ethical issue: Retaking Azure City? [Archive] - Page 2

Narren

2011-03-13, 10:56 PM

pff. no philosophy applies everywhere.

in law enforcement is best to turn to punishment to keep the peace,

in war its better to stop the fighting to keep the peace,

all you really did was take my words out of context and apply them to something that has nothing to do with this discussion.

because war is widespread chaos, justice a matter of individuals not of nations and armies.

when you use justice on individual criminals, that right, thats justice.

when used to go to war, its just an excuse for revenge. thats wrong.

You're right, the situations are different. But you also ignored the first part of my post.

"If no one is going to stand against them when they forcibly take a city, then why not just conquer the whole world?"

The home of the Azurites was taken from them. They have every right to try and take it back, and that has nothing to do with justice or revenge. If they could take it back peacefully, they should. But that simply isn't going to happen.

And as I already stated, if no one stands against them, why wouldn't they keep going? Why not take over every nation if they'll just roll over in the name of peace? They're a hostile conquering group that needs to be stopped.

t209

2011-03-13, 11:04 PM

Peacefully? But it can only be achieved when Redcloak is killed (which azurite nobles never bothered use ninjas on) or convince him that xykon will betray him someday.
The main problem why Azure city can never be liberated is that the nobles wanted Hinjo's head on their table and rule the citizens. They are the one who left the city as cowards.

veti

2011-03-13, 11:13 PM

pff. no philosophy applies everywhere.

in law enforcement is best to turn to punishment to keep the peace,

in war its better to stop the fighting to keep the peace,

I'm sorry, but I've looked at this every which way I can, and in any light - it's ridiculous. Pacifism is a fine and noble tradition, but it's not what you're advocating.

when you use justice on individual criminals, that right, thats justice.

when used to go to war, its just an excuse for revenge. thats wrong.

Err... so because revenge is an evil motive for individual actions, it's also an evil motive for collective actions? Now who's applying one philosophy to two dissimilar situations?

And besides, there are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with revenge.

There's liberating their loved ones - the humans left behind, now enslaved - do the escaped Azurites not owe it to them, to make at least some attempt to help them?

There's good old-fashioned economics: that's valuable land the hobgoblins have taken.

And there's the international moral dimension: not to fight back would legitimise violent conquest, and encourage Gobbotopia to do it again, just as soon as they've got enough people. See previous posts on expansionist tendencies of empires in general. In this case, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that a pacifist policy would do anything to preserve peace.

t209

2011-03-14, 12:08 AM

I'm sorry, but I've looked at this every which way I can, and in any light - it's ridiculous. Pacifism is a fine and noble tradition, but it's not what you're advocating.

Err... so because revenge is an evil motive for individual actions, it's also an evil motive for collective actions? Now who's applying one philosophy to two dissimilar situations?

And besides, there are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with revenge.

There's liberating their loved ones - the humans left behind, now enslaved - do the escaped Azurites not owe it to them, to make at least some attempt to help them?

There's good old-fashioned economics: that's valuable land the hobgoblins have taken.

And there's the international moral dimension: not to fight back would legitimise violent conquest, and encourage Gobbotopia to do it again, just as soon as they've got enough people. See previous posts on expansionist tendencies of empires in general. In this case, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that a pacifist policy would do anything to preserve peace.

That's right! There's no right or wrong to evil race conquering the rightful place for Azurites.
One of the solution is that Azurite Nobles (except Kato and Daigo) must stop trying to murder their only leader, Hinjo, and start sending their ninjas to kill goblin leaders.

sims796

2011-03-14, 11:40 AM

I'm on the side of the Azurites winning, and I'm baffled by anyone who wants the goblins to win. At least for the people here.

Let's ignore the SoD epilogue for the time being. Let's look at the here and now. The Hobbies invaded Azure City. Whether they felt justified doesn't change that. In the Azure's point of view, they have every right to invade and take it back. The fact that they currently have a home does nothing to change that. You do not kick somebody out of their home and then say "well, they found another place to live, so they don't need to try and take it back". That's completely asinine. They stole their home, and the Azurites have every right to take it back.

And to all this "cycle of vengeance" bullcrap, to that I say, you've been reading too much Naruto. Where the bloody hell was this talk when the Hobbies invaded the city? Please stop with the "keep the peace" crap, because it sounds stupid, to put it bluntly. You don't kick somebody off of their land and then get upset when something gets done about it. It's a comic, so we can't feel the magnitude of what went down, but still, that was serious for them.

Secondly, many folks who are rooting for them are trying to cast the Gobbies in the most sympathetic light as possible. Yes, they hold slaves. Yes, they beat them. No, the 112 slaves that were freed is not all of them. At all. They are an evil nation. And not by definition. Evil isn't something that you get from birth or race, it's something that you earn. They have earned their label of evil. That said, alignment is not a straightjacket. You can't say "well, a good person would do this, and if they don't then, they're not good. Yokyok's attack on Belkar, despite the latter being defenseless, does not mean that Yok wasn't Lawful Good. He was after the guy that killed his father. Morally ambiguous, sure. Same thing with Haley killing her rival. If it was an innocent, maybe, but they are hard rooted enemies, that (apparently) actively tries to off each other. Yokyok's and Haley's actions are far from good, but that does not make them evil. And yes, the gobbies are evil - at least the ones who are occupying the Azure city.

TL;DR: Were the goblins right to take over the city? Sure, if you want to look at it that way, I won't argue. Would the Azure city be in the right for trying to take it back? Of course they are.

I had more to say, but Judge Alex is on, and I forgot what I was going to write.

pendell

2011-03-14, 12:44 PM

Sims796 is clear-minded ; I find little to disagree on.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-14, 01:02 PM

Let's ignore the SoD epilogue for the time being. Let's look at the here and now.
Yes, it would be a good idea to ignore the SoD epilogue, because Roy's dad has little to do with this discussion. :smalltongue:

sims796

2011-03-14, 01:04 PM

Yes, it would be a good idea to ignore the SoD epilogue, because Roy's dad has little to do with this discussion. :smalltongue:

All of my hate.

I meant prequel now that I think of it. But you get what I meant.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-14, 01:11 PM

Actually, I assumed you meant just the scribble section, which is understandable.

sims796

2011-03-14, 02:41 PM

Actually, I assumed you meant just the scribble section, which is understandable.

Well, yeah, you get it now, no harm no foul. But the hate has been given, and there's nothing I an do about that, unfortunately. I'd stop it if I could, but, you know.

But yeah, it seems that people will bend over backwards to defend their "underdog". From Belkar's alignment, to Miko and Celia, all the way to the goblins. Hell, some people even went about saying the thieves guid was good, because "Haley's word was untrustworty".

Wat?

Forum Explorer

2011-03-14, 03:40 PM

Well, yeah, you get it now, no harm no foul. But the hate has been given, and there's nothing I an do about that, unfortunately. I'd stop it if I could, but, you know.

But yeah, it seems that people will bend over backwards to defend their "underdog". From Belkar's alignment, to Miko and Celia, all the way to the goblins. Hell, some people even went about saying the thieves guid was good, because "Haley's word was untrustworty".

Wat?

Well from what we saw hank could be good but most likely neutral.

but to adress your big post a big reason I'm rooting for the hobgoblins is that the Azurites annoy me. And its a fictional story so I allow my emotions choose who I root for rather than my morals.

Temassasin

2011-03-14, 03:53 PM

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-14, 04:03 PM

Oh, forgot to address this.

And to all this "cycle of vengeance" bullcrap, to that I say, you've been reading too much Naruto.
As was brought up earlier, the author's words imply that there is indeed a "cycle of vengeance/chicken or the egg" thing going on.

Narren

2011-03-14, 04:54 PM

Well from what we saw hank could be good but most likely neutral.

Or he could be evil. There really isn't observations of his actions to state his alignment, other than that he is probably lawful.

But the fact that he associates with (and is in fact a leader in) what is clearly an evil organization that does evil things to people, he is probably evil.

sims796

2011-03-14, 06:21 PM

but to adress your big post a big reason I'm rooting for the hobgoblins is that the Azurites annoy me. And its a fictional story so I allow my emotions choose who I root for rather than my morals.

That is, quite honestly, a very fair point. You don't need any outright reason to hate a character other than "they annoy me". This is a work of fiction, after all. There are plenty of characters I outright hate.

Oh, forgot to address this.

As was brought up earlier, the author's words imply that there is indeed a "cycle of vengeance/chicken or the egg" thing going on.

True enough, the author did make that clear in the story itself, in some not-so subtle ways. However, I do not believe he meant it in an ultra pacisfist, live-and-let-live sort of way that these guys are trying to sell it as. "Oh no, the Azurites should get the shaft, because they'll be spreading hate!" Woodstock ended a few decades back, hippie.

Not that you're the hippie, but...you get my point.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-14, 06:50 PM

Right, that's because Rich is smart enough to realize that people are going to love or hate most characters or factions, so he gave things to live and things to hate, and both sides being arguably "right" in this case.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-14, 06:55 PM

You're right, the situations are different. But you also ignored the first part of my post.

"If no one is going to stand against them when they forcibly take a city, then why not just conquer the whole world?"

The home of the Azurites was taken from them. They have every right to try and take it back, and that has nothing to do with justice or revenge. If they could take it back peacefully, they should. But that simply isn't going to happen.

And as I already stated, if no one stands against them, why wouldn't they keep going? Why not take over every nation if they'll just roll over in the name of peace? They're a hostile conquering group that needs to be stopped.

1. because its impractical. everyone knows that.
2. Duh it isn't going to happen, I never said the choice I advocate for is the one they are going take.
3. I didn't say that no one would stand against them. I'm simply saying that you can't apply everything I say to anything else, in this situation not continuing the cycle of violence is more right, if they tried conquering the world then defeating them would be right.

I never said my philosophy was pacifism. My philosophy, is that all philosophies are imperfect. therefore you cannot stick to one or the other because you cannot apply them to all, therefore philosophies are better used as tools in certain situations towards the most good that it can do rather than as beliefs that govern all actions and therefore only lead to failure when a certain situation comes up that philosophy can't handle.

therefore all your attempts at changing the situation will only make me argue for a different philosophy, the one I believe works best for the situation. for the slaves in Azure City they are to be freed with as little trouble as possible, and if you do not believe this can be done by negotiation then simple extraction with the least combat possible will work so as not to endanger the citizens you are freeing.

and I never said the hobgoblins actions were right either, the entire revenge cycle is wrong and should never existed in the first place. You could argue that Redcloak should've known better and stopped the cycle, but then again adventurers would have just gone on killing goblins just because they are evil, and guess what?

Redcloak has the very same philosophy that that those advocating for justice for the Azurites to take back their city are: that because they were wrong, they are right to seek payback, and you could argue that everyone is right to seek payback for every wrong done to them ever, I should therefore go insult every person who insulted me, punch every guy who punched me, punish every teacher who ever punished me, and just generally seek out everyone who has ever wronged me and wrong them back.

if the Azurites take back the city-guess what. the hobgoblins will just want to take the city back themselves so that they feed their families, which will result in more violence spanning I dunno, how many years? decades? centuries? they will just keep going back and forth, never-ending, only perpetuating the wrongs, only giving adventurers more excuses to kill the hobgoblins just because they're evil, only upholding the DnD status quo of adventurers and PC's having a good time while the monstrous races get the short end of the stick. thats the "justice" solution you are proposing.

Reverent-One

2011-03-14, 07:07 PM

Redcloak has the very same philosophy that that those advocating for justice for the Azurites to take back their city are: that because they were wrong, they are right to seek payback, and you could argue that everyone is right to seek payback for every wrong done to them ever, I should therefore go insult every person who insulted me, punch every guy who punched me, punish every teacher who ever punished me, and just generally seek out everyone who has ever wronged me and wrong them back.

You're misrepresenting the other side. It has nothing to do with "getting payback", but reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. If someone steals my car, I am justified in trying to get it back. This does not mean that I am justified in beating someone else up and taking their car (the equivalent to the Redcloak and the Hobgoblins have done).

if the Azurites take back the city-guess what. the hobgoblins will just want to take the city back themselves so that they feed their families, which will result in more violence spanning I dunno, how many years? decades? centuries? they will just keep going back and forth, never-ending, only perpetuating the wrongs, only giving adventurers more excuses to kill the hobgoblins just because they're evil, only upholding the DnD status quo of adventurers and PC's having a good time while the monstrous races get the short end of the stick. thats the "justice" solution you are proposing.

The hobgoblins didn't have a problem getting enough food to feed an army before. And if the hobgoblins raid and do evil things and end up getting killed for it, that's their own fault, we've seen goblins that don't do those things and survive alongside PC races, so it's not like it can't be done.

Dark Matter

2011-03-14, 07:10 PM

As was brought up earlier, the author's words imply that there is indeed a "cycle of vengeance/chicken or the egg" thing going on.A cycle of vengeance doesn't mean that one side isn't Good or the other isn't Evil. Nor does it mean that the current situation is better than the previous one.

There was an argument that the goblins wouldn't be evil if they weren't being punished for being evil, but I think we're past that point now.

TheProfessor

2011-03-14, 07:10 PM

I am for the Azurites only because I can't see the goblins as anything other than cannon fodder.

I mean,they live to be killed. They are meant to be an endless red shirt army.
I view things similar to Elan. Clearly,in OOTS theatrics are almost always right.

And I know that it is out of character for goblins to have an independent civilization that is widely recognized.

Therefore,the only way to set things right is for the Azurites to take back the city.

Kish

2011-03-14, 07:21 PM

So you're for the Azurites because you oppose the concept of moral complexity.

TheProfessor

2011-03-14, 07:27 PM

So you're for the Azurites because you oppose the concept of moral complexity.

Pretty much,yeah.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-14, 07:44 PM

A cycle of vengeance doesn't mean that one side isn't Good or the other isn't Evil. Nor does it mean that the current situation is better than the previous one.
I was only addressing the idea that the cycle of vengeance is apparently fecal matter only believed by fans of mainstream manga.

Kish

2011-03-14, 08:21 PM

Pretty much,yeah.
I hope you're prepared for ongoing disappointment.

Narren

2011-03-14, 08:47 PM

I apologize, but I had a bit of trouble following some this.

1. because its impractical. everyone knows that.

What exactly is impractical? Taking over the world? Not if people don't fight to reclaim it. It would be quite easy.

2. Duh it isn't going to happen, I never said the choice I advocate for is the one they are going take.

What are you referring to here? The Azurites won't do as you think they should?

3. I didn't say that no one would stand against them. I'm simply saying that you can't apply everything I say to anything else, in this situation not continuing the cycle of violence is more right, if they tried conquering the world then defeating them would be right.

But not "continuing the cycle of violence" is the same as allowing them to take what they want. If no one stands against them, why not roll over other nations? As long as you gain victory, you're on easy street.

My philosophy, is that all philosophies are imperfect.
Well there's a circular argument for you. :smalltongue:

therefore all your attempts at changing the situation will only make me argue for a different philosophy, the one I believe works best for the situation. for the slaves in Azure City they are to be freed with as little trouble as possible, and if you do not believe this can be done by negotiation then simple extraction with the least combat possible will work so as not to endanger the citizens you are freeing.

I agree...rescue the slaves with as little risk (which means with as little combat) as possible. Violence, I could care less about, but combat should be avoided. Once the citizens are free and safe, begin reclaiming your home.

and I never said the hobgoblins actions were right either, the entire revenge cycle is wrong and should never existed in the first place. You could argue that Redcloak should've known better and stopped the cycle, but then again adventurers would have just gone on killing goblins just because they are evil, and guess what?

Just because adventurers kill goblins does not mean that hobgoblins get to invade nations. You want adventurers to stop killing goblins? Then show that you can be civilized and non-threatening....don't march into cities and butcher, enslave, torture, and zombify everyone. Most adventurers don't butcher "good" creatures for their treasure....just the ones that are looting caravans and raiding villages. That's how they usually get the call in the first place.

Redcloak has the very same philosophy that that those advocating for justice for the Azurites to take back their city are: that because they were wrong, they are right to seek payback,

Well now who's applying their philosophy to every situation? :smalltongue:

You should probably stop getting hung up on the "justice" of it. This isn't about punishing anyone, or about an "eye for eye." The hobgoblins took Azure City. The Azurites have every right to take it back. If Redcloak wanted "justice" he should have gone after the Sapphire Guard. They're the ones that butchered his village.

