Anyone noticed the staunch cultural differences between the Azurites and the hobbos?

[paladinofshojo]

The hobgoblin's society are from a culture that is built around militarism, fascism, and some limited tribalism. The Azurite's culture presumably from what I can tell comes from a benevolent dictatorship, though guessing by the type of leader Shojo is, I would say that he would have presumably left state management alone to meddle with international politics that had a more urgent tone to them (the gates).

So presumably the Azurite's culture grants more of a sense of individualism than the hobgoblin's. They also seem to be a great deal of differences between the common people of Azure City and the ruling class, it seems like a feudal system. The ruling class seems to display traits of "personal honor before all else" mentality, some of the nobles show traits of megalomania and desire for more power than they have, as well as contempt for those who have lower rank then them. The commoners seem to be focused more on their day to day happenings and seem to care little for the nobles and the affairs of the state as long as it doesn't interfere with them.

The hobgoblin culture on the other hand shows remarkable similarities towards fascism. Redcloak's preaching that goblins as a race will have their rightful place on the planet. Even before Redcloak's arrival the hobgoblins were said to be military disciplined and organized. Apparently, they also show some tribal system tendencies of "bowing to strength", which is how Redcloak earned their allegance in the first place. However, there is a stark contrast between the hobgoblin and the Azurite, the hobgoblin is taught to be an extension of the rest of his nation (or tribe before RC's influence). The entirety of his culture is built around honor and military organization. Whereas due to the class differences between the Azurite commoners and the ruling class, there are many political factions that are at each other's throats and only set aside their differences to at best put up a front of uniting against a common enemy. Proof of this can be how the common soldiers of Azure City chose self preservation over defending their city while the hobgoblins willingly sacrificed themselves for Redcloak's petty whims due to his rank as their supreme leader.

[TheProfessor]

I don't think the Azurite culture is as happy as you make it out to be. Remember the panel about the ninja trying to kill the leader because of meatloaf day?

As for the hobgoblins, they apparently like their government whether it's fascism or not. If they're willing to live with that, so be it. Also, the Hobbos were fighting a war of independance while the Azurites were fighting a war of preservation.

[KingFlameHawk]

Well I would strongly expect there to be large cultural differences seeing as one is a lawful good (at least suppost to be) human monarchy and the other is a lawful evil Hobgoblin theocracy. Also I think that the Hobgoblins were fighting a war of conquest not independence as the leaders were only after the gate and (in redcloaks case) revenge and the common soldiers just cared that they got to crush a city, they cared little why. Later after the conquest Redcloak stated moving more toward independence.

[FujinAkari]

Well I would strongly expect there to be large cultural differences seeing as one is a lawful good (at least suppost to be) human monarchy.

Azurite City's Governement was Chaotic Good, very explicitly. The Sapphire Guard were Lawful Good, but they did not run the city

[Tass]

Azurite City's Governement was Chaotic Good, very explicitly. The Sapphire Guard were Lawful Good, but they did not run the city

I think the government as a whole was pretty lawful too, even though Shojo was not.

Probably actually less good than lawful.

[pendell]

Azurite City's Governement was Chaotic Good, very explicitly.

'Very explicitly'? What in-comic evidence do you have for this? I interpreted Azure City to be lawful good based on the courtroom scene and laws of evidence, no magical detection of good/evil, etc.

For that matter, I'm not sure Gobbotopia is Lawful Evil. Isn't Redcloak Neutral Evil? So wouldn't he set up a neutral evil government?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[FujinAkari]

'Very explicitly'? What in-comic evidence do you have for this? I interpreted Azure City to be lawful good based on the courtroom scene and laws of evidence

The Courtroom scene was an act of the Sapphire Guard, not Azure City. The Sapphire Guard is the ultimate authority in matters of the Gates. Azure City itself routinely settles political disputes through assassination, which is a decidedly chaotic mindset.

Though, now that I've said that, Kuboto did strike me as LE as well, so it may be that AC was LG with LE nobles. It wasn't the "might makes right" chaotic mindset as much as the "They can't prove it was me" LE mindset.


