Is Belkar gaining wisdom?

[GSFB]

Is it possible that Belkar, as a result of his character growth since the MoJ, is gaining wisdom? If so, could he know have gained enough to have moved up to an 11 or higher?

If so, he could start casting Ranger spells without a boost.

[FujinAkari]

No, we know for a fact that having a higher wisdom would cause him to stop having murderous impulses. Since he has not, then it appears his wisdom has remained steady :P

[TheMac04]

No, we know for a fact that having a higher wisdom would cause him to stop having murderous impulses. Since he has not, then it appears his wisdom has remained steady :P

*places tongue firmly in cheek*
That depends. How much of a boost to Wisdom does Owl's Wisdom give? Perhaps his Wisdom has gone up, but not THAT much.

[Absol197]

Owl's wisdom gives a +4, which means that even if Belkar was putting every ability point he gets into Wisdom, he still wouldn't have gotten that high.

However, that being said, I don't think Belkar would have "wasted" one of his rare few ability points in something that he sees as useless as Wisdom instead of an ability that focuses more towards his favorite talents, such as Strength, Dex, or Con for better murderous rampages.

[TheMac04]

Well of course not, but it's a funny idea. Belkar almost certainly wouldn't even consider. He's got far too many things to shove his knives into to worry about thinking. [/FREUD]

[Holy_Knight]

Owl's wisdom gives a +4, which means that even if Belkar was putting every ability point he gets into Wisdom, he still wouldn't have gotten that high.

However, that being said, I don't think Belkar would have "wasted" one of his rare few ability points in something that he sees as useless as Wisdom instead of an ability that focuses more towards his favorite talents, such as Strength, Dex, or Con for better murderous rampages.
But looking at it from a character development standpoint rather than a strictly mechanical one, the idea that his (sort of) turning over a (kind of) new leaf is represented by increasing his wisdom score has a fair bit of appeal. Like Fujin said, it can't be enough that he no longer has murderous impulses and wants to dedicate his life to healing, but it could have been a small step toward a wiser kind of life.

[rekuu]

Of course, a +6 item is well within his the party's wealth level.

[Boogastreehouse]

However, that being said, I don't think Belkar would have "wasted" one of his rare few ability points in something that he sees as useless as Wisdom...

In other words, it takes a certain amount of wisdom to appreciate the value of wisdom.

[RCgothic]

Are attribute points selected consciously in comic? Skills and Feats are, obviously, but Attributes are less clear cut, especially base stats and race seem unlikely to be selected by the PC.

If attribute points are allocated based on background and development, it's entirely conceivable that Belkar could have gained some Wisdom. If selected consciously on the other hand, it's much harder to see Belkar deliberately putting additional points into Wisdom.

[ThePhantasm]

Of course, a +6 item is well within his the party's wealth level.

I guess they don't seem to know that increasing his wisdom affects his alignment. No one could hear his Owl's Wisdom induced thoughts of peace and tranquility.

[KillianHawkeye]

But looking at it from a character development standpoint rather than a strictly mechanical one, the idea that his (sort of) turning over a (kind of) new leaf is represented by increasing his wisdom score has a fair bit of appeal.

I think it's represented better by putting ranks into Bluff.

Anyway, your assumption that learning a valuable life lesson results in an increase in Wisdom is erroneous. It's like the difference between gaining knowledge and actually getting smarter. One doesn't neccessarily lead to the other.

[ORione]

I think it's represented better by putting ranks into Bluff.

Anyway, your assumption that learning a valuable life lesson results in an increase in Wisdom is erroneous. It's like the difference between gaining knowledge and actually getting smarter. One doesn't neccessarily lead to the other.

Yeah, but the difference between Murderous Belkar and Healer Belkar is Owl's Wisdom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html).

[Holy_Knight]

I think it's represented better by putting ranks into Bluff.

Anyway, your assumption that learning a valuable life lesson results in an increase in Wisdom is erroneous. It's like the difference between gaining knowledge and actually getting smarter. One doesn't neccessarily lead to the other.
Actually, my assumption was that learning a valuable life lesson and modifying your behavior accordingly could be mechanically represented by an increase an wisdom.

