Can you forgive Redcloak? (SOD spoilers)

[silversaraph]

After I read SoD, RC became a "good guy". Not a protagonist, but because of his backstory, you could see his point, in that monsters should be treated equally. In my mind, there was nothing wrong with his crusade.

But then there's his major downfall, where he becomes a stalin-like figure, killing off his own people like flies. For the most mundane things, he doesn't think twice about ending a couple of lives. In my mind, he's a bad guy at that point.

But then there's his realization. He's been committing genocide because of a childhood grudge. With a couple of smudges, he doesn't treat goblins as disposable any more, and tries his hardest to build the utopian society he dreamed of.

My question is: Can you overlook the major faults he committed, and think of him as a good guy? This is assuming you agreed with him in the first place, of course.

I don't think I can at this point. I think it would take some major sacrifice on his part... maybe another eye, or a leg, or several levels, that directly saves at least a few hundred goblins. Only then would I be sure he's putting the goblin people before himself.

[Yuki Akuma]

Redcloak has always been an evil bastard. Why would I forgive him?

He's Lawful, sure, but he's still Evil.

[pendell]

He IS currently an evil guy. I can't overlook these and say he's a good guy. He's not.

That said ... I can "forgive" him in the sense of hoping for his redemption.

To my mind, everyone has flaws, everyone has trouble, and everyone should have a shot at redemption. Redcloak has not fallen to the darkness as completely as Xykon has. There's still a part of him that wants to believe that he is doing what he's doing for ultimate good. He still struggles to justify, to rationalize, to excuse his behavior.

Redemption, for him, would start with honesty, admitting his mistakes. Acknowledging to himself what he did in SOD.

The most important redemption for him would be to turn his back on the plan and trying to follow the path set by the other goblins in SOD. They too suffered at the hands of humans. But they rose above it.

Unfortunately, since the Dark One seems determined to follow the Plan, it is likely Redcloak will have to renounce his allegiance and either choose another god or follow his own.

Given the rules of D&D, his best choice would be to become a Martin Luther King -like figure and gain such a following among the goblinoids that he himself ascends to deity status -- a deity of peace, love , and forgiveness. Something to counteract the Dark One. It's a bit pointless to ask the goblins to follow a human god, isn't it?

Within the framework of D&D and OOTS world, maybe the goblins need more gods.

At any rate, the road to redemption for Redcloak is much, much harder than it would be for an elf or human in the same predicament. Almost too much for a mortal to walk unaided. But what god in OOTSworld would help a repentant goblin? They are outcast both by the god of their own folk, the Dark One, and the human gods who made them as XP fodder.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zevox]

No. Not only for his casual killing of the Hobgoblins he lead, but what he has done to the people of Azure City - slavery and worse - is not something he can simply be forgiven for. He is an evil character. However good his motives may be, his actions dictate that.

What I hope for with him is some form of redemption in the future, a change of heart where he becomes a better leader for his people and can pursue his goal of Goblin equality among the PC races without the horrendous methods he has employed so far. If that happens, then given time, perhaps he will become forgivable, or even non-evil. But that has to happen first. As-is he's a monster only removed from Xykon-level status by his good intentions and the lower volume of monstrous deeds he's done by comparison.

Zevox

[jidasfire]

It's getting harder. I wouldn't say I've been pulling for Redcloak, because since reading Start of Darkness I have pretty much hated him, but at the same time, he is admittedly someone capable of learning from his mistakes, or at least some of them. Given that, I figured there was at least a chance that one day, assuming he didn't do anything too terrible and unforgivable, he might see the error of his ways. I always kinda hoped that he and Roy might form some sort of weird bond at some point down the road, or that Redcloak might come across some humans who treated him well, and as such he might begin to change.

However, given his recent actions, I find it less likely. He seems to be growing colder and crueler. People talk about Xykon being more evil, and of course he is, but Xykon at least has no conscience whatsoever. Redcloak clearly does have one, but goes on doing worse and worse things anyway.

[Killer Angel]

My question is: Can you overlook the major faults he committed, and think of him as a good guy?

He's an evil guy, that fights for a cause above his mere person, doing evil things.
The only really good thing in his character, it's that he's a cool villain. :smallamused:

[Dr.Epic]

After I read SoD, RC became a "good guy". Not a protagonist, but because of his backstory, you could see his point, in that monsters should be treated equally. In my mind, there was nothing wrong with his crusade.

Killing off humans and paladins and risking the destruction of the universe to achieve his goal isn't exactly "good." Red Cloak is a sympathetic or tragic villain in that his motivations are understandable and he's not doing these things out of selfishness, but he's still evil.

[CarinTrenos]

In my opinion, overall, he is a "good" guy. The other "good" guys in the story are also mass murderers and RC seems to be quite righterous compared to Belkar or Miko.

Maybe he is going to oppose Xykon - that would be, technically, a "good" thing. On the other hand, the real problem isn't RC - the laws of OotS's world are madness and RC is part of a race, that is designed to be killed. As long as those cruel rules are implied, i support RC's position. The other races have to change their view of perspective radically - in one way or another.


@Pendell.... The dark One himself tried the MLK/Gandhi way...hasn't worked very well for him.

[Lord Ruby34]

Nope, after these last two strips I can't forgive Redcloak anymore.

[Kish]

My ability or lack thereof to forgive Redcloak hasn't changed since the end of Start of Darkness.

[Redgoblin]

The problem with Redcloak abandoning his plan, as some suggest, is that his situation hasn't changed. Redcloak wants the goblins to have more power, and he sees the plan as the only way for this to happen. Until this happens any peaceful goblin settlement can simply be wiped out as was demonstrated twice in SOD
First by the paladins wiping out Redcloak's village, and secondly by Xykon wiping out Right-eye's village.

Until the Goblinoids are strong enough to resist these random attacks (or are respected enough that other group will defend them) I think Redcloak is really trying to do the best thing for the goblins. So, yes I forgive him

[Kish]

The problem with Redcloak abandoning his plan, as some suggest, is that his situation hasn't changed.
I do not believe anyone is suggesting he was right to follow the Plan until recently but should abandon it now because the situation has changed.

[Steward]

A wise person once said that the only unforgivable acts are those committed by calm goblins in cramped, musty dungeons, who deal death wholesale, with no redeeming excuse except for the bitter memory of the past.

[Sunken Valley]

Yes and no.

No because he's still a puppet of Xykon, still evil and still an antagonist. He will always be this.

Yes because he's better than Miko. He learns from his mistakes and although he's a hyprocrit, he's more honest than Miko and hasn't messed anything up (O-chul was beyond his control).

I also support his dream for an equal goblin race.

[Raimun]

Well, I guess Redcloak could always try the Darth Vader-redemption.

[FujinAkari]

In my opinion, overall, he is a "good" guy. The other "good" guys in the story are also mass murderers and RC seems to be quite righterous compared to Belkar or Miko.

How exactly is Belkar a good guy? Belkar's evilness is measured in Kilonazi's...

And Miko? Seriously? You're saying the enslaver, mass murderer, and systematic torturer is more righteous than the girl who is stubborn and people would rather not being around?

Miko was a <censored> sure, but she wasn't evil.

[guguma]

So when Soon or Shojo sends random paladins to their deaths to eliminate random goblin villages are doing a good deed and not sacrificing their own kind but when Redcloak does it, it is evil???