For that matter, I'm not sure Gobbotopia is Lawful Evil. Isn't Redcloak Neutral Evil? So wouldn't he set up a neutral evil government?

Redcloak is Lawful Evil, he states such when torturing O-chul "I don't think we'll get anything more out of you, but I already made a schedule..."

[Souhiro]

I think that since Start of Darkness came out, we have a huge feeling of "Love for Hobbos" here.

As I said before: 99,999% of hobbos and gobbos are EXACTLY what hobbos and gobbos are in your campaing setting: Cannon Fodder and nothing else. even Redcloak saw his own GOBLIN troops just as a medium to the plan of The Dark One in the Start of Darkness. So, if they were given the opportunity of voting their new leader, they would vote the very same leader, again and again.

About the goverment system of the two town: Azure City was just like feudal Japan: The Emperor rules, and the feudal lords say to the people what the Emperor said... what they think the emperor was meant... what should be done to ensure the will of the Emperor... you know.

The Hobbo tribe was just a tribe with a leader. But then, a few thousands gobbos just "Pop" from nowhere. Gobbotopia can be a monarchy, or just an stock of XP, waiting for someone to come and Cleave (and Great Cleave) his way to Upper Levels.

[KillItWithFire]

As I said before: 99,999% of hobbos and gobbos are EXACTLY what hobbos and gobbos are in your campaing setting: Cannon Fodder and nothing else.

Wow so more than 999x the amount of all goblins on the earth are cannon fodder?

Incorrect pronunciation aside, I agree that usually doesn't mean that we must assume them not to be evil until proven otherwise. It doesn't mean that the evil gobbos are just the one that "grow up in a poor environment." It means that good goblins are outsiders and few and far between. The only goblin in all of OotS that even had a marginally small chance of being good was the one that had a run in withour good friend team perrigrene leader.

Even Right-Eye was on board with the whole kill all humans and give gobbos a far rap plan so even he can't be considered good.

[Thanatosia]

Azurite City's Governement was Chaotic Good, very explicitly.
Governments are ALWAYS Lawful. Even if a nation can be defined as Chaotic, that just means the Government has little power over it.

[H Birchgrove]

I think that since Start of Darkness came out, we have a huge feeling of "Love for Hobbos" here.

As I said before: 99,999% of hobbos and gobbos are EXACTLY what hobbos and gobbos are in your campaing setting: Cannon Fodder and nothing else. even Redcloak saw his own GOBLIN troops just as a medium to the plan of The Dark One in the Start of Darkness. So, if they were given the opportunity of voting their new leader, they would vote the very same leader, again and again.

About the goverment system of the two town: Azure City was just like feudal Japan: The Emperor rules, and the feudal lords say to the people what the Emperor said... what they think the emperor was meant... what should be done to ensure the will of the Emperor... you know.

The Hobbo tribe was just a tribe with a leader. But then, a few thousands gobbos just "Pop" from nowhere. Gobbotopia can be a monarchy, or just an stock of XP, waiting for someone to come and Cleave (and Great Cleave) his way to Upper Levels.

Feudal Japan was (at least mostly) ruled by the Shogun, a military dictator if you will. The Emperor was a powerless figurehead until the reforms made during the 19th Century. Some historians (sorry, I don't re-call any names now) consider the Emperors of Feudal Japan to be more like the Pope in Europe while the Shogun was actually closer to the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

[t209]

Even though azure city is japan, I found more to be in chinese (Dragon dance, Chinese names like Lien and Chang, and Pagodas)!

[skim172]

About the goverment system of the two town: Azure City was just like feudal Japan: The Emperor rules, and the feudal lords say to the people what the Emperor said... what they think the emperor was meant... what should be done to ensure the will of the Emperor... you know.


Not quite how government worked in feudal Japan - emperors have been mostly weak figureheads throughout Japanese history. Actually, what you've said sounds more like imperial China, though emperors often had their power limited by the extent of their influence over the bureaucrats.

It's tricky to try to extrapolate governance systems from OOtS or most fantasy settings in general. Anachronisms are inevitable and fantasy is not usually designed to be consistent with political theory. For example, the concept of "nation" itself is a fairly new development, just a few centuries old. Without "nation," it's difficult to create concepts such as "fascism" or, indeed, "militarism" - creating a standing army directly loyal to the king alone didn't come into vogue until the feudal system broke down.

