Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole. [Archive]

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 06:48 PM

Something about Redcloak has been bothering me for some time. In short, I think that while the effort put into giving Redcloak more dimension than the other villains is admirable and has provided a surprising breadth of material for the comic, ultimately, he fails as both a character and as a villain, and that these stumblings are indicative of a problem with the comic as a whole.

Originally, RC was just Xykon's put-upon right hand man, plucky but often belittled, almost childlike at times. "Start of Darkness" more or less reinvented Redcloak from the ground up. As presented these days, Redcloak is something of a misguided anti-villain, someone who is unquestionably evil but who has been driven to evil by his poor lot in life and who is motivated by what might be an admirable goal if he wasn't going about it in such a horrifying, reckless way. In SoD, Xykon characterizes RC's agenda as "Whiny 'evil but for a good cause' crap," which more or less sums it up.

This has been the firm conception of Redcloak, his character, his past, and his motivations since SoD, and the position of the comic's narrative has been both that Redcloak is evil (no arguments about "moral justification" please) but that his cause is, at least in theory, just. So what's the problem, in my estimation? Well, in order for Redcloak's good cause to be good, the comic has to cheat and employing a double standard that undermines its integrity. Goblins in "The Order of the Stick" have, at least post-SoD, been depicted as a put-upon, persecuted race. They are widely victimized, particularly by the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard (Mr. Burlew's creative notes characterizes the guard's downfall as moral blowback from their too-zealous crusades against goblinkind), and even by the gods themselves.

Perhaps you can already see the problem with this; in D&D, goblins are never harmless creatures that you can leave to their own devices without having to worry about them. Goblins, in D&D, are always a threat, and therefore violent conflict with them is almost always inevitable. That conflict is more or less the engine that drives the entire game. So this notion that Paladins are sometimes unjust crusaders and that goblins are sometimes innocent victims, and that this cycle of violence gives rise to more significant, costly forms of evil, feels to me like something of a cheat. It only works and makes sense if "The Order of the Stick" is not a comic about D&D.

Of course, many would argue that it is indeed not, and that that's actually a good thing, but if you ask me, that's where the cheat comes into it. The comic wants to be about gaming and D&D whenever it's convenient for the sake of humor, but then when the comic wants to employ drama (or melodrama) it works around the conventions of the source material. The schism between these two approaches is evident in the wildly varying characterizations of Redcloak pre and post-SoD; it's an inconsistency, one that is now woven into the fabric of the comic. Sometimes the comic is one thing, sometimes it's another, and these two natures are not only conflicting, they're just plain contradictory. For Redcloak to make sense now, the entire comic has to make less sense.

"The Order of the Stick" has always been about how game rules and conventions wouldn't and don't make sense if applied to anything resembling a "real" situation. The difference, of course, is that pre-SoD, those inconsistencies were played for laughs. It is, indeed, funny to think about turn-based tabletop RPGs in literal terms. But when you take that same dynamic and try to fabricate high drama out of it, indeed, try to fabricate a sometimes long-winded moralizing argument out of it, that's less successful. Game rules ARE inherently funny, but they are not inherently tragic, that's only something that we can project onto them. Even when "The Order of the Stick" mocks the rules and artificial conventions of the game, the conventions are still a part of the world and a part of the comic (otherwise the joke wouldn't exist). But Redcloak's narrative and background are at odds with those conventions; in order for it to work, those conventions have to simply not be so.

So either "The Order of the Stick" is about the black and white, binary world of tabletop gaming (and how strange and silly that is), in which case Redcloak does not make sense as a character, or else it's about a more nuanced, complex world that doesn't at all resemble tabletop gaming, in which case the comic as a whole has been undermined. In short, you can't have it both ways, but Redcloak's story tries to anyway.

"The Order of the Stick" is a remarkable piece of work, in that the degree of complexity and maturity in it evolved organically over many years, from its somewhat crude origins into the thrilling, imaginative, multi-faceted narrative we enjoy now. It is inevitable that, when a story (and a writer) change this much over this long of a period of time, that a few things just won't add up in the end. That's just the nature of the beast, and I'm not attacking the comic as a whole or the writer for this.

I am, however, puzzled and even quietly dismayed at what I think was a damaging blunder in how this one, increasingly prominent character was handled, particularly because these character decisions are actually not the result of the comics' early growing pains, and in fact are the very thing that marks a major turning point away from the tone of that early material. That the comic has to cheat and work outside of its own concepts to fabricate the present characterization should be an indicator that it wasn't a great idea to begin with. Sadly, Redcloak is now so tightly woven with the primary conflict that it seems both impossible to reverse the tide and unlikely that he will fade into the background as the finale (whenever it comes) nears.

Ultimately, I would say that this is a lesson against trying to do too many clever things at once; Redcloak and the other villains' comparative simplicity might have seemed like an Achilles heel once the comic started to become smarter and more nuanced, but in trying to make them a match for the rest of the series,the comic has been burdened. Moral conundrums do not necessarily always make a story better, and the effort to fabricate them in a work not well-suited to them often makes it worse.

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 07:06 PM

I'm not convinced of this, mainly because I don't think that Redcloak and his character arc are as dissonant with the rest of the comic as you think. In the first place, I'd note that - as the Giant has said on a few occasions now - The Order of the Stick is not a comic solely about D&D in any sense, humorous or dramatic. There are still jokes about the rules, but generally most humor now is character-based.

However, I think there's a more fundamental flaw then that with your argument. Let's say you're right, and The Order of the Stick is indeed primarily a parody of D&D. Historically, humor about the real world has both poked fun at its foibles and examined more serious problems with it, often at the same time. With Redcloak and his character arc, I would argue that The Order of the Stick is doing the same thing. The idea that goblins and similar monsters are all evildoers who can be freely slaughtered by PC races may indeed be a crucial part of D&D, but it's a part that can leave many people morally uncomfortable, myself among them. Parodying many of the concepts of D&D is not mutually exclusive with doing a more serious study on some of the game's more worrying aspects, any more then a work of comedy about the real world doing the same thing.

In other words, if - and I do feel this is a big if - the fundamental premise of The Order of the Stick is a world where the rules of D&D form the basis of existence, then I don't think it's a "cheat" at all to both laugh at how ridiculous that can be and simultaneously examine how aspects of it are more unsettling in the light of real-world morality.

Kondziu

2012-02-13, 07:13 PM

"The Order of the Stick" has always been about how game rules and conventions wouldn't and don't make sense if applied to anything resembling a "real" situation.No. It may have been once, although some may argue it never has. This seems to be the very base of your thesis, and a flawed base compromises the whole logic.

in D&D, goblins are never harmless creatures that you can leave to their own devices without having to worry about them. Goblins, in D&D, are always a threat, and therefore violent conflict with them is almost always inevitable.This is not true as well, as it depends on campaign setting, not game mechanics.

RSLee

2012-02-13, 07:17 PM

You seem to be missing Redcloak's entire point. The goblins were designed to be evil, nothing more than fodder for adventurers. The gods essentially decided that they all deserved to die from the very beginning. The Dark One and Redcloak are doing this because they want the goblins to be more than easy EXP for D&D campaigns.

It's a deconstruction of the D&D morality system. It's supposed to expose the flaws in the "black and white, binary world of tabletop gaming". Redcloak's plight reflects the fact that the Alignment system doesn't work in a real life system. That monsters such as the Goblins don't deserve to be butchered for simply existing.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 07:18 PM

The idea that goblins and similar monsters are all evildoers who can be freely slaughtered by PC races may indeed be a crucial part of D&D, but it's a part that can leave many people morally uncomfortable, myself among them.

Well, I would say there's two reasons why I've never felt that that was a worthwhile interpretation of the material (if you'll pardon my saying so), and why I actually find it a little tiresome.

One, the idea in the average D&D game is NOT that goblins can be freely slaughtered as a matter of kind but instead is that violence with monsters is inevitable because those creatures act as a direct threat to others. The image of peaceful, minding-their-own-business goblins getting run down en masse by racist Paladins is not the nature of D&D; those goblins are almost always looting or raiding some place nearby, or monkeying around with magic they don't understand that threatens to unleash Something Bad, or just generally being *****. I've yet to find a D&D adventure where the villains weren't up to something villainous.

Two, D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-13, 07:23 PM

That sure is a lot of words to say "I don't like moral ambiguity."

The Cat Goddess

2012-02-13, 07:24 PM

To expand a bit on what Kondziu wrote...

1) Order of the Stick invokes game-rules to be funny. Sure, there are a lot of things that happen because of game-rules... but the only times they are directly discussed by the characters is to either make a joke, or explain a change (such as Redcloak casting 9th level spells).

2) One can be Noble and Evil at the same time. Nobility of desire does not require Goodness of Heart.

3) Redcloak isn't out for "equal treatment for Goblins". He's out for "Goblins getting as much power as he can get for them."

4) Even before the publication of "Start of Darkness", there was a hint of "I'm only working for you because I have goals of my own" about Redcloak's interactions with Xykon.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 07:27 PM

I like it when it works, makes sense, and doesn't damage the work as a whole.

You seem to be missing Redcloak's entire point. The goblins were designed to be evil, nothing more than fodder for adventurers. The gods essentially decided that they all deserved to die from the very beginning. The Dark One and Redcloak are doing this because they want the goblins to be more than easy EXP for D&D campaigns.

It's a deconstruction of the D&D morality system. It's supposed to expose the flaws in the "black and white, binary world of tabletop gaming". Redcloak's plight reflects the fact that the Alignment system doesn't work in a real life system. That monsters such as the Goblins don't deserve to be butchered for simply existing.

But that doesn't really make sense; if the alignment system really works, then goblins DO need to be "butchered"; because they're evil, and violent, and dangerous, and will surely butcher others. But the comic supposes that while the alignment system exists and was imposed on the world by the gods, it is somehow not really an accurate representation of those creatures' nature...meaning that, really, it doesn't exist. You see how this dynamic breaks down almost as soon as SoD enters into the narrative.

RSLee

2012-02-13, 07:31 PM

But it doesn't work. That's the point. There are too many shades of grey in the world and morality is much more complicated than the D&D mechanics imply.

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 07:41 PM

And it's not even just about the problems with a black and white morality system, real though those are. While I usually don't enjoy it, sometimes it can be fun having no real shades of gray to a story. No, what I view as the real problem with goblins and the like in D&D is that they are entire species of nothing but villains. That's troubling on multiple levels.

In standard D&D, yes, goblins aren't misunderstood souls being slaughtered by murderous PCs - although as others have pointed out, that can vary from setting to setting. The goblins of Eberron tend towards LN and have more in common with Klingons then "generic fantasy mooks", and in point of fact, while I don't care much for Eberron as a whole I give it major props for separating race and alignment across the board. But that's also besides the point. It doesn't matter as much whether goblins "in-universe" are genuinely an entire race of bad guys or not; what bothers me and others is the out-of-universe implications of that design choice.

The Derider

2012-02-13, 07:42 PM

I believe that OOTS has always had, as one of its primary themes, the 'nature' of alignments, and what that translates to when looked at in a more serious light. See: All commentary on Therkla, the judging of Roy, the Belkar's Mark of Justice subplot, the Celia/Haley/Belkar scenes on the way to Greysky City, every single page of Start of Darkness and Redcloak's backstory, Miko Miyazaki's entire characterization... among others.

Combined with the fact that this takes place in a world which is based on (but not beholden to) the raw rule mechanics of D&D, rather than the flavor text of every rulebook, I think you have something which isn't failed characterization. I think it's exactly what it's supposed to be.

But yes. The rules of creation don't always make sense. The Gods aren't infallible. Maybe that's the point.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 07:44 PM

But it doesn't work. That's the point. There are too many shades of grey in the world and morality is much more complicated than the D&D mechanics imply.

Yes, the real world is, but the artificial game world is not. So is "The Order of the Stick" about a realistic moral world or an artificial binary one? It can't be both. In short, either Redcloak makes sense, or the comic world does.

Might I add, the simplistic statement that you cannot behave in a morally complex world the way you would in a black and white one adds up to little more than, "Duh," so I have trouble imagining why anyone would bother. There's more to what's going on than that because, well, there has to be. No one would bother using 800+ comic strips to argue that when such an argument doesn't even need to be made.

Kondziu

2012-02-13, 07:48 PM

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 07:50 PM

B. Dandelion

2012-02-13, 07:51 PM

The way I've been looking at it for a while is that the whole issue with the gods and the goblins is that it approaches the subject of "objective morality -- as interpreted and enforced by beings that are inherently fallible". That is to say, the world of D&D is one of absolute, objective morality, with the nature of good and evil being built right into the mechanics of everything. But when it comes to that actual interpretation of good and evil? The issue of who decides if someone's undergone an alignment change, or if a paladin's committed a deed worthy of Falling? Who has that power?

Ostensibly, the objective forces of morality. In practice, the person running the game. Who may have many notions of good and evil that other people agree with -- but if you disagree, there's no appeal except to quit playing.

Which is not an option open to the Dark One or Redcloak. They're part of the setting, not the campaign. Their kind was created to be evil, and rather as an afterthought made to convenience their PC classes. This comes off as a criticism of any "evil race" being thrown in without any real rhyme or reason to it except that it works for a campaign, but would make little sense as an element if we were to look at the setting as a self-contained world of its own. In SoD we see in a lot of ways this classification is wholly arbitrary and superficial. We know Redcloak and his allies are evil because they are goblins, who worship a deity known as The Dark One, and they eat "evil" food at an "evil" diner served by an "evil" waitress and it's all just surface dressing, really.

What ultimately dooms Redcloak is the combination the setting provides of "evil because we need conflict" and "evil because we believe these things to be evil." The "arbitrary" evils are drawn in to ally themselves with an evil that's actually earned its title through deeds, and Redcloak transforms more and more from a basically well-meaning character with an unfortunate classification he had no real choice in, to an actually evil character willing to do anything to achieve his ends. To a degree he is undone by his own personal weaknesses, but it is the combination of those flaws with the legitimately unfair situation he was put in that leads to his undoing. So the reader is left to some personal discretion as to what degree they condemn him, an ambiguity I approve of.

Their whole "rage against the heavens" plot turns very meta in that they are waging war against the game itself, and are in fact quite willing to let the game and their entire existence within it come to an end in order to achieve their ends. I see that it undermines the setting, but I don't think the inherent criticism is without merit. Creating races that are "always chaotic evil" simply for the ease of a campaign without fully considering the ramifications of their existence within the logic of a setting undermines the very concept of good and evil in the first place, and sets up the ultimate "arbiter" of good and evil (the GM/the gods) as arbitrary, capricious, and even cruel. I actually like it a great deal as a deconstruction of the whole affair.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-13, 07:51 PM

All you're doing here is projecting your own highly specific interpretations of what D&D is "supposed" to be, with paper thin villains who are evil for no reason and have literally no existence beyond disposable packets of experience points (except for human villains, who can of course be as morally ambiguous as they like by virtue of not having a listed alignment or green skin). That's all well and good in your own game, but every DM, every sourcebook writer, every player has their own interpretation on that with what they like to write, read, or play. And frankly, the whole school of "intelligent mortal beings should have whole societies of nothing but mindless destruction of all other societies for no reason other than the story says so" in literature kind of went out the window along with pre-Modernism.

What you are asking for is, in short, a crappy story a DM would throw together in 20 minutes before his friends get back with the Doritos. That's fine, I run D&D that way because I'm lazy. I sure as hell don't want to read a story like that, though.

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 07:51 PM

Combined with the fact that this takes place in a world which is based on (but not beholden to) the raw rule mechanics of D&D, rather than the flavor text of every rulebook, I think you have something which isn't failed characterization. I think it's exactly what it's supposed to be.

That's a good point. I believe goblins are "Usually Neutral Evil" (though I'm not sure - it could be lawful or chaotic) but there's no actual mechanics, which is what the OOTS world really runs on, that prevents some goblins from being non-evil or goblin society as a whole to change (and that will probably be necessary if this thing is to end happily - most goblins we've seen have been evil).

Psyren

2012-02-13, 07:53 PM

Can I get the Cliffn-

That sure is a lot of words to say "I don't like moral ambiguity."

Perfect, thank you. And armed with that knowledge, I can grab a similarly enlightening snippet from the OP. Something, like...

Goblins, in D&D, are always a threat, and therefore violent conflict with them is almost always inevitable. That conflict is more or less the engine that drives the entire game. So this notion that Paladins are sometimes unjust crusaders and that goblins are sometimes innocent victims, and that this cycle of violence gives rise to more significant, costly forms of evil, feels to me like something of a cheat. It only works and makes sense if "The Order of the Stick" is not a comic about D&D.

Revelation ahoy! This is what we in the biz call a "de-con-struction." Why are Goblins always a threat? Why are Paladins always just, even when they go a-slaying? Why does the cycle of violence never present a problem in D&D?

Those are questions OotS wants you to think about, by transplanting the familiar rules and customs of your game into a living world. You have - rightfully - come to the conclusion that game logic doesn't translate so well to an actual fantasy setting.

Or to put it sunccinctly: it's not a bug, it's a feature, working as intended, etc.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 07:58 PM

Those are questions OotS wants you to think about, by transplanting the familiar rules and customs of your game into a living world. You have - rightfully - come to the conclusion that game logic doesn't translate so well to an actual fantasy setting.

Or to put it sunccinctly: it's not a bug, it's a feature, working as intended, etc.

Okay...so what? I'll say it again, if you come up to me and say, "You know, you really can't apply black and white RPG thinking to a more complex real world situation," I'll say, "duh." And then ask if maybe you've been out in the sun too long? This is such a shallow analysis that it barely even seems worth writing down in plain speech, much less building such an elaborate story around. No one anywhere thought that D&D alignment was a good measure for how the world works.

Nor was it intended to be; rather, it's just a convenient tool for defining in-game conflicts. But people started thinking about alignment as the be all and end all of the game (ie, thinking "These goblins are being killed because they're evil," rather than "These goblins are being killed because they keep attacking travelers on this highway,") and then getting "uncomfortable" about it, often as an excuse to indulge in long-winded, self-indulgent tirades about ethics designed to make themselves look more high-minded than everyone else. If I had a low opinion of this comic, I'd accuse it of being just that and probably wouldn't bother reading it anymore, but as it seems to be a generally good work, I'd prefer to think that it just tried too hard and lost its way.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-13, 08:00 PM

Gift Jeraff

2012-02-13, 08:01 PM

And the goblins in OOTS are being killed because they keep attacking travelers on this highway. The whole point of the Dark One's backstory is why they keep attacking travelers on this highway. At least, that's my interpretation.

Kondziu

2012-02-13, 08:01 PM

Then why is the artificial binary there? Why is it the basis for so much material in the comic? In effect, we're saying that the alignment system exists, and is real, and is the work of the gods, but doesn't really apply to the actual people in the world and should not inform their decisions. This, then, is why the world of the comic doesn't make sense, why its narrative is increasingly muddled, and why it's a great example of how a story can be strained by trying to do too many things. That's my estimation, anyway.

Alignment system exists, and it is the work of gods
It is an attribute imposed by gods, arbitrally
Goblins are *made* Evil, arbitrally
One's alignment does not influence one's future decisions
One's decisions do influence one's future alignment

It is the status quo. Why should it not be contested?

Whiffet

2012-02-13, 08:01 PM

Honestly, I think there's at least one essential piece of the story that we're missing about the goblins. I don't think they are quite the "innocent victims" that Redcloak makes them out to be. There's something else going on here; we just don't know what.

Oh, and D&D is not always black and white. Trust me. Some DMs run their games that way, but there are plenty who don't. It won't be hard to find stories from people who played those games.

I certainly don't see how debate about the portrayal of goblins causes Redcloak's characterization to be a failure. :smallconfused:

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 08:02 PM

I'm also starting to get the impression that you just plain don't like moral ambiguity in your D&D.

I certainly don't see how debate about the portrayal of goblins causes Redcloak's characterization to be a failure.

"Failed characterization" is pretty much indisputably the wrong phrase. Nerd Paladin's argument is that Redcloak's characterization and the non-black-and-white portrayal of goblins is dissonant with the rest of the comic and is hurting it as a whole, but that doesn't make the characterization itself a failure.

Kish

2012-02-13, 08:07 PM

This is not true as well, as it depends on campaign setting, not game mechanics.

That sure is a lot of words to say "I don't like moral ambiguity."
I see other people already got to the things I would have said to the OP.

Then why is the artificial binary there? Why is it the basis for so much material in the comic? In effect, we're saying that the alignment system exists, and is real, and is the work of the gods, but doesn't really apply to the actual people in the world and should not inform their decisions.

Mm no. What the people you're addressing are saying, rather, is that the alignment system is not as simplistic as you're claiming it is--not in D&D, not in OotS--and the "artificial binary" isn't there. Redcloak is a complex, multilayered, and Lawful Evil character. If you think there's a contradiction there, you've fundamentally misunderstood D&D.

This, then, is why the world of the comic doesn't make sense, why its narrative is increasingly muddled, and why it's a great example of how a story can be strained by trying to do too many things. That's my estimation, anyway.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting a simplistic black-and-white world for simplistic hack-and-slash games.

There is something wrong with thinking that that's what the D&D books present, because it's wrong and will lead to inevitable disappointment.

There is a great deal wrong with thinking it's what the OotS comic ever presented or ever will. It has already led to disappointment and will continue to do so. Get used to it. As long as you look for a world where "see green skin, kill" is morally viable, you will continue to find OotS "muddled" and "nonsensical."

Whiffet

2012-02-13, 08:07 PM

"Failed characterization" is pretty much indisputably the wrong word. Nerd Paladin's argument is that Redcloak's characterization is dissonant with the rest of the comic and is hurting it as a whole, but that doesn't make the characterization itself a failure.

Oh, I know that's what Nerd_Paladin is saying, but those two words are right there in the title of the thread. :smalltongue:

Dr._Demento

2012-02-13, 08:08 PM

Okay...so what? I'll say it again, if you come up to me and say, "You know, you really can't apply black and white RPG thinking to a more complex real world situation," I'll say, "duh." And then ask if maybe you've been out in the sun too long? This is such a shallow analysis that it barely even seems worth writing down in plain speech, much less building such an elaborate story around. No one anywhere thought that D&D alignment was a good measure for how the world works. Nor was it intended to be; rather, it's just a convenient tool for defining in-game conflicts. But people started thinking about alignment as the be all and end all of the game (ie, thinking "These goblins are being killed because they're evil," rather than "These goblins are being killed because they keep attacking travelers on this highway,") and then getting "uncomfortable" over it.

Often very long works are dedicated to very simple concepts, that is literature (otherwise how do you create synopsis and English papers?). The length is added not only in order to wrap the concept in familiar terms in order to make it engaging, but also so that multiple arguments can be fleshed out that arrive at the same conclusion.

However, I would hesitate to say that the point of OotS is to analyse the deficiencies of DnD morality. That is one sub-theme of one character, Redcloak. That is his story, which, as it is somewhat independent of the main narrative, makes him a compelling character, because he is not a tool of the Order's plot but a guiding figure in his own.

Finally, I think that your arguments that Evil is more than just a label in DnD is quite justified, and I feel like Rich is planning on addressing it. In particular, Jirix's ominous crush of the demon roach I think signifies a much more destructive turn for Gobbotopia.

realroadcrossin

2012-02-13, 08:08 PM

Spoilered for book stuff:

But why are those goblins attacking travellers on a highway? What motivates anyone to do good or evil? I don't think Redcloak or goblins are necessarily depicted as good in the comic, but ghettoized in the classical sense. The moment they've been put on earth by and large their only source for survival is picking off humans. I don't think the point with Redcloak is to simply say "lol shades of grey", but to peel back a little bit on the motivations that can cause a rational individual to do pretty much objectively irrational things.
Honestly, I think the theme can be a little played out these days, but with Redcloak it's come hand in hand with some pretty epic moments. I think the scene where he kills Tsukiko about defines it. Note that he has the spell cast to take control of her undead at any point during their conversation, but it's not until she disrepects his intelligence and power by basically labeling him a random goblin minion of xykon's that he actually feels compelled to take bloody, ironic revenge.

DoctorIllithid

2012-02-13, 08:09 PM

Alright.

So one one hand, we can have Goblinoids being created solely to serve as fodder. Created for the explicit purpose of being slaughtered by the Clerics of Gods, thus increasing the levels of their Clerics and thus increasing their influence. Essentially, they were betrayed before they even set foot on the planet. To prevent them from posing real threats to their chosen races, they are situated in backwater areas with no resources and no strategic values. Thus, forcing them to turn largely to banditry to keep themselves alive.

On the other hand, we can have Goblinoids be evil because...They're evil. EVIL. EVIL EVIL EVIL. MAIM DEATH KILL BURN DIE.

But its okay. I can understand why you wouldn't want moral ambiguity in D&D. You've got enough to think about, so why waste time thinking about if these Goblins are raiding the roads because they have little to no other options to make a living or because...They're evil.

EVIL. EVIL EVIL EVIL. MAIM DEATH KILL BURN DIE.

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 08:18 PM

ti'esar

2012-02-13, 08:26 PM

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 08:36 PM

I suppose "failed" may have been too strong of a term, particularly given that "The Order of the Stick" is still in progress. Still, it was a title. And I don't suggest failure in objective terms; this is just my critical opinion.

