The Dark One - the True Villain of the story? [Archive]

JonestheSpy

2010-04-30, 02:34 PM

Moving back to the comic... the Dark One was the villain of the story back when the 3 kings had him killed. He had a gun to their heads, they killed him hoping that it would deal with it, it didn't.

You know, I wish you would just stop repeating that over and over again - it's been debated many times, and lots of folks have presented very coherent and logical reasons why they disagree. At least have the courtesy to say "In my opinion the Dark One was holding etc etc" instead of asserting it as a fact that has no room for different interpretations.

But before leaving the gun metaphor behind, I do think this is pretty interesting:

So if a 100 lb woman is being attacked by a 300 lb thug, the law says she can't draw a gun even if she thinks he's going to kill her?

You seem to be quite in favor of the person with the gun here - I'd just like to point out there's a pretty good argument to be made that the created-to-be-killed goblins are the 100 lb woman, the humans that have been beating them down and driving them into the badlands are the 300lb thug, and the Dark One's army is the gun in this little allegory.

And no, I don't think the Dark One is anywhere near the "True Villain" of the story. Yeah he's lumped in with the "Evil" gods. That doesn't really seem to mean the same thing as the evil of the IFCC or Xykon. Look at Loki, for instance, he's the "evil" god of the Northern pantheon, but we haven't seen really anything in the way of evil from his clerics. The unnamed priest from the Haley/Belkar storyline was greedy and cowardly, but not out to destroy the world or capture human sacrifices or anything. And Hilgya seemed quite decent - her 'crime' was to rebel against the strict customs of Dwarven society. And the Azurites - the paladins too - honor all 12 of their gods, including 'evil' Rat. And let's not even get started on Thor's behavior...

As for the Dark One himself, imagine if his story (given the information we have to work with) was removed from DnD racial assumptions about goblins and arbitrary alignments, and was a regular historical god/hero-myth. A group of people have been oppressed and hunted for time immemorial, driven to the lands nobody else wants and regularly raided by their stronger neighbors who regard them as inherently lesser beings who deserve no respect or compassion. A great hero arises, a powerful warrior the like of which his people have never seen, unites his people, ruling justly and wisely, and forges them into a great army. Sounds pretty much like your standard hero-king myth, similar to Arthur or Attila (yeah, the Romans saw him as a villain, but the Huns had all sorts of stories about what a great guy he was), or Paul Atriedes from Dune.

Now at this point in the standard story, the hero and his army crush the folks who've been the foes of their people and form a new kingdom/empire/whatever, with great cheers and accolades from the audience. But the Dark One didn't do that - he took the much higher moral ground. He said "My people have been screwed over, but we don't want revenge, we want to negotiate some arrangement so we have a chance to build a decent life for ourselves and live in peace." And then he was killed. Not surprising that he goblins went bezerk - in Dune, Paul was afraid that very thing would happen: he would be killed and the Fremen would go on a genocidal rampage through the galaxy.

And as a god, he really doesn't seem to encourage evil behavior - leaving aside the Plan, which we'll get to below. He encourages his followers to avoid contact with humans whenever possible - but of course that still doesn't keep them from being killed by adventurers. And when the goblins conquer Azure City and actually have the foundations on which to build a viable nation, his message to the leader of that nation is not "Go build and empire and kill all our enemies", it's "Time to stop fighting and learn diplomacy".

As for the Plan - it was the Dark One's single shot at getting his people out of their horrible situation, and then it got hijacked by Xykon. Despite some folks' assertions, there is absolutely no evidence we have at this time that the Dark One wants anything other than a level playing field for goblins - that's certainly what Redcloak and Right Eye believed. Maybe he has other plans, but that's only a theory, just like the theory that Haley is half-celestial. And yes, the Plan is a huge risk, but I hope it's not too political to point out that there's a fellow from American history who's regarded as an inspirational hero for saying "Give me liberty or give me death!" And as I've said before, I am of the opinion that the "Don't screw this up" message referred to not destroying the new goblin nation in pursuit of the Plan, which Xykon left him no choice but to continue with.

So, rant rant, pant pant. Is the Dark One "Good"? Not really, though if you're a goblin he's clearly a lot more benevolent than most of the gods who label themselves so. But Evil in the same way as the IFCC? No way.

hamishspence

2010-04-30, 02:46 PM

So, rant rant, pant pant. Is the Dark One "Good"? Not really, though if you're a goblin he's clearly a lot more benevolent than most of the gods who label themselves so. But Evil in the same way as the IFCC? No way.

That's what I suspect- though its possible more info will come along that suggests otherwise.

Still, his instructions to Jirix (according to Jirix) seem to imply he specifically doesn't want outright war between Gobbotopia and any of its neighbours.

Herald Alberich

2010-04-30, 02:51 PM

And yes, the Plan is a huge risk, but I hope it's not too political to point out that there's a fellow from American history who's regarded as an inspirational hero for saying "Give me liberty or give me death!"

That's rather different than "Give me liberty or give everyone death". One is a heroic sacrifice for a cause, the other is a high chance of genocide.

Other than that you make a lot of sense.

derfenrirwolv

2010-04-30, 03:26 PM

her 'crime' was to rebel against the strict customs of Dwarven society

She did a lot more than that. Skipping out on your own wedding is one thing, trying to poison your loving husband afterwards is quite something else...namely attempted murder.

Danne

2010-04-30, 03:30 PM

So if a 100 lb woman is being attacked by a 300 lb thug, the law says she can't draw a gun even if she thinks he's going to kill her?

Yep. I never said the law was fair. Fortunately, prosecutors have discretion regarding which cases they actually try. Hopefully one with good sense would realize that that would be a situation where she probably would have been killed or seriously injured without shooting her attacker, but it would still be lawful for her to be tried. Also, a jury might not convict her.

Nonsense. You present something as fact which is untrue in every single country of the world, including the United States (which is most likely what you mean with "RL").

In the U.S., yes. Sorry that I didn't specify! (How embarrassing. :smallredface:) I don't know how self defense laws work in other countries.

It is true that it is not self-defense if you shoot an unarmed petty thief in the head to protect your purse (because that would be excessive use of force), but it is certainly lawful self-defense if you shoot the madman lunging at you with his knife.

The principle of "greater force" you reference has nothing to do with the size or technological level of your weapon. As soon as someone is employing deadly violence against you (be it with a knife or a gun or a harpoon) you can defend yourself using all the means at your disposal.

Sorry for being off-topic.

Source, please? Because I've read (nothing I can cite, unfortunately, but everything from news reports to my friend's old Law and Order textbook to word of mouth) about cases where people were assaulted by someone with a knife, shot that person, and were convicted (either of assault or murder/manslaughter, whichever was applicable), with self defense thrown out due to excessive use of force, where "excessive" meant "you had a gun and he only had a knife."

Maybe it varies by state?

And moving back to the Dark One, I'd say "yes", he really is the villain of the story. Whatever is going on with the other side of the rift indicates that RC knows less than he thinks he does... although it's interesting that he's had the opportunity to examine it and doesn't appear to be disturbed.

I still think the IFCC will be a bigger problem in the end. But we'll see! :smallsmile:

Thanatosia

2010-04-30, 03:30 PM

Yeah! Darn those goblins not wanting to be seen only as chunks of XP with only the worst lands to live on. Darn them for wanting a better life. They should accept their lot and be happy with it.
I think you are missing the point of my post... Of course the Goblin situation, as presented, is completely unfair and unjust. But What I want to question, is if that injustice is really divinely enforced as presented (wich Righteye's village seems to contradict), and more importantly, if redressing that injustice (if it exists) is really the Dark One's Primary motive.

The 'good' Gods are not out and out evil or malicious I don't think, otherwise they would not have tolerated Miko's murder of Shojo and made her fall. Although it has never been addressed in the comic or the prequels, The Giant has suggested quite strongly in one of his forum posts that its quite possible some of the Paladins involved in the butchery of Redcloak's Village have fallen from grace for their actions that day as well.

And yet, the Dark One is clearly an Evil god. He imbues his followers with powers like Unholy Blight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) and the raising of Undead Forces. His followers even encourage their young to drink the blood of the Innocent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html) and try to get into Infernal Schools (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0100.html). He's not only approved of Redcloaks alliance with Xykon but has encouraged him to move forward with it. Now, you could simply accept that he, like Redcloak, simply views himself as Evil only in that he finds himself in conflict with those that choose to define themselves as Good. But that is increasingly feeling wrong to me, I'm proposing the Dark One is not just a "bigger" version of Redcloak - but that he is a genuinely evil (in the Xykon-evil sense) entity that has tricked and manipulated Redcloak into becoming one of his greatest servants.

That the Backstory of the Darkone presented in SoD may not be entirely accurate, and that the 'secret lore of the red mantle' might have been tailored specificaly to seduce Redcloak to its cause. Perhaps if Redcloak had been a monster and not a well intended person it would have presented a different story that appealed to a power lust rather then a sense of racial justice.

Kish

2010-04-30, 03:45 PM

I think you are missing the point of my post... Of course the Goblin situation, as presented, is completely unfair and unjust. But What I want to question, is if that injustice is really divinely enforced as presented (wich Righteye's village seems to contradict), and more importantly, if redressing that injustice (if it exists) is really the Dark One's Primary motive.

The 'good' Gods are not out and out evil or malicious I don't think, otherwise they would not have tolerated Miko's murder of Shojo and made her fall. Although it has never been addressed in the comic or the prequels, The Giant has suggested quite strongly in one of his forum posts that its quite possible some of the Paladins involved in the butchery of Redcloak's Village have fallen from grace for their actions that day as well.

What he said, in full, was,

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

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

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be very wary of taking that to indicate that the gods aren't the petty, squabbling, selfish entities they've consistently been presented as. Can you think of one panel that's shown the gods that showed them in a positive light? Because I can't.

Thanatosia

2010-04-30, 04:17 PM

I would be very wary of taking that to indicate that the gods aren't the petty, squabbling, selfish entities they've consistently been presented as. Can you think of one panel that's shown the gods that showed them in a positive light? Because I can't.
Its already part of my argument, but yeah, I can think of One (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) panel at the least.

Most of the other panels showing the gods in direct action have been of Thor, who while somewhat incompitent and easily distracted, does seem generaly well-intentioned and interested in saving people. Rather all the gods are as flighty and air headed as Thor seems to be is somewhat questionable, tho the Crayons of Time do seem to indicate some degree of petty child-likeness in them.

derfenrirwolv

2010-04-30, 04:24 PM

Can you think of one panel that's shown the gods that showed them in a positive light? Because I can't.

Two, both involving thunder

Rumble

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html

Kaboom!

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0352.html

Kish

2010-04-30, 04:26 PM

...Only genuinely good and not petty gods would object to Miko Miyazaki? That's your serious argument?

Edit to add more words: If you're saying, having a paladin fall ever even if she kills the ruler of the largest city of your worshipers constitutes being shown in a positive light...well, I disagree. And if you think helping out one of your worshipers in a battle constitutes being shown in a positive light...well, I disagree again. That's not to say either is negative, just that they certainly don't say anything positive about the gods.

Thanatosia

2010-04-30, 04:29 PM

...Only genuinely good and not petty gods would object to Miko Miyazaki? That's your serious argument?
That's appearantly the strawman argument you are making for me.

I'm using Miko as an example of a single case where they acted to enforce "good". I've never seen any examples where they have been deliberately malicious or malign, simply in the case of Thor specificaly (The only god with any real on-panel time) incompitent and easily distracted, and yet well-intended.

slayerx

2010-04-30, 05:29 PM

As for the Dark One himself, imagine if his story (given the information we have to work with) was removed from DnD racial assumptions about goblins and arbitrary alignments, and was a regular historical god/hero-myth. A group of people have been oppressed and hunted for time immemorial, driven to the lands nobody else wants and regularly raided by their stronger neighbors who regard them as inherently lesser beings who deserve no respect or compassion. A great hero arises, a powerful warrior the like of which his people have never seen, unites his people, ruling justly and wisely, and forges them into a great army. Sounds pretty much like your standard hero-king myth, similar to Arthur or Attila (yeah, the Romans saw him as a villain, but the Huns had all sorts of stories about what a great guy he was), or Paul Atriedes from Dune.
Well that certainly paints a rosey picture on the goblins...
Though You left out the part about how the "hero's" people have spent centuries ALSO raiding and killing nearby villages... you basically just reversed the black and white as opposed to exposing the shades of gray

If humans have the misconception that goblins are "evil" then it is most likely due to factors beyond the gods themselves... namely that fact that goblins often act in an evil manner. Their are bound to be countless stories about goblins attacking villagers... i mean the common reason adventuers go out and kill goblins is because some villagers said they have been suffer from their raids. Hell, even if you argue they are in a bad position that does NOT make their killing a non-evil act... i mean, does a homeless person gain the right to kill and steal just because he has no money? Right-eye shows us how a good person would try to deal with a bad situation

Take Redcloak's village for instance... yes the paladins went too far and it was unjust what they did, butt, the main reason they came to the village in the first place was because of the Dark One's priests... if not for the priests that village may have never seen the paladins... when it comes down to it, a lot of goblin killings are the result of Humans desiring protection and saving; the view of goblins is more than just racial assumptions as many of their kind have taken on evil actions.

That's why this whole situation is grey... the goblins have been placed in a bad positions and suffered at the hands of humans, but most of them aren't exactly innocent either and have not done well to prove those "racial assumptions" wrong

And when the goblins conquer Azure City and actually have the foundations on which to build a viable nation, his message to the leader of that nation is not "Go build and empire and kill all our enemies", it's "Time to stop fighting and learn diplomacy".
I'd might see him in a better light if he included "and lay off the slavery"

The Dark One's army might be a metaphorical gun to the head- but why would The Dark One come alone to a peace meeting, if his intentions were hostile?

The big question becomes, "what happens if the humans decline his peace offer?"... Common next step from there is "using the army to TAKE what he wanted"

One thing about peace is that it is often used as a way for villains to consolidate and build their power. They either want to get what they want with minimal losses, or they want to buy time to get even stronger.

Now some may argue that the Dark One needed to negotiate from a position of strength; hence the army... the problem is however he never gave the humans a reason to trust him. There has been bad blood between humans and goblins for centuries, and the humans are under the dead set belief that goblins are evil. What Guarantee could the Dark One possibly give them that this peace would be "the end" of hostilities? What could he give them that would allow them to not jump to the conclusion that the only reason he wants that land is to build an even stronger army and strike them with even more force in the next 10 years? He has nothing more than his "word"; and when you have misconceptions that say you are "evil" your word doesn't mean much at all and is worthless. The dark one would have needed to build a sense of "trust" in himself for the other kings before they would consider anything he said to be truthful

The thing about negotiations is that they are often about give and take... working out a deal that makes everyone happy. Another problem the Dark One was dealign with is that he didn't seem to have anything to offer for trade... He's essentially asking the humans to give up something for nothing in return. Well there is one thing he had that he could bring to the table; "we won't kill you"... yes another element of negotiations is the rejection of using force if you have it. when you come to a negotiation table with an army to your back, misconceptions that you are evil, and nothing to give back, it is easily to assume that what you do bring to the table is nothing more than "we won't kill you"... it's almost like you are negotiating surrender terms as oppose to peace

So ya, at best the Dark One went about getting peace in the wrong ways... at worst he was open to going to full out war and killing/eslaving every human to get what he wanted

Herald Alberich

2010-04-30, 06:02 PM

The thing about negotiations is that they are often about give and take... working out a deal that makes everyone happy. Another problem the Dark One was dealign with is that he didn't seem to have anything to offer for trade... He's essentially asking the humans to give up something for nothing in return.

We don't actually know that; he was killed before he could get around to offering terms. It is the most likely scenario, since the goblins were lacking in material goods and that was the point. But the Dark One may have been prepared to offer labor, perhaps, or using parts of his army as mercenaries. Or something else I haven't though of. The point is, he had options.

Kish

2010-04-30, 06:32 PM

That's appearantly the strawman argument you are making for me.

I'm using Miko as an example of a single case where they acted to enforce "good".

It shows them enforcing Miko falling. Not why. Certainly it doesn't show them in an actively positive light.

I've never seen any examples where they have been deliberately malicious or malign,

Never? Really? Well, if you ignore both the crayon sections...

Thanatosia

2010-04-30, 07:13 PM

Never? Really? Well, if you ignore both the crayon sections...
What about the good gods actions in the First Crayons of Time depicts them as being malicious or malign to mortals? The 2nd crayons section (in SoD) has them instituting oppression vs monstrous humanoids, but my whole point in this thread is that the 2nd crayon section is lies.

Torick

2010-04-30, 07:17 PM

That's even assuming the Snarl actually exists. We haven't seen it outside the two stories being told. No present day examples of the rift have shown any proof of it's existence. It could be something made up to cover up a secret.

That...is interesting!

Any and all depictions of the Snarl (as distinct from the rifts and the gates) come either from Redcloak (who got it from the Dark One, and who has already demonstrated himself to be a questionably reliable narrator) and indirectly from Soon (and considering that the relaying party was Shojo, I think we can concede that there's opportunity for deceit to be inserted there).

As for actual, concrete, modern-story events, all the rifts have thus far proven to be Snarl-free (including the giant one hovering above Azure City for months, with far more room for grasping tentacles to snake out than those depicted in the crayon stories), and the one modern living party to have actually looked into a rift didn't see a Snarl, but instead saw another world.

Interesting - I hadn't considered the possibility that the whole Snarl thing is a generations-old hoax, contrived by the Dark One or perhaps even the original gods to cover up...something. I wonder what that something could be?

Kish

2010-04-30, 07:55 PM

What about the good gods actions in the First Crayons of Time depicts them as being malicious or malign to mortals?
What's with the added qualifications? Or in other words: What part of your "never malicious or malign" claim said "to mortals"? The first crayon strips show them being plenty nasty to each other. Petty. Selfish. Small.

In any event, I don't think "the gods are all simplistically evil" is in the cards any more than, "the goblinoids have no case and nothing unjust happened to Redcloak, or if it did the gods bear no responsibility for it" is.

RMcMurtry

2010-04-30, 08:21 PM

Point on the ritual--there's no guarantee Rat and Tiamat didn't lie to the Dark One about what was going on.

Thanatosia

2010-04-30, 09:08 PM

What's with the added qualifications? Or in other words: What part of your "never malicious or malign" claim said "to mortals"? The first crayon strips show them being plenty nasty to each other. Petty. Selfish. Small.
Actualy, no, it does not show them being plenty nasty to each other. It shows them disagreeing and tugging on the strings against each other, without so much ill will as even an insult being tossed. Petty and small - maybe. Nasty or Malicious - not in whats shown. They had no way of knowing that pulling on the strings against one another would give birth to a god-killing abomination, and disagreement does not make them evil. They had no way of knowing their actions would hurt anyone.

The Pilgrim

2010-04-30, 09:41 PM

There is something...

The Dark One had to ask the Evil Gods to know about the Snarl. And even then, they were reluctant to tell.

But the Order of the Scribble... how comes they knew about what was the Snarl and how did it originate? Did the Gods tell them?

derfenrirwolv

2010-04-30, 11:41 PM

But the Order of the Scribble... how comes they knew about what was the Snarl and how did it originate? Did the Gods tell them?

It was something that they learned while adventuring to close the holes. It was probably books and ancient texts, as the paladins tried to eliminate the sources of information (and i don't think they'd go eliminating the repositories of oral tradition that didn't have green skin and pointy fangs)

factotum

2010-05-01, 04:00 AM

Or maybe Dorukan cast "Contact Other Plane" and asked someone there about the thing?

slayerx

2010-05-01, 04:27 AM

It was something that they learned while adventuring to close the holes. It was probably books and ancient texts, as the paladins tried to eliminate the sources of information (and i don't think they'd go eliminating the repositories of oral tradition that didn't have green skin and pointy fangs)

no there were no such texts... the gods chose to keep it a secret from mortals, which would mean that before the order of the scribble found the rifts there was NO knowledge of the rifts... so the question of how they came to know about what the rifts were and how the snarl was created is a valid question... the only way they could know is if the gods themselves told them

RMcMurtry

2010-05-01, 05:01 AM

no there were no such texts... the gods chose to keep it a secret from mortals, which would mean that before the order of the scribble found the rifts there was NO knowledge of the rifts... so the question of how they came to know about what the rifts were and how the snarl was created is a valid question... the only way they could know is if the gods themselves told them

Easily possible. They were Epic level and trying to do something about the holes in reality.

Kish

2010-05-02, 12:12 PM

Actualy, no, it does not show them being plenty nasty to each other. It shows them disagreeing and tugging on the strings against each other, without so much ill will as even an insult being tossed. Petty and small - maybe. Nasty or Malicious - not in whats shown. They had no way of knowing that pulling on the strings against one another would give birth to a god-killing abomination, and disagreement does not make them evil. They had no way of knowing their actions would hurt anyone.

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

Make of that what you will. I consider the moral standing of the creator gods in the OotS universe established.

hamishspence

2010-05-02, 12:19 PM

And yet, the Dark One is clearly an Evil god. He imbues his followers with powers like Unholy Blight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)

Are there any Evil deities without the [Evil] domain? It would be a bit hard for him not to offer that spell- since it's intrinsic to the Evil domain.

Redcloak says "Evil, as defined by our opposition to those that call themselves Good"

While it's not the whole truth, its a part of it.

His followers even encourage their young to drink the blood of the Innocent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html) and try to get into Infernal Schools (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0100.html).

To be fair, the parent is referred to as "the priest of this big demon prince guy"- which may not be The Dark One.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-02, 12:20 PM

no there were no such texts...

thats unknown and imho unlikely.

the gods chose to keep it a secret from mortals, which would mean that before the order of the scribble found the rifts there was NO knowledge of the rifts...

There must have been some, unless the order of the holey brotherhood was a former member of the order of the scrible?

so the question of how they came to know about what the rifts were and how the snarl was created is a valid question...

Yes it is.

the only way they could know is if the gods themselves told them

Or the gods told someone else and the scribbles tracked them down. Elven god of knowledge with former links to their mortal relatives are a good possibility.

Dark Matter

2010-05-02, 08:35 PM

At least have the courtesy to say "In my opinion the Dark One was holding etc etc" instead of asserting it as a fact that has no room for different interpretations.Fair enough. IMHO when the evil mastermind, who has put together an unstoppable army of (usually) evil, shows up and starts talking about how he really wants to resolve things peacefully (with the clear alternative being him killing every living person in your kingdom) but in "fairness" he needs to point out that you are wealthy and have good land while he isn't and doesn't...

...he is and has painted himself as the villain of the piece.

You seem to be quite in favor of the person with the gun here - I'd just like to point out there's a pretty good argument to be made that the created-to-be-killed goblins are the 100 lb woman, the humans that have been beating them down and driving them into the badlands are the 300lb thug, and the Dark One's army is the gun in this little allegory.Part of the "created to be killed" package is "usually evil", which is to say "routinely deserves to be killed".

And no, I don't think the Dark One is anywhere near the "True Villain" of the story. Yeah he's lumped in with the "Evil" gods. That doesn't really seem to mean the same thing as the evil of the IFCC or Xykon.We haven't see the IFCC do much evil yet (ditto other evil Priests). It's not even clear that the other evil gods have a twisted plan to destroy all of reality with the unstoppable god-killing abomination.

We have seen a lot of Xykon... but us understanding Xykon better doesn't mean he's more evil than the Dark One. The bulk of Xykon's activities (including Xykon's creation) has been with the Dark One's presumed permission/approval/indifference since it's all been with the help of the Dark One's head Priest. Notice how RC hasn't gotten rapped on the fingers for any of it. One implication is that Xykon, for all his evil, might still be a piker compared to a god of evil.

As for the Dark One himself, imagine if his story... was removed from DnD racial assumptions about goblins and arbitrary alignments...Sounds pretty much like your standard hero-king myth...Very true. I agree. But if we re-introduce our knowledge of alignments and how they work, we end up with...
Slaves being whipped because it's funny.
Paladins (and fellow goblins) being tortured to distract a Lich Overlord.
Humans being put to death for having adventurer levels.
And fellow goblins, having died nobly, having their deaths defiled by being turned into foul undead.

And as a god, he really doesn't seem to encourage evil behavior...You mean other than the Creation/toleration of Xykon-the-Lich, Goblin-Utopia's laws, and what RC did to Right-eye in SOD?

As for the Plan - it was the Dark One's single shot at getting his people out of their horrible situation, and then it got hijacked by Xykon. The plan has yet to be hijacked by Xykon. RC tolerates Xykon's excesses because of the Plan, and over the last 30 years the Dark One hasn't seen fit to disapprove. We've seen Xykon destroyed by Roy giving RC the ability to kill Xykon by simply smashing his soul... and he didn't.

Further, it's not even necessary. Right-Eye proved that in SOD with his village. RC proved it again with goblin-utopia. And if the Dark One wanted to be really innovative, he could combine the too approaches, i.e. goblin-utopia without the evil. The Dark One could probably even trade abandoning "The Plan" with the gods of good.

Despite some folks' assertions, there is absolutely no evidence we have at this time that the Dark One wants anything other than a level playing field for goblins...What do you call Goblin-Utopia's laws then?

Dark Matter

2010-05-02, 09:26 PM

Does an army sitting on the borders qualify as a "gun held to the head"?
Okay, I'm not one of those villain apologists or anything, but I think your view of what the Dark One was doing there is kind of narrow. If the story as presented is true, The Dark One wasn't necessarily threatening...On the face of it, I think we should be deeply mistrustful of the motivations and behavior of any large, super-intelligent, charismatic, purple-skinned mutants who seek tools which can cause the death of the universe.:smalltongue:

As for "threat", the issue is one of scale and behavior. The Dark One is the greatest military/political mind of his people, probably ever. He puts together an organization and wants to build a goblin nation. So far, so good. He's presumably LE (He's evil and Redcloak without SOD would be LN and one step from his deity). This doesn't have to be bad... but...

He puts together "the greatest military force the Northern Continent has every seen". For an idea of the scale of this thing, even without his leadership, it killed a million people and required the formation of a joint army of all of the PC races. So it's roughly 100x the size of the Azure battle.

Think of it as being the Wild Wild West, where you and I and our neighbors are all fifth generation ranchers. There's effectively no law other than us. Your land is much better than mine, and your people are both richer and better behaved. Occasionally my people rustle your cattle. Occasionally you hang them for it.

Normally we each have a dozen hired hands (all armed)... but I hire an extra five hundred and I train them openly and totally into a military unit. So now I have an army which can kill you and every member of your "kingdom", no matter what you try to do to stop me. You know it & I know it. I proclaim that in the name of "peace" I'm going to go to your ranch and we'll discuss "the injustice of you having all the good land".

This kind of thing used to be a staple of Hollywood. It's just usually the heroes get called in after I've killed my neighbors. This time they saw it coming and killed me first.
Anyway, I think you're trying too hard to paint The Dark One as a dyed-in-the-wool monster when it's more complicated than that.... he's not some mustache-twirling fiend who is evil because he likes the screams of babies.Sure, and true. You can make the serious claim that he wanted "what was best for his people"... even now. But I'm not cutting him any breaks just because he's both lawful and (we assume) not self seeking.

This is a guy who thinks executing humans because they have adventure levels is "best for his people". This is a guy willing to risk the entire universe so he can blackmail the universe. This is a guy willing to teach RC how to make Xykon into a Lich and how to make "Unleash the Snarl" gates. This is a guy willing to live with Xykon committing mass murder on goblins as long as Xykon is useful for the Plan.

Or in short, IMHO, the Dark One is indeed a dyed-in-the-wool monster. We sympathize with his motivation MUCH more than Xykon's. But while I sympathize with his goal, I don't trust him because of it. I don't want to see what he'd consider a "level playing field" after seeing what Goblin-utopia looks like.

I don't regard the Snarl as a new plan, I see it as more of the same plan he had when he was alive. His idea of "peace" is IMHO, "you do what I tell you to or I kill you and your family and every person in your kingdom... oh, and have a nice day."

Danne

2010-05-02, 09:47 PM

On the face of it, I think we should be deeply mistrustful of the motivations and behavior of any large, super-intelligent, charismatic, purple-skinned mutants who seek tools which can cause the death of the universe.:smalltongue:

Now, now. Are you racist against people with purple skin? I mean, sure, seeking the death of the universe is one thing, but let's not get personal here. I'm sure there are perfectly lovely purple-skinned people out there somewhere. :smalltongue:

White Blade

2010-05-02, 10:51 PM

The problem with saying that the original gods are evil is the original gods play for keeps. There really isn't any turning back with them, they are playing Us vs. Absolute Destruction (or so they claim), and there isn't time for acting according to the DnD Absolutist Moral Framework. Moreover, the Gods probably have a fairly traditional attitude (e.g. The Gods believe that you can kill them all and the multiverse will sort them out. Which is true.), and a mortal soul in Gehenna is still existent, so I doubt they see a problem.

Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods [...]. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins' massacres, but even the gods can't stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.
Sure, the systematic slaughter of non-guilty goblins is evil on a mortal scale. But from a eternal perspective... Does it really make a difference? They'd be dead in five decades anyway, which makes one rather less concerned than normal when one has lived hundreds of thousands of years. It isn't really possible for deities to truly grasp mortality unless they've been mortal before (ascendant deities) or have had mortal incarnations (such as in, well several major real world religions) or aren't innately immortal (such as the actual, though unlikely to be in OOTS, Aesir.). It takes a mortal perspective to really be genuinely empathetic with fear of death. To a god, every mortal dies. Its not really all that important to have a time scale for the matter. That might sound uncaring, but the gods are actually concerned if they discover that the thing that could destroy mortal's kinds souls (which really are as permanent as the Gods).

In short, the Gods don't care about mortal life. But that isn't what most classical polytheistic deities do. That isn't what they are there for. They keep the world running smooth and if that happens to help you out, great, if not... well it sucks to be you. But the gods don't care. They aren't supposed to care. And from a purely practical perspective... maybe they can't. Maybe caring really would destroy the multiverse. Compassion isn't necessarily the way to hold the world together.

Sholos

2010-05-02, 10:53 PM

Think of it as being the Wild Wild West, where you and I and our neighbors are all fifth generation ranchers. There's effectively no law other than us. Your land is much better than mine, and your people are both richer and better behaved. Occasionally my people rustle your cattle. Occasionally you hang them for it.

Normally we each have a dozen hired hands (all armed)... but I hire an extra five hundred and I train them openly and totally into a military unit. So now I have an army which can kill you and every member of your "kingdom", no matter what you try to do to stop me. You know it & I know it. I proclaim that in the name of "peace" I'm going to go to your ranch and we'll discuss "the injustice of you having all the good land".

You're leaving out the part where your people were forcibly relocated out to the West for the sole purpose of working for the benefit of those people with the good land. And are then forced to live on the bad land and expected to be happy about it.

Kish

2010-05-02, 11:01 PM

Sure, the systematic slaughter of non-guilty goblins is evil on a mortal scale. But from a eternal perspective... Does it really make a difference? They'd be dead in five decades anyway, which makes one rather less concerned than normal when one has lived hundreds of thousands of years.

I haven't lived for hundreds of thousands of years, so I can't say. I am, however, quite impressed at having just met a genuine immortal on a message board.

'Cause if you haven't lived hundreds of thousands of years, then the blithe assertions you're making are about as valid as saying, "Well, if you breathed helium and were native to Venus, you'd understand."

White Blade

2010-05-02, 11:07 PM

Well... No. But I'd make the analogy about being concerned about the life of a gnat when I knew it'd blossom into a human being when it died. That's the equivalent. Mortals lifespans are so hugely insignificant compared to their afterlives as to make them meaningless.

Kish

2010-05-02, 11:11 PM

White Blade

2010-05-02, 11:48 PM

Look. We're arguing the morality of deities here. Therefore, I will speculate on their motives, intentions, and desires. If we rule that out, then pretty much every classical pagan deity is evil because they witness colossal evils... and do nothing about it. You might as well blame the sky for bringing lightning that can kill. If you blame the gods for being gods, of course you can say they're evil. But then so is the Dark One and literally everyone else.

My argument proceeds thusly.
1. It is reasonable to assume that the Gods see The Big Picture. If they do not, they are ultimately very poor deities.
2. It is reasonable to assume that, in The Big Picture, mortal life is very, very small. As the Big Picture is such a huge timescale difference from our own, your average goblin's lifespan is probably the equivalent to two or three minutes in a deity's life by comparison to our own.
3. It is reasonable to assume that, in The Big Picture, souls are not very short lived and therefore important, potentially very important. Whereas a goblin or human life span is ultimately very short, the soul goes on forever. Whatever happens to it is permanent, of course, so a deity could get the evil alignment by being cruel to the souls that pass by him, but nothing bar absolute destruction is irreparable.
4. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Dark One's response is non-reciprocal. As the Dark One's plans are both permanent and irreparable, as the original gods are not (indeed, the Dark One can run his afterlife fine, so the Gods aren't even permanently evil, let alone irreparably evil.), they are a divine evil.

My argument is that the Dark One is a divine evil because the evil things he does or wants to do are potentially permanent. Now, there's the possibility that (like Redcloak with the prisoners in Azure City) the Dark One is bluffing. That he does not genuinely have the will to destroy the mortals on the material plane permanently, whatever he pretends. Such a Dark One might still be evil, as in worthy of the evil alignment (I'm not too sure on that count), but he would not be a divine evil. He'd be more like Loki or Rat. The crap they plan to pull may be evil, but it isn't a final irreparable evil. So they can slide. Because the Gods may be *******s, but doing the kind of stuff even the Gods can't fix is fundamentally wrong.

factotum

2010-05-03, 01:53 AM

There's no evidence the OotS-verse gods have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, though. The first world they created presumably didn't last long before the Snarl got it, and we can guess that World #2 has only been around a little over a thousand years, judging by the date. (It's possible the mortal races base their calendar on some massive historical event we don't know about OTHER than the creation of the world, but there's no evidence for it).

JonestheSpy

2010-05-03, 01:54 AM

You know Dark Matter, I think this here single sentence sums up why it's pretty much impossible to continue this discussion with you:

Part of the "created to be killed" package is "usually evil", which is to say "routinely deserves to be killed".

I mean, this just strikes me as completely and utterly missing the entire point of SoD, and the strip as a whole. The episode in Origin of the PC's with Roy and the orcs specifically refutes the above quoted point of view. If you can't grok that, than any further discussion really doesn't seem worth it. Though I do feel compelled to point out that you make a huge amount of assumptions in your arguments - e.g. the Dark One would kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted in negotiations - that are completely unsupported by the story.

She [Hilgya]did a lot more than that. Skipping out on your own wedding is one thing, trying to poison your loving husband afterwards is quite something else...namely attempted murder.

You know, I'd forgotten that bit. I have to say, after rereading that section it seems more of a throwaway joke than a real plot element. I mean, Durkon didn't even mention the poisoning in the next big breakup scene strip - he was all "Obey tradition and go back to your husband!" Odd instructions to an attempted murdress.

I'd might see him in a better light if he included "and lay off the slavery"

Oh, the Dark One is definitely not "Good" in that kind of what-a-paladin SHOULD-be sort of way. By not denouncing slavery, we know he's moral equivalent to the Western Gods, at least in that ethical area. It will be interesting to see if Gobbotopia engages in slavery again now that their initial batch of prisoners from the conquest have escaped (assuming the nation lasts, that is).

Though You left out the part about how the "hero's" people have spent centuries ALSO raiding and killing nearby villages... you basically just reversed the black and white as opposed to exposing the shades of gray.

If humans have the misconception that goblins are "evil" then it is most likely due to factors beyond the gods themselves

Well, we don't actually know just how much the goblins were attacking humans and how much it was humans assuming they would. But tat was kind of my point by including Atilla in my examples - villain to some, hero to others. And readers of Dune should recall the Fremen did plenty of raiding before becoming Paul's army.

And let's not forget that one of the major factors in race relations in the OotSworld is the DnD rulebooks. Unlike a campaign world that tries to keep the rules behind the curtain, in menippean satire that is OotS people quote the books like physics texts, and orcs and goblins are fair game for adventurers looking for XP because the MM says they're "usually evil", their actual actions notwithstanding.

And one more observation about that niggly little "wiping out existence" detail. As White Blade points out, gods have somewhat different perspectives than mortals. For instance, multiple real-life mythologies feature the gods/a god looking down on creation and deciding it was time to wipe the slate clean and start over (mythologies that featured no afterlife worth mentioning, btw).

Or to steer away from any hint of real life religion, think about time-travel stories. It's an oft-repeated theme that a horrible, messed up timeline is 'fixed' by time travelers. That means everyone in the messed up timeline is erased, never born, but it's regarded s worth it because the timeline that will be created (or restored, in some stories) is such a better world than the first one. Think about the Terminator movies (just the first two, please - the others are such making-it-for-the-money trash they really don't bear discussion, imo). There are humans born after Skynet takes over - we see children in the first film's future-flashback of a Terminator attacking a human stronghold. But when history is changed at the end of the second film, that means those children would never be born, they are just vanished. But that's fine - the balance is so much better in the new timeline it's barely worth considering.

If you're a goblin watching all your family and friends wiped out, there's probably not much difference between adventurers and terminators. And I think that's the point of view that the Dark One and Redcloak are coming from when it's said that the Plan might wipe out existence - the worst outcome means that the world will be remade without the horrible injustice the goblins have suffered through their entire creation.

Now obviously, the analogy falls down because so many humans (and elves, halflings, treants, etc) are completely innocent of any oppression against the goblins. Roy and Co. are completely in the right in attempting to stop the Plan however they can. But it's not a matter of Suaronclone vs the Justice League here.

Dark Matter

2010-05-03, 06:40 AM

Now, now. Are you racist against people with purple skin? I mean, sure, seeking the death of the universe is one thing, but let's not get personal here. I'm sure there are perfectly lovely purple-skinned people out there somewhere. :smalltongue:Not at all, they'd make a wonderful guest shot in Star Trek... maybe they did and they were color corrected.:smallbiggrin:

It's the comparisons to Thanos of Titan which concern me.

White Blade

2010-05-03, 07:51 AM

Dark Matter

2010-05-03, 08:06 AM

You're leaving out the part where your people were forcibly relocated out to the West for the sole purpose of working for the benefit of those people with the good land. And are then forced to live on the bad land and expected to be happy about it.I left it out because it was done many, many generations ago by people unrelated to my neighbors. Nor are the gods always "fair" with other people either, quite the opposite. The world is filled with injustices.

I mean, this just strikes me as completely and utterly missing the entire point of SoD, and the strip as a whole. The episode in Origin of the PC's with Roy and the orcs specifically refutes the above quoted point of view.Yes and no. Rich has pounded hard on the concept that evil creatures deserve to die simply because they're evil (which I didn't say and don't claim). However Rich has not attempted to claim that all evil creatures are simply misunderstood and/or there are always peaceful ways to deal with them. Roy is indeed the gold standard for being "good"... but Roy has killed a lot of goblins and other creatures.

Sometimes the evil monster really does deserve to die, not just because it's an evil monster but because of what it's doing. Xykon fits that description nicely, so does RC.

...you make a huge amount of assumptions in your arguments - e.g. the Dark One would kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted in negotiations - that are completely unsupported by the story.This is like saying the guy who is holding the gun to someone else's head might not be willing to use it. Yes, it's true... but just holding the gun means the presumption of innocence shouldn't be there any longer. Nor does the Dark One have a rep for mercy, even for innocent goblins.

Given the Dark One did in fact have the ability to kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted, and given that he'd worked very hard at getting the ability to kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted... the assumption shouldn't be that he was unwilling to kill people for the greater good. Why does he need 500 extra gun-hands if his purposes are good?

Kish

2010-05-03, 08:12 AM

Touche. I suppose we don't know how old they are. My default assumption is always, "Old enough for The Big Picture argument," because otherwise all deities are jerks without exception.
Under the circumstances, starting from the premise, "The OotS gods have a good reason for anything they do, regardless of whether Rich ever said anything like that or how far we have to bend to see that reason," is exactly as bad as starting from the premise, "The OotS gods are vile, regardless of whether Rich ever said anything like that or whether it ever appears they do anything good."

pendell

2010-05-03, 08:17 AM

Yep. I never said the law was fair. Fortunately, prosecutors have discretion regarding which cases they actually try. Hopefully one with good sense would realize that that would be a situation where she probably would have been killed or seriously injured without shooting her attacker, but it would still be lawful for her to be tried. Also, a jury might not convict her.

In the U.S., yes. Sorry that I didn't specify! (How embarrassing. :smallredface:) I don't know how self defense laws work in other countries.

Source, please? Because I've read (nothing I can cite, unfortunately, but everything from news reports to my friend's old Law and Order textbook to word of mouth) about cases where people were assaulted by someone with a knife, shot that person, and were convicted (either of assault or murder/manslaughter, whichever was applicable), with self defense thrown out due to excessive use of force, where "excessive" meant "you had a gun and he only had a knife."

Maybe it varies by state?

More likely it varies by jury.

I haven't got my books nor time for a full-blown google attack on the matter, but I believe your interlocutor has the right of it; In the US, the levels of force are roughly as follows:

1) Verbal. Use words to restrain.
2) Power holds. This is what the police use with a guy who needs more than words but isn't completely out of control. Also known as the 'come-hither' hold.
3) Non-lethal self defense. Nightsticks, tasers. This is what you use when you're facing off with someone who poses a threat, but A) it's not a lethal threat and B) you've got the numbers.
4) Lethal self-defense. Use of a gun, knife, etc.

The idea that you can't use a gun if someone pulls a knife is disproven by the fact that they issue police officers guns and teach them to use them against people with knives.

The 'minimum force' means that you can use lethal self-defense -- whether police officer or citizen -- only if *you or a bystander are in immediate danger of life and limb*. Likewise, you don't pull a taser on someone who will listen if you tell them to "go away".

So if you come at me with a knife, by the law I am justified if I pull a gun and shoot you dead. You posed a lethal threat; I responded with lethal force. Whether I legally possess the firearm is another question, of course, but I'm not guilty of murder.

There's also a great deal of judgement that goes on here. If I'm a 100-pound woman confronted by a 300-pound man, I've got an excellent chance of acquittal , because I've got a plausible argument that I reasonably believed I was in immediate lethal danger, because a 300 pound man is more than capable of killing a 100-pound woman with his bare hands. But if the situation were reversed -- if I were a 300 pound man confronting a 100 pound woman -- I'd probably go to jail for shooting her, because there's no way a jury would believe that this woman could kill me with her bare hands, unless her name's River Tam.

All of this is heavily dependent on what the jury will believe. Every situation is different. People have gone to prison for pulling guns on armed mobs, because good lawyers can convince the jury that he was over-reacting to teenagers.

This is why avoidance is the best self-defense tactic for any citizen if it's at all feasible. The story I remember best was of a man who was beset by a gang of thugs, and successfully beat the snot out of their leader. So they brought *him* up on assault charges. The entire rest of the gang, naturally, testified to his 'unprovoked' assault.

Bottom line: If you get in any altercation in the US, odds are pretty good you're going to go to court. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, what actually happens -- jail time or no -- is heavily dependent on who the attorneys are, who the jury is composed of, and what the attorneys can convince the attorneys to believe in a nice, comfortable courtroom far away from the life-or-death decision you had to make. No matter how strong your case, you're better avoiding the roulette wheel entirely if you can.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

White Blade

2010-05-03, 08:22 AM

Under the circumstances, starting from the premise, "The OotS gods have a good reason for anything they do, regardless of whether Rich ever said anything like that or how far we have to bend to see that reason," is exactly as bad as starting from the premise, "The OotS gods are vile, regardless of whether Rich ever said anything like that or whether it ever appears they do anything good."

That isn't the premise I started with. The premise I started with is, "The OotS Gods are ancient," which is not at all the same thing. I didn't claim that the OotS gods even had a good reason for what they were doing. I just claimed that their actions weren't evil on their scales which, if the gods are in fact suitably ancient, is perfectly valid. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that hundreds or even thousands of life ending in pain just... really isn't that big of a deal on a scale in which the primary components are actions that effect billions of eternal existences.

I figured the OotS pantheon was old, as I didn't know their exact age, and argued from there. If the Gods are in fact less than two thousand years old... Well, I suppose one could still theoretically argue that the Gods are correct in viewing mortal life as insignificant on the scales they play for, but one would have difficulty arguing that was actually what they were thinking.

Sholos

2010-05-03, 09:13 PM

Regardless of how old the gods are, they may consider the ability of sentient beings to choose their actions to be more valuable than those same sentient beings' lives.

