What if the Dark One is lying? (SoD Spoilers)

[Holy_Knight]

Something I've been pondering lately--do we have any evidence, aside from the Dark One's word (as related by Redcloak) that the goblins and other savage humanoids were intentionally created as XP fodder? Because if not, then it could call into question what the Dark One's true purpose is, and whether Redcloak might not even be decieved about it himself.

There are also some reasons, aside from mere lack of confirmation, to think that the Dark One's story might be suspect. For example:

--Why would the gods have done that? It's not just that creating whole races of sentient beings for the purpose of being eternally downtrodden and killed for experience seems like a horrible thing to do, especially for allegedly good gods. It's that it also seems unnecessary. Even if you need to solve the problem of giving your clerics and other adventurers a way to level up, there are other, non-sentient monsters which could serve the same purpose. Furthermore, it's not as if there is never any conflict between members of the "favored" races themselves, especially given the diversity of alignments to which those members might adhere. So it seems like there are not only moral reasons against doing what the original gods are supposed to have done, but that it would serve no real practical purpose anyway. So why do it?

--Shortly before he dies, Right-Eye calls the Dark one a "petty spiteful god", and tells Redcloak: "Come on. You have to realize that the Dark One doesn't care about us. Why else would he let you throw goblin lives away on this Plan?" Now obviously there's a fundamental difference in worldview going on here, but still, Right-Eye kind of has a point. Whereas Right-Eye seemed to be taking practical steps toward making as good a life for goblins as he could, the Dark One seems fairly cavalier about letting goblins be sacrificed in service of getting the ritual done, not to mention the fact that under Xykon's thumb, their lives as a whole are much worse than they were before. Basically, if he really wanted to improve the lot of goblinkind, couldn't he do better than this? Help them in a way that doesn't depend so heavily on goblin enslavement and death? On the other hand, if his main goal is actually power...

So, what if the creation didn't happen the way that he said? What if the goblins and some other humanoids weren't created to be expendable, but just happened through bad luck and circumstance to get the short end of the stick? The entire Plan would be a way for the Dark One to exploit that misfortune to take control of the Pantheons, under the pretext of wanting to improve goblin existence. While in fact, it might actually inhibit goblin prosperity as the many "pawns" fell in the service of the Dark One's ambitions. Could Redcloak actually be a victim of his own deity's deception?

[factotum]

The Dark One is an evil God, so lying is extremely likely. Furthermore, he wasn't actually *there* when the other gods were supposedly creating the goblins as XP fodder for adventurers, so even if he isn't lying his information is at best second hand--one of the other evil Gods could be lying to *him* for reasons of their own. There's certainly plenty of room for uncertainty over that part of Redcloak's story.

It's also interesting to note that the goblinoids seem to have managed quite well anyway--the hobgoblin city Xykon and Redcloak found in the mountains had a population of tens of thousands! They all appeared to be hale and hearty, with no signs that they were short of food or anything like that; so if goblinoids are already capable of setting up civilisations like that, where's the need for the Dark One's over-elaborate and dangerous plan? If Redcloak wasn't so blinded by his hatred for humans he'd see that himself!

[Mutant Sheep]

The Dark One is an evil God, so lying is extremely likely. Furthermore, he wasn't actually *there* when the other gods were supposedly creating the goblins as XP fodder for adventurers, so even if he isn't lying his information is at best second hand--one of the other evil Gods could be lying to *him* for reasons of their own. There's certainly plenty of room for uncertainty over that part of Redcloak's story.

I would scream "I BLAME LOKI", but he doesn't seem like the "blackmail you with godkilling-abomination" kind of guy. Hel maybe, but I really think it's Tiamat. Tiamat is probably all in with the Dark One right now, if she wasn't already before. I've always thought of the Dark One as a goblinoid version of Darkseid, so yeah...

[iroZn]

I don't think The Dark One is lying. He has no real reason to deceive his followers, especially his champion, Redcloak. I think that The Dark One's plan may go farther than Redcloak knows, lie by omission, other than that though what reason would he have to lie?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Basically, if he really wanted to improve the lot of goblinkind, couldn't he do better than this?

You could make this argument with all the gods: Take the southern gods for example. If they really did care about the people of Azure City, why did they let Hobgoblins take it over?

[Mutant Sheep]

You could make this argument with all the gods: Take the southern gods for example. If they really did care about the people of Azure City, why did they let Hobgoblins take it over?

Because they are lazy.:smallamused: Hey, like me!:smallbiggrin:

[Heksefatter]

I don't know. It is very possible. The Dark One is, as has been pointed out, rather cavalier with the lives of goblins. And there's certainly much more to the Snarl than what has been told in our crayon-flashbacks.

Boring answer: I'll wait and see.

[M.A.D]

Ancient war-farers have a philosophy called "kill thousands, save millions". If the Dark One weren't lying, this is probably the same thing on a larger scale. I mean, yeah, he let hordes of hobgoblins die in this generation for the sake of creating utopia, but if the Plan as RC know it succeeds, countless generations of goblins will have a level-playing field where they get better lives.

Also, from the stories, strong creatures were created so that the God's clerics could level up, and the Gods's offerings being increased. Now, I think the same thing doesn't hold true for goblinoids, because they're practically, human's hunting target. So, if there were any ulterior motive in this, the Dark One probably wanted his clerics to grow in number and levels as well.

[Thanatosia]

I've posted this before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150822) several times, but yeah, I agree, I don't think the Dark One is to be trusted, and I don't believe his origin story. I even think it's possible that the DO custom crafted a different story (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152891) for Redcloak when he put on the cloak for the first time, tailored to press his buttons.