I would forgive Redcloak if there was something to forgive in the first place.

Good and Evil are relative concepts everyone wants what is good for them, we can only say some act is really evil when other peoples needs or lives are wasted by someone or some group just because they can do it or they have a minor insignificant gain (Xykon just killing random anything).

SoD Spoiler:


For example when Xykon killed Dorukan or Lirian I do not term that act as evil because it serves a purpose, but when he killed the waitress it was evil

[Gift Jeraff]

Only if he says sorry.

[Zevox]

So when Soon or Shojo sends random paladins to their deaths to eliminate random goblin villages are doing a good deed and not sacrificing their own kind but when Redcloak does it, it is evil???
Redcloak was killing Hobgoblins needlessly and wantonly solely because of childhood grudge all the way back in early (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) comics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html). And he was being similarly reckless with their lives in the Battle of Azure City until he finally learned his lesson (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) about that.

The Sapphire Guard's attacks on Goblin villages are certainly questionable, yes, but Redcloak was doing there wasn't even questionable, it was just outright evil, killing solely because he could and he had a childhood grudge against an entire sub-race.

Zevox

[Steward]

I don't really get how Redcloak is 'better' than Miko. They have pretty similar personality flaws in that they both place ideals above real people and have very limited capacity for compassion. If anything, Miko isn't as bad as Redcloak solely because she's not strong enough to commit crimes on the same scale. Miko can only slaughter a few people at a time; Redcloak creates and operates a system that enslaves and slaughters entire civilizations, and he's involved in a conspiracy that could very well place the power to end the world into the hands of someone he knows is both careless and psychopathic.

[Zevox]

and he's involved in a conspiracy that could very well place the power to end the world into the hands of someone he knows is both careless and psychopathic.
Actually, no, that is not a possible result of The Plan. The ritual will give control of the Gate to the Dark One, not the caster, so it's impossible for Xykon to acquire that control.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

My ability or lack thereof to forgive Redcloak hasn't changed since the end of Start of Darkness.

I couldn't find many comments by you about Redcloak in the SoD thread- however from a slightly later one:


Redcloak is a masterpiece as a character because he's both Alignment Lawful Evil and a vile person who commits atrocities for consistent, believable reasons. Start of Darkness wouldn't have nearly the punch it does if you were supposed to walk away with either the conclusion, "Good and Evil are team names, nothing more" or, "Redcloak was born evil, never had a choice, and has the moral standing of walking XP."

So- Redcloak by the end of SoD had reached the point of "vile person"?

Seems a fair assessment. Perhaps a little harsh- but his actions did reach pretty monstrous levels.

[tassaron]

Actions are more important than motivations. Redcloak is a tragic villain, but a villain nonetheless.

[faustin]

Quote:
Redcloak is a masterpiece as a character because he's both Alignment Lawful Evil and a vile person who commits atrocities for consistent, believable reasons. Start of Darkness wouldn't have nearly the punch it does if you were supposed to walk away with either the conclusion, "Good and Evil are team names, nothing more" or, "Redcloak was born evil, never had a choice, and has the moral standing of walking XP."

Basically, Redcloak is a Magneto type villain.

[sirveaux]

Ask far as "the Cause" is concerned, I've considered RC to be full of crap ever since I reread Strip 197 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html). Those Hobbos seem to be doing ok for themselves, regardless of their alleged disadvantages in SoD. Never really bought the story in SoD (told from RC/The Dark One's persective) since that reread.

So no, I don't forgive him, or even consider him all that sympathetic a villain. I like the character, but don't buy his crap. Am looking forward to his using the phylactery against Xykon, though.

[hamishspence]

Note that in War & XPs (a bonus strip) it's mentioned that they've been "kept penned up in the mountains for thirty years" by the Azurites.

[CarinTrenos]

How exactly is Belkar a good guy? Belkar's evilness is measured in Kilonazi's...

And Miko? Seriously? You're saying the enslaver, mass murderer, and systematic torturer is more righteous than the girl who is stubborn and people would rather not being around?

Miko was a <censored> sure, but she wasn't evil.

I have not read all the threads of this board but i am quite sure, that the question "can you forgive belkar", isn't so important for most users. Cuz he kills the "right" men and woman - i appreciate that Rich has built that example of double standards into his story.

Belkar kills for fun, RC for a greater goal - i know, it is connected to their alignment but for me "Chaotic Evil" has always been the cruelest type of character - a perfect villain.

For many readers Belkar is fun and some type of "good" warrior, even if he isn't "good" in the original meaning.

Miko on the other hand, seems to be the archetype of a übergood character with massive double standards. An unspoken example of religious extremism at its best, where the true believer...believes, that he/she is the only "true" reader of god's will.

At the end, she would have killed everyone, just to fulfill "god's" prophecy/declaration - a perfect video game villain. I don't think that there is a difference between genocide cause of madness or cause of hate.

She isn't "stubborn", she is mad, crazy, dangerous and wanted to kill the whole party from the start. Why? God's will again. People who wants to balance old mistakes with greater mistakes aren't just "bitches" - they should be in jail oder in some kind of psychiatry.

To be clear - i love Miko and Belkar as characters and i am enjoying their madness. I am just saying, that RC isn't a antagonist in the first place - he is a goblin. A member of the hunted race - and Azure City has been the capital of anti-goblin actions and genocide.

RC is evil. Anyone who works with Xykon must be evil or stupid. (Hello, MitD :O) RC has done cruel things, especially in SOD. He is ready to do what it takes to fulfill his job. I just want to point out, that even evil characters are able to do the right things. As we all know, Rich's story is anti-stereotypical and includes a lot of grey space between "right" and "wrong. For me, RC is some kind of anti-hero, a revolutionary who justifies everything with the greater good.

Maybe he can't be saved from his own amibition, his own actions, his own hate, but there could be millions of goblins who are able to live in peace and prosperity. Because some kind of historical figure, without a known name, has finished the repression and declared the birth of the first goblin city. It's not possible to accept the fact that your race is some kind of "toy" for other peoples.

So...yeah: Miko may be less powerful than RC but, in my opinion, her madness is just destructive, whereas RC wants to create something new. Every nation on our planet has been the result of one or another war - Conflicts with much more cruelty than the occupation of AC.

RC may die but i hope that his success is going to survice.. :smallredface:

[Kish]

Well, I guess Redcloak could always try the Darth Vader-redemption.
I don't think the story has 10-15 years (goblins age faster then humans) for Redcloak to father a son for Roy to recruit...

[Howler Dagger]

I don't think the story has 10-15 years (goblins age faster then humans) for Redcloak to father a son for Roy to recruit...

SoD:Hiis niece would fit the bill

[veti]

Note that in War & XPs (a bonus strip) it's mentioned that they've been "kept penned up in the mountains for thirty years" by the Azurites.

That seems a bit like saying the Swiss are "kept penned up in the mountains" by the French. One group lives in one place, another group lives in another place. That's how "countries" work.

[Kish]

SoD:Hiis niece would fit the bill
So wait, are we talking about Darth Vader redemption or Uncle Owen redemption?

That seems a bit like saying the Swiss are "kept penned up in the mountains" by the French.
That would be an absurd thing to say. Therefore, when what Rich said can be parsed similarly, but other ways to parse it are more obvious, it should probably be parsed in one of those different ways.