[LIST=1]

It is the status quo. Why should it not be contested?

Because I think it's silly for a writer to expect us to get worked up over a supposed moral crisis that was manufactured by the intentional misapplication of artificial concepts originally created as a technical convenience. "Isn't it tragic that goblins get killed?" Well, not really, no, not as written. The comic, then, must write them differently in order for us to be invested in that idea, but as soon as you do that you're conceding that the original point lacked merit.

But its okay. I can understand why you wouldn't want moral ambiguity in D&D. You've got enough to think about, so why waste time thinking about if these Goblins are raiding the roads because they have little to no other options to make a living or because...They're evil.

EVIL. EVIL EVIL EVIL. MAIM DEATH KILL BURN DIE.

Case in point. There is no moral crisis to fighting monsters in D&D, we must create one for ourselves if we wish it to be so. But as soon as we do that we're not longer satirizing, critiquing, or even attacking the game, rather just our own spin on it. So even if "The Order of the Stick" is making a pointed satirical barb at mainstream gaming, it is a barb directed not on the game itself. Really, the only thing we can say about the game is that it doesn't make sense; but again, so what? That's so evident that it doesn't seem worth saying, much less getting up in arms about.

Taelas

2012-02-13, 08:44 PM

Mm no. What the people you're addressing are saying, rather, is that the alignment system is not as simplistic as you're claiming it is--not in D&D, not in OotS--and the "artificial binary" isn't there. Redcloak is a complex, multilayered, and Lawful Evil character. If you think there's a contradiction there, you've fundamentally misunderstood D&D.

This pretty much answers everything, so I'll just quote it.

Taelas

2012-02-13, 08:50 PM

Methinks this thread is bah-roken.

Ah, there we go. Fixed it!

WhamBamSam

2012-02-13, 08:51 PM

The Gods - seemingly acting in a way that represented D&D's game designers by proxy - deliberately forced the "monster" races into circumstances that required them to become raiders and bandits in order to survive. The goblins were as you put it, "acting villainous," but their evil was forced upon them by the world in which they live. When a world/society/whatever is set up in a way that explicitly encourages conflict, conflict is what you get. The goblins aren't evil in OotS or in D&D in general because they're genetically hardwired to be evil. They're evil because they're in a story, and stories need villains.

But what happens when the story ends? The answer of course is that "there is no end, there's just the point where storytellers stop talking." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) After enough time in the perpetual state of minor conflict it becomes inevitable that the goblins eventually get sick of it and some leader, like the Dark One, brings them together in the hope that they won't have to take it anymore. TDO proposes peace, but the terms are unfavorable to the leaders of the favored races, and surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. They decide to off what the uppity warlord and hope that the problem will just go away. In a twist no one saw coming, it backfires and we get a horrific bloody war. Naturally, once the bloodshed finally stops, both sides leave with false conclusions about the other. The goblins become convinced that humans are morally bankrupt and untrustworthy, while humans, elves, et al come away with the lesson that allowing the monstrous humanoids to become too organized is dangerous. The never ending escalation of petty revenge continues. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html).

Since I'm using so many Tarquin and Nale quotes, I might as well also point out that Tarquin preventing Nale from learning about Elan for the sake of dramatic tension and raising Nale as a villain was also deliberately setting up conflict for the sake of narrative. In many ways, the smaller scale story of Elan's family runs parallel to the primary narrative. I would almost wonder if this were being done intentionally to use Elan/Tarquin's genre savvy to make various points about the story as a whole even though the family are all somewhat secondary to the main plot.

Kish

2012-02-13, 08:57 PM

Case in point. There is no moral crisis to fighting monsters in D&D,
Yes, there is. Unless the DM chooses to artificially enforce a much more black-and-white morality system than the D&D default.

You're insisting that failure to implement your house rules, constitutes house rules.

Idhan

2012-02-13, 09:14 PM

I haven't read Start of Darkness yet, but anyway...

Say you're a Mongol child in the 13th century. Say that your family, mother, father, siblings, etc, are all Mongols, and your family has been rampaging across Asia, killing, raping, and looting. You're currently settled somewhere in the Middle East.

Your Khan has every intention of crushing every other independent state remaining, but at the moment -- as in, right at this moment, at three in the afternoon on Tuesday -- you're not fighting anyone.

Now say a bunch of Egyptian mamluks attack your camp. The Egyptian sultan has managed to catch your settlement unprepared and surprised. They massacre pretty much everyone -- your mother, your friends, etc. You survive, but not because the mamluks spared any other children.

I think we could say that 1) the Mongols are a very real threat to independent civilizations, and war against them is justified 2) the Egyptians were doing something wrong in killing indiscriminately, and 3) as a survivor of the massacre, you might have a bone to pick with the Egyptians.

Are you evil because of that? Not necessarily. It depends on how you deal with it. How has Redcloak dealt with it? Well, as an example, by torturing people who he knows don't know anything as a way of tricking his partner.

You might object that you're talking alignment, not Medieval Asian history: that the Mongols are still, after all, humans, and thus predominantly of neutral alignment with a mix of law, chaos, good, and evil typical of humans among their ranks, like the Egyptians, Franks, Han, Saxons, etc.. However, how do you think an "usually neutral evil"-aligned goblin race would act that sets them apart from Hulagu Khan -- that makes the whole analogy invalid?

Denamort

2012-02-13, 09:57 PM

The world is intentionally contradictory, as other's have pointed out, becuase the D&D sistem is intentionally contradictory.
D&D stablishes a system that judges people according to their actions, and then it says monsters tend to be Evil. This goes in contradiction with the system itself. If the system judges acording to acts, why classify according to race?
Mostly, it anoys me that you asume that because you don't find a problem with D&D morality or that because you consider it's not worth debating, then the subject is unimportant. Go to the Roleplaying games and see the number of people debating morality. Why do they do it, if the subject is stupid and simple? I guess we are all stupid simpletons.
You said that nobody expects the D&D system to work in the real world. Why not? I expect that. I expect all of D&D to allow me to represent a verosimil world. The rules are the conduit by witch you can easily reproduce the universe surrounding the players without compromising the narrative. If the system fails at that, I better play with out it at all. If I have to represent every detail during a battle or, on the opposite, is resolved with a single roll of a die, I may as well just narrate to my players. So, I do want a system that can represent the conflict between good and evil without hampering my ability to create an interesting tale.

OotS seeks to show how the alingment system in D&D fails to portray real-world morality. It creates a "Real World" that runs under D&D rules, and then shows the contradictions in the sistem. And it uses them both for comedic or Dramatic effect.

Most importantly, I think what you said it's the "typical" D&D doesn't need alingment at all.

You said

One, the idea in the average D&D game is NOT that goblins can be freely slaughtered as a matter of kind but instead is that violence with monsters is inevitable because those creatures act as a direct threat to others. The image of peaceful, minding-their-own-business goblins getting run down en masse by racist Paladins is not the nature of D&D; those goblins are almost always looting or raiding some place nearby, or monkeying around with magic they don't understand that threatens to unleash Something Bad, or just generally being *****. I've yet to find a D&D adventure where the villains weren't up to something villainous.

If that the only reason why the alingment system exist, why use it at all? Do players really need a label that says "This dude is Evil" when he is trying to summon Tyamat into the Material Plane. Will the Paladin say "Well, they are about to sacrifice that young girl to their God to bring Eternal Darkness, but are we sure they are Evil?" Of course not, that would be stupid. The Paladin won't use a "Detect Evil" in that, it's retarded. The system is there to simplify conflict and prevent players from thinking who's loot they are taking.
And I have an example from one of my last games. We where taveling with my friend trough a mountain when we heard the cries of help from a Withe Dragon, who had been captured by some Giants. I suggested we should interfere and ask what those Dragons (Young dragons, by the way) had done. But one of the other players insisted he didn't care because chromatic dragons are "Evil". Those are the kind of situations that arise during gameplay because a DM wants to make a story in a realistic world and the rules work against him.

dps

2012-02-13, 10:00 PM

All you're doing here is projecting your own highly specific interpretations of what D&D is "supposed" to be, with paper thin villains who are evil for no reason and have literally no existence beyond disposable packets of experience points (except for human villains, who can of course be as morally ambiguous as they like by virtue of not having a listed alignment or green skin). That's all well and good in your own game, but every DM, every sourcebook writer, every player has their own interpretation on that with what they like to write, read, or play. And frankly, the whole school of "intelligent mortal beings should have whole societies of nothing but mindless destruction of all other societies for no reason other than the story says so" in literature kind of went out the window along with pre-Modernism.

Looking at it that way, it's easy to see why he has a problem with the comic, though. Order of the Stick is basically a parody of the sort of mindset about DnD that he seems to have.

veti

2012-02-13, 10:19 PM

Yes, the real world is, but the artificial game world is not. So is "The Order of the Stick" about a realistic moral world or an artificial binary one? It can't be both. In short, either Redcloak makes sense, or the comic world does.

To me, a big part of OOTS is exploring the gaps in D&D that official sources and sourcebooks have papered over.

Part of the picture that I think tends to get overlooked is the extent to which our ideas of "morality" have changed in the 30-odd years that D&D has been on the mass market.

Back in the late 70s, when I was first introduced to it, no-one saw anything unsavory in the idea of "evil" races as XP fodder. Why should we? To those of us brought up on Tolkien and his contemporaries, the notion that "orcs = evil" was hardly controversial.

Sometime in the 80s the Culture Wars - in real life - got into full swing, and anything that sniffed of "racism" rapidly became untouchably taboo. Quite suddenly, D&D's attitude to orcs and goblins, which had seemed perfectly natural and reasonable in the 1970s, became very hard to defend.

Another front in those same wars was interminable bickering between those who believe morality is absolute, and those who believe it's purely societally defined. D&D in its day has swung both ways. 2nd Edition said that
Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil [...] Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies.
In its eagerness to distance itself from this "relative morality" idea, 3e went to the opposite extreme without ever discussing its implications. As a result, we now have the absurd position of a supposedly-absolute morality being policed by ruthlessly partisan, and eminently fallible, gods.

OOTS is openly addressing these issues in the context of D&D. It has a thesis (traditional view - goblins are "natural enemies" to humans) and antithesis (goblins are unfairly persecuted by humans), and I'm hoping that the resolution of the story will resolve these two points into some kind of synthesis.

Chronos

2012-02-13, 10:24 PM

So, let me get this straight: Given a world where an entire race is categorized as worthless, and given one member of this race who takes offense at that and tries to change his lot (and that of his people) for the better, this is regarded as bad characterization? That just because the PCs slaughter goblins indiscriminately, the goblins should lie back and take it? Man, I'm glad that Rich is writing this strip, not the OP.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 10:34 PM

The goblins were as you put it, "acting villainous," but their evil was forced upon them by the world in which they live. When a world/society/whatever is set up in a way that explicitly encourages conflict, conflict is what you get. The goblins aren't evil in OotS or in D&D in general because they're genetically hardwired to be evil. They're evil because they're in a story, and stories need villains.

Then that's not really being evil at all; well, it might be evil in the dictionary sense of the word, but not in the capital-E, D&D alignment sense. At that point the story has moved beyond those simple concepts...except that those concepts are still present in the comic, and indeed are an important part of it. The goblins have an Evil (not just "evil") alignment, a self-acknowledged one, and the Paladins all have Good alignments (even Miko! Well, for the most part). And yet their behavior does not really reflect this at all. If the characters have been typecast by the gods, then the gods did a lousy job.

Say you're a Mongol child in the 13th century. Say that your family, mother, father, siblings, etc, are all Mongols, and your family has been rampaging across Asia, killing, raping, and looting. You're currently settled somewhere in the Middle East.

Now say bunch of Egyptian mamluks attack your camp. The Egyptian sultan has managed to catch your settlement unprepared and surprised. They massacre pretty much everyone -- your mother, your friends, etc. You survive, but not because the mamluks spared any other children.

Indeed, a fascinating analogy...but invalid. Mongols were not Chaotic Evil. They were real people and their actions, nature, culture, and society are more complicated than that.

Goblins are Neutral Evil. They are not real people. They are not so complicated (not in terms of their morality anyway). Except in "The Order of the Stick" they are...but in a way that contradicts their Neutral Evilness for the sake of making them theoretically sympathetic (something they would never be under the RAW). But that Neutral Evilness is still there, and still hardwired into the concept of the game world. The conflict is founded on internal inconsistencies.

However, how do you think an "usually neutral evil"-aligned goblin race would act that sets them apart from Hulagu Khan -- that makes the whole analogy invalid?

Well, if you'll pardon me, it ain't what they do, it's why they do it. The Mongols had their motivations. Monsters in D&D often have no motivation at all. When they do, it's usually an evil one; because they want treasure, or food, or territory, or to please an evil god. That works because it's a game and it's their role to be the villain, and also because the game demands no more of them than that. No real situation is ever that simple. But that's why this is fantasy, not reality.

The world is intentionally contradictory, as other's have pointed out, becuase the D&D sistem is intentionally contradictory.

Perhaps; but the D&D system is a simple rubric that allows game rules to function properly, not a treatise on ethics, as so many people seem to feel.

D&D stablishes a system that judges people according to their actions, and then it says monsters tend to be Evil. This goes in contradiction with the system itself. If the system judges acording to acts, why classify according to race?

Convenience partly, but also the source material; Tolkien's orcs and trolls were always wicked creatures, vampire and werewolves in classic folklore are always destructive, dragons in western cultures are just ***** in general, etc. That's their role in a story, because of course, they are characters, not people. If orcs in classic D&D were just as complex as humans or elves, we wouldn't need them around; we already have humans and elves. They have a role in the game, and that role is as antagonists, and as such they fill it. This, too, is the plot of "The Order of the Stick", only difference being that there it's posed as a grand, moral, meta-literary dilemma...which as I argue here is both a little silly and does not actually make sense.

Mostly, it anoys me that you asume that because you don't find a problem with D&D morality or that because you consider it's not worth debating, then the subject is unimportant. Go to the Roleplaying games and see the number of people debating morality. Why do they do it, if the subject is stupid and simple? I guess we are all stupid simpletons.

Because a few common misinterpretations have been magnified over the years, and the publishers haven't done that great of a job of clearing it up, and this is the internet, after all, where people will even argue that Belkar is Chaotic Neutral. You'll notice that the alignment system was almost completely done away with in the most recent iteration of the game, I suspect in part because of this very problem.

I repeat, my opinion is that people have the wrong take on D&D alignment to the following effect: They believe that because goblins are marked Evil that they then loot and pillage, an idea which makes them "uncomfortable." I contend, however, that the idea is that goblins loot and pillage, therefore they are marked Evil. Alignment can change, after all, even in the most draconian of interpretations of the system. Notice that this, too, is the stance of "The Order of the Stick", save for the addition that goblins are "forced" into this by a kind of grand divine conspiracy theory...which to me undermines the whole idea.

You said that nobody expects the D&D system to work in the real world. Why not? I expect that. I expect all of D&D to allow me to represent a verosimil world. The rules are the conduit by witch you can easily reproduce the universe surrounding the players without compromising the narrative.

I disagree, and, respectfully, I'd say you're setting yourself for a lifetime of disappointment that way. We have alignment so that the Paladin can Smite Evil, not to teach us important lessons about what evil is. If that were the case, "The Order of the Stick" would be making an important statement with this. But it isn't.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 10:44 PM

Part of the picture that I think tends to get overlooked is the extent to which our ideas of "morality" have changed in the 30-odd years that D&D has been on the mass market.

Back in the late 70s, when I was first introduced to it, no-one saw anything unsavory in the idea of "evil" races as XP fodder. Why should we? To those of us brought up on Tolkien and his contemporaries, the notion that "orcs = evil" was hardly controversial.

Sometime in the 80s the Culture Wars - in real life - got into full swing, and anything that sniffed of "racism" rapidly became untouchably taboo. Quite suddenly, D&D's attitude to orcs and goblins, which had seemed perfectly natural and reasonable in the 1970s, became very hard to defend.

This is veering into territory that will likely get the thread locked. However, I don't think our ideas about genocide have changed much since the late 70s. Frankly, if people have a problem with orcs and goblins being depicted as evil lately, it's because they've chosen to. Which is fine; if people want more complex stories good for them. But they go looking for them in places that they aren't, and then they get mad and start grandstanding about it when they don't find it.

So, let me get this straight: Given a world where an entire race is categorized as worthless, and given one member of this race who takes offense at that and tries to change his lot (and that of his people) for the better, this is regarded as bad characterization?

But that's not the world of the game; just the comic. And yet the comic has tied this conflict to the game concepts without bothering to apply them in any way that's intellectually honest about what they mean.

That just because the PCs slaughter goblins indiscriminately, the goblins should lie back and take it? Man, I'm glad that Rich is writing this strip, not the OP.

The "slaughter" of goblins in D&D is not indiscriminate (unless your DM is a jerk, I guess). As I said, I've never played a D&D game where the villains were just minding their own business before getting run down by crusading heroes. No published adventure has ever depicted that, to my knowledge.

The violence against goblins in "The Order of the Stick" is indeed sometimes indiscriminate (thought not on the part of our main characters), but only because those goblin's nature does not really reflect the game. For reasons why that is in itself problematic, see previous posts.

Some people are accusing me of applying too narrow of an interpretation of the game material. I contend, however, that I am applying the interpretation that is consistent with the goals of the game. D&D is not great literature, it was never meant to be a broad commentary on any real moral, ethical, political, or social situation, any more than, oh, Pac-Man was meant to be a comment on consumer culture ("Pac-Man's gluttony, of course, is represented by his rotundness and constant gobbling motion; the ghosts are the have-nots, lacking even physicality, their crude symbolism representing the mortality that menaces the poor in our society, and their pursuit of Pac-Man emblematic of their simmering proletarian rage," etc).

D&D is the simplest of simple fantasy (hence the accusation of "escapism" by many critics). People have chosen to project bigger ideas onto it either because they are hungry for more complex entertainment but found it lacking elsewhere, or else because, well, some folks just gotta get angry about something. I highly doubt that any form of media that meant to address real issues would employ the use of Detect Evil or Smite Chaos features.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-13, 11:18 PM

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 11:24 PM

...from the wording of your complaint I would gather that you take the approach to morality as some kind of personal attack designed to talk down to people who don't mind playing around in settings where "evil races" are the norm and can be slaughtered without qualm.

Sometimes. Depends on the person. As I've already mentioned, I don't interpret "The Order of the Stick" that way, but rather instead as a case of a story that lost its way a bit by trying to do too many things and being hobbled by having roots that are more simple than its eventual aspirations.

I think there's a rather large difference in between "deconstructing" something and soapboxing about it. I mean really. You're accusing people who like approaches such as OOTS' of looking for something to get mad about?

Some of them, yes. But as mentioned, not specifically in this case. Also as mentioned, the idea of "deconstructing" D&D morality seems, to me, a rather fruitless exercise, since it takes only a few seconds and is done by most people on a subconscious level the first time they read the rules. As I've said before, there is no moral dilemma inherent in D&D, there is only one there if we choose to put it there.

FlawedParadigm

2012-02-13, 11:27 PM

I highly doubt that any form of media that meant to address real issues would employ the use of Detect Evil or Smite Chaos features.

Which is why 4E did away with using alignments for mechanical purposes. This was progress. I believe that yes, goblins in most campaigns are evil, antagonistic forces. Why? Because it's convenient for DMs to have races who are, in general, Hell-bent on evil, else the players aren't really heroes, are they? They're just murderers for the sake of increasing their own personal power - which makes them villains. D&D as a game requires races who are wholly or generally dedicated to evil to make the moral framework make sense - after all, how could anyone possibly be a Paladin (prior to 4E) unless unambiguously evil threats are a constant threat?

D&D as a storytelling platform - as some DMs and obviously Rich intend to use it as - does *not* require such a thing, however, and that is in part something this comic intends to address at almost every possible turn. Short of denizens of alignment planes who really don't have a choice, it simply makes sense that not all members of any race subscribe to any particular moral platform. In D&D as it is often played, a character like Redcloak wouldn't make much if any sense, nor is there any need for such a character - some races need to be XP fodder if any non-sociopathic characters are ever to advance past first level with anything but role-playing XP. But for purposes of telling a story, there's no reason why dozens of characters like Redcloak for a number of races shouldn't exist. I daresay elsewhere in the world, there's some other crusader for kobolds, orcs, trolls, or other usually/always evil non-alignment-plane races who typically receive no characterisation whatsoever and are used simply to give PCs "acceptable" targets to kill for purposes of personal advancement.

Tl;dr - your arguments are perfectly acceptable and probably correct when looking at D&D from the perspective of a game. From a story perspective, however, I feel your opinions to be out of place, because the very purpose of a well-told story is to make the reader question things. In this case, the status quo.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-13, 11:34 PM

If the characters have been typecast by the gods, then the gods did a lousy job.

No ****, Sherlock.

I don't think I can stay emotion-neutral in this thread anymore, so peace out.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 11:38 PM

But for purposes of telling a story, there's no reason why dozens of characters like Redcloak for a number of races shouldn't exist. I daresay elsewhere in the world, there's some other crusader for kobolds, orcs, trolls, or other usually/always evil non-alignment-plane races who typically receive no characterisation whatsoever and are used simply to give PCs "acceptable" targets to kill for purposes of personal advancement.

Tl;dr - your arguments are perfectly acceptable and probably correct when looking at D&D from the perspective of a game. From a story perspective, however, I feel your opinions to be out of place, because the very purpose of a well-told story is to make the reader question things. In this case, the status quo.

But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be for the game to function in the way you point out, then his "just" cause is not really just, and in fact wouldn't exist at all; his family's murder would not be senseless violence, it would in fact be quite sensible, and the Paladins would not be zealous bigots, they would be protecting innocent lives against a very real threat. Redcloak could still be motivated by it in the same way, still feel the same pain and anger over it, but the larger idea that he's "evil for a good cause" wouldn't hold water, because his cause wouldn't be (and couldn't be) good. So I suppose what we have here is a matter of rules conflicting with story; but in this case only because the storyteller has chosen to make the story conflict with the rules.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-13, 11:40 PM

No ****, Sherlock.

I don't think I can stay emotion-neutral in this thread anymore, so peace out.

Lousy in the sense of being inconsistent and not really doing what they meant to do, not in the sense of it being a terrible thing. Seems that the gods, if they were really gods, could employ their own rules in a more binding fashion.

rewinn

2012-02-13, 11:47 PM

To go at this from an entirely different direction:

1. Lots of great stories have what OP seems to consider a character contradiction when you dig deep enough. Who committed the first murder in the movie version of The Big Sleep? What happened to the 1st girlfriend in Romeo and Juliet?

2. The first job of an author is to tell an interesting story. IIRC it was Fredric Pohl, when challenged, "Why did you write that awful story?", replied "For 5 cents a word."

It's certainly nice that Redcloak's tale is all about morality and alignment and stuff, just as Belkar's is about faking character growth and Hailey's is Learning A Valuable Lesson About Trusting People and so forth. All these Valuable Lessons are good stuff, but they are there to serve the story. RC's story is *interesting* because he has these kinks - generally speaking, he's much more interesting than Xykon or the Oracle or even Roy, because their motivations are pretty straightforward.

Zevox

2012-02-13, 11:49 PM

It seems to me that the problem is that you're assuming that D&D's attempt to make morality objective through its alignment system works at all to begin with.

It doesn't. That's the point - it's why Redcloak's story works, it's why a lot of things in this comic work (see Miko as another example, for instance). It's just another part of D&D's idiosyncrasies that the comic makes fun of, and in this case also makes a story out of.

As I've said before, there is no moral dilemma inherent in D&D, there is only one there if we choose to put it there.
Just the reverse: there only isn't one if you choose to ignore the fundamental problems with it. For example, how does it make any sense for an intelligent race, capable of thinking for itself and making its own decisions, to always be one alignment, as D&D posits Dragons (to use just one of many examples) are? How does it make any sense for any race to be genetically predisposed to being an alignment at all, as many races in D&D are said to be? It doesn't. It's simply a convenient way to handwave the moral questions that monster-killing would otherwise raise, if you choose not to think about it.

Zevox

Idhan

2012-02-13, 11:51 PM

Indeed, a fascinating analogy...but invalid. Mongols were not Chaotic Evil. They were real people and their actions, nature, culture, and society are more complicated than that.

... it ain't what they do, it's why they do it. The Mongols had their motivations. Monsters in D&D often have no motivation at all. When they do, it's usually an evil one; because they want treasure, or food, or territory, or to please an evil god.

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

Or are you saying that all neutral evil beings, humans, goblins, whatever, are driven by some form of pure malice, and anyone with any motivation besides that is, by definition, not neutral evil in the alignment sense, even if their actions might be very brutal (e.g., Hulagu Khan)? (If so, what alignments does this not apply to? Is everyone with a motive other than pure benevolence and distaste for order not Chaotic Good? Is everyone with a motive other than cool indifference not True Neutral? Is any alignment compatible with with complex motivations?)

(P.S.: I find it odd to list "they want... food" as a specifically evil motive. I usually see that motive raised as a potentially exculpatory motive for acts such as theft.)

