak). By that I mean that she seems happy to be evil, but in a subordinate possition, as long as she's subordinate to the right person, namely Xykon. Where as Xykon strikes me as the kind of person, and I use the term loosely, that wouldn't under any circumstances accept being a subservient, to do so would require admiting weakness.

But that's just my take on it.

[Warren Dew]

I think it's clear that Tsukiko is only evil since she's basically in the same position as Redcloak.

I don't think Belkar is Evil. Xykon wouldn't really care about Mr. Scruffy's well being.


Pretty obviously 'evil.' She thinks she is doing something good by defending the rights of the undead.

It's weird how so many people seem to accept that defending the rights of goblinoids is worthwhile, but they draw the line at undead - even sentient undead.

[Snake-Aes]

I think it's clear that Tsukiko is only evil since she's basically in the same position as Redcloak.

I don't think Belkar is Evil. Xykon wouldn't really care about Mr. Scruffy's well being.
Doesn't work like that.

Abyss, 3/4 of the most famous villain stories started with LOVE.

[Southern Cross]

True enough. Consider the case of Dr. Anton Phibes. A devoted husband,his wife's death (and his subsequent maiming) during a surgical operation pushed him into becoming one of the most stylish and ruthless killers in movie history.

[Asta Kask]

As long as we are capitalizing random letters, I think she's eVil.

[Warren Dew]

Abyss, 3/4 of the most famous villain stories started with LOVE.

So? It doesn't make them capital E Evil the way Xykon is.

[Snake-Aes]

So? It doesn't make them capital E Evil the way Xykon is.

I find it funny how people actually created a second evil alignment with a capital letter.
THey're both evil. One for the sake of it, the other for whatever reason. They'll ping exactly the same on the radars. Hell, odds are the evil with an excuse person can be just as dangerous as the for the evulz person.

Now, on your reply to my quote. I said that evil does not mean "does not like anyone". If you disagree with that, you should seek more epic stories out there. You'll find plenty excellent villains, that happen to be horrible people, complete monsters and even POWERFUL monsters because of a strong emotion like love.

[Kish]

I find it funny how people actually created a second evil alignment with a capital letter.
Again, not people, Xykon. "That's the difference between real Evil with a capital E and your whiny 'evil, but for a good cause' crap."

[BRC]

I think it's clear that Tsukiko is only evil since she's basically in the same position as Redcloak.

I don't think Belkar is Evil. Xykon wouldn't really care about Mr. Scruffy's well being.

Belkar cares about something, therefore he's not evil...

Yeah, I don't see it.


Also, Redcloak and Tsusiko are in VERY different positions.

Redcloak is fighting for the rights of goblinoids to get a fair shake with everybody else. His methods mean he dosn't exactly fit into a category.

Tsusiko thinks undead mockeries of life that enjoy killing people and eating them/draining their life energies are adorable.

[TriForce]

Again, not people, Xykon. "That's the difference between real Evil with a capital E and your whiny 'evil, but for a good cause' crap."

reading this topic, it would seem a lot of people here seem to agree with him, most people here seem to think that "evil for the sake of evil" and "evil for what i consider a good reason" to be different things, and perhaps even different alignment. whatever xykon may think, i consider both the same thing, its just that the people doing "evil for the sake of evil" stopped lieing to themselves

[Snake-Aes]

Again, not people, Xykon. "That's the difference between real Evil with a capital E and your whiny 'evil, but for a good cause' crap."

He's just glorifying what he is compared to what others are, since he believes only for the evulz is the real thing.

[Herald Alberich]

Belkar cares about something, therefore he's not evil...

Yeah, I don't see it.

Not evil, Evil, as Xykon's definition. But you're right, Belkar is Evil, he's not an extremist committing evil deeds on behalf of the well-being of all housecats, or anything. He's evil cause he likes it that way.

[Twilightwyrm]

Let's put it this way. Tsukiko is Ozymandias evil, Xykon and Belker are Comedian evil. (Unless by some stretch of the iamgination you would not consider the comedian evil)

[Ancalagon]

He's just glorifying what he is compared to what others are, since he believes only for the evulz is the real thing.

Yes. Yes, that he does. You are correct. I fail to see the "but".