I wouldn't think too hard about the internal consistency of the history and government, etc. Little of fantasy fiction tries to create such settings with intricate, layered social and cultural fabrics consistent with political theory. And those tend to be very, very boring.

I'd say that if we're just looking at simple models, then the hobbos seem to be tribally based, but within a military hierarchy. Which seems like a highly unsustainable society, but then no one questions how such a giant horde manages to feed itself on the move. And has anyone seen a hobgoblin woman anywhere in this giant horde? Because it's gonna be hard for Jirix to rebuild it into a goblin state if they can't reproduce.

But then again, I'm assuming they need male and female. Maybe they're like reptiles and reproduce via parthenogenesis.


Azure City seems at first glance to be an advanced feudal society, but with the existence of a large merchant class and new model armies, it's probably more comparable to a Renaissance-era fledgling state. Though the fact that much of its rule is tied up into the paladins, it would seem they'd be somewhat theocratic and militaristic. What I want to know is where they get their food from. A large city like that would need a huge food surplus, yet we see no farms around the city walls.

But then again, they also have indoor bathrooms and multi-story buildings, so clearly they've got access to some major technology. So I'm just gonna leave it at "wizards! magic!" and bam, problem solved. :smallsmile:

[Raging Gene Ray]

I don't think the Azurite culture is as happy as you make it out to be. Remember the panel about the ninja trying to kill the leader because of meatloaf day?

He didn't say it was HAPPY. He said it was individualistic. And what's more individualistic than hundreds of factions within the nobility plotting and scheming with and against one another over an infinity of different things?


Also, the Hobbos were fighting a war of independance while the Azurites were fighting a war of preservation.

Independence from whom? It was a war of expansion.

[Kish]

"might makes right" chaotic mindset
"Might makes right" is very much chaotic evil, not just chaotic.

[veti]

Not quite how government worked in feudal Japan - emperors have been mostly weak figureheads throughout Japanese history. Actually, what you've said sounds more like imperial China, though emperors often had their power limited by the extent of their influence over the bureaucrats.

I don't know much about feudal Japan, but I'd be very, very surprised if the justice system bore any resemblance to what we saw in Azure City. And I'm damn' sure that a trial in imperial China would have gone very differently.


It's tricky to try to extrapolate governance systems from OOtS or most fantasy settings in general. Anachronisms are inevitable and fantasy is not usually designed to be consistent with political theory.

Quoted for truth. It is possible to build a fictional world that pays more than passing lip service to political realism, but vanishingly few authors know where to start (even if they care, which most don't). It's like the difference between "hard" SF (as in Arthur C Clarke, where the engineering/technology are plausible based on the known laws of physics) and space opera (as in Star Wars/Star Trek, where the laws of physics are simply told to shut up and sit down).


And has anyone seen a hobgoblin woman anywhere in this giant horde? Because it's gonna be hard for Jirix to rebuild it into a goblin state if they can't reproduce.

Actually, we have seen some evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0703.html) of hobgoblin family life.


Azure City seems at first glance to be an advanced feudal society, but with the existence of a large merchant class and new model armies, it's probably more comparable to a Renaissance-era fledgling state. Though the fact that much of its rule is tied up into the paladins, it would seem they'd be somewhat theocratic and militaristic.

It's an odd mix. The ruler of the city has an army, and they seem to have standardised weapons and equipment (and presumably training), but the nobles also have their own "private forces". So, you're looking at a new model army but with feudal hangovers on the side.

Maybe it was in the process of evolving from a feudal to a more centralised model. That would go a long way to explain the obvious tension between the nobles and the central rulers.


What I want to know is where they get their food from. A large city like that would need a huge food surplus, yet we see no farms around the city walls.

I think, in War & XPs, there are some bonus strips showing the hobbo army approaching, giving the impression (to me, at least) of a fertile river valley. I certainly got that impression from somewhere, I think that was it.

[FujinAkari]

"Might makes right" is very much chaotic evil, not just chaotic.

Nope, just Chaotic.