[Metahuman1]

If he gets a Wis increase, my money says it's because Rich introduced

A) The Deck Of Many Things, or

B) A tome of Wis, which he doesn't realize is a Tome of Wis till after he got the boost.

And personally, if +4 get's him to be a pacifist healer, I bet +2 makes him willing to heal and be not a murdering psychopath, but still and effective Warrior, so that's what I'd like to see him get.

[Blisstake]

Your mental attributes don't have to completely dictate your character. You can have high wisdom and still be a crazed killer; likewise, you can continue to have low wisdom, and still have character growth.

[GSFB]

I don't agree that a +4 to wisdom by itself would make Belkar a pacifist. It did in the one strip, but two other factors to consider:

1) Once Belkar got the wisdom bonus he was able to cast a cure spell - it was seeing the effect of the cure spell that made him rethink his ways. Therefore, he could have increased wisdom today, but hasn't experienced the right things to make him use his wisdom in that way yet. Maybe if he becomes faced with the need to heal Mr Scruffy that could be the trigger.

2) When he became a temporary pacifist before, that was just a funny joke and not a serious indication of what a permanent wisdom increase would do to him.

I am intrigued by the idea that Belkar could have had stat increases and not known they went into wisdom - either from leveling up, or also could be from something else. Aging increases wisdom. The enhanced MoJ may have had some permanent impact. Who knows?

[SowZ]

Due to his combat efficiency for a Ranger even without spells and the party has never tried to give him the ability to case spells I always assumed Belkar had taken one of the alternate class features for Ranger that trades magical ability for something else.

It is strange to me that wisdom affects alignment so severely in the OOTS world.

[Conuly]

It is strange to me that wisdom affects alignment in the OOTS world.

If we had stated alignments, wouldn't it affect alignment in the real world?

[SowZ]

If we had stated alignments, wouldn't it affect alignment in the real world?

I don't know. When playing DnD I usually interpret alignment as a abstract. A spell that detects evil would detect what the caster or the casters god would find evil. An orb of ultimate evil would destroy evil as the crafter percieves evil. I think alignment would work this way in the real world. So it is tough to say. I think Wisdom is more likely to change the lawful-chaotic axis then the good-evil axis.

I'm not accusing the comic of making a mistake, though. Maybe Belkar is evil partially because of his wisdom and the whole thing was for the sake of the joke and the rule of funny trumps it, anyway.

[Callista]

I still think the Owl's Wisdom thing was a throwaway joke. After all, Redcloak's got a high Wisdom, and he's still Evil. He's just much more sensible about it than Belkar.

[HyperionWolf]

I still think the Owl's Wisdom thing was a throwaway joke. After all, Redcloak's got a high Wisdom, and he's still Evil. He's just much more sensible about it than Belkar.

Please, lets not get into Alignments again :smalleek:

I think Belkar's act of trying to look like an teamplayer, to enjoy the rewards, might represent a wisdom buff. Maybe That Old Guy With the Cat did something, or Belkar "Accidentally" put his bonus (from level 16, maybe?) in Wis. I would go for the first choice.

EDIT: By the way, i really dont think Wisdom affects Alignment. Really. There are wise Paladins(LG), Wise Elfic Druids (CG), Wise Shamans of dark god (CE), and Wise devil cultists."(LE)
Heck, to make it easier, Every Single alignment has an god. and every god might have a Cleric with a good Wisdom Score.

[Callista]

I would agree with you there--Belkar's being more subtle could definitely be modeled as a Wisdom increase. But he's still pretty mediocre at it; I would not be surprised if he's still at a 10 or lower. It doesn't exactly take a lot to figure out, "Hey, if I pretend to be a good citizen, I might be able to get away with stuff!" Five-year-olds figure that out.

Like you said, it's not a matter of alignment. Belkar is obviously evil, has always been, probably will always be. It's a matter of how much common sense Belkar has... and I have to agree that he's gained some. Whether that's character development or a Wisdom point won't be known until we see him cast a spell.