[Snake-Aes]

Yes. Yes, that he does. You are correct. I fail to see the "but".

The "but" is that people imply, based on that, that Xykon's "Evil" is nastier than Xykon's "evil". It's not. Xykon is more of a monster than Redcloak, but that doesn't mean evil people like redcloak are that by default. Great Villains can have any reason to be really, really nasty. Rich's Fire King nearly wiped out all elves in the world and was about to conquer a really bad power...because he was ashamed of being a half elf. And he loved his friends.

[Ancalagon]

In a world where the cosmic concept of "pure evil" exists, it seems perfectly legit that some people are closer to it than others.
And I think that is what the "E" measures. Xykon is pretty pure evil, with no motives, friends he loves, everything.

In regard to "evil" some people might cause more evil than others but in regards to purity of evil, Xykon really is very, very evil. So evil, that I agree to call him "Evil". In the same way as I capitalise alignments (Lawful Good, Neutral, Chaotic Evil). In this regard, yes, Xykon does qualify to be called "Evil".

And it's also about something else, I think: Are you clear with what you are? Or are you still trying to make excuses, need reasons? If you are in balance with yourself... you are more "true to yourself".
Just call Xykon to be "negatively enlightened" while Redcloak still hasn't seen through the veil and stumbles around in morality has most people do.

[Snake-Aes]

:( You have teflon armor against my posts, it slipped right through. I agree with everyone that xykon is much more of a monster than redcloak... But I disagree with the usage the posters have that implies that Xykon's type of evil is, by default, nastier.

[Morthis]

:( You have teflon armor against my posts, it slipped right through. I agree with everyone that xykon is much more of a monster than redcloak... But I disagree with the usage the posters have that implies that Xykon's type of evil is, by default, nastier.

In what way is Xykon's even not nastier than RC's? Xykon might destroy an entire city because he's bored. He might soul bind you just to watch you suffer in a little gem. He was shown to randomly kill the paladins in SoD just because he liked to see paladins die. RC did none of this. He killed to accomplish his goals, sure, but he wouldn't randomly destroy a city for the heck of it, not unless it helped his plan. In that sense, Xykon was much more evil.

To put it another way. If you had to randomly run into either Xykon or RC somewhere, who would you rather run into? I sure as hell would rather take my chances with RC. If I respected him, odds are he wouldn't care about killing me one way or another. The same could not by said for Xykon. He might kill me because he didn't quite like the way my hair looked or something.

[Snake-Aes]

In what way is Xykon's even not nastier than RC's? Xykon might destroy an entire city because he's bored. He might soul bind you just to watch you suffer in a little gem. He was shown to randomly kill the paladins in SoD just because he liked to see paladins die. RC did none of this. He killed to accomplish his goals, sure, but he wouldn't randomly destroy a city for the heck of it, not unless it helped his plan. In that sense, Xykon was much more evil.

To put it another way. If you had to randomly run into either Xykon or RC somewhere, who would you rather run into? I sure as hell would rather take my chances with RC. If I respected him, odds are he wouldn't care about killing me one way or another. The same could not by said for Xykon. He might kill me because he didn't quite like the way my hair looked or something.
There's the teflon again. Re read what you quoted. Carefully.

[Morthis]

The thing is, if someone is more of a monster, in what way is the evil not nastier? I guess you could say all evil is the same, and yet there's people who do a lot more evil things than others, and some whose actions might be partly justifiable. I don't see how you can all paint them with the same brush and say it's all the same thing.

[Snake-Aes]

And again, the teflon. I'm just dropping here now, sorry that I could not express it in a manner you'd understand.

[doodthedud]

In what way is Xykon's even not nastier than RC's? Xykon might destroy an entire city because he's bored. He might soul bind you just to watch you suffer in a little gem. He was shown to randomly kill the paladins in SoD just because he liked to see paladins die. RC did none of this. He killed to accomplish his goals, sure, but he wouldn't randomly destroy a city for the heck of it, not unless it helped his plan. In that sense, Xykon was much more evil.

To put it another way. If you had to randomly run into either Xykon or RC somewhere, who would you rather run into? I sure as hell would rather take my chances with RC. If I respected him, odds are he wouldn't care about killing me one way or another. The same could not by said for Xykon. He might kill me because he didn't quite like the way my hair looked or something.