[CarinTrenos]

That seems a bit like saying the Swiss are "kept penned up in the mountains" by the French. One group lives in one place, another group lives in another place. That's how "countries" work.

Well...if the Swiss would be part of a french empire and french soldiers would kill everyone who wants to end the repression - than that comparison would be just perfect.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

He's Lawful, sure, but he's still Evil.

That sentence implies that being lawful is a bit more close to good than to evil. And it's not. In fact, I think that no lawful society can be good at 100%.

And talking of RC, he has a good purpose, to free the goblin race from the wicked humans, but has evil means of getting onto that purpose.
He is however, facing an oppresive entity like the azurite government: they have a secret armed police, not known even by his own citiziens, that kills and genocides whoever they think that can oppose their goals for Good. It is also a good purpose with evil means.
In my mind, both RC and his goblin army, and the Shappire Guard and his fascist paladins are two heads of the same coin: pretending that if you have a "good" goal, everything is permitted to acomplish it. The innocents in both sides who don't even have a clue are: the standard goblin peoples (genocided by the paladins) and the azurites commoners (enslaved by RC and his army).

So for me, both Redcloak and his army, and the paladins can burn in Hell.

EDIT: I think the only true heroes of this story, at least known until now, are only 3 members of the Order of the Stick, and another 3 members of the Order of the Scribble (and yes, it's a guess) :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

EDIT: I think the only true heroes of this story, at least known until now, are only 3 members of the Order of the Stick, and another 3 members of the Order of the Scribble (and yes, it's a guess) :smallbiggrin:
Dare I ask which three?

(Crossing off Vaarsuvius and Belkar is easy, but based on the rest of your post, I don't know if your third choice is, "Lawful is bad, goodbye Durkon," "You can't be a hero while also being brain-dead, goodbye Elan," or, "Too borderline in her goodness, goodbye Haley."

If the third one to get crossed off is Roy, you will have successfully surprised me.)

[veti]

That would be an absurd thing to say. Therefore, when what Rich said can be parsed similarly, but other ways to parse it are more obvious, it should probably be parsed in one of those different ways.

If Rich is speaking from the hobgoblin point of view, they may well feel themselves to be "penned up". But a more objective observer might describe it as "two unfriendly countries each protecting their own borders".


Well...if the Swiss would be part of a french empire and french soldiers would kill everyone who wants to end the repression - than that comparison would be just perfect.

Where do you get the idea that the mountains are considered to be part of an Azurite "empire"? To all appearances the hobgoblins have a fine independent country going there, there's no sign of Azurites interfering in their government.

[HandofShadows]

The problem with Redcloak abandoning his plan, as some suggest, is that his situation hasn't changed. Redcloak wants the goblins to have more power, and he sees the plan as the only way for this to happen. Until this happens any peaceful goblin settlement can simply be wiped out as was demonstrated twice in SOD


We have seen a number of times where nonhumans have attacked/killed/enslaved peaceful humans. Redcloak is trying to make it like goblins and (and company) are totaly blameless and victims of the humans. And you are falling for it hook, line and sinker. The goblins have blood on their hands as well.

[CarinTrenos]

Where do you get the idea that the mountains are considered to be part of an Azurite "empire"? To all appearances the hobgoblins have a fine independent country going there, there's no sign of Azurites interfering in their government.

i didn't mean it literally - i am just sayin that they have been some kind of military tribe, without borders, without insitutions and without allies. nobody would have cared if azurites or other nations would have killed a few tribes.

there is a reason why RC called it "the first goblin state".

[Kish]

If Rich is speaking from the hobgoblin point of view,
I can't think why he would write his unambiguously out-of-character commentary "from the hobgoblin point of view," or from any story-internal point of view for that matter. When he said--for example--that Belkar is Chaotic Evil, was that just "from Roy's point of view"?

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Dare I ask which three?

(Crossing off Vaarsuvius and Belkar is easy, but based on the rest of your post, I don't know if your third choice is, "Lawful is bad, goodbye Durkon," "You can't be a hero while also being brain-dead, goodbye Elan," or, "Too borderline in her goodness, goodbye Haley."

If the third one to get crossed off is Roy, you will have successfully surprised me.)

Of course. Correct for V and Belkar. I think that Roy is one of the very few exceptions of a good Lawful Good. Elan is of course a hero, although a naive one (he has less conscience about it, but let's not enter into this, it's a delicate debate). Haley was dancing with good and neutrality until she freed the slaves of Tarquin. And our beloved Durkon... he is only with the heroes as a consecuence of his mission, because his God commands him so (or at least what the High Priest says Thor says, for Durkon it's exactly the same). Durkon is a casual warrior in the side of good, but that doesn't make him good in my mind, as he is only taking orders that could be changed if a capricious god desires so.

[veti]

Durkon is a casual warrior in the side of good, but that doesn't make him good in my mind, as he is only taking orders that could be changed if a capricious god desires so.

That's ridiculous. You might just as well say that Roy is only taking orders from his conscience, which as far as we've seen is every bit as capricious as Durkon's god.

Besides, Durkon isn't with the OOTS because Thor ordered him to be - as far as we've seen, he did no such thing. In fact there's no indication that Thor thinks enough about Durkon to actually care one way or the other about what he's doing with his time.

[littlekKID]

And our beloved Durkon... he is only with the heroes as a consecuence of his mission, because his God commands him so (or at least what the High Priest says Thor says, for Durkon it's exactly the same). Durkon is a casual warrior in the side of good, but that doesn't make him good in my mind, as he is only taking orders that could be changed if a capricious god desires so.

He was only told to "go befriend the humans", that's all. He was never told to "Go save the world from the Snarl" ,or "Go fight evil", or even "Go be loyal to Roy Greenhilt" - all he needed to do was to live in human lands- he was the one to go on adventuring, he was the one who stuck with Roy, he was the one who decided to risk his life in order to dave the world - his god has nothing to do with all of those actions

[Blas_de_Lezo]

That's ridiculous. You might just as well say that Roy is only taking orders from his conscience, which as far as we've seen is every bit as capricious as Durkon's god.

Besides, Durkon isn't with the OOTS because Thor ordered him to be - as far as we've seen, he did no such thing. In fact there's no indication that Thor thinks enough about Durkon to actually care one way or the other about what he's doing with his time.


He was only told to "go befriend the humans", that's all. He was never told to "Go save the world from the Snarl" ,or "Go fight evil", or even "Go be loyal to Roy Greenhilt" - all he needed to do was to live in human lands- he was the one to go on adventuring, he was the one who stuck with Roy, he was the one who decided to risk his life in order to dave the world - his god has nothing to do with all of those actions

Don't misunderstand me. We know that in the OotS world gods ARE capricious. If Thor (or the Hight Priest of Thor "saying Thor's word"), for whatever godly reason planned, tells Durkon that his next mission is to kill the Order of the Stick for the "sake of Good", Durkon will do it (or at least try, in his proper legal and honorable way). And that brings us to: "are you good if you always follow orders without hesitation of those who are supposed to be good?".

[Flame of Anor]

First off,


He IS currently an evil guy. I can't overlook these and say he's a good guy. He's not.

That said ... I can "forgive" him in the sense of hoping for his redemption.