Fiery Diamond

2012-02-13, 11:51 PM

You seem to be laboring under a mistaken impression.

A person who does evil things for a just cause when he could take a different approach is still Evil, capital E, alignment system wise. You are arguing that if you have a reasonable and compelling motivation for doing evil things, that somehow that means doing those things doesn't make you get smacked with the Evil alignment. In this you are completely wrong.

Put simply: it isn't everyone else that's got the wrong idea of how the alignment system works as a classification within the game or a narrative based on the game, it's you.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-14, 12:02 AM

Some of them, yes. But as mentioned, not specifically in this case. Also as mentioned, the idea of "deconstructing" D&D morality seems, to me, a rather fruitless exercise, since it takes only a few seconds and is done by most people on a subconscious level the first time they read the rules. As I've said before, there is no moral dilemma inherent in D&D, there is only one there if we choose to put it there.

I don't think the purpose of OOTS' deconstruction is to simply point out how something doesn't make sense or wouldn't really work, or trying to make a story out of a revelation that it doesn't work. It would be one thing to go about it that the evil races were really good all along and are just being unfairly persecuted. As it is, it OOTS makes a story out of how it could work, by conceptualizing "creators" as gods who needed those evil races to make their game work the way it wanted it to. By expanding the scope to look at the creation of the setting as a greater part of it, it allows the possibility of characters becoming aware of the reasons behind their creation, and to (rather understandably) have a complaint.

ti'esar

2012-02-14, 12:07 AM

I don't think the purpose of OOTS' deconstruction is to simply point out how something doesn't make sense or wouldn't really work, or trying to make a story out of a revelation that it doesn't work. It would be one thing to go about it that the evil races were really good all along and are just being unfairly persecuted. As it is, it OOTS makes a story out of how it could work, by conceptualizing "creators" as gods who needed those evil races to make their game work the way it wanted it to. By expanding the scope to look at the creation of the setting as a greater part of it, it allows the possibility of characters becoming aware of the reasons behind their creation, and to (rather understandably) have a complaint.

Which, incidentally, relates to the point I was making earlier - people who have a beef with D&D and "Always Evil" races aren't arguing that all goblins are misunderstood pacifists; they've got a problem with the setup as a whole.

FlawedParadigm

2012-02-14, 12:08 AM

WhamBamSam

2012-02-14, 12:29 AM

Then that's not really being evil at all; well, it might be evil in the dictionary sense of the word, but not in the capital-E, D&D alignment sense. At that point the story has moved beyond those simple concepts...except that those concepts are still present in the comic, and indeed are an important part of it. The goblins have an Evil (not just "evil") alignment, a self-acknowledged one, and the Paladins all have Good alignments (even Miko! Well, for the most part). And yet their behavior does not really reflect this at all. If the characters have been typecast by the gods, then the gods did a lousy job.
But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be for the game to function in the way you point out, then his "just" cause is not really just, and in fact wouldn't exist at all; his family's murder would not be senseless violence, it would in fact be quite sensible, and the Paladins would not be zealous bigots, they would be protecting innocent lives against a very real threat. Redcloak could still be motivated by it in the same way, still feel the same pain and anger over it, but the larger idea that he's "evil for a good cause" wouldn't hold water, because his cause wouldn't be (and couldn't be) good. So I suppose what we have here is a matter of rules conflicting with story; but in this case only because the storyteller has chosen to make the story conflict with the rules.So wait. You're arguing that D&D morality is completely at odds with evil ever being done for a good cause? No. That's absurd. Miko performed an evil act based on what she thought was right, and that was entirely in keeping with her character.

Anyway, goblins aren't even necessarily evil by D&D rules. They're usually evil. They have free will in principal, but the circumstances of their lives severely limit their options in practice.

Still, if it makes you feel better about it, think about it this way. In-universe, the Gods are the absolute moral authority, so they get to say what's good and what's evil. They defined goblins to be evil because it was convenient for them, and later, TDO became an evil god because he got along better with the other evil gods. So Redcloak's evil is unambiguous in the eyes of the gods, but as D&D gods aren't infallible (hell, some of them have actually been killed in the OotS-verse) a cause can still be good by objective morality (or rational morality if you don't believe in objective morality), while still evil according to divine law.

Giddon

2012-02-14, 12:38 AM

I find some interesting points missing from this argument. Although it has already been said, I still believe you are trying too hard to fit the OotS into the rigid framework of the D&D 3.5e rules, which is not how its meant to be. And not just from the morality point of view, but from the game mechanics point of view. I don't have the quotes from The Giant at hand, but he has admitted that he will generally only use the D&D rules as a guideline for battles and actions, but that he will never have that limit him from allowing the characters to do whatever he imagines, even if it would mean breaking some of those D&D rules. He allows rule of funny or rule of it-makes-for-better-story-telling take precedence over fitting a rigid set of rules.

Now with that in mind I think its similar for the alignments. For characters such as the Deva's and the Fiends and even the paladins, he adopts the binary alignment system in a stricter fashion, because it allows conflict to erupt with the characters that fall in this binary system but are more subject to the gray morality you say holds no place in the D&D system. Evidently everyone in the OotS-verse is subject to the alignment rules, but there is deviation and in fact contradiction to this binary alignments because this is not a 3.5e campaign running strictly by the available source material, its a story, and one that constantly breaks the 4th wall, and this breaking away from the D&D rules is just another way to do that while adding to the narrative and plot, at least from my point of view.

Addressing the issue of RC, I think one of the problems is that you are assuming that RC was inherently evil. As said before, even in the world of D&D the alignments don't have to be set in stone by race (like in Eberron), so since this is Rich's story he may have chosen to start RC neutral per say, and then have SoD show how he really turned evil. There is absolutely moral justification in his actions there. Same with the Dark One, he may not have been inherently evil, he wanted to achieve his original plan through diplomacy and peace, but when he was betrayed he chose to turn to what could be considered evil methods instead. In doing so, and RC in following this plan, has led both of them to corrupt a just cause. So its not so much evil for a just cause, its more like a just cause turned evil.

Finally to talk a little bit about seemingly this contradiction that you say exists in RC's grey more realistic morality and the OotS strict D&D alignment system that makes for inconsistency that strain the story, what say you for example of Tarquin and Elan? Their whole confrontation was about clashing those two ideas, with Elan representing the D&D side of the argument that since he is good he must defeat his dad because he is evil, while Tarquin insisted that he disliked those labels because they were not more then that, just labels not true representations of morality. Again the inconsistency appears, but woven into the conflicts and narratives of the whole OotS-verse.

Essentially I believe the contradiction you point out does exist, but that it does so knowingly and with the intention of the author, and that it is there for a purpose, which is to create conflict that allows for an interesting plot, and why not, themes and sub themes for people to think and debate about. After all The Giant has recently said it himself in a post precisely about straying too much away from D&D, that he does not seek to write about a game any more, what he seeks is to write a story. And good stories tend to have themes that create debate and arguments.

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 12:42 AM

The image of peaceful, minding-their-own-business goblins getting run down en masse by racist Paladins is not the nature of D&D

We can note that this image is also not present in The Order of the Stick.

Still, as Kish has been somewhat driving at through the whole thread, your entire argument seems to flow from a premise that D&D does not have. No where is it stated that D&D monsters can and should be killed anywhere they are found, it just so happens that the average game brings the action to the heroes in the form of invading monsters. Very few games will have the heroes going out and slaughtering peaceful goblins because, well, that isn't very heroic now is it?

Taking that premise of "Goblins invade a lot!" and giving story reasons for it and the goblinoid reaction to it does not somehow undermine the entire work, as you seem to be claiming, it adds nuance to the work and moves goblinoids from the role of stock villain into characters in and of their own right.

And if examining a race of monsters, establishing their society and fleshing them out as a sentient and interesting facet of the world is somehow a violation and impossible to allow within a D&D context... well... R.A. Salvatore would like a word with you :P

thepsyker

2012-02-14, 12:54 AM

Indeed, a fascinating analogy...but invalid. Mongols were not Chaotic Evil. They were real people and their actions, nature, culture, and society are more complicated than that.

Goblins are Neutral Evil. They are not real people. They are not so complicated (not in terms of their morality anyway). Except in "The Order of the Stick" they are...but in a way that contradicts their Neutral Evilness for the sake of making them theoretically sympathetic (something they would never be under the RAW). But that Neutral Evilness is still there, and still hardwired into the concept of the game world. The conflict is founded on internal inconsistencies.
First off, according to the 3.5 srd at least, Goblins are only usually Neutral Evil, in other words by RAW there is room for goblins who are not neutral evil and therefore room for complexity in their morality.

Second yeah Goblins are not real people so what? How does that serve your argument? That just means that they can be as complicated as a particular setting, author or DM decides to make them. D&D is a flexible game particularly in regards to things like setting flavors such as the motivations of the villains. If you as a DM/storyteller want to have the conflict between your PC/protagonists and goblins be a black and white struggle between good and evil that is your decision. However, it is not against the RAW for another DM/storyteller to try to add further layers to that conflict in their game/story.

I also have to say that I'm not seeing how goblins/hobgoblins aren't evil in OoTS. Sure the backstory adds some complexity to things and they are portrayed as having a culture more complicated than the "grr we kill things for the evuls and fun" that you might see in say the Orcs of Warhammer, but that doesn't change the fact that they still engage in plenty of evil acts such as raiding, slavery, providing material support to a Litch bent on world domination, engaging in plots that may result in the destruction of the entire world, slaughtering hundred of thousands in a bloody crusade of vengeance, stealing circus property, etc.

Whiffet

2012-02-14, 12:54 AM

There's the interpretation that alignments like "Usually Neutral Evil" come from the environments those species commonly grow up in. Nurture instead of Nature, you know? Or maybe it is Nature and they're just genetically predisposed to have certain alignments. People have different interpretations.

But the thing is, however you interpret it, the way those alignments work is that there will be deviation. Sure, some of that deviation will be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil. But it's quite possible for a goblin to be Neutral or Good and be within D&D rules. And if it's possible for some goblins to be Good, then as far as the adventurer knows, any individual goblin might be Good. It's just that the Good goblins probably aren't the ones attacking the village in a D&D game.

As for Redcloak, he is unambiguously Evil. He's just a certain type of Evil. One of the things I really like about Rich's writing is the way he creates villains. In fact, didn't he write something on this site about creating villains? Let me check... Yeah, here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html) it is. Now, if a game can have this much thought behind a villain, I certainly expect more from Rich when he's writing a story.

Ashtagon

2012-02-14, 01:12 AM

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil

There's a nice long section there about how oots is a deconstruction of this very trope you seek to uphold.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 01:39 AM

Okay, lots to respond to and not enough time, so I'll try to hit the relevant points. Forgive me if I missed anything:

-I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

-D&D alignment system does indeed allow you to be evil for a good cause...but in this case, the cause wouldn't be good under that alignment system. Redcloak's agenda to avenge his family and establish equity for the victimized goblins is only good if the goblins are indeed blameless victims, which in D&D terms is virtually impossible.

-Ah, but even in D&D, goblins aren't ALWAYS evil, right? What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. Indeed, since these crusades are common, the gods would have almost to have stepped in to stop them a long time ago. Since that didn't happen, we have to assume that offing those goblins was a good thing...and therefore Redcloak's agenda is not a good cause after all. Here we again see how the technical foundations of the story undermine some of the events; we know that the gods are Good and so are there Paladins (and that when they're not, the gods do something about it), so therefore the goblins must really be Evil. Except the story expects us to regard that as not being so, despite having to affirm it as a matter of kind.

-As for the idea that "The Order of the Stick" is not about D&D...well, I"m afraid it is. See above. The comic cannot be completely divorced from that setting, and indeed, has never been despite the backseat that rules jokes have taken over the last few years. As already mentioned, these game concepts are part and parcel of the entire story; where else would the issue of Paladins crusading against goblins even be relevant except in tabletop gaming?

suzaliscious

2012-02-14, 01:43 AM

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 01:48 AM

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

Just the reverse: there only isn't one if you choose to ignore the fundamental problems with it. For example, how does it make any sense for an intelligent race, capable of thinking for itself and making its own decisions, to always be one alignment, as D&D posits Dragons (to use just one of many examples) are? How does it make any sense for any race to be genetically predisposed to being an alignment at all, as many races in D&D are said to be? It doesn't. It's simply a convenient way to handwave the moral questions that monster-killing would otherwise raise, if you choose not to think about it.

Zevox

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie). There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien. No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

Zevox

2012-02-14, 01:48 AM

What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. [...] Since that didn't happen,
Read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21).

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie).
Beowulf is an ancient folk tale which comes from a very different culture than ours.

There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien.
In Tolkien the monsters are a product of a dark god magically twisting other creatures into becoming his servants. And even there you do get some serious questions if you think about it - Tolkien simply chose not ask such questions.

No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?
Not sure what you're referring to with this one.

Zevox

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-14, 01:49 AM

Redcloak is evil. He's Evil. His entire goal is screwing over other people for the sake of revenge and a cause he thinks is just (but at this point, mostly revenge). I just plain don't get why that doesn't mean he can't also be a person, with parts of his personality and background that actually give a reason for that lust for revenge and a reason for the Dark One's insanely circuitous Plan. What about that is bad writing? What about that is bad Dungeons and Dragons writing?

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 01:53 AM

Indeed, since these crusades are common,

In addition to the above, The crusades aren't common (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12521960&postcount=21), they have only occured 3-4 times since the mantle was created... what... several decades ago?

A huge point you seem to be overlooking / missing is tha the Sapphire Guard -didn't- go out and slaughter Goblins, they specifically hunted the Crimson Mantle, so anti-goblin crusades never occurred, at all.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 01:57 AM

{{scrubbed}}

Charming. I'm glad we can have an elevated discourse over this.

{{scrubbed}}

Indeed, so would I, sometimes at least. But I'd like for that "depth" to be handled in a way that makes sense rather than, in this case, being tacked on for its own sake in a way that detracts from the story and cheats at its own game.

{{scrubbed}}

Really? What other barometer do we employ to decide if something is good or bad? There is no objective measure of when art or media succeeds or fails.

You can say you don't like it, which is valid, but it doesn't mean that the work has 'failed' in any way. In fact, a very large number of people agree with and appreciate the thought put into and the beauty of the story.

So in their opinion it succeeds. Good for them. I disagree. Well, actually, on this particular point I disagree. On the whole, I admire the comic a lot. See original post.

{{scrubbed}}

-Actually, I think I said some very flattering things about the comic and its author. I also think that criticism can be a great tool for validating someone's work.

-It's nice that thousands of people like the comic. I'm one of them. I guess you mean that thousands of people disagree with my analysis of the comic; that's fine. They're entitled to their opinion. So am I.

-Is there a reason that I'm not allowed to posit that there's something in the comic that could be better executed? Doesn't everyone have something they dislike, no matter how ardent of a fan they are? Isn't every criticism an assertion that the critic has a better idea of how the story could have been executed?

{{scrubbed}}

I guess your problem is that this is a big criticism; it criticizes a lot of material, and some of the fundamental ideas about the story. Frankly, I don't see why that's a problem. I don't think criticizing someone's art is the same thing as insulting them. And after reading your reply, I think I know a thing or two about being insulted.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-14, 01:58 AM

Okay, lots to respond to and not enough time, so I'll try to hit the relevant points. Forgive me if I missed anything:

-I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

But it's not about getting to some right conclusion. It's not about "why this idea is wrong". It's telling a story that uses the idea, in a way that the reasons for using the idea are part of the story itself.

-Ah, but even in D&D, goblins aren't ALWAYS evil, right? What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. Indeed, since these crusades are common, the gods would have almost to have stepped in to stop them a long time ago. Since that didn't happen, we have to assume that offing those goblins was a good thing...and therefore Redcloak's agenda is not a good cause after all. Here we again see how the technical foundations of the story undermine some of the events; we know that the gods are Good and so are there Paladins (and that when they're not, the gods do something about it), so therefore the goblins must really be Evil. Except the story expects us to regard that as not being so, despite having to affirm it as a matter of kind.

We don't know that the gods are good. We know they have the power to dictate what is good. They have absolute power which is called objective but used in a way the reader can see is clearly subjective and flawed. Such is the discrepancy of a setting that takes objective morality as a matter of course, yet the setting was invented by people whose notions of morality simply cannot be considered objective.

Zevox

2012-02-14, 02:04 AM

We don't know that the gods are good. We know they have the power to dictate what is good.
Actually, they don't. Gods in D&D are subject to the alignment system, just as everyone else is. They don't dictate it at all, it's simply assumed to be some universal constant - which is actually a bigger problem, for reasons you point out in the rest of that critique.

The Order of the Stick simply uses the gods' creation of the xp-fodder-races as a stand-in for the game creators, since it's the only way to do that in-world.

Zevox

Idhan

2012-02-14, 02:20 AM

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil

There's a nice long section there about how oots is a deconstruction of this very trope you seek to uphold.

See, I don't think that OotS is, for the most part, a deconstruction of D&D alignment (whether D&D alignment, the fact that it's the trope namer aside, really embraces Always Chaotic Evil as described in TVTropes is another issue). Naturally, in OotS, everything is treated as somewhat silly, and somewhat 4th-wall breaking (the same applies to the wealth-by-level system, XP, spell preparation, etc), but I think that its treatment of alignment is, humor aside, pretty much how I've always understood it to work. I mean, isn't Drizzt an official Forgotten Realms character -- an exile from a Usually Chaotic Evil race?

OotS strikes me as more the approach you see in D&D campaigns when you have a DM who doesn't really reject the alignment system, but also doesn't let the alignment system dictate characters' precise motivations (as Paladin_Nerd, unless I'm misunderstanding him, prefers), and wants to give characters depth, and is running a campaign with more roleplaying than The World's Largest Dungeon.

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 02:22 AM

Actually, they don't. Gods in D&D are subject to the alignment system, just as everyone else is.

While true, that isn't the point.

Miko fell because the Gods considered her action not to be good (or to be a gross violation, technically.)

She didn't get smote by the alignment system, she was smote by the Gods, they are the one's who decide when someone is being Evil.

While they do judge according to a universal alignment system, B. Dandilion was quite correct in saying that the Gods are the upholders of that Alignment System.

Why do you think the Deva bothered talking to Roy rather than simply casting Detect Good and Detect Law? :P

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 02:28 AM

Read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21).

Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice. Although his point about preserving the narrative is well taken.

Beowulf is an ancient folk tale which comes from a very different culture than ours.

But it's a huge influence on our modern storytelling tradition, especially fantasy and ESPECIALLY D&D. Besides, who's to say we can't tell a story in that style? I would assert that D&D is largely about doing just that. Of course, that's just one of the sources for the material that comprises the bulk of the game, but in few if any of those other sources will we find the hero sitting around debating whether it's right to kill a monster.

In Tolkien the monsters are a product of a dark god magically twisting other creatures into becoming his servants. And even there you do get some serious questions if you think about it - Tolkien simply chose not ask such questions.

Perhaps we should choose not to ask such questions about this game, which is even less well-suited to answering them than Tolkien's work was. Tolkien seemed to think that his work was stronger for leaving such matters alone; frankly, he was right.

Not sure what you're referring to with this one.

Zevox

"Hansel & Gretel", the fairy tale? I guess if you don't know it we may take the fate of any fairy tale villain; why must wolves always be depicted as evil in stories like "Little Red Riding Hood", what do we make of the moral picture painted of bridge trolls in stories like "Three Billy-Goats Gruff"? In most classical narratives, no one is bothered by the demise of the villain; nominally because they have it coming.

Redcloak is evil. He's Evil. His entire goal is screwing over other people for the sake of revenge and a cause he thinks is just (but at this point, mostly revenge). I just plain don't get why that doesn't mean he can't also be a person, with parts of his personality and background that actually give a reason for that lust for revenge and a reason for the Dark One's insanely circuitous Plan. What about that is bad writing? What about that is bad Dungeons and Dragons writing?

I never said it was. Of course bad guys have motives, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that I think RC's characteristic "evil but for a good cause" concept is flawed (not the concept itself, but its execution in this particular instance) and at odds with much of the other material. For more on that see...the entire thread.

In addition to the above, The crusades aren't common (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12521960&postcount=21), they have only occured 3-4 times since the mantle was created... what... several decades ago?

A huge point you seem to be overlooking / missing is tha the Sapphire Guard -didn't- go out and slaughter Goblins, they specifically hunted the Crimson Mantle, so anti-goblin crusades never occurred, at all.

I would personally characterize four crusades (anti-goblin or no) within a few decades as quite a lot. But the point was Mr. Burlew's comment in the designer notes "War and XPs" that the Azurites were being dealt a blow as fallout for their past behavior. Though I do not have the book in front of me as I write this, I'm afraid. As you may have heard, it's out of print...

But it's not about getting to some right conclusion. It's not about "why this idea is wrong". It's telling a story that uses the idea, in a way that the reasons for using the idea are part of the story itself.

Well, the suggestion that the story is satirical or a critical deconstruction would hinge on detailing why the idea is wrong or nonsensical.

Cronos988

2012-02-14, 02:31 AM

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

The comic does not apply D&D Morals do real life, it applies D&D Morals to a D&D world.
The D&D Alignment system is not as black&white as you claim it is. It is a very much simplified simulation, like attack rolls. You don't see Roy rolling dice in combat, is that inconsistent?

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie). There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien. No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

See, that is the Problem. There ARE moral dilemmas in all of those cases, you just ignore them. The question of whether the witch of the children are evil in Hänsel & Gretel has been posed in quite a number of artistic works.

The fact that the story may not revolve about the moral dilemma does not mean it isn't there. How many action movies discuss the moral question of killing the "bad henchmen" even though they might just be family fathers trying to make a living? This is the case because its not the point the movie wants to make, but it does not follow that action movies that DO capitalize on these points are therefore inconsistent.

The same is true for D&D. You don't need to have moral conflict in your game worlds, but that does not mean its inconsistent if you do.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 02:32 AM

OotS strikes me as more the approach you see in D&D campaigns when you have a DM who doesn't really reject the alignment system, but also doesn't let the alignment system dictate characters' precise motivations (as Paladin_Nerd, unless I'm misunderstanding him, prefers), and wants to give characters depth, and is running a campaign with more roleplaying than The World's Largest Dungeon.

Motivations? No. I consider alignment more of a tag that puts on behavior. See previous comments. But the comic is very concerned with ideas about right and wrong, and that's obviously going to run afoul of Rules As Written alignment in a world that's rooted in these game concepts.

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 02:38 AM

I would personally characterize four crusades (anti-goblin or no) within a few decades as quite a lot. But the point was Mr. Burlew's comment in the designer notes "War and XPs" that the Azurites were being dealt a blow as fallout for their past behavior. Though I do not have the book in front of me as I write this, I'm afraid. As you may have heard, it's out of print...

But they weren't crusades, they were surgical strikes.

Four times (at most) Paladins went to a specific four villages, killed the Goblin Priest who was trying to unmake reality, and then withdrew. At no time was there any great "All Goblins must die!" campaign, which is what you seem to be implying.

I do have the book in front of me, but I can't seem to find the passage you keep aluding too...

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 02:41 AM

The comic does not apply D&D Morals do real life, it applies D&D Morals to a D&D world.

But it's not a D&D world; a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted. See original comment.

EDIT: Also important to note is that this comment on my part was a reply to the attempt to cite a real historical group/incident as an analogy, not the comic itself.

See, that is the Problem. There ARE moral dilemmas in all of those cases, you just ignore them. The question of whether the witch of the children are evil in Hänsel & Gretel has been posed in quite a number of artistic works.

Well, I've never seen anyone suggest that the cannibalistic witch is not an evil figure. She is, after all, a cannibalistic witch. The motivations of the children are often offered up for scrutiny though, but usually as regards to eating the house, not in regards to their stubborn refusal to be eaten themselves.

The fact that the story may not revolve about the moral dilemma does not mean it isn't there. How many action movies discuss the moral question of killing the "bad henchmen" even though they might just be family fathers trying to make a living? This is the case because its not the point the movie wants to make, but it does not follow that action movies that DO capitalize on these points are therefore inconsistent.

The same is true for D&D. You don't need to have moral conflict in your game worlds, but that does not mean its inconsistent if you do.

There are two points that I think are relevant here, first being that when we go adding in a moral crisis where none was intended, very often we're projecting. D&D isn't about race relations any more than Pac-Man is about consumerism (see previous post), but some people want to find that context in it. This reflects more about our insecurities than on the material itself, though. The second point is that "The Order of the Stick" is tied down by not being an entirely original work; it's based, to a varying degree, on a huge volume of outside material.

If Mr. Burlew had created a fantasy world from the ground up, his work would only have to be considered on its own terms, but since "The Order of the Stick" has been chained since its inception to the game of Dungeons & Dragons (and since it can almost never be wholly divorced from that context even though it would probably be better now if it could; see previous comments), it can never be evaluated entirely independently.

