Why is Redcloak evil [spoilers!]?

[Torick]

First, spoilers spoilers spoilers! This thread focuses heavily on SoD material, discussing the origins and fundamental natures of the villains. Those who haven't read the prequels, and who don't want them spoiled, proceed at their own risk :smalleek:


All right, so we already know that he is evil, on a technical level, for myriad reasons evident in the strip (perhaps the most obvious of which is that he's affected by Smite Evil).

First off, his fundamental cause is to free his race from an inherent universal law making their genocide and oppression okay. That strikes me as a pretty Good cause, with a capital G (and this would also put to question why The Dark One is Evil, though I think for the sake of restricting the discussion to a somewhat specific topic it's sufficient to say that "because his deity is Evil" isn't a satisfactory response, since this raises the same questions). I think it's pretty difficult to argue that wanting goblins to be able to live in relative equality to the other races, or at the very least not be hunted for no reasons other than combat experience, is not an Evil cause.

Now, granted, he gets pretty involved with some Evil stuff to further the Plan, not the least of which is getting tangled up with Xykon (who is, very unarguably, Evil with a capital E) - though it should be noted that he regards Xykon as a tool and as a "powerful ally," and actively resists him at great personal peril when he believes that he's not acting in accordance with the interests of his cause. While he hates humans, this hatred is dwarved by the hatred that the Paladins have for his race (a genocidal bloodlust they can apparently maintain and still get away with being Lawful Good), and is in fact understandable given that it is largely borne of the ethnic cleansing he and his family suffered in his youth.


Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

[NerfTW]

I don't recall Haley zombifying her dead brother.

Or invading a sovereign nation and torturing innocents.

Or taking part in creating a lich.

Or using Hobgoblins to trigger an avalanche.

Or to feed a monster until it falls asleep.


Redcloak is very much Evil. His cause may have merit, but he's definitely NOT a good person. He's starting to change, that's true, but don't forget he's been being evil for a long time.

[pinwiz]

My favorite reason to state why he's evil is when he tortured O-Chul. That whole scene is pretty horrible for him. Mostly the fact that he continued torturing him despite admitting that he knew O-Chul knew absolutely nothing that could help.

And i know that one reason doesn't make someone evil, but i'm sure everyone else can pick up the slack. :smallwink:

[Saph]

Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

Just out of curiosity, have you got as far as the end of Start of Darkness? If not, I think you should read the whole thing before you start claiming Redcloak is anything but Evil.

[Kish]

First off, his fundamental cause is to free his race from an inherent universal law making their genocide and oppression okay. That strikes me as a pretty Good cause, with a capital G (and this would also put to question why The Dark One is Evil, though I think for the sake of restricting the discussion to a somewhat specific topic it's sufficient to say that "because his deity is Evil" isn't a satisfactory response, since this raises the same questions).

Both the Dark One and Redcloak are perfectly willing to sacrifice goblins by the thousands for their Plan.

As a character in the books the first half of my signature is from says (approximately), "My father always talked a lot about the freedom of Komarr, but he never seemed very interested in the freedom of anyone on Komarr."


Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good

Ugh ugh ugh. Nothing personal, but I really hate the idea that Chaotic Good means "dirty good." I would say that "the greater good" is very much a Lawful concept, whereas a Chaotic Good person is more likely to say, "The end doesn't justify the means."

In other words, Redcloak is an examplar of both halves of his alignment: extremely Lawful and extremely Evil.

[Snake-Aes]

It's my turn to be the Richard here but...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans
Good, Evil, Order and Chaos all are reflective of your methods, desires, actions and goals. Redcloak's reasons for equality can be as noble as they may sound on paper, but it's not what he's looking for. Redcloak wants ADVANTAGE. If they ever have enough power to blackmail gods into playing fair with goblins, they'll push for more.

A dragon who opresses a village to receive tribute and in turn protects it from any external threat is still evil. A paladin who lies to a friend because such lie will keep him from getting himself killed in vain is still good(atonement aside, although I wouldn't personally blame a lie whose purpose is good and short lived).

If your villagers were infected with licanthropy and you decided to keep the rest of the state safe by eliminating all villagers, you succeeded, and saved thousands from licanthropy...but you're still evil.

The means to ends are defined by alignments, even if they are extreme. Red's means all tend towards evil.

[Faleldir]

Redcloak is Evil because of his actions, and he chooses to remain Evil. Having a tragic backstory does not give him the right to take over the world. If the goblin race is so innocent, why is it mostly Evil and proud? I have never seen Redcloak try to clean up their act; he thinks it's someone else's fault. It's like he doesn't even know that being Evil is wrong!

[Water-Smurf]

Redcloak is... a very complicated and polarizing character.

I don't think I can really get into calling him evil or good or neutral. Those concepts are too black and white for our purposes. I sympathize with his cause and with him, and I don't doubt that he's been doing what he thinks (or at least convinces himself) is right and, had the circumstances been different, he would have been an unquestioningly good if flawed person.

I can get into his actions, though. I understand why he does things, but it's gotten to the point where it's more about revenge and redemption (himself in his own eye after killing his brother) than it is about getting what the goblin people deserve. His brutality, species-ism, and the enslavement of innocents are bad/evil things, though we know why he does and feels the things he does.

The thing is, he's a kid. He had only just become a cleric when he put on that cloak, so I'd guess that he was around twelve, maybe younger. Just because he acts like an adult does not mean that we can hold him as accountable as we can with, say, Xykon or Eugene. He's stuck as that frightened, angry kid who had a crush on the goblin girl in the hut next door, who loved his mother, and who watched his whole village get cut down in front of him. He's holding a frightening amount of emotions in, and his behavior shows that, while he's gotten a lot of maturity, he isn't quite mature. He hasn't grown and developed to the point where he fully realizes the consequences of his actions and is able to hold himself accountable for the things he has done. That's a stage of development. We judge him for refusing to face the murder of his brother as the worthless thing it was, but that's just the thing a frightened kid would do. We sneer at him for not having the spine to stand up to Xykon and/or Tsukiko, but he's just a scared kid who got way too much responsibility and experience tossed on him. It's not fair to act as though he has all the mental faculties to handle the immense stress his god and the circumstances have put on him--he really, really doesn't, no matter what it looks like.

That's the main reason I don't condemn Redcloak, even after everything he's done. His cause is a good one, his moral compass, while heavily compromised, is functional, and he's too young to really be held responsible for all this. That means that he's not evil, in my book. On the other side of the coin, he's pillaged an entire city of civilians, has enslaved and imprisoned the survivors, threw away hobgoblin lives because of racism, has helped Xykon cheat death, even when he had an inkling of what cruelty he was capable of, and has killed his brother, among other things. That means that he's not good, either. Think of him as a cross between an anti-hero and an anti-villain, or rather, a tragic hero.

[derfenrirwolv]

Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

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

The difference is where you draw the line. When we saw haley as a thief she didn't kill anyone, even the guard dog. When she lead the resistance, she saw people with a need greater than her own and used her own money, which she dearly needed, to help them.

Redcloak, no matter how noble his goals are, is willing to consign the souls of every living being on the planet to oblivion. Mass SOUL KILLING... in order to get what he wants. That goes far, far FAR beyond mass murder.

[slayerx]

Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. what ever your good cause may be it does not excuse what evil methods you use to obtain it. Only difference the good intentions provides is that after you reach your "ends" there will be those more willing to forgive you for the sins you committed

When it comes down to it, for the sake of "the plan", Redcloak is willing to kill his own family, and risk wiping out everyone in the world. He also freely kills, enslave and torture humans even if they individually never did anything wrong to him or goblinkind... not to mention that are likely other more peaceful ways for goblins to live and gain their share (more along the line of what Right-eye was doing; or kinda like what gobbotopia is doing without the invasions and enslavement), but redcloak either does not believe in these methods in the long run or is just so unwilling to think that he might be wrong to backdown from the plan now to try something different.... a "chaotic good" character would not resort to the methods redcloak has and would try to find another way

a "chaotic good" character is defined by the fact that he does not go along with the more lawful aspects of society but still always pursue and act in a "good" fashion... Redcloak very clearly does NOT always act in good fashion and very often acts in evil fashion

[Conuly]

There seem to be two definitions of evil floating about, which compounds the issue.

There's evil "as opposed to good", which seems to just be a way of choosing up sides. Redcloak's village twigged as evil, regardless of whether anybody had actually, you know, done anything *bad* recently.

Then there's evil more like we'd consider it - doing bad things. Redcloak definitely does do bad things. A lot. Whether or not his motives affect how to judge that, well, people haven't been able to figure that one out in the past few thousand years. I don't think Rich or any of us will really find the answer anytime soon :)

[Saph]

That's the main reason I don't condemn Redcloak, even after everything he's done. His cause is a good one, his moral compass, while heavily compromised, is functional, and he's too young to really be held responsible for all this. That means that he's not evil, in my book.

Oh, come on. Redcloak is what, fifty years old? Sixty? Old enough that any normal goblin would be dead of old age. He is more than old enough to be responsible for his actions.

Having a woobie-ish past is not a justification for being horribly evil. At a certain point you stop being a victim and start becoming a perpetrator, and Redcloak crossed that line for good when he murdered his own younger brother in cold blood. Right-Eye lived through everything that Redcloak did, and became something far nobler in the end. If either of the brothers deserves our sympathy, it's him.

[Torick]

I don't recall Haley zombifying her dead brother.

Or invading a sovereign nation and torturing innocents.

Or taking part in creating a lich.

Or using Hobgoblins to trigger an avalanche.

Or to feed a monster until it falls asleep.


Redcloak is very much Evil. His cause may have merit, but he's definitely NOT a good person. He's starting to change, that's true, but don't forget he's been being evil for a long time.

I like this response, mostly. I think the first three can be justified, by extreme coercion, extreme provocation (O-Chul and the Sapphire Guard aren't exactly "innocents," and he never did follow through on his bluff to drop the prisoners into the rift, even when O-Chul refused to talk), and desperation respectively, but the random murderous hatred of hobgoblins, based on little other than childhood bullying, is pretty difficult to justify.

Though, as far as the Hobgoblin thing, while I think that this establishes that Redcloak was evil, I think we saw a pretty conclusive about-face on his hobgoblin-hating during the invasion of Azure City, when the hobgoblin sacrificed itself to protect him. Not only did he immediately stop wasting their lives, he actually put himself in unnecessary danger inside the keep to duel Azure City's high priest rather than risk further casualties to the hobgoblins. So I think this becomes a question of how much atonement is necessary to account for past misdeeds; Redcloak's demonstrated himself to be pretty dedicated to the hobgoblins as well as the goblins in the latter half of the strip.

I think I agree with your last statement - that the hobgoblin business at the very least was Evil, and that Redcloak's at best changing (though this will be difficult to do as long as The Plan is fundamentally tied to Xykon).

[DeltaEmil]

Redcloak is also an hypocryte, believing himself to be still a natural goblin, compared to a human paladin who is unable to feel fear, or an undead lich unable to taste anything... ;)

[Water-Smurf]

Oh, come on. Redcloak is what, fifty years old? Sixty? Old enough that any normal goblin would be dead of old age. He is more than old enough to be responsible for his actions.

If he were aging, he certainly would be. He's not, mentally or physically. He's still a kid, mind and body. I certainly think he is partially responsible for his actions, but not to the degree that an adult would be--I don't think he's quite capable of grasping the consequences of his actions yet, and won't be until the cloak's off for about three or four years. He's still immature in that one aspect.


Having a woobie-ish past is not a justification for being horribly evil. At a certain point you stop being a victim and start becoming a perpetrator, and Redcloak crossed that line for good when he murdered his own younger brother in cold blood. Right-Eye lived through everything that Redcloak did, and became something far nobler in the end. If either of the brothers deserves our sympathy, it's him.

Of course Right-Eye deserves sympathy. He has it, at least from me.

The difference is that Right-Eye was capable of growth and change. Redcloak isn't as long as he wears the cloak. Therefore, Right-Eye was able to grow up and realize the true nature of the whole situation while Redcloak is still blinded by the emotions and hormones he had buzzing in his head thirty years ago.

And yes, there's a line where you become a perpetrator, though that doesn't change the fact that you were (and still are, in this case) a victim. This whole thing isn't commendable by any means, but one can easily see why this is happening and how it's not exactly unprovoked.


Redcloak is also an hypocryte, believing himself to be still a natural goblin, compared to a human paladin who is unable to feel fear, or an undead lich unable to taste anything... ;)

Oh, he's a total hypocrite, and not just because of that. That's one of his fundamental flaws.

[DeltaEmil]

He's not a kid mentally, and physically, he's a young adult.

He stopped being a child when he and his little kid brother survived the onslaught of the Azurite Paladin strike force.

And he stopped being a goblin after he killed his brother. Henceforth, he is nothing more than Redcloak...

[Herald Alberich]

I like this response, mostly. I think the first three can be justified, by extreme coercion, extreme provocation (O-Chul and the Sapphire Guard aren't exactly "innocents," and he never did follow through on his bluff to drop the prisoners into the rift, even when O-Chul refused to talk), and desperation respectively, but the random murderous hatred of hobgoblins, based on little other than childhood bullying, is pretty difficult to justify.

As for the third, I disagree. Redcloak wasn't desparate; the cell, by design, could have sustained the goblins and Xykon indefinitely, and Redcloak still had spellcasting powers, which Lirian didn't expect. As pointed out in another thread, Redcloak could have simply used Stone Shape over and over until he had a set of stairs to the surface. He refused to consider that or other options, being fixated on the lich idea. He wasn't mature enough to listen to his brother without spouting character attacks and talking Right Eye down by repetition.

Anyway, what do you say to the point that Redcloak is very aware that there's a high chance the Plan will go wrong, unleashing the Snarl to unmake the world and everything on it? He's ok with that, because it means the Dark One will have a say when the gods make World 3.0. The lives and souls of every single being on the planet, including his beloved goblinoids, mean absolutely nothing to him in the face of that. As Kish alluded to, he cares about Goblinoid equality, but not equality for any goblinoids.

That, above and beyond his other damning attitudes and actions, makes him completely Evil in my eyes.

[Torick]

I like Water-Smurf's reply as well, particularly about Redcloak being a polarizing figure who straddles the line between anti-hero and anti-villain, often toying with my emotions as to whether I should be sympathetic to him or not. Certainly, at the very least, I'm quite convinced that he believes that he's doing the right thing, and that the moral sacrifices he makes are necessary for the greater good (at least post-Azure city battle, after he drops the hobgoblin racism crap).

I do have to also agree with Saph's criticism of it, though: Redcloak may have been a kid when he got the cloak, but he's not anymore - I don't think he can blame his troubles on too few years to comprehend the magnitude of his situation (Right-Eye, after all, was even younger than Redcloak). My sympathy for Redcloak stems from the nobility of his fundamental cause, not from some kind of "I was abused as a child" defense.

[Acero]

All right, so we already know that he is evil, on a technical level, for myriad reasons evident in the strip (perhaps the most obvious of which is that he's affected by Smite Evil).

First off, his fundamental cause is to free his race from an inherent universal law making their genocide and oppression okay. That strikes me as a pretty Good cause

yeah. the cause is good, he's just using evil actions to make it.
there are more peaceful ways to do things like this. (MLK comes to mind)
Redcloak believes that the results will justify the means. very evil means.
The bad guys are evil. He has stated himself as one of the bad guys. (see his advice on whether the clerics under his command should heal the wounded or raise the dead)

He is on team Evil!


Short and Sweet: Redcloak is evil

[Saph]

If he were aging, he certainly would be. He's not, mentally or physically. He's still a kid, mind and body. I certainly think he is partially responsible for his actions, but not to the degree that an adult would be--I don't think he's quite capable of grasping the consequences of his actions yet, and won't be until the cloak's off for about three or four years. He's still immature in that one aspect.

I don't agree. Redcloak's aged, he's just never moved beyond his alignment. He knows exactly what he's doing, and that's what makes him so thoroughly evil. Xykon spelt it out to him as brutally and plainly as possible, just to make it absolutely clear.

:xykon: "So you're just going to continue following me and doing whatever I order you to do. Because as long as you're loyal to me, I'll let you pretend this never happened. We'll just go about our daily business, and you can hide from the horrifying truth about what you've become - namely, a murderer who just killed his baby brother in cold blood. And hey, we can both pretend that you don't really have any options about any of the despicable actions I ask you to take from here on out - rather than acknowledging, that like Right-Eye, you do in fact have a choice. But unlike Right-Eye, you're too chicken**** to make it. You'll obey me forever now, because I give you an excuse for your inexcusable behavior. Now are you going to stand there and tell me that I'm wrong?

:redcloak: " . . . "

:xykon: "Didn't think so."

[dps]

The difference is that Right-Eye was capable of growth and change. Redcloak isn't as long as he wears the cloak.

This, right here, is the main flaw in your argument. Redcloak is capable of change--we've seen it, in his realization during the attack on Azure City that his treatment of the hobgoblins was at odds with his perceived mission to help goblinkind.

The cloak may keep him from aging physically, but becoming mentally mature is largely a matter of learning through experiences. Redcloak has had lots of opportunities for that.

[DeltaEmil]

In fact, he's going to have received more intelligence, wisdom and charisma thanks to his age, without losing any physical attributes. The benefits of an artifact to powergame in this regard is just that good.

[Torick]

I don't agree. Redcloak's aged, he's just never moved beyond his alignment. He knows exactly what he's doing, and that's what makes him so thoroughly evil. Xykon spelt it out to him as brutally and plainly as possible, just to make it absolutely clear.

:xykon: "So you're just going to continue following me and doing whatever I order you to do. Because as long as you're loyal to me, I'll let you pretend this never happened. We'll just go about our daily business, and you can hide from the horrifying truth about what you've become - namely, a murderer who just killed his baby brother in cold blood. And hey, we can both pretend that you don't really have any options about any of the despicable actions I ask you to take from here on out - rather than acknowledging, that like Right-Eye, you do in fact have a choice. But unlike Right-Eye, you're too chicken**** to make it. You'll obey me forever now, because I give you an excuse for your inexcusable behavior. Now are you going to stand there and tell me that I'm wrong?

:redcloak: " . . . "

:xykon: "Didn't think so."


I liked that speech. Mostly because Xykon was feeding Redcloak a line of crap, very successfully (I always attributed it to Xykon's charisma bonus :smallsmile:).

The way I see it, Redcloak or Right-Eye didn't really have much of a choice. First off, Xykon was aware of, and thus immune to, Right-Eye's dagger, and so assassinating Xykon and continuing The Plan on their own was never really an option for either of them - the choice was really between trying to use Xykon as an ally or simply dying defiantly (and quite uselessly).

But of course given that neither of the goblins knew that Right-Eye couldn't kill Xykon, they simply made different choices between using Xykon as an ally or killing him. Right-Eye thought that having a moral ally was more important than expediting The Plan; Redcloak thought that an evil ally was tolerable in order to bring The Plan to fruition faster. I don't think either choice is inherently evil, but they're different enough for disagreement to be dramatically drastic - drastic enough for brother to kill brother - and Xykon managed to turn Redcloak's grief into crippling guilt, and through that, subservience. I don't think Redcloak did anything inarguably evil there - but Xykon managed to convince him that he did.

