What makes the goblins evil?

[Belksworth]

After reading the speech about Gobbotopia, I realized something.

I'm rooting for the goblins.

I don't want Xykon to kill our heroes or the snarl to be unleashed, but is what Redcloak doing so wrong? It seems to me that "good" and "evil" are assigned to the humans and goblins repectfully when in reality they are both just seperate factions who happen to kill each other. A lot.

But most of the time, it's the humans adventuring that kills off goblins. Even if goblins attack humans, it's just payback.
Can somebody point out for me something that makes the goblins definitely more evil than our "heroes"? Because right now I want the citizens of Gobbotopia to live long and prosper.
:redcloak:

[Keltest]

Its the part where they brutally murder anyone who gets in their way. That they are sympathetic villains does not change the fact that they are still villains and regularly use villainous tactics and strategies.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Slavery for one thing, but "good and evil are matters of perspective" is a theme of this story.

[Draconi Redfir]

i'm with you personally. i think the only reason they're "evil" in this setting is because they were made to be evil. they were designed to be stepping stones for the god's clerics and other adventurers so they can get to the really interesting monsters.

On a more cultural note, i think they're not so much "grr arrg kill all life"-type evil, just more "I'm not on the same side as typical good society" evil. Like, they don't see a problem with keeping slaves, or maybe they practice ritual canibalism for burial or sacrifice. They just don't agree that what "good" people see as "Evil" is "Evil" or whatever.

[Jasdoif]

I don't want Xykon to kill our heroes or the snarl to be unleashed, but is what Redcloak doing so wrong?Yes.
Redcloak says the Snarl being released, and the world being destroyed, is an acceptable (though not ideal) outcome. Because, he says, the Dark One will be involved in the creation of the next world from the beginning, to ensure goblinoids have the same opportunities as the other races. And he admits that it's a likely result if he screws the Plan.

As in, Redcloak would be okay with it if he brought about the death of every single goblin that's currently alive.
And Xykon doesn't even pretend to have the goblins' interests in mind, the only reason he didn't murder the Gobbotopians is because he finds spiting paladins to be funnier. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html)


The Order of the Stick has no cause to even consider wiping out everyone living in Gobbotopia. Xykon and Redcloak have, and don't even see a problem. Root for the goblins, by rooting for the Order of the Stick; who have been on a quest to defeat the biggest threats to goblinkind since the first strip.

[Draconi Redfir]

Yes.
As in, Redcloak would be okay with it if he brought about the death of every single goblin that's currently alive.

as a last-resort Only keep in mind. I can guarantee you that if given the chance between that happening and it not happening, he'd choose the "it doesn't happen" option every time. His goal is equality for the goblinoid species by any means. if goblinoids achive equality by the entire planet being torn to bits, then so be it. but idealy, the planet would not need to be torn to bits for it to happen.

[Jasdoif]

as a last-resort Only keep in mind. I can guarantee you that if given the chance between that happening and it not happening, he'd choose the "it doesn't happen" option every time. His goal is equality for the goblinoid species by any means. if goblinoids achive equality by the entire planet being torn to bits, then so be it. but idealy, the planet would not need to be torn to bits for it to happen.Well of course he'd prefer an easy choice over a hard one. I imagine every character we've seen would go for an easy choice before making a hard one. It's the hard choices that tell us where a character's values lie.

And Redcloak's fine with betting the lives of every goblin (and everyone else) on the planet on his ability not to mess up the Plan, by (for example) letting the last Gate be destroyed before he can complete the ritual, which has happened while he was there three times already. Because their lives apparently aren't important to him unless he can play benefactor for them.

Willingly risking the extermination of all the goblinoid species for sake of equality for the not-yet-existing goblinoid species...says everything that should need to be said about how little Redcloak thinks of the goblinoids themselves.

[Deliverance]

as a last-resort Only keep in mind. I can guarantee you that if given the chance between that happening and it not happening, he'd choose the "it doesn't happen" option every time. His goal is equality for the goblinoid species by any means. if goblinoids achive equality by the entire planet being torn to bits, then so be it. but idealy, the planet would not need to be torn to bits for it to happen.
Let me tell ask this...

When a person tells you he is only interested in equality of his people with his opponents, but his actions are to slaughter and enslave his opponents, why do you believe his words rather than his deeds?

When a person tells you that he is only looking out for the interests of his people, but his plan includes killing every living being as a second best outcome if the universe is not rearranged to suit his will, why do you believe his words rather than his plans?

:redcloak: "You'll all end up as collateral damage, but it is for the greater good!"

No.

Whatever Redcloak may say, he wants dominance, not equality. And while he may care for the lives of his people, he cares more for carrying out an insane and evil plan regardless of costs, because abandoning it means accepting personal failure and responsibility for his actions.

[druid91]

The issue with that logic Jasdoif. Is that those goblins are already going to die. They can do their best and play at building a civilization but there's three whole PANTHEONS of gods and their followers out there who are going to do they darndest to see the Goblins destroyed.

Not to mention that even when compared to their closest counterpart amongst the PC races, halflings, Goblins are born at a disadvantage. Let alone compared to humans or other optimal races. While they can work hard and make something of themselves, it will always be just a bit harder than if they'd been born without those drawbacks.

The goblins alive today, are inherently less valuable than they could be because of that. They were built to be cannon-fodder. And they are cannon-fodder. Redcloak fights so that maybe one day, their descendants can be something more than cannon-fodder.

Gobbotopia is nice. But it's essentially a vanity project. The goblins had a kingdom before they conquered Azure city. A kingdom that Redcloak forced them to abandon to march on Azure city if you'll remember. Goblins having kingdoms isn't a new thing. That doesn't change that they were made to be inferior.

[Draconi Redfir]

i don't think that was a kingdom so much as it was a settlement. Hobgoblins are inherently more lawful and organized then goblins and bugbears, and as such are able to form larger societies over the tribal ones of their cousins more easily. Because of this, i can understand groups of hobgoblins getting together to make a settlement in a semi-okay territory and growing in number as a result. While goblins and bugbears are busy scavenging for food, the hobgoblins took infertile soil, filled it with the mulched corpses of the dead, and used it to grow crops, which is what gave them the advantage to terraform their environment into being somewhat habitable.

and don't forget, they have control over that region still. they didn't abandon their mountain home, they moved to conquer a more habitable area of azure city. the mountain home is within their new territory, and they already have trade and immigration between the city and the settlement. i'm pretty sure rich has confirmed this somewhere.

[Darth Paul]

And the issue with that logic, Druid, is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody is going to argue that the goblinoid races (and humanoid-type monster races as a whole) didn't get shafted when the gods created them to be XP fodder for their clerics. But the way for goblinoids to rectify the injustices of the past is not by creating fresh injustices of their own. There's actually NO way to settle the score- the only positive choice would be to let go of the past and move on. But that's the one thing Redcloak is incapable of.

The goblins are evil because they're following evil orders, voluntarily as far as we know; even enthusiastically. If all they wanted was a fresh start, they could have fortified their borders against intruders and declared that they wanted peace. That's not what they did. They accepted an alliance with Xykon (an argument could be made as to how much it was forced on them, but even Xykon would have trouble persuading an entire valley full of hobgoblins against their will). They followed his orders and mobilized their civilization for war. They eagerly took the opportunity for payback against the Azurites. This is not a simple, peace-loving people; the goblinoids are as aggressive as anyone. Look at the motto of Gobbotopia: "Screw you, suckers! It's OUR turn now!"

[Draconi Redfir]

If all they wanted was a fresh start, they could have fortified their borders against intruders and declared that they wanted peace.

Basically every elf, human, dwarf, halfling, gnome, and probably a few orcs, half-orcs, and other non-standard races see them as little more then XP fodder. do you honestly beleive any of that would work?

if anything fortifying up would have just caused everyone to think they were building a super weapon in there and send in a few parties on campains to destroy it and the entire city in the process.

[Jasdoif]

The issue with that logic Jasdoif. Is that those goblins are already going to die. They can do their best and play at building a civilization but there's three whole PANTHEONS of gods and their followers out there who are going to do they darndest to see the Goblins destroyed.

Not to mention that even when compared to their closest counterpart amongst the PC races, halflings, Goblins are born at a disadvantage. Let alone compared to humans or other optimal races. While they can work hard and make something of themselves, it will always be just a bit harder than if they'd been born without those drawbacks.

The goblins alive today, are inherently less valuable than they could be because of that. They were built to be cannon-fodder. And they are cannon-fodder. Redcloak fights so that maybe one day, their descendants can be something more than cannon-fodder.

Gobbotopia is nice. But it's essentially a vanity project. The goblins had a kingdom before they conquered Azure city. A kingdom that Redcloak forced them to abandon to march on Azure city if you'll remember. Goblins having kingdoms isn't a new thing. That doesn't change that they were made to be inferior.This appears to be a very long way of saying you don't believe goblins currently have lives worth living.

I disagree...or rather, I disagree that anyone has the right to make that kind of judgement across the entire set of goblinoid species; which is what Redcloak has done. Legions of hobgoblins committing themselves to a goal is what brought Gobbotopia about; and while Redcloak played a key role in that, the credit isn't his alone.

Gobbotopia could certainly be a vanity project for Redcloak, but for the rest of the goblins? It's almost certainly the largest civil structure they've ever had. The Azure City nation had over half a million people and still produced enough food to be self-sufficient (the bonus content in War and XPs is very nifty), this could be the big break for goblin-kind. They certainly deserve better than Redcloak's willingness to pull the rug out from under them.

[Evandar]

I think a large theme to the comic is that 'good' and 'evil' aren't always that clear-cut. But there's also the simple fact that Gobbotopia owns slaves, while our heroes free slaves, to name one significant difference.

[Emanick]

Basically every elf, human, dwarf, halfling, gnome, and probably a few orcs, half-orcs, and other non-standard races see them as little more then XP fodder. do you honestly beleive any of that would work?

if anything fortifying up would have just caused everyone to think they were building a super weapon in there and send in a few parties on campains to destroy it and the entire city in the process.

They already have diplomatic recognition from ~23 other nations as a sovereign state. They don't seem to exist in a state of war right now. Why would declaring that they want better relations with the rest of the world suddenly bring war upon them?

[goodpeople25]

This is a tricky one, and i would say it is made trickier by people unintentionally combining sympathy with the goblin's situation and Redcloak's in their mind(and Redcloak is complicated by not everyone having SoD or being fine with hearing it secondhand, heck the goblin situation in general is made harder to discuss due to SoD not being available to everyone) And with Redcloak I don't really agree with him at all beyond the goblins having a bad situation which isn't enough to make me think well of him. Nor do I agree with the plan or the Dark One. In fact i think the Dark One seems to have hindered the Goblins ability to improve their situation without him, what with the crimson mantle drawing unwanted attention to them, though I'm not sure if that was intentional or not. And Redcloak forming Gobbotopia might backfire on the goblins (but then again it might not.)

Now the goblins themselves I hope the best for, warts and all. (Though slavery and conquest is a pretty big wart i think it can though it might take a couple generations of peaceful contact to be fully overcome but on the goblin side generations are shorter) though I'm not sure taking over a city was the best start, as i said it could backfire.

What gets me is that I don't think redcloak is good for the goblins due to him being Redcloak (well as he is now anyway) and that the plan is wrong (in more ways than one) and pretty much suicide but i think the part of him being a high level adventurer who can organize the goblins to action makes goblins improving their situation easier and safer. So i find it kinda tragic Redcloak could do so much good for the goblins but won't rather sticking to the plan and Xykon and him wanting domination not equality doesn't really help Gobbotopia or the cause and pretty much damaged it by souring relations.

So yeah don't care for redcloak (well as a person/goblin, as a character in this comic he is one of my favourites) but i do care what happens to the goblins. And i do find people tend to confuse the two.

Though i wonder how the long game would work compared to Gobbotopia, ie start with a village with peaceful contact and grow from there. that part would work a lot better with a champion but alas. But i think Gobbotopia could (key word still think it could easily backfire and get wiped out) work but again achampion would help and they still need better peaceful contact and relations.

[factotum]

I agree with the general drift of this thread. What makes the goblinoids evil is that they willingly do evil things once given a chance to do so, e.g. enslaving the remaining populace of Azure City. The Empire of Blood is evil for the same reason, despite not being goblinoids. Redcloak himself is evil because, as already pointed out, he will happily see the world and everyone in it burn just to see goblins get a fair slice of the pie in the next world--a good deed committed via evil means is still evil.

And note that the goblins getting killed by the Snarl escaping would be a far worse fate than anything that can happen to them in the normal course of events, because the Snarl destroys their souls as well--there's no afterlife of constant battle with the Dark One to look forward to if that happens, they're just *gone*. (At least, as far as Redcloak is aware, so he's basing his plans on that assumption).

[Vinyadan]

by any means.

I think this is what puts evil and other alignments apart. We saw Hobgoblins have fun by whipping slaves, and we know what Redcloack considers an acceptable consequence to his actions. I think many Goblins of Gobbotopia are evil in the same way Tarquin is, with the only difference that they do it all willingly and together, instead of kneeling beneath a tyrant.

it isn't much of a spoiler, given that it refers to a forum post, however, it should be clear that not all goblins are evil by default.

[Murk]

I would say the goblins are evil.
What I find difficult is that there are so many evil people on this world. Sure, the goblins murder brutally, but the Resistance in Azure City did the same. Plenty of the paladins did the same. Plenty of adventurers did the same - legions and entire kingdoms on the western continent did the same. I think the only race/species/culure that we haven't seen brutally murdering others were the nice gnomes.

Of course, that doesn't make it any less evil.
However, if there are so many evil or not-nice people around, it does change the equation. If I have to choose someone to root for, but all my choices are evil, well, it's not strange that I end up rooting for evil.
I'd rather not, but I'm not left with much choice.


(I'd root for the gnomes, but they don't seem to be actually relevant)

[Darth Paul]

*snip* ... do you honestly beleive any of that would work?

Whether it would have worked is immaterial. The point is that it would be a non-evil, non-aggressive option that was open to the goblins. We know this has been tried before, unsuccessfully... but a single failed/betrayed peace overture (in Start of Darkness) doesn't justify eternal warfare and revenge.

This reminds me of the intro to Revenge of the Sith... "There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere." And it fits. Both sides have done horrible things to the other, and both have sympathetic and even heroic characters. That's reality. There are no cardboard cutouts; there are individuals with their own motives, some good, some evil, some selfish, some selfless, most a mixture of all of the above.

What makes "the goblins" evil? They aren't all evil, actually, I'm sure. Redcloak's family were pretty innocent, it seemed to me; especially the children, who hadn't matured enough to make choices between good and evil. And since The Giant seems to avert the trope of "Always Evil" races, it's going to be individual choices that make one goblin evil, one good, and another neutral. Goblins may seem inclined towards evil, but that's a consequence of their choice to follow Evil gods and leaders. They don't have to; they choose to.

It's the choices they make that make most of the goblins we've seen Evil.

[jidasfire]

It often seems the case with villainous characters that simply having a point of view is mistaken for a having a defensible point of view. Redcloak is probably the king of this logical problem. But as the face of the goblin equality movement, he really leaves a lot to be desired. Being as he has, through both action and inaction, killed plenty of his own people, his goals seem less about them and more about his god's vengeful agenda. As someone trying to prove that goblins aren't evil and shouldn't be exterminated on sight, having one's own personal army of demons hang the corpses of healers, craftsmen, and soldiers from the walls doesn't exactly do him a lot of favors. And for someone supposedly motivated by the death of his family, he sure was willing to sacrifice the remnants of it when they became obstacles in his path. I don't know where others draw the line of bad person, but I'd say it's somewhere before that.

As for the rest of the goblins, well, a lot of people do bad things when they're indoctrinated members of a corrupt society. It doesn't mean they're all monsters who need to be wiped out, but it does mean they need to be stopped, and their society needs to change before they can be considered something other than villains. Being oppressed does not in itself create moral superiority. Seeing how such individuals act when the tables are turned is a good test of that, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the goblins are not doing great at the moment. Will they improve without Redcloak's remarkably bad influence? Only time will tell.

[Deliverance]

As an amusing thought on the "oppressed goblinoids": As far as I can recall, the only goblins, hobgoblins, and other goblinoids we've seen being oppressed in OOTS have been oppressed by Xykon. :D

More generally, being handed a poor start in life, being poorer than your neighbours, and living in a state of warfare with them doesn't mean that you are oppressed by them or them by you, but if you win the war and then enslave your enemies, and treat your slaves harshly, you certainly are oppressing your slaves by any reasonable definition.

[Draconi Redfir]

They already have diplomatic recognition from ~23 other nations as a sovereign state. They don't seem to exist in a state of war right now. Why would declaring that they want better relations with the rest of the world suddenly bring war upon them?

i was talking about before they went out and conquered azure city, where the hobgobs were still living in their settlement in the mountains.

The 23 nations in my eyes at least reccognise gobbotopia in the same way they would if any other nation invaded annother, it's just a change to politics and an update to the maps. if all these hobgoblins started gathering and living in one settlement in the mountains however someone would start getting suspicious.

[Doug Lampert]

Basically every elf, human, dwarf, halfling, gnome, and probably a few orcs, half-orcs, and other non-standard races see them as little more then XP fodder. do you honestly beleive any of that would work?

if anything fortifying up would have just caused everyone to think they were building a super weapon in there and send in a few parties on campains to destroy it and the entire city in the process.

Right Eye had a nice, perfectly peaceful village living next to humans and interacting with them and going to the circus with them.

And it wasn't all those other things that killed that village, it was Wrong Eye and his "tool" Xykon and their "plan".

In fact we've SEEN it work, without bothering to fortify the borders particularly heavily, at least THREE SEPARATE TIMES. And two of those cases were wrecked by Red Cloak and his "Plan".

Right Eye's village was doing fine. They're all dead now. Whose fault is that?

The hobgoblins in the mountains had a civilization with 30,000 warriors and no actual wars going on. Now they have one with 20,000 warriors. Who caused that decline?

The city formerly called Azure now has peaceful relations with all its neighbors and the elves sent a single small strike team, and nothing more. If it's in any danger, who is the source of that danger?

If the people you're claiming to want to "help" die like flies as a direct consequence of your own actions, while they do pretty well when you are not around, maybe you are the problem.

If anyone has serious doubts about Redcloak's alignment, might I recommend this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) comic showing him and his "tool" "helping" some hobgoblins.

[Draconi Redfir]

yes but keep in mind that was a small village

That post i was quoting was suggesting every Goblin and possibly every other goblinoid all gathering together in one obscure place probably owned by some other political country.

I'm sorry but if literally every human being on the planet started moving to one unmarked island in the middle of the ocean, i'd start to get suspicious too.

[Crusher]

Good and Evil aren't like they are in our world.

I mean, they sort of are. Saving nuns is Good and burning orphanages is Evil in either place. In our world, that's where it stops. But in the Stickverse, Good and Evil are like the Boston Red Sox vs the New York Yankees. The Dark One, Hel, Loki and the other Evil gods are... oh, lets say they're the Red Sox and the Good gods are the Yankees.

If you're born in Boston, you're almost certainly a Red Sox fan. Not everyone born there will grow up to Red Sox fans, but the vast majority will, because most people root for their home team. Similarly, goblins mostly grow up to be Evil because The Dark One is their hometown Wade Boggs and more often than not they'll support him. In that world, slavery and raiding the local villages is what the goblins do because that's what Wade Boggs tells them to do, not because they're twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally.

Good opposes Evil, because Good and Evil are rival teams who always oppose each other. Its what they do.

That's why goblins are Evil. And it means something a bit different than you're projecting onto it.

Edit - Its worth noting that a Democrat vs Republican analogy would actually be considerably more spot-on, but politics is a dangerous thing to bring into on-line discussions.