Killing off humans and paladins and risking the destruction of the universe to achieve his goal isn't exactly "good." Red Cloak is a sympathetic or tragic villain in that his motivations are understandable and he's not doing these things out of selfishness, but he's still evil.

I agree with these, in reference to Redcloak.


Secondly:


Don't misunderstand me. We know that in the OotS world gods ARE capricious. If Thor, for whatever godly reason planned, tells Durkon that his next mission is to kill the Order of the Stick for the "sake of Good", Durkon will do it. And that brings us to: "are you good if you always follow orders without hesitation of those who are supposed to be good?".

Blas, I don't think you understand Durkon. I think maybe you like Roy only because his Lawful Good isn't especially Lawful (as the deva pointed out). I don't think it's a coincidence that Durkon and the paladins are both 1) the characters who consistently follow authority and 2) the characters you detest. Durkon is a truly good person, and he is on the quest because he knows it's for a good cause. Your "Thor tells Durkon to kill the OotS" scenario is meaningless, because Thor would not do that. Thor is a good god, which is why Durkon (a good person) follows him. Thor is erratic sometimes, such as when he randomly sends the storm during the Order's encounter with Miko, but, while this may have bad effects (such as allowing Surtur to eat the villagers while he's trying to grant Durkon spells), Thor never does anything actually evil. He's just not especially competent. For Thor to actually order Durkon to kill the Order would be evil, and thus completely out of character for him. Unless the Order had turned evil themselves, of course, which would be just as much out of character for them.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Blas, I don't think you understand Durkon. I think maybe you like Roy only because his Lawful Good isn't especially Lawful (as the deva pointed out). I don't think it's a coincidence that Durkon and the paladins are both 1) the characters who consistently follow authority and 2) the characters you detest. Durkon is a truly good person, and he is on the quest because he knows it's for a good cause. Your "Thor tells Durkon to kill the OotS" scenario is meaningless, because Thor would not do that. Thor is a good god, which is why Durkon (a good person) follows him. Thor is erratic sometimes, such as when he randomly sends the storm during the Order's encounter with Miko, but, while this may have bad effects (such as allowing Surtur to eat the villagers while he's trying to grant Durkon spells), Thor never does anything actually evil. He's just not especially competent. For Thor to actually order Durkon to kill the Order would be evil, and thus completely out of character for him. Unless the Order had turned evil themselves, of course, which would be just as much out of character for them.

I think we're going into a world of debate, so I won't enter too much into it. But, as the gods have knowledge power much greater than any mortal being, I don't think as a very unlikely scenario for a god to ask a follower to commit an action, that in the moral of this follower is "evil" (but not in the "moral" of the God), to achieve a Greater Good only understable by that God.
As the God is inherently good, the follower will commit what he thought before it was an "evil action" thinking that it will become a good action in the end, because it's commanded by Good itself. So this ultimately means that he commits this evil action because he transfers the responsability unto his God, thinking that he is no responsable of it. Ergo he is committing an evil action.

[veti]

As the God is inherently good, the follower will commit what he thought before it was an "evil action" thinking that it will become a good action in the end, because it's commanded by Good itself. So this ultimately means that he commits this evil action because he transfers the responsability unto his God, thinking that he is no responsable of it. Ergo he is committing an evil action.

The only instance we've seen of a god directly ordering a follower to do something is when the Dark One told Redcloak to get on with the plan - and even then, he didn't say it in so many words. There is no evidence - at least, no evidence outside of Miko's imagination - that the gods ever issue commands to their followers at that level of detail.

[The Pilgrim]

If Thor (or the Hight Priest of Thor "saying Thor's word"), for whatever godly reason planned, tells Durkon that his next mission is to kill the Order of the Stick for the "sake of Good", Durkon will do it

No, he will not. Because Durkon is Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral.

As he is Lawful, he tries to work within the Law even when the authorities aren't Good (like he did in the Empire of Blood). But, as he is Good, if a conflict arises between Law and Good, he will not honor the Law, specially if it's an Evil Law (in the Empire of Blood he had no qalms to hide the truth from Malak).

Also, Durkon is fighting along Roy and the rest of the OOTS on his own will, Thor (neither his High Priest) never told him to do so.

[sirveaux]

Note that in War & XPs (a bonus strip) it's mentioned that they've been "kept penned up in the mountains for thirty years" by the Azurites.


I can't think why he would write his unambiguously out-of-character commentary "from the hobgoblin point of view,"

My copy is on loan to a friend, so I can't confirm if the "penned up" comment was from a Commentary or a bonus strip (suggesting Giant or goblinoid POV, respectively). Regardless, I don't buy 87 legions, 20-30k Hobbos at least, being "penned up." At least not in a way that would stem from their inherent disadvantages.

The mere fact that such a number of Hobbos could congregate in a massive fortified city such as the one pictured in 197 sort of undercuts RC's story in SoD. Never mind the fact that they could be tough enough that the Azurites couldn't wipe them out given 30 years.

Unless y'all weren't referencing my earlier post in the above quotes. If not, then nevermind. :smallredface:

[SoC175]

Given the rules of D&D, his best choice would be to become a Martin Luther King -like figure and gain such a following among the goblinoids that he himself ascends to deity status -- a deity of peace, love , and forgiveness. Something to counteract the Dark One. It's a bit pointless to ask the goblins to follow a human god, isn't it?

Within the framework of D&D and OOTS world, maybe the goblins need more gods.Well, I'd guess the DO would revoke the long-life granted by the crimson Mantle and then Redcloak would likely die within the next 10 years from old age. Getting enough followers to become a deity isn't by any stretch easy. The elves had centuries of life and the Dark One was truly exceptional in that his death started more then one million beings killed as "sacrifice" to fuel his ascension.

Redcloak wouldn't have enough time to become a deity of peace through gathering followers (and that's assuming that more than a couple of thousand would actually want to follow him instead of the new chosen of the Dark One, and he would need at least tens of thousand)

My copy is on loan to a friend, so I can't confirm if the "penned up" comment was from a Commentary or a bonus strip (suggesting Giant or goblinoid POV, respectively). Regardless, I don't buy 87 legions, 20-30k Hobbos at least, being "penned up." At least not in a way that would stem from their inherent disadvantages.

The mere fact that such a number of Hobbos could congregate in a massive fortified city such as the one pictured in 197 sort of undercuts RC's story in SoD. Never mind the fact that they could be tough enough that the Azurites couldn't wipe them out given 30 years.

Unless y'all weren't referencing my earlier post in the above quotes. If not, then nevermind. :smallredface:I agree. Their "penned up" means more "prevented us from conquering more land outside of the mountains"

[Lord Bingo]

RC is a hypocrite. The closest he will ever get to being righteous is self-righteous. He might not (want to) realize this himself, but that will hardly excuse his actions.

[CarinTrenos]

RC is a hypocrite. The closest he will ever get to being righteous is self-righteous. He might not (want to) realize this himself, but that will hardly excuse his actions.

Doesn't matter - one of his main goals has been fulfilled and he has stopped the anti-goblin-massacres of the Saphire Guard.

I guess, later goblin generation won't care at all, if their hero has been a hypocrite or not.

[Whiffet]

Right now? No, I can't forgive him. Redcloak has to go through some major character growth first, and there's no guarantee he will reach that point. He needs to admit that he's made mistakes and give up on the Plan.

I do hope to see him redeemed. He was so close to giving the Plan up in SoD and settling in Right-Eye's village. So, so close...