[Tebryn]

If we had stated alignments, wouldn't it affect alignment in the real world?

Simple answer is no. Just because your wise does not mean you're a good or humane person. Consequently, low wisdom does not always make you evil and insane.

[Kojiro]

I don't think it's a Wisdom boost. He's just trying to do what (dream) Shojo told him to do; you don't get a stat change every time you start following a new plan or get new goals. As he put it back during his Hippie Vision Quest (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html), he's pretending to have character growth. He still wants to murder people and such, but he's aware that he has to control himself and kill the right people to get much, much more out of life. Which will be rather short for him given that prophecy, but hey, what he doesn't know will hurt him very, very much.

[Callista]

A low-Wisdom person in real life would be the sort of person who makes bad decisions, but means well. They'd be naive and have difficulty figuring out when somebody was fooling them. They'd also have issues with being alert to the world around them--they'd be completely oblivious to things other people easily notice. That doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't be intelligent; a lot of smart people are naive and absent-minded.

You could probably model overwhelming hallucinations or dementia as a wisdom score of 0-1, and less severe mental illnesses as a wisdom of 2-3. That's why all those horrible aberrations and undead and whatnot drain/damage Wisdom when they attack--they're removing your sanity bit by bit.

[SowZ]

I still think the Owl's Wisdom thing was a throwaway joke. After all, Redcloak's got a high Wisdom, and he's still Evil. He's just much more sensible about it than Belkar.

While certainly not good, I would be slow to call Redcloak evil. He was willing to take over a human city for the good of his people, okay. How many "good" humans are willing to take over a goblin encampment for the good of them selves?

He let Xykon kill a bunch of hobgoblins. Yeah, that happened. That was just having a severe racial prejudice. How many "good" rangers with a favored enemy type are even worse then Redcloak and kill that enemy type on sight?

Some say humans are justified in killing goblins since goblins attack humans. That would mean goblins are justified in attacking humans since humans attack goblins. What Redcloak did in the seige on Azure city wasn't right. It was wrong. But listen to his reasons and the assault was reactionary.

[Steward]

While certainly not good, I would be slow to call Redcloak evil. He was willing to take over a human city for the good of his people, okay. How many "good" humans are willing to take over a goblin encampment for the good of them selves?


I think Callista meant that Redcloak is Evil (with a capital E) as in the alignment. Like, "Redcloak can have a high Wisdom score and still remain Evil alignment".

An argument can be made that his actions aren't necessarily evil but you have to remember that Redcloak's alignment has to be pretty close to his deity's in order to keep his spellcasting power.

[Flash1191]

I think Callista meant that Redcloak is Evil (with a capital E) as in the alignment. Like, "Redcloak can have a high Wisdom score and still remain Evil alignment".

An argument can be made that his actions aren't necessarily evil but you have to remember that Redcloak's alignment has to be pretty close to his deity's in order to keep his spellcasting power.
Besides this, Smite Evil doesn't lie. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) I don't think there's any doubt that Redclock is capital E Evil.


And based on this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) instance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html), it seems paladins can tell if their Smite Evil works or not.

[SowZ]

Besides this, Smite Evil doesn't lie. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) I don't think there's any doubt that Redclock is capital E Evil.


And based on this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) instance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html), it seems paladins can tell if their Smite Evil works or not.

In my views on alignment, Smite Evil would work on Redcloak because the god or godess granting the Paladin smite evil views Redcloak as evil. Seeing as there is no all powerful, universal god in most D&D settings, which gods interpretation of evil and good is correct is subjective.

Now, Redcloak may use spells with names like smite good or orb of evil, but a good spell can be used for evil and an evil spell can be used for good. I view that as more of some sort of cosmic energy called Good because whoever decided to name that energy good identified with the beings of the planes that good energy is so prevelent in. The same goes for evil. Good/Evil as energies are not the same as Good/Evil as philosophical concepts. So using good spells doesn't make one good and being affected by good targeting spells may simply be the caster of the good targeting spell shaping said evil energy in a way that affects the "good" persons alignment as said "evil" caster percieves it.

I have this sneaking suspicion I have stopped making sense.