Redcloak does things out of vengeance. Alot. To people SIMILAR to the ones he is angry with. Without purpose to his plan.

:redcloak: "You know that no-one loves seeing a paladin get what's coming to them more than I do"

[Raw_fishFood]

Let's put it this way. Tsukiko is Ozymandias evil, Xykon and Belker are Comedian evil. (Unless by some stretch of the iamgination you would not consider the comedian evil)

I can get what you're saying, but I somewhat disagree with your choice of comparisons. Although I would agree that Belker is comparable to the Comedian, with alot of, "Because I can."

Redcloak is much closer to Ozymandias, with justifying his evil acts of "It'll all be for good in the end.".

Tsukiko and Xykon really don't match up too well with anybody from Watchmen, but Xykon is sort of a super powered Joker (less insane), and Tsukiko is a bit like Harley only the "relationship" is completely one sided.

[talkamancer]

I can get what you're saying, but I somewhat disagree with your choice of comparisons. Although I would agree that Belker is comparable to the Comedian, with alot of, "Because I can."

Redcloak is much closer to Ozymandias, with justifying his evil acts of "It'll all be for good in the end.".

Tsukiko and Xykon really don't match up too well with anybody from Watchmen, but Xykon is sort of a super powered Joker (less insane), and Tsukiko is a bit like Harley only the "relationship" is completely one sided.

I'm glad you mentioned the watchmen as I had no clue who you were refering to in your attempts to catagorise Evilness.

Isn't evil but for a good cause Lawful evil and evil for evilness sake Neutral evil and lastly evil cause it's fun chaotic evil ?

[Kish]

Isn't evil but for a good cause Lawful evil and evil for evilness sake Neutral evil and lastly evil cause it's fun chaotic evil ?
No. And please don't try to cram Nale into "evil for a good cause," or argue that because he doesn't believe in a cause greater than himself he's not actually Lawful Evil.

[Snake-Aes]

Isn't evil but for a good cause Lawful evil and evil for evilness sake Neutral evil and lastly evil cause it's fun chaotic evil ?

Nope. The law-chaos axis is more appropriately interpreted as the person's general approach to what comes to the person. A lawful person empathizes with order, a chaotic person antipathizes with it. A lawful person is more likely to plan on the long term, a chaotic person is more likely to change his methods on the fly.

Like demons and devils show very well, one is corrupting while the other is razing. Both destroy.

[Dark Matter]

Xykon is a lot more powerful than Redcloak, that makes comparisons between them hard. Xykon operates on a bigger scale because of that, but when we really look at the two of them...

We've seen what Xykon does with his level of power. He kills anyone who gets in his way, but ultimately that's a limiting factor. He intends to rule the world, he's a bit shaky on the details.

Redcloak intends to... destroy the world and all existence.

Similarly... Destroying/enslaving that city was RedCloak's plan. Xykon was just his tool to do so. The city and the way it operates is also RC's doing.

Xykon makes undead for gladiatorial combat, RC implements slavery.

As awful as Xykon is at his level of power, RC would be worse.

[Kish]

Xykon is a lot more powerful than Redcloak, that makes comparisons between them hard. Xykon operates on a bigger scale because of that, but when we really look at the two of them...

We've seen what Xykon does with his level of power. He kills anyone who gets in his way, but ultimately that's a limiting factor. He intends to rule the world, he's a bit shaky on the details.

And he doesn't intend to destroy the world "unless I get really, really, really bored."

So, you know, it's a given that he'll destroy it if he ever wins.


Redcloak intends to... destroy the world and all existence.

No.

[Morthis]

And again, the teflon. I'm just dropping here now, sorry that I could not express it in a manner you'd understand.

I suppose that's one way to do it. Keep calling it teflon and say the other side is incapable of understanding the argument rather than the other side disagrees with the argument.


Redcloak does things out of vengeance. Alot. To people SIMILAR to the ones he is angry with. Without purpose to his plan.

