The Redemption of Redcloak

[Endon the White]

Over the course of the comic, Redcloak has become one of the deepest and dynamic characters in the series. From his crusade in SoD, to his recent founding of Gobbotopia, Redcloak has been desperate to fulfill his dream of equality of all who belong to the goblin race. Seemingly a noble goal, but Redcloak has been willing to commit many atrocious acts of evil to further his cause. Among them, torturing O-Chul, killing Right-Eye, enslaving the population of Azure City, wasting the lives of countless hobgoblins because of a childish prejudice, and, of course, continued affiliation with the lich Xykon.

In many ways, his character is similar to Anakin Skywalker. Both started as young and impressionable. Both had disaster tear apart their lives, and both pledged themselves to a seemingly noble cause. Both killed a friend in their crusade. And, in time, both became slaves to a much greater evil, committing unspeakable acts daily in the pursuit of their personal utopia. For Anakin, a galaxy at peace, with no war or strife.For Redcloak, the equality of the goblin race. Both became addicted to their visions, and became the very incarnation of evil, executing, enslaving, and torturing.

But, despite his evil deeds, Anakin did find redemption. He was able to cast off his vision of the future, and atoned for his sins with greatest sacrifice one can make.

And now I can't help but ask, is it too late for Redcloak to find his way to the light?

[TriForce]

Over the course of the comic, Redcloak has become one of the deepest and dynamic characters in the series. From his crusade in SoD, to his recent founding of Gobbotopia, Redcloak has been desperate to fulfill his dream of equality of all who belong to the goblin race. Seemingly a noble goal, but Redcloak has been willing to commit many atrocious acts of evil to further his cause. Among them, torturing O-Chul, killing Right-Eye, enslaving the population of Azure City, wasting the lives of countless hobgoblins because of a childish prejudice, and, of course, continued affiliation with the lich Xykon.

In many ways, his character is similar to Anakin Skywalker. Both started as young and impressionable. Both had disaster tear apart their lives, and both pledged themselves to a seemingly noble cause. And, in time, both became slaves to a much greater evil, committing unspeakable acts daily in the pursuit of their personal utopia. For Anakin, a galaxy at peace, with no war or strife.For Redcloak, the equality of the goblin race. Both became addicted to their visions, and became the very incarnation of evil, executing, enslaving, and torturing.

But, despite his evil deeds, Anakin did find redemption. He was able to cast off his vision of the future, and atoned for his sins with greatest sacrifice one can make.

And now I can't help but ask, is it too late for Redcloak to find his way to the light?


Keep dreaming :) the only redemption he will find is in death :)

[Endon the White]

Just like Anakin. Redemption is Redemption, whether it comes at the end or not.

[Draconi Redfir]

perhaps he could find redemption the same way Anikan did. a close relitive of his (i.e. his neice) is in danger of being killed by Xylon, and in a desperate attempt to save her, he destroys Xylon once an for all, possibly getting mortaly wounded somehow, dieing in his neices arms as he begs for forgiveness.


then his neice goes to gobotopia to be adopted by Jirix, the whole "plan" issue crumbles as both redcloak and Xylon are dead, Gobbotopia remains a peaceful Goblinoid naition under the rule of Jirix and Redcloaks neice, and eavryone who isent Tuski lives happily ever after.

[veti]

This has been speculated about a lot. Search the forum for "Redcloak redemption".

My $0.02: of course it could happen. The reasons to believe that it's likely to happen, though - those are pretty thin on the ground. Redcloak doesn't have the guts to turn on Xykon, and he has (so far) no motivation to abandon the Dark One.

I don't like comparing Redcloak to Anakin, because I think the OOTS is a vastly deeper and more complex story than Star Wars will ever be. We've already been given more insight into Reddy's character than we got into Anakin's in six movies.

[Herald Alberich]

then his neice goes to gbotopia to be adopted by Jirix, the whole "plan" issue crumbles as both redcloak and Xylon are dead, Gobbotopia remains a peaceful Goblinoid naition under the rule of Jirix and Redcloaks neice, and eavryone who isent Tuski lives happily ever after.

What about the remaining Azurites who want their city back? Someone would have to convince them to be happy with the island.

[denthor]

Not possible the Dark one himself said "don't screw this up"

No redcloak must fail utterly and completely.

[Katana_Geldar]

I was thinking Redcloak was similar to Vader as well, particularly that moment in SoD when he...

...kills Right-Eye and then Xykon explains to him that they have to work together as Xykon is the only one who will excuse what he did and go along with The Plan

But I do not think Redcloak can ever be redeemed and live. He has gone too far with The Plan and sacrificed too much to be willing to go back on it now. And if he betrays Xykon, well...

I would like to see The Plan come crashing down like a house of cards and Redcloak running around screaming "It's not my fault!" yet again.

Remember what Soon said to Miko: redemption is a very special thing and not for everyone, and you have to admit that you could have been wrong.

Redcloak has too much pride to admit that he is wrong, at least right now. He convinces himself that it is all worth it.

[Jagos]

Not possible the Dark one himself said "don't screw this up"

No redcloak must fail utterly and completely.

Redemption doesn't mean he can't fail. It may mean he realizes his mission in life without being a child who lost his mother so long ago.

[JonestheSpy]

Over the course of the comic, Redcloak has become one of the deepest and dynamic characters in the series.

I gotta agree with this. Redcloak became my favorite character after reading SoD. He's got a tragic depth no one else comes close to, really.

Instead of old Vader, I see him resembling Elric of Melnibone. An idealist who ends up allying himself with incredible evil for what he believes are good reasons, and thereby being drawn into horror after horror, with everyone he cares for dying around him.

Will he be 'redeemed'? Impossible to predict, of course. I do think he's eventually going to realize that Xykon's goals and his are irreconcilable. My little pet theory is that Durkon will perish before the series ends (probably battling Xykon), and Redcloak will take his place as the OotS 's cleric - not because of any huge shift in perspective or anything, but in common cause against Xykon.

[Draconi Redfir]

What about the remaining Azurites who want their city back? Someone would have to convince them to be happy with the island.

well who WOULDENT want to live in some awsome Elvin ruins? i mean you baisicly got the same scenario, sun, sand, sea, ETC. they just have some ruins to fix up, and a whole lotta blue paint to buy, and its just like home!


and like i said before, its possible he will only get redemption shortly before his own death, (i.e. saveing his neice from the evil clutches of Xylon.)

[Procyonpi]

I've never been one of those people to believe that "Redcloak is good, despite, all the evil things he's done (like, say risking the unmaking of every soul in the OOTSverse on a crazy plan to blackmail the gods into giving him what he wants) Because he cares about Goblins and His village got wiped out by Paladins in SoD.

However, I definitely see Redcloak as redeemable, and having a similar character type to Vader. Actually, I'd rate Redcloak as LESS evil than Vader, due to the fact that Vader actually used his doomsday device on a peaceful planet (please don't give me the argument that that was all Tarkin, because Vader totally would have stopped it if he didn't approve), and Vader has a habit of choking to death minions who screw up once or twice, whereas Redcloak? He doesn't.

[factotum]

Just like Anakin. Redemption is Redemption, whether it comes at the end or not.

Bad example, because in my opinion Anakin never redeemed himself. Yes, he killed the Emperor--an Emperor who was only in power partially through his own actions--but before he did that he killed most of the Jedi Order, INCLUDING CHILDREN. Sorry, you need to do a heck of a lot more to redeem yourself from a past that includes killing young children than kill one guy.

[Procyonpi]

Bad example, because in my opinion Anakin never redeemed himself. Yes, he killed the Emperor--an Emperor who was only in power partially through his own actions--but before he did that he killed most of the Jedi Order, INCLUDING CHILDREN. Sorry, you need to do a heck of a lot more to redeem yourself from a past that includes killing young children than kill one guy.

You're using a strict-rule-based system pf alignment as sum of good and evil acts to analyze a narrative scenario in a non-RPG setting, when the whole point of that entire sequence was the power of redemption. The whole point of that scene was that even a character who had done as much evil as Vader could realize the error in there ways, and by truly working to undo the evil they had done, redeem themselves, even if they die before they balance some cosmic account of good and evil acts.

The whole view that alignment is the exact sum of your actions is one of the biggest flaws of the DnD alignment system as it often plays. Your good or evil intent* at the present time is a big factor, and while your actions count, it isn't a perfect mathematical equation - good and evil are qualitative, not quantitative.

*By this, I mean weather what your character's goals are are good or evil, not weather you think you are good or evil. Hence "enslaving the world for their own good can't be spun as good, because slavery and world subjugation are evil. Furthermore, if your means to your goal are substantially evil, enacting the means counts as another goal, making you still evil. So Vader/ Anakin, In my opinion, turned back to good at the end, even if he couldn't undo ALL the bad he had done.

Edit: I do, however, almost have a problem with using the Anakin example because the only times we see him pre-Vader in the movies, he's a pretty shallow and compelling character played by either Jake Lloyd or Hayden Christensen, making the pre-evil "Good" Anakin a less compelling character than the Original trilogy's Darth Vader. When analyzing the original trilogy for literary merit, I'll often exclude the prequels, because let's face it, most of the literary merit of the prequels is negative.

[RMcMurtry]

Redcloak was never in the light. He's been the willing servant of an evil god for decades. To cross over, he'll need to abandon the Dark One in favor of a positive life for goblinkind--and he's even less likely to do that than he is to turn on Xykon.