[Steward]

What you're saying makes sense and it's a very good (in my opinion) approach to D & D alignment, but it doesn't really answer the "does Wisdom score affect alignment" question (which I think might be the new topic of this thread).

Even if alignment is subjective -- and I think there's a very good reason to think that it is / should be -- I'm not convinced that Redcloak's high Wisdom score is what makes him less (or more) 'Evil' (in the terms of alignment).

If Miko's Smite Evil power hurt him because the 12 Gods say that Redcloak / his goblin god is Evil, the fact that he has a Wisdom score of 18 (or whatever) isn't going to affect this judgment. And if Miko's Smite Evil power worked on Redcloak because he is objectively Evil, by all standards everywhere, the same principle applies; the fact that he has a high Wisdom score doesn't have any effect on his alignment.

If there is a chance for Belkar to develop in a Good (alignment) person, it probably won't be because he put points into Wisdom, just as (for example) Roy getting hit with a Wisdom-draining spell wouldn't necessarily turn his alignment to Evil.

[Talvereaux]

While certainly not good, I would be slow to call Redcloak evil. He was willing to take over a human city for the good of his people, okay. How many "good" humans are willing to take over a goblin encampment for the good of them selves?

He let Xykon kill a bunch of hobgoblins. Yeah, that happened. That was just having a severe racial prejudice. How many "good" rangers with a favored enemy type are even worse then Redcloak and kill that enemy type on sight?

Some say humans are justified in killing goblins since goblins attack humans. That would mean goblins are justified in attacking humans since humans attack goblins. What Redcloak did in the seige on Azure city wasn't right. It was wrong. But listen to his reasons and the assault was reactionary.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plenty of villains have sympathetic or just motives, but what ultimately makes them good or evil is their actions.

SoD spoilers:
Redcloak is actively attempting to destroy the world and all living things to make ends meet, which can't be redeemed even by the noblest intentions.

[SowZ]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plenty of villains have sympathetic or just motives, but what ultimately makes them good or evil is their actions.

SoD spoilers:
Redcloak is actively attempting to destroy the world and all living things to make ends meet, which can't be redeemed even by the noblest intentions.

He's attempting to dominate and wipe out a species that has actively hunted his kind even in remote areas, (like forests,) and in their own homes for centuries. I don't think it is reedemable, either, by the way, but neither is raiding a camp of 'monster races' even if certain members of that camp have raided human travellers.

If a shady town has a few highwaymen and pirates in it that hang out at the local pub, is it okay to charge in and wipe out everyone in the whole town? If killing goblins is justified because goblins kill humans then it is justified for goblins to kill humans because humans kill goblins. Personally, I think both are equally wrong.

A party of adventurers who has been trained that the 'civilized' races and monster races are at war and it is good and responsible to wipe them out, the fact that they do it only proves that said adventurers are brainwashed and corrupted by racism/the cycle of violence. It doesn't mean they are evil even if that action was. I don't think Redcloak is trying to eradicate all life. He is trying to give his species a place in the world when they've never really had one. He is doing it through bloodshed and placing ones race above others and by pushing other beings down. But humans do it all the time. Was Azure City an evil society for it's racism? Are elves, who are known for killing orcs on sight, an evil species?

Likewise, goblins reacting to humans, (who often view goblins as enemies to be wiped out, so why shouldn't goblins view humans the same way?) by taking over human cities and trying to turn the tables by making humans the hunted ones are responding by repaying evil with evil. This is also evil, but it doesn't mean anyone who falls into this trap is automatically evil because they are part of a massive revenge machine/cycle that has gone on since the beginning of history.

Wars are fought for stupid reasons and evil reasons but good and evil are still usually hard to pinpoint.

I think killing Redcloak is justifiable. He has aligned himself with someone obviously evil, (even though Redcloak doesn't care about Xykon's plans at all,) and has gotten extreme. He is very dangerous and keeping him alive is more than it is worth. He should be taken out. But just because you are justified in killing someone doesn't mean they deserve death, if you understand what I am saying with that.

[Talvereaux]

More SoD stuff.