I left it out because it was done many, many generations ago by people unrelated to my neighbors. Nor are the gods always "fair" with other people either, quite the opposite. The world is filled with injustices.

Okay, then you left out the part where this subjugation has been continued into the present day, and no one outside of your group cares a whit about you. In fact, much of the rest of the world approves of your being used in this manner, and would fight to keep you in your situation.

slayerx

2010-05-03, 11:08 PM

Okay, then you left out the part where this subjugation has been continued into the present day, and no one outside of your group cares a whit about you.
Along with your groups continued raiding, killing and other usually evil deeds... and your group doesn't really care much about others either

In fact, much of the rest of the world approves of your being used in this manner, and would fight to keep you in your situation.
Well considering what they think you would do if you were given the chance to grow in strength, can you blame them?... Really humans might be more receptive to goblin civilization if goblins did a better job at getting rid of those negative images of goblins

Really thanks in part to goblins usually evil behavior, humans have had plenty to fear what goblins would do if given time to grow and develop... It could very well be what was going through the minds of the human kings; Give the Dark One land and he'll use it to build up and even stronger army

Take the hobgoblins of the southern Valley for instance... They settled there like 30 years ago, and while the humans may have caused them some trouble they didn't form an army to wipe them out completely... as such the hobgoblins were allowed to grow and expand... what happens then? the hobgoblins end up mobilizing and wiping out azure city and enslaving their people... if i were an azurite, i'd be cursing the city's leaders for not doing more to defend us and allowing the hobgoblins to grow so strong in the first place... What the hobgoblins ended up doing was making the fears of humans real; the true irony being that both sides played a role

The goblins will say that if it were not for the humans actions the goblins would have never attacked, and at the same time the humans say that the goblin attack has proven all the stories of their evil to be true... The whole situation is really circular in nature... The goblins act in a usual evil manner which sparks fear in humans; that fear makes humans paranoid and thus results in them not giving goblins a chance and treating them horribly; This treatment results in goblins evil ways, and thus the cycle continues...

The cycle has to end... either PC's need to trust goblins and give them a chance, or the goblins have to stop acting in a usually evil manner... thus far, neither side has really gone about it in the right way

JonestheSpy

2010-05-04, 12:33 AM

The cycle has to end... either PC's need to trust goblins and give them a chance, or the goblins have to stop acting in a usually evil manner... thus far, neither side has really gone about it in the right way

Umm, except for Gobbotopia establishing diplomatic relations with its neighbors and being recognized by 17 other states, that is...

Given the Dark One did in fact have the ability to kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted, and given that he'd worked very hard at getting the ability to kill everyone who didn't give him what he wanted

You know, I keep trying to walk away from this conversation and them DM posts stuff that screams for a response...Really, I think the above post shows a really simplistic, video-game mentality about war. Even if negotiations completely broke down and the humans told the Dark One to get stuffed, that doesn't mean the next step is to move on to genocide. With a very few exceptions, warfare throughout history has not been about wars of attrition where 'winning' means killing all your enemies. If there was no possible deal that would be acceptable to all parties - which includes all sorts of possibilities, from ceding uninhabited lands to sending druid advisers to improve the fertility of the badlands to a thousand other possibilites - "killing everyone" is not the automatic default.

Really, if the Dark One was so evil and so careless about goblin lives as well as other races, as some folks are so convinced as being the case, why did he try to initiate peaceful negotiations instead of just sending his army out to conquer everyone in the first place?

slayerx

2010-05-04, 02:53 AM

Umm, except for Gobbotopia establishing diplomatic relations with its neighbors and being recognized by 17 other states, that is...

Ofcourse, let us ignore how they obtained that capital and how they maintain it... everybody loves it when you destroy world renowned forces of good and enslave their people. it's a great way to say "hey we goblins aren't really evil"...

Ya really, the whole point of what i said is that goblins for their part need to start proving they are NOT evil, and that is NOT what gobbotopia is doing... as far as the rest of the world is concerned they now have a new evil nation in their backyard. Hell much of that recongnition may be coming from evil nations like those found on the western continent, and nations who only appeasing the goblins out of fear of being next. More than likely the ONLY reason the gobbotopia hasn't been destroyed yet is because other neighboring nations fear them too much... you remove that fear and they may come down loud and hard on the goblins

Take the elves for instance, they do not fear the goblins or the lich and as such they are willing to do what they can to undermine the city. You get the rest of azure city's allies to accept that the epic lich is gone for good and they might just unite together to destroy gobbotopia... and why would they be so willing to destroy it? because the goblins are acting in an evil manner... that alone gives the nations reason to fear that gobbotopia may try to conquer them in the next few years if they are allowed to exist... to many humans, Gobbotopia in a way will serve as an example of what happens when you let goblins grow too strong; you'll find your city taken and your people enslaved

You know, I keep trying to walk away from this conversation and them DM posts stuff that screams for a response...Really, I think the above post shows a really simplistic, video-game mentality about war. Even if negotiations completely broke down and the humans told the Dark One to get stuffed, that doesn't mean the next step is to move on to genocide. With a very few exceptions, warfare throughout history has not been about wars of attrition where 'winning' means killing all your enemies. If there was no possible deal that would be acceptable to all parties - which includes all sorts of possibilities, from ceding uninhabited lands to sending druid advisers to improve the fertility of the badlands to a thousand other possibilites - "killing everyone" is not the automatic default.

Well that's true... as we've seen with gobbotopia, goblins seemed to prefer mass enslavement of civilians as opposed to killing them... why waste a good source of cheap labor?

Really, if the Dark One was so evil and so careless about goblin lives as well as other races, as some folks are so convinced as being the case, why did he try to initiate peaceful negotiations instead of just sending his army out to conquer everyone in the first place?
first, a good evil overload should try to cut his losses, if for no other reason that to make sure his army remains strong... second a peaceful solution, allows a tyrant to avoid decades of dealing with resistance... third just because he had a great army and was a military genius does not mean victory was guaranteed. It's a gamble that can be avoided

Like i said before, a good villain knows that "peace" can be a useful tool. Peace can afford them time to further grow and develop their power. They don't ask for peace because they want true peace, but because they know that it works to their own best interests... why risk your power with a war, when you can get want you want without losing anything?

SPoD

2010-05-04, 03:41 AM

You know, I'd forgotten that bit. I have to say, after rereading that section it seems more of a throwaway joke than a real plot element. I mean, Durkon didn't even mention the poisoning in the next big breakup scene strip - he was all "Obey tradition and go back to your husband!" Odd instructions to an attempted murdress.

Just to address this point: Hilgya was likely not describing to Durkon anything beyond her actual dialogue. We, the readers, know that she tried to kill her husband with a McPoisonburger. Durkon may be less certain on the issue, considering that the dwarven +2 bonus against poison also applies to, say, alcohol or sleep poison. If Hilgya was trying to drug Ivan and sneak out, her dialogue would have been unchanged.

Likewise, based only on the dialogue, Durkon may really believe Ivan was a terrible abusive husband, which would make slipping him a sleep potion and hitting the road a pretty neutral act to him. It's the abandoning the marriage vows that sticks in his craw.

OK, enough derailing. Back to the real discussion.

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 07:43 AM

Even if negotiations completely broke down and the humans told the Dark One to get stuffed, that doesn't mean the next step is to move on to genocide.Do you think the three kings would be comforted to know that the worst that can happen is their entire kingdom is enslaved with their subjects being whipped "because it's funny"? Or maybe they did know this?

If there was no possible deal that would be acceptable to all parties - which includes all sorts of possibilities, from ceding uninhabited lands to sending druid advisers to improve the fertility of the badlands to a thousand other possibilites - "killing everyone" is not the automatic default.And why are the Dark One's problems any concern of the three kings? He's got the money to make this massive army... why doesn't he have the money to hire druids himself? Or buy land? Or even build cities?

If he's planning on turning over a new leaf and not being evil, why is it even necessary to meet with the kings at all? Actions, not words, and the Dark One's actions are pretty scary; both then and now.

Really, if the Dark One was so evil and so careless about goblin lives as well as other races, as some folks are so convinced as being the case, why did he try to initiate peaceful negotiations instead of just sending his army out to conquer everyone in the first place?If I have a gun to your head, it's not "peaceful negotiations". It's "I'm calling for your surrender, but I'm willing to use flowery words to make it as easy for you as possible".

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 07:48 AM

Okay, then you left out the part where this subjugation has been continued into the present day, and no one outside of your group cares a whit about you. In fact, much of the rest of the world approves of your being used in this manner, and would fight to keep you in your situation.What "subjugation"? Hanging cattle thieves is what passes for "justice", not "slavery". Further, yes, the rest of the world does approve of "justice".

The cycle has to end... either PC's need to trust goblins and give them a chance, or the goblins have to stop acting in a usually evil manner... thus far, neither side has really gone about it in the right wayI agree with most of slayerx said, but this needed a different response.

The word "cycle" assumes that human behavior has something to do with goblins being "usually evil". We have the example of Red Cloak... but in SoD the Sapphire Guard was behaving in a really over the top manor that one hopes isn't typical (Paladin's don't like falling).

If one assumes Goblins are "usually evil" because the gods specifically made them to be that way, then there is no "cycle" to break. There's cause (i.e. goblins being evil and doing evil things that require the forces of good to act) and result (the forces of good acting). The goblins were evil before they were given their land, they were even evil before the forces of good started "oppressing" them. We can blame the gods for making them that way, but not the three kings.

Umm, except for Gobbotopia establishing diplomatic relations with its neighbors and being recognized by 17 other states, that is...Well put. The "cycle" has been broken, the goblins have their own country free from human "oppression"... and we can now see that the goblins are just as evil as ever. Shockingly, "usually evil" means "usually evil".

hamishspence

2010-05-04, 09:31 AM

Or, the goblins were Neutral when created.

Combining the clerics being told that the humanoids exist to be killed for XP (hence, a cleric can kill them without fear of Falling) and the lands they were given were so barren, that between cleric raids, and lack of anything to eat, they became militaristic raiders in order to survive.

As a result, they developed evil cultural tendencies, finishing up as a Usually Evil race.

If the gods bear responsibility for creating "XP fodder" then the humans bear responsibility for carrying out the wishes of their deities.

As was pointed out in War & XPs for the Sapphire Guard.

Now we don't know that this is the way things are- but does it seem plausible, given the behaviour of the gods in both the crayon strips and the online strips? And the behaviour of the paladin in Origin of PCs?

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 09:55 AM

Or, the goblins were Neutral when created.

Combining the clerics being told that the humanoids exist to be killed for XP (hence, a cleric can kill them without fear of Falling)...Good Clerics & Paladins were supposed to go out and kill neutral creatures who aren't committing evil acts? Why is this considered even remotely "plausible"?

The Giant has pointed out that Paladins can NOT simply kill even usually evil (or even just Evil) creatures indiscriminately without fear of falling. Roy is the in-comic gold standard for "good" precisely because he avoids murder when there are alternatives. That Paladin is another Miko, and eventually Miko fell.

SOD is pretty clear that the goblins had already been created before the gods decided that they'd be given poor land and such as a handicap. The implication is that being evil long predates their various handicaps. Also the Hobgoblin's city and Right-eye's village seem to indicate that raiding their neighbors had very little to do with "food" and much to do with "usually evil".

hamishspence

2010-05-04, 10:10 AM

Good Clerics & Paladins were supposed to go out and kill neutral creatures who aren't committing evil acts? Why is this considered even remotely "plausible"?

Maybe because most "hack and slash" adventuring works this way, with the adventurers killing neutral creatures like Lizardfolk, merely because "they're monsters".

Which I've seen numerous people claim is the way D&D is supposed to be played- because it was the way it was originally designed.

SOD is pretty clear that the goblins had already been created before the gods decided that they'd be given poor land and such as a handicap. The implication is that being evil long predates their various handicaps.

How exactly?

Kish

2010-05-04, 10:21 AM

SOD is pretty clear that the goblins had already been created before the gods decided that they'd be given poor land and such as a handicap.
Their creation was to be cannon fodder. At some point in the creation process, the gods realized, "Hey, at the numbers we've been making, we run the risk of our cannon fodder overwhelming our creation's 'actual people.'" So they handicapped the goblinoids, and made sure they couldn't even be dirt farmers because they wanted to make sure the goblinoids never considered any existence other than one as raiders. The implication is most certainly not that "being evil long predates their various handicaps."

hamishspence

2010-05-04, 10:29 AM

The presence of the normally Neutral lizardfolk in the "XP fodder" list does seem to suggest that they didn't begin by ensuring all "XP fodder" were evil-

their evilness (or lack of) may have been irrelevant to the deities.

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 11:24 AM

Maybe because most "hack and slash" adventuring works this way, with the adventurers killing neutral creatures like Lizardfolk, merely because "they're monsters".Interesting... the issue then becomes whether or not we've had multiple DMs and what happened before the start of history.

If we have *one* DM (which in this case is the Giant) then I'd expect that the rules are consistent. I.e. if Miko killing Belkar in the thrown room is a fall-worthy action, then so too is killing neutral creatures purely for xp.

But even if we do assume multiple DMs, it is clear the current DM would view killing neutrals for xp pretty harshly.

How exactly?It's a paradox. Goblins existed and were 'evil' or at least 'hostile' (as indicated by them holding weapons) before they had land. The order of the gods' decisions clearly indicates that they'd already created the goblins (etc) before they decided what land to give them.

Their creation was to be cannon fodder. At some point in the creation process, the gods realized, "Hey, at the numbers we've been making, we run the risk of our cannon fodder overwhelming our creation's 'actual people.'" So they handicapped the goblinoids...True. The goblins certainly did get shafted during the creation process.

But the issue is, "what do we do about it now?" Or more specifically, what should the three kings do about it now? Knowing the very sad history of the person holding a gun to your head doesn't change the current reality that...
1) He is indeed holding a gun to your head. All the blame shifting and historical context doesn't subtract from that reality.
2) The likely result of letting him build goblin-utopia is Evil, not Good. We've seen this demonstrated by Goblotopia's laws and the behavior of it's goblins.

We have no evidence to support the idea that the goblins are just one good break away from becoming a neutral race, just the opposite. It's not even clear how much of their "usually evil" comes from culture.

Further something that's not mentioned so far is how self-destructive evil really is. There are currently very few green goblins in the strip because the forces of evil (with the help of their god's high cleric) have gotten most of them killed. This even includes Right-eye and his village.

I don't have a problem with being "fair" to the goblins... but by no stretch of the imagination should that mean "letting evil win". The people most suffering from the goblins' evil is the goblins themselves. The saddest part of the goblins' plight is not just that they were made to die on the point of some adventurers sword, but that they were probably made to seek out situations where they'd deserve it.

hamishspence

2010-05-04, 01:29 PM

1) He is indeed holding a gun to your head. All the blame shifting and historical context doesn't subtract from that reality.

It's worth remembering that (unlike in the "gun to the head" example) the real threat wasn't the Dark One personally at the time, it was his army. If you're accosted by one man with a gun and you get the drop on him, you might be safe- but not if he's with many friends.

A better parallel- you're accosted by a big band of robbers- the leader of which comes up and asks you for money.

If you shoot him, without even replying, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of the band (who really love their leader) descend on you in rage.

Violence when you're vastly the weaker party, can be pretty foolish.

Even if you take the attitude that The Dark One was basically a criminal, with the army being the accomplices, and the citizens of the three kingdoms being hostages, you don't use violence on the guy sent to negotiate, not even if he's the leader. Using violence on a negotiator simply sends the message that you can't be trusted.

Now if they'd sent him back with a "we're not giving up any land without proper compensation"- that would have been fine. Or even snarl him in negotiations for months until they can get the elves and dwarves to back them up.

But just killing him simply precipitates a war. And a war in which the goblinoids can claim to be the injured party, since their leader being assassinated, was the trigger.

JonestheSpy

2010-05-04, 02:17 PM

Interesting... the issue then becomes whether or not we've had multiple DMs and what happened before the start of history.

If we have *one* DM (which in this case is the Giant) then I'd expect that the rules are consistent. I.e. if Miko killing Belkar in the thrown room is a fall-worthy action, then so too is killing neutral creatures purely for xp.

But even if we do assume multiple DMs, it is clear the current DM would view killing neutrals for xp pretty harshly.

There are no DM's, it's not a game. There are gods, and the rules of physics mimic DnD rules - one might say the gods are an analogy of game designers, but that's as far as the metaphor goes.

Sholos

2010-05-04, 02:55 PM

What "subjugation"? Hanging cattle thieves is what passes for "justice", not "slavery". Further, yes, the rest of the world does approve of "justice".

It's slavery when you were forced into coming out to the land in the first place. And, since apparently it wasn't clear enough, your people don't have any cattle of their own. You can barely get enough crops to feed yourself and your family. Barely. You're all just barely on the edge of starvation. Also, you're expected to work the good land for the people who are there, and they keep everything you grow. Oh, and they're abusive to you.

Also, could you point me to the strips where the Dark One's army went in for mass slavery and slaughter while he was still leading them? I've forgotten about that and would like to have a reference.

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 03:01 PM

There are no DM's, it's not a game. There are gods, and the rules of physics mimic DnD rules - one might say the gods are an analogy of game designers, but that's as far as the metaphor goes.Very good point. This means this world has ALWAYS had strict Paladin code rules of behavior and it's NEVER been "Good" to kill a neutral creature purely for xp.

Now if they'd sent him back with a "we're not giving up any land without proper compensation"- that would have been fine.Except that you're leaving the hyper-leader at the head of his army, and you presumably end up with the worst of both worlds. If he's willing to lie to his people, he can simply claim the king's insulted the idea of a goblin state.

Or even snarl him in negotiations for months until they can get the elves and dwarves to back them up.... But just killing him simply precipitates a war. And a war in which the goblinoids can claim to be the injured party, since their leader being assassinated, was the trigger.The kings probably can't expect reinforcements, certainly not to the tune of 100x Azures. It took the deaths of a million people to get the others involved the first time in the numbers needed.

Further it's unlikely the hyper-intelligent genius is going to be put off by bureaucratic roadblocks when he's got a gun to your head. Worse, it's also unlikely that you're going to get this kind of chance to kill him again. As awful as killing him turned out, sending him back alive might have been MUCH worse. As in "the combined force of all the PC races lose" bad.

It's worth remembering that (unlike in the "gun to the head" example) the real threat wasn't the Dark One personally at the time, it was his army.Yes and no. The best historical parallel is one hyper-charismatic hyper-competent leader who puts together an army. In general the world-conquering army doesn't outlive the leader who has created it.

Kill him and *maybe* you've touched off a holy war against yourself, but the other possible outcome is the waring tribes go back to war with each other (perhaps even over who the next leader will be) and the army falls apart. Killing him was definitely a high-risk, high-reward gambit but it's reasonable to think it was a lower-risk move than leaving the hyper-leader at the head of his army.

Presumably the kings should have let him finish his speech... but it's not clear to me that it really could make a difference. If you're a Good king, then allowing the creation of an Evil country right next to yours using your land is a non-starter and the whole "unstoppable army of evil" kind of speaks for itself.

JonestheSpy

2010-05-04, 03:05 PM

It's slavery when you were forced into coming out to the land in the first place. And, since apparently it wasn't clear enough, your people don't have any cattle of their own. You can barely get enough crops to feed yourself and your family. Barely. You're all just barely on the edge of starvation. Also, you're expected to work the good land for the people who are there, and they keep everything you grow. Oh, and they're abusive to you.

I also can't help but point out that most folks view killing people over property theft like cattle rustling to be barbarous tyranny, not justice...

zimmerwald1915

2010-05-04, 03:12 PM

I also can't help but point out that most folks view killing people over property theft like cattle rustling to be barbarous tyranny, not justice...
This view is actually quite modern, depending on the type of property stolen.

JonestheSpy

2010-05-04, 03:20 PM

This view is actually quite modern, depending on the type of property stolen.

Yes, kind of like the view that "slavery is evil" is modern...

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 03:21 PM

And, since apparently it wasn't clear enough, your people don't have any cattle of their own. You can barely get enough crops to feed yourself and your family. Barely. You're all just barely on the edge of starvation. Also, you're expected to work the good land for the people who are there, and they keep everything you grow. Oh, and they're abusive to you.In what way are the goblins "forced to work"? Being punished for committing crimes isn't "forced work". In what way are they "barely on the edge of starvation"? Right-eye's village disproves this pretty handily.

Also, could you point me to the strips where the Dark One's army went in for mass slavery and slaughter while he was still leading them? I've forgotten about that and would like to have a reference.So if I have a gun to your head, it doesn't count as a threat of violence unless I pull the trigger? Or does it not count as a threat unless you personally know that I've killed other people?

His army is described as the greatest ever seen. Without the Dark One's military genius, his army killed a million people in a world where the slaughter of Azure killed only 10k humans. It's a small world, a million is a big number.

I don't see how we can get away from the "gun to the head" analogy given these kind of numbers. The Dark One had the ability to exterminate the other side, or just enslave them, or do other nasty things. If he's one step from RC then he's LE.

It's possible to think that the Dark One would prevent innocent people from dying if he'd stay at it's head.... but he is LE and since he became a god he hasn't shown a lot of care about sparing the lives of innocent goblins. If you're one of the three kings, that's not a good situation to be in.

Danne

2010-05-04, 03:36 PM

Stuff.

I did some googling and you seem to be correct. I intend to discuss this with my original sources of information to see if I can clear up why I was confused.

Bottom line: If you get in any altercation in the US, odds are pretty good you're going to go to court. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, what actually happens -- jail time or no -- is heavily dependent on who the attorneys are, who the jury is composed of, and what the attorneys can convince the attorneys to believe in a nice, comfortable courtroom far away from the life-or-death decision you had to make. No matter how strong your case, you're better avoiding the roulette wheel entirely if you can.

That about sums it up, yeah. Whatever the jury believes is what decides what happens to you.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-04, 03:41 PM

Yes, kind of like the view that "slavery is evil" is modern...

In fact, up until a century and a half, slavery of people with diferent skin color was totally acceptable. So the gobbos limiting themselves to slavery of people from different species is kinda advanced for a medieval setting.

And even then, the gobbos are likely to drop human slavery as soon as the bald monkeys do some concessions. Remember that bit about Cliffport acknowelding Gobbtopia with hopes of influencing their slavery policies.

Snake-Aes

2010-05-04, 03:43 PM

In fact, up until a century and a half, slavery of people with diferent skin color was totally acceptable. So the gobbos limiting themselves to slavery of people from different species is kinda advanced for a medieval setting.

Slavery is atemporal. It's existed ever since organized civilizations did. It's shifted into different names, and sometimes into denial(like now), and will probably go back into public approval again in a few centuries.

Danne

2010-05-04, 03:57 PM

In fact, up until a century and a half, slavery of people with diferent skin color was totally acceptable. So the gobbos limiting themselves to slavery of people from different species is kinda advanced for a medieval setting.

Actually, slavery based on skin color was a phenomenon that pretty much only existed in the U.S. In many cultures, "slave" was simply the lowest class status. You could be bought and sold, sure, but there were (usually) ways to earn your freedom, and your children weren't necessarily automatically slaves, too. I'm generalizing, of course, as there were many countries with brutal slave systems (or even one type of slave was treated brutally but others had it okay), and even in places that treated slaves fairly humanely it still sucked to be one, but skin color was not, historically, a common requirement for a slave.

And even then, they are likely to drop it as soon as the humans do some concessions. Remember that bit about Cliffport acknowelding Gobbtopia with hopes of influencing his human-slavery policies.

This was poking fun at real world situations where Country A overlooks something they don't like about Country B because they need trade with that country. Frequent excuse given is that A has decided to influence B's position on [the thing they don't like] through economic engagement, when in reality they just don't care enough about the issue to turn down a chance to make some cash trading with B. (I can't think of a single example in which trading with a country has convinced that country to institute major policy changes. I don't think we can look forward to Gobbotopia emancipating their slaves on their own initiative any time soon.)

zimmerwald1915

2010-05-04, 04:59 PM

Slavery is atemporal. It's existed ever since organized civilizations did. It's shifted into different names, and sometimes into denial(like now), and will probably go back into public approval again in a few centuries.
I don't think that's true. Exploitation and civilization have indeed hitherto gone hand in hand, but the juridicial form of the exploitation is not rendered meaningless. Paying someone for the right to direct their actions for a certain period of time is not the same as claiming by force the ownership of another person's flesh.

Sholos

2010-05-04, 05:00 PM

In what way are the goblins "forced to work"? Being punished for committing crimes isn't "forced work". In what way are they "barely on the edge of starvation"? Right-eye's village disproves this pretty handily.
You'll forgive me if I point out that Right-eye's village was well after the Dark One's campaign and thus can't really be used as evidence for anything about those times. Also, in my metaphor, "forced to work" = "killed". If you really couldn't see that, maybe you shouldn't have created the metaphor in the first place.

So if I have a gun to your head, it doesn't count as a threat of violence unless I pull the trigger? Or does it not count as a threat unless you personally know that I've killed other people?

His army is described as the greatest ever seen. Without the Dark One's military genius, his army killed a million people in a world where the slaughter of Azure killed only 10k humans. It's a small world, a million is a big number.
So... no strips then? I was serious. Pointing out what the army did after their beloved leader was assassinated has absolutely no bearing to their activities beforehand. I want proof that the army under the Dark One was as bad as you are claiming.

I don't see how we can get away from the "gun to the head" analogy given these kind of numbers. The Dark One had the ability to exterminate the other side, or just enslave them, or do other nasty things. If he's one step from RC then he's LE.
If he had that ability and was really as evil as you say, why didn't he go ahead and do it? Seems to me that the goblins would have a much easier life if all the humans, elves, and dwarves were gone. Seems to me that the Dark One was taking pains to avoid more bloodshed for his enemies than necessary.

It's possible to think that the Dark One would prevent innocent people from dying if he'd stay at it's head.... but he is LE and since he became a god he hasn't shown a lot of care about sparing the lives of innocent goblins. If you're one of the three kings, that's not a good situation to be in.
Again, please point out the strips that show how bad the Dark One was acting while in command of his army. What he or his army does after his assassination has exactly no bearing on the situation beforehand. The three kings did not decide to kill him by looking into the future and seeing that he would be an evil god. They killed him when he came to peacefully negotiate.

Also, once a war is started, end negotiations will almost inevitably be of the "gun to the head" variety. Once people are willing to kill you, you generally don't stop them by asking politely. Basically, you're accusing him of evil when he's actually making peace when he has no need to.

Danne

2010-05-04, 08:05 PM

I don't think that's true. Exploitation and civilization have indeed hitherto gone hand in hand, but the juridicial form of the exploitation is not rendered meaningless. Paying someone for the right to direct their actions for a certain period of time is not the same as claiming by force the ownership of another person's flesh.

Slavery is still in existance today. I'm not sure if you were trying to argue that it wasn't or not, so I just figured I'd point that out. I do agree with you that it is unlikely for the world, as a whole, will resort to legalized slavery, though.

Dark Matter

2010-05-04, 08:36 PM

You'll forgive me if I point out that Right-eye's village was well after the Dark One's campaign and thus can't really be used as evidence for anything about those times.After the Dark One's campaign the repression of goblins *increased*, not *decreased*.

Also, in my metaphor, "forced to work" = "killed". If you really couldn't see that, maybe you shouldn't have created the metaphor in the first place.I saw your metaphor, but I reject it. If we take #511 and translate it into the WW West, the goblins whipping the slaves for their sadistic enjoyment don't become victims, much less slaves. Similarly the forces of good (in this case Haley) don't become unjust oppressors for killing them.

Did the gods do something to increase the chances of the goblins becoming sadists? Yes, probably. But the fact remains that they're monsters, and not because they have fangs and Orange skin. It's a Good action to stop them, even if you have to kill them. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

So... no strips then? I was serious. Pointing out what the army did after their beloved leader was assassinated has absolutely no bearing to their activities beforehand. I want proof that the army under the Dark One was as bad as you are claiming.Then I want proof that the Dark One's people were starving (meaning Right Eye's village was the exception) and I also want proof that the Dark One had some benign reason to create his army of evil other than threatening his neighbors.

If he had that ability and was really as evil as you say, why didn't he go ahead and do it? Seems to me that the goblins would have a much easier life if all the humans, elves, and dwarves were gone. Seems to me that the Dark One was taking pains to avoid more bloodshed for his enemies than necessary.He's taking the long view and not taking unneeded risks. If The Dark One goes to war he *thinks* he'll easily win, but even with his army it's not a sure thing. It's possible some Epic Spell Caster will step in. It's even less clear he'll be allowed to keep his victory. Will the other PC races jump in?

In War there are unknown unknowns. In AD&D the "nuclear" weapons are Epic level spellcasters, and no one really knows if they'll interfere. Even a gun to the head isn't a sure thing.

Again, please point out the strips that show how bad the Dark One was acting while in command of his army.The "bad" part is building the army and then telling his neighbors he wanted their land. That his threat was unspoken didn't lessen it.

Also, once a war is started, end negotiations will almost inevitably be of the "gun to the head" variety. Once people are willing to kill you, you generally don't stop them by asking politely. Basically, you're accusing him of evil when he's actually making peace when he has no need to.I'm accusing the LE commander of the massive (usually) evil army of building said army for the purpose of threatening and/or attacking his neighbors. I'm also pointing out that this course of action doesn't hit the radar as "peaceful" or "trustworthy" much less "Good".

Morithias

2010-05-05, 04:11 AM

I'd pretty much say yes to this flat out. Without the dark one Redcloak wouldn't have his Cleric Powers. "Hello Fighter-without-bonus-feats-who-doesn't-even-have-a-full-bab".

He wouldn't even be a threat to Elan....at the beginning of the comic.

Sholos

2010-05-05, 05:05 AM

After the Dark One's campaign the repression of goblins *increased*, not *decreased*.
I saw your metaphor, but I reject it. If we take #511 and translate it into the WW West, the goblins whipping the slaves for their sadistic enjoyment don't become victims, much less slaves. Similarly the forces of good (in this case Haley) don't become unjust oppressors for killing them.
You reject it without any reason to. Everything you've come up with is from an era not related to the Dark One's existence on the mortal plane. #511 has nothing to do with the Dark One's army.

Did the gods do something to increase the chances of the goblins becoming sadists? Yes, probably. But the fact remains that they're monsters, and not because they have fangs and Orange skin. It's a Good action to stop them, even if you have to kill them. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html
At the risk of repeating myself, that has nothing to do with the Dark One's Army. Now will you please stop acting as if the current army is the one that was under the Dark One.

Then I want proof that the Dark One's people were starving (meaning Right Eye's village was the exception) and I also want proof that the Dark One had some benign reason to create his army of evil other than threatening his neighbors.
It's mentioned in SoD that the whole reason the army is created is to have some way of holding on to lands that are better than the ones they currently live on, because the ones they currently live on barely support life. Also, they're being killed randomly for XP, which they're not too happy about.

He's taking the long view and not taking unneeded risks. If The Dark One goes to war he *thinks* he'll easily win, but even with his army it's not a sure thing. It's possible some Epic Spell Caster will step in. It's even less clear he'll be allowed to keep his victory. Will the other PC races jump in?
If some epic spell caster was going to jump in, they'd already have done it. Talking out a victory doesn't give him any better chances at holding onto it than wiping everyone else out. In fact, it worsens those chances (what with the whole "living enemies alive" thing).

In War there are unknown unknowns. In AD&D the "nuclear" weapons are Epic level spellcasters, and no one really knows if they'll interfere. Even a gun to the head isn't a sure thing.
Given that they've chosen not to interfere so far (if they even exist), it's not likely that they'll start, and even if they do, it's unclear which side they'd support. Even then, it's just more subjugation and a better reason to wipe everyone out rather than stand around talking.

The "bad" part is building the army and then telling his neighbors he wanted their land. That his threat was unspoken didn't lessen it.
So, the "bad" part is wanting a better life for his kind than to be slaughtered casually for XP? You have an interesting definition of "bad".

I'm accusing the LE commander of the massive (usually) evil army of building said army for the purpose of threatening and/or attacking his neighbors. I'm also pointing out that this course of action doesn't hit the radar as "peaceful" or "trustworthy" much less "Good".
Well, then you completely misread SoD. The Dark One very explicitly did not build the army for the sole purpose of crushing those around him. He built the army in order to have some political clout in order to ensure good living conditions for goblins.

Let's be intellectually honest here and look at what probably would have happened if a major goblin city had sprung up. Not a pathetic little place like Right Eye's village, but what that village might have eventually become. In the pre-Dark-One era (assuming such a city came around), do you really think that the PC races would have tolerated such a city? I don't. They would have seen the "rising" of the goblins as a threat and moved to nullify it. That is why the Dark One needed the army. Violence was the only thing that was going to wake up the other races to a point where they might actually listen; and, if the Dark One had been more distrustful of them, it might have worked. Funny thing, that.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 08:26 AM

You reject it without any reason to. Everything you've come up with is from an era not related to the Dark One's existence on the mortal plane. #511 has nothing to do with the Dark One's army.You are pointing to absence of evidence and claiming it's evidence of absence. You're also creating that absence of evidence by asking us to ignore situations which appear relevant. I.e...IMHO we can and should assume that...
1) ...the rules for Paladin's falling haven't changed much if at all.
2) ...the depiction of "usually evil" now corresponds to how "usually evil" worked then.
3) ...all the grubby details on how an army of usually evil works now correspond to how it worked then.
4) ...the depiction of a "usually evil" society would work now correspond to how it would have worked then.

Further, to my eye The Plan (The Snarl) is an attempt to recreate situation the kings were in. It's a gun to the head of whoever the Dark One is "negotiating". It's very unlikely that the gods will interpret a Snarl-on-a-leash as an act of peace, and it seems like a breathless act of nativity to claim that they should.

At the risk of repeating myself, that has nothing to do with the Dark One's Army. Now will you please stop acting as if the current army is the one that was under the Dark One.The modern army was set up 100% by RedCloak, not Xykon. Xykon didn't even have a body when RC took command and Xykon slept through the one meeting he attended. It's a goblin army, led by the Dark One's high Cleric. It's as close as can be to whatever was before. The having ghouls eat the discipline problems? That's not Xykon's evil, that's the goblins'.

It's mentioned in SoD that the whole reason the army is created is to have some way of holding on to lands that are better than the ones they currently live on, because the ones they currently live on barely support life. Also, they're being killed randomly for XP, which they're not too happy about.Actually no, it doesn't say that "the whole reason for the army" is any of that. Nor do I see the word "randomly".

If some epic spell caster was going to jump in, they'd already have done it. Given that they've chosen not to interfere so far (if they even exist), it's not likely that they'll start, and even if they do, it's unclear which side they'd support.Most Good epic spell casters probably killed goblins back when they were low level. From racial tendencies (and how long it takes them to age to death), many are elves (which is to say, probably not living with those three kings).

And you're right when you say "if they exist". Maybe they don't exist or are busy. But an invasion is a bad way of checking whether or not the other side has a self-absorbed nuclear weapon.

Talking out a victory doesn't give him any better chances at holding onto it than wiping everyone else out. In fact, it worsens those chances (what with the whole "living enemies alive" thing).Talking out a victory has worked very well when it's worked. Not every gun to the head ends with a corpse, most end only with a missing wallet.

So, the "bad" part is wanting a better life for his kind than to be slaughtered casually for XP? You have an interesting definition of "bad".Putting an end to being killed for XP didn't even merit a mention in the Dark One's speech.

Well, then you completely misread SoD. The Dark One very explicitly did not build the army for the sole purpose of crushing those around him. He built the army in order to have some political clout in order to ensure good living conditions for goblins."Some political clout" doesn't appear to be his style. Both the Army and the Snarl give him the ability to say "do what I say or I kill you and your families and destroy your civilization". And having that ability means you don't need to actually verbalize it.

In the pre-Dark-One era (assuming such a city came around), do you really think that the PC races would have tolerated such a city? I don't.The PCs races did tolerate the building of a goblin society. They didn't act against the Dark One until he told them he wanted their land.

...if the Dark One had been more distrustful of them, it might have worked....Or maybe it would have worked if he'd talked to them without insisting he have a gun pointed to their head.

For that matter, maybe if he talked to the gods right now he could negotiate. He has Goblotopia and the Plan. He could probably swing support for keeping the former in exchange for giving up the later.

But I don't expect that to happen. I don't see any evidence that the Dark One is even interested in "negotiation" unless he's holding a gun to the head of whoever he's talking to.

hamishspence

2010-05-05, 09:19 AM

The modern army was set up 100% by RedCloak, not Xykon. Xykon didn't even have a body when RC took command and Xykon slept through the one meeting he attended. It's a goblin army, led by the Dark One's high Cleric. It's as close as can be to whatever was before. The having ghouls eat the discipline problems? That's not Xykon's evil, that's the goblins'.

And who taught Redcloak how to handle discipline problems? Xykon.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html

Redcloak even admits "I'm turning into Xykon!" when he realizes what his behaviour toward the hobgoblins is like.

Would the Dark One have kept discipline in the same way? I doubt it.

zimmerwald1915

2010-05-05, 09:58 AM

Slavery is still in existance today. I'm not sure if you were trying to argue that it wasn't or not
I wasn't. I was merely arguing that wage labor, is not the same as slavery, the rhetoric of those opposed to wage labor notwithstanding.

Sorry to derail: feel free to ignore this post.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 11:22 AM

Would the Dark One have kept discipline in the same way? I doubt it.Yes and no. RC was ordering goblins to their deaths for his own amusement. The Dark One wasn't a CE psychopath, we don't know to what degree he had undead in his army.

But he was LE and also had to maintain discipline in an usually-evil army. Whatever his solution was, it was unlikely to be "Good".

One of the things which stands out is how accepting the run-of-the-mill goblins have been of this kind of thing. My impression is RC's treatment of them wasn't considered unusual, much less shocking. Then we also have the Dark One's apparent willingness to risk the extermination of goblin-kind (including their souls) in order to save goblin-kind. He doesn't hit the radar as someone who would flinch at sacrificing some discipline problem goblins for the sake of maintaining control.

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 11:34 AM

But he was LE and also had to maintain discipline in an usually-evil army. Whatever his solution was, it was unlikely to be "Good".

A simple question: could you tell me where it's said that, in life, the Dark One was evil?

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 11:56 AM

A simple question: could you tell me where it's said that, in life, the Dark One was evil?And where is it said that the process of becoming a god has any effect on the subject's alignment?

We also have the whole similarity between "The Plan" and the Army... meaning his idea of "negotiation" didn't change, and a gun to the head is pretty evil. That's over and above the whole "usually evil" thing, and his creation of the army of evil.

This is a guy who build the world's biggest army and then offered to not use it if certain conditions were met. He was a great hero... but (IMHO) a LE one.

If we want to break the 4th wall we also have his similarity to Thanos of Titan in the same book which had stand ins for other Marvel characters.

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 01:18 PM

And where is it said that the process of becoming a god has any effect on the subject's alignment?

We also have the whole similarity between "The Plan" and the Army... meaning his idea of "negotiation" didn't change, and a gun to the head is pretty evil. That's over and above the whole "usually evil" thing, and his creation of the army of evil.

This is a guy who build the world's biggest army and then offered to not use it if certain conditions were met. He was a great hero... but (IMHO) a LE one.

If we want to break the 4th wall we also have his similarity to Thanos of Titan in the same book which had stand ins for other Marvel characters.

Let me put that in another way: where is it said that dying a traumatic death can't posthumously change your outlook on things? Because getting assassinated upon legitimately attempting a diplomacy attempt does strike me as the sort of event to make one rethink his way of interacting with other people.

Other than that, thank you for showing me that your view that the Dark One had evil intentions is purely that: your view.

CWater

2010-05-05, 01:20 PM

And where is it said that the process of becoming a god has any effect on the subject's alignment?

But it is not becoming a god that possibly made him evil.

If you're an idealist (which I believe the Dark One was, in case he wasn't evil to begin with) who tries to improve the conditions your people are living in,
1.getting stabbed to death during peace negotiations
2.learning that your whole race was originally created as XP fodder by the gods themselves and that they wouldn't care less if they(goblins) are slaughtered
can leave you rather bitter. Which can lead to turning evil.

I'm not saying this is any sort of excuse for being evil, I'm simply trying to point out that even if the Dark One is evil now he might not always have been.

Oh, ninjad.:smalltongue:

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 01:24 PM

But it is not becoming a god that possibly made him evil.

If you're an idealist (which I believe the Dark One was, in case he wasn't evil to begin with) who tries to improve the conditions your people are living in,
1.getting stabbed to death during peace negotiations
2.learning that your whole race was originally created as XP fodder by the gods themselves and that they wouldn't care less if they(goblins) are slaughtered
can leave you rather bitter. Which can lead to turning evil.

I'm not saying this is any sort of excuse for being evil, I'm simply trying to point out that even if the Dark One is evil now he might not always have been.

Exactly. Thank you for expressing my opinion better than I did.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 02:02 PM

Let me put that in another way: where is it said that dying a traumatic death can't posthumously change your outlook on things?In AD&D dying (or being Raised from the Dead) doesn't change your alignment.

Because getting assassinated upon legitimately attempting a diplomacy attempt does strike me as the sort of event to make one rethink his way of interacting with other people.And in what way has he changed the way he interacts with other people?

Other than that, thank you for showing me that your view that the Dark One had evil intentions is purely that: your view.So if he didn't have evil intentions... why did he want a gun to the kings' heads? Why should we (much less the kings) ignore the biggest and most dangerous army ever created? And created by the same guy who is explaining why it'd be fair for you to hand over your wallet for the kings to hand over their land?

Further, the big thing which is missing from the Dark One's history is any effort to make his people more "Good" (as opposed to 'better'). Did he outlaw slavery? Torture? Drinking the blood of the innocent? If so there's no mention of it by RC which is an odd oversight. Nor have we seen RC make any effort to make his people more "Good". He's in a position to pass any laws he wants, and "for the good of the goblins" keeps being translated into "seriously LE laws".

If you're an idealist (which I believe the Dark One was, in case he wasn't evil to begin with) who tries to improve the conditions your people are living in...I have no problems calling the Dark One an idealist. But RC has proven you can be both Evil and an idealist trying to do good things for your people. The Dark One's methodology (what little we know of it) seems (and has stayed) pretty LE.

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 02:20 PM

In AD&D dying (or being Raised from the Dead) doesn't change your alignment.

Because clearly I was implying a direct correlation between dying and alignment shifts and not considering how continuing to exist after death allowed you to ponder about the events that lead to your death and shift your views accordingly.

No sir, I was most certainly saying there was a rule in some splatbook that said dying shifts your alignment.

And in what way has he changed the way he interacts with other people?
So if he didn't have evil intentions... why did he want a gun to the kings' heads? Why should we (much less the kings) ignore the biggest and most dangerous army ever created? And created by the same guy who is explaining why it'd be fair for you to hand over your wallet for the kings to hand over their land?

I'm sorry, you seem to be forgetting the part where nobody thinks your "gun to the head" analogy works. I don't either so I won't bother to answer to this.

Further, the big thing which is missing from the Dark One's history is any effort to make his people more "Good" (as opposed to 'better'). Did he outlaw slavery? Torture? Drinking the blood of the innocent? If so there's no mention of it by RC which is an odd oversight. Nor have we seen RC make any effort to make his people more "Good". He's in a position to pass any laws he wants, and "for the good of the goblins" keeps being translated into "seriously LE laws".

As I said, I believe the Dark One turned evil after being murdered and realizing the disdain the gods have for his people. No contradiction there.

I have no problems calling the Dark One an idealist. But RC has proven you can be both Evil and an idealist trying to do good things for your people. The Dark One's methodology (what little we know of it) seems (and has stayed) pretty LE.

What do you know, it doesn't seem LE to me. Him and his people had been harassed by the human kingdoms for their entire existence, so he raised an army which they could use to defend themselves. He raised his people into a threat the other kingdoms couldn't ignore - and then he asked for a peaceful meeting.

View it however you like, repeat your "gun to the head" idea all you want, it still won't make him the bad guy in that situation.

hamishspence

2010-05-05, 02:37 PM

What do you know, it doesn't seem LE to me. Him and his people had been harassed by the human kingdoms for their entire existence, so he raised an army which they could use to defend themselves. He raised his people into a threat the other kingdoms couldn't ignore - and then he asked for a peaceful meeting.

Did he ask for the meeting, or them, or both?

That particular bit of Redcloak's story begins with

"He instead arranged to meet with the assembled heads of several countries, and this is what he said:"

and continues to

"They had never intended to discuss peace with a lowly goblin, the meeting had merely been a ruse to lure the leader of the horde to them."