:redcloak: "You know that no-one loves seeing a paladin get what's coming to them more than I do"

Sure. He has plenty of reason to hate the Azure City paladins that took part in the start of SoD events, but beyond that he's probably projecting that hatred onto other paladins as well as azure city. That doesn't change the fact that we've never seen any indication that RC might go to some human village and destroy it, killing everybody in the process, just for the heck of it. I doubt anyone would argue this is not something Xykon might do.

[Asta Kask]

I doubt anyone would argue this is not something Xykon might do.

Tsukiko would. She seems delusional at this point, IMO.

[Zevox]

Redcloak intends to... destroy the world and all existence.
No, he does not. The Plantm is
to use the ritual devised by the Dark One to acquire control of one of the gates, then grant that control to the Dark One. He would then use this control of a gate to intimidate the other gods into allowing all sapient humanoids an equal distribution of resources throughout the planet. If the others did not submit to his demands, it is implied that he would use the gate to kill them off until the remaining ones did, but that is the extent of it.

Redcloak mentions the destruction of the world in SoD only as possible result should the ritual to control the gate go horribly wrong and the Snarl be released - a worst-case scenario. Not as anything remotely like what he intends to do. And even then, he does not expect all existence to be destroyed, as he expects the gods to create a third world if that happens, one where the Dark One will ensure goblins and other humanoids don't get shafted during creation.
Zevox

[Morthis]

I don't know where people keep getting this destroy the world thing from. Obviously they have not read SoD, which makes it very clear, but was there something in the main comic that implied this might be RC's goal? I honestly don't remember.

[Dark Matter]

First of all, if you unleash the unstoppable god-killing abomination then it's a pretty good bet that it's going to destroy the world, just like last time.

Strip RC's plan of the "everyone will be equal" PR bull**** and look at what he's actually done in goblin-topia for his definition of "equal" and "sharing". What "equal" comes down to is "Goblins are free to act on their evil natures and humans aren't free to stop them". That's not "equal" by my definition, that's "evil wins and is in charge."

The Plan is just the same on a bigger scale. If I have a gun pointed at your head and I ask for your money, the deal isn't that you give me half your money and I give you the gun. Even if I tell my friends that what I want, in reality the situation will play out differently.

The most likely scenario is the worst case scenario, and yes, that involves destroying the world.

Is that what RC wants? Probably not. Is that what will happen if the plan actually is carried out to it's natural conclusion? Yes. And even if the plan works exactly how it's supposed to (which is very unlikely) the end result will *still* be massive evil on an unthinkable scale given RC's definition of "equal".

EDIT: And I apologize for using the word "intends" when talking about RC in the post before this one. It's the wrong word.

[Saph]

Strip RC's plan of the "everyone will be equal" PR bull**** and look at what he's actually done in goblin-topia for his definition of "equal" and "sharing". What "equal" comes down to is "Goblins are free to act on their evil natures and humans aren't free to stop them". That's not "equal" by my definition, that's "evil wins and is in charge."

Heh. Yeah, it's funny how willing people on this forum are to overlook that. :smallwink:

I think the Evil/evil distinction is pretty irrelevant, personally. Redcloak, Xykon, and Tsukiko are all way over the moral event horizon. They all have their different flavours of evil, but they're in the same basic category.

[Kranden]

See, that doesn't work. Even Evil characters can feel compassion. Even Belkar cares for someone--in his case, Mr. Scruffy. That doesn't make him less Evil.

Hey Xykon cares about somebody very deeply you know. I mean he does care a lot about himself.

[Morthis]

First of all, if you unleash the unstoppable god-killing abomination then it's a pretty good bet that it's going to destroy the world, just like last time.

Strip RC's plan of the "everyone will be equal" PR bull**** and look at what he's actually done in goblin-topia for his definition of "equal" and "sharing". What "equal" comes down to is "Goblins are free to act on their evil natures and humans aren't free to stop them". That's not "equal" by my definition, that's "evil wins and is in charge."

Here's the thing. If two nations are at war with each other, it's 2 nations at war. If the goblins are at war with someone, it's evil trying to overtake good. If one nation imprison people, it's them keeping order, if goblins do it, it's them being evil. If humans kill or enslave goblins, they're making the world a better place, but if goblins do the same they are, once again, being evil.