I wasn't saying that he's wrong to oppose humans doing horrible things to goblinkind. I never insinuated the humans who shafted the monster races were good in any way theirselves, but, and this is a pretty big 'but', there are ways to deal with injustice that don't involve killing every living thing on the planet. Right-Eye, for instance, was able to move past the Plan and make life better for goblinkind peacefully.

Redcloak on the other hand, won't be happy unless everything in the world--goblinoid, human, or animal--is killed and erased from existence, so the universe could be recreated 'the right way'. He is an extremist. There's no doubt he's become worse than the humans who wronged his people unjustly.

[SowZ]

More SoD stuff.

I wasn't saying that he's wrong to oppose humans doing horrible things to goblinkind. I never insinuated the humans who shafted the monster races were good in any way theirselves, but, and this is a pretty big 'but', there are ways to deal with injustice that don't involve killing every living thing on the planet. Right-Eye, for instance, was able to move past the Plan and make life better for goblinkind peacefully.

Redcloak on the other hand, won't be happy unless everything in the world--goblinoid, human, or animal--is killed and erased from existence, so the universe could be recreated 'the right way'. He is an extremist. There's no doubt he's become worse than the humans who wronged his people unjustly.

*Sigh* I think I have to agree with you. It is interesting.

I think Redcloak started off fairly evil because the world screwed him over. As the comic went on, he gained a true purpose in life and while I wouldn't call him good I think he stopped being evil. Then that purpose consumes him since moving towards something feels good until his idea of helping his people is so distorted and insane that he goes back to being evil, (albeit an evil who thinks he is good, unlike someone like Xykon. Arguably, this makes Redcloak more dangerous.) A character development bell curve.

[VanBuren]

Wisdom is not always or even usually the difference between being Good and being Evil. However, from the comic it has been shown that it is such in Belkar's specific case.

[Hbgplayer]

While certainly not good, I would be slow to call Redcloak evil. He was willing to take over a human city for the good of his people, okay. How many "good" humans are willing to take over a goblin encampment for the good of them selves?

He let Xykon kill a bunch of hobgoblins. Yeah, that happened. That was just having a severe racial prejudice. How many "good" rangers with a favored enemy type are even worse then Redcloak and kill that enemy type on sight?

Some say humans are justified in killing goblins since goblins attack humans. That would mean goblins are justified in attacking humans since humans attack goblins. What Redcloak did in the seige on Azure city wasn't right. It was wrong. But listen to his reasons and the assault was reactionary.

He is Evil, if only by association. He knows that Xykon is evil, and he serves (sorta) Xykon, there by doing evil, which makes him evil. He is Evil with a few good tendencies, just like good people (like Roy) have a few evil tendencies. (wanting to kill Elan)
:roy:

[SowZ]

He is Evil, if only by association. He knows that Xykon is evil, and he serves (sorta) Xykon, there by doing evil, which makes him evil. He is Evil with a few good tendencies, just like good people (like Roy) have a few evil tendencies. (wanting to kill Elan)
:roy:

Redcloak actively manipulates Xykon for the good of his species. I think Redcloaks 'good' and true desire to help his people didn't come out until he started helping the hobgoblins. Associating with clear evil doesn't make one evil or the entire Order would be evil.

[Hbgplayer]

Associating with clear evil doesn't make one evil or the entire Order would be evil.

They may not be evil, but associating with Belkar doesn't do them any good with the heavenly attendants. Remember that when Roy died, he had to convince them that by "controlling" Belkar, he made it so :belkar: did less evil than if he were by himself, and that was still a stretch.
I also did not say associating with clear evil, I said serving. Readcloak may manipulate Xykon, but he still does the majority of what he is told. Also, creating Undead is Aways an evil act.

[SowZ]

They may not be evil, but associating with Belkar doesn't do them any good with the heavenly attendants. Remember that when Roy died, he had to convince them that by "controlling" Belkar, he made it so :belkar: did less evil than if he were by himself, and that was still a stretch.
I also did not say associating with clear evil, I said serving. Readcloak may manipulate Xykon, but he still does the majority of what he is told. Also, creating Undead is Aways an evil act.

