... What's Redcloaks REAL alignment...

[The Vagabond]

I've been thinking, and, to be honest:
Readcloaks been playing Xykon since the beginning, to get him to do what he wants... And what he wants is for Goblins to have a fair place in society, and it seems reasonable enough. He'll do whatever is needed to get to that goal, which is Chaotic, but his goal is Good, even though he uses Evil means...

This is just my say, but I personally think he's Chaotic Good, in actuallity, and is just a chesmaster who'll ensure that the Goblins can be more than pointless mooks, and will do whatever it'll take to get there... Though it might be a misunderstanding on my part of the morality system of D&D.

[XxXU2XxX]

I've been thinking, and, to be honest:
Readcloaks been playing Xykon since the beginning, to get him to do what he wants... And what he wants is for Goblins to have a fair place in society, and it seems reasonable enough. He'll do whatever is needed to get to that goal, which is Chaotic, but his goal is Good, even though he uses Evil means...

This is just my say, but I personally think he's Chaotic Good, in actuallity, and is just a chesmaster who'll ensure that the Goblins can be more than pointless mooks, and will do whatever it'll take to get there... Though it might be a misunderstanding on my part of the morality system of D&D.

He's Lawful Evil. There's really nothing to debate here. Rich even confirmed it. Which is weird, because it seemed pretty obvious from the beginning.

[Peelee]

Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12587443&postcount=4).

EDIT: I'm actually going to quote that link, because I think it is very, very relevant to this thread, and needs to be read regardless whether you click the link or not.


Threads like this are what we call "morally justified" threads around here, as in "Were Redcloak's actions morally justified?" We tend to lock them before they spiral into an angry debate about personal relative ethics.
*snip*
By the D&D rules, Redcloak is Evil. Anything else is a personal moral judgment best discussed among your friends or family members.

[137beth]

He's Lawful Evil. There's really nothing to debate here. Rich even confirmed it. Which is weird, because it seemed pretty obvious from the beginning.

Doesn't seem nearly as weird as the Giant having to confirm that Belkar was chaotic evil. That seemed a lot more obvious than the (already obvious) fact that RC is lawful evil.

If you want some evidence, see RC's use of torture, and his approval of slavery. That is not Good in any way, shape, or form.

EDIT: quasi-ninja'd.

[Kish]

"The ends justifies the means" is not Chaotic Good. It's Lawful Evil. Chaotic Good people understand better than anyone that the "big picture" is made up of little pictures.

[XxXU2XxX]

Really, arguing this to any degree is pointless. Redcloak is Lawful Evil, he just is. Debating it further would be like arguing that a water molecule is made up of anything other than 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.

[TopCheese]

Really, arguing this to any degree is pointless. Redcloak is Lawful Evil, he just is. Debating it further would be like arguing that a water molecule is made up of anything other than 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.

Woah woah woah!

What have you been smoking? Everyone knows that hydrogen is flamable and last I checked water is not!

*FACE*

.....

sorry I'm all out of blue

[Snails]

If anything a CG person is the person most likely to say "Stop the train! Hurting this one person would be wrong." Even if stopping the train risks the fate of the nation.

Redcloak is definitely an "ends justifies the means" kind of person, much like Tarquin and Malack.

It seems that some people confuse "Chaotic" with "unreliable". A Chaotic Good person is not less Good than a Lawful Good person. They simply view, as Kish suggests, the small pictures to be important, while the LG might bend a little on the small picture to achieve a larger picture.

[Shale]

Apricot. His true alignment is Lawful Apricot.

[Mike Havran]

"The ends justifies the means" is not Chaotic Good. It's Lawful Evil. Chaotic Good people understand better than anyone that the "big picture" is made up of little pictures.

Well, Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) was all about the ends justifying the means and he is not exactly known as Lawful Evil.

I think Redcloak is firmly Lawful Evil but that means little since he'll go to the afterlife of the Dark One anyway.

[hamishspence]

I could see the possibility of CE "ends justify means" people as well as LE ones existing though. The CE one would have "Chaotic goals" (freedom? Disorder?) and be prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve them, whatever innocents are hurt.

V in V for Vendetta (comic version, possibly even movie version, given that he's willing to torture his own ally to turn her into the kind of person he needs) maybe?


Well, Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) was all about the ends justifying the means and he is not exactly known as Lawful Evil.


In his case it was "good ends justify chaotic means" more than "good ends justify evil means".