So, where did the ruse come in if it was the Dark One who made the arrangements to meet with them?

Maybe the ruse, was accepting his offer to meet, but bringing a secret assassin to the meeting.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 02:38 PM

I'm sorry, you seem to be forgetting the part where nobody thinks your "gun to the head" analogy works. And yet no one has explained why it doesn't work. If you can say "or you and your family/kingdom die", then that's a gun to the head. In what way is this incorrect?

Him and his people had been harassed by the human kingdoms for their entire existence...That's certainly how he and his look at it. But is it how WE should look at it?

Is what Haley is doing in 511 "harassment"? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

...so he raised an army which they could use to defend themselves. He raised his people into a threat the other kingdoms couldn't ignore - and then he asked for a peaceful meeting.A "peaceful" meeting where he said "give me your land"... with the unspoken threat of the greatest army ever created.

Stille_Nacht

2010-05-05, 03:20 PM

it is not a gun to the head, its more of a, put opponent in submission hold when they start beating you, then calmly ask to talk about things. Since it was not the dark one who technically started the fight (it was the people slamming the goblins), it does not count as a cold blooded threat.

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 03:49 PM

And yet no one has explained why it doesn't work. If you can say "or you and your family/kingdom die", then that's a gun to the head. In what way is this incorrect?

Want gun comparisons? It's like if you were a black man whose neighbor is a very vocal and violent racist, who own a gun and makes a point to show you he can use it. Then, one day, you decide to buy a gun for yourself to ensure your safety and tell your neighbor you did so. Him, in response, murders you on the spot.

A small nation creating an army for itself doesn't mean it's suddenly become hostile to its neighbors and plans to attack. It means it's taking steps to defend itself and its people.

That's certainly how he and his look at it. But is it how WE should look at it?

Is what Haley is doing in 511 "harassment"? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

How are the actions of Haley in the present relevant to our discussion about the Dark One during his life?

A "peaceful" meeting where he said "give me your land"... with the unspoken threat of the greatest army ever created.

He used his army to force the kings to listen to him, because otherwise they would never consider it. And they stll didn't - they murdered him on the spot.

He clearly showed he wanted to avoid bloodshed, while the kings murdered him without even bothering to listen to him. And yet you still defend their actions. So, why am I even bothering with this if you seem to clearly misunderstand the whole point of SoD?

pendell

2010-05-05, 04:21 PM

And yet no one has explained why it doesn't work. If you can say "or you and your family/kingdom die", then that's a gun to the head. In what way is this incorrect?
That's certainly how he and his look at it. But is it how WE should look at it?

Is what Haley is doing in 511 "harassment"? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html
A "peaceful" meeting where he said "give me your land"... with the unspoken threat of the greatest army ever created.

Umm ... Does anyone remember This strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html)?

But that scene was only partially true, wasn't it? See the rest of the scene with ol' Miss Blue-cloak here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html). Heck, we didn't even know blue-cloak was female, or a paladin, or aything in the first strip. It was misleading in many ways.

And no one remembers This scene (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html) from the end of the last book, which sort of calls the memories of all the other crayon segments into question?

Thus, I'm going to hold off on assigning heroes and villains until I know a lot more about just what's going on in the story. Fact: Redcloak lied to Xykon at least once in that monologue, and Right-eye called him on it. But even if Redcloak was telling the truth outside of that small tidbit, the fact remains that what he remembers he remembers from the Dark One, and as Tolkien put it, 'he who sees through the Dark Lord's eyes sees all things froward'.

I think we're operating on very incomplete information given directly by an evil god who has demonstrated neither a love for the truth nor concern for the wellbeing of his subjects. Because of this, I'm not going to call anyone a hero or a villain until we've heard from more of the players at that meeting, which I suspect we will at some point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 05:09 PM

Want gun comparisons?...Your example has *two* guns. For a sense of scale the murdered guy needs to be threatening to bring in 100 armed friends.

A small nation creating an army for itself doesn't mean it's suddenly become hostile to its neighbors and plans to attack. It means it's taking steps to defend itself and its people.Azure was a major battle and the losing side lost 1/100th what the winning side did in the Dark One's campaign. What does it mean when the small nation builds an army 100 times it's neighbors?

How are the actions of Haley in the present relevant to our discussion about the Dark One during his life?You are claiming that the Dark One was justified because of the "harassment" by the forces of good. Do you consider stopping a goblin from whipping his slaves "because it's funny" to be harassment? Or are the "usually evil" goblins sometimes engaged in actions that require the forces of good to act?

Haley's actions aren't "harassment" by our standards but they are by RC's and the Dark Ones (witness the laws in Goblotopia). It's very fine to say "the Dark One was just trying to end the harassment and protect his people." It is less fine to say that goblins should be free to be sadists... but that's clearly what RC (and by extension the Dark One) want and have done.

Yes, "Usually evil" goblins don't deserve to die solely for being evil. And Yes, Goblotopia is trying to stop goblin "harassment". But at the end of the day, I still think it was "justice" and not "harassment" to stop the goblin holding the whip.

Killing the Dark One in the way the kings did was an evil act. But allowing him to set up a country where the slaves can be whipped because it's funny? That not acceptable either.

Wulfang

2010-05-05, 05:17 PM

Your example has *two* guns. For a sense of scale the murdered guy needs to be threatening to bring in 100 armed friends.

Why am I bothering to discuss this with you?

Azure was a major battle and the losing side lost 1/100th what the winning side did in the Dark One's campaign. What does it mean when the small nation builds army is 100 times it's neighbors?

I don't know, that said neighbors were a significant problem and they needed really great numbers to be able to stand up to them?

You are claiming that the Dark One was justified because of the "harassment" by the forces of good. Do you consider stopping a goblin from whipping his slaves "because it's funny" to be harassment? Or are the "usually evil" goblins sometimes engaged in actions that require the forces of good to act?

Haley's actions aren't "harassment" by our standards but they are by RC's and the Dark Ones (witness the laws in Goblotopia). It's very fine to say "the Dark One was just trying to end the harassment and protect his people." It is less fine to say that goblins should be free to be sadists... but that's clearly what RC (and by extension the Dark One) want and have done.

Yes, "Usually evil" goblins don't deserve to die solely for being evil. And Yes, Goblotopia is trying to stop goblin "harassment". But at the end of the day, I still think it was "justice" and not "harassment" to stop the goblin holding the whip.

Killing the Dark One in the way the kings did was an evil act. But allowing him to set up a country where the slaves can be whipped because it's funny? That not acceptable either.

Again, what do Haley's action in the present, against Redcloak and the state of Gobbotopia, have to do with the Dark One's campaign thousands of years ago? Do you have any proof that the Dark One or his followers engaged in slavery or torture?

No, you don't, so stop trying to build this up as if it was actually an argument.

Dark Matter

2010-05-05, 08:27 PM

I don't know, that said neighbors were a significant problem and they needed really great numbers to be able to stand up to them?Not, 100x the numbers, 100x the force. Don't you think the neighbors should be concerned about this?

Again, what do Haley's action in the present, against Redcloak and the state of Gobbotopia, have to do with the Dark One's campaign thousands of years ago? Do you have any proof that the Dark One or his followers engaged in slavery or torture?A much better question is: Do you have any evidence that goblins weren't "usually evil" in those days?

You're trying to insist that without information we view them as innocent lambs... but they're being killed by Paladins and good Clerics in a world where Miko nearly fell for killing Belkar. If they were "usually evil" and did the sorts of things we expect from the usually evil, then Haley's situation needs to be viewed as typical.

Granted, yes, SoD proves goblins should be given the chance to be good... but we don't have any record of the Dark One (as opposed to Right Eye) trying to make his people less evil.

hamishspence

2010-05-06, 03:20 PM

Granted, yes, SoD proves goblins should be given the chance to be good... but we don't have any record of the Dark One (as opposed to Right Eye) trying to make his people less evil.

Wasn't that the whole point of asking for some fertile land in the first place- so that they would not need to do evil things like raid?

That, plus the method he used to unite the goblinoids:

"encouraging them to treat each other as brothers and sisters united by a common purpose- to build a lasting goblinoid civilization"

implying that before The Dark One arrived, they didn't treat each other that way.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-06, 03:58 PM

This is a guy who build the world's biggest army and then offered to not use it if certain conditions were met. He was a great hero... but (IMHO) a LE one.

That is very, VERY far from being lawful evil Or do you only think evil types can go to war?

His people were being driven from their homes, slaughtered where they lived, and viewed as vermin. They had no good land, insufficient food, and were easier to get a permit to kill than the kings deer. Raising an army to kill his oppressors would not have only been revenge it would have been justice.

Wulfang

2010-05-06, 05:23 PM

Not, 100x the numbers, 100x the force. Don't you think the neighbors should be concerned about this?

Ever heard about deterence?

A much better question is: Do you have any evidence that goblins weren't "usually evil" in those days?

Did I ever dispute that?

You're trying to insist that without information we view them as innocent lambs... but they're being killed by Paladins and good Clerics in a world where Miko nearly fell for killing Belkar. If they were "usually evil" and did the sorts of things we expect from the usually evil, then Haley's situation needs to be viewed as typical.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no proof that they ever engaged in slavery or torture back then.

And, as Rich himself once said, some people are evil because they choose to and other because of what life has forced them into. Guess which one the goblins (forced by the gods to live in barren wastelands, thus having to raid other settlements to sustain themselves) are.

Granted, yes, SoD proves goblins should be given the chance to be good... but we don't have any record of the Dark One (as opposed to Right Eye) trying to make his people less evil.

What Hamishpence said above.

Dark Matter

2010-05-06, 09:07 PM

Wasn't that the whole point of asking for some fertile land in the first place- so that they would not need to do evil things like raid?That's the problem right there. Was it? Conquering a kingdom (and setting yourself up as king) isn't an inherently 'Good' thing, even (or especially) if you're doing it for a race that's usually evil. And other than attempting to take land from his neighbors, I don't see any evidence for the Dark One being 'Good'.

Assume dying didn't change The Dark One's alignment (just like normal). This means that when he was alive, he was LE, and pretty hard core Evil at that. Is giving someone like that a kingdom along with his 'world's-best' army going to result in 'Good' things? Would someone like that have any interest in being 'Good' or in helping his people be 'Good'?

Or at best are we going to see something along the line of RC's Goblotopia? If you buy into the idea that something needs to change for the goblins (and I do), it still doesn't mean that you should be helping the Dark One. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That, plus the method he used to unite the goblinoids: "encouraging them to treat each other as brothers and sisters united by a common purpose- to build a lasting goblinoid civilization" implying that before The Dark One arrived, they didn't treat each other that way.I.e. he got his people organized. This was very lawful of him. But was it LG, or LN, or LE?

His people were being driven from their homes, slaughtered where they lived, and viewed as vermin. They had no good land, insufficient food, and were easier to get a permit to kill than the kings deer. Raising an army to kill his oppressors would not have only been revenge it would have been justice.First, where does "insufficient food" come from? A number of people have said this but I don't ever remember seeing it mentioned, even with the goblins who weren't raiding.

Second, all the rest of that sounds horrible, except the bulk of this "oppression" is coming from unfallen Paladins and good Clerics. If we traced down the specifics of each incident, would most of them look like Haley?

Dark Matter

2010-05-06, 09:55 PM

Ever heard about deterrence?An equal sized army is "deterrence". If you want to stretch a point maybe even at 2x or 4x. But at ten times you're deep into absurdity to claim 'deterrence' and he was at one hundred times.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no proof that they ever engaged in slavery or torture back then.True... but in a world where Miko would have fallen for killing Belkar, the Goblins are doing something which merits Paladins stepping. It doesn't have to be slavery or torture, but presumably it's enough to prevent Paladins from falling when they step in because Paladins presumably don't like falling.

And, as Rich himself once said, some people are evil because they choose to and other because of what life has forced them into.This is very true.

Guess which one the goblins (forced by the gods to live in barren wastelands, thus having to raid other settlements to sustain themselves) are.This is a massive leap of faith. Goblins were built as xp-foder and then they were given their barren wastelands to keep them down. The implication is their "usually evil" default setting came before their homeland and will continue if they leave it.

RedCloak stands out as someone who was basically forced into evil by a massive screwup by the forces of good. Xykon was not. But RC's situation was truly exceptional because we should assume that Paladins don't like falling and most villages don't have key components to "the Plan". Those goblins holding the whips in 511 hit the radar as more like Xykon than RedCloak.

In AD&D there are no rules for changing a species' default alignment. If Goblotopia exists another 100 years (5+ generations), the goblins growing up there will presumably still be "usually evil" and whipping the slaves for personal amusement will still be the rule rather than the exception.

Thanatosia

2010-05-06, 11:29 PM

This is a massive leap of faith. Goblins were built as xp-foder and then they were given their barren wastelands to keep them down. The implication is their "usually evil" default setting came before their homeland and will continue if they leave it.
Consider the source of your information. This is suspect propaganda 2 steps removed.... I think Redcloak is sincere in his belief of the Dark Ones Origin story, but I dont think the Dark One was playing him level.

What if Goblin Society was hamstrung not by good gods setting up monstrous humanoids for failure, but by having an evil patron who is more concerned with his own power then the good of the races under his charge - while other races get to flourish under deities that genuinely care about their subjects, Goblins must pursue elaborate ploys to force the other gods to their knees.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-07, 02:56 AM

I'm sorry, you seem to be forgetting the part where nobody thinks your "gun to the head" analogy works. I don't either so I won't bother to answer to this.

Just for the record, I fully support Wulfang's view on this particular point.

Plus, it's pretty clear that the related scene was intended to show the Dark One in a sympathetic way.

Wulfang

2010-05-07, 03:18 AM

An equal sized army is "deterrence". If you want to stretch a point maybe even at 2x or 4x. But at ten times you're deep into absurdity to claim 'deterrence' and he was at one hundred times.

Since when? Plenty of real life nations have enough firepower to blast every other nation in the vicinity to ashes without them being even able to put up a fight (like, for example, having WMDs), and that doesn't mean they actually do or plan to do it. You're just pulling arbitrary numbers out of your rear.

True... but in a world where Miko would have fallen for killing Belkar, the Goblins are doing something which merits Paladins stepping. It doesn't have to be slavery or torture, but presumably it's enough to prevent Paladins from falling when they step in because Paladins presumably don't like falling.

Remember the part where the goblins were created as XP-fodder? The gods made them to be killed by paladins and the like. Remember the part about "living in barren wastelands and having to raid other settlements to survive"? That's why.

This is very true.
This is a massive leap of faith. Goblins were built as xp-foder and then they were given their barren wastelands to keep them down. The implication is their "usually evil" default setting came before their homeland and will continue if they leave it.

Proof?

hamishspence

2010-05-07, 04:27 AM

A counterargument to their "usually evil" status being tied to their XP-fodder status: Lizardfolk.

They were on the XP-fodder list, but tend to be Neutral rather than Evil or Good.

Suggesting the gods weren't primarily interested in ensuring that their "XP-fodder" deserved to be killed.

The first goblins we see in the world- one is unarmed, the other is holding a hoe. This may mean that they tried dirt-farming as a lifestyle, and dismissed it, concluding that it won't work because the humans got all the good dirt.

I wonder what "First Contact" between the goblins and the other races was like. Was it goblin raiders sweeping out of the wilds, in search of food, or was it human clerics invading the goblin lands in search of XP?

The Pilgrim

2010-05-07, 06:27 AM

I think all those arguments about The Dark One caring only about the Plan for his personal power, and not caring at all about the Goblins, fall down in sight of Strip #704

If the Dark One only wanted to use the Goblinoids to get the Gate so that he could prevail over all Gods, he would have told Jirix to scrap Azure City, pack the Army and go behind Redcloack to the next gate, razing everything on his path.

He however tells Jirix that he has many battles for him in the mortal realm, of trade and logistics, of diplomacy and intrige... so the Dark One doesn't want the Hobbos to wage more war, they already have a Nation and must focus in developing it.

For Redcloack, all the Dark One has to say is "Don't screw this up", where "this" can mean the Plan, or Gobbtopia.

From this evidence, I make two speculations about how things will develope in the Comic, (wich I put under spoiler tags):

1) The Dark One would be happy to leave Redcloack in charge of Gobbtopia. He does not, and keeps him on track of the "Plan", because The Dark One needs Xykon as far from Gobbtopia as possible, with a "never to return" ticket, even better if that "ticket" means Xykon has been destroyed. The Dark One doesn't want a re-enacment of the "there are two kinds of goblins in a 20 mile radius, those who work for me, and those who are dead" line. Xykon has definitely outunlived his uselfuness for the Goblinoids and it's now a nuisance they need to get rid of, if possible with massive prejudice for him in deference of all those goblins he has slaughtered for fun.

2) Maybe, the Dark One has indeed told a different piece of crap to each bearer of the Crimson Mantle. Because maybe "the Plan" has always been a McGuffin for the Dark One. A ploy to give the gobbos a higer purpose under wich unite and gather enough strenght to take from the humans the land they need to develope a civilization. This is the real "Plan" of the Dark One.

...

So, this far, The Dark One has already achieved his plans, the gobbos have a nation. Azure City has taken Karmic retribution for the events in SoD, and Redcloack has already avenged the village massacre.

Thus, no higer, "noble" purpose is left for Redcloack's Quest, other than take Xykon away and get rid of him. But Redcloack can't realize this, because of the Right-Eye incident. He will be pushing the Gate thing, maybe endangering Gobbtopia in the process, and maybe he realizes it in time and makes a self-sacrificing hell-face-turn, or doesn't realize it and this story ends in a tragic way for the Gobbos.

Dark Matter

2010-05-07, 07:46 AM

Since when? Plenty of real life nations have enough firepower to blast every other nation in the vicinity to ashes without them being even able to put up a fight (like, for example, having WMDs), and that doesn't mean they actually do or plan to do it. You're just pulling arbitrary numbers out of your rear.WMDs in AD&D would be "Epic Level Spell Casters". What the goblins are doing is more akin to "tanks and soldiers". And I can't think of anyone who has built up those kinds of numbers without also building up a record of invading people.

Proof?SOD. The goblins were created *before* the gods figured out where to put them.

Consider the source of your information. ...What if Goblin Society was hamstrung not by good gods setting up monstrous humanoids for failure, but by having an evil patron who is more concerned with his own power then the good of the races under his charge...Yeah, that's a real possibility. RC doesn't intend to rule the world when this is over. The Dark One presumably intended to be king, and if The Plan works presumably (again) it'd end with him being king.

Just for the record, I fully support Wulfang's view on this particular point. Plus, it's pretty clear that the related scene was intended to show the Dark One in a sympathetic way.You don't view your second statement as conflicting with your first? Yes, the scene in intended to show the Dark One in a sympathetic way... but we're missing a lot of information. It's not like 511 where we know exactly what is happening and why.

If the Dark One only wanted to use the Goblinoids to get the Gate so that he could prevail over all Gods, he would have told Jirix to scrap Azure City, pack the Army and go behind Redcloack to the next gate, razing everything on his path.Xykon would kill them. The army isn't going because Xykon doesn't think they'd be useful. If they followed without permission then they'd be competition.

He however tells Jirix that he has many battles for him in the mortal realm, of trade and logistics, of diplomacy and intrige... so the Dark One doesn't want the Hobbos to wage more war, they already have a Nation and must focus in developing it.Better get more whips for the slaves.

Pilgrim, I liked your spoiler'ed ideas (a lot)... they certainly would overturn much of what I've said. But I don't think it will happen.

A counterargument to their "usually evil" status being tied to their XP-fodder status: Lizardfolk. They were on the XP-fodder list, but tend to be Neutral rather than Evil or Good.That works both ways. This is a race who clearly hasn't "been turned evil because of their land" because they're not evil. But we still have the core rules saying that Paladins can't kill them unless they're engaged in evil acts.

The first goblins we see in the world- one is unarmed, the other is holding a hoe.You're ignoring the previous pictures of goblins with weapons.

I wonder what "First Contact" between the goblins and the other races was like. Was it goblin raiders sweeping out of the wilds, in search of food, or was it human clerics invading the goblin lands in search of XP?Considering how Evil it'd be to do the later, I suspect the former... except we've no evidence it was "for food" and that wouldn't have been an especially evil act. How about "looking for slaves"?

EDIT: I think 0013 sums up the whole problem of "killing things for having green skin" http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html Belkar is good with it but no one else is because it's a seriously evil act.

Something I'll ask to everyone in general: Now that the goblins have their own homeland, do you see any evidence they're less evil or becoming less evil?

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-07, 12:13 PM

First, where does "insufficient food" come from? A number of people have said this but I don't ever remember seeing it mentioned, even with the goblins who weren't raiding.

It was stated during the crayons portion of start of darkness that the goblins were created on crappy land and then driven onto land even crappier than that. Without good farmland you cant grow enough food.

Second, all the rest of that sounds horrible, except the bulk of this "oppression" is coming from unfallen Paladins and good Clerics. If we traced down the specifics of each incident, would most of them look like Haley?

I have NO idea what you're saying here.

Dark Matter

2010-05-07, 01:17 PM

It was stated during the crayons portion of start of darkness that the goblins were created on crappy land and then driven onto land even crappier than that. Without good farmland you cant grow enough food. What we have seen is they can't grow good dirt, and it's been implied that they're missing various resources. However we've *NEVER* seen any hungry (much less starving) goblins, even in the non-raiding Right-Eye's village or among the many legions of hobogoblins. Food and Drink in AD&D is pretty much a non-issue, even for first level types.

"Create Water" and "Purify Food and Drink" are both zero level cleric spells and "Create Food and Water" is only third. All produce large amounts of food/drink. We've seen enough undead around to know that Goblins have 5th level Clerics. One 5th level Cleric can cast *one* spell and purify 300 pounds of water (40 gal), or an equal volume of food. Similarly one casting of Create Food makes enough for... 15 humans (is that 45 goblins?).

Dark Matter: Second, all the rest of that sounds horrible, except the bulk of this "oppression" is coming from unfallen Paladins and good Clerics. If we traced down the specifics of each incident, would most of them look like Haley?

derfenrirwolv: I have NO idea what you're saying here.We're looking at bulk "oppression" and saying "that's wrong". But at the same time, I haven't heard anyone say "Haley's actions were wrong in 511".

There's a disconnect there. Would RC consider what Haley did to be "oppression"? IMHO of course he would, just like he did later in the prison raid. But we're relying on his information for the shaping of our opinions of the earlier time period. And we're doing this because SoD doesn't give the various Paladins and Good Clerics a voice to say why they were doing what they were.

But when we have something close to perfect information, i.e. 511, no one is stepping forward and saying, "the forces of good were wrong to kill that goblin". Funny that. The implication is that in the bulk of the incidents that RC would call "oppression", the forces of good might be able to reasonably say "our actions were justified"... or maybe they'd say "Paladin X screwed up and fell".

hamishspence

2010-05-07, 01:59 PM

.
"Create Water" and "Purify Food and Drink" are both zero level cleric spells and "Create Food and Water" is only third. All produce large amounts of food/drink. We've seen enough undead around to know that Goblins have 5th level Clerics. One 5th level Cleric can cast *one* spell and purify 300 pounds of water (40 gal), or an equal volume of food. Similarly one casting of Create Food makes enough for... 15 humans (is that 45 goblins?).

And- until they got their own deity- would the goblins have even had any clerics?

The question was- at the time they were created, would the goblins have been in danger of starvation due to poor land?

If they had no clerics, it would appear so.

That works both ways. This is a race who clearly hasn't "been turned evil because of their land" because they're not evil.

They are famous for killing and eating trespassers into their lands though. Or cannibalism, when they are short of food. And while there aren't lizardfolk invasion hordes the way there are hordes of orcs or goblins, lizardfolk live in an even more primitive fashion.

My guess is that the choice was- survive on the very edge of existence, or live a slightly more comfortable lifestyle that requires raiding to support it.

EDIT: I think 0013 sums up the whole problem of "killing things for having green skin" http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html Belkar is good with it but no one else is because it's a seriously evil act.

Or possibly, because he's revealing the general attitude of the nastier kind of adventurer- the "dirty little secret" of most adventuring.

You're ignoring the previous pictures of goblins with weapons.

What pictures? Timeline-wise, there is only one picture prior to the one of the gobin with the hoe- the one of all the new humanoid races. And that shows each humanoid (goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk)- all unarmed.

Right after that, is the goblin with the hoe.

And right after that- is a scene of goblins fighting adventurers.

Dark Matter

2010-05-07, 02:45 PM

And- until they got their own deity- would the goblins have even had any clerics?Actually, yes. Core rules say you don't have to have a god in order to be a Cleric or Paladin. Paladins can have a "cause" and Clerics can have a "power". Meaning you can pray to "evil" itself or whatever.
I think this has been mentioned in the strip itself but I don't recall where. After you die you don't go to "God X's playground" but instead go to your alignment plane.

It's actually not a bad option since you still get to do everything a normal Cleric can and you get to pick two domains instead of having to go with your gods.

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

The question was- at the time they were created, would the goblins have been in danger of starvation due to poor land? If they had no clerics, it would appear so.And given that they *did* have Clerics... clearly they would NOT have been in danger of starvation. Food wasn't an issue (just like we've seen).

Or possibly, because he's revealing the general attitude of the nastier kind of adventurer- the "dirty little secret" of most adventuring.All of the good characters are frown at him in disgust. This similar to what happened when he suggested selling someone into slavery but even more so. That's very strange if the forces of good normally did this.

KiwiImperator

2010-05-07, 02:55 PM

Personally, I favor the perception of the Dark One's tactics as gun-to-the-head. He assembled an army and asked not for peace, but for land. That's the only part of the story that really strikes me as suspicious, but it's a doozy. No amount of being dirt poor entitles you to someone else's homes and land, and he should've known that.
No, I take it back, there was another thing. He was also far too verbose, and faaaar too reasonable when talking to the assembled nobles, who were themselves speaking faaaar too little. It was clearly the Goblins' perception of what happened, and in all likelihood, not the (absolute) truth.

On a related note, my assumption has always been that the goblins, because of their environment, being treated like evil creatures, and their general lack of non-evil patrons, are simply evil by proxy. Self fulfilling prophecy, all that.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-07, 04:37 PM

Personally, I favor the perception of the Dark One's tactics as gun-to-the-head. He assembled an army and asked not for peace, but for land. That's the only part of the story that really strikes me as suspicious, but it's a doozy. No amount of being dirt poor entitles you to someone else's homes and land, and he should've known that.

It's a matter of perspective. When you are the one without home or land, you tend to view it from another angle.

Of course, of course, you can work hard and earn it by "lawful" means... until a bunch of "good" adventurers decide to use you as XP source. Or some kingdom decides to expand any further. Or the elves decide that you can't cut the forest to get arable lands. Or the human Paladins come and slaughter your village. Or some human-turned-Lich decides that since you are goblins he can force you to be his expendable minions. Or... you decide to raise an army and stop it.

Come on, get real. This is a Medieval Fantasy Setting, not a middle-class sitcom in NY.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-07, 05:12 PM

What we have seen is they can't grow good dirt, and it's been implied that they're missing various resources. However we've *NEVER* seen any hungry (much less starving) goblins, even in the non-raiding Right-Eye's village or among the many legions of hobogoblins. Food and Drink in AD&D is pretty much a non-issue, even for first level types.

If they can't grow good dirt then they can't grow food. The implication is clear and direct. Other people are saying the same thing because they're looking to draw a reasonable conclusion not to obstinately hold out for metaphysical certainty.

"Create Water" and "Purify Food and Drink" are both zero level cleric spells and "Create Food and Water" is only third.

A bigger problem is that your run of the mil Goblin has a wisdom of 9, and can't even cast orisons, much less 3rd level spells or rise to be a level 5 cleric. Goblins need to wait for a NPC goblin and then hope he becomes a cleric and THEN hope he lives nearby.

We've seen enough undead around to know that Goblins have 5th level Clerics. One 5th level Cleric can cast *one* spell and purify 300 pounds of water (40 gal), or an equal volume of food.

You need to have it in order to purify it. Purify doesn't conjure it out of the dirt.

Similarly one casting of Create Food makes enough for... 15 humans (is that 45 goblins?)

No, because goblins in ootsverse are not small. so its 15 goblins per casting. that means decently leveled goblin clerics need to be roughly 1/30th of your population, and spread out so you don't have a village with more than 30. D&D population dynamics don't support that many PC classes per member of the population.

We're looking at bulk "oppression" and saying "that's wrong". But at the same time, I haven't heard anyone say "Haley's actions were wrong in 511".

The difference being that none of those goblins were saying "alright, we conquered your city, lets sit down and have a peaceful negotiation about whats going on, and try to work out where we should extend our terratory to, because we cannot live on the crap you've driven us to"... they were TRYING to eviscerate her. That's a HUGE difference.

There's a disconnect there. Would RC consider what Haley did to be "oppression"? IMHO of course he would, just like he did later in the prison raid. But we're relying on his information for the shaping of our opinions of the earlier time period. And we're doing this because SoD doesn't give the various Paladins and Good Clerics a voice to say why they were doing what they were.

I did say at the start that I was basing my position on the assumption that what redcloak said was true.

But when we have something close to perfect information, i.e. 511, no one is stepping forward and saying, "the forces of good were wrong to kill that goblin". Funny that. The implication is that in the bulk of the incidents that RC would call "oppression", the forces of good might be able to reasonably say "our actions were justified"... or maybe they'd say "Paladin X screwed up and fell"

And therein lies the problem. The goblins see every attack as oppression, but the humans see any attack as the justified elimination of an evil creature.

The OOtS is a deconstruction of how the world would work according to D&D rules. The characters know they have armor class, attack rolls, and roll to see how well they do on various tasks. The world runs on D&D physics, this is obvious.

Whats less obvious is that the world also runs on D&D campaign conventions. Evil creatures exist for the purpose of being killed by good adventuring parties. If you are an evil creature the entire purpose of your existence, ordained by the gods that made you, is to die on the end of an adventurers blade.

Now.. how might the living, sentient, creatures react to that? I doubt all that happily. At the very least, they might forcibly object when the forces of "good" show up and try to eradicate them for being evil.

A persecuted group of good creatures forming an army, resisting, taking back some of their own land and then suing for peace even though they could wipe out their oppressors would be a good act.

If a persecuted group of evil creatures forming an army, resisting, taking back some of their own land and then suing for peace even though they could wipe out their oppressors is an EVIL act... then good and evil are absolutely nothing more than the arbitrary delineation of two separate teams with no actual moral bearing.

So what this leaves is with is that we have to take the dark ones actions on their own merit and leave the fact that he's a goblin out of it. Yes, he was negotiating with an army at his back. How else do you negotiate with someone with an army at THEIR backs? That's hard to do without your own army. How do you negotiate with someone with an army at their backs that doesn't recognize your inherent right to exist? That's impossible. The ONLY way the violence against his people had a chance at ending was for him to use sufficient force or the threat of sufficient force to put himself on equal footing. Until we have some information that shows that that ISN"T what happened i can't see the justification for calling him the villain.

KiwiImperator

2010-05-07, 05:13 PM

Come on, get real. This is a Medieval Fantasy Setting, not a middle-class sitcom in NY.

If I'm expected to 'get real', I'd appreciate it if everyone else did as well. There are too many goblin apologists in this camp, too many people saying that just because these creatures are "oppressed", they can do anything in the pursuit of equality and remain blameless, including creating unequal situations with other humanoids. Our perspective on the matter is neutral, and so we should be aware of the outrageous hypocrisy involved on all sides, not trumpeting the more severe offender that just happens to have the more detailed sob-story.

Of course I don't expect everything different out of them, they are doing exactly what the gods created them for, after all. The irony is that they probably don't realize that this is the plan. Goblins can take territory, but they certainly can't hold it. The rebellion fomented by the elves will probably cause this fledgeling civilization to collapse, and their taking of the city in the first place, regardless of their justifications, will provide fresh justification for another goblin holocaust. I should hope that this is the Giant's intent, to express the futility of attempting to even out the world's wrinkles by setting the sheets on fire.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-07, 05:19 PM

He assembled an army and asked not for peace, but for land

You can't have one without the other. Goblins arent going to go home and stay hungry and peacful.

yanmaodao

2010-05-07, 06:17 PM

The Giant was right to not hold out much hope that his own personal clarification would accomplish anything.

Before, we had people claiming that the fact that (a) the Paladins didn't Fall because they slaughtered goblins proved that slaughtering goblins indiscriminately is okay*.

Now, we have people claiming that (b) because Paladins Fall if they kill goblins**, goblins must not have been really mistreated, because Paladins don't like Falling, so all the bad things they did were essentially unprovoked, and thus slaughtering goblins indiscriminately is okay.

It's amazing that starting from two diametrically opposed starting points leading to two entirely different chains of logic leads to the same predetermined conclusion.

Chain of what now? Logic, did I say? Sorry, didn't mean to.

* To those who'll protest that the people taking the anti-goblin stance aren't really advocating extermination, we have someone in this very thread who said that Usually Evil creatures deserve to be killed.

** To be clear, the Giant never made any pronouncement on whether or not Paladins actually Fell. He basically said, "it's up to the reader's interpretation how many, if any, of the Paladins Fell that day", presumably to undercut the "since we know for sure no Paladins Fell, we can conclude..." argument (a) above. It's still a possibility, by my reading, that none of the Paladins Fell, despite the act being Evil, and that proves that the gods are wrong. In which case the entire argument (b) above would fall apart.

The only thing the Giant said for sure was that the slaughter of the goblins was wrong.

yanmaodao

2010-05-07, 06:24 PM

Yes, "Usually evil" goblins don't deserve to die solely for being evil.

I don't see how you can reconcile this with your earlier statement that if you're "Usually Evil", you deserve to be killed. Is there a difference between dying and being killed?

EDIT: to be specific, it's this statement:
Part of the "created to be killed" package is "usually evil", which is to say "routinely deserves to be killed".

I quote this because - I'm not accusing you of anything in particular, as I barely know you - but I have known people who'd go back and edit out embarrassing things they said earlier in the thread and then trying to plead ignorance.

I think Redcloak is sincere in his belief of the Dark Ones Origin story, but I dont think the Dark One was playing him level.

What if Goblin Society was hamstrung not by good gods setting up monstrous humanoids for failure, but by having an evil patron who is more concerned with his own power then the good of the races under his charge - while other races get to flourish under deities that genuinely care about their subjects, Goblins must pursue elaborate ploys to force the other gods to their knees.

This is a possibility. We know very little about the Dark One, and the "Dark One tailors a different story for every Bearer" posited by the OP is intriguing. I also think Redcloak's tragedy is ideally suited to him having being lied to by his God (whom he sacrificed everything for), his entire life.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-07, 06:51 PM

If I'm expected to 'get real', I'd appreciate it if everyone else did as well. There are too many goblin apologists in this camp, too many people saying that just because these creatures are "oppressed", they can do anything in the pursuit of equality and remain blameless, including creating unequal situations with other humanoids. Our perspective on the matter is neutral, and so we should be aware of the outrageous hypocrisy involved on all sides, not trumpeting the more severe offender that just happens to have the more detailed sob-story.

I don't think that the goblinoids are entitled to do anything. For example, they shouldn't have allied themselves with the Lich. But that's something the goblinoids have perhaps suffered from most than anyother else, since Xykon has by far killed more goblinoids that anything else in this comic.

The slavery thing, is something the goblins will have to drop sooner than later. They are surrounded by human nations after all, so they'll have to learn to get along with them, or collapse. Some human nations have already acknowelded their nation, though probably out of fear or for selfish motives. The ball is now in Gobbtopia's court.

JonestheSpy

2010-05-07, 08:57 PM

The slavery thing, is something the goblins will have to drop sooner than later.

I will point out again that Gobbotopia's use of human slaves puts them at the same level as many Western Continent nations that worship non-evil gods of the Western pantheon (going along with the generally accepted idea that Tiamat is that pantheon's Evil deity). Just an interesting point vis-a-vis the Dark One's moral standing.

Dark Matter

2010-05-07, 09:00 PM

Of course, of course, you can work hard and earn it by "lawful" means... until a bunch of "good" adventurers decide to use you as XP source.And what exactly is it that you're doing that they can kill you without it being an evil act?

Or the human Paladins come and slaughter your village. Or some human-turned-Lich decides that since you are goblins he can force you to be his expendable minions. Or... you decide to raise an army and stop it.The first was a serious error which caused some of those Paladins to fall... the reason it wasn't all of them was that whole "attempting to destroy the multi-verse thing". I'd suggest the solution to the second would be to not recruit the Sorcerer to lead and/or not turn him into a Lich. The third sounds like a good idea except for the small issue that their leader didn't bother asking any of that to stop and the size of the army suggests an agenda far beyond what is claimed.

Now, we have people claiming that (b) because Paladins Fall if they kill goblins**, goblins must not have been really mistreated, because Paladins don't like Falling, so all the bad things they did were essentially unprovoked, and thus slaughtering goblins indiscriminately is okay.Just the opposite. Slaughtering goblins "indiscriminately" is evil, ergo the Paladin who does this falls (and if they're Miko, never recovers).

The flip side of this is if the Paladin doesn't fall, then what he's doing isn't "indiscriminate". Sometimes the evil goblin isn't just evil, he's actually working hard to earn that title.

Dark Matter:
1) Yes, "Usually evil" goblins don't deserve to die solely for being evil.
2) Part of the "created to be killed" package is "usually evil", which is to say "routinely deserves to be killed".
I don't see how you can reconcile this with your earlier statement that if you're "Usually Evil", you deserve to be killed. Is there a difference between dying and being killed?There is no conflict between those two statements and I stand fully behind both of them (although thank you for the quotation). Paladins fall for killing evil creatures just because they're evil (you can be evil without committing evil acts). But when a Paladin goes out and kill a group of goblin-slavers, what alignment do we think they're going to have?

Usually Evil creatures commit acts of slavery/murder/etc often enough that we can say "routinely deserving to be killed" is part of the "usually evil" package. I said "routinely", not "always", or even "normally", or even "often". In other words while "deserves to be killed" isn't the default setting, it's also very far from a surprise to find it true.

Morithias

2010-05-07, 09:20 PM

*is laughing his ass off*

Might I point out that food is even easier to solve in Dnd 3.5 than using spells even? Mainly because the business rules (which cover farms) don't have mods for what kind of terrain you're in, rather how far away you are from civilization. A farm in a forest that's not connected to a city, has the exact same mods as one in the middle of a desert.

The only reason they were 'low on food' is because they, like most PC's and characters in Dnd were too stupid to put ranks in "profession (farmer).

Heck, I'm pretty sure with the right combo one could easily make a level one character that could get a monthly profit on a farm. Give me a few minutes to do some calculations.

Oh yeah this is simple, 4 ranks, 3 from skill focus, we'll assume a mod of +2 for wisdom, add in the 40 hours worked a week for +2, and +2 for low resource and low risk. Throw in a +1 for a guild, a +2 for a business partner aiding a take 10.

that's 4+3+2+2+2+1+2+10 or 26. Subtract 25, and if you were to build the farm close to a town you get a +1 profit (5 gp) per month, plus whatever you get via your normal weekly profession rolls.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-07, 10:15 PM

ight I point out that food is even easier to solve in Dnd 3.5 than using spells even? Mainly because the business rules (which cover farms) don't have mods for what kind of terrain you're in, rather how far away you are from civilization. A farm in a forest that's not connected to a city, has the exact same mods as one in the middle of a desert.

These are in a suppliment, not 3.5 core, and thus may or may not be used by the dm. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're not.

Morithias

2010-05-07, 10:55 PM

These are in a suppliment, not 3.5 core, and thus may or may not be used by the dm. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're not.

Dungeon Master's Guide 2 Isn't considered core? You'ld think that next to the main 3, the PHB2, DMG2, and the other 4 monster manuals would be considered the next closest things to core. Followed by the completes, and then the rest of the stuff.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-07, 10:58 PM

Dungeon Master's Guide 2 Isn't considered core?

Nope.

You'ld think that next to the main 3, the PHB2, DMG2, and the other 4 monster manuals would be considered the next closest things to core.
Followed by the completes, and then the rest of the stuff.

Close but no cigar, both in terms of every campaign has them, every dm accepts them, and they were in mind when the ootsverse was made.

Also they're as far away in terms of "can freely be used under the srd" as anything else.

Dark Matter

2010-05-07, 11:22 PM

If they can't grow good dirt then they can't grow food. The implication is clear and direct. Other people are saying the same thing because they're looking to draw a reasonable conclusion not to obstinately hold out for metaphysical certainty.The problem is "good dirt" hits the radar as a joke. Other than that one panel what we've seen is swamps and the like, not barren desert. That makes "raiding for food" a very thin reed considering there don't appear to be any hungry goblins even if they're not raiding.

A bigger problem is that your run of the mil Goblin has a wisdom of 9... Yes and no. The RAW goblin is size small, and also has a higher int than wis. SOD clearly said that Goblins suck as mages... but at the same time there seem to be a fair number of Clerics running around. In the Azure battle they had "Squads" of 5th level Clerics (#433) and presumably were how they ordered the undead around.

Or in short, these are not the RAW goblins. They're wiser than they are smart and getting Clerics doesn't appear to be an issue.

You need to have it in order to purify it. Purify doesn't conjur it out of the dirt.True, but if you live in a swamp (which does appear to be the case for the non-joke goblins in SOD), getting stuff to purify wouldn't be a problem. So the math breaks out into...
One Purify Water => 8 gal => 128 cups => Water for 10+ people for one day per level of Cleric.
Food is a lot harder to calculate since Purify is measured by volume and it's not clear how far you can push "contaminated". I think I'll just handwave it and assume you eat as much as you drink.

A 1st level Cleric gets 3 orisons, that averages to letting him support 15 people.
A 2nd level Cleric gets 4 but his power doubles so he could support 40 people.
And even this is a serious underestimate since he could use 1st level spell slots for orisons, might get a wis bonus, and one *hopes* the rest of the village is bringing in food with this as just an emergency measure.

... they were TRYING to eviscerate her. Thats a HUGE difference.Is it? Was Haley's situation with the goblins unusual, or do we just know the other side of the story?

I did say at the start that I was basing my position on the assumption that what redcloak said was true.I don't mind that as a starting point, but it is what RC is saying rather than some neutral entity, so it's is also important to try to see or guess what the other side would say. Put another way, what RC didn't say is as important as what he did.

And therein lies the problem. The goblins see every attack as oppression, but the humans see any attack as the justified elimination of an evil creature.The later simply isn't true. This was demonstrated in 0013, by "Famicilide" (i.e. seriously evil), and it's driven home by the whole "Paladins fall" rules. The two sides are not morally equal, and when the forces of good screw up and fall, the Paladins lose their powers just to drive home that point.

Whats less obvious is that the world also runs on D&D campaign conventions. Evil creatures exist for the purpose of being killed by good adventuring parties. If you are an evil creature the entire purpose of your existance, ordained by the gods that made you, is to die on the end of an adventurers blade. In theory only if you're out there committing evil acts. In practice... the young adult black dragon's death was basically a result of a cage fight set up by Nale.

If a persecuted group of evil creatures forming an army, resisting, taking back some of their own land and then sueing for peace even though they could whipe out their oppressors is an EVIL act... then good and evil are absolutely nothing more than the arbitrary deliniation of two seperate teams with no actual moral bearing. It depends on whether or not the evil creatures are willing to stop the slavery/torture/drinking the blood of the innocent/etc. Goblotopia is an effort to let evil creatures be Evil, as opposed to "live in peace".

So what this leaves is with is that we have to take the dark ones actions on their own merit and leave the fact that he's a goblin out of it. Yes, he was negotiating with an army at his back. How else do you negotiate with someone with an army at THEIR backs? Thats hard to do without your own army.Fine, but is it really necessary for your army to be 100x as strong as theirs? Or maybe the question should be, "why is it necessary"?

How do you negotate with someone with an army at their backs that doesn't recognize your inherent right to exist? Thats impossible.With the exception of Belkar, I don't think anyone has said this. Goblins have the right to *exist*... they just don't have the right to commit acts of evil. So, did the Dark One make any effort to reduce the need for the forces of good to step in? We don't know... but if he did it's odd that RC didn't mention it.

The ONLY way the violence against his people was for him to use sufficient force or the threat of sufficient force to put him on equal footing."Equal footing"? Is that what we call a military force 100x as strong as the guys he's talking to?

It's this imbalance of force (and the deliberate building of that imbalance) which makes me look for more descriptive terms. I like "gun to the head", but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.