[Qubanz]

I'm not actually a huge believer in redemption.

I think there is a point where redemption becomes impossible, and Redcloak crossed that line. I think he's an interesting villain, but he's a villain far as I'm concerned, not some type of anti-hero. (V would qualify for anti-hero though, but that's just me.) And ultimately, I think it means he should die. He could do something before that happens that might be considered redeeming, but I really don't know if it'd redeem him in my eyes. I doubt it, I'm not that forgiving.

Redcloak... I think he's an well-rounded character with goals and everything. But I don't think he's really too sympathetic. He's an evil character through and through in the way he pursues his goal. And frankly his species really does seem to be all evil. If they are not, that needs to be shown, and as it is they seem to just reap what they are sowing, which prevents me from having too much sympathy for them. And Redcloak... I like him as a character in the sense that he adds an interesting element to the story, but not really as a PERSON.

Generally, if I'm to have sympathy for anything, there needs to be some general good shown. And Redcloak doesn't have that. He only cares about goblins, and originally only about the green goblins too, given that a hobgoblin had to die for him first before he considered them worthy. To be honest, it makes me actually kind of take Xykon's side whenever Xykon mocks him, because I'd have to say that Redcloak can be kind of full of it, in the sense that he considers himself to be good, but he clearly isn't. I mean... every brutal dictator ever considered themselves good and doing what's best for their people too. And the thing about Xykon is... Xykon is at least unapologetically evil. (And funny about it for that matter.) I prefer that to someone saying they are good and doing evil things.

[hamishspence]

And frankly his species really does seem to be all evil. If they are not, that needs to be shown, and as it is they seem to just reap what they are sowing, which prevents me from having too much sympathy for them.

It was shown- in SoD. Right Eye's village.

Plus, even in the Monster Manual, goblins are "Usually neutral evil" not "Always evil (any)"

[Fallbot]

Remember what Soon said to Miko: redemption is a very special thing and not for everyone, and you have to admit that you could have been wrong.


Given the way Redcloak and Miko have been compared in-comic before, Redcloak finding redemption and admitting he was wrong would be an interesting contrast with Miko's inability to do the same. Don't know if this will happen, or even if it should, just throwing it out there.

[factotum]

You're using a strict-rule-based system pf alignment as sum of good and evil acts to analyze a narrative scenario in a non-RPG setting, when the whole point of that entire sequence was the power of redemption. The whole point of that scene was that even a character who had done as much evil as Vader could realize the error in there ways, and by truly working to undo the evil they had done, redeem themselves, even if they die before they balance some cosmic account of good and evil acts.


I'm not doing anything of the kind. I'm basing this on my own opinion. Right up until the massacre of the Jedi children I was perfectly happy with Anakin's big "killing the Emperor" scene being a redemption, but after that point I no longer thought it was good enough. It's one of things I dislike about the Star Wars prequels--to my mind, they spent so much effort showing how deeply Anakin fell into evil that they forgot he was supposed to be somehow redeemable by killing Palpatine at the end of Episode VI!

[megabyter5]

Just my one chicken, but I'd be willing to bet that the Giant will continue building up to a dramatic heel face turn... And then not do it. He loves to mess with our dramatic expectations, which may very well include major ones like this. Confused? Look at the "trade goods" table in the equipment chapter of the PHB. And no sending PMs about how you don't have one, it's probably in the SRD too.

[BaronOfHell]

I think one should consider a very important difference between our world and 'their' world.

In their world, the people know that death isn't any kind of last "thing", in our world, we don't know, and the risk of it being so, makes it, partly, so.

I think that's also why the snarl is so extreme extra fearful, had it merely "killed" (by the terms of the game world), people would be sent to heaven/hell and thereby still be living, though here alive as defined by our worlds view.

No, as I understand it, the Snarl actually destroyes the soul, not the body (maybe the body as well, I don't know), and therefore, it's truely (if information presented so far can be considered true, which I doubt) the worst imaginable thing, in my opinion.

Now with that said, it means all people do in this world, when they kill eachother, is they basicly transport them to another plane, and ressurect transports them back.

Sure it's not an okay act, just as it's nok okay if I force anyone to be transported to Sheffield, if they don't want to and cut them off from any contact with their former associates (people they know).

So all in all, all I can say is that life goes on, redemption does not really matter much in this world, if red cloak fails or not, unless destroyed by the snarl, he'll still live on, on another plane after all of this, and basicly could ask himself, why should he care?

The good thing about red cloak though, is that, he actually do care, which if anything, to me, shows him as a good, yet deluded, guy.

I see it very much like this. Xykon and Red Cloak, in a world of no true death, are in an attempt to rule the world, going to risk putting true death into it.

Imagine, if we in our world all were immortal, yet someone, who wanted to control all of us, found a way to make everyone mortal, and in return for not doing so, they'd want to control us, but still risking releasing mortality.

All in all, I think red cloak fights for a cause "less worthy" than what he risks setting up in the world. The equality and freedom of goblins are of course important, but remember, there're 3 stages of existance:
1: Consciousness
2: Free will
3: Freedom

And he's about to risk 1: to get 3:, which I think is a messed up priority. Not that it makes him evil, only deluded in my opinion.

[Saph]

Yeah, I can't really see it happening either. The problem is that unlike Anakin, Redcloak's never shown the slightest desire to be a good person in the first place.

[TreesOfDeath]

Yeah I think it will happen, and result in Redclok dying/being out right destroyed. Tsukko is another divine caster and a powerful Chekovs gun was laid.

SOD SPOILERS Xykon casting suggestion on the MITD to eat Redcloak if he turned on him
Something I don't think the Giant would place without a reason.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, I can't really see it happening either. The problem is that unlike Anakin, Redcloak's never shown the slightest desire to be a good person in the first place.

In SoD, he does consider settling down, becoming a good citizen of Right-Eye's village, and dumping the plan altogether.

Then Xykon turns up.

[Saph]

In SoD, he does consider settling down, becoming a good citizen of Right-Eye's village, and dumping the plan altogether.

Considering settling down does not equal wanting to be a good person. To even get close to the Good alignment, Redcloak is going to have to start valuing non-goblin life, and he's definitely not headed in that direction at the moment.

[Pronounceable]

I dislike the idea of comparing Reddy to some whiny asshat without a single awesome bone who also isn't the slightest bit sympathetic. Comparing him to a renowned badass of legendary proportions is OK tho.

Consciously avoiding the craptastic bovine manure that passes for redemption in SW, I can see Reddy turning against Xykon somewhere along the line. That does not mean he'd be repentant or redemptive, just finally realizing that Xykon by himself poses as big a threat to goblinkind as PC races' prejudice (not to mention to everyone else in the world, but Reddy cares nothing for that). Alas, I doubt that'll work as Xykon is too much of a butch to be the victim to a bitch. But probably his betrayal will ultimately cause the downfall of Xykon.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak's case is a frontal attack to all the D&D alignment system.

He is the primary example of "something can be good from the goblin point of view, but is still evil".

Or, as he himself put it, "we are the evil side, as opposed to those who choose to call themselves good".

Sure, Redcloak doesn't give a damn about human lives. But neither the humans give a damn about goblin lives, and they are "good".

...

However, the main problem with Redcloak, is that he is evil even from a Goblin point of view. He started good, taking the mantle, fighting for a better future for the goblinkind, carring on the Plan because of this...

Then he meet Xykon.

And Xykon sucked him in, more and more.

And Redcloak refused several chances to break free from him.

Azure City, was a relief for Redcloak. For a while, he had the guts to stand to Xykon and feed him sh*t in order to convince him to stay in the City a bit longer. He took thus a great risk in order to be able to consolidate Hobgoblin power. Acted like a fair ruler for his people. Became what he was supposed to have been all along.

Then V broke in, and woke up Xykon. The dream was over. Redcloak was again Xykon's bitch.

And he paid for having got a moment of dignity, by permanently losing an eye.

...

Redcloak big test will come when he is forced again to choose between boot-licking Xykon or opposing him in order to protect the Goblins.

Gobbtopia may be the Catalyst.

His niece a distant second. She looks like a Chekov's Gun, but we have never heard about her again. Her survival may have been just a way to relieve tragic pressure from SoD, by allowing at least one of Right-Eye's children to survive.

But, whatever the catalyst, when that moment comes, Redcloak will redeem himself by opposing Xykon (and probably die), or may definitely damnate himself by boot-liking again (and probably die).

This is the question for me, if Redcloak will die like a Real Goblin, or will die like just Xykon's bitch.

[Draconi Redfir]

Considering settling down does not equal wanting to be a good person. To even get close to the Good alignment, Redcloak is going to have to start valuing non-goblin life, and he's definitely not headed in that direction at the moment.

It IS possible to be a good person, yet still be a spiciest you know.


Lets say that every day, retired redcloak goes out and feeds homeless bugbears, plays with the orphaned goblinoid children, visits the goblinoid elderly, hosts charitable and festive calibrations to bring food to starving hobgoblins in the mountains, ETC. but he still hates non-goblinoids. Is he evil?

IMO its all a point of view, if your a goblinoid, he would be a saint, if your not a goblinoid, then you might see him as a monster, just because he rudely yelled at you to stop looking at him while he planted his vegetable garden.

[hamishspence]

Even Right Eye, who managed to build a village that lived in peace with humans for a while, seems to have a certain distaste for them.

"She's out there being raised by humans, or worse, because of that madman!"

[Saph]

It IS possible to be a good person, yet still be a spiciest you know.