[DeltaEmil]

I don't think Redcloak did anything inarguably evil thereHe killed his very own little brother... Who had to watch his entire family die just to amuse Xykon, the evil lich lord.

[Torick]

Anyway, what do you say to the point that Redcloak is very aware that there's a high chance the Plan will go wrong, unleashing the Snarl to unmake the world and everything on it? He's ok with that, because it means the Dark One will have a say when the gods make World 3.0. The lives and souls of every single being on the planet, including his beloved goblinoids, mean absolutely nothing to him in the face of that. As Kish alluded to, he cares about Goblinoid equality, but not equality for any goblinoids.

This actually makes the Plan more noble in my eyes, but this is perhaps a point of philosophical disagreement.

To me, the idea of "I fight for equality because no one should be oppressed" is a more noble sentiment than "I fight for equality because I like my buddy Joe, and it'd be nice if he had equality" - particularly if that involves difficult personal decisions like whether Joe's life is worth more than the cause. The fact that Redcloak (and the Dark One) would fight for a world in which no one is XP fodder, even if that world didn't include them or anyone they know, makes it that much more noble.

[Zevox]

The thing is, he's a kid. He had only just become a cleric when he put on that cloak, so I'd guess that he was around twelve, maybe younger

The difference is that Right-Eye was capable of growth and change. Redcloak isn't as long as he wears the cloak.
I do believe you're taking Right-Eye's critique of Redcloak in this regard too literally. For starters, remember that Redcloak said that the mantle slows the aging process for its wearer, not stops it. So even if you literally believe that means mental aging as well, he's not locked as a child.

Second, it is very clear that Redcloak is plenty capable of growth and change. We saw him do just that in the midst of the Battle of Azure City, finally growing past his racism towards Hobgoblins.

Third, I'd argue that Right-Eye's use of that argument on Redcloak was mere rhetoric, not something we're to take literally. He was critiquing Redcloak's unwillingness to admit his mistake and try to fix things, his inability to accept that all the lives that had been lost trying to accomplish The Plan with Xykon's help had been wasted, as childish. Redcloak is not literally a child in any sense, and by any measure he has certainly grown since he took up the mantle, but one of his great flaws is that stubborn insistence that everything he has done so far cannot be for nothing, causing him to continue, as Right-Eye said, "throwing good lives after bad" in pursuit of The Plan at Xykon's side, no matter how bad things become in the process. This is a flaw that can fairly be critiqued as childish - the inability to take responsibility for one's mistakes and failures and try to fix them - but it is one any adult could have, not one that Redcloak has because of the Mantle.


Anyway, what do you say to the point that Redcloak is very aware that there's a high chance the Plan will go wrong, unleashing the Snarl to unmake the world and everything on it? He's ok with that, because it means the Dark One will have a say when the gods make World 3.0. The lives and souls of every single being on the planet, including his beloved goblinoids, mean absolutely nothing to him in the face of that. As Kish alluded to, he cares about Goblinoid equality, but not equality for any goblinoids.
Correction: there is no indication what the chances of this happening are. Redcloak discusses the possibility when Right-Eye asks about it, but does not indicate how likely it is. So asserting that there is a "high chance" of it is misleading.

Zevox

[Saph]

I don't think Redcloak did anything inarguably evil there - but Xykon managed to convince him that he did.

Oh, for crying out loud. I give up.

Seriously, why is it that no matter how horrible an action a fictional character takes, there's a faction of people on the Internet who'll try to justify it? It's like the Rule 34 of fiction or something.

[DeltaEmil]

This actually makes the Plan more noble in my eyes, but this is perhaps a point of philosophical disagreement.

To me, the idea of "I fight for equality because no one should be oppressed" is a more noble sentiment than "I fight for equality because I like my buddy Joe, and it'd be nice if he had equality" - particularly if that involves difficult personal decisions like whether Joe's life is worth more than the cause. The fact that Redcloak (and the Dark One) would fight for a world in which no one is XP fodder, even if that world didn't include them or anyone they know, makes it that much more noble.And that much more vile, as he not only sacrifices all those he knows, but also all those he doesn't know, all those who never did anything wrong, or those who were living in peace together with the more favored races, having proven that you can overcome the limitations given by the eldar gods.

Redcloak is a coward, unable to admit that there have and will always be, better, easier and less costly ways to achieve equality and peace. He is afraid that the goblin who used to call him brother was right all along...

[slayerx]

extreme provocation (O-Chul and the Sapphire Guard aren't exactly "innocents," and he never did follow through on his bluff to drop the prisoners into the rift, even when O-Chul refused to talk)
Tell me what exactly is O'CHUL guilty of? Not some guys from decades ago, but O'chul himself!

Frankly, i think people should only pay for there own sins and not the sins of others from the past. When it comes down to it, they were not involved with those in the past, did not necessarily agree with what they did, had no control what they did and thus had no power to prevent it; ... As far as i have seen, O'Chul has committed no sin against anyone; hell he has never even been shown to know and condone what has gone on within the sapphire guard in the past... Ofcourse, Redcloak doesn't care for these minor details in individuality; which is part of his hypocrisy, seeing how not caring about individual thoughts and personality is why so many goblins were slaughtered... Redcloak simply believes all paladins to be the same as the ones he saw all those years ago in his village; this is a very flawed thought and torturing someone based off of that is evil

[Torick]

Tell me what exactly is O'CHUL guilty of? Not some guys from decades ago, but O'chul himself!

Frankly, i think people should only pay for there own sins and not the sins of others from the past. When it comes down to it, they were not involved with those in the past, did not necessarily agree with what they did, had no control what they did and thus had no power to prevent it; ... As far as i have seen, O'Chul has committed no sin against anyone; hell he has never even been shown to know and condone what has gone on within the sapphire guard in the past... Ofcourse, Redcloak doesn't care for these minor details in individuality; which is part of his hypocrisy, seeing how not caring about individual thoughts and personality is why so many goblins were slaughtered... Redcloak simply believes all paladins to be the same as the ones he saw all those years ago in his village; this is a very flawed thought and torturing someone based off of that is evil

An interesting point, and a good one, I think.

In the very direct sense, O-Chul is guilty of attempting to kill Redcloak on escaping from his cell - but of course that was after the torturing bit and thus not exactly provocation for it. Your point is good - without invoking highly hypocritical generalizations about the Paladins or the Sapphire Guard (in a way not unsimilar to generalizations about goblins), it's difficult to condemn O-Chul.

At worst, though, even if O-Chul didn't directly provoke Redcloak in any way other than being a member of the Sapphire Guard and thus thoroughly arousing Redcloak's suspicions that he knew something that could help the Plan (and, at the very least, was part of the goblin-murdering club that slaughtered his family and childhood community), which doesn't really make him any worse than the dark cop who doesn't have any qualms with roughing up the bad guy to get him to cough up information (we could have a debate on the ethics of torture, but I think it's difficult to argue that roughing up enemies for information qualifies as instant evil territory).

[Porthos]

So let's flip this around, Torick.

What would Redcloak have to do while pursuing his Plan to be evil, in your opinion?

[derfenrirwolv]

if redcloak is so evil... will he eat... a kitten?


Oh.. right.. he's willing to sent the kittens soul to hell... but at least he's not eating it...

[Herald Alberich]

This actually makes the Plan more noble in my eyes, but this is perhaps a point of philosophical disagreement.

Perhaps.


To me, the idea of "I fight for equality because no one should be oppressed" is a more noble sentiment than "I fight for equality because I like my buddy Joe, and it'd be nice if he had equality" - particularly if that involves difficult personal decisions like whether Joe's life is worth more than the cause. The fact that Redcloak (and the Dark One) would fight for a world in which no one is XP fodder, even if that world didn't include them or anyone they know, makes it that much more noble.

This isn't just one average Joe who may have volunteered to risk his life for a cause, this is everyone; for, against, and indifferent about the Plan. If you kill everyone you're fighting for, there's no point in fighting.

Any goblins the Dark One might create in World 3.0 are hypotheticals. Like children who have not been conceived, they don't exist, and do not matter as much as already living beings. A high chance of killing (and soul-destroying!) all living beings for the sake of nonentities is an Evil chance to take.


Correction: there is no indication what the chances of this happening are. Redcloak discusses the possibility when Right-Eye asks about it, but does not indicate how likely it is. So asserting that there is a "high chance" of it is misleading.

We're not only drawing from Start of Darkness here, you know. Redcloak is betting on the "longshot" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html). The chances of failure are "high".

Edit: Regardless, I would assert that any chance of killing and unmaking every soul on the planet is too high.

[Porthos]

if redcloak is so evil... will he eat... a kitten?


Oh.. right.. he's willing to sent the kittens soul to hell... but at least he's not eating it...

The funny thing here is that Redcloak has already succeeded.

He has a Goblinoid Nation that is capable of standing on it's own two feet.

He has established Diplomatic Relations with a bunch of other nations.

He controls an important Trade Route.

He has room to grow his kingdom, if he wants.

Sure, he has people attacking him. So too do various other humanoid nations.

----

By his own words, he just wants the Goblin People to have a chance to succeed. And if they fail, it would be their own fault.

And yet...

And yet even though he has his nation he still goes on with The Plan. You know, the one that has a high degree of likelihood of ending existence?

I wonder what, on the Good/Evil axis, one would call going on with a highly dangerous Plan even though the main reason for doing so has already come to pass... :smallwink:

[Torick]

So let's flip this around, Torick.

What would Redcloak have to do while pursuing his Plan to be evil, in your opinion?

Well, I've already covered this one - killing hobgoblins for the sake of killing them is one thing, which I've already noted makes him Evil (at least before he turned his new leaf).

Like anyone else, doing evil things for no purpose other than liking to see people suffer (a la Xykon, Belkar, et al) is evil - and Redcloak's had a hand in that at the very least in the form of sending hobgoblins to their death by rocks or as snacks (as Belkar teaches us, just because it's evil doesn't mean it's not hilarious :belkar:).

I would certainly say that Redcloak has been evil (for his anti-Hobgoblin murderous racism, at the very least), and I'm by no means trying to be some kind of moral solipsist pedantically trying to argue that nothing is evil - I just think that Redcloak, now, as a current character (as well as his character in SoD) could easily be justified as Chaotic Good - and it may well be his green skin or plot definition as 'one of the bad guys' that prevents us from viewing him under the same lens we view other noble-goal/questionable-methods protagonists.


(One side note I'd like to make: the characters were not well developed in the early strips. One glaring example I'm reminded of is the fact that the MITD actually acts like a MITD in the first panel we see him in, begging Xykon to allow him to crush the hated Order of the Stick (Xykon paying much attention to the Order, or the MITD wanting to hurt anyone, doesn't really gel with what we know about their characters now). Redcloak's racism may be like the MITD's menace: an early experimental character attribute that was ultimately swept under the rug.)

[pinwiz]

There is no way Redcloak could be consider Chaotic good. He's not chaotic and he's not good. Now, with a really convincing argument i'd at least give the benefit of the doubt to Lawful Neutral, but I am still firmly of the position that he is evil. Chaotic good is helping whoever needs help. And right now who needs help in Reddy's eyes would be Gobbotopia, yet he's still going with the embodiment of Evil, Xykon. /rant

[grassy]

I think Redcloak is a character that shows how silly using morality as a game statistic is. In reality, there are no set rules for morality like there is in D&D. Good and evil is, in fact, a point of view. There are rules that practically everyone in the right frame of mind can agree with, but in some cases, such as this one, good and evil are only opinions. As terrible as it may sound, morality is only a human concept, and arguing about it is pointless.

[Torick]

if redcloak is so evil... will he eat... a kitten?


That is the ultimate test of Good, of course.

Recall Thanh's Dominate Person spell being broken by forcing him to a decision between obeying the spell and...hurting a kitty.

(Don't bother me with all that Lord Shojo nonsense. We know the kitty was the true test :smallbiggrin:)

[Zevox]

As terrible as it may sound, morality is only a human concept, and arguing about it is pointless.
True, but that's never stopped anyone before. And there is at least some enjoyment to be had in exchanging our opinions on the matter.

Anyway, personally, I have no qualms about assigned the designation of evil to Redcloak. He willfully engages in and condones torture and slavery; that right there is plenty to shove him straight into that category from where I'm sitting. No mitigating factor, no noble goal, justifies that - the ends can never justify such means. Throw in Right-Eye, the nature and risks of The Plan, working with and aiding Xykon, and all the rest, and where I'd put his alignment is completely beyond doubt. He's Lawful Evil, to a T. And I agree with Kish's previous sentiments about the ridiculousness of categorizing him as Chaotic Good as though it meant "dirty good." Redcloak is in no way, shape, or form chaotic; and the only thing good he has to his name is his stated goal in life.

He's a sympathetic character. He's a well-written character, one who isn't simply two-dimensional and "evil for evil's sake" or "evil because I feel like it," the way Xykon and Belkar are. But as far as alignment goes, I could not possibly assign him any designation other than evil.

Zevox

[Herald Alberich]

As terrible as it may sound, morality is only a human concept, and arguing about it is pointless.

Everything is only a human concept. I was attempting to articulate this in anthropology this morning, when my professor asserted that nation-state patriotism is a fiction. (My thoughts in short: "Yes, and ...?")

Everything we see, sense, and think is subject to our interpretation, not truly objective. (This may not be the case (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html) in D&D/OotS). That doesn't mean it's pointless to argue about; on the contrary, debate is one of the best ways to share, articulate, and evolve our necessarily-subjective viewpoints. It's better than physical violence over them, in any case.

[DeltaEmil]

Clearly, Belkar isn't chaotic evil either, not even when Rich Burlew has to state it outright in front of everybody.
If Redcloak being a megalomania willing to sacrifice the souls of everybody for one of the most vile plans ever, killing his own brother, making flimsy excuses to justify working with a murderous undead psychopath, torturing a prisoner just for convenience and to waste time, and willing to let those who believe in him (family as well as warriors) die for the amusement of above-mentioned undead psychopath cannot convince you, then nothing will, not even when Redcloak eats little kittens and spouts vulgarities to dying human childen in front of their pregnant mothers.

Next, people will try to claim that Nale clearly is in truth chaotic good, and that Xykon is a lawful good liberator of the masses in the world of the Order of the Stick.

[JonestheSpy]

Having just gotten SoD myself, I find Redcloak has become my favorite character by a large margin. I see him as a very tragic character - not necessarily a "tragic hero" but definitely one who transcends any simple discussion of alignment or even real life good vs evil. He reminds me of Elric of Melnibone more than anyone else - an idealist in messed up circumstances, whose choices lead to horror after horror, all with some never reached greater good out there.

I think he's undergone far more changes than any other character in the strip, and I suspect he'll undergo a lot more. Everyone else just seems a little shallow in comparison, through no fault of their own - they just haven't gone through the wringer the way Redcloak has.

Right now, Redcloak is definitely on the Wrong Side. It will be interesting to see if he stays there, and what causes him to leave, if that's what happens. I must admit I find that a lot more interesting than the adventures of yet another ragtag band of misfit heroes.

[Porthos]

Redcloak, now, as a current character (as well as his character in SoD) could easily be justified as Chaotic

Really.

...

Really?

Chaotic?

Reallyreally?

Chaotic??

...

How exactly is Redcloak Chaotic, pray tell? :smallsmile:

PS:

Before we go down this road to far, compare and contrast:

Roy, Hinjo, O-Chul, Durkon, Nale
and
Elan, Haley, Thog, Belkar, Xykon.

Now please tell me which group Redcloak fits in on those lists. :smallwink:

[pinwiz]

The second one right? cuz it has three evil characters instead of one? :smallwink:

[Porthos]

The second one right? cuz it has three evil characters instead of one? :smallwink:

Quit looking at the teacher's notes! :smalltongue:

[Torick]

Really.

...

Really?

Chaotic?

Reallyreally?

Chaotic??

...

How exactly is Redcloak Chaotic, pray tell? :smallsmile:

PS:

Before we go down this road to far, compare and contrast:

Roy, Hinjo, O-Chul, Durkon, Nale
and
Elan, Haley, Thog, Belkar, Xykon.

Now please tell me which group Redcloak fits in on those lists. :smallwink:

Chaotic. Really. Because, while he has a consistent set of principles he claims to adhere to (and believes he adheres to), he'll make sacrifices and deviations from those principles in the small scale, sometimes because he believes them to be constructive in the larger sense of things, and sometimes simply on whims or dependent on his state of mind. Lawful creatures adhere to their principles, whereas chaotic creatures are more - chaotic.

As for the lists of characters you've given us, I hope you're not trying to imply that Chaotic = Jokester and Lawful = Humorless. Because if that's the case, the first thing you'd want to do is not to place Redcloak, but to move Nale to the lower list - him being a dreadful example of a Lawful character who jokes, deceives and does other things that force us to consider his chaotic/lawful alignment by his philosophies and actions rather than by how much he smirks.

[Herald Alberich]

Chaotic. Really. Because, while he has a consistent set of principles he claims to adhere to (and believes he adheres to), he'll make sacrifices and deviations from those principles in the small scale, sometimes because he believes them to be constructive in the larger sense of things, and sometimes simply on whims or dependent on his state of mind. Lawful creatures adhere to their principles, whereas chaotic creatures are more - chaotic.

... I really can't think of a single instance of Redcloak doing any of that. He sticks to his principles, so much that he never stops and looks at them and sees how flawed they are. It's part of why he's hypocritical and fallacy-prone and ultimately, one of the reasons he remains Evil.

(He sticks to his schedules (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html) like glue, too. That strip is a major Law vs. Chaos moment, and I don't mean Xykon is Lawful.)

(Also, he has the Law domain, having used Hold Monster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) in Start of Darkness, but that's arguing from a game-rules perspective in a philosophical thread, so nevermind.)

[Porthos]

Chaotic. Really. Because, while he has a consistent set of principles he claims to adhere to (and believes he adheres to), he'll make sacrifices and deviations from those principles in the small scale, sometimes because he believes them to be constructive in the larger sense of things, and sometimes simply on whims or dependent on his state of mind. Lawful creatures adhere to their principles, whereas chaotic creatures are more - chaotic.

What principle has Redcloak betrayed? What whims does he follow? Is he not a methodical, rigid planner?


As for the lists of characters you've given us, I hope you're not trying to imply that Chaotic = Jokester and Lawful = Humorless.

Errrr. Hardly. :smallsmile:

Look, Lawful = Orderly. Chaotic = Well, Not Orderly.

Redcloak and Roy are very similar, really. They both like to plan versus having spur of the moment thoughts. They both respect the Chain of Command. They both see Duty as a overriding principle of their lives. Yes, sometimes they will break from the flow and cut corners here and there. But that's because they are human (small h), not Beings of Pure Law.

I noticed in an earlier post that you compared Haley to Redcloak. Again, how? She believes in Personal Responsibility, not Collective Responsibility. She believes in a personal code, not a societal one. She follows others because she wants to help them, not because she feels she is duty bound to help them.