[Flame of Anor]

I think we're going into a world of debate, so I won't enter too much into it. But, as the gods have knowledge power much greater than any mortal being, I don't think as a very unlikely scenario for a god to ask a follower to commit an action, that in the moral of this follower is "evil" (but not in the "moral" of the God), to achieve a Greater Good only understable by that God.
As the God is inherently good, the follower will commit what he thought before it was an "evil action" thinking that it will become a good action in the end, because it's commanded by Good itself. So this ultimately means that he commits this evil action because he transfers the responsability unto his God, thinking that he is no responsable of it. Ergo he is committing an evil action.

If I understand you correctly, what you're postulating is that a god orders his follower to do something which the god knows will have a good effect, but the follower thinks it's evil (because he isn't omniscient). Then if the follower does it even though he thinks it's evil, he abdicates responsibility and is performing an evil act. Okay so far?

Now, there are a few problems with that. First, we need to know whether the specific act is 1) in fact, evil, but leads to a good end, or 2) it only looks evil. If we use the common example of "god tells follower to kill a child because something terrible will happen otherwise", then this means either 1) the kid really is a kid, but part of the demon's big plan, or 2) the kid is not really a kid, but actually the demon himself in disguise.


In the first case (there's no real kid):
The follower trusts his god not to guide him wrongly, and kills the supposed kid (really a disguised demon). This is going to freak him out, but it's probably the best possible scenario.

In the second case (the kid really is a kid):
If the follower does as in the first case, then there's a case to be made for that being an evil act (this, I think, was your point). Not by intention, since the follower trusted his god to lead him to a scenario like the first one; but by effect, since a real kid is dead.



But here's where we find the contradictions in your position. Making a follower kill a kid to stop a demon is not a good act. If it was evil when the follower did it, it was evil when the god ordered it! A god who orders evil deeds, even for good ends, is not a good god.

So if the god truly is a good god (as I believe Thor is), then he will not order his followers to do anything evil. The abdication of responsibility to the god which you have a problem with is only a problem if the god is not truly good. When someone like Durkon follows a good god, then he knows that when he does what the god orders, it will be good even if it looks different at the moment.

TL;DR if your god really is infallibly good, like good D&D gods are, he will never order you to do evil things, so trusting his orders is just fine.

Also: everyone should read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2380931#post2380931).

[AlaskaOOTSFan]

TL;DR if your god really is infallibly good, like good D&D gods are, he will never order you to do evil things, so trusting his orders is just fine.


This +1

Cheers!

[The MunchKING]

The only instance we've seen of a god directly ordering a follower to do something is when the Dark One told Redcloak to get on with the plan - and even then, he didn't say it in so many words. There is no evidence - at least, no evidence outside of Miko's imagination - that the gods ever issue commands to their followers at that level of detail.

Well we could say taking Redcloak and slamming his brain with the Plan in the first place qas pretty much telling him "This is my Plan, you are my New High Preist. Get on it."

[Zevox]

TL;DR if your god really is infallibly good, like good D&D gods are,
I'm sorry, when did D&D gods become infallibly anything? They're just the reverse - they're just like mortals, but simply more powerful. They're capable of error, they can change, etc. They're more than capable of taking actions contrary to their alignment, accidentally or otherwise, and like with mortals their alignments will change if that happens enough.

Zevox

[Flame of Anor]

I'm sorry, when did D&D gods become infallibly anything? They're just the reverse - they're just like mortals, but simply more powerful. They're capable of error, they can change, etc. They're more than capable of taking actions contrary to their alignment, accidentally or otherwise, and like with mortals their alignments will change if that happens enough.

Zevox

It varies with setting, but what you're describing is more characteristic of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

[FujinAkari]

I'm sorry, when did D&D gods become infallibly anything? They're just the reverse - they're just like mortals, but simply more powerful. They're capable of error, they can change, etc. They're more than capable of taking actions contrary to their alignment, accidentally or otherwise, and like with mortals their alignments will change if that happens enough.

Zevox

1st Edition :P

Bahamut was the quintessential essense of goodness and was opposed by Tiamat. 1st Edition D&D was, very much, the struggles of good characters to overcome the denizens of evil. It is literally what the game is built on.

[Flame of Anor]

1st Edition :P

Bahamut was the quintessential essense of goodness and was opposed by Tiamat. 1st Edition D&D was, very much, the struggles of good characters to overcome the denizens of evil. It is literally what the game is built on.

Yes--in a world where everyone fits into one of nine moral outlooks, there will naturally be fewer shades of gray.

Also, I can't really think of any D&D god who changes alignment. Certainly no core one, unless you credit the oddly compelling conspiracy theories about Pelor.

[FujinAkari]

Yes--in a world where everyone fits into one of nine moral outlooks, there will naturally be fewer shades of gray.

Also, I can't really think of any D&D god who changes alignment. Certainly no core one, unless you credit the oddly compelling conspiracy theories about Pelor.

Oh no, that came later. Originally there were only three alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good.

Like I said, when the game came out every player character automatically opposed the forces of Evil, so a morally ambiguous God would have been exceedingly discordant to the entire structure of the ruleset :P

[Flame of Anor]

Oh no, that came later. Originally there were only three alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good.

Like I said, when the game came out every player character automatically opposed the forces of Evil, so a morally ambiguous God would have been exceedingly discordant to the entire structure of the ruleset :P

Oh, sure. But I was trying to avert a possible "but that's only in early editions" argument against you.

[Yuki Akuma]

That sentence implies that being lawful is a bit more close to good than to evil. And it's not. In fact, I think that no lawful society can be good at 100%.

No, what I'm saying is that all of his 'redeeming' qualities are his Lawful ones. None of his Evil personality traits are redeeming. :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

That sentence implies that being lawful is a bit more close to good than to evil. And it's not. In fact, I think that no lawful society can be good at 100%.

No, what I'm saying is that all of his 'redeeming' qualities are his Lawful ones. None of his Evil personality traits are redeeming. :smalltongue:

Also, a Lawful Evil villain is probably better for the random guy in the street, at least in the short term - less likely to be slaughtered for no reason, and such. :smallwink:

[Holy_Knight]

I always kinda hoped that he and Roy might form some sort of weird bond at some point down the road, or that Redcloak might come across some humans who treated him well, and as such he might begin to change.
This has always been an interesting idea to me as well. I'm not sure how this would happen, but I've wondered how Redcloak might think or react if he was aware of (Origin of PCs spoilers) how Roy treated the concert-going orcs. Obviously orcs and goblins aren't the same, but it's still a human treating a monster race with respect and moral consideration, so it should still be quite significant.

As far as Durkon's goodness and its relation to Thor, an important thing to keep in mind is that Durkon doesn't really get orders from Thor directly nor unambiguously--he interprets what he believes to be Thor's orders. So, he's not going to think it's Thor's will to do something like "turn on and kill the Order" because his own conscience forms the lens through which he decides what Thor is tellling him. He's never going to see some omen and think the meaning of it is something obviously evil or directly opposed to the teachings he's always followed. So it's a mistake to say that he isn't really good because he follows what his god tells him--his beliefs about what Thor tells him are formed by his own sense of goodness.