Are you telling me that if your nation was invaded, your friends and family horribly murdered, and you were an outcast on a deserted island forced to start all over, that you would not want to take your home back because the leader of the army got screwed over by a small faction of your government that you didn't even know existed?

and you could argue that everyone is right to seek payback for every wrong done to them ever, I should therefore go insult every person who insulted me, punch every guy who punched me, punish every teacher who ever punished me, and just generally seek out everyone who has ever wronged me and wrong them back.

Again, your misapplying my "imperfect" philosophy. I never said they should go "punish" the hobgoblins. You shouldn't try to seek an eye for eye everywhere you go. But if someone stole your wallet, don't you have a right to try and take it back? If someone chased you out of your house with a gun, can't you try to get them out? And if they leave you no choice but to use violence, then so be it. If that violence means that this person's family will hate you, then so be it. If no one defends their home, then why wouldn't this person just take what he wants from the world?

if the Azurites take back the city-guess what. the hobgoblins will just want to take the city back themselves so that they feed their families,

They don't need Azure City to feed their families. They were feeding their families just fine. They didn't go for the lush and fertile farmland, they went to go kill humans.

which will result in more violence spanning I dunno, how many years? decades? centuries? they will just keep going back and forth, never-ending, only perpetuating the wrongs, only giving adventurers more excuses to kill the hobgoblins just because they're evil, only upholding the DnD status quo of adventurers and PC's having a good time while the monstrous races get the short end of the stick. thats the "justice" solution you are proposing.

Again, I never proposed a "justice" solution. I proposed that everyone has a right to defend and if necessary reclaim what is theirs.

sims796

2011-03-14, 08:49 PM

I was only addressing the idea that the cycle of vengeance is apparently fecal matter only believed by fans of mainstream manga.

Don't worry, I've addresed that. It's still fecal matter, only of a certain variety.

Huh. Narren explained it pretty well. I ain't saying it's weird to think that there is said vengeance cycle going on. I AM saying is, to put it bluntly, this keep the peace crap, this Azurites should live and let live in order to end the hatred or whatever hippie nonsense is being spewn, is outright ludicrous.

Dark Matter

2011-03-14, 09:13 PM

veti

2011-03-14, 10:25 PM

The existence of a "cycle of vengeance" may or may not be a valid observation. (It's hardly new - TVTropes identifies it as "older than dirt".) But from the Azurites' point of view, exactly what difference does it make?

Some of the hobgoblins may (or may not) feel they had a legitimate reason for their invasion. But so what?

Does that mean you don't owe it to yourself, to try to recover what was forcibly taken from you? Well, possibly, you might believe in turning the other cheek. But then:

Does it mean you don't owe it to your loved ones to try to rescue them? (And if you think there's a nonviolent solution to this, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

Does it mean you don't owe it to your children, to try to combat the menace of an enemy that has demonstrated that it is aggressive, hostile, racist and expansionist?

Does it mean you don't owe it to your gods, to restore their temples and worship?

If you want to bend over backwards for a just and fair solution you could, potentially, strike a deal with Gobbotopia. You would recognise it as the rightful government, in exchange for the abolition of slavery and all laws discriminating against non-goblins, the release of all non-criminal prisoners, and the right to return to your former homes.

But there is zero evidence that anyone on the goblins' side would go for such a deal - why should they? The Dark One's own origin story tells us, quite explicitly, that the goblins only respect negotiation from a position of strength. And so - like TDO in his day - you need first to establish a position of strength. Then, and only then, could you try to have a discussion with Gobbotopia about what might be considered "just".

SOD
(And even then, there's an excellent chance that they'd betray you, justifying it as fair payback for what happened to TDO Himself.)

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-14, 10:43 PM

Don't worry, I've addresed that. It's still fecal matter, only of a certain variety.
Aye, the variety supported by the author's own words.

sims796

2011-03-14, 11:05 PM

Aye, the variety supported by the author's own words.

So, uh, are you joking around, or are you purposely misinterpreting my words? As I said, at least two times, I get that the author put up a cycle of revenge storyline. I never said that it wasn't there, and if I made that impression, I cleared it up on my other two posts.

However, it is not in the way represented a few times here. This, "lie down and take it" attidude that a few people said here is stupid. That variety, if it's hard to get.

t209

2011-03-14, 11:20 PM

On the subject of "needing food", in D&D this is a non-issue considering the abundance of Clerics. Even low level clerics spells are crazy good for maintaining a village and high level Clerics can do even more.

Unless the resistance became organized and kill all of the clerics at one strike.
P.S- I am with the azurites. The problem with azurites are that the nobles care more about power than the city. They would have retaken the city if they use the ninja to get the red cloak's head instead of Hinjo's head on the table.

Gitman00

2011-03-14, 11:27 PM

Well, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later, so it might as well be me. :smalltongue:

Anyone remember roughly 75 years ago? There was an aggressive, racist, expansionist regime in central Europe who kept taking over more and more land. Rather than oppose this regime, the nations in a position to resist advocated a policy of appeasement. One leader was famous for saying it would secure "peace for our time". Anyone remember how that worked out?

Letting a bully have what he wants isn't good for anyone.

Witty Username

2011-03-14, 11:28 PM

Don't worry, I've addresed that. It's still fecal matter, only of a certain variety.

Huh. Narren explained it pretty well. I ain't saying it's weird to think that there is said vengeance cycle going on. I AM saying is, to put it bluntly, this keep the peace crap, this Azurites should live and let live in order to end the hatred or whatever hippie nonsense is being spewn, is outright ludicrous.
Put simply, I agree

Put complexly, Vengeance would not be taking the city back. Vengeance would Slaughtering every goblinoid and goblinoid looking like thing at azure city and on the way to.
The Azurites have a right to their city and to use force to take it back. So long as they don't turn into elf dude who threw a hobo off a wall for no reason.

JonestheSpy

2011-03-15, 12:34 AM

Aye, the variety supported by the author's own words.

You know, I think the most interesting thing about threads like this are how they illustrate the way people's interaction with art goes so far beyond the creator's intent, and has much more to do with what people bring with them to the experience.

It seems very obvious to me that Rich Burlew intends to explore the contrasts between real-life moral complexity versus simple labels that get slapped on people - both in roleplaying and in real life. Thus the horrific scene of Paladins killing innocent goblins in Start of Darkness, the other jerkwad paladin in Origin of the PC's, the evil-but-sympathetic Mother Dragon, etc - not to mention Miko. And yet there are plenty of people who seem to have interest in this exploration, for reasons from it's not as fun to have moral complexity and inability to let go of DnD stereotypes of some races as 'evil' despite the story's explicit portrayals otherwise to some obvious real-life baggage about the morality of wartime actions that they're carrying over into their perception of this story (and here I'm being somewhat meta, recalling some posters' observations about real-life conflicts in earlier threads that got scrubbed).

I realize that sounds rather critical, accusing some folks of "not getting" what the story is "supposed" to mean - and I suppose that's partly true - but more it's just on observation about how the Deconstructionalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) were so spot on about so much.

faustin

2011-03-15, 04:54 AM

The Azurites have a right to their city and to use force to take it back. So long as they don't turn into elf dude who threw a hobo off a wall for no reason.

"I don´t see the reason to burden Thanh with the petty details of this sort of this". Obviously there are mixed attitudes inside the azurites, but everyone agrees that leaders like T or Hinjo won´t approve and won´t allow that sort of "details"".

sims796

2011-03-15, 07:04 AM

You know, I think the most interesting thing about threads like this are how they illustrate the way people's interaction with art goes so far beyond the creator's intent, and has much more to do with what people bring with them to the experience.

It seems very obvious to me that Rich Burlew intends to explore the contrasts between real-life moral complexity versus simple labels that get slapped on people - both in roleplaying and in real life. Thus the horrific scene of Paladins killing innocent goblins in Start of Darkness, the other jerkwad paladin in Origin of the PC's, the evil-but-sympathetic Mother Dragon, etc - not to mention Miko. And yet there are plenty of people who seem to have interest in this exploration, for reasons from it's not as fun to have moral complexity and inability to let go of DnD stereotypes of some races as 'evil' despite the story's explicit portrayals otherwise to some obvious real-life baggage about the morality of wartime actions that they're carrying over into their perception of this story (and here I'm being somewhat meta, recalling some posters' observations about real-life conflicts in earlier threads that got scrubbed).

I realize that sounds rather critical, accusing some folks of "not getting" what the story is "supposed" to mean - and I suppose that's partly true - but more it's just on observation about how the Deconstructionalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) were so spot on about so much.

That is, of course, assuming that said people didn't already see it in the author's view. Maybe, and don't call me crazy here, they did see it in the way the author presented his work, yet does not agree with it outright. Chances are, they do get what the story is "supposed" to mean, yet they either do not see it in the same way, or do not see it as deeply.

Of course, maybe they got far too deep in it, as evident by a few of Lord Raziere's posts.

Narren

2011-03-15, 07:39 AM

pendell

2011-03-15, 09:33 AM

I hope you're prepared for ongoing disappointment.

In the real world? Absolutely.

But this isn't the real world. This is D&D. And one of the advantages of fantasy -- one of the reason seek out fantasy worlds -- is because this is a world where evil really is objective and incarnate. You really can line up all the evil people and kill them with a clear conscience. And good is also objective and incarnate. You can literally measure how good a person is and know whether they are on the side of the angels or not, which you can't typically do in the grey-vs.-grey real world.

It seems very obvious to me that Rich Burlew intends to explore the contrasts between real-life moral complexity versus simple labels that get slapped on people - both in roleplaying and in real life. Thus the horrific scene of Paladins killing innocent goblins in Start of Darkness, the other jerkwad paladin in Origin of the PC's, the evil-but-sympathetic Mother Dragon, etc - not to mention Miko. And yet there are plenty of people who seem to have interest in this exploration, for reasons from it's not as fun to have moral complexity and inability to let go of DnD stereotypes of some races as 'evil' despite the story's explicit portrayals otherwise to some obvious real-life baggage about the morality of wartime actions that they're carrying over into their perception of this story (and here I'm being somewhat meta, recalling some posters' observations about real-life conflicts in earlier threads that got scrubbed).

And yet the irony is that although Mr. Burlew challenges the axiomatic D&D view of the world, in the end he upholds the very axioms he criticizes. The goblins ARE evil. The paladins ARE good. In a war of good vs. evil, the Paladins are the good guys and the goblins are the bad guys.

This is objectively verifiable in-universe via detect good and detect evil.

HOWEVER, an important point is that, overlaid on this backdrop, the characters are not CARTOON good and CARTOON evil. The evil villains are not caped villains in black twirling mustaches constantly tying ladies to railroad tracks For Teh Evolz. They are intelligent beings with a reason for doing what they do, a plausible goal, and a plausible means for getting there.

Likewise, the good guys are not duddly-dorights with strong jaws and shining teeth who never lie, never steal, help little old ladies cross the street. Rather, they tend to be good with all the faults of good people in the real world: An inability to question the Received Wisdom they've been given, black-and-white thinking, an over-zealousness in regards to judgement and a lack of willingness to explore compassion and mercy, the marks of the truly good, IIRC Book of Exalted Deeds (please correct if I am wrong).

The "good guys" and the "heroes" have been fighting evil for so long they have many of the hallmarks of evil themselves. As Nietzche said, those who would fight monsters must take care lest they become what they despise. Both the Sapphire Guard from SOD and the elf who murdered the goblin prisoner are skating close to that line.

So this is not simple good vs. simple evil. This is plausible tarnished, flawed good versus plausible flawed, somewhat noble, evil.

BUT, let not this little bit of complexity overshadow one very important thing: Despite the fact that this is a battle of COMPLEX good versus COMPLEX evil, IT IS STILL A BATTLE OF GOOD VERSUS EVIL. THE PALADINS ARE IN THE RIGHT AND THE GOBLINS ARE NOT. THIS IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE IN THE OOTS UNIVERSE.

Here's another bit of irony for you: The Giant is portraying characters as being three-dimensional, intelligent beings, rather than two-dimensional, cardboard saturday morning cartoons. And the irony is they really ARE two-dimensional saturday morning cartoons. They are literal stick figures.

I wonder if that is a deliberate artistic choice?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

JonestheSpy

2011-03-15, 11:20 AM

pendell

2011-03-15, 11:31 AM

So long story short, in my opinion one of the themes to the story is how the arbitrary labels, whether via personal prejudices or game mechanics - have little to do with actual good and evil.

I question this assertion. First, based on Roy's interview to enter Celestia. "Good" and "evil" are more than just labels, and the gods of OOTSverse enforce this. Second, based on Miko's action which was unlawful. Her LG gods noticed this, and promptly stripped her of her power. She became Miko the fighter-without-bonus-feats.

I also remind you of Roy's trial in Azure City: While that was a sham, the basic premise is still true. This is a world where it really is literally possible to summon an Outsider of Pure Law And Good to judge the facts of a case and render an impartial, utterly indisputable ruling.

That tends to burn away shades of gray in a hurry.

"Good" and "Evil" in OOTS verse are not mere labels; they are quite similar to what we know here in the real world. Further, the OOTS verse has gods of good and of evil who enforce this.

I don't know to what extent goblins are evil by nature or by nurture. However, I think it safe to say that, whatever the potential alignment of your average goblin, the Dark One is Evil and Redcloak is evil. They are evil beings working evil ends. Thus the society they have built and lead is inherently evil, although the same cannot be said of every individual member of that society.

But here is one other point that needs to be made. Yes, the Dark One is an evil god. But he is the only god the goblins have raised .He is not an omnipotent being who came into existence on his own -- he was BROUGHT into existence by the goblins, just as Banjo was brought into existence by Elan.

Compare this to the elven gods. I suspect they are a reflection of their people -- caring for nature, somewhat racist towards other people, but quite good.

Compare this to the gods of humans, which like humans, are all over the map.

The goblins , in all their history from the beginning of time until today, have raised up exactly ONE god.

And that is the Dark One.

What does that tell you about their people?

It doesn't mean that they are irredeemable. It doesn't mean that the lot they were given by the gods at creation is fair. But it will take a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice to build even a neutral goblin society, when you have evil goblins from below and an evil goblin god above trying to force society in the direction THEY wish.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

sims796

2011-03-15, 01:20 PM

And excellent couple of posts done by what's-his-name there. I must also add that in the OOtS universe, even the characters themselves know of there role. Redcloak outright labeled himself as evil - just not in the way Xylon is. He knows what he is, and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Evil though he may be, he still has a degree in nobility, and isn't a textbook example. But at heart, he's evil.

Rich has given us alot to think about, but the comic isn't trying to shove some deep, soulful lesson about good and evil down our throats. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if he made a joke about a classic, mustache twirling, damsel destressing villain on the train tracks.

Souhiro

2011-03-15, 03:36 PM

Since Hobbos and Gobbos grow and usually becomes a violent race, since most of them will follow The Dark One teachings (Kill Kill Kill! Those damned gods made us to grant XP to their clerics!)

There are many Hoblogblin lovers here, Don't forget that Azurites did NOT had hobgoblins as prisoners, nor as slaves, nor as "Shark Food" nor they tortured each day just for amusement or self justification.

A "Good" nation, and by Good it would be "More good than lawful" would battle Azure, defeat hobbos and gobbos, and let the women and children to go away, but not before swearing three times on a circle of truth that "Nor they, nor their progeny, would go back to the territory that this day is Azure City, and never will try, nor incite any hostile movement against this lands or any of their citicens". Since most of hobbos and gobbos who could have any WILL Save Bonus would have died in the war, and swearing three times almost discard any natural 20, we could say that a retaliation isn't very probable.

Seriously, Retaking Azure is a right of every azurite.

Kish

2011-03-15, 05:18 PM

In the real world? Absolutely.
I hope you're also prepared for ongoing disappointment in the Order of the Stick comic.

'Cause, you know, whether an author could present a "lining up all the goblins and killing them is the correct choice" plot is quite a different question from whether Rich Burlew is presenting a "lining up all the goblins and killing them is the correct choice" plot. We apparently disagree on whether they have the same answer or a different answer.