[Zevox]

First of all, if you unleash the unstoppable god-killing abomination then it's a pretty good bet that it's going to destroy the world, just like last time.
Which is why it won't be unleashed. With control of a gate, the implication is that the Dark One will be able to open it just enough from the Snarl to reach out and destroy things, but not enough for it to fully escape. And actually, as long as any gate is intact, the Snarl cannot fully escape at all, if our information on them is accurate anyway.


Strip RC's plan of the "everyone will be equal" PR bull**** and look at what he's actually done in goblin-topia for his definition of "equal" and "sharing". What "equal" comes down to is "Goblins are free to act on their evil natures and humans aren't free to stop them". That's not "equal" by my definition, that's "evil wins and is in charge."
You presume much. That the current situation in Gobbotopia is one Redcloak wants to replicate across the world, for instance. A presumption for which you can present no evidence.


The Plan is just the same on a bigger scale.
Not by what we have been told about it. Now, whether what we have been told about it legitimately reflects the Dark One's intentions is a valid question, since all the information about that comes via Redcloak's revelations through the Crimson Mantle. But we have no evidence one way or the other on that. And certainly none that anyone's intentions involve destroying the world.


The most likely scenario is the worst case scenario, and yes, that involves destroying the world.
An assertion that you base upon what, exactly?

Zevox

[B.I.T.T.]

:xykon: It's not about raw power, it's about how far you're willing to debase yourself before feeling bad. And me? I ripped off my own living flesh so I wouldn't have to admit weakness. You're strictly little league compared to that. That's the difference between bonafide true Evil with a capital "E" and your whiny, "evil, but for a good cause" crap. One gets to be the butch, and the other gets to be the bitch...Bitch.

Thanks, Shale, for posting that, saves me the trouble of digging out SoD and looking it up. Given that statement by Xykon, then strictly speaking Tsukiko isn't Evil...yet. She hasn't really been in the position to debase herself. She's a very new character and just how far she'll go to hold on to her power hasn't really been tested.

Outside of that the Evil/evil/eVil debate, as I see it, is basically being boiled down to the classic nature vs. nurture debate. In that regard, I'd put Tsukiko in the "nature" catagory. She's evil by nature, but no quiet as evil as Xykon...yet. Not even sure if she's as evil as Redcloak either, really, given the risks involved with Redcloak's goals.

[Dark Matter]

Here's the thing. If two nations are at war with each other, it's 2 nations at war. If the goblins are at war with someone, it's evil trying to overtake good. If one nation imprison people, it's them keeping order, if goblins do it, it's them being evil. If humans kill or enslave goblins, they're making the world a better place, but if goblins do the same they are, once again, being evil.AD&D has definitions for good & evil, they're NOT subjective. Goblins become evil by whipping the slaves for their personal amusement... so do humans. Paladins fight evil humans so there are limits to how open and how evil you can be in a "good" society.

There are no such limits in an evil society... which is what RC is trying to set up. Fundamentally he doesn't want evil creatures to be "repressed" for being evil. But you become evil by doing evil things.


Which is why it won't be unleashed. With control of a gate, the implication is that the Dark One will be able to open it just enough from the Snarl to reach out and destroy things, but not enough for it to fully escape. And actually, as long as any gate is intact, the Snarl cannot fully escape at all, if our information on them is accurate anyway.No, that is *not* the implication. Right now we think that the Snarl either will not or can not currently reach out and destroy things as long as there are any gates.

Further it's stated that this thing simply isn't controllable. It's what they told Xykon, but it's stated in SoD that controlling, even to a limited degree, a fundamental concept of chaos is nonsensical. That means the entire threat is to control which plane of existence the snarl is unleashed upon.

The Snarl is an atomic bomb, not a handgun. After the genii gets out of the bottle he's not going back.


You presume much. That the current situation in Gobbotopia is one Redcloak wants to replicate across the world, for instance. A presumption for which you can present no evidence.Gobbotopia is RC actually in charge and full filling his dream, i.e. it's him with both the power and authority. It's called "Gobbotopia" because it's "Utopia for Goblins". It's the example of RC winning. I see no evidence that he's unhappy with what he's created. I see lots of evidence which shows he's very happy with what he's created. What he's created is evil.