Killing people who are weaker would be evil, but most patriarchal societies are based on the concept of strength = leadership and they certainly were not evil.

[Irony]

I feel that both governments are Lawful, with Azure City being Lawful Neutral with strong Good leanings and Gobbotopia being Lawful Evil but effectively Neutral Good in regards to Goblinoids. A major theme of OotS is the ineffectiveness of the alignment system and why it doesn't work. Miko and Redcloak are prime examples of alignments that can't really be summed up by the nine options given in a standard DnD game.

[Kish]

most patriarchal societies are based on the concept of strength = leadership and they certainly were not evil.
Even is I was accepting either of those two claims--which I'm not--you realize that "strength=leadership" is not the same as "might makes right"? If might makes right, then if you can kill someone and get away with it, then you have the right to.

And Redcloak is a prime example of a thoroughly and unwaveringly Lawful Evil character. That that does not translate into "one-dimensional monster" is not a flaw in the alignment system and that people expect it to is a flaw in their concept of alignments, not D&D's.

[FujinAkari]

You seem to be taking a very narrow view of a Might-makes-Right government, in fact it almost sounds as if you have interpretted it only as anarchy.

A "Might makes Right" system tends to rely on some form of martial combat to resolve dispute (Both Sparta and feudal Japan are great examples of this. Sparta literally allowing and encouraging one-on-one duels in the event of disagreement, whereas Japan determined the validity of a rebellion by whether it succeeded or not) You seem to be asserting that a might makes right system must inherently forgive murder, which has never been the case that I know, historically speaking.

[Wardog]

You seem to be taking a very narrow view of a Might-makes-Right government, in fact it almost sounds as if you have interpretted it only as anarchy.

A "Might makes Right" system tends to rely on some form of martial combat to resolve dispute (Both Sparta and feudal Japan are great examples of this. Sparta literally allowing and encouraging one-on-one duels in the event of disagreement, whereas Japan determined the validity of a rebellion by whether it succeeded or not) You seem to be asserting that a might makes right system must inherently forgive murder, which has never been the case that I know, historically speaking.

In my experience, "Might makes Right" generally means either "If I can kill you and get away with it, then I have the right to" (CE anarchy), or "If the government can kill you, then it has the right to do what it wants to you" (Evil; the particular flavour of Evil being dependent on how it runs things in practice).

"Strength=leadership" could be a case of Might makes Right, but it could also just mean "the government needs to be strong enough to maintain order and protect the nation".

Likewise, concepts like the Mandate of Heaven, Right of Conquest, "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason" could be either a pragmatic way of ensuring civil wars don't drag on needlessly, an explicit endorsement of Might Makes Right, or a cynical comment on how politics works in practice (not necessarily in that order).

Furthermore, the Mandate of Heaven seems to me to be a Lawful concept rather than Chaotic, because the default assumption is "The government is put in place by the gods; rebellion is a sin".

(Admitedly, the MoH was a Chinese concept rather than a Japanese one, but the effect is similar to what you described).


Either way, all the systems you've described essentially amount to varients of "If you can kill/beat/threaten someone (or their army) into submission, you have the right to", which seems pretty evil to me. (Non-Good, certainly).

[archon_huskie]

Even though azure city is japan, I found more to be in chinese (Dragon dance, Chinese names like Lien and Chang, and Pagodas)!

:miko:What is this Japan and Chinese stuff you speak of? Azure City is Azurite. NOT some made up fantasy country from this fictional Earth you imagined.

[FujinAkari]

Either way, all the systems you've described essentially amount to varients of "If you can kill/beat/threaten someone (or their army) into submission, you have the right to", which seems pretty evil to me. (Non-Good, certainly).

I disagree... the systems I describe are largely systems of "Truth will be decided on the field of battle." This is a concept neither Good nor Evil, killing is merely an action in D&D, it is the justification that makes it good or bad.

If, as Kish seems to be claiming, the only reason to kill was because you can, then yes that would certainly be evil, but nothing about the Mandate of Heaven or Trial of Arms allows or encourages such acts.