Until we have some information that shows that that ISN"T what happened i can't see the justification for calling him the villain.He's an evil god who is trying to threaten to destroy the universe. All the information justifying his actions comes from his own Cleric... who is seriously evil, and who has created Goblotopia which is also seriously evil. Said god also appears complicit in a number of seriously evil acts, including the creation and backing of Xykon.

Edit: All trails seem to lead back to The Dark One, and the word "Evil" also seems to come up more than would seem necessary. IMHO "villain" is a good word for him. At best he's a villain in RC's image, i.e. a well intentioned extremist, but that's just at best. There's a lot of self serving information being presented as "fact" and a lot of room for him to emerge as extremely self serving.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-08, 02:03 AM

The problem is "good dirt" hits the radar as a joke. Other than that one panel what we've seen is swamps and the like, not barren desert. That makes "raiding for food" a very thin reed considering there don't appear to be any hungry goblins even if they're not raiding.

The only thin reed here is this line of argumentation. The goblins have poor dirt. There are at least six references in start of darkness to the goblins having poor land, including Right eyes village and right after the crayons section. Redcloak says that if goblins can get equal footing and then can't make it then they deserve to fail. Their land is less than optimal, and they were chased into worse and worse areas. If you want me to draw conclusions based on something else you're going to have to do better than to play an epistemic nihilist every time a fact contradicts your ideas.

Yes and no. The RAW goblin is size small, and also has a higher int than wis. SOD clearly said that Goblins suck as mages... but at the same time there seem to be a fair number of Clerics running around. In the Azure battle they had "Squads" of 5th level Clerics (#433) and presumably were how they ordered the undead around.

In the Dragon Magazine cartoon the goblins were all standing around comparing their 9 wisdom scores.

Yes, there were squads of 5th level clerics.. for the HOBgoblin ARMY. The entire army can produce that many, not an entire village.

True, but if you live in a swamp (which does appear to be the case for the non-joke goblins in SOD), getting stuff to purify wouldn't be a problem. So the math breaks out into...
One Purify Water => 8 gal => 128 cups => Water for 10+ people for one day per level of Cleric.
Food is a lot harder to calculate since Purify is measured by volume and it's not clear how far you can push "contaminated". I think I'll just handwave it and assume you eat as much as you drink.

Purify is absolutely, 100% irrelevant. You CANNOT "purify" dirt into food. My original point (which you ignored) stands. You would need 1 goblin in 30 to be a 5th level cleric, and D&D populations don't work like that.

The later simply isn't true. This was demonstrated in 0013, by "Famicilide" (i.e. seriously evil), and it's driven home by the whole "Paladins fall" rules. The two sides are not morally equal, and when the forces of good screw up and fall, the Paladins lose their powers just to drive home that point.

Then you need to find something to charge the dark one with besides what he was stated to have done, because gathering an army to stop your oppression at the hands of someone else's army and packs of roving adventurers is not evil. He cannot be charged with being evil simply for resisting forces that were called good.

In theory only if you're out there committing evil acts. In practice... the young adult black dragon's death was basically a result of a cage fight set up by Nale.

Nale didn't know the starmetal was real, i doubt he knew there was a dragon.

And no one became evil for that, and no one was called out by the deva for that, even though the OOTS was breaking and entering. In practice yes, you can wander into an evil creatures home and kill him for loot and xp, thats why the gods put them there.

It depends on whether or not the evil creatures are willing to stop the slavery/torture/drinking the blood of the innocent/etc. Goblotopia is an effort to let evil creatures be Evil, as opposed to "live in peace".

We have no information that indicates that the dark one did any of those things.

Fine, but is it really necessary for your army to be 100x as strong as theirs?

If he could have squashed the human kingdoms like a bug and did not, that puts him well past neutral and into good.

Or maybe the question should be, "why is it necessary"?
With the exception of Belkar, I don't think anyone has said this. Goblins have the right to *exist*... they just don't have the right to commit acts of evil.

The paladin in ooopc's said as much. The paladins in start of darkness acted as if it were the case, azure city acts like this, and the humans in the dark ones crayon flashback acted like this. In short, people like roy who treat goblins as people are pretty rare.

"Equal footing"? Is that what we call a military force 100x as strong as the guys he's talking to?

Yes. Its not as though he's walking up to a random person and putting a gun to their head and asking for money. he's going up to the criminals responsible for the slaughter of his people and putting a gun to their heads saying "alright.. look.. we can work this out fairly and peacefully"

It's this imbalance of force (and the deliberate building of that imbalance) which makes me look for more descriptive terms. I like "gun to the head", but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.

Imagine that you have a group of small ranchers in the wild west. A bigtime Cattle boss comes in and starts gobbling up their land one by one, killing women and children as he does so. Some ranchers fight back, but they don't have the manpower to keep up with his hired thugs.

The ranchers organize around a charismatic rancher (played by Nathan Filton or Bruce Cambel) gather their torches and pitchforks, and march to his mansion. They break in and, at gun point, want to negotiate a settlement with him

Whats the problem, morally speaking? It doesn't matter who started it. Its a cycle of violence, and the first one willing to come forward with a peace agreement SHOULD be honored for doing so.

He's an evil god who is trying to threaten to destroy the universe.

This is after he was alive.

All the information justifying his actions comes from his own Cleric... who is seriously evil, and who has created Goblotopia which is also seriously evil. Said god also appears complicit in a number of seriously evil acts, including the creation and backing of Xykon.

He's evil for a good cause, and has more than sufficient reason to resent the gods a bit.

Dark Matter

2010-05-08, 07:32 PM

The goblins have poor dirt. There are at least six references in start of darkness to the goblins having poor land, including Right eyes village and right after the crayons section.The strip shows that when the humans have "good dirt", they don't use it to farm. To be clear, yes, the goblins have bad land. But "bad land" doesn't mean "starving goblins". There are various countries with bad land and the result is a poorer economy and a smaller population than their area would otherwise indicate. Further you're applying mixed standards of proof. When easy inferences would work against the Dark One and goblins, you're insisting on direct proof, but you're ok with greatly relaxed standards when it's in their favor.

Redcloak says that if goblins can get equal footing and then can't make it then they deserve to fail.And what does RC consider to be "equal footing"? If Goblotopia is his idea of "equal", then we also have to point out that it's seriously Evil as well.

In the Dragon Magazine cartoon the goblins were all standing around comparing their 9 wisdom scores.That's non-cannon, and it disagrees with SOD and the strip itself. RC in SOD said goblins Wizards are much weaker and rarer than goblin Clerics. Further we've seen a ton of Clerics able to cast mid level spells and the highest level spell we've seen a goblin wizard cast is zero.

Yes, there were squads of 5th level clerics.. for the HOBgoblin ARMY. The entire army can produce that many, not an entire village.A first level Cleric is still pretty huge, and if they can have squads of 5th level, then they should have far more 1st.

You CANNOT "purify" dirt into food.But can you purify random organic swamp crap into food?

My original point (which you ignored) stands. You would need 1 goblin in 30 to be a 5th level cleric, and D&D populations don't work like that. Irrelevant. I'm not trying to claim that 100% of all goblin food comes from 5th level clerics. I'm pointing out that we've seen a grand total of ZERO starving goblins and there are easy spells which could deal with point failures. I'm also pointing out that food doesn't seem to be an issue with the non-raiding goblins. Bad land is a problem for the goblins (as admitted by Right Eye) but food isn't.

Then you need to find something to charge the dark one with besides what he was stated to have done, because gathering an army to stop your oppression at the hands of someone else's army and packs of roving adventurers is not evil. He cannot be charged with being evil simply for resisting forces that were called good.And now we're back to a very high standard of proof. His army being 100x, our knowing that he's seriously LE later in his career, our knowing that his army is usually Evil, none of that can be considered "proof" although at the same time you're willing to claim the goblins were motivated only by food and not by anything that would actually be "evil", even though we know from the strip that most of them are evil.

Nale didn't know the starmetal was real, i doubt he knew there was a dragon.... And no one became evil for that, and no one was called out by the deva for that, even though the OOTS was breaking and entering. In practice yes, you can wander into an evil creatures home and kill him for loot and xp, thats why the gods put them there. Nale sent them in there to die. It's unlikely that he thought a group of low level bandits could do the job. But if the Dragon wasn't his fault then it's no ones because it was a cage fight just the same. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html

It's not "breaking and entering" if you don't know the cave is someone's home. No one was there to kill the Dragon, and no one knew that it was there. OOTS was simply defending itself. The Dragon might also be able to make that claim, but eating intruders on sight seems morally dubious.

We have no information that indicates that the dark one did any of those things.ALL of our information about the Dark One comes from the Dark One.
ALL of our information about the Dark One's adversaries also comes from the Dark One.
If the Dark One did all of those things... we wouldn't know about it. So we have to work off of inference and guess what he's not telling us... because it's very clear that he's not telling us a lot. For example what is it that he and his people are doing which the forces of good object to strongly enough to kill them?

If he could have squashed the human kingdoms like a bug and did not, that puts him well past neutral and into good.Unless squashing the human kingdoms like a bug was the next step in what was then the plan. We don't *know* this, we don't even know that the kings were Good...

...but the whole situation makes a lot more sense if the Dark One was LE and the Kings felt the next step was squishing them. They had information we don't, unlike our info theirs didn't come only from the Dark One, if they felt threatened by the army 100x as powerful as theirs, it's hard to say they were wrong.

The paladin in ooopc's said as much. The paladins in start of darkness acted as if it were the case, azure city acts like this, and the humans in the dark ones crayon flashback acted like this. In short, people like roy who treat goblins as people are pretty rare.None of the good characters in OOTS behave like this, as shown in 0013. This includes Haley who might have been CN then. The only good character we've seen in the main strip who might have acted like this was a fallen Paladin who might have been LN or even LE when she died.

The Paladins in SOD were on a mission to oppose the plan, and presumably some fell even with that as justification. If their mission had purely been for exp, then all of them would have.

The Paladin in ooopc's was trying to kill another LG character. IMHO if he'd succeeded he would have fallen and rightfully so. If Miko can't kill Belkar then he couldn't arrange for Durkon's death.

Yes. Its not as though he's walking up to a random person and putting a gun to their head and asking for money. he's going up to the criminals responsible for the slaughter of his people and putting a gun to their heads saying "alright.. look.. we can work this out fairly and peacefully"You have no proof the kings did much slaughtering of goblins. Azure's wasn't even a PC class. We're not looking at a "random" person, we're looking at "someone known to be rich and who has what they want".

But fine, let's look at your offer in detail. The big point of contention between the goblins and the forces of good is NOT that goblins were made to be exp. The big point of contention is that goblins are evil. So... was the Dark One willing to take the whole "goblins are evil" off the table?

If so, then that would indeed be both "fair" and "peaceful". The problem is the Dark One didn't mention that part. He could outlaw slavery, if it wasn't practiced then it'd be even easy... but we don't know that he did. I could say the same about other goblin practices.

What we do know is...
1) The goblins liked him a lot. IMHO he wasn't pushing unpopular laws on them.
2) The Dark One didn't think his deal would be accepted without a 100x force advantage. If the forces of Good only step in for evil acts, this implies that his offer was going to be neither fair nor peaceful.

Imagine that you have a group of small ranchers...Your analogy portrays the "forces of GOOD" as the source of the problem and the "usually EVIL" creatures as both innocent and the victims.

If we're making a movie here, then we need to fully brand the forces of Evil as the forces of evil. They need to be actually be doing something which requires action by the good guys who are the forces of good. If your small ranchers were just living in peace then they'd be "good", and in reality we know they were "usually evil". Are they enslaving people? Murdering? Cattle rustling? It doesn't really matter what vile acts they're up to, but they have to be doing *something* or there can't be a conflict.

You also need to define what "peace" means. Does it mean "the evil guys stop murdering and stealing cattle"? Or does it mean... "the evil guys let the sheriff flee the city with his life and now get to kill anyone they want"?

Try again, but please don't flip the alignments of the people in question. The Evil people have to behave in an evil manor if it's going to make for a good analogy.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-08, 08:33 PM

The strip shows that when the humans have "good dirt", they don't use it to farm. To be clear, yes, the goblins have bad land. But "bad land" doesn't mean "starving goblins".

This is not an argument, it is merely an objection. Moving on.

When easy inferences would work against the Dark One and goblins, you're insisting on direct proof, but you're ok with greatly relaxed standards when it's in their favor.

This is also factually incorrect.

And what does RC consider to be "equal footing"? If Goblotopia is his idea of "equal", then we also have to point out that it's seriously Evil as well.
That's non-cannon, and it disagrees with SOD and the strip itself. RC in SOD said goblins Wizards are much weaker and rarer than goblin Clerics. Further we've seen a ton of Clerics able to cast mid level spells and the highest level spell we've seen a goblin wizard cast is zero.

Once again, Most of the clerics we've seen have been HOBgoblins.

A first level Cleric is still pretty huge, and if they can have squads of 5th level, then they should have far more 1st.
But can you purify random organic swamp crap into food?

No, you cannot. Since random organic swamp crap is not food. The spells target is "1 cu. ft./level of contaminated food and water" not 1 cuft/level or organic material. At most casting it on treebark would make it the most disease and weevil free tree bark around.

Bad land is a problem for the goblins (as admitted by Right Eye) but food isn't.

This is preposterous. What on earth do you think the land is bad FOR? Looking at? Is it misbehaving and in need of a spanking?

And now we're back to a very high standard of proof. His army being 100x

Speaking of high levels of proof, whats your evidence for the claim that the army was 100X the size of the combined forces of good?

although at the same time you're willing to claim the goblins were motivated only by food and not by anything that would actually be "evil",

Straw man. I've said they were motivated by food. Not that it was their sole motivation. I say they were motivated by food because thats what land is good for.

Nale sent them in there to die. It's unlikely that he thought a group of low level bandits could do the job. But if the Dragon wasn't his fault then it's no ones because it was a cage fight just the same.

Did the order even TRY diplomacy? V had the dragon hypnotized for a whole 24 hours and didn't try to come up with a non lethal solution even though for the entire time they knew they were breaking into HIS house. No one in comic even batted an eye because, as Roy said.. his scales weren't all bright and shiney.

This is how the world treats goblins. This is how goblins are SUPPOSED to be treated according to the rules: they're disposable mooks that die for your XP.

If the Dark One did all of those things... we wouldn't know about it. So we have to work off of inference and guess what he's not telling us... because it's very clear that he's not telling us a lot.

So you use your conclusions to make inferences to back your conclusion?

ie, here

Unless squashing the human kingdoms like a bug was the next step in what was then the plan. We don't *know* this, we don't even know that the kings were Good...

Ie here

...but the whole situation makes a lot more sense if the Dark One was LE and the Kings felt the next step was squishing them.

The whole situation makes perfect sense as i laid it out.. it is indeed the entire point of OOTS's deconstruction of the genre. The goblins are evil. They exist as a source of xp to be killed. That means its open season on them so you can take their loot (as an adventuring party) as a kingdom it means you can take their land an no one bats an eye.

None of the good characters in OOTS behave like this, as shown in 0013. This includes Haley who might have been CN then. The only good character we've seen in the main strip who might have acted like this was a fallen Paladin who might have been LN or even LE when she died.

But she was both LG AND still a paladin WHILE ACTING LIKE THAT. The gods find that sort of behavior acceptable in their most stalwart champions for good.

The Paladins in SOD were on a mission to oppose the plan, and presumably some fell even with that as justification. If their mission had purely been for exp, then all of them would have.

Wrong. It is completely up in the air as to whether any fell or not.

The Paladin in ooopc's was trying to kill another LG character. IMHO if he'd succeeded he would have fallen and rightfully so. If Miko can't kill Belkar then he couldn't arrange for Durkon's death.

I don't think miko would have fallen for killing belkar (as much as the halfling was hoping) He was a chaotic evil halfling prisoner that escaped from his cell while awaiting trial and killed a guard in doing so.

But fine, let's look at your offer in detail. The big point of contention between the goblins and the forces of good is NOT that goblins were made to be exp. The big point of contention is that goblins are evil. So... was the Dark One willing to take the whole "goblins are evil" off the table?

WHY were they made evil? They were made evil so Good aligned adventuring parties would have something to kill. These are not separate issues, they're lumped together.

2) The Dark One didn't think his deal would be accepted without a 100x force advantage. If the forces of Good only step in for evil acts, this implies
that his offer was going to be neither fair nor peaceful.

No. The forces of "good" step in for anything getting in the way of them doing what they want, namely to expand into goblin terratories and kill goblins for loot and xp.

Try again, but please don't flip the alignments of the people in question. The Evil people have to behave in an evil manor if it's going to make for a good analogy.

I'm not going to try again. The analogy was perfect and your confusion here demonstrates that. You objected, specifically, to the dark one raising an army and putting a proverbial gun to the heads of the human kingdoms. That act and why he did it are the ONLY things that matter in so far as his justification for the act. Since you can't tell me what was wrong with the analogy, you're left with the fact that the darkone WAS justified in what he did.

A can kill B and still be A

B can kill A and still be B

If A is good and B is evil then WHAT on earth is the difference between the two? What did the darkone do in this specific instance besides do it with the arbitrary label of evil hanging around his neck? The alignments are NOT flipped, they are simply left out. Without alignment as a justification there IS no justification. With alignment as a justification its just a meaningless label.

Dark Matter

2010-05-08, 10:12 PM

Once again, Most of the clerics we've seen have been HOBgoblins.Who also have a RAW wis of 9, and an int of 10, *exactly* like the goblins. You're also ignoring RC's statements about an issue he presumably is an expert in and his village in SOD showed 50-ish goblins, 5 of whom were clerics, and none of which were mages.

This is preposterous. What on earth do you think the land is bad FOR? Looking at? Is it misbehaving and in need of a spanking?Can you point to any starving (or even hungry) goblin? Any statements about the same? Why exactly was Right-Eye's village, which explicitly didn't raid, not starving? Bad Land => Poor. The interesting thing is they had this conversation outside of a carpentry shop where RC is talking about how little Right Eye's people have. The implication is that if Right-Eye's people were to pick up raiding, it would be for money/resources.

Speaking of high levels of proof, whats your evidence for the claim that the army was 100X the size of the combined forces of good?The Azure army was wiped out and lost 10k (and they lost). The Dark-One's-Army killed a million people in the process of them losing (and they had the serious problem of having lost their leader). 10k x 100 = 1 Mil. It's a ball park estimate but it also jibs with RC's saying that the goblin army was "the greatest military force the Northern Continent had ever seen".

Did the order even TRY diplomacy? V had the dragon hypnotized for a whole 24 hours and didn't try to come up with a non lethal solution...V? Diplomacy? He ordered the entire order to sit down and not move, remember? Further it's been strongly hinted that his(?) various mis-deeds *will* have effects on his afterlife.

This is how the world treats goblins. This is how goblins are SUPPOSED to be treated according to the rules: they're disposable mooks that die for your XP.They're not treated the same. Black Dragons are not "usually evil", they're "always evil". It is reasonable to find Good goblins. Goblins only become disposable mooks when they sign onto evil armies and the like.

Ie here: The whole situation makes perfect sense as i laid it out.. it is indeed the entire point of OOTS's deconstruction of the genre. The goblins are evil. They exist as a source of xp to be killed. That means its open season on them so you can take their loot (as an adventuring party)...And why are they evil and what does that mean they're up to? That's the part you seem determined to skip over. No matter why they decided to become evil and start committing vile crimes, by the time the adventurers get involved that's what has happened.

...as a kingdom it means you can take their land an no one bats an eye.If you mean in SOD, then no one took the goblins land, they just prevented the goblins from taking theirs.

If you mean the rebels (or elves) in Goblotopia, then it's not "no one bats an eye". It's more like "Goblotopia is an evil country that should be destroyed because they're evil".

I don't think miko would have fallen for killing belkar (as much as the halfling was hoping) He was a chaotic evil halfling prisoner that escaped from his cell while awaiting trial and killed a guard in doing so.When this conversation has come up before, someone claimed the Giant had confirmed that she would have (I think in one of the books I don't have).

Wrong. It is completely up in the air as to whether any fell or not.Do you consider the murder of helpless (and perhaps non-evil) goblin children to be an evil act? Yes? Then the Paladins doing that fell.

WHY were they made evil? They were made evil so Good aligned adventuring parties would have something to kill.True, but so what? If you're a good PC, or a King, or a cop, you don't (and shouldn't) really care what the gods did to set up this situation. No one gets to whip the slaves because the gods made him enjoy that sort of thing.

The question remains: "Is the creature committing evil acts that should be stopped"? If the answer is "yes", and you're Good, then you should step in, if "no", then you shouldn't. This is true even if your secondary (or even primary) motivation is XP.

The gods made goblins to be evil and that sucks for them. But being "evil" in AD&D isn't just a smell or a flavor, it's normally a lifestyle that includes pretty vile deeds.

A can kill B and still be A
B can kill A and still be B
If A is good and B is evil then WHAT on earth is the difference between the two? What did the darkone do in this specific instance besides do it with the arbitrary label of evil hanging around his neck? The alignments are NOT flipped, they are simply left out. Without alignment as a justification there IS no justification. With alignment as a justification its just a meaningless label.Where it gets interesting is when there's a "C". http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html Haley and the goblin are trying to kill each other (A & B), but she's not the one who wants to whip the slaves.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

...you're left with the fact that the Dark One WAS justified in what he did.Only if Good and Evil are the same (they're not), or if the Dark One was actively trying to move his people from evil (no information but unlikely). If all he was trying to do was build an evil empire, then he needed to be stopped.

And yes, there's little enough information about this that it's possible he was justified... but with the whole "evil god" thing and "Plan B looks a lot like Plan A" that seems unlikely.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-08, 10:51 PM

You're stuck arguing two mutually exclusive rationales here.

Either you can judge the dark one to be evil for what he did, or you can use the fact that he is evil to judge that what he did was evil.

In the first case, you have to show that there is something evil about using an army to negotiate when you're being oppressed.

In the second case you're stuck with the same catch 22 that you're objecting to the adventurers having. THey are goblins, therefore they are evil, therefore they are killing and maining, and that makes them evil.

Who also have a RAW wis of 9, and an int of 10, *exactly* like the goblins. You're also ignoring RC's statements about an issue he presumably is an expert in and his village in SOD showed 50-ish goblins, 5 of whom were clerics, and none of which were mages.

and only 1 of which showed anything resembling being 5th level.

Can you point to any starving (or even hungry) goblin? Any statements about the same? Why exactly was Right-Eye's village, which explicitly didn't raid, not starving? Bad Land => Poor. The interesting thing is they had this conversation outside of a carpentry shop where RC is talking about how little Right Eye's people have. The implication is that if Right-Eye's people were to pick up raiding, it would be for money/resources.

No income= no food= no people= no army= no way to protect your stuff. Its like RL or starcraft, half the battle isn't fighting the other person its showing up with enough people with enough bought gear to win.

The Azure army was wiped out and lost 10k (and they lost). The Dark-One's-Army killed a million people in the process of them losing (and they had the serious problem of having lost their leader). 10k x 100 = 1 Mil.

Except that the azurites were hiding behind entrenched fortifications and had a standing army. Outside of D&D, fortifications like that would make 10 to one odds an even fight.

If you mean in SOD, then no one took the goblins land, they just prevented the goblins from taking theirs.

The goblins were driven from redcloaks villiage an into the swamp. The paladins set up the fort to drive them even further out.

When this conversation has come up before, someone claimed the Giant had confirmed that she would have (I think in one of the books I don't have).
Do you consider the murder of helpless (and perhaps non-evil) goblin children to be an evil act? Yes? Then the Paladins doing that fell.

I, and most modern moralists, consider a LOT of what D%D adventurers do to be immoral, which is the point of the books.

True, but so what? If you're a good PC, or a King, or a cop, you don't (and shouldn't) really care what the gods did to set up this situation. No one gets to whip the slaves because the gods made him enjoy that sort of thing.

No, but if you're evil and you retaliate you're commiting an evil act. If you're good and you retaliate you're standing up for yourself.

The question remains: "Is the creature committing evil acts that should be stopped"? If the answer is "yes", and you're Good, then you should step in, if "no", then you shouldn't. This is true even if your secondary (or even primary) motivation is XP.

Then tell me, without making the circular argument that the dark one was evil, what was he doing that was evil when he was mortal?

If you say that he's a goblin and therefor evil you've fallen into the adventurers mindset.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

And evil creatures aren't innocent, so good can destroy them.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Only other good beings.

Only if Good and Evil are the same (they're not), or if the Dark One was actively trying to move his people from evil (no information but unlikely). If all he was trying to do was build an evil empire, then he needed to be stopped.

Ok, lets think about this. He has a huge army. He COULD kill all humans.. he doesnt. He sues for peace, and tries to get a fair amount of land for his people. WHICH part of that is empire building? If you build an evil empire your options are either take everything you can or take everything you think youc an hold. NOT "Hey guys, i need some farm land for my people, you've been taking land from my people for centuries, lets sit down and have a chat about where we can put a border and work soemthing out.

Kish

2010-05-08, 10:59 PM

When this conversation has come up before, someone claimed the Giant had confirmed that she would have (I think in one of the books I don't have).
People claim a lot of things.

If you don't have a direct quote from Rich, I'd put that down to Telephone Game if I were you. Being me, I am going to put it down to Telephone Game. Nothing in any of the books says that Miko would have Fallen for killing Belkar. Haley is still as correct for the forum as she is for herself and Belkar when she says "we know exactly one act that will provably make a paladin Fall."

yanmaodao

2010-05-09, 12:25 AM

Slaughtering goblins "indiscriminately" is evil, ergo the Paladin who does this falls (and if they're Miko, never recovers).

The flip side of this is if the Paladin doesn't fall, then what he's doing isn't "indiscriminate".

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but you've bobbed and weaved* this portion of my earlier post:

** To be clear, the Giant never made any pronouncement on whether or not Paladins actually Fell. He basically said, "it's up to the reader's interpretation how many, if any, of the Paladins Fell that day", presumably to undercut the "since we know for sure no Paladins Fell, we can conclude..." argument (a) above. It's still a possibility, by my reading, that none of the Paladins Fell, despite the act being Evil, and that proves that the gods are wrong. In which case the entire argument (b) above would fall apart.

There's no evidence that a paladin Falls for killing innocent Goblin children, even though it's Evil. We didn't see it happening in SoD. The possibility that accounts for this is that the Gods directly control whether or not you Fall in the OOTSverse, and it's not an automatic process. The Good Gods are presumably usually Good, but in those areas where they're not, you can do Evil and still not fall. (Especially if you're committing that Evil at the behest of the gods, as Rich described the Azure Paladins' campaign in Redcloak's village.)

If you continue to bob and weave, and continue to push this "since we know that you fall for killing innocent goblins..." as an axiom to reason from, I will respond by copying and pasting the above as a response.

*defn: ignoring a part of an argument that you (general "you") can't refute, while arguing other points, in the hopes that the long back-and-forth generated by the latter will serve to hide that one portion of a post you ignored. A potential onlooker could therefore miss that part amidst the now-multi-page thread. Very intellectually dishonest when done deliberately, and as such is part the course on most forums.

Do you consider the murder of helpless (and perhaps non-Evil) goblin children to be an evil act? Yes? Then the paladins doing that fell.

No, we can't conclude that. We never actually saw them Fall in SoD. All Rich said that they might have, to counter those people who were saying that "since we know the paladins didn't fall, [genocide against goblins is okay]".

You now want to pretend that Rich made a definite statement so that you can resurrect a line of argument similar to the (a) I outlined in my earlier post. Disappointingly, it was precisely that line of argument that Rich was debunking when he made the original post. (Read that post in full.)

Falling is condemnation, but not Falling is not vindication.

yanmaodao

2010-05-09, 12:31 AM

Paladins fall for killing evil creatures just because they're evil (you can be evil without committing evil acts). But when a Paladin goes out and kill a group of goblin-slavers, what alignment do we think they're going to have?

Hmm. Okay, that clarifies it somewhat.

One thing I'd like to add, though, is that you really do have to commit evil acts to be Evil, in my view. Exceptions exist but they'd be rare and/or contrived situations (a very misanthropic, sociopathic shutin?).

You can kill an Evil being and have it be non-Evil or yes, Good, in many circumstances. But your motivation for doing so has to be a reaction against a specific Evil act. Not generic Evilness, and not for some other reason, with the net-effect-is-more-Good-in-the-world being a bonus. The latter case would be Neutral at best, and probably usually Evil. (Otherwise, veterans of the Blood War would be the Goodest folk around. But I digress.)

Dark Matter

2010-05-09, 12:26 PM

There's no evidence that a paladin Falls for killing innocent Goblin children, even though it's Evil.... ...you can do Evil and still not fall. (Especially if you're committing that Evil at the behest of the gods...The rules are clear on this point. If you do evil then you fall. The Giant (IMHO) wouldn't have bothered clearing up the matter if he'd house ruled otherwise, or if he had then he would have stated it outright (see below link).

We didn't see it happening in SoD.Yes, but the Giant has made it very clear that us not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

One thing I'd like to add, though, is that you really do have to commit evil acts to be Evil, in my view. Exceptions exist but they'd be rare and/or contrived situations (a very misanthropic, sociopathic shutin?). I'd like to agree with that but we have the issue of a newly hatched dragon or newly created vampire. Of course that also raises the issue of "always evil" vs. "usually evil" which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

For perhaps a better example, we have the 4 year old Xykon who was Evil but too young to do anything serious (yet). Goblins and Humans start out "innocent", and at some point they make a choice. Goblins usually choose poorly. It'd be interesting to find out if Xykon-at-4 hit the radar as evil, but even if he did that alone wouldn't have been justification for killing him. Of course he also quickly showed the whole "evil is a lifestyle" thing.

You can kill an Evil being and have it be non-Evil or yes, Good, in many circumstances. But your motivation for doing so has to be a reaction against a specific Evil act. Not generic Evilness, and not for some other reason, with the net-effect-is-more-Good-in-the-world being a bonus. The latter case would be Neutral at best, and probably usually Evil. (Otherwise, veterans of the Blood War would be the Goodest folk around. But I digress.)Agreed.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-09, 12:54 PM

And what exactly is it that you're doing that they can kill you without it being an evil act?

Uh, being alive? The Gods created them specifically to be so.

The first was a serious error which caused some of those Paladins to fall... the reason it wasn't all of them was that whole "attempting to destroy the multi-verse thing". I'd suggest the solution to the second would be to not recruit the Sorcerer to lead and/or not turn him into a Lich. The third sounds like a good idea except for the small issue that their leader didn't bother asking any of that to stop and the size of the army suggests an agenda far beyond what is claimed.

The people of the village the Paladins slaughtered at the start of SoD, didn't anything except let the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle in. And even then, said bearer handled himself.

I'm sure that the people at the village Right-Eye worked as carpenter in, didn't recruited any Sorcerer, neither trasformed one into a Lich.

And... well, their Leader acutally bothered asking, that's why he got himself murdered. The "size of army" thing is such a nonsense that one doesn't need much to answer at it - if you are to defeat established kingdoms with big armies, you need one big enough, of course.

Dark Matter

2010-05-09, 05:29 PM

In the first case, you have to show that there is something evil about using an army to negotiate when you're being oppressed.The first question is, Are his people are being oppressed? Certainly they're being killed by Paladins, but what vile deeds are they doing which forces/allows that?

The next question is; What is the Dark One doing about this? We assume he's stopping (or has stopped) the Paladins, but what has he done about the vile deeds which drew them? Has he outlawed them? In a usually evil race that's unlikely to popular, but he's the supreme leader, he could probably swing it. Or is he simply pulling a RedCloak and preventing the Paladins from functioning while allowing his goblins to still be evil?

It's hinted in SOD that this is what he's up to. I.e. the other races are afraid, there's no mention of him passing "Good" laws, and he's seriously popular among a usually evil race. Granted, this is a "hint" and not "proof"... but it's consistent with what we know, and it's also consistent with him being evil enough to be an evil god, and his presumed approval with RC, and him feeling the need for a massive army before "negotiating".

Or in other words, either he was LE and empire building (literally), or he was LN/LG and trying to lead his people away from evil... but imho the former makes somewhat more sense than the later.

Further while we have a lack of information that's not supplied by The Dark One, the kings did not. Presumably they knew exactly what kind of laws were being passed inside his empire, and they had an excellent idea of the Dark One's alignment. And knowing all this, they killed him. Granted, they might have been evil or just selfish, we don't know.

What it really comes down to is the Dark One hits my radar as a LE mastermind Dominator building an evil empire (like RC) rather than someone actively trying to redeem his people (like Right Eye).

In the second case you're stuck with the same catch 22 that you're objecting to the adventurers having. They are goblins, therefore they are evil, therefore they are killing and maining, and that makes them evil...
...No, but if you're evil and you retaliate you're commiting an evil act. If you're good and you retaliate you're standing up for yourself. This isn't a Catch-22. Assume you're a neutral goblin-fighter in a village and although you personally aren't raiding and taking slaves, various other goblins in the village are. A Good party attacks the village. It is *not* an evil act to try to protect yourself and your loved ones. It's not even an evil act to kill a Paladin in that situation (witness the OOTS fighting Miko).

and only 1 of which showed anything resembling being 5th level.5 out of 50 is 10% and consistent with what we've seen and heard in SOD and the Azure war. Of those 5, one was 1st level (RC), one was at least 9th (Flamestrike), and the others we have no information about

One 5th level could (by himself) supply at least third of the food needed magically (that's huge). A 6th level could (by himself) supply at least two-thirds of the food. The nine+ level Cleric who was there (Flame Strike) could supply food for three villages with some logistical help.

The goblins were driven from redcloaks villiage an into the swamp.The Paladins thought they'd exterminated the village.

And evil creatures aren't innocent, so good can destroy them.Darn right. Someone who is standing there whipping the slaves "because it's funny" has no legit claim to being "innocent". I don't understand why this is supposed to pose ethical problems.

Ok, lets think about this. He has a huge army. He COULD kill all humans.. he doesnt. He sues for peace, and tries to get a fair amount of land for his people. WHICH part of that is empire building? If you build an evil empire your options are either take everything you can or take everything you think youc an hold. NOT "Hey guys, i need some farm land for my people, you've been taking land from my people for centuries, lets sit down and have a chat about where we can put a border and work soemthing out.This tactic has been used in RL by big-name bad-ass villains that we now consider to be seriously evil. I'll PM you links if you wish, but yes, this behavior is classic "empire building".

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-09, 05:56 PM

The first question is, Are his people are being oppressed? Certainly they're being killed by Paladins, but what vile deeds are they doing which forces/allows that?

There are numerous references to the goblins being driven off of their lands. Even if the goblins are raiding outside of their borders, extirpating them completely from the area and taking over their land is unacceptable. This is, at minimum, what occurred.

The next question is; What is the Dark One doing about this? We assume he's stopping (or has stopped) the Paladins, but what has he done about the vile deeds which drew them? Has he outlawed them? In a usually evil race that's unlikely to popular, but he's the supreme leader, he could probably swing it. Or is he simply pulling a RedCloak and preventing the Paladins from functioning while allowing his goblins to still be evil?

We don't know, but you're using the hypothesis that he was commiting evil deeds in order to back the hypothesis that threatening the other nations with an army was itself an evil act.

It's hinted in SOD that this is what he's up to. I.e. the other races are afraid, there's no mention of him passing "Good" laws, and he's seriously popular among a usually evil race. Granted, this is a "hint" and not "proof"... but it's consistent with what we know, and it's also consistent with him being evil enough to be an evil god, and his presumed approval with RC, and him feeling the need for a massive army before "negotiating".

Its not even a hint. Its you saying, out of the blue that this is so because it backs your idea.

Or in other words, either he was LE and empire building (literally), or he was LN/LG and trying to lead his people away from evil... but imho the former makes somewhat more sense than the later.

Or his alignment is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has a legitimate gripe against the human and elven nations and has as much right to defend himself as any peasant army.

Further while we have a lack of information that's not supplied by The Dark One, the kings did not. Presumably they knew exactly what kind of laws were being passed inside his empire, and they had an excellent idea of the Dark One's alignment. And knowing all this, they killed him. Granted, they might have been evil or just selfish, we don't know.

Their alignment is also likely, irrelevant. They were not going to cede what they saw as their land, much less to a goblin.

What it really comes down to is the Dark One hits my radar as a LE mastermind Dominator building an evil empire (like RC) rather than someone actively trying to redeem his people (like Right Eye).
This isn't a Catch-22. Assume you're a neutral goblin-fighter in a village and although you personally aren't raiding and taking slaves, various other goblins in the village are. A Good party attacks the village. It is *not* an evil act to try to protect yourself and your loved ones.

And its not an evil act if you're an evil goblin either.

5 out of 50 is 10% and consistent with what we've seen and heard in SOD and the Azure war. Of those 5, one was 1st level (RC), one was at least 9th (Flamestrike), and the others we have no information about

And we don't even know if the high priest lived in the village or if he dropped by for redcloaks initiation.

The Paladins thought they'd exterminated the village.

Right. Exterminate the vermin, build on their land. Extend your reach a little further, when they attack exterminate them and build on their land. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Darn right. Someone who is standing there whipping the slaves "because it's funny" has no legit claim to being "innocent". I don't understand why this is supposed to pose ethical problems.

Because thats not all it takes to be labled evil in the D&D universe. Because for a black dragon hatchling is "happy hatchday.. you're evil!"

This tactic has been used in RL by big-name bad-ass villains that we now consider to be seriously evil. I'll PM you links if you wish, but yes, this behavior is classic "empire building".

This is circular. Its assuming the act was evil empire building based on interpolating the actions based on the assumption that it was evil empire building. Sure, he MIGHT have been pulling the "i'll just take this and stop.. honest guys" routine while planning on using the downtime to reload. The problem is that he never got the chance to show his intentions with the only thing that matters: his actions. He was killed first.

Reverent-One

2010-05-09, 06:42 PM

Dark Matter

2010-05-09, 08:08 PM

There are numerous references to the goblins being driven off of their lands. Even if the goblins are raiding outside of their borders, extirpating them completely from the area and taking over their land is unacceptable. This is, at minimum, what occurred.The only reference I see to that is on page 28 of the SOD and appears connected to the goblin efforts to destroy the universe. Are there other references?

We don't know, but you're using the hypothesis that he was commiting evil deeds in order to back the hypothesis that threatening the other nations with an army was itself an evil act.I'm pointing out that the Evil God didn't tell us why Paladins were attacking him and his. But the "evil deeds" hypothesis does explain why Paladins could kill goblins without falling.

Or his alignment is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has a legitimate gripe against the human and elven nations and has as much right to defend himself as any peasant army."Defend himself" so he could do what? Goblins have the right to live... but only as long as they're not committing vile deeds. It's reasonable to ask whether "legitimate gripe" is a code word for "evil wins". No one has the "right" to whip slaves out of sadistic pleasure, and it's very much unresolved as to what the Paladins were stopping and why.

The acid test here is "What would Roy do?" It's possible to picture Roy campaigning for goblin freedom against evil orderlords (Xykon would be a good example), it's also possible to picture Roy working with a CE assassin/barbarian/ranger to destroy an evil would-be overlord.

Their alignment is also likely, irrelevant. They were not going to cede what they saw as their land, much less to a goblin."What they saw as their land?" If SOD is correct, then it was their land. They even owned it before goblin-kind even existed.

Because thats not all it takes to be labled evil in the D&D universe. Because for a black dragon hatchling is "happy hatchday.. you're evil!"You're also CR3 and can fly and destroy villages. I suggest we not expand the discussion to the "always evil".

This is circular.You said that he'd never do what he did if he were a LE empire builder, and I pointed out we've seen RL seriously-evil empire builders to *exactly* that. Actually if he were empire building I don't see what he'd do any differently. To be fair, that's not "proof".

Sure, he MIGHT have been pulling the "i'll just take this and stop.. honest guys" routine while planning on using the downtime to reload.That or he might have just build a LE country.

The problem is that he never got the chance to show his intentions with the only thing that matters: his actions. He was killed first.The Evil God could just tell us what his larger plans were, but maybe that would answer too many questions. But something to point out is even if we're not 100% sure what his alignment was then, it would have been trivial for the Kings to know. This leads us back to "what would Roy do" and the answer is I'm not sure...

...but even if everything we know is true, IMHO there's more then enough wiggle room for a non-racist truly Good PC to decide to oppose the Dark One. He'd certainly get more information than we have, but I suspect the deeper we look, the more evil we'd find. Maybe that can be Rich's next project after OOTS.

Morgan Wick

2010-05-09, 08:57 PM

My Nine Sides guess at the moment: OOTS, Xykon, Redcloak, LG, IFCC, Azurites, Girard and maybe Serini, Dark One, demon roaches (replace this one if Dark One counts as someone we know about).

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-09, 11:37 PM

My Nine Sides guess at the moment: OOTS, Xykon, Redcloak, LG, IFCC, Azurites, Girard and maybe Serini, Dark One, demon roaches (replace this one if Dark One counts as someone we know about).

I don't see how redcloak and the darkone can be considered different sides. Redcloak works for the dark one as one of his agents. Yes, xykon and redcloak have different goals, The Dark one and redcloak do not

Sholos

2010-05-10, 05:03 AM

Darkmatter, in what sense are you using the word "humble"?

Dark Matter

2010-05-10, 09:48 AM

Darkmatter, in what sense are you using the word "humble"?In the sense that I am not a developer nor the DM and what I've said is thus merely my opinion from reading the books and the rules. One sentence from a higher authority could unwind everything I've said like a house of cards with the table shaken.

There's not a lot of information on several points so it's very hard to avoid "you see what you want to see". Further we're dealing with one information source presenting his side. Very clearly, SOD is the goblins story and it's heartbreaking. It's designed to make us feel sympathy for their plight and it does a great job.

But "sympathy" doesn't mean "they should win", much less that "they're the Good guys". This is AD&D and the core rules say what they say about "Evil", and about "Good". At the end of the day, the forces of Good, no matter what their excesses, are trying to stop the guy holding the whip. Similarly, the forces of Evil, no matter what their sob-story, are trying to help him use that same whip.

It is very fair to ask what side of the Good/Evil divide various actors were on and how it influences what we should expect from them. Granted, it's also fair to ask whether or not the forces of Good were making things better or worse.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-10, 11:41 AM

The only reference I see to that is on page 28 of the SOD and appears connected to the goblin efforts to destroy the universe. Are there other references?

I don't have start of darkness here with me. i'll go through the comics this weekend after term papers are due.

I'm pointing out that the Evil God didn't tell us why Paladins were attacking him and his. But the "evil deeds" hypothesis does explain why Paladins could kill goblins without falling.

In war and xps the struggle is described as a cycle of violence with roots going back further than either side can honestly remember. The dark one is risking destroying the world because his people were screwed over and were made specifically to die on the end of a good aligned adventurer's sword. Even if you don't beleive the dark one, it makes sense in the context that the oots is a deconstruction of D&D, and why do DM's have goblins and other creatures in the world? Fodder.

It's reasonable to ask whether "legitimate gripe" is a code word for "evil wins".

No. No it is not legitimate to try to substitute one clearly defined and well explained phrase for another completely unrelated one that has no bearing on or becomes completely nonsensical when one is replaced to the other.

For example:

The player has a legitimate gripe with the referee, that ball was way outside

The player has a evil wins with the referee, that ball was way outside

The student has a legitimate gripe, the teacher is grading the girls higher on subjective grounds

The student has an evil wins, the teacher is grading the girls higher on subjective grounds.

It is also not reasonable to randomly assume the dishonesty required to slip code words into a conversation.

No one has the "right" to whip slaves out of sadistic pleasure, and it's very much unresolved as to what the Paladins were stopping and why.

The dark one's "holding of a gun to the head" of the other kingdoms occured long before the founding of Gobbotopia, and we don't have any evidence that such events were planned then.

The acid test here is "What would Roy do?" It's possible to picture Roy campaigning for goblin freedom against evil orderlords (Xykon would be a good example), it's also possible to picture Roy working with a CE assassin/barbarian/ranger to destroy an evil would-be overlord.

Roy would have done exactly what we know the dark one did... try to negotiate something fair, and if that didn't work kick their ass and try to negotiate again.

"What they saw as their land?" If SOD is correct, then it was their land. They even owned it before goblin-kind even existed.

we don't know if the lands were devoid of sentient life and the goblins were put there

You said that he'd never do what he did if he were a LE empire builder, and I pointed out we've seen RL seriously-evil empire builders to *exactly* that. Actually if he were empire building I don't see what he'd do any differently. To be fair, that's not "proof".