[ENDRNL]

Heroes can't just kill goblins. They aren't even allowed when Lawful Good! So if the heroes are Good, they can't just kill Goblins cuz they're evil. Why is your Nemesis evil in any Video Game you play? They try to steal something from your group, or sometihng in that direction. Or they want to take over the world, whatever. Goblins are scavengers, who steal people's stuff. When reading Wizards of the Coast's Magic cards, you find out Goblins scavenge, steal, and evade combat, because they're pretty weak. However, when a little bit stronger, they HAVE to fight others.

So, long story short. Heroes aren't Good if they just kill Evil stuff. Goblins are beasts who try and steal your things, and evade you afterwards. They only have balls when in hordes or heavily armored.

So. Are Goblins Evil? No. They steal for their living, which should be Neutral (right?), cuz they aren't allowed in society. Even so bad, that they have to live underground! The real Evil character in the game is the Hero. YOU!

But hey, that's just a theor... Wait, wha?

[Jasdoif]

i was talking about before they went out and conquered azure city, where the hobgobs were still living in their settlement in the mountains.

The 23 nations in my eyes at least reccognise gobbotopia in the same way they would if any other nation invaded annother, it's just a change to politics and an update to the maps. if all these hobgoblins started gathering and living in one settlement in the mountains however someone would start getting suspicious.So what would you say about them now, then?

[ENDRNL]

BUTT! The game says they're evil, so you should accept that. However, their alignment is decided by your DM, or whoever controls the game. They even have the power to create evil living ice cream, with freezing powers, and seduce the player with its sweet, sweet, creamy sweat (got that one?:smallbiggrin: . I'm so funny. I know) .

Goblins CAN be Evil, just like humans CAN be good. Goblins CAN be Good, and humans CAN be Evil. Nothing makes Goblins evil. What makes you evil? First ask yourself this question. Maybe you secretly are Dark Lord Sauron, or He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named! Maybe... Maybe... Who are YOU from the inside??? (I'm Darth Vader reincarnated. :smallcool: don't tell anyone, or they'll kill me)

[Draconi Redfir]

So what would you say about them now, then?

Take two long looks at my avatar and location and you'll find out.

the way i see it, right now, with exception to redcloak, xykon, and whatever other forces are traveling with them, Gobbotopia is ultimately doing nothing wrong. There are three main reasons i can see why twenty three plus nations are finally recognizing them as a true nation themselves.

1. They conquered the walls of azure city, to the world this screams "hey, I’m a threat. don't mess with me."

2. Since then, they have not take any other hostile actions, instead they've claimed the city for themselves, they've begun farming the fields, settling in the outlying villages, and in general just replacing the humans that used to live there. they are essentially becoming the new azure city. to the world this says "We're not conquering the world. We live here now."

and 3. They're not living in one isolated settlement or scattered tribes anymore, they're organized and civilized, they're working together like humans elves and dwarves do. to the world this says "Yo, you hunting us down and keeping us in infertile lands? That was really holding us back and that's why we were the way we were. check out how civilized we can be when we're actually given a freaking chance."

Not to mention the Goblinoids are now able to produce trade goods like fish and crops, they may never master the silks of Azure City, but they don't really need too. they have their own culture and their own goods to trade now. Hell if it wasn’t for one goblin, nobody may have realized that giving a hydra so many heads it passes out but doesn't die could be a viable long-term food strategy. The meat is still alive so long as one head remains, so you don't need to worry about preserving it. meaning no worries about freezing it, salting it, or in general messing with the flavor.

Now, do they use slavery? Yes, of course. do they enjoy it? duh. But at this point one of two things can happen. either the other cities can slowly buy the slave's freedom by acknowledging gobbotopia as it's own nation, or gobbotopia just keeps slavery alive until either all the slaves die or they eventually revolt. or hell, maybe it will become trend to treat slaves as second-class citizens as opposed to just tools similar to how the roamans or greeks did, who knows?

At this point i don't have much else to say. in my real-life D&D game there is a paladin who is regularly upset with his own god (a lawful neutral god, can't remember the name) because his god opposed the liberation or revolt of some city's slaves due to it disrupting legitimate buisnesses and economy. is slavery necessary for Gobbotopian economy and culture? i don't know. But like Crusher said, Goblinoids are the red sox, they're inclined towards evil and as such will do evil things. not much else can be said about it, not a big deal.

[Vinyadan]

the way i see it, right now, with exception to redcloak, xykon, and whatever other forces are traveling with them, Gobbotopia is ultimately doing nothing wrong. [cut]
Now, do they use slavery? Yes, of course. do they enjoy it? duh. But at this point one of two things can happen. either the other cities can slowly buy the slave's freedom by acknowledging gobbotopia as it's own nation, or gobbotopia just keeps slavery alive until either all the slaves die or they eventually revolt. or hell, maybe it will become trend to treat slaves as second-class citizens as opposed to just tools similar to how the roamans or greeks did, who knows?


I am having some problem piecing these sentences together. Do you mean "wrong" in an utilitarian rather than moral sense?

[A_Moon]

The goblins are evil because they're following evil orders, voluntarily as far as we know; even enthusiastically. If all they wanted was a fresh start, they could have fortified their borders against intruders and declared that they wanted peace. That's not what they did. They accepted an alliance with Xykon (an argument could be made as to how much it was forced on them, but even Xykon would have trouble persuading an entire valley full of hobgoblins against their will).


They kind of did try to have peace. The goblins had amassed massive army, but instead of going to war, their leader came before the leaders of the humans, elves and dwarves and so on to ask for peace. All he wanted was an end to the bloodshed and we don't know what else because he was assassinated mid-sentence. The humans and company assumed that with his death the goblins would disperse. Instead they went on a rampage of sufficient size that their fervour allowed their fallen leader to rise as a minor-god, the Dark One. Saying "the globlins should declare that they want peace" ignores the fact they already tried that. It didn't work.

As for the argument that Xykon is forcing the goblins to work for him: that's explicitly what happened. If Redcloak and the goblins the party fought in Dorukan's dungeon hadn't obeyed Xykon, he would have slaughtered them all and replaced them with some new minions.

As for the hobgoblins; yes, Xykon would have trouble forcing an entire valley of hobgoblins to obey him. Hence why Redcloak had to usurp the position of their high-priest to gain control over them.

[Keltest]

They kind of did try to have peace. The goblins had amassed massive army, but instead of going to war, their leader came before the leaders of the humans, elves and dwarves and so on to ask for peace. All he wanted was an end to the bloodshed and we don't know what else because he was assassinated mid-sentence. The humans and company assumed that with his death the goblins would disperse. Instead they went on a rampage of sufficient size that their fervour allowed their fallen leader to rise as a minor-god, the Dark One. Saying "the globlins should declare that they want peace" ignores the fact they already tried that. It didn't work.

As for the argument that Xykon is forcing the goblins to work for him: that's explicitly what happened. If Redcloak and the goblins the party fought in Dorukan's dungeon hadn't obeyed Xykon, he would have slaughtered them all and replaced them with some new minions.

As for the hobgoblins; yes, Xykon would have trouble forcing an entire valley of hobgoblins to obey him. Hence why Redcloak had to usurp the position of their high-priest to gain control over them.

The level of direct control and influence Xykon exerts over the (hob)goblins is rather minor though. If he wanted to, im sure he could exert greater influence, but he isn't forcing the Hobgoblins to, say, enslave all the humans they capture.

[Draconi Redfir]

I am having some problem piecing these sentences together. Do you mean "wrong" in an utilitarian rather than moral sense?

iiiii don't really know. i guess?

morals aren't really a huge concern for me for reasons, so... whatever works?

[hroþila]

Slavery: So Edgy!

[Jasdoif]

Slavery: So Edgy!Well, whips do deal slashing damage....

[Asteroid Bomb]

In Start of Darkness goblins and other races were designed to be "evil" to serve as sources of EXP for adventurers. But Redcloak (and the Dark One) looked at that injustice and thinks it gives him carte blanche to do whatever he wants in retribution. I could cite real-world examples of notorious criminals and rulers with similar justifications but it would probably violate the rules. The point is being wronged doesn't give you justification to do whatever you want in response. The goblins killed a lot of people in Azure City, many of whom had no direct relation to the paladins that had slaughtered them. The gods labeled the goblins evil... and over time, they embraced it.

[Darth Paul]

They kind of did try to have peace. The goblins had amassed massive army, but instead of going to war, their leader came before the leaders of the humans, elves and dwarves and so on to ask for peace. All he wanted was an end to the bloodshed and we don't know what else because he was assassinated mid-sentence. The humans and company assumed that with his death the goblins would disperse. Instead they went on a rampage of sufficient size that their fervour allowed their fallen leader to rise as a minor-god, the Dark One. Saying "the globlins should declare that they want peace" ignores the fact they already tried that. It didn't work.

As for the argument that Xykon is forcing the goblins to work for him: that's explicitly what happened. If Redcloak and the goblins the party fought in Dorukan's dungeon hadn't obeyed Xykon, he would have slaughtered them all and replaced them with some new minions.

As for the hobgoblins; yes, Xykon would have trouble forcing an entire valley of hobgoblins to obey him. Hence why Redcloak had to usurp the position of their high-priest to gain control over them.

Indeed, I acknowledged your spoilered point in another post farther down the thread. And I'll repeat what I said there- the fact that it didn't work once, doesn't create an automatic and eternal excuse for going to war, because "we tried a peace overture, and it didn't work." That's the kind of thinking that characterized dynastic and religious tit-for-tat wars in the real world for hundreds (even thousands) of years. "We offered them peace and they rejected it;" "They forced an unfair treaty on us;" "We were defeated by treachery, but now we can retake what belongs to us." All of these are transparent excuses for waging wars of aggression.

The goblins have a legitimate beef against the Sapphire Guard; but it was clearly a disproportionate act to invade Azure City, kill untold numbers, and displace or enslave the rest to settle that grudge.

[wumpus]

Good and Evil aren't like they are in our world.

I mean, they sort of are. Saving nuns is Good and burning orphanages is Evil in either place. In our world, that's where it stops. But in the Stickverse, Good and Evil are like the Boston Red Sox vs the New York Yankees. The Dark One, Hel, Loki and the other Evil gods are... oh, lets say they're the Red Sox and the Good gods are the Yankees.

If you're born in Boston, you're almost certainly a Red Sox fan. Not everyone born there will grow up to Red Sox fans, but the vast majority will, because most people root for their home team. Similarly, goblins mostly grow up to be Evil because The Dark One is their hometown Wade Boggs and more often than not they'll support him. In that world, slavery and raiding the local villages is what the goblins do because that's what Wade Boggs tells them to do, not because they're twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally.

Good opposes Evil, because Good and Evil are rival teams who always oppose each other. Its what they do.

That's why goblins are Evil. And it means something a bit different than you're projecting onto it.


It is a bit more thorough than that. While you certainly have "The Dark One" fans in Goblitopia, and "12 Gods" fans in former Azure city, those "teams" happened to be owned by the "pure good/evil" material of the outer planes. That stuff is never explained (and Rich repeatedly claims to be entirely uninterested in it, so don't ever expect a good explanation), but presumably demands good/evil from both the gods and clerics to gain power. The clerics (and in Azure city, paladins) keep the various populations in line. But the answer is clearly the line in the monster manual that says goblins: chaotic evil*.

Humans can be just as crazy in following sports teams or worse (Swift was barely satirizing when he wrote how the Lilliputians went to war over which side of the egg should be cracked first). I wonder if the giant is giving advice: you should always be careful of following red cloak (or even Azure paladins attacking "other" villages) types saying "god is on their side", lest you be on the side of the baddies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

* I didn't look up which evil goblins were in 3.5, nor care. I am more cross that 5e did away with "always" for things like devils, demons, (and possibly) undead. It just seems to enforce the idea of making it acceptable to always kill the greenskins, as if nobody bothered to read OOTS.

[Keltest]

It is a bit more thorough than that. While you certainly have "The Dark One" fans in Goblitopia, and "12 Gods" fans in former Azure city, those "teams" happened to be owned by the "pure good/evil" material of the outer planes. That stuff is never explained (and Rich repeatedly claims to be entirely uninterested in it, so don't ever expect a good explanation), but presumably demands good/evil from both the gods and clerics to gain power. The clerics (and in Azure city, paladins) keep the various populations in line. But the answer is clearly the line in the monster manual that says goblins: chaotic evil*.

Humans can be just as crazy in following sports teams or worse (Swift was barely satirizing when he wrote how the Lilliputians went to war over which side of the egg should be cracked first). I wonder if the giant is giving advice: you should always be careful of following red cloak (or even Azure paladins attacking "other" villages) types saying "god is on their side", lest you be on the side of the baddies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

* I didn't look up which evil goblins were in 3.5, nor care. I am more cross that 5e did away with "always" for things like devils, demons, (and possibly) undead. It just seems to enforce the idea of making it acceptable to always kill the greenskins, as if nobody bothered to read OOTS.

even back in 3.5, "Always" didn't actually mean "always", even for outsiders. Furthermore, goblins are only "usually neutral evil", not always.

[Deliverance]

In Start of Darkness goblins and other races were designed to be "evil" to serve as sources of EXP for adventurers.

In the strips here and in the prequels we strictly speaking have only one source for this being the case: Redcloak, claiming to be repeating what was revealed to him/taught by his god, the Dark One, whom Redcloak himself considers an evil god.

Now, it is entirely possible that it is the case in the OOTS world and that Redcloak's exposition should be taken as "word of God = author" rather than "word of God, said God not being a disinterested party but one having a vested interest in presenting the story of the world's creation and his own divinity in a light that furthers his goals".

But there's nothing in the story to indicate this is the case and let's face it, people lying or inventing or exaggerating grievances to justify seeking power or wealth at the cost of others in the guise of equality or righting wrongs is the norm rather than the exception when people want to do so unjustly. At least in our world. :smallbiggrin:


(And yes, I know that the Giant has made some comments on goblins situations in the forum and elsewhere, and that that really isn't the point. Shush. It is just that it is amusing to me how the story as told portrays this.)

[multilis]

The goblins have little hope because the "heros" of this story love to murder then in their sleep when they are in own home for XP, with Roy The Terrible being the head butcher. See http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html for example.

Pile of goblin corpses is funny, part of theme of OOTS team. Not hating only goblins, also hating own race, eg Haley with big smile on her face saying "oops I already killed all the people who were trying to capture me when I escaped after breaking laws in human land so hard to surrender".

The only hope for the goblin race would be Miko coming back from dead, because only Miko was considerate enough to make sure that enemies woke up, had good breakfast, etc before fighting.... and thus had chance to defend selves and argue for peace.

"We'd wander around and kill some sentient creatures because they had green skin and fangs and we don't" - old Belkar http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html. Of course now that Belkar has fallen in love with Miko and a cat he is a changed man so hope he can help bring about peace with a little help from Snarl.

[Xihirli]

I think one important thing we have to remember before rooting for the goblins is:
They have already achieved their advantage.

Whether or not you support their occupation of Azure City, Gobbotopia is ALREADY a place, with equality for all goblinoids. Chances are it will stay there for a good long while, now that the Azurites live so far away. The goblins ALREADY have a kingdom with resources and opportunity and hope.

The Dark One is going to threaten the gods anyway instead of calling this off before every one of his goblins dies and loses their soul.

[multilis]

I think one important thing we have to remember before rooting for the goblins is:
They have already achieved their advantage.

Whether or not you support their occupation of Azure City, Gobbotopia is ALREADY a place, with equality for all goblinoids. Chances are it will stay there for a good long while, now that the Azurites live so far away. The goblins ALREADY have a kingdom with resources and opportunity and hope.

The Dark One is going to threaten the gods anyway instead of calling this off before every one of his goblins dies and loses their soul.

They have achieved a place to gather goblins together in one well known place so they are easier to exterminate in one big attack rather than many small ones... they were only safe because of 2 very high level evil guys protecting them and that won't last forever, a single high level elf could finish off entire city.

Before Redcloak met them, the Hobgoblin race had achieved better, an organised group with out being main target of others.

[factotum]

they were only safe because of 2 very high level evil guys protecting them and that won't last forever, a single high level elf could finish off entire city.


No, they couldn't. You're forgetting the conversation O-Chul had with Haley the night before the battle for Azure City--even low-level mooks can be dangerous to high-level characters if there are enough of them, because attrition is a thing; it might take a thousand hobgoblin warriors to take down your single high-level elf, but what does that matter? There are tens of thousands more where those came from! And that's ignoring the fact that the population of Azure City does not consist solely of low-level hobgoblin warriors--we know they have clerics and wizards and what-have-you as well.

Also, what makes Azure City a target for anyone other than the displaced Azurites? So long as the goblinoids aren't disrupting trade routes or making threatening moves on anyone else, I can quite easily see them being left in peace because no-one wants to suffer the losses that would result from a big attack.

[HeadAcheron]

Good opposes Evil, because Good and Evil are rival teams who always oppose each other. Its what they do.

That's why goblins are Evil. And it means something a bit different than you're projecting onto it.

Edit - Its worth noting that a Democrat vs Republican analogy would actually be considerably more spot-on, but politics is a dangerous thing to bring into on-line discussions. I've noticed that the only characters who've said this in the story

[dramatic pause]

have been Evil (Redcloak, Nale, Therkla, Tarquin)

[Mike Havran]

No, they couldn't. You're forgetting the conversation O-Chul had with Haley the night before the battle for Azure City--even low-level mooks can be dangerous to high-level characters if there are enough of them, because attrition is a thing; it might take a thousand hobgoblin warriors to take down your single high-level elf, but what does that matter? There are tens of thousands more where those came from! And that's ignoring the fact that the population of Azure City does not consist solely of low-level hobgoblin warriors--we know they have clerics and wizards and what-have-you as well.

Also, what makes Azure City a target for anyone other than the displaced Azurites? So long as the goblinoids aren't disrupting trade routes or making threatening moves on anyone else, I can quite easily see them being left in peace because no-one wants to suffer the losses that would result from a big attack.The danger to Gobbotopia right now aren't mercantile nations and power-hungry politicians, but a high-level parties of (primarily) good-aligned adventurers. The campaign hooks are all over the place:
- Former Good kingdom overrun by Evil creatures, former populace suffers in slavery and needs to be rescued? Check.
- Place full of loot and acceptable targets who were designed to be an EXP fodder? Check.
- Place with mysterious polychromatic hole above it that serves no apparent purpose? Check. What are those Evil lunatics up to with altering the sky, anyway? It needs to be investigated!

Even if we don't consider particularity of Gobbotopia, the fact remains that inferiority is hard-wired into all goblinkind and statistically, they are doomed to be second-class creatures forever. Gobbotopia is a lucky break because of Redcloak-Xykon alliance, such as may not happen ever again. Redcloak's mentor, and his mentor etc. did not have such opportunity and were simply hunted down and killed. Jirix may well make Gobbotopia prosperous for the duration of his reign, as could his successor ... but the trend is set by the fact that average Gob will be weaker than average Joe, and the only way how to reverse the trend is to carry on with the plan.

Redcloak's plan and his willingness to go is what makes him Evil, not wrong.

[Keltest]

The danger to Gobbotopia right now aren't mercantile nations and power-hungry politicians, but a high-level parties of (primarily) good-aligned adventurers. The campaign hooks are all over the place:
- Former Good kingdom overrun by Evil creatures, former populace suffers in slavery and needs to be rescued? Check.
- Place full of loot and acceptable targets who were designed to be an EXP fodder? Check.
- Place with mysterious polychromatic hole above it that serves no apparent purpose? Check. What are those Evil lunatics up to with altering the sky, anyway? It needs to be investigated!