Redcloak, on the other hand, is all about the Collective. He sees himself as the shepherd of the Goblin People. He is extremely rigid in his actions and philosophy.

And he became horrified when he realized he was acting in a capricious and callous manner like Xykon.

Let me put it another way. Compare and Contrast Redcloak and Right-eye. It's not just the humorlessness that's the difference between the two. It was the fact that Right-eye was more impulsive. He was the freer thinker of the two. He was the one who would deviate from a plan at a moments notice rather than to try to stick it out to the bitter end.

Look at how much had to happen to Redcloak before he even considered giving up The Plan. Meanwhile Right-eye said "Screw this, I'm outta here" more than a decade earlier.

Redcloak may be many things. But Chaotic ain't one of them. :smallwink:

[Torick]

... I really can't think of a single instance of Redcloak doing any of that.

I would say that, given that Redcloak's ultimate fundamental philosophy is based on the welfare of the goblin race, every time he stands by while Xykon frivolously kills goblins is an example of this.

If I'm in charge of running an animal shelter, and I work with a crazy guy who shoots the animals for fun sometimes on the basis that he's extremely rich and has the power to contribute more than he hurts, I'm not behaving Lawfully.

[Torick]

Look, Lawful = Orderly. Chaotic = Well, Not Orderly.

Well, that's a step above the Lawful = Frowns and Chaotic = Smiles list, but I still have to disagree. Lawful isn't OCD, either - it's more than making the trains run on time. It's sticking by one's principles, even when those principles might hinder the greater good in the long run.

Chaos and Law are determined by ethical quandaries that find out whether you're willing to deviate a bit to get the job done. If you put a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person in front of a button that kills one person to save a thousand, the Chaotic Good person hits the button, whereas the Lawful Good person won't - and it doesn't matter which one keeps the more accurate timepiece.

And Redcloak? Well, he's been jamming on that button ever since he and Xykon crossed paths.

[DeltaEmil]

Seeing as the Plan stands above goblinkind, what should Redcloak do against Xykon? Rebuke him? Shatter him with his CoDzilla-abilities? Give Xykon an ultimatum? Coerce him by telling that else, he's going to destroy his phylactery?

Because Xykon can annihilate all of Gobbotopia with Redcloak unable to do anything more than 1 round, and Xykon can make all the goblinoids scream in pain and in vain for their impotent prophet, because that is the price for defying the lich lord.

The Plan is what matters for Redcloak. It mattered so much, that he killed his own brother for it. His responsability is towards the divine scheme laid out by his god, the Dark One, when he became the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle. He will stick to it, even if all his limbs are broken, his soul shattered into oblivion, his own family against it, or the lich lord makes him eat his own filth and whatever gruesome humiliation he can imagine.

Redcloak has always stuck to his principle. To never look back, and to do what all former Bearer of the Crimson Mantle have done.

[Elfey]

Well, that's a step above the Lawful = Frowns and Chaotic = Smiles list, but I still have to disagree. Lawful isn't OCD, either - it's more than making the trains run on time. It's sticking by one's principles, even when those principles might hinder the greater good in the long run.

Chaos and Law are determined by ethical quandaries that find out whether you're willing to deviate a bit to get the job done. If you put a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person in front of a button that kills one person to save a thousand, the Chaotic Good person hits the button, whereas the Lawful Good person won't - and it doesn't matter which one keeps the more accurate timepiece.

And Redcloak? Well, he's been jamming on that button ever since he and Xykon crossed paths.

I'd consider that more neutral good than chaotic.

Look, Elan and Haley are the sort who live in societies where they rotate who gets to be the executive officer before they can ratify all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting.

Xykon really doesn't care about any sort of order but his own, he doesn't justify it, he doesn't care about discipline, structure or anything like that. He'll kill his minions for the lulz.

Redcloak will do what he believes for the ends. That's the difference between bonafide true Evil with a capital "E" and your whiny "evil, but for a good cause," crap. But Redcloak has ends beyond his fun and entertainment. Xykon only cares about that.

[Porthos]

BTW, when talking about Lawful and Chaotic, we really should be using the DnD terms, not "real life" terms. :smallwink:

So with that in mind...

Law v Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos):


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Now there is nothing that says a Lawful character can't be a Revolutionary. After all they can be fighting against something that they view as an Unjust Society. That's how Thahn can be a revolutionary and still be Lawful.

So the fact that Redcloak is Fighting the World doesn't mean much.

Now let's go to the two alignments in question (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments). Which does Redcloak seem to be more like?

This one:


A <BLEEEEP> character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in <BLEEEEP> and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although <BLEEEEP>, may not agree with that of society.

or this one:


A <BLEEEEEP> methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some <BLEEEEEP> have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above <BLEEEEEP>.

Some <BLEEEEP> people and creatures commit themselves to <BLEEEP> with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to <BLEEEP>. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading <BLEEEEP> as an end unto itself. They may also see doing <BLEEEEP> as part of a duty to an <BLEEEEP> deity or master.

Now before one answers too quickly, notice the "Some" qualifier on that last paragraph. Alignments Aren't straightjackets, after all. And Rich has been taking particular delight in making alignments part of the background of the character as opposed to making them be slaves to their alignment.

But Redcloak is methodological. He does care about tradition and loyalty. He doesn't like breaking his word. He does hate others because of what they are (yes, he has a great excuse - but even he admits that he is a racist).

And it took someone committing a great personal sacrifice for him to stop hating Hobgoblins just for who they were.

Yes it was a sign of Character Growth that he realized that he should stop being racist to hobgoblins. But it was hardly a sign of shifting from Lawful to Chaotic. He just expanded "his tribe" from "goblins" to "goblinoids". :smallwink:

Really, I could go on and on and on about his Lawfulness. But I think I will stop there and just say that I see very little evidence for any Chaotic elements to his nature.

[Porthos]

Well, that's a step above the Lawful = Frowns and Chaotic = Smiles list,

You know, if you're going to debate Strawmen, I think I will have to bow out right about now. :smallsmile:

You are the one who made that comparison (just to knock it down), not I.

For the record, besides Nale, Hinjo, Lien, and Sara Greenhilt have all shown that they have excellent senses of humor.

[WildPyre]

Simply put Red Cloak is evil because he's more than willing to allow the ends to justify the means.

Certainly having the goblin race rise up as a respectable comunity is a valiant cause... heck when I run D&D games I incude both wild goblins that are your standard cave dwelling little bastards, and civilised goblins that have formed comunities.

The problem is the way Red Cloak goes about doing this. If he'd organised a goblin's rights march, he'd have been good. But he decided to go out, mercilessly sacrifice his own people and kill, torture, and the 12 gods know what else to innocent people... and take delight in their pain and suffering.


Sorry about your luck, but that my friends is evil.

[Herald Alberich]

I would say that, given that Redcloak's ultimate fundamental philosophy is based on the welfare of the goblin race, every time he stands by while Xykon frivolously kills goblins is an example of this.

I see. Well, we covered that. He's sticking to a flawed principle by rationalizing every goblin killed by Xykon as being a sacrifice for the good of the Plan. If he were to take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, he might see that he doesn't care about actual goblinoids as much as some abstract future reckoning. This also applies to his being willing to sacrifice all of them (and everyone else) as a secondary goal if the Plan goes wrong.

Since he doesn't think about it but continues to follow it anyway, he remains both Lawful and Evil.


If I'm in charge of running an animal shelter, and I work with a crazy guy who shoots the animals for fun sometimes on the basis that he's extremely rich and has the power to contribute more than he hurts, I'm not behaving Lawfully.

Not behaving as Lawful Good, perhaps, but if you have made a contract with that person and honor it without regard to the harm he does, then yes, that is Lawful behavior.

Other than that, I think Porthos covered things pretty well.

[Kish]

Quite simply, the answer to the thread question is: Because the list of people whose definition of Lawful Evil is the same as your definition of Chaotic Good has the name "Rich Burlew" on it.

[hamishspence]

Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it.

This is pretty much the definition of an antivillain (rather than an antihero) especially given just how far into Evil, Redcloak's "questionable tactics" go.

Even if you assume that his account of goblin history in SoD is fully factual, and that he does not want the world to be destroyed (with his comment about it being "win-win" being a case of looking on the bright side as to what will happen if everything goes wrong) then he still does more than enough Evil to be of Evil alignment.

Quite a lot of D&D villains are more like Redcloak than Xykon- people with a just cause- but who overstep what's justified in that cause by a very long way.

[Closak]

Let's just put it this way.

The Gods started it by creating a sentient race solely for the purpose to be XP fodder.

Thus, this is all the Gods fault.
Because they started it.


Anyone up for a round of Deicide?

[Snake-Aes]

Let's just put it this way.

The Gods started it by creating a sentient race solely for the purpose to be XP fodder.

Thus, this is all the Gods fault.
Because they started it.


Anyone up for a round of Deicide?

Redcloak and the Dark One don't show a desire to kill deities...Rather they see it as a valid way of putting goblinoids on a higher plateau.

[Conuly]

The Gods started it by creating a sentient race solely for the purpose to be XP fodder.

Thus, this is all the Gods fault.
Because they started it.

Yes indeedy. But they make the rules, so they figure they get to decide who falls where, no matter what objective observers (us) would think. (This is not something limited to the gods in the stick-verse, of course.)

[Water-Smurf]

I do believe you're taking Right-Eye's critique of Redcloak in this regard too literally. For starters, remember that Redcloak said that the mantle slows the aging process for its wearer, not stops it. So even if you literally believe that means mental aging as well, he's not locked as a child.

Second, it is very clear that Redcloak is plenty capable of growth and change. We saw him do just that in the midst of the Battle of Azure City, finally growing past his racism towards Hobgoblins.

Third, I'd argue that Right-Eye's use of that argument on Redcloak was mere rhetoric, not something we're to take literally. He was critiquing Redcloak's unwillingness to admit his mistake and try to fix things, his inability to accept that all the lives that had been lost trying to accomplish The Plan with Xykon's help had been wasted, as childish. Redcloak is not literally a child in any sense, and by any measure he has certainly grown since he took up the mantle, but one of his great flaws is that stubborn insistence that everything he has done so far cannot be for nothing, causing him to continue, as Right-Eye said, "throwing good lives after bad" in pursuit of The Plan at Xykon's side, no matter how bad things become in the process. This is a flaw that can fairly be critiqued as childish - the inability to take responsibility for one's mistakes and failures and try to fix them - but it is one any adult could have, not one that Redcloak has because of the Mantle.

His age and how much of his reactions are induced by it or not is pretty vague, so I guess that's more up to interpretation than anything. My point remains to be, in a nutshell, that I approve of Redcloak's cause, but not his actions. Whether or not I approve of Redcloak... well, I leave it simply as that I don't consider him a Complete Monster or irredeemable, but I certainly don't think that he's done the morally right thing in many situations.


True, but that's never stopped anyone before. And there is at least some enjoyment to be had in exchanging our opinions on the matter.

Anyway, personally, I have no qualms about assigned the designation of evil to Redcloak. He willfully engages in and condones torture and slavery; that right there is plenty to shove him straight into that category from where I'm sitting. No mitigating factor, no noble goal, justifies that - the ends can never justify such means. Throw in Right-Eye, the nature and risks of The Plan, working with and aiding Xykon, and all the rest, and where I'd put his alignment is completely beyond doubt. He's Lawful Evil, to a T. And I agree with Kish's previous sentiments about the ridiculousness of categorizing him as Chaotic Good as though it meant "dirty good." Redcloak is in no way, shape, or form chaotic; and the only thing good he has to his name is his stated goal in life.

Oh, alignment-wise? Going by the system the Stick Gods put in, he's definitely Lawful Evil. Morality wise, I place him more in a 'dark gray' territory, but still, his treatment of the Azurite prisoners is mostly indefensible.


He's a sympathetic character. He's a well-written character, one who isn't simply two-dimensional and "evil for evil's sake" or "evil because I feel like it," the way Xykon and Belkar are. But as far as alignment goes, I could not possibly assign him any designation other than evil.

True. He is Evil, but I'm not as certain about him being evil. I guess it depends on how we're trying to define evil. What is your definition here?

[Shale]

The quest for a sovereign and equal goblin nation is at least potentially good, but it can also be Neutral, if it's being undertaken for purely selfish reasons, or Evil, if the goal is to grind the less gobliny nations under Gobbotopia's heel. Redcloak definitely has more than a bit of the latter. Throw in his brutal methods and proud speciesism - his default treatment for anybody who's not a goblinoid is to kill them, and it took a battlefield epiphany for him to extend that courtesy to goblinoids with orange skin - and he's pretty clearly not a good person. The fact that he's pursuing a good goal doesn't make him non-evil any more than it makes Belkar nice.

[hamishspence]

I tend to go with the Champions of Ruin version- "the repeated, deliberate use of many of these, is the mark of an evil character"

Where "these" is the main list of usually evil deeds, in BoVD.

When the character hasn't had the opportunity to do much in the way of evil deeds (a Good character who has just been hit by a Helm of Opposite Alignment, or a newborn chromatic dragon or newly created fiend):

the "evil personality type" in PHB is a good baseline- either lacking in compassion and willing to hurt, oppress, or kill if doing so is convenient, or absolutely delighting in such deeds and willing to do them for personal gratification.

So- you've got the extremely ruthless guy who does evil deeds in the furtherance of a just cause (or, at least, what they have reason to believe is one)

You've got the uncaring sociopathic guy, who cares nothing for most others, and is willing to do evil deeds because they are simply the most convenient way of getting what they want.

And you have the sadistic guy, who actively delights in seeing others hurting.

Redcloak exhibits traits of the first two at different points, toward different subsets of people.

He is extremely ruthless in SoD- even toward fellow goblins.

Until the battle of Azure City, he behaves like an uncaring sociopath toward the hobgoblins (and afterwards, toward O-chul, and Azurites in general.)


I'm not sure if we ever see Redcloak gloating over the pain of another, though.

[Porthos]

I'm not sure if we ever see Redcloak gloating over the pain of another, though.

That's because he doesn't want to be seen as a Mustache Twirling Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DastardlyWhiplash)(tm). :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

Possibly. Maybe he just isn't sadistic the way Xykon is.

[Snake-Aes]

Possibly. Maybe he just isn't sadistic the way Xykon is.

No, he actively points out that he abhors the clichéness of it.

[Porthos]

Possibly. Maybe he just isn't sadistic the way Xykon is.

Oh I agree that he isn't as sadistic as Xykon is (though not many people are). But I was more referring to the fact that he explicitly says that he doesn't want to act like a Stereotypical Villain. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html)

[hamishspence]

The two aren't incompatible. Redcloak might both, not have sadistic tendencies, and dislike the idea of behaving like a cliche villain.

Though early on, he isn't above the occasional Evil Laugh:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html

A character can be sadistic without being as sadistic as Xykon- but I'm not sure if I've ever seen Redcloak do something specifically for sadistic reasons.

He might hurt people, but he doesn't (usually) enjoy doing it.

[Procyonpi]

I'd say that Redcloak has done several objectively evil things and therefore is evil, but
1. Is not doing it "for the ebils," like Xykon
2. Has some morals even if he won't stand up for them to Xykon
and 3. Is therefore potentially redeemable, Xykonic rant on the nature of Evil and evil at the end of SoD not withstanding.

[hamishspence]

I tend to agree on this one- though the sheer amount of evil he's done makes him about as redeemable as Darth Vader.

Who was redeemed, as it happens.

[doodthedud]

My favorite reason to state why he's evil is when he tortured O-Chul. That whole scene is pretty horrible for him. Mostly the fact that he continued torturing him despite admitting that he knew O-Chul knew absolutely nothing that could help.

And i know that one reason doesn't make someone evil, but i'm sure everyone else can pick up the slack. :smallwink:

What's more, he had no beef with O-Chul personally, just with people LIKE him, and was taking revenge on others through him.

Also, you seem to have got it, but just to emphasize a commonly-overlooked point....most of Azure City had no idea the Sapphire Guard even EXISTED, let alone knew of things they did to goblins, so mercilessly killing them is not exactly the work of a fair man looking for equality, it's an unfair man looking to flip things around. He wants vengeance. On a racial scale. And he's smart enough to know it's not all deserved. That is not the work of a Good person.


He might hurt people, but he doesn't (usually) enjoy doing it.

I think this is extremely situational.
:redcloak: "Sir, you know that no one loves seeing a paladin get what's coming to them more than I do, but we need to keep our eyes on the prize."
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html

[hamishspence]

Apparently most of Azure city's neighbours knew that

"members of the Lord's staff were violating their borders in pursuit of 'personal grudges'"

according to War & XPs.

So, lack of knowledge of the existance of the organization "The Sapphire Guard" does not mean lack of knowledge that paladins from Azure City were crossing into foreign lands and killing people.

Also- both the paladins, and the soldiers of Azure City, participated in keeping the hobgoblins "penned in the mountains" for 30-odd years- again according to War & XPs.



I think this is extremely situational.
:redcloak: "Sir, you know that no one loves seeing a paladin get what's coming to them more than I do, but we need to keep our eyes on the prize."


Good point.

As to "persecuting O-chul for the deeds of the Sapphire Guard", this may not be just- but when it comes to organizations that do very nasty things, its not entirely unexpected for people to treat the whole organization the same way.

And sometimes, even the country that hosts the organization can end up being held responsible for the organization's deeds.

[doodthedud]

Apparently most of Azure city's neighbours knew that

"members of the Lord's staff were violating their borders in pursuit of 'personal grudges'"

according to War & XPs.

So, lack of knowledge of the existance of the organization "The Sapphire Guard" does not mean lack of knowledge that paladins from Azure City were crossing into foreign lands and killing people.

Also- both the paladins, and the soldiers of Azure City, participated in keeping the hobgoblins "penned in the mountains" for 30-odd years- again according to War & XPs.

So let's punish the innocents of the city for trusting those who keep them safe, hmm? The LARGE amount of innocents.

[hamishspence]

So let's punish the innocents of the city for trusting those who keep them safe, hmm? The LARGE amount of innocents.

It may be ruthless, but it's also pretty realistic.

Redcloak has a massive beef with the organization- and the ruler of the city, was the head of the organization.

While holding people responsible for the actions of their leaders is pretty unfair, it's still a common attitude.

[doodthedud]

It may be ruthless, but it's also pretty realistic.

Redcloak has a massive beef with the organization- and the ruler of the city, was the head of the organization.

It's not only ruthless to do this, it's evil. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that every human in a city is responsible for the wrongs done to him and his people, but he nonetheless does not just this, but also clearly enjoys it most of the time, and holds a grudge against all humans for the acts of a few, it being the same as what others did to him, or it being justified, or anything, do not stop the fact that these are evil acts and motivated at least partially out of a sick joy in hurting these people. I'm not saying "SAPPHIRE GOOD REDCLOAK BAD", I'm saying that Redcloak is an evil person, regardless of his goals or what was done to him or his people.

[hamishspence]

I'm saying that Redcloak is an evil person, regardless of his goals or what was done to him or his people.

I tend to agree with this:


these are evil acts and motivated at least partially out of a sick joy in hurting these people.