And humans have raised 0 gods. There are, as far as I can tell, actually 0 gods of humans, as opposed to gods of geographical regions who are worshiped by residents which include humans.

veti

2011-03-15, 05:44 PM

But this isn't the real world. This is D&D. And one of the advantages of fantasy -- one of the reason seek out fantasy worlds -- is because this is a world where evil really is objective and incarnate. You really can line up all the evil people and kill them with a clear conscience. And good is also objective and incarnate. You can literally measure how good a person is and know whether they are on the side of the angels or not, which you can't typically do in the grey-vs.-grey real world.

Whenever this discussion comes up, that word "objective" gets lobbed into the discussion.

What does it mean, precisely? What is this "objective" scale of good vs evil, and how exactly do we measure people against it?

"Detect Alignment" is a popular answer to the second question. But Rich has already dedicated an entire strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) to demonstrating why that's not infallible. And we see that 'good' societies - Cliffport, Azure City, even Celestia itself - don't rely on it, or even use it, in their legal processes.

Another phrase you use is "on the side of the angels". That makes sense only if angels are axiomatically good - whatever an angel does, is good, by definition. But if that's true, where do "fallen angels" come from? An angel can't do Evil, because as soon as they do It - whatever It is - It becomes Good.

So... on the side of the gods? But gods can be of any alignment.

No, for the definition of "good" and "evil" to be objective, it has to come from outside the game universe. Sometimes, some sort of "over-god" (like Ao, or the Pact Primeval) is invented to justify this definition in game-mechanical terms, but since these authorities are always carefully defined as inaccessible and unaccountable, they're not really part of the game - it's just a hand-wavy description for "what the DM says, goes".

But the DM in the Stickverse seems to be saying "Well, it's a little more complicated than that". Which leads us right back to exactly the sort of moral greyness that you're trying to escape from.

The "good guys" and the "heroes" have been fighting evil for so long they have many of the hallmarks of evil themselves. As Nietzche said, those who would fight monsters must take care lest they become what they despise. Both the Sapphire Guard from SOD and the elf who murdered the goblin prisoner are skating close to that line.

So this is not simple good vs. simple evil. This is plausible tarnished, flawed good versus plausible flawed, somewhat noble, evil.

BUT, let not this little bit of complexity overshadow one very important thing: Despite the fact that this is a battle of COMPLEX good versus COMPLEX evil, IT IS STILL A BATTLE OF GOOD VERSUS EVIL. THE PALADINS ARE IN THE RIGHT AND THE GOBLINS ARE NOT. THIS IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE IN THE OOTS UNIVERSE.

There's that word "objective" again.

If one side is Good and the other side is Evil, then there is no "skating close to that line". There is no line. Because "good" and "evil" don't relate to behaviour - they're purely attributes of who or what you are. All those alignment descriptions, all the countless reams of books and speculation about who'd push whom off what in which hypothetical scenarios - are all a complete waste of time. Alignment is something written on a character sheet, and that's all there is to it.

I think OOTS has quite decisively rejected that viewpoint. All the evidence we have shows that to be considered "good" or "evil" in the Stickverse, you have to earn it. And you may be "objectively" one thing or the other, but if that "objective" standard is never applied (and for goodness' sake, if it won't even get you into Celestia, then what is it for exactly?), it might as well not exist.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-15, 07:33 PM

Here's the way I see it. Good and Evil are both concepts that are measurable in DnD. Additionally, there are gods that preach both sides of the spectrum. As such, neither one is "right" or "wrong". Their just alternating viewpoints. "But G-Man," you say, "That makes no sense. Good falls most closely in line with real world morals, and as such is the better of the too!" "Ah, dear reader," say I "That's because in the real world the majority of major religions preached things that we consider to be 'good'. If there were literal gods telling us to do things that were evil, the moral spectrum would be more convoluted."

So yeah. Morality exists in the eye of the beholder. Neither Good nor Evil are any better or worse.

Dark Matter

2011-03-15, 08:38 PM

And yet the irony is that although Mr. Burlew challenges the axiomatic D&D view of the world, in the end he upholds the very axioms he criticizes. The goblins ARE evil. The paladins ARE good. In a war of good vs. evil, the Paladins are the good guys and the goblins are the bad guys.Well put.

And humans have raised 0 gods. There are, as far as I can tell, actually 0 gods of humans, as opposed to gods of geographical regions who are worshiped by residents which include humans.All of the dead gods were human, something like half of the current ones are. The humans have raised a diversity of gods to match their diverse interests.

JonestheSpy

2011-03-15, 08:52 PM

Morality exists in the eye of the beholder. Neither Good nor Evil are any better or worse.

Now, I don't think that's even slightly true in the world Rich Burlew has created. There is clearly good and evil, there's just a huge disconnect between the common labels and actual morality. Saying there's no real difference between good and evil is the argument of Tarquin.

All of the dead gods were human, something like half of the current ones are. The humans have raised a diversity of gods to match their diverse interests.

Dude, humans haven't raised anything divine - the gods created humans, twice now in fact. This is kind of a good example of what I mentioned earlier, how a reader will bring their own preconceptions and ideas to a story and therefore experience in ways the author never intended.

pendell

2011-03-15, 10:56 PM

It's midnight, so I'm only going to do a quick response.

Dude, humans haven't raised anything divine - the gods created humans, twice now in fact.

In point of fact humans have raised at least one and possibly two gods in the course of this very comic -- Banjo and Giggles, the god of slapstick.

This is not to say humans have not raised other gods in other times and places off-panel.

But even if that hasn't happened and Banjo/Giggles don't count, I suggest that humans have the power to raise gods but have not done so because the existing gods adequately fulfill their needs. I further stand by my statement that humans worship all manner of gods, who are indeed all over the map. As are humans. There's one for every flavor of alignment and humans are represented in all of them.

It occurs to me that if elves had no gods but humans did -- perhaps OOTSverse was created as a human-centric world. Humans are the center of the universe, and everything else is a demi-human at best, or XP fodder at worst.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dark Matter

2011-03-16, 06:10 AM

Dude, humans haven't raised anything divine - the gods created humans, twice now in fact. This is kind of a good example of what I mentioned earlier, how a reader will bring their own preconceptions and ideas to a story and therefore experience in ways the author never intended.All of the gods?

What we *know* is that some/most of the gods predate the universe, and some/most of them are shown as human. We also know that the Elves and Goblinoids have raised their own (but we don't know how many elves have been raised, or even which universe it was done in).

But there seem to be a lot of human gods running around.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-16, 08:22 AM

I hate the objective excuse for DnD morality, if DnD was truly objective in its morality, there wouldn't be any argument over whether or not to take back Azure City, everyone would automatically do the real right thing, because it would be objectively provable that its the right thing to do, the fact that it can be argued at all just proves that DnD morality is subjective, because if something is objective, that means its a fact and you can't argue facts.

meaning when you say the entire DnD universe runs on objective morality, you could quantify acts of morality, measure them to see how good one action is against another action, test morality down to a science and then write a textbook with irrevocable evidence that is the most good you could possibly do in this situation. because that is what objective is: something measurable enough that anyone no matter how many people see it, they could look at it and give you the same answer. for example we all know that 1 + 1 = 2 and that we can't really argue that.

however look at this argument here, whether to retake Azure city or not. therefore not objective because it is arguable.

Dark Matter

2011-03-16, 08:37 AM

I hate the objective excuse for DnD morality, if DnD was truly objective in its morality, there wouldn't be any argument over whether or not to take back Azure City, everyone would automatically do the real right thing, because it would be objectively provable that its the right thing to do, the fact that it can be argued at all just proves that DnD morality is subjective, because if something is objective, that means its a fact and you can't argue facts.There's a difference between "doing the right thing" and "doing Good".

In DnD Evil is just an alternative life style, it has it's own gods and said gods reward their followers. The same can be said about Law/Neutrality/Chaos/Good.

Further, "the right thing" is arguable even with that understanding. Would it be Good to take back the city? Over what time frame? Worse, how about if you try and Fail? A lot of Paladins got killed trying to stop Xykon... arguably the greater good would have been served if they'd ran away so they could level up and then come back.

pendell

2011-03-16, 08:46 AM

I hate the objective excuse for DnD morality, if DnD was truly objective in its morality, there wouldn't be any argument over whether or not to take back Azure City

There isn't any argument in-universe about the morality of taking back Azure City or not. The Paladins are doing it; the elves are helping them. All the argument is occurring out here because we are trying to impose real-world ideas on a world that explicitly runs on game mechanics.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-16, 08:55 AM

There isn't any argument in-universe about the morality of taking back Azure City or not. The Paladins are doing it; the elves are helping them. All the argument is occurring out here because we are trying to impose real-world ideas on a world that explicitly runs on game mechanics.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

yea, but since we can't measure DnD morality and prove that retaking it is most good that can be done, your point is invalid, sure they are retaking it, the thing is we still don't know whether is it most good thing that can be done.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-16, 09:24 AM

There isn't any argument in-universe about the morality of taking back Azure City or not. The Paladins are doing it; the elves are helping them. All the argument is occurring out here because we are trying to impose real-world ideas on a world that explicitly runs on game mechanics.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Right, that's what I was saying earlier. The Paladins and the Elves think that taking the city back is "right" because they find that it falls in line with their Good alignment. Similarly, the hobgoblins felt that it was "right" for them to take and occupy the city in the first place, because it fell in line with their Evil alignment. Neither side is wrong, because their actions fall perfectly in line with their morality.

pendell

2011-03-16, 09:27 AM

yea, but since we can't measure DnD morality and prove that retaking it is most good that can be done, your point is invalid, sure they are retaking it, the thing is we still don't know whether is it most good thing that can be done.

If you're arguing real-world good and evil I cannot engage you for obvious reasons. I've already got one infraction and I've no wish to add another.

If you're arguing good and evil as part of the D&D alignment system then I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Good and Evil ARE objective in D&D. They are tangible phenomena that you can measure, touch, see.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-16, 09:31 AM

Yes, they are. Which is why neither is right or wrong. They're just there.

pendell

2011-03-16, 11:35 AM

Been thinking about this, and looked up alignment in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)

"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.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

So alignment "Good" and "Evil" are not merely team jerseys. Their respective "teams" have these specific traits.

And I think that, on examination, you'll agree with me that the various adherents to the alignments do indeed match up with these traits. The goblins do indeed hurt, kill, and oppress others who are not goblins. Redcloak actively pursues evil out of duty to an acknowledged and admitted evil deity, which is the precise letter of the alignment description.

Hinjo and Roy do indeed have a respect for life and sacrifice themselves for the sake of other people.

It is a reasonable argument that the actions of Sapphire Guard in SOD were evil -- but an evil action does not make an evil alignment, no more than a good action makes a good alignment.

So "detect good" and "detect evil" are more than team jerseys. When the gods look at a persons heart and judge them -- as this spell requests -- the determination is made based on the person's adherence to these attributes. A person does not detect as evil merely because they have green skin and teeth -- they detect as evil because they hurt, kill, and oppress others. Becuase that is their innermost intent, the direction their internal compass is pointing in. The color of their skin has NOTHING to do with it.

There is an SOD irony to this.

Redcloak tells the goblins in a speech that he dreams of a day when the goblins are judged not on the color of the skin but on the content of their character.

The irony is that based on the paladin's speech in the destruction of their village -- "the gods have judged your hearts and found them to be evil" -- is that the goblins of the village WERE judged on the content of their character, and that character was found Evil. Redcloak got exactly what he asked for ... which is not what he wanted.

So: The paladins are good and are therefore defined by this list of traits, even if they do not measure up to these traits perfectly at all times and in all places. Likewise, the nation of gobbotopia -- collectively -- is Evil, and therefore defined by an entirely different set of traits, even if they ALSO do not measure up to these traits perfectly at all times. As the Celestial told Roy during his interview, it's the intent of the heart, what the individual is TRYING to do in their heart, that determines their alignment. It's the innermost intent of the heart that matters most, not individual successes or failures.

I think the fact that good and evil are not cardboard cutouts confuses some people as to the underlying issues here. But it's still clear; Paladins are good as defined by D&D and goblins are evil as defined. Mostly. More or less. And in D&D, a war to retake a city from evil people and give it back to the good victims they took it from is a good act.

Allowing the evil nation of gobbotopia to flourish and grow would be an evil act. The Paladins would not be permitted to make peace and allow the nation to live in peace unless they could somehow work to make Gobbotopia neutral or good. Given the Dark One's grip on the city, I strongly doubt such missionary activity would be successful.

By D&D terms, liberation of the city and expulsion of its evil inhabitants is the only plausible option.

To what extent that matches up with real world morality is a forbidden topic on this forum.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

t209

2011-03-16, 05:07 PM

More easier: Instigate a civil war between Good Goblins (Still believing in coexisting with human) and Bad Goblins (believing in killing humans). That way no ethics needed, it will pick off the bad ones from good ones.

Kish

2011-03-16, 05:09 PM

Been thinking about this, and looked up alignment in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)

So alignment "Good" and "Evil" are not merely team jerseys. Their respective "teams" have these specific traits.

And I think that, on examination, you'll agree with me that the various adherents to the alignments do indeed match up with these traits.
[...]
Hinjo and Roy do indeed have a respect for life and sacrifice themselves for the sake of other people.

Certainly. Which is why Roy and Hinjo are unlikely to pursue goblin genocide. This section of the debate seems to be whether they would be morally correct to do so--as the Professor put it, "I am for the Azurites only because I can't see the goblins as anything other than cannon fodder.

I mean,they live to be killed. They are meant to be an endless red shirt army."

The fact that Roy and Hinjo and conspicuously not the leader of Team Peregrine are good doesn't logically lead to "and therefore it would be good for them to slaughter all the goblins." It logically leads to, "And therefore, they won't."

G-Man Graves

2011-03-16, 05:24 PM

Thank you, Kish. This reminds me of the same thing getting brought up in the "Will Enor Survive" thread. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean the good guys automatically cleave and smite.

pendell

2011-03-16, 06:14 PM

Which is why Roy and Hinjo are unlikely to pursue goblin genocide.

Well, in that case I must butt out. The question I was arguing was "Is it right for the Azurites to reclaim their city and their people from the goblins, or should they simply accept defeat and sing 'kumbaya'?

Somehow "Free the city and expel the goblins" seems to have mutated into "free the city and kill every last goblin, man, woman, and child."

I am NOT for that. I can see, though, how the Azurites would be tempted to such a deed and I think both Roy and Hinjo will have their hands full preventing a general massacre after the battle is won.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

veti

2011-03-16, 07:51 PM

Been thinking about this, and looked up alignment in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)
[...]

Well argued. I don't disagree with any of this. Well, except possibly:

So "detect good" and "detect evil" are more than team jerseys. When the gods look at a persons heart and judge them -- as this spell requests -- the determination is made based on the person's adherence to these attributes.

Really? If it's "the gods" doing it, then surely "the gods" can apply whatever criteria they like to decide what the result should be. And is there any guarantee that two opposed gods, or similar gods from different pantheons - or even the same god with or without a hangover - would always reach the same conclusion?

And that's without even considering the ways in which "detect" spells can be deceived, even inadvertently, by their own targets.

The uncomfortable truth is that if alignment means anything more than a "team jersey", then there has to be a Judge.

Now if you're, say, Durkon, that's not an issue. Your god is the judge. If anyone else happens to get contrary results, that's okay - they're wrong, that's all there is to it. From Durkon's perspective, alignments are indeed objective.

But if you don't have a deep-rooted faith in any one of the setting's deities - it's more problematic. And unless the setting includes some sort of refereeing "overgod" figure or structure, it's far from clear how "objective" alignment can exist. (It's been suggested that the Snarl might fill this role in the Stickverse setting - the gods agreed to co-operate in order to contain the Snarl, and it's possible they might have agreed to a common moral framework at the same time. However, this has never been mentioned. And even if it does exist, there's still no guarantee that its rules are applied consistently.)

Narren

2011-03-16, 08:07 PM

Well argued. I don't disagree with any of this. Well, except possibly:

Really? If it's "the gods" doing it, then surely "the gods" can apply whatever criteria they like to decide what the result should be. And is there any guarantee that two opposed gods, or similar gods from different pantheons - or even the same god with or without a hangover - would always reach the same conclusion?