Even if we don't consider particularity of Gobbotopia, the fact remains that inferiority is hard-wired into all goblinkind and statistically, they are doomed to be second-class creatures forever. Gobbotopia is a lucky break because of Redcloak-Xykon alliance, such as may not happen ever again. Redcloak's mentor, and his mentor etc. did not have such opportunity and were simply hunted down and killed. Jirix may well make Gobbotopia prosperous for the duration of his reign, as could his successor ... but the trend is set by the fact that average Gob will be weaker than average Joe, and the only way how to reverse the trend is to carry on with the plan.

Redcloak's plan and his willingness to go is what makes him Evil, not wrong.

Im pretty sure the average (hob)goblin is actually significantly more powerful than a level 1 commoner, who are known for such feats as losing to a housecat in a fight more often than not. And as we have seen, hundreds of thousands of hobgoblins give precisely 0 craps about a small party of high level adventurers, even when they have an army with them.

[ReaderAt2046]

After reading the speech about Gobbotopia, I realized something.

I'm rooting for the goblins.

I don't want Xykon to kill our heroes or the snarl to be unleashed, but is what Redcloak doing so wrong? It seems to me that "good" and "evil" are assigned to the humans and goblins repectfully when in reality they are both just seperate factions who happen to kill each other. A lot.

But most of the time, it's the humans adventuring that kills off goblins. Even if goblins attack humans, it's just payback.
Can somebody point out for me something that makes the goblins definitely more evil than our "heroes"? Because right now I want the citizens of Gobbotopia to live long and prosper.
:redcloak:

What I think you're missing is that while Redcloak's goals are Good, his methods are Evil.

Yes, the goblins should have lands of their own. Yes, the goblins should be safe from random human raiding. But genocide, slavery, and attempting to destroy the universe are the wrong ways to fix the problem.

[MReav]

Something I don't get is why would the gods make the fodder races as a source of EXP? The current arc is entirely predicated on large quantities of souls making gods stronger upon harvesting. Why wouldn't they be creating fast-breeding, short-lived individuals to be worshipers? If this gets pulled off, I feel like Hel (honourless dwarves), The Dark One (goblinoids) and Tiamat (kobolds, lizardfolk) are going to be the most powerful gods of the next world.

Or is the point to further emphasize the shortsightedness of the gods?

[Keltest]

Something I don't get is why would the gods make the fodder races as a source of EXP? The current arc is entirely predicated on large quantities of souls making gods stronger upon harvesting. Why wouldn't they be creating fast-breeding, short-lived individuals to be worshipers? If this gets pulled off, I feel like Hel (honourless dwarves), The Dark One (goblinoids) and Tiamat (kobolds, lizardfolk) are going to be the most powerful gods of the next world.

Or is the point to further emphasize the shortsightedness of the gods?

Either that or a few stronger souls are more effective sources of Soul Power than many weaker ones.

[Deliverance]

Something I don't get is why would the gods make the fodder races as a source of EXP? The current arc is entirely predicated on large quantities of souls making gods stronger upon harvesting. Why wouldn't they be creating fast-breeding, short-lived individuals to be worshipers? If this gets pulled off, I feel like Hel (honourless dwarves), The Dark One (goblinoids) and Tiamat (kobolds, lizardfolk) are going to be the most powerful gods of the next world.

Or is the point to further emphasize the shortsightedness of the gods?
Alternatively, The Dark One lied. Or, if that seems too strong, was economical with the truth. That is, if he even knew. He wasn't present at the creation, after all.

A shocking suggestion about a self-identified evil god, I know, but the whole backstory about goblins being created as fodder, being unjustly oppressed, the heroic rise of the Dark One, the despicable murder of the Dark One when he tried to negotiate better concessions (backed up by a huge army), the rampaging destruction of the army after his death and his ascension, and how the plan, that involves destroying the universe as an acceptable second best if the primary goal of holding the other gods hostage at snarl-point and demanding new rules, is to gain equality for the poor and oppressed goblinoids, is something that in OOTS has only been narrated from the Dark One's viewpoint (as expressed in Start of Darkness) by his high priest.

It is possible that you'd get a different story were you to ask some of the other gods.

Now, Rich probably intends us to take that backstory as gospel truth, because he has tended to stick to fairly simple storylines where you can trust what is said to be true without considering the motivation of the people involved (especially early in his writing) - it is just that it is a bit amusing that the only reason for having sympathy for the goblinoids destroying the work of generations of other people, happily conquering and enslaving them, forcing the free remnants to flee, is believing in propaganda spouted by the leader of the conquest who claims historical oppression and a mythical backstory of discrimination at the dawn of time as justification for his atrocities and proclaims that his goals are liberty, equality, and freedom, even as he goes about enslaving his enemies.

[Kish]

^Start of Darkness shows us a lot of helpless goblin civilians, including children, being massacred by paladins who are laughing and treating it as a game. It's not filtered through anyone's view; it happens on-panel. As for the creation story, it provides an explanation for the clearly observable fact that D&D mechanics take pains to give monstrous humanoids the shaft. "They were designed to be slaughtered by the PC races" is something WotC is perfectly up-front about; the Dark One only rephrases it in a way that highlights the morality of the situation from the perspective of a goblin in a work with no fourth wall, and puts the blame on the OotS gods rather than creating a pantheon of thinly-veiled D&D designers (which would have been hilarious for at least one scene but would probably have quickly become more trouble for Rich than it would have been worth).

iiiii don't really know. i guess?

morals aren't really a huge concern for me for reasons, so... whatever works?
That means you don't really have anything to say about evil, do you?

[Vinyadan]

The goblins have a legitimate beef against the Sapphire Guard; but it was clearly a disproportionate act to invade Azure City, kill untold numbers, and displace or enslave the rest to settle that grudge.

Especially since the only goblin was Redcloack. The others were Hobbos, whose relationship with Azure City we don't know.

[factotum]

^Start of Darkness shows us a lot of helpless goblin civilians, including children, being massacred by paladins who are laughing and treating it as a game. It's not filtered through anyone's view; it happens on-panel.

Well, firstly the main target of that raid was the bearer of the Crimson Mantle, not the children et al., and the Giant is on record as saying that it's entirely possible some of those paladins Fell for their actions in that village, so clearly their own *gods* didn't think they should be doing those things.

[Kami2awa]

After reading the speech about Gobbotopia, I realized something.

I'm rooting for the goblins.

I don't want Xykon to kill our heroes or the snarl to be unleashed, but is what Redcloak doing so wrong? It seems to me that "good" and "evil" are assigned to the humans and goblins repectfully when in reality they are both just seperate factions who happen to kill each other. A lot.

But most of the time, it's the humans adventuring that kills off goblins. Even if goblins attack humans, it's just payback.
Can somebody point out for me something that makes the goblins definitely more evil than our "heroes"? Because right now I want the citizens of Gobbotopia to live long and prosper.
:redcloak:

I'd guess that's how you're supposed to feel. The author has developed his villains to the point that they are acting in a rational, understandable manner, which is hard to achieve. The problem is that the means they are using to achieve the end are terrible.

At the moment, we have no idea how things are going to go for the villains. Redcloak has been made a sympathetic enough character that he and the goblins are likely to get, if not a happy ending, then some sort of closure for their troubles.

[Deliverance]

^Start of Darkness shows us a lot of helpless goblin civilians, including children, being massacred by paladins who are laughing and treating it as a game. It's not filtered through anyone's view; it happens on-panel.

Yes, absolutely, but this doesn't work either for or against the Dark One's presentation of matters. This sort of action is something that is lamentably common in the history of warfare, to punish, to make an example, out of boredom, or for jokes and giggles.



As for the creation story, it provides an explanation for the clearly observable fact that D&D mechanics take pains to give monstrous humanoids the shaft. "They were designed to be slaughtered by the PC races" is something WotC is perfectly up-front about; the Dark One only rephrases it in a way that highlights the morality of the situation from the perspective of a goblin in a work with no fourth wall, and puts the blame on the OotS gods rather than creating a pantheon of thinly-veiled D&D designers (which would have been hilarious for at least one scene but would probably have quickly become more trouble for Rich than it would have been worth).

It certainly does.

To clarify - I know exactly where you are coming from, but my amusement was caused by the fact that if we go by the OOTS story we are told here and in the prequels without drawing in outside information such as the Giant's comments or the game system it is based on, i.e. if we treat the OOTS story with the same respect where storytelling is concerned as we'd treat other fictional stories that create their own people, universe, pantheons etc., then the situation looks very differently from what it does if we take such meta information into account.

Perhaps it is just my warped sense of fun in mindgames, but I do find it fun to try to imagine how the story could look to somebody without a background in D&D. :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

Nobody believes themselves to be evil. The fact that the goblins can justify their murderous activities does not stop them from being evil. If it could, then nothing in the world would be evil.

[Bulldog Psion]

Something I don't get is why would the gods make the fodder races as a source of EXP? The current arc is entirely predicated on large quantities of souls making gods stronger upon harvesting. Why wouldn't they be creating fast-breeding, short-lived individuals to be worshipers? If this gets pulled off, I feel like Hel (honourless dwarves), The Dark One (goblinoids) and Tiamat (kobolds, lizardfolk) are going to be the most powerful gods of the next world.

Or is the point to further emphasize the shortsightedness of the gods?

What interests me, also, is that humans, elves, dwarves, etc. provide just as much XP. Killing a human soldier yields just as much XP as killing a hobgoblin soldier; killing a 3rd-level elven cleric yields the same XP as killing a 3rd-level lizardfolk cleric.

So, logically, isn't it arguable that the humans, elves, dwarves, etc. were created just as much to provide EXP to kobolds, orcs, goblins, bugbears, etc? The objective evidence suggests that the sword cuts either way, so to speak.

[Vinyadan]

Nobody believes themselves to be evil. The fact that the goblins can justify their murderous activities does not stop them from being evil. If it could, then nothing in the world would be evil.

Interestingly, I think Glucksmann gave the definition of nihilist as "ignorant of evil".

[WoLong]

It doesn't appear that the goblins exhibit more disrespect for the rights of humans than vice versa, the only difference being that humans regularly engage in unprovoked slaughter of innocent goblins of all ages and conditions, while the goblins of gobbotopia were provoked and were defending themselves by targeting the source of enemy raids. Slavery is generally considered a definite evil act, but the entire populace of gobbotopia can't be held culpable, since there's no evidence that the average citizen is even aware of the extent of slavery, much less actively supporting it, (further, doing nothing about slavery may be considered a neutral act, not evil.)

Meanwhile, the goblins appear to be at total peace with their neighbors, and don't seem to be actively aggressive against other (non-human) races or factions. Nor do they appear to have systemic cruelty among their own people.

Redcloak, on the other hand, is directly involved with the slavery and other problems. I would consider Redcloak evil and the goblins as a whole neutral, maybe lawful neutral. In non-DnD terms, not having to do with personal moral beliefs, Redcloak and Xykon routinely act with callous disregard for the rights and lives of others, but there's no proof that the goblins do on a widespread level.

[Keltest]

It doesn't appear that the goblins exhibit more disrespect for the rights of humans than vice versa, the only difference being that humans regularly engage in unprovoked slaughter of innocent goblins of all ages and conditions, while the goblins of gobbotopia were provoked and were defending themselves by targeting the source of enemy raids. Slavery is generally considered a definite evil act, but the entire populace of gobbotopia can't be held culpable, since there's no evidence that the average citizen is even aware of the extent of slavery, much less actively supporting it, (further, doing nothing about slavery may be considered a neutral act, not evil.)

Meanwhile, the goblins appear to be at total peace with their neighbors, and don't seem to be actively aggressive against other (non-human) races or factions. Nor do they appear to have systemic cruelty among their own people.

Redcloak, on the other hand, is directly involved with the slavery and other problems. I would consider Redcloak evil and the goblins as a whole neutral, maybe lawful neutral. In non-DnD terms, not having to do with personal moral justifications, Redcloak and Xykon routinely act with callous disregard for the rights and lives of others, but there's no proof that the goblins do on a widespread level.

something like 99% of the population of gobbotopia is currently made up of the soldiers who conquered it. Their families were left behind in the Hobgoblin camp back in the North. And regarding "targeting the source of enemy raids", the citizens of Azure City did not even know of the existence of the Sapphire Guard, much less were involved with its activities.

[hroþila]

"Humans regularly engage in unprovoked slaughter of innocent goblins of all ages and conditions"? The last such incident we know about happened, what, 35 years ago?

[WoLong]

"Humans regularly engage in unprovoked slaughter of innocent goblins of all ages and conditions"? The last such incident we know about happened, what, 35 years ago?

It's clearly stated in SoD that this was neither the first or last attack from the sapphire guard; for example they were pursued again in the swamp (interrupted by lizardmen, but still.) Also, based on what we know of the OotS/DnD universe, it's reasonable to assume attacks from other humans occur regularly.

It's possible that the Hobgoblins have no grievances with the azurites, but to my memory there's no definite information one way or the other for hobgoblins.




something like 99% of the population of gobbotopia is currently made up of the soldiers who conquered it.

I'm under the impression that Gobbotopia is considered a refuge for all goblins to come. Do you have a reference that says immigrant goblins make up a small percentage of the population?



the citizens of Azure City did not even know of the existence of the Sapphire Guard, much less were involved with its activities.


Neither do the common goblins/hobgoblins likely know about azurite political structure. I'm not saying that the azurite citizens are at fault, but the attacks were still based from azure city.

[Keltest]

I'm under the impression that Gobbotopia is considered a refuge for all goblins to come. Do you have a reference that says immigrant goblins make up a small percentage of the population? Redcloak gives a comment to the effect that the non-combatants are still not in the city during the celebration of the founding of Gobbotopia




Neither do the common goblins/hobgoblins likely know about azurite political structure. I'm not saying that the azurite citizens are at fault, but the attacks were still based from azure city.

Redcloak has displayed a greater knowledge of the Sapphire Guard than the Azurites have. And if you don't really care about who your target is, you don't really get to claim to be neutral.

[Bobb]

......but is what Redcloak doing so wrong?

Yes. Allow me to remind you of some of his accomplishments, goals, and motivations. [Start of Darkness spoilers ahead]

*ahem*

1. Joined up with a sorcerer to use his power after that sorcerer callously murdered his people (redcloak's people)

2. Murdered his own brother instead of helping him kill the evil sorcerer who has enslaved a peaceful (and self sustaining) goblin population.

3. Has been willing to personally murder some of the most talented (craftsgoblin) and dedicated (spy goblin) fellow fighters for the cause.

4. Believes that human children being slaughtered and/or enslaved by goblins is fine because those human children's parents slaughtered goblins.

5. Blames every human for the actions of some humans.

6. Justifies erasing all goblins now so that future goblins can have it better. (IMO totally evil/some would disagree with this one)

7. discredits alternative solutions to goblinkind's plight because of personal guilt and the sunk-cost fallacy.

If that's not enough to put someone on the naughty list than I don't know what is.



It seems to me that "good" and "evil" are assigned to the humans and goblins repectfully when in reality they are both just seperate factions who happen to kill each other. A lot.

Right. OotS is about constituents from all races with various alignment pools. No race is universally anything.


But most of the time, it's the humans adventuring that kills off goblins. Even if goblins attack humans, it's just payback.

Eh. That's not really supported by the comic. Remember how azorious has defenses against goblin attacks? We don't know who struck the first blow. Being that the goblins started with no fertile lands it would make sense that they turned to raiding but we are not graced with the specifics.

It's pretty clear that "Payback" has been the motivation for generations; very Hatfield and McCoy.

Redcloak's first encounter with humans was as a victim so that's probably where the sympathy comes from.

I think the real problem is that the goblins, through no fault of their own, were set up as the fall guy by the gods. In a scenario where one group has plenty and another group has very little the underdog is generally viewed with more sympathy.



Can somebody point out for me something that makes the goblins definitely more evil than our "heroes"? Because right now I want the citizens of Gobbotopia to live long and prosper.
:redcloak:

Goblins as a whole? No.

Gobbotopians? Again, nothing concrete for everyone. Many goblins went there for safety. But the conquering army did their murdering of civilians with great enthusiasm. Racial based slavery is not 'nice' and gobbotopia is perfectly fine with unequal treatment now that they have the upper hand.

[Deliverance]

If that's not enough to put someone on the naughty list than I don't know what is.

I quite agree, and Right-eye said it best in what I consider a bit of the Giant's finest writing. Regardless of whether one agrees with Right-eye's assessment of the Dark One, he certainly appears to be spot on with regards to his brother.

Right-eye's words about how turning back is possible so long as you admit you are wrong and try to fix your mistakes is a recurrent theme in OOTS, most prominently seen in Soon's words to a dying Miko, the Deva's words to Roy (on the Elan incident), and V's development post familicide.


Xykon is fighting Durokan, Right-eye is planning to attack Xykon, and Redcloak has just told Right-eye that the risk is too great if he fails (Xykon might kill all the goblins and go enslave another goblin village) and he cannot allow Right-eye to gamble with the lives of the goblin people.

Right-eye: I can't believe you! You hypocrite! All you care about is your stupid plan!
Redcloak: My plan is for the betterment of the goblin people!
Righy-eye: You don't even KNOW the goblin people.

Right-eye: Do you think this is what they want? To be ruled by an insane lich? To be killed by poor planning, or mood swings?
Redcloak: Look, I've spent my entire life-
Right-eye: Your life? Your LIFE?

Right-eye: Brother, you may have had a lifetime, but you haven't had a life since the day you put on that cloak. Life is about growing - growing older, growing wiser, growing closer to your loved ones. But you, you're frozen in time. You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off your master's corpse that day.

Redcloak: Oh, so now you've gained some great insight on the universe by letting your body and mind deteriorate?
Right-eye: YES! When you're faced with your own mortality, you have no choice but to consider what's best for the next generation.

Right-eye: And this deal with Xykon is killing our spirit almost as fast as it's killing our bodies. You don't even know what it is you're trying to better, because you don't know what it is like not to serve an undead overlord, or a petty spiteful god.

Redcloak: ...What did you just say?
Right-eye: Come on, you have to realize that the Dark One doesn't care about us. Why else would he let you throw goblin lives away on this plan?

Redcloak: Throw away lives? How dare you?! Every goblin that has died since I've been high priest has been to further the Plan! Their deaths were a necessary sacrifice! They were NOT my fault!
Right-eye: Wait... that's it, isn't it?

Right-eye: It's all about whose fault it is... If I kill Xykon now, then it was all a waste. You ordered goblins to their deaths believing in the Plan - so if we abandon it now, then you were wrong. You let them die for nothing. You're willing to throw good lives after bad so that you don't have to admit that we were wrong to work with Xykon in the first place, much less help him cheat death.

Redcloak: Look, it's too late to turn back from the Plan! We made our deal with the devil years ago, now we just have to ride it out to the end. Just a little longer, brother.
Right-eye: No! It's gone on too long already! Not one more dead goblin!

Right-eye: We CAN turn back - if we admit that we were wrong, and try to fix our mistakes. Mark my words, goblins will never achieve true freedom until Xykon is no more. But I see now that I will never convince you with words. Only actions will do the trick.

(Cue Redcloak slaying Right-eye to protect Xykon.)

If the reader of this spoiler hasn't bought Start of Darkness yet, what are you waiting for? The above is just a taste, and the whole meal is rather more filling. It is some of the Giant's finest writing and well worth the price.

[Draconi Redfir]

That means you don't really have anything to say about evil, do you?

don't know. I'm of the mind that there are two kinds of Evil. the usual "Grr arrg i want to destroy everything and everyone either just because or due to some cause/etc whatever" and one that is more "I just really don't see the problem with eating our dead. Food is food right? and if you mess with us we'll rip your arms out and hit you with them because we really don't want people messing with us." or to simplize, "True/destroy" evil and "Just-not-good/agreeing with society" evil. i personally beleive the Goblins from the webcomic "Goblins; Life their their eyes" to be of this latter catigory, and those of Gobbotopia may also inhabit it.

is that what you meant by having something to say about it?