There is *NO* support that RC would be satisfied with letting Paladins kill evil Goblins anywhere, or that RC wants to make Goblins less evil. He doesn't want to change his people, he wants to change the world so that Paladins and other "good" races/classes can't stop goblins any more, no matter how evil they are.

That means RC's plan ultimately has two possible outcomes. One, he wins, the gods of good back down, and Goblins are free to be evil without their interference (which implies that the Gods of Good stop fighting evil which I find unlikely). The alternative is they let the Snarl loose to kill some of the Gods of Good, and the Snarl runs amuck through reality (again) and destroys everything (again).

[Ancalagon]

:( You have teflon armor against my posts, it slipped right through. I agree with everyone that xykon is much more of a monster than redcloak... But I disagree with the usage the posters have that implies that Xykon's type of evil is, by default, nastier.

Ah, if it's just that, we can agree.

At least Xykon will laugh in your face when he kills you. Redcloak might just stab you in the back.

We even have the proof that "evil" can be more destructive than "Evil" in the comic, in the very characters we talk about. Just ask yourself what Xykon would be doing without Redcloak (apart from the fact that'd he'd be gone and dead for a few decades by now).
He's bring very local devastation, he'd blast some village here, a castle of paladins there, but he'd not follow some bigger plan. He's simply content with being mean and it does not really matter if it's on a purely individual scale or a global one.
Redcloak on the other hand will not be content with some individual scheme or some local working. Redcloak always acts strategic. So he causes a lot more damage than Xykon ever could do by blasting individuals (like a murder here, one there).

[amanojaku]

True enough. Consider the case of Dr. Anton Phibes. A devoted husband,his wife's death (and his subsequent maiming) during a surgical operation pushed him into becoming one of the most stylish and ruthless killers in movie history.
Minor correction there: Phibes was burned in a car wreck rushing to his wife's side after her illness caused her to be hospitalized.

[amanojaku]

Let's put it this way. Tsukiko is Ozymandias evil, Xykon and Belker are Comedian evil. (Unless by some stretch of the iamgination you would not consider the comedian evil)
Right track, but the wrong trains, brother.

REDCLOAK is ozymandias evil. He commits bad acts to achieve a greater good, at least for his people.

XYKON AND TSUKIKO are comedian evil: They do evil for the fun of it and justify it by saying "Hey, that's the way of the world."

[veti]

REDCLOAK is ozymandias evil. He commits bad acts to achieve a greater good, at least for his people.

XYKON AND TSUKIKO are comedian evil: They do evil for the fun of it and justify it by saying "Hey, that's the way of the world."

Nah, Belkar is Comedian evil: he does bad stuff for the fun of it, but a big part of the fun is in getting away with it right under the nose of the so-called good guys. I think that's why he stays with the Order.

Redcloak would like to think he's Ozymandias, but privately suspects he might just be Rorschach.

Tsukiko and Xykon have no parallel in Watchmen. Let's face it, it's a very different story.

[B.I.T.T.]

Speaking of tracks and trains...is this thread going to derail?

[Ancalagon]

If all that watchman-stuff is comparable (which it really isn't), then I know who what the MitD is... I am just not sure in what field that bozo has his phd.

[Kish]

If all that watchman-stuff is comparable (which it really isn't), then I know who what the MitD is... I am just not sure in what field that bozo has his phd.
Clearly, Arcana.

[Morthis]

AD&D has definitions for good & evil, they're NOT subjective. Goblins become evil by whipping the slaves for their personal amusement... so do humans. Paladins fight evil humans so there are limits to how open and how evil you can be in a "good" society.

There are no such limits in an evil society... which is what RC is trying to set up. Fundamentally he doesn't want evil creatures to be "repressed" for being evil. But you become evil by doing evil things.

Of course the D&D books have definitions of evil, and a long running theme of the comic is that just because something flags as evil doesn't mean kill it.

All those things you see Gobbotopia do, many modern real world nations have done as well (at least, all the stuff I can think of that Gobbotopia has done that can be applied to the real world). You don't even have to go back to the middle ages or some darker time for it either, nor do you have to go to countries that aren't as developed to find examples.

Given that D&D humans are obviously still very much based on real humans, I would find it hard to believe only evil nations do these kind of things in D&D. In that case we're back to goblins can't do it because it says evil here, but everybody else doing it is fine.