Not philosophically it's not. That just means creating undead channels negative energy. Redcloak points Xykon towards what he views as good the best way he can.

[Conuly]

but, and this is a pretty big 'but', there are ways to deal with injustice that don't involve killing every living thing on the planet.

Yeah, but that's only a plan B. The main plan involves using the threat of killing the whole world as blackmail to get the gods to fix everything NOW in the world that CURRENTLY exists. His (his god's) actual plan is still stupid and unlikely to work, but you can see why, as a species, they've gotten a bit desperate.

[Threadnaught]

How can you say Redcloak isn't evil, when his whole plan is to use the gate and snarl to hold the world to ransom. Forcing the gods to give the goblins' own god a position of power and if all the gates are destroyed and the snarl unleashed, the dark one gains a part in creating the new world.


How about this then, a drow travels with a group of heroes, he wants to take over the world, but is willing to help a paladin kill any villain who wants world conquest too. Eventually he doesn't want to turn against his party members and decides to enlist their help in conquering hell. So they conquer hell and he lets them go just like that, later he begins his own religions so he becomes a god, he organizes several armies to gather and take over the world unseen. All crime in the part of the world he controls is drastically reduced, mostly because people can't really access adventuring tools like weapons and potions.


remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket.

Straight from the Giant's mouth, or fingers, whatever you're subjectively inclined towards.

The above drow is Chaotic Evil by the way, just in case you wanted to know.

[SowZ]

How can you say Redcloak isn't evil, when his whole plan is to use the gate and snarl to hold the world to ransom. Forcing the gods to give the goblins' own god a position of power and if all the gates are destroyed and the snarl unleashed, the dark one gains a part in creating the new world.


How about this then, a drow travels with a group of heroes, he wants to take over the world, but is willing to help a paladin kill any villain who wants world conquest too. Eventually he doesn't want to turn against his party members and decides to enlist their help in conquering hell. So they conquer hell and he lets them go just like that, later he begins his own religions so he becomes a god, he organizes several armies to gather and take over the world unseen. All crime in the part of the world he controls is drastically reduced, mostly because people can't really access adventuring tools like weapons and potions.



Straight from the Giant's mouth, or fingers, whatever you're subjectively inclined towards.

The above drow is Chaotic Evil by the way, just in case you wanted to know.

I admitted earlier that Redcloak is evil. I just think the reasons people are applying evil to him are often wrong and that there was a period where he wasn't.

[Threadnaught]

I admitted earlier that Redcloak is evil. I just think the reasons people are applying evil to him are often wrong and that there was a period where he wasn't.

No arguing with the bold.

Okay let's see, Redcloak is evil because...

Well he's already a murderer (not because of Azure city, but in general), he willingly desecrates the corpses of dead humans and until recently hobgoblins by raising them, he sent thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths mostly out of amusement and he's trying to take over the world so he can threaten the gods that created it.

He may be doing it for the good of his kind, but there are better ways of going about it, even as a goblin in a world full of goblin slayers. Redcloak is intelligent enough to realise this, he just doesn't care.

Also organised groups that attack people from their camps in the wilderness, generally camp away from their emotional interests so they have an easier time defending it. See what happened to Azure City for yourself, imagine them being attacked by a huge army every week and how difficult it would be to evacuate the civilians every time. So most adventuring parties never see a goblin civilian, goblin raiding parties however just love their soft targets. :smallamused:

[Conuly]

How can you say Redcloak isn't evil, when his whole plan is to use the gate and snarl to hold the world to ransom. Forcing the gods to give the goblins' own god a position of power and if all the gates are destroyed and the snarl unleashed, the dark one gains a part in creating the new world.

You could as easily ask how it wasn't evil to create this situation in the first place by deliberately making one or more species that are "mostly evil" and who exist so adventurers can level up. (If this is what happened. I'm not convinced either RC or his god is necessarily a reliable source. But who the heck knows? What we've seen of how Thor acts doesn't convince me that the "good" gods are so much either, not by MY morality.)