[mouser9169]

Ooooh... I love these topics. Let me put down my popcorn for a second ;

You can't use morals or principles from our world and pretend they directly apply to a world where bands of sentient creatures travel around slaughtering other sentient creatures every day as a matter of course. There is no "and they lived happily ever after" in the Stickverse. Sooner or later somebody is going to come along and try to kill you and take your stuff.

My personal view (and the 'yardstick' I always DM by) for good vs. evil is this: Evil believes that 'might makes right'. Or, to quote Canderous from KotOR, "The weak exist to serve the will of the strong." An evil society may even be 'benevolent' for most people most of the time. Police states are often very safe places to live, at least in terms of normal crimes. That safety comes at a price.

Redcloak is the leader of the goblins because he killed the old Supreme Leader, proving his strength. The humans are slaves in Azure City because they were conquered in battle.

Taking over Azure City was a simple "war of expansion/migration" (with a healthy side dish of 'payback'). The goblins keep the losers as slaves, but remember that the paladins slaughtering goblin women and children in the past did not fall, so an action can be "wrong" but not "evil".

I'm rooting for Jirix and Gobbotopia, too :redcloak:

[Bulldog Psion]

The goblins keep the losers as slaves, but remember that the paladins slaughtering goblin women and children in the past did not fall, so an action can be "wrong" but not "evil".


Actually, by Word of Giant, this is incorrect. Some of them did fall.

[Vinyadan]

Actually, by Word of Giant, this is incorrect. Some of them did fall.

Being a graysscale comic, they didn't notice their own beige-ment until it was too late :smallwink:

[Bulldog Psion]

Being a graysscale comic, they didn't notice their own beige-ment until it was too late :smallwink:

Heh. :smallamused:

Though I will admit that the beige-ment concept still weirds me out slightly.

[Deliverance]

Ooooh... I love these topics. Let me put down my popcorn for a second ;

You can't use morals or principles from our world and pretend they directly apply to a world where bands of sentient creatures travel around slaughtering other sentient creatures every day as a matter of course. There is no "and they lived happily ever after" in the Stickverse. Sooner or later somebody is going to come along and try to kill you and take your stuff.

Exactly how does this differ from out world? Bands of humans travel around slaughtering humans every day as a matter of course and there is no "happily ever after". :smalltongue:

[Kish]

don't know. I'm of the mind that there are two kinds of Evil. the usual "Grr arrg i want to destroy everything and everyone either just because or due to some cause/etc whatever" and one that is more "I just really don't see the problem with eating our dead. Food is food right? and if you mess with us we'll rip your arms out and hit you with them because we really don't want people messing with us." or to simplize, "True/destroy" evil and "Just-not-good/agreeing with society" evil. i personally beleive the Goblins from the webcomic "Goblins; Life their their eyes" to be of this latter catigory, and those of Gobbotopia may also inhabit it.

is that what you meant by having something to say about it?
What I mean is that if you don't consider morals important, such that you can't or won't even engage with them, what are you doing even trying to talk about evil? All the stuff you said in this post seems unrelated to the actual content of this comic or Thunt's Goblins comic, except that, ironically, the weird dragging in of the Goblins comic and the declaration of characters there who are written as something close to Exalted Good as a form of evil serves to establish that you, like the most racist human we've yet seen in OotS, think goblins must always be evil whether it makes any sense or not.

Ooooh... I love these topics. Let me put down my popcorn for a second ;

You can't use morals or principles from our world and pretend they directly apply to a world where bands of sentient creatures travel around slaughtering other sentient creatures every day as a matter of course. There is no "and they lived happily ever after" in the Stickverse. Sooner or later somebody is going to come along and try to kill you and take your stuff.
Utterly wrongheaded as this characterization of OotS is, it does help me understand something that was previously unclear: Why people recurringly compare Rich's writing to George R. R. Martin. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?299113-IS-George-RR-martian-ghost-writing-here-%28Game-of-Thrones-spoiler-inside%29). If you ignore Roy sticking up for orcs in On the Origins of PCs, the Order's wrestling with how to act toward Vampire Durkon, the comic's condemnation of Vaarsuvius' mass murder, and assume that everything good about the Order is a hypocritical gloss on a group of callous robbers and murderers in a world where everyone is racist robbers and murderers, it makes sense to think that OotS is profoundly amoral and cynical (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15874171&postcount=38)--arguably beyond GRRM's work even, as in GRRM's work people can theoretically act like morality is a thing, they just get the shaft whenever they do.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can somebody point out for me something that makes the goblins definitely more evil than our "heroes"? The rule book. Here, I'll cite the entry for you, d20SRD.

Alignment: Usually Neutral Evil
(And for 5e, the entry is "Alignment: Neutral Evil" but 3.5ish tends to be where OoTS gets its references).

It's the default condition. The same rulebook says that for humans, alignment varies to all extremes. If you don't like that structure, suggest you take it up with the publisher of the game that all of this story telling is based upon. In a constructed world, you can indeed have objective evil. D&D as a role playing game, (to which a lot of credit goes to Arneson's input to Gygax) began as a way to make story telling into a game. We've come full circle and see the game as the germ of story telling, like the FR novels, Dragonlance novels, and this web comic turned graphic novel Order of the Stick.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy watching Rich mess about with D&D issue of alignment. Putty in his hands, it is.

Alignment is OK for a game that isn't about reality, but about a fantasy world where the archetypical struggle, which is based in literature and literary traditions, is "good versus evil" and other variations on that theme.

Alignment is hardly sufficient for fleshing out a moral system In Real Life. It is also amusing to watch people contort that imperfect system into arguments' applicability and models in real life.

[Kish]

Seriously? Isn't "listed alignment is evil, end of moral debate" so (checks the release date for On the Origins of PCS) eleven-years-ago?

[Vinyadan]

Heh. :smallamused:

Though I will admit that the beige-ment concept still weirds me out slightly.

http://s30.postimg.org/yalju6vnl/rect4706.png
:smallbiggrin:

[Draconi Redfir]

What I mean is that if you don't consider morals important, such that you can't or won't even engage with them, what are you doing even trying to talk about evil?

There is a difference between morals and flat out good and evil. i don't go around thinking "muahaha lets kill these people because it's fun", i rather think "Hey, this [disability/illness/etc] here causes people to be unable to take care of themselves or contribute to society with no chance of recovery... maaaybe we shouldn't be spending resources to keep them around?" Which i suppose if you really wanted you could label as my second-kind of evil, though that's up to you i suppose.




All the stuff you said in this post seems unrelated to the actual content of this comic or Thunt's Goblins comic, except that, ironically, the weird dragging in of the Goblins comic and the declaration of characters there who are written as something close to Exalted Good as a form of evil serves to establish that you, like the most racist human we've yet seen in OotS, think goblins must always be evil whether it makes any sense or not.


the only alignment we know for-sure in that comic is that the paladin is lawful good because he said so/it's a paladin requirement. Whil there's nothing preventing the other characters from not being evil, they are still monsters that have a tendancy to /be/ evil.

You could easily have a story about several pit fiends getting together and having coffee or going grocery shopping together and performing no decidedly evil acts, this doesn't make them any less evil or likely to be evil. it just means that for the story in question, their alignment isn't brought up or hinted at.

from what i understood you asked my opinion on evil. i merely responded with such.

[Jasdoif]

All things considered....The most questionable part of the entire Gobbotopia scenario as it stands now, is how Gobbotopia and the Azurites are going to resolve their differences over the aftermath. It's something that isn't likely to happen while Xykon and Redcloak are active; the Sapphire Guard is devoting resources (particularly O-Chul and Lien) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html) to stopping them, and the residents of Gobbotopia aren't in a position to defy either of them. Once they're out of the way, Gobbotopia will have to decide for itself what it wants to do...as will the Azurites, whose options may include getting support for a military operation from those allies who were worried about a lich (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html) who would no longer be a factor.

Will they come up with some way to coexist going forward? Or will one/both of them take the much easier route of falling back on hostility or defiance? I have no idea, but it seems to me that they're going to have to deal with it eventually...unless of course, Xykon and/or Redcloak cause the world's destruction or force the hobgoblins down a particular path. Which seems a valid reason to support the Order of the Stick as accidental heroes for the goblinoids; freeing the Gobbotopians to decide for themselves how to live may never have been their intended goal, but it's not a victory to be discounted (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html).

[Keltest]

All things considered....The most questionable part of the entire Gobbotopia scenario as it stands now, is how Gobbotopia and the Azurites are going to resolve their differences over the aftermath. It's something that isn't likely to happen while Xykon and Redcloak are active; the Sapphire Guard is devoting resources (particularly O-Chul and Lien) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html) to stopping them, and the residents of Gobbotopia aren't in a position to defy either of them. Once they're out of the way, Gobbotopia will have to decide for itself what it wants to do...as will the Azurites, whose options may include getting support for a military operation from those allies who were worried about a lich (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html) who would no longer be a factor.

Will they come up with some way to coexist going forward? Or will one/both of them take the much easier route of falling back on hostility or defiance? I have no idea, but it seems to me that they're going to have to deal with it eventually...unless of course, Xykon and/or Redcloak cause the world's destruction or force the hobgoblins down a particular path. Which seems a valid reason to support the Order of the Stick as accidental heroes for the goblinoids; freeing the Gobbotopians to decide for themselves how to live may never have been their intended goal, but it's not a victory to be discounted (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html).

Given the way Rich has been writing, I find it fairly unlikely that Gobbotopia will flat out go up in flames unless the goblinoids collectively (meaning without Redcloak or Xykon pushing them) start attacking other city-states or something horribly unredeemable like that.

[Ruck]

Utterly wrongheaded as this characterization of OotS is, it does help me understand something that was previously unclear: Why people recurringly compare Rich's writing to George R. R. Martin. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?299113-IS-George-RR-martian-ghost-writing-here-%28Game-of-Thrones-spoiler-inside%29).

I compare Rich's writing to George R.R. Martin's all the time. Namely, that Rich's seven-book fantasy epic currently in the middle of book six is better than George's seven-book fantasy epic currently in the middle of book six. :smallbiggrin:


There is a difference between morals and flat out good and evil.
How? "Good" and "Evil" are functionally the basis for almost any system of morality, especially in a world based on D&D rules.

[Wardog]

don't know. I'm of the mind that there are two kinds of Evil. the usual "Grr arrg i want to destroy everything and everyone either just because or due to some cause/etc whatever" and one that is more "I just really don't see the problem with eating our dead. Food is food right? and if you mess with us we'll rip your arms out and hit you with them because we really don't want people messing with us."

I think you're missing a really important, third kind of evil: "I just really don't see the problem with killing/exploiting you. It benefits me and what's wrong with that?"

[theNater]

The rule book. Here, I'll cite the entry for you, d20SRD.

It's the default condition.
No. Absolutely not. That's a misreading of what the book says that leads to the idea that Good and Evil are just arbitrary team names.

In D&D a character's alignment is determined by their actions, not the other way around. The "usually" tag in an alignment line means that the primary cultures of the people in question strongly encourage behavior in line with that alignment. The predominant goblin tribes in the default D&D world encourage things like slavery, torture, and murder for fun and profit. A goblin who grows up in such a tribe participating in such activities isn't Evil because they're a goblin, they're Evil because they're doing those things. A goblin who grows up outside of such a tribe will be no more likely to be Evil than anyone who shared their upbringing, and a human adopted by such a tribe will be just as likely to be Evil as his goblin peers.


There is a difference between morals and flat out good and evil. i don't go around thinking "muahaha lets kill these people because it's fun", i rather think "Hey, this [disability/illness/etc] here causes people to be unable to take care of themselves or contribute to society with no chance of recovery... maaaybe we shouldn't be spending resources to keep them around?" Which i suppose if you really wanted you could label as my second-kind of evil, though that's up to you i suppose.
How do you feel about beating the infirm for fun? Because that's something the goblins of Gobbotopia do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) that none of the heroes engage in.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seriously? Isn't "listed alignment is evil, end of moral debate" so (checks the release date for On the Origins of PCS) eleven-years-ago? No, all it means is that you still don't get it. It really isn't that complicated. (hint: four letter word, begins with g).

@theNater: alignment was created in a game context that was humanocentric and was Law versus Chaos. The next iteration, trying to fit good and evil in to account for more nuance was OK if all you did was use it in a game. As a moral framework it is deeply lacking.
I thus conclude from your post that you don't get it either.
The one thing we will agree on is that alignment is deeply informed by what you do, regardless of what you profess.
I suggest you read up on Angry DM's commentary on alignment.
He gets it.
For that matter, Rich gets it. That's why the fun he has with batting it about, as he has batted about weird Game Rules since OoTS #1, is such a joy to read.

[The_Weirdo]

The less evil side is the one that didn't start it. Make of that what you will.

[Yuki Akuma]

The less evil side is the one that didn't start it. Make of that what you will.

We don't actually know which side started it. Unless the Gods count as a side.

[The_Weirdo]

Indeed, I acknowledged your spoilered point in another post farther down the thread. And I'll repeat what I said there- the fact that it didn't work once, doesn't create an automatic and eternal excuse for going to war, because "we tried a peace overture, and it didn't work." That's the kind of thinking that characterized dynastic and religious tit-for-tat wars in the real world for hundreds (even thousands) of years. "We offered them peace and they rejected it;" "They forced an unfair treaty on us;" "We were defeated by treachery, but now we can retake what belongs to us." All of these are transparent excuses for waging wars of aggression.

The goblins have a legitimate beef against the Sapphire Guard; but it was clearly a disproportionate act to invade Azure City, kill untold numbers, and displace or enslave the rest to settle that grudge.

And how proportionate would anyone act in RC's place? I know I'd not be proportionate at all.

[The_Weirdo]

We don't actually know which side started it. Unless the Gods count as a side.

They may well. It can very easily be argued that the gods need to be taken to task for what they've been doing and forced by whatever means to change things for a better state of affairs.

[Draconi Redfir]

How? "Good" and "Evil" are functionally the basis for almost any system of morality, especially in a world based on D&D rules.

Morals are a lot more complex though, there are a lot more gray areas that you need to dance around. Like "Half the city's population is suffering from this rapidly-spreading disease that has no cure and makes life a living hell. We could put them all down and stop the disease for good but that would be morally wrong" etc. Good and evils tend to navigate to the more extreme sides of it, good people will almost always struggle with it and try to find a better way, while evil people will likely see the greater good in the whole thing and cull the infected.

ultimately, i don't really know. both that last post and this post have been made while sleep deprived, i could be completely wrong with the whole thing and not even realize it, i'm sorry.


I think you're missing a really important, third kind of evil: "I just really don't see the problem with killing/exploiting you. It benefits me and what's wrong with that?"

Fair enough.


How do you feel about beating the infirm for fun? Because that's something the goblins of Gobbotopia do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html) that none of the heroes engage in.
Well we know that those spesific hobgoblins who did the task enjoyed it, and as such were likely more evil then their newer recruit, who to me at least seemed a little more unsure about the whole thing.

Also keep in mind that the infirm in question are human slaves, elderly ones at that. The Goblinoids likely care very little at all for their well being, only using them mainly as a source of free labour, a sign of "in your face we won the war" and perhaps to some (int heir minds at least) some kind of karmatic retribution. (Which in all fairness it isn't.)

Hobgoblins seem to be the kind of evil who accept and participate in things like dogfights, pitting animals against one another to the death all in the name of fun and sport for the audience. To them these particular humans are little higher then animals on the "people" scale. they beat them and get a laugh out of it because they legitimately don't care about them.

[theNater]

No, all it means is that you still don't get it. It really isn't that complicated. (hint: four letter word, begins with g).

@theNater: alignment was created in a game context that was humanocentric and was Law versus Chaos. The next iteration, trying to fit good and evil in to account for more nuance was OK if all you did was use it in a game. As a moral framework it is deeply lacking.
I thus conclude from your post that you don't get it either.
The one thing we will agree on is that alignment is deeply informed by what you do, regardless of what you profess.
I suggest you read up on Angry DM's commentary on alignment.
He gets it.
For that matter, Rich gets it. That's why the fun he has with batting it about, as he has batted about weird Game Rules since OoTS #1, is such a joy to read.
We all know that alignment is a tool for game-playing and story-telling. That doesn't make it useless; indeed, the morality we put into our stories tells us a lot about the morality we have in reality. Rich has written (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole&p=12718471#post12718471) about (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole&p=12718550#post12718550) that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole&p=12743252#post12743252) at (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286395-Vigilantism-and-the-Lawful-Alignment-in-OotS&p=15385725#post15385725) length (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?306212-Alignment-system-very-useful-for-playing&p=16119916#post16119916). One particular line from the first post:

...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.

Heck, the Angry DM refers to strip #282 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html) in his write-up, but fails to mention that the support he takes for his argument comes from the sleazy jerk of an ambulance-chaser opposing our heroes. In the very same strip Celia says "There are people who claim that alignments are archaic and limiting; that they restrict possible personalities and lead to inherently unsolvable conflicts. Please, prove them wrong." Which of these people do you think Rich intends for us, as the audience, to agree with?

The idea that Rich thinks alignment is just a weird rule to make fun of is not supported by his writing in the comics or on the forums.

[mouser9169]

Morals are a lot more complex though, there are a lot more gray areas that you need to dance around. Like "Half the city's population is suffering from this rapidly-spreading disease that has no cure and makes life a living hell. We could put them all down and stop the disease for good but that would be morally wrong" etc. Good and evils tend to navigate to the more extreme sides of it, good people will almost always struggle with it and try to find a better way, while evil people will likely see the greater good in the whole thing and cull the infected.



I would view that particular problem as being more of a Law vs Chaos than a Good vs Evil thing. Sacrificing some for the greater good is exactly the sort of thing Lawful philosophies espouse. I could see Hinjo as ruler making that decision, for example.

[The_Weirdo]

The Goblinoids likely care very little at all for their well being, only using them mainly as a source of free labour, a sign of "in your face we won the war" and perhaps to some (int heir minds at least) some kind of karmatic retribution. (Which in all fairness it isn't.)

That's the question: Isn't it?

[Kish]

No, all it means is that you still don't get it. It really isn't that complicated. (hint: four letter word, begins with g).

We can agree that someone here doesn't understand D&D alignment or the comic the forum exists for discussing, and that it isn't complicated.

[KorvinStarmast]

The idea that Rich thinks alignment is just a weird rule to make fun of is not supported by his writing in the comics or on the forums. Rich's comics and writing have exposed and explored a variety of the problems alignment (3.5 D&D version) has in a story and when trying to apply real world philosophy. His story and his characters transcend that game tool. He does that on purpose. (IMO, he pokes fun at an immense body of D&D dumbacity that alignment has fed over the years, see Angry DM's essay for more on that. Not gonna reproduce it here).

Now, getting back to basics: in a world where god and deities and avatars actually exist, inherent evil can exist in an objective sense. (It isn't all relative). The basis, or the point of departure for this assessment is objectively codified. (RTFM).

[factotum]

Sacrificing some for the greater good is exactly the sort of thing Lawful philosophies espouse. I could see Hinjo as ruler making that decision, for example.

Except Hinjo is a Paladin, and they have to be both Good as well as Lawful. He would Fall so fast he wouldn't have time to draw breath if he chose to sacrifice the few for the sake of the many, which is a distinctly Lawful Neutral/Lawful Evil thing to be doing.

[Doug Lampert]

Rich's comics and writing have exposed and explored a variety of the problems alignment (3.5 D&D version) has in a story and when trying to apply real world philosophy. His story and his characters transcend that game tool. He does that on purpose. (IMO, he pokes fun at an immense body of D&D dumbacity that alignment has fed over the years, see Angry DM's essay for more on that. Not gonna reproduce it here).