[Raimun]

Besides, Red Cloak is a cleric of an Evil deity, Dark One. So, RC can't be Good. He could be Neutral but I think it's pretty clear he's Evil. Slavery and torture are good points but I would like to add one more point, from the Start of Darkness:

Redcloak killed his own brother to stop him from killing destroying Xykon.

[jidasfire]

Redcloak is methodical to the point of obsessiveness (second perhaps only to Nale), likes rigid hierarchy, runs his tyrannical government as a cult of personality leader, has a code of personal ethics to which he ascribes, and is loyal to his god above all concerns, even family. He is therefore undeniably lawful.

Redcloak uses his own personal tragedies to justify oppression, slavery, conquest, and torture against people who look like the people who oppressed his own people. He deals with his enemies by having demons hang their corpses, even non-combatants, from walls. He created the lich who is now the greatest threat to the world, and his ultimate goal has a not-insignificant chance of destroying all creation and every soul therein. He is undeniably evil.

Just because he hates Xykon and uses him doesn't mean he's good. What he's using Xykon for is what matters, and that is plenty villainous.

[Kish]

Well, Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) was all about the ends justifying the means and he is not exactly known as Lawful Evil.
I have never understood why Shojo is ostensibly Chaotic Good. But I would hope that, in this thread, even the OP recognizes that Rich considers Redcloak Lawful Evil--meaning that "Rich could declare Redcloak a different alignment" won't get you anywhere, since he seems highly unlikely to do so.

[Rig]

Canon wise, let's just go with evil as opposed to EVIL.

[hamishspence]

I have never understood why Shojo is ostensibly Chaotic Good.

Maybe he has a huge amount of "respect for life" that underlies his Chaotic decisions?

[King of Nowhere]

Well, Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) was all about the ends justifying the means and he is not exactly known as Lawful Evil.

I think Redcloak is firmly Lawful Evil but that means little since he'll go to the afterlife of the Dark One anyway.

When it comes to a ruler bending the rules to get a bigger goal, the distinction between LE and CG can be very narrow.

As for redcloak, he has been debater for a long, long time after start of darkness was published. There was no greater consensus, with most people falling on one of two positions

1) redcloak is not particularly evil, he's a well-intentioned extremist, he probably would not have become evil had paladins not destroied his village, and could reeem himself eventually. But he IS evil until he take steps to fix it.

2) redcloak is a horrible monster for what he did in the end of SoD.

Personally I favor the first position; without spoilering, I'll say that I take what he did in the end of SoD as an argument that he is indeed not a bad person, because it shows that he will not play favourites and is willing to take himself the sacrifices he asks other goblins. If he hadn't acted that way, then he would have been a hypocrite who sent other poeple to die in his place while he stood comfortably aside.

Anyway, his alignment is not in question.

[The Vagabond]

I have never understood why Shojo is ostensibly Chaotic Good. But I would hope that, in this thread, even the OP recognizes that Rich considers Redcloak Lawful Evil--meaning that "Rich could declare Redcloak a different alignment" won't get you anywhere, since he seems highly unlikely to do so.

Yeah, you have a point there, and yes, I realize it. I just thought it was a decent thing to debate about, but apperantly it's not that great, but It's interesting to see the defenses and offenses of both parties. Though I suppose it's more about my opinion than the actual cannon. And, as King of Nowere said:

1) redcloak is not particularly evil, he's a well-intentioned extremist, he probably would not have become evil had paladins not destroyed his village, and could reeem himself eventually. But he IS evil until he take steps to fix it.
Personally I favor the first position; without spoilering, I'll say that I take what he did in the end of SoD as an argument that he is indeed not a bad person, because it shows that he will not play favourites and is willing to take himself the sacrifices he asks other goblins. If he hadn't acted that way, then he would have been a hypocrite who sent other poeple to die in his place while he stood comfortably aside.Is probobly where I stand, as almost everyone has a decent point, but having read ABOUT what happened, and not read the book (I have no money) I have to agree with his statement.

[Snails]

When it comes to a ruler bending the rules to get a bigger goal, the distinction between LE and CG can be very narrow.

I have know idea why you would believe that.

[Snails]

Maybe he has a huge amount of "respect for life" that underlies his Chaotic decisions?

As far as we can tell, Shojo is attempting to achieve the ultimate goals laid out by Soon. His personal view of the details happens to be very different.