And that's without even considering the ways in which "detect" spells can be deceived, even inadvertently, by their own targets.

The uncomfortable truth is that if alignment means anything more than a "team jersey", then there has to be a Judge.

Now if you're, say, Durkon, that's not an issue. Your god is the judge. If anyone else happens to get contrary results, that's okay - they're wrong, that's all there is to it. From Durkon's perspective, alignments are indeed objective.

But if you don't have a deep-rooted faith in any one of the setting's deities - it's more problematic. And unless the setting includes some sort of refereeing "overgod" figure or structure, it's far from clear how "objective" alignment can exist. (It's been suggested that the Snarl might fill this role in the Stickverse setting - the gods agreed to co-operate in order to contain the Snarl, and it's possible they might have agreed to a common moral framework at the same time. However, this has never been mentioned. And even if it does exist, there's still no guarantee that its rules are applied consistently.)

But we have no reason to believe that this is the case. Redcloak openly admits that he is evil. The hobgoblin cleric here is casting detect good to find the paladins. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

The gods are pretty much in agreement of who is good and who is evil.

veti

2011-03-16, 08:34 PM

But we have no reason to believe that this is the case. Redcloak openly admits that he is evil. The hobgoblin cleric here is casting detect good to find the paladins. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

The gods are pretty much in agreement of who is good and who is evil.

The devil is in the detail here. "Pretty much" is not good enough. It's easy to agree if you only look at the most extreme cases, but that's not where the judging is most needed.

Besides, it's clear from Redcloak's speech that he, personally, does see Good and Evil as "team jerseys", and on that basis he's happy to identify himself as "Evil". So it's not surprising that clerics belonging to his church would use "Detect Good" to identify their enemies.

The interesting question is: if they came across a hobgoblin who happened to believe in compassion, respect for sentient beings, etc., etc., but was also a loyal and faithful lay member of the Dark One's flock - would he register as "Good" (i.e. "Enemy")?

sims796

2011-03-16, 08:38 PM

The devil is in the detail here. "Pretty much" is not good enough. It's easy to agree if you only look at the most extreme cases, but that's not where the judging is most needed.

Besides, it's clear from Redcloak's speech that he, personally, does see Good and Evil as "team jerseys", and on that basis he's happy to identify himself as "Evil". So it's not surprising that clerics belonging to his church would use "Detect Good" to identify their enemies.

The interesting question is: if they came across a hobgoblin who happened to believe in compassion, respect for sentient beings, etc., etc., but was also a loyal and faithful lay member of the Dark One's flock - would he register as "Good" (i.e. "Enemy")?

OOooooo...

Okay, I got a good one. What if, in order to be a Dark One, you must activley commit atrocities? But hold on! That same hobo is still part of the group, yet he stil feels compassion, respect, all that Bambi love. Like, he does it because he must, in that he feels he is good, and is spreading it the "right way"

What then? Did I just pull a Chris Angel?

Warren Dew

2011-03-16, 08:43 PM

I hope you're also prepared for ongoing disappointment in the Order of the Stick comic.
Pendell doesn't seem disappointed now, so it can hardly be ongoing.

The truth is, there isn't nearly as much "moral complexity" in the comic itself as the forums make out. Most people don't find it necessary to obsess over exactly what alignment Mr. Scruffy is to understand and enjoy the comic.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean the good guys automatically cleave and smite.
Pretty sure Roy didn't have any other good reason to cleave the sleeping goblins here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html

Narren

2011-03-16, 09:12 PM

The devil is in the detail here. "Pretty much" is not good enough. It's easy to agree if you only look at the most extreme cases, but that's not where the judging is most needed.

I'm looking at the only cases I recall seeing in the comic. And "pretty much" is just how I talk. I see no reason to assume that the gods have differing opinions on what is good and what is evil.

does[/i] see Good and Evil as "team jerseys", and on that basis he's happy to identify himself as "Evil". So it's not surprising that clerics belonging to his church would use "Detect Good" to identify their enemies.

Umm...but you just said that the detect spells can't be relied upon because the gods can interpret them however they want. But if the results are the same every time from every cleric (and the comic gives us no reason to believe they are not) then the gods MUST agree on what constitutes good and evil.

but[/i] was also a loyal and faithful lay member of the Dark One's flock - would he register as "Good" (i.e. "Enemy")?

Well, the dogma of the Dark One isn't exactly spelled out, but I've never seen an evil deity that will allow compassionate and life-respecting faithful. His dogma probably will not allow his followers to respect the life of a non-goblin.

And if it does, that simply means that there may be different factions of the faith...some good, and some evil. But good goblins worshiping by the side of evil goblins are going to have some serious issues when it comes time for action. For starters, I can't imagine a single good goblin being ok with how the humans are treated in Azure City.

Dark Matter

2011-03-16, 09:26 PM

Pretty sure Roy didn't have any other good reason to cleave the sleeping goblins here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.htmlYou think?

It's on a battle field and they're front line troops for an amazingly evil Lich. Roy doesn't have the time or resources to take them captive, there's no one he could take them to, and if he let them live they'd be trying to kill party members (and this was a time when the party was endangered by a handful of goblins).

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-16, 09:51 PM

So, uh, are you joking around, or are you purposely misinterpreting my words?
Sorry, the overall attitude of your posts gave me the impression that you didn't fully believe it or something.

veti

2011-03-16, 10:14 PM

Umm...but you just said that the detect spells can't be relied upon because the gods can interpret them however they want. But if the results are the same every time from every cleric (and the comic gives us no reason to believe they are not) then the gods MUST agree on what constitutes good and evil.

I'm not saying that the results aren't the same every time from every cleric. What I'm saying is: why would they be?

In terms of evidence, there's none either way - we've never seen the same object or person be tested more than once (except by Miko, and that example wasn't exactly confidence-inspiring). So absent evidence, what's the logic? Why should we assume that the test is reliable?

If the only answer to that question is "because Good and Evil are objectively real", then you've got a circular argument: we know Good and Evil are objective because Detect Alignment works reliably, but our only reason to believe that Detect Alignment works reliably is our assumption that Good and Evil are objective.

And we haven't even mentioned the possibility that the gods might lie. Now, I guess you're thinking "that can't happen". But what's to stop them?

And if it does, that simply means that there may be different factions of the faith...some good, and some evil. But good goblins worshiping by the side of evil goblins are going to have some serious issues when it comes time for action. For starters, I can't imagine a single good goblin being ok with how the humans are treated in Azure City.

If he's neither a slave owner nor an overseer, there's no reason why anyone would ever have solicited his opinion on that subject. There are lots of things I'm not "okay with" in the real world, but I still pay my taxes, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't show up on a scan testing for "enemies of the state".

Dark Matter

2011-03-17, 08:13 AM

Why should we assume that the test is reliable?Very clearly the test is NOT reliable (Miko's misjudge of Roy because of Xykon's hat). This is why you're not supposed to run around killing everything which sets off the Detect Evil radar.

Detect Evil is evidence, and strong evidence at that, but it's not a full Deva review. But so what? There's world of difference between Detect Evil failing occasionally and the Definition of Good and Evil being mutable.

And on a side note, Miko was behaving correctly when she tried to kill Roy. She had a ton of evidence (much of it Nale's fault) saying he was running around committing Evil (as opposed to simply being evil).

If he's neither a slave owner nor an overseer, there's no reason why anyone would ever have solicited his opinion on that subject. There are lots of things I'm not "okay with" in the real world, but I still pay my taxes, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't show up on a scan testing for "enemies of the state".If you're on the battlefield fighting for slavery, then you can expect to be killed with your Evil brethren by the forces of Good and it won't affect their alignment.

When your soul is judged by the Deva she *might* not hold it against you (I question how far a "Good" person can go in supporting Evil and still be Good), but she's also not going to hold killing you against whoever did so.

Being "Good" doesn't give you a licence for committing Evil acts.

Narren

2011-03-17, 08:36 AM

I'm not saying that the results aren't the same every time from every cleric. What I'm saying is: why would they be?

In terms of evidence, there's none either way - we've never seen the same object or person be tested more than once (except by Miko, and that example wasn't exactly confidence-inspiring). So absent evidence, what's the logic? Why should we assume that the test is reliable?

We have to go off of what we have. What we have are good clerics/paladins using detect evil to find evil creatures, and we have evil clerics using detect good to find good creatures.

This is a comic based off of Dungeons & Dragons. While the author occasionally strays from the rules, he generally stays within the guidelines set by a D&D world. Those guidelines are, in fact, the butt of many jokes. And when he strays from those rules, he generally points it out in-comic.

In D&D, the detect spells detect who is good and who is evil (not taking into account any magical obfuscation). To assume that the gods alter these detection spells (or to not assume the tests are reliable, if you want to argue semantics) is illogical. Until it is stated otherwise, there is no reason to assume that the comic is not abiding by the regular rules of D&D. Otherwise, we would have to wonder EVERYTHING that isn't explicitly stated. It's like saying "I think Fireball does d10 damage and not d6 damage, and you can't prove me wrong."

And we haven't even mentioned the possibility that the gods might lie. Now, I guess you're thinking "that can't happen". But what's to stop them?
Nothing. In fact, I suspect the Dark One may be lying about a thing or two. But just because he's evil :smalltongue:

If he's neither a slave owner nor an overseer, there's no reason why anyone would ever have solicited his opinion on that subject. There are lots of things I'm not "okay with" in the real world, but I still pay my taxes, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't show up on a scan testing for "enemies of the state".

There's a big difference between disagreeing with some policies of government, and supporting a government that has institutionalized slavery and torture. Again, we have seen ZERO evidence of a single hobgoblin sympathizing with the humans. And we've seen TONS of evidence of them brutalizing them and getting excited about killing them. Though I could buy a sympathetic hobgoblin being in the mix, I think they would be quite rare.

And Detect Evil doesn't detect "enemies of the state." It detects.....evil. Regardless of race or political affiliation. If there is a good hobgoblin out there (and I'm sure they exist, though I doubt they can worship the Dark One) we have no reason to think that they would detect as evil. That's never happened, and that's not how detect spells work as we know them.

pendell

2011-03-17, 08:43 AM

Besides, it's clear from Redcloak's speech that he, personally, does see Good and Evil as "team jerseys", and on that basis he's happy to identify himself as "Evil". So it's not surprising that clerics belonging to his church would use "Detect Good" to identify their enemies.

So he's an Evil person who has a twisted view of good and evil which allows him to perceive himself as "good" even when his entire universe says otherwise. And in an objective universe, as D&D is, his opinion means squat.

It's very uncommon in OOTS or the real world for any sapient being to willingly acknowledge that they really are Evil. Xykon is one of the few. Most other people find some way to twist it around -- like Redcloak -- so they can still believe themselves to be "good" even when they're not.

And if you read SOD, you know that Redcloak was willing to

kill his own brother and animate his corpse.

Redcloak managed to lie himself into believing it was the right thing to do. Xykon had no such qualms. He told Redcloak exactly what he'd done and why he'd done it. And that's why Redcloak will follow Xykon from now to the end of the comic. Because if he betrayed Xykon, then he would have to acknowledge the truth of what he'd done and what he was.

As seen in SOD, Redcloak has an uncanny ability to defend the indefensible and to excuse real, present crimes in the service of the Plan. He may not believe he is truly evil, but this is because he can't accept the truth about himself , his god, or the world he lives in. He lives in a delusion, partly because he was brainwashed by the Dark One, and partly by his own choice.

This is spelled out very clearly in Xykon's Author Filibuster at the end of Start of Darkness.

It is possible Redcloak will one day be able to break out of this delusion ... as he started to do when the hobgoblin gave his life for Redcloak ... so there's the possibility of some real recovery. But until then, Redcloak is deluding himself and any others who buy his arguments.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Narren

2011-03-17, 08:52 AM

So he's an Evil person who has a twisted view of good and evil which allows him to perceive himself as "good" even when his entire universe says otherwise. And in an objective universe, as D&D is, his opinion means squat.

It's very uncommon in OOTS or the real world for any sapient being to willingly acknowledge that they really are Evil. Xykon is one of the few. Most other people find some way to twist it around -- like Redcloak -- so they can still believe themselves to be "good" even when they're not.

I don't remember where, but Redcloak acknowledges himself as evil at one point. I'll try to find it.

pendell

2011-03-17, 09:32 AM

I think that when Redcloak acknowledges himself and the dark one as "Evil" he's probably using air quotes around the word. As in , he recognizes that the game mechanic and the gods brand him as evil, but he believes the definition leaves much to be desired! He believes that the "evil", as defined in their world, is a broken definition and needs fixing.

WITHIN the confines of the game system, sure he's evil. He'll acknowledge that.

From a META-game perspective -- the game above the game -- he doesn't believe he's evil. He believes he's caught in a broken game. That's why he and the dark one want to change the rules!

Compare that to Xykon, who openly acknowledges that not only the game system and the gods brand him as evil, but he believes it too! He is a willing and knowing evil being, and relishes the fact.

ETA: I believe Redcloak is mistaken, because there is a heroic goblin in SOD who undergoes everything Redcloak does but comes to an entirely different conclusion -- what I believe is the correct conclusion. This other goblin was everything Redcloak SHOULD have been, but wasn't.

That other goblin, to my mind, is the greatest hero in the comic to date. Not just because he did good things, but consider just what a horrible starting place he came from. Of all the characters in OOTS, that character is the one I would most strive to be like.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-17, 11:47 AM

What about that hobgoblin prisoner? He could have been good (he was in prison for a reason) but he was executed by the elves on no evidence.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-17, 12:01 PM

What about that hobgoblin prisoner? He could have been good (he was in prison for a reason) but he was executed by the elves on no evidence.

exactly, they didn't even kill him on the chance that he might be evil which would be evil in itself.

they just said "the only good goblin is a dead goblin" the purest form of racism ever made then threw him off the wall. Evil.

then one of the leaders complimented them for it. of course the other guy said not to tell Thanh about this so at least we know the Paladin wouldn't approve of that....

JSSheridan

2011-03-17, 12:38 PM

I don't think there's going to be any effort by the Azurites to retake the city or lands. Their nation was wiped off the map, it's armies beaten down, and it's people marginalized. The people who were accustomed to a comfortable city life and a trade based economy are now living a continent away on a remote island that is removed from any major source of trade or resources. They have become an agrarian society almost overnight, and are going to be struggling to adapt and survive.

Hinjo is in a perilous position himself. The only thing keeping him in power is the remnants of his military. Early on, he blew earning the loyalty of any other of the noble houses, and he has since been saddled with the death of the head of a major house.

The nobility has lost their estates and earnings. They will be trying to carve out their places in the new society. Hinjo needs to be involved in that lest he find himself cut out entirely, as well as ensuring that every House is treated fairly.

He also needs to restore the common people to prosperity. He's got to set up agriculture, police, courts, tax collections, sanitation, public safety, education, industry, military, trade, et al.

I'd say it's 25 years minimum before they will even be able to think about becoming a military power again. By then, it won't be these Azurites, but the next generation. I doubt they'll be interested in fighting their parent's wars.

If it were to happen though, then it would be a war of aggression by the Azurites. I wouldn't support that. The only thing I could support would be negotiations. They may be able to ransom some prisoners, but we all know they would get nowhere.

The only way they could make a just military action is if they were deployed immediately. But that would still be irresponsible by leaving their people defenseless and taking many of their leaders. There's not much chance of success either considering the state of the military. I'd plan on extracting the resistance forces too.

Hinjo's not just a military leader, but the head of a State. He can't just run off to war with his army when it suits him. His first duty is to make sure his people are safe and free.

Might doesn't make right, but we still have to deal with the reality of it.

pendell

2011-03-17, 01:46 PM

I don't think there's going to be any effort by the Azurites to retake the city or lands.

I'm trying to think of a single example either in fiction or in real-life history where a group of people , after having their homeland stolen from them, ever failed to try to take it back unless they were opposed by such overwhelming military power that the attempt was obviously useless from the start.

*Thinks*

I'm sorry, I've got nothing.