Emanick

2012-02-14, 02:48 AM

While I too disagree that Redcloak is a "failed" character or in any other way mishandled by Rich, I think I see where the OP is coming from. Unless you believe that goblins in OOTS are evil by nurture, rather than nature - a tenuous assumption at best, in my opinion, since they seem to have been created evil rather than forced into evil due to poverty and speciesism (whaaat? Safari recognizes "speciesism" as a word??) - it is necessary to conclude that goblins have an inherent tendency towards evil, and thus although it is not morally defensible to kill a goblin for being a goblin, it is very often morally defensible to kill goblins to prevent them from carrying out depraved plans, so often that a casual, uninformed observer might wonder why the "civilized races" were killing so many goblins if said races were most often "good" or "neutral." In a world where violence is the necessary response to the evil actions of other individuals, a Usually Evil race would tend to fall victim to frequent slaughter by other races.

Now, I think Redcloak is a magnificent character, beautifully drawn with a tragic backstory that induces makes me sympathize with him more than almost any other character. Yet here's the contradiction that I think Nerd Paladin is getting at: in order for goblins to be a Usually Evil race in accordance with D&D rules, they have to behave in a generally deplorable manner. But in order for them to be sympathetic characters that blur the lines of morality and evoke our pity, they have to seem as if they aren't some inherently evil society. Rich takes the latter route, and this is a good artistic decision. I applaud it. However, he does so without dropping the adherence to D&D morality, which implies the existence of inherent tendencies towards good, evil, law and chaos. Is this D&D morality realistic? I'd argue that, since only nonhumans have these inherent tendencies, it is not unrealistic. How can we complain that species that don't exist in real life aren't behaving like "real people", when they literally aren't human to begin with?

I don't have a problem with "shades of grey" morality, nor do I have a problem with "black-and-white" morality (which, if less "high art," is often more fun). I do, however, have a problem with a lack of internal consistency in terms of morality. In that sense, I agree with Nerd Paladin. Something doesn't really jive here.

jere7my

2012-02-14, 02:49 AM

As I said, I've never played a D&D game where the villains were just minding their own business before getting run down by crusading heroes. No published adventure has ever depicted that, to my knowledge.

Try Keep on the Borderlands.

There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien.

Are there moral dilemmas about killing Easterlings in Tolkien? How does Tolkien differentiate between orcs and "evil" humans?

I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

If you consider it to be a settled issue in your mind, that's all well and good, but millions of people have had millions of heated arguments about D&D alignments since 1979. Clearly they think there's meat there, and clearly Rich agrees.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-14, 02:49 AM

Well, the suggestion that the story is satirical or a critical deconstruction would hinge on detailing why the idea is wrong or nonsensical.

It is not really either satirical or critical. You seem to want to insist it must be critical, because of the fact that it has led to negative consequences for Redcloak, but the story is not "why evil races do not work as a device", but a tale of fallible beings who created evil races for the purposes of game mechanics, in the process screwing them over. To directly apply that lesson you would have to conclude that game designers who make evil races are reckless and cruel, and they should worry about their creations spontaneously coming to life and threatening them with oblivion unless they rewrite the rules.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 03:02 AM

Try Keep on the Borderlands.

Never played it, actually. Assuming that's the case, I would say a villain who commits no villainy is probably an example of poor writing in itself (at least as far as game modules are concerned). Certainly it's not the standard in the game.

Are there moral dilemmas about killing Easterlings in Tolkien? How does Tolkien differentiate between orcs and "evil" humans?

You know, I don't recall, but I seem to remember that the crux of the issue was not whether the Easterlings were evil by nature but that they were in the habit of joining up with orcs to stave in people's heads.

The point, however, is that the assertion that we MUST sit around and question whether it's right or makes sense that monsters are always wicked in D&D doesn't really seem valid to me, since D&D is just an expression of many hundreds of years of storytelling, most of which never once bothers with the issue, not even in relatively recent examples like Tolkien.

It is not really either satirical or critical. You seem to want to insist it must be critical, because of the fact that it has led to negative consequences for Redcloak, but the story is not "why evil races do not work as a device", but a tale of fallible beings who created evil races for the purposes of game mechanics, in the process screwing them over. To directly apply that lesson you would have to conclude that game designers who make evil races are reckless and cruel, and they should worry about their creations spontaneously coming to life and threatening them with oblivion unless they rewrite the rules.

Well, this is getting a little complicated because many of those comments are a reply to various individual arguments put forth throughout the thread. One defense of the work was that it's intended to be a satire on the rules; that's not my inherent assertion, it's an argument that's been put forth. To clarify; I'M not insisting that the work is critical, I'm just responding to that idea.

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

The third branch this argument may take is the idea that the goblins MAY be wholly evil (although, again, this in itself punctures the balloon of RC's origin story), but are ALSO victims of the gods by that very tokien. Leading us to the weird question of whether a creature can be the victim of its own creation and whether, if the gods are the root cause of evil, then can evil beings really be considered responsible for their own actions (anyone else a "Jesus Christ Superstar" fan? Anyone, anyone at all? Hello?)? At which point it becomes one of those unanswerable cosmic questions about free will. Which I would posit is also a bad basis for in-story conflict, at least in this case. Possibly the worst of all, actually.

Although before anybody has my head over it, I should emphasize that "in this case" part; obviously it's a better fit in other stories. See the aforementioned "Jesus Christ Superstar." Seriously, see it, it was awesome.

Zevox

2012-02-14, 03:06 AM

While true, that isn't the point.
I am aware. I pointed it out because I'm nitpicky that way. And because I don't like allowing misinformation of that sort to spread.

Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice.
No, it wouldn't, because the gods in D&D and OotS aren't infallible, nor do they even determine how the alignment system works.

And really, I don't see how any realistic look at that scene comes to any conclusion besides that it was an injustice. The Paladins targeting the bearer of the Crimson Mantle could easily be argued to be perfectly justified. Them killing any other Goblins that might have attacked them when they did in self-defense could be argued to be justified. Them slaughtering that entire village, include defenseless women and children? Not possible to justify, at least not from any moral perspective I'd acknowledge as valid personally.

Perhaps we should choose not to ask such questions about this game, which is even less well-suited to answering them than Tolkien's work was. Tolkien seemed to think that his work was stronger for leaving such matters alone; frankly, he was right.
If you believe that, then a lot of The Order of the Stick will not be for you.

I do not agree with that. While some simple and enjoyable stories could be crafted by doing so (see Tolkien again), it's not capable of anything more than that. On the flip side exposing the problems with attempts at creating such objective morality systems can make for quite good humor, important points about the actual nature of morality, and as this comic shows, good storytelling.

"Hansel & Gretel", the fairy tale?
Ah, that? Why even bring that up? It's a simple fairy tale with a single, clearly-evil villain. It has no bearing on a discussion of this sort, which involves entire systems of morality and entire races of creatures.

In most classical narratives, no one is bothered by the demise of the villain; nominally because they have it coming.
That is because those display individual villains that are shown doing terrible things. That is quite different from what D&D does, or from what we see in how Goblins are treated in The Order of the Stick.

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.
Oh, you're running under some very incorrect assumptions there. First off, not even in D&D are evil races wholly evil - not even Fiends, since the very rare possibility of Risen Fiends (the opposite of a Fallen Angel/Celestial) exists. Even the "always <alignment>" category in 3.5 contains a caveat that one-in-a-million exceptions exist. Second, the gods are very much so not infallible in D&D or OotS - they're really just very powerful outsiders when you get right down to it. They can and do make mistakes.

Zevox

B. Dandelion

2012-02-14, 03:07 AM

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

You would think they would also be able to stop something like the Snarl from happening.

Idhan

2012-02-14, 03:21 AM

If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

Are there any OotS strips where Thor is shown acting wise, competent, and mature?

The Crayons of Time series is all about how much the gods screwed up.

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 03:34 AM

Oh, you're running under some very incorrect assumptions there.

Not to be rude to them OP, but this really hits at the crux of the issue... at several points in this thread expansive assumptions which are the foundation of the OP have been shown to be wrong, such as "The Paladins routinely go on crusades against goblinkind," "Paladins are not punished for slaughtering goblins," "The Gods in D&D are infallible," and "D&D depicts races as being wholly good or wholly evil," just to name the few that come to my mind immediately.

This is very likely the reason so many of us have substancial issues with his assertions, just because so much of it is founded on premises that range from "Shakey" to "What? That was condemned as unsafe years ago!" :P

Oakianus

2012-02-14, 03:53 AM

Honestly, I don't think that there's any contradiction at all and would like to go ahead and strike at something that I think hasn't really been said.

Redcloak is Evil. Goblins are usually Evil. Redcloak remains sympathetic because even if a race is Evil, that doesn't mean that they can't also be sympathetic if they're the constant butt-monkeys of the rest of the world.

It's pretty obvious that Redcloak and his Gobbotopians are evil. They have slaves, for instance, which is pretty widely recognized throughout D&D as being a giant sign of Evilosity. They even outwardly admit that they're usually Evil. Which is fine. They're definitely, on the whole, total bad guys who ought to be stopped.

But does that automatically mean that they are unsympathetic? That when their children are slaughtered, despite not having taken any Evil actions yet, that we don't feel a natural slap in the face from our mirror neurons that tell us "Hey, another sentient being is in pain and that sucks for them?"

Of course not. Having a tendency toward Evil actions doesn't instantly make someone unsympathetic. Look at several other examples within the OotS - Belkar, Thog and Tarquin have all been explicitly called Evil by themselves or someone else in the strip, but they're clearly interesting characters that have lots of fans, mostly because they're capable of kicking lots of butt and fans tend to like that sort of thing.

Redcloak is willing to torture people and lead a slave-holding society, among a dozen other outright Evil acts that he's taken throughout the strip. He is, without a doubt, unabashedly Evil and makes no qualms about it. But he is the hero of a race that is rather put upon, and he's managed to twist quite a few of his ideas about humans and paladins in order to fit his narrative about THEM being the bad guys. And from his own point of view, he's not terribly far off, of course.

Being put upon as a race and having a natural tendency to kill, conquer and enslave others are NOT mutually exclusive traits. A world ruled by Goblinkind would be a horrible, horrible world. No one denies it, and the OotS would not change a single action if they knew the extent of Redcloak's actions (except maybe to tell Xykon and have a laugh when he attacked RC, of course!) His plan is ultimately Evil and will have dire consequences for anyone who isn't Evil.

But that doesn't mean it's any less sympathetic. Because being the buttmonkey of every other race in your world must suck.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 05:14 AM

OP, you fundamentally disagree with the Giant about what alignment is supposed to be.

You want alignment to be a binary straitjacket with no application to complex real-world situations, so that you can pretend Redcloak's complexity violates D&D principles.

The Giant's position, as he has repeatedly and explicitly expressed, is that alignment is not a straitjacket, that you CAN roleplay complex characters and situations while taking the alignment system into account.

I vastly prefer the Giant's interpretation both for playing D&D and for telling a story. So your contention that the Giant has failed to fulfill your inferior criterion is actually a good thing, to my view.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 05:25 AM

Not to be rude to them OP, but this really hits at the crux of the issue... at several points in this thread expansive assumptions which are the foundation of the OP have been shown to be wrong, such as "The Paladins routinely go on crusades against goblinkind,"

Well, look, it's right here, SoD page 28: "'There is not one among you who has not lost family to the so-called "crusade" of the Sapphire Guard. I say, enough! No more crusades, no more death, no more orphaned goblin children.'" Looked pretty unambiguous to me.

"Paladins are not punished for slaughtering goblins,"

Well, I don't see that in any panel, do you?

"The Gods in D&D are infallible,"

I never said that. The gods make bad decisions, clearly. What I'm skeptical about is the suggestion that the gods are inept; that they would exercise their divine power to create one type of creature but somehow screw it up and create something that doesn't match the concept.

"D&D depicts races as being wholly good or wholly evil," just to name the few that come to my mind immediately.

Really? We're going to dispute the evilness of D&D goblins here? For that matter, even the evilness of OOTS goblins isn't up in the air.

But that doesn't mean it's any less sympathetic. Because being the buttmonkey of every other race in your world must suck.

Well, if monsters are really evil, in the D&D sense of being profoundly sadistic and wicked in literally inhuman ways...yeah, I'm not really feeling that bad for them.

But evilness was never the issue here; the schism is about the basic characterization of Redcloak as "evil but for a good cause." It's the "good cause" part that doesn't add up, for me.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 05:32 AM

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 05:33 AM

But evilness was never the issue here; the schism is about the basic characterization of Redcloak as "evil but for a good cause." It's the "good cause" part that doesn't add up, for me.

You're free to think that improving the lot of goblins in the OotS world is NOT a good cause, if that fits with your preconception that goblins are deservedly given the Evil tag and don't deserve a fair shake.

But don't try to tell me this comic is worse because it's not simplistic enough.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 05:38 AM

Still not quite right; the argument is that the comic sometimes treats alignment in a by-the-book fashion and sometimes throws it out the window entirely. The comic wants to have things both ways. See original post.

Okay, now we've maybe got grounds for a discussion. Where exactly does the book treat alignment in a simplistic fashion in a way that would significantly differ from a more nuanced treatment? That is, how can you tell it is a case where Rich abandoned a more complex view of alignment?

Kish

2012-02-14, 05:38 AM

But they weren't crusades, they were surgical strikes.

Insupportable.

Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

Four times (at most) Paladins went to a specific four villages, killed the Goblin Priest who was trying to unmake reality, and then withdrew.

Really, really insupportable.

Really? We're going to dispute the evilness of D&D goblins here?

Yes, of course. Anyone who's read the Monster Manual knows that goblins are "all evil" like elves are "all good" or halflings are "all neutral"--and yet, this thread isn't about Vaarsuvius or Belkar.

For that matter, even the evilness of OOTS goblins isn't up in the air.

Yes, it is.

Well, if monsters are really evil, in the D&D sense of being profoundly sadistic and wicked in literally inhuman ways...
You can claim that that's in D&D as many times as you like, but it won't make it reality.

Conuly

2012-02-14, 05:46 AM

No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

Actually, I've read several fairy tale expansions of Hansel and Gretel that do JUST THAT.

And at any rate, Gretel isn't shoving the witch into an oven so she can take her stuff. She's got a pretty good case for self-defense there.

I know you're living in this little bubble where the only stories that exist are the ones that reinforce your preexisting worldview, but please - don't assume that those are ACTUALLY the only stories that exist.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 06:02 AM

So I tried going back over the thread to see if I could possibly make sense of what Nerd_Paladin was saying, and this is where I lost patience.

Well, if you'll pardon me, it ain't what they do, it's why they do it. The Mongols had their motivations. Monsters in D&D often have no motivation at all. When they do, it's usually an evil one; because they want treasure, or food, or territory, or to please an evil god.

None of the bolded is an evil motive; most people desire wealth, food, and land, even in D&Dverse. So now that we've established an Evil race can have non-Evil motives, what exactly is your objection to Redcloak having a non-Evil motive? What is your objection to the idea that goblins ended up Evil as a result of being made the world's butt monkey by the gods? What is your objection to the idea that an Evil character can be sympathetic at the same time? In short, why do you think alignment is so simplistic? Because it ain't.

(Of course, if it makes you feel better, you can interpret SoD as just Redcloak being motivated by the desire to please The Dark One, an evil god, which makes Redcloak Evil Without Redeeming Features, which makes his alignment fit in your neat little box.)

theNater

2012-02-14, 06:06 AM

But it's not a D&D world; a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted.
Why can't D&D worlds have such tribes? There is nothing in the 3.5 D&D rules that prohibits such a tribe. Goblins are listed as usually neutral evil, meaning over half are neutral evil. A tribe of a few hundred true neutral goblins in a world with thousands of goblins doesn't even come close to breaking the nature of goblinkind as presented in D&D.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 06:11 AM

Actually, I've read several fairy tale expansions of Hansel and Gretel that do JUST THAT.

And at any rate, Gretel isn't shoving the witch into an oven so she can take her stuff. She's got a pretty good case for self-defense there.

As do the heroes in most D&D campaigns. In spite of this, the idea that PCs kill monsters "just because" persists.

I know you're living in this little bubble where the only stories that exist are the ones that reinforce your preexisting worldview, but please - don't assume that those are ACTUALLY the only stories that exist.

Cute. Of course, I never said that. What I did say was that one need not sit around and debate the morality of monsters and villains in order for the story to matter. People ask me, why not do those things, to which I responded, because a great many stories never bother. Why is that relevant? For one thing, because those less-complex stories are not the worse for not delving into that material (and are often the better), and, more pertinently, because many of those stories are the source material for fantasy gaming.

Kish

2012-02-14, 06:14 AM

As do the heroes in most D&D campaigns. In spite of this, the idea that PCs kill monsters "just because" persists.
You've done an excellent job of demonstrating why that idea persists. No matter how many times people point out to you that it's not supported in the D&D books, you ignore them doing so and continue to insist that it is, and you're not alone.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 06:16 AM

The idea that PCs kill monsters "just because" persists because people like you say "Well, they're goblins, they must have done SOMETHING, or else they wouldn't be labeled Usually Neutral Evil in the sourcebooks," and hack away. That's pretty much the definition of killing them "just because".

Cute. Of course, I never said that. What I did say was that one need not sit around and debate the morality of monsters and villains in order for the story to matter. People ask me, why not do those things, to which I responded, because a great many stories never bother. Why is that relevant? For one thing, because those less-complex stories are not the worse for not delving into that material (and are often the better), and, more pertinently, because many of those stories are the source material for fantasy gaming.

You're seriously mislaying the burden of proof here.

YOU came in and said that making the moral issues in OotS complex was a flaw in the story. Therefore, YOU are obligated to show that this is, in fact, the case. WE are under no obligation to show that OotS NEEDS to do ANYTHING.

Why not talk about complex moral issues? Hint: "Well, many other good stories don't do it" is NOT a sufficient answer. It's a cop-out. Even supposing you are correct in that statement (and you are), that does not serve to show that OotS is worse off for doing it.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 06:18 AM

None of the bolded is an evil motive; most people desire wealth, food, and land, even in D&Dverse.

Of course not; in this example we presuppose that these are the motivations for evil acts. Ie, not really "good" or sympathetic ones.

If you want to figure out what I'm arguing, by the by, go back to the original post. It's all there.

So now that we've established an Evil race can have non-Evil motives, what exactly is your objection to Redcloak having a non-Evil motive?

As frequently stated, it's that I disagree with the characterization of his motive as non-evil. Or, more specifically, I think that the way in which it's non-evil cheats the established tropes and conventions that the comic is about. See original comment for more on that.

What is your objection to the idea that goblins ended up Evil as a result of being made the world's butt monkey by the gods?

Several things; the silliness of it, the circuitousness of it ("Goblins are evil because they were made to be evil." Well, thanks for clearing that up...), the inapplicability as satire (again I have to wonder why anyone gives a crap about whether it's fair to depict monsters are evil in fantasy games), and the fact that, if the divine ramifications are carried through to their conclusion, it ends up being a muddled, unanswerable question about free will.

What is your objection to the idea that an Evil character can be sympathetic at the same time?

In itself? None. I just don't buy it this time around. See original post.

In short, why do you think alignment is so simplistic? Because it ain't.

If alignment wasn't supposed to simplify things, it wouldn't exist. We already have a complex way of defining morality; real world ethics.

(Of course, if it makes you feel better, you can interpret SoD as just Redcloak being motivated by the desire to please The Dark One, an evil god, which makes Redcloak Evil Without Redeeming Features, which makes his alignment fit in your neat little box.)

I'm not sure Redcloak has all that many redeeming features even by the comic's standards. But as you will.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 06:24 AM

The idea that PCs kill monsters "just because" persists because people like you say "Well, they're goblins, they must have done SOMETHING, or else they wouldn't be labeled Usually Neutral Evil in the sourcebooks," and hack away. That's pretty much the definition of killing them "just because".

I didn't say that. Rather, if you go back, I roundly reject the idea that that's how the game works, and indeed, I suggest that people thinking of stories in terms of alignment is what pretty much broke alignment in the first place. See previous comments.

YOU came in and said that making the moral issues in OotS complex was a flaw in the story. Therefore, YOU are obligated to show that this is, in fact, the case. WE are under no obligation to show that OotS NEEDS to do ANYTHING.

Actually what I said was that the way that it did it was flawed and fundamentally unsound, and that to me this suggested an effort to shoehorn the idea in out of a sense of obligation and not because it actually worked in the context of the story. Be that as it may, if you want me to show you why I think that, go back and see the original post. That was the argument.

Why not talk about complex moral issues? Hint: "Well, many other good stories don't do it" is NOT a sufficient answer. It's a cop-out. Even supposing you are correct in that statement (and you are), that does not serve to show that OotS is worse off for doing it.

No, it does not. For that, see the original post. Rather, those comments were in response to the earlier assertion that we are SUPPOSED to sit down and examine the D&D alignment system in morally complex ways. I suggested that we are not, and as evidence I pointed out the many stories that form the basis for fantasy gaming lore that don't give two figs about such things.

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 06:24 AM

From my reading the Comic treats alignment as a good short hand general description of a characters motivations and thought process and has done so almost exclusively since it became a story based comic. It never has, and has never tried to, treat alignment as a strict rule for how you act.

In short this comic has always taken the viewpoint that alignment is a DESCRIPTIVE attribute, and not a PRESCRIPTIVE one. The alignment you claim is your own description about what you try to be. The alignment you are called is other characters description about what you are. That has been a consistent part of the comic since it moved into deeper territory and away from simple jokes. The OP seems to be focusing on the idea that in DnD alignment is prescriptive and that as such it is black and white. However in my reading since very early on we have seen characters with more nuance than that. For instance Hilgya was a more nuanced look at an evil character (Loki is an evil God AFAIK, and so a Cleric would need to match that surely) than a simple binary alignment system you seem to think it is would allow.

It seems that for a long time the aim of the comic regarding alignment has been to question whether or not the system works as a simple black and white attribute. True evil is shown to exist. Sorry, I mean "evil for the sake of evil" is shown to exist. Xykon is proof of that. Evil for selfish goals has been seen and explored (Hello Tarquin). Evil for petty reasons has been clearly demonstrated (Hi Nale). And Evil for deluded good reasons has been explored (that is Redcloak and Miko).

It seems to me that the examination of the moral question IS a central part of the OoTS and has been so for hundreds of strips, all the way back into the 70s. Since Miko we have been exploring the alignment system in depth, whether it works or fails, with the conclusion that it can work, but not as often played.

So that the question of morality has been a central part of the comic is almost beyond doubt. I would cite examples from the comic but it seems unnecessary. However the question seems to be, does it work in Redcloaks case? Now using just the in comic material, that he is evil is never a question. Nor does SoD alter this view. His plan is not a good plan, and was never considered such in SoD either. But he has an understandable motive, and that is the key. The trick to creating a 3D, sympathetic villain, is to create an understandable motive for their actions. We need to look at what they do and say "yeah, I get why he does that. I might not, but then again I know why he does". SoD gave that to Redcloak, and it has been hinted at repeatedly in the comic. Of course just pure understanding is not enough. We can understand why Tarquin acts as he does for instance (fame, fortune and everything that goes with it). But he is not sympathetic as the goal is not one we could embrace.

Redcloak? We can have sympathy for the goal as well as understanding his reasons. The goal is, and has been, to get a better situation for Goblins in the world. To remake the universe so that they are not simple XP fodder, but are more than that. To allow them the same choice for their purpose in life as the other races. In DnD terms, to allow them to become PC's and not just antagonists. This is a sympathetic goal. We may question the value of it being done for an Evil race, but I would add a religious analogy (bear with me, no preaching here). It is claimed in some religions that Demons a pure evil. Evil. No bones about it Evil. And the same is said of many people. And yet Redemption is allowed for any and all who wish for it, and strive for it. If a Demon tries to become an Angel, and succeeds, the angels rejoice.

Really though I have a fundamental issue with the OP arguement. I don't get it. To me there are no places where we see the failure of Redcloak as a character. I really don't. I think we see clearly that he has understandable motives, sympathetic goals (the betterment of his race........hardly evil or selfish) and acts evilly in trying to accomplish this. Where is the failure? This is not snark, I genuinely want to know what the percieved failure is.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 06:31 AM

ShikomeKidoMi

2012-02-14, 06:31 AM

As do the heroes in most D&D campaigns. In spite of this, the idea that PCs kill monsters "just because" persists.

Actually a lot of players do seem to run this way, even if it's not the campaign writer's intent.

Of course, I never said that. What I did say was that one need not sit around and debate the morality of monsters and villains in order for the story to matter. People ask me, why not do those things, to which I responded, because a great many stories never bother. Why is that relevant? For one thing, because those less-complex stories are not the worse for not delving into that material (and are often the better), and, more pertinently, because many of those stories are the source material for fantasy gaming.

Because a bunch of people don't do something is never a good reason not to it. It might be proof you don't NEED to do it, but it doesn't conclusively prove it a bad idea. In fact it's pretty irrelevant and your attempt to justify it with "source material" falls flat. It doesn't matter what the original sources are or even if they made it work without debating morality. You seem to have confused "you don't need to do X" with "doing X is bad" when the two are quite different concepts.

Similarly, it's not the same to say "the gods are inept" and "the god's treatment of goblins is unfair". Because, among other things, the goblins do work as XP sources for adventurers and their combination of natural urges and environment (in whatever combination, how much of each doesn't matter) mean a significant percent do evil so the plan works. It might not work as well as envisioned, but it's not an inept failure.