At which point you've effectively shown that everybody sucks. Well, it's not a great world to live in. Even the humans might be better off if things were restructured (although that depends on how much the Dark One would be willing to negotiate. From an outsider, though, it seems to me that putting humans and dwarves and elves in an underclass would just doom everybody to endless, endless squabbling over the gates. Moreso than already, that is.)


How about this then, a drow travels with a group of heroes, he wants to take over the world, but is willing to help a paladin kill any villain who wants world conquest too. Eventually he doesn't want to turn against his party members and decides to enlist their help in conquering hell. So they conquer hell and he lets them go just like that, later he begins his own religions so he becomes a god, he organizes several armies to gather and take over the world unseen. All crime in the part of the world he controls is drastically reduced, mostly because people can't really access adventuring tools like weapons and potions.

Sounds like a win for the good guys. What's your point?


The above drow is Chaotic Evil by the way, just in case you wanted to know.

Yes, and there you go, just as good intentions sometimes lead to bad places, bad intentions may end up helping everybody out. What does that have to do with Redcloak?

[SowZ]

No arguing with the bold.

Okay let's see, Redcloak is evil because...

Well he's already a murderer (not because of Azure city, but in general), he willingly desecrates the corpses of dead humans and until recently hobgoblins by raising them, he sent thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths mostly out of amusement and he's trying to take over the world so he can threaten the gods that created it.

He may be doing it for the good of his kind, but there are better ways of going about it, even as a goblin in a world full of goblin slayers. Redcloak is intelligent enough to realise this, he just doesn't care.

Also organised groups that attack people from their camps in the wilderness, generally camp away from their emotional interests so they have an easier time defending it. See what happened to Azure City for yourself, imagine them being attacked by a huge army every week and how difficult it would be to evacuate the civilians every time. So most adventuring parties never see a goblin civilian, goblin raiding parties however just love their soft targets. :smallamused:

That sounds like the drow could just as easily be lawful evil or neutral evil. Why do you say chaotic, out of curiosity? Also, that person has none of the same motivations as Redcloak. Actually, if his race was created for the sole purpose of being murdered I think holding the gods ransom to remake things is a perfectly valid response.

[Threadnaught]

Sounds like a win for the good guys. What's your point?

Curfews, security checks for what people are allowed to buy, forced religious dogma. From the outside, it's advertised as a safe and lawful population, on the inside people are suffering, but put up with it because it's safer than in a good society. World conquest is easier if you do it the way Tarquin and his party are doing it, manipulating others to do what you want.


Yes, and there you go, just as good intentions sometimes lead to bad places, bad intentions may end up helping everybody out. What does that have to do with Redcloak?

Redcloak doesn't just want to help his race though does he? He wants every other race to suffer because his race are monsters. Of course he especially wants humans to suffer because they're not in the manual. Best way to accomplish this with the reality warping powers of the Snarl? Trap all humans elves and dwarves in a walled enclosure which goblinoids can walk into and massacre as many as they want whenever they want. This way the other races get to experience what it's like to be killed for exp and the goblinoids will be safe from the other races, well mostly.
And if plan A fails, there's always plan B, let the goblins' god have a part in making the new world.

What both Redcloak and the drow have in common, they both have high Wisdom and are both Evil. Both are willing to torture people for amusement, murder people because they're in the way and manipulate other villains to do whatever they need. Yeah sure RC may be an underling, but Xykon is easily manipulated until he gets angry, until V attacked and X lost his Phylactery, X was happy to just torture O-Chul and let RC do what he wanted.


That sounds like the drow could just as easily be lawful evil or neutral evil. Why do you say chaotic, out of curiosity?

He doesn't really care about following anyone's rules but his own. Once he becomes ruler of hell and commands his religions, he may take a shift toward neutral, but again he doesn't care about following any code or rules, he only cares that everyone under his command obeys him. Remember, Alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket, just because you're Chaotic, doesn't mean you can't create a Lawful society and manipulate it to do whatever you want it to. Remember that Shojo was Chaotic and ran a Lawful society.


Also, that person has none of the same motivations as Redcloak. Actually, if his race was created for the sole purpose of being murdered I think holding the gods ransom to remake things is a perfectly valid response.