[toughluck]

{{scrubbed}}

[HandofShadows]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Craft (Cheese)]

Honestly, no. Ultimately, Redcloak's goal is to bring down and destroy other sapient species for the benefit of his own. That the peoples he is attacking are guilty of doing the exact same thing doesn't excuse it: Two wrongs don't make a right. At absolute best, he's the lesser evil.

(By the way, if all of his "equality" talk had actual substance, why is he allowing humans to be imprisoned and enslaved? His actions here say that he doesn't want goblins to be equal, he wants goblins to dominate.)

[Flame of Anor]

toughluck, I mostly agree with what you're saying--heck, my feelings thereon are probably as strong as yours! But you might be more likely to convince people if you were less antagonistic.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

If I understand you correctly, what you're postulating is that a god orders his follower to do something which the god knows will have a good effect, but the follower thinks it's evil (because he isn't omniscient). Then if the follower does it even though he thinks it's evil, he abdicates responsibility and is performing an evil act. Okay so far?

Now, there are a few problems with that. First, we need to know whether the specific act is 1) in fact, evil, but leads to a good end, or 2) it only looks evil. If we use the common example of "god tells follower to kill a child because something terrible will happen otherwise", then this means either 1) the kid really is a kid, but part of the demon's big plan, or 2) the kid is not really a kid, but actually the demon himself in disguise.


In the first case (there's no real kid):
The follower trusts his god not to guide him wrongly, and kills the supposed kid (really a disguised demon). This is going to freak him out, but it's probably the best possible scenario.

In the second case (the kid really is a kid):
If the follower does as in the first case, then there's a case to be made for that being an evil act (this, I think, was your point). Not by intention, since the follower trusted his god to lead him to a scenario like the first one; but by effect, since a real kid is dead.



But here's where we find the contradictions in your position. Making a follower kill a kid to stop a demon is not a good act. If it was evil when the follower did it, it was evil when the god ordered it! A god who orders evil deeds, even for good ends, is not a good god.

So if the god truly is a good god (as I believe Thor is), then he will not order his followers to do anything evil. The abdication of responsibility to the god which you have a problem with is only a problem if the god is not truly good. When someone like Durkon follows a good god, then he knows that when he does what the god orders, it will be good even if it looks different at the moment.

TL;DR if your god really is infallibly good, like good D&D gods are, he will never order you to do evil things, so trusting his orders is just fine.

Also: everyone should read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2380931#post2380931).

Good point. But you have a big hole in there. Gods, although thousands better than mortals, are still fallible, and thus, can make mistakes and take the wrong decissions: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html

(I told you this was going into a big debate) ;)

[CarinTrenos]

First, how is Belkar a good guy? Have you read Origin? Have you really read it?
OotS came to be conceived by coincidence, mostly, and if you want to draw parallels to players at a table, it would be a kind of a blind game -- everybody brings their own character to the table, describes their backstory, and they all meet... at a tavern.
Belkar was NEVER a good guy by any stretch. Roy seemed to be unaware of this in the beginning, having had better choices for party members in the tavern, or vastly better outside of it.
Belkar also NEVER fit OotS. He's not a good party member and he doesn't (or didn't) want to be one. Belkar's evil is right there with Xykon's or Redcloak's.



I have written "good" instead of good for a reason. To be clear...no, i have not read Origins but i don't think that i need another hint. Belkar is evil in question of alignment - but: he is using that hate/violence etc against other evil characters.On the long run, he isn't only saving the world - he has also helped to make it a better place. Of course, obviously he is still evil and likes to do evil things. I just wanted to point out, that it seems to be much easier for many readers to like him, just cuz he kills the right guys.



As for Miko, seriously, are you reading the same comic as me? Miko was righteous, but utterly conflicted and carried a lot of prejudice. She wasn't "nice" and never claimed otherwise. However, how the hell is she a mass murderer and how is Redcloak more righteous than her? Do you even know the definition of the word?


It's not just prejudices anymore, if you are travelling with those persons for weeks. The party never could have convinced her, that they are good guys. Which implies, that she would kill everyone,who seems to be "evil". And you know Miko's definition of that word. I have never questioned her theoretical alignment. All palading are "Lawful Good". I am just pointing out, that, in the whole world of fantasy stories, many many many villains are similar to her. Tragical figures who believe in a very narrow definition of "good". Doing evil things for "good" reasons isn't better than doing good things für evil reasons.

She isn't just a "bad girl" or, as another poster called it, "stubborn" - she is dangerous, mad, narcisstic and unable to learn. Instead she blames other characters - which implies, that everybody, who she disagress with, must be "evil".

That may be righteous if you tolerate that the subjectivity of the word but I believe, in general, the definition of that noun is a little bit different. According to "our" story, calling her a "mass murderer" may be a long shot on my side but i won't believe that someome with such a nature and such power hasn't committed similar crimes before. For the greater good aka the voice in my head.

Miko is, in fact, not righteous or the word is just hollow or twisted like a piece of modern art. RC works with a real villain, the occupation of AC has been cruel and he also justifies actions with greater goals. Therefore it's just impossible to call him "good" but compared to Miko he is at least sane and knows his plan is approved by his god. To discuss the righteousness of a lawful good and a lawful evil person may be strange but in my opinion the answer is complicated.




Apparently, you also haven't read SoD. For true evil, last comic notwithstanding, read SoD.
As for technically good tihngs, by itself it doesn't do squat to redeem the character (one of the biggest gripes I have with Return of the Jedi). If Beria offed Stalin or (self-censored, I don't want to invoke Godwin's law), would that redeem him in any way?
As for being a part of the race designed to be killed, well, that's how fantasy worlds roll. What next? Emancipation for Ettins? Freedom for Fungus? Deliverance for Dragons? Liberation for Lycanthropes?
Seriously, it all depends on the DM, if anything. PCs do not kill goblins because they're goblins, but they kill evil characters because they're evil. That's all there is to it! Whether the evil character is a goblin, what does it change?


I have read SoD but thanks for your nice words anyway. Without SoD i would not try to defend RC so strongly. I feel that we won't agree on that question but in my opinion there is a difference between killing mindless monsters or exactly described tribes and families. It's not possible to argue that RC has no right to change that world. In fact he has. That doesn't justify anything but you don't need to be evil to agree with him.

I guess, Rich would not have told the story the way he has, if he wanted to picture goblins as murderous killing machines. Maybe it's all the same to you but I think there is going to be some real change in the world. One way or another.

[Kish]

Yeah.

If D&D deities have ever been infallibly good, it was a very long time ago. A god of storms is infallibly interested in storms, and that's it.

[pendell]

With respect to divine direction, it seems to me that the more evil a god in D&D is, the more likely he/she is to be a micromanaging control freak prone to give out detailed, specific instructions. It's not just Rich Burlew's world. I'm re-reading Salvatore's Homeland trilogy, and the same thing seems to happen. Lolth, the evil Spider Queen, is constantly interfering with the affairs of her worshippers. Scarcely a page passes without someone being punished or a messenger coming up from the Abyss to bring a message.

By contrast, Mielekki the goddess that Drizzt eventually adopts hardly ever appears. We know her name, and we know Drizzt wears her holy symbol, but very little else.

Likewise in OOTS. Thor grants miracles to Durkon and presumably will respond to things like Oracle, requests for guidance, but he doesn't seem to have this big all-important plan. He's not stuffing information into the minds of his followers and he doesn't threaten them for failure to perform.