Now, getting back to basics: in a world where god and deities and avatars actually exist, inherent evil can exist in an objective sense. (It isn't all relative). The basis, or the point of departure for this assessment is objectively codified. (RTFM).
Rich's comics are almost dead straight from the book D&D 3.x alignments. There are TOO FEW exceptions to the racial tendencies, but his Evil creatures are Evil, his Lawful creatures have a code, his Good creatures try to help others, and his Chaotic creatures do what they think is best under their current circumstances.

What he makes fun of are people who THINK D&D alignment is about team jerseys and that what's written on a sheet determines your alignment rather than your actions and attitudes determining your alignment.

Redcloak is a fine example of an Evil antagonist. That's the point. Rich isn't making fun of D&D alignment, which he's stated he considers a useful tool, he's making fun of people who misuse it and don't actually read the rules related to it.

[Bobb]

The less evil side is the one that didn't start it. Make of that what you will.

BS.



Also we don't know who started it. Given that the goblins started in infertile areas and the humans/elves/dwarves all got fertile land suited to them (through no fault of their own) and the goblin's characterization in comic it is highly likely many of the goblins were forced into nomadic/raider practices. Which would make them the aggressors (again, through no fault of their own)


Where you start, how bad you have it, what the other guy does is all out of your control.

What you do about it is.


That's the tragedy of the situation. So many goblins and humans going murder batman on each other making more murder batmen.


Right-Eye isn't the only goblin who's chosen to be the bigger biped but it's sadly going to take the majority of both sides to say they'd rather have peace than the last hit in to come up with an ultimate solution better than genocide.

[Ruck]

Morals are a lot more complex though, there are a lot more gray areas that you need to dance around. Like "Half the city's population is suffering from this rapidly-spreading disease that has no cure and makes life a living hell. We could put them all down and stop the disease for good but that would be morally wrong" etc. Good and evils tend to navigate to the more extreme sides of it, good people will almost always struggle with it and try to find a better way, while evil people will likely see the greater good in the whole thing and cull the infected.
Oh, of course, "pure good" and "pure evil" are merely the endpoints of morality, and the world has a whole series of complex decisions and shades of gray in between.

My question was more along the lines of "If good/evil is not the axis you use as your basis of morality, what is the axis?" But that question may have been based in a misinterpretation of what you wrote.

[The_Weirdo]

BS.



Also we don't know who started it. Given that the goblins started in infertile areas and the humans/elves/dwarves all got fertile land suited to them (through no fault of their own) and the goblin's characterization in comic it is highly likely many of the goblins were forced into nomadic/raider practices. Which would make them the aggressors (again, through no fault of their own)


Where you start, how bad you have it, what the other guy does is all out of your control.

What you do about it is.


That's the tragedy of the situation. So many goblins and humans going murder batman on each other making more murder batmen.


Right-Eye isn't the only goblin who's chosen to be the bigger biped but it's sadly going to take the majority of both sides to say they'd rather have peace than the last hit in to come up with an ultimate solution better than genocide.

Okay, gonna add it as a spoiler.
And what of the goblin village filled with innocents? Do they not deserve justice? The Azurites were oppressors. They have to pay. There must be justice for the oppressed. The gods must pay, the Azurites must pay. If the playing field was artificially skewed, then there must be reparations. There must be justice. And yes, there must be punishment.

[Friv]

Okay, gonna add it as a spoiler.
And what of the goblin village filled with innocents? Do they not deserve justice? The Azurites were oppressors. They have to pay.

First off, that village was attacked 34 years ago, some anyone under the age of 55 didn't have any input in the decision, let alone culpability.

Secondly, the village wasn't attacked by the entire population of Azure City. It was attacked by a small group of paladins of the Sapphire Guard. The only people who 'have to pay' for their crimes are the people who actually committed those crimes. If the goblins were, I don't know, assassinating a small group of paladins for their specific actions, you'd have an argument. But "The Azurites have to pay" is fundamentally identical to "the goblins have to pay for what the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle did", just scaled up. If you attack innocents because they have a tangential relationship to the people you actually have a grievance against, you're the bad guy.

[The_Weirdo]

Snip to prevent possible spoilers.

It's not really tangential if they are supported by the same structure. But sure, I'd not really mind a reaction merely forcing the offenders to hand over the people that DID do the deed so the victims could do to them as they wished, but I doubt that'd happen. Likewise, if some of the attackers were already dead, some rituals could be done to attack their souls and send them to the lower planes for punishment if the gods didn't do it already. That would include all the higher ups, the main leader included. However, what AC is suffering right now is but chickens coming home to roost. Aside from that, yes, the gods must pay. The gods must be punished and forced to make reparations. Redcloak is seeking justice. His means may be questionable, but his reasons are not his fault and, thus, a good part of his actions can be blamed on AC and on the gods.

[Kish]

Rich's comics and writing have exposed and explored a variety of the problems alignment (3.5 D&D version) has in a story and when trying to apply real world philosophy. His story and his characters transcend that game tool. He does that on purpose. (IMO, he pokes fun at an immense body of D&D dumbacity that alignment has fed over the years, see Angry DM's essay for more on that. Not gonna reproduce it here).

Now, getting back to basics: in a world where god and deities and avatars actually exist, inherent evil can exist in an objective sense. (It isn't all relative). The basis, or the point of departure for this assessment is objectively codified. (RTFM).
Rich said that he likes the alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12030297&postcount=9) and hates racial alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120), both of which would seem to go against your assertion that the goblins in OotS are automatically more evil than our "heroes," not because of anyone's actions, but because it sez so in the Monster Manual (and sez so even more extremely in 5ed).

Though I appreciate that actually linking to the posts of the person whose viewpoint you've been making assertions about lacks the weight of repeatedly mentioning this Angry DM person, whoever he is other than apparently someone who made the same insupportable assumptions about OotS you did.

[KorvinStarmast]

some stuff
Understand this term: default condition. RTFM. As to "our heroes" one of them is chaotic evil. On purpose. The rest of them are not, though V went for a dark journey of "ends justify means?" in pursuit of power.

Default Condition: RTFM.
You can homebrew whatever you like in your 3.5 campaign.

[Kish]

Campaign? When did we start talking about campaigns? If you thought the question was "why are the goblins in KorvinStarmast's campaign more evil than the humans in the same campaign" that might explain a lot about your posts.

Beyond that, you don't seem to even be trying to support your position, so...have fun!

[wumpus]

Though I appreciate that actually linking to the posts of the person whose viewpoint you've been making assertions about lacks the weight of repeatedly mentioning this Angry DM person, whoever he is other than apparently someone who made the same insupportable assumptions about OotS you did.

While Rich has mentioned that he is no longer interested at all about a game that was replace by its maker 9 years ago and its replacement has been replaced... I have to wonder if he cared enough back when he came up with the entire plot (ouch. It was that long ago...). The original plot might have involved issues with D&D alignments, but any adjustments over the years haven't cared about such at all.

We know that there are non-evil goblins (or at least "there have been" with Right Eye). Will non-evil gods (i.e. other than the Dark One) hear their prayers? Thor can barely be bothered with Durkon, so it doesn't look good.

[Bobb]

@The_Wierdo, your arguments support, nay demand that the young azurites who've lost their families destroy goblin-kind.


Soon everyone will deserve to burn.




:smallfrown:

[Kish]

Good point.

I'm pretty sure anyone who's looking to the comic in terms of "whose vengeance is justified?" and "who deserves to be slaughtered?" as valid questions which will receive uncertain resolution, rather than the answer to both being already unambiguously "no one, and what's wrong with you that you're asking?" is in for disappointment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15924763&postcount=71).

[The_Weirdo]

Good point.

I'm pretty sure anyone who's looking to the comic in terms of "whose vengeance is justified?" and "who deserves to be slaughtered?" as valid questions which will receive uncertain resolution, rather than the answer to both being already unambiguously "no one, and what's wrong with you that you're asking?" is in for disappointment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15924763&postcount=71).

Okay, that's a fair point. But still the question is: what of justice to the victims? Can even be both sides, but justice must be done. Someone must pay. If the paladins that did it in RC's village are already dead, surely their souls can be punished with the right magic. It wouldn't take Non-Evil or Good to seeing your village destroyed, your mother killed, etc., etc. and going "oh, it's okay, let bygones be bygones". It would take Exalted Good. There's a reason why Exalted characters get powers, they are off-the-chart, way above average Good. That's not a reasonable standard to which to hold RC.

[Jasdoif]

Someone must pay.That's not justice, that's vengeance.

[The_Weirdo]

That's not justice, that's vengeance.

That may very well be. But still RC is very much within his rights to want some here. You can argue he became the monster he fought, but that's neither here nor there; he is entitled to some degree of reparations and, yes, of retribution against those that oppressed him.

[hroþila]

[Redcloak] is entitled to some degree of reparations and, yes, of retribution against those that oppressed him.
They're dead. Except for Xykon (kinda).

Collective punishment being Evil is not a particularly hard concept to grasp. You can understand why someone would do it, logically and with their personal history in mind, but that wouldn't make them any less Evil.

[The_Weirdo]

They're dead. Except for Xykon (kinda).

Collective punishment being Evil is not a particularly hard concept to grasp.

In that case, he should use some nice Necro spells to go after their souls. And then proceed on at least some plan to force the gods to create a fairer world.

And yes. Collective punishment is Evil. You know, collective punishment like the Azurites did. So what do they get for it? Are they not Evil, then? Are they not corrupted?

[Keltest]

In that case, he should use some nice Necro spells to go after their souls. And then proceed on at least some plan to force the gods to create a fairer world.

And yes. Collective punishment is Evil. You know, collective punishment like the Azurites did. So what do they get for it? Are they not Evil, then? Are they not corrupted?

What are you even trying to argue for here? "The Azurites" didn't do collective punishment, the Sapphire Guard, a separate entity, was very specific in targeting the bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

[The_Weirdo]

What are you even trying to argue for here? "The Azurites" didn't do collective punishment, the Sapphire Guard, a separate entity, was very specific in targeting the bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

And, of course, anyone, man or woman, boy or girl, in his vicinity. But I'm arguing that at least the Sapphire Guard is in the wrong and that any diplomacy between them should begin with the SG going: "Here are the names of the people that attacked your village and some Soulbind scrolls and materials. We're sorry."

[Keltest]

And, of course, anyone, man or woman, boy or girl, in his vicinity.

And that's on the people who did those things, not on the Azurites.

[hroþila]

And, of course, anyone, man or woman, boy or girl, in his vicinity.
A) Those who did were judged to have performed an Evil act and thus they fell and lost their divine powers. Whether that one act was enough to make them register as Evil, we do not know.
B) Redcloak is considered to have performed many Evil acts. In his case, we know they've been enough for him to register as Evil.

No one here has any problem with (A), so I dunno what your problem with (B) is.

[The_Weirdo]

And that's on the people who did those things, not on the Azurites.

Okay. So the SG must answer for them. And likely must answer to the Azurites as well, since it, the SG, caused the whole situation.

[The_Weirdo]

A) Those who did were judged to have performed an Evil act and thus they fell and lost their divine powers. Whether that one act was enough to make them register as Evil, we do not know.
B) Redcloak is considered to have performed many Evil acts. In his case, we know they've been enough for him to register as Evil.

No one here has any problem with (A), so I dunno what your problem with (B) is.

Losing their powers is not enough.

[Jasdoif]

You can argue he became the monster he fought, but that's neither here nor there; he is entitled to some degree of reparations and, yes, of retribution against those that oppressed him."Becoming the monster he fought" may not be your point....But it's rather critical that Redcloak steamrolled thousands of Azurite citizens, who didn't even know the Sapphire Guard existed, in his quest for retribution.

That's the problem with the "whoever started it has carte blanche" angle. Redcloak started it with all of them, and they are entitled to "some degree of reparations and, yes, of retribution" over the loss of home and family to the exact same degree as he is.


If Redcloak had targeted the Sapphire Guard more precisely, or perhaps proved the existence and actions of the Sapphire Guard to the rest of Azure City and forced them to pick sides, that'd be one thing. As it is, he crushed them for his own convenience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Campaign?
Pay attention. Whose campaign is OoTS set in?

[theNater]

Rich's comics are almost dead straight from the book D&D 3.x alignments. There are TOO FEW exceptions to the racial tendencies, but his Evil creatures are Evil, his Lawful creatures have a code, his Good creatures try to help others, and his Chaotic creatures do what they think is best under their current circumstances.

What he makes fun of are people who THINK D&D alignment is about team jerseys and that what's written on a sheet determines your alignment rather than your actions and attitudes determining your alignment.

Redcloak is a fine example of an Evil antagonist. That's the point. Rich isn't making fun of D&D alignment, which he's stated he considers a useful tool, he's making fun of people who misuse it and don't actually read the rules related to it.
Now that you've said this, I don't have to. Thanks!


Though I appreciate that actually linking to the posts of the person whose viewpoint you've been making assertions about lacks the weight of repeatedly mentioning this Angry DM person, whoever he is other than apparently someone who made the same insupportable assumptions about OotS you did.
I'm pretty sure KorvinStarmast is referring to this rant (http://angrydm.com/2012/02/aligning-dd-next/).


RTFM.
...
RTFM.
I have. The whole thing about "usually" indicating a cultural tendency rather than a racial one is from the manual. One of the problems with the manual is that it uses non-standard definitions for terms like "usually" and "always" and doesn't do a good job of drawing attention to where they redefine those terms.

[Kish]

^ Thanks. Yeah, that's about as inane as I would have expected it to be. "Alignment is overly simplistic; I prove this by making it far more simplistic than it actually is in the books, pointing at it, and sneering 'Who could value such a simplistic concept?'"


[...]
Redcloak sacrificed many goblins--prominently his own brother, sister-in-law, and nephews--for vengeance on the Sapphire Guard. It would probably be impossible to find a Sapphire Guard paladin with anywhere near as much innocent goblin blood on his hands as Redcloak, and yet you're saying Redcloak has a right to a type of "justice" which involves Soul Binding. I find it hard to credit that this has any actual justice to it. It is, in fact, easy to see how the reasoning you're presenting leads to a dead world and a world in which almost everyone who dies has been Soul Bound. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, indeed.

Beyond that, I can say only that I think, and trust, and hope, that the comic will ultimately disappoint you and everyone else here who has been arguing that the comic will or should uphold the morality of disproportionate retribution, collective punishment, or racism, all of which are evil.

[The_Weirdo]

Redcloak started it with all of them, and they are entitled to "some degree of reparations and, yes, of retribution" over the loss of home and family to the exact same degree as he is.

True, they are. It will still be the SG's fault, but yes, they are.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have. The whole thing about "usually" indicating a cultural tendency rather than a racial one is from the manual. One of the problems with the manual is that it uses non-standard definitions for terms like "usually" and "always" and doesn't do a good job of drawing attention to where they redefine those terms. Rather than digging the fly turds out of the pepper with general versus specific, I think we can agree that the game manuals do indeed sometimes leave us to our own devices.

One can overcomplicate things, or one can keep it simple, and of course there's all of that swampy area in between. (There be dragons ...)

[The_Weirdo]

Redcloak sacrificed many goblins--prominently his own brother, sister-in-law, and nephews--for vengeance on the Sapphire Guard. It would probably be impossible to find a Sapphire Guard paladin with anywhere near as much innocent goblin blood on his hands as Redcloak, and yet you're saying Redcloak has a right to a type of "justice" which involves Soul Binding. I find it hard to credit that this has any actual justice to it. It is, in fact, easy to see how the reasoning you're presenting leads to a dead world and a world in which almost everyone who dies has been Soul Bound. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, indeed.

Beyond that, I can say only that I think, and trust, and hope, that the comic will ultimately disappoint you and everyone else here who has been arguing that the comic will or should uphold the morality of disproportionate retribution, collective punishment, or racism, all of which are evil.

Oh. I'm loving the comic and will quite like how it ends while having no illusion about how RC will end up. As for soulbinding or some other such methods, well, it seems reasonable. The (ex-)paladins weren't punished for RC's village. And true, RC would deserve punishment as well. But the SG did start it. I'm not claiming RC is a nice guy and should not suffer. I'm saying that the SG and - yes - the gods - should be held accountable. And that, no, an organization doesn't cease to be accountable for evil because the member that did it under its employ and with its resources died.

[hroþila]

Losing their powers is not enough.
It's more than Redcloak got from the gods so far.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's more than Redcloak got from the gods so far. So far ... and if I recall a comment from Rich, there's about 1 and 2/3 books left to see how he fares.

[The_Weirdo]

So far ... and if I recall a comment from Rich, there's about 1 and 2/3 books left to see how he fares.

Precisely! So the Paladins that started it all just lose their powers and get to live to a ripe old age (or fork over the cash for an Atonement spell), die happily and go to some sort of LN heaven. And... That's it? They killed children. So did Redcloak and his soul is far beyond redemption. So... What of the Paladins? What of the Sapphire Guard, that let this, nay, caused this to happen? The simple fact that Miko behaved as she did for so long is clear proof that, if the Paladins lost their powers, the SG sure didn't learn anything from it.

[hroþila]

So far ... and if I recall a comment from Rich, there's about 1 and 2/3 books left to see how he fares.
Emphasis on "from the gods". My point is that the OotS universe isn't ruled by any sort of karmic justice - the gods aren't a collective of Lawful Good powers. If the fallen paladins escaped karmic retribution for the one confirmed Evil act we know they committed, Redcloak has escaped it for plenty such deeds so far.

[Jasdoif]

It will still be the SG's fault, but yes, they are.The Sapphire Guard might be responsible for Redcloak's circumstances; but they aren't responsible for Redcloak's actions. Redcloak is.

[The_Weirdo]

Emphasis on "from the gods". My point is that the OotS universe isn't ruled by any sort of karmic justice - the gods aren't a collective of Lawful Good powers. If the fallen paladins escaped karmic retribution for the one confirmed Evil act we know they committed, Redcloak has escaped it for plenty such deeds so far.

True. And, just like RC is entitled to use his doubtlessly vast array of soul-targeting Necro spells to make said paladins pay, anyone with a beef against RC is entitled to do the same.

[The_Weirdo]

The Sapphire Guard might be responsible for Redcloak's circumstances; but they aren't responsible for Redcloak's actions. Redcloak is.

When the circumstances are a dead mother, a destroyed hometown and so on, yeah, his actions are at least partially on them.

[Jasdoif]

When the circumstances are a dead mother, a destroyed hometown and so on, yeah, his actions are at least partially on them.His actions are his alone, what with him being the one doing the acting.

[The_Weirdo]

His actions are his alone, what with him being the one doing the acting.

His actions are perfectly understandable because the Sapphire Guide did an irredeemable evil and no one ever paid for it. No one even apologized to him!

[Jasdoif]

His actions are perfectly understandable because the Sapphire Guide did an irredeemable evil and no one ever paid for it.Being understandable does not absolve him of his responsibility.

[The_Weirdo]

Being understandable does not absolve him of his responsibility.

Unless the SG is held responsible AS WELL, it does. If the SG and the Paladins that did something evil don't pay for it, then RC is exempt from responsibility because, well, so was the SG. Likewise, the Azurite populace has the right to take BOTH to task and enforce its justice against BOTH, because both are to blame for their plight. But the SG started it, so it is to blame that much more.

[hroþila]

True. And, just like RC is entitled to use his doubtlessly vast array of soul-targeting Necro spells to make said paladins pay, anyone with a beef against RC is entitled to do the same.
Which is why people are telling you this would lead to an endless circle of violence where every Azurite would now be perfectly entitled to kill all goblinoids.

When the circumstances are a dead mother, a destroyed hometown and so on, yeah, his actions are at least partially on them.
"We'll just go about our daily business and you can hide from the horrifying truth of what you've become - namely, a murderer who just killed his baby brother in cold blood. And hey, we can both pretend that you don't really have any options about any of the despicable actions I ask you to take from here on out, rather than acknowledging that, like Right-Eye, you do in fact have a choice. But unlike Right-Eye there, you're too chicken**** to ever make it. You'll obey me forever now, because I give you an excuse for your inexcusable behavior."