(to avoid necromancy, don't post in the threads I linked, they are for reading/reference only)

[NerfTW]

Whereas Right-Eye seemed to be taking practical steps toward making as good a life for goblins as he could, the Dark One seems fairly cavalier about letting goblins be sacrificed in service of getting the ritual done, not to mention the fact that under Xykon's thumb, their lives as a whole are much worse than they were before. Basically, if he really wanted to improve the lot of goblinkind, couldn't he do better than this? Help them in a way that doesn't depend so heavily on goblin enslavement and death? On the other hand, if his main goal is actually power...


The Dark One ALSO tried to make life for goblins better through a simple town/small kingdom. It failed miserably, leading to his death and rising as a god. Why would he encourage others to do the same thing that he already failed at when he has knowledge of something that will force the other gods to leave them alone?

Given that plan B is remaking reality, I think it's clear he considers the current deaths to justify the means. Especially since Redcloak has managed to secure himself a city surrounding one of the rifts, and has a very good chance of succeeding. Hence his message to Jirx.

[Cracklord]

What you are essentially saying is 'If God is good, why is there evil?' To which the answer is 'something to do with free will.'
Hobgoblins died by the truckload, but if Redcloak hadn't been so careless with their lives they wouldn't have. He made the choice to do it that way, and though he came to his senses it's not the Dark One's job to prevent any mistakes.
But most of all, you have to understand that their deaths aren't all that bad. Because they die in the service of their god, and therefore go to the requisite afterlife, which is their eternal reward, as Jirix explained it. That's good news. Thats why they're all so brave. Their lives suck, so the chance to risk it to take Azure City seems pretty good. If they win, they get a better life, if they lose they go to heaven. What's not to like?
Who knows. Maybe the Greek Gods made the goblins, and their original patrons were unmade, leaving them unprotected. Maybe the Dark One is telling the truth. From what we see of the Good Gods, I could bellieve it of them. It's not really clear. But while his story does seem to be missing a few key areas, it's the only evidence we have/

[SowZ]

What you are essentially saying is 'If God is good, why is there evil?' To which the answer is 'something to do with free will.'
Hobgoblins died by the truckload, but if Redcloak hadn't been so careless with their lives they wouldn't have. He made the choice to do it that way, and though he came to his senses it's not the Dark One's job to prevent any mistakes.
But most of all, you have to understand that their deaths aren't all that bad. Because they die in the service of their god, and therefore go to the requisite afterlife, which is their eternal reward, as Jirix explained it. That's good news. Thats why they're all so brave. Their lives suck, so the chance to risk it to take Azure City seems pretty good. If they win, they get a better life, if they lose they go to heaven. What's not to like?
Who knows. Maybe the Greek Gods made the goblins, and their original patrons were unmade, leaving them unprotected. Maybe the Dark One is telling the truth. From what we see of the Good Gods, I could bellieve it of them. It's not really clear. But while his story does seem to be missing a few key areas, it's the only evidence we have/

Except that creating creatures with an alignment that the gods subjectively deem as wrong despite it being in that creatures own nature puts a damper on the whole free will thing.

[factotum]

You could make this argument with all the gods: Take the southern gods for example. If they really did care about the people of Azure City, why did they let Hobgoblins take it over?

Because they had no choice in the matter. The Gods are not allowed to intervene directly in the affairs of the world below, they have to do so through their appointed followers such as clerics and paladins--this is why Thor got in trouble with the Southern gods for allowing Control Weather to do more than it's supposed to when Durkon cast it in Cliffport! You can see why this *has* to be the case--any pettifogging little disagreement would very soon escalate to a war between the Gods themselves if they started using their powers directly on the mortal plane.

[Holy_Knight]

The Dark One ALSO tried to make life for goblins better through a simple town/small kingdom. It failed miserably, leading to his death and rising as a god. Why would he encourage others to do the same thing that he already failed at when he has knowledge of something that will force the other gods to leave them alone?
This isn't entirely true. He was actually succeeding quite well right up until his assassination, proving that the goblinoids could amass organization and power. The goblin armies probably could have achieved better economic distribution and so forth through the might they already possessed. Leaving his guard down while meeting with the humans that betrayed him was an extremely costly mistake, to be certain, but it doesn't mean that his achievements prior to that point were therefore a miserable failure.


What you are essentially saying is 'If God is good, why is there evil?' To which the answer is 'something to do with free will.'
Hobgoblins died by the truckload, but if Redcloak hadn't been so careless with their lives they wouldn't have. He made the choice to do it that way, and though he came to his senses it's not the Dark One's job to prevent any mistakes.
But most of all, you have to understand that their deaths aren't all that bad. Because they die in the service of their god, and therefore go to the requisite afterlife, which is their eternal reward, as Jirix explained it. That's good news. Thats why they're all so brave. Their lives suck, so the chance to risk it to take Azure City seems pretty good. If they win, they get a better life, if they lose they go to heaven. What's not to like?
Who knows. Maybe the Greek Gods made the goblins, and their original patrons were unmade, leaving them unprotected. Maybe the Dark One is telling the truth. From what we see of the Good Gods, I could bellieve it of them. It's not really clear. But while his story does seem to be missing a few key areas, it's the only evidence we have/
Actually, I'm NOT asking that, although I can see why you thought I was. What I'm saying is that The Plan seems guaranteed to magnify goblin suffering through its attempted execution, whereas there are seemingly other ways of trying to achieve a better life for them which would not only cause less suffering but have a much higher chance of success (and no "utter annihilation" scenario). It's not a matter of "If he really cared then nothing bad would happen", it's more like "If improving the life of goblinkind were truly his main/only goal, he wouldn't involve them in a Plan that was bound to make them seem like a threat to the entirety of existence, ensuring their continual persecution".