EDIT: Ah, I see I've been beaten to the punch on one of these. Still your original post was also unconvincing so it's fairly accurate. Mostly because you seem to be under the impression a lot of stuff doesn't happen in D&D that's present in a number of the pieces of source material, that you have the one true vision of what all the various writers for the game intended (because surely they all had a completely united and cohesive plan), and that "wanting more for your people" is unsympathetic just because the people don't really deserve it.

ZerglingOne

2012-02-14, 06:35 AM

It's hard to say whether goblins are all pure evil, but Redcloak is himself undeniably evil.

Whether he has a just cause or not, this is a severe case of the ends not justifying the means. He wants to turn a god killing abomination that could theoretically undo all of creation in 27 minutes into a form of weapon to leverage even distribution of land for the monstrous races.

He has been shown laughing at the possibility of those of his own kind dying for a cause. He chose possibly the most evil way of disposing of Tsukiko. The guy has access to 9th level spells that target fortitude saves and instead turns her loved ones against her.

There has never been any doubt in my mind as to whether or not Redcloak is anything but pure evil. His actions, methods, and plans are nothing but deplorable. The fact that the author is able to convey this in a humorous manner is a testament to his writing.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-14, 06:36 AM

I never said that. The gods make bad decisions, clearly. What I'm skeptical about is the suggestion that the gods are inept; that they would exercise their divine power to create one type of creature but somehow screw it up and create something that doesn't match the concept.

Exactly what is the distinction between "makes poor decisions" and "ineptitude" when your "poor decisions" accidentally and without your awareness create a nigh-unstoppable being of pure chaos and destruction that kills a quarter of you and can't fully be gotten rid of, only trapped? There are clearly things they are not capable of doing. They are not omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent.

They weren't paying attention when creating the humanoids. They didn't make them balanced, and they immediately screwed up by making too many. They were there to get killed, and that's about all the thought that went into their creation. It's not even stated they actually tried to make sure each and every one of them were born evil, so -- why in the world would you expect that to perfectly line up with "always chaotic evil, period"?

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 06:38 AM

Actually a lot of players do seem to run this way, even if it's not the campaign writer's intent.

Well, then that's their mistake. But only theirs.

Because a bunch of people don't do something is never a good reason not to it. It might be proof you don't NEED to do it, but it doesn't conclusively prove it a bad idea. In fact it's pretty irrelevant and your attempt to justify it with "source material" falls flat. It doesn't matter what the original sources are or even if they made it work without debating morality. You seem to have confused "you don't need to do X" with "doing X is bad" when the two are quite different concepts.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that the game doesn't work as well if you "do X." Isn't that the argument that the comic makes, that "doing X" reveals that the game rules and mechanics do not make strict sense? D&D works very well as a game that operates around straightforward ideas about heroism and villainy. Otherwise, it tends to operate like..."The Order of the Stick." Further, the very existence and artificiality of the alignment system is a clear indicator that you shouldn't be overthinking this to the degree that people insist on doing.

Similarly, it's not the same to say "the gods are inept" and "the god's treatment of goblins is unfair". Because, among other things, the goblins do work as XP sources for adventurers and their combination of natural urges and environment (in whatever combination, how much of each doesn't matter) mean a significant percent do evil so the plan works. It might not work as well as envisioned, but it's not an inept failure.

No, but trying to create a race of evil beings and somehow bollocksing it to the point of turning out some communities of peaceful wasteland-dwellers minding their own business feels a bit inept. Unless of course they're an evil menace after all, but in that case Redcloak's tragic backstory is only tragic if you happen to have a soft spot for evil menaces.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 06:39 AM

Two, D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.

The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.

Further, your definition of "what the comic is about" is also wrong. You seem to think it should be about me regurgitating an accurate portrayal of how the game should ideally be played. Nothing could be further from my mind. The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

Now, if you want to rail on me because the first time Redcloak walked on screen, I didn't know everything I would later write in Start of Darkness, go right ahead. It would be a grossly unfair criticism being that it's common knowledge that I started this comic strip with no idea that it was going to last more than a dozen strips, but at least it would be an accurate one instead of one built entirely on one's own personal biases about the D&D game and how I'm not reading your mind so that I might live up to them.

Oh, and I will continue to veer back and forth from obeying D&D conventions to ignoring them when and as I see fit, so if that's going to bug you, you should probably stop reading now. Because I simply do not care about the level of consistency that you seem to find important.

Red XIV

2012-02-14, 06:39 AM

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 06:40 AM

Of course not; in this example we presuppose that these are the motivations for evil acts. Ie, not really "good" or sympathetic ones.

Actually, you say in that post that when evil characters have a motive, it's usually evil. Then you provide those example motives. It's kind of a stretch for you to backtrack now and say "of course those motives aren't evil", because you already said they were.

As frequently stated, it's that I disagree with the characterization of his motive as non-evil. Or, more specifically, I think that the way in which it's non-evil cheats the established tropes and conventions that the comic is about. See original comment for more on that.

If you can't handle OotS subverting tropes, you might want to read something else.

There's nothing inherently story-breaking about Redcloak wanting to blackmail the gods into giving goblins a better start where they aren't forced into the role of 'evil butt-monkey XP fodder'. Of course that's cheating--otherwise it wouldn't be blackmail. But the STORY isn't cheating anything.

Several things; the silliness of it, the circuitousness of it ("Goblins are evil because they were made to be evil." Well, thanks for clearing that up...), the inapplicability as satire (again I have to wonder why anyone gives a crap about whether it's fair to depict monsters are evil in fantasy games), and the fact that, if the divine ramifications are carried through to their conclusion, it ends up being a muddled, unanswerable question about free will.

You deliberately reduce the story of how goblins ended up evil by cutting everything out so you can pretend it's circular. Then you ignore the goblins' viewpoint in order to pretend nobody should care that goblins didn't get a fair shake. Then you add a messy divine argument to the end in order to obscure the fundamental mistakes in reasoning you made in the first two points.

Yeah, okay.

If alignment wasn't supposed to simplify things, it wouldn't exist. We already have a complex way of defining morality; real world ethics.

Alignments are the end of an ever-growing story, not the entire story. You haven't actually argued anything, merely presented a false dichotomy: "Real-world complexities exist --> Alignment must exist in contrast with real-world complexities --> Alignment is simplistic." That's baloney.

I'm not sure Redcloak has all that many redeeming features even by the comic's standards. But as you will.

Great, now you get to point to the place where I said RC had many redeeming features. Or you get to admit you're manufacturing false argument out of violent agreement.

EDIT: Ninja'd by The Man himself. Well, I sincerely hope we're done here.

Kish

2012-02-14, 06:47 AM

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.
I have to say that if you're considering some people on the Internet Not Getting It to mean you have more work to do, you should stop writing a webcomic and start working on a mind-control ray.

ShikomeKidoMi

2012-02-14, 06:47 AM

Well, I think it's pretty clear that the game doesn't work as well if you "do X." Isn't that the argument that the comic makes, that "doing X" reveals that the game rules and mechanics do not make strict sense? D&D works very well as a game that operates around straightforward ideas about heroism and villainy. Otherwise, it tends to operate like..."The Order of the Stick." Further, the very existence and artificiality of the alignment system is a clear indicator that you shouldn't be overthinking this to the degree that people insist on doing.

Nope, that's the argument you insist the comic makes. But you're the one projecting that, as well. The alignment system actually seems to work, in that people who are evil tend to be doing nasty things and good guys aren't. The places it breaks downs are the people in the comic's assumptions about what it means and their attempts to over generalize it. And, talking to you, apparently yours as well. For one thing you don't seem to understand the difference between the "usually" and "always" alignment descriptions, given your constant assertions about there not being any peaceful goblins in "real" D&D.

No, but trying to create a race of evil beings and somehow bollocksing it to the point of turning out some communities of peaceful wasteland-dwellers minding their own business feels a bit inept. Unless of course they're an evil menace after all, but in that case Redcloak's tragic backstory is only tragic if you happen to have a soft spot for evil menaces.

Nope. As long as enough of them are evil, the plan succeeds most of the time. You're still basically arguing no shade of grey between "100 percent success" and "failure". Plus, it's tragic from Redcloak's perspective, which is enough to give him depth as a character. It doesn't really matter if his family were horrible people, they were his family and he loved them, so of course he's upset.

EDIT: Ninja'd again. Must type faster. At least the author and I seem to be in agreement that the problem isn't necessarily the system, it's the people (players or characters).

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 06:48 AM

Well, I see a couple of things to address here, and due to the already very fragmented nature of this debate, I will not bother quoting specific arguments made (if you feel I am putting words in your mouth at any particular point, just say so).

One of the things that jumped out at me was your comment that if the Gods intended for the Goblins (and others) of the world to be wholly evil, than they would be capable of doing so and would have done so, thus eliminating any argument (in fact, you appear to actually make the assertion that they did intend to and were successful). The response is twofold, the first is more trivial, but worth noting: The Gods in OotS are not perfect at enacting their intentions, as evidenced by Thor and the creation of the Snarl. The second is a perhaps deeper argument into whether it is possible for an entire race to be evil.

Generally, evil actions are actions that lack empathy: Murder, theft, indifference, etc. Thus, a truly evil being would lack any empathy (this isn't quite true, but holds for this argument). This idea works well with the OotSverse, as Xykon, the Lich who doesn't care a whit for anyone but himself, is the BBEG. However, a society composed entirely of truly evil beings wouldn't survive (care for young, provision of food, and infighting all being major issues), there has to be some bond of common empathy for a society to form. As Goblins in OotS have been shown to create these societies, it can be concluded that not all goblins are completely evil (validated by particular characters). Indeed, Rich has shown highly peaceful and isolationist goblin communities, communities that show no evil tendencies in isolation.

If the analysis stopped there, one might conclude that Goblins are good creatures and thus have been royally shafted. However, even if on an individual or community level Goblins are good creatures, on an interspecies level, they show evil tendencies. Raiding parties, invasions, slavery, and general xenophobia towards other races are all hallmarks of an evil society (and by the way, I suspect that these traits will be highlighted under Jirix's rule). One can argue that they have no choice, but it is incredibly difficult to imagine that violence is the only recourse of action for centuries. Compare this to the "alignment rich" races, which have societies that often live in peace with each other and form alliances or trade. In this light, Goblinkind can be considered evil even if the individual Goblin might not be considered evil. To take a real world analogy (and to invoke the wrath of Godwin's Law), Nazi Germany can be considered an evil state, even though not all Germans were evil. Does that mean that the Allies would be wrong to fight and eventually invade Germany? No. Does that mean they would be wrong to carpet bomb German Cities? Debatable, but it was mutual and also of some military importance. Does that mean the Allies would be right to indiscriminately everyone in a German village because they believed a high ranking Nazi official was hiding there? Probably.

I think that DnD does a good job of only putting players in situations were Goblinkind's natural tendency for destructive acts (ie. How the God's made them evil) leads to clear action. It doesn't matter if that schmuck you just killed had two daughters and was a single parent because we was defending the cleric trying to raise the Dread Blagobeast. However, just because Goblins are Evil doesn't mean they can't be justified. Turn the tables around. You are now a Goblin, you now care more for your brother goblins more than some caravan guards. They need to eat, so you do what you can to put bread on the table. is what you are doing evil? Maybe in an abstract sense, but you are doing what is right for your people. In this case, what is good and what is right are different, because good is immutable (a very DnD concept) while right entirely depends on what your goals are. If you want to protect your society and your friends and your children, you can justify some very evil acts. Make no mistake, the Goblins are in it for themselves, but for them that isn't wrong because they never see the impact of their evil side. The Goblin's evil is directed at outsiders, not within. Thus Redcloak is a Goblin Hero and a World Villain.

Finally, the reason the reader cares about this is because Rich went through such lengths to show the empathy within Goblinkind that we can relate to. We don't see the piles of human corpses, the farmers butchered in their beds, fields aflame. We see what a Goblin sees, and so we put ourselves in his shoes and understand we would choose a similar path in their stead. The people who want Redcloak to achieve is goal (without any of the messy destruction The Plan could entail) want the Human side of Goblins to be rewarded, not the Goblin part. Rich has very carefully constructed the story to make it easy to separate the two, but I suspect by the end the lines will be blurred again and the wisdom of an equal goblin race will be questioned again.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 06:51 AM

too-zealous crusades against goblinkind

That is wrong. The Sapphire Guard's crusades were against threats to the Gate they were guarding. They believed, correctly, that the wearer of the Crimson Mantle was such a threat so they did attack goblins, but goblinkind was not their target. Redcloak probably believes that goblinkind was their target, but he is mistaken. It is an understandable mistake.

goblins are sometimes innocent victims

Goblins are describe by the rules of D&D as "Usually neutral evil". So it is quite consistent with that for them to sometimes be innocent victims.

It only works and makes sense if "The Order of the Stick" is not a comic about D&D.

I disagree.

So either "The Order of the Stick" is about the black and white, binary world of tabletop gaming (and how strange and silly that is), in which case Redcloak does not make sense as a character, or else it's about a more nuanced, complex world that doesn't at all resemble tabletop gaming,

Whilst the D&D world has room for black and white morality it has never been binary. There has always been neutral and room for variations within the alignment categories. The normal D&D world is a complex, nuanced one.

The author has made no error. The problem is your narrow view of D&D. It is possible to play it as black and white, but that is not normal in my experience (starting in 1978). It is certainly possible to play it in a more nuanced way that is entirely compatible with the story.

Redcloak is an excellent example of a Lawful Evil character. Concern with getting justice is a Lawful trait. Restricting that to his own kind and being willing to do anything to achieve it are an Evil ones.

Kish

2012-02-14, 06:56 AM

That is wrong.
No, it's not. Again:

Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

theNater

2012-02-14, 06:57 AM

Because his characterization cheats, in my opinion; it's founded in a sympathetic back story that, in D&D terms, is not that sympathetic.
Unless, of course, some goblins are nonevil. And as it happens, by D&D rules, some goblins are nonevil.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 06:57 AM

But it doesn't work. That's the point. There are too many shades of grey in the world and morality is much more complicated than the D&D mechanics imply.

The D&D alignment system handles shades of grey perfectly well.
The alignment box are just groupings for the purposes of determining how certain magics work.
The do not determine behaviour which can be just as complex as the player's and DM's want it to be.

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 06:59 AM

Because his characterization cheats, in my opinion; it's founded in a sympathetic back story that, in D&D terms, is not that sympathetic. Sometimes the comic wants to employ the tropes and conventions of D&D to various effects, but then when it wants to create gravitas in a way that is inconvenient in light of those tropes, it ignores them, or projects things onto them that simply aren't part of that material. Except of course that people often want to MAKE it part of that material and then argue a point from that position, which accounts for much of the preceding pages.

What Material? DnD is a system of game mechanics and rules that are used to simulate a story, whilst making it fun to play as well. There are various setting with in built cultural/moral boundaries laid out for the races. But thats is all it is. And alignment is really included as a roleplaying mechanic, not a gameplay one. And is descriptive. O sure, some character class restrictions exists and some races are described as "typicall xyz" but that is it. If I play I set out a character first, history, background etc, then choose class and alignment based on that. Roleplay comes first for me.

But I am not at all clear about what DnD conventions Redcloak violates. That is my point. Your contention seems to be that trying to get a better cosmic deal for an evil race is not sympathetic. I cannot agree if that is the case. In many literary cases this is treated as a sympathetic goal. The idea that because person x is of "evil race 37" they can be killed for xp is not one considered good in most fiction. Hell the entire Vampire genre looks at and addresses the issue, with sympathetic Vampires and hatred of them considered wrong. And this is for a race that kills humans almost casually in order to live and is more clearly inherently bad than DnD goblins are.

But anyway, even if the Goblin race is Evil by design, a part of Redcloak's mission is to change that. He says "we are Evil cos the God's said so. I wanna change that NOW". Sympathetic goal to me.

And very early on the Giant stated clearly that "the needs of the story trumps the needs of DnD game mechanics". Or words to that effect. It has been that way since time immemorial to the comic. If you dislike this.......well, that it was the comic has always been. I can understand that, but it seems odd to complain to me in the case of Redcloak.

Anyways, as an aside, Roy and Durkon. Miko and Hinko. O'Chul and Thanth. All 6 characters are lawful good. All 6 have very different characterisations. All explore how Lawful Good need not mean the simple views people sometimes ascribe to it. Miko in particular deconstructs one common view of what Lawful Good means. But is Miko thus a failure as a characterisation og Lawful Good?

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 07:01 AM

The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.

Well, I guess that's where we have a fundamental disagreement (I imagine you wont' lose any sleep on that point); I think D&D works very well on the level of simple morality, but I think greater complexity tends to just sort of screw the whole thing up and I'm not sure the system was designed to handle that. More complex stories lend themselves better to other formats. That's how I see it, anyway.

Further, your definition of "what the comic is about" is also wrong. You seem to think it should be about me regurgitating an accurate portrayal of how the game should ideally be played. Nothing could be further from my mind. The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

Fair enough. I honestly didn't think it was a point that needed this much illustration, but then, I have been wrong in the past (no, really, it's true).

Now, if you want to rail on me because the first time Redcloak walked on screen, I didn't know everything I would later write in Start of Darkness, go right ahead. It would be a grossly unfair criticism being that it's common knowledge that I started this comic strip with no idea that it was going to last more than a dozen strips, but at least it would be an accurate one instead of one built entirely on one's own personal biases about the D&D game and how I'm not reading your mind so that I might live up to them.

Two things come to mind:

1. I'm aware that the character and comic became something very different from their origins and that that's going to create some natural friction, and in fact I said so. If that wasn't clear enough, and if that colored the commentary in a way that made it seem unfair, then I apologize.

2. Of course I don't expect a writer to cater to my opinions. But I still have them.

Oh, and I will continue to veer back and forth from obeying D&D conventions to ignoring them when and as I see fit, so if that's going to bug you, you should probably stop reading now. Because I simply do not care about the level of consistency that you seem to find important.

I appreciate you taking the time to give some insight on how you feel about the subject. I honestly think greater consistency would benefit the story...but of course, I'm not writing it. And the flaws in the story (or what I see as the flaws, at least) haven't detracted from the remarkable achievements of the overall narrative, or from the success that you've worked so hard for.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 07:03 AM

Sorry, I missed this in my earlier post:

the inapplicability as satire (again I have to wonder why anyone gives a crap about whether it's fair to depict monsters are evil in fantasy games),

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

factotum

2012-02-14, 07:07 AM

Generally, evil actions are actions that lack empathy: Murder, theft, indifference, etc. Thus, a truly evil being would lack any empathy (this isn't quite true, but holds for this argument). This idea works well with the OotSverse, as Xykon, the Lich who doesn't care a whit for anyone but himself, is the BBEG. However, a society composed entirely of truly evil beings wouldn't survive (care for young, provision of food, and infighting all being major issues), there has to be some bond of common empathy for a society to form.

This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 07:13 AM

This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).

Truly Evil beings can't care. There are, as with most things, many shades of evil, and I wanted to wipe away the extremes form the get go. I would argue that even a large group of mostly evil beings could form a society (although I have doubts as to how stable it could ever be).

I would also argue that some animals have empathy (and others, well, they fall under that exception I didn't want to bother getting into (But essentially involves levels of intelligence and selfishness)).

pjackson

2012-02-14, 07:18 AM

But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be

The D&D rules have never required goblins to be completely evil. They just require most of them on balance to be sufficiently evil to count as Evil for the purposes of detect evil, protection from evil and similar magics.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 07:18 AM

This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).

I think you overstate the case Dr._Demento is making. He is not saying that an Evil being cannot have friendship or emotional attachment; rather, he is saying that it's reasonable to say a MORE Evil being will have LESS friendship and/or emotional attachments.

Also, many of the most evil beings (denizens of the Lower Planes) don't need to care for their young or ensure the continuation of their race. So that restraint is removed.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 07:20 AM

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

I dunno; the world of D&D and high fantasy operates in a way that just doesn't resemble the real world. The real world has no dark gods, no corrupting mystical powers, no fiends and archfiends that influence the nature or makeup of the universe and its people (not in a literal sense, anyway).

I can accept, for example, that red and green and blue dragons are inherently evil in a way that doesn't quite make sense, because the game tells us that they are the creations/children/pawns of Tiamat, a goddess of Pure Evil, basically Dragon Satan. Plainly, we cannot say this about any living creature in the real world, so the "argument" of D&D would only last in the real world for about as long as it would take us to verify the non-existence of Dragon Satan. So, honestly, it's never bothered me in the way it does you, nor, evidently, has it ever bothered the designers that way.

I understand that if we look at fantasy gaming as analogous to real world racial or international conflicts that the overtones of the game then become incredibly disturbing. But I've never felt that such an analogy was sound because, well, LOOK at the game; it's absurd, intentionally and even comically absurd. Of course, D&D is, by design, many things to many people. Your experiences and perspective on it are obviously very different from mine. I guess I'm lucky not to have played in some of the games you have.

VinRaven

2012-02-14, 07:22 AM

Well, I guess that's where we have a fundamental disagreement (I imagine you wont' lose any sleep on that point); I think D&D works very well on the level of simple morality, but I think greater complexity tends to just sort of screw the whole thing up and I'm not sure the system was designed to handle that. More complex stories lend themselves better to other formats. That's how I see it, anyway.

I could say that this goes to the contrast between people who run D&D as a tactical wargame with simple morality vs people who are interested in roleplaying and dealing with more complex issues other than see goblin, kill goblin.

You have to know your audience and match it to the game you want, if all you want is a tactical game with simple morality, then you can't be in or run a game for people interested in roleplaying.
In the same way, if you want to run a complex storyline in a world with depth, you can't allow in to the group people who want a tactical game with simple morality.

Like any novel or story, this comic has more complex stories that the simplistic tactical game with the simple morality you like.
The issue here isn't that there's any sort of failed characterization, the issue is that your tastes don't match those of any writer, reader, or player of more complex fiction.

Lady Tialait

2012-02-14, 07:23 AM

I don't see a problem at all with Redcloak having a REASON for being evil. Having a reason is not him being a lawful good goblin.

If the comic was purely written from the perspective of the characters (As it started) then Redcloaks motivations would never have been revealed. He would simply be Xy's plucky side-kick. Maybe Nerd Paladin would prefer it that way, and you do have the option of skipping the panels that are not a PC's story and join them in the adventure. You will be denying yourself some clever writing, and I won't be doing that...it would fix the issues you have with following the villain's side.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 07:29 AM

I could say that this goes to the contrast between people who run D&D as a tactical wargame with simple morality vs people who are interested in roleplaying and dealing with more complex issues other than see goblin, kill goblin.

I would say it's more along the lines of, "See goblin invade my homeland/ambush my caravan/raise demons/sacrifice prisoners to its gods" etc. As I've stated repeatedly, I interpret alignment as a label on actions, not their incitement.

You have to know your audience and match it to the game you want, if all you want is a tactical game with simple morality, then you can't be in or run a game for people interested in roleplaying.

I don't see why a more simple moral perspective precludes storytelling and roleplaying; as I've already pointed out, many great stories did not worry themselves about great moral issues (not these ones, anyway).

Like any novel or story, this comic has more complex stories that the simplistic tactical game with the simple morality you like.
The issue here isn't that there's any sort of failed characterization, the issue is that your tastes don't match those of any writer, reader, or player of more complex fiction.

I'd say there's two issues, first being not that I dislike more complex fiction but that I think this game is a bad fit for it (again, the game seems designed in such a way as to suggest the folks behind it agree, particularly its most recent incarnation), and then the second being how does the game relate to the comic, and how successful (in my opinion) that implementation is.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 07:29 AM

since this is Rich's story he may have chosen to start RC neutral per say, and then have SoD show how he really turned evil.

Since Redcloak is shown as being initiated as a priest of an Evil god on the first page of SoD, that seems unlikely.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 07:37 AM

That doesn't bar him from having been Lawful Neutral at the start of SoD- LE deities allow LN clerics of them. Though there is admittedly no evidence either way.

And LN clerics of LE deities still "ping a paladin's Evil Radar".

If the Dark one is NE with the special trait of being able to grant the Law domain, as opposed to LE, this might be trickier.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 07:39 AM

Miko fell because the Gods considered her action not to be good (or to be a gross violation, technically.)

By the rules any evil act is sufficient to cause failure. It is the only part of the code that does not require there to be a gross violation.

Paladins are not required by the rules to worship any god, though there may be some world specific rule for the OotS world.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 07:42 AM

I dunno; the world of D&D and high fantasy operates in a way that just doesn't resemble the real world. The real world has no dark gods, no corrupting mystical powers, no fiends and archfiends that influence the nature or makeup of the universe and its people (not in a literal sense, anyway).

I can accept, for example, that red and green and blue dragons are inherently evil in a way that doesn't quite make sense, because the game tells us that they are the creations/children/pawns of Tiamat, a goddess of Pure Evil, basically Dragon Satan. Plainly, we cannot say this about any living creature in the real world, so the "argument" of D&D would only last in the real world for about as long as it would take us to verify the non-existence of Dragon Satan. So, honestly, it's never bothered me in the way it does you, nor, evidently, has it ever bothered the designers that way.

This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.