[The_Weirdo]

Which is why people are telling you this would lead to an endless circle of violence where every Azurite would now be perfectly entitled to kill all goblinoids.

"We'll just go about our daily business and you can hide from the horrifying truth of what you've become - namely, a murderer who just killed his baby brother in cold blood. And hey, we can both pretend that you don't really have any options about any of the despicable actions I ask you to take from here on out, rather than acknowledging that, like Right-Eye, you do in fact have a choice. But unlike Right-Eye there, you're too chicken**** to ever make it. You'll obey me forever now, because I give you an excuse for your inexcusable behavior."

And would RC even be there with Xykon if the SG hadn't killed his family and destroyed his town? With no punishment at all for it? The system failed him, so the system must be brought to task.

[Deliverance]

When the circumstances are a dead mother, a destroyed hometown and so on, yeah, his actions are at least partially on them.
No.

Everybody owns responsibility for their own actions. His actions are on his own head, just like the actions of the paladins involved were on their own heads. They may have been ordered to do it, but they chose what they did and are thus responsible for their actions.



Unless the SG is held responsible AS WELL, it does. If the SG and the Paladins that did something evil don't pay for it, then RC is exempt from responsibility because, well, so was the SG.

If you are unaware of the difference between being responsible for your actions, being held responsible for your actions, and being punished for your actions I suggest you consult a dictionary. They are three very different things.

[Kish]

Redcloak never even met Xyklon the Consequential!

[The_Weirdo]

Redcloak never even met Xyklon the Consequential!

You don't know him like I do!!!

Or something.

[The_Weirdo]

No.

Everybody owns responsibility for their own actions. His actions are on his own head, just like the actions of the paladins involved were on their own heads. They may have been ordered to do it, but they chose what they did and are thus responsible for their actions.


If you are unaware of the difference between being responsible for your actions, being held responsible for your actions, and being punished for your actions I suggest you consult a dictionary.

Okay: they all must be punished. Redcloak's punishment should be mitigated, though, because he was a victim before he decided to stop being a victim and became a villain.

The Sapphire Guard must be humiliated and forced to beg for the forgiveness of the goblins for what it did, though.

[Jasdoif]

Unless the SG is held responsible AS WELL, it does. If the SG and the Paladins that did something evil don't pay for it, then RC is exempt from responsibility because, well, so was the SG.If the Sapphire Guard was somehow exempt from responsibility for their actions, then Redcloak has no basis to exact reparations from them for those actions (he'd need to extract them from a responsible party); and he's still solely responsible for his actions against them.

Personally, I'm not inclined to let the Sapphire Guard off the hook so easily :smalltongue:

[The_Weirdo]

If the Sapphire Guard was somehow exempt from responsibility for their actions, then Redcloak has no basis to exact reparations from them for those actions (he'd need to extract them from a responsible party); and he's still solely responsible for his actions against them.

Personally, I'm not inclined to let the Sapphire Guard off the hook so easily :smalltongue:

Which is my point: either the SG pays for what it did as well - and answers to the Azurites about it as well, since it was THEIR actions that got Azure City invaded - or RC shouldn't be punished at all.

[Bulldog Psion]

And would RC even be there with Xyklon if the SG hadn't killed his family and destroyed his town? With no punishment at all for it? The system failed him, so the system must be brought to task.

So burning the home of a random Azurite shoemaker 55 years later, throwing him in a dungeon in rags, whipping him to do work and laughing at his pain, and in fact making a slave of him, is in some way bringing the system to task and proves that the goblins are not evil for treating him this way? For treating tens of thousands of people this way?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

The question isn't "isn't it unfortunate that nothing too bad happened to a small raiding party of Sapphire Guard paladins," it's "what makes the goblins evil."

The answer is still that slaughter, torture, and slavery visited on people who had nothing to do with loathsome but limited incident that occurred before most of them were born, carried out for one's own advantage and with evident sadistic pleasure and hatred in many cases, is evil.

What the paladins did is moot, because none of this being directed against them. It's being visited on people who happen to be of the same race as they are, in the idea that this somehow evens the score -- in other words, it's systematic, massive, violent racism. And is evil.

Humanity has had a term for this for a long, long time -- "two wrongs don't make a right." What makes the goblins evil is that their actions are evil. If that group of paladins was evil, that doesn't alter the fact that the goblins are a horrific bunch of scum themselves for the most part.

[theNater]

...I think we can agree that the game manuals do indeed sometimes leave us to our own devices.
We can agree that sometimes they do. However, what "always" and "usually" mean when found in the alignment line is not one of those times. It's right there in the glossary.

Now, the fact that it's in the glossary instead of the section on how to read the entries means it's an easy mistake to make. So it's okay to admit that you made that mistake. What's not okay is pretending that the mistake is an equally valid interpretation of what the manual says.

[The_Weirdo]

So burning the home of a random Azurite shoemaker 55 years later, throwing him in a dungeon in rags, whipping him to do work and laughing at his pain, and in fact making a slave of him, is in some way bringing the system to task and proves that the goblins are not evil for treating him this way? For treating tens of thousands of people this way?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

The question isn't "isn't it unfortunate that nothing too bad happened to a small raiding party of Sapphire Guard paladins," it's "what makes the goblins evil."

The answer is still that slaughter, torture, and slavery visited on people who had nothing to do with loathsome but limited incident that occurred before none of them were born, carried out for one's own advantage and with evident sadistic pleasure and hatred in many cases, is evil.

What the paladins did is moot, because none of this being directed against them. It's being visited on people who happen to be of the same race as they are, in the idea that this somehow evens the score -- in other words, it's systematic, massive, violent racism. And is evil.

Humanity has had a term for this for a long, long time -- "two wrongs don't make a right." What makes the goblins evil is that their actions are evil. If that group of paladins was evil, that doesn't alter the fact that the goblins are a horrific bunch of scum themselves for the most part.

The goblins were made that way by the paladins and by others. Aeons of being second-class. Aeons of being targets! What would you expect once they got organized and empowered? Regardless, the fact is the SG started it and, thus, must pay. Either the SG must pay or RC doesn't need to.

[Keltest]

The goblins were made that way by the paladins. Aeons of being second-class. Aeons of being targets! What would you expect once they got organized and empowered? Regardless, the fact is the SG started it and, thus, must pay. Either the SG must pay or RC doesn't need to.

"The paladins" had almost nothing to do with the downtrodden state of the goblins. While they did strike against specific targets over a period of time, they have been active for only a couple of human generations; far shorter than the goblins race has existed. Redcloak, personally, has a grievance against them, which he used as a convenient excuse to act out his evil nature. "The goblins" in general, don't have a claim to vengeance, that we are aware of.

[The_Weirdo]

"The paladins" had almost nothing to do with the downtrodden state of the goblins. While they did strike against specific targets over a period of time, they have been active for only a couple of human generations; far shorter than the goblins race has existed. Redcloak, personally, has a grievance against them, which he used as a convenient excuse to act out his evil nature. "The goblins" in general, don't have a claim to vengeance, that we are aware of.

They have a claim to vengeance against the gods...

[Keltest]

They have a claim to vengeance against the gods...

Nobody has a claim to vengeance. Vengeance is not justice and does not make anything better.

[Jasdoif]

Which is my point: either the SG pays for what it did as well - and answers to the Azurites about it as well, since it was THEIR actions that got Azure City invaded - or RC shouldn't be punished at all.Are you sure? Your arguments suggest Redcloak is entitled to do whatever what he feels like to absolutely anyone, as long as you think it might impact the Sapphire Guard in some way.

[Bulldog Psion]

The goblins were made that way by the paladins and by others. Aeons of being second-class. Aeons of being targets! What would you expect once they got organized and empowered? Regardless, the fact is the SG started it and, thus, must pay. Either the SG must pay or RC doesn't need to.

Ah, the "we were victimized at one point, so we have the right to victimize anyone else we want now, because our Special Victim Status exempts us from all moral restraint" argument.

Plus, as pointed out, the Sapphire Guard has existed for like 60 years. One Sapphire Guard raiding party killed a few goblins they shouldn't have. To say that this gives the goblins unlimited rights to kill, torture, ethnically cleanse, and enslave anyone they feel like ... does not compute.

[The_Weirdo]

Are you sure? Your arguments suggest Redcloak is entitled to do whatever what he feels like to absolutely anyone, as long as you think it might impact the Sapphire Guard in some way.

More or less. I'm claiming that either the SG must pay as well as RC must pay or RC doesn't have to pay. Justice must be for and against all.

[The_Weirdo]

Ah, the "we were victimized at one point, so we have the right to victimize anyone else we want now, because our Special Victim Status exempts us from all moral restraint" argument.

Plus, as pointed out, the Sapphire Guard has existed for like 60 years. One Sapphire Guard raiding party killed a few goblins they shouldn't have. To say that this gives the goblins unlimited rights to kill, torture, ethnically cleanse, and enslave anyone they feel like ... does not compute.

No. It doesn't justify, it explains their actions. But the SG must be held accountable. Its paladins, even the dead ones, must be held accountable. The gods must be held accountable for
creating the goblins as XP fodder.
Either there is justice for all or there is justice for none.

[Jasdoif]

Either there is justice for all or there is justice for none.You want justice for none, then?

[The_Weirdo]

You want justice for none, then?

Or for all. Preferably for all. The SG for starters.

[Kish]

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 (a point that is seen directly in the pages of Start of Darkness). That the city's undoing should be orchestrated by Redcloak, a villain they themselves accidentally created, is only fitting. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins' massacres, but even the gods can't stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.

That's not one raiding party killing "a few goblins they shouldn't have."

Just to be clear, a plague on both the houses of "Start of Darkness doesn't depict an epic and tragic story of corruption, it depicts an evil goblin finding an excuse to indulge his evil nature" and "either everyone is punished, including dead murderers being Soul Bound, or no one should be punished for anything."

[KorvinStarmast]

@theNater
I am talking about Goblins, and you are talking about a glossary. Interesting.

Usually Neutral Evil. Your point seems to be that the exception is the rule. That's backwards.

I'll take plain English, thanks, and once again be pleased that I took the 3.5 books to second hand. FWIW: My available ref is the SRD, which glancing over doesn't have a tab for glossary.

You will also note that goblins are not described as having green skin (yellow to orange to red ... but we can live with the change in complexion as it's an externality), and that they are described as having "malicious ingenuity."

Word roots: Latin, mal; bad or evil. So much for glossaries and us playing with words.

As before, the default condition is as stated. The exception is otherwise.

[The_Weirdo]

That's not one raiding party killing "a few goblins they shouldn't have."

Just to be clear, a plague on both the houses of "Start of Darkness doesn't depict an epic and tragic story of corruption, it depicts an evil goblin finding an excuse to indulge his evil nature" and "either everyone is punished, including dead murderers being Soul Bound, or no one should be punished for anything."

Well, did the dead murderers suffer anything of note for being murderers? If the answer is no, then they must pay. And, since, in this setting, death doesn't prevent someone from being punished, I see no problem at all with using magical means to ensure they do pay.

[Pyrous]

The goblins were made that way by the paladins and by others. Aeons of being second-class. Aeons of being targets! What would you expect once they got organized and empowered? Regardless, the fact is the SG started it and, thus, must pay. Either the SG must pay or RC doesn't need to.

You surely mean that either the members of the SG that did it must pay, or RC doesn't need to pay to what he did to those members of the SG.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, did the dead murderers suffer anything of note for being murderers? If the answer is no, then they must pay. And, since, in this setting, death doesn't prevent someone from being punished, I see no problem at all with using magical means to ensure they do pay. Is this a semi-heroic narrative about the characters in OoTS, or some other story?

Last I checked, killing is integral to D&D, and many strips lampooning that gamism have been presented. The casual killing (note the x's in the eyes) of the non theistic clerics of Stone a few strips ago being a case in point.

As to vengeance as justification ... what narrative does that fulfill?

Oddly enough, the basic one for this strip. Roy's blood oath taken (wasn't it out of spite originally?) to destroy Xykon seems to have morphed as Rich has fleshed out his story arc. Does that support or negate a narrative justification for RC's choices?

[The_Weirdo]

You surely mean that either the members of the SG that did it must pay, or RC doesn't need to pay to what he did to those members of the SG.

I mean: either both sides must pay for all their sins (SG for their genocide campaign, RC for his retaliation, albeit with RC paying less DUE TO it being a retaliation) or neither should.

[The_Weirdo]

Is this a semi-heroic narrative about the characters in OoTS, or some other story?

Last I checked, killing is integral to D&D, and many strips lampooning that gamism have been presented. The casual killing (note the x's in the eyes) of the non theistic clerics of Stone a few strips ago being a case in point.

As to vengeance as justification ... what narrative does that fulfill?

Oddly enough, the basic one for this strip. Roy's blood oath taken (wasn't it out of spite originally?) to destroy Xykon seems to have morphed as Rich has fleshed out his story arc. Does that support or negate a narrative justification for RC's choices?

Aren't many stories centered around vengeance?

[Jasdoif]

Or for all. Preferably for all. The SG for starters.You already said the non-Sapphire-Guard citizens of Azure City are entitled to reparations and retribution from Redcloak, while Redcloak shouldn't be held accountable unless the Sapphire Guard is held accountable, and as reparation from the Sapphire Guard you want the souls of the participating members of Sapphire Guard held accountable through magical means that aren't even going to work (your already mentioned soul bind requires the individual to have died at most one round per caster level ago...so if we're extra generous and assume the Sapphire Guard has access to a level 30 caster to produce the scrolls you want them to hand over, even though such an individual would be more capable than any person we've seen in the comic, and could have decimated the attackers of Azure City with personal power alone...that's three minutes. That may be a problem if any of them died in the intervening decades, like during the battle for Azure City).

I really can't accept that you want "justice for all", when you set terms for it that can't be met.


Oddly enough, the basic one for this strip. Roy's blood oath taken (wasn't it out of spite originally?) to destroy Xykon seems to have morphed as Rich has fleshed out his story arc.The Blood Oath was Eugene's, and he was drunk...and unaware at the time that it still applies in the afterlife and also would apply to his descendants.

[The_Weirdo]

You already said the non-Sapphire-Guard citizens of Azure City are entitled to reparations and retribution from Redcloak, while Redcloak shouldn't be held accountable unless the Sapphire Guard is held accountable, and as reparation from the Sapphire Guard you want the souls of the participating members of Sapphire Guard held accountable through magical means that aren't even going to work (your already mentioned soul bind requires the individual to have died at most one round per caster level ago...so if we're extra generous and assume the Sapphire Guard has access to a level 30 caster to produce the scrolls you want them to hand over, even though such an individual would be more capable than any person we've seen in the comic, and could have decimated the attackers of Azure City with personal power alone...that's three minutes. That may be a problem if any of them died in the intervening decades, like during the battle for Azure City).

I really can't accept that you want "justice for all", when you set terms for it that can't be met.

Well, then, sucks to be an Azurite. :smallbiggrin:

Or, well, none it is, then. Redcloak got no justice for what was done to him.

[Kish]

Aren't many stories centered around vengeance?
Certainly. This is in many ways one of them, with Redcloak's obsession with vengeance gradually turning him into a monster. But that's not what you meant, is it?

You mean something like, "Aren't many stories centered around glorifying vengeance?" To which the answer is...no, and since the author's opinion of glorifying vengeance is perfectly clear, why would that be relevant anyway?

[The_Weirdo]

Certainly. This is in many ways one of them, with Redcloak's obsession with vengeance gradually turning him into a monster. But that's not what you meant, is it?

You mean something like, "Aren't many stories centered around glorifying vengeance?" To which the answer is...only crappy ones, and since the author's opinion of glorifying vengeance is perfectly clear, why would that be relevant anyway?

Ever watched Sleepers? May not be relevant, but it's a nice film!

[Pyrous]

I mean: either both sides must pay for all their sins (SG for their genocide campaign, RC for his retaliation, albeit with RC paying less DUE TO it being a retaliation) or neither should.

Fair enough. The paladins that did evil stuff lost their powers, that's the payment. If Redcloak soul bind, or torture, or whatever, those same paladins, he won't lose his power because of it. There you go.

However, whatever evil thing Redcloak does that is not retaliation against the specific creatures that did him harm (or ordered it), and only those, he can't claim mitigating circumstances to reduce what he's due to pay.

That if we buy your premise of "Vengeance shall be brought upon the guilty! There shall be no excuses! A cleansing fire will burn them!". If we go for what the actual beings of pure Law and Good preach, the conclusions can be strikingly different. Although I see that you actually allow for some excuses.

[The_Weirdo]

Fair enough. The paladins that did evil stuff lost their powers, that's the payment. If Redcloak soul bind, or torture, or whatever, those same paladins, he won't lose his power because of it. There you go.

However, whatever evil thing Redcloak does that is not retaliation against the specific creatures that did him harm (or ordered it), and only those, he can't claim mitigating circumstances to reduce what he's due to pay.

That if we buy your premise of "Vengeance shall be brought upon the guilty! There shall be no excuses! A cleansing fire will burn them!". If we go for what the actual beings of pure Law and Good preach, the conclusions can be strikingly different. Although I see that you actually allow for some excuses.

What would a being of pure law and good say? :smalltongue:

[Bulldog Psion]

No. It doesn't justify, it explains their actions. But the SG must be held accountable. Its paladins, even the dead ones, must be held accountable. The gods must be held accountable for
creating the goblins as XP fodder.
Either there is justice for all or there is justice for none.

So your position is ... two wrongs make a right? :smallconfused:

If anything bad was done to a goblin, ever, then nothing that they do to anyone else ever again makes them evil?

Because explaining evil doesn't make it less evil.

Ugh, this conversation is making my head hurt.

[The_Weirdo]

So your position is ... two wrongs make a right? :smallconfused:

If anything bad was done to a goblin, ever, then nothing that they do to anyone else ever again makes them evil?

Because explaining evil doesn't make it less evil.

Ugh, this conversation is making my head hurt.

Let no one say I can't give psions headaches.

My position is that:

1- The SG created Redcloak as a problem when they went around murdering innocents.
2- RC deserves justice for what was done to him. That justice can only be achieved by punishing the SG.
3- RC should also be punished for what he did - IF AND ONLY IF the SG is too.

[Pyrous]

What would a being of pure law and good say? :smalltongue:

"No, you're thinking devil, not deva."

LG - Tries to make "justice" in a way that no more innocents are harmed.

LE - Tries to make "justice" without regard for whom he hurts.

[goodpeople25]

Just a question, how do you think the Dark one ties into this?
Because I think i have to agree with Right-Eye here, to me the Dark one is a petty spiteful god that dosen't care about the lives of the goblins, just about his plan (which out of the possible ways to improve the goblins situation that happens to be the way that seems to benefit him the most) and that it could very well be said that his actions caused the destruction of Redcloak's village and others, albeit indirectly.(crimson mantle, and perhaps his actions as a mortal and just being a god for the goblins) And i don't think his backstory in SoD is 100% reliable or enough to justify his actions even if it was.
So does the dark one have any blame in what he indirectly caused? Or does the gods actions justify his?


Honestly this is making me dizzy, way too much "2 wrongs do make a right" and "sins of the father are the sins of the son" not only seemingly played straight but stretched to "sins of the father are the sins of the guy who cut his hair once, because he happened to live in the same city despite not having the slightest part or knowledge of the sin"

[The_Weirdo]

"No, you're thinking devil, not deva."

LG - Tries to make "justice" in a way that no more innocents are harmed.

LE - Tries to make "justice" without regard for whom he hurts.

And wasn't the SG LE at that time by that logic? If so, why did they remain with godly powers for so long? And, once again, what would happen to the SG? Basically, both sides are wrong. The difference is the SG started it and there would be no "other side" to be wrong had it not...