[Kish]

You seem to be taking a very narrow view of a Might-makes-Right government, in fact it almost sounds as if you have interpretted it only as anarchy.
"Might makes right" means "might makes right." No interpretation needed; the words are perfectly clear and unambiguous.

A system which tells the person who has more might "no, you don't have the right" is by definition not a might makes right system.

[Warren Dew]

A "Might makes Right" system tends to rely on some form of martial combat to resolve dispute (Both Sparta and feudal Japan are great examples of this. Sparta literally allowing and encouraging one-on-one duels in the event of disagreement, whereas Japan determined the validity of a rebellion by whether it succeeded or not) You seem to be asserting that a might makes right system must inherently forgive murder, which has never been the case that I know, historically speaking.
This is an overly limited view of "might makes right". In a true "might makes right" society, there would be no limitation of duels to one on one combats; you might arrange a one on one combat, but have your friend stab your opponent in the back, and that would still be "right" since it was achieved by might.

[veti]

"Might makes right" means "might makes right." No interpretation needed; the words are perfectly clear and unambiguous.

A system which tells the person who has more might "no, you don't have the right" is by definition not a might makes right system.

A system that merely tells you "you don't have the right", without actually doing anything to penalise you, is a pretty hollow system.

How do you know which of the countless "systems" available you should be guided by? In real life, you attend to the ones that have sufficient authority to make you pay attention.

In a fantasy world where there is no such authority? You still listen to the gods (because they're mightier). And if you can overcome or ignore them, you're still answerable to the DM, because s/he is still mightier than any character.

In other words: there will always be some sense in which might does make right. "Evil" doesn't enter into it, it's just a fact of life.

[FujinAkari]

This is an overly limited view of "might makes right". In a true "might makes right" society, there would be no limitation of duels to one on one combats; you might arrange a one on one combat, but have your friend stab your opponent in the back, and that would still be "right" since it was achieved by might.

You are taking a literal interpretation of the term rather than a factual one.

Historically, no "might makes right" system has EVER worked that way, therefore it goes to reason such a society within a fantasy setting would not work that way either.

I've said it before, but if you narrowly define "might makes right" societies to allow blatent murder and rape based on strength alone, then yes, of COURSE those would be CE societies. However, a society which merely see's a man's ability to rule as being represented by his ability to repeal the assassinations of his political opponent's is not necessarily evil (it could be, depending on the man)

[martianmister]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

[Red XIV]

The only goblin in all of OotS that even had a marginally small chance of being good was the one that had a run in withour good friend team perrigrene leader.
That hobgoblin was in prison for attacking a goblin purely on the basis of the goblin's skin color.

Pick nearly any other goblinoid in the series at random. They've probably got a better chance of a non-Evil alignment than him.

[skim172]

You are taking a literal interpretation of the term rather than a factual one.

Historically, no "might makes right" system has EVER worked that way, therefore it goes to reason such a society within a fantasy setting would not work that way either.

Historically speaking, "might makes right" isn't a standard phrase in the study of societies or politics. The interpretation that "might makes right" describes a situation where power determines right and wrong is the most common and accepted one. I'm uncertain how you've gotten the impression that it describes a society of trial by combat - I've never actually heard it employed to describe such.

The standard interpretation not exactly "literal," btw, as a literal interpretation would mean literally that strength creates morality, whereas the phrase is usually intended as a cynical evaluation of the link between power and social norms, along the lines of "History is written by the victor."


To be described as living in a "might by right" society could mean one of two things. It could mean that you live in a society where the more power you have, the less moral standards restricts your actions. However, again, the phrase is used more descriptively - the suggestion is that there isn't one specific society that follows this aphorism, but that it applies to ALL societies. A very cynical idea, very popular among moral relativists.


The phrase has also been used by social Darwinists, in the same vein as "survival of the fittest." Basically, the concept was that societies should model themselves after laws of natural selection, allowing the weaker to die out and the stronger to survive. (An example of a practical application might be the closing of mental institutions, which allowed inferior humans to survive and reproduce). It was often self-contradictory and conflated natural selection with many other concepts. And it became linked to concepts such as eugenics, imperialism, and Nazism, which eventually led to it dying out. It still has supporters, out there somewhere, but generally unpopular. I doubt this is what you were going for.