VinRaven

2012-02-14, 07:44 AM

I don't see why a more simple moral perspective precludes storytelling and roleplaying; as I've already pointed out, many great stories did not worry themselves about great moral issues (not these ones, anyway).

The difference between a tactical game with simple morals and roleplaying is just that, if you're not worrying and dealing with moral issues you aren't roleplaying, you're simply pushing a miniature figure on a playing board.

Both types of games can be fun, but they are two different games, and you need to be aware of the group you're running/playing in.

I'd say there's two issues, first being not that I dislike more complex fiction but that I think this game is a bad fit for it (again, the game seems designed in such a way as to suggest the folks behind it agree, particularly its most recent incarnation), and then the second being how does the game relate to the comic, and how successful (in my opinion) that implementation is.

No, tactical gaming vs roleplaying goes to group's taste and style, it is not dependent on the actual game rules design, though naturally certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering roleplay, just like certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering tactical gaming.

In D&D this dichotomy goes back to the creators, with Gygax being into tactical gaming, and Arneson being a roleplayer into complex world creation and story.

It goes without saying that you can find numerous first person accounts from DMs and fellow players on how Gygax was a terrible roleplayer and ran tactical games, while Arneson was a great roleplayer who ran games in complex worlds, different strokes and all.

Andious

2012-02-14, 07:45 AM

I CARE.

Mr. Burlew, I always strongly suspected you were someone deserving the highest level of respect, and I have been waiting for you to give pure, solid, blunt, and utterly undeniable 100% proof that I was right.

I have found it, and I am proud to call you one of my highest... what's the word I'm looking for. Idol? Hero? Role-model?

You are awesome.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 07:48 AM

Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice. Although his point about preserving the narrative is well taken.

The important thing is that Redcloak regards it as an injustice.
The paladins surely did not.
The paladins are more likely to be right, but that is not important to the story.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 07:53 AM

The paladins are more likely to be right, but that is not important to the story.

I don't know- what did Redcloak's little sister do to "deserve killing"?

Whenever someone who has not done something to deserve killing is intentionally killed, that's arguably an injustice.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 07:53 AM

a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted.

Some D&D worlds might not have such villages.
But there is no reason why a D&D world might not have such villages.
They do not contradict the rules in anyway.

Nerd_Paladin

2012-02-14, 07:59 AM

This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

Okay, yes, you cannot conclusively prove a negative. Still, in fantasy gaming we have concrete influence of inherently evil mystical entities that colors our interpretations. That makes a big difference.

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it.

Well, there's the fact that the setting has dragons, and then there's the fact that the setting has Tiamat; the former is simply a material difference between the real world and the game, but the latter is a fundamental, metaphysical difference. Tiamat, and similar entities/concepts/forces, is what defines and, to an extent, rationalizes the morality of the game world. I mean, how do we know that gnolls are predisposed to be wicked creatures? Because of the influence of Yeenoghu. Why do these concepts not bleed over into the real world? The absence of any verifiable influence of Yeenoghu (if you catch my drift; it rather late here...).

Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

I've always rejected the notion of fantasy as escapism, or at least, that it's any more so that any other form of fiction. D&D, however, probably is, in my estimation. It's entertainment, not high art. The game is a poor vessel, in my view, for anything more profound than that. Perhaps there is a fantasy tabletop game that gives us a venue for advancing big ideas about life, a game that may qualify as high art, but I don't think D&D is that game. It is, however, a fun way to spend time with your friends; there's value in that, too.

So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.

I guess I can't very well argue with that.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 08:06 AM

D&D, however, probably is, in my estimation. It's entertainment, not high art. The game is a poor vessel, in my view, for anything more profound than that.

I am not playing a game.

I am writing a story that happens to use some of the same terminology and/or base assumptions as a specific game in order to frame the issues that I want to talk about in a way that is easily accessible. Some of those issues are about that game and how it is played and some of those issues are about the real world and how we relate to it. I mix the two freely.

Therefore, whether or not the game lends itself to this sort of introspection has no bearing on whether or not this sort of introspection belongs in my work of fiction, even if I also discuss that game. In the same way as the rules of the game of basketball do not lend themselves to a discussion of heroin abuse, but the book The Basketball Diaries still talks about both.

EDIT: I should write "Ce n'est pas un jeu des cachots et des dragons" under every comic from now on.

CoffeeIncluded

2012-02-14, 08:10 AM

Mr. Burlew, I always strongly suspected you were someone deserving the highest level of respect, and I have been waiting for you to give pure, solid, blunt, and utterly undeniable 100% proof that I was right.

I have found it, and I am proud to call you one of my highest... what's the word I'm looking for. Idol? Hero? Role-model?

You are awesome.

Pretty much seconded here.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 08:26 AM

I don't know- what did Redcloak's little sister do to "deserve killing"?

Whenever someone who has not done something to deserve killing is intentionally killed, that's arguably an injustice.

She attended a religious ceremony for an evil god - Redcloak's initiation. Just the very end is shown, but it is likely that some form of active participation would have been required from the audience.
Besides that there may have been something else that caused detect evil to ping which was not shown.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 08:31 AM

She attended a religious ceremony for an evil god - Redcloak's initiation. Just the very end is shown, but it is likely that some form of active participation would have been required from the audience.
Besides that there may have been something else that caused detect evil to ping which was not shown.

That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.

If you are going to defend the paladin's actions, I go with the same justification as Carpet Bombing or Kill Every Firstborn Son.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 08:39 AM

No, it's not. Again:

They must be some other paladins, not shown anywhere in the comic.

We are told that the Sapphire Guard is small. concerned with guarding the gate, and seeks out threats to the gate to destroy them. Their reaction to finding a wearer of the crimson mantle (both times) confirms that they correctly regard such a being as such a threat.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 08:44 AM

That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.

No, it is a small assumption. Willingly attending a ceremony for an Evil religion would normally be considered an evil act. Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 08:47 AM

But not necessarily an evil act that "warrants execution"

- quite apart from the fact that, as a child, she may have no choice about attending.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 08:47 AM

No, it is a small assumption. Willingly attending a ceremony for an Evil religion would normally be considered an evil act. Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

I was talking about the active participation part. There is no indication that there is any more active participation than a high school graduation ceremony.

Also, a child is scarcely responsible for what ceremonies they are brought to by their families (although I am sure if you asked she would have claimed to be a devout follower of the Dark One, but even then, worshiping an evil god does not make you evil)

Giddon

2012-02-14, 08:50 AM

But it's not a D&D world; a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted. See original comment.

This bothers me, because the whole point of D&D rules, is just to give a common, easily accessible, starting point for a group of people (or storywriters), not to be a rigid set in stone guideline that has to dictate every bit off fluff and crunch alike. The beauty of D&D is that it gives the liberty to the DM, or storyteller in this case, to borrow a couple of guidelines that allow people to quickly grasp the mechanics of the story, and from there on, the DM can create whatever world, with whatever characterizations and flavors he sees fit. The only thing those modifications require to become inherent to the story/game mechanics, is the acceptance of the players, or audience, and in the case of the OotS that translates to reading or not reading the comic.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 08:54 AM

Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

FlawedParadigm

2012-02-14, 09:00 AM

Like I said a few pages back, OP, your morality works fine for D&D the game. For D&D: Storytime Edition, it falls flat. Which is basically what the Giant told you in his EDIT: (next to) last post. As soon as you can make the division in your mind between D&D as a game and D&D as a tool for storytelling (and there's a couple of hundred books done under various D&D licences) you'll be at ease, I think. It seems to be the fundamental stumbling block you keep tripping over.

EDITED: Giant posted while I was posting, making his last post no longer his last post.

Psyren

2012-02-14, 09:01 AM

"This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

But she's green! That's damning evidence right there! :smallamused:

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 09:02 AM

The deva's "We generally don't consider childhood escapades" statement:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

seems pretty appropriate here- the presumption that dubious acts committed in childhood are "escapades" not having much bearing on afterlife destination- unless explicitly shown otherwise.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 09:04 AM

But she's green! That's damning evidence right there! :smallamused:

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

Quild

2012-02-14, 09:06 AM

EDIT: I should write "Ce n'est pas un jeu des cachots et des dragons" under every comic from now on.

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
And D&D is a game (translate "un jeu"), but when you play a game of D&D, you have to translate "une partie" (totally unrelated with the english word "party").

"Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons." would be the proper translation of "This is not a game of D&D".

But why would you wrote it in French ? :smallconfused:

The Giant

2012-02-14, 09:08 AM

Psyren

2012-02-14, 09:22 AM

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

Love that book :smallbiggrin:

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
...
But why would you wrote it in French ? :smallconfused:

Huh, suddenly the Deck of Many Things (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#deckofManyThings) makes a lot more sense to me.

I presume his use of french was to lend the disclaimer an air of sophistication (as the french language is wont to do) but I could be way out in left field.

FlawedParadigm

2012-02-14, 09:24 AM

Also, Rich, you're going to start making the curator of the Giant Quotes thread work overtime soon. :smallcool:

Yendor

2012-02-14, 09:25 AM

I believe he's referencing this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images).

Quild

2012-02-14, 09:40 AM

I believe he's referencing this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images).
Now I understand. I studied that less than 15 years ago, I should have known! :D

Psyren

2012-02-14, 09:45 AM

I believe he's referencing this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images).

*slaps forehead*

I'm an idiot.

Crimsonmantle

2012-02-14, 09:55 AM

That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Also... I was wondering... teh deva did point out that it matters to them that Roy is trying to be LG. When Redcloak refers to "those that call themselves good" who commit evil acts - and we all do irl - he's right. But he's also taking an easy out, no? And it's not as if gobbo culture as depicted in Oots were particularly non-evil. I mean, they're slaveholding, cruel, silly, cute buffoons. (And their architectural skills are not up to par. :D ) Gobbotopia will need all the help it can get.

Crimsonmantle

2012-02-14, 09:59 AM

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)

Quite right! (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donjon_%28bande_dessin%C3%A9e%29)

Juggling Goth

2012-02-14, 10:06 AM

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

Giant, I already adored you, but that just cemented it. The musical was fun and all (and my partner's sister had a baby the day I went to see it, and nearly ended up with a 'green babies rule' onesie), but the novels are amazing. Great worldbuilding.

Xapi

2012-02-14, 10:24 AM

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Wrong. Please read this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Here, The Giant explains why we don't know or see weather or not the paladins fall, and why the fact that we don't see it doesn't speak of the nature of the paladins' deed.

This post is brought to you by the Index of the Giant's comments.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220195

Conuly

2012-02-14, 10:33 AM

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Either he didn't fall (in which case Redcloak has a case that the gods are capricious and unjust) or he DID and it just wasn't on-screen. I believe Rich said at one point that any or all of those paladins may have fallen, but he's not going to tell us who, if any, they were.

I'm inclined to think that if paladins regularly fell because they slaughtered infants, they'd wise up and stop slaughtering infants, but who knows?

Also... I was wondering... teh deva did point out that it matters to them that Roy is trying to be LG. When Redcloak refers to "those that call themselves good" who commit evil acts - and we all do irl - he's right. But he's also taking an easy out, no? And it's not as if gobbo culture as depicted in Oots were particularly non-evil. I mean, they're slaveholding, cruel, silly, cute buffoons. (And their architectural skills are not up to par. :D ) Gobbotopia will need all the help it can get.

In SoD we actually see a couple of other goblin villages (of course, Gobbotopia is majority hobgoblin, which may make a difference!) and there's no evidence that those villages engaged in slave-trading or random cruelty to humans. (Indeed, there's some evidence, though circumstantial, that they don't.)

At this point, RC may have decided that since, if his plan fails, he's ultimately going to get slaughtered for being a goblin (and also the bearer of the crimson mantle) anyway, he might as well live it up. He and the other residents of Gobbotopia.

It's also important to note that in the OotS world humans are implied to engage in slave-trading as well. And humans in the real world certainly have kept slaves! We don't say all humans are evil, nor even "all humans from that area" just because some of them do evil things.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-14, 10:40 AM

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
And D&D is a game (translate "un jeu"), but when you play a game of D&D, you have to translate "une partie" (totally unrelated with the english word "party").

"Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons." would be the proper translation of "This is not a game of D&D".

But why would you wrote it in French ? :smallconfused:

Because it's not a pipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images), either.

Also I guess this is a successful thread, and one I'm probably not going to read, either, if it gained three and a half pages while I was sleeping.

Jan Mattys

2012-02-14, 10:43 AM

I have read the whole thread so far.

I have very few things to say:
1- I think Nerd_Paladin's original post is a well thought, and well presented arguement that could be accepted or rejected, but that makes sense. Sadly, the back-and-forth discussion, as usual over the Net, gave birth to more and more bastard childs of the original point, but kudos to him nonetheless for trying to put down his thought in a non-confrontational and reasonable way in the first place. Personally, I am absolutely in love with Rich's work and Reddie is probably my favourite character bar none, but I can understand Nerd_Paladin's points.

2- The Giant replied with equally reasonable points, making interesting comments on the intents, goals and merits of his work. They are solid points, provide exceptional insight, and establish once and for all that Rich deserves all the praise everybody ever gave him. And more.

What saddens me just a bit, is that it seems unavoidable to slip from "I understand your point, I just see it different", to "well, you're wrong".
I see no need for people to tell Nerd_Paladin "Stop reading, then", when he's proven to be one of the few people who can be civil about his disagreement over an interesting aspect of the Order of the Stick (an aspect, might I add, that is there SPECIFICALLY to make people think about it)...

At the same time, seeing a reasonable poster fall in the "Your character is fael" trap is soul crushing.

Just my two cents.

SaintRidley

2012-02-14, 10:51 AM

I have bookmarked this thread because of the Giant's posts. Both the posts about why we should take a closer look at the ugliness inherent in the alignment system and his points about the value of fantasy literature are spot on.

I don't know if there's anything else to add here, really.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 10:52 AM

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil.

I have to disagree somewhat. Labelling creatures in a fantasy world as evil is not racism, unless you are identifying them with one of the supposed races of humanity. There is a tradition of using non-human species in fantasy and science fiction as analogues for races. But that is not the only way to deal with them. I prefer my non-humans to be truely non-human with more than cosmetic differences.

I have met someone who I later learned was evil, but he looked perfectly normal to me at the time, so normal that I barely remember the meeting.

Xapi

2012-02-14, 10:52 AM

Because it's not a pipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images), either.

Also I guess this is a successful thread, and one I'm probably not going to read, either, if it gained three and a half pages while I was sleeping.

I'd incourage you to read it, The Giant's comments in this thread are extremely valuable.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-14, 10:53 AM

Well, actually, I did end up reading it.

I CARE.

I knew I still read this comic for a reason. Thank you, Giant, not for being a good author - I've thanked you for that in the past - but for being a good person.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 10:54 AM

3rd ed has tended to move away from "evil monsters deserve only death"- at least in some sources:

Savage Species (late 3.0)

With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)

In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

Psyren

2012-02-14, 10:58 AM

Not to mention BoED. It dropped the ball in many other places, but it as at least an acknowledgement by WotC that they needed to go a bit deeper into this whole alignment business than Gygax thought it would be necessary to.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 11:00 AM

1- I think Nerd_Paladin's original post is a well thought, and well presented arguement that could be accepted or rejected, but that makes sense.

It is an argument that relies on a narrow interpretation of what D&D is that excludes the perfectly valid one used in the strip. Since D&D is not that narrow the argument being based on a false premise does not make sense.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 11:02 AM

3rd ed has tended to move away from "evil monsters deserve only death"- at least in some sources:

Savage Species (late 3.0)

It started before 3e - see the Complete Book of Humanoids for a 2e source.

Morty

2012-02-14, 11:04 AM

3rd edition kind of... zig-zags in terms of its treatment of "monster species". It's a very much "Depending on the author" sort of thing, which is only logical since there were multiple authors working on it. But at the end of the day, some sapient species are still labeled as "Evil". The reason for which this is deeply disturbing have been elaborated on by people more eloquent than I am in this thread. It's really kind of interesting how persistent this idea is.
What's also strange is the double standard - noone minds evil or neutral elves and dwarves or non-neutral halflings, but non-evil orcs ad goblinoids provoke reactions such as the one in this thread.

Elfich

2012-02-14, 11:07 AM

But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be for the game to function in the way you point out, then his "just" cause is not really just, and in fact wouldn't exist at all; his family's murder would not be senseless violence, it would in fact be quite sensible, and the Paladins would not be zealous bigots, they would be protecting innocent lives against a very real threat. Redcloak could still be motivated by it in the same way, still feel the same pain and anger over it, but the larger idea that he's "evil for a good cause" wouldn't hold water, because his cause wouldn't be (and couldn't be) good. So I suppose what we have here is a matter of rules conflicting with story; but in this case only because the storyteller has chosen to make the story conflict with the rules.
A couple of points:

That is one of the issues I think you are failing to grasp. PCs and NPCs can "Do evil for good ends" and "Do good for evil ends". The Black and White - Start of Darkness asked this question multiple ways. The Mongol Horde question touched upon it but you missed the allegory.

I think that is one of the themes that has been developing throughout this story: Is your assigned alignment the end-all and be-all of your existence?
Some characters think your assigned alignment is all that there is (Miko being the top of the list there, please don't flame me) while others take a more nuanced view (Roy's redirecting Belkar to more productive ends comes to mind).

Is the rules system that you are within so rigid and confining that you have to live within the confines of your assigned alignment? Which is more important - the rules or the story? There are plenty of stories out there of people overcoming their limitations. Can overcoming your assigned alignment count as overcoming an obstacle? Does being evil preclude you from doing good things?

Elfich

2012-02-14, 11:15 AM

This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.

I applaud you.

The Giant

2012-02-14, 11:24 AM

I have to disagree somewhat. Labelling creatures in a fantasy world as evil is not racism, unless you are identifying them with one of the supposed races of humanity.

The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

There is a tradition of using non-human species in fantasy and science fiction as analogues for races. But that is not the only way to deal with them. I prefer my non-humans to be truely non-human with more than cosmetic differences.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

And that's it for me, I need to go to sleep.

Jan Mattys

2012-02-14, 11:37 AM

I wholeheartedly appalud at your ideals Giant.

Still I think that's unfair to corner Nerd_Paladin by invoking the usefulness of openmindedness and tolerance in a work that is a parody as well as a spawn of Fantasy Fiction.

Criticizing the idea of an "Always Evil" label over a certain race is one thing. Stating it is a clichee is fair. Stating it promotes racism, though, is unreasonable in my opinion.

That's "D&D will make you a satanist" way of thinking.

Personally (but I speak strictly for myself, in the hope I am not the horrible person I don't want to be) I don't think that happily butchering orcs without a second thought in my old d&d days made me any more prone to racism than playin an adventurer made me inherently fascinated by the idea of being a hobo, a thief or a vigilante when I grew up.

But that's me.

Dr. Gamera

2012-02-14, 11:48 AM

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction [...]

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 11:50 AM

Thank you, Giant, not for being a good author - I've thanked you for that in the past - but for being a good person.

I second this.

However I would be remiss if I didn't point out that cases do occur where a character is strongly opposed to some abhorrent viewpoint, while not being exactly a good person themselves.

Rorschach springs to mind.

jidasfire

2012-02-14, 11:57 AM

I will admit I've thought about this topic in a manner similar to the OP. There was a part of me that felt like the comic presented an unfair dilemma, since, as a gamer and a fan of fantasy, I've enjoyed stories where the evil races got what was coming to them. Now, I was never the type of gamer who, as a player, murdered green people just for being green, and certainly not while playing a good-aligned character. Still, most often in those stories, the goblins or the orcs or whoever are the ones who started it, and once the fighting got going, I was as likely as anyone else to take them down and not think much about doing so. So then, was the comic a shot at me? I had to ask that, and if it was, if I deserved it. I don't know. I'm not the type of gamer who comes for the bloodlust, though I will admit to enjoying combat and sometimes facing enemies that are unambiguously bad.

In the end, I don't really think Mr. Burlew's message is, "If you've ever killed a goblin in an RPG, you are a terrible person and you should feel bad." After all, he went out of his way in Start of Darkness to show that Redcloak, while he had suffered some level of injustice, as had his people, the man himself was no mere tragic victim. Redcloak has all sorts of agency, and after the first incident (where he was a victim indeed), he has been pretty heavily responsible for his own woes and those of his people. Also, his hobgoblin horde has mostly proven to be pretty ruthless and brutal in their oppressive occupation of Azure City. But these are individuals and societies, born of actions and choices rather than birth. They're evil because of things they've done, not how they were born. Also, while we have been shown that many amongst the Sapphire Guard were overzealous and have done very bad things, we have also seen plenty of paladins who are kind and decent people, like O-Chul, Hinjo, Lien, and Thanh. These are people who proved themselves good through their own actions and choices rather than simply because it's a class requirement. Also, as adventurers go, Roy, who is the nominal hero of the story, has proudly proclaimed that while he may kill foes if necessary to protect himself or others, he would never murder a sentient being because it was easier than talking to them.

All of this tells us a great deal about how Mr. Burlew views morality. Good and evil do exist, and they aren't just arbitrary team names. Alignment is decided by one's actions, not innately by one's race or class. There are no easy outs or shortcuts to right and wrong, only choices and actions.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the comic is not a guilt trip for gamers, or perhaps it could be for some, but a reminder that these words, the alignment system in general, mean something, and can teach us something about ourselves, rather than just being an excuse to butt heads and roll damage.

pjackson

2012-02-14, 12:01 PM

It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

Gilphon

2012-02-14, 12:07 PM

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?

I suspect he didn't have anything in particular in mind, and mostly added that point as a concession that it is, in fact, possible to create such a thing.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 12:23 PM

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

Yeah, but school bullies don't deserve to be butchered by Paladins either...

pjackson

2012-02-14, 12:25 PM

The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences. Dogs are a biological group, but it is not racist to consider them less intelligent than humans.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making.

Just because it is difficult to do well does not mean it is not worth trying. In the annals of fantasy role-playing games there are the Runequest elves and trolls which I consider pretty decent attempts. Pathfinder goblins aren't too bad either. The goblin "nursery" in the first part of Rise of the Runelords seems quite non-human.
Not that there is anything wrong with not trying in order to concentrate on other aspects of the story.

Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything.
There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

Eh? There would be an awful lot to learn if we could compare ourselves to something completely alien.
Anyway fantasy is not just about gaining insight into the human condition. A lot of it is escapism.

jere7my

2012-02-14, 12:30 PM

Never played it, actually. Assuming that's the case, I would say a villain who commits no villainy is probably an example of poor writing in itself (at least as far as game modules are concerned). Certainly it's not the standard in the game.

Heh. That's kind of funny — Keep on the Borderlands is basically the foundation on which all D&D modules are built. It was written by Gygax, and included as the sample module in the red-box Basic Set, so it was the first module many many people ever played.

saeval

2012-02-14, 12:30 PM

Redcloak has clearly had his own ambitions for quite awhile, the backstory to it was just never fully revealed until the start of darkness. I don't think of his development has harmed any message the comic hasn't put forth previously. Miko being what came to mind for me. Miko was part of one of my favorite parts of this whole series, and showed how a paladin could become misguided in her zeal... which is what Start of Darkness shows as well.

Sure, Goblins in dnd are "usually evil" and generally are up to no good... but all races have social structures, some more savage than others. there is "downtime" to their evil machinations, and they do have women and children, to further their race. Start of Darkness just show's some overzealous paladins, who take it a step to far into the uncomfortable explanation scenario. I mean... those goblin children will eventually ... probably ... be evil right? so its good to kill them now!

A paladin, the way I see it, would wait for a cause, or at least a fair/honorable fight. even from the filth of the earth. I am a dnd dungeonmaster myself, and have never punished my players by telling a story in "black and white" the game system is broader than you give credit, and I feel you are both bashing the comic, and the system, by stating otherwise. DnD always has room for paladins to fall from grace, and Goblins to rise above their stature.

Xapi

2012-02-14, 12:35 PM

Eh? There would be an awful lot to learn if we could compare ourselves to something completely alien.
Anyway fantasy is not just about gaining insight into the human condition. A lot of it is escapism.

Yes, there would be a lot to learn from interacting with something truly alien.

That is not the same as creating a fictional race that is truly inhuman (so hard it'd be virtually impossible) and comparing ourselves to what we think an inhuman race could be.

Typewriter

2012-02-14, 12:36 PM

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences. Dogs are a biological group, but it is not racist to consider them less intelligent than humans.

If a dog walked up to you and said "Hey mate, can I have a steak?" and you continued to treat him like every other dog in the world because 'dogs are dumb' then yes - it would be racist. You wouldn't be responding to the dog based off it's own merits, you'd be responding based off the standard species variation.