I can, however, think of a number of heroic epics where heroes did exactly that. And sometimes it didn't even matter that the attempt was obviously futile. That's what heroic epics are made of; taking on impossible odds and overcoming them. Or taking on impossible odds and losing gallantly. THIS IS SPARTAA! But in either case, heroes are made from resisting or overcoming enemies, not from surrendering to them.

The closest mythical counterpart I can think of is the Trojan war. I suspect Hinjo has a lot more in common with Agemmemnon or Achilles than he does with Gandhi. He's a hero and a warrior. Such men do not accept defeat, regardless of the odds.

Remember, this is the guy who practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the Azure City battle even when it was obvious everyone would die if he didn't.

Hinjo does not admit defeat easily, especially not at the hands of evil. That would imply evil is stronger than good, and that is something he will NEVER accept.

So, no. The Azurites WILL attempt to retake their home city. And if their code of bushido is anything like the real world analogue, it won't matter how impossible the odds or how many times they are defeated. They will keep coming and coming until they are all dead or the city is fallen.

And if they have any way of making more Deathless, even death may not stop them. "The honor of a paladin is unbreakable, even by death itself. "

I think that last is a most important part -- the Azurite paladins emphasize HONOR. Not compassion. Not charity. Not love. Not pity. HONOR. They are a people who embody the martial virtues, not the softer virtues of peace. Their "good" is the good of Gevurah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gevurah), not the good of Chesed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesed). Death before dishonor. The coward dies a thousand deaths, the valiant only once. Etc. etc.

I cannot imagine such people EVER making peace with the goblins, not under any circumstance.

The world must change greatly for that to happen -- the goblins must learn what it is to be good, and the paladins must learn chesed, the virtue of compassion. Only then can there be peace, and I would not look for it anytime soon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Warren Dew

2011-03-17, 02:17 PM

I'm trying to think of a single example either in fiction or in real-life history where a group of people , after having their homeland stolen from them, ever failed to try to take it back unless they were opposed by such overwhelming military power that the attempt was obviously useless from the start.
I believe the argument is that Azure city is exactly a case where the attempt is obviously useless from the start.

pendell

2011-03-17, 02:34 PM

I believe the argument is that Azure city is exactly a case where the attempt is obviously useless from the start.

Okay, I'll bite. Why? The paladins have themselves, a potential fifth column in the slaves, a resistance movement, know the ground because it was their city, and elven allies. Once Redcloak and Xykon are out, the goblins have Jirix as their highest level caster, their own numbers, and the city's fortifications. Not trivial by any means. Difficult, in fact. But "obviously useless?" I don't see it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

JSSheridan

2011-03-17, 02:44 PM

Remember, this is the guy who practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the Azure City battle even when it was obvious everyone would die if he didn't.

Hinjo does not admit defeat easily, especially not at the hands of evil. That would imply evil is stronger than good, and that is something he will NEVER accept.

Which shows he's still immature. It doesn't speak well of his conviction to his beliefs if he needs military victories to validate those beliefs. But there is plenty of room for the character to grow if you look at it another way. I'd be interested in reading about it should the Maker ever decide to chronicle it.

It's also a glaring logical fallacy that just because you lose a battle then all your values are wrong too. Buying into that is just getting into Lawful Stupid territory, and I thought Hinjo was better than that. A good leader knows you'll win some and lose some, and they roll with it.

Believe in what you know to be true, fight for it, and let future generations decide whether you were right.

So, no. The Azurites WILL attempt to retake their home city. And if their code of bushido is anything like the real world analogue, it won't matter how impossible the odds or how many times they are defeated. They will keep coming and coming until they are all dead or the city is fallen.

You mean the code of honor that is now extinct in our world, destroyed by globalization and industrialization. They would all die if they tried that and would be briefly remembered as fools for trying before they were forgotten.

There is another way to live by that honor though, and I hope they are wise enough to see it. They could nurture their people again to grow into a power that would be a force for order, justice, and good on the western continent. Doing this would bring great good from the evil done to them.

pendell

2011-03-17, 03:15 PM

You mean the code of honor that is now extinct in our world, destroyed by globalization and industrialization. They would all die if they tried that and would be briefly remembered as fools for trying before they were forgotten.

That MIGHT be true in the real world, which is out of scope for this discussion. But this isn't the real world. This is a heroic epic, where Rule of Cool and Rule of Drama laughs at logic.

I cannot discuss the real world. HOWEVER, I would advise, should you ever encounter a US Marine, not to say to them that codes of honor are extinct. There are a range of possible responses, but I doubt agreement will be among them.

There is another way to live by that honor though, and I hope they are wise enough to see it. They could nurture their people again to grow into a power that would be a force for order, justice, and good on the western continent. Doing this would bring great good from the evil done to them.

I suspect Hinjo et al would scorn such a suggestion as false wisdom, running as it does counter not only to everything they believe but the way their world actually works, mechanically speaking.

Remember : The Sapphire Guard is made up of people like O-chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html). You remember, the guy who was down to his last two hit points (otherwise ray of frost wouldn't have stopped him), surrounded by enemy fighters, mages, and priest of every description, no hope of escape, facing off with an epic-level lich whose DR was such he probably couldn't have hurt him by even 1 HP if he HAD managed to hit him.

And he still charged him with a Smite Evil.

Whether honor exists in the real world or not, honor beats in the heart and soul of Hinjo and his paladins. It is the foundation of their existence and it is the heart of their vow which grants them their paladin like abilities. Honor is not only real in OOTSverse, it is so powerful that human beings can use it to overcome death itself. Remember, it was the VOWS of Soon and the sapphire guard that bound them to OOTS-prime.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

JSSheridan

2011-03-17, 04:00 PM

Remember : The Sapphire Guard is made up of people like O-chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html). You remember, the guy who was down to his last two hit points (otherwise ray of frost wouldn't have stopped him), surrounded by enemy fighters, mages, and priest of every description, no hope of escape, facing off with an epic-level lich whose DR was such he probably couldn't have hurt him by even 1 HP if he HAD managed to hit him.

It's ironic then when I think of Mr. Stiffly, it's strips 544-547 that come to mind where he out reasons Redcloak (Probably a difference in Wisdom rather than Intellect) and accepts, remorseful but guiltless, that he can do nothing to escape the crucible he's placed in. His strength is endurance, not in offense.

I cannot discuss the real world. HOWEVER, I would advise, should you ever encounter a US Marine, not to say to them that codes of honor are extinct. There are a range of possible responses, but I doubt agreement will be among them.

Speaking of Marines, I sparred with some when I was younger. They're overrated. Though I was referring to "Bushido" (which never existed as we think of it) specifically, not all types of honor. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

sims796

2011-03-17, 04:10 PM

I think the main point of pendell's post there is that we keep trying to apply our personal, real world, limited knowledge to their situation, which reacts in a different way entirely.

First off, in all of our vast knowledge of politics and warfare, I'm certain that none of us are truly qualified to start giving out tips on how to run an empire. Sure, we watch our cartoon flicks and read our history books, but I don't think that the Pentagon are calling us up for advice. Hell, I'd bet money that most of us haven't served in the army. Sure, there may be a few who have, but most haven't. I bring this up to show that our knowledge on how to bring about peace is quite fallible, including my own.

Of course, all of what I said is outright pointless. This is fiction, after all, and things work in a certain, predetermined way. Therefore, we cannot argue that our way is the best way of tackling this issue. For example, we cannot argue that Haley's method of liberating Azure City was the wrong way of doing it unless we have been specifically shown or told another way that has been proven clear to have worked. Otherwise, all of our guesses is just that - guesses. We cannot say that the Azurites best option would be in order to build a grand society. Well, I don't mean that we can't, of course we can. We can do whatever we want (in respect for the rules). But we have to at least keep it under perspective.

That said, the question that we can definately answer is whether or not we feel it's ehtical to retake the city. And to that, I say yes.

pendell

2011-03-17, 04:13 PM

Though I was referring to "Bushido" (which never existed as we think of it) specifically, not all types of honor. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I misunderstood you. I apologize.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

sims796

2011-03-17, 04:18 PM

Who cares. The bushido (if I am getting the fictionalized version right) method of thinking exists in this fictional world, and has enough power to raise an army of ethreal (apparently asian) paladins back from the dead and almost end the threat to all humanity if it wasn't for that meddling ex-paladin.

Warren Dew

2011-03-17, 04:19 PM

Okay, I'll bite. Why? The paladins have themselves, a potential fifth column in the slaves, a resistance movement, know the ground because it was their city, and elven allies. Once Redcloak and Xykon are out, the goblins have Jirix as their highest level caster, their own numbers, and the city's fortifications. Not trivial by any means. Difficult, in fact. But "obviously useless?" I don't see it.
Hinjo has a handful of paladins, a few slaves, and a few commandos that call themselves a "resistance". Jirix still has tens of thousands of troops. Those are not the kinds of odds you can beat.

Gray Mage

2011-03-17, 04:27 PM

Hinjo has a handful of paladins, a few slaves, and a few commandos that call themselves a "resistance". Jirix still has tens of thousands of troops. Those are not the kinds of odds you can beat.

They also have allies, mainly the elves. We do not know how many soldiers the elves alone would put into the fight, but I bet it's a lot more then a few commando groups.

pendell

2011-03-17, 04:34 PM

Hinjo has a handful of paladins, a few slaves, and a few commandos that call themselves a "resistance". Jirix still has tens of thousands of troops. Those are not the kinds of odds you can beat.

In the real world, yes. But in D&D, quality beats quantity dramatically. In the real world, even the equivalent of a level-30 fighter can be killed with a single headshot from a .30-06 wielded by a level 1 fighter. In D&D, epic level characters own any number of low-level NPCs. Xykon could probably kill every other being in Gobbotopia single handedly.

In D&D, victory goes to the side which most effectively uses its own high-level PCs while neutralizing the enemy's. Once the other side's pieces are off the field, the pawns can be scooped up at leisure. Remember the swathe of bloody death Belkar alone cut through the hobgoblins during the original battle.

In such an environment, numbers are far less important than they are in the real world. They're not insignificant -- no more than pawns are in chess -- but if they are not properly combined with high-level PCs, they become wheat awaiting the reaper.

Also, I believe you are dramatically underestimating the Azure City Order of Battle. Hinjo's not stupid. If he's launching a liberation campaign it's because he has a plan plausible by D&D rules and the resources necessary to execute it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Narren

2011-03-17, 04:45 PM

Speaking of Marines, I sparred with some when I was younger. They're overrated..

:smallconfused:

You beat a few Marine in a sparring match (and was it point sparring?) and that means they're overrated? Not to branch too far off topic, but you shouldn't really judge hundreds of thousands of people based on a couple of sparring matches. Not to mention sparring is quite removed from real combat. Not to mention a soldiers (or Marines) training emphasizes group tactics, positions of advantage, and firearms. Not sparring.

sims796

2011-03-17, 04:49 PM

That's also forgetting the fact that we have no idea just how many allies Azure actually has. For all we know, the elves may not be the only one, just the only one seen.

As of right now, we can assume that Hinjo does not have the power to retake the city, and that is first priority is to find a place to rest and recoop, in order to replenish their rapidly diminishing resources. We'll have wait on whether or not Hinjo thinks the city is worth retaking in the first place.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-17, 05:06 PM

veti

2011-03-17, 05:19 PM

As of right now, we can assume that Hinjo does not have the power to retake the city, and that is first priority is to find a place to rest and recoop, in order to replenish their rapidly diminishing resources. We'll have wait on whether or not Hinjo thinks the city is worth retaking in the first place.

Nobody has the power to retake the city while Team Evil is still in residence. Xykon alone could wipe out an attacking army without even breaking a sweat, if he could be bothered.

But once they're out of the way, the picture changes dramatically. When all they've got to deal with is a regular hobgoblin army, whose highest officers are a few mid-level clerics - then Hinjo and his allies will stitch them up handily.

sims796

2011-03-17, 05:31 PM

I'm too lazy to quote the whole thing, but the thing at the back of War & XPs basically says that the elves are Azure City's only close allies. Also evidenced by at least four other Southern nations refusing to help liberate their city.

Ah, well there we go. We have a definite known, and can work with that. That doesn't speak for the future, mind you, and any new factors that may be established then, but for now, it's safe to assume that he has no other allies.

Nobody has the power to retake the city while Team Evil is still in residence. Xykon alone could wipe out an attacking army without even breaking a sweat, if he could be bothered.

But once they're out of the way, the picture changes dramatically. When all they've got to deal with is a regular hobgoblin army, whose highest officers are a few mid-level clerics - then Hinjo and his allies will stitch them up handily.

Yeah, that's what I said. As of now, we can assume Hinjo is powerless to reake the city, and has his priorities elsewhere for the time being.

But any number of things can take place between now and the future, and as you said, once Xykon (XyKON, not CLON, I kept getting that wrong) is gone, they may have a better, though in no way guarenteed, shot at retaking the city. After all, there may be ways the hobos will gain power in the unseen future as well. That's why I normally stay out of speculation threads, too much "this will happen, without a doubt, because this happened" methods of thinking. Not that you can't guess what's going to happen based on previous material, I'm just...sayin'. And not that wild speculation is going on here, either.

Dark Matter

2011-03-17, 05:37 PM

What about that hobgoblin prisoner? He could have been good (he was in prison for a reason) but he was executed by the elves on no evidence.Not by the paladins he wasn't. Similarly we don't hold Roy responsible for everything Belkar does.

I believe the argument is that Azure city is exactly a case where the attempt is obviously useless from the start.With Xykon and the rest of team Evil there? Definitely.

But without them??? Now that's a very different question.

Xykon could probably kill every other being in Gobbotopia single handedly.He could. He casts Symbol of Insanity then flies around the city with it. Boom. All low level characters go nuts and they kill each other.

There's a few people who could deal with that, but there's not enough of them that he couldn't just use his other spells. In the unlikely event that he runs out of spells he can teleport out and wait to recover them.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-17, 06:39 PM

There is only one paladin in Azure City right now and I can only see Hinjo mabey entering the fray later (Lein and O-chul are too indetermined to know if they would be alive at that point or not) As that strip showed his underlings are not so tightly bound in morals and will kill any goblin who falls in their hands if the paladin isn't right there.

To clarify I'm not blaming the paladins I'm just saying that they won't have enough of a presence to prevent the slaughter of innocent goblins.

Lord Raziere

2011-03-17, 07:10 PM

I agree with Sheridan.

If they won't refuse to fight for moral reasons, they will refuse to fight out of practicality- at Azure City's height they only had 9000 troops.

the hobgoblins invaded with 30,000, comes from a strong militaristic society and I imagine they want better land than mountains to live in. plus the fact that only more goblins will come in over time, possibly orcs as well if they feel like opening up.

and look how little help the Azurites got from their neighbors as well as how many nations recognized Gobbotopia as an independent state. and furthermore look at RC's plan- he wants to establish trade, build up a foundation and it will take time for both the Azurites to recover and for Gobbotopia to set down tis roots.

by that time, Redcloak or whatever people he has put in charge could probably get some strong trade relations going especially with a port, the primary mode of shipping in a medieval world like DnD- and since they have already been recognized as a sovereign state, getting trade coming isn't too far away. once that is done, the other nations will have a reason to defend Gobbotopia so their economies don't start going out of whack.

as for strong evidence that every single group has attempted to take back their homeland in all of history, yes I cannot name one where they didn't try unless it was hopeless anyways, but neither can I name one where the situation didn't get worse because they tried to get it back.

Narren

2011-03-17, 07:44 PM

as for strong evidence that every single group has attempted to take back their homeland in all of history, yes I cannot name one where they didn't try unless it was hopeless anyways, but neither can I name one where the situation didn't get worse because they tried to get it back.

World War II? France, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Holland, Norway, Denmark, and a whole lot of other countries I'm probably leaving out are feeling a little better now that they have their country back.

Yes, people will die in a war. If a force invades your country, people will die if you defend it. If a force occupies your country, people will die taking it back. But if you don't stand up and defend what is yours, someone will always take it from you.