Seriously evil empires do that when they can't take all commers at once. If you have 100x the force of your opponents you keep steam rolling.

That or he might have just build a LE country.

His alignment as a mortal is unknown and irrelevant.

The Evil God could just tell us what his larger plans were, but maybe that would answer too many questions. But something to point out is even if we're not 100% sure what his alignment was then, it would have been trivial for the Kings to know. This leads us back to "what would Roy do" and the answer is I'm not sure...

Roy doesn't smash evil things just for being evil (oopcs) And Roy wouldn't interupt peace negotiations (he had a personal hatred of miko and still allowed hinjo to negotiate her surrender)

...but even if everything we know is true, IMHO there's more then enough wiggle room for a non-racist truly Good PC to decide to oppose the Dark One.

Oh, definitely. But there's also more than enough wiggle room to oppose the human kingdoms and to do so through force of arms, which is what you're labling as a lawful evil act.

Dark Matter

2010-05-10, 12:30 PM

In war and xps the struggle is described as a cycle of violence with roots going back further than either side can honestly remember. The dark one is risking destroying the world because his people were screwed over and were made specifically to die on the end of a good aligned adventurer's sword. Even if you don't believe the dark one, it makes sense in the context that the oots is a deconstruction of D&D, and why do DM's have goblins and other creatures in the world? Fodder.Very true. I'm good with every word of this... but the problem is, 'what do we do now'? It is clearly not "just" that goblins were created to die on the end of a Paladin's sword. But the rules also clearly say when the Paladin is allowed to do that and we don't want to sanction any of the activities which let him do so.

No. No it is not legitimate to try to substitute one clearly defined and well explained phrase for another completely unrelated one that has no bearing on or becomes completely nonsensical when one is replaced to the other.Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. I should have said we need to be careful that the proposed solution to a "legitimate gripe" is not "evil wins".

Assume the police were too rough when they caught a serial killer. That's a legit gripe, but the solution can not be "we'll ban the police from the serial killer's stomping grounds and let him do whatever he wants".

The dark one's "holding of a gun to the head" of the other kingdoms occured long before the founding of Gobbotopia, and we don't have any evidence that such events were planned then.This would be a more comforting statement if you weren't ignoring all evidence on the Dark One's alignment to the point where you claim it is "unknown and irrelevant". A LE Dark One who is founding his own country is presumably going to create a LE country. By definition this is not a "Good" outcome.

we don't know if the lands were devoid of sentient life and the goblins were put thereWe're talking about human kings, and specifically their "good land". Said land was given to them by the gods before the creation of the goblins. It's prime land, it should already be in use by humans for villages, towns, and the like.

Seriously evil empires do that when they can't take all commers at once. If you have 100x the force of your opponents you keep steam rolling. So you keep going until you lose? Maybe that was what he wanted to avoid? Further, eventually, his army did lose to the combined might of everyone else. Being the strongest kid on the block by a lot isn't the same as being stronger than everyone combined. If he could have made a deal, any deal, which kept at least a few players off the battlefield he could have won. Assuming he was LE, just expanding his power base would have been huge. And btw in RL it was huge when this tactic worked.

Roy doesn't smash evil things just for being evil (oopcs) And Roy wouldn't interupt peace negotiations (he had a personal hatred of miko and still allowed hinjo to negotiate her surrender)True. But without Xykon, what would Roy have thought about the creation of Goblotopia?

Oh, definitely. But there's also more than enough wiggle room to oppose the human kingdoms and to do so through force of arms, which is what you're labeling as a lawful evil act.True... but all outcomes are not equally likely. Assume that I'm the LG leader of a party of high level adventurers, and the Dark One and the bulk of his followers are LE.

Do I try to help the Dark One create a country or oppose him? Off hand... I'm not sure. I suspect the answer is that the goblins do in fact deserve a country but I don't trust the current leadership to create anything "Good".

Cealocanth

2010-05-10, 11:05 PM

The Dark One is the guide for Redcloak and, like Star Wars, the villan's story is almost the most important than any other story here. So, in a way, the OOTS's real enemy is Redcloak, and thus, the Dark One.

Rat is an evil deity? But i was born in the year of the rat!?!?:smalleek:

My logic follows linearly only to myself. I pity your confusion at my post. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-11, 10:33 PM

Rat is an evil deity? But i was born in the year of the rat!?!?

Do you have a goatee?

Cealocanth

2010-05-11, 10:38 PM

Do you have a goatee?

What's that supposed to mean?! Does having a goatee mean that someone's more evil than someone with out it?!? Why are you wondering about my facial hair huh?!?! Why do you have to ask such personall questions?!?!?!?!?!?!?[/paranoid]

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-14, 04:38 PM

Very true. I'm good with every word of this... but the problem is, 'what do we do now'? It is clearly not "just" that goblins were created to die on the end of a Paladin's sword. But the rules also clearly say when the Paladin is allowed to do that and we don't want to sanction any of the activities which let him do so.

A goblin is allowed to die on the end of a paladins sword pretty much whenever he's a goblin. Paladin shows up in a goblin town, paladin detects evil, goes to kill the evil goblin, and the few non even goblins try to fight for attacking their friend.

Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. I should have said we need to be careful that the proposed solution to a "legitimate gripe" is not "evil wins".

And how is an endless cycle of violence between the two factions NOT evil winning? What would constitute good winning here... complete extermination of the goblin race?

Assume the police were too rough when they caught a serial killer. That's a legit gripe, but the solution can not be "we'll ban the police from the serial killer's stomping grounds and let him do whatever he wants".

This presumes that the dark one was wrong in the first place and that the humans have a right to police them, which is the issue under discussion

So you keep going until you lose? Maybe that was what he wanted to avoid? Further, eventually, his army did lose to the combined might of everyone else. Being the strongest kid on the block by a lot isn't the same as being stronger than everyone combined. If he could have made a deal, any deal, which kept at least a few players off the battlefield he could have won. Assuming he was LE, just expanding his power base would have been huge. And btw in RL it was huge when this tactic worked.

No one has ever tried that tactic when they had 100x the force of their opponents. THATS the statement i was responding to.

True... but all outcomes are not equally likely. Assume that I'm the LG leader of a party of high level adventurers, and the Dark One and the bulk of his followers are LE.

You don't oppose a LE person from going to the bathroom. You don't oppose a LE person from rescuing their young daughter. You don't oppose a LE person from making a sandwich. You oppose a LE person when the do Evil acts. In order to make a moral argument for or judgment against the dark one for raising an army to sue for peice you have to show that the ACTION, not the person, was evil.

Dark Matter

2010-05-14, 07:59 PM

A goblin is allowed to die on the end of a paladins sword pretty much whenever he's a goblin. Paladin shows up in a goblin town, paladin detects evil, goes to kill the evil goblin, and the few non even goblins try to fight for attacking their friend.And then Paladin falls. Just exactly like he would if he killed that evil-aristocratic just for being evil. There are worlds were the DM lets you do this, OOTS-land isn't one of them.

And how is an endless cycle of violence between the two factions NOT evil winning? What would constitute good winning here... complete extermination of the goblin race?There are degrees of evil. Replacing an "endless cylce of violence" with "Evil wins" (i.e. the formation of an LE country) isn't an improvement.

And btw the "evil" part of the current situation is goblins who might otherwise be neutral or good end up evil. But any specific Paladin who kills a goblin for just cause? That's "Good" unless there's an alternative that doesn't include simply letting him continue doing his deeds.

This presumes that the dark one was wrong in the first place and that the humans have a right to police them, which is the issue under discussion...So let me see if I understand this correctly. If goblin raiders and/or slavers come in and attack a Neutral or Good human village, Paladins are supposed to say... what? "It's just goblins being goblins?" "We don't police goblins?" What is it that you want to have happen when the goblins are doing vile deeds?

IMHO what the goblins need is more policing, not less. They need goblin-Paladins running around dealing with RC and Xykon while they're still weak.

No one has ever tried that tactic when they had 100x the force of their opponents. THATS the statement i was responding to.Straw man. I never said they were 100x everyone else combined. They had the best army, by a lot, or (at a handwave) about 100x the battle of Azure. Azure isn't the world. My impression is that the elves are stronger than the humans, but that might just be ignorance.

You don't oppose a LE person from going to the bathroom. You don't oppose a LE person from rescuing their young daughter. You don't oppose a LE person from making a sandwich. You oppose a LE person when the do Evil acts. In order to make a moral argument for or judgment against the dark one for raising an army to sue for piece you have to show that the ACTION, not the person, was evil.All true. But The Dark One wasn't "suing for peace". That he could simply do by saying "I'm going to police my own, any evil acts will be punished". He might even add "I'd like your help in forming a group of goblin-Paladins to facilitate this".

What he is doing instead is "demanding land with which to create a country" (that's 2 deeds, not one). The next question is "what kind of country is he creating?" Is it Right-eye but on a larger scale, or is it Red-cloak but on a larger scale? If The Dark One was LE, then it's seriously likely we'd see the later and not the former... and that's *at* *best*. If he's LE then then I don't understand how we argue to a LG PC that "Good" would be served by letting him create a (presumably LE) country (on currently Good-owned land no less), as opposed to stopping him. Can you picture a way a LE leader with LE followers creates a LG country?

The Dark One wasn't horrified that *his* personal army killed a million people in his name. None of us are surprised at this.

Edited: For clarity (to remove a double negative).

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-15, 01:09 PM

And then Paladin falls. Just exactly like he would if he killed that evil-aristocratic just for being evil. There are worlds were the DM lets you do this, OOTS-land isn't one of them.
There are degrees of evil. Replacing an "endless cylce of violence" with "Evil wins" (i.e. the formation of an LE country) isn't an improvement.

Yes, that is how oots works. Miko operated that way for a long, long time without falling

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

The paladin can't do that to the human aristocrat because its against the law. There are no laws protecting the goblins

And btw the "evil" part of the current situation is goblins who might otherwise be neutral or good end up evil. But any specific Paladin who kills a goblin for just cause? That's "Good" unless there's an alternative that doesn't include simply letting him continue doing his deeds.

And how many alternatives do we see being tried here? preaching to goblins? Perhaps some sort of azure city peace corps? Nope.. its a goblin, kill it.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If goblin raiders and/or slavers come in and attack a Neutral or Good human village, Paladins are supposed to say... what? "It's just goblins being goblins?" "We don't police goblins?" What is it that you want to have happen when the goblins are doing vile deeds?

What do you want to have happen when the humans do vile deeds and send in adventurers after the goblins? What i would want is for the humans to sit down with the goblins so that the goblins could form a nation and be dealt with as one nation to another. That's exactly what the Dark one was doing and what you consider to be evil.

Straw man. I never said they were 100x everyone else combined. They had the best army, by a lot, or (at a handwave) about 100x the battle of Azure. Azure isn't the world. My impression is that the elves are stronger than the humans, but that might just be ignorance.

you never said WHAT they were 100 times the force of either.

All true. But The Dark One wasn't "suing for peace". That he could simply do by saying "I'm going to police my own, any evil acts will be punished". He might even add "I'd like your help in forming a group of goblin-Paladins to facilitate this".

Yes, the dark one WAS suing for peace.

Suing for peace is an act by a warring nation to initiate a peace process in which the peace terms are more favorable than an unconditional surrender. Suing for peace is usually initiated by the losing party in an attempt to stave off an unconditional surrender, and may sometimes be favorable to the winning nation, as winning a war in a complete or unconditional surrender may be costly.

However, pressing for peace may sometimes be started by the winning faction as a means to end the war for several reasons, such as where additional conflict would not be in the perceived best interest of the winning party. In this case, demands might be made, or the two nations may agree to a white peace.

-wiki

Of course he had to have an army at his back to do this. A single goblin may not have been able to even get into a city, and if as an individual he said "hi, you need to sit down and work out your differences with the goblins" he would have been lucky to be tossed out into the trash.

What he is doing instead is "demanding land with which to create a country" (that's 2 deeds, not one)

Does this really matter, at all?

The next question is "what kind of country is he creating?" Is it Right-eye but on a larger scale, or is it Red-cloak but on a larger scale? If The Dark One was LE, then it's seriously likely we'd see the later and not the former... and that's *at* *best*. If he's LE then then I don't understand how we argue to a LG PC that "Good" would be served by letting him create a (presumably LE) country (on currently Good-owned land no less), as opposed to stopping him. Can you picture a way a LE leader with LE followers creates a LG country?

Yes, the country starts off evil, and over time enlightened self interest moves it to LN and with a little help and positive reinforcement another few generations might move it to LG.

The Dark One wasn't horrified that *his* personal army killed a million people in his name. None of us are surprised at this.

That was just as he'd learned that the gods had created his people for the sole purpose of dying on the end of adventurers blades.(which was spelled out in start of darkness and i have no reason to doubt because it mirrors the creation process of a dm) I really wouldn't be too concerned with the death of the folks propagating that system.

Dark Matter

2010-05-15, 08:21 PM

Yes, that is how oots works. Miko operated that way for a long, long time without falling...Miko? Miko is an example of what not to do, as someone who was only marginally good, and the number of times we've actually seen her do this is *zero*. She's also such an extreme case even other Paladins couldn't stand her. That means her type is both rare and close to falling.

The one time we almost saw her kill someone because they were evil, Belkar was actively trying to make her fall... and no one corrected him after he talked about his plan. The flaw was he'd stay dead, not that she wouldn't have fallen.

The paladin can't do that to the human aristocrat because its against the law. There are no laws protecting the goblins...Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts, they fall for Evil acts. If you agree a Paladin would fall for killing him purely because he was evil (Disintegrate, Gust of Wind), then you're agreeing that it'd be an evil act.

And how many alternatives do we see being tried here? preaching to goblins? Perhaps some sort of azure city peace corps? Nope.. its a goblin, kill it. If you mean in SOD (Dark One's time), the God of Evil didn't tell us of anything else being tried. If you mean SOD (modern era), the conflict with the goblins was directly related to goblin attempts to destroy the universe (and that was extreme enough that presumably Paladins fell). If you mean the strip directly, then the bulk of goblin killing has been done by the OOTS, and Azure doesn't seem to have had a problem with the Hobgoblin city. Further you're claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

What do you want to have happen when the humans do vile deeds and send in adventurers after the goblins?Huh? What are you talking about? When we seen this?

What i would want is for the humans to sit down with the goblins so that the goblins could form a nation and be dealt with as one nation to another. That's exactly what the Dark one was doing and what you consider to be evil.Yes, I consider the creation of Goblotopia on what was "Good" land to have been Evil.

When you look at RL history; LE countries were responsible for the larger Evil acts. It's scale, a lone evil man can kill perhaps a hundred, an LE country can kill tens of millions.

Yes, the dark one WAS suing for peace.The definition you quoted is fine... but there was no "war" since the goblins didn't have a "nation" until the Dark One created one. Then entire problem was "goblins are evil & committing vile deeds, goblins are punished for being evil".

Of course he had to have an army at his back to do this. A single goblin may not have been able to even get into a city, and if as an individual he said "hi, you need to sit down and work out your differences with the goblins" he would have been lucky to be tossed out into the trash.And what "differences" do they have? This is AD&D, the core problem is the goblins are Evil. If they'd stop committing evil acts, then they'd cease to be xp-fodder for Paladins.

Yes, the country starts off evil, and over time enlightened self interest moves it to LN and with a little help and positive reinforcement another few generations might move it to LG."Enlightened self interest" doesn't lead to "Good" in AD&D. We have Evil races & gods and the system rewards Evil people for being Evil in the afterlife. There's no indication the Drow, or the Illithid, or any of the other Evil races which run their own evil countries are in the process of "reforming". Goblotopia isn't an example of Evil being decreased, it's an example of Evil becoming more powerful. This isn't a "Good" thing over either the short or long term.

I really wouldn't be too concerned with the death of the folks propagating that system.Only if you're seriously Evil.

And speaking of evil: LE is the only alignment that makes mention of "race". He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. So if you're concerned with judging person "X" because they're a member of group "Y", then that's a good sign that you're LE.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-16, 01:40 AM

Miko? Miko is an example of what not to do, as someone who was only marginally good, and the number of times we've actually seen her do this is *zero*.

She has said that she did it repeatedly. Give me a reason to think that she's lying or I'm going to go with the idea that its true.

She's also such an extreme case even other Paladins couldn't stand her. That means her type is both rare and close to falling.

She operated like that for years, and the paladin in SOD acted the same way. It may be the wrong way to play a paladin but its a COMMON way to play a paladin.

The one time we almost saw her kill someone because they were evil, Belkar was actively trying to make her fall... and no one corrected him after he talked about his plan. The flaw was he'd stay dead, not that she wouldn't have fallen.

I don't see anything that would indicate that she would have fell. He IS a chaotic evil, psychopathic murderer who deserves execution 50 times over. paladins are not required to stop killing any evil creature they come accross just because its hit points fall between -0 and -10 hit points.

Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts, they fall for Evil acts. If you agree a Paladin would fall for killing him purely because he was evil (Disintegrate, Gust of Wind), then you're agreeing that it'd be an evil act.

Or i could point out that paladins DO fall for breaking laws because upholding laws are part of the paladins code. While one chaotic act (unlike one evil act) wouldn't make them fall, multiple ones would.

If you mean in SOD (Dark One's time), the God of Evil didn't tell us of anything else being tried. If you mean SOD (modern era), the conflict with the goblins was directly related to goblin attempts to destroy the universe

And why are the goblins trying to destroy the universe? Oh, right, because the universe was set up specifically for them to be fodder. While i agree that using the snarl is going too far to rectify the situation, using an army is not.

(and that was extreme enough that presumably Paladins fell)

There is NO evidence that they did fall. They might have fallen. Evidence of absence IS absence of evidence if evidence could reasonably be expected if the hypothesized thing in question were true. In this case, a complete lack of evidence one way or the other is not evidence that such a position is in fact true.

If you mean the strip directly, then the bulk of goblin killing has been done by the OOTS, and Azure doesn't seem to have had a problem with the Hobgoblin city.

In war and xp's the travelers guide warns visitors away from certain areas because of constant back and forth fighting between the azurites and goblinoids. Just because the city was still standing doesn't mean the azurites were happy with it.

Huh? What are you talking about? When we seen this?

Start of darkness (twice), and in every single D&D campaign ever.

Yes, I consider the creation of Goblotopia on what was "Good" land to have been Evil.

Why? Because they're goblins?

The definition you quoted is fine... but there was no "war" since the goblins didn't have a "nation" until the Dark One created one. Then entire problem was "goblins are evil & committing vile deeds, goblins are punished for being evil".

This is pedantic sophistry at its best. The problem wasn't that goblins were committing vile deeds the problem was that they were organizing against their oppressors and that got said oppressors more than a little scared. This is all the information we have about this. Any reasons for opposing the Dark ones negotiations rely on the circular argument that the goblins were doing evil things.

And what "differences" do they have? This is AD&D, the core problem is the goblins are Evil. If they'd stop committing evil acts, then they'd cease to be xp-fodder for Paladins.

And if they're continuously treated like xp fodder they're going to act like xp fodder. Someone has to try to break the cycle at some point. Thats what the dark one was apparently doing.

"Enlightened self interest" doesn't lead to "Good" in AD&D.

No, but its a start. It can get you to a fairly decent neutral, which would be a big improvement. Gobbotopia might stop using slaves because its wrong... or they might do so because it makes it harder to play nice with their neighbors. They can stop raiding human villages because its wrong.. or because they don't want other nations declaring war. If you start to act like a civilized being or nation long enough you will become one.

We have Evil races & gods and the system rewards Evil people for being Evil in the afterlife. There's no indication the Drow, or the Illithid, or any of the other Evil races which run their own evil countries are in the process of "reforming". Goblotopia isn't an example of Evil being decreased, it's an example of Evil becoming more powerful. This isn't a "Good" thing over either the short or long term.

Its a bit short to say in the long term now isn't it?

Only if you're seriously Evil.

I might dabble in the evil for a good cause area, but i haven't hit the big leagues. The problem is that, as you have it set up, good and evil are nothing more than arbitrary teams, and its ok to kill the people on team B but not on team A.

And speaking of evil: LE is the only alignment that makes mention of "race". He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. So if you're concerned with judging person "X" because they're a member of group "Y", then that's a good sign that you're LE.

Great! So given your position on goblins you should be growing the goatee any time now. May i recommend whoever does General Tarquins wardrobe? Its spiffy. :smallwink:

Dark Matter

2010-05-16, 02:08 PM

She has said that she did it repeatedly. Give me a reason to think that she's lying or I'm going to go with the idea that its true.We don't know what she was doing to any great level of detail. For example this was after she destroyed those Ogres for being Evil so presumably they're included in her statement.

It may be the wrong way to play a paladin but its a COMMON way to play a paladin.Not in the Sapphire Guard it isn't. And the Sapphire Guard is the specific set of Paladins we're talking about.

I don't see anything that would indicate that she would have fell.It wasn't just Belkar who thought she would fall and it would have been even funnier if V or the guard (or one of the other lawyers, Priests, OOTS, etc) who were in the room if they'd told him not only he would have stayed dead, but she wouldn't have fallen.

And while you and I know how awful Belkar is, all she knew was that he'd killed a guard while escaping and that he was Evil. And if you want a higher authority for this, when Roy's Diva examined his life, he asked her if the solution to Belkar was to simply cut his jugular when he was asleep and she was shocked at the suggestion. If Roy (who isn't a Paladin and knows exactly what Belkar is) isn't allowed to kill him for just being Evil then Miko (who is held to a higher standard) certainly isn't.

Or i could point out that paladins DO fall for breaking laws because upholding laws are part of the paladins code. While one chaotic act (unlike one evil act) wouldn't make them fall, multiple ones would.Elan is the poster child for CG, and he had extreme issues with V's actions to the point of comparing it to something Belkar would do. One assumes he wouldn't have issues with a Good act.

While i agree that using the snarl is going too far to rectify the situation, using an army is not.They wouldn't *be* fodder if they'd stop committing evil acts. What you're suggesting is that it's somehow "Good" to stop the punishment of Evil acts. In AD&D this is big time Evil. You aren't going to reduce the amount of Evil by preventing Paladins from destroying it.

There is NO evidence that they did fall. They might have fallen. Evidence of absence IS absence of evidence if evidence could reasonably be expected if the hypothesized thing in question were true.Given Rich's statements, please expand on this. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Start of darkness (twice)...The only "vile deeds" the humans did was RC's village, and even that was in response to 'The Plan', and presumably involved Paladins falling.

...and in every single D&D campaign ever.This is the core of your argument, and this is simply wrong. Different campaigns have different DMs and thus different natural laws. If the DM tells you you're wrong, then you are, even if other campaigns were different.

Why? Because they're goblins?No, because slaves are whipped "because it's funny" and non-goblins are put to death "for having levels in adventurer classes" and because there's now a very sadistic Lich overlord. This is Evil.

Replace the word "goblin" with the word "human" and it's *still* Evil, and contrasts harshly with what Azure city did and tolerated. This undoes all of your arguments. Now that goblins are free from "oppression" the amount of evil being done has increased, not decreased, since while they're more powerful they're no less Evil.

And if they're continuously treated like xp fodder they're going to act like xp fodder. Someone has to try to break the cycle at some point. Thats what the dark one was apparently doing. Do you think replacing Azure with Goblotopia reduced the amount of Evil in the world?

No, but its a start. It can get you to a fairly decent neutral, which would be a big improvement. Gobbotopia might stop using slaves because its wrong... or they might do so because it makes it harder to play nice with their neighbors. They can stop raiding human villages because its wrong.. or because they don't want other nations declaring war. If you start to act like a civilized being or nation long enough you will become one.It doesn't work this way in AD&D. The Evil Gods who empower the leadership of an Evil Nation aren't going to be happy with their leadership turning away from Evil. This is why the various Evil races which do have their own governments haven't become less Evil over time. Clerical (or Paladin) organizations have serious alignment limitations. Further if you're on top it's easy to stay on top because high level characters are so much more powerful than low level ones.

Its a bit short to say in the long term now isn't it?So you're claiming that Good might eventually come from letting Evil win? From letting the followers of an Evil God set up a government where Clerical power comes from him? At what point do you think the Dark One is going to willingly step down and hand over power to some other god in the name of 'Good' and "enlightened self interest"? Right-eye had to turn away from his god in order to set up a non-evil village.

The problem is that, as you have it set up, good and evil are nothing more than arbitrary teams, and its ok to kill the people on team B but not on team A.Which side thinks whipping the slaves is funny? Why doesn't that difference make the teams less than "arbitrary"?

Great! So given your position on goblins you should be growing the goatee any time now.What I'm pointing out is you're accusing Paladins of black-letter LE behavior. You're also accepting of Goblotopia's LE behavior because it's by Goblins.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-16, 04:11 PM

We don't know what she was doing to any great level of detail. For example this was after she destroyed those Ogres for being Evil so presumably they're included in her statement.

She didn't bother with a detect evil in that case, not that i blame her.

Not in the Sapphire Guard it isn't. And the Sapphire Guard is the specific set of Paladins we're talking about.

No, its not. We're talking about an entire world set up specifically so that murdering certain people for having green skin and pointy fangs is morally acceptable. That's he system the dark one needs to deal with.

It wasn't just Belkar who thought she would fall and it would have been even funnier if V or the guard (or one of the other lawyers, Priests, OOTS, etc) who were in the room if they'd told him not only he would have stayed dead, but she wouldn't have fallen.

Your sense of humor isn't exactly a solid line of argumentation.

And while you and I know how awful Belkar is, all she knew was that he'd killed a guard while escaping and that he was Evil.

killing a lawfully appointed guard and then doing finger painting on the wall with his blood taunting someone isn't exactly and indication of being good.

And if you want a higher authority for this, when Roy's Diva examined his life, he asked her if the solution to Belkar was to simply cut his jugular when he was asleep and she was shocked at the suggestion. If Roy (who isn't a Paladin and knows exactly what Belkar is) isn't allowed to kill him for just being Evil then Miko (who is held to a higher standard) certainly isn't.

She was not shocked at the suggestion. Theres no () around her eyes. She simply doesn't know how to reconcile the idea that belkar should be killed in his sleep with the concept that doing so would be an evil act. There is however, a huge difference between defeating someone in a fight where their hitpoints happen to drop between -1 and -10 and having someone go to sleep trusting you to watch their back and then betraying them.

Elan is the poster child for CG, and he had extreme issues with V's actions to the point of comparing it to something Belkar would do. One assumes he wouldn't have issues with a Good act.

Elan was ok with it until V said that he didn't know who the person was. When he said he didn't know who therkla was was when Elan lost it.

Elan is also both nice and adheres to heroic conventions, which are aspects of his personality outside of his alignment. I think most chaotic good adventuring types would have killed him at that point.

They wouldn't *be* fodder if they'd stop committing evil acts. What you're suggesting is that it's somehow "Good" to stop the punishment of Evil acts.

Sure they would. Non evil people who are separated into groups and live in proximity to each other competing over resources often come into conflict.

Given Rich's statements, please expand on this. http://www.giantitp.
com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21 The only "vile deeds" the humans did was RC's village, and even that was in response to 'The Plan', and presumably involved Paladins falling.

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

MAY have fallen. It doesn't say that any did, for sure. You presume some of them fell, its your presumption, not fact.

This is the core of your argument, and this is simply wrong. Different campaigns have different DMs and thus different natural laws. If the DM tells you you're wrong, then you are, even if other campaigns were different.

OOTS is a genre deconstruction. In the genre goblins are put there to be killed. In the crayons of time its stated that they are there to be killed. The core of my argument is that given

1) SOD crayons statement that Goblins were made to be XP is true
2) #1 fitting in with OOTS's genre deconstruction
3) No evidence at all to the contrary

that its safe to conclude that goblins were made for xp.

No, because slaves are whipped "because it's funny" and non-goblins are put to death "for having levels in adventurer classes" and because there's now a very sadistic Lich overlord. This is Evil.

This is also NOT the army the dark one raised while mortal. NONE of these are the actions you're blaming him for. You blamed him for raising an army and putting a proverbial gun to the head of the kings. Anything he did centuries latter fails to be relevant to that action.

Do you think replacing Azure with Goblotopia reduced the amount of Evil in the world?

That wasn't the plan the dark one had. He wasn't suing to "take the whole anchelata" the way redcloak did. He wanted enough land to make a living on.

It doesn't work this way in AD&D. The Evil Gods who empower the leadership of an Evil Nation aren't going to be happy with their leadership turning away from Evil.

The dark one is not a god OF evil. He is the god OF goblinoids that happens to BE evil. If another path or way of doing things would work better for his people, would he change? Would he advocate evil for its own sake? He doesn't seem the type. Everything we've seen him and his cleric do has been that "evil for a good clause" line (at least in his pr)

So you're claiming that Good might eventually come from letting Evil win?

Play the big game, think long term turn a victory into a defeat. Its chess. You can win the game by sacrificing peices, particularly when (as depicted in SOD) you wouldn't even loose any pawns, just some squares on the board.

From letting the followers of an Evil God set up a government where Clerical power comes from him? At what point do you think the Dark One is going to willingly step down and hand over power to some other god in the name of 'Good' and "enlightened self interest"? Right-eye had to turn away from his god in order to set up a non-evil village.

But did the dark one turn his back on Right eye?

Which side thinks whipping the slaves is funny? Why doesn't that difference make the teams less than "arbitrary"?

Which side thinks giving a shackled Hobgoblin false hope and throwing him off the tower was cool?

What I'm pointing out is you're accusing Paladins of black-letter LE behavior. You're also accepting of Goblotopia's LE behavior because it's by Goblins.

What i keep trying to tell you is that its not about Goblotopia. Its about what the dark one was trying to do, which is NOT goblotopia You cant apply something that happened centuries afterwards in the moral judgement of something that happened centuries before. They're completely unrelated. Goblotopia is the way it is in part because there was no negotiation, it was total victory by one side over the other.

Kish

2010-05-16, 04:29 PM

It wasn't just Belkar who thought she would fall

Belkar, who believes it's ridiculously unreasonable for humans to expect him to refrain from killing them in taverns, is the only person who expressed the positive belief that she would have Fallen if she killed him. That Vaarsuvius didn't dispute the up-for-debate in favor of pointing out the indisputable "Durkon doesn't have the diamonds" is indicative of Vaarsuvius not thinking it's established she wouldn't have Fallen, not of Vaarsuvius thinking she would have fallen.

Haley said some time later that everyone who was in the throne room with Miko and Shojo now knows one act a paladin will definitely fall for: "Killing their defenseless liege lord." Anything else is debatable. Even if Vaarsuvius knew Miko wouldn't have Fallen for killing Belkar (and I would expect Vaarsuvius' knowledge on the subject to be less than or equal to Haley's, definitely not greater), if s/he couldn't prove it and knows Belkar would disagree, it makes perfect sense that s/he chose to skip the issue entirely in favor of focusing on the diamonds issue.

Dark Matter

2010-05-16, 07:03 PM

She didn't bother with a detect evil in that case, not that i blame her. You mean she's not shown to use it. She gave the Ogres like 10 rounds to set up, most of which were off camera.

No, its not. We're talking about an entire world set up specifically so that murdering certain people for having green skin and pointy fangs is morally acceptable. That's he system the dark one needs to deal with.This is specifically rejected by every Good member of the OOTS in 13. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

killing a lawfully appointed guard and then doing finger painting on the wall with his blood taunting someone isn't exactly and indication of being good.So what? Paladins don't kill people for being evil, they kill them for committing evil acts and there being no other way to stop them.

She was not shocked at the suggestion. Theres no () around her eyes. She simply doesn't know how to reconcile the idea that belkar should be killed in his sleep with the concept that doing so would be an evil act. There is however, a huge difference between defeating someone in a fight where their hitpoints happen to drop between -1 and -10 and having someone go to sleep trusting you to watch their back and then betraying them.If Belkar deserves to die purely because he's evil, then this is a meaningless quibble. The entire OOTS could just come down on him after telling him why he needs to die. Worse, if you're right about the rules of "Good", then they *should*.

Sure they would. Non evil people who are separated into groups and live in proximity to each other competing over resources often come into conflict.Perhaps... but then it wouldn't be a Good vs. Evil thing.

MAY have fallen. It doesn't say that any did, for sure. You presume some of them fell, its your presumption, not fact.And what is your assumption? That none of them fell and it's always a Good act to kill a goblin, regardless of when, how, or why? That doesn't match what we saw in 13, or even in 707 (people hiding the death of a goblin from a Paladin is implicit acknowledgment that it's an evil act).

OOTS is a genre deconstruction. In the genre goblins are put there to be killed. In the crayons of time its stated that they are there to be killed. The core of my argument is that given
1) SOD crayons statement that Goblins were made to be XP is true
2) #1 fitting in with OOTS's genre deconstruction
3) No evidence at all to the contrary
that its safe to conclude that goblins were made for xp.You're leaving out the word "Evil" when it's appropriate to put it in. You're also assuming that OOTS-land works the same way as your home campaign despite evidence to the contrary.

This is also NOT the army the dark one raised while mortal. NONE of these are the actions you're blaming him for. You blamed him for raising an army and putting a proverbial gun to the head of the kings. Anything he did centuries latter fails to be relevant to that action.The Dark One was evil enough to become an Evil god. With an absurd amount of power over the goblins, and keeping strictly to his own PR coming from his own Cleric... there's literally no mention of any attempt to redeem his people. His big goal was apparently to make goblins so powerful that they wouldn't need to fear being killed by Paladins (i.e. they wouldn't need to worry about Good or Justice). His big accomplishment in life was to create an army so Evil they thought genocide was the appropriate reaction to the murder of one man. The army he built committed, in his name, the single most Evil act that we've heard of in the entire strip. It might have been the single most Evil act in the entire history of history.

With the number of times the word "Evil" comes up (and the scale of the same), why should we think the country he wanted to create would be *less* Evil than the country his high Priest created? Wouldn't 'much more Evil' make just as much sense?

And more importantly, given the number of times the word "Evil" appears there, why would it have been a "Good" action to give this guy "Good" land? It appears to me that it'd have been Evil at best, insanely foolish and trusting at worst.

The dark one is not a god OF evil. He is the god OF goblinoids that happens to BE evil. If another path or way of doing things would work better for his people, would he change? Would he advocate evil for its own sake? He doesn't seem the type. Everything we've seen him and his cleric do has been that "evil for a good clause" line (at least in his pr)Evil tends to be short sighted, selfish, and self-destructive. I'd argue even as things stand his people would be better off with redemption because so far Evil hasn't worked out real well for them.

But even ignoring that, right at this moment in theory there is a "better way". The Dark One could trade his giving up the Plan for the Gods of Good tolerating Goblotopia. I don't expect to see this however because...

...every time we see The Dark One "trying to do good things for his race" it also corresponds to him "gaining ultimate power". RC is willing to sacrifice himself for his people, The Dark One... well... that isn't and wasn't part of the plan. This btw is yet another reason to be deeply suspicious of his claims.

Play the big game, think long term turn a victory into a defeat. Its chess. You can win the game by sacrificing pieces, particularly when (as depicted in SOD) you wouldn't even loose any pawns, just some squares on the board.Letting the Evil Dark One and his Evil army have land to build build an Evil country in the hope that it will be "Good" doesn't seem like a reasonable sacrifice or sensible risk.

But did the dark one turn his back on Right eye?So having his high priest (RE's own brother) murder him was an act of favor? Ditto getting Right-eye's family killed? I'd hope this is an act of turning his back rather than favor, but The Dark One is an Evil god so maybe not.

Which side thinks giving a shackled Hobgoblin false hope and throwing him off the tower was cool?Presumably Evil (witness the hiding of the act from the Paladin). There are multiple factions, the Evil Ones don't have problems killing each other (witness Belkar) while the Good ones do.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-16, 08:18 PM

This is specifically rejected by every Good member of the OOTS in 13.

But an accepted way of the world working.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html
So what? Paladins don't kill people for being evil, they kill them for committing evil acts and there being no other way to stop them. If Belkar deserves to die purely because he's evil, then this is a meaningless quibble[/quote]

Depends on the paladin. Also, the last part is pretty much up to the paladin as well. In this case, Belkar had demonstrated his ability to break out of a high security facility, so holding him in jail wasn't an option, so you kill him... or is paladin supposed to mean comic book hero where you keep letting people out no matter how many innocents they'll hurt?

Lets see, Belkars crimes KNOWN to miko

Resisting arrest 3 counts (initial meeting, outside the inn, their run around the palace)

Assaulting an officer of the law 3 counts minimum (during the course of resisting arrest)

Escaping a detention facility

Manslaughter

Desecration of a body

grand theft Katana

Petty theft (sakki)

.
The entire OOTS could just come down on him after telling him why he needs to die. Worse, if you're right about the rules of "Good", then they *should*.

I think that there's a difference between slitting his throat while he's sleeping, trusting you to guard him, and killing him when he's down.

One is a violation of your word, your trust, and a social contract. Especially with adventurers, putting your trust in someone to watch you in hostile terratory is a big deal and sort of sacrosanct. On the other hand, there is no batler batlee privlidge. When a paladin starts hacking at you with a big honking sword they're very clear and straitforward with their intentions: They're going to kill you for your evil acts. That doesn't stop just because you fall over.

And what is your assumption? That none of them fell

That had always been my working conclussion from SOD.

and it's always a Good act to kill a goblin, regardless of when, how, or why? That doesn't match what we saw in 13, or even in 707 (people hiding the death of a goblin from a Paladin is implicit acknowledgment that it's an evil act).

The Kato's hid the fact that Kato was pregnant before the wedding from Hinjo. Does that mean that pre marital sex is an evil act, or that paladins are just a little uptight about some things?

You're leaving out the word "Evil" when it's appropriate to put it in. You're also assuming that OOTS-land works the same way as your home campaign despite evidence to the contrary.

No, i'm not. And you've agreed to essentially the same points before.

The Dark One was evil enough to become an Evil god. With an absurd amount of power over the goblins, and keeping strictly to his own PR coming from his own Cleric... there's literally no mention of any attempt to redeem his people. His big goal was apparently to make goblins so powerful that they wouldn't need to fear being killed by Paladins (i.e. they wouldn't need to worry about Good or Justice).

Try to see it from the goblins perspective. The very people defining good and justice have the system stacked against them. A system thats out to get you is one you don't trust, so of course he's going to avoid it.

His big accomplishment in life was to create an army so Evil they thought genocide was the appropriate reaction to the murder of one man.

They didn't murder one man. They murdered an idea: The idea that sentient beings could be judged not by their race but by the content of their character sheets. The humans showed that they were everything you're saying their not: Willing to kill goblins just for existing.

The army he built committed, in his name, the single most Evil act that we've heard of in the entire strip. It might have been the single most Evil act in the entire history of history.

really? What about the allied humans and elves response that whiped out at least as many goblinoids.

With the number of times the word "Evil" comes up (and the scale of the same), why should we think the country he wanted to create would be *less* Evil than the country his high Priest created? Wouldn't 'much more Evil' make just as much sense?

No. Because when you make a deal with someone, you keep it when you're LE, and a deal could have included no slavery, no raiding etc.

And more importantly, given the number of times the word "Evil" appears there, why would it have been a "Good" action to give this guy "Good" land? It appears to me that it'd have been Evil at best, insanely foolish and trusting at worst.

Alright, thats downright equivocation. The land isn't good in the sense that its sanctified and holy. Its good in the sense that can grow crops.

Evil tends to be short sighted, selfish, and self-destructive. I'd argue even as things stand his people would be better off with redemption because so far Evil hasn't worked out real well for them.

You can redeem them or you can run them down like animals and slaughter them. You can't do both.

every time we see The Dark One "trying to do good things for his race" it also corresponds to him "gaining ultimate power". RC is willing to sacrifice himself for his people, The Dark One... well... that isn't and wasn't part of the plan. This btw is yet another reason to be deeply suspicious of his claims.

Which is a definite possibility. the other possibility being that since everyone is against him, the only way to get any respect is to be able to beat the snot out of everyone. this is playground politics, and nothings convinced me that the real world (or fantasy worlds) work any differently.

Letting the Evil Dark One and his Evil army have land to build build an Evil country in the hope that it will be "Good" doesn't seem like a reasonable sacrifice or sensible risk.

The alternative resulted in, as you pointed out, the most evilist evil thing ever with the goblins going on a rampage, so that didnt work out very well. They also killed any chance at ending the cycle of violence, a cycle that has brought redcloak to where he is today.

So having his high priest (RE's own brother) murder him was an act of favor? Ditto getting Right-eye's family killed? I'd hope this is an act of turning his back rather than favor, but The Dark One is an Evil god so maybe not.

yeah, gods are funny and inactive like that. Thor gets in trouble for control weather spells being awesome.

Presumably Evil (witness the hiding of the act from the Paladin). There are multiple factions, the Evil Ones don't have problems killing each other (witness Belkar) while the Good ones do.

But good doesn't have any problem killing evil. To evil then, good is meaningless.

Dark Matter

2010-05-16, 09:19 PM

But an accepted way of the world working.For Belkar. Not for Roy, Durkon, Elan, or even Haley (who was/is somewhere between CN and C(G-ish)).

Depends on the paladin. Also, the last part is pretty much up to the paladin as well. In this case, Belkar had demonstrated his ability to break out of a high security facility, so holding him in jail wasn't an option, so you kill him... or is paladin supposed to mean comic book hero where you keep letting people out no matter how many innocents they'll hurt?The only violent crime on your list is "Manslaughter". Do we execute people for Manslaughter? Further he and the rest of the OOTS were found innocent of the most of the remaining.

One is a violation of your word, your trust, and a social contract. Especially with adventurers, putting your trust in someone to watch you in hostile terratory is a big deal and sort of sacrosanct.To repeat myself, we're not talking about cutting his head off while he's asleep. We're talking about the entire OOTS explaining to him calmly why he needs to die. Then while he defends himself, killing him. But the most the Deva could even think of was just ordering him to go away.

On the other hand, there is no batler batlee privlidge. When a paladin starts hacking at you with a big honking sword they're very clear and straitforward with their intentions: They're going to kill you for your evil acts. That doesn't stop just because you fall over.It's doubtful Belkar was at negative hit points. That was the brilliance of his plan. He got her blood up and then he gave up. At the end he was lying there disarmed and unresisting, waiting/hoping for the death strike. She was about to kill someone who had surrendered.

That had always been my working conclussion from SOD.You consider the murder of defenseless children who might be Good to be a non-Evil act???

No, i'm not. And you've agreed to essentially the same points before.There is a world of difference between "created to be fodder" and "can be killed under any circumstances without it being an Evil act".

Can they be tortured to death too without it being an Evil act? How about if the Paladin knows the goblin is Good? How about if the Paladin knows the goblin is a LG Cleric to the same god the Paladin follows?

They didn't murder one man. They murdered an idea:They? I'm comfortable saying that the vast majority of that million plus didn't have anything to do with the Dark One's Death. Many presumably weren't in the same country. And you sound like you're simply making excuses for the goblins. Do you agree the goblin attempt at genocide could have been the biggest Evil event in the history of the world?

really? What about the allied humans and elves response that whiped out at least as many goblinoids.So the elves shouldn't have stepped in? Are you saying the goblins had the right to commit genocide?

No. Because when you make a deal with someone, you keep it when you're LE...Shear nonsense. RL and the comics are littered with LE villains who break their word on occasion. And even if The Dark One was known for "always keeping his word" (which is at best unknown and at worst untrue), he couldn't have bound his successors.

Alright, thats downright equivocation. The land isn't good in the sense that its sanctified and holy. Its good in the sense that can grow crops.I didn't say "good", I said "Good". As in, "the forces of Good are the ones currently controlling this land".

Which is a definite possibility. the other possibility being that since everyone is against him, the only way to get any respect is to be able to beat the snot out of everyone. this is playground politics, and nothings convinced me that the real world (or fantasy worlds) work any differently.So even when the Dark One has an alternative, he doesn't have an alternative? Last post you were claiming he'd take any alternatives he could and he wasn't Evil by choice.

The alternative resulted in, as you pointed out, the most evilist evil thing ever with the goblins going on a rampage, so that didnt work out very well.Now you're assuming the Kings could predict the future. Everything I said they could reasonably know, and it all says the Dark One's offer was big time Evil.

And it might have been. We've seen what RC considers to be "equal footing". I'm deeply skeptical that giving the Evil Dark One and his Evil Army land is going to result in anything other than a bigger problem (i.e. a bigger Evil) a few years down the line.