Really? So a human character who kills every non-human he encounters is good in your books, just as long as he's nice to humans?

If it's wrong for the Azure City troops to commit evil acts against the goblins of Redcloak's village, then it's wrong for Redcloak's army to commit evil acts against the humans of Azure City. You don't get to have it both ways, and saying that it's "all a point of view" is just flat-out wrong. Good and Evil are objective in D&D, and Redcloak is on the Evil side - not because of his race, but because of his own choices.

[Kish]

It IS possible to be a good person, yet still be a [speciesist] you know.
The Player's Handbook alignment descriptions would seem to disagree.

[kamikasei]

To even get close to the Good alignment, Redcloak is going to have to start valuing non-goblin life, and he's definitely not headed in that direction at the moment.


IMO its all a point of view, if your a goblinoid, he would be a saint, if your not a goblinoid, then you might see him as a monster, just because he rudely yelled at you to stop looking at him while he planted his vegetable garden.

If hypothetical!Redcloak hates humans but wouldn't kill them without a thought, then he could be non-evil. If his hatred means he kills people simply for being human, he's evil no matter how nice he is to his neighbours.

[Draconi Redfir]

Really? So a human character who kills every non-human he encounters is good in your books, just as long as he's nice to humans?


ok let me rephraise that:

its possible for someone who isent a murdering psycopath to be a good persion and a spiciesist.


i highly doubt Redcloak would kill a human he ran into out on the street unless the human acted out against him first. otherwise, the most the human would get would be a scowl behidn their back.



If hypothetical!Redcloak hates humans but wouldn't kill them without a thought, then he could be non-evil. If his hatred means he kills people simply for being human, he's evil no matter how nice he is to his neighbours.


again, i highly doubt he would kil la human just for being a human. otherwise, you 100% right.

[Saph]

i highly doubt Redcloak would kill a human he ran into out on the street unless the human acted out against him first. otherwise, the most the human would get would be a scowl behidn their back.

Who cares? He's committed more than enough Evil acts to flip the needles on any alignment scale you could possibly use. If the best you can say about him is that he "wouldn't kill a human just for being a human" then the fact that you need to use such low standards should be a pretty big hint.

[Kish]

ok let me rephraise that:

its possible for someone who isent a murdering psycopath to be a good persion and a spiciesist.
I think you're handing out the Good alignment too lightly there. It's possible for someone who isn't a murdering psychopath but is extremely and actively prejudiced against X group of sapient beings to be a Neutral person. Good people are rare and special.

[hamishspence]

The Player's Handbook alignment descriptions would seem to disagree.

The PHB also states that a good character does not have to be good in every respect- they can occasionally do morally dubious things and still be good.

Judging creatures by their race is strongly associated with Lawful Evil alignments- but it's not solely associated with them.

"speciecism" or "bigotry" as it's usually called in D&D sources, is a trait almost anyone can have. Elves can be bigoted against humans, and so on.

It's when that bigotry leads into overtly evil deeds, that it becomes a sign of an Evil alignment.

That said, redemption-wise, Redcloak has a long way to go to even reach Neutral.

[Torick]

I gotta agree with this. Redcloak became my favorite character after reading SoD. He's got a tragic depth no one else comes close to, really.

Instead of old Vader, I see him resembling Elric of Melnibone. An idealist who ends up allying himself with incredible evil for what he believes are good reasons, and thereby being drawn into horror after horror, with everyone he cares for dying around him.

Will he be 'redeemed'? Impossible to predict, of course. I do think he's eventually going to realize that Xykon's goals and his are irreconcilable. My little pet theory is that Durkon will perish before the series ends (probably battling Xykon), and Redcloak will take his place as the OotS 's cleric - not because of any huge shift in perspective or anything, but in common cause against Xykon.

I agree with your assessment of Redcloak, and I like this theory - with Durkon being a relatively undeveloped, generic character (there was a sprinkling of development for him in On the Origin of PCs, but not enough to really pull him much away from the stereotypical dwarven cleric) and the Oracle having given Durkon a death sentence (admittedly on a vaguer timeline than Belkar's, but a death sentence nonetheless), it's one that I would classify as one of the likelier of our speculative theories around here.

It would be an interesting twist, as well - if there's any route to Redcloak's living redemption possible, it would be difficult to come up with a better route than following the Order around for a little while: consider their familiarity with the Gates but not necessarily the Plan, the Order's heavy association with paladins and particularly the remnants of the Sapphire Guard (providing a chance for the two sides to see eye to eye, rather than viewing each other as simply targets on a battlefield), and of course the mutual hatred of Xykon which involves a lot of personal grudges.

It would also provide one clear opportunity for a plot twist: consider that the Plan requires an arcane caster, and if Redcloak were to join with the Order, that would leave...V. Who's already been tempted successfully by extreme offers of power, and who owes a few powerful devils his/her soul for a few yet-to-be-determined minutes, which could serve as extremely unopportune (or opportune, depending on which side you're batting for) if V and Redcloak end up in a situation where they could either protect a gate, or try to harness its power.

That's an interesting idea - certainly food for thought, and one of the more potential plot-rich speculations I've seen around here.

[Torick]

I'm not doing anything of the kind. I'm basing this on my own opinion. Right up until the massacre of the Jedi children I was perfectly happy with Anakin's big "killing the Emperor" scene being a redemption, but after that point I no longer thought it was good enough. It's one of things I dislike about the Star Wars prequels--to my mind, they spent so much effort showing how deeply Anakin fell into evil that they forgot he was supposed to be somehow redeemable by killing Palpatine at the end of Episode VI!

I think we might be operating using different ideas of 'redemption' - some of which may be fueled by the odd, attrition-like system of morality encouraged by D&D rules.

When I think of Redcloak as redeemable, I'm simply thinking of a genuine change of heart. Far from requiring some quota of dead bad guys to match the good guys he's killed, or some other quantified barometer of good acts versus evil acts, it doesn't even require any actions at all - a good deed inconsistent with his previous evil morality is simply the device the author could use to illustrate or demonstrate the change of heart to us. Repayment is another issue altogether, as is the acceptance of the new leaf turned by other characters in the story, but redemption is rarely impossible, provided that one is capable of coming up with a convincing plot element that would convince the character to change their ways.

(P.S. - I'm unimpressed with Anakin's 'redemption' as well, but for other reasons - both his fall and his 'redemption' were motivated by simple family instincts - he went mad after his wife died, and then he went mad a second time after he was faced with the idea of killing his son. No sympathy for all the innocent and unrelated people he'd hurt and killed, or the democracies he'd ruined, etc., ever crossed his mind - his entire struggle was him reacting emotionally to threatened family members.)

[hamishspence]

(P.S. - I'm unimpressed with Anakin's 'redemption' as well, but for other reasons - both his fall and his 'redemption' were motivated by simple family instincts - he went mad after his wife died, and then he went mad a second time after he was faced with the idea of killing his son. No sympathy for all the innocent and unrelated people he'd hurt and killed, or the democracies he'd ruined, etc., ever crossed his mind - his entire struggle was him reacting emotionally to threatened family members.)

It's closer to:

"he feared that his wife would die- was offered a chance to avert her doom- and decided he'd take it, no matter how vile the actions needed to get the power to save her were"

Then of course, she died anyway. With her discovery of his actions, and his attack on her, being a part of the reason she simply gave up the ghost.

Similar principle may apply to his saving of Luke and killing of the Emperor.

If you take the approach that he knew that he would die if he acted (EU novels do have the Emperor point out, not long after he got the suit in the first place, that Sith lightning would short it out, and kill him) then it becomes an act of willing self-sacrifice.

Which may be a bit better.

[Draconi Redfir]

I think you're handing out the Good alignment too lightly there. It's possible for someone who isn't a murdering psychopath but is extremely and actively prejudiced against X group of sapient beings to be a Neutral person. Good people are rare and special.


i never said "good aligned" i said "good PERSON" there is a diffrence.

[The Pilgrim]

Really? So a human character who kills every non-human he encounters is good in your books, just as long as he's nice to humans?

Isn't this what adventurers do for a living?

[hamishspence]

It's also not very clear how rare and special Good people are. PHB: "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" may imply that Good, Evil and Neutral are very roughly balanced, and that humans aren't a "Often Good", "Often Neutral", or "Often Evil" race.

If over 40% of humans were LN, N, and CN, that would make them an Often Neutral (any) race.

Though I suppose, that you could have 39% be Neutral, 39% Evil, and 22% Good, and still be able to say "Humans aren't Often X alignment."


i never said "good aligned" i said "good PERSON" there is a diffrence.

That said, O-Chul refers to the Monster in the Darkness as "a good person" even if the Monster seems more Neutral than Good, so it may be that some Neutral people qualify as "good with a small G" but not "Good with a capital G".

[Kish]

i never said "good aligned" i said "good PERSON" there is a diffrence.
What is the value of there being a difference?

[Torick]

What is the value of there being a difference?

Miko.

:smallcool:

[Torick]

It's closer to:

"he feared that his wife would die- was offered a chance to avert her doom- and decided he'd take it, no matter how vile the actions needed to get the power to save her were"

Then of course, she died anyway. With her discovery of his actions, and his attack on her, being a part of the reason she simply gave up the ghost.

Similar principle may apply to his saving of Luke and killing of the Emperor.

If you take the approach that he knew that he would die if he acted (EU novels do have the Emperor point out, not long after he got the suit in the first place, that Sith lightning would short it out, and kill him) then it becomes an act of willing self-sacrifice.