King of Nowhere

2012-02-14, 12:37 PM

Just because in D&D goblins are irredeemably evil, they don't need to be so in the comic. There's nothing wrong if in your campaign world goblins are always the ones who started the wars and make the violences.
It simply don't have to be that way. you can easily craft a campaign world where the evil races aren't really much worse that humans, and they certainly contain several good and neutral and slightly-evil-but-redeemable individuals.
I don't see how that's a problem, or how that makes this a comic not based on D&D. Just because it is based on D&D, it do not mean it has to follow every single written line of the manuals. The op original intervention remembered closely to me that guy who complained thatrich was stretching the interpretation of the anti-magic field cancelling the forcecage, who ended up getting a permaban because he insulted rich for not being faithful to the rules. The op basically said "goblins in D&D are irredeemably evil; goblins in this comic are not. So this is not a comic about D&D. But since it is clear that this comic is about D&D, then this is a poorly written comic."
Roleplaying games are about imagination in the first place. You imagine adventures and stuff. When I was a DM, creating a world from scratch and trying to figure out how to make it consistent was probably the part I enjoied most. And I always houseruled everytime I didn't like the rules and it felt rigth to change them. Sticking to the letter of what the manuals say... well, I think that's not the true spirit of roleplaying. And I would say that redcloak's characterization is one of the most succesful I've ever seen.

Burner28

2012-02-14, 12:42 PM

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

It says a lot about this topic when you have to state something that everyone should have already known.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 12:44 PM

Just because in D&D goblins are irredeemably evil, they don't need to be so in the comic.

As far as I can tell, they're not irredeemably evil in the default D&D world. Practically nothing is. Even fiends have, on occasion, repented and changed alignment.

You can easily craft a campaign world where the evil races aren't really much worse that humans, and they certainly contain several good and neutral and slightly-evil-but-redeemable individuals.

Psyren

2012-02-14, 01:00 PM

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?

The Jedi Council in the prequels :smalltongue: Okay, I kid.

War of the Worlds, maybe? Though I'm not sure if "obscure thought processes" and "alien thought processes" are entirely the same.

FujinAkari

2012-02-14, 01:19 PM

Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

Where exactly is this quote from? Because it seems entirely at odds with

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not.

...

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

I had always interpretted events to be that the Paladins would show up when there was an actual threat to the Gates from within a village and put down all resistance, NOT that the Sapphire Guard was a racist font which routinely went out to put all non-humanoids to the sword.

The events of SoD seem to support this, why would Redcloak's predicessor have yelled out that he is the one the Sapphire Guard wanted if there wasn't a history of them killing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and then -not- sticking around to slaughter every last goblin?

Still though, I'll admit that I may be wrong, though if I am I really don't understand the Sapphire Guard anymore, or why Miko was so distraught about losing her powers if it is something which occurs with such alarming frequency.

VinRaven

2012-02-14, 01:20 PM

Either he didn't fall (in which case Redcloak has a case that the gods are capricious and unjust) or he DID and it just wasn't on-screen. I believe Rich said at one point that any or all of those paladins may have fallen, but he's not going to tell us who, if any, they were.

Or, you know, paladins behavior is that of truly evil bastards, but they are good in their gods' eyes.

I recommend Elizabeth Moon's "The Legacy of Gird" and "The Deed of Paksenarrion" if you want a good look at the seamy underside of paladinhood.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 01:23 PM

Where exactly is this quote from? War & XPs.

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It

If all of the paladins that Fell, were killed in the battles, it wouldn't necessarily come to light.

Even if when some of the paladins get back, they notice they've Fallen, they might simply be assigned some sort of penance for "overzealousness" by their superiors.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-14, 01:28 PM

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

I had always interpretted events to be that the Paladins would show up when there was an actual threat to the Gates from within a village and put down all resistance, NOT that the Sapphire Guard was a racist font which routinely went out to put all non-humanoids to the sword.

The events of SoD seem to support this, why would Redcloak's predicessor have yelled out that he is the one the Sapphire Guard wanted if there wasn't a history of them killing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and then -not- sticking around to slaughter every last goblin?

Still though, I'll admit that I may be wrong, though if I am I really don't understand the Sapphire Guard anymore, or why Miko was so distraught about losing her powers if it is something which occurs with alarming frequency.

I think this incongruity serves to highlight the difference between "by the book" good and "actual decency" good. When the Paladins swept upon the goblin's village, it was almost certainly approved of by their gods. However, the gods themselves can be selfish beings, and so their approval does make an action right, and thus unworthy of karmic retribution. Note that Rich's quote about the fatal flaw of the Sapphire Guard indicated that it was an outside force that enacted the punishment, specifically, the goblins who are considered "evil," not their gods. I think in this instance it is best to consider the Sapphire Guard and the 12 Gods as a single unit, both of which got their comeuppance.

Xapi

2012-02-14, 01:52 PM

I think this incongruity serves to highlight the difference between "by the book" good and "actual decency" good. When the Paladins swept upon the goblin's village, it was almost certainly approved of by their gods. However, the gods themselves can be selfish beings, and so their approval does make an action right, and thus unworthy of karmic retribution. Note that Rich's quote about the fatal flaw of the Sapphire Guard indicated that it was an outside force that enacted the punishment, specifically, the goblins who are considered "evil," not their gods. I think in this instance it is best to consider the Sapphire Guard and the 12 Gods as a single unit, both of which got their comeuppance.

I think this is the best interpretaion we have.

The Paladins commited evil acts, yet most of them (possibly all excepting those who did the most horrible things) did not fall, because the Gods did not care enough about their evil actions, they are more worried about them safeguarding the Gates.

Also, we know that from the God's PoV, the goblins are there to provide XP for their servants.

So I think that the Paladins aren't the only ones to blame for "playing the game as 9 out of 10 groups play it", but the Gods have a hand in that too. This explanation is compatible with both quotes provided.

Fish

2012-02-14, 01:54 PM

There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.
There is a Tolkien quote along these lines, which I cannot find, where he asserts that all fantasy must be grounded in the familiar in order to resonate with the reader. All fantasy monsters, by necessity, are reflections of humans, with similar desires and flaws; they live in a mortal world of night and day, with farming and warfare, because without these touchstones they would be so alien as to lose the reader's sympathy.

The limitations of pre-packaged monsters handcuffed to a rigid alignment system is what drove me away from D&D in the first place — or more accurately, the limitations of players who couldn't imagine how a Drow Elf was not automatically the corrupt member of a coalition council. At its best, D&D is a granular statistical wargaming model bolted onto a mythology framework. The parts function, and it's got boss chrome, but it runs kinda choppy, and it doesn't go off-road at all well.

The elven commander and Yuk-Yuk are not so much the product of D&D-based alignment behavior, in my view, but are on the schadenfreude end of narrative comeuppance. Both did something unpleasant and questionable, as a setup that something could happen to them that we might, in some light, call "fair."

Fairness, of course, is a other human-invented touchstone by which we recognize fantasy stories as reality.

The Cat Goddess

2012-02-14, 02:07 PM

LuPuWei

2012-02-14, 02:17 PM

Well, there's the fact that the setting has dragons, and then there's the fact that the setting has Tiamat; the former is simply a material difference between the real world and the game, but the latter is a fundamental, metaphysical difference. Tiamat, and similar entities/concepts/forces, is what defines and, to an extent, rationalizes the morality of the game world. I mean, how do we know that gnolls are predisposed to be wicked creatures? Because of the influence of Yeenoghu. Why do these concepts not bleed over into the real world? The absence of any verifiable influence of Yeenoghu (if you catch my drift; it rather late here...).

There's a long history of religious bias against certain species of animals that's resulted in violent persecution, that in fact endures to this day in many societies around the world. I will not mention these animals or their associated religions out of respect for the Forum Rules.

However, there are some non-religious examples too, such as Sharks.

If you take the time to read scientific literature on sharks it has been established (at least among marine biologists) that Sharks are in fact not mindless predators and that very few species are even a regular direct threat to human beings. Some sharks are even smart enough to learn and communicate with their trainers in simple ways.

Sharks are, however, for the most part, depicted in movies as mindless predators and killing machines- a trend started by the film Jaws. While this might on the surface seem ok, as sharks evoke a primal fear in us and therefore make a simple villain the actual impact of these films was to create a public bias against sharks, to the extent that there were actual mass killings of sharks at the time and it is difficult to evoke public sympathy on the subject of the conservation of endagered sharks to this day. (google "Jaws Effect" or just look up sharks on wiki)

All this information just to point out that the existence Tiamat or any such verifiable entity is immaterial. Prejudice is prejudice and exists non-the-less.

Idhan

2012-02-14, 02:24 PM

Just quoting some old things to review where we were last time:

Goblins are Neutral Evil. They are not real people. They are not so complicated (not in terms of their morality anyway). Except in "The Order of the Stick" they are...but in a way that contradicts their Neutral Evilness for the sake of making them theoretically sympathetic (something they would never be under the RAW). But that Neutral Evilness is still there, and still hardwired into the concept of the game world. The conflict is founded on internal inconsistencies.

The Mongols had their motivations. Monsters in D&D often have no motivation at all. When they do, it's usually an evil one; because they want treasure, or food, or territory, or to please an evil god. That works because it's a game and it's their role to be the villain, and also because the game demands no more of them than that. No real situation is ever that simple. But that's why this is fantasy, not reality.

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

Or are you saying that all neutral evil beings, humans, goblins, whatever, are driven by some form of pure malice, and anyone with any motivation besides that is, by definition, not neutral evil in the alignment sense, even if their actions might be very brutal (e.g., Hulagu Khan)? (If so, what alignments does this not apply to? Is everyone with a motive other than pure benevolence and distaste for order not Chaotic Good? Is everyone with a motive other than cool indifference not True Neutral? Is any alignment compatible with with complex motivations?)

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

Okay: can we restrict the question to D&D then? Are a neutral evil goblin's motives categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives in D&D? Or are all neutral evil beings in D&D, humans, goblins, whatever, driven by some form of pure malice, and anyone in D&D with any motivation besides that is, by definition, not neutral evil? If so, what alignments does this not apply to? Is everyone in D&D with a motive other than pure benevolence and distaste for order not chaotic good? Is everyone in D&D with a motive other than cool indifference not true neutral? Is any alignment compatible with more complex motivations in D&D?

Motivations? No. I consider alignment more of a tag that puts on behavior. See previous comments. But the comic is very concerned with ideas about right and wrong, and that's obviously going to run afoul of Rules As Written alignment in a world that's rooted in these game concepts.

Now I'm thinking I don't understand what's going on at all. I thought I was reading your previous comments. I thought you wrote that behavior isn't what matters, it's what motivates it. I even thought you wrote that "They had their motivations" demonstrates that the evil tag isn't warranted, even if the guys in question, say, exterminate a city's population, and evil is based on basically being horrible with no motives whatsoever, or possibly being motivated by greed (?) or worshipping an evil god.

Typewriter

2012-02-14, 02:34 PM

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis, which is entirely incongruent with what we've seen of Azure City, and also not in keeping with the depiction we are given of pretty much all the Paladins within the Sapphire Guard. It was the Elf Commander who thought all hobs should die, not the Paladin.

Keep in mind that these Paladins were also Samurai. Their lord ordered them to go and do something with a good and lawful reason but, if in executing these orders, a Paladin was to lose his Paladin 'status' he would still be a samurai. Would he then go around spreading rumors about his lord having sent them on an evil mission? Would he wonder if he had faltered or fail in some way? More than likely it wouldn't be talked about, or if it was not loudly.

It's actually an interesting parallel to real life. Whenever someone is being trained to go to war they're generally taught to hate their opponent and to believe in their own superiority. When a victory is won very little time is usually spent pointing out that the enemy did a good job killing some of the 'home' troops. It's all about how we stomped the bad guys.

When the Sapphire Guard is sent out to stomp some evil goblins (and save the world) we hail them as heroes, but we don't spend time mourning every single individual who may have lost his status as a Paladin.

EDIT:

Random thoughts: Miko has always been my favorite character just because I really enjoyed her writing, and the 'arc' the character goes through, but now I'm thinking how interesting it is.

She was very insistent that she was a Samurai, but she acted so much more like a Paladin. A Samurai would put faith in her Lord before she placed it in the gods, where as a Paladin would believe in the gods before their lord.

Miko eventually got to the point where she thought she was following the will of the gods, but had actually put all of her faith in herself and her ability to determine what was right and what was wrong.

So she claimed to serve her lord, but she really only cared about the will of the gods, and she was so arrogant that she put her own beliefs above anything else.
/Random Thoughts

Crimsonmantle

2012-02-14, 02:42 PM

Wrong. Please read this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Here, The Giant explains why we don't know or see weather or not the paladins fall, and why the fact that we don't see it doesn't speak of the nature of the paladins' deed.

This post is brought to you by the Index of the Giant's comments.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220195

I browsed that index, but this particular comment had actually escaped me. Thanks! (Not that I was being entirely serious in the way I framed my question, of course.)

cheesecake

2012-02-14, 02:54 PM

I have 2 words you for.

"Drizzt Do'Urden"

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 03:07 PM

A fun little debate here, and one in which I agree with the giant. Also I agree that Nerd Paladin is being an insightful and sennsible debater, even if I think him fundamentally wrong.

But to mention Tolkien, one of his fundamentals of Fantasy can be summed up in verisimilitude. That is, the more grounded, real and recognisable the world and the people the better we can accept the unreal we are presented with. I have his essays on Fairy Tales (though have not read in ages) and this point is frequently mentioned. It is impossible, he says, to accept something truly alien and learn anything from it. Once it goes beyond a certain point we stop caring about it as it becomes "totally alien" and thus not applicable to humans. It is only when we recognise things, whether they be the world crafted or the races seen, can we really care what they have to say.

I really do love Tolkien's work, and his worldbuilding. In fact Tolkien in his letters and works specifically goes out of his way to point out even his orcs, even his Big Bad's, were not pure evil in origin. He really worked hard to get that point across with specific characters (like Gollum, or Sauron, Morgoth and Feanor) to general commentary such as that expressed by Faramir. He was adamant that even beings created as evil like the Uruk-Hai were nor irredeemable by nature, but only by nurture. Aragorn himself does not treat them as xp sources and offers them chances to surrender and avoid bloodshed on more than one occasion.

I would recommend that Paladin re-read the LoTR, as it contains far more nuance and detail than many people think it seems. Even his orcs (who seem lawful evil, if DnD labels are applied, and simply at that) are treated fairly and are not hated merely for their nature. The treatment is much closer to the Giant's work than seems to be recognised. Tolkien of course was very interested in how corruption can turn the most noble of beings into villains (his most prevalent theme IMO), and the giant in commentary on labels specifically. But they seem to come from the same moral perspective.

TheyCallMeTomu

2012-02-14, 03:10 PM

Butting in because someone linked to the thread, and I confess to having only skimmed bits. Oh crap, that's never a good way to start-

1.) Always Chaotic Evil can be a reference not to someone having done bad things, but to the inevitability of doing bad things. Perhaps even Drizzt will end up becoming a mass murderer. It's fantasy, maybe it's in his blood. Seems racist to write a race that way though.

2.) Chaotic Evil as defined by the game world may be evil as percieved by the characters, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way indicative of Good and Evil as reality. Avoid equivocation-just because it's called evil doesn't mean it's evil.

3.) If goblins are predestined to be evil, and by virtue thereof, killing one prior to it arriving at evil acts thus prevents evil acts, then is the act of killing a non-currently evil entity evil? This is an Ends/Means discussion, and I somehow doubt there's any objective answer that would satisfy all.

4.) Is escapism truly necessarily "petty?" That part rather irked me.

5.) Whether Tiamat and kin set moral standards because they're gods or not may well be irrelevant, depending on whether you think that RL gods can actually set those things objectively to begin with. In short, gods are just really powerful characters with a lot of authority-they don't rewrite the laws of ethics any more so than any other character.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 03:25 PM

1.) Always Chaotic Evil can be a reference not to someone having done bad things, but to the inevitability of doing bad things. Perhaps even Drizzt will end up becoming a mass murderer. It's fantasy, maybe it's in his blood. Seems racist to write a race that way though.
As it happens, Drow (and goblins) are only "usually Neutral Evil"

3.) If goblins are predestined to be evil, and by virtue thereof, killing one prior to it arriving at evil acts thus prevents evil acts, then is the act of killing a non-currently evil entity evil? This is an Ends/Means discussion, and I somehow doubt there's any objective answer that would satisfy all.

Well, there's the BoED answer:

"Violence in the name of good must have just cause."

"Even launching a war on a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm"

and from 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting:

"In a world where characters have access to magic such as detect evil, it's important to keep in mind that evil people are not always killers, criminals, or demon worshippers. They mights be selfish and cruel, always putting their interests above those of others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers. The self-centered advocate is lawful evil, for example, and the cruel innkeeper is neutral evil."

TheyCallMeTomu

2012-02-14, 03:30 PM

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 03:41 PM

PHB2 does have one of the paladin credos be:

"Outside of moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number".

IMO for "just cause" it generally requires that the act be in response to something the other being is doing or trying to do.

If a person is trying to do something evil to others, you have "just cause" to use a reasonable amount of violence to prevent them.

Similarly if they've actually done so, a community has "just cause" to use appropriate measures to prevent them from continuing to do so, which can include the death sentence in serious cases.

Paseo H

2012-02-14, 03:51 PM

I have not read the rest of this thread, and probably won't unless I'm extremely bored.

TC, your post was basically a lot of words to say "I prefer that goblins were wholly irredeemably evil so that paladins could butcher them without any recrimination."

Please consider that in the context of the other alignment nuances of the story, for instance the black dragon.

Just because the Black Dragon is chaotic evil and willing to sink to horrifying depths to avenge her son does not mean that V was any less evil to cast Familicide on her.

Just so, paladins, who are supposed to be Lawful Good, shouldn't get to just shoot from the hip when it comes to their enemy. They should be required to use their weapon carefully, and they should be required to not shamefully indulge in any feelings of anti-goblin prejudice while doing so. It should be seen only as a grim necessity to fight and kill the enemy, and they should do only enough to get the job done, to go any further is a betrayal of their alignment and their honor.

Good should be nice, because if we allow for meanness in any way, then why should anyone be nice? It's like the whole 'fairness' thing, well if someone doesn't feel obligated to be fair to me then why should I be obligated to be fair?

Take for instance, when Haley killed Crystal. While Crystal certainly had it coming, many of us were scandalized by how callous Haley was about it. If she had treated it as the grim necessity of taking out an enemy, nobody would have batted an eye. But here is a good person, one of the heroes, indulging in vidictiveness.

Therefore yes, niceness, which precludes anger, displeasure, and even the least amount of racist feeling, is an absolute moral obligation, but especially so for paladins.

RickGriffin

2012-02-14, 03:54 PM

I get to log in cause I have stuff ta talk-a-bout!

The OP's comparison to old literature that did not explore the gray areas of black-and-white morality was as best misguided. Here is why:

Even if we go back to Tolkien and say that he created Orcs and Uruk-Hai as unambiguously evil and deserving of slaughter, it was not the label itself of evil (which the OP rightly assumes) that made them deserving of slaughter: it was in fact that they were a tireless evil, one that at all hours of the day and night demonstrated just how deserving it was of having its life shortened.

The OP says then that this is what the evil element of stories should be, and that when creating a monstrous villain, no sympathy should ever, ever be placed on them, because it weakens the underlying premise that Evil is Evil.

However, he then goes on to say that the real world is not anything like this; while fantasy stories (or at the very least any story that even mentions an unambiguous evil) are best served black and white, the real world is not, and never the twain shall meet.

The root of the issue: is "unambiguous evil" always a mere storytelling device, and is talking about it in real terms stupid and unnecessary?

I vehemently disagree that anything included in a story is always and unequivocally to be relegated to mere devices. Because when you start thinking of stories as merely a collection of devices, you separate them out from their application to us as real humans who live in a real world. There is a need to mirror both complexity and non-complexity of issues, and saying that something is poorer for examining complexity in an issue that is stated as a non-complex dichotomy fails to encompass the moral purpose of the story.

I mean, I can take the exact same argument that the OP made about sympathetic evil and turn it around by shifting the perspective up one notch. He states that Redcloak is a poorer villain for generating sympathy and having a noble cause, because he is nonetheless obviously evil, and when you dilute evil, to him you're saying that somehow it excuses* his genocidal acts and baby-eating.

But I say, what is the entire point of demonstrating an unambiguous evil? So if we have a story where a bunch of good guys go out and defeat the unambiguous evil genocidal baby-eating dictator because Good is Good and Evil is Evil, what have we been told that we don't already know? Was this message made any more important than the last time we were told it?

But the reason it is in Lord of the Rings is because Tolkien was exploring the nature of evil, with good on one side and evil on the other and man caught in the middle. Wheras in Order of the Stick, these races do not themselves represent good or evil: they all represent mankind, because from Rich's perspective, they are all intelligent, thinking feeling creatures who have the same motivations, needs and desires that humans do.

And it's not even to say that there is no unambiguous, ruthless, tireless evil in OotS. You have evil gods and evil devils and demons and The Snarl. But even Lord of the Rings explored the gray areas of morality--it merely did so with the human characters (and the hobbits a bit) alone. The exploration of the gray areas of morality is expanded in Rich's work because he includes all intelligent mortal races within this spectrum and not merely humans.

Rich, unlike Tolkien, does not represent the Cosmic as something graspable and knowable (though perhaps slightly more graspable and knowable than the real world, but with the perspective that there is something more to the universe than even the gods), and this is probably because Tolkien was Catholic and Rich is not. It is not necessary to him to have all villains be motivated by evilly evil Evil, because to do so is to undermine the purpose driving his story, which is different than the purpose that Tolkien had.

Clashing with Tolkien is not a problem with Tolkien himself, rather the audience shift through D&D which resulted in "we kill the Uruk-Hai because they are evil" becoming "we kill the Uruk-Hai because they pinged evil on my Evildar". If you think this is a non-issue and not worth discussing, it's probably because you can't see beyond its implementation in game ethics and how it mirrors a real problem in real-world ethics.

So I guess what we can take away from this is that the OP did not like The Godfather.

* Well, not exactly excuses, but slightly weakens the resolve and faith in the good guys, who are Good, and should not have to face such moral quandaries when facing a genocidal baby-eater.

factotum

2012-02-14, 04:01 PM

If both of these quotes are accurate, then it would mean that Azure City has been sending its Paladins to go and seen a significant number Fall on a routine basis

Not necessarily. What maybe happened is that they started out with good intentions--sparing the women and children, and so on--but gradually kept pushing at what was acceptable until, in the raid on Redcloak's village, they crossed the line. This might also explain why, as far as we can tell, they stopped doing these raids; once they'd had a few of their number Fall they probably decided the old "wipe out the village pour encourager les autres" wasn't really appropriate!

TheyCallMeTomu

2012-02-14, 04:07 PM

I can just imagine that they started sparing the women and children, which inevitably lead to goblin assassins as they trained kids to be angry at paladins, and thus it started biting them in the ass, so they cynically decided that killing the kids when they're young is better than having them lead lives of bitterness where they just end up trying to assassinate paladins anyway.

Emulgator

2012-02-14, 04:42 PM

At first I'll admit that I haven't read the whole topic yet (I'm currently on the fourth page), so I apologize if I repeat some previoulsly adressed statement.

Anyway here's my opinion:
The OP's problem isn't so much about the "Evil or Not", issue, but rather about the direction of the story. We can safely assume that Giant at the beginning of the strip didn't have the whole OOTSverse as we know it currently in mind, and some characters didn't have their past planned, like Redcloak. He was just a hypercompetent sidekick at the beginning, someone who creates one half of the "straight guy, wacky guy" archetype.
But when the OOTS started to be more complex than "D&D gag-a-day", the Giant added more complexity to Redcloak. We saw why is he working with Xykon, what does he hope to achieve, et cetera. Yes, it wasn't there at the beginning. But there is nothing I'd remember, that contradicts the big picture. The first strips doesn't contradict the latest.

In short: the added depth to the Redcloak doesn't oppose who he become. Therefore his characterization is a good thing. Most of the readers prefer complex Redcloak, to a second-in-command-yup-that's-it redcloak. And it isn't a failure at Rich's part. Many creators does that thing. And everyone here prefers new strips to some polishing of the old, especially if there isn't any real benefit. After all we find everything later.

Thank you and good night. At least here, in my country.

FafnerMorell

2012-02-14, 04:42 PM

I got to ask Gary Gygax a question about alignment, back in the old days of 1st edition, when GenCon was in Kenosha, WI. "What happened if an assassin changed to a non-evil alignment?"

He said he had never considered that, thought a bit, and suggested that they might become a thief, since they could have non-evil alignments, and it was similar to a fallen paladin becoming a fighter. Thieves had relatively flexible alignments (and were popular 1st edition class since they could level with less XP than other classes, and allowed for more races to advance without limitations).

1st edition had a lot of quirks like that - but I think it was to capture the way the "classes" had been portrayed in literature and history (the more "story-telling history" rather than strictly facts). I asked the question because I wanted to write a module (which I had hoped to submit to a following Gencon) based loosely on "Dune", and wanted to have a Master Assassin like Thufir Hawat who was probably Lawful Neutral rather than evil. I wanted to make the rules fit the story, rather than the other way around. I think Gary tended to think along the same lines. The paladin code is a big part of the stories like Galahad. "Good" thieves like Robin Hood also needed to fit in the rules, and they did.

With later editions, I think there was a lot less focus on "borrowing" from the stories of yore (maybe the copyright problems with Deities & Demigods had an influence on that :smallmad:) and more creating new/original stories (the success of DragonLance probably had an even bigger influence on that :smallbiggrin: ).