Although, I suppose in a D&D world where leveled PC's tend to hang out with one another and avoid weaker NPC's, you could argue social Darwinism is already at play.

[MReav]

That hobgoblin was in prison for attacking a goblin purely on the basis of the goblin's skin color.

Pick nearly any other goblinoid in the series at random. They've probably got a better chance of a non-Evil alignment than him.

I think Goblin Dan probably has a better chance of being good, since he's bettering people's lives without exploiting sentient beings in the process (unless you count giving them obesity problems)

[Kish]

Goblin Dan's interest appears to be his own profit. That's a neutral motivation which isn't evidence toward any alignment.

[veti]

I think Goblin Dan probably has a better chance of being good, since he's bettering people's lives without exploiting sentient beings in the process (unless you count giving them obesity problems)

Hydras are listed as "usually neutral". Doesn't that imply they can be other alignments, which would imply that they're sentient?

The fact that it's unconscious means it's not suffering, but it still has "dignity"...

[Warren Dew]

Historically, no "might makes right" system has EVER worked that way, therefore it goes to reason such a society within a fantasy setting would not work that way either.
I disagree: there are historical examples, including various periods of anarchy, where might made right.


I've said it before, but if you narrowly define "might makes right" societies to allow blatent murder and rape based on strength alone, then yes, of COURSE those would be CE societies.
Assuming that people chose to do those acts, yes. I can imagine a society where "might makes right" was the moral rule, but where those with power or strength did not choose to exercise it in such ways - or chose to exercise it against those who did - and such a society might not be evil.


However, a society which merely see's a man's ability to rule as being represented by his ability to repeal the assassinations of his political opponent's is not necessarily evil (it could be, depending on the man)
I agree that such a society might well not be evil - Azure city being a good example. It wouldn't be a "might makes right" society, either.

[Narren]

That hobgoblin was in prison for attacking a goblin purely on the basis of the goblin's skin color.

Pick nearly any other goblinoid in the series at random. They've probably got a better chance of a non-Evil alignment than him.

I do wonder how they would have treated the hobgoblin if he were incarcerated for sympathizing with the humans. I feel those actions would be a better indicator of alignment than how they treat a potentially hostile prisoner.

[slayerx]

I do wonder how they would have treated the hobgoblin if he were incarcerated for sympathizing with the humans. I feel those actions would be a better indicator of alignment than how they treat a potentially hostile prisoner.

Things would probably go down more or less the same... only slight difference being that they would probably quickly assume that the hobgoblin was just lying so that they would either take him with them or atleast release him. They may even assume the worst that RC placed him there in an attempt to put in a mole within the resistance... All in all, unless they take the time to run a truth check on him, they are probably just going to assume he's no good and toss him over... no clue what might have happened if he did convince them it was the truth


Hydras are listed as "usually neutral". Doesn't that imply they can be other alignments, which would imply that they're sentient?

No hydra's have an intelligence of only like 2 which makes them as simple minded as common animals... though i guess the reason they can be any other alignment is because animals can learn to either be more or less aggressive depending on their environment... if they become aggressive enough they might move into evil side while a more tame animal might be considered more good

[Knaight]

As I said before: 99,999% of hobbos and gobbos are EXACTLY what hobbos and gobbos are in your campaing setting: Cannon Fodder and nothing else.

Wow so more than 999x the amount of all goblins on the earth are cannon fodder?
The use of the decimal point between ones and tenths places is far from universal. Commas are used all over the world, and 99,999% could mean (transcribing into the U.S. standard) either 99,999/100,000 or 99,999/100.

[Kish]

Decimal point use aside, Souhiro's claim is still half insupportable (we haven't learned the personality of 10,000 goblins, and we have at least two who are far more than cannon fodder already) and half staggeringly presumptuous (don't tell me what goblins are in "my campaign setting." Maybe in "my campaign setting," goblins run the world's largest civilization and goblin adventurers hunt down human bandits and debate over tea whether it's possible for humans to be anything but ravening monsters. For anyone who plays in Eberron, or for that matter who plays in anything but a very specific homebrew setting, goblins are a great deal more than "cannon fodder and nothing else").