The second bolded statement is part of my point--given that his word is the only evidence that we have, AND that some key aspects of his story seem implausible or suspect, there's a decent possibility that he's not telling the total truth about his motivations and goals.


Because they had no choice in the matter. The Gods are not allowed to intervene directly in the affairs of the world below, they have to do so through their appointed followers such as clerics and paladins--this is why Thor got in trouble with the Southern gods for allowing Control Weather to do more than it's supposed to when Durkon cast it in Cliffport! You can see why this *has* to be the case--any pettifogging little disagreement would very soon escalate to a war between the Gods themselves if they started using their powers directly on the mortal plane.
Right.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

I actually hope he isn't lying. If he is, and goblins weren't made to just be XP fodder, then it means they are an Always Evil Race just because, which to me is much less interesting then the story the Dark One tells. I do think he is at least lying about how far he'll go if he gets the snarl, and maybe once his plan fails the other gods will see the error of there ways and make live better for goblins and kobolds and such, but that's assuming this story has a happy ending for more then just Elan.

[Thanatosia]

I actually hope he isn't lying. If he is, and goblins weren't made to just be XP fodder, then it means they are an Always Evil Race just because, which to me is much less interesting then the story the Dark One tells.
But you are accepting the fact that the 'Good' Gods made an 'always evil' race just to be exploited, supressed, and killed for xp fodder.... something that makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd much prefer an explanation for 'evil' races coming from 'evil' gods, rather then good gods making an evil race just to opress them for all eternity. The type of universe that supports such 'good' gods is a pretty grim one.

[SowZ]

I actually hope he isn't lying. If he is, and goblins weren't made to just be XP fodder, then it means they are an Always Evil Race just because, which to me is much less interesting then the story the Dark One tells. I do think he is at least lying about how far he'll go if he gets the snarl, and maybe once his plan fails the other gods will see the error of there ways and make live better for goblins and kobolds and such, but that's assuming this story has a happy ending for more then just Elan.

Goblins are just usually neutral evil, anyway, even in OOTS world. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html A large chunk of the goblins are probably not evil and a decent chunk could be good. Of course, that is accepting the alignment rules as stringent and steadfast.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

Goblins are just usually neutral evil, anyway, even in OOTS world. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html A large chunk of the goblins are probably not evil and a decent chunk could be good. Of course, that is accepting the alignment rules as stringent and steadfast.

I know, but I find it more interesting if they were designed that way to eliminate the guilt of slaughtering them for XP then if they were usually all evil for no real reason.

[SowZ]

I know, but I find it more interesting if they were designed that way to eliminate the guilt of slaughtering them for XP then if they were usually all evil for no real reason.

They aren't usually evil for no reason. They are 'evil' because they are compared to purely human morals and for some unexplicable reason are held to that standard AND because their species typically channels 'evil energy.' That is one explanation. It would mean that The Dark One has different values than the 'good' gods.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

I suppose the real question here is are the goblins evil because of socioeconomic pressure, not having enough to support themselves so they were forced to take up raiding other races to survive and such, or are they living in the fringe because they were forced there for being "evil?"

of course those questions raise more questions. If it was the first, was it the good gods who did it for the reasons the Dark One states, or was it the evil ones to ensure a steady supply of minions? Perhaps neither and it was random chance?

If it was the later, for what reasons are the goblins evil? Is it the standard dnd answer of just because, or something more?

[veti]

In the real world, people tend to fight each other not because of alignment differences, but basically because there's only so much fertile land to go around.

In OOTS, goblins and humans (and related races, on both sides) have exactly the same basic reason to fight each other. The fact that they're biologically different races is not so much a motivation, as a convenient differentiating factor that saves everyone the trouble of wearing uniforms.

In the Dark One's version of history: Once upon a time, there were only humans in the Stickverse. Presumably those humans came in all alignments. But the problem with gaining XP at low levels - would apply only to Good humans. So gobins were created not just for the benefit of humans, but specifically for the benefit of Good humans. If you treat goblins as morally equivalent to humans - if Good people aren't allowed to kill them with impunity - then this account simply makes no sense.

I see three possible explanations.

One: moral standards have changed. When goblins were introduced, it was perfectly acceptable to kill them indiscriminately, but at some point the definition of 'good' was changed so that this is no longer the case.

Two: the goblins themselves have changed. When they were introduced, they were feral creatures, little more than animals, incapable of rational thought or having an alignment of their own. Since then, they've evolved into what we see today.

Three: the Dark One is either lying, or just plain wrong.

Plausible alternative explanation: Once upon a time, there were people living in swamps - because, as noted above, there is only so much fertile land to go round. The gods turned their skin green as part of a benign mutation to help them to survive in that environment. On encountering them, other humans branded them as "goblins".

[factotum]

I know, but I find it more interesting if they were designed that way to eliminate the guilt of slaughtering them for XP then if they were usually all evil for no real reason.

That still doesn't explain why the Good gods would create a race of sentient beings whose entire purpose in life is to die at the hands of their clerics. That is *so* not a Good thing to do--if they were going to create XP fodder for people they'd at least make them mindless. Plus, there are plenty of low-level XP fodder opponents that aren't goblinoids--low level undead, for a start.