Though you're right that it would be very difficult and impractical to try to reclaim anything right now. The first focus should be on rescuing the slaves clandestinely, and that's exactly what their doing. The next phase should be undermining their infrastructure and economy. The more they expand, the more reason they'll have to invade more nations. Not to mention how much easier it would be. With this logic, it shouldn't be too hard to secure allies, as these allies will realize that the hobgoblins will probably not stop at invading just one nation. Of course, Team Evil has to be taken care of first, as that was what was stopping the potential allies from helping the Azurites.

slayerx

2011-03-17, 09:01 PM

and look how little help the Azurites got from their neighbors as well as how many nations recognized Gobbotopia as an independent state. and furthermore look at RC's plan- he wants to establish trade, build up a foundation and it will take time for both the Azurites to recover and for Gobbotopia to set down tis roots.

First what happened at first may not stay that way... Once team evil leaves it may be possible for the Azurites to to regain the help of their other allies. Futharmore, recognizing a nation does not mean you LIKE that nation; there are many reasons to recognize a nation.

As for Redcloak establishing trade; that would be my first target... one of the weaknesses of the city seems to be the fact that it is not self sufficient and relies on trade... the Azurites could easily set up a navel blockade to halt trade by sea; without a significant number of ships, the goblins won't be able to do anything to stop a navel blockade... Futharmore the azurites could make use of their elven allies and get some mid-high level characters to block off the roads leading to the city to stop land based trade. mid-high level characters would be able to deal with any kind of support the goblins would send to protect caravans. And then there is the resistance in the city that could target their food stock... The azurites might even launch of a few attacks in the valley so that they will send some of their soldiers out of the city and to protect the valley... The elves might even be able to use scry and die methods to eliminate the goblin leadership... Yes in a straight fight they don't have much of a chance, but if they play their cards right, the Azurites can go a long way to starving the city, weakening them and taking away their numerical advantage and have a fair shot and taking back the city

Also it's unknown what kind of army the azurites will be able to build from the survivors. Its true that the Azurites only had a 9000 soldiers but much of their people were not militarized; the survivors number it what might be tens of thousands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html). Though it would be low level, the Azurites might be able to get some good numbers

He also needs to restore the common people to prosperity. He's got to set up agriculture, police, courts, tax collections, sanitation, public safety, education, industry, military, trade, et al.

I don't really think Hinjo really needs to go that far... The settlement is basically only a temporary setting. Without any goods the only thing people will be focused on having is keeping themselves fed

The azurites likely have many fishing boats to help sustain the city aswell as an island with plenty of vegetation... hell i might expect the former elven settlement to have some farm land already carved out that won't take too much time to restore...

The military can basically become the police force

Also I doubt the azurites took much actually currency with them so instead of money most people will probably come to rely more on battering... Without money there is no normal tax; instead hinjo would probably take a portion of the food collected to make sure everyone gets fed... extra probably going to those like the soldiers or the magistrate, those that serve important duties and can't get food themselves.

They don't plan on staying, so they only need enough to keep the settlement stable so that they train a new army and prepare to retake their homeland

Narren

2011-03-17, 09:14 PM

First what happened at first may not stay that way... Once team evil leaves it may be possible for the Azurites to to regain the help of their other allies. Futharmore, recognizing a nation does not mean you LIKE that nation; there are many reasons to recognize a nation.

As for Redcloak establishing trade; that would be my first target... one of the weaknesses of the city seems to be the fact that it is not self sufficient and relies on trade... the Azurites could easily set up a navel blockade to halt trade by sea; without a significant number of ships, the goblins won't be able to do anything to stop a navel blockade... Futharmore the azurites could make use of their elven allies and get some mid-high level characters to block off the roads leading to the city to stop land based trade. mid-high level characters would be able to deal with any kind of support the goblins would send to protect caravans. And then there is the resistance in the city that could target their food stock... The azurites might even launch of a few attacks in the valley so that they will send some of their soldiers out of the city and to protect the valley... If they play their cards right, the Azurites can go a long way to starving out the city, weakening them and taking away their numerical advantage

Crush their spirits...poison all gouda shipments and finish off that dang hydra! :smalltongue:

t209

2011-03-17, 10:05 PM

Crush their spirits...poison all gouda shipments and finish off that dang hydra! :smalltongue:

NO! CIVIL WAR! Spark the old idea of coexisting with humans on Hobgoblins and let them chop eachother in ideology! IT's easy and the one who supported to coexist with humans will join with azurites.

Warren Dew

2011-03-17, 10:17 PM

They also have allies, mainly the elves. We do not know how many soldiers the elves alone would put into the fight, but I bet it's a lot more then a few commando groups.
I'd agree that if the elves put armies in the field rather than just a few commandos, the picture might be different. On the other hand, having their armies overseas might make them vulnerable to Tarquin's triple empire, and they might realize that.

In the real world, yes. But in D&D, quality beats quantity dramatically. In the real world, even the equivalent of a level-30 fighter can be killed with a single headshot from a .30-06 wielded by a level 1 fighter. In D&D, epic level characters own any number of low-level NPCs. Xykon could probably kill every other being in Gobbotopia single handedly.
So just how many epic level characters do you think Hinjo has in his army? I count exactly none.

In D&D, victory goes to the side which most effectively uses its own high-level PCs while neutralizing the enemy's. Once the other side's pieces are off the field, the pawns can be scooped up at leisure. Remember the swathe of bloody death Belkar alone cut through the hobgoblins during the original battle.
I remember clearly that the big pile of hobgoblins Belkar killed had exactly no effect on the overall battle. As has been discussed to death, the Azure City battle depended much more on numbers than on high level characters. Even Vaarsuvius, the high level character on the Azure City side that made the most difference, only managed to hold the breach for a limited time - commitment of the reserves would have been more effects.

There's a reason why the order had to flee a rain of low level arrows: those pesky natural 1s and natural 20s limit the effectiveness of high level characters in really large battles.

Also, I believe you are dramatically underestimating the Azure City Order of Battle. Hinjo's not stupid. If he's launching a liberation campaign it's because he has a plan plausible by D&D rules and the resources necessary to execute it.
I've seen neither evidence that he's launching a liberation campaign, nor evidence that he's not stupid.

pendell

2011-03-17, 10:44 PM

I've seen neither evidence that he's launching a liberation campaign, nor evidence that he's not stupid.

The Elven commandoes are evidence that infiltration a la the WWII OSS is occurring; this is a prelude to a conventional invasion when it becomes feasible. Plans to invade Europe were on the board long before the logistics were in place to make it possible.

Evidence that he's not stupid? How about this trap? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html)

I believe that any human character in a D&D campaign can be assumed to have average intelligence (9-12) absent evidence to the contrary. I have neither seen evidence that Hinjo is below average (as Elan and Thog are) nor evidence that he is exceptionally intelligent (as Roy and Vaarsuvius are). Given the little trap in the panel I posted, I would put him at the high end of the average range, say 12.

Erm .. is there a minimum INT stat required for a paladin?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

slayerx

2011-03-17, 11:17 PM

I remember clearly that the big pile of hobgoblins Belkar killed had exactly no effect on the overall battle. As has been discussed to death, the Azure City battle depended much more on numbers than on high level characters. Even Vaarsuvius, the high level character on the Azure City side that made the most difference, only managed to hold the breach for a limited time - commitment of the reserves would have been more effects.

Well one thing i would mention is that V would have held the breach longer if not for interference by the death knight which was a creation of a high level player on the enemy's side... in fact that breach would not have even existed if it was not for the enemy's high level players; that war would have gone down very differently if it was not for Redcloak. Its much like Hinjo said, high level casters can change the entire course of a battle(ok technically he was talking about epic sorcerer's but i think the point remains). And that's something of a difference going on here, with the elven allies the Azurites will have more access to higher level players than the hobgoblins once team evil leaves.

Warren Dew

2011-03-18, 12:17 AM

The Elven commandoes are evidence that infiltration a la the WWII OSS is occurring; this is a prelude to a conventional invasion when it becomes feasible. Plans to invade Europe were on the board long before the logistics were in place to make it possible.
Possibly. On the other hand, it may be more like Operation Pastorius, where the Germans landed a sabotage crew in the U.S. even though they never intended to invade.

Evidence that he's not stupid? How about this trap? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html)
Given that all the explanations in the next comic are given by Lien, it's far more likely that the trap was planned by her, possibly with help from Vaarsuvius. Heck, she even says, "you can blame me if you like".

slayerx

2011-03-18, 01:01 AM

Possibly. On the other hand, it may be more like Operation Pastorius, where the Germans landed a sabotage crew in the U.S. even though they never intended to invade.

So i guess the Liberation commencing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html) line was just for show...
Really, now what would Hinjo have to gain from simple sabotage? if he doesn't plan on anykind of liberation he'd be better off just telling the resistance to pack up and leave.

Kish

2011-03-18, 05:02 AM

Erm .. is there a minimum INT stat required for a paladin?
There are no minimum stat requirements for any basic class.

Dark Matter

2011-03-18, 09:42 AM

So just how many epic level characters do you think Hinjo has in his army? I count exactly none.Epic? That's none.

Medium to high level? Ignoring the OOTS, there are still a lot of named characters with Hinjo and Xykon appears to be planning on taking all the high level characters with him when he leaves.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The goblins are still evil, and they're still low level. There's a *lot* of them, but that's a different issue. IMHO RedCloak has created another adventure scenario without changing the game.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-18, 11:28 AM

Forum Explorer

2011-03-18, 11:29 AM

Epic? That's none.

Medium to high level? Ignoring the OOTS, there are still a lot of named characters with Hinjo and Xykon appears to be planning on taking all the high level characters with him when he leaves.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The goblins are still evil, and they're still low level. There's a *lot* of them, but that's a different issue. IMHO RedCloak has created another adventure scenario without changing the game.

I get the feeling that the OotS won't be in very good condtion to fight a war after the adventure is through. We know Belkar will die, we know Durkon will die, and finally we suspect V will die or be incapacitated in some way. Then they still have to take down Tarquin first.

There is O-chul and Lein but they have a good chance of not surving anyways. Being a main character near the final showdown spot is dangerous. Being a minor character? Practiaclly suicide.

There is the Katos but last we saw they were level 6. Lets say they are level 7 now. They won't want to come along due to having a child to take care of. Plus Hinjo will need someone he trusts to protect the civilians.

Finally there is Hinjo and the Resistance members. He isn't high enough level to turn the tide of battle or else he would of in the first fight. The Resistance might do very well though and cause some serious damage.

Also Redcloak opened the border to all goblin races and monsterous races. I'm sure a few medusai have moved in along with some nastier creatures to make for a tough fight.

Is it absolutly hopeless? No but its going to require some unconventional tatics to pull off. Tatics I'm not convinced Hinjo has the skills to use.

pendell

2011-03-18, 11:38 AM

What would be neat is if there should appear a dissident hobgoblin fashion aligned neutral or good within the city; Hinjo would discover he could not retake his city unless he allied with this faction, which would require him to allow them to live in the city once it is liberated; thus, Azure City becomes a joint human-goblin city.

Of course, at this point in time no such faction exists. But if one did come into existence, it would make things much easier. Not only would they have allies, it makes it easier to defeat the rest of the goblins as well. People fight to the death when their only option is extermination; When you know you can lose and survive by joining the other faction, there tends to be more desertion.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-18, 12:02 PM

Then they still have to take down Tarquin first.
I highly, highly doubt that Tarquin will be defeated after the main adventure.

Dark Matter

2011-03-18, 12:19 PM

Ignore the OOTS, they have their own thing.

O-Chul, Lein, Hinjo, and the Katos is 5. Team Peregrine is 4 more, Team Harrier ( http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0705.html ) is at least 2 more, and the other rebels (Thanh and two others) is 3 more.

The goblins have RC's 2nd who O-Chul one-punched.

This is shaping up into the typical adventure. The various PC race adventurers will increase in level until they win, the goblins remain cannon fodder.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-18, 12:32 PM

Gray Mage

2011-03-18, 12:40 PM

Team P, H and the others rebels are all low level. To the degree of being threatened by the hobgoblins and unable to affect the battle any more than any other solider.

No. Team P has a member capable of casting what is most likely teleport, so they're probably mid level, if they're around the same level.

slayerx

2011-03-18, 12:41 PM

The OOTS was only around mid level at the time of the battle. And everyone else was even lower than them. And in case you didn't notice, most of the paladins, arcane casters and high level clerics, that is to say, the people capable of doing damage, are dead. There are, as of right now, 4 active members of the Saphire Guard. They couldn't defend the city with a hundred, how on earth could they take it with a depleted army and scarcely any high level characters to speak of?

Two things you are neglecting... first the goblins had their own high level players that had a role taking down the Azurites high level players. Those same high level characters on the goblin side are certain to not be involved in any future fight. Second you are not taking into account the Azurites elven allies... Team peregrine in particular seems to be atleast a lv10 team, and there's no telling what other characters the elves will be able to enlist for a battle

Then they still have to take down Tarquin first.
Why must tarquin come first?

Warren Dew

2011-03-18, 12:44 PM

So i guess the Liberation commencing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html) line was just for show...
Really, now what would Hinjo have to gain from simple sabotage? if he doesn't plan on anykind of liberation he'd be better off just telling the resistance to pack up and leave.
They liberated some of their people from slavery under the hobgoblins. That seems like a reason for a raid to me.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-18, 01:01 PM

right I forgot about teleport.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-18, 05:02 PM

I highly, highly doubt that Tarquin will be defeated after the main adventure.

Considering that he and Elan seem to have already agreed to the fact, plus the party is currently in the middle of something that actually matters, it will probably happen after the real story. Unless Xykon's intervention with the gates causes him to burst in and ruin the whole ride.

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-18, 05:16 PM

Kubota wasn't important in comparison to the Gates, yet he was defeated before the main story finished. The only villain I can see being taken care of in an epilogue or something similar is Bozzok.

And when characters reveal their plans to the audience, chances are things will not go as planned. Heck, there are 3 examples right in this book: Roy planning to find Girard's Gate and prepare for Xykon, Haley planning to find Ian after Xykon is dealt with (sound familiar?), and Haley planning for Ian to escape with her.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-18, 05:49 PM

Kubota wasn't important in comparison to the Gates, yet he was defeated before the main story finished. The only villain I can see being taken care of in an epilogue or something similar is Bozzok.

Here's why that happened. They were stuck in the same group of boats as him, and Durkon and Elan were trying to help the Azure Citizens survive as well as possible while V attempted to magically reunite the party. Now, I don't know about you, but "V sitting around for a hundred strips reading" doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting plot line. So while he was busy trying to work on the main plot, which, let's be honest, only he could really resolve at the time, we watched Elan screw around and foil Kubota's vile schemes. And he wouldn't have even put that little arc in the bag until V decided "Enough of this, we're going back to the main plot whether you like it or not." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)

Tarquin is a whole 'nother case. In two in strip days, he tell's Elan what he knows about Girard, Roy and Belkar bust out, and they're off on their merry way. Unless, as I mentioned earlier, something unexpected happens, they'll be wrapping up the main plot before they deal with Tarquin. That is to say, until Elan deals with Tarquin, because I feel that rest of the party will be either too uninterested or too dead to help.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-18, 06:54 PM

Here's why that happened. They were stuck in the same group of boats as him, and Durkon and Elan were trying to help the Azure Citizens survive as well as possible while V attempted to magically reunite the party. Now, I don't know about you, but "V sitting around for a hundred strips reading" doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting plot line. So while he was busy trying to work on the main plot, which, let's be honest, only he could really resolve at the time, we watched Elan screw around and foil Kubota's vile schemes. And he wouldn't have even put that little arc in the bag until V decided "Enough of this, we're going back to the main plot whether you like it or not." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)

Tarquin is a whole 'nother case. In two in strip days, he tell's Elan what he knows about Girard, Roy and Belkar bust out, and they're off on their merry way. Unless, as I mentioned earlier, something unexpected happens, they'll be wrapping up the main plot before they deal with Tarquin. That is to say, until Elan deals with Tarquin, because I feel that rest of the party will be either too uninterested or too dead to help.

Well Haley would help and likely Roy if he's still alive but yeah I agree.

Narren

2011-03-18, 08:18 PM

Tarquin is a whole 'nother case. In two in strip days, he tell's Elan what he knows about Girard, Roy and Belkar bust out, and they're off on their merry way. Unless, as I mentioned earlier, something unexpected happens, they'll be wrapping up the main plot before they deal with Tarquin. That is to say, until Elan deals with Tarquin, because I feel that rest of the party will be either too uninterested or too dead to help.