[FujinAkari]

(we haven't learned the personality of 10,000 goblins, and we have at least two who are far more than cannon fodder already)

While we don't know the personality of every goblin in the world, we do have Word of God (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) stating that they are Usually Evil. ((Fourth Panel))

Additioally, go back to SoD and the Crayons of Time, it is explicitly stated that the evil Humanoid races WERE set up to be cannon fodder to allow heroes to level.

So, really, Souhiro's claim seems valid.

[Sarco_Phage]

As I said before: 99,999% of hobbos and gobbos are EXACTLY what hobbos and gobbos are in your campaing setting: Cannon Fodder and nothing else. even Redcloak saw his own GOBLIN troops just as a medium to the plan of The Dark One in the Start of Darkness.

Way to miss one of the comic's biggest damn points.

SoD Spoiler

This thinking is exactly what Miko and many of the Paladins who attacked the goblin village subscribed to.

Even the point that the gods set the "evil humanoid races" up as XP fodder explicitly underscores the point.

That this is not how it would be in a just world.

[FujinAkari]

This thinking is exactly what Miko and many of the Paladins who attacked the goblin village subscribed to.

Just need to note that there is absolutely no evidence that the Paladins attacked the Goblin Village because they were evil. They seem to have attacked (at least according to Redcloak's mentor) because of the Crimson Mantle. Additionally, this references offline content, spoiler tag please?

Similarly, there is no evidence that Miko attacked things just because they were evil. In every instance we have ever seen she was given reason to believe them to be evil and used Detect Evil to verify, she didn't go and slaughter things because they were evil or waltz around town detecting willy nilly.

To reinterate, just because I know someone will point out Miko saying she kills things that are evil, the point is they have to be doing something before she detects, she has never been shown Detect Eviling presumed innocents and then killing any of them that are evil, but will Detect Evil a suspected murderer to confirm that he has done nefarious deeds.

[hamishspence]

Miko's response in the last panel:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

"Yes! Because they were evil, so I killed them"

can be taken to read that "being evil" is enough of a reason for Miko to kill something-

she doesn't need proof that they have "committed crimes deserving of a death sentence."

Which is the main objection to "Evildar"- that not all Evil beings have committed such crimes- and thus, a paladin who kills beings that detect as Evil, without better evidence of wrongdoing- is basically a vigilante murderer.

While Miko could be more careful than that- we haven't seen much evidence of it. Though she did say she'd detected Evil on the OoTS and still asked them to surrender.

[Sarco_Phage]

Oops, this is a Miko thread now.

CIRCUMVENTING!

The point is that the second reply in this thread, hilariously enough, seems to presume that the Hobgoblin and Azurite cultural differences stem from the Hobgoblins being Evil and the Azurites being good -while it would actually be the other way around. The Hobgoblins are evil due to being raised in a culture that perpetuates needless cruelty, aggression, and ambition.

Clearly the first founder of such a civilzation was evil, or it spiraled out of control. This implies nothing about the inherent nature of succeeding generations. It only tells us that Hobgoblins are likely to be evil - if raised within that dominant culture, as opposed to an offshoot or a different culture entirely.

For comparison, I've got ten bucks that says the average person under Tarkin's empire is skewing towards Evil.

[hamishspence]

The Hobgoblins are evil due to being raised in a culture that perpetuates needless cruelty, aggression, and ambition.

Clearly the first founder of such a civilzation was evil, or it spiraled out of control. This implies nothing about the inherent nature of succeeding generations. It only tells us that Hobgoblins are likely to be evil - if raised within that dominant culture, as opposed to an offshoot or a different culture entirely.

For comparison, I've got ten bucks that says the average person under Tarkin's empire is skewing towards Evil.

Sounds about right. The PHB does state that humans raised in a Usually X Evil society, will be more likely to be evil.

And that, even within "Usually X Evil" races- there can be a deal of variation as to how much is inborn and how much cultural- the example given was kobolds and beholders- and it stated that the evilness of kobolds, is much more cultural, than it is for beholders.

Same can apply to hobgoblins.