I think it's more likely that the races were all created at the same time, and that the goblinoids (being generally evil because they were presumably created by one of the evil deities) fought amongst themselves so much that they never got a foothold, while the more random alignment races didn't have that problem.

[Conuly]

I think it's more likely that the races were all created at the same time, and that the goblinoids (being generally evil because they were presumably created by one of the evil deities) fought amongst themselves so much that they never got a foothold, while the more random alignment races didn't have that problem.

Well, that explains goblins, but what about hobgoblins, with their famed military social structure and organization, as loathed by Redcloak? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html)

And for that matter, DOES it explain the goblins? The few examples we've seen of goblin social life untouched by Xykon have been of organized villages with families that stay in touch and support each other and that are shocked by violence when it comes. You'd think that if they spent all their time squabbling, they'd defend themselves better.

And what about the Western Continent? Is the chaos that is the desert really because most of the people in it, including the humans, are just evil?

Of course, not to put too fine a point on it, but in many real religions the deities, despite being worshipped by generally good people, often do things that we puny humans would consider not so good. Take a look at Greek/Roman myths! There's a reason all the moons of Jupiter have girls' names....

Maybe the good gods aren't intended to actually be Good, because they have nobody to answer to. So it doesn't matter for them.

[hamishspence]

Of course, not to put too fine a point on it, but in many real religions the deities, despite being worshipped by generally good people, often do things that we puny humans would consider not so good. Take a look at Greek/Roman myths! There's a reason all the moons of Jupiter have girls' names....

Except Ganymede- but that is a good point.

[factotum]

Well, that explains goblins, but what about hobgoblins, with their famed military social structure and organization, as loathed by Redcloak? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html)


You answered your own question--the different types of goblinoids dislike each other, so goblins fight hobgoblins and so on. OK, humans do that too, but maybe not to the same extent.

[Conuly]

You answered your own question--the different types of goblinoids dislike each other, so goblins fight hobgoblins and so on. OK, humans do that too, but maybe not to the same extent.

Again I point to the entire Western continent.

And really, why should goblins fighting with hobgoblins be more significant than humans slaughtering both of them when it comes to the relative position of the species?

And of course, it seems to be a matter of historical record (that is, we can easily check other sources to see if this happened... at least, we could if we lived in the Stickverse) that all the goblinoids were united to fight against humans during the Dark One's lifespan. What happened then we only have on hearsay (I doubt any history book other than a Goblin one records that he was "backstabbed", though maybe that did happen), but there's no real evidence that they honestly are constantly at each other's throats.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

That still doesn't explain why the Good gods would create a race of sentient beings whose entire purpose in life is to die at the hands of their clerics. That is *so* not a Good thing to do--if they were going to create XP fodder for people they'd at least make them mindless. Plus, there are plenty of low-level XP fodder opponents that aren't goblinoids--low level undead, for a start.

I think it's more likely that the races were all created at the same time, and that the goblinoids (being generally evil because they were presumably created by one of the evil deities) fought amongst themselves so much that they never got a foothold, while the more random alignment races didn't have that problem.

Well, if the Dark One isn't lying, it would mean that the Good Gods aren't really that good. After all, they are the ones who defined what good was in this universe, so if Thor or the Dragon says that what they are doing is good, who is going to call them on it? We already know they have been seen to not be perfectly good beings, after all they did have an argument partly driven by vanity that created a monster that destroyed a world.

Of course, that is a bit more grimdark then this strip's general tone, so it is likely not true. And upon further thought, I guess I don't really want the strip to turn in that direction. But what is the point of a forum is not to speculate on what could be or what could have been?

[SowZ]

Well, that explains goblins, but what about hobgoblins, with their famed military social structure and organization, as loathed by Redcloak? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html)

And for that matter, DOES it explain the goblins? The few examples we've seen of goblin social life untouched by Xykon have been of organized villages with families that stay in touch and support each other and that are shocked by violence when it comes. You'd think that if they spent all their time squabbling, they'd defend themselves better.

And what about the Western Continent? Is the chaos that is the desert really because most of the people in it, including the humans, are just evil?

Of course, not to put too fine a point on it, but in many real religions the deities, despite being worshipped by generally good people, often do things that we puny humans would consider not so good. Take a look at Greek/Roman myths! There's a reason all the moons of Jupiter have girls' names....

Maybe the good gods aren't intended to actually be Good, because they have nobody to answer to. So it doesn't matter for them.

We know that, assuming crayon story is true, the gods of many of the monster races did not create said monster races. Instead, the monster races created their own gods. So that shoots a hole in the 'evil gods create monsters' theory.

[factotum]

We know that, assuming crayon story is true, the gods of many of the monster races did not create said monster races. Instead, the monster races created their own gods. So that shoots a hole in the 'evil gods create monsters' theory.

No it doesn't. Somebody had to have created the monster races in the first place--they can't have created their own gods, who then created them!

[Lord Bingo]

IMO the quick and dirty answer to why the supposedly good gods would create a sentient race of evil beings is, to test those who claim to be good and have them prove their merit. Life is supposed to be a trial by ordeal. RL Religion is fraud with stories like this -that good gods allow there to be evil in the world to test the hearts of men- and I see no reason why this explanation would not suffice here also.

As for the merits of what we know of creation I think we should regard any evidence drawn in crayon as tentative at best. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but somehow something does not add up. I am however more apt to believe that the Dark One believes that what he has ordained is truly in the best interest of goblinkind and that it is the account of the creation of the world (and the Snarl) which is dubious. Since the Dark One, as has already been said, was not present during the genesis his knowledge -like ours- may very well be incomplete.