But I'm a bit wary of concluding that Redclaok takes a sick joy in hurting the Azurites as a whole.

Though it's possible that the instructions the hobgoblin guards have, were given by Redcloak rather than Xykon, and were given for this reason.

While making exact comparisons would fall into the category of politics (not allowed), the concept (powerful organization commits atrocities, the country hosting the powerful organization is invaded) does seem familiar.

Redcloak hates Azurites especially (Don't Split the Party mentions that Tsusiko was brought in as an ally that Redcloak would hate based on her birthplace, as well as her species) but- persecution breeds hatred.

War & XPs calls Redcloak "a villain that the Sapphire Guard accidentally created" and SoD says Redcloak "might" fall into the category of someone who is evil because of what life has forced them to endure.

So- evil as he is, its worth remembering how, and why, he became evil.

[Dark Matter]

First off, his fundamental cause is to free his race from an inherent universal law making their genocide and oppression okay. That strikes me as a pretty Good cause, with a capital G (and this would also put to question why The Dark One is Evil, though I think for the sake of restricting the discussion to a somewhat specific topic it's sufficient to say that "because his deity is Evil" isn't a satisfactory response, since this raises the same questions). I think it's pretty difficult to argue that wanting goblins to be able to live in relative equality to the other races, or at the very least not be hunted for no reasons other than combat experience, is not an Evil cause.No, it's *entirely* an "Evil" cause. What, exactly, does RC want to do? Change the goblins so they're not evil? Live in peace? Actually no, that what Right-Eye wanted. Given what he's done with his current victory, his current government, his goblin-utopia, what he wants is for goblins to be evil without being "repressed" for it.

I.e. RC wants goblins to be "free" to enslave, murder, torture, etc without those nasty Paladins showing up to stop them. On the face of it this seems the definition of "evil wins" and not "equality".


While he hates humans, this hatred is dwarved by the hatred that the Paladins have for his race (a genocidal bloodlust they can apparently maintain and still get away with being Lawful Good), and is in fact understandable given that it is largely borne of the ethnic cleansing he and his family suffered in his youth.It's noteworthy that a number of those Paladins fell because of that. What RC saw was presumably the worst of the worst as far an incidents go. There's direct from God. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

[Herald Alberich]

It's noteworthy that a number of those Paladins fell because of that. What RC saw was presumably the worst of the worst as far an incidents go. There's direct from God. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

To clarify, it's "possible" that "some" of them fell. Rich left it up in the air whether any did, though considering the length and care of that post it seems likely.

[Ancalagon]

To clarify, it's "possible" that "some" of them fell. Rich left it up in the air whether any did, though considering the length and care of that post it seems likely.

Why would he write something like that if no paladin fell at all? No, it's 100% certain at least "some" of them fell for their stunt.

[Kish]

I agree that "no paladins Fell" would be like reading the introduction to Start of Darkness to say, "Redcloak would be just as evil had his life been idyllic." However, it is, I think, also important not to neglect the rest of Rich's emphasis: The paladins Falling, whichever ones Fell, wherever the line at least one of them certainly crossed actually was, did not change the injustice of the situation.

[WowWeird]

It's like he doesn't even know that being Evil is wrong!

Or, more accurately, he thinks that Evil is just a word, not a real issue. Good and Evil are (IMO) empty words for him- mostly because of those LG paladins destroying his village. In his own (paraphrased) words
:redcloak: "On the side of Evil, as opposed to those who call themselves good?" (Battle of Azure City)

[Dark Matter]

...The paladins Falling, whichever ones Fell, wherever the line at least one of them certainly crossed actually was, did not change the injustice of the situation.True. But "the injustice of the situation" is RC's family being murdered (as opposed to larger social-political-racial issues).

The Giant said some other things too. I.e. that the Paladins were there obeying their god(s). We don't know the exact orders, but presumably they'd be something along the lines of executing the Dark One's head Priest and preventing the destruction of reality. Destroying the Village was taking those orders too far; but as the high Priest said, most of the goblins hit the "Detect Evil" radar as "Evil".

Two things are true about the SOD attack on RC's village.
1) It's evil to kill innocent children (thus Paladins falling).
2) That village had the high priest of the Dark One, and a seriously Evil artifact which is designed to destroy and/or blackmail the multiverse (thus Paladins attacking).

As for "The Plan", I don't see how it's any different from someone from a poor background putting a gun to someone else's head and asking for their wallet because they're richer. Yeah, the poor person didn't ask to be born poor and the rich person might have been born rich, but it's still an evil act on the face of it.

[Arrowstorm122]

Redcloak is not evil.
thats the answear.
he forced to use what we call evil ways to fight evil itself. cause the paladins and all other races, WAS evil aganist those poor creatures called goblinoids. Redcloak is doing what he THINK is the right and thats justice. THINK. thats the different by being evil and not evil. Redcloak THINK its the right to save his race, and he HATE when hes people got hurt. he HATE humans and others cause they all the time kill his race cause they are what they are. Goblins. its like V,s Familicide spell. she kill dragons cause they dragons. Paladins and others kill goblins cause they "evil". and they only evil cause the gods used them to get the low levels XP, and aligned them "evil". but ALL (or mostly all) goblins and other things is forced to be evil, cause the people who has the "Good or Lawful Good" is aligned like that. and they enemys, so one side is always considered "evil" cause we in storys need to hold with the good, and cheer for them cause we has as readers been TOLD they are good. and goblins thinks then they evil, cause they has all the life been hunted by the "good guys". like Shrek, who thinks hes a evil ogre cause people always call him it. but back to Redcloak. he THINKS its the best. but we know (or THINK) that its wrong and then his evil. but its the think that counts when you need to see whos evil, and whos not. like Xykon. hes THINK that that he does, is evil. it is, but he also THINK that its evil. get it?
then, you could say that why dont the goblins, now when they have the power, say to the humans, that they want peace, and they stop slaugther them, and so they can live as a friendly and choose-able player race with the others. then you get your blue city back, and we build our own city nearby. you need army and power, to make peace. weird, but true. but they dont do that cause when people have the power, they dont see why they cant just kill them all right away. thats the bad with power. also, they still want the Plan. but now he dont need the Plan. he get his goal. he has getting a goblin nation, like what was the IDEA with the Plan. but thats just more thinking and blindness (or something). anyway, thanks for reading all this (IF YOU READ ALL THIS :smallyuk: ).

[Snake-Aes]

Good and Evil don't work like that in oots.

[slayerx]

Redcloak is not evil.
-snip-
anyway, thanks for reading all this (IF YOU READ ALL THIS :smallyuk: ).

Well you certainly don't make it easy...
Ya, make use of paragraphs... that wall of text and grammar errors is REALLY painful to read

It does not matter what Redcloak THINKS. Sure that provides motivation and reasoning to what he does, but it does not escuse what he does, and make it forgivable... simply put, just because Redcloak THINKS what he is doing is right does not mean that he is not WRONG; The paladins themselves THOUGHT they were doing good when they they wiped out that village... Do you know how many Tyrants, Dictators and conquers actually did believe what they were doing was for the best? ... as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

I mean, hell you do realize that if you happen to have been in azure city at the time of Xykon's attack that you yourself, even with all your sympathetic feelings for goblins would have likely been killed or enslaved right?... Generalizing an entire race based upon the actions of a few is EVIL; trying to kill your allies based upon their species is EVIL; punishing those who have committed no sin against you or your kind is EVIL; Killing and zombifying your own brother is EVIL... Redcloak's intentions may be good but his actions and methods and feelings towards other races are not. Hell one of the biggest things about Redcloak's character is that he is just about as bad as the paladins he hates

The plan (which risks all life including the goblins) wasn't Redcloak's only option, it was just the fastest and most efficient option...

[Herald Alberich]

Why would he write something like that if no paladin fell at all? No, it's 100% certain at least "some" of them fell for their stunt.

Ok, yes, you're right. But Rich did take great care to hedge his language that way, and it irks me to see things posted that Rich didn't say, even if it's easily inferred, because that's always taken and distorted further and we get annoying telephone-game rumors. But the fact that he posted the link mitigates that, so I suppose I overreacted pedantically. My apologies.

[KiwiImperator]

Here's my take on the subject: Minor (or major, maybe) SoD spoilers and a bit of conjecture within.

Xykon said, in SoD, that being Evil with a capital E isn't just about power. Evil is about how far you're willing to go, and how far you're willing to debase yourself to get what you want. Now, ironically, he says that this disqualifies Redcloak from being as much of a monster as he is, and that he'll always be smalltime as a result...

But think about it for a moment. Xykon tore off his own living flesh rather than admit weakness, because his goal was Power. What did Redcloak do, in pursuit of his dream of equality and freedom, happiness and life for all goblins? Who debased their goal more, Xykon, who became a lich rather than lose his power, or Redcloak, who would rather sacrifice thousands of goblins, perhaps ALL of the goblins alive, rather than admit that he was wrong about how to go about accomplishing his dream? Rather than admit that his younger brother was right about something he so obviously was? Xykon is a heartless monster, but ultimately he's just a heartless monster, he has an EXCUSE for being evil, he has no conscience and no wisdom!

What is Redcloak's excuse?
[/SPIEL]

[Snake-Aes]

Here's my take on the subject: Minor (or major, maybe) SoD spoilers and a bit of conjecture within.

Xykon said, in SoD, that being Evil with a capital E isn't just about power. Evil is about how far you're willing to go, and how far you're willing to debase yourself to get what you want. Now, ironically, he says that this disqualifies Redcloak from being as much of a monster as he is, and that he'll always be smalltime as a result...

But think about it for a moment. Xykon tore off his own living flesh rather than admit weakness, because his goal was Power. What did Redcloak do, in pursuit of his dream of equality and freedom, happiness and life for all goblins? Who debased their goal more, Xykon, who became a lich rather than lose his power, or Redcloak, who would rather sacrifice thousands of goblins, perhaps ALL of the goblins alive, rather than admit that he was wrong about how to go about accomplishing his dream? Rather than admit that his younger brother was right about something he so obviously was? Xykon is a heartless monster, but ultimately he's just a heartless monster, he has an EXCUSE for being evil, he has no conscience and no wisdom!

What is Redcloak's excuse?
[/SPIEL]
That's a good way to abstract Xykon's words, I guess. And it makes sense. You just shift the losses from the self to what you believe in.

[Kish]

Good and Evil don't work like that in oots.
Or in anything but the very lowest-quality fiction. (Seriously, "He's Good because he thinks he's doing the right thing"?)

[Snake-Aes]

Or in anything but the very lowest-quality fiction. (Seriously, "He's Good because he thinks he's doing the right thing"?)

Yeah... the "Right" thing is, first, subjective, and the more broad it becomes, the more "unaligned" it becomes, in the sense that the more often it'll conflict with ANY alignment. The lessons of Shojo to Hinjo are proof of that.

[hamishspence]

Yup- The Operative in Firefly is a pretty good example of someone who thinks that what they are doing is necessary- the right thing to do.

Unlike a lot of other such villains, he at least is willing to admit the acts themselves are evil, and that he himself is a monster.

[Water-Smurf]

Redcloak is not evil.
thats the answear.
he forced to use what we call evil ways to fight evil itself. cause the paladins and all other races, WAS evil aganist those poor creatures called goblinoids. Redcloak is doing what he THINK is the right and thats justice. THINK. thats the different by being evil and not evil.

Therein lies the critical failing in your argument.

Evil isn't based completely in what you think, and even Redcloak knows that what he's doing is causing pain and harm to others. I feel that, in order for a person to be evil, there needs to be a sense of "I know this is hurting others, I know I've done something wrong, and I know that I can't even begin to claim the moral high ground, and yet I'm never going feel one iota of guilt." Redcloak doesn't fit in all those categories, but he's definitely not Good.

A lot of evil is based on actions and how conscious we are of making them. Redcloak plowed through a city and enslaved the survivors. He let an inordinate number of hobbos die because of racism. He killed his brother. He is aware that all of these things have caused pain and that he has harmed others, but he clings to the idea that all of this is for the greater good.

He knows that he's done wrong things for a good cause. That doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

[hamishspence]

I feel that, in order for a person to be evil, there needs to be a sense of "I know this is hurting others, I know I've done something wrong, and I know that I can't even begin to claim the moral high ground, and yet I'm never going feel one iota of guilt."

I prefer the idea that an evil guy can feel plenty of guilt- it's feeling guilty but carrying on with their actions anyway, that makes them evil.

Even someone whose every evil act is coerced, can be evil- if they keep doing them. An agent of a powerful organization- who does the evil deeds because the organization has their family and will torture them if they do not, still ends up being evil.

It also works well with the alignment system as written, with Champions of Ruin's comment about beings who repeatedly and deliberately commit evil acts being evil (regardless of their motives).

[Water-Smurf]

I prefer the idea that an evil guy can feel plenty of guilt- it's feeling guilty but carrying on with their actions anyway, that makes them evil.

Even someone whose every evil act is coerced, can be evil- if they keep doing them. An agent of a powerful organization- who does the evil deeds because the organization has their family and will torture them if they do not, still ends up being evil.

And that's the source of the debate. By your definition, of course Redcloak is evil. By mine, he's dark gray. Either way, I'm sure that we can agree that his cause is a worthy one, even if his methods need work.



It also works well with the alignment system as written, with Champions of Ruin's comment about beings who repeatedly and deliberately commit evil acts being evil (regardless of their motives).

Then what about someone who's violently insane? When they're off meds, they consistently go on murder sprees. When they're on meds, they're gentle as can be. If for some reason, and not by any fault of their own, they couldn't get any meds, would they be evil?

[hamishspence]

This might fall into "Mad, I Tell You" (one of Champions of Ruin's various Evil tropes "a character driven by their insanity to commit acts so evil as to shock even demons")- once the mad character has done serious evil deeds- their alignment eventually slips.

That said, this could fall into "evil deeds committed unknowingly"- if the person while sane is unaware of the deeds committed while in mad state- thus, easier to atone for.

But such deeds do need atoning for, if the character is not to slip into Evil alignment.

A generous DM might cut such a character a certain amount of slack- but this can only go so far.

Champions of Valor gives such an example from mythology- Hercules, driven mad by Hera- but he still needs to atone for the killing of his family.

[Water-Smurf]

This might fall into "Mad, I Tell You" (one of Champions of Ruin's various Evil tropes "a character driven by their insanity to commit acts so evil as to shock even demons")- once the mad character has done serious evil deeds- their alignment eventually slips.

That said, this could fall into "evil deeds committed unknowingly"- if the person while sane is unaware of the deeds committed while in mad state- thus, easier to atone for.

But such deeds do need atoning for, if the character is not to slip into Evil alignment.

A generous DM might cut such a character a certain amount of slack- but this can only go so far.

Oh, we're talking about alignment? Redcloak's Lawful Evil, full stop. I'm talking about morality.

I think that the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil alignments are actually pretty skewed by the gods, so I don't think that there's much useful argument that can come of it. The gods said that, by default, goblins are evil and humans are good (or, at least until they make their own decisions). A goblin infant is no more evil than a human infant, but the gods decreed that there are alignment repercussions if you kill one but not the other. The on its own discredits the OotS alignment system in my eyes.


Champions of Valor gives such an example from mythology- Hercules, driven mad by Hera- but he still needs to atone for the killing of his family.

I'm not sure if ancient mythology is really the best place to be looking at for morality...

[Snake-Aes]

I think that the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil alignments are actually pretty skewed by the gods, so I don't think that there's much useful argument that can come of it. The gods said that, by default, goblins are evil and humans are good (or, at least until they make their own decisions). A goblin infant is no more evil than a human infant, but the gods decreed that there are alignment repercussions if you kill one but not the other. The on its own discredits the OotS alignment system in my eyes. Actually, the alignments are above the gods. What I think happened is that, as you said, they made fodder races and, to give them reasons to be slaughtered, made them evil. Evil beings are more likely to cause trouble and as such being hunted down. A few decades of history takes care of changing from "Troublemakers = evil" to "monster races = evil"

[Dark Matter]

I prefer the idea that an evil guy can feel plenty of guilt- it's feeling guilty but carrying on with their actions anyway, that makes them evil.The guilty simply means they're not beyond redemption. It doesn't make them less evil, but it does mean they might change their minds later.

[hamishspence]

The gods said that, by default, goblins are evil and humans are good (or, at least until they make their own decisions). A goblin infant is no more evil than a human infant, but the gods decreed that there are alignment repercussions if you kill one but not the other. The on its own discredits the OotS alignment system in my eyes.

We can't actually be sure of that, what with The Giant mentioning how it is possible (but not certain) that some of the paladins in SoD might have Fallen for their actions.


I'm not sure if ancient mythology is really the best place to be looking at for morality...

true- but that's what the book used as it's justification for the whole "atonement quest" concept (it pointed out that characters don't actually need the atonement spell- if they are really repentant, and prove that they are repentant by doing this kind of heroic quest on behalf of others.


The guilty simply means they're not beyond redemption. It doesn't make them less evil, but it does mean they might change their minds later.

Champions of Ruin lists the unrepentant evildoer who was raised evil, and knows no other way of life, as one of the most likely to change if they have contact with other societies (though they are also likely to initially hate and fear those different from them).

So, a being can initially feel not the slightest bit guilty about their actions, and yet still not be beyond redemption.

[pjackson]

Two things are true about the SOD attack on RC's village.
1) It's evil to kill innocent children (thus Paladins falling).
2) That village had the high priest of the Dark One, and a seriously Evil artifact which is designed to destroy and/or blackmail the multiverse (thus Paladins attacking).


At least three things possibly wrong about that.

1) It was not the village that was attacked.

The village contained huts (mentioned in SoD) but there were no huts where the attack took place. It appears that the villagers were outside the village at the time.

2) The children may well not have been innocent.

They were attending the ceremony of ordaining a priest of the Dark One, which almost certainly counts as Evil in itself and may well have involved other Evil acts just prior to SoD starting. Given the Dark Ones origin human sacrifice would be symbolically fitting.

3) They villagers may have gone to meet the high priest.


But basically you are correct. Killing an innocent child would be an evil act and enough to cause a paladin to fall, and the paladins did have a good reason for the attack. They were trying to eliminates threats to the gate and the biggest threat was present. How did the paladins know? The most likely way would be through divination. Suppose they were given a prophecy that should any goblin survive the attack he would cause the destruction of a gate. That might be enough to explain their actions, though not to protect them from falling. It would also be accurate.

The paladins obviously did not know the power of the cloak, they just left it lying on the ground.

[Dark Matter]

The village contained huts (mentioned in SoD) but there were no huts where the attack took place. It appears that the villagers were outside the village at the time."Inside the village" can include fields, churches, and the like.


2) The children may well not have been innocent.All of them? Probably not. Xykon-as-a-kid hits the radar as pretty evil. We don't know at what age kids lose that "innocence" but it probably varies from person to person and species to species. But it's still a 'fall-worthy' act to kill a child, if it's innocent.


How did the paladins know? The most likely way would be through divination. Suppose they were given a prophecy that should any goblin survive the attack he would cause the destruction of a gate. That might be enough to explain their actions, though not to protect them from falling. It would also be accurate.