Which may be a bit better.

Meh. Same diff - his whole "maybe siding with the Empire wasn't such a good idea" had no basis in all the massacred people on the planet he blew up, or the random guards he executed just because he was mad, or the Jedi children he rampaged through - it was purely rooted in the Emperor trying to make him kill his son. Point being he never really redeemed himself for all the horrible stuff he did, prequels or no prequels - he just proved he could be manipulated by familial emotions a second time.

[Souhiro]

Welll,the TRUE evil, the only who missed his own mind at this point, is The Dark One. He is more than willingly to unleash the Snarl and undo the creation.

With his fellow goblins inside.

You know, even if I were a super-genious, and were able to clone my loved ones, I never would let they to die in an horribly way, just because I would able to clone'em a lot of times after their deads. But that is likely the "contingency plan" for the Dark One.

So quit screwing, the paladins are right: The crimsom mantle is a threat to the very existence. The Crimson Mantle must be destroyed, it's bearer must be burned alive, and the Dark One forgotten, so he would lose the faith of his followers (the source of his godly powers) and the OotS-verse would be safe again.

[Draconi Redfir]

Isn't this what adventurers do for a living?

this my freinds, is a VERY good point.


What is the value of there being a difference?

well an evil overlord can still love his children, and take care of his community, he just dose so while still nukeing his enemies.


likewise, a good-aligned policeman who has saved his city from thousands of criminals, can still be a drinker and a beater.

[Deme]

Even Right Eye, who managed to build a village that lived in peace with humans for a while, seems to have a certain distaste for them.

"She's out there being raised by humans, or worse, because of that madman!"

Having a distaste for someone's species and having no respect for someone's life because of their species is two different things, though. Good is not always nice, and so forth. I could argue for a Good race-or-species-ist, provided he was not so extreme that his beliefs devalued their lives and made hurting them (without proof of evil and immediate threat, ala standard adventuring rules) OK.

[hamishspence]

it was purely rooted in the Emperor trying to make him kill his son. Point being he never really redeemed himself for all the horrible stuff he did, prequels or no prequels - he just proved he could be manipulated by familial emotions a second time.

Technically, the Emperor was the one trying to kill Luke, he wasn't trying to make Vader do it.

In the book The Rise And Fall of Darth Vader (by Ryder Windham) Anakin does think he was "beyond redemption":


Closing his eyes as he slumped back againt the shuttle ramp, Anakin Skywalker had every reason to believe he was finally about to embrace perpetual darkness.

Not for the first time, he was wrong.

Initially, there was darkness for Anakin Skywalker, a boundless shadowy realm, like a universe without stars. But then, from somewhere at the edge of his awareness, he perceived a distant, shimmering light, then heard a voice say, Anakin.

The voice was familiar.

Although Anakin no longer had a body or mouth with which to speak, he somehow answered, Obi-Wan? Master, I'm so sorry. So very very -

Anakin, listen carefully, Obi-Wan interrupted, and Anakin was aware that the distant light was either growing brighter or closer, or perhaps both. You are in the netherworld of the Force, but if you ever wish to revisit corporeal space, then I still have one thing left to teach you. A way to become one with the force, If you choose this path to immortality, then you must listen now, before your conciousness fades.

Knowing he was beyond redemption, Anakin said, But Master ... why me?

Because you ended the horror, Anakin, Obi-Wan said. Because you fulfilled the prophesy.

The light was very bright now.

Anakin's first thought was that he might be able to see his children again. He said, Thank you, Master.

[Kish]

well an evil overlord can still love his children, and take care of his community, he just dose so while still nukeing his enemies.

And he's neither "a good person" nor "good-aligned." No distinction there.


likewise, a good-aligned policeman who has saved his city from thousands of criminals, can still be a drinker and a beater.
And a beater--you mean someone who beats his wife and children (if any)? 'Cause if you do, I'd have to say the assertion that said policeman is Neutral would be extremely controversial, and the assertion that he's Good-aligned jumps all the way to preposterous. Neither is he a good person.

Again. What's the value of a distinction between "Good-aligned" and "good person"?

[Draconi Redfir]

a "good aligned" persion is someone who fights the forces of evil, dose what is best for himself and the world, and commits no crimes.


a "good person" is someone who loves his children, loves his wife, ETC. even if he commits crimes and frequently dose bad things in order to protect and care for them. (i.e. robin hood, he was a murderer, a theif, and an outlaw, yet pepole call HIM a good person becuse he gave the money he stole to the poor.)

[hamishspence]

(i.e. robin hood, he was a murderer, a theif, and an outlaw, yet pepole call HIM a good person becuse he gave the money he stole to the poor.)

Some people. Others consider this version of him more a villain than a hero.

Depends on whether you think of him as taking the wealth greedy villains have looted from the poor, and returned it to the victims, or not.

[Kish]

I didn't ask, "What do you consider to be the distinction?"--though I might have gotten to that point. I asked what the value of the distinction was. What--other than making people look at you funny--is the point of saying that someone who loves his/her family but is otherwise a terrible person is a "good person"?

[hamishspence]

Having a distaste for someone's species and having no respect for someone's life because of their species is two different things, though. Good is not always nice, and so forth. I could argue for a Good race-or-species-ist, provided he was not so extreme that his beliefs devalued their lives and made hurting them (without proof of evil and immediate threat, ala standard adventuring rules) OK.

David Gemmell's Druss the Legend may be a good example. He is a little bigoted against the Nadir and Chiatze "They don't think like us" but he's also brave and heroic, and not the type to turn away from people being attacked unjustly- whatever their race.


a "good person" is someone who loves his children, loves his wife, ETC. even if he commits crimes and frequently dose bad things in order to protect and care for them.

If you consider splatbooks valid for representing various types of evil NPC, some Evil characters may fall into this category.

Savage Species:


Evil characters are still people. Even bad guys have feelings, emotions, and loyalties. This means that it is just as possible to play a well rounded character who happens to be evil as one who happens to be neutral or good. An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant, without diminishing their villainy in any way, this merely reflects they way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups.

[Dark Matter]

It's also not very clear how rare and special Good people are. PHB: "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" may imply that Good, Evil and Neutral are very roughly balanced, and that humans aren't a "Often Good", "Often Neutral", or "Often Evil" race.

If over 40% of humans were LN, N, and CN, that would make them an Often Neutral (any) race.

Though I suppose, that you could have 39% be Neutral, 39% Evil, and 22% Good, and still be able to say "Humans aren't Often X alignment."How about "it varies from generation to generation"?

Translation: Genetics has very little impact on humanities alignment (as a whole, Xykon might have been born evil)... but society does.

[hamishspence]

Could be. (PHB does point out that a human raised by orcs is more likely to be CE than they would otherwise be).


Question is, averaged across the world as a whole, what proportion of D&D human NPCs would one expect to be Neutral, and what Good?

Some people take the view that Goodness is rare- maybe 5% of D&D humans are Good, or less.

Others think it's a bit commoner than that.

[Dark Matter]

Could be. Question is, averaged across the world as a whole, what proportion of D&D human NPCs would one expect to be Neutral, and what Good?Depends on what political systems the DM has created. If the dominate human society is neutral, then the majority of humans will be. If it's evil, then ditto.

Alternatively the DM might want to stress the whole "defending humans against the monsters on the frontier" theme that AD&D likes to put out.


Some people take the view that Goodness is rare- maybe 5% of D&D humans are Good, or less. Others think it's a bit commoner than that. I think it's implied that the default dominate (as opposed to "majority") social/religious sect is 'Good' with 'Good' temples and such around.

In a world where good and evil are objective and testable and the god have literal representatives with divinely granted powers, I suspect most people at least try to be 'good' (the afterlife is better).

I think the whole 'Good is rare' argument comes from an attempt to place the bar so high in modern society that we don't end up with 'everyone in modern society is a saint'.

[veti]

If it's wrong for the Azure City troops to commit evil acts against the goblins of Redcloak's village, then it's wrong for Redcloak's army to commit evil acts against the humans of Azure City. You don't get to have it both ways, and saying that it's "all a point of view" is just flat-out wrong. Good and Evil are objective in D&D, and Redcloak is on the Evil side - not because of his race, but because of his own choices.

There are degrees of wrong, though. "Killing someone because he's a human" is a lot worse than, e.g., "refusing to toss a s.p. to a beggar because he's a human". A character like Redcloak might reserve all his good deeds for goblinoids and simply rigidly ignore all other races - would that be enough to qualify him as good? Or do you have to be a saint to everyone and everything, simultaneously?

In which case, is it possible to be a good character without being a vegetarian?

[hamishspence]

I think it's implied that the default dominate (as opposed to "majority") social/religious sect is 'Good' with 'Good' temples and such around.

In a world where good and evil are objective and testable and the god have literal representatives with divinely granted powers, I suspect most people at least try to be 'good' (the afterlife is better).

Sounds about right. Though (at least in FC2) not all Evil characters are aware of just how nasty their afterlives can be.

On temples- Evil ones operating openly in nonevil societies are probably more likely to be the Lawful Evil ones, what with them being better at behaving themselves. I could definitely see a Neutral town with a Lawful Evil temple of Hextor.

That said, in Faerun, occasionally even Chaotic Evil temples operate openly in societies with a population that is not Evil on average as a whole. Baldur's Gate has an openly operated temple of Umberlee, CE sea deity. Probably because, as a seaport, they can't afford to offend her.