[Holy_Knight]

IMO the quick and dirty answer to why the supposedly good gods would create a sentient race of evil beings is, to test those who claim to be good and have them prove their merit. Life is supposed to be a trial by ordeal. RL Religion is fraud with stories like this -that good gods allow there to be evil in the world to test the hearts of men- and I see no reason why this explanation would not suffice here also.

As for the merits of what we know of creation I think we should regard any evidence drawn in crayon as tentative at best. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but somehow something does not add up. I am however more apt to believe that the Dark One believes that what he has ordained is truly in the best interest of goblinkind and that it is the account of the creation of the world (and the Snarl) which is dubious. Since the Dark One, as has already been said, was not present during the genesis his knowledge -like ours- may very well be incomplete.

Just as a note here, I think you mean "fraught", not "fraud".

[Conuly]

No it doesn't. Somebody had to have created the monster races in the first place--they can't have created their own gods, who then created them!

I think what was meant is that there's no proof that the "evil" races were created specifically and solely by the "evil" gods. We know some gods had to create them, but we don't know which ones created which races.

And I put "evil" in quotes because if we're calling the morality of all the gods into question, it's all up in the air.

[Lord Bingo]

Just as a note here, I think you mean "fraught", not "fraud".
lol. I think you are right:)

[WickedWizard17]

In regards to this subject, I think it's more important that REDCLOAK is lying - to Xykon. Even after he killed his brother and accepted his role and Xykon's servant, he still hasn't told him the truth. Xykon still thinks he can control the Snarl, so his supposedly loyal right-hand is bull****ting him completely. Maybe Redcloak's not such a chicken**** after all.

P.S. RIGHT-EYE WAS AMAZING. HE IS MY IDOL. Plus, I have utter sympathy with the goblins now. I actually asked my DM if we could not fight them any more, keep it to ogres or something :smallamused:

[factotum]

Xykon still thinks he can control the Snarl, so his supposedly loyal right-hand is bull****ting him completely.

Xykon clearly suspects something is up, or he wouldn't have got Tsukiko to examine the Gate ritual Redcloak gave him.

[whitelaughter]

I think it's quite likely that the Dark One is lying; basic propaganda to whip up the masses.

The argument that the humanoids got the worst land falls down hard: the only dirt farmers we've seen are humans, it's humans squished up against the desert on the western continent, and the hobgoblins living in the southern continent seem to have had quite decent lands.

Also, the default class for demihumans is Commoner. The goblins default is a mix of Humanoid and Warrior, far better options.


To take a swipe at both humans and humanoids, the wide range of helpful magics in D&D mean that the state of the land when you get there doesn't mean much. Heck, if Redcloak had put those armies of zombies to work building roads he could have built up trade for his new country. And why doesn't Gobbotopia have a moat yet?

[B. Dandelion]

It's certainly possible he's lying. At this juncture, though, I personally find it both more plausible and more satisfying to accept that yes, the gods did create the humanoid races as fodder. You could call that heinous -- but it does not strike me as intentionally malicious as opposed to thoughtless and short-sighted. They never set out to make the humanoid lot in life a misery. It's just that it never entered into their thinking that what they were doing had that as an inevitable result. It was all done for the benefit of people, meaning the PC classes. That the humanoids would consider themselves people, and criticize their rules as profoundly unfair (which they are) is something they didn't anticipate.

For me that sounds like quite an impressive deconstruction of the creation of a fantasy world designed as an RPG. Everything is centered around XP, which is primarily earned through killing. While playtesting the game it came out that there was an XP shortage for a particular class. They came up with new, easier things to kill in order to rectify the issue. Monsters that exist solely, or primary, to be killed in an RPG are nothing out of the ordinary. But it makes for a fascinating perspective flip if you think about how a monster in such a setting would react to the revelation that their "creators" (designers) had made them for that purpose.

[Conuly]

Xykon clearly suspects something is up, or he wouldn't have got Tsukiko to examine the Gate ritual Redcloak gave him.

Or he could just be covering his bony butt because, seriously, they're all both evil and untrustworthy.

Which isn't quite the same as specifically suspecting Redcloak because of anything he's done, though it's a subtle difference.


It was all done for the benefit of people, meaning the PC classes.

If the story as told is accurate, it wasn't even done for them, it was done for the benefit of the gods, to entertain them more. I'm sure all the humans and elves and dwarves would've been just as happy living in a more peaceful world where few people made it into the higher levels because there weren't any threats they had to fight all the time to force them to do so.

I mean, really, if the Dark One *isn't* lying, the whole world ought to be rioting when they find out that their lives were made more miserable and harder just to entertain their deities!

[factotum]

I'm sure all the humans and elves and dwarves would've been just as happy living in a more peaceful world where few people made it into the higher levels because there weren't any threats they had to fight all the time to force them to do so.

I mean, really, if the Dark One *isn't* lying, the whole world ought to be rioting when they find out that their lives were made more miserable and harder just to entertain their deities!

Doesn't follow. Presumably the higher-level opponents (the non-humanoid monsters) still existed in this earlier world, it's just the clerics weren't high enough level to take them down!

[Conuly]

Doesn't follow. Presumably the higher-level opponents (the non-humanoid monsters) still existed in this earlier world, it's just the clerics weren't high enough level to take them down!

Oooh, you think?

But that just pushes the problem further back. WHO decided to make higher-level monsters in the first place? Who looked around, and said "Well, we could make utopia, but screw it, monsters all around!"?