[Shale]

I have know idea why you would believe that.

For some reason, an organized campaign of deception designed to subvert the rules you outwardly profess to follow is Chaotic when you're Good (Shojo) but Lawful when you're Evil (Tarquin).

[King of Nowhere]

I have know idea why you would believe that.

two examples from azure city:
shojo adhered to the letter of the law (or broke it when he could get away with it) in order to twist its intent, with the goal of wrestling power to himself. He used that poweer to do what he felt was needed for the city, but despite some questionable actions, he never did anything really bad and generally used his power well - CG

Kubota adhered to the letter of the law (or broke it when he could get away with it) in order to twist its intent, with the goal of wrestling power to himself, just like shojo. he was seeking the power for his ambition, and didn't care how many collateral damage he would have to deal - LE

Redcloak is also good intentioned, and using evil means to pursue good goals. Also shojo did some small evil to further good causes, but the kind of evil redcloak does is on a totally different scale. shojo kidnapped the order to protect the world from the snarl. redcloak conquered and enslaved a city. Plus, redcloak started with a good goal, but he put plenty of anger in it, and now he porbably won't just stop at race equality if he can push farther.
So redcloak is still LE.
So there are strong similarities, but there are also good reasons why shojo is CG and the others are LE

[Snails]

For some reason, an organized campaign of deception designed to subvert the rules you outwardly profess to follow is Chaotic when you're Good (Shojo) but Lawful when you're Evil (Tarquin).

At face value, everything you are saying here looks outright wrong.

Shojo inherited a set of rules. Broadly speaking, we have no evidence he intends to "subvert" that system. Narrowly speaking, he is willing to employ outrageous deception to work around rules in specific cases, because in his personal opinion such is necessary for the Good.

Tarquin created a set of rules. He wields those rules like a weapon. Where is the subversion? Tarquin never actually claims his rules are just or right, only that they are effective. He asserts that conquest will save the continent from unnecessary warfare, but that sounds like a mere implied promise about the future and we know that Tarquin has "clever" ways of only fulfilling explicit promises.

[hamishspence]

"Shojo subverts the system" I think came from this comment by The Giant:


Tarquin built a system and uses it. Shojo inherited a system and subverts it.

However, I think that this:


Narrowly speaking, he is willing to employ outrageous deception to work around rules in specific cases, because in his personal opinion such is necessary for the Good.

is what was meant by "subverting it"- small subversions for Good reasons.

[Snails]

Then people are drawing an equivalence that is bat guano crazy.

Kubota likes the Lawfulness of the system, he just thinks murder is okay.

Shojo dislikes the system, but often works within in. He just thinks outrageous deception and dishonorable tactics are useful things where the system proves too rigid, but he is always doing this in pursuit of similarly Good ends for which the system was designed.

What is confusing people is they are drawing an equivalence between every kind of "not Lawful Good". Of course that leads to gibberish.

Remember that the D&D alignment system has two axes.

If you are Good and "not Lawful Good", then you are NG or CG.

If you are Evil and "not Lawful Good", then you are LE or NE or CE.

In some silly sense, yes, NG and CG and LE and NE and CE persons might "subvert" an LG system. But this does not tell us anything profound or useful.

[Thrax]

When someone repeatedly kills innocent people without showing any remorse, I think it's pretty obvious he counts as evil (at least under D&D system). Goal becomes secondary when he does so much harm. I wasn't sure about his law vs chaos position, but since he wants an orderly civilisation for goblins to live in, I guess that counts as lawful.

[SowZ]

I think a very good argument can be made that Redcloak was non-evil, (probably not Good, though,) prior to the end of SoD. He kind of hit the event horizon "no turning back no" point once he attacked One-Eye, though, and ever since has been Evil. Just look at how frivolously he sacrificed Hobgoblins in the early days from racism. Sure, he repented of that. But not because he realized genocide was wrong. Think of how uttelry desensitized he had to have been by that point.

Redcloak doesn't get pleasure out of evil but he has no compunctions against committing evil actions to further his goals. And wouldn't even deny that last sentence, either. Redcloak may be deluded, but he isn't enough of a hypocrite to deny that many of his deeds are, at least short term, wrong.

[Procyonpi]

...I'm praying this is a troll thread.