[Pyrous]

Honestly this is making me dizzy, way too much "2 wrongs do make a right" and "sins of the father are the sins of the son" not only seemingly played straight but stretched to "sins of the father are the sins of the guy who cut his hair once, because he happened to live in the same city despite not having the slightest part or knowledge of the sin"

The guy who cut his hair once either helped the sinner with his hair-cutting needs without reward or, worse yet, was payed with whatever the sinner gained with his sinning, indirectly profiting from the sinful act. How can you possibly believe that the hair cutter is innocent?

[The_Weirdo]

Just a question, how do you think the Dark one ties into this?
Because I think i have to agree with Right-Eye here, to me the Dark one is a petty spiteful god that dosen't care about the lives of the goblins, just about his plan (which out of the possible ways to improve the goblins situation that happens to be the way that seems to benefit him the most) and that it could very well be said that his actions caused the destruction of Redcloak's village and others, albeit indirectly.(crimson mantle, and perhaps his actions as a mortal and just being a god for the goblins) And i don't think his backstory in SoD is 100% reliable or enough to justify his actions even if it was.
So does the dark one have any blame in what he indirectly caused? Or does the gods actions justify his?


Honestly this is making me dizzy, way too much "2 wrongs do make a right" and "sins of the father are the sins of the son" not only seemingly played straight but stretched to "sins of the father are the sins of the guy who cut his hair once, because he happened to live in the same city despite not having the slightest part or knowledge of the sin"

And what other possible ways are there? Humans killed entire villages of goblins without batting an eye; the fact that the SG didn't stop doing this for decades shows the gods didn't really mind when that happened, or the Paladins would kinda get savvy to it when their Lay-On-Hands fizzled. In these conditions, do you think the goblins would get anything remotely like a decent lot in life by simply asking nicely? The goblins keep doing what they can with the crappy, uneven, artificially-inflated-against-them hand they are consistently dealt by deities that want to use them as XP fodder. Yes, the goblins deserve a reset or a new world. Or they at least deserve a clean slate AND to stay in Azure City as their Gobbotopia. They spent eras being acceptable targets. They spent years being fodder for wars of extermination. What would any of us do in their position?

[Pyrous]

And wasn't the SG LE at that time by that logic? If so, why did they remain with godly powers for so long? And, once again, what would happen to the SG? Basically, both sides are wrong. The difference is the SG started it and there would be no "other side" to be wrong had it not...

Some paladins did some evil acts. If they redeemed themselves is anyone's guess. It does definitely not make every single member of the SG evil, in the same way that certain goblins Redcloak evil actions don't make every Humanoid (Goblinoid) evil.

[goodpeople25]

And what other possible ways are there? Humans killed entire villages of goblins without batting an eye; the fact that the SG didn't stop doing this for decades shows the gods didn't really mind when that happened, or the Paladins would kinda get savvy to it when their Lay-On-Hands fizzled. In these conditions, do you think the goblins would get anything remotely like a decent lot in life by simply asking nicely? The goblins keep doing what they can with the crappy, uneven, artificially-inflated-against-them hand they are consistently dealt by deities that want to use them as XP fodder. Yes, the goblins deserve a reset or a new world. Or they at least deserve a clean slate AND to stay in Azure City as their Gobbotopia. They spent eras being acceptable targets. They spent years being fodder for wars of extermination. What would any of us do in their position?
Go to a circus?

[Pyrous]

What would any of us do in their position?

It doesn't matter.

We can understand why Redcloak does what he does, we can sympathize with him, it doesn't make him any less D&D-evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil). He still is someone that will kill with no qualms if doing so is convenient.

As for the rest of the goblinoids, if they like to hurt, oppress, kill then they are evil. If they respect life, are altruistic, have concern for the dignity of sentient creatures then they are good. Same goes for any other creature capable of moral action.

It doesn't matter what we would do, because D&D-good/evil are not defined by what any/most of us would or not do in the situation at hand.

And for the story, it also doesn't matter what alignment Redcloak is. The problem is that he is not only a danger to anyone who crosses his path, he became a danger to everyone. Not everyone that is not a goblinoid. Not everyone still alive. Everyone. What any of us would do when faced with such a threat?

[KorvinStarmast]

The Blood Oath was Eugene's, and he was drunk.... Roy embraced it out of spite, from Origins (page 34). His embracing of that oath made the quest in book one more than what Belkar described their role as (even if that might have been a bit of retcon) which was killing stuff and taking their loot and getting XPs. (DCF p. 13)

[Jasdoif]

Roy embraced it out of spite, from Origins (page 34). His embracing of that oath made the quest in book one more than what Belkar described their role as (even if that might have been a bit of retcon) which was killing stuff and taking their loot and getting XPs. (DCF p. 13)Ah, you're talking about that part of it. Yes, Roy took it up to spite Eugene...especially since Eugene wanted him to wait for Julia graduate from wizard school, so he could then saddle her with taking care of Xykon. And I'm pretty sure Belkar's only interest in the Dungeon of Dorukan was, indeed, killing stuff for loot and XP.

(FYI, the "page numbers" in the compilation books are actually the comic numbers; DCF 13 is comic 13 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html). The bonus strips have letters after the number of the preceding comic.)

[Enixon]

The deal with the paladin's falling for killing the innocent goblins makes me wonder something.

Why did they fall?

If the Dark One's story is true, and the gods made the goblins just to be killed as a convenient source of exp, then why would the gods punish the paladins for killing them?
Isn't that exactaly what the gods would have made the goblins for?




Maybe the baby goblin's weren't "ripe" yet so it was considered wasteful? Some adventurer could have used the exp that goblin would have provided once fully grown after all :smallbiggrin:

[Emanick]

Will non-evil gods (i.e. other than the Dark One) hear their prayers? Thor can barely be bothered with Durkon, so it doesn't look good.

I think some of the gods would actually be rather likely to accept the prayers of non-evil goblins. More worshippers = more power, right? It's like a weird sort of theocratic democracy - a vote's a vote, after all, regardless of race.

Also, most gods don't like The Dark One, and if he has fewer worshippers, he has less power.

[druid91]

Nobody believes themselves to be evil. The fact that the goblins can justify their murderous activities does not stop them from being evil. If it could, then nothing in the world would be evil.

Hilariously, this statement is ironic because that's precisely what the goblins believe themselves to be. Evil. That's the problem.

[Yuki Akuma]

The deal with the paladin's falling for killing the innocent goblins makes me wonder something.

Why did they fall?

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.

[Enixon]

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.

See that's what I'd figure, but then why would it even be evil, at least to most gods and their followers anyhow if goblins are supposed to be slaughterd in mass for exp? It just seems like a big hole in the Dark One's story to me, after all in his version of the story the good gods would still of been in on the whole "gobbos are there to be walking exp pinatas" thing .




Granted I'm basing a lot of this going from the scene where Miko falls, showing the 12 gods zorking her themselves, it seems like OotS has Paladin's get their powers from their patron diety rather than from the cosmic force of lawful goodness itself as implied in the D&D player's handbook.

[goodpeople25]

'Cause it was Evil.

The Gods are not all Good. Goblins were created as XP fodder by the divine host in general - including plenty of Neutral and Evil Gods. Paladins are beholden to Goodness, not the Gods In General.
And even then i doubt the intention of making the goblins and others was wiping out their villages, if only because it is completely counterintuitive as that would thin the population a lot more. I suspect it was mostly raiding parties, war camps (which are most likely to be evil and combatants) and those living in dungeons who were the intended targets of XP. And the last one would probably not be the truly good ones targets. Honestly i doubt the village raid was routine, but they had the crimson mantle, made and given to them by the ever-caring Dark One who could not possibly predict that it would bring trouble and is now deeply remorseful.
So i see it as them being made likely to do evil things so clerics could fight them, and perhaps push them back. But killing the source and the noncombatends is counter intuitive for XP purposes.

[Enixon]

So i see it as them being made likely to do evil things so clerics could fight them, and perhaps push them back. But killing the source and the noncombatends is counter intuitive for XP purposes.

Now that I can actually see making sense, not so much directly making them as walking exp, but making them with an inclination towards evil which lead them to do evil things that would then subsequently put them in the "ok to smite" bracket, but until they actualy get around to doing said evil any given goblin isn't anymore okay to kill than any other random person.

[factotum]

And would RC even be there with Xykon if the SG hadn't killed his family and destroyed his town? With no punishment at all for it?

Probably not--but some other goblin cleric wearing the Crimson Mantle might well be. Would Redcloak have attacked Azure City if one of the Gates he was looking for didn't happen to be there? No, he would not. He attacked the city because of the Gate, and the fact he could get some revenge while doing so was a side benefit, not the main purpose.

Oh, and it's been mentioned before, but you seem to have ignored it--we have Word of Giant that some of the paladins involved in the raid on Redcloak's village Fell for their actions there. If you don't think that's a punishment then you don't know paladins at all!

[Vinyadan]

they are described as having "malicious ingenuity."

Word roots: Latin, mal; bad or evil. So much for glossaries and us playing with words.

As before, the default condition is as stated. The exception is otherwise.

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*

More seriously, be wary of semantic drifts - there are languages in which the equivalent of malicious means "pertaining to sex".

[hroþila]

See that's what I'd figure, but then why would it even be evil, at least to most gods and their followers anyhow if goblins are supposed to be slaughterd in mass for exp? It just seems like a big hole in the Dark One's story to me, after all in his version of the story the good gods would still of been in on the whole "gobbos are there to be walking exp pinatas" thing
Toddlers and unarmed civilians are not or should not be worth any XP.

Or rather, it's for the same reason it'd be Evil in most D&D games. The gods, or the DM, want you to kill appropriately dangerous and hostile creatures, not to slaughter everyone and harvest their kidneys. It has to be proper.

Before the Goblinoids existed, other creatures were worth XP, it's just that the level 1 clerics were not strong enough to defeat them. Allegedly, the Goblinoids were created as a low-level expansion to an already existing system where other sentient creatures could also be killed for XP - it doesn't mean they're fair game in all circumstances.

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*
They're not homophones though, merely homographs: malus, "bad, evil", with a short vowel vs mālus, "apple", with a long vowel. :smallwink:

[Bulldog Psion]

Toddlers and unarmed civilians are not or should not be worth any XP.

Or rather, it's for the same reason it'd be Evil in most D&D games. The gods, or the DM, want you to kill appropriately dangerous and hostile creatures, not to slaughter everyone and harvest their kidneys. It has to be proper.

Before the Goblinoids existed, other creatures were worth XP, it's just that the level 1 clerics were not strong enough to defeat them. Allegedly, the Goblinoids were created as a low-level expansion to an already existing system where other sentient creatures could also be killed for XP - it doesn't mean they're fair game in all circumstances.


While what you say is true, I always thought that the "goblins as XP fodder because the clerics couldn't level up" was a singularly specious idea anyway.

After all, the "PC races" go to war with each other. Or among themselves. Tarquin's arrangement is direct proof that they don't limit their aggression to humanoid species. We see, for example, a horde of human Weepies killing and conquering a bunch of other humans here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html

It's perfectly possible to get lots of XP without single humanoid in sight. I've always suspected the Dark One's claim is complete BS because of this; if it eventually turns out that it's supposed to be taken seriously, it would be the first time that I'd ever claim "plot hole." Because it's profoundly illogical even within the internal framework of the comic.

As V pointed out quite correctly: "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher." In fact, the original Monster Manual, IIRC, includes entries for all the races -- humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc. -- along with their combat stats and XP values. Because soldiers, bandits, cultists, etc. can just as easily be of these races and also end up as opponents of adventuring parties.

I've always thought the Dark One's claims were a crock; it'll be interesting to see how it's handled in the story.

[factotum]

I've always thought the Dark One's claims were a crock; it'll be interesting to see how it's handled in the story.

I'd have to agree there--the stated reason for the goblinoids being so downtrodden simply doesn't make any sense. Quite apart from humans etc. being perfectly free to fight each other, as you point out, there are also plenty of low-level monsters in the Monster Manual that are not humanoid *or* goblinoid--for example, the humble Dire Rat.

[hroþila]

While what you say is true, I always thought that the "goblins as XP fodder because the clerics couldn't level up" was a singularly specious idea anyway.

After all, the "PC races" go to war with each other. Or among themselves. Tarquin's arrangement is direct proof that they don't limit their aggression to humanoid species. We see, for example, a horde of human Weepies killing and conquering a bunch of other humans here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html

It's perfectly possible to get lots of XP without single humanoid in sight. I've always suspected the Dark One's claim is complete BS because of this; if it eventually turns out that it's supposed to be taken seriously, it would be the first time that I'd ever claim "plot hole." Because it's profoundly illogical even within the internal framework of the comic.
This is kinda what I said, though. The goblinoids are essentially the same as every other creature from this point of view, as they all grant XP - it's just that the goblinoids were handicapped so that they're easier. Allegedly, they fill a niche for the lowest-level PCs out there, so that more of them make it past those first few levels. It was never about there not being any potential targets for the PCs, although we could speculate that, perhaps, back then, before the creation of the goblinoids and other sentient antagonists changed the dynamics of warfare, things were a lot more peaceful.

I'd have to agree there--the stated reason for the goblinoids being so downtrodden simply doesn't make any sense. Quite apart from humans etc. being perfectly free to fight each other, as you point out, there are also plenty of low-level monsters in the Monster Manual that are not humanoid *or* goblinoid--for example, the humble Dire Rat.
Perhaps the dire rats were created along with the goblinoids and other low-level monsters.

[The_Weirdo]

Probably not--but some other goblin cleric wearing the Crimson Mantle might well be. Would Redcloak have attacked Azure City if one of the Gates he was looking for didn't happen to be there? No, he would not. He attacked the city because of the Gate, and the fact he could get some revenge while doing so was a side benefit, not the main purpose.

Oh, and it's been mentioned before, but you seem to have ignored it--we have Word of Giant that some of the paladins involved in the raid on Redcloak's village Fell for their actions there. If you don't think that's a punishment then you don't know paladins at all!

"As a punishment, Paladin X, you are now a normal human that can't patch up your boo-boos by rubbing them."

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.

[Keltest]

"As a punishment, Paladin X, you are now a normal human that can't patch up your boo-boos by rubbing them."

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.

Goblins, children or otherwise, are not protected by the legal systems of nations they are not in. Furthermore, the idea of a legal system requires that there be an authority with the ability to enforce it. Finally, justice and any given legal system do not automatically coincide.

Also, youre forgetting about the stigma of being a Fallen paladin. Everybody who knows you now knows that you did something vile and unforgivable, and while it may not have been illegal due to a technicality, don't count on, for example, your armorer to repair your gear anymore, or your butcher to continue to deal with you.

[The_Weirdo]

Goblins, children or otherwise, are not protected by the legal systems of nations they are not in. Furthermore, the idea of a legal system requires that there be an authority with the ability to enforce it. Finally, justice and any given legal system do not automatically coincide.

Also, youre forgetting about the stigma of being a Fallen paladin. Everybody who knows you now knows that you did something vile and unforgivable, and while it may not have been illegal due to a technicality, don't count on, for example, your armorer to repair your gear anymore, or your butcher to continue to deal with you.

That is not enough! My whole point is that that is not enough! Redcloak's whole raison d'etre is that that is not enough! The very fact that RC is threatening the world right now is due to that not being enough! The problem is the difference in treatment. If a Paladin killed a human baby, he'd be jailed or even executed. He'd not lose his butchering privileges, he'd be butchered!

[Vinyadan]

A fallen paladin is a paladin who lost the endorsment of his god. As for the god meting punishment, there is time in the afterlife.

[The_Weirdo]

A fallen paladin is a paladin who lost the endorsment of his god. As for the god meting punishment, there is time in the afterlife.

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

[factotum]

If a Paladin killed a human baby, he'd be jailed or even executed. He'd not lose his butchering privileges, he'd be butchered!

So, I was right--you don't understand Paladins at all. These guys dedicate their lives to service of their gods, probably even more so than clerics, and they have a much stricter code to follow as well. Falling is not just "being fired" or losing "butchering privileges" (which they never had in the first place, I'll add, because if that was a perk of being a Paladin they wouldn't Fall for doing it), it's knowing you screwed up the most important thing in your life *so badly* that the Gods felt the need to withdraw their favour from you. I'm struggling hard to think of a non-religious real world equivalent--maybe an athlete who dedicates their life to winning at the Olympics, only to be banned for drug irregularities the day before they were due to get on the plane? Multiply that loss of self-worth by a hundred and you'll be getting close to what we're talking about here.

[The_Weirdo]

So, I was right--you don't understand Paladins at all. These guys dedicate their lives to service of their gods, probably even more so than clerics, and they have a much stricter code to follow as well. Falling is not just "being fired" or losing "butchering privileges" (which they never had in the first place, I'll add, because if that was a perk of being a Paladin they wouldn't Fall for doing it), it's knowing you screwed up the most important thing in your life *so badly* that the Gods felt the need to withdraw their favour from you. I'm struggling hard to think of a non-religious real world equivalent--maybe an athlete who dedicates their life to winning at the Olympics, only to be banned for drug irregularities the day before they were due to get on the plane? Multiply that loss of self-worth by a hundred and you'll be getting close to what we're talking about here.

Okay, but it's still not enough unless, in the setting, Paladins that kill human children are also told "you got punished enough, go walk free".

[theNater]

@theNater
I am talking about Goblins, and you are talking about a glossary. Interesting.

Usually Neutral Evil. Your point seems to be that the exception is the rule. That's backwards.

I'll take plain English, thanks, and once again be pleased that I took the 3.5 books to second hand. FWIW: My available ref is the SRD, which glancing over doesn't have a tab for glossary.

You will also note that goblins are not described as having green skin (yellow to orange to red ... but we can live with the change in complexion as it's an externality), and that they are described as having "malicious ingenuity."

Word roots: Latin, mal; bad or evil. So much for glossaries and us playing with words.

As before, the default condition is as stated. The exception is otherwise.
We're both talking about what the Monster Manual says about goblins. Let's look at a few more of the parts of the Monster Manual you are leaving out. "Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society." Hey, look at all those environmental factors!

Goblins are Evil more often than not(what usually actually means in English) because most goblins live in an environment where being Evil is encouraged and rewarded. Not merely because they are goblins or because the word "malicious" appears in their description.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mal- also happens to be homophonous to the root for the apple tree. It should be "eradicated", i suppose *wink wink, nudge nudge*

More seriously, be wary of semantic drifts - there are languages in which the equivalent of malicious means "pertaining to sex".
Well played! *golf clap* :smallbiggrin:
In the case of the Latin root for malicious, the etymology is firmly in my corner.

(There are likely puns in Italian about mal mele and bad apple, but I don't speak enough Italian (which is a corruption/variation of Latin) to be able to pull one off).

[Deliverance]

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?
Because they understand the concept of jurisdiction and enforcement of law and you don't?

The gods aren't responsible for enforcing the secular laws of the goblin village, Azure City, Cliffport, or wherever, such as "it is illegal to commit murder within our jurisdiction". The legal institutions of those areas are, and law is segmented between jurisdictions except in cases of legal treaties. Kill somebody in Cliffport, and it is unlikely the law in Azure City will care unless the one you killed was a citizen of Azure city or the two cities have an extradition treaty. Likewise with the goblins, and also vice versa. The hobgoblin army overrunning Azure City, killing countless innocent people and enslaving the survivors that fail to flee, are not committing any crimes by their own laws as far as we know, and the ones who used to have jurisdiction have now fled, with Gobbutopia establishing a new jurisdiction in its place. So the invaders gets pats on their heads for their murderous invasion rather than being arrested, tried, and punished by the legal system.

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.