[B. Dandelion]

They were setting out to make a world where PCs could have kickass adventures. Not even the Dark One alleges that there's something horrible about that, that they're making people dance on strings of conflict just for their own warped amusement. That is their idea of utopia. (Not to mention there's an afterlife. Oh hey and one of the amusements in the LG afterlife is a dungeon crawl! Which people apparently enjoy.) His complaint is that even by those standards the deck is stacked against them. PCs are meant to have kickass, fulfilling adventures. Humanoids are meant to get slaughtered for XP.

[Holy_Knight]

It's certainly possible he's lying. At this juncture, though, I personally find it both more plausible and more satisfying to accept that yes, the gods did create the humanoid races as fodder. You could call that heinous -- but it does not strike me as intentionally malicious as opposed to thoughtless and short-sighted. They never set out to make the humanoid lot in life a misery. It's just that it never entered into their thinking that what they were doing had that as an inevitable result. It was all done for the benefit of people, meaning the PC classes. That the humanoids would consider themselves people, and criticize their rules as profoundly unfair (which they are) is something they didn't anticipate.

For me that sounds like quite an impressive deconstruction of the creation of a fantasy world designed as an RPG. Everything is centered around XP, which is primarily earned through killing. While playtesting the game it came out that there was an XP shortage for a particular class. They came up with new, easier things to kill in order to rectify the issue. Monsters that exist solely, or primary, to be killed in an RPG are nothing out of the ordinary. But it makes for a fascinating perspective flip if you think about how a monster in such a setting would react to the revelation that their "creators" (designers) had made them for that purpose.
I don't disagree that it's an interesting perspective to view the story from--quite the opposite, actually. But the problem isn't just that it implicates the gods in heinous behavior, it's that the supposed explanation doesn't make sense. For instance:

1. How could they NOT anticipate that result? They made beings which they knew full well were sentient and disposed to create communities. You can't set out to specifically disadvantage someone (i.e. giving them only poor farmland, etc.) without knowing what kinds of beings they are and hence what constitutes advantage and disadvantage for them. They obviously knew the kind of beings they were creating, so it isn't very credible that they would be surprised that those beings would think of themselves as people. More importantly...

2. How could there be an XP shortage for one class only? If the other classes are capable of gaining XP and advancing by defeating the already existing monsters, then there's no reason to think that clerics wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if clerics were relatively weak compared to the other classes (which they aren't--in fact, they should be one of the more viable classes at low levels) they could team up with other classes at low levels until they gained cooler spells and so forth. It stands to reason that either NONE of the PC classes could advance from the lower levels (which strains credibility given that the gods specifically set out to make a world of adventure and XP gaining), or that specifically creating sentient humanoids as XP fodder would be superfluous (which casts doubt on the veracity of the Dark One's words).

[B. Dandelion]

1. How could they NOT anticipate that result?

Consider their track record.


They made beings which they knew full well were sentient and disposed to create communities. You can't set out to specifically disadvantage someone (i.e. giving them only poor farmland, etc.) without knowing what kinds of beings they are and hence what constitutes advantage and disadvantage for them. They obviously knew the kind of beings they were creating, so it isn't very credible that they would be surprised that those beings would think of themselves as people.

I'm not really seeing how this follows. They know what will and what will not constitute a survival advantage for their creations, so they should have been able to anticipate how they'd feel about things?

I am approaching this from the perspective of looking at the gods as designers/programmers. They were to anticipate that the mook program they created wasn't just to seek out resources (which were deliberately limited), but start asking questions about WHY they were limited at all? And on discovering the reason, launch a rebellion against the program itself?'


2. How could there be an XP shortage for one class only?

One class that was specifically created after the other classes, to address the issue of the gods' direct influence on the world.


If the other classes are capable of gaining XP and advancing by defeating the already existing monsters, then there's no reason to think that clerics wouldn't be able to do the same. Even if clerics were relatively weak compared to the other classes (which they aren't--in fact, they should be one of the more viable classes at low levels) they could team up with other classes at low levels until they gained cooler spells and so forth. It stands to reason that either NONE of the PC classes could advance from the lower levels (which strains credibility given that the gods specifically set out to make a world of adventure and XP gaining), or that specifically creating sentient humanoids as XP fodder would be superfluous (which casts doubt on the veracity of the Dark One's words).

The gods want lots and LOTS of clerics, to influence the world. Maybe it's not feasible for all of them to piggyback with other adventurers for the early levels. Or perhaps the necessity of it drives potential clerics away to other classes. As I recall, Roy was specifically asked by the Deva why he hadn't become a cleric and his response was rather derisive of the class on the whole.

I'm not saying that there's nothing to this issue, but it's entering into the realm of fridge logic -- it's a difficult for me to buy the argument that it's a glaring mistake that you're supposed to recognize as a contradiction that makes the Dark One's story suspicious. If you can come up with someone in-story casting doubt on it, that'd be different.

[jidasfire]

In regards to this subject, I think it's more important that REDCLOAK is lying - to Xykon. Even after he killed his brother and accepted his role and Xykon's servant, he still hasn't told him the truth. Xykon still thinks he can control the Snarl, so his supposedly loyal right-hand is bull****ting him completely. Maybe Redcloak's not such a chicken**** after all.


Maybe not, but every time Redcloak thought he was putting one over on Xykon, it turned out that Xykon knew and was ready for it. A lot of people think of Xykon as dumb, or at least unthoughtful, but he reads people extremely well, and he probably knows Redcloak better than anyone. Even if he doesn't exactly know, he probably suspects something. Redcloak knowing the secret Snarl-controlling rituals is a hold that he has over Xykon, and the lich would not like that at all.