I wonder if that's built into the nature of good -- in D&D at least. D&D good appears to be humble. One doesn't smash someone else's ego down to build one's own up without good reason. D&D good gods appear willing to let the protagonists find their own way and make their own mistakes with a minimum of interference unless it's asked for. D&D evil gods, in contrast, appear to be much more like the vengeful Greek gods. Constantly interfering, constantly getting hacked off at 'hubris', constantly punishing and forcing their followers down railroad tracks.

Heck, it even shows up outside D&D. Look at Tolkien's LOTR. Sauron is a maia, a lesser spirit. There are other spirits in Middle-Earth who are peers with Sauron's old master Morgoth -- Manwe, Varda, Ulmo, Lorien and others -- who vastly outgun Sauron in both majesty and power.

But because they're good, they're rarely seen. They don't gather great armies or build vast temples or have hordes of soldiers marching around with their symbol. They are represented in earth by five wizards who are forbidden outright to contest Sauron's power with power.

They could easily overthrow Sauron in an eyeblink by themselves. Instead, they stand back and let mortals have the limelight. They are content to provide advice and counsel through Gandalf, and to provide just enough power (such as Galadriel's starglass, a 'light when all other lights go out') to get our heroes through situations they can't overcome on their own. But the heroism and the limelight is on the mortals; the good spirits are almost entirely offstage.


At any rate , it is possible that Durkon's relationship with Thor is fundamentally different from Redcloak's relationship with the Dark One. Perhaps because of this fantasy trope -- that Good is Humble while Evil is Ego.

What that says about Miko, who whatever her alignment was heavily ego-driven, I leave as an exercise for the student.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Finn Solomon]

No, he's a goblin. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.

[The Pilgrim]

Also, a Lawful Evil villain is probably better for the random guy in the street, at least in the short term - less likely to be slaughtered for no reason, and such. :smallwink:

Not really. A Chaotic Evil is limited to slaughtering what he has at hand, or at arm's reach of a small bunch of henchmen. A Lawful Evil, on the other hand, has the planning to build a greater evil organization and then crush you with all the power of the State.

Take Belkar and Tarquin. With Belkar, you could be killed if you happen to cross him in the street, which is a small chance. With Tarquin, you have a 100% chance of being affected by him, because he rules the place you live in, dictates the Laws that govern the place you live in, and commands the Army that enforces the law in the place you live in. With Belkar, you can hope to run before he notices you. With Tarquin, he has already noticed you, and you have nowhere to run.

CE Xykon went over all his life as minor league, the most notable evil scheme he could pull off was to stole a stupid crown from some random wizard. He only became a major problem for all living things in the world when he meet LE Redcloak, and got a henchman capable of developing a big evil scheme and managing a sizeable big army of mooks.

[Morty]

It varies with setting, but what you're describing is more characteristic of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

It varies with setting, yes. However, from what we've seen of gods in OoTS, there are many adjectives to describe them but "infailible" isn't one, regardless of alignment.
As for Redcloak - his cause is just, his methods have hit the bottom a while ago and keep getting worse. If he doesn't realize that, there's no redemption in sight for him. Like some people in this thread, I too hope for a talk between him and Roy. Not only would it be very interesting to read, but Roy might actually be able to talk some sense into Redcloak.

[Holy_Knight]

Take Belkar and Tarquin. With Belkar, you could be killed if you happen to cross him in the street, which is a small chance. With Tarquin, you have a 100% chance of being affected by him, because he rules the place you live in, dictates the Laws that govern the place you live in, and commands the Army that enforces the law in the place you live in. With Belkar, you can hope to run before he notices you. With Tarquin, he has already noticed you, and you have nowhere to run.
This is a bad analogy--remember when Belkar was briefly the leader of the Resistance? His immediate idea was for the Azurites to fight to the death for his amusement. Of course a guy who wields vast political control will be able to engage in more widespread evil than one who doesn't, but that's a function of power, not alignment. The only thing stoppng Belkar from causing as much suffering as Tarquin in that way is that he lacks the resources to do so.

[MDR]

And how has RC changed? For example, would he conscript a goblin village whose members have no interest in his crusade and are living peacefully with their neighbors? Would he even accept the concept of a goblin village living peacefully with their neighbors? What if that village had a powerful wizard or fighter he could use, but didn't want to join the crusade?

I think it would be very interesting if some gobbo or hobbo soldiers start viewing him the same way he views Xykon.

BTW, where can I find the rules that list what needs to be put behind spoiler tags? I mean, SoD has been out for a long time now, at what age can we just straight out reference what happened in it? You don't see spoiler tags around the fact that Vader is Luke's father after all. I've looked in the Rules. but didn't see a list or anything. Thanks!

[Craft (Cheese)]

With respect to divine direction, it seems to me that the more evil a god in D&D is, the more likely he/she is to be a micromanaging control freak prone to give out detailed, specific instructions. It's not just Rich Burlew's world. I'm re-reading Salvatore's Homeland trilogy, and the same thing seems to happen. Lolth, the evil Spider Queen, is constantly interfering with the affairs of her worshippers. Scarcely a page passes without someone being punished or a messenger coming up from the Abyss to bring a message.

By contrast, Mielekki the goddess that Drizzt eventually adopts hardly ever appears. We know her name, and we know Drizzt wears her holy symbol, but very little else.

Likewise in OOTS. Thor grants miracles to Durkon and presumably will respond to things like Oracle, requests for guidance, but he doesn't seem to have this big all-important plan. He's not stuffing information into the minds of his followers and he doesn't threaten them for failure to perform.

I wonder if that's built into the nature of good -- in D&D at least. D&D good appears to be humble. One doesn't smash someone else's ego down to build one's own up without good reason. D&D good gods appear willing to let the protagonists find their own way and make their own mistakes with a minimum of interference unless it's asked for. D&D evil gods, in contrast, appear to be much more like the vengeful Greek gods. Constantly interfering, constantly getting hacked off at 'hubris', constantly punishing and forcing their followers down railroad tracks.

Heck, it even shows up outside D&D. Look at Tolkien's LOTR. Sauron is a maia, a lesser spirit. There are other spirits in Middle-Earth who are peers with Sauron's old master Morgoth -- Manwe, Varda, Ulmo, Lorien and others -- who vastly outgun Sauron in both majesty and power.

But because they're good, they're rarely seen. They don't gather great armies or build vast temples or have hordes of soldiers marching around with their symbol. They are represented in earth by five wizards who are forbidden outright to contest Sauron's power with power.

They could easily overthrow Sauron in an eyeblink by themselves. Instead, they stand back and let mortals have the limelight. They are content to provide advice and counsel through Gandalf, and to provide just enough power (such as Galadriel's starglass, a 'light when all other lights go out') to get our heroes through situations they can't overcome on their own. But the heroism and the limelight is on the mortals; the good spirits are almost entirely offstage.


At any rate , it is possible that Durkon's relationship with Thor is fundamentally different from Redcloak's relationship with the Dark One. Perhaps because of this fantasy trope -- that Good is Humble while Evil is Ego.

What that says about Miko, who whatever her alignment was heavily ego-driven, I leave as an exercise for the student.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think the true cause of this is something much simpler: If Illuvatar stepped in and vanquished Sauron with a snap of his fingers, there wouldn't have been much of a story! Good divinities never help the heroes (any more than just a teeny insignificant push) because watching (and playing) an underdog take down the forces of evil with the odds clearly against them is much more exciting and interesting.