They also killed any chance at ending the cycle of violence...The root source of the cycle is "goblins are evil". The Dark One's solution appears to be "Evil Wins".

But good doesn't have any problem killing evil. To evil then, good is meaningless.Can you please explain why the guy whipping the slaves for his sadistic amusement should have been left alone? Why do goblins have the right to torture people?

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-16, 09:43 PM

Last time: The dark ones army in SOD is NOT gobbotopia. It is not responsible for Goblotopias slave policy.

For Belkar. Not for Roy, Durkon, Elan, or even Haley (who was/is somewhere between CN and C(G-ish)).

no, but they're abnormal (as is being good)

The only violent crime on your list is "Manslaughter". Do we execute people for Manslaughter?

Paladins are not the 20th century legal system.

Further he and the rest of the OOTS were found innocent of the most of the remaining.

He wasn't found innocent of manslaughter. He plea bargained down to 5 years.

To repeat myself, we're not talking about cutting his head off while he's asleep. We're talking about the entire OOTS explaining to him calmly why he needs to die. Then while he defends himself, killing him. But the most the Deva could even think of was just ordering him to go away.

The Deva didn't think of that option, and didn't suggest it, so i'm not sure how she'd take it.

It's doubtful Belkar was at negative hit points. That was the brilliance of his plan. He got her blood up and then he gave up. At the end he was lying there disarmed and unresisting, waiting/hoping for the death strike. She was about to kill someone who had surrendered.

*bleed gurgle* isn't a sign of surrender.

You consider the murder of defenseless children who might be Good to be a non-Evil act???

Of course i consider it evil. But i'm not a god empowering the paladins. Its their opinion that counts.

There is a world of difference between "created to be fodder" and "can be killed under any circumstances without it being an Evil act".

There is a difference, but its a very small county, not a world. Basically unless the Goblin is a child, is holding a white flag, or obviously engaged in peaceful commerce he's fair game.

Can they be tortured to death too without it being an Evil act? How about if the Paladin knows the goblin is Good? How about if the Paladin knows the goblin is a LG Cleric to the same god the Paladin follows?

Nope nope and nope. How often do those have though?

They? I'm comfortable saying that the vast majority of that million plus didn't have anything to do with the Dark One's Death. Many presumably weren't in the same country. And you sound like you're simply making excuses for the goblins. Do you agree the goblin attempt at genocide could have been the biggest Evil event in the history of the world?

I don't know if it was an attempt at genocide. How ever the only difference between the two sides is that you're willing to call one good and one evil when they don't have any discernible difference.

So the elves shouldn't have stepped in? Are you saying the goblins had the right to commit genocide?

No, but you're saying that the humans and elves did. I'm at least consistant on this. The only thing you've been consistant on is giving good carte blanche to be evil towards evil.

Shear nonsense. RL and the comics are littered with LE villains who break their word on occasion. And even if The Dark One was known for "always keeping his word" (which is at best unknown and at worst untrue), he couldn't have bound his successors.

So that justifies killing him while under a flag of truce?

I didn't say "good", I said "Good". As in, "the forces of Good are the ones currently controlling this land".

And besides the fact that they didn't have green skin and pointy fangs, whats your evidence that the kings were good?

So even when the Dark One has an alternative, he doesn't have an alternative? Last post you were claiming he'd take any alternatives he could and he wasn't Evil by choice.

He doesn't have an alternative *unless he has the option of force*

Now you're assuming the Kings could predict the future. Everything I said they could reasonably know, and it all says the Dark One's offer was big time Evil.

you're doing an awful lot of crystal ball gazing yourself with regards to what the darkone would or wouldn't do.

The root source of the cycle is "goblins are evil". The Dark One's solution appears to be "Evil Wins".

Dig just a few more shovelfuls down.. why are they evil? The gods made them that way so they can be killed.

Dark Matter

2010-05-17, 09:46 AM

Last time: The dark ones army in SOD is NOT gobbotopia. It is not responsible for Goblotopias slave policy.But the Dark One is. If goblins practice slavery (and they do), then it's in part because when he was in charge he didn't outlaw it. For that matter since he became their god he still hasn't outlawed it.

Goblotopia is the closest thing we have to an appropriation to what the Dark One wanted to build in SOD. LE goblin society built by goblins for goblins on land taken from the forces of Good. Goblotopia's were (we assume) created almost entirely the Dark One's high priest.

Granted, it's not a perfect approximation, but it's the one we have, and it should work well considering the Dark One wasn't interested in making his people less Evil. The Dark Ones army in SOD was *more* Evil, not less, it's well within the realm of possibility that his country would have been worse.

no, but they're abnormal (as is being good)Most adventurers are Good. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html

The Deva didn't think of that option, and didn't suggest it, so i'm not sure how she'd take it.Odd for her not to think of it if Good has the duty to kill Evil just for being Evil.

*bleed gurgle* isn't a sign of surrender.It depends on how low his hit points were. He certainly wasn't resisting.

Of course i consider it evil. But i'm not a god empowering the paladins. Its their opinion that counts.If you're the DM, then it's your opinion. So how about it? If you were DM, what would you say? To be clear, if I were DM then those Paladins fall.

There is a difference, but its a very small county, not a world. Basically unless the Goblin is a child, is holding a white flag, or obviously engaged in peaceful commerce he's fair game.This contradicts some of what you've said earlier. By these rules, some of the Paladins in SOD should have fallen.

I don't know if it was an attempt at genocide.Ignoring that the murders only stopped because of Dwarven and Elven intervention, you're saying... what? That the murder of more than a million people not involved in the original crime can be something else than genocide? Or is it just that anything the goblins do, no matter how vile, simply can't be a crime?

How ever the only difference between the two sides is that you're willing to call one good and one evil when they don't have any discernible difference.Other than whipping the slaves for their sadistic pleasure, drinking the blood of the innocent, worshiping dark gods, creating a lich, and trying to destroy the universe?

Oh, right, those are all modern crimes, and we don't know what the SOD goblins were up to... when they weren't committing the greatest Evil act in the history of the world. You've already admitted the goblins were "usually evil" in the SOD, are you claiming they were innocent lambs when they weren't killing 7 digits worth of innocent people?

No, but you're saying that the humans and elves did.No where have I said, or implied, that genocide should be committed on the goblins. I have stated outright that some of them can, and presumably are, "Good".

I'm at least consistant on this. The only thing you've been consistant on is giving good carte blanche to be evil towards evil.Only if you consider what Haley did to the goblin holding the whip to be "evil".

So that justifies killing him while under a flag of truce? And besides the fact that they didn't have green skin and pointy fangs, whats your evidence that the kings were good? I've also said that killing TDO under truce was an Evil act (although simply giving him land for a LE country might have been a more Evil act).

I've said it's possible the Kings were Evil (or Neutral). We don't have any information on the Kings, although it's supposed to be implied (perhaps incorrectly) that they were on team Good (witness the parallel between the gods of Good throwns and the Kings).

He doesn't have an alternative *unless he has the option of force*"Option of force" is a grotesque understatement. It implies an "equal" level of force when what he wants is the option to kill everyone without them having a realistic defense. That's why the "gun to the head" analogy is appropriate.

you're doing an awful lot of crystal ball gazing yourself with regards to what the darkone would or wouldn't do.We're talking about the Kings, who were forced to do crystal ball gazing (with more information than we have). The question they were faced with was, "is it going to be a good (or Good) thing to give the Evil Dark One land for his Evil army to build an Evil country?" What does the crystal ball say?

Dig just a few more shovelfuls down.. why are they evil? The gods made them that way so they can be killed.True, but so what? You're confusing "good for the goblins" with "Good".

If "good for the goblins" translates into "Evil wins", then that's Evil, and it's going to quickly result in the sorts of things we've seen in Goblotopia (if those sorts of things didn't happen, then Goblotopia wouldn't be Evil).

There is hope for the goblins... but IMHO the Dark One isn't it. It's a real pity that Right Eye didn't become a god.

hamishspence

2010-05-17, 09:53 AM

I've also said that killing TDO under truce was an Evil act (although simply giving him land for a LE country might have been a more Evil act).

When was that? So far all I could find was numerous comparisons of the Dark One to a gun-holding mugger, and "it's legal to kill him, and that's what happened here".

Which post had "what the 3 kings did was evil" in it?

Dark Matter

2010-05-17, 10:19 AM

Which post had "what the 3 kings did was evil" in it?Good question. :Pause while Dark Matter re-reads his posts on this thread:

Apparently not here. Either I'm remembering a different conversation or I'm remembering something I wrote and didn't post. Whichever. To expand on that...

Yes, what the Kings did was clearly an Evil act (thus none of them were Paladins). It's murder of someone who wasn't posing a "right now" threat, and it's also breaking the truce.

On the other hand when they're up there trying to justify themselves to the Deva (assuming they're trying to be Good which is certainly not proven), they have a strong mitigating argument in all of their other choices might have been even more Evil.

When you're in front of the Deva, that's *not* the kind of position you want to be in, but it's what they had to deal with.

hamishspence

2010-05-17, 10:32 AM

Roy's mitigating argument for not killing Belkar, was basically that his skillset could be turned against the bad guys.

Maybe a similar principle could have applied here- with the goblinoids agreeing to fight predatory monsters on the behalf of the humanoid nations.

Or other jobs that involve justified violence.

All they had to do was try and start bargaining- maybe including precautionary principles to ensure the goblins wouldn't be a threat after the peace. Allowing them to establish many small villages each far apart, surrounded by human territory, for example.

There are ways, if negotation was entered into, of ensuring that the goblins get what they want (access to fertile land) without them being a military threat.

But (as far as we can tell) there were no attempts at doing that.

Yes, what the Kings did was clearly an Evil act (thus none of them were Paladins). It's murder of someone who wasn't posing a "right now" threat, and it's also breaking the truce.

This was the main bit of contention in earlier discussion of this. If we agree that it was A: murder and B: evil, then- this part of the debate can be concluded and other parts can be brought to the fore.

Such as- Was the Dark One genuinely wanting to put an end to the earlier cycle of raids and reprisals?

I think he was. He was "not like the other goblins" in more than just the dark skin, class levels, and Elite Array-

but was more benevolent than the average goblin- as illustrated by his encouragement of the goblinoid races to "treat each other as brothers and sisters."

Dark Matter

2010-05-17, 11:00 AM

Maybe a similar principle could have applied here- with the goblinoids agreeing to fight predatory monsters on the behalf of the humanoid nations. Or other jobs that involve justified violence.I like this... but this is the way to integrate goblins into society and I don't think any the big players wanted this. I think The Dark One wanted his own country with him as King.

All they had to do was try and start bargaining- maybe including precautionary principles to ensure the goblins wouldn't be a threat after the peace. Allowing them to establish many small villages each far apart, surrounded by human territory, for example. There are ways, if negotiation was entered into, of ensuring that the goblins get what they want (access to fertile land) without them being a military threat.They definitely should have bargained... but I'm not sure anything could reasonably have come of it. The Dark One has the big ass army, he's got the power to make himself King, he's seriously LE, is it reasonable to think he's going to give up his power and position? Is it reasonable that he's going to be good with a 'Good' outcome?

Both of his "gun to the head" plans (and RC's behavior) imply an unwillingness to compromise and/or he doesn't think the other side is going to view his bottom line as "reasonable". And this whole line of reasoning is the best case. We're assuming the Evil God isn't lying by omission as to what his long term plans were, but there are serious gaps in the information he's supplied. That's not a combination I'm comfortable with either.

But (as far as we can tell) there were no attempts at doing that.Yeah, it was a botched job. Pretty much what you expect when you're choosing someone for a job based on what his great-great-grandfather did.

Dark Matter

2010-05-17, 11:10 AM

Was the Dark One genuinely wanting to put an end to the earlier cycle of raids and reprisals?Of course he was genuine. The problem is whether he wanted to end the cycle in a "Good" or "Evil" way.

I'd be delighted with a "Good" outcome... but if TDO were Good then we'd expect to see things we simply don't. Outlawing of Slavery for example.

"Evil" would be something akin to Goblotopia. And unfortunately that's the expected outcome if both TDO and his Army are Evil.

Which is less Evil, [Goblotopia] or [Azure City with the cycle of raids and reprisals]?

but was more benevolent than the average goblin- as illustrated by his encouragement of the goblinoid races to "treat each other as brothers and sisters."Just like RC now.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-17, 11:56 AM

You have serious problems with your timeline.

Step 1) Unknown amount of back and forth violence between goblinoids and humans.

Step 2) Dark one forms an army. Presumably uses it a bit, and sues for peace

Step 3) Dark one is killed

Step 4) His followers go on a rampage in revenge.

Step 5) One year after 4 the dark one is raised as a god, and discovers that his people were always intended to be cannon fodder. <------ this is important, because this is probably what made him go from "Lets sue for peace" to "we need to fundamentally alter the existence of the universe.

Step 6) the plan

Step 7) the founding of gobbotopia incidental to the plan.

4,5,6, and 7 don't indicate the dark ones pre war personality. He wasn't even a god for the first year of the rampage, and was seriously pissed at finding out the truth behind the reason for existence of his people. The question isn't is what he did AFTER that point justified, the question is was THAT POINT justified. Given 1, 2 is a reasonable response. We don't know if the dark one would have even been evil at that point.

The point of contention i have is you calling 2 evil based on what happened after that.

Most adventurers are Good. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html

On the character sheet anyway.

Odd for her not to think of it if Good has the duty to kill Evil just for being Evil.

Good usually kills evil in a stand up knock down drag out fight, not by slitting their throat when you've convinced them you'll watch their back. thats the difference. Even LG societies have the death penalty.

It depends on how low his hit points were. He certainly wasn't resisting.

There was nothing evil about taking that last swing just because he'd lost the fight at that point. Whether it was lawful or not would depend on some very specific laws of azure city.

If you're the DM, then it's your opinion. So how about it? If you were DM, what would you say? To be clear, if I were DM then those Paladins fall.

Yes, if i were DMing *my world* those paladins would fall. Oots isn't my world though.

This contradicts some of what you've said earlier. By these rules, some of the Paladins in SOD should have fallen.

because there's a difference between how i set up my worlds and how most campaigns and oots are set up.

Ignoring that the murders only stopped because of Dwarven and Elven intervention, you're saying... what? That the murder of more than a million people not involved in the original crime can be something else than genocide?

As opposed to the million goblins who weren't involved in the rampage that have died since to keep their numbers down and prevent them from organizing?

Or is it just that anything the goblins do, no matter how vile, simply can't be a crime?

Its a crime, sure, but its an expected crime. The forces of good doing the exact same thing is WORSE because you're not supposed to be that bad. Nothing you've said has convinced me that the forces of "good" did anything that the forces of "evil" did not do. If their actions are the same, then what pray tell makes one good and one evil?

No where have I said, or implied, that genocide should be committed on the goblins. I have stated outright that some of them can, and presumably are, "Good".

You have implied it by blaming the Goblins for killing a million humans but ignoring when the humans kill a milliion goblins.

I've also said that killing TDO under truce was an Evil act (although simply giving him land for a LE country might have been a more Evil act)

Less evil than the Goblins killing a million "good" races or the counter attack that killed millions of goblins?

I've said it's possible the Kings were Evil (or Neutral). We don't have any information on the Kings, although it's supposed to be implied (perhaps incorrectly) that they were on team Good (witness the parallel between the gods of Good thrones and the Kings).

I don't see anything indicating them being good beyond the lack of green skin and pointy fangs.

"Option of force" is a grotesque understatement. It implies an "equal" level of force when what he wants is the option to kill everyone without them having a realistic defense. That's why the "gun to the head" analogy is appropriate.

Ok, this outrage is based ENTIRELY on your calculations for the size and strength of the dark ones army: calculations that assume that every battle went the same as azure city.

We're talking about the Kings, who were forced to do crystal ball gazing (with more information than we have). The question they were faced with was, "is it going to be a good (or Good) thing to give the Evil Dark One land for his Evil army to build an Evil country?" What does the crystal ball say?

Hold on now, who said this was the kings decision making process? Is this how most governments make decisions? No. Most governments make decisions based on "Whats best for me"

True, but so what? You're confusing "good for the goblins" with "Good".

That doesn't remotely follow.

If "good for the goblins" translates into "Evil wins", then that's Evil and it's going to quickly result in the sorts of things we've seen in Goblotopia (if those sorts of things didn't happen, then Goblotopia wouldn't be Evil).

You keep trying to translate things into "evil wins" and its not working very well.

There is hope for the goblins... but IMHO the Dark One isn't it. It's a real pity that Right Eye didn't become a god.

Gobbotopia might be. The plan might actually work out for them. My problem with the plan isn't so much killing off the gods (which i would consider karma) but the risk to innocent souls in the process. Under the status quo, there was no hope for the goblins. with gobbotopia and the plan tehre might be.

Dark Matter

2010-05-17, 03:17 PM

4,5,6, and 7 don't indicate the dark ones pre war personality.TDO wants to be able to walk into the "negotiation" with the ability to tell people "you do things my way or I'll kill you and your family and everyone who is close to you. You have no way to stop it".

Question: Am I referring to his god-plan or his living-plan? (The answer btw is "both".)

We don't know if the dark one would have even been evil at that point.So having thrown out that he's currently an Evil god and following a plan different from his living-plan only in scale, and having thrown out that the army he built committed the biggest Evil act in the history of the world...

...what evidence do you want to throw on the table to indicate that he was non-Evil? I see absolutely nothing. "Ending the killing" isn't a Good thing if it means something akin to "Evil Wins".

Good usually kills evil in a stand up knock down drag out fight, not by slitting their throat when you've convinced them you'll watch their back. thats the difference. Even LG societies have the death penalty.Azure actually brings in spirits of LG as judges. Why is it illegal to kill evil humans? For that matter, why is it illegal to kill Belkar? I didn't notice Paladins running around with Detect Evil on looking for citizens they can kill or imprison. "Good but not Lawful" doesn't make sense when Law is supposed to maximize Good. In short I don't think there's two sets of rules, one for the goblins and another for everyone else.

Yes, if i were DMing *my world* those paladins would fall. Oots isn't my world though. ... there's a difference between how i set up my worlds and how most campaigns and oots are set up.What makes you think Rich's world is different than yours?

As opposed to the million goblins who weren't involved in the rampage that have died since to keep their numbers down and prevent them from organizing?First of all, where do you get the number "a million"?

Second of all, it's been what? 500 years? A million spread over 500 years is 2k a year. 2k a year might correspond to "justice for evil deeds" and not "slaughter".

If their actions are the same, then what pray tell makes one good and one evil?This is assuming what you're trying to prove.

Ok, this outrage is based ENTIRELY on your calculations for the size and strength of the dark ones army: calculations that assume that every battle went the same as azure city.That's right. We've only got one data point. But, Azure city has Soon, this massive order of Paladins, the Gate, is very close to a hob-gob city, and the need for soldiers has presumably gone *up* since TDO's army did their thing. All of these imply that Azure city had *more* troops than normal, not *less*.

Hold on now, who said this was the kings decision making process? Is this how most governments make decisions? No. Most governments make decisions based on "Whats best for me"Real world governments don't need to worry about pleasing the gods.

Further, "what's best for me" implies trading a little bit of land for peace is either a seriously good idea or a dreadfully bad idea, depending on what you expect to happen. And "what do we expect to happen" quickly becomes a question of "is TDO Evil"?

That doesn't remotely follow.The goblins (with Goblotopia) are clearly better off. But since they're no less Evil, "Good" is not served. More people are being tortured, enslaved, etc.

You keep trying to translate things into "evil wins" and its not working very well.Do you think the number of innocent people being whipped for sadistic pleasure has increased or decreased? Do you think that RC is actively trying to make sure his guards can do their thing without fear of "oppression" from the forces of Good, no matter how vile what they're doing is?

Gobbotopia might be. The plan might actually work out for them. My problem with the plan isn't so much killing off the gods (which i would consider karma) but the risk to innocent souls in the process. Under the status quo, there was no hope for the goblins. with gobbotopia and the plan tehre might be.I should have said, "there's hope for the redemption of goblins but TDO isn't it."

If The Plan works, the best that can be expected is the number of people being whipped for sadistic pleasure increases a lot... and that's assuming TDO can be trusted, which I regard as seriously naive. Part of the normal LE package is "shouldn't be trusted".

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-18, 01:00 PM

TDO wants to be able to walk into the "negotiation" with the ability to tell people "you do things my way or I'll kill you and your family and everyone who is close to you. You have no way to stop it".

Alright, i thought the 100x thing was just a minor side note, but it seems your basing your entire outrage on it, so lets see how well it holds up.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0466.html says that there were about 10k casualties per side, but it was 1/3 of the hobgoblins but almost all of the azurites. So thats 10,000 to 30,000. 3 to one, not 100 to 1.

If a milliion humans were killed (using the 1 rather risky datapoint) that would put the number of goblins at 3 million strong. A pretty nasty army, but 3 to 1 can be leveled in a real hurry by defenseive fighting.

Question: Am I referring to his god-plan or his living-plan? (The answer btw is "both".)

So having thrown out that he's currently an Evil god and following a plan different from his living-plan only in scale, and having thrown out that the army he built committed the biggest Evil act in the history of the world...

Any army he couldn't supervise because he was dead and not a god for roughly a year before ascending.

...what evidence do you want to throw on the table to indicate that he was non-Evil? I see absolutely nothing. "Ending the killing" isn't a Good thing if it means something akin to "Evil Wins".

ending the killing is a good thing if he could be more evil and just take everything.

Azure actually brings in spirits of LG as judges. Why is it illegal to kill evil humans?

varies from campaign world and country to country. My explanation would be that lawyers make the laws and want to live.

For that matter, why is it illegal to kill Belkar?

Plot?

I didn't notice Paladins running around with Detect Evil on looking for citizens they can kill or imprison. "Good but not Lawful" doesn't make sense when Law is supposed to maximize Good.

it makes perfect sense if you realize that "supposed to" doesn't= is. Lawful good is recognizing the benefits of stability and applying an even hand, even if the hand isn't fitting into every nook and cranny. Chaotic good favors the individual over the system.

In short I don't think there's two sets of rules, one for the goblins and another for everyone else.

But you effectively do. If Evil creatures can be killed during a truce, have their legitimate rights trampled on, or while defending themselves and their village without it becomming evil but good creatures cannot, then goblins (by vrtue of being usually evil) are under a different set of rules that makes them more killable.

What makes you think Rich's world is different than yours?

my worlds aren't deconstructions of D&D.

First of all, where do you get the number "a million"?

vauge caffine fueled recoloections of redcloaks telling the history of the goblin race in the cafe.

Second of all, it's been what? 500 years? A million spread over 500 years is 2k a year. 2k a year might correspond to "justice for evil deeds" and not "slaughter".

It appears to have been considerably accelerated for the goblins immediately following their defeat.

This is assuming what you're trying to prove.

Not in the least. its a conclussion based on the fact that i can take the names and alignments off of the groups and with respect to their interactions towards each other they're identical.

Further, "what's best for me" implies trading a little bit of land for peace is either a seriously good idea or a dreadfully bad idea, depending on what you expect to happen. And "what do we expect to happen" quickly becomes a question of "is TDO Evil"?

You have to consider both alternatives, and you'd need to be a bit short sighted not to see that his followers MIGHT feel a little betrayed by taking out someone under a banner of truce.

The goblins (with Goblotopia) are clearly better off. But since they're no less Evil, "Good" is not served. More people are being tortured, enslaved, etc.

But fewer goblins are being wontonly slaughtered. It might not make up the entire balance but it has to go a good bit towards the debt.

Dark Matter

2010-05-18, 02:40 PM

...that would put the number of goblins at 3 million strong. A pretty nasty army, but 3 to 1 can be leveled in a real hurry by defensive fighting.Your first statement is correct, but you're not following it through.
TDO's army = 3,000,000 goblins.
Azure's Army was 10,000 (modern time).
Azure's Army would have been outnumbered by 300-to-1. But Azure's Army is probably *bigger* than what those kings had.

ending the killing is a good thing if he could be more evil and just take everything.This is your suggested proof for why TDO might have been non-evil? Did he end slavery? Did he end the drinking of the blood of the innocent? Anything like that? No?

I don't see any reason why LE doesn't work as an alignment for him while he was alive.

varies from campaign world and country to country. My explanation would be that lawyers make the laws and want to live.That works if lawyers are passing laws and becoming judges. In Azure it was common to bring in a higher plane LG creature. I'm guessing they don't have a reason to worry about evil being punished on sight.

Plot?How about we just believe what we're shown, and assume that we're not seeing things because they're not there?

Miko (the worst Paladin in the Order) is shown killing several Evil creatures. The Ogres. Samantha. In each case, she didn't kill them purely because they were evil, there had to be some other justifying factor.

The two most extreme cases (near exceptions), were Red Cloak (who is running The Plan) and Belkar (which might have been a fall worthy event).

We even have Paladins interacting with an Evil noble (Quar's boss).

I don't see how you take that information and jump to "evil creatures can be killed purely because they're evil" in Rich's world.

it makes perfect sense if you realize that "supposed to" doesn't= is.Would you mind bringing out some evidence in Rich's world (as opposed to other campaigns) which shows that Paladins are supposed to run around killing things which are Evil on sight?

But you effectively do. If Evil creatures can be killed during a truce, have their legitimate rights trampled on, or while defending themselves and their village without it becoming evil but good creatures cannot, then goblins (by virtue of being usually evil) are under a different set of rules that makes them more killable.I've already said I consider killing TDO during the truce to be an evil act, and I think I've said that merely defending yourself can't be an evil act either (thus OOTS's actions against Miko weren't evil and ditto the YBD's against the OOTS).

This leaves "have their legitimate rights trampled on" but I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

my worlds aren't deconstructions of D&D.Are goblins usually evil in your world?

vauge caffine fueled recoloections of redcloaks telling the history of the goblin race in the cafe.So in other words, you've got nothing. The exact quote btw is... "PCs spent centuries ruthlessly 'clearing them out' of various adventure scenarios."

Those "adventure scenarios" probably included the evil goblins engaging in acts of evil.

Not in the least. its a conclusion based on the fact that i can take the names and alignments off of the groups and with respect to their interactions towards each other they're identical.But they're not. Or at the very least, Rich has never shown us anything like that... with the single exception of RC's village, in which he felt the need to mention (one assumes because of reasoning similar to your own) that those Paladins could have fallen.

Without Rich's statement you'd have a solid case since we'd just have Miko's fall to show what we're supposed to look for. He didn't need to say anything and I don't see why he would have if none of those guys fell.

You have to consider both alternatives, and you'd need to be a bit short sighted not to see that his followers MIGHT feel a little betrayed by taking out someone under a banner of truce.Unfortunately, both alternatives were pretty high risk. And btw if I were one of those kings killing him during a truce wouldn't be the first stick out of the bag. That was an act of desperation and/or incompetence.

But fewer goblins are being wontonly slaughtered. It might not make up the entire balance but it has to go a good bit towards the debt.From what we have been shown, it is possible the number of goblins being "wontonly slaughtered" before was something close to zero if we subtract the number being killed for committing evil deeds.

Meaning this could be (& probably is) a net "Evil" right there. Paladins aren't punishing/killing goblin slavers. Instead the slaves are being brought to Goblotopia and sold.

And it's worse than that. We've seen goblins teaching each other than whipping the slaves for pleasure is funny. All three of those guards were evil, but the new guy might not have been actively committing evil acts before the other two stepped in to play "mentor".

Doug Lampert

2010-05-18, 05:48 PM

Strictly speaking, it's only legal to use the minimum amount of violence needed to protect yourself.

And generally, if you use violence preemptively, you will be in trouble.

Try Crocodile Dundee- a man pulls out a knife and demands his wallet. Dundee pulls a bigger one, jabs threateningly, and the man flees.

If he had stabbed the mugger, before the mugger had committed any violence, he'd be on murder charges.

This is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. Lethal force is lethal force, and threatening with a knife is a threat with lethal force. In most jusidictions you can use any reasonable level of force in response to such a direct threat. And reasonable is defined based on what you think is needed to be safe. Not on some sort of "you have to let him stab you before you can stab him".

Drawing a weapon and making a credible threat is assualt with a lethal weapon. Killing the perpetrator is at that point self defense. If he has a knife and you have a gun that's what's known as a good thing, and you can shoot him dead.

It's possible you'll be up on murder charges, some prosecutors are silly. But you will almost certainly be acquited and the judge's instructions to the jury will be that if a reasonable person would have taken the other person's actions as a credible and immediate threat of lethal force then you are fully justified in the use of lethal force in self defense.

If he has a knife and you shoot him dead, that's not a problem (it comes up every few years, and it's really not, you can shoot someone who's waving a knife arround and making threats, it happens). If he has a knife and you use a bigger knift that's not a problem.

If he's started RUNNING (i.e. clearly ceased to be an immediate threat) then THAT's a problem. That's when you can't shoot him (exception locally if he's in your house, then you're pretty well allowed to assume he's a threat even if he's running away, but that's unusual, the part about self-defense is the norm almost everywhere).

So if a 100 lb woman is being attacked by a 300 lb thug, the law says she can't draw a gun even if she thinks he's going to kill her?

It may say that somewhere, but most places consider all levels of lethal force the same. And a knife and a credible threat is lethal force.

There seem to be some posters who think there are "levels" of lethal force, but I know of no jurisdiction where that is true. If I'm justified in using a knife then I'm justified in using a bigger knife, or a gun, or sword, or blunt object, or....

Dead is dead. Lethal force is lethal force.

If I'm allowed to have a gun in the first place and I'm allowed to use a knife then I'm also allowed to use a gun.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-18, 06:12 PM

Your first statement is correct, but you're not following it through.
[QUOTE]

TDO's army = 3,000,000 goblins.
Azure's Army was 10,000 (modern time).
Azure's Army would have been outnumbered by 300-to-1. But Azure's Army is probably *bigger* than what those kings had.

The only thing i'm not following it through is your presuppositions. Namely

That the other armies were the size of an unprepared azure city's

That the ratio for losses is the same in every battle, even when there were factors like a huge explosion, a highly defensible position, and a mid 20's lich wandering around the battlefield.

We do NOT know that the dark one's army was 3 million, or that his opponents were a mere 30,000. You're not even basing that on guessework, you're making it up.

This is your suggested proof for why TDO might have been non-evil? Did he end slavery? Did he end the drinking of the blood of the innocent? Anything like that? No?

Its irrelevant. even evil people have rights, and "good" people can go too far. Again, whats your evidence that the kings were forces of good? Specicism.

That works if lawyers are passing laws and becoming judges. In Azure it was common to bring in a higher plane LG creature.

We don't know that. The oots was on trial for disrupting the fabric of the universe that involved state secrets.

How about we just believe what we're shown, and assume that we're not seeing things because they're not there?

Fine then, none of the paladins fell, the system of good really is a complete sham.

Miko (the worst Paladin in the Order) is shown killing several Evil creatures. The Ogres. Samantha. In each case, she didn't kill them purely because they were evil, there had to be some other justifying factor.Would you mind bringing out some evidence in Rich's world (as opposed to other campaigns) which shows that Paladins are supposed to run around killing things which are Evil on sight?

I already stated my reasons for beleiving that she has done the old detect and whack routine on monsters (she admited as much to the lawyer in the inn) This was also her tactic when she first met the party. The paladin from roys first adventuring party in OOPCS

We even have Paladins interacting with an Evil noble (Quar's boss).

He's taken class levels in an aristocat friendly prestige class to avoid detect lie and wears armor worth at least 25,000 gp. I'm pretty sure he's ponied up for the ring of mind shielding

This ring is usually of fine workmanship and wrought from heavy gold. The wearer is continually immune to detect thoughts, discern lies, and any attempt to magically discern her alignment.

Faint abjuration; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, nondetection; Price 8,000 gp. given that he lives in a city full of paladins.

I don't see how you take that information and jump to "evil creatures can be killed purely because they're evil" in Rich's world.

Even IF paladins fall for it, most people do not. Miko admited to doing it, azure city has been whiping out goblin villiages for decades (war and xps) and even you're assuming that the kings were good because the dark one has to be evil.

I've already said I consider killing TDO during the truce to be an evil act, and I think I've said that merely defending yourself can't be an evil act either (thus OOTS's actions against Miko weren't evil and ditto the YBD's against the OOTS).

Ok, so can you get together with your friends to defend yourself, or to force someone else to the negotiating table?

This leaves "have their legitimate rights trampled on" but I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically.

Used villiage recycling into the ground.

Are goblins usually evil in your world?

Yup, genetic disposition with strong cultural factors.

So in other words, you've got nothing. The exact quote btw is... "PCs spent centuries ruthlessly 'clearing them out' of various adventure scenarios."

This is blatantly false. As stated, fodder DOES mean that your purpose is to die on the edge of the sword and that IS why the gods made goblins.

But they're not. Or at the very least, Rich has never shown us anything like that... with the single exception of RC's village, in which he felt the need to mention (one assumes because of reasoning similar to your own) that those Paladins could have fallen.

war and xp's page 473: Speaking on the faults of azure city

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

Without Rich's statement you'd have a solid case since we'd just have Miko's fall to show what we're supposed to look for. He didn't need to say anything and I don't see why he needed to if none of those guys fell.

To put the interpretation back with the reader rather than comming down on one side or the other. . suicide of the author :)

And it's worse than that. We've seen goblins teaching each other than whipping the slaves for pleasure is funny. All three of those guards were evil, but the new guy might not have been actively committing evil acts before the other two stepped in to play "mentor".

perhaps if someone would show them how one respected the lives of others instead of kinning alll hey

Morithias

2010-05-18, 08:12 PM

Wulfang

2010-05-18, 08:31 PM

This is your suggested proof for why TDO might have been non-evil? Did he end slavery? Did he end the drinking of the blood of the innocent? Anything like that? No?

Do you have any proof the goblins engaged in slavery back then? That they drank the blood of the innocent (or better - that the blood drinking was anything else than a one time joke)? I know this is hard for you to get but THE DARK ONE'S ARMY DOES NOT EQUAL GOBBOTOPIA.

I don't see any reason why LE doesn't work as an alignment for him while he was alive.

Then let's put it in reverse: prove me that he wasn't Lawful Good during his life.

Kish

2010-05-18, 08:42 PM

I'm pretty sure Paladins can fall for killing evil creatures. For example if a diplomat from a neighboring kingdom wanders into town unarmed, a paladin can't just smite him, even if he is evil. Kinda breaks the law thing, and a paladin has to be LAWFUL good.
A paladin doesn't fall for committing a single Chaotic act, unless that act either a) constitutes a gross violation of the paladin's code or b) shifts the paladin's alignment to Neutral or Chaotic Good.

Dark Matter

2010-05-18, 09:29 PM

Do you have any proof the goblins engaged in slavery back then? That they drank the blood of the innocent...What is it we're supposed to think the Paladins were objecting to? Further, TDO was their law giver (and later their god). Are the modern goblins breaking his laws? Did they pick up the practice of slavery somewhere down the line? Modern example btw is the practice of slavery pre-dates recorded history and isn't the sort of thing a society just decides to do.

All of our examples of goblin behavior are from modern times... with the exception of the greatest Evil act in the history of the world that we're aware of.

...I know this is hard for you to get but THE DARK ONE'S ARMY DOES NOT EQUAL GOBBOTOPIA.That's right. The Dark One's Army was MUCH more Evil (see also: Known History's Biggest Evil Act).

So... are you trying to claim that when the goblins of that era weren't committing evil on a scale that's never been seen before or since (although RC is trying), they were innocent lambs?

Then let's put it in reverse: prove me that he wasn't Lawful Good during his life.Known facts about TDO:
1) Known to be Evil after he became a god (and we have no indication that assention changes your alignment).
2) Godly tactics (i.e. what I refer to as "Gun to the head") match the same tactics used while alive. (And the Snarl is Evil).
3) Extremely Popular with Usually Evil race (and member of the same).
4) After having gotten control of same race, isn't known to have passed *any* laws that we'd consider to be "Good".
5) Creator of TDO's Army... which later went on to commit the biggest Evil act that we're aware of.
6) All known information about TDO is supplied by TDO and presumably paints him in the best light.

So can I disprove that he was LG? No... but nothing in that list says "Good" and explaining away the "Evil" needs to be done again and again. Further, normally there are two sides to every story and what we know we know from RC.

I see no effort by RC to claim TDO was ever Good, he might be insulted at the idea.

Dark Matter

2010-05-19, 12:37 AM

We do NOT know that the dark one's army was 3 million, or that his opponents were a mere 30,000.That's true. What I'm doing is trying to bring some perspective. We know one army killed a million plus people (and was the greatest in the history of the world) and then we know Azure thought itself secure with 10k and some fortifications. It could easily be that the three kings collectively had 15k soldiers and most of those million people killed were civilians.

But we do know that the match up was absurdly one sided.

Again, whats your evidence that the kings were forces of good? Specicism.I'm not going to defend a position I haven't taken. :smallmad: Especially when you're also quoting me as calling some of their actions evil. We don't know the kings were good. We're assuming that most of the goblins problems have been with the forces of Good, but the kings don't have to be representatives of the same. Few Kings are PCs.

Default D&D appears to be with Good dominate (or at the very least, not suppressed) in the lands, but all alignments present.

Fine then, none of the paladins fell, the system of good really is a complete sham.Then why did Rich have to step in and say what he did? Ignoring the word of God doesn't make for a strong argument.

I already stated my reasons for beleiving that she has done the old detect and whack routine on monsters (she admited as much to the lawyer in the inn)Ignoring that Miko ran things pretty close to the edge, we've seen her in action and what she's admitting to covers that and doesn't seem that bad. You can't overrule shown actions with vague statements that might, or might not, support you. That you're trying shows nothing actively shown in the strip supports you.

The paladin from roys first adventuring party in OOPCSWho isn't shown doing this. He's only shown deliberately trying to Kill a fellow LG PC. Good thing he's low level, he'd better multi-classing to something which doesn't depend on being LG. Fighter or Assassin would be good choices since his actions are neither good nor lawful.

He's taken class levels in an aristocat friendly prestige class to avoid detect lie and wears armor worth at least 25,000 gp. I'm pretty sure he's ponied up for the ring of mind shielding...We've never seen or heard about a ring for him (excluding the poison ring). Even when we've seen the poison ring, he doesn't have another. Further if he did have a ring then he wouldn't need the feat.

Still further, he's not the only Evil character in Azure we seen. The Assassin(?) with the poison arrow. Belkar. A certain mystic Theurge. The Paladins were seriously uncomfortable keeping Nale, Thog, and Sabine in prison.

The shown rules don't match what you're trying to claim.

Ok, so can you get together with your friends to defend yourself, or to force someone else to the negotiating table?When you show up with an army and demand land, then that's not "defending yourself" (which you no longer have a need to do). When your army is dominate over everyone else to the point where it'd be trivial to kill them, it's barely "negotiating".

Used village recycling into the ground.No one has the right to a safe haven from which to launch evil acts, including and especially the destruction of the universe.

Yup, genetic disposition with strong cultural factors.That seems to be what we have in OOTS. Did you have the gods create them to be like that?

This is blatantly false. As stated, fodder DOES mean that your purpose is to die on the edge of the sword and that IS why the gods made goblins.First of all, when I say "quote", I mean "quote". Second, I don't see the difference between "your purpose is (etc)..." and "genetic disposition with strong cultural factors".

war and xp's page 473: Speaking on the faults of azure city: "Most damning though is is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods"I don't own this book (and thus can't check the context) and you've played somewhat loose with your references (a million goblins).

However, from the sounds of it the gods know of "The Plan" and are attempting to kill the bearer of the RC and anyone who associated with him.

perhaps if someone would show them how one respected the lives of others instead of kinning alll heyPerhaps. But I'd say it's clear they're not going to learn this from TDO or his followers, or from Gobbotopia's set up. Unsurprisingly, the LE country is promoting LE. Also unsurprisingly, the amount of Evil is going up, not down, because they're successful.

Or put differently, Evil's successes are *much* worse than Good's failures. This is what Evil *wants*. This gives more power to the gods of Evil. Thinking that over the long run it's going to get better (i.e. more Good) is ignoring that it's getting worse for those reasons and will continue to get worse for those reasons.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-19, 01:14 AM

But we do know that the match up was absurdly one sided.

No. No we do not. Nothing states this. Nothing suggests this. Nothing hints at this. No information exists to point at this. At. All.

We don't know the NAME of the human kings or kingdoms that warred with the dark one in life. how on earth are you supposed to claim knowledge of the relative sizes of their armies?

I'm not going to defend a position I haven't taken. :smallmad: Especially when you're also quoting me as calling some of their actions evil. We don't know the kings were good. We're assuming that most of the goblins problems have been with the forces of Good, but the kings don't have to be representatives of the same. Few Kings are PCs.

You're assuming that. I'm not. But even two good kingdoms of the same race can fight. Toss in alignment and race issues and you're begging for some conflict.

Default D&D appears to be with Good dominate (or at the very least, not suppressed) in the lands, but all alignments present.

So it would be ok if the goblins had attacked an evil kingdom?

Then why did Rich have to step in and say what he did? Ignoring the word of God doesn't make for a strong argument.

I'm not ignoring what he said. I'm disagreeing with how you interpret it. What he said was that some may have fallen and i didn't show it. How you interpret it is that some fell.

Ignoring that Miko ran things pretty close to the edge, we've seen her in action and what she's admitting to covers that and doesn't seem that bad. You can't overrule shown actions with vague statements that might, or might not, support you. That you're trying shows nothing actively shown in the strip supports you.

There is nothing vague about the statement or the fact that it supports me. Origins is part of the comic.

Who isn't shown doing this.

Yes, he is. He's actively trying to kill orcs and justifying it by saying that they're usually evil so he can kill them without falling.

We've never seen or heard about a ring for him (excluding the poison ring). Even when we've seen the poison ring, he doesn't have another. Further if he did have a ring then he wouldn't need the feat.

We have never seen any paladin use detect evil on him either. So your assertions that Kubota lives despite the fact that he has been detected as evil doesn't have any evidence for it.

Still further, he's not the only Evil character in Azure we seen. The Assassin(?) with the poison arrow. Belkar. A certain mystic Theurge. The Paladins were seriously uncomfortable keeping Nale, Thog, and Sabine in prison.

O chul is not the paladins. O chul is O chul.

Belkar, The mystic theurge, and the assassin (we don't know if he had the class but he played the role) were all *in jail*. Azure city might not kill people for being evil inside city limits, but it seems a good way to wind up arrested. We simply don't know what the paladins view of detect and whack is on humans inside city limits. We do know that some of them at least viewed detect and whack as an acceptable method of dealing with monsters and criminals.

The shown rules don't match what you're trying to claim.

This would be more convincing if you weren't tossing out reasonable evidence left and right for disagreeing with your conclussion.

When you show up with an army and demand land, then that's not "defending yourself" (which you no longer have a need to do).

Having an army is NOT like reaching base in tag. It does not mean you are suddenly safe from all comers. It likely means you're about to attract an army for a fight. You also need to feed, cloth, and equip said army, which takes land.

When your army is dominate over everyone else to the point where it'd be trivial to kill them, it's barely "negotiating".

which is based on your assertation of the relative sizes of the dark ones armies and those of the other unnamed human kingdoms, which are based firmly in mid air.

That seems to be what we have in OOTS. Did you have the gods create them to be like that?

My gods were a lot more abstract and inactive than that. They were more of a personification of ideas than what we would think of as a sentient being.

First of all, when I say "quote", I mean "quote".

no. I'm not playing a sophist here. you can use a synonoym in keeping with the original use and intent of the other word without altering the meaning.

Second, I don't see the difference between "your purpose is (etc)..." and "genetic disposition with strong cultural factors".

What it means is that there's no mystical force causing the goblins et all to be evil. Its HARDER, but any mortal can overcome their impulses with help.

I don't own this book (and thus can't check the context and you've played somewhat loose with your references (a million goblins).

Crying context and questioning my honesty is not going to make the fact go away. There are references to Redcloaks villiage being standard operating procedure rather than a one off event.

However, from the sounds of it the gods know of "The Plan" and are attempting to kill the bearer of the RC and anyone who associated with him.

Right, including women and children who said "oh hi!"

Perhaps. But I'd say it's clear they're not going to learn this from TDO or his followers, or from Gobbotopia's set up. Unsurprisingly, the LE country is promoting LE. Also unsurprisingly, the amount of Evil is going up, not down, because they're successful.

They have a better chance of learning it by living in a peaceful civilized society than they do being used for xp fodder by adventurers.