[jidasfire]

Could Redcloak be redeemed? Well, probably. He isn't a completely unrepentant jerk like Xykon or Nale, and the fact that he has limits to his actions could someday force him to re-examine his behavior and perhaps even change. Worse people have turned themselves around.

But will he? That's trickier. Redemption can of course mean different things to different people, but let's pick one he might be capable of. If we assume Redcloaks' redemption takes on the form of learning from his brother's example and building his own people up rather than tearing others down, it still involves him overcoming a lot of blocks in his personality. The primary one is probably his god, who seems pretty set on The Plan as it is. Given that he's a cleric, the bearer of the Crimson Mantle, and closer to achieving the goal than any goblin has ever been, Redcloak turning away from his god is pretty unlikely. Next, there is the Xykon factor. Xykon has spent the past 30 years wearing down Redcloak's will and removing anything and anyone that might have given him the courage to be his own man. Redcloak has acknowledged in almost every way that Xykon owns him, and even if he tries his hand at subversion from time to time, when the hammer comes down, he buckles. Finally, there's Redcloak himself. In his mind, he has to complete The Plan to make all the goblin blood on his hands worthwhile. Going back would make them a waste, while moving ahead would (again, in his mind) absolve him.

So, given all that, I don't find it terribly likely that Redcloak will achieve his redemption. The obstacles against him are too great, and as a rule, he has proven too weak. Still, he has in small ways proven capable of learning. Perhaps all it would take is proof that some humans don't treat his people like walking targets. Do we know any adventurers like that? Perhaps a certain bald, dark-skinned, smartass fighter? I'm not saying for sure it will happen, but I think if Redcloak could change, that might be what it takes.

Still, if we're giving Vegas odds, I'd bet against it.

[The Pilgrim]

this my freinds, is a VERY good point.

Wasn't at some point a requeriment of Evil alignment in order to have humans as your ranger's favored enemy, after all?

[Kish]

Not quite. Evil alignment was required to have the ranger's own species as a racial enemy. A Lawful Good dwarven ranger could easily choose humans, just not dwarves.

[The Pilgrim]

Not quite. Evil alignment was required to have the ranger's own species as a racial enemy. A Lawful Good dwarven ranger could easily choose humans, just not dwarves.

Ah, ok, thanks.

Still, it's odd... it's assumed you can be good, as far as you are only used to kill people from other species.

Well, anyway, Redcloack has treated people from his own species (and not only the Hobbos) bad enough to qualify as Evil even from a Goblin Point-of-View. All consequence of sucking up to Xykon.

He'll got his redeption (at least from a Goblin point of view) only when he gets the guts to stand to Xykon to protect his race. If ever.

[JonestheSpy]

Just to throw a spanner in the works here, I'd like to point out that one of the themes of SoD and to some extent the whole strip is the conflict between DnD alignment classifications (and how they influence standard gaming mentality) vs realistic moral and ethical muddiness. Redcloak regards himself as Evil because the people who have oppressed and slaughtered goblins for all of history are called the Good Guys. He'll play the role of villain in oppostion, but he's not motivated by spite, malice, or greed.

I don't even think he's particularly anti-human. As he points out to Right Eye is SoD, what he wants is a level playing field, not to crush all humans in revenge. His ire at Azure City was specific, as the Sapphire Guard were the ones who killed his family and friends for decades - and the fact that paladins are servants of "Good" gods who created such an unjust system just threw fuel on the fire. And if you look back at #547 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html), it seems clear to me that Redcloak really really doesn't want to throw the prisoners into the rift - he's actually morally offended that O-Chul might put him in the position of having to carry out his threat.

I think it quite likely that Redcloak will one day oppose Xykon (though who will betray who first is an interesting question) and quite possibly work with the heroes. But I don't think he'll ever show up on a Detect Good spell. I also suspect that redemption of any sort will involve realizing that he can't justify his previous actions with the "if I stop now, all those horrors will have been for nothing" mode of thinking that's carried him this far, and taking responsibility for the things that went wrong. But that won't necessarily shift his DnD alignment anywhere.

[Dark Matter]

I don't even think he's particularly anti-human. As he points out to Right Eye is SoD, what he wants is a level playing field, not to crush all humans in revenge."Level playing field" is a wonderful phrase, it conjures images of something close to a LG democracy. However he's lawful evil, the society he sets up can expected to also be lawful evil, not lawful good. That means the expected result is exactly what we've seen. I.e. a system where humans are executed for "having adventure levels" and can be whipped "because it's funny". I've seen no evidence that he's displeased with goblin-utopia, quite the reverse.

For RC, "level playing field" translates into "goblins are free to be evil without worrying about the forces of good interfering". Right-eye wanted to change his people, RC doesn't.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html


I think it quite likely that Redcloak will one day oppose Xykon (though who will betray who first is an interesting question) and quite possibly work with the heroes. But I don't think he'll ever show up on a Detect Good spell. I also suspect that redemption of any sort will involve realizing that he can't justify his previous actions with the "if I stop now, all those horrors will have been for nothing" mode of thinking that's carried him this far, and taking responsibility for the things that went wrong. But that won't necessarily shift his DnD alignment anywhere.There's two big and bads in this comic. One is Xykon, the other is the Dark One. Redcloak is a Cleric for the Dark One, and he was even before SoD.

It's possible, even easy, to imagine RC deciding that Xykon isn't worth keeping around. But if we define "redemption" as "being good", then RC would probably have to turn away from his God... and that's a tall order.

It's very possible that for RC's true redemption, the Dark One would have to turn away from evil... and that's an extremely tall order.

[Zxo]

Still, he has in small ways proven capable of learning. Perhaps all it would take is proof that some humans don't treat his people like walking targets. Do we know any adventurers like that? Perhaps a certain bald, dark-skinned, smartass fighter? I'm not saying for sure it will happen, but I think if Redcloak could change, that might be what it takes.


O-Chul comes to mind. He is a member of the Sapphire Guard and I'm not sure if he knows about what his organization did in SoD, but I'm sure he would be against killing civilians and might even apologize for it in SG's name. Also, he was tortured by Redcloak and kind treatment from O-Chul would be much more shocking for Redcloak than if it was Roy. And O-Chul has proven that he is capable of awaking the good in another creature (MitD).

Still, the evil Reddy has willingly caused thus far would require something very, very big from him even to cross the line to Neutral.

I do believe it will happen, for one reason: it is being foreshadowed (and that's why we are talking about it). But it is hard to imagine when and how.

[jidasfire]

O-Chul comes to mind. He is a member of the Sapphire Guard and I'm not sure if he knows about what his organization did in SoD, but I'm sure he would be against killing civilians and might even apologize for it in SG's name. Also, he was tortured by Redcloak and kind treatment from O-Chul would be much more shocking for Redcloak than if it was Roy. And O-Chul has proven that he is capable of awaking the good in another creature (MitD).


I see your point, but then, O-Chul did gouge out Redcloak's eye. That's the sort of thing that tends to make conversations awkward.

[KiwiImperator]

My hopes aren't high. Redcloak is a tragic character, and one of the cornerstones of a good tragic character is that he never quite understands what he needs, and instead endeavors for what he thinks he wants. Redcloak is fixated on his glorious dream, oblivious to the fact that the only realistic option was discovered by his brother, years ago.
Personally, I think the best ending would be for his people to get what they need, while Redcloak dies struggling to get them what he thinks they need, perhaps only realizing it at the last moment. Perhaps a moment of regret would suffice as a redemption for some, but I for one think that Redcloak has already proven himself too weak to be redeemed.

He had his chance, and he disintegrated it.

[xyzchyx]

Bad example, because in my opinion Anakin never redeemed himself. Yes, he killed the Emperor--an Emperor who was only in power partially through his own actions--but before he did that he killed most of the Jedi Order, INCLUDING CHILDREN. Sorry, you need to do a heck of a lot more to redeem yourself from a past that includes killing young children than kill one guy.I don't think that the force works on a karmic principle. Anakin was sorry -- in the given circumstance, particularly given that he was going to die in a few moments, that was enough.

[Zxo]

I see your point, but then, O-Chul did gouge out Redcloak's eye. That's the sort of thing that tends to make conversations awkward.

In D&D world this is no big deal, one spell heals it, a spell Redcloak has access to. The only reason he does not use it is that Xykon has forbidden it. Once he stops caring about Xykon, he might easily fix it (or not and decide to keep it as it reminds him of his brother whom he now wants to honour by fighting Xykon).

[binyamin20]

:redcloak:=Vader WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
:redcloak:=:redcloak: Correct

[LuisDantas]

Given the way Redcloak and Miko have been compared in-comic before, Redcloak finding redemption and admitting he was wrong would be an interesting contrast with Miko's inability to do the same. Don't know if this will happen, or even if it should, just throwing it out there.

I'm rooting for that. Redcloak is a very interesting character. A bit too willing to submit to others and a bit too naive for his own good.

At the same time, he has indeed commited himself too much into the Dark One's and Xykon's schemes. Rather than say that he must die to redeem himself, I fear that it is more accurate to say that he will eventually have little to live for unless he attempts redemption.

Which, of course, makes the parallels with Miko all the more direct, since that is what she believed herself to be doing at the time of her death.

There is a nice study on the concepts of good and evil (and the role of individual choices) somewhere in the joint stories of those two characters.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if "redemption is not for everyone" is a deliberate hint that it may be for someone?

Like Redcloak, a being who "believes that what he is doing is best for his people" according to War & XPs- but, going by what we've seen, is likely wrong in his belief?