The paladins obviously did not know the power of the cloak, they just left it lying on the ground.Divination can be tricky. They could have gotten orders like... "destroy the red cloak" and thought they were being order to kill a person and not destroy an object.

[hamishspence]

Its a fall-worthy act (in BoED) to target noncombatants in general (evil or otherwise) "which can include the women and children of some races"

Its not whether the children were evil that matters- but whether they were a physical threat at the time.

If a bunch of armed children are swarming you and you kill them in self-defense, that's not evil (even if they are mind-controlled victims)

If a bunch of unarmed, small children are not attacking anyone- and you chase them down and slaughter them- that's evil, even if they subscribe to the same values as their "evil" parents.

[The Extinguisher]

I'll point out again that Redcloak is a prime example of WHY you needed to get rid of the whole village to stop the Plan.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak was a cleric. None of the goblin children would be expected to be clerics (because they're children- and haven't taken levels in PC classes).

Killing the children was unnecessary.

And was possibly part of why Redcloak was so fervent in his desire to "do what must be done so that this does not happen again"

[Dark Matter]

Its not whether the children were evil that matters- but whether they were a physical threat at the time.Thank you hamishspence.

That's the difference between CR[Nothing] and CR[Something].

That same issue means any Neutral(or even Good) goblin guards/bodyguards/(bystanders who try to resist) could also be struck down (although not smited).

[Coplantor]

If a bunch of armed children are swarming you and you kill them in self-defense, that's not evil (even if they are mind-controlled victims)


Cant you just knock them unconcious? I mean, "Oh gosh! Mind controlled kids! FIREBALL!" Why not sleep? I dont think their saves or AC is good enough to resist non leathal damage or non damaging spells

[Kish]

I'll point out again that Redcloak is a prime example of WHY you needed to get rid of the whole village to stop the Plan.
And I'll point out, again, that that argument is only valid if you take it to the extent of "all sapient life should be immediately destroyed."

"I had to kill the children, they might have come after me to avenge their parents" is a defense that would get thrown out of any sane court. (Not, note, laughed out; very few people would be able to laugh at such an overtly horrific viewpoint.)

[RedCloakLives!]

Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

It's a double standard. See previous. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112367)

(Of course, for story telling purposes, if he were all goody-goody good, SoD would have been the end of the story. His attempts at negotiating peace with the lunatic genocidal death cult would have ended with SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH.)

Ah, Haley: one mean drunk! Viciously attacking a park docent who was trying to give them directions! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html)

And Roy ... don't get me started on Roy! Evil! Roy the terrorist hijacks air craft! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html)

[Gitman00]

I kind of see Redcloak as a Shakespearean tragic hero much like Macbeth:

"I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

He is clearly evil, and just as clearly a victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). He can't accept that all the sacrifices he's made and despicable things he's done are in vain, so much like a compulsive gambler he throws good lives after bad for the sake of The Plan, because to stop now he'd have to write it all off as a loss, and that's something he's just not willing to do.

I also think he's going to find out how tragic his mistake was before the end, because we've been given subtle hints that the Dark One has other goals beyond what Redcloak's been shown. I'm certain that once the Dark One has control of the Gates, his goals will be revealed, and will not be at all what Redcloak thought. Once he has the ultimate trump card, he will not stop at demanding an equal place at the negotiating table. My suspicion is that he will use it as a bid to gain control of the pantheon and rule the gods, then remake the universe in his image. His goal will be domination, not equality.

EDIT @V: Exactly. The Dark One condones all the murderous things Redcloak has done, including the slaughter of other goblinoids, in advancement of his Plan. Redcloak is severely blind, because he just doesn't see this.

@VV (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompletelyMissingThePoint) : :smallsigh:

[DeltaEmil]

Unless there is an orphanage that will take the children of dead monsters in and brainwash them into not hating the killers of their parents and become good, I fail to see how this situation is going to be ever resolved for alignment-falling in D&D.

Would the Paladins have attacked this particular goblin settlement if there was no bearer of the Crimson Mantle there? The Sapphire Guard was created to hunt down those who'd use the gates for evil, and amongst the goblinoids, only the Chosen One with the divine artifact would ever be a threat.
The goblins might have a slightly easier life if they threw away the Crimson Mantle and work into being accepted the hard way, like Right-Eye did.
But the Dark One does not care about the lot of the goblinoid race, if such sacrifices are okay with him...

[Yellow]

Redcloak is a goblin
Goblins are evil
So Redcloak is evil

[Bongos]

Redcloak is evil because the only good goblin is a dead goblin.:smalltongue:

[Snake-Aes]

Redcloak is a goblin
Goblins are evil
So Redcloak is evil

Line two is flawed, as is three by consequence.

[Coplantor]

Not necesarily since you can arrive to a true conclusion from false premises

[Snake-Aes]

Not necesarily since you can arrive to a true conclusion from false premises

That's a fallacy regardless. The false premise removes the integrity of the conclusion.

[Coplantor]

With that I agree

[Dark Matter]

I'm certain that once the Dark One has control of the Gates, his goals will be revealed, and will not be at all what Redcloak thought. Once he has the ultimate trump card, he will not stop at demanding an equal place at the negotiating table. My suspicion is that he will use it as a bid to gain control of the pantheon and rule the gods, then remake the universe in his image. His goal will be domination, not equality.Yeah, probably. That was probably his plan even when he was alive.

This whole "my people are oppressed, all we seek is a little bit of your land and we'll stop" is textbook (rl historical) bad guy language, and it's why "appeasement" has such a bad name. Giving him land buys "peace in our time" but that time quickly runs out.

[hamishspence]

The goblins might have a slightly easier life if they threw away the Crimson Mantle and work into being accepted the hard way, like Right-Eye did.
But the Dark One does not care about the lot of the goblinoid race, if such sacrifices are okay with him...

There's a simple reason why Right Eye's solution might not have worked long-term.

The lesson the humans learned, did not end up being "Don't murder ambassadors who come to negotiate- it leads to reprisal invasions" but:

"Don't allow the humanoids to become too settled or organized"

So, their persecution of monster races got worse, and continued for a long time:


PCs spent centuries "cleaning them out" of various adventure scenarios.

in War & XPs, it says:


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 and harness the rifts?

Its worth remembering that Right Eye's village might only have survived, because it hadn't yet gotten big enough to draw the notice of the people who believe goblins should not be allowed to grow too organized or too settled.

As to The Dark One not caring- because he failed to rein in Redcloak, the lawyers used similar logic to claim the Order deserved to be found guilty (and to serve their sentence for the "crime" of weakening the fabric of the universe- which, according to Miko, is automatically Death)- because otherwise, the gods would have revoked the power of the arresting officer.

Which may be a little iffy.

[Yellow]

Obvious Goblin apologists imo

[hamishspence]

The Giant did describe the Sapphire Guard's behaviour as "damning" in War & XPs-


Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

Is Redcloak's account of the goblins being forced to scrape by in baren wilderness, then, when they tried to negotiate peacefully for more land, their leader/ambassador being murdered, accurate, or propaganda?

I suspect it's more accurate than a lot of people seem to think.

[doodthedud]

I kind of see Redcloak as a Shakespearean tragic hero much like Macbeth:

"I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

He is clearly evil, and just as clearly a victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). He can't accept that all the sacrifices he's made and despicable things he's done are in vain, so much like a compulsive gambler he throws good lives after bad for the sake of The Plan, because to stop now he'd have to write it all off as a loss, and that's something he's just not willing to do.

I agree.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html

Sixth panel.

[DeltaEmil]

There's a simple reason why Right Eye's solution might not have worked long-term.And yet, Right Eye was able to visit a circus with lots of non-goblinoid spectators who didn't assault him or his family. And the circus was near enough to the goblin village that Redcloak could walk the Monster in the Darkness home.

That, or the circus trusted their ninja clowns to keep security. :p


Its worth remembering that Right Eye's village might only have survived, because it hadn't yet gotten big enough to draw the notice of the people who believe goblins should not be allowed to grow too organized or too settled.It was big enough to constitude Xykon's core army of minions who would later all die when the Order of the Stick blew up Dorukan's dungeon.


As to The Dark One not caring- because he failed to rein in Redcloak, the lawyers used similar logic to claim the Order deserved to be found guilty (and to serve their sentence for the "crime" of weakening the fabric of the universe- which, according to Miko, is automatically Death)- because otherwise, the gods would have revoked the power of the arresting officer.That tribunal was staged in favor for the Order of the Stick without them ever being able to lose the first place, so it's completely iffy.
Also, we're talking here about the countless and useless deaths of goblinoids to the amusement of the lich lord Xykon, and a divine plan that is risking the lives of all existing goblinoids (who know nothing about the plan). Tiamat was absolutely enraged that so many black dragons died, and quite willing to fry one of the responsible fiends for it.
These goblinoids matter not in the eyes of the Dark One. They are cannon fodder to be used for XP by the elder gods, as well as cannon fodder in his eyes so as that his chosen clerics can achieve his goal.

His goal being multidimensional conquest with the help of a godslaying beast.

Why even stop at unleashing it against one or a few, if you could unleash it against all of them who are against him? Making all the elder gods kneel before him, perhaps even those who are allied with him, will ensure his complete victory above all.

In the end, he might not even remake the multiverse with goblinoids existing in it, but filled with only one type of creature, just because he'd like them more.
Like, modrons...

That would be the most cruel irony for Redcloak...

[Dark Matter]

There's a simple reason why Right Eye's solution might not have worked long-term.

The lesson the humans learned, did not end up being "Don't murder ambassadors who come to negotiate- it leads to reprisal invasions" but:A thug who puts a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you hand over your wallet isn't an "ambassador". Ditto a military commander with an army at his back who is there to discuss the terms of your surrender.

The humans certainly broke the truce... but do you really expect them to hand over half their lands and wealth? Do you really expect an evil military commander to be satisfied with only half? I'm sorry, in real life we've seen how this plays out, and the lesson we learned is we need to stand up to people like that after they invade their first country (or better still, before that).


So, their persecution of monster races got worse, and continued for a long time:Is it "persecution" when they really are evil?


Its worth remembering that Right Eye's village might only have survived, because it hadn't yet gotten big enough to draw the notice of the people who believe goblins should not be allowed to grow too organized or too settled.But they were more than big enough to attract the attention of some evil lord to do his dark bidding.


As to The Dark One not caring- because he failed to rein in Redcloak, the lawyers used similar logic to claim the Order deserved to be found guilty (and to serve their sentence for the "crime" of weakening the fabric of the universe- which, according to Miko, is automatically Death)- because otherwise, the gods would have revoked the power of the arresting officer.Paladins don't fall for handing accused criminals over for trial; and I hope we're not viewing Miko as an expert on being lawful good.

In a truly fair trial... ignorance of what they were doing might still have been a valid defense (ditto preventing the gate from falling to Xykon who still exists and presumably that fact would be known by a true spirit of law and good).

But lest we forget, the Dark One is an evil god. Finding out that he's not a caring god shouldn't be a surprise.

[Saph]

A thug who puts a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you hand over your wallet isn't an "ambassador". Ditto a military commander with an army at his back who is there to discuss the terms of your surrender.

The humans certainly broke the truce...

Actually, we don't even know that. All we know is that Redcloak said that they broke the truce, and Redcloak's already proven that he's more than willing to lie (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) if it makes the goblinoid race look better.

My personal guess? There was never a truce in the first place. The Dark One's army was coming to do exactly what Redcloak's army's succeeded in doing now - killing any non-Evil race that got in their way and establishing a Lawful Evil regime over the survivors.


in War & XPs, it says:

Hamish, I've noticed you've got a marked tendency to selectively quote from the books. Here's the bit you quoted:


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 and harness the rifts?

Now here's the bit that comes right after that:


Who can say? Well, I suppose I could, but I find it much more interesting to keep it ambiguous. Redcloak's speech to Miko is interesting in that it is mostly hypocritical - Redcloak himself is fairly unnatural, thanks to the fact that he is alive and well long after his normal goblin lifespan should have run out. It's a good example of how he can overlook his own shortcomings in order to blame it on the humans.

Funny how you decided to leave that bit out. :smallamused:

[Morithias]

It all depends on whether the Giant is using the cleric rules that you can only be one step away from your deity. If the deity is 'evil' and he is using that rule then the best Redcloak can be is some kind of neutral, and could never be considered good in the terms of the Dnd Alignment chart.

[Gravedjinn]

Ok well after reading the OP and a few of the responses... yes i am lazy and dont want to read all of it.
I would refer the OP to a series of the dragonlance books starting with second generation and on. If you wish to see what redcloak is, then simply look at the knights of Takhisis(sp?). This group shows exactly what the epitome of a lawful evil knighthood is. I think if the OP read this he would gain a better understanding of what it is to be lawful evil and more about what redcloak is.

[Kish]

Never, ever, consult the Dragonlance books for a nuanced, interesting, or merely plausible concept of good and evil.

("The Kingpriest of Istar conducted his genocidal crusades because he was TOO GOOD! Most elves you see onstage act like vile bastards because they're the ancient embodiment of good!")

[Dark Matter]

Actually, we don't even know that. All we know is that Redcloak said that they broke the truce, and Redcloak's already proven that he's more than willing to lie (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) if it makes the goblinoid race look better. Even if we assume the incident happened exactly as RC said, i.e. that the humans broke the truce, so what?

From the human stand point, Evil (and high level) commander of evil army, there to take (at least half) your land and resources... I'd say he needed to be killed. And yes, we've already seen what kind of civilization the Dark One's representatives can/will set up, it's not a stretch to say it's what he wanted before.

The interesting character in all this isn't RC or even The Dark One, it's Right Eye. He actually wanted better things for his people that basically came down to "living well" and didn't involve Liches, armies, evil plans, or evil gods. Which means that if Xykon hadn't done something about him, maybe the Dark One would have.

[FabuVinny]

The Dark One is willing to let Jirix be the Prime Minister of his new land. He would have left Right Eye alone.

With both Xykon and The Dark One, the real sticking point is Redcloak. He has to be ready to continue The Plan but the other goblinoids can stay in former Azure City now because they aren't essential for it. With the settlement, Xykon just decided to pick up some extra minions at Right Eye's settlement to put pressure on Redcloak.

[DeltaEmil]

Jirix is a loyal priest of the Dark One, who died warning the lich lord who is part of the Divine Plan. Right Eye is a common goblin who abandoned the Divine Plan. And he was killed by the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle for going against the Divine Plan.
Fratricide is espoused by the Dark One. Every life of every goblinoid in world 2.0 is worthless, save to further the Divine Plan. Should a mad lich lord decide to slaughter more than 20.000 of them in a single strike and reanimate them into a mockery of life, he will not care. He will urge his prophet to abide with such, and go on to further the Divine Plan.

[Kish]

A revelation that the Dark One never tried to make peace with the player races would have two major effects. It would remove all nuance from the Dark One; it would remove much of the nuance from the conflict between the goblinoids and Azure City. My expectation that Rich will not do that is predicated on my belief that he would consider those both negatives.

[Tira-chan]

I would say that something important to keep in mind when evaluating the Dark One, and goblin/human relations in general, it's important to remember exactly how the Dark One achieved his divinity - the slaughter of a million humans in one year. That's the kind of thing that leaves a mark on history. While it's not quite clear how long ago it was, though it was certainly centuries, it would probably have serious repercussions in the modern timeline still.

Personally, I wonder if this has contributed to Specieist Elf Commander's, erm, speciesism. When you factor in elven lifespans, he could have a grandfather who recounted war stories of the goblin army that just wouldn't stop, the number of human villages they destroyed. After all, if the paladins, who at least want to think of themselves as righteous, are willing to slaughter children, why wouldn't the goblinoids, who know they've already lost, they've already been written into the history books as the villains?

It would fit very well with what we know of Redcloak, the decision that, if they already are going to call me evil, why shouldn't I be? In my opinion, at least, that's one of the most fascinating motivations for evil. The idea, that if I'm already a villain, why not be the best villain possible, certainly doesn't give you any redemption for your acts, but it makes for an extremely nuanced story, where, in the end, everyone is the same shade of dark gray.

[hamishspence]

Funny how you decided to leave that bit out. :smallamused:

True- there is ambiguity- but there is still a strong element (in SoD) of the goblins being somewhat desperate.

According the Redcloak, they were persecuted, The Dark One tried to put a stop to this, peacefully (by bargaining for more land, so they wouldn't have to scrape a living in the most barren lands) and was killed for it. The goblins reacted, their army was beaten by an alliance of dwarves, elves, and humans, then persecution intensified for the next few centuries.

In Redcloak's description of the Plan, one thing stands out "No more goblins will have to die to serve as XP for young adventurers"

Interestingly, while the crayon pic shows him and Xykon being killed by the Snarl, this is not an inevitable consequence of the ritual. On what to do when Xykon finds out that the ritual won't control the Snarl, just grant the power to direct the rift:

"Xykon is powerful, but not as powerful as our god. Besides, we can give him a cushy retirement in the goblin nation"

Hard to do that, if he dies in the ritual.

More likely, the picture shows a possible consequence.

[Zxo]

In Redcloak's description of the Plan, one thing stands out "No more goblins will have to die to serve as XP for young adventurers"


I think that this is what the Plan is about for Redcloak. For the Dark One, who doesn't care about goblins dying, I think the motivation is revenge and pride - making the other gods pay is more important than goblin lives. I think Redcloak doesn't fully understand this.

[hamishspence]

Possible.

We don't know much about The Dark One other than what we've seen in crayon strips.

For all we know, he cares about goblins dying- but is trusting Redcloak to get it right.

Though this does raise the question of why he let Redcloak abuse the hobgoblins for most of Paladin Blues and War & XPs.

Maybe his more curt message to Redcloak "don't screw this up" compared to his more detailed message to Jirix "I have battles for you- battles of diplomacy, trade, intrigue" is a reflection of his being annoyed with Redcloak over this (but not annoyed enough to remove Redcloak's status).

[Gitman00]

I agree.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html

Sixth panel.

Interesting reference, and it made me realize something I hadn't noticed the first time around: He's talking to his brother in that panel. I had assumed he was convincing himself, but in the mirror his eyepatch is reversed. He looks like... Right Eye.

[Dark Matter]

A revelation that the Dark One never tried to make peace with the player races would have two major effects. It would remove all nuance from the Dark One; it would remove much of the nuance from the conflict between the goblinoids and Azure City.Far as I can tell, even what we know now says "The Dark One never tried to make peace".

Showing up with an army and threatening to kill lots of people if they don't hand over their land doesn't hit the radar as "peace" or "peaceful" or anything of the nature.


In Redcloak's description of the Plan, one thing stands out "No more goblins will have to die to serve as XP for young adventurers"That's a lovely thought and it makes the PC races seem horrible and the goblins seem unjustly repressed...

...except that RC isn't willing to change his people so they don't need repression.


Further let's just take a look at where the army that took Azure City came from. The Hobgoblins had their own city, MUCH larger than Right Eye's village. Said Hobgoblin city has enough troops to take and occupy Azure. So much for "constant repression".