[Zevox]

Heck, it even shows up outside D&D. Look at Tolkien's LOTR. Sauron is a maia, a lesser spirit. There are other spirits in Middle-Earth who are peers with Sauron's old master Morgoth -- Manwe, Varda, Ulmo, Lorien and others -- who vastly outgun Sauron in both majesty and power.

But because they're good, they're rarely seen. They don't gather great armies or build vast temples or have hordes of soldiers marching around with their symbol. They are represented in earth by five wizards who are forbidden outright to contest Sauron's power with power.

They could easily overthrow Sauron in an eyeblink by themselves. Instead, they stand back and let mortals have the limelight. They are content to provide advice and counsel through Gandalf, and to provide just enough power (such as Galadriel's starglass, a 'light when all other lights go out') to get our heroes through situations they can't overcome on their own. But the heroism and the limelight is on the mortals; the good spirits are almost entirely offstage.
Yeah, bad example. The reason the Valar don't overthrow Sauron directly is simple: every time they act directly to fight off a threat like him, it destroys vast portions of Middle-Earth. The northern reaches of the world were annihilated when they captured Morgoth at Utumno after the awakening of the Elves, and Beleriand was shattered when they sent armies of Elves lead by mere Maiar to the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age. They wanted to avoid that happening again, so they sent Maiar in mortal bodies who weren't allowed to directly contest Sauron, but more discreetly work against him.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

If Rich is speaking from the hobgoblin point of view, they may well feel themselves to be "penned up". But a more objective observer might describe it as "two unfriendly countries each protecting their own borders".

The context could be interpreted as "prevented from invading anybody"

Snippet from Bonus strip 320a
Hobgoblin general: "Blueriver Fort is here; it's long been the first line of defense against us hobgoblins. After that, there are patrols and watchtowers, but the defenses are light."

Redcloak: "Light defenses? That seems odd. This is the Sapphire Guard we're talking about."

Xykon: "I know good is dumb, but isn't that overkill? Or rather, underkill?

Hobgoblin general: "Trust me, the paladins and the regular army of the Azurites have kept us completely penned in those mountains for almost 30 years. They aren't expecting us to just suddenly break out and invade like this. They put most of their military energy into Blueriver."

[Flame of Anor]

Not really. A Chaotic Evil is limited to slaughtering what he has at hand, or at arm's reach of a small bunch of henchmen. A Lawful Evil, on the other hand, has the planning to build a greater evil organization and then crush you with all the power of the State.


That's why Yuki Akuma said "short term".

[pendell]

Yeah, bad example. The reason the Valar don't overthrow Sauron directly is simple: every time they act directly to fight off a threat like him, it destroys vast portions of Middle-Earth. The northern reaches of the world were annihilated when they captured Morgoth at Utumno after the awakening of the Elves, and Beleriand was shattered when they sent armies of Elves lead by mere Maiar to the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age. They wanted to avoid that happening again, so they sent Maiar in mortal bodies who weren't allowed to directly contest Sauron, but more discreetly work against him.

Zevox

Maybe so, but I think my point still stands that the Valar allowed mortals a great deal more free will than Sauron did. If they had, for example, handed out mind-enslaving rings like Sauron did, they could have raised a war against Sauron using human hands without destroying the world through direct confrontation. They also wouldn't have had problems with Boromirs or Denethors, if they had been as thoroughly enslaved by the Valar as the ringwraiths were by Sauron.

Instead they chose to let free people take center stage. To fight, and fail, of their own free will, rather than stepping in like a parent, telling them "no you're doin it wrong lol" and force them to do things the "right" way. So they permit the Dunedain to fracture into Arnor and Gondor, permit the elves and men to become estranged, permit Denethor to burn himself on a pyre rather than fight for the city, permit dwarves and elves to continue a burning rival thousands of years old yet still fresh.

They choose to allow the protaganists to remain flawed but free people struggling to do the right thing rather than flawless automatons.

The use of zombies, automatons , creatures that can't talk back and have no will of their own seems to be a tool of Evil creatures in fantasy. I wonder if there are any fantasy stories about a being who enslaves and destroys the will "for their own good"?

Another issue for why good gods might do this is the desire to "use the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and the weak things of the world to shame the strong. To take the things which are not to nullify the things which are." -- the better to show that the power of Good to overthrow evil doesn't come from weapons or military might but simply because good is That Darn Awesome.

I think Terry Pratchett summed it up (http://www.concatenation.org/articles/pratchett.html) masterfully.



" The morality of fantasy and horror is, by and large, the strict morality of the fairy tale. The vampire is slain, the alien is blown out of the airlock, the evil Dark Lord is vanquished and, perhaps at some loss, the Good triumph -- not because they are better armed, but because Providence is on their side. Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be Hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain."


Side by side with the use of providence is the use of weak, silly creatures like Elan or the Road Runner to be its vessels. In a fairy story, providence doesn't win either by overwhelming military might, by logic, or by having some deus ex machina take control of characters and force them through the motions.

There's probably something critical to the whole telling of a fantasy story -- something that separates fan fiction from a true classic -- but I can't put my finger on it just now. Ah well.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[veti]

Maybe so, but I think my point still stands that the Valar allowed mortals a great deal more free will than Sauron did.

Indeed. Gandalf is a Maia himself - of the same rank as Sauron - and quite possibly capable of duking it out with Sauron himself mano a mano. But he never lets anyone see how powerful he is. Instead he confines himself to inspiring and advising the Good Guys.


The use of zombies, automatons , creatures that can't talk back and have no will of their own seems to be a tool of Evil creatures in fantasy. I wonder if there are any fantasy stories about a being who enslaves and destroys the will "for their own good"?

There are stories of creatures that temporarily take over someone else's will or body for their own ends - usually, to communicate with the heroes - then release it. In my recollection, those creatures tend to be morally neutral (e.g. victims in need of help) - I can't recall any examples of unambiguously 'good' creatures doing this.


the better to show that the power of Good to overthrow evil doesn't come from weapons or military might but simply because good is That Darn Awesome.

Or, to put it more cynically, because history (and hence, the definition of 'good') is written by the victors.


There's probably something critical to the whole telling of a fantasy story -- something that separates fan fiction from a true classic -- but I can't put my finger on it just now. Ah well.

Never mind, you did a masterful job of expounding what you did put your finger on. Thank you.

[The Pilgrim]

This is a bad analogy--remember when Belkar was briefly the leader of the Resistance? His immediate idea was for the Azurites to fight to the death for his amusement.

And that's why he was "briefly" the leader of the Resistance, since the immediate reaction of everyone else was to elect another guy.

Should someone like Kubota had been in his place, he would have managed to be elected as Leader and then perform some real evil. And when the leaders of the Resistance realized what they had done, it would have been too late.

So you have reinforced my point.

[Quackenbush]

getting back to the topic at hand, I have to say that RC is...a gray area. He is definitely evil, and that's not going to change, but he also has good motivations. I'm not saying the ends completely justify the means here, but it helps.

[Ingus]

When we fall in inadequacy, we borrow the words (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) of others :smalltongue:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This is exactly the kind of "is X morally justified" thread that we don't allow. The Giant and I commented on why at some length here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9869861#post9869861).