Or put differently, Evil's successes are *much* worse than Good's failures. This is what Evil *wants*. This gives more power to the gods of Evil. Thinking that over the long run it's going to get better (i.e. more Good) is ignoring that it's getting worse for those reasons and will continue to get worse for those reasons.

Depends on the evil. The IFCC would be quite pleased with the way good has handled itself: fostering an endless cycle of violence.

hamishspence

2010-05-19, 03:20 AM

Drawing a weapon and making a credible threat is assualt with a lethal weapon. Killing the perpetrator is at that point self defense. If he has a knife and you have a gun that's what's known as a good thing, and you can shoot him dead.

Incorrect.

The person must have a reasonable belief that the only way to avoid death, was to use lethal force- and not just show that you are capable of defending yourself.

If he has a knife and you shoot him dead, that's not a problem (it comes up every few years, and it's really not, you can shoot someone who's waving a knife arround and making threats, it happens). If he has a knife and you use a bigger knift that's not a problem.

If a person has not yet initiated physical force, and there is no indication that the are about to, responding to threats, with directly attempting to kill them- may not count as justifiable homicide.

It may say that somewhere, but most places consider all levels of lethal force the same. And a knife and a credible threat is lethal force.

Force has not yet been used- only the threat of force. If you have a weapon, and pull that weapon and show them it, and the other guy does not attack, and you kill them- dubious.

Hence, as I said, if Dundee's immediate response to being threatened with a knife, was, after pulling his own, a well-placed stab to the heart- he'd have been in great danger of conviction of manslaughter at least.

They don't actually have to have stabbed you- but you do have to have a reasonable belief that they are about to try and stab you, and that the only way to stop them, is to strike, and strike to kill.

This has already been debated in earlier threads:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126115&highlight=morally+justified

and should probably be debated elsewhere, not here.

Suffice to say that the definition of self-defence is pretty rigorous.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-19, 07:44 AM

Incorrect.

The person must have a reasonable belief that the only way to avoid death, was to use lethal force- and not just show that you are capable of defending yourself.

Not exactly. You don't have to give them your wallet if that's the alternative to stabbing them.

The act of armed robbery automatically creates the reasonable belief that non compliance will result in serious bodily harm, warranting a lethal response. So no, crocodile Dundee would not have been convicted of anything. Even with a gun a person with a knife is considered an immanent threat within a certain distance.

hamishspence

2010-05-19, 09:33 AM

Not exactly. You don't have to give them your wallet if that's the alternative to stabbing them.

The act of armed robbery automatically creates the reasonable belief that non compliance will result in serious bodily harm, warranting a lethal response.

I'm pretty sure that there are cases where people have responded with deadly force, to armed robbers, and been convicted of crimes like manslaughter.

Not exactly. You don't have to give them your wallet if that's the alternative to stabbing them.

But if there's an alternative to being stabbed that doesn't involve either striking to kill, or handing anything over- the character should generally explore it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

The phrase used was:

The use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

Responding to a threat, with lethal force, may sometimes be excessive, if you have other means.

If the other person has a weapon, but the "defender" was the one that struck first, without any indication that their life was in immediate danger- it becomes very iffy:

Immediate, means "at this very second."

There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than *not* understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through *all* emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.

If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.

It doesn't matter if he is standing there screaming and threatening to kill you, or if has said that he is going to come back and get you or -- in many states -- has just pointed a gun at you, demanded your wallet and is now running away -- those are not considered "immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury." Because he isn't trying to kill you at that exact moment.

While this may be slightly exaggerated, the phrase "he's not trying to kill you right now" could be applied to the mugger in the Crocodile Dundee example.

Which is probably why Dundee didn't immediately stab the mugger in the heart- when he had a clear opportunity to do so.

While you can strike the first blow in such a fight, you need to be able to make a case that you had a reasonable belief that you were about to be attacked.

Dark Matter

2010-05-19, 11:34 AM

No. No we do not. Nothing states this. Nothing suggests this. Nothing hints at this. No information exists to point at this. At. All. We don't know the NAME of the human kings or kingdoms that warred with the dark one in life. how on earth are you supposed to claim knowledge of the relative sizes of their armies? I get it from RC in SOD. In their throne rooms, the monarchs of the human nations watched in fear... the greatest military force that the northern continent had ever seen.

This would be the same military force which, leaderless, killed over a million people, which is roughly the population of a country. In what way is this *not* a mismatch?

...even two good kingdoms of the same race can fight. Toss in alignment and race issues and you're begging for some conflict.There's a saying: Democracies don't go to war with other democracies. Or put a different way, when have "two good kingdoms of the same race" fought?

So it would be ok if the goblins had attacked an evil kingdom?OK? Hardly. It'd still be an Evil act. The evil of whipping a slave for pleasure remains the same regardless of the race of the slave.

I'm not ignoring what he said. I'm disagreeing with how you interpret it. What he said was that some may have fallen and i didn't show it. How you interpret it is that some fell.He's very clearly saying Paladins could have fallen without us being shown it explicitly. That blows a massive hole through the argument that it didn't happen because we weren't shown it.

There is nothing vague about the statement...Except it doesn't say she was killing evil creatures solely because they're evil, and worse, when we've seen her in action she's clearly *not* done that. She found Samantha and her father and untied them. Sam is big time evil. Why on Earth would Miko bother to untie her and attempt to resolve the situation without murder if she felt her duty was to kill everything evil? It's more like the reverse, i.e. everything she's killed has been evil.

But having said that, I expect Miko's response to a successful Detect Evil would be to actively look for a reason, any reason, to kill them.

Yes, he is. He's actively trying to kill orcs and justifying it by saying that they're usually evil so he can kill them without falling.Then why stop? Why not just ignore Roy's peace plan and just kill them anyway? Or maybe, kill them anyway after the concert? Again, this is the same "Paladin" who thinks he can kill a LG teammate without falling and who regards being LG as "inconvenient". He is neither lawful nor good, and he's on the short train to falling the way he's going. And add to that list of issues he's incorrect about Orc's alignments too. He said "CE", not "usually CE", and in reality they're "Often CE".

We have never seen any paladin use detect evil on him either. So your assertions that Kubota lives despite the fact that he has been detected as evil doesn't have any evidence for it.So over the last many decades of Kubota wearing evil colors, sporting an evil mustache, behaving like a cardboard evil villain, none of the order of (Good-but-not-dumb) paladins has bothered to Detect Evil on him? Really?

Shojo knew the heads of the royal houses were sending ninjas after him. One assumes this is a good indication at least some of those heads are Evil, and Shojo has an entire order of Paladins at his beck and call. Finding out who is evil and who isn't is beyond trivial.

Or maybe just being evil isn't enough, you actually have to catch him in the act of doing evil.

O chul is not the paladins. O chul is O chul. You're arguing it's both Good and Lawful to execute Evil creatures on the spot. Why is O'Chul not being Good or Lawful?

Belkar, The mystic theurge, and the assassin (we don't know if he had the class but he played the role) were all *in jail*. Azure city might not kill people for being evil inside city limits, but it seems a good way to wind up arrested.Except none of them were actually arrested for being evil. They were arrested for evil deeds.

This would be more convincing if you weren't tossing out reasonable evidence left and right for disagreeing with your conclusion. I'd say this is what you're doing. To be clear, I'm good with OOTS being "kill if evil". I've played in games like that, I've even DM'ed games like that. But I don't see non-existent mind-shield rings or assumed actions taken off camera (etc, etc, etc) as "reasonable evidence".

Having an army is NOT like reaching base in tag. It does not mean you are suddenly safe from all comers. It likely means you're about to attract an army for a fight. You also need to feed, cloth, and equip said army, which takes land.He's already feeding, clothing, and equiping the greatest military force in the history of the world. How much more land does he need, and what for? Further what is it he needs to be "safe" from which requires more than "the greatest military force"?

That Army's purpose was plainly offensive, not defensive. It's the sort of thing you build when you want to extort (or take) land from people (which is what TDO was doing) and not defend yourself (which TDO didn't bother mentioning... because he didn't need anything from the Kings to stop adventurers).

My gods were a lot more abstract and inactive than that. They were more of a personification of ideas than what we would think of as a sentient being.Good for you. The problem with the entire concept of "gods as people" is we quickly end up with the gods of good doing selfish/evil things (as Rich has pointed out). Gods have a lot of power, they don't have a lot of responsibility or accountability.

What it means is that there's no mystical force causing the goblins et all to be evil. Its HARDER, but any mortal can overcome their impulses with help.This may be the case in OOTS as well. I assume in a different world, RC could be LN and Right-eye CN/CG. Culture and upbringing appear to play a strong role. Genetics is as good a word as any for what they have without those.

Saying "the gods created them" is a handwave and goblins don't appear to have "mystical forces" forcing them to be evil (Vampires do, Dragons might). But having created several races of creatures genetically predisposed to be evil... we have everything else fall into place. Of course the gods were going to give them the worst land (etc).

But knowing someone has responsibility for this mess doesn't change it. Nor does it change that some courses of action are going to make it worse. The two stand outs are what the goblins say the forces of Good were doing (repression), and what the forces of Evil are doing (i.e. the creation of a LE country).

Ideally every goblin would be raised in a LG environment and be taught to overcome their impulses. But that's "ideally", I seriously doubt anyone has the resources and I question whether there's the political will.

There are references to Redcloaks villiage being standard operating procedure rather than a one off event.... Right, including women and children who said "oh hi!"As awful as TDO's army was, "The Plan" is MUCH worse. With some minor exceptions (i.e. becoming a Lich and then being destroyed), in AD&D people don't die, they move on to other planes. Thus everyone who has ever been alive is still alive in one form or another.

The Snarl threatens to permanently kill not only the gods, but everyone who is alive and everyone who has ever been alive. That's evil on a scale which should make the Gods of Evil quake.

Yes, clearly the Forces of Good are overreacting... if it's possible to overreact. IMHO RC's village had some Paladins fall. But it's also clear someone needs to do something about "The Plan". Paladins as a class don't do well when forced to pick between two evils.

They have a better chance of learning it by living in a peaceful civilized society than they do being used for xp fodder by adventurers.True, but what does that have to do with anything? Gobblotopia is neither "peaceful" nor is it "civilized".

Being taught how to whip the slaves for pleasure is going to result in more evil than worrying about the village being destroyed if any sub-group takes up raiding for slaves or trying to destroy the universe.

DavidBV

2010-05-19, 11:36 AM

I admit I haven't read the 8 pages yet, so I apologize if someone already mentioned this.

There may be a connection between the Dark One and the Snarl, maybe after all the Dark One has been originated by the Snarl itself. The other day a friend commented to me how curious it was that purple, among all the colors available, was both the distintive mark of TDO and the color of the Snarl.

Page 42 of SoD has both the snarl and TDO, and they look the same color to me.

It may be just chance, but it's not a usual color, like if both were red or green, so it could have a meaning behind it. The son of the snarl? sounds silly, but who knows.

Wulfang

2010-05-19, 01:58 PM

What is it we're supposed to think the Paladins were objecting to? Further, TDO was their law giver (and later their god). Are the modern goblins breaking his laws? Did they pick up the practice of slavery somewhere down the line? Modern example btw is the practice of slavery pre-dates recorded history and isn't the sort of thing a society just decides to do.

All of our examples of goblin behavior are from modern times... with the exception of the greatest Evil act in the history of the world that we're aware of.

What were they objecting to?! Raids on their settlements, perhaps? Attacks on caravans, maybe. Perhaps they were even, I dunno, massacring goblins by decree of their gods, which The Giant himself has said they did?

And about your so-called "greatest Evil act in the history of the world" - I call bull****. You labelled it so, not the comic or the author.

That's right. The Dark One's Army was MUCH more Evil (see also: Known History's Biggest Evil Act).

The fact that several people are contesting whether is army was even evil or not should be enough to make you stop repeating the baseless assumption that it was TEH EVULEST ARMY EVAR or, again, that it committed "Known History's Biggest Evil Act".

So... are you trying to claim that when the goblins of that era weren't committing evil on a scale that's never been seen before or since (although RC is trying), they were innocent lambs?

I don't even understand your question. But hear, because it seems you suffer from a particular case of deafness to other people's logic: just because I say the goblins weren't evil to the point of deserving to be killed on sight, it does not mean I'm saying they were innocent lambs. IT MEANS THERE IS SUCH THING AS A MIDDLE GROUND.

Known facts about TDO:

Oh boy.

1) Known to be Evil after he became a god (and we have no indication that assention changes your alignment).

I said during is life. And we do have, however, proof that great trauma changes your alignment. Being savagely murdered during a truce after deciding to negotiate with your oppressors instead of attacking them with the army you raised and then ascending to godhood where you find out that your race was created to be cannon fodder for the gods' servants does sound traumatic enough to change one's outlook into rebellion/revenge against the gods.

2) Godly tactics (i.e. what I refer to as "Gun to the head") match the same tactics used while alive. (And the Snarl is Evil).

Yet plenty of people have been arguing with you for pages that nothing his army did was inherently evil. On the other hand, threatening the destruction of reality itself is a far different matter. So while the two may be similar, they are not comparable.

And, by the way, where is it said the Snarl is Evil?

3) Extremely Popular with Usually Evil race (and member of the same).

Being a member of a Usually Evil race doesn't mean you're Evil. And I don't get why being popular with them would mean he's Evil. Nothing stops Evil people from having a Good person as a leader/idol.

4) After having gotten control of same race, isn't known to have passed *any* laws that we'd consider to be "Good".

He's not known to having passed Evil laws during his life either, so moot point.

He is, however, known for having fostered compassion and understanding between the goblinoid races. Clearly Evil, right?

5) Creator of TDO's Army... which later went on to commit the biggest Evil act that we're aware of.

Stop saying that.

6) All known information about TDO is supplied by TDO and presumably paints him in the best light.

"All we know about him paints him in a good light so it must be a lie because it doesn't agree with my arguments!"

So can I disprove that he was LG? No... but nothing in that list says "Good" and explaining away the "Evil" needs to be done again and again. Further, normally there are two sides to every story and what we know we know from RC.

I'd like to contest that assertion.

I see no effort by RC to claim TDO was ever Good, he might be insulted at the idea.

Don't see why he'd be insulted.

I get it from RC in SOD. In their throne rooms, the monarchs of the human nations watched in fear... the greatest military force that the northern continent had ever seen.

This would be the same military force which, leaderless, killed over a million people, which is roughly the population of a country. In what way is this *not* a mismatch?

Don't see how that proves in any way that there was a mismatch. All it proves is that the Dark One's army was very big and that it was enough to kill a million humans. No indication whatsoever of the numbers they faced.

There's a saying: Democracies don't go to war with other democracies. Or put a different way, when have "two good kingdoms of the same race" fought?

Sure they do. All the time. Real life should have taught you that.

pendell

2010-05-19, 02:53 PM

There's a saying: Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.

I would dispute this, but I can't think of a fictional example that would fly and real-life examples would get me Rolandized. PM if you want to continue the discussion.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-19, 03:14 PM

I get it from RC in SOD. In their throne rooms, the monarchs of the human nations watched in fear... the greatest military force that the northern continent had ever seen.

So if the darkone has 100,000 troops

The king of nowhere has 50,000 trooops

the king of someplace else has 40,000 troops

and the President for life of the kumqwat republic has 35,000 troops

Then the darkone has the greatest army ever seen and its not exactly a mismatch.

heck, if nowhere has 90,000 and the darkone has 100,000 he has the greatest and its not a mismatch.

[QUOTE]This would be the same military force which, leaderless, killed over a million people, which is roughly the population of a country. In what way is this *not* a mismatch?

Because we don't know that everyone that died was a soldier.. chances are pretty good that they weren't. Its pretty easy for an armed force to rack up a civilian bodycount. And if i'm assuming that they killed peasants, you're assuming that they killed only soldiers.

There's a saying: Democracies don't go to war with other democracies. Or put a different way, when have "two good kingdoms of the same race" fought?

Democracies can and have fought with each other before.

OK? Hardly. It'd still be an Evil act. The evil of whipping a slave for pleasure remains the same regardless of the race of the slave.

whiping= gobotopia.

He's very clearly saying Paladins could have fallen without us being shown it explicitly. That blows a massive hole through the argument that it didn't happen because we weren't shown it.

COULD have. You translate that as did.

to paraphrase you "I don't see non-existent fallings or assumed actions taken off camera (etc, etc, etc) as "reasonable evidence".

"Except it doesn't say she was killing evil creatures solely because they're evil, and worse, when we've seen her in action she's clearly *not* done that. She found Samantha and her father and untied them. Sam is big time evil. Why on Earth would Miko bother to untie her and attempt to resolve the situation without murder if she felt her duty was to kill everything evil? It's more like the reverse, i.e. everything she's killed has been evil."

Either she didn't detect, or she needed the info in the larger call for her duty.

She was also pretty quick to start slicing into Roy because he detected as evil.

But having said that, I expect Miko's response to a successful Detect Evil would be to actively look for a reason, any reason, to kill them.

Right, which is pretty close to the same thing. The goblins are evil, and they stole a pig! hack hack hack. Neighbors often get into disputes about stray animals, "stray" animals, lumber rights, daming water etc.

Then why stop? Why not just ignore Roy's peace plan and just kill them anyway? Or maybe, kill them anyway after the concert?

Probably because he couldn't kill them all without the other meatshield.

Again, this is the same "Paladin" who thinks he can kill a LG teammate without falling and who regards being LG as "inconvenient". He is neither lawful nor good, and he's on the short train to falling the way he's going.

Which would be a cold comfort to any goblins he ran accross.

And add to that list of issues he's incorrect about Orc's alignments too. He said "CE", not "usually CE", and in reality they're "Often CE".

I'd have to check. As i said, i don't have sod with me.

So over the last many decades of Kubota wearing evil colors, sporting an evil mustache, behaving like a cardboard evil villain, none of the order of (Good-but-not-dumb) paladins has bothered to Detect Evil on him? Really?

But I don't see assumed actions taken off camera (detecting evil on kuboto)as "reasonable evidence". :smallamused:

Shojo knew the heads of the royal houses were sending ninjas after him. One assumes this is a good indication at least some of those heads are Evil, and Shojo has an entire order of Paladins at his beck and call. Finding out who is evil and who isn't is beyond trivial.

Sure, if only you have access to magic, magic items, detection and detection blocking abilities and spells. The problem being that this is a D&D world and other people can access those sorts of equipment as well.

Or maybe just being evil isn't enough, you actually have to catch him in the act of doing evil.

Quite possible, especially for a human in good standing.

You're arguing it's both Good and Lawful to execute Evil creatures on the spot. Why is O'Chul not being Good or Lawful?

Because alignment isn't a strait jacket. there is more to personality than alignment. in any given situation there is more than one action a person of a given alignment might take.

I'd say this is what you're doing. To be clear, I'm good with OOTS being "kill if evil". I've played in games like that, I've even DM'ed games like that. But I don't see non-existent mind-shield rings or assumed actions taken off camera (etc, etc, etc) as "reasonable evidence".

Until you need to assume such evidence yourself, ie, that paladins have cast detect evil on Kubota. That is a reasonable assumption, but it has to go both ways.

He's already feeding, clothing, and equiping the greatest military force in the history of the world. How much more land does he need, and what for? Further what is it he needs to be "safe" from which requires more than "the greatest military force"?

Either a military force greater than everyone's combined or an equally sized military force and some friends, or the right to exist as a nation being recognized in reality as well as on paper.

That Army's purpose was plainly offensive, not defensive. It's the sort of thing you build when you want to extort (or take) land from people (which is what TDO was doing) and not defend yourself (which TDO didn't bother mentioning... because he didn't need anything from the Kings to stop adventurers)

Yes, he did. Unless he's going to raise a standing army and put it on constant patrol he needs to keep out 1) adventurers 2) Homesteaders. And when small groups of goblins kill off #2, in comes the army.

Good for you. The problem with the entire concept of "gods as people" is we quickly end up with the gods of good doing selfish/evil things (as Rich has pointed out). Gods have a lot of power, they don't have a lot of responsibility or accountability.

There's a few ways to do it The "the gods know best and you have to have faith that they do" approach, the "99.99999999% of my power is already being used holding the evil god back" approach, The prime directive approach, the respect for free will aproach etc. But yes, its hard.

This may be the case in OOTS as well. I assume in a different world, RC could be LN and Right-eye CN/CG. Culture and upbringing appear to play a strong role. Genetics is as good a word as any for what they have without those.

Right, but at least from my starting point the question was "why are orcs like that" rather than "i'll make them like this so they can be killed" although considering i got the model for orcs based on people who did make them that way to be killed...

I was always careful in my adventures to have some viable option for either the women and kids to be spared. I may have made that a HARDER option (ie, the wizard can't fireball the room) but it was there.

Saying "the gods created them" is a handwave and goblins don't appear to have "mystical forces" forcing them to be evil (Vampires do, Dragons might). But having created several races of creatures genetically predisposed to be evil... we have everything else fall into place. Of course the gods were going to give them the worst land (etc).

Depends. Being nasty and brutish with your neighbors is a good way to expand as a tribe, but it doesn't work so well for an entire nation. Where the humans were ogranized, demi human types tended to be driven out. Where humans were tribal, the orcs et all had equally good land.

But knowing someone has responsibility for this mess doesn't change it. Nor does it change that some courses of action are going to make it worse. The two stand outs are what the goblins say the forces of Good were doing (repression), and what the forces of Evil are doing (i.e. the creation of a LE country).

IF<---- they are being oppressed that is evil, regardless of whether or not the goblinoids are evil. The creation of a LE country itself isn't a bad thing, its what that country DOES that would be bad. Would that country do something worse than what was happening before?

Ideally every goblin would be raised in a LG environment and be taught to overcome their impulses.

Remember now, LG isn't any more good than the other goods.

But that's "ideally", I seriously doubt anyone has the resources and I question whether there's the political will.

No, buy working towards an ideal can be as important as reaching it.

As awful as TDO's army was, "The Plan" is MUCH worse. With some minor exceptions (i.e. becoming a Lich and then being destroyed), in AD&D people don't die, they move on to other planes. Thus everyone who has ever been alive is still alive in one form or another.

Right. the plan is pretty horrible for that reason: that a soul is incredibly valuable compared even to life.

Yes, clearly the Forces of Good are overreacting... if it's possible to overreact. IMHO RC's village had some Paladins fall. But it's also clear someone needs to do something about "The Plan". Paladins as a class don't do well when forced to pick between two evils.

I think part of that something needs to include the underlying reason for the plan existing in the first place.

True, but what does that have to do with anything? Gobblotopia is neither "peaceful" nor is it "civilized".

It has the POTENTIAL to become both. Goblins in unstable villiage systems do not.

Being taught how to whip the slaves for pleasure is going to result in more evil than worrying about the village being destroyed if any sub-group takes up raiding for slaves or trying to destroy the universe

Slavery is not more evil than murder.

The Pilgrim

2010-05-19, 03:17 PM

There's a saying: Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.

That's basically true only when "Democracy" means "Being my Ally and having an economic and political system akin to mine", like happens in our world.

There are also plenty examples of "democracies" going to war with other "democracies", subverting them, curbstomping them, etc... to prove that point wrong. But as the guy before me said, real-life examples would put the mods into motion.

Dark Matter

2010-05-19, 03:22 PM

Perhaps they were even, I dunno, massacring goblins by decree of their gods, which The Giant himself has said they did?Both the Paladins in SOD and RC's master said this was because of The Plan. So in this case we know exactly why the Paladins are doing what they're doing: I.e., the Goblins are attempting to unleash the Snarl.

And about your so-called "greatest Evil act in the history of the world" - I call bull****. You labelled it so, not the comic or the author.I said "known" more than once. As in, we don't know of any other Evil acts on this scale, and Loki(?) said that TDO was the first Evil God created this way. We don't know of any others.

The fact that several people are contesting whether is army was even evil or not should be enough to make you stop repeating the baseless assumption that it was TEH EVULEST ARMY EVAR or, again, that it committed "Known History's Biggest Evil Act".Just to be clear: You don't consider the murder of a million people to be an "evil" act and you also don't consider the creation of an Evil god to be an act of Evil???

I don't even understand your question... I say the goblins weren't evil to the point of deserving to be killed on sight, it does not mean I'm saying they were innocent lambs.My point is: All we know about these goblins is that...
1) They were Evil enough to kill a million plus people (i.e. roughly one country's worth)
2) They were Evil enough to create an Evil god.
3) The Paladins of that era thought they were Evil enough that they killed some of them on occasion.

Trying to claim we should ignore points "1" and "2" and then claim therefore point "3" couldn't be correct seems awkward. On what are you basing your opinion?

And, by the way, where is it said the Snarl is Evil?A creature that runs around destroying souls, planets, and planes? If murder is Evil, then what is not only murder but the destruction of a Soul?

...enough to change one's outlook into rebellion/revenge against the gods.Arguing "it was possible" for his alignment to change is weak unless you're going to back that up with evidence that it did.

Further he was aware of the "oppression" of goblins even when he was alive. Learning the gods did it just changed his target, as opposed to his methodology.

Yet plenty of people have been arguing with you for pages that nothing his army did was inherently evil.Actually you are the first person to argue the murder of a million people and/or the creation of an evil god are not acts of evil.

On the other hand, threatening the destruction of reality itself is a far different matter. So while the two may be similar, they are not comparable."Agree to my terms or I'll use my unstoppable [X] to kill you and destroy all you hold dear". Now which plan was that again?

Being a member of a Usually Evil race doesn't mean you're Evil. And I don't get why being popular with them would mean he's Evil. Nothing stops Evil people from having a Good person as a leader/idol.How happy is Belkar that Roy is riding herd on him (i.e. preventing him from being as Evil as he can)? Do you think Belkar would be happier if Roy were to relax and let him be more evil?

What would it mean if a race of Belkars were willingly following someone and actively enjoyed working for him to the point where he was hugely popular with them?

He's not known to having passed Evil laws during his life either, so moot point.Do the goblins *need* Evil laws to be passed in order to be Evil?

He is, however, known for having fostered compassion and understanding between the goblinoid races. Clearly Evil, right?Getting people to join an evil organization is, yes, evil. He grouped everyone into the greatest army ever, and said army then went on to kill a million people and create an evil god.

Don't see how that proves in any way that there was a mismatch."greatest military force that the northern continent had ever seen"

Dark Matter

2010-05-19, 03:35 PM

That's basically true only when "Democracy" means "Being my Ally and having an economic and political system akin to mine", like happens in our world.

There are also plenty examples of "democracies" going to war with other "democracies", subverting them, curbstomping them, etc... to prove that point wrong. But as the guy before me said, real-life examples would put the mods into motion.Considering there are no "democracies" in AD&D it's a moot point anyway. Now if someone introduces McDonald's into AD&D then war will stop: "no two countries with a McDonald's Restaurant have ever gone to war with one another":smallbiggrin:

However while I'm not up on all of AD&D history I can't think of any Good vs. Good wars. It's very difficult to picture an order of Paladins attacking and killing another order of Paladins over fishing rights or something similar.

Similarly: While Evil has "The Blood War", Good has "heated debates" although I can't recall if there's a formal name that.

Wulfang

2010-05-19, 04:00 PM

Both the Paladins in SOD and RC's master said this was because of The Plan. So in this case we know exactly why the Paladins are doing what they're doing: I.e., the Goblins are attempting to unleash the Snarl.

What about the also aforementioned attacks they perpetrated on goblin villages even before the Dark One's time?

I said "known" more than once. As in, we don't know of any other Evil acts on this scale, and Loki(?) said that TDO was the first Evil God created this way. We don't know of any others.

I consider several groups of gods deciding to create a handful of sentient races just so they could be slaughtered for XP and kicks to be far more evil.

Just to be clear: You don't consider the murder of a million people to be an "evil" act and you also don't consider the creation of an Evil god to be an act of Evil???

Did I ever said I didn't consider it evil? What I find incorrect is your assumption that it was the evilest act ever when you have creator gods uncaring and sadistic enough to create sentient beings so they could be slaughtered by their followers for experience. The fact that said followers have been going along with this since the beginning of time is also an act of great evil. Hey, it's even possible (and likely) that way more goblins/kobolds/lizardmen/etc have been killed by decree of the gods than humans/dwarves/elves/etc have been killed by monster races.

My point is: All we know about these goblins is that...
1) They were Evil enough to kill a million plus people (i.e. roughly one country's worth)
2) They were Evil enough to create an Evil god.
3) The Paladins of that era thought they were Evil enough that they killed some of them on occasion.

Trying to claim we should ignore points "1" and "2" and then claim therefore point "3" couldn't be correct seems awkward. On what are you basing your opinion?

1) What about the countless goblins that have been killed by paladins and other adventurers since the dawn of time?
2) The Dark One ascended as an Evil god because his ascension was fuled by a massive slaughter. And, as Redcloak puts it, he can be considered Evil because he stands in opposition to the gods that call themselves Good.
3) Miko also thought the Order was Evil and deserved to be killed. Clearly she was right! Oh wait...

A creature that runs around destroying souls, planets, and planes? If murder is Evil, then what is not only murder but the destruction of a Soul?

Heh, we don't even know if it was sentient. I view him more as a Chaotic Neutral embodiment of chaos and destruction.

Arguing "it was possible" for his alignment to change is weak unless you're going to back that up with evidence that it did.

Further he was aware of the "oppression" of goblins even when he was alive. Learning the gods did it just changed his target, as opposed to his methodology.

Heh, what evidence have you provided for the Dark One being Evil during his life? That he was a goblin and because goblins are Evil and he was their leader he was also Evil?

If you can get away with faulty logic, I can get away with suppositions at least as grounded in fact as yours.

Actually you are the first person to argue the murder of a million people and/or the creation of an evil god are not acts of evil.

I never argued such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth. You know very well I meant under his command.

"Agree to my terms or I'll use my unstoppable [X] to kill you and destroy all you hold dear". Now which plan was that again?

The second. The first time he didn't use his army to threaten the other kings, he used it so they would be forced to even consider negotiating instead of just killing him and his army outright.

Didn't work as well as he expected, though.

How happy is Belkar that Roy is riding herd on him (i.e. preventing him from being as Evil as he can)? Do you think Belkar would be happier if Roy were to relax and let him be more evil?

What would it mean if a race of Belkars were willingly following someone and actively enjoyed working for him to the point where he was hugely popular with them?

Evil =/= Belkar. There are many types of Evil people. One can be evil and strive to do good. If you can't understand that, this conversation is pointless.

Do the goblins *need* Evil laws to be passed in order to be Evil?

Don't change the subject. Your argument was "he was Evil because he didn't pass Good laws".

Getting people to join an evil organization is, yes, evil. He grouped everyone into the greatest army ever, and said army then went on to kill a million people and create an evil god.

Circular logic. "His army was Evil, so having goblins treat eachother as friends and comrades was Evil because thus they would join his Evil army." You're basing your arguments for him being evil on the assumption that his army (as an organization under his command) was evil.

LOGIC DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

"greatest military force that the northern continent had ever seen"

It can be the greatest single military force and still be smaller than the combined armies of the up-until-then divided kingdoms it faced.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-19, 06:40 PM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0226.html

Somewhere else has a democracy

Dark Matter

2010-05-19, 10:44 PM

What about the also aforementioned attacks they perpetrated on goblin villages even before the Dark One's time?Aforementioned by whom? The attacks on goblin villages go back "decades" and appears to be purely a result of The Plan. I don't see a mention of this sort of thing before that, can you give a page number?

I consider several groups of gods deciding to create a handful of sentient races just so they could be slaughtered for XP and kicks to be far more evil.The Evil part of that is making a race that's going to be committing evil deeds. On the other hand this is the same group of gods that also created high level Evil creatures (Vampires, Liches, & Dragons) and perhaps even the concept of Good and Evil itself. I'm not comfortable judging the gods, or ranking their levels of "evilness" over that of mortal creatures.

Now if there are different rules for goblins than for everything else, then that's a serious injustice. I.e. if it's always a good act to kill a goblin no matter what it's up to or it's alignment. But thus far we don't have evidence for that. Every time a Paladin kills something he's risking his profession if he screws up. It's not supposed to be easy.

1) What about the countless goblins that have been killed by paladins and other adventurers since the dawn of time?What about them? We don't have enough information on why Goblin-12345 was killed by Paladin-XYZ to say it was unjust. No one has the right to whip the slaves for their sadistic pleasure.

On the other hand the VAST majority of those million people killed by TDO's army had nothing to do with his murder, but were killed for it anyway.

2) The Dark One ascended as an Evil god because his ascension was fuled by a massive slaughter.Unless of course he was evil before that.

And, as Redcloak puts it, he can be considered Evil because he stands in opposition to the gods that call themselves Good.RC has set up Gobblotopia where the slaves are openly whipped for sadism. TDO is dealing with the Snarl. Both of those sound pretty Evil to me.

3) Miko also thought the Order was Evil and deserved to be killed. Clearly she was right! Oh wait...And if she was wrong then she'd fall... which of course she did.

Heh, we don't even know if it was sentient. I view him more as a Chaotic Neutral embodiment of chaos and destruction.273-4 describe it as "intelligent", "hateful", "malevolent", and "devouring souls".

The second. The first time he didn't use his army to threaten the other kings, he used it so they would be forced to even consider negotiating instead of just killing him and his army outright."Negotiating"? With the book right in front of me, in essence he said: "We are poor. You are rich. That's not fair. We have no wish to kill you, we just want some of your land and money."

What part of that is "negotiating" and why is this not "threatening" from the guy who has the power to kill all of them?

Evil =/= Belkar. There are many types of Evil people.It's very hard to see a situation where Evil people are going to be happy with being forced to not be evil. The current goblins we've seen certainly don't look like they'd be happy with being forced to stop whipping the slaves for pleasure.

One can be evil and strive to do good.Sure. The well intentioned extremist is a staple. And yes, I'm sure he's trying to do good by goblins (although I'll note TDO's plans appear to leave him personally as King). But is what he's doing Good?

There are three basic ways to can stop the Paladins from killing the goblins.
1) Stop the goblins from committing Evil acts
2) Prevent the Paladins from attacking the goblins while allowing the goblins to be as evil as they like.
3) Kill all the Paladins

Right Eye did #1. RC is doing both 2 and 3 (all humans with adventurer levels are put to death). Technically we don't know what TDO was doing (because he didn't tell us) but TDO apparently wasn't making unpopular "Good" laws.

Don't change the subject. Your argument was "he was Evil because he didn't pass Good laws".It's not changing the subject. When TDO took over the goblins were "usually evil" and presumably had laws which reflected this (like they do now).

If he'd run around trying to pass and enforce "Good" laws, then that'd be very noteworthy and presumably unpopular (if making "Good" laws was popular then it's hard to see why goblins are usually evil). But in any case the laws we see now are seriously evil. If he passed "Good" laws while he was alive then it's odd that his people would be ignoring them now that he's a god.

Or put a different way, he doesn't appear to have changed much in terms of law. He started with Evil laws, he kept them.

Circular logic. "His army was Evil, so having goblins treat each other as friends and comrades was Evil because thus they would join his Evil army." You're basing your arguments for him being evil on the assumption that his army (as an organization under his command) was evil.Actually I'm stating outright that his army was Evil because a "Good" (or even neutral) army wouldn't have killed A MILLION PEOPLE TO AVENGE ONE MAN.

From that I gather the army was Evil while he was alive. Genocide normally isn't the first stick out of the bag for a non-evil army. Nor is it a shock it was evil since it's made up of usually evil troops and had a leader who was showing no indication of trying to make his people "Good".

It can be the greatest single military force and still be smaller than the combined armies of the up-until-then divided kingdoms it faced.The army kept killing until a combined force of the Elven and Dwarfish armies stepped in. Further, it's possible those three human kings weren't even all the human countries. But in any case it's clear those three human kings weren't up to stopping him by themselves. Or in other words, it was a mismatch. Sort of like what sending the Snarl against the Gods would be.

hamishspence

2010-05-20, 05:16 AM

Concerning the Dark One's assassination, I don't think it can be justified in terms of "preemptive warfare- anticipatory self-defense"-

Since the normal principle, is that:

It may be justified only in cases in which the "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".

Dark Matter

2010-05-20, 08:17 AM

Concerning the Dark One's assassination, I don't think it can be justified in terms of "preemptive warfare- anticipatory self-defense"-

Since the normal principle, is that:Certainly not in a court of law. The threshold for action is extremely high.

If the three kings knew that TDO's forces....
1) ...were massing.
2) ...had a mission plan to kill everyone.
3) ...had a 'go' date of next week.

Then they still couldn't legally do anything by that standard. It's not "instant", they have a choice of means, they have days for deliberation. In reality of course, they would, and they'd have to justify it to their people or to their god.

hamishspence

2010-05-20, 08:51 AM

Actually I'm stating outright that his army was Evil because a "Good" (or even neutral) army wouldn't have killed A MILLION PEOPLE TO AVENGE ONE MAN.

From that I gather the army was Evil while he was alive. Genocide normally isn't the first stick out of the bag for a non-evil army. Nor is it a shock it was evil since it's made up of usually evil troops and had a leader who was showing no indication of trying to make his people "Good".

V's action of killing a whole lot of dragons, to avenge the harm done to his family (since "to protect them from further reprisals" has been demonstated to be counterproductive) is a pretty Evil act from an Elf that was possibly Neutral at the time.

We don't know how Evil the Dark One's army were- but their overreaction to the murder of their beloved monarch, does suggest they would have been Neutral with Evil tendencies at best.

But it is worth remembering, that not-so-Evil people can, given sufficient provocation, do pretty Evil things.

Dark Matter

2010-05-20, 10:19 AM

So if the darkone has 100,000 troops...
[made up numbers snipped]
Then the darkone has the greatest army ever seen and its not exactly a mismatch.We know for a fact that the 3 kings were simply not able to stop the killing by themselves. We even know that the humans (in general) by themselves couldn't do it. The killing didn't stop until a combined force of the Elves and Dwarfs stepped in.

Or in short, what we know is that it was a grotesque mismatch.

And if i'm assuming that they killed peasants...Oh, I fully agree. The vast number of people they killed were probably civilians. Which just makes what they were doing genocide and increases the level of Evil they were. It doesn't change that the Kings couldn't possibly stop them by themselves.

whiping= gobotopia.Genocide=TDO's army. I find it very unlikely that this was their only evil act considering we know how the Paladins felt about them even before they got seriously into mass murder.

COULD have. You translate that as did.Because there doesn't appear to be a reason for Rich to step in and clear that up unless there's actually something to clear up.

to paraphrase you "I don't see non-existent fallings or assumed actions taken off camera (etc, etc, etc) as "reasonable evidence".It's Rich's comic. His suggestions about off camera actions carry a ton more weight than yours.

Either she didn't detect, or she needed the info in the larger call for her duty.Or this was her standard way of doing things.

She was also pretty quick to start slicing into Roy because he detected as evil.And because she'd had reports of his crew engaged in vile acts (thanks to Nale). And because the OOTS had destroyed the gate.

And if she'd killed him, presumably she would have fallen. With the information she had, she had a solid case for killing him. Rushing to judgment doesn't mean you're always going to be wrong, it just means you're rolling the dice. Of course roll them enough times and you're going to be wrong.

Which would be a cold comfort to any goblins he ran across. True. It'd be pretty cold comfort to RC that some of the Paladins involved with his village fell.

I'd have to check. As i said, i don't have sod with me.I do and I looked it up. He didn't say "usually" much less "often". He said "They're listed as Chaotic Evil too..." (page 46)

Sure, if only you have access to magic, magic items, detection and detection blocking abilities and spells. The problem being that this is a D&D world and other people can access those sorts of equipment as well.They could. But we know for a fact that Shojo had access to it and we see no evidence that the evil nobles needed access to anything other than a way to make his lies undetectable. It's reasonable for a high level noble to have access to something which would block his alignment... but we have no evidence that he needed it. He didn't brag about it, the earlier trial didn't enter anyone's alignment into evidence, we've got nothing.

Either a military force greater than everyone's combined...
or an equally sized military force and some friends or the right to exist as a nation being recognized in reality as well as on paper.Greater than everyone else's on the continent combined? Why does he need this and what are we supposed to think he would do with it?

"Friends" don't usually extort land and money from each other. I think we can rule that out. Similarly he doesn't seem overly concerned about "recognition". Almost like he's got the biggest and baddest army around.

Yes, he did. Unless he's going to raise a standing army and put it on constant patrol he needs to keep out 1) adventurers 2) Homesteaders. And when small groups of goblins kill off #2, in comes the army.He already had a "standing army", and the three kings would be insane to match any of their armies against his.

Right, but at least from my starting point the question was "why are orcs like that" rather than "i'll make them like this so they can be killed" although considering i got the model for orcs based on people who did make them that way to be killed...If an ecological nitch exists then something will emerge to fill it. If we want high level characters, then they need to be fighting something at the low levels.

IF<---- they are being oppressed that is evil, regardless of whether or not the goblinoids are evil.Yes and no. It is "oppression" to follow a serial killer around and micro-observe him and look for some reason to lock him up. It is not "evil" on the face of it but it might be counter productive.

The creation of a LE country itself isn't a bad thing, its what that country DOES that would be bad. Would that country do something worse than what was happening before?The same thing as before, just on a MUCH larger scale. A nasty serial killer might kill a hundred. If you want to kill tens of millions then you need the scale only a LE country is going to give you.

Instead of "usually evil" meaning "might do evil acts" it becomes "is encouraged and given the opportunity to express that evil through his acts". This is what we're seeing in Gobblotopia.

Remember now, LG isn't any more good than the other goods.True but they're already LE. LG is two steps away from what their nature is, rather than 3+. Further I suspect we need the scale that only law brings.

It has the POTENTIAL to become both. Goblins in unstable village systems do not.Goblins in unstable villages can turn away from their Evil Gods and do their own thing. This is where our only example of non-evil goblins comes from. Ideally Right-Eye's model would catch on and spread.

Slavery is not more evil than murder.We've replaced "goblins are executed if they're evil and doing/associated with evil acts and slavery is outlawed" with "non-goblins are executed for having adventurer levels and those without adventurer levels are enslaved". This is not an improvement.

Gobblotopia is a LOT more Evil than Azure city, and it's doing it's best to show that "peace" and "civilization" are not incompatible with "seriously Evil".

Right Eye was clearly not irredeemable, but he also wasn't uncorruptable either. If he'd lived in Gobblotopia I doubt he'd have turned away from his god.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-20, 03:43 PM

References in regards to gobotopia have been deleted as an irrelevant distraction.

We know for a fact that the 3 kings were simply not able to stop the killing by themselves. We even know that the humans (in general) by themselves couldn't do it. The killing didn't stop until a combined force of the Elves and Dwarfs stepped in.[quote]
[QUOTE]
Or in short, what we know is that it was a grotesque mismatch.

This. Does. NOT. Follow.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FileGnomes-plan.png

It does not reason that just because one side won that it was a horrible mismatch. At all. Someone has won most sporting contests and wars since the dawn of time. SOME of those wars and sporting contests were close and some of them weren't. The assertion that victory, or even being ahead a at some point, equals a grotesque mismatch is utterly, totally, and completely absurd.

Greater than everyone else's on the continent combined? Why does he need this and what are we supposed to think he would do with it?

They could have won based off of good leadership, superior tactics, foes underestimating them, poor opposing leadership, using evil tactics the others wouldnt use, overconfident opposition or a thousand other things.

For example: we don't know how the pyramids were made. Therefore they were made of poured concrete blocks. Any time you suggest another possibility, i simply assert it as unknown.

Oh, I fully agree. The vast number of people they killed were probably civilians. Which just makes what they were doing genocide and increases the level of Evil they were.

And again. The dark one didn't order this. He was dead and he didn't Rise as a god for a while.

It doesn't change that the Kings couldn't possibly stop them by themselves.

We don't know this. You cannot simply assert that things can't be a certain way and then assert that every other possibility is unevidenced so your original assertion must be correct.

Because there doesn't appear to be a reason for Rich to step in and clear that up unless there's actually something to clear up.

Then why not say "some of the paladins fell" which is what you're interpreting it as.

It's Rich's comic. His suggestions about off camera actions carry a ton more weight than yours.

Your interpretations of what he says however are not.

Or this was her standard way of doing things.

But not the only way she works.

And if she'd killed him, presumably she would have fallen. With the information she had, she had a solid case for killing him. Rushing to judgment doesn't mean you're always going to be wrong, it just means you're rolling the dice. Of course roll them enough times and you're going to be wrong.

I don't know if she would have fallen for taking out roy at that point. She had every reasonable reason to believe that he was evil.