It's hard to deny that 3.5 & 4th edition made huge improvements to the overall mechanics of D&D (with 1st edition, I never came across anyone who played with the rules exactly as written - every gaming group had a long list of house rules and "agreed understandings", and it would be a bit messy at Gencon because folks would often have different views, etc - but I still tend to play/DM with view of the 1st edition in my heart: The rules serve the story, and not the other way around - and if the DM feels the need to change them to better tell the story, go ahead (although if Gary G is handy, you could ask his opinion).

For hundreds of years, folks would look at the something like the story of Galahad and argue about what moral purity really meant. Now we get to create our own Galahads (or Redcloaks), and the stories we create give rise to the same classic arguments as the old ones did. I'd say that's working as intended.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 04:47 PM

The rules serve the story, and not the other way around - and if the DM feels the need to change them to better tell the story, go ahead (although if Gary G is handy, you could ask his opinion).

Unfortunately we can't:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0536.html

though one could dig around on the forums he used to frequent for answers, in case the question's already been asked.

FafnerMorell

2012-02-14, 04:51 PM

^ You just need to keep an ouija board (or a caster with "Speak With Dead") handy at your gaming table (j/k)

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 04:55 PM

I try not to get my system of rules and ethics from Dungeons and Dragons source books. Not that those are bad points.

"Just cause" is pretty much up in the air. If you think that killing a goblin child will save three human children down the line, you could argue that's just cause-but it would require that it be reasonably foreseeable that that's the case.

It's still an unnecessarily brutal method of accomplishing that goal, taken for the sake of convenience at best and prejudice at worst. Even granting the hypothetical that we can KNOW this goblin child will be responsible for the deaths of human children down the line as things are, killing the goblin child is STILL not the best or only way to divert him/her from that path.

I can just imagine that they started sparing the women and children, which inevitably lead to goblin assassins as they trained kids to be angry at paladins, and thus it started biting them in the ass, so they cynically decided that killing the kids when they're young is better than having them lead lives of bitterness where they just end up trying to assassinate paladins anyway.

Cynical or not, it's still wrong.

SavageWombat

2012-02-14, 05:10 PM

I don't know if this thread should be considered "over" at this point, but I'll throw two coppers in.

Remember that alignment in OotS is simultaneously a reflection of your actions and a declared statement of allegiance. The two can easily be in conflict.

Best example: the Paladin in Roy and Durkon's original adventuring party (OoPCs). He is LG. He states that he is LG. He has to be LG, because he's a paladin. He specifically mentions having to be LG to maintain his paladin powers. And he considers the fact that this keeps him from murdering Durkon a bloody nuisance.

Now, if he'd actually arranged the death of a fellow adventurer just because he didn't like him, he'd certainly have been kicked to the curb by the recorder angel, and I'd speculate that he's correct that he's lose his powers. But he is allowed to grotesquely violate the spirit of LG as long as he maintains the letter of LG. So arranging for someone else to do the betrayal is fine from his point of view.

Now, this is of course intended as humor. But let's put it in terms of Redcloak, as a goblin. Redcloak was a member of team Evil even as a child. He knew that was what he signed up for. But he hadn't done anything evil, and wasn't required to by the game system. It's like he checked "Evil" on his voter registration - it doesn't really mean much.

The interesting plot development, to me, is that Redcloak, who wasn't any more "Evil" at first than anyone who prefers Team Jacob, has been led in his pursuit of "the good for goblins" to commit the evil acts that aren't particularly in his nature anyway.

So Redcloak was born Evil, but also chose Evil. And those are two different things, in the OotS-verse.

---

And Rich, you are a god. My favorite part of reading your collections is the essays, like the above, where you explain your thinking on the story so far.

Taelas

2012-02-14, 05:14 PM

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. There's nothing wrong with assuming a stereotype is correct in the absence of other evidence, assuming that it is reasonably grounded in fact. I'd even say it is prudent to assume a member of a race with a "usually Evil" moniker is Evil, given a lack of evidence otherwise. Children are not fully grown members of their race, obviously, and so do not fall under the same stereotype, but it is still far more likely that a child of a "usually Evil" race is Evil than it is for humans.

That does not mean that people shouldn't be open-minded enough to examine whether or not their preconception is true.

So I disagree. If we're talking first graders who are goblins, I see no problem in assuming they are Evil, as long as you do not stick to that assumption given evidence to the contrary, and as long as you do not act solely on that assumption. Every being deserves the benefit of the doubt, but it would be stupid to assume that, simply because they are a child, they are not also Evil, when the vast majority of the rest of their culture is.

Rennard

2012-02-14, 05:15 PM

I'm sorry if these points were brought up before - I skimmed the post and did not find them, but...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the OP is correct about the irredeemability of the golblinoid races, that alignment works the way he describes it, and that the central point of D&D is to kill the irredeemably evil creatures because they pose a threat to others. The argument is couched in these assumptions, and trying to argue against the basic principles won't really solve anything.

Even with all these things accepted as true, the goblins will not see the world this way.

They will not be able to accept that due to their evil-ness, they are forever doomed to lose to humanoids of a diametrically opposed alignment because that is the way the world demands it.

Evil people (such as Hitler or Stalin) never see themselves as evil. They never accept the idea that they are the bad guys. Everyone is the hero in their own narrative, even if all empirical evidence points the other way.

So rather than simply accepting that they are evil, the goblinoids (like people in real life) construct a series of rationalizations - reasons why they evil things they do are justified in a greater sense. They may believe these things (Hitler really believed that a race war against Jews and Slavs was needed to preserve the German "race"), or they may simply construct them to avoid the disapprobation of others (as Stalin did with his show trials and public executions of "traitors"). But they will construct them, and they will be repeated ad nauseum in an attempt to rewrite the narrative in a way that best supports their actions.

If the actions are evil, you can bet these rationalizations will be even MORE rampant and convoluted, because the offenders KNOW what they are doing is wrong, but wish to do it anyway. The rationalization allows them a pretext to continue behaving badly and still think of themselves as good people.

The need to feel that you are a good person is very important to all people, and so we must extrapolate this need for any sentient D&D race.

So, even if goblins are irredeemably evil, they will not admit it, not even to themselves. They NEED to feel like the good guys, and so have constructed a series of rationalizations that cast them as helpless and put upon, even if - no, ESPECIALLY if - it is not true. This allows them to behave as they want without suffering the psychological trauma that comes with believing that you are a monster and the things that you do are so evil that even hope for redemption is impossible.

Understand that "irredeemably evil" is thrown around here with no real understanding of the magnitude of the term. To be that evil, so evil that any form of forgiveness is impossible, that no matter what you do you will forever be hated and spat upon by all decent people... that's a difficult idea to truly understand. And to be made irredeemable because you were BORN is harder still. I would understand the need to fight against that, even if all of reality were against me. I would have to. So would any sentient and sane being. Accepting that amount of hate directed at you because you had the unbelievable effrontery to be born would be impossible.

This is what we see in Redcloak. He will not - CANNOT - accept that the function of his race is to die on the bloody swords of others because the Gods have declared them "good" and he and his people "evil." Desperate for a way out of this Deity-imposed exile, he has concocted a plot that will finally place his race where he feels they belong. It is irrelevant whether his interpretation of events is true or not. He will use them regardless BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 05:18 PM

Every being deserves the benefit of the doubt, but it would be stupid to assume that, simply because they are a child, they are not also Evil, when the vast majority of the rest of their culture is.

The point being made is that:

It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

so- even if a goblin child is "more likely to be Evil" than a human child, it is still:

ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services.

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 05:22 PM

SNIPPED

Ok, interesting look at Tolkien. Not my own one, as I think the badness in Tolkien is far deeper and more nuanced than you give it credit for. For instance Boromir, Feanor and co are wonderful examples. In fact the idea of Evil being generated from good motives gone bad (often by going to an extreme, or being untempered by compassion or other virtues) is how most villains arise in his work.

To use Boromir as an example, he comes close to becoming a villain at times in his treatment of Frodo. Not full out I admit (and he is redeemed with ease) but he does bad things. All from the twin motives of familial responsibility, and the need to save his people. His downfall was a lack of humility and a need to be the one to do the saving. Good motives, but without the restraint of another virtue it turned to bad.

And Gandalf denies himself the ring because "he would use it from a desire to do good, and through me a great evil would arise". or some such.

Pride in oneself is an excellent source of Evil. As is simple selfishness. Or an "ends justify the means" attitude. In short he shows many causes for individual evils arising, with varying motives of differing cause. Allthough he does show how evil can obscure such motives and that, whatever the drive, Evil is Evil. And even the most noble can be corrupted.

A very deep view, which the Silmarillion goes even further into.

Not a simple as you seem to hint at, intentionally or not.

(note, I am a bit of a Tolkien Fanboy)

ThePhantasm

2012-02-14, 05:26 PM

Even if we go back to Tolkien and say that he created Orcs and Uruk-Hai as unambiguously evil and deserving of slaughter, it was not the label itself of evil (which the OP rightly assumes) that made them deserving of slaughter: it was in fact that they were a tireless evil, one that at all hours of the day and night demonstrated just how deserving it was of having its life shortened.

Tolkien's orcs and uruks come from corrupted / fallen elves and men. They aren't so much a separate race as a corruption of a pre-existing good race. They aren't evil because they are orcs, rather, they are orcs because they are evil / corrupted by dark magic. This was because Tolkien was convinced that evil can only mock, mar, and twist reality, not create.

veti

2012-02-14, 05:28 PM

Either he didn't fall (in which case Redcloak has a case that the gods are capricious and unjust) or he DID and it just wasn't on-screen.

We KNOW that the gods are capricious and unjust, we see it in just about every frame they appear in. From Banjo upwards, they're about as trustworthy as a box of oven-roasted hand grenades.

Which goes to the issue of gods as arbiters of what's "good" and "evil". It's a mechanic that only makes sense if one of two things is true:

Option one: your definitions of "good" and "evil" are acknowledged to be subjective. In this case there's no problem with having them enforced by a capricious authority. 2nd Edition D&D worked this way, but it turned out to be massively unpopular. (No-one likes to be told that their morality is "subjective", everyone likes to believe that their idea of good is "really" Good and anyone who disagrees is either misinformed, misguided or just plain Wicked.)

Option two: there's some kind of "overgod" power that provides a framework that implicitly compels all the lesser gods to follow a common set of rules. 3rd Edition D&D mostly goes this way, but without admitting what it's doing or why. In OOTS, it's possible that this function is provided by the Snarl - if the gods failed to act consistently with the so-called "objective" definitions of alignment, the world would weaken and the Snarl would eat them all - but as far as I can recall, no-one has said that.

The third branch this argument may take is the idea that the goblins MAY be wholly evil (although, again, this in itself punctures the balloon of RC's origin story), but are ALSO victims of the gods by that very tokien. Leading us to the weird question of whether a creature can be the victim of its own creation and whether, if the gods are the root cause of evil, then can evil beings really be considered responsible for their own actions (anyone else a "Jesus Christ Superstar" fan? Anyone, anyone at all? Hello?)? At which point it becomes one of those unanswerable cosmic questions about free will. Which I would posit is also a bad basis for in-story conflict, at least in this case. Possibly the worst of all, actually.

I think another driver we're not taking into account is necessity.

D&D's roots go back to "wargaming". In a wargame, you don't question the enemy's motivations: they've got to die, or be defeated, because they're the enemy. It really is that simple. And if you don't do it to them, they'll certainly do it to you.

That's how "alignment" was originally inserted into the game - as, basically, a substitute for different-coloured uniforms.

There are a lot of details that were written into the game back then, which were (I believe) basically trying to justify the eternal enmity between "PC races" and "monster races". Some monster races (e.g. illithids) literally subsist on a diet of people; so long as there is any organisation among humans, it must be implacably opposed to them for its own defence.

But with others, the reason is more subtle. Goblins and orcs, in particular, are described as breeding fast. That makes them "dangerous" if not contained: if they have room to breed, the next generation will be exponentially stronger than the previous one.

Once you've processed that bit of information, the question becomes: how can we stop these things from being a threat to our own children? If the orcs are happy to live in a peaceful pluralistic society alongside humans, that would be one answer (although you might also legitimately worry about the long-term stability of such an arrangement).

But so long as the orcs define themselves as a separate tribe with its own exclusive land, its own government and its own needs, you absolutely need to make sure they're contained, and be ready to use force to keep them that way. Anything less would be a betrayal of your own children. And in that case it doesn't matter what alignment the orcs are: they are the enemy, and that's all you need to know about them.

RickGriffin

2012-02-14, 05:30 PM

Ok, interesting look at Tolkien. Not my own one, as I think the badness in Tolkien is far deeper and more nuanced than you give it credit for. For instance Boromir, Feanor and co are wonderful examples. In fact the idea of Evil being generated from good motives gone bad (often by going to an extreme, or being untempered by compassion or other virtues) is how most villains arise in his work.

You missed my part near the conclusion where I say that Tolkien does in fact explore the grays of morality, but such aspects are explored in the human and near-human characters only, not in the corrupted races, because the corrupted races do not represent a nuanced human, only evil and corruption itself.

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 05:38 PM

I would still say Tolkien explores it with Evil races/characters a bit once we reach the silmarillion and beyond. not so much in LoTR I agree, which focuses mostly on out heroes. But Gollum is an evil race in a sense. Or at least sufficiently twisted so as to count. Then again he does have every evil thing start out as a good race, so you may have something to go on there. Objection partly withdrawn.

But still, even orcs are a corruption and degredation of Elves, and so started as a good race. And thus represent how evil arises in all beings.

veti

2012-02-14, 05:39 PM

To use Boromir as an example, he comes close to becoming a villain at times in his treatment of Frodo. Not full out I admit (and he is redeemed with ease) but he does bad things. All from the twin motives of familial responsibility, and the need to save his people. His downfall was a lack of humility and a need to be the one to do the saving. Good motives, but without the restraint of another virtue it turned to bad.

I think Boromir is an excellent example - possibly the best I've seen in literature - of a paladin falling. Like any good paladin, his defining character trait is "loyalty", and it's his loyalty to his people that makes him betray his other ideals.

Morty

2012-02-14, 05:43 PM

The thing about orcs, trolls et cetera in Tolkien's works is that he himself wasn't very satisfied with the idea of an inherently evil race, or so I've heard.

Omergideon

2012-02-14, 05:48 PM

The thing about orcs, trolls et cetera in Tolkien's works is that he himself wasn't very satisfied with the idea of an inherently evil race, or so I've heard.

He was vehemently opposed to the idea, and speaks at length about it in his letters. Implying it ever was his greatest regret in LoTR. From what I read anyways.

He concluded such an idea was the greatest moral injustice Gods could create and so decided it was merely culture etc that affected orcs, and that they could be redeemed if raised away from that. Evil "in the blood" was antithetical to everything he thought of.

Fish

2012-02-14, 05:49 PM

Boromir is an example of two of Tolkien's favorite storytelling tools: narrative threading, and evil containing the seeds of its own destruction.

The temptation of Boromir comes from the Ring, which Sauron himself created. Without that Temptation, the Fellowship would have gone on to Minas Tirith and failed. Instead, it fractured at Amon Sul, and Frodo ran off alone, which led him to Gollum. Thus Sauron's evil impulse turned against himself. Sam himself mentions narrative threading when he observes that he and Frodo are still in the tale of Beren One-Hand, because it was because A that B, because B then C, which led to Bilbo, which led to Gollum ... and so on. Everything is a consequence of what came before.

There is a great deal of that in OOTS as well. There isn't a lot of random coincidence going on.

RickGriffin

2012-02-14, 05:51 PM

But still, even orcs are a corruption and degredation of Elves, and so started as a good race. And thus represent how evil arises in all beings.

Well sure, the origins of evil are also explored in the stories and evil is not necessarily monolithic; in fact I am pretty sure the portrayal of evil as multi-faceted in Tolkien is why it continues to be more thematically diverse than most copycat fiction that relegate evil to only The Thing The Badguy Does And The Hero Ought Not To Do.

It's the difference between "they do evil because they're the villain" and "they're the villain because they do evil". The former is an arbitrary designation used for pushing the reader's easy-to-reach buttons, the latter actually ties it into the foundation of the story's theme.

TheyCallMeTomu

2012-02-14, 06:05 PM

That being said, if the goblins are actually inherently evil-which we really don't have any reason to believe, but even if they were-that would be a pretty damned good reason for why Redcloak's motivations are 100% correct.

Personally, I'm rooting for him, though I think having Xykon as his buddy is a mistake.

Too bad V isn't agreeable.

Kish

2012-02-14, 07:04 PM

The important thing is that Redcloak regards it as an injustice.
The paladins surely did not.
The paladins are more likely to be right, but that is not important to the story.
No, the important thing is that the author, Rich Burlew--he's been posting in this thread--called it an injustice. Therefore, it was an injustice, even if you don't consider "Redcloak's five-year-old sister deserved killing" laughably absurd. If the paladins believe otherwise than their chance of being anything but wrong are 0%.

Valyrian

2012-02-14, 07:05 PM

Wow, that's a long OP and a lot of pages with lengthy posts that all rest on the assumption that gaming system and setting are the same thing.

In the setting of OotS, Goblins are not inherently evil. I don't see a reasonable argument on how this makes it incompatible with D&D as a whole. So you really can't say that RC's characterization is "failed", which, if I may add, is quite an arrogant way to put it.

Of course you're free not to like it. But personally I don't think the comic is trying to have two incompatible things at once. It just manages to have them in a way you didn't expect or don't like.

Personally, I don't think the morality of Redcloak's actions depends on whether goblins can be good or not. I don't think he's a well-intentioned extremist, but a deluded villain who doesn't grasp the sunk cost fallacy. But that is my take on him, there are others who root for RC and his goblinoid cause, which is also fine. This complexity could indeed only be achieved by making goblinoids not "always chaotic evil", but normal people who largely just want to live their lives. It's designed so that people can have different opinions on the story's characters, which imo is what's really great about OotS. I really don't see how this aspect of the comic is inherently incompatible with others.

veti

2012-02-14, 07:49 PM

No, the important thing is that the author, Rich Burlew--he's been posting in this thread--called it an injustice. Therefore, it was an injustice, even if you don't consider "Redcloak's five-year-old sister deserved killing" laughably absurd. If the paladins believe otherwise than their chance of being anything but wrong are 0%.

Waitaminute... you're saying the idea of the author being mistaken is not just a very hard thing to argue or prove, but a logical impossibility?

I think the form of argument "Rich says X, X implies Y, therefore Y, period" is not necessarily valid. And even in cases where it is, it doesn't seem to get us very far. Seriously: what difference does it make, from our point of view, whether that death was "really an injustice" or not?

What matters is what Redcloak thinks of it, what the paladins thought of it, what the Twelve Gods thought of it. Whether it "really was" so or not, even if we can attach some meaning to the question, is completely beside the point.

Valyrian

2012-02-14, 07:53 PM

Kish

2012-02-14, 07:58 PM

Whether it "really was" so or not, even if we can attach some meaning to the question, is completely beside the point.
I have absolutely no clue what you consider the point to be. But I'm pretty sure your entire attitude toward writing in general is utterly incompatible with mine, so I don't expect ever to understand.

Ninja Dragon

2012-02-14, 09:00 PM

Sorry, I missed this in my earlier post:

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

This.

I was thinking about writing this post while I was reading the thread, but the Giant did it for me.

It doesn't matter whether the story has dragons, or gods, or aliens or wathever. It can have parallels to real life, and in fact it does. It has many parallels to real life, and they are all interesting. The OP is trying to divide storytelling in 2 types: completely realistic and completely unrealistic, but this is not a rule in any way. In fact, we have MANY stories that use unrealistic elements to analyse aspects of real life.

Stories like this make people think. They make people look at real life, and think about what they doing in it. This is awesome, and is always welcome. It makes us better humans, and makes stories better than just "hero kills dragon for treasure". They makes us think about politics, about religion, and about the stupid moralization that is everywhere in real life. This artificial moralization that labels people, countries, religions, ideologies, and races as good and evil, an that make our society worse as a whole. The OOTS gods, and paladins, represent this, and they are here to show how this is wrong.

Also, OOTS does an even better job at this: instead of going about the standard "vilain with good reasons" cliché, it subverts it, and shows that, in the end, it's not our reasons that makes us good or evil, it's our actions. It desconstructs the "evil" trope, and reconstructs it. I'm glad I read SoD. I've always thought this was the best webcomic in the web, but after I read it I was 100% sure.

Bravo, Giant. Your storytelling is outstanding.

Math_Mage

2012-02-14, 09:13 PM

I have absolutely no clue what you consider the point to be. But I'm pretty sure your entire attitude toward writing in general is utterly incompatible with mine, so I don't expect ever to understand.

I think veti's point is that it's more important that anyone with an ounce of sense can see that killing Redcloak's six-year-old sister is an injustice than that Rich Burlew in particular has decreed it to be so. Word of God is supposed to settle ambiguous issues, but this clearly is not one of them. And for a work of literature to have meaning beyond, other than, or even contrary to authorial intent is not unheard of; just look at Kerouac's On The Road.

Darilian

2012-02-14, 10:18 PM

The fundemental problem, inherent in this thread- and common whenever people try to talk about moral philosophy- is that people are confusing the terms 'morality' with 'ethics'.

Without going into 'real world' territory-

One can have a system of 'objective' morality, where 'Good' is good and 'Evil' is EVEEEEL, but yet have those people act in a manner that is Unethical. Personally, I'm a fan of the concept of the Categorical Imperative- or act in such a way that your actions would be taken to be a universal moral law.

What is key- and what I think that Rich Burlew is trying to demonstrate- is that in Dungeons and Dragons (and throughout the fantasy trope as a whole), it is taken for granted that the 'Good' guys are inherently, no matter how much they make behave like jerks, always assumed to also be Ethical. However, they aren't.

Take Miko, for instance- she might be on the side of the 12 Gods when she treats the Order of the Stick extremely shabbily (ie, she believes her actions to be 'objectively' Good), but the WAY she tries to achieve those goals is extremely unethical. She leaps to conclusions, she never shows doubt, she never acts towards others the way she expected others to treat her. Thus, while she might be on the side of 'Good', she is acting unethically.

Morals are touchstones for what we perceive as good or evil, but ethics is the process whereby we try and negotiate philosophical differences into actual practice. And the fact that most people don't get this distinction, I've found, is the root of most of the 'Is such a such a character in Order of the Stick' 'evil' or not?

As an aside, I want to applaud Mr. Burlew's attempt to 'deconstruct' the implicit conflation of racism and 'morality' that has been a hallmark not only of Dungeons and Dragons, but indeed, the entire fantasy trope ever since Tolkein.

Kudos to you, sir.

Darilian

TheyCallMeTomu

2012-02-14, 10:42 PM

Honestly, Dungeons and Dragons should have just taken a Greek Mythology lesson to begin with and assume the heroes are heroes in the sense that they do badass things, not that they're actually good people. I mean, as a DM, I can NEVER get a party to ACTUALLY be heroic.

Fish

2012-02-14, 10:50 PM

The OP is trying to divide storytelling in 2 types: completely realistic and completely unrealistic, but this is not a rule in any way. In fact, we have MANY stories that use unrealistic elements to analyse aspects of real life.
And the only time I can recall anybody telling a story solely based on black-and-white game mechanics, it was Arnold Rimmer recounting an epic Risk battle. :)

Soylent Dave

2012-02-14, 11:54 PM

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

I think you might be confusing 'cruel' with evil there. Children are frequently cruel - you don't get to be an apex predator without producing some pretty ruthless offspring...

But genuinely evil children are pretty astronomically rare. You have to work at being evil, I reckon - it's not something people are it's something they become. Children usually haven't had the opportunity.

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences.

Are you perhaps familiar with the word 'allegory'?

Stereotypes exist for a reason. There's nothing wrong with assuming a stereotype is correct in the absence of other evidence, assuming that it is reasonably grounded in fact.

You've had to use 'assuming' twice in that sentence - that's everything which is wrong with stereotypes right there.

Stereotyping exists for the reason that people are lazy; assuming that a stereotype is true without examining it is called 'prejudice'.

Acting on prejudice is called 'racism'.

That's what The Giant was getting at with this bit here:

It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil.

Anarion

2012-02-15, 12:20 AM

One thing that I find troubling is not the issue of racism directly (although it relies on two groups seeing each other as distinct), but rather that of limited resources and anticipated populations over successive generations.

What do I mean by that? Let's take a hypothetical population of orcs and suggest that their average generation is about 15 years long (I don't care if this is right, it's just for the hypothetical). Let's also take a population of elves and take their average generation as 150 years long. Finally, for this problem, assume that each generation leads to a 10% increase in population.

If you start out with 1000 orcs and 1000 elves who live in peace with each other and never fight, then 150 years later there are 1100 elves, but ~2593 orcs. Each generation this disparity grows progressively larger, so that at some point the elves would be incapable of fighting against the orcs and the moment that a single evil orcish leader managed to unite his people, he could wipe out the population of elves.

Given that setup (which made a number of assumptions that probably don't apply to this comic), I have trouble explaining why it's wrong for the initial 1000 elves to kill the 1000 orcs, even though I still feel in my gut that it is wrong.