[Kish]

While we don't know the personality of every goblin in the world, we do have Word of God (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) stating that they are Usually Evil. ((Fourth Panel))

Additioally, go back to SoD and the Crayons of Time, it is explicitly stated that the evil Humanoid races WERE set up to be cannon fodder to allow heroes to level.

So, really, Souhiro's claim seems valid.
Souhiro's claim would seem valid if he had said "at least 50% plus one hobgoblins are evil, just like they are in my campaign setting."

Since that is not what he said, his claim that 99,999% of goblins and hobgoblins are nothing but cannon fodder just like they are in everyone's campaign setting is anything but valid, for at least three reasons. (50%+1=/=99,999%, evil=/=cannon fodder, his campaign=/= everyone's campaign.)

[Gitman00]

Souhiro's claim would seem valid if he had said "at least 50% plus one hobgoblins are evil, just like they are in my campaign setting."

Since that is not what he said, his claim that 99,999% of goblins and hobgoblins are nothing but cannon fodder just like they are in everyone's campaign setting is anything but valid, for at least three reasons. (50%+1=/=99,999%, evil=/=cannon fodder, his campaign=/= everyone's campaign.)

Ye gods, that's pedantic. Souhiro was using hyperbole. You know, where you exaggerate to make a point? His point was that the narrative role Goblins play in D&D is generally that of nameless mooks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mooks) who are there to be killed by the protagonists, much like stormtroopers in Star Wars. He wasn't saying that 99,999% is a literal figure.

Now, I would argue that a major theme in this comic is to deconstruct the very notion of mooks, by showing how they got to be that way within the setting, and the overarching plot kicked off with them rebelling against being forced into that role.

[Kish]

If Souhiro wishes to defend his (wrong and presumptuous) assertion, he's welcome to speak for himself. Your opinion about what he "actually meant" isn't what I responded to (although, considering he's also stated that the only possible happy ending to the comic involves Redcloak being tortured to death, I wouldn't want to be arguing the case you're arguing, that he didn't actually mean exactly what he said).

[pjackson]

A major theme of OotS is the ineffectiveness of the alignment system and why it doesn't work. Miko and Redcloak are prime examples of alignments that can't really be summed up by the nine options given in a standard DnD game.

The alignment system does work.
The strip demonstrates that.
Miko and Redcloak fit perfectly in the alignment system.
Redcloak is Lawful Evil.
Miko was Lawful Good bordering on Lawful Neutral.

If you think the system only has nine options you are misunderstanding it. It has nine groups each of which contains significant variation, and an individual's alignment is only the average of all his actions. Good people can do somewhat evil actions and remain good (though paladins can not do so and remain paladins). That was shown in the strip by Roy's assesment after his death.

[veti]

The alignment system does work, it's just that what it does is a lot more limited than people often imagine.

Does it give you a way to explain or predict a character's behaviour? Well, no. Consider:

Belkar/Xykon
Durkon/Miko/Roy/Eugene
Haley/Elan/Shojo

to see how people with nominally the same alignment can think, act and be motivated quite differently.

Does it tell you what afterlife they're going to? No. If that were so, all the Deva would have to do is cast a couple of divinations on Roy before admitting him to Celestia.

Does it tell you what side someone is on, as in "good guys team up to fight evil"? There's Belkar teaming up with good guys, and Miko fighting against them. We see Elan teaming up with Thog and getting help from Julio Scoundrel to escape the (basically LG) system of Cliffport. Most recently, we see the LE Tarquin explaining his rationale for helping his CG son and Good-aligned friends.

Basically, alignment tells you whether or not 'Smite Evil' and similar effects are going to work. And that's about all it does.

[MReav]

Does it tell you what side someone is on, as in "good guys team up to fight evil"? There's Belkar teaming up with good guys, and Miko fighting against them. We see Elan teaming up with Thog and getting help from Julio Scoundrel to escape the (basically LG) system of Cliffport.

I think Cliffport is more LN, given the rather non-chalant attitude they have toward prisoners dying in their jails (and before anyone points out that they thought Nale had died, they asked "Another one?", meaning not just "Nale" had died)

[Sarco_Phage]

Well, there's certainly more emphasis on L than anything else.