[Ancalagon]

Showing up with an army and threatening to kill lots of people if they don't hand over their land doesn't hit the radar as "peace" or "peaceful" or anything of the nature.

The first part is true but we were explicitly told the second was not. He negotiated when he did not have to. He did not threaten to take the lands.

And I have no reason to assume he did lie to Redcloak about that.

[hamishspence]

Further let's just take a look at where the army that took Azure City came from. The Hobgoblins had their own city, MUCH larger than Right Eye's village. Said Hobgoblin city has enough troops to take and occupy Azure. So much for "constant repression".

According to War & XPs, the paladins, and the Azurite army "kept them penned up in the mountains for 30 years"

Also, it explains why it's possible for them to take Azure City- because 90% of the population were mobilized- which had never been done before.

[Dark Matter]

According to War & XPs, the paladins, and the Azurite army "kept them penned up in the mountains for 30 years"Translation: The Hobgoblin city has existed for 30 years.


Showing up with an army and threatening to kill lots of people if they don't hand over their land doesn't hit the radar as "peace" or "peaceful" or anything of the nature.


The first part is true but we were explicitly told the second was not. He negotiated when he did not have to. He did not threaten to take the lands.He did not threaten to take the lands? So why then did he have an army at his back, and why then was he "asking" for them? And what would have happened if the kings had said "No, go away"?

If I put a gun to your head and "ask" for your wallet, that's a threat.

Further, "negotiated when he didn't have to"? Ten thousand goblins died in the attack on Azurite City, and they won. A million humans/elves/others died in the great goblin war, and they also won. The Dark One wasn't sure of victory, and even if he'd won, the butcher's bill would have been frightful.

[hamishspence]

The Dark One's phrasing in the crayon strip might be argued as being threatening- but only from the most unsympathetic perspective possible. It even emphasised that he had no wish to conquer anybody.

It went like this:

The Dark One: Fellow sentient beings, while we have often been at odds, I come here in the name of peace.

All we want is a fair distribution of land, so that the humans and elves and dwarves do not controll ALL the livable territory while we scrape by in barren wilderness.

We are all the children of the gods, is it fair that you have so much, while my goblins have so little? Yes, we have great strength of arms, but we do not wish to conquer humanity. We wish to share this-

[Dark Matter]

Unsympathetic? Claiming you don't want to put a gun to someone's head shouldn't take away from the fact that you have. Why are his flowery words of such importance that we should ignore the brutal fact of his army and the core of his offer?

He's not offering anything other than the absence of his own bad actions. He doesn't even claim the goblins used to own the land. Minus the flowery words his entire argument is, "We're poor. You're rich. That's not fair. So fork over or we'll kill you."

What would have happened if the Kings had said "No, we won't give you our land"? Do you think he would have left peacefully? I don't. The kings didn't either.

Flowery words don't change that he's an evil overlord at the head of an evil army. If he'd sent a messenger saying "We're a country now, don't invade us while we develop and we won't invade you..." then that would have been a very different message. But his message doesn't become "peaceful" just because he claims it is.

The historical examples of these kinds of offers don't come from people interested in peace. The Dark One was the goblin equivalent of Genghis Khan. Smart, Charismatic, Wise... but evil and building an expansionistic empire.

[hamishspence]

Given that until The Dark One arrived and unified the goblins, goblins had been hunted for XP- what would have happened if he hadn't built the army- would he have been able to even get an audience at all?

Or would he have been killed, if he tried?

When dealing with people who hunt your kind for XP- it makes sense to deal from a position of strength.

Which ended up with them committing murder, anyway.



his entire argument is, [i]"We're poor. You're rich. That's not fair. So fork over" [i]

This bit's clearly stated.


"or we'll kill you."

This bit is not stated by The Dark One. The fact that he's built an army might imply this- but he did not state it outright.

It's also worth remembering why they are poor. According to Redcloak, at least, it's because the gods gave them all kinds of disadvantages, including (but not limited to) the worst land, plus they've been hunted for XP, for centuries.

[Dark Matter]

When dealing with people who hunt your kind for XP- it makes sense to deal from a position of strength.And why was he dealing with them at all?

Do you have a different way to interpret what he was saying other than "give me your land or die"? If you were a citizen of the King's country, would you be good with him giving your city and land to the goblins without a fight?

Flowery words aside, the Dark One's request was extortion and evil.


Which ended up with them committing murder, anyway.Murder implies that the act was evil and unlawful. Given that the Dark One was both evil himself and there to do evil things, killing him was probably a good thing (although how smart it was I'm not sure).

When you kill the other side's evil overlord military commander, and especially when the people giving the order are the government, it's not generally called "murder".

"Assassinated" is probably a better word.

[hamishspence]

Assassination is usually deemed murder. Assassination of an emissary, come to discuss terms, breaks all the laws of civilized discourse.

And did the Dark One even get time to offer anything in return for the land?

[JonestheSpy]

He's not offering anything other than the absence of his own bad actions. He doesn't even claim the goblins used to own the land. Minus the flowery words his entire argument is, "We're poor. You're rich. That's not fair. So fork over or we'll kill you."

What would have happened if the Kings had said "No, we won't give you our land"? Do you think he would have left peacefully? I don't. The kings didn't either.

Flowery words don't change that he's an evil overlord at the head of an evil army. If he'd sent a messenger saying "We're a country now, don't invade us while we develop and we won't invade you..." then that would have been a very different message. But his message doesn't become "peaceful" just because he claims it is.

The historical examples of these kinds of offers don't come from people interested in peace. The Dark One was the goblin equivalent of Genghis Khan. Smart, Charismatic, Wise... but evil and building an expansionistic empire.

Given the Goblin's history, I'm curious as to Dark Matter's opinion as to what they SHOULD have done. I mean, part of the whole issue was the the goblins lived in territory not fit to be developed - that's why they were left to it.

And frankly, considering the other races' actions toward the goblins for all of history, saying "We only want a fair deal, not revenge" is pretty damn civilized.

[Snake-Aes]

Assassination is usually deemed murder. Assassination of an emissary, come to discuss terms, breaks all the laws of civilized discourse.

And did the Dark One even get time to offer anything in return for the land?

Right now we are stuck with "no idea, champ"

[Dark Matter]

Assassination is usually deemed murder.Usually, but the notable exception is during war time.


Assassination of an emissary, come to discuss terms, breaks all the laws of civilized discourse.This speaks to it being an "unlawful" act... although considering who did it and under what circumstances, it would have been easy to pass a law allowing it.

But was it an "evil" act? Considering the alternative appeared to be going to war with the genius evil overlord at the head of his million-man-killing-army... maybe not.


And did the Dark One even get time to offer anything in return for the land?Now you're quibbling. I thought his offer was clear and plain.


Given the Goblin's history, I'm curious as to Dark Matter's opinion as to what they SHOULD have done. I mean, part of the whole issue was the the goblins lived in territory not fit to be developed - that's why they were left to it.Humanity has developed most of this planet. The parts that it hasn't are mostly because of political issues, not practical ones. The entire USA used to be "undeveloped wilderness". Israel and Las Vegas have proven that even deserts can bloom, many cities used to be swamps, etc.

They don't need to go to war to develop what they already have. They don't need to go to war to declare themselves to be a PC race. On the other hand if they're going to be a PC race then it is implied that they stop being "usually evil".


And frankly, considering the other races' actions toward the goblins for all of history, saying "We only want a fair deal, not revenge" is pretty damn civilized.Define "fair deal", then please tell me how "give me your land or I'll kill you" fits that definition.

I don't have a problem treating Goblins as something other than evil monsters (the half orc is a PC class for a reason)... but first they need to stop acting like evil monsters. RC's goblin-utopia is a good example of what not to do. Ignore how they got it, do we see any attempt to make the goblins less evil? Of course not. The Dark One and RC want to change how the goblins are treated, but they don't want the goblins to change.

[hamishspence]

Considering the alternative appeared to be going to war with the genius evil overlord at the head of his million-man-killing-army... maybe not.

And killing him, provoked the war with the army.

Also- we don't know that he was evil before he died and rose again.

Redcloak say's he's "technically an evil god"- but was he an evil mortal?

[Snake-Aes]

And killing him, provoked the war with the army.

Also- we don't know that he was evil before he died and rose again.

Redcloak say's he's "technically an evil god"- but was he an evil mortal?
Does that frankly make a difference? The Dark One is evil NOW, and everything made in his behalf was made in behalf of an evil god.

[pendell]

First, spoilers spoilers spoilers! This thread focuses heavily on SoD material, discussing the origins and fundamental natures of the villains. Those who haven't read the prequels, and who don't want them spoiled, proceed at their own risk :smalleek:


All right, so we already know that he is evil, on a technical level, for myriad reasons evident in the strip (perhaps the most obvious of which is that he's affected by Smite Evil).

First off, his fundamental cause is to free his race from an inherent universal law making their genocide and oppression okay. That strikes me as a pretty Good cause, with a capital G (and this would also put to question why The Dark One is Evil, though I think for the sake of restricting the discussion to a somewhat specific topic it's sufficient to say that "because his deity is Evil" isn't a satisfactory response, since this raises the same questions). I think it's pretty difficult to argue that wanting goblins to be able to live in relative equality to the other races, or at the very least not be hunted for no reasons other than combat experience, is not an Evil cause.

Now, granted, he gets pretty involved with some Evil stuff to further the Plan, not the least of which is getting tangled up with Xykon (who is, very unarguably, Evil with a capital E) - though it should be noted that he regards Xykon as a tool and as a "powerful ally," and actively resists him at great personal peril when he believes that he's not acting in accordance with the interests of his cause. While he hates humans, this hatred is dwarved by the hatred that the Paladins have for his race (a genocidal bloodlust they can apparently maintain and still get away with being Lawful Good), and is in fact understandable given that it is largely borne of the ethnic cleansing he and his family suffered in his youth.


Ultimately, what I see is a character with a fundamentally powerfully Good cause willing to resort to questionable tactics and Evil allies in order to further it. In my book, this is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Good (e.g. are we going to start calling Haley Evil because she lies and steals?). So I'm curious what exactly (other than condemnation by plot) gets our noble-hearted goblin with some nasty friends and questionable methods the E-word on his alignment. Any thoughts?

My working definition of D&D evil is 'seeks his own good at the expense
of others'. A true psychopath like Xykon has no concern for anyone but himself. Redcloak is not quite as evil, but he still puts goblins first and foremost above any other sentient race. He has no love or concern for the dignity of anyone who is not another goblins. He's made it plain that he hates humans and would be happy to see them all exterminated.

He further seeks his ends via a plan which he knows full well is likely to end with the utter annihilation of himself and everyone else on the planet, yet he proceeds with it anyway.

Finally, he's indulging in willful self-deception about the means and ends both of the Dark One and of himself. Right-eye confronted him with this, and Redcloak killed him rather than admit the truth to himself.

If Redcloak was still young, he might be considered good if invincibly ignorant -- he could not reasonably know better. But it's obvious by the end of SOD that he knows the truth, somewhere down inside, and won't admit it to himself. His deliberate, willing choice to turn from truth to a lie is, if not evil itself, a big big step in that direction.

His disregard for sentient life and his reckless endangerment of same puts him firmly in the evil camp. But as SOD states and I concur, he is evil rather than Evil. He has specks of goodness in him which could result in a full-blown alignment switch. I rather hope it does.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dark Matter]

And killing him, provoked the war with the army.True, but the kings didn't have any "no risk" options.

Even retrospectively, leaving the genius at the head of his army might have made things worse, not better.


Redcloak say's he's "technically an evil god"- but was he an evil mortal?Almost certainly.

First we have the whole "evil overlord" thing. Genghis Khan presumably was LE.

Second The Plan is basically the same as when he was a mortal just adjusted for scale, i.e. get something capable of killing the other side and then blackmail them.

The expectation should be the guy holding the gun pointed at your head is "evil", that's part of the package.

[Dark Matter]

Sorry ham, I'd missed this part.


It's also worth remembering why they are poor. According to Redcloak, at least, it's because the gods gave them all kinds of disadvantages, including (but not limited to) the worst land, plus they've been hunted for XP, for centuries.1st; The Dark One didn't know any of this when he was trying to blackmail the kings with his army.

2nd; The kings are not the gods. You growing up poor, even if it's person X's fault, isn't an excuse for you to put a gun to the head of person Y.

3rd; One of those "disadvantages" is being "usually evil". It's nice to be able to blame someone else as to why you're "usually evil"... but that doesn't change the fact that you are.

4th; Being hunted for xp is commonly part of the package of being "usually evil". Granted, not for simply having the alignment, but for the doing of evil acts that normally generates it.

To put #4 differently, right now, with the goblins owning and running goblin-utopia, they could STILL be hunted for xp... and not only that, but they SHOULD be.

As long as goblin-utopia official policy is guards can whip the slaves "because it's funny" and humans should be executed "because they have levels in PC classes" then RC has no claim that his people should be allowed to run a country.

[Snake-Aes]

Sorry ham, I'd missed this part.

1st; The Dark One didn't know any of this when he was trying to blackmail the kings with his army.

2nd; The kings are not the gods. You growing up poor, even if it's person X's fault, isn't an excuse for you to put a gun to the head of person Y.

3rd; One of those "disadvantages" is being "usually evil". It's nice to be able to blame someone else as to why you're "usually evil"... but that doesn't change the fact that you are.

4th; Being hunted for xp is commonly part of the package of being "usually evil". Granted, not for simply having the alignment, but for the doing of evil acts that normally generates it.

To put #4 differently, right now, with the goblins owning and running goblin-utopia, they could STILL be hunted for xp... and not only that, but they SHOULD be.

As long as goblin-utopia official policy is guards can whip the slaves "because it's funny" and humans should be executed "because they have levels in PC classes" then RC has no claim that his people should be allowed to run a country.Nowhere it says countries have to be non-evil, and evil societies are a staple of storytelling.

[slayerx]

Given that until The Dark One arrived and unified the goblins, goblins had been hunted for XP- what would have happened if he hadn't built the army- would he have been able to even get an audience at all?

Or would he have been killed, if he tried?

When dealing with people who hunt your kind for XP- it makes sense to deal from a position of strength.


The problem with arguing from a position of such strength is that it comes off as threatening. The goblin race is one that the PC races has always regarded as an evil race, they have never at any point and time given the PC races a good reason to trust them. Essentially the kings have nothing more than the Dark One's word that all he wants his peace, but at the same time he gave them no real reason to trust his word... A lot of people in that situation would have believed the dark one's offer to be nothing more than a ruse; the next steps being settling down, vastly increase the army and then conquer the humans in the next decade or so... Not to mention that he was asking a lot out of the PC races but offering nothing in return aside from not killing them

Really, the Dark one, whether he wanted to or not was using fear to try and influence the Kings into giving him what he wants. And fear only works so long as others actually fear you; the moment they see a weakness, or an opportunity to get rid of you they WILL take it to get rid of the source of their fear.


If you want peace then the best way to do it is by earning respect from others. If they respect you they will be more willing to trust you


Given the Goblin's history, I'm curious as to Dark Matter's opinion as to what they SHOULD have done. I mean, part of the whole issue was the the goblins lived in territory not fit to be developed - that's why they were left to it.
Well i got one thing i came up with today...
First off, do the goblins actually NEED a goblin nation and territory that the goblins control? no, not really... the Gnomes and Halflings get along just fine not having as much territory as the Humans, elves and Dwarves
The goal is not so much create a goblin nation but to create equality

One method that the darkone could have tried is instead of trying to create his own nation, he instead tries to get his goblins to become part of a preexisting PC-nation... and instead of just trying to force his way in, he instead tries to negotiate and offer something in return... for instance, he could go to a nation that is weak, or one that is loosing a war and offer them his forces in exchange for nothing more than citizenship (maybe even offer to make the goblins the front line to prove their loyalty). if the nation is desperate enough they may just agree... and hell, if your thinking the nation might not feel comfortable with so many goblins, he can negotiate only to let in a portion of his army to serve and protect the nation, thus allowing the nation to feel like it's still in control... he can then drop off the other goblins at another weak nation... start from a position of strength but show you are willing to make yourself weaker to seem less threatening

another he could try is use that army to wipe out a city/nation that even that all the other PC races are sacred of and want to be rid of... you could actually end up doing something that the rest of world finds acceptable. Build a nation from that, and do it without the racism, slavery and whatnot... use economics to earn the trust of other nations

Or do as the hobgoblins in the valley were doing... Azure city may have kept them penned up, but they were still able to keep that city functioning for 30 years and it wasn't exactly on the verge of collapsing. Use a nation like that as jumping off point to create relationships with other nations and earn their trust.


these are not perfect options... each one would take much time and can easily fall into failure. But these are the kinds of options that would be better for creating Peace as they seek to not just give the goblins an equal place in the world, but also seek to change the image of the goblins and earn the trust of the PC races that has feared them for centuries... it would have atleast been worthwhile to TRY these things before resorting to more forceful methods; more forceful methods tend to only work in the short term...

It's kind of like Redcloak and "the plan"... their are other methods he could use, but he's invested so much time into the plan already that he is not willing to consider abandoning it. Furtharmore, he finds other methods to be difficult and more prone to failure and thus wants a speedier resolution and is willing to risk the lives of ever goblin in gobbotopia to do it

[Herald Alberich]

Not to mention that he was asking a lot out of the PC races but offering nothing in return aside from not killing them

Hamishspence had a point here - since the Dark One didn't get to finish his speech, we don't actually know this to be the case. Of course, we also don't know what the goblins have to offer besides their army. If they're as bad off as they claim, the answer is "not much". So it being a veiled threat does seem likely. But not certain.

[DeltaEmil]

Perhaps the goblinoid horde would have given the human kings some of their low-quality dirt they were farming in exchange for their lands. :smallamused:
Not that the humans had anything to gain from it, as they already had better dirt for themselves.

Now, if the goblinoid had wanted to become official citizens (even if they have to start as 2nd class with low wages and so) in the human kingdoms, that might have been a starter. That would be the long and hard way, that might pay off for itself in the end. Of course, the goblinoids would need to stop drinking the blood of innocent to show their honesty. :smalltongue:

But who are we kidding anyway. The Dark One demanded the lands of the humans, or else, he'd would kill them all. Because with an army of that size, you'd be a moron to not use it. And they're going to need food, and land, or else, they'd kill the Dark One for rallying them for nothing.

[hamishspence]

Or- they could have sold their martial skills. As killers of non-sapient monsters. Or maybe they could have been trained to use their skills in law enforcement, security, etc.

Martial skills might have been a very tradable commodity.

In Don't Split The Party, one of the things said in the commentaries, was that the Familicide arc shows the error in the thinking "Monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill"

And Redcloak's account of the origin of goblinoids (and other humanoid monsters) was that they were created by the gods- solely for low-level clerics to kill.

Redcloak could be lying- but it does seem like there are parallels.

[Dark Matter]

Or- they could have sold their martial skills. As killers of non-sapient monsters. Or maybe they could have been trained to use their skills in law enforcement, security, etc.