Why would something unexpected NOT happen? Remember, this is a story, not real life. From a narrative point of view, it's more satisfying to wrap up all the plot lines before the story actually ends. It wouldn't make sense to see Nale and co again, but I seriously doubt we've seen the last of them. Simply because it wouldn't make for a good ending if there were many loose ends.

Also, Tarquin thinks HE's the main villian. He thinks Elan will wrap up his little fight-the-lich quest and then get on with the main story.

t209

2011-03-18, 09:40 PM

FORGET ABOUT ETHICS! Grab rifled muskets, catapult, falchions, orangutans, breakfast cereals and polearms. We're invading the Azure City via sewers (just like Persians did to Babylonians)!

slayerx

2011-03-18, 09:52 PM

Kubota wasn't important in comparison to the Gates, yet he was defeated before the main story finished. The only villain I can see being taken care of in an epilogue or something similar is Bozzok.

Apples and oranges... there is one very important difference between Kubota and Tarquin (though there are in fact many), and that is the fact that Tarquin will not be so easily thwarted. With kubota, all that was needed was two spells to end all of his ambitions. Tarquin however can not just be killed as he has atleast 5 allies in 3 different countries that will gladly work to bring him back to life when they realized he fell. And this is not even including the part about needing to free those countries from their tyrants (though technically the empire of sweat might not be so evil given their role in the plan)...

Forum Explorer

2011-03-18, 10:01 PM

FORGET ABOUT ETHICS! Grab rifled muskets, catapult, falchions, orangutans, breakfast cereals and polearms. We're invading the Azure City via sewers (just like Persians did to Babylonians)!

Take an army through fantasy sewers? Are you mad? All of the monsters would take a huge toll on your forces before you got out. (excepically all of the albino squid)

Gift Jeraff

2011-03-18, 10:53 PM

Saving Tarquin for after the main story just seems...awkward from a narrative view. He's not minor enough for a "dealt with in the epilogue" type thing, and I don't think there's going to be an OOTS sequel (but ya never know).

More likely than not, Tarquin will be directly or indirectly involved with the Gates plot and will thus have to be defeated for the main adventure to progress. Even if he's not, I'm guessing he'll be killed by another villain, as that solves the "if a hero kills Tarquin, he'll become a legend" problem, since he'll always be remembered as "the villain that was weaker than that other villain." Super bonus points if Nale kills him, but Xykon will do in making him feel insignificant.

t209

2011-03-18, 11:01 PM

Take an army through fantasy sewers? Are you mad? All of the monsters would take a huge toll on your forces before you got out. (excepically all of the albino squid)

Not if one group is making the main forces busy!
P.S- How about spark the old idea of coexisting with humans on Hobgoblins? They could be busy fighting each other on civil war.

Forum Explorer

2011-03-19, 01:12 AM

Not if one group is making the main forces busy!
P.S- How about spark the old idea of coexisting with humans on Hobgoblins? They could be busy fighting each other on civil war.

That would help but I was more referring to the monsters that always end up inhabiting the sewers. (such as Albino squid.)

Dark Matter

2011-03-19, 11:55 AM

On the subject of raise dead... Xykon has a cure for that.

But I have to say I like Tarquin. Could he be Rich's next project?

G-Man Graves

2011-03-19, 12:23 PM

Why would something unexpected NOT happen? Remember, this is a story, not real life. From a narrative point of view, it's more satisfying to wrap up all the plot lines before the story actually ends. It wouldn't make sense to see Nale and co again, but I seriously doubt we've seen the last of them. Simply because it wouldn't make for a good ending if there were many loose ends.

Also, Tarquin thinks HE's the main villian. He thinks Elan will wrap up his little fight-the-lich quest and then get on with the main story.

Well, yes, I know that something out of nowhere is going to come in and ruin everyone's plans, because that's how all DnD, let alone OOTS works. I'm just saying that if everything were to proceed exactly as planned, with the information we have available to us right now, Tarquin's little plot would be resolved after the whole save the world thing.

veti

2011-03-20, 07:43 PM

TheProfessor

2011-03-21, 02:10 AM

Why must tarquin come first?

If you don't kill Tarquin first,guess what he's going to do when he sees a powerful civilization nearly defenseless?

Souhiro

2011-03-21, 02:55 AM

As I said, retaking Azure isn't an ethical issue at all. It IS a conquered land. They had been "The captured Azure City" for long, and only now they are Gobotopia. I doupt that "Gobotopia" had more than a month of existence. The people of Azure City are still alive, and there aren't still anyone that has born and dead (And not by being murdered) in that Gobotopia town.

Ut is a nation build in lies (Goblins invented guacamole, alternate-side-of-the-street parking and the oboe???) and such. Seriously. Gobbotopia only deserve to be retaken, and their example never to be forgotten: Do NOT trust in Gobbos nor Hobbos.

slayerx

2011-03-21, 03:38 AM

If you don't kill Tarquin first,guess what he's going to do when he sees a powerful civilization nearly defenseless?

Stick to his original plan to conquer the western continent and then proceed to avoid doing anything to antagonize the rest of the world into attacking his empire?

No seriously, his plans specifically leave out expanding beyond the desert region of the western continent. He would worry that if he grabbed a foothold on another continent, then other nations will be worried about how long it is until he continues to expand from there... Hell a move like that might get the elves thinking that he might be planning to go over the mountains and come after them. Anyway Tarquin's got his hands full taking over the west and doesn't need to send troops on a long several week/month campaign. What use would he have for their nation anyway? I mean everything he seems to be doing is so that he can some day live like a god without the constant threat of being overthrone... he just needs a stabilized desert for that and won't have much use for the rest of the world. Ya i think it can be certain that Taquin won't do anything.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-21, 08:50 AM

Bozzok was a minor character for a total period of about 20 strips. Tarquin has been a major focus of attention for around 50 strips now, including a fight scene, several personalised reasons for us, the readers, to hate him, and whole strips of evil ranting.

To give him that much buildup and then leave him undefeated would smack of a colossal waste of effort.

The difference, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would be impossible to avoid fighting Bozzok while he is actively trying to kill them. Same with Kubota. Since they were trying to kill the Order, the Order took them down. Not only is Tarquin not trying to kill the Order, bu he is actively going to assist them.

Narren

2011-03-21, 03:26 PM

it would be impossible to avoid fighting Bozzok while he is actively trying to kill them.

Celia certainly managed to find a way.

G-Man Graves

2011-03-21, 03:28 PM

Celia certainly managed to find a way.

It was impossible to avoid DEALING with Bozzok.

Narren

2011-03-21, 05:46 PM

It was impossible to avoid DEALING with Bozzok.

Nah, they could have just killed him. :smalltongue:

t209

2011-03-21, 10:29 PM

TheProfessor

2011-03-21, 10:56 PM

Stick to his original plan to conquer the western continent and then proceed to avoid doing anything to antagonize the rest of the world into attacking his empire?

No seriously, his plans specifically leave out expanding beyond the desert region of the western continent. He would worry that if he grabbed a foothold on another continent, then other nations will be worried about how long it is until he continues to expand from there... Hell a move like that might get the elves thinking that he might be planning to go over the mountains and come after them. Anyway Tarquin's got his hands full taking over the west and doesn't need to send troops on a long several week/month campaign. What use would he have for their nation anyway? I mean everything he seems to be doing is so that he can some day live like a god without the constant threat of being overthrone... he just needs a stabilized desert for that and won't have much use for the rest of the world. Ya i think it can be certain that Taquin won't do anything.

Actually, you're right. Tarquins smart. He wouldn't take Azure City on a whim. He knows his limits.

Kish

2011-03-22, 05:18 AM

Here's the most ethical situation I made here:
What if Azurites capture The goblin leaders and toture him like what O Brien did to Winston Smith in 1984?
I need about a million "blank-faced, blinking" smilies.

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-22, 06:42 AM

Ut is a nation build in lies (Goblins invented guacamole, alternate-side-of-the-street parking and the oboe???) and such. Seriously. Gobbotopia only deserve to be retaken, and their example never to be forgotten: Do NOT trust in Gobbos nor Hobbos.

Gobbotopia only deserve to be retaken, and their example never to be forgotten: Do NOT trust in Gobbos nor Hobbos.

their example never to be forgotten: Do NOT trust in Gobbos nor Hobbos.

I really want to make some real-world snark, I'm SO TEMPTED, but it would be a horrible idea that would shatter this thread even more.

Their cultures are apparently destructive and wasteful; does that mean that each individual Goblin is inherently untrustworthy and evil? Is each individual goblinoid, including the ones that are flocking to Gobbotopia, to be judged as liars, murderers, and untrustworthy folk in general?

Evil is a social thing, bro.

pendell

2011-03-22, 01:30 PM

G-Man Graves

2011-03-22, 03:50 PM

Hinjo et al are Paladins. I'm trying to reconcile "torture your enemies and brainwash them" with "Lawful Good". Not seeing it.

Actually, this raises a D&D ethics question: When you are faced with an evil creature, which is more Lawful Good: To brainwash them into being good citizens who will be a force for good for the rest of their lives? Or is it better to simply kill them?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I would have to say the brainwash part, although to knit pick it should technically be "Peacefully redeem".

bladesyz

2011-03-22, 04:13 PM

Their cultures are apparently destructive and wasteful; does that mean that each individual Goblin is inherently untrustworthy and evil? Is each individual goblinoid, including the ones that are flocking to Gobbotopia, to be judged as liars, murderers, and untrustworthy folk in general?

Evil is a social thing, bro.

Yes, yes they should be. And no, evil is not just a social thing.

If you're trying to compare goblin culture to some despotic real-world human nation, you'd be wrong. There is no human culture that is fundamentally evil. Yes, there are evil practices in every culture, but the fundamental principle of every human culture is to be able to live long and prosper. Some society may become temporarily evil due to various reasons, but human nature inevitably causes any irredeemably evil society to crumble, simply because Human Nature is not evil.

D&D evil creatures are different. If you took 1000 random people during the height of Nazi Germany, and showed them the cruelty of Auschwitz, 990 of them would be appalled. If you took 1000 goblins/orcs/mind flayers/whatever and showed them something similiar, 999 of them would enjoy the show.

If you really want a real world analogy, a much better one would be a mafia organization. Would you say that we shouldn't judge the actions of individual mafia members by the reputation of his organization?

veti

2011-03-22, 05:34 PM

Yes, yes they should be. And no, evil is not just a social thing.

D&D evil creatures are different. If you took 1000 random people during the height of Nazi Germany, and showed them the cruelty of Auschwitz, 990 of them would be appalled. If you took 1000 goblins/orcs/mind flayers/whatever and showed them something similiar, 999 of them would enjoy the show.

Actually, history suggests that if you took 1000 Roman citizens and showed them unarmed people being torn apart by wild beasts, they would enjoy the show so much that they'd willingly pay taxes to subsidise it.

But we're getting very close to forbidden territory here. So let's move quickly on to your point about goblins.

Assuming you're right that the goblins would enjoy seeing humans tortured, that in no way proves that they're innately any different from the humans. They live in an evil society, and the majority will never seriously question its values. How is that any different from, say, Greysky City? Or the human town, whose name I forget, that we saw in OtOoPCs, that hired a troop of adventurers to clean out (read: kill) a group of orcs who were doing nothing more sinister than waiting for a rock concert?

Conversely, there's the orcs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0553.html) that Elan & co meet on the island. Are they notably cruel or intolerant? Not a bit of it, they're a model of openness.

If you really want a real world analogy, a much better one would be a mafia organization. Would you say that we shouldn't judge the actions of individual mafia members by the reputation of his organization?

Doesn't work, because the mafia is an opt-in organisation - you're not born into it, you have to actively seek and qualify for membership.

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-22, 07:31 PM

D&D evil creatures are different. If you took 1000 random people during the height of Nazi Germany, and showed them the cruelty of Auschwitz, 990 of them would be appalled. If you took 1000 goblins/orcs/mind flayers/whatever and showed them something similiar, 999 of them would enjoy the show.

This comic is based entirely on examining the ridiculous ethical problems DnD sets up, and yet you're judging its goblins based on those standards. We have seen no proof that the Goblins are innately evil - in fact, there is tons of evidence to the opposite - because innate evil in fantasy is one of the ridiculous ideas that the Giant is apparently deconstructing here.

Take Right-Eye. Was he into the torturing, killing, and murdering-for-fun scene, just like every "innately evil" goblin out there? No. In fact there's every indication that his village, barring the elite (specifically the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and the Clerics) was just like any other human village, except with green skin.

You need to stop looking at alignment, which is already a silly concept, as something inherent in the person.

JonestheSpy

2011-03-22, 08:01 PM

innate evil in fantasy is one of the ridiculous ideas that the Giant is apparently deconstructing here.

Even though Sarco and I are in complete agreement about the goblins in ootS, I do feel compelled to say that the idea of innate evil in a fantasy setting is not inherently ridiculous. Indeed, fantasy is the only genre where such a thing is not completely problematic. That's because fantasy can use symbolism, hyper-reality, dream logic and all those other wellsprings of invention that other fiction just can't. Evil creatures in fantasy can represent one's fears, repressed id, the ugly parts of ourselves we'd like to hide away or pretend don't exist. That doesn't work if, say, you're a science fiction writer trying to portray a believable alien society. Even the xeonmorph in Alien isn't evil, it's just an incredibly dangerous predator species.

That said, it's obvious that Rich Burlew is NOT using his orcs, goblins, etc in such a fashion. The more we see them, the more we see they're just folks on the other side of a war, stuck with arbitrary labels that don't necessarily have anything to do with their real character. Heck, I've read that even Tolkien expressed regret that he portrayed his orcs as so one-sidedly bad, as his belief was that any living creature is part of the overall creation and therefore capable of redemption.

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-22, 08:27 PM

Even though Sarco and I are in complete agreement about the goblins in ootS, I do feel compelled to say that the idea of innate evil in a fantasy setting is not inherently ridiculous. Indeed, fantasy is the only genre where such a thing is not completely problematic. That's because fantasy can use symbolism, hyper-reality, dream logic and all those other wellsprings of invention that other fiction just can't. Evil creatures in fantasy can represent one's fears, repressed id, the ugly parts of ourselves we'd like to hide away or pretend don't exist.

Hrrnh, that's a good point, one I'd entirely forgotten despite employing that very device before.

However, it does raise the same issues. Corporeal manifestation of evil? Shooting it in the face to save the world works!

The problem with fantastic social commentary is that in many cases, such as this one, it reduces the problem of ethics to a simple problem of "who can kill harder".

veti

2011-03-22, 08:39 PM

Even though Sarco and I are in complete agreement about the goblins in ootS, I do feel compelled to say that the idea of innate evil in a fantasy setting is not inherently ridiculous. Indeed, fantasy is the only genre where such a thing is not completely problematic. That's because fantasy can use symbolism, hyper-reality, dream logic and all those other wellsprings of invention that other fiction just can't.

Absolutely true. But this only works if the "evil" creatures are somehow qualitatively different from "us". Not just a different species, but created by an entirely different process. "Demons" can be inherently evil if they're defined as the manifestations of "evil" thoughts or minds, or if they're created by some other agency, with no free will of their own, and with an evil purpose. But if they just breed and grow up and learn, like any other kind of animal, then this loophole no longer works.

For example, orcs in Tolkien are always spoken of as "created evil". There's no mention of them having families or any kind of natural lifecycle, and that makes it possible for them to be, uncomplicatedly and unequivocally, Evil. But D&D takes them out of that setting and turns them into "just another race", and that's what raises all these exciting questions that we spend thread after thread arguing about.

Gitman00

2011-03-22, 11:27 PM

This comic is based entirely on examining the ridiculous ethical problems DnD sets up, and yet you're judging its goblins based on those standards. We have seen no proof that the Goblins are innately evil - in fact, there is tons of evidence to the opposite - because innate evil in fantasy is one of the ridiculous ideas that the Giant is apparently deconstructing here.

Take Right-Eye. Was he into the torturing, killing, and murdering-for-fun scene, just like every "innately evil" goblin out there? No. In fact there's every indication that his village, barring the elite (specifically the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and the Clerics) was just like any other human village, except with green skin.