I do and I looked it up. He didn't say "usually" much less "often". He said "They're listed as Chaotic Evil too..." (page 46)

Ok, he said they're "listed as" which means that they usually are.

They could. But we know for a fact that Shojo had access to it and we see no evidence that the evil nobles needed access to anything other than a way to make his lies undetectable.

Do you want to assume off panel actions or not? You can't simply allow reasonable off panel actions as evidence only when they help your case and then ignore them when they hurt it.

"Friends" don't usually extort land and money from each other. I think we can rule that out.

i am NOT suggesting that this was the case. I'm saying these are the conditions under which two neighbors can get along with each other and NONE of them were EVER going to happen.

Similarly he doesn't seem overly concerned about "recognition". Almost like he's got the biggest and baddest army around.

Your psycoanalysis of a strip figure comic over 3 panels? Not evidence.

If an ecological nitch exists then something will emerge to fill it. If we want high level characters, then they need to be fighting something at the low levels.

The same thing as before, just on a MUCH larger scale. A nasty serial killer might kill a hundred. If you want to kill tens of millions then you need the scale only a LE country is going to give you.

I don't think those sorts of numbers exist in most D&D worlds.

Goblins in unstable villages can turn away from their Evil Gods and do their own thing. This is where our only example of non-evil goblins comes from. Ideally Right-Eye's model would catch on and spread.

Until they come into conflict with anyone, anywhere, and then its kill the goblins.

Kish

2010-05-20, 03:54 PM

Ok, he said they're "listed as" which means that they usually.
I think you're giving him too much credit. "Listed alignment of Chaotic Evil" means that, exactly like the players he's parodying, he thinks all that Often/Usually/Always stuff exists just to annoy him by making other people incorrectly think there might be a reason he shouldn't kill whoever he wants to kill, and "Their listed alignment is Chaotic Evil" constitutes a good reason to kill without looking further," like, "They have treasure we want" and "His accent is annoying."

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-20, 04:32 PM

hamishspence

2010-05-20, 04:37 PM

Question is- is he a one off, or do a lot of adventurers in the OoTS setting take this approach toward "monsters"?

Here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html

we see a tavernfull of adventurers who seem to take a similar approach.

Dark Matter

2010-05-20, 08:09 PM

I think you're giving him too much credit. "Listed alignment of Chaotic Evil" means that, exactly like the players he's parodying, he thinks all that Often/Usually/Always stuff exists just to annoy him by making other people incorrectly think there might be a reason he shouldn't kill whoever he wants to kill, and "Their listed alignment is Chaotic Evil" constitutes a good reason to kill without looking further," like, "They have treasure we want" and "His accent is annoying."Sure, fully agreed. I seriously doubt he bothered doing a detect evil on them either. He doesn't have a reason to, you use Detect Evil to defeat surprises and locate monsters, and he already knows where they are.

He's a PC and thinks the rules don't apply to him (or who simply doesn't know the rules). He's headed for a quick fall and then a new character. Fortunately(?) for the campaign Belkar's player didn't leave.

Dark Matter

2010-05-20, 09:01 PM

This. Does. NOT. Follow. It does not reason that just because one side won that it was a horrible mismatch....[snip]SOD Quote: "Greatest military force.. ever seen".

That's an absurdly high bar. One side is the greatest ever. The other side is picked randomly.

We're not even talking about something as "nice" as modern day. I.e. a army picked randomly out of the the 200 countries which exist (no retries if they don't have one) against the number one. Number 1 vs. number 40 would be a mismatch and #40 is still in the top 20%.

We're used to thinking "greatest ever" always means "strongest currently existing" because the technology keeps getting better. AD&D doesn't have that. It's reasonable that armies which existed centuries ago could be much better than ones currently existing.

The odds of any of the three being in the historical top ten are amazingly low. It might have happened, but that's not the way to bet. Given what happened was a massive blood bath, it's especially not the way to bet.

And again. The dark one didn't order this. He was dead and he didn't Rise as a god for a while.True, but so what? This was the army he built. It's not like someone else took over and put in a new training program and promoted his own officers.

So, question. Do we think the army was Good (capital G) or Evil?

]Then why not say "some of the paladins fell" which is what you're interpreting it as.Rich needs to be careful about not burning bridges he might want to use.

]But not the only way she works.Then please site an on camera example to counter my own.

]I don't know if she would have fallen for taking out roy at that point. She had every reasonable reason to believe that he was evil.If it were anyone other than a Paladin, I'd say she'd be fine. Paladins are held to a higher standard so it's a roll of the dice.

]Do you want to assume off panel actions or not?I think not. On panel action is the gold standard for evidence.

]I'm saying these are the conditions under which two neighbors can get along with each other and NONE of them were EVER going to happen. That's a big statement. Why can't they get along? If TDO said he'd put an end to goblins committing vile acts, I think that'd be amazingly well received (as opposed to 'Give me your land/money, I don't want to have to take it.')

]I don't think those sorts of numbers exist in most D&D worlds.True. But that means if we want to think of how Evil killing a million people is, we need to add a zero or two.

]Until they come into conflict with anyone, anywhere, and then its kill the goblins.Right Eye wasn't killed by humans. He was killed by TDO's high priest.

EDIT: Top of new page. I had another response at the bottom of the previous.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-20, 09:22 PM

SOD Quote: "Greatest military force.. ever seen".

Does NOT equal "so great that all armies are nothing compared to it." At all.

It does not equal "can swat every combined army lead against it like a fly".

Its does NOT equal overkill.

In short, it does not mean what you need it to mean in order to back your conclusion.

[QUOTE]
That's an absurdly high bar. One side is the greatest ever. The other side is picked randomly.

No. The other side is UNKNOWN. Just because you don't know it does not make it random.

We're used to thinking "greatest ever" always means "strongest currently existing" because the technology keeps getting better. AD&D doesn't have that. It's reasonable that armies which existed centuries ago could be much better than ones currently existing.

But its not certain, known, or hinted at.

The odds of any of the three being in the historical top ten are amazingly low. It might have happened, but that's not the way to bet. Given what happened was a massive blood bath, it's especially not the way to bet.

If they weren't a threat, why negotiate?

True, but so what? This was the army he built. It's not like someone else took over and put in a new training program and promoted his own officers.

Weddings go till death do us part. So do responsibilities for your underlings actions. Seriously, what is the dark one supposed to do, decay on the misbehaving army?

So, question. Do we think the army was Good (capital G) or Evil?

I think the same label needs to apply to both sides.

Rich needs to be careful about not burning bridges he might want to use.

Motivational conjectures are not evidence.

Then please site an on camera example to counter my own.

I'm using her own words . "Because they were evil, so i killed them"

Says flat out that she considers being evil to be justification for death.

I think not. On panel action is the gold standard for evidence.

Then you have nothing. Your entire outrage that the dark one built up an army is ostensibly based on the unfounded premise and shaky math that greater than somehow translates into 100x greater than. Without that, we have a group that is involved in an armed dispute with another group organizing themselves to continue the armed dispute more effectively. Anything else is either your conjecture or things that happened while the dark one was dead or things that happened far far far after the events in question.

That's a big statement. Why can't they get along? If TDO said he'd put an end to goblins committing vile acts, I think that'd be amazingly well received (as opposed to 'Give me your land/money, I don't want to have to take it.')

Would YOU beleive a goblin that said he wanted peace?

Right Eye wasn't killed by humans. He was killed by TDO's high priest.

And the rest of his family? By adventurers

Dark Matter

2010-05-21, 09:29 AM

No. The other side is UNKNOWN. Just because you don't know it does not make it random.The other side was very clearly NOT selected on the basis of their physical power. This isn't a tournament where number one ends up against number two.

The other side was selected (AT BEST) on the basis of how close they were to TDO's territory. A smarter way for TDO to pick them (and he was smart) would be that basis *and* how weak they were (worse than random), but that's speculative.

SOD Quote: "Greatest military force.. ever seen".
Does NOT equal "so great that all armies are nothing compared to it." At all.
It does not equal "can swat every combined army lead against it like a fly".
Its does NOT equal overkill.
In short, it does not mean what you need it to mean in order to back your conclusion.First, "all armies" is very much a straw man. Presumably the three kings had three armies. The current RL #1 would crush the "combined" forces of #50, #100, & #150 pretty trivially.

Second, "combined" is probably a non-issue in this context. If the three kings combine their armies, which of them gets his lands defended and which other two don't?

And third, can you name *ANY* professional contest where the "greatest ever seen" would NOT be overkill against a generic historical opponent (perhaps even non-pro) not selected for their skill? How would last years super-bowl winner do against some high school from the 1930's? And football isn't even a good example because we take steps to make sure the pro-teams are evenly matched (something clearly not done with armies).

It is possible the three kings had the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th greatest armies in history... but that's an amazing omission if it's true (and calls into question TDO's judgment for demanding land from them). It's a lot more likely that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th greatest armies don't even exist any more.

The moment you're seriously saying "greatest in history" you're also saying "mismatch" in most situations.

If they weren't a threat, why negotiate?People negotiate with Gobblotopia. People even recognize Gobblotopia.

So he doesn't need a threat (much less a threat of this order) to merely "negotiate". So... why does he need this level of threat?

Weddings go till death do us part. So do responsibilities for your underlings actions. Seriously, what is the dark one supposed to do, decay on the misbehaving army?A better question is whether or not the army is disobeying orders and/or doing anything other than what TDO trained them to do. A smart man might have said "kill them all if I don't come back". Stupid kings might have killed him before he mentioned that fail safe.

The day TDO walked into that thrown room, is it reasonable to think that the army was Good? Is genocide the first stick out of the bag for a Good army? And we're not talking about one inflamed act either, the killing went on for a year. I suggest what evidence we have implies that the army of usually-evil was in fact Evil.

I think the same label needs to apply to both sides. Why is that? If TDO's army was Evil, why does the other side have to be Evil as well? Because the two sides have to be morally equivalent?

We simply don't know much about the other side, and what we do know has been supplied by TDO. It's very easy to think of reasons why Paladin-XYZ could have been justified in killing goblin-12345. Further this is before The Plan and the Gods' reactions to it.

I'm using her own words . "Because they were evil, so i killed them" Says flat out that she considers being evil to be justification for death.That interpretation of her statement is contradicted by her on screen behavior. It's also contradicted by other paladins on screen behavior.

Would YOU believe a goblin that said he wanted peace?Not if he's got a gun to my head and is asking for my wallet.

And the rest of his family? By adventurersThey're working with Xykon, the TDO's head priest, and actively trying to threaten the destruction of the universe. That makes them legit targets.

If they don't want to be legit targets then they can stop committing vile deeds. All trails in Right-eye's family's tragedy lead back to TDO. I suggest using goblins as cannon fodder in service of The Plan is Evil. Ditto the lichfication of Xykon for The Plan.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-21, 10:37 AM

The other side was very clearly NOT selected on the basis of their physical power. This isn't a tournament where number one ends up against number two.

And its not selected to be bambi vs godzillia either. We know that when the dwarves and elves joined in that they were able to turn the tide.

The other side was selected (AT BEST) on the basis of how close they were to TDO's territory. A smarter way for TDO to pick them (and he was smart) would be that basis *and* how weak they were (worse than random), but that's speculative.

Yes, and ignores the fact that the kings apparently realized that a threat to one of them was a a threat to all of them.

First, "all armies" is very much a straw man. Presumably the three kings had three armies.

There's no strawman. If the elves and dwarves are going to hop in they need to be dealt with as well, so thats at least 5 armies.

Second, "combined" is probably a non-issue in this context. If the three kings combine their armies, which of them gets his lands defended and which other two don't?

They all do, because they don't go on the defensive. They go on the offensive, crush the goblins, and everyone lives happily ever after. Or that was the plan. And again, if i need to assume that was the plan, you need to assume that defense was the plan.

And third, can you name *ANY* professional contest where the "greatest ever seen" would NOT be overkill against a generic historical opponent (perhaps even non-pro) not selected for their skill?

Why do the three kings have to be generic?
Lets try to use this line of logic irl.

Mohomed Ali fought someone on November 22, 1965.

Since we don't know who that someone was, and Mohomed Ali is a better boxer than 99.99999999% of people who have ever lived we can assume that the fight was a blow out.

So he doesn't need a threat (much less a threat of this order) to merely "negotiate". So... why does he need this level of threat?

Yes, he does need a legitimate threat in order to negotiate. Countries do not negotiate unless its in their best interests or they recognize the inherent morality of the act. Given how goblins are shown being treated and their god given status as cannon fodder, as well as how adventurers view similar creatures like kobolds relying on morality wasn't a reasonable possibility, so he had to be a legitimate threat. Since the kings would unify against a goblin getting uppity he had to be a legitimate threat to all three, not just one of them.

A better question is whether or not the army is disobeying orders and/or doing anything other than what TDO trained them to do. A smart man might have said "kill them all if I don't come back". Stupid kings might have killed him before he mentioned that fail safe.

More of YOUR off screen actions that are supposed to be fact

The day TDO walked into that thrown room, is it reasonable to think that the army was Good? Is genocide the first stick out of the bag for a Good army? And we're not talking about one inflamed act either, the killing went on for a year. I suggest what evidence we have implies that the army of usually-evil was in fact Evil.

Ok, and what about what happened to the goblins in retaliation? They were kept from ever organizing again. I don't think that happened from zoning laws. Yes, genocide is evil but its evil for BOTH sides.

What about what happened to the goblins in retaliation? They were kept from ever organizing again. I don't think that happened from zoning laws. Yes, genocide is evil but its evil for BOTH sides.

We simply don't know much about the other side, and what we do know has been supplied by TDO. It's very easy to think of reasons why Paladin-XYZ could have been justified in killing goblin-12345. Further this is before The Plan and the Gods' reactions to it.

The reason is that the goblins were made evil so it WOULD be ok for the paladin to kill them.

That interpretation of her statement is contradicted by her on screen behavior. It's also contradicted by other paladins on screen behavior.

There's no contradiction.

Not if he's got a gun to my head and is asking for my wallet.

What if you had a gun to his head while negotiating a house sale?

Everyone involved had an army. Its like Three people with pistols, so the person working against them gets a an uzi and some body armor.

They're working with Xykon, the TDO's head priest, and actively trying to threaten the destruction of the universe. That makes them legit targets. If they don't want to be legit targets then they can stop committing vile deeds. .

But they're not doing that willingly, something adventurers could have figured out if they'd bothered to investigate. They're doing it under threat of Xykon, who is effectively a walking nuclear bomb.

All trails in Right-eye's family's tragedy lead back to TDO

And the dark one leads back to the world being made so goblinoids could be killed for XP. You can't just follow the path back to the point thats convenient and then stop looking.

I suggest using goblins as cannon fodder in service of The Plan is Evil. Ditto the lichfication of Xykon for The Plan.

Sure, but that was redcloaks decision. If you expect the gods to stop you any time you might do something wrong, then you're functioning like miko.

Dark Matter

2010-05-21, 03:39 PM

And its not selected to be bambi vs Godzilla either. We know that when the dwarves and elves joined in that they were able to turn the tide.Remarkable few people would do well against Godzilla. This brings us back to the statement "the three kings by themselves had no hope".

There's no strawman. If the elves and dwarves are going to hop in they need to be dealt with as well, so thats at least 5 armies.The key word in there is "*If*". "IF the elves hop in". With genocide actively going on, it only took them a year to step in. This also brings us back to "the three kings by themselves had no hope".

They all do, because they don't go on the defensive. They go on the offensive, crush the goblins, and everyone lives happily ever after. Or that was the plan. And again, if i need to assume that was the plan, you need to assume that defense was the plan.You're assuming that it's even possible to merge armies. You're also assuming that it would help. Neither of these are supported and needing a combined force of both the Dwarfs and Elves suggests it's incorrect.

Or in short, what information we have suggests strongly this was a mismatch.

Why do the three kings have to be generic?
Lets try to use this line of logic irl. Mohomed Ali fought someone on November 22, 1965. Since we don't know who that someone was, and Mohomed Ali is a better boxer than 99.99999999% of people who have ever lived we can assume that the fight was a blow out.This line of reasoning supports me a lot more than it does you. Deliberately picking a close match for Ali suggests you're going to get a close match. If you *can't* deliberately pick a close match then 99.99999999% of the time the fight will be be one sided. We have no evidence suggesting the three kings were in the upper 0.0(etc)1% of rankings for world level armies.

Yes, he does need a legitimate threat in order to negotiate. Countries do not negotiate unless its in their best interests or they recognize the inherent morality of the act.I'm reasonable sure we negotiate with anyone now days. It's unlikely that we'll give them California unless they show up with a massive army much more impressive than our own, but that's basically the issue right there.

Given how goblins are shown being treated and their god given status as cannon fodder, as well as how adventurers view similar creatures like kobolds relying on morality wasn't a reasonable possibility, so he had to be a legitimate threat.This ignores how Gobblotopia has been treated. Countries often ignore individuals, but they don't normally ignore countries (especially neighbors). Just having his own country means TDO could enter into negotiations.

Since the kings would unify against a goblin getting uppity he had to be a legitimate threat to all three, not just one of them.Uppity? I hope the three kings would respond the same way to an Army of Evil tribal-humans where their LE military commander shows up and demands land and money.

More of YOUR off screen actions that are supposed to be factHardly fact, we're deep into speculation here. Thus the word "might". I'm just poking a hole in your "death do us part" argument. But let's refocus:

TDO's army hits the radar as both powerful and evil and it's TDO's creation. That's an indication TDO was evil while he was alive.

What about what happened to the goblins in retaliation? They were kept from ever organizing again. I don't think that happened from zoning laws. Yes, genocide is evil but its evil for BOTH sides.TDO (with help from the three kings) botched the first effort of organizing goblins so bad it resulted in the most evil event we're aware of short of the Snarl or other Godly activity.

Preventing the goblins from organizing isn't "Genocide" if the organizations that are being crushed early are evil. At the moment we have no proof that goblins are killed for simply being goblins by people other than the likes of Belkar. Yes, they can certainly be killed for committing evil deeds, but that's a different matter.

What's twisted things more recently is The Plan but that is recent.

The reason is that the goblins were made evil so it WOULD be ok for the paladin to kill them.True (although they still need evil deeds) but the bottom line is still that vile deeds are unacceptable. If you want peace with the forces of Good then you can't be doing evil actions.

There's no contradiction.No contradiction between you claiming she kills every Evil creature she finds purely for being Evil and her behavior towards Sam? Or for that matter, O'Chul (and the other paladins's) behavior towards the Evil people in jail? Why is Sabine even alive?

What if you had a gun to his head while negotiating a house sale?You asked whether or not I could accept that a goblin is peaceful. I replied not if he has a gun to my head and is asking for my wallet. Why is that an unreasonable answer?

Or put differently, TDO standing there with the greatest army ever asking for land and money wasn't "peaceful".

Everyone involved had an army.Therefore everyone had one somewhat comparably to the greatest army ever seen? Do you realize how much of a reach that is?

But they're not doing that willingly, something adventurers could have figured out if they'd bothered to investigate. They're doing it under threat of Xykon, who is effectively a walking nuclear bomb.I suspect "investigating" Xykon wouldn't be a winning move either. :smalltongue:

I suspect whatever deeds they're doing under Xykon's direction are pretty dark and designed to attract involvement (yes, off panel evidence but this is Xykon we're talking about).

I don't see a way out for them short of doing what RE did and just walking away. But if we need to blame someone Xykon and/or The Plan are better choices than some group of adventurers.

Sure, but that was redcloaks decision. If you expect the gods to stop you any time you might do something wrong, then you're functioning like miko.I don't think TDO views what RC is doing as wrong.

And the dark one leads back to the world being made so goblinoids could be killed for XP. You can't just follow the path back to the point thats convenient and then stop looking.The creation of the goblins to do evil acts wasn't exactly a Good idea, but I'm uncomfortable blaming the creators of the world & universe for their creation.

TDO's involvement is constant and omni-present at the big phase-changing events and not in a good way. "The Plan" has made things a lot worse, not better, for the goblins. Ditto his army.

Bringing us finally back on topic: That's why I put him as the "big villain" in all this. I don't think TDO wants (or has ever wanted) "peace", I think he wants "victory", and I think he's been amazingly bad for his people.

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-21, 07:44 PM

Remarkable few people would do well against Godzilla. This brings us back to the statement "the three kings by themselves had no hope".

IF you ASSUME that they are bambi. Rather than say Rodan, Mothra, and Ghimora. Sure, Godzillia CAN take all three, but that doesn't mean it was a mismatch with no hope. You're asserting a point positively. You are making the size of the dark ones army the lynch pin of your case. The onus is on you to provide positive evidence for it, not speculation.

You have SOD. Could you check to see if its "

the greatest army the world has seen before or since"
or

"the greatest army the world HAD ever seen"

The key word in there is "*If*". "IF the elves hop in". With genocide actively going on, it only took them a year to step in. This also brings us back to "the three kings by themselves had no hope".

There is no IF. The elves DID step in, something the dark one had to take into account when building his army.

We know that

Elf + Dwarf + Human 1 + Human 2 + Human 3 > leaderless, ticked off army.

We don't know if the elf and dwarf armies made a huge difference or just enough. We don't know if the human armies were badly mislead, we don't know if the goblin armies just managed to decimate human 1's army and start rampaging through his soft unprotected peasants.

These are all other possibilities, and things we don't know. You are picking the one possibility, based on NO evidence, and then tossing all of the others for a lack of evidence. Logic, reason, and sense do not work that way.

You're assuming that it's even possible to merge armies. You're also assuming that it would help. Neither of these are supported and needing a combined force of both the Dwarfs and Elves suggests it's incorrect.

This isn't erfworld. Merging armies isn't stopped by any mystical force.

Heres a fact: Not all battles are won or lost before they are fought. Some are won by luck, some are won by determination, a lot are won by weather, many are won by disease, and some are won by one side just wanting it more, and some are won by giant eagles swooping out out of the sky to save your tailfeathers.

To say that the dark ones army MUST have been a mismatch in order to win is pure speciesm. It assumes that the goblins simply can't win by superior tactics, better leadership, grit, determination, or sheer pluck.

Or in short, what information we have suggests strongly this was a mismatch.

If you have something that suggests that, provide it already. Nothing you've provided shows that without some seriously faulty logic to bridge the gaps.

This line of reasoning supports me a lot more than it does you. Deliberately picking a close match for Ali suggests you're going to get a close match. If you *can't* deliberately pick a close match then 99.99999999% of the time the fight will be be one sided.

Really? Does using your logic here get us at the right answer or not?

We have no evidence suggesting the three kings were in the upper 0.0(etc)1% of rankings for world level armies.

and nothing to say that they weren't. The capital of nebraska is not a random series of leters just because i don't know what it is.

I'm reasonable sure we negotiate with anyone now days. It's unlikely that we'll give them California unless they show up with a massive army much more impressive than our own, but that's basically the issue right there.

If the army was so superior to theirs, why DIDN"T the kings negotiate?

This ignores how Gobblotopia has been treated. Countries often ignore individuals, but they don't normally ignore countries (especially neighbors).

No, it doesn't. Gobbotopia has been treated the way it has BECAUSE its a military threat, not in spite of it.

Just having his own country means TDO could enter into negotiations.

yeah, cause that worked out.

Uppity? I hope the three kings would respond the same way to an Army of Evil tribal-humans where their LE military commander shows up and demands land and money.

What if its his lands and the reparations are just?

Hardly fact, we're deep into speculation here. Thus the word "might". I'm just poking a hole in your "death do us part" argument. But let's refocus:

death do us?

TDO's army hits the radar as both powerful and evil and it's TDO's creation. That's an indication TDO was evil while he was alive.

Your radar isn't evidence, and just because he's evil doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. You don't stop an evil person from going to the bathroom, you don't stop an evil person from rescuing their kidnaped daughter. If you're going to ignore his claims based on his alignment then of course he's not going to negotiate a fair solution.

TDO (with help from the three kings) botched the first effort of organizing goblins so bad it resulted in the most evil event we're aware of short of the Snarl or other Godly activity.

Alright, this has lost passed the point of inanity. People are not responsible for what happens when they can't stop it. TDO is not responsible for the armies rampage. you're TRYING to find something to blame him for because the simple facts refute your point: That there is nothing wrong with raising an army to defend yourself from other peoples armies.

Preventing the goblins from organizing isn't "Genocide" if the organizations that are being crushed early are evil.

WHAT?!? Yes, it is. Whiping out the women and children, driving people from their homes and engaging in "population control" IS genocide no matter how noble your intentions.

At the moment we have no proof that goblins are killed for simply being goblins by people other than the likes of Belkar. Yes, they can certainly be killed for committing evil deeds, but that's a different matter.

Belkar, random inn full of adventurer.

True (although they still need evil deeds) but the bottom line is still that vile deeds are unacceptable. If you want peace with the forces of Good then you can't be doing evil actions.

If they want to BE the forces of good they need to stop their evil actions.

N
o contradiction between you claiming she kills every Evil creature she finds purely for being Evil and her behavior towards Sam?

Yes, since she never used detect evil on her, or she wouldn't have offered to travel with her (thats a good way for paladins to loose powers). Think of what she found, a pretty girl and an old man tied up, unarmed, in a clearing in the middle of the woods where she was tracking what she had reason to beleive were a gang of vicious thugs. Samantha pratically had "innocent victim waiting to be rescued" printed on her panties.

Or for that matter, O'Chul (and the other paladins's) behavior towards the Evil people in jail? Why is Sabine even alive?

Probably for haleys stated reason that the jail was as likely to hold her as death.

And no, how o chul treats people is not evidence for how miko treats people. People are more than class race alignment. They have personality. O chuls personality is to endure and wear down. Mikos personality is to find evil and eradicate it.

You asked whether or not I could accept that a goblin is peaceful. I replied not if he has a gun to my head and is asking for my wallet. Why is that an unreasonable answer?

Because it ignores the analogy that you have a gun to his head as well.

I suspect "investigating" Xykon wouldn't be a winning move either. :smalltongue:

well, i'm not saying shove a wand of detect magic into his clavical. But castinig disguise self and wanding around the goblin camp to pick up a few rumors wouldn't have been out of the question.

I don't see a way out for them short of doing what RE did and just walking away. But if we need to blame someone Xykon and/or The Plan are better choices than some group of adventurers.

To paraphrase the oracle, their deaths involved a lot of factors, including the density of iron and the damage dice assigned to certain spells, as well as the coup de grace rules. However, once you go back a thousand years to the start of the plan, there's no reason not to examine the reasons for the plan existing in the first place.

I don't think TDO views what RC is doing as wrong.

I'd imagine he had a problem with a few things he did to hobgoblins before his epiphany (collapsing the avalanche, garnishing them to put the guardian beast to sleep) But the plan itself definitely not. How he handled right eye? I don't know.

The creation of the goblins to do evil acts wasn't exactly a Good idea, but I'm uncomfortable blaming the creators of the world & universe for their creation.

Why?

TDO's involvement is constant and omni-present at the big phase-changing events and not in a good way. "The Plan" has made things a lot worse, not better, for the goblins. Ditto his army.

The plan was directly responsible for gobbotopia. So things have gotten better for them.. for now.

Bringing us finally back on topic: That's why I put him as the "big villain" in all this. I don't think TDO wants (or has ever wanted) "peace", I think he wants "victory", and I think he's been amazingly bad for his people.

Quite possible, but my specific beef was with the idea of calling him evil for raising an army that, quite frankly, needed to be done. Its not evil to defend yourself against an army just because the army has a badge and its leader has a crown.

Dark Matter

2010-05-22, 09:13 AM

IF you ASSUME that they are bambi.Not at all. If you want we can assume they're Kim Possible, Captain America, and Mohamed Ali. There, they're all upper 1%... but I doubt it's going to matter. Godzilla sets a high bar.

Rather than say Rodan, Mothra, and Ghimora. Sure, Godzillia CAN take all three, but that doesn't mean it was a mismatch with no hope. You're asserting a point positively. You are making the size of the dark ones army the lynch pin of your case. The onus is on you to provide positive evidence for it, not speculation.I've already proven Godzilla. I don't need to prove not-Rodan (etc) as well. Especially when the other evidence on the table is... "...the monarchs of the human nations watched in fear...", and over a million deaths, and it took a combined dwarf elf army to stop the killing. None of those points supports the idea that any of the three had a world class army.

And btw we don't know if any of the three kings even *had* an army. SOD indicates that the people killing the goblins were adventurers, not the army.

Further it's self-conflicting to argue he needed this big fearful army in order to force the humans to meet with him (and demand land and money no less) but at the same time it would have been a fair fight. Which was it?

And btw it's "had", not "before or since". Someone else could have come up who was even better (the combined elf/dwarf army would be a good contender although by that time TDO's army probably wasn't at peak).

There is no IF. The elves DID step in, something the dark one had to take into account when building his army.More evidence of a mismatch. But would the elves have stepped in without an ongoing Genocide? Further, if we assume that Genocide brought the elves running as fast as possible, then the kings were on their own for at least a year.

These are all other possibilities, and things we don't know. You are picking the one possibility, based on NO evidence, and then tossing all of the others for a lack of evidence. Logic, reason, and sense do not work that way.Not at all. I fully admit that it's *possible* the three kings could have been the #2, #3, & #4 armies.... although if they were 'watching in fear' seems odd.

But imho that's not the way to bet. Also imho what we know about them is what Rich wanted to show us, and we should assume he covered the important details. Godzilla is important. Who he's matched up against really isn't unless it's Rodan and his pals.

If the army was so superior to theirs, why DIDN"T the kings negotiate?Good question. Let me reverse it to you, what was there to negotiate? Given the power imbalance... is it reasonable to think TDO would have given up his army? Is it reasonable to think TDO would have given up being evil? Worse, is it reasonable to think that giving the LE military commander land is going to result in a bigger problem later on? (btw, that's the way it's worked in RL).

The other alternative was to kill him and hope his army falls apart (sometimes this has happened in RL... although usually it's from the leader dying from something other than murder at the hands of a hated enemy).

yeah, cause that worked out.Usually negotiations imply give and take. "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is already such an aggressive act that bad faith is assumed.

What if its his lands and the reparations are just?Another good question. Were they? He's demanding land which has been in human hands for thousands of years. Goblins have never owned it.

Yes, goblins were screwed over by the gods... but the kings weren't involved in that and we don't normally permit "reparations" for crimes committed centuries ago anyway.

Alright, this has lost passed the point of inanity. People are not responsible for what happens when they can't stop it. TDO is not responsible for the armies rampage.If you build a world class evil army, and it goes off and does evil army-ish things outside of your control, do you really have clean hands?

But to be clear, I don't blame him for the rampage. I do blame him for creating a seriously powerful evil army.

you're TRYING to find something to blame him for because the simple facts refute your point: That there is nothing wrong with raising an army to defend yourself from other peoples armies.What "armies"? SOD doesn't even tell us that the kings had armies, and it never mentions armies killing goblins before the genocide. Goblins were killed by adventurers. SOD hints that it's mostly the forces of good, i.e. Good Clerics and Paladins.

WHAT?!? Yes, it is. Whiping out the women and children, driving people from their homes and engaging in "population control" IS genocide no matter how noble your intentions.First, you're describing "ethnic cleansing", not genocide. Second, you're also talking about the over reaction to The Plan. After TDO's army goblins were kept disorganized.

Belkar, random inn full of adventurer.Belkar is by no stretch of the imagination a representative of "Good".

Further he's so evil we forget occasionally he's not guilty. That time he was helpless and that lizard was trying to murder him. Yorick (sp?) might have talked LG but his actions then were Evil. Ditto his association with Nale. Standing back while your companions commit a dozen plus mass murders doesn't hit the radar as "Good".

If they want to BE the forces of good they need to stop their evil actions.Standing back and letting goblins commit vile deeds is unacceptable.

Probably for haleys stated reason that the jail was as likely to hold her as death.Nale? Thog? Tsukiko? Poison-arrow-guy? How long does the list have to get?

And no, how o chul treats people is not evidence for how miko treats people.Let me point out that Miko was in the jail herself so knew darn well who and what was there. Various people have sited rules that killing an evil monster for being evil is murder (and thus an evil act). Your "proof" to the contrary entirely consists of a statement by Miko which might have been an abbreviation considering we've *never* seen her behave that way on camera.

And when we're talking about Miko we're talking about an anomaly. To make your case you need to show that not only is it "legal", but it's "common enough to be a problem".

Because it ignores the analogy that you have a gun to his head as well.And how is that? We've no proof the three kings even have armies, much less that said armies were used against goblins. We also have no proof that goblins were killed by the forces of good for anything other than vile acts.

well, i'm not saying shove a wand of detect magic into his clavical. But castinig disguise self and wanding around the goblin camp to pick up a few rumors wouldn't have been out of the question.A goblin camp of the size we saw can be assumed to have all goblins know all other goblins on sight.

To paraphrase the oracle, their deaths involved a lot of factors, including the density of iron and the damage dice assigned to certain spells, as well as the coup de grace rules. However, once you go back a thousand years to the start of the plan, there's no reason not to examine the reasons for the plan existing in the first place.The Plan only goes back decades. And unlike the creation of the goblins, "The Plan" involves active ongoing efforts which are clearly evil *right* *now*.

I'd imagine he had a problem with a few things he did to hobgoblins before his epiphany (collapsing the avalanche, garnishing them to put the guardian beast to sleep) But the plan itself definitely not. How he handled right eye? I don't know.I don't think he does have a problem with any of that. RE turned away from TDO and The Plan. The hobgoblins were sacrificed. TDO is willing to destroy the souls of his own people. He's certainly not in this for the individual goblin.

Why?Because it brings up questions like "is the creation of Evil (the concept) evil?" Further the bulk of your outrage on this appears to be around the idea that it's a "good" act to kill an innocent or not-actively-evil goblin, and that's (to put it mildly) unproven. Still further this part of the narrative is RC talking about propaganda that TDO told him on a subject which is impossible to verify.

The plan was directly responsible for gobbotopia. So things have gotten better for them.. for now.Gobbotopia hasn't dealt with (and makes no attempt to deal with) the source of the goblins problem, i.e. that they're evil. They need redemption, not a city. From that stand point Gobbotopia makes thing worse, not better.

Quite possible, but my specific beef was with the idea of calling him evil for raising an army that, quite frankly, needed to be done. Its not evil to defend yourself against an army just because the army has a badge and its leader has a crown.1) It needing to be done has no bearing on whether or not it was evil. There are good and evil ways to do things, or even create things, and this was the later.
2) It's not even clear that it "needed to be done". Adventurers were the problem for goblins, not armies. I can think of easier (and Good) ways to deal with the entire issue which don't involve conquering neighbors and/or taking their land (this might have been viewed as a flaw rather than a feature).

The Pilgrim

2010-05-22, 10:41 AM

Isn't it wonderful when a debate ends up with two guys engaged in "quoted paragraph-reply-quoted paragraph-reply, etc... final message half a thread page long and increasing, now your turn to do the same, then mine again, until death or thread locking split us up"?

derfenrirwolv

2010-05-22, 12:36 PM

Not at all. If you want we can assume they're Kim Possible, Captain America, and Mohamed Ali. There, they're all upper 1%... but I doubt it's going to matter. Godzilla sets a high bar.
I've already proven Godzilla. I don't need to prove not-Rodan (etc) as well.

Yes. Yes you do. Since your entire argument relies on the other armies equaling bambi you need to demonstrate that they are bambi. To do this, You need to show something other than that one won and one loss. I've seen small guys in fights get in a lucky punch to the big guys nose. they won, but it wasnt a mismatch in the small guys favor.

Now that its "had ever seen" we simply know that he was the biggest around.

Especially when the other evidence on the table is... "...the monarchs of the human nations watched in fear..."

If someone with a reputation for violence has a gun, and i have a gun, I'm more than a little worried.

and over a million deaths

Doesn't tell you the margin of victory.

and it took a combined dwarf elf army to stop the killing. None of those points supports the idea that any of the three had a world class army.

None of them disproves it either, which is what you need to do.

And btw we don't know if any of the three kings even *had* an army. SOD indicates that the people killing the goblins were adventurers, not the army.

What kingdom doesn't come with one?

Now you said (as an idea, i'm not looking to quote you) before that you can't allow a nation to exist as a shield against evil doers. Basically that the goblins can't head out of the village, raid the humans, and then retreat to the villages and not expect to be attacked there (where they get attacked by even the non evil goblins)

How is that different than what the humans do, attacking from a kingdom and then heading back there to spend their loot?

Further it's self-conflicting to argue he needed this big fearful army in order to force the humans to meet with him (and demand land and money no less) but at the same time it would have been a fair fight. Which was it?

There is absolutely no conflict there. At all. I don't know where you're getting the idea that there is. If you want to negotiate with someone that has an army, you need an army.

And btw it's "had", not "before or since". Someone else could have come up who was even better (the combined elf/dwarf army would be a good contender although by that time TDO's army probably wasn't at peak).
More evidence of a mismatch.

Quite the opposite really. It means its not the biggest army in history, just the biggest army up till that point. It means its potentially smaller than you've made it out to be.

But would the elves have stepped in without an ongoing Genocide? Further, if we assume that Genocide brought the elves running as fast as possible, then the kings were on their own for at least a year.

Person A lost to Person B therefore it was a mismatch in A's favor Does. Not. Follow.

Also imho what we know about them is what Rich wanted to show us, and we should assume he covered the important details. Godzilla is important.
Who he's matched up against really isn't unless it's Rodan and his pals.

No one can possibly account for and dismiss every epileptic tree someone might come up with.

Good question. Let me reverse it to you, what was there to negotiate?

Several dozen possibilities

1) He didn't think the army could take all three kings
2) he knew the elves and dwarves could jump in eventually
3) He knew that even if he won the other nations would make life difficult for him
4) The war would cause the otherwise needless deaths of many of his people
5) The war would kill humans he knew to be innocent
6) he didn't want the bad publicity. Goblinoids already had a reputation for violence he didn't want to cement it by forever associating his kingdom with bloody massacres.

Given the power imbalance

If you want me to give it, prove it.

is it reasonable to think TDO would have given up his army? Is it reasonable to think TDO would have given up being evil? Worse, is it reasonable to think that giving the LE military commander land is going to result in a bigger problem later on?

Being evil doesn't remove all of your rights. They could have kept their proclivities within their own borders. Evil isn't radiation, something that emminates into the air and needs to be kept at low levels or planet wide catastrophy will occur.

The other alternative was to kill him and hope his army falls apart

Fallacy: false dilema. there were a myraiad of options available, rejecting A does not mean embracing C. They could have negotiated the nation with conditions: no human slavery etc.

Usually negotiations imply give and take. "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is already such an aggressive act that bad faith is assumed.

No, its pretty much standard operating procedures for nations to run on.

Another good question. Were they? He's demanding land which has been in human hands for thousands of years. Goblins have never owned it.

Some of it, probably. Some of it probably had been goblin land at one point. He's asking for land because his goblins can't live on the land they have and have any chance for LIVING. They can SURVIVE there but they can't live.

Yes, goblins were screwed over by the gods... but the kings weren't involved in that and we don't normally permit "reparations" for crimes committed centuries ago anyway.

that could have been something to work out. if the lands junk, perhaps a concerted effort of druids with plant growth. Or they could have just stopped incomming adventurers. Who knows. But if you're not going to negotiate with someone, you don't tell them that they are and then off them during the negotiations.

If you build a world class evil army, and it goes off and does evil army-ish things outside of your control, do you really have clean hands?

Depends on your reasons for building it and what you did when you had it.

But to be clear, I don't blame him for the rampage. I do blame him for creating a seriously powerful evil army.

Evil isn't in the being. Evil is in the doing. We don't have any examples of the army doing anything evil when he was running it.

What "armies"? SOD doesn't even tell us that the kings had armies,

Seriously?

and it never mentions armies killing goblins before the genocide.

but human adventurers operating out of human lands are.

Goblins were killed by adventurers. SOD hints that it's mostly the forces of good, i.e. Good Clerics and Paladins.

Yes, like the lovely young gentleman in SOD who thought that their alignment listed in the monster manual was carte blanche to rack up the xp.

First, you're describing "ethnic cleansing", not genocide.

We don't really have a word for species cleansing. And seriously, potato, potahto.

Second, you're also talking about the over reaction to The Plan. After TDO's army goblins were kept disorganized.

Yes. The side of "good" committing the very atrocities it said it wanted to avoid.

Belkar is by no stretch of the imagination a representative of "Good".

But quite representative for many adventurers.

Further he's so evil we forget occasionally he's not guilty. That time he was helpless and that lizard was trying to murder him. Yorick (sp?) might have talked LG but his actions then were Evil.

YikYik tried to kill belkar. How on earth is that evil? He's a Chaotic Evil halfling who's wonton slaughter has been measured in kilo Nazis. Killing him would be a good thing. He's also described in war and XP's as belakrs oppoisite.. an honorable person amoung scoundrels as opposed to an evil person among heroes.

Ditto his association with Nale. Standing back while your companions commit a dozen plus mass murders doesn't hit the radar as "Good".

We don't know what he was or wasn't told about that.

Standing back and letting goblins commit vile deeds is unacceptable.

Standing back and letting adventurers do the same is also unacceptable.

Nale? Thog? Tsukiko? Poison-arrow-guy? How long does the list have to get?

The problem isn't your information. The problem is how you manipulate them to come to your conclusions.

There is more than one way to be lawful good. Lawful good does NOT mean automatic free speech and no death penalty. Just because a paladin or paladin influenced country takes the stand one way does not make it the standard for the entire alignment.

Let me point out that Miko was in the jail herself so knew darn well who and what was there.

Huh? She snapped sabines neck.

Various people have sited rules that killing an evil monster for being evil is murder (and thus an evil act).

really? where?

Your "proof" to the contrary entirely consists of a statement by Miko which might have been an abbreviation considering we've *never* seen her behave that way on camera.

Darn me for using her own words to point at her own actions!

And when we're talking about Miko we're talking about an anomaly. To make your case you need to show that not only is it "legal", but it's "common enough to be a problem".

Miko, the paladin and his party in SOD, the inn full of adventurers taking out an Honorable kobold just because a halfling said so and offered a reward.

We also have no proof that goblins were killed by the forces of good for anything other than vile acts.

Before the plan we don't have any evidence that that IS what they were attacked for either.

A goblin camp of the size we saw can be assumed to have all goblins know all other goblins on sight.

Rouge sap Sneak attacks solitary goblin, they drag him off, intimidate/char/bluff/diplomacy him into giving some info. catch and release. Use hide and listen, or invisibility. to scope around the camp, clairvoyance, clairaudience, shape shifted druid in mouse form, polymorphed wizard in mouse form....

Do most adventurers bother with that? Nope. Monsters.. begin the blasting

I don't think he does have a problem with any of that. RE turned away from TDO and The Plan. The hobgoblins were sacrificed.

Needlessly, both there and at the battle of azure city.

TDO is willing to destroy the souls of his own people. He's certainly not in this for the individual goblin.

True.

Because it brings up questions like "is the creation of Evil (the concept) evil?" Further the bulk of your outrage on this appears to be around the idea that it's a "good" act to kill an innocent or not-actively-evil goblin, and that's (to put it mildly) unproven.

It has bee proven time and time again. Its WHY the gods made goblins.. so their low level clerics could kill them for xp.

Still further this part of the narrative is RC talking about propaganda that TDO told him on a subject which is impossible to verify.

All of which makes perfect sense given that oots runs on D&D rules AND conventions.

Gobbotopia hasn't dealt with (and makes no attempt to deal with) the source of the goblins problem, i.e. that they're evil. They need redemption, not a city. From that stand point Gobbotopia makes thing worse, not better.

It makes things easier because its very hard to act good when people are persecuting you.

1) It needing to be done has no bearing on whether or not it was evil. There are good and evil ways to do things, or even create things, and this was the later.

This is ridiculous, as at least one other person has pointed out its circular logic. Its not evil because the person who was evil did it. The dark one did not wake up on an evil bed, take an evil dump, eat an evil breakfast and then trim his evil facial hair (no goatee) It has to be evil on its own merits. There is nothing evil about raising an army. There is nothing evil about saying "I'm mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore". What you see as a good act, TALKING about your differences is EXACTLY what the dark on did.

2) It's not even clear that it "needed to be done". Adventurers were the problem for goblins, not armies. I can think of easier (and Good) ways to deal with the entire issue which don't involve conquering neighbors and/or taking their land (this might have been viewed as a flaw rather than a feature).

Can you? Give me a reasonable option for the dark one in this situation. Adventurers keep wiping out goblin villages.