As to the question of the Dark One lying, I doubt it. For one thing, stories where "everything you know is Wrong!" are kind of tedious. More than that, we were given a massive reading of the Dark One's origin and his connection to the Snarl and the rifts. Taking up that much space for something that will be disproven at a later date is counter-productive from a storytelling perspective. Lastly, the Dark One's story adds an interesting layer of complexity to the OOTS world, and making that a lie, likely to be replaced with "He's just some evil git," robs the world of some of its nuance. I suppose a lot of people want him to be lying to either alleviate their PC guilt over killing goblins, or to allow Redcloak some easy path toward a supposed redemption. However, I think what we know of the Dark One is potentially bad enough.

Looking at what Redcloak tells us, the Dark One started out with the best of intentions for his people, and was treated abominably for it, assassinated even. He eventually learns that not only do the goblins have the short end of the stick, but the game was rigged from the beginning. This creates in him a sense of bitterness and desperation that essentially leads him to indoctrinate his followers into believing their only chance for a better life is to take control of a god-killing, soul-destroying, planet-eating abomination and use it against the other gods. This, he decides, is better than guiding them toward living peacefully with other races, giving them magical aid with food and resources, or simply leading them to a place where they are less likely to be attacked. And while he ostensibly does this for his people, he throws away their very lives, the ones he is supposed to protect, to enact his complex and risky vengeance scenario. Even upon their deaths they receive no respite, forced to serve in his afterlife army, likely for all eternity. Right-Eye calls the Dark One a petty, spiteful god who cares nothing for the goblin people, and he's right. Certainly the Dark One has understandable reasons to be angry, but he's lost sight of what he actually fights for. Given that, he doesn't need to be lying. The truth is damning enough.

[Holy_Knight]

Consider their track record.
Their track record on the very issue we're talking about? Because there isn't one. If you're referring to the creaton of the Snarl, that doesn't have much bearing on this.



I'm not really seeing how this follows. They know what will and what will not constitute a survival advantage for their creations, so they should have been able to anticipate how they'd feel about things?
They know they're creating sentient beings, which they've endowed with intelligence, self-awareness, and emotions. So, yes.



I am approaching this from the perspective of looking at the gods as designers/programmers. They were to anticipate that the mook program they created wasn't just to seek out resources (which were deliberately limited), but start asking questions about WHY they were limited at all? And on discovering the reason, launch a rebellion against the program itself?'
I don't think this is the right perspective. Since the "mooks" were created sentient, just like the PC races were, they should expect them to think and behave along similar lines. Which is to say, any expectations they had or failed to have for the savage humanoids ought to have mirrored the expectations they had for the PC races.



One class that was specifically created after the other classes, to address the issue of the gods' direct influence on the world.
Actually, it doesn't say that the clerics were created after the others, nor technically that it's only one class. While the gods are discussing the non-interference deal, they decide that certain mortals including clerics, druids, and paladins (and presumably rangers, although they aren't mentioned) would recieve magic spells from the gods.



The gods want lots and LOTS of clerics, to influence the world. Maybe it's not feasible for all of them to piggyback with other adventurers for the early levels. Or perhaps the necessity of it drives potential clerics away to other classes. As I recall, Roy was specifically asked by the Deva why he hadn't become a cleric and his response was rather derisive of the class on the whole.
But again, even if they didn't or couldn't team up with the other classes (which would be weird, since a cleric or druid is usually quite helpful to any party) there's still no reason to think they would have to in the first place, since especially clerics are among the more survivable classes at low levels. Which brings us back to the implausible idea that somehow only one or two classes were unable to advance in levels, for no particular reason. Also, Roy was derisive of the idea because of the "flavor" of the cleric, so to speak, not because he thought it lacked power.



I'm not saying that there's nothing to this issue, but it's entering into the realm of fridge logic -- it's a difficult for me to buy the argument that it's a glaring mistake that you're supposed to recognize as a contradiction that makes the Dark One's story suspicious. If you can come up with someone in-story casting doubt on it, that'd be different.
A "glaring" mistake? No, I think it's a subtle mistake, the kind whose flaws only become apparent after some thought--which makes it much more likely that it would go unquestioned.



As to the question of the Dark One lying, I doubt it. For one thing, stories where "everything you know is Wrong!" are kind of tedious. More than that, we were given a massive reading of the Dark One's origin and his connection to the Snarl and the rifts. Taking up that much space for something that will be disproven at a later date is counter-productive from a storytelling perspective. Lastly, the Dark One's story adds an interesting layer of complexity to the OOTS world, and making that a lie, likely to be replaced with "He's just some evil git," robs the world of some of its nuance. I suppose a lot of people want him to be lying to either alleviate their PC guilt over killing goblins, or to allow Redcloak some easy path toward a supposed redemption. However, I think what we know of the Dark One is potentially bad enough.
Not at all--I'm suggesting that parts of the Dark One's story are suspicious, not that it's a complete fabrication. The most convincing lies are half-truths: certain false statements that fit one's agenda grafted onto others that are really correct. The Dark One could be lying about some things, with the real story still being interestingly complex (perhaps even more so) and without necessitating "everything you know is wrong".