[Boogastreehouse]

Just my one chicken, but I'd be willing to bet that the Giant will continue building up to a dramatic heel face turn... And then not do it. He loves to mess with our dramatic expectations, which may very well include major ones like this.

This. I was planning on saying something along these lines, once I had read through the thread, but ya beat me to it. I totally see Redcloak being faced with a choice, being "tempted" to redeem himself, and being unable to overcome his pride. He just won't be able to admit that all of his sacrifices, all of his betrayals to himself and others, and all the humiliation he has suffered were for nothing.

That doesn't mean that he won't turn on Xykon at some point, which I do hope to see. I predict he will either end up punished for his eventual defeat by an unsympathetic Dark One, or unmade by the Snarl (that is if the Snarl really does unmake people*)

*if the Snarl actually deposits everything that it "destroys" on the World Within, then I could see an epilogue where Redcloak is revealed to still be alive in that other world, cut off from the influence of the Dark One, and able to begin again. He'll probably meet an "unmade" Belkar there, and we'll see that Belkare is completely uninterested in starting over with a clean slate.

[Torick]

This. I was planning on saying something along these lines, once I had read through the thread, but ya beat me to it. I totally see Redcloak being faced with a choice, being "tempted" to redeem himself, and being unable to overcome his pride. He just won't be able to admit that all of his sacrifices, all of his betrayals to himself and others, and all the humiliation he has suffered were for nothing.

That doesn't mean that he won't turn on Xykon at some point, which I do hope to see. I predict he will either end up punished for his eventual defeat by an unsympathetic Dark One, or unmade by the Snarl (that is if the Snarl really does unmake people*)

See, this is what I was theorizing. Redcloak has every motivation to dump Xykon like yesterday's news the instant he gets a chance that doesn't unacceptably endanger him, the goblins, or the Plan, but he has no such motivation (currently or developing) to turn on the Dark One. Grind Xykon's phylactery into dust? With relish. Kick the Dark One to the curb and try to live in peace, Right-Eye style? Why would he?

So, my money's on Redcloak dropping out of Team Evil at some point, but then ultimately coming into a situation where he and another epic arcane caster (Vaarsuvius, anyone?) have an opportunity to execute the Plan - and he goes along with it (particularly if the arcane caster happens to be under the influence of powerful devils in those particular minutes :smallwink:).

[Herald Alberich]

So, my money's on Redcloak dropping out of Team Evil at some point, but then ultimately coming into a situation where he and another epic arcane caster (Vaarsuvius, anyone?) have an opportunity to execute the Plan - and he goes along with it (particularly if the arcane caster happens to be under the influence of powerful devils in those particular minutes :smallwink:).

Hmm. The problem with that particular scenario is that the Ritual takes weeks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html), not minutes.

[derfenrirwolv]

Hmm. The problem with that particular scenario is that the Ritual takes weeks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html), not minutes.

Perhaps You can tag into the ritual part way?

[Boogastreehouse]

Hmm. The problem with that particular scenario is that the Ritual takes weeks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html), not minutes.

That is such a great strip.

Anyway, I hadn't really thought about the possibility of V joining up with Redcloak to perform the ritual, and at this time it doesn't seem like a likely occurrence.

That's not to say that I think it's impossible, however. We've already seen V commit familicide, so we know that he/she can be pushed to monstrous acts if the circumstances are right. Perhaps circumstances will lead Vaarsuvius to willingly cast the ritual. If that were to happen, then a few minutes of fiendish interference at just the right time might make a huge difference in the outcome of the ritual.

As I said, I don't think it's likely, unless circumstances drastically change. But I'm willing to accept that it's possible.

[Zxo]

That is such a great strip.

Anyway, I hadn't really thought about the possibility of V joining up with Redcloak to perform the ritual, and at this time it doesn't seem like a likely occurrence.



I can actually imagine this easily.

I'm sure the ritual can be twisted so that the outcome is different, giving the control over where the rifts appear to someone else than the Dark One. The Dark One did not participate in imprisoning the Snarl and learned about his existence later. There is no reason for a ritual to exist that would give the control to The Dark One by default. It is more likely that it is a template with <Insert Name Here> and Xykon is on his way to learning about it.

Now imagine this:



Redcloak learns that Xykon knows how to change the ritual and intends to do it, giving the control over Snarl to himself, using Tsukiko as the divine caster if Redcloak won't obey him. That would be so bad that Redcloak joins up with the OoTS to prevent it. They are at the last gate. Xykon is coming and they are not strong enough to beat him in a fight. The only option is to "steal" the gate from him, perform the ritual before he does. Redcloak even agrees to give control not to the Dark One, but to someone who won't use this power at all (or to nobody if that's possible), because this is necessary if the OoTS is to participate in this and anything is better than Xykon ruling the world. Redcloak and V start the ritual, the IFCC takes over V at the right time - maybe the time of saying <Insert Name Here>.

[Draconi Redfir]

Perhaps after Redcloak gets pushed too far (perhaps after Xylon either kills half/most/all of Gobbotopia, or Redcloak’s niece, both of which I hope never happen) he will abandon Xylon and seek help from the OOTS in destroying him. Then, he and V perform the ritual, and give the power of the Snarl to Roy, who then uses it to unmake Xylon, possibly re-writing the timeline so that all the bad things he did never occurred. Though if this happened, then it would be unlikely that Gobbotopia would still exist, and Redcloak might be dead from trying to continue the plan by himself, unless he is protected from the timeline change somehow.

[The Pilgrim]

Perhaps after Redcloak gets pushed too far (perhaps after Xylon either kills half/most/all of Gobbotopia, or Redcloak’s niece, both of which I hope never happen) he will abandon Xylon and seek help from the OOTS in destroying him. Then, he and V perform the ritual, and give the power of the Snarl to Roy, who then uses it to unmake Xylon, possibly re-writing the timeline so that all the bad things he did never occurred. Though if this happened, then it would be unlikely that Gobbotopia would still exist, and Redcloak might be dead from trying to continue the plan by himself, unless he is protected from the timeline change somehow.

The Snarl, able to rewrite a timeline? We have no hint it has such powers. All we know is that it is a pure-chaos killing machine.

Not likely it even knows what a line, or time, is.

[Draconi Redfir]

The Snarl, able to rewrite a timeline? We have no hint it has such powers. All we know is that it is a pure-chaos killing machine.

Not likely it even knows what a line, or time, is.


i only said that becuse eavryone says the snarl is able to "unmake" someone, effectively makeing it so they never existed in the first place. so if Xylon was "unmade" (a.k.a. never born) its possible the entire timeline would re-write itself to compinsate for this.


though now that i think about it, if that happened, then the order of the scrible would never have found out about the rifts, as Soon would never have known about his wife, and Larian wouldent have known about those bears, since they never existed to begin with.

[Kish]

i only said that becuse eavryone says the snarl is able to "unmake" someone, effectively makeing it so they never existed in the first place.

No. It's able to destroy souls. It does nothing that affects history.

[Shale]

Where is it said that the people killed by the Snarl never existed? Mijung was killed by the Snarl, and Soon remembered her. The entire Greek pantheon was killed by the Snarl, and obviously they're remembered. Xykon and Redcloak remember the people they threw into the rift.

[The Pilgrim]

Where is it said that the people killed by the Snarl never existed? Mijung was killed by the Snarl, and Soon remembered her. The entire Greek pantheon was killed by the Snarl, and obviously they're remembered. Xykon and Redcloak remember the people they threw into the rift.

Have them ever managed to thrown anyone in? Back in Dorukan their main problem was that there was a magic sigil zapping anyone who approached the Gate, so the gobbos that Xykon sent to death for his own amusement died from magic zapping, not Snarl. And we have not been shown they have thrown anyone in Azure City Gobbotopia.

We have never seen the Snarl in action this far. We have only been told about by some characters (Shojo after The Trial, Redcloack in SoD), but we have never seen any real evidence of it's existence. It could be all a big load of horse crap the Gods have made up to cover something else.

[Draconi Redfir]

1st pannel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) Redcloak says "it will UNMAKE us, there will be no afterlife for us, it will be as if we never existed".

now, at the time i wrote my first post on the matter, i assumed it was possible that unmakeing xylon would possibly erase all the bad things he did, but then, around the time of my 2nd post, i remembered soons wife, the bears, that dwarf, ETC. and then realised, "woops, im wrong, but it would still be cool right?"


the Snarl takes your soul, your body, and eavrything about you, and unrawps the threads used to make them, what it dose with these threads? unknown. but this efectively "unmakes you". i was wrong in saying it woud change the timeline, but from YOUR point o veiw at least, it would be as if you never existed.

[Dark Matter]

We have never seen the Snarl in action this far. We have only been told about by some characters (Shojo after The Trial, Redcloack in SoD), but we have never seen any real evidence of it's existence. It could be all a big load of horse crap the Gods have made up to cover something else.We think Soon's wife was killed. Presumably he wouldn't have lied to his order about it (which isn't to say that he wasn't lied to about this)

...but... The Snarl not reaching in, V's familiar, I agree that *something* is going on. I could easily see the gods pulling a fast one on the Dark One or something.

[factotum]

We think Soon's wife was killed. Presumably he wouldn't have lied to his order about it (which isn't to say that he wasn't lied to about this)


The second part of your sentence is the whole point there...yes, Soon presumably saw his wife killed by an entity from the rift, but the only people who could have told him it was this thing called "The Snarl" would be the Gods, since they were the only entities that survived the destruction of the first world. It's entirely possible the Gods have their own agenda that requires them to lie about the rifts.