Drow were created to murder eachother, to constantly betray everyone around them and to be killed every time they go to the surface. The first two point to a CE society, the last points to something that could motivate a drow into following in Redcloak's footsteps.

Redcloak has actually taken a huge step toward ending the whole goblin slaying culture in his world. He founded Gobbotopia, a city for hobgoblins and maybe some goblins, if they can prove they can run a civilised society for long enough they'll begin to change people's preconceptions about their race. As long as they remove the paladin run resistance and start to let in living members of other races.


As for the gods' own motivations in making the world, well there were several arguments between making the world of their own religion or one filled with our culture, but eventually they all settled on the existing world as a compromise so they could seal the Snarl. Monkey created the Ninjas, but it's unknown who made the goblins as they are. For all we know, Thor may have helped create the Snarl by wanting goblins to be mischeavous, fun loving protectors of good.

[SowZ]

Curfews, security checks for what people are allowed to buy, forced religious dogma. From the outside, it's advertised as a safe and lawful population, on the inside people are suffering, but put up with it because it's safer than in a good society. World conquest is easier if you do it the way Tarquin and his party are doing it, manipulating others to do what you want.



Redcloak doesn't just want to help his race though does he? He wants every other race to suffer because his race are monsters. Of course he especially wants humans to suffer because they're not in the manual. Best way to accomplish this with the reality warping powers of the Snarl? Trap all humans elves and dwarves in a walled enclosure which goblinoids can walk into and massacre as many as they want whenever they want. This way the other races get to experience what it's like to be killed for exp and the goblinoids will be safe from the other races, well mostly.
And if plan A fails, there's always plan B, let the goblins' god have a part in making the new world.

What both Redcloak and the drow have in common, they both have high Wisdom and are both Evil. Both are willing to torture people for amusement, murder people because they're in the way and manipulate other villains to do whatever they need. Yeah sure RC may be an underling, but Xykon is easily manipulated until he gets angry, until V attacked and X lost his Phylactery, X was happy to just torture O-Chul and let RC do what he wanted.



He doesn't really care about following anyone's rules but his own. Once he becomes ruler of hell and commands his religions, he may take a shift toward neutral, but again he doesn't care about following any code or rules, he only cares that everyone under his command obeys him. Remember, Alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket, just because you're Chaotic, doesn't mean you can't create a Lawful society and manipulate it to do whatever you want it to. Remember that Shojo was Chaotic and ran a Lawful society.



Drow were created to murder eachother, to constantly betray everyone around them and to be killed every time they go to the surface. The first two point to a CE society, the last points to something that could motivate a drow into following in Redcloak's footsteps.

Redcloak has actually taken a huge step toward ending the whole goblin slaying culture in his world. He founded Gobbotopia, a city for hobgoblins and maybe some goblins, if they can prove they can run a civilised society for long enough they'll begin to change people's preconceptions about their race. As long as they remove the paladin run resistance and start to let in living members of other races.

Eh, I would argue that Drow weren't created for that purpose but twisted by their gods to be. They were originally surface elves.

If the gods really made him to be murdered I think Redcloak's actions are perfectly reasonable/not wrong, if not good.

[Threadnaught]

Eh, I would argue that Drow weren't created for that purpose but twisted by their gods to be. They were originally surface elves.

Exactly, there are few differences between drow and goblins, a higher CR and creature type. Other than those two however, they have as much reason to hate the other races for how they are.


I checked out some rules while editing and forgot to finish it earlier btw.

The gods appear to have made the world so they could... Play god. Yeah I tried to avoid it, but it's the best way to describe it, okay they built their world and are enjoying their creation. Giving their followers little nudges to keep the game going.

Unless your name is Rich Burlew, it's impossible to actually know the gods' reasons for creating the world.

However, I know people played Sim City and the Sims as something other than a genocide/torture simulator, I enjoyed both sides of either game myself.

[Conuly]

He wants every other race to suffer because his race are monsters.

I wouldn't put it past him to want humans to suffer, but that's because from his perspective, humans are monsters.