Martial skills might have been a very tradable commodity.The Dark One had put together the biggest and most powerful army the Northern Continent had ever seen. Then, after having put together the greatest army that the world had seen, he went to talk to the local Kings about how it was unfair that they have so much good stuff while he and his didn't.

That right there makes the situation pretty obvious, and that's before we bring up alignment issues, i.e. that his army is evil, and from his behavior afterward, so is he.

Why should we assume that the man with the gun to someone else's head who is asking for his wallet is also willing to pay for said wallet? If the Dark One was willing to pay for the land, why does he need the greatest army to ever exist? Why did he create said army if not to use it? And notice he never said he wasn't going to use it to invade/kill everyone.

On a side note from the art work (and aptitude, attitude, brilliance, and charisma) the Dark One reminds me a whole lot of Thanos of Titan.


In Don't Split The Party, one of the things said in the commentaries, was that the Familicide arc shows the error in the thinking "Monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill"

And Redcloak's account of the origin of goblinoids (and other humanoid monsters) was that they were created by the gods- solely for low-level clerics to kill.

Redcloak could be lying- but it does seem like there are parallels.True. But there's a world of difference between a corn eating kid-dragon in a cave out in the outback and an Evil Overlord camped out on your doorstep with the world's best army.

[Gitman00]

Nowhere it says countries have to be non-evil, and evil societies are a staple of storytelling.

True, but that's not the issue. From a storytelling perspective, sure. Have an evil city-state. It provides good conflict for the protagonists.

The issue here, however, is the proper response to such a society within the story. The point is that, as long as the goblins keep committing evil acts, it is right and proper for good societies and individuals to oppose, battle, and even kill them. You don't do so merely for an evil alignment (I'm looking at you, Miko), but those who carry such an alignment do evil acts, and that's why PCs should kill them.

Redcloak, like anyone else in his position, wants his people to prosper. But he's not willing to lead his people to change their behavior; instead, he's all too willing to blame all their problems on everyone else, to justify his own bigotry. The situation would be like a rogue state in our world demanding more territory and equality with other nations while continuing their practices of slavery, torture, and aggression.

[hamishspence]

Why should we assume that the man with the gun to someone else's head who is asking for his wallet is also willing to pay for said wallet?

Why should we always compare the army to a gun to the head, when it might be compared to a sword in the holster?

We don't usually compare a standing army to "a loaded gun held at the head of every neighbour"

What makes the goblin army so different?

[Shale]

The goblin army wasn't a standing army. It was raised specifically by the Dark One, who used the creation of a goblin nation in what were then (and presumably still are) humanoid lands as his rallying cry.

[hamishspence]

it's not clear what promises The Dark One made to unite the goblinoids- but, making a request for land, while presumptous, should be responded to with "No" at worst.

Not, with killing the diplomatic personage who made the request.

The Dark One was acting both as leader and ambassador- killing ambassadors is highly dubious behaviour.

While the goblinoids might be compared to Kipling's "armed and agile nation" asking for Danegeld (with the obvious difference that they haven't already invaded) the right response is simply to make it clear they won't just give up some of their lands on request- to say, in essence:

"We never pay any-one Danegeld.
No matter how trifling the cost
For the end of that game is oppression and shame
And the nation that plays it is lost."

Killing emissaries just sends the message that you don't respect diplomatic immunity.

[Dark Matter]

Why should we always compare the army to a gun to the head, when it might be compared to a sword in the holster?

We don't usually compare a standing army to "a loaded gun held at the head of every neighbour"

What makes the goblin army so different?There are two differences that are stated outright, and one that's implied.

First, SOD calls it the largest military force ever seen. That means that the only possible reason for it's existence is to threaten other countries.

Second, having built a military force whose only possible reason for existence is to threaten other countries, The Dark One starts (politely) threatening other countries. When you start tossing around phases that come down to, The world would be so much fairer if my people had your land., the implication is that it's going to get nasty.

Do you think that's an argument which would convince anyone to hand over any city... unless the whole "at gunpoint" issue is also brought out? I compare the army to a gun to the head because that's the best comparison. Similarly the historical people we could compare the Dark One to (some of whom have used these tactics) is also pretty Dark.

And the implied difference is the whole "Dark evil overlord with an army of Darkness" business, but that's just icing on the cake. Even without a name like "The Dark One", and without an appearance like Thanos of Titan, and without the future knowledge that he's going to become an evil god, the whole situation speaks for itself.

[Dark Matter]

it's not clear what promises The Dark One made to unite the goblinoids- but, making a request for land, while presumptous, should be responded to with "No" at worst.

Not, with killing the diplomatic personage who made the request.

The Dark One was acting both as leader and ambassador- killing ambassadors is highly dubious behaviour.A million humans died even without the Genius Super-Competent Military Leader at the head of his army. Are we supposed to think the body count would have been less if he'd been left in charge?

[hamishspence]

There is the issue that goblins (at least according to Redcloak) have been raiding their neighbours since they were created- because they don't really have enough land to survive on- the land they've got is pretty barren. And this was exactly why the gods did it this way in the first place.

So- if they had gotten some fertile, rather than barren, lands- no more raids.

Of course, Redcloak could be lying or misled in his whole goblin creation story- still, a change from the staus quo which has been going on for- centuries?- could have been in the best interests of both sides.

If we had seen any refusals from the humans, with the Dark One responding with outright threats, it might have been different- but as it is, what we saw in the crayon strips was them killing an emissary without even an attempt at talking things out.

Redcloak's account also said "They never had any intention to discuss peace with a lowly goblin, the meeting had merely been a ruse to lure the leader of the horde to them"

Suggesting their killing of The Dark One was premeditated and planned in advance.


A million humans died even without the Genius Super-Competent Military Leader at the head of his army. Are we supposed to think the body count would have been less if he'd been left in charge?

Possibly. Remember The Dark One's goal was a nation for his people (apparently he had no interest in conquest for conquest's sake) whereas the horde's goal after his assassination, was revenge.

[Gitman00]

Redcloak's account also said "They never had any intention to discuss peace with a lowly goblin, the meeting had merely been a ruse to lure the leader of the horde to them"

Suggesting their killing of The Dark One was premeditated and planned in advance.

Emphasis mine. Redcloak's trustworthiness is suspect for a number of reasons.

1. His god is evil, and has his own motivations. What The Dark One told Redcloak may very well not be how it happened.

2. Redcloak is evil, and has been shown to use propaganda and revisionist history when it suits him.

3. Even assuming Redcloak is not deliberately misleading with his story, he's attributing motives to the humans which they may not have had and coloring the events with his own bias. All he knows is that the humans assassinated the Dark One when he went to the meeting, and frankly even that knowledge is suspect. The rest is his own conjecture. He doesn't know that the humans thought of the Dark One as a "lowly goblin" and therefore beneath respect, or that there was never any intention of negotiating, since the Dark One was the only goblin at the meeting.

What I find much more likely is that the humans were threatened by the army the Dark One had raised, and sought to eliminate the threat. Assassinating him under a flag of truce was a jerkass move, but their motive for doing so was eliminating the threat that he and his army represented. They probably assumed that with the leader gone, the horde would disperse. It didn't turn out so well for them, obviously.

[Dark Matter]

There is the issue that goblins (at least according to Redcloak) have been raiding their neighbours since they were created- because they don't really have enough land to survive on- the land they've got is pretty barren. And this was exactly why the gods did it this way in the first place.

So- if they had gotten some fertile, rather than barren, lands- no more raids. You're ignoring the whole "evil" problem, and the historical parallels. When we look at history and see who has done this whole "I have an army and you have nice land", we get a list of names of people who have engaged in ugly wars.

I can think of names of people who agreed to take land "for peace" and then went to war anyway (Khan, Hitler, the US Gov with the Indians), I can't think of anyone who took the land and then actually stopped.


Of course, Redcloak could be lying or misled in his whole goblin creation story- still, a change from the staus quo which has been going on for- centuries?- could have been in the best interests of both sides.True, but not then, and not that way.


If we had seen any refusals from the humans, with the Dark One responding with outright threats, it might have been different- but as it is, what we saw in the crayon strips was them killing an emissary without even an attempt at talking things out.What's to talk out? From the King's point of view there are three ways this can play out.
1) They hand over land, in which case they've purchased "Peace in their time" and in a year or two they're weaker, The Dark One is stronger, and they still have nice land and he still has an unstoppable army.
2) Tell him to go away, in which case war breaks out immediately with him at his army's head (and he's very good at what he does).
3) Kill him, and hope his army falls apart (like Khan's did after he died).

None of these solutions are perfect, but the least risky with the most reward is clearly the third.


Redcloak's account also said "They never had any intention to discuss peace with a lowly goblin, the meeting had merely been a ruse to lure the leader of the horde to them" Suggesting their killing of The Dark One was premeditated and planned in advance.True, but so what? We should also assume that The Dark One built his world crushing army to be used.


Possibly. Remember The Dark One's goal was a nation for his people (apparently he had no interest in conquest for conquest's sake) whereas the horde's goal after his assassination, was revenge.Saying there's a "reason" for your conquest doesn't mean a lot for the people being conquered.

At the end of the day, no matter what we think of their reasons, Red Cloak and the Dark One are the bad guys. We should expect them to behave like that even if we like them and there were injustices in their past.

[hamishspence]

At the end of the day, no matter what we think of their reasons, Red Cloak and the Dark One are the bad guys. We should expect them to behave like that even if we like them and there were injustices in their past.


Isn't a big theme in Start of Darkness, evolution? Redcloak evolving from a borderline anti-hero, into an utter villain?

His speeches to the goblins in SoD don't smack of "crush the enemy under our heels and rule over them"-

"The Dark One has given me a vision. A vision that someday, all PC and NPC races will sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

Sounds more like an idealist- who, over time, embraces the ideal too tightly, and falls into villainy.

And if its "flowery words to conceal his real intent" - who's there to be deceived? Only other goblins.

One of the things I like about OoTS, is that it sometimes blurs the lines between "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys". Belkar. Vaarsuvius after Familicide. Therkla. Miko. And so on.

[Dark Matter]

Ya, all true. But if we ignore his end-vision and look at his actions and the likely results, it's all pretty evil, and will stay that way as long as he follows "The Plan".

I'm reminded of Communism's "utopia" which is supposed to result from... lots and lots of vile acts done at gun point.

Here's another "good intent" plan which will likely not work: In order to increase employee moral, all employees will be leased and branded.:smallwink:

Good talking with you.

[JonestheSpy]

At the end of the day, no matter what we think of their reasons, Red Cloak and the Dark One are the bad guys. We should expect them to behave like that even if we like them and there were injustices in their past.

Wow, and here I thought the whole point of Start of Darkness was to deconstruct simplistic ideas like that.

Regarding the Dark One's past (as we know it), the deal is that DarkM has a serious philosophical difference between myself and folks like Hamishspice, that I doubt can be reconciled in any way. What it boils down to is whether victims of injustice deserve compensation, in addition to simply having the injustice cease.

DarkM clearly doesn't believe, to the point of comparing the Dark One to Ghengis Khan and Hitler (got that "peace in or time" reference) because he tried to engage in peaceful negotiations from a position of strength instead of helplessness, and that the goblins should have just done their best to survive in the wastelands no one else wanted (by the way, I thought the examples given were pretty lousy - Israel isn't all desert, it has lots of agricultural land tat has supported cities and town for millenia, and Vegas is a completely unsustainable city that imports everything and survives by gambling and tourism).

The folks on the other side of the question think that the Dark One was justified in asking for something better for his people as part of peace negotiations. And if you want to look to history as an example, borders changed all the fricking time. Just look at a map of Europe through the centuries - it was in constant flux, not just because of war but alliances, treaties, royal marriages, etc. On a purely personal level, if I knew that I'd benefited from a horrible injustice, especially one I'd participated in inflicting, I'd feel pretty damn morally obligated to try and compensate the victim in some way.

It seems to me the Dark One was trying to appeal to the PC races' better natures, at least in the version of the story we know, and would see the fairness of his appeal. and yeah, he had a powerful army to back him up - let's face it, the idea that he would have been heard at all otherwise seems highly, highly unlikely. In Redcloak's version of the story, racism is what motivated the humans' treachery - I suppose one could make the argument that the humans would have acted the same if it was another human in te exact same situation, but as there's absolutly no way of proving or diproving that it's a moot point.

Anyway, this stays pretty dang close to the political realm. Hopefully it's still falls on the personal/philosophical side of the line.

[Dark Matter]

{scrubbed}

[JonestheSpy]

Dude, all I can say is that I specifically attempted to keep this in the theoretical/philosophical realm and not the political. It is flat out impossible to respond to your most of your points and not get into verbotten territory - you've already waded deep into those waters.


Edit: There is one exception I'm going to make, because it's pretty safe and it's also been a mischaracterization you've made repeatedly:



If I put a gun to your head and "ask" for your wallet, am I "engaging in peaceful negotiations from a position of strength"?

Or did negotiations stop being peaceful the moment the world conquering army unstoppable god-killing abomination gun came into play?

As the goblins lost the war following the assassination, we know the Dark One did not have the equivalent of a gun pointed at he heads of the humans. Nor did the Dark One ever say he would set his army on the rest if he did not get everything he wanted.

Anyway, this just demonstrates the root philosophical disagreement - you think wanting some kind of compensation for being the victim of an injustice that has put one at a horrible disadvantage is the same as theft, and I don't. If the Dark One had gone conquering and pillaging and justified it with the injustices the goblins had suffered, you'd have a valid point. But he didn't, he went to peacefully negotiate with the neighboring governments, so in my point of view your argument falls apart.

[Dr.Epic]

-He can't let this grudge go.
-He's followed an evil god his whole life.
-He's willing to doom the entire world for his race.
-He's character sheet says he's evil.

[Torick]

I'm a big fan of how this thread is developing - while of course the references need to be oblique to avoid turning this into a very different sort of discussion, it's telling that this story has the depth to provoke ages-old moral questions of world peace and standing armies that have served as the real bases of war and strife in human history, and that the same controversies and viewpoints arise. The most convincing conflicts, it seems, are those that arise from reality, as opposed to the "I'm evil, you're good, let's fight" excuse that drives so many fantasy stories where the swords and spells are more important than the motivation.

Some points I'd like to throw into the mix:

A standing army in the hands of a soverign nation, including (and perhaps particularly) a new would-be nation formed out of alliances against common oppression, is probably not fairly comparable to a thug's loaded gun.
Not only would this make most of us evil (or at least our leaders) for simply realizing that the reality of international stability requires that you have a sabre to rattle (moral arguments about drawing the sabre aside), the analogy isn't even sound from the standpoint of who has the weapons - the kings were not unarmed themselves. If we are to use the analogy of armies being guns, then the situation was that the kings are all armed with pistols and have been picking off goblins for target practice for the last half-hour, and one of them has picked up an assault rifle, pointed it at them, and demanded that they stop shooting (after which, incidentally, they promptly have him shot from behind while he's trying to negotiate a cease-fire). Negotiating with a gun is only an act of thuggery if your opponent doesn't have a gun drawn on you as well - and it really falls apart if the only reason you've drawn one is to try to force him to stop firing his for fun.

The Dark One could have certainly proposed a more palatable cease-fire than the one that he did. While again, real-life human history has plenty of examples of oppressed peoples demanding compensation from their oppressors, getting it, and this generally being viewed as just by third parties and from the lens of history, it is inarguably true that simply demanding that the humans stop massacring goblins and leave them alone would have been a less bold and less antagonistic demand than the same thing, plus how about giving us some good land. This, in fact, serves as the primary difference between Redcloak and Right-Eye: Right-Eye just wants to settle down, live a normal life, and perhaps defend themselves if attacked. Redcloak sees this as tragically temporary and naive, and aspires to give the goblins an epic sabre to rattle to prevent other civilizations from periodically exterminating them to 'prevent them from getting too settled' - and they directly argue over the Dark One's idea that the goblins deserve better land. To Redcloak and the Dark One's credit, OotS history has a nasty trend of people like Right-Eye dying tragically or being horribly oppressed - appealing to people's better natures and hoping they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone seems pretty futile if the past is any indication.

No dropping controversial political points by name, or making analogies so specific that it draws the discussion to an obviously specific controversial conflict. I like this thread - I don't want to see it die because the Dark One keeps turning into increasingly recent and increasingly politically controversial world leaders :smalleek:

[Dark Matter]

Dude, all I can say is that I specifically attempted to keep this in the theoretical/philosophical realm and not the political. It is flat out impossible to respond to your most of your points and not get into verbotten territory - you've already waded deep into those waters.Fine. No more real world examples at all, no matter how many generations ago they happened.


As the goblins lost the war following the assassination, we know the Dark One did not have the equivalent of a gun pointed at he heads of the humans.The battle for Azure city cost 10,000 human lives and they lost. The goblin war cost 1,000,000 human lives and they won, only because of intervention from the Elves and Dwarfs.

So the goblin war was 100 Azure cities. It's not a big stretch to think that those three kings lost their entire kingdom's populations.

And that's without the leadership of the Dark One, which we should assume would have been impressive. Without the Elves or Dwarfs, the humans would have lost. Perhaps with the Dark One alive, the humans would have lost even with them.

That sounds a lot like a gun to the head to me. Those kings didn't have anything which would stop that army and it was threatening their entire population.


Nor did the Dark One ever say he would set his army on the rest if he did not get everything he wanted.So if someone puts a gun to your head it's not really a threat unless he says "he'll kill you"?


Anyway, this just demonstrates the root philosophical disagreement - you think wanting some kind of compensation for being the victim of an injustice that has put one at a horrible disadvantage is the same as theft, and I don't.Compensation from whom?

The distant descendants of the people who did the injustice? And since the gods did this, we're not even talking about that here. We're talking about an uninvolved 3rd party.


If the Dark One had gone conquering and pillaging and justified it with the injustices the goblins had suffered, you'd have a valid point. But he didn't, he went to peacefully negotiate with the neighboring governments, so in my point of view your argument falls apart.Then why did he build the unstoppable army of darkness? For that matter, why is he talking with these kings at all? They didn't do anything to him, they're just the heads of countries that have what he wants.

[Dark Matter]

A standing army in the hands of a soverign nation, including (and perhaps particularly) a new would-be nation formed out of alliances against common oppression, is probably not fairly comparable to a thug's loaded gun.It depends on the scale. Sovereign nations need armies.

But if you have one MANY times bigger than what you need to maintain order and MANY times bigger than what you need to invade your neighbor and kill everyone there; Then it's fair to ask why you've done that. If you show up on someone's doorstep "asking" for their land, then the answer is clear.


The Dark One could have certainly proposed a more palatable cease-fire than the one that he did. While again, real-life human history has plenty of examples of oppressed peoples demanding compensation from their oppressors, getting it, and this generally being viewed as just by third parties and from the lens of history, it is inarguably true that simply demanding that the humans stop massacring goblins and leave them alone would have been a less bold and less antagonistic demand than the same thing, plus how about giving us some good land.He didn't ask for an end to massacring goblins.