[Morithias]

Better not happen. At least Darth Vader was an Equal Opportunity Villain. Redcloak is just "if you're an abused goblin I'm going to help you, if you're an abused anything else go to baator".

I mean there are probably a ton of other races that are exactly like his almost. The orcs, kobolds, drow, etc. Heck me and my group use the Tieflings more often as first-level-mooks than goblins.

The fact he is willing to ignore the suffering of all them, and simply care about his own race to the point he would kill them all off is what makes him a complete monster.

It would be like if I said I was willing to kill off all the (insert minority group that pisses you off the least) so that in the world all the Caucasians are given equal treatment (yes it does happen in some of the places where we AREN'T the most common people).

If it does happen, I'm going to be pretty ticked, but at least there's only one real way he's going to succeed, and that's if his plan works exactly as planned. If he fails and dies without releasing the Snarl, well it's over. If he succeeds in releasing the Snarl, there's always the other two options of "Dark One dies to the thing and Goblin's are made even worse than before" and "All of existence vanishes in the biggest "Rocks Fall Everyone Dies" ever".

The Giant has gone to great lengths to make this a comic that although funny, is one of the most emotional and reactive ones on the net. I think he's better than to go at the end "He did all that evil, but he died so yeah...no speaking evil, he got redeemed". Which in my humble opinion is probably the worse Aesop one could create, in that so long as you learn your lesson, genocide and mass murder is ok.

I mean geeze, I know I'm going to get Godwid's law on this, but how do you think everyone would react if they went to heaven, saw Hitler relaxing and got told "oh, 5 minutes before he shot himself he learned his moral lesson even though it didn't change anything".

I mean it would just be a huge punch in the nuts to everyone, especially the people who died in that war. Like my dear Sangwaan.

[JonestheSpy]

Better not happen. At least Darth Vader was an Equal Opportunity Villain. Redcloak is just "if you're an abused goblin I'm going to help you, if you're an abused anything else go to baator".

I mean there are probably a ton of other races that are exactly like his almost. The orcs, kobolds, drow, etc. Heck me and my group use the Tieflings more often as first-level-mooks than goblins.

The fact he is willing to ignore the suffering of all them, and simply care about his own race to the point he would kill them all off is what makes him a complete monster.


Leaving off the real-world politics you'd be better off editing out, and the Teifling thing in your own campaign as an unusual premise that it isn't really relevant to strip that satirizes standard DnD tropes, the premise of your post is inaccurate.

As we see in strip #702, Gobbotopia is open to all "disenfranchised humanoids" and welcomes orcs, lycanthropes, minotaurs, medusas, and pretty much all races that have traditionally been on the wrong side of adventurers' swords.

[Morithias]

Leaving off the real-world politics you'd be better off editing out, and the Teifling thing in your own campaign as an unusual premise that it isn't really relevant to strip that satirizes standard DnD tropes, the premise of your post is inaccurate.

As we see in strip #702, Gobbotopia is open to all "disenfranchised humanoids" and welcomes orcs, lycanthropes, minotaurs, medusas, and pretty much all races that have traditionally been on the wrong side of adventurers' swords.

Wasn't there a strip where Redcloak basically says "But he is NOT a goblin" about Xykon? I mean I know he's the big bad, but I'm pretty sure that "Undead" falls under minorities too. Sure he lets in all "dsienfranchised humanoids" but there's a lot of problems there. First off, aren't medusas magical beast? And the lycan template can be applied to just about anything that's alive. So why is the undead ignored except for the "mooks" and the big bad? I mean what happens if another Lich comes knocking, or a vampire lord?

I'm pretty much going to stand by what I said. Redcloak may be a well intended extremist, but him being redempted and let into the upper realms wouldn't just be a punch to me and probably a few other fans, it would be pretty much a metaphorical giant middle finger for every being that he's murdered over his mission.

Edit: found it

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

Pretty much says it right there.

[JonestheSpy]

Oh come on. Redcloak was explaining to Jirix that Xykon does not care about the welfare of the goblins and was a necessary ally, not a friend. Both of which are completely true, and have nothing to do with anti-undead bias. And frankly, I don't particularly regard such a bias as immoral prejudice - they're not just another race, after all. But you and Tsukiko are free to disagree.


Redcloak may be a well intended extremist, but him being redempted and let into the upper realms wouldn't just be a punch to me and probably a few other fans, it would be pretty much a metaphorical giant middle finger for every being that he's murdered over his mission.


As I said, I think 'redemption' can take many different forms besides putting LG on the character sheet and then getting into Celestia. But one way or another, I really hope Rich Burlew writes his story as he thinks makes the best tale, without having to please the fans.

[Dark Matter]

I mean what happens if another Lich comes knocking, or a vampire lord?Isn't one awful enough? And I imagine what happens is the current dominate Lich says he doesn't feel like sharing and kills him.


I'm pretty much going to stand by what I said. Redcloak may be a well intended extremist, but him being redempted and let into the upper realms wouldn't just be a punch to me and probably a few other fans, it would be pretty much a metaphorical giant middle finger for every being that he's murdered over his mission.I'll add to that I don't think RC has any desire to join in the afterlife the Paladins which killed his family and he probably wants to join his god's army.

[Morithias]

Isn't one awful enough? And I imagine what happens is the current dominate Lich says he doesn't feel like sharing and kills him.

I'll add to that I don't think RC has any desire to join in the afterlife the Paladins which killed his family and he probably wants to join his god's army.

until you realize that "redemption" is basically defined as "the act of redeeming" which if he was to actually redeem himself, he would be classified as a good character.

If you wanted to see him actually redeeming himself in an actual dnd campaign. This thread should have been called "Redcloak does 100k quests via a ton of atonement spells", since that's really the only way he has out now.

This is usually the part where I point out the official Fiendish Codex 2, but it's pretty clear that I'm the only person who actual uses the canon rules, so we'll skip this paragraph, you all know what's in it.

You want to know what the actual definition for redeem in the theological sense is?

"Theology. to deliver from sin and its consequences by means of a sacrifice offered for the sinner."

To put it bluntly, he would have to 'sacrifice' everything he has taken via evil means. His kingdom would have to be given back, he would have to work at repairing the gates, and his race would be pushed back into the "Mook Fodder" category.

And all that would do in the dnd sense, is....nothing.

Because even if he was a "good" goblin, and not evil. He would still go to the realm of his deity.

So in short, there is NO metaphysical reason for why he would redeem himself. Unless he's LE and would go to Baator, which I've seen a ton of people argue against.

So yeah, Good Redcloak wouldn't even get into paradise unless he abandoned his god. Which we all know isn't going to happen....

So logically there is a. No way he's going to redeem in an actual metaphysical sense.

and b. No reason why he would, unless he's also going to tell his god to shove it, which I doubt the Giant would make him do.

He's not going to be redeemed.

[Draconi Redfir]

Do you think we could just get past all this alignment, D&D, going-to-heaven-or-hadies sheets for just a moment?


I would like to bring up (once again) Right-eyes daughter. lets say that somewhere in the dwarven lands, while chasing after the final gate, the OOTS find her, and (lacking belkar) decide to take her into the group to balance the party out again.

Now, imagine Redcloaks disgust when he find out about this. His niece is hanging out with humans!? that’s like a kick in the face to every goblin that’s been killed by a human.


Now a few hundred strips down the road, team evil and the order are finally haveing their final showdown. Many bad things happen, people get hurt, yada yada yada, when all of a sudden, Xylon corners Redcloaks niece and whips up his most powerful meatier swarm ever. Upon seeing this, Redcloak realises something. The order had every opportunity, and every reason to kill his niece, and yet they didn’t. Xylon on the other hand, had no reason for killing all those goblins and hobgoblins aside from being bored. And now he was about to kill the only living relative Redcloak had left, KNOWING how much she meant to readcloak?

Next thing you know, Redcloak throws his holy symbol down on the ground, and using one of the only spells (whatever it might be) he knows o destroy it. Xylon crumbles, Niece is saved, two long lost relatives share their first hug in many many years.


Now, according to "D&D" or "Alignment" rules he wouldn’t be redeemed, but in the minds of the fans who don’t give a sheet about any of that stuff, he would have redeemed himself.

Is that not enough?

[hamishspence]

This is usually the part where I point out the official Fiendish Codex 2, but it's pretty clear that I'm the only person who actual uses the canon rules, so we'll skip this paragraph, you all know what's in it.

It's worth remembering that Lawful characters who are genuinely repentant (but who haven't yet committed the acts needed to redeem themselves before dying) are reincarnated as Hellbred, rather than going straight to Baator.

It may be highly unlikely for Redcloak to abandon his deity- but not impossible.

In which case, his afterlife would no longer have to be the deity-specific afterlife- but instead, would be the afterlife dependant on his alignment and acts.

Depending on how you interpret it, for Redcloak to sacrifice his own life, solely for the good of others (and not just goblins) might qualify as a redemptive act.

And even if he's redeemed in the sense of not going to the Lower Planes, he might still only qualify as "good enough" for the True Neutral afterlife (the Outlands) or the Lawful Neutral afterlife (Mechanus).

What Soon said to Miko: "Redemption demands that you seek forgiveness for past misdeeds", "atone for the actions", "acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong" applies to Redcloak as well.

If he was to do this sort of thing in the future- maybe he could be redeemed.