[Scow2]

Redcloak is NOT pursuing "Good" ends, due to a built-in "flaw" in OotS' cosmology - Goblins in OotS's world are nothing more than chunks of XP for "good" people to kill. Raising Goblins above "Chunks of XP" and seeking equality for them won't be a "Good" act until The Dark One's plan is re-invented.

And if, with the exception of Wrong-Eye and others similar to him (Who turned from Evil to Good (or at least Neutral) over the course of SoD in counter-reaction to Redcloak jumping off the deep end), Goblin society works as it does in the Monster Manual, extending 'protection' to such a race of larcenous, murderous ... well, goblins would be an "Evil" act, as they are a blight on the world - not ONLY by their race, but by how their race and society has evolved to deal with their universal marginalization. A person who does evil because evil was done to them is still evil.

Is "The Dark One" actually an Evil god?

[hamishspence]

Redcloak is NOT pursuing "Good" ends, due to a built-in "flaw" in OotS' cosmology - Goblins in OotS's world are nothing more than chunks of XP for "good" people to kill.

Said Redcloak to Xykon. It's possible he's misinformed and there's more to it than that.

[Procyonpi]

Redcloak is NOT pursuing "Good" ends, due to a built-in "flaw" in OotS' cosmology - Goblins in OotS's world are nothing more than chunks of XP for "good" people to kill. Raising Goblins above "Chunks of XP" and seeking equality for them won't be a "Good" act until The Dark One's plan is re-invented.


Not that this whole "Redcloak is any alignment but Lawful Evil" argument isn't completely ridiculous, but you just made the worst possible argument against it. It's Redcloak's means that make him evil, not seeking equality for sentient beings.

[Finwe]

I've been thinking, and, to be honest:
Readcloaks been playing Xykon since the beginning, to get him to do what he wants... And what he wants is for Goblins to have a fair place in society, and it seems reasonable enough. He'll do whatever is needed to get to that goal, which is Chaotic, but his goal is Good, even though he uses Evil means...

This is just my say, but I personally think he's Chaotic Good, in actuallity, and is just a chesmaster who'll ensure that the Goblins can be more than pointless mooks, and will do whatever it'll take to get there... Though it might be a misunderstanding on my part of the morality system of D&D.

The fact that some of Redcloak's objectives are sympathetic is not enough to overshadow the fact that his actions are morally repugnant. He is Evil.

[snikrept]

Pretty sure Redcloak's alignment is Regretful Stubborn

[Rig]

Not that this whole "Redcloak is any alignment but Lawful Evil" argument isn't completely ridiculous, but you just made the worst possible argument against it. It's Redcloak's means that make him evil, not seeking equality for sentient beings.

Oh, you misunderstand him. He's not saying that in actual ethics that's how it works, he's saying in their world that's how the alignment system works. Azure city paladins had a fondness for smite evil, and i understand they killed children. Considering that they must have been rigorously vetted with detect evil, not considering that they presumably stayed paladins while doing so unlike Miko, could very well prove this point. Dropping that curve-ball in would be interesting.

[Kish]

not considering that they presumably stayed paladins while doing so,
That is, indeed, something you should not consider. I mean, since we have Word of the Author that this is not a presumption we should make.

[Scow2]

Not that this whole "Redcloak is any alignment but Lawful Evil" argument isn't completely ridiculous, but you just made the worst possible argument against it. It's Redcloak's means that make him evil, not seeking equality for sentient beings.
The evilness of his means should be self-evident. What I'm arguing here is that not even the ends that allegedly 'justify' the evil means are Good. And while The Dark One might be "Equality for all sapient creatures", Redcloak's goals seem to exaggerate the changes needed, turning the Oppressed into the Oppressors.

[blazingshadow]

i am in the thinking that he is delusional evil

[Snails]

Kudos to SowZ -- I think your arguments are very well worded.

Redcloak is only rarely a "cackling cuz it is fun to hurt people" kind of villain. One can make an argument that his main goal is reasonable, but he has pushed all his chips into the pot (his words) and he is not going to hesitate to commit horrific evil if it helps his cause.

I would note that he has indulged in some amount of flagrant evil. If one wants to argue that Redcloak was once Neutral, one must admit that the means he employs has probably affected his moral judgement.

[The Giant]

"Redcloak's actions are morally justified because he wants blah blah blah."

Threads that attempt to argue that a given character is morally justified in taking actions by ends-justify-the-means or similar rationalization are locked around here because they rely on personal philosophy and ethics, which inevitably leads to flames or religious references.

Thread locked.