[KingofMadCows]

--Why would the gods have done that? It's not just that creating whole races of sentient beings for the purpose of being eternally downtrodden and killed for experience seems like a horrible thing to do, especially for allegedly good gods. It's that it also seems unnecessary. Even if you need to solve the problem of giving your clerics and other adventurers a way to level up, there are other, non-sentient monsters which could serve the same purpose. Furthermore, it's not as if there is never any conflict between members of the "favored" races themselves, especially given the diversity of alignments to which those members might adhere. So it seems like there are not only moral reasons against doing what the original gods are supposed to have done, but that it would serve no real practical purpose anyway. So why do it?

That's kind of like asking why the gods of the Forgotten Realms let the Wall of the Faithless exist.

The gods are just douchebags. Ao, the overgod, is an even bigger douchebag. The gods in the OotS universe are probably no different.

[veti]

1. How could they NOT anticipate that result?

You make a very reasonable point, but it's slightly undercut by the fact that this thing the gods didn't realise - is a point that's also eluded the vast majority of D&D players and fantasy authors for the past several generations. (Indeed, the evidence suggests that WotC themselves either never got it, or deliberately chose to ignore it.) That suggests to me that it's nowhere near as obvious as it appears in retrospect.


2. How could there be an XP shortage for one class only?

Obviously there can't, that would make no sense at all. The discussion was about clerics because they're the ones the gods care about, but the same points apply to everyone else as well.

Why the gods didn't just give out XP for roleplaying, or studying, or whatever... is a mystery that I'm hoping will be explained before the end of the story, because it's the first thing that occurred to me when I read SoD and it's been bugging me ever since. There's absolutely nothing in the rules of D&D to say that killing things has to be the primary way to gain XP.

[DoctorIllithid]

Why would the gods have done that? It's not just that creating whole races of sentient beings for the purpose of being eternally downtrodden and killed for experience seems like a horrible thing to do, especially for allegedly good gods. It's that it also seems unnecessary. Even if you need to solve the problem of giving your clerics and other adventurers a way to level up, there are other, non-sentient monsters which could serve the same purpose. Furthermore, it's not as if there is never any conflict between members of the "favored" races themselves, especially given the diversity of alignments to which those members might adhere. So it seems like there are not only moral reasons against doing what the original gods are supposed to have done, but that it would serve no real practical purpose anyway. So why do it?

Non-sentient creatures would hardly provide a challenge in most cases. The Gods are shown to be flawed in just as many ways as mortals. Case and point: The Snarl exists. There would be next to no challenge in continuously hunting non-sentient creatures. Non-sentients can't use weapons, can't be organized, can't plan...Etc. Good isn't always nice and creating numerous races solely for the purpose of providing experience to their Clerics to exert their influence is exactly what Gods would do. They are not as perfect morally as you think them to be.


Shortly before he dies, Right-Eye calls the Dark one a "petty spiteful god", and tells Redcloak: "Come on. You have to realize that the Dark One doesn't care about us. Why else would he let you throw goblin lives away on this Plan?" Now obviously there's a fundamental difference in worldview going on here, but still, Right-Eye kind of has a point. Whereas Right-Eye seemed to be taking practical steps toward making as good a life for goblins as he could, the Dark One seems fairly cavalier about letting goblins be sacrificed in service of getting the ritual done, not to mention the fact that under Xykon's thumb, their lives as a whole are much worse than they were before. Basically, if he really wanted to improve the lot of goblinkind, couldn't he do better than this? Help them in a way that doesn't depend so heavily on goblin enslavement and death? On the other hand, if his main goal is actually power...

Technically speaking, Xykon's involvement with Redcloak and The Plan is strictly Right Eye's doing. After all, the Dark One encourages Goblins to steer clear of humans and live their own lives. Of course the Dark One is cavalier in his efforts to get the ritual done. His people are being slaughtered on a daily basis and they have no real fighting chance. If they don't die trying to improve things as they are, they'll probably just be massacred by an adventuring party anyway. Lots of dead Goblinoids. That's the price to be paid if Goblin life is to be improved in the long run.


So, what if the creation didn't happen the way that he said? What if the goblins and some other humanoids weren't created to be expendable, but just happened through bad luck and circumstance to get the short end of the stick? The entire Plan would be a way for the Dark One to exploit that misfortune to take control of the Pantheons, under the pretext of wanting to improve goblin existence. While in fact, it might actually inhibit goblin prosperity as the many "pawns" fell in the service of the Dark One's ambitions. Could Redcloak actually be a victim of his own deity's deception?

Unfortunately for those of us that are Pro-Goblin-Lifestyle-Improvement, its probably going to amount to that regardless of my argument. Logic dictates that anyone who readily calls them-self "The Dark One" has more ulterior motives than...Someone with a lot of ulterior motives.

[Tebryn]

Why the gods didn't just give out XP for roleplaying, or studying, or whatever... is a mystery that I'm hoping will be explained before the end of the story, because it's the first thing that occurred to me when I read SoD and it's been bugging me ever since. There's absolutely nothing in the rules of D&D to say that killing things has to be the primary way to gain XP.

Answer is fairly simple. God's don't hand out XP. The DM does. Also we know that you can get XP for Roleplaying. Belkar does it to level in fact.

[factotum]

Non-sentient creatures would hardly provide a challenge in most cases.

I'm sure it would be entirely possible to create non-sentient creatures which *would* pose a challenge sufficient for low-level clerics to gain XP from. Dunno if it still exists in the current version, but in older D&D editions you had things like Gelatinous Cubes that were entirely mindless eating machines--they were a challenge because they occupied the entire tunnel you were advancing down, so you either had to fight it or run!

For that matter, something like a plain old Wolf would provide such a challenge, and while they're sentient I doubt anyone would worry too much if low-level clerics were sent in to thin out the population!