[Lecan]

Redcloak doesn't deserve redemption in any sense of the word. He has done nothing to show that he has any interest in helping anyone but his god. Any work he has done he is actively working to undo with the gates. As far as he knows, there is a good chance that he and every goblin and disenfranchised humanoid will be destroyed as a direct result of his actions and still he continues. That's akin to building a fire and a house made of paper right next to each other and expecting both to be fine. And then putting everything you profess to hold dear inside the house.



Next thing you know, Redcloak throws his holy symbol down on the ground, and using one of the only spells (whatever it might be) he knows o destroy it. Xylon crumbles, Niece is saved, two long lost relatives share their first hug in many many years.

Besides being pretty trite, RC would still have to destroy Xykon AND the phylactery.

[Draconi Redfir]

Besides being pretty trite, RC would still have to destroy Xykon AND the phylactery.


woops, my bad, maby he and durkon could both turn undead while Xylon is distracted by his phylactery being destroid or something then. or just have roy smash him again.

[Anias]

I agree with your assessment of Redcloak, and I like this theory - with Durkon being a relatively undeveloped, generic character (there was a sprinkling of development for him in On the Origin of PCs, but not enough to really pull him much away from the stereotypical dwarven cleric) and the Oracle having given Durkon a death sentence (admittedly on a vaguer timeline than Belkar's, but a death sentence nonetheless), it's one that I would classify as one of the likelier of our speculative theories around here.

It would be an interesting twist, as well - if there's any route to Redcloak's living redemption possible, it would be difficult to come up with a better route than following the Order around for a little while: consider their familiarity with the Gates but not necessarily the Plan, the Order's heavy association with paladins and particularly the remnants of the Sapphire Guard (providing a chance for the two sides to see eye to eye, rather than viewing each other as simply targets on a battlefield), and of course the mutual hatred of Xykon which involves a lot of personal grudges.

It would also provide one clear opportunity for a plot twist: consider that the Plan requires an arcane caster, and if Redcloak were to join with the Order, that would leave...V. Who's already been tempted successfully by extreme offers of power, and who owes a few powerful devils his/her soul for a few yet-to-be-determined minutes, which could serve as extremely unopportune (or opportune, depending on which side you're batting for) if V and Redcloak end up in a situation where they could either protect a gate, or try to harness its power.

That's an interesting idea - certainly food for thought, and one of the more potential plot-rich speculations I've seen around here.

And, as an added bonus, it'd add another point against the whole "Belkar will come back" option, and add another possible fate:
-Not raised because the Snarl undid him
-Not raised because he didn't want to come back
-Not raised because he was turned into an undead or something
-Not raised because there's no one there who CAN raise him


a "good aligned" persion is someone who fights the forces of evil, dose what is best for himself and the world, and commits no crimes.
a "good person" is someone who loves his children, loves his wife, ETC. even if he commits crimes and frequently dose bad things in order to protect and care for them. (i.e. robin hood, he was a murderer, a theif, and an outlaw, yet pepole call HIM a good person becuse he gave the money he stole to the poor.)
This would make him a person who has committed good actions, but not necessarily a good person. One can be truly evil, and still do good things - note Belkar helps Haley, yet his evil is still measurable in kilonazis.

And along the same lines, I'd say redemption is nigh-impossible for Redcloak. To truly redeem himself he'd have to do more than just work to correct the evils that sprung from his evil actions, or to give up the things he gained from these actions. He'd actually have to come to believe that all the evil acts he's committed are, in fact, evil, if he wanted to be redeemed, and he'd have to feel guilt for performing them. That's not going to happen, especially since he committed those actions in order to reach his ultimate goal of equality for goblins - and he feels that this more than justifies them.

[hamishspence]

Maybe it might be a case of "he would have been redeemed if his soul survived"

If Redcloak were to die saving everybody from The Snarl- but getting eaten by The Snarl, it would be that kind of heroic atonement- but because his soul is destroyed, he wouldn't actually benefit from it.

[Morithias]

Maybe it might be a case of "he would have been redeemed if his soul survived"

If Redcloak were to die saving everybody from The Snarl- but getting eaten by The Snarl, it would be that kind of heroic atonement- but because his soul is destroyed, he wouldn't actually benefit from it.

But even then we're pulled into that little paragraph that says "no matter how many orphanages your raise, or puppies you saved.

Deleted from existence, but remembered as a hero by stopping the Snarl? Ain't going to happen, unless he somehow gets enough power to rival a bloody deity. Far beyond any mortal, more or less a Dnd Dragon-wannabe.

[RndmNumGen]

Huh... Well I just got SoD today. Before I read it, I rather disliked redcloak. Then as I was reading SoD, I started to gain a certain amount of respect for him... up until the point where he killed Right-Eye. At that point, I lost all respect, and I think I dislike him even more than before.

That said, while Redcloak's redemption isn't impossible, it is extremely improbable. To redeem himself, he would first have to admit he was wrong; about siding and later staying with Xykon, about turning him into a Lich, about leading all those goblins to their deaths, about killing Right-Eye, and even about his deity and The Plan. I just don't see that happening. He keeps saying he has the interests of goblinkind at heart, but his actions state that he really doesn't. He justifies his decisions by saying if he backs out now, all those dead goblins will be in vain, while more goblins are dying all around him, in new and exciting ways (to Xykon, at least) that he (Xykon) cooks up.

The fact is, he had the perfect chance to redeem himself when Dokuran's gate was destroyed and Xykon's body was obliterated. I believe it was the second failure of The Plan, and unlike after Liran's, this time it was well after he knew how evil and depraved Xykon was. He could have crushed his phylactery then and there, getting rid of Xykon for good. He didn't even need to give up on The Plan - He had the diary that detailed where the other three gates were, and could have easily found another arcane caster. Okay, maybe not easily, but he could have done so nonetheless; with a lot less goblins dying.

But he didn't. Why? Because he is a coward. A minion. He will do what he is told to do; Xykon's enchantment on MitD to kill redcloak if he ever betrays him is wholly unnecessary. He did what the previous redcloak said, he did what The Dark One said, and he does everything Xykon says, even though most of it(a good 85%) goes directly against the good of goblinkind.

[hamishspence]

But even then we're pulled into that little paragraph that says "no matter how many orphanages your raise, or puppies you saved.

That paragraph is, IMO, overridden by the rules for Hellbred- destination for beings which repent of their evil acts, but haven't managed to atone.



That said, while Redcloak's redemption isn't impossible, it is extremely improbable. To redeem himself, he would first have to admit he was wrong; about siding and later staying with Xykon, about turning him into a Lich, about leading all those goblins to their deaths, about killing Right-Eye, and even about his deity and The Plan.

I agree with this. Improbable, but not impossible.

Note that in War & XPs, when comparing Nale to Xykon ("Nale may be less powerful than Xykon, but he's no less evil" The Giant does mention that Redcloak believes he's doing what's best for his people.

So it's not just him saying it- he actually believes it.

[Dark Matter]

So it's not just him saying it- he actually believes it.It's that which makes redemption for him both possible... and unlikely.

[hamishspence]

Yes- suppose The Dark One really were a "soulless nihilist bent on destroying all creation" the way Miko accuses Redcloak of being.

If this were the case (with him having no intention of building a new world, either), and proven to Redcloak (by, say, the Dark One saying so the moment he assumed control of the Snarl)

maybe his faith in The Plan and The Dark One would break- he'd realize everything he did was for nothing, and he'd choose to side with the heroes rather than see all creation destroyed, forever, by his own master.

Or, the Dark One might be honest but clumsy- losing control and being devoured by The Snarl, with Redcloak still alive to witness it. Again, The Plan is for nothing- and Redcloak might give up and side with the heroes.

[Draconi Redfir]

so i just thought of something. Xylon cast a spell on MITD to eat redcloak if he ever bretrays him right? well, what if the monster (being... himselkf...) eats the red cloak and lets the goblin formerly known as redcloak live?


sorry, goin bit offtopic here.

[Dark Matter]

Or, the Dark One might be honest but clumsy- losing control and being devoured by The Snarl, with Redcloak still alive to witness it. Again, The Plan is for nothing- and Redcloak might give up and side with the heroes.Xykon figures out how to control the Snarl and cuts RC out entirely.

[RndmNumGen]

so i just thought of something. Xylon cast a spell on MITD to eat redcloak if he ever bretrays him right? well, what if the monster (being... himselkf...) eats the red cloak and lets the goblin formerly known as redcloak live?


sorry, goin bit offtopic here.

That... would be plausible, but he tells MtiD to devour him whole and spit out the shiny bauble he's wearing.

Of course, MitD could consider the cloak a... well, I'm not sure if person is the right word, but rather an entity. He was having a tea party with stuffed animals after all. And he might consider the clasp on the cloak to be the shiny bauble Xykon was referring to, rather than the phylactery.

[JonestheSpy]

Or Redcloak could leave the Crimson Mantle behind, take his name back, and the Monster could eat someone else entirely.

Doubt it, but it'd be interesting.

[Morithias]

Or the Mitd passes it's will save. It might not have the highest wisdom, but if it's an outsider or something like that, the fact it's a 'good' save, might make up for it.

[RndmNumGen]

Or Redcloak never betrays Xykon. That could always happen.

[Kish]

Or Redcloak never betrays Xykon. That could always happen.
No, it couldn't. It really couldn't.

[Draconi Redfir]

No, it couldn't. It really couldn't.

pessimist.