That's an interesting omission. Did he not care? Were massacres not going on? Did he know that the instant counter proposal would be "agreed if you'll stop your people from committing evil acts against us"? Did he not want the diplomatic mission to get anything? Or did he view that as irrelevant since if he got the land he could stop it himself and if he didn't there'd be war?

It's worthwhile to point out just how over the top the massacre of RC's village was. Presumably Paladins fell and also presumably they wouldn't have been there at all if not for the Red Cloak and the whole 'destruction of reality' thing. (Rich's comments on that: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21 )


No dropping controversial political points by name, or making analogies so specific that it draws the discussion to an obviously specific controversial conflict.Fair enough. I apologize if (or where) I've come close to (or gone over) the line.

[hamishspence]

He didn't ask for an end to massacring goblins.

That's an interesting omission. Did he not care? Were massacres not going on? Did he know that the instant counter proposal would be "agreed if you'll stop your people from committing evil acts against us"? Did he not want the diplomatic mission to get anything? Or did he view that as irrelevant since if he got the land he could stop it himself and if he didn't there'd be war?


It's possible that the reason for the land request, was so that the goblins wouldn't have to raid their neighbours for resources- and thus, no more raids and no more reprisals.

Also- why "gun to head" comparisons, when "gun in holster" comparisons can work just as well?

[Dark Matter]

It's possible that the reason for the land request, was so that the goblins wouldn't have to raid their neighbours for resources- and thus, no more raids and no more reprisals.RightEye's village (and we assume the legions of hobgolins next to Azure) didn't "need" to raid. For that matter the slaves in goblin-utopia aren't being whipped because they "need" to be whipped.


Also- why "gun to head" comparisons, when "gun in holster" comparisons can work just as well?In what way does it "work just as well"?

If I say "no" to a gun to the head; 'Bang', I'm dead (even if I have one myself).

This is not true with the holstered gun (we both try to draw), but it *is* very true when we look at the Dark One's army (which unlead still killed everyone in several kingdoms).

Further there's the issue of motivation. If someone is willing to pay for my wallet, then why does he have a gun to my head? If The Dark One wanted 'peace', then why did he build an army which was the functional equivalent to a gun to the head?

The valid comparison *is* a gun to the head... which is exactly what "The Plan" is. He doesn't want to negotiate, he wants to dictate terms. You do what he says or you die.

[hamishspence]

The existance of the goblionid army doesn't count as "a gun to the head"- only if the army is assembled on the border, fully ready to go, would the parallel be exact.

Lots of countries have armies. Some have much bigger armies than others. The size of the army is not the threat, it's how "ready" it is- how close the conditions are to full war.

A country with it's armies at maximum readiness, assembled on the border of it's enemy, fully armed and just awaiting the signal- that's a gun to the head.

A big army just existing- even if it is newly created, isn't.

As to Right Eye's village- we don't know how he put it together. Or what kind of deals he had to make with the neighbours.

The relevant question is- when the goblins were created, were they created in such numbers, and with such poor land, that there would be a massive die-off if they didn't raid their neighbours?

In short- was it a case of starvation or raiding?

If they were in that kind of position (plausible, since supposedly they were given all those disadvantages specifically to ensure they would start raiding their neighbours)- then their decision to live by raiding becomes easier to understand, if not condone.

(Of course, if Redcloak/The Dark One made the whole thing up, then it might not work that way. Still, from the behaviour of the gods in the Shojo crayon strips, and in their few appearences in the main strip, it seems not unrealistic that they put the newly created goblinoids in a position where they were forced to choose between starvation and raiding.)

[trmptfnfr]

Hey, did people forget that one time where he ordered the hobgoblins to take up celery arms, and cracker shields, and march towards a hungry enemy while covered in honey?

See, I think that classify him as evil without question.

[hamishspence]

Yup.

He might have began as an idealist, but he descended a long way. And his treatment of the hobgoblins was pretty appalling (even though he repented f his treatment of them, at the Battle of Azure City.)

Xykon's influence might be part of it:

Xykon: (sniff) "My little Redcloak- all grown up"

[Dark Matter]

The existance of the goblionid army doesn't count as "a gun to the head"- only if the army is assembled on the border, fully ready to go, would the parallel be exact.The parallel is what happens if the person on the other side says "No".

I.e. gun to the head means he dies.
The Snarl also means he dies (along with all of creation).
The Army of Darkness ALSO means he dies, along with every member of his kingdom.

If the situation is something other than that... then why does the army of Darkness even exist? Why did the Dark One make a neighbor threatening army 100x Azure's if the purpose wasn't to threaten his neighbors? Why is he following up on that by "asking" for things that normally change hands in war?

If Martians show up, point out that they could causally exterminate our race, and then state that the universe would be much "fairer" if they owned North America, do you think we should feel threatened? Would it really make us feel better if they pointed out that their death machine was at least two days away?


As to Right Eye's village- we don't know how he put it together. Or what kind of deals he had to make with the neighbours.The strong implication is that he just had to live with being poor and not be evil.


The relevant question is- when the goblins were created, were they created in such numbers, and with such poor land, that there would be a massive die-off if they didn't raid their neighbours? In short- was it a case of starvation or raiding?True, and given that RightEye couldn't raid and that Azure wouldn't put up with it, the answer is very clearly "No".


If they were in that kind of position (plausible, since supposedly they were given all those disadvantages specifically to ensure they would start raiding their neighbours)- then their decision to live by raiding becomes easier to understand, if not condone.You're ignoring the "usually evil" problem. I.e. that the guards don't need to whip the slaves, they just do it because it's funny.

According to SOD, they were made "usually evil" first, then they were given those other disadvantages later.

[hamishspence]

According to SOD, they were made "usually evil" first, then they were given those other disadvantages later.

It doesn't actually mention their alignment in the list of traits the various humanoid races were given.

[Dark Matter]

It doesn't actually mention their alignment in the list of traits the various humanoid races were given.I think that's part of the package considering they were created to be xp fodder for good clerics.

[pendell]

Hey, did people forget that one time where he ordered the hobgoblins to take up celery arms, and cracker shields, and march towards a hungry enemy while covered in honey?

See, I think that classify him as evil without question.

*Evil at the time*, yes. But he has since repented of his poor treatment of the hobgoblins. So I don't think we can hold that against him any more. His evilness comes from his recklessness and his mis-treatment of humans, elves, etc.

Makes me wonder if that could be a path to redemption. At the beginning of the story, Redcloak cared only about other goblins and considered hobgoblins fodder, to be exterminated and used for minion sacrifice at whim. He now considers hobgoblins 'people', and IIRC balked at the idea of zombifying them just a few strips ago.

If he can now make that leap towards humans and elves as well ... then he might be on the path towards lawful neutral, at least. But until then, he's still lawful evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Shale]

He has repented doing that to hobgoblins. He still considers mass murder an acceptable outcome for species he doesn't like, he's just moved orange-skinned goblins out of the "don't like" column.

[Dark Matter]

On a side note, just as we have to ask why the Army of Darkness exists, we also have to ask why The Plan does. Let's say the Dark One is only interested in the welfare of his people, just as RC has represented.

Now that they have Goblin-Utopia... why do they need The Plan? Couldn't the Dark One make some kind of deal with the other gods; something along the line of "you stay away from G-U and don't allow your Clerics to interfere and I'll drop The Plan?"

Of course any such deal would have to involve killing Xykon... but Xykon has a lot of goblin blood on his hands and it's a bit scary that he knows about the Snarl anyway.

It seems to me that there's room there for a true negotiation... if that's what he's interested in.

[JonestheSpy]

Well, yeah, that's been the subject of a lot of discussion: now that the Goblins have what the Dark One was working for when he was alive, do they need the Plan to ensure long term survival or not?

My pet theory is 'not', and it wouldn't surprise me to see Redcloak turn on Xykon, even allying with the good guys to defeat Xykon in return for guaruntees on non-aggression against Gobbotopia.

I'm also of the mind that when The Dark One said "Don't screw this up", he meant "Don't lose Gobbotopia in the process of pursuing the Plan".

[DeltaEmil]

Gobbotopia is an irrelevant and useless freebie in the divine eyes of the Dark One. That's why he still urges his chosen cleric to pursue the Plan, even although it can unmake all of the world with all the souls of the inhabitants should Redcloak or Xykon unleash the Snarl too soon.

No goblinoid matters for the Dark One. Only the Plan.

[hamishspence]

Gobbotopia is an irrelevant and useless freebie in the divine eyes of the Dark One. That's why he still urges his chosen cleric to pursue the Plan, even although it can unmake all of the world with all the souls of the inhabitants should Redcloak or Xykon unleash the Snarl too soon.

No goblinoid matters for the Dark One. Only the Plan.

Possible- but still just an opinion.

We don't actually know how much he feels about Gobbotopia- and his long spiel to Jirix about battles of diplomacy, trade, intrigue, etc, seems to suggest he considers it quite important (if Jirix is telling the truth.)

I wonder if those original goblins, created to be XP fodder, were actually evil in the first place, or became evil because it was a choice between that (committing evil acts such as theft to survive), and many of them starving?

Champions of Valor mentions this as one possible reason why goblins the party encounters might be evil "They could have become evil through starvation or the worship of evil gods"

Hence, the Good character in the party recommends not killing the goblin noncombatants, but helping them to become self-sufficient, in the hope that they will change their ways.

[Morithias]

I know this might be a long-shot that no one is expecting, and is kinda off topic, but what if the gods can't stop the snarl after it is released?

What if his plan 'works' but 'fails' due to the fact, that the snarl didn't just erase the planet and it's people, or even just the after, but the CREATORS THEMSELVES DESTROYING ALL OF EXISTENCE.

And as we know from Deities and Demigods....Gods have stats. If the deities are pissed off enough at the Dark One for doing what he did....It wouldn't surprise me if they had a 'slip' and had him get eaten by the Snarl, erasing the Goblin subtype from existence FOREVER.

He's dealing with a force that is almost as powerful as the deities themselves. Face it, he's way in over his head, regardless of how high his wisdom score is. The real-life equivalent of this would be the cold war. I set off a missile to try and take out someone whose oppressing me, and then thousands of missiles are flying and kaboom, no more human race. We're all gone, and as far as we know, there's no way we're coming back.

[Dark Matter]

I wonder if those original goblins, created to be XP fodder, were actually evil in the first place, or became evil because it was a choice between that (committing evil acts such as theft to survive), and many of them starving?

Champions of Valor mentions this as one possible reason why goblins the party encounters might be evil "They could have become evil through starvation or the worship of evil gods"Personally I think the whole starvation issue is a misread of cause and effect. I.e. starvation is usually the result of evil people doing evil things, not the cause. But that's mostly that's a distraction.

The real issue is:
Some people feel "usually evil" means "society forces them into it".
Others feel "usually evil" means "inherently predisposed to evil".

With humanity if you run into an "evil" city of humans, then the first line of thought is clearly correct. With other creatures, I'd argue the second should apply (or they'd be neutral). But I'm not the DM and he is the one who is always right.

If your DM is a member of the first school for goblins then you need to be careful about the "always evil" creatures too since you're likely to run into members that either are or could be redeemed.

So, which is true in Rich's world?

We've seen 'young and good' goblins decide they need to grow up and become evil. We've seen generic goblin guards mention that because they were a usually evil race, whipping the slaves is funny (and this is in a situation where 'starvation' is totally off the table). This tends to support the idea of the second school.

[Gitman00]

I know this might be a long-shot that no one is expecting, and is kinda off topic, but what if the gods can't stop the snarl after it is released?

What if his plan 'works' but 'fails' due to the fact, that the snarl didn't just erase the planet and it's people, or even just the after, but the CREATORS THEMSELVES DESTROYING ALL OF EXISTENCE.

And as we know from Deities and Demigods....Gods have stats. If the deities are pissed off enough at the Dark One for doing what he did....It wouldn't surprise me if they had a 'slip' and had him get eaten by the Snarl, erasing the Goblin subtype from existence FOREVER.

He's dealing with a force that is almost as powerful as the deities themselves. Face it, he's way in over his head, regardless of how high his wisdom score is. The real-life equivalent of this would be the cold war. I set off a missile to try and take out someone whose oppressing me, and then thousands of missiles are flying and kaboom, no more human race. We're all gone, and as far as we know, there's no way we're coming back.

That's very true, and the reason the cold war never got "hot," so to speak, is that the nuclear powers realized this, and no one ever achieved first strike capability, i.e. the ability to execute a nuclear strike before a retaliation can be launched. If someone had, a la Hunt for Red October, it might have turned out very differently.

The Snarl is actually more powerful than the gods; remember it took two of them out in the first round of combat. So yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if unleashing it does not have the effect the Dark One intends. I think it more likely, however, that the Dark One knows exactly what will happen, and it's very different than what Redcloak thinks.

[hamishspence]

With humanity if you run into an "evil" city of humans, then the first line of thought is clearly correct. With other creatures, I'd argue the second should apply (or they'd be neutral). But I'm not the DM and he is the one who is always right.


It could be both- with culture playing a big part. "inherent predisposition to evil"- is much more to do with Always X Evil than Usually X Evil.

If, in the current setting, most human societies were culturally biased toward Evil- humans would be a Usually Evil race- but that wouldn't mean they are inherently biased toward evil.

The same might apply to goblins. The MM doesn't make it clear how much of "Usually X evil" is culture and how much inheritance.

The PHB mentions, that, for example, despite both being Usually Lawful Evil, the inborn alignment tendency of kobolds is weaker than beholders.


PHB page 104: Normal sentient beings can be of any alignment. They may have inherent tendecies toward a particular alignment, but individuals can vary from this norm. Depending on the type of creature, these tendencies may be stronger or weaker. For example, kobolds and beholders are usually lawful evil, but kobolds display more variation in alignment than beholders because their inborn alignment tendency isn't as strong. Also, sentient creatures have cultural tendencies that usually reinforce alignment tendencies. For example, orcs tend to be chaotic evil, and their culture tends to produce chaotic evil members. A human raised among orcs is more likely than normal to be chaotic evil, whereas an orc raised among humans is less likely to be so.

[Dark Matter]

Meaning that a Beholder raised "human" would presumably still end up Lawful Evil.

On a side note, the societal impact of having a significant number of "born evil" citizens would be grim, and over time they'd move society over to their point of view.

Imagine that all goblins live in one of 200 RightEye-ish villages.
Everyone is a poor subsistence farmer or something similar.

Then one of the villages has a group of young men who don't like the idea of being poor or working hard for it so they take up raiding their fellow villages.
The heck of it is that this works. The Raiders are richer and better off than their fellow farmers, so they attract more followers and imitators.

Raiders get richer, farmers get poorer (or dead) as they're stolen from. Society as a whole goes down hill since the raiders aren't actually creating anything, they're just forcibly moving resources around and preventing others from acquiring resources. Then at some point there's not enough farmers to make sufficient food and their "poor quality of land" forces the raiders to seek out villages from other races.

By that point "usually evil" means "usually evil", and the solution isn't to give them better land, it's to kill raiders until they figure out it's not profitable.

[JonestheSpy]

Gobbotopia is an irrelevant and useless freebie in the divine eyes of the Dark One. That's why he still urges his chosen cleric to pursue the Plan, even although it can unmake all of the world with all the souls of the inhabitants should Redcloak or Xykon unleash the Snarl too soon.

No goblinoid matters for the Dark One. Only the Plan.

I don't think the story really backs up that point of view. Jirix is told by the Dark One that his job is to be a cunning diplomat and leader in order to build a strong goblin nation, and that his "battles" will all be peacetime ones. That certainly doesn't sound like someone who doesn't give a fig about the new nation.

As I said, I'm inclined to believe that his "Don't screw this up" message meant "Don't let pursuit of the Plan mess up what we've achieved". Really, it would be pretty hard for Redcloak to back out now - how do you think Xykon would react if he tried?

[DeltaEmil]

The Plan is above the wellbeing and success of Gobbotopia (as it can be reconquered by an alliance of elves and azurite ressurgent, and Gobbotopia will have none of the surrounding human nation ever going to assist them, not even Cliffport). As there is a big chance for Redcloak and Xykon to do some mistake and unleash the Snarl into the world without the Dark One being able to direct it towards one of the planes of the gods, and yet the Dark One still points his prophet to continue this plan, it absolutely proves that Gobbotopia is an irrelevant and useless freebie. Of course you're going to like such a nice thing, and you're going to care a little bit for it, but the ultimate goal is still to get control of a horrific abomination that can destroy an entire world in less than half a minute and kill an entire pantheon of elder gods. If all goblinoids and their souls are utterly annihilated beyond any possibility, then this is a small price for the Dark One.

[Morithias]

That's very true, and the reason the cold war never got "hot," so to speak, is that the nuclear powers realized this, and no one ever achieved first strike capability, i.e. the ability to execute a nuclear strike before a retaliation can be launched. If someone had, a la Hunt for Red October, it might have turned out very differently.

The Snarl is actually more powerful than the gods; remember it took two of them out in the first round of combat. So yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if unleashing it does not have the effect the Dark One intends. I think it more likely, however, that the Dark One knows exactly what will happen, and it's very different than what Redcloak thinks.

oooh and what if say a deity of creation like Ao or something saves redcloaks life, drains him of all his powers and then uses him as a basis to create a goblin race even more oppressed than the other one as 'your own personal hell'. A world where the genocide of goblins would never register as evil on ANY scale, and whenever a goblin is killed, another is automatically born fully grown.

It could just be an illusion world, but seriously if Redcloak was dumb enough to threaten me, and I was a deity powerful enough to do that, that would be the punishment I would give him. XD

[trmptfnfr]

*Evil at the time*, yes. But he has since repented of his poor treatment of the hobgoblins. So I don't think we can hold that against him any more. His evilness comes from his recklessness and his mis-treatment of humans, elves, etc.

Makes me wonder if that could be a path to redemption. At the beginning of the story, Redcloak cared only about other goblins and considered hobgoblins fodder, to be exterminated and used for minion sacrifice at whim. He now considers hobgoblins 'people', and IIRC balked at the idea of zombifying them just a few strips ago.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Actually I'm fairly certain that we CAN hold his enjoyment of pointless cruelty against him. :smallsmile:

[Morithias]

I question if he repented the killing of the hobgoblins. He might admit his mistake, but as far as I can see, nothing short of an atonement spell will get you off the hook for willing murder.

[TheYoungKing]

I question if he repented the killing of the hobgoblins. He might admit his mistake, but as far as I can see, nothing short of an atonement spell will get you off the hook for willing murder.

A spell makes less sense for moral culpability, actually.

[hamishspence]

Unless you're taking the Champions of Valor approach, where the spell itself isn't necessary- its the change of attitude, and the acts that prove that attitude has truly changed.

That said, depending on the DM, the atonement process may take a lot of work. Redcloak might have to travel to the Outer Planes and apologize to everyone he's killed, for example. As well as doing some kind of heroic quest.

There is precedent for the spell itself not being required, but as a general rule, it requires acts of atonement. In FC2 for example, if your corruption rating is low, you just require the acts, but if it's high, you generally require the acts and the spell.

And currently, Redcloak's corruption rating is probably in the hundreds.