You need to stop looking at alignment, which is already a silly concept, as something inherent in the person.

I would point out that anecdotal evidence about the alignments of individuals is irrelevant to the goblins, who are a usually evil race. By RAW, that only means that more than half of them are evil.

But yeah, I agree that one of the strengths of this comic is its deconstruction of arbitrary alignments. In real life, the only sapient creatures we know of are humans. Demihumans/humanoids in fantasy are completely speculative, so the author can make them however he wants, and it's entirely possible that they could be inherently evil.

In this case, Rich is clearly upholding the D&D model of goblins as usually evil, but he's taking pains to show that it's not arbitrary, that there are underlying causes, and that there are exceptions.

slayerx

2011-03-22, 11:41 PM

I would point out that anecdotal evidence about the alignments of individuals is irrelevant to the goblins, who are a usually evil race. By RAW, that only means that more than half of them are evil.

Actually goblins are usually "neutral evil" not just "evil", this means that the remaining % that is not Neutral evil are not just made up of only "Neutral" and "good" goblins but also "Lawful/chaotic evil". And there is nothing really saying that the remaining percent would be an even split amongst possible alignments. the way things work i might expect "chaotic/lawful evil" goblins to out number the "neutral" ones and vastly outnumber the "good" ones

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-23, 12:33 AM

In this case, Rich is clearly upholding the D&D model of goblins as usually evil, but he's taking pains to show that it's not arbitrary, that there are underlying causes, and that there are exceptions.

And again, I'd argue that the "usually neutral evil" tag does not apply to some inherent, hereditary metaphysical trait, but is rather a description, not a prescription. "Usually neutral evil" describes the behavior of goblins in an evil society, one which is based on destructive behavior, slavery, and the like. A goblin raised in a good or neutral society might well turn out to be "good" (according to the current alignment axis), or evil. But in standing goblin societies they are simply more likely to turn out - neutral evil.

[Minor SoD spoilers]
For example, I'd wager a sizable amount of GP that Empire of Blood-born humans are "usually [law/chaos] evil", given their society, while a human or a goblin raised in the co-op village Right-Eye settled in would skew northwards.

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-23, 12:34 AM

oops, doublepost. please delete?

Gitman00

2011-03-23, 12:49 AM

And again, I'd argue that the "usually neutral evil" tag does not apply to some inherent, hereditary metaphysical trait, but is rather a description, not a prescription. "Usually neutral evil" describes the behavior of goblins in an evil society, one which is based on destructive behavior, slavery, and the like. A goblin raised in a good or neutral society might well turn out to be "good" (according to the current alignment axis), or evil. But in standing goblin societies they are simply more likely to turn out - neutral evil.

[Minor SoD spoilers]
For example, I'd wager a sizable amount of GP that Empire of Blood-born humans are "usually [law/chaos] evil", given their society, while a human or a goblin raised in the co-op village Right-Eye settled in would skew northwards.

Agreed. That's kind of my point - that Rich is not using alignment as a prescription. Goblins in his world are still Usually Neutral Evil, but they don't have to be. SoD makes that pretty clear. It does make for an easier visual cue to the audience, though... Goblins=Bad Guys. I would even go so far as to say that's a major reason for "Always/Usually Whatever" alignments in the first place, as well as the "Color Coded For Your Convenience" thing. It makes it a lot easier to tell who the heroes and villains are.

KillItWithFire

2011-03-23, 05:49 AM

Just because it's possible that goblins can be non-evil doesn't mean it's probable, which seems to be what you're all assuming. It is not the be-all and the end-all but we cannot discount the fact that goblins are clearly labled as usually neutral evil. This means that until proven otherwise the most likely case is that they are in fact neutral evil. Yes there are exceptions and RE's village fits neatly into this catagory. However I have seen very little done by the goblins who attacked and now occupy Gobbotopia to tell me that they're good. (whipping slaves? having slaves?) Just because they live an average life in a time of peace does not absolve the fact that they may in fact be good. Not having a chance to demonstrate creulty is not the same as not having it.

Valley

2011-03-23, 07:15 AM

Here's the most ethical situation I made here:
What if Azurites capture The goblin leaders and toture him like what O Brien did to Winston Smith in 1984? In the book, the toture was to stop the protagonist from being a martyr.
So, If the goblin leader (red cloak or Hobgoblin guy) was tortured and to submit that he is not a martyr. They could eliminate the idea of Gobbotopia resistance.
Oh, as a fan of the work of 1984 I got to reply! :smallbiggrin:

In 1984 the Inner Party had pretty much total control over society. They wanted to educate Smith so that when, one day, they did decide to kill him there would be nobody to see him as a Hero or even notice he even existed. They wanted him to see himself as they saw him - one person, not special, not a Hero, just somebody who thought that he was The One who could change everything. And of course, anybody who thinks they can fight the Party, by themselves, all alone, is a loon. It takes a society to save a society (or the whales for that matter). :smalltongue:

Even if the Azurites somehow break Redcloak there are thousands, maybe millions, of goblins/hobgoblins who will continue to fight the the Azurites. Making him truly believe that he was fighting the wrong fight would not do anything about those who already hate the Knights and plot their downfall.

I can picture them trying to do just that - educate Redcloak that is - or maybe their allies the "Only Good Hobgoblin Is A Dead Hobgoblin" Elves may try it. Neither side really impresses me at this point...:smallannoyed:

2+2=5! comes from the fact that USSR once tried to carry out a five year plan in four years..so they had a motto "5 in 4!" :smallamused:

Kish

2011-03-23, 05:15 PM

For example, orcs in Tolkien are always spoken of as "created evil".
Not at all. Orcs in Tolkien are corrupted elves. For reasons related to his religious beliefs, Tolkien was very unhappy with the idea of an inherently evil race. Near the end of Return of the King, he has Frodo say that he doesn't believe the orcs can have been created evil because he doesn't believe evil can create, and so he expects the orcs to go back to being good now that Sauron is gone.

pendell

2011-03-25, 09:12 AM

Not at all. Orcs in Tolkien are corrupted elves. For reasons related to his religious beliefs, Tolkien was very unhappy with the idea of an inherently evil race. Near the end of Return of the King, he has Frodo say that he doesn't believe the orcs can have been created evil because he doesn't believe evil can create, and so he expects the orcs to go back to being good now that Sauron is gone.

With all due respect, Kish, I don't believe that's completely true.

If you re-read the discussion in Two Towers and Silmarrillion, the text says that orcs were "made from" elves or "made in mockery of the elves" -- which is another thing entirely from being corrupted elves themselves. To put it in modern terms, orcs may be a brand new creature genetically engineered from an elvish starting point, just as , say, humans might have come from austrolopithicus. The difference being that orcs were deliberately bred , while human evolution was natural.

The orcs of Tolkien's world are directly tied to the power of the Dark Lords. When there is a Dark Lord in power, orcs multiply and become ever more troublesome. When the Dark Lord disappears, the power that causes them to multiply disappears as well. They dwindle and hide in mountains or caves far away from humans.

At no point in the entire history of Middle Earth, from the first capture of elves to make the orcs in Utumno, to the fall of the ring, is there EVER recorded a single orc repenting of evil, or of any orcish nation or group going over to the good guys. Not one.

I agree, though, that Tolkien later repented of writing his work this way, because *as written* the orcs are irredeemable incarnate evil. Possibly if Tolkien had lived he would have retconned the story, as he retconned the Ring in the hobbit from being a tool to being the Ultimate Weapon Of All Evil. But he never did.

Possibly that's the job of other writers in later mythos, such as Rich Burlew is doing now. In this way, OOTS can be thought of as a kind of "spiritual successor" to Tolkien, picking up the torch for redeeming the goblinoids, which Tolkien thought of but was never able to bring to fruition in his own created universe.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

t209

2011-03-25, 08:58 PM

Oh, as a fan of the work of 1984 I got to reply! :smallbiggrin:

In 1984 the Inner Party had pretty much total control over society. They wanted to educate Smith so that when, one day, they did decide to kill him there would be nobody to see him as a Hero or even notice he even existed. They wanted him to see himself as they saw him - one person, not special, not a Hero, just somebody who thought that he was The One who could change everything. And of course, anybody who thinks they can fight the Party, by themselves, all alone, is a loon. It takes a society to save a society (or the whales for that matter). :smalltongue:

Even if the Azurites somehow break Redcloak there are thousands, maybe millions, of goblins/hobgoblins who will continue to fight the the Azurites. Making him truly believe that he was fighting the wrong fight would not do anything about those who already hate the Knights and plot their downfall.

I can picture them trying to do just that - educate Redcloak that is - or maybe their allies the "Only Good Hobgoblin Is A Dead Hobgoblin" Elves may try it. Neither side really impresses me at this point...:smallannoyed:

2+2=5! comes from the fact that USSR once tried to carry out a five year plan in four years..so they had a motto "5 in 4!" :smallamused:

I was satisfied that I found a reader of 1984 and Goldstein's book! Azurites can do it without alignment shift because
1) when sapphire guards massacre red cloak's town (including innocents), their cape is still blue.
2) Goblin killing is not alignment shiftable.
-Elf could do it since they hate goblins and plan to exterminate them (evident by good goblins is a dead goblins)!

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-25, 09:14 PM

I was satisfied that I found a reader of 1984 and Goldstein's book! Azurites can do it without alignment shift because
1) when sapphire guards massacre red cloak's town (including innocents), their cape is still blue.
2) Goblin killing is not alignment shiftable.
-Elf could do it since they hate goblins and plan to exterminate them (evident by good goblins is a dead goblins)!

Wow. Um, no.

The Giant is on record saying that some of the Guard fell after the massacre; however Redcloak didn't see it happen.

Warren Dew

2011-03-25, 10:15 PM

The Giant is on record saying that some of the Guard fell after the massacre
Well, he's on record as saying it seems likely, anyway.

Sarco_Phage

2011-03-25, 10:19 PM

True.

At any rate, t209, you're looking at alignment the wrong way. People don't behave a certain way because of their alignment; people are a certain alignment because of the way they behave.

It's not usually some inherent metaphysical quality (although that IS how the Paladins' detect evil works). And it does appear that evil deeds of enough magnitude can taint objects themselves.

hamishspence

2011-03-26, 06:50 AM

The PHB does mention that even within a class like "Usually X Evil" there is a deal of variation in how much is inborn and how much cultural.

The example given was Kobolds & Beholders- both are Usually Lawful Evil- but it's much more cultural for Kobolds than it is for beholders.

Plus, even within Evil alignment there can be variation. Not all Evil characters are sadistic- some are simply ruthless.

And some might be positively compassionate- toward people who are not members of their "hated group".

faustin

2011-03-26, 09:28 AM

slayerx

2011-03-26, 11:27 AM

I was thinking.... do you think guys, is it wise for Hinjo to try to recover his city now that there is an enormous hole devourer of reality at the top? :smallconfused:
If Redcloak is right, maybe the remaining gates are the only thing who prevent the Snarl to begin to consume everything at his proximity. If Girard Gate blow up, better the goblins the ones to be unmade than your fellow Azurites.

actually it might give hinjo more reason to retake the city. Afterall its dangerous to the rest of the world to leave the hole unchecked... kind of best to work on building a new gate the seal up that rift to avoid world destruction and all that. Not to mention the goblins are the ones who want to use the gates for their own nefarious purposes; If Redcloak were to fail one option that might remain is for the goblins themselves to build a gate and just use the rift that they already control (though it would take a long time for all the resources they might need)

pendell

2011-03-26, 03:24 PM

Of course the paladins will want it back. It's a hole-y city, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

faustin

2011-03-26, 04:26 PM

actually it might give hinjo more reason to retake the city. Afterall its dangerous to the rest of the world to leave the hole unchecked... kind of best to work on building a new gate the seal up that rift to avoid world destruction and all that. Not to mention the goblins are the ones who want to use the gates for their own nefarious purposes; If Redcloak were to fail one option that might remain is for the goblins themselves to build a gate and just use the rift that they already control (though it would take a long time for all the resources they might need)

I posted about it before in another thread, but "Building a new Gate" requires not less than two epic spellcaster (Arcane and Divine, at least to seal the rift) and many years of researching (unless you have access to the "Order of Scribble´s Guide for Building your Own Gate to Seal Evil World-Eater Abomination in Fifteen Easy Paths "). That´s the reason Xykon and Redcloak chose take the risk to conquer new gates instead of building their own. Hinjo resources at this point (with his people exiled and divided) are very limited, and he has not epic casters in his team.

KillItWithFire

2011-03-26, 08:10 PM

Of course the paladins will want it back. It's a hole-y city, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That was so terribly punny.

Holes in the fabric of reality are generally not things you let evil people use to just play around and experiment with.

paladinofshojo

2011-03-26, 08:59 PM

There are ultimately three ways to look at this issue

1) The Azurite: An average citizen of Azure City, during the invasion he was either drafted into the armed forces and taken prisoner if not killed by the hobgoblins or he was either deported from his homeland and forced to relocate to the elven lands for reasons that he can't even begin to fathom. To him, the attack is entirely unjustified and it would be reasonable to say that he would want revenge for the scars left by the "monsters" on his kin and countryman. However, he is blissfully ignorant of the fact that for the majority of his life, he was living under a benevolent dictatorship controlled by a shadow government in the form of a (presumably) senile head of state. As far as he's concerned, he has nothing to do with what his government did to presumably upset the goblins.

2) The hobgoblin: A soldier in a militaristic society of creatures who eek out a living in the mountains. Due to staunch cultural differences, his very way of thinking is different from humans, he believes in strength above all due to his upbringing in a society that is presumably a blend of fascism and tribalism. Requiring absolute obedience to the supreme leader, he takes pride in the fact that he is a soldier who is part of a "war machine" and would gladly sacrifice himself for the goblin cause. As he sees it, the supreme leader's preaching about how the goblin people should rise up against their oppressors strikes the right cord to motivate him to improve his people's lot in life. Though his alignment is "Evil" it would be realistic to say that he is raised in a society that demands absolute obedience towards harsher standards of living.

3) Anyone who is at least halfway significant to the plot (Hinjo and the rest of the Sapphire Guard, the OotS, Redcloak, Xykon, Jirix, etc.): This is where it gets tricky. Since there are dozens of Freudian excuses for the main characters to motivate them on their actions. Though it can be mentioned that some of the characters mentioned only act on impulse rather than motivation (Xykon, Belkar). While some are just motivated by loyalty to another plot-significant character (Like the Guard and Jirix are acting out of loyalty towards Hinjo and Redcloak respectively). However, the majority of the plot is moved by some of the more "human" characters, like Redcloak and Roy/Hinjo. However, there motives and point of view do not speak for their armies and people. Just because Redcloak's past trauma made him hold deep personal hatred towards humans doesn't mean that his hobgoblin army feels the same way or that Hinjo's bushido way of thinking applies to his soldiers (who were very willing to retreat moreso than their commander)

slayerx

2011-03-26, 09:00 PM

I posted about it before in another thread, but "Building a new Gate" requires not less than two epic spellcaster (Arcane and Divine, at least to seal the rift) and many years of researching (unless you have access to the "Order of Scribble´s Guide for Building your Own Gate to Seal Evil World-Eater Abomination in Fifteen Easy Paths "). That´s the reason Xykon and Redcloak chose take the risk to conquer new gates instead of building their own. Hinjo resources at this point (with his people exiled and divided) are very limited, and he has not epic casters in his team.

Yes but when it comes down to it the threat is still present. Just because nothing is happening now does not mean Hinjo should assume nothing will ever happen... for all he knows the rift could cause massive world destruction 100 years from now; or hell even if recloak and xykon are stopped those other 2 gates might still be destoryed 1000 years from now; so the more gates they have the more insurance they have from destruction. leaving the rift as is may present too grand a threat. Even if they do not have the resources today they will want to capture the city and then take however many years or decades they need to acquire the knowledge and resources to build a new gate.

Furtharmore, if left in the hands of the goblins (should redcloak fail), they might do the same, taking however many generations it takes to build a new gate so that they could enact their plans. The main reason Xykon and Redcloak moved on is not because they couldn't do it, but likely due to the fact that capturing an existing gate would be WAY faster.