[KorvinStarmast]

When people kill children, they go through the legal system and do time. They are punished. Really punished. They don't (only) get fired.I'd like to introduce you to OJ Simpson, and a variety of other people who have stood trial for a murder rap and not been "really punished" as you put it.

[theNater]

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.
That's what the next life is for. Assuming it must be malfunctioning as a justification for atrocities is just making excuses.


2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?
What about Nale? He committed sixteen massacres (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html) and had exactly none of those things happen to him. Don't pretend there's a perfect system of justice out there for everybody except the goblins.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect. Others may champion their cause, but that is no longer a question of legality.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.FWIW, whomever the paladins serve can indeed argue that they have jurisdiction over the paladins' actions ... which is why some soldiers get charged by their own governments with various crimes committed during war.

The victims of the atrocity aren't the only ones with an interest in that.

With the Paladins being allegedly both lawful and good, their hierarchy has a vested interest in their performing to a certain standard. If we extend the RL bit into the deities actually existing and being at least partly involved in what those who serve them do ... the paladins falling due to power being revoked (comes from the gods, revoked by the gods?) seems a correct jurisdiction thing.

The other piece is a matter of reality: IRL, only the winners of a war have jurisdiction, though one can appeal to their better natures.

I was going to ask "how many DM's actually grant XP for killing the women and children too" when sacking a goblin village, but this might not be the right discussion forum for a question like that. I tend toward AngryDm's approach, in that I don't have evil player characters at my table. If you trend toward evil, and make no effort to redeem/correct, there are consequences.

The exception is characters under a curse, or some malevolent influence like a fiend.

[Vinyadan]

1- We don't know that they got any punishment in the next life.

2- People who murder people in the OOTS-verse don't get a pat on the back by the local sheriff and get told the gods will punish them, they get arrested, tried and punished by the legal system. Why should it be different for people who murder goblins?

1. We know that there is judgment concerning both good and lawful, and, through Soon's words to Miko, that at least one fallen, unatoned paladin didn't end up in the afterlife she was hoping for.

2. I was referring to the supernatural aspects only. But I think it clear that there is an unjustified bias against goblins in the oots world.

[The_Weirdo]

Because they understand the concept of jurisdiction and enforcement of law and you don't?

The gods aren't responsible for enforcing the secular laws of the goblin village, Azure City, Cliffport, or wherever, such as "it is illegal to commit murder within our jurisdiction". The legal institutions of those areas are, and law is segmented between jurisdictions except in cases of legal treaties. Kill somebody in Cliffport, and it is unlikely the law in Azure City will care unless the one you killed was a citizen of Azure city or the two cities have an extradition treaty. Likewise with the goblins, and also vice versa. The hobgoblin army overrunning Azure City, killing countless innocent people and enslaving the survivors that fail to flee, are not committing any crimes by their own laws as far as we know, and the ones who used to have jurisdiction have now fled, with Gobbutopia establishing a new jurisdiction in its place. So the invaders gets pats on their heads for their murderous invasion rather than being arrested, tried, and punished by the legal system.

The only ones who have the right, and arguably the duty, to prosecute the paladins for murders in Redcloak's village are whomever remains from the goblin village, assuming it was not part of a larger realm or had legal treaties with others to that effect.

The gods' paladins are people who are extended certain powers by the gods; When you are no longer worthy of them (as determined solely by the gods), the gods withdraw them. This is divorced from any questions concerning the legality of your actions by the laws of the land.

In that case, things are now legal and just. RC was the only remaining member of his village. That means he gets to decide what punishment the Paladins (and their families and even their barbers!) get. Since we don't know that RC's village had any law at all limiting punishment to the criminal (as opposed to killing his family, his country and so on) and since it doesn't matter because RC became a village of one and his word became law, legally, there is no reason whatsoever for Redcloak to be punished for what he did, no matter how he uses his new pet Azurites.

[Pyrous]

In that case, things are now legal and just. RC was the only remaining member of his village. That means he gets to decide what punishment the Paladins (and their families and even their barbers!) get. Since we don't know that RC's village had any law at all limiting punishment to the criminal (as opposed to killing his family, his country and so on) and since it doesn't matter because RC became a village of one and his word became law, legally, there is no reason whatsoever for Redcloak to be punished for what he did, no matter how he uses his new pet Azurites.

Let's assume your right about this. How exactly being lawful evil makes someone less evil?

[The_Weirdo]

That's what the next life is for. Assuming it must be malfunctioning as a justification for atrocities is just making excuses.


What about Nale? He committed sixteen massacres (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html) and had exactly none of those things happen to him. Don't pretend there's a perfect system of justice out there for everybody except the goblins.

Nale became a fugitive. He didn't go back to his region to play fetch with his dog, people tried to prosecute him. It's not the same. And, again, if losing powers or afterlife punishment is enough for killing goblin children, it should also be enough for killing human ones. It's not in EITHER case, but if it is for one, it is for the other.

[The_Weirdo]

Let's assume your right about this. How exactly being lawful evil makes someone less evil?

It doesn't. The Sapphire Guard was LE. Redcloak was LE in response.

[KorvinStarmast]

In that case, things are now legal and just. RC was the only remaining member of his village. That means he gets to decide what punishment the Paladins (and their families and even their barbers!) get. Since we don't know that RC's village had any law at all limiting punishment to the criminal (as opposed to killing his family, his country and so on) and since it doesn't matter because RC became a village of one and his word became law, legally, there is no reason whatsoever for Redcloak to be punished for what he did, no matter how he uses his new pet Azurites.
You are advocating "reprisal" as a valid tool of policy. Are you sure you want to do that? He is not a neutral third party, in terms of handing out "justice" he is a plaintiff in a case who seeks (presumably) justice ... or perhaps just vengeance.

[The_Weirdo]

You are advocating "reprisal" as a valid tool of policy. Are you sure you want to do that? He is not a neutral third party, in terms of handing out "justice" he is a plaintiff in a case who seeks (presumably) justice ... or perhaps just vengeance.

No neutral party ever judged the Sapphire Guard. That is my whole point. So, yeah, in this case, reprisal and vengeance should apply because justice was denied. If the Sapphire Guard didn't want to get invaded and see Azure City raided and enslaved, they shouldn't have staged that genocide campaign. Heck, Tarquin would easily tell them you don't do this thing unless you want the one genocide refugee that gets away to come bite you in the A.

[Kantaki]

Okay, but it's still not enough unless, in the setting, Paladins that kill human children are also told "you got punished enough, go walk free".

No one is saying anything like that. Of course the Paladins in question should be punished*. The problem is that A) those goblins in question aren't protected by the laws of the regional powers and no one cares (as far as we know and even then only those goblins in question - had they been part of... lets say Cliffport's goblin community that might look different) and B)Didn't the SG was (the Paladins that went a bit to far aside) acting against a potential threat against Azure City and the fabric of the universe? Namely the bearer of the crimson mantle, Wrongeye's master and high priest of the Dark One. Considering the "plan" and what Reddy has done in its name that seems entirely justified.
Sure, it is possible, even likely that they would have attacked anyway at some point, but that's because of the way goblins tend to act. That doesn't justify what happened to Redcloak's village, but following your logic they have no right to complain.

If anyone who was wronged in this conflict had the right to attack the other side, if anyone who did wrong deserved to die the Southern Continent would be a massgrave, swimming in the blood of innocent and guilty alike**.

That the goblins - and especially Redcloak - follow this logic use it a a excuse is exactly what makes them evil. Well that and things like slavery, torture, enjoying the suffering of others and oppressing the weak.

*I think you underestimate what falling means for a paladin, but that's not really the point.
**It could be argued that the Dark One with his plan and the three Pantheons for making the world like that are the ones who should be punished, but honestly? Short of unleashing the Snarl I see no way to accomplish that. And that would help no one.

[yellowrocket]

And would RC even be there with Xykon if the SG hadn't killed his family and destroyed his town? With no punishment at all for it? The system failed him, so the system must be brought to task.

Sorry to bring real world morality in to this, but I've seen these arguments made for real life situations to often to let this stand any longer. By your logic the young man that was raised in the ghetto who did a drive by and shot and killed the 5 year old girl a couple years back isn't responsible for his actions. Even though it was the wrong house, on the wrong block, who had nothing to do with the guy he was trying to shoot.

Sorry, but you are responsible for what you do. No if ands or buts about it. You make your own choices. No one makes them for you. In the end you choose the path you take from the choices in front of you.

Real life or in an rpg or comic, each person makes their choices nothing makes an evil act right. Atonement is the act of recognizing that wrong. Red cloak only tries to justify what he's done. He's done nothing to atone.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the Sapphire Guard didn't want to get invaded and see Azure City raided and enslaved, they shouldn't have staged that genocide campaign. Heck, Tarquin would easily tell them you don't do this thing unless you want the one genocide refugee that gets away to come bite you in the A.Right. The Sapphire Guard needs to hire Tarquin as a consultant. That's happening ... when?

[theNater]

Nale became a fugitive. He didn't go back to his region to play fetch with his dog, people tried to prosecute him. It's not the same. And, again, if losing powers or afterlife punishment is enough for killing goblin children, it should also be enough for killing human ones. It's not in EITHER case, but if it is for one, it is for the other.
Okay, I think I see what this is about.

The world of OOTS is horribly unfair. We all know that. Redcloak, by killing people unrelated to those who hurt him, is making the world less fair. He could have tried to make the world more fair. He could have tried to establish diplomatic relations with Azure City and arrange extradition of those Sapphire Guard members who butchered children, so that they could be appropriately punished. Even if he failed, any little bit of progress he made would have made the world a little bit fairer. But he doesn't want that. He'd rather make the world less fair so that he can feel good about himself. That's what marks the difference between justice and vengeance, and Redcloak is coming down heavily on the vengeance side.

[druid91]

Sorry to bring real world morality in to this, but I've seen these arguments made for real life situations to often to let this stand any longer. By your logic the young man that was raised in the ghetto who did a drive by and shot and killed the 5 year old girl a couple years back isn't responsible for his actions. Even though it was the wrong house, on the wrong block, who had nothing to do with the guy he was trying to shoot.

Sorry, but you are responsible for what you do. No if ands or buts about it. You make your own choices. No one makes them for you. In the end you choose the path you take from the choices in front of you.

Real life or in an rpg or comic, each person makes their choices nothing makes an evil act right. Atonement is the act of recognizing that wrong. Red cloak only tries to justify what he's done. He's done nothing to atone.

The issue here is that it is quite literally impossible for him to Atone. He recognizes that what he does is evil, but he also recognizes that there's literally no other course he is able to take. He was divinely predestined to be an evil creature.

Quite honestly, Redcloak goes above and beyond the usual goblin by even coming up with justifications. It means that he at least acknowledges what he does is wrong. But in the end, the plan has the potential to fix that. Giving goblins both a more even standing physically, and making them not murderous sadists by default.

Because as has been shown, while physically non-optimal, Goblinoids are entirely capable of holding their own.

[The_Weirdo]

Right. The Sapphire Guard needs to hire Tarquin as a consultant. That's happening ... when?

Well, the SG was being very much LE at the time. Tarquin is at least savvy LE.

[Keltest]

The issue here is that it is quite literally impossible for him to Atone. He recognizes that what he does is evil, but he also recognizes that there's literally no other course he is able to take. He was divinely predestined to be an evil creature.

Quite honestly, Redcloak goes above and beyond the usual goblin by even coming up with justifications. It means that he at least acknowledges what he does is wrong. But in the end, the plan has the potential to fix that. Giving goblins both a more even standing physically, and making them not murderous sadists by default.

Because as has been shown, while physically non-optimal, Goblinoids are entirely capable of holding their own.

Right-eye disagrees.

He had been living in a perfectly peaceful goblin village that had gotten along perfectly well with its human neighbors. They did nothing malicious at all until Xykon came along and press ganged them all back into his army.

[The_Weirdo]

Okay, I think I see what this is about.

The world of OOTS is horribly unfair. We all know that. Redcloak, by killing people unrelated to those who hurt him, is making the world less fair. He could have tried to make the world more fair. He could have tried to establish diplomatic relations with Azure City and arrange extradition of those Sapphire Guard members who butchered children, so that they could be appropriately punished. Even if he failed, any little bit of progress he made would have made the world a little bit fairer. But he doesn't want that. He'd rather make the world less fair so that he can feel good about himself. That's what marks the difference between justice and vengeance, and Redcloak is coming down heavily on the vengeance side.

If RC made the world less fair - and I do believe he did - so did the SG. Which means both must be punished.

[Pyrous]

Nale became a fugitive. He didn't go back to his region to play fetch with his dog, people tried to prosecute him. It's not the same. And, again, if losing powers or afterlife punishment is enough for killing goblin children, it should also be enough for killing human ones. It's not in EITHER case, but if it is for one, it is for the other.

If a hobbo killed a human baby and got back to his homeland he could be safe for enough time to play with his dog. And he wouldn't get punished for it too. Except if he was a paladin, then he would lose his powers

If an azurite went to the hobbo homeland and killed a baby and not fled really quick he would get killed. If he was a paladin he would lose his powers.

As for the afterlife, the goblins go to their beloved Dark One if they worship them, or to whatever other god/alignment afterlife is appropriate. The equivalent applies to the humans.

Redcloak isn't trying to do what would be fair. The azurites didn't annexed the goblin territory and imposed their laws (as far as I know). They didn't had goblin slaves (as far as I know). If he destroyed AC, killed everyone, and moved on, that would be fair. Bloody, but fair.

[The_Weirdo]

Redcloak isn't trying to do what would be fair. The azurites didn't annexed the goblin territory and imposed their laws (as far as I know). They didn't had goblin slaves (as far as I know). If he destroyed AC, killed everyone, and moved on, that would be fair. Bloody, but fair.

So are you arguing he's being merciful? o_O

[Keltest]

If RC made the world less fair - and I do believe he did - so did the SG. Which means both must be punished.

Nobody is disagreeing that the paladins who killed goblin innocents are guilty. But it isn't Redcloak's place to decide their punishment or enact it, especially since most of the paladins who are actually guilty are probably dead of old age or other causes by now.

[The_Weirdo]

Nobody is disagreeing that the paladins who killed goblin innocents are guilty. But it isn't Redcloak's place to decide their punishment or enact it, especially since most of the paladins who are actually guilty are probably dead of old age or other causes by now.

Then whose place is it? It'd be a court of law's place, but that didn't happen. The next best thing is the victim. And the victim decided a punishment.

[Keltest]

Then whose place is it? It'd be a court of law's place, but that didn't happen. The next best thing is the victim. And the victim decided a punishment.
Forget the stupid court nonsense. The legality of an action is totally irrelevant to its morality.

You should never let the victim decide the punishment. Theyre incapable of being fair, or at least consistently being fair.

[The_Weirdo]

Forget the stupid court nonsense. The legality of an action is totally irrelevant to its morality.

You should never let the victim decide the punishment. Theyre incapable of being fair, or at least consistently being fair.

Well, no neutral party did. The perp would be a worse decider than the victim.

[Pyrous]

The issue here is that it is quite literally impossible for him to Atone. He recognizes that what he does is evil, but he also recognizes that there's literally no other course he is able to take. He was divinely predestined to be an evil creature.

Quite honestly, Redcloak goes above and beyond the usual goblin by even coming up with justifications. It means that he at least acknowledges what he does is wrong. But in the end, the plan has the potential to fix that. Giving goblins both a more even standing physically, and making them not murderous sadists by default.

Because as has been shown, while physically non-optimal, Goblinoids are entirely capable of holding their own.

You know what also has potential and would spite the gods even more? If after realizing that he is evil because he was made for being evil, he became good and started to preach good for he's fellow goblins. He could do it, he wouldn't get help from the Dark One, but he could do it.


So are you arguing he's being merciful? o_O

No, I'm arguing he is not being fair even by your twisted standards, and never tried to be. And that he won't stop doing evil stuff until he has the world in the way that he wants, even if it wouldn't be fair for anyone.

And the only way he could be less merciful than what I described is what he actually did to azure city.

[Kantaki]

Then whose place is it? It'd be a court of law's place, but that didn't happen. The next best thing is the victim. And the victim decided a punishment.

We don't know if the Pallies in question have been punished and how. But even if they had been fed to demons that wouldn't have stopped Wrongeye from attacking Azure City, because that was nothing but a justification for the attack. Without the Gate he couldn't have cared less about that City. If he was serious about it Wrongeye would have to punish himself first for the countless goblins that he killed with his quest.
Even if those guys "only" fell that wouldn't justify what Redcloak did to Azure City and the innocent civilians living there. Especially since he didn't do it for the sake of justice, but to get his hands on the Gate.

[theNater]

If RC made the world less fair - and I do believe he did - so did the SG. Which means both must be punished.
I'll give you should, but not must. Must insists that the world be instantly made perfectly fair, and that's neither realistic nor particularly entertaining storytelling; a story in which everything was perfectly fair all the time would be super boring.

[The_Weirdo]

I'll give you should, but not must. Must insists that the world be instantly made perfectly fair, and that's neither realistic nor particularly entertaining storytelling; a story in which everything was perfectly fair all the time would be super boring.

Well, the SG was punished. Most of its members are dead, the rest is on the run. Their country lies in shambles.

[Bulldog Psion]

Then whose place is it? It'd be a court of law's place, but that didn't happen. The next best thing is the victim. And the victim decided a punishment.

I personally wouldn't give a hoot if Redcloak killed the paladins who massacred his village.

However, saying that the actions of around 10 or 15 people who are part of a secret order, 55 years ago, means that the goblins are somehow NOT evil for massacring, torturing, and enslaving tens of thousands of Azurite restaurant owners, waitpeople, cobblers, bakers, street sweepers, poets, chicken farmers, and so on and so forth, who had no idea the Sapphire Guard existed, let alone what it was doing -- is a viewpoint I do not agree with. In the slightest.

Redcloak isn't looking for "justice." He's a hate-filled bigot, racist, and mass murderer who is out to enslave or kill all the "roundteeth" and, by taking the Gates, achieve supremacy over the world.

I'm not saying the goblins didn't have grievances. But "he who fights monsters must take care lest he become a monster, and if you gaze too long into the abyss, then the abyss shall also gaze into thee." Redcloak hasn't taken care. He's gazed too long. The abyss has looked into every part of him and there is nothing left in there but ash, stirred by a gall-laden wind.

Yes, it's too bad the paladins who committed the massacre weren't tried and executed. Though some of them probably did commit seppuku when they fell. Life is unfair; but even when it kicks you in the teeth, it doesn't give you an unlimited license to inflict suffering on everyone else in revenge.

Unless you embrace evil, of course.

That's why Xykon was right. He owns being evil. He makes no excuses and revels in it. Redcloak whines about being misunderstood, in effect, while doing worse things than the Sapphire Guard ever did. Which is why Xykon is the butch, and Redcloak is the bitch, in every sense of the word.

Though I do appreciate these threads for reminding me of why I loathe Redcloak so much.

[Vinyadan]

You are advocating "reprisal" as a valid tool of policy. Are you sure you want to do that? He is not a neutral third party, in terms of handing out "justice" he is a plaintiff in a case who seeks (presumably) justice ... or perhaps just vengeance.

Although there is a growing trend against it, reprisal is actually still legal. It is meant to be a way, during an armed conflict, to stop the opponent from breaking international law; the reprisal itself uses means which would normally break international law to reach this intent. Of course this tends to lead to escalation, which is why there is an effort to make reprisal illegal.

Reprisal requires five conditions: 1. it must be taken as a reaction to something which has already happened (no preemptive reprisal) and only aim to force the opponent to stop it; 2. it must be a measure of last resort: before the contermeasure, there must have been other efforts (diplomatic or otherwise); 3. it cannot be disproportionate and must be proportionate to the original wrong; 4. it must depend from a decision at the highest level of government; 5. it must cease as soon as the opponent stops breaking international law.

Now, we don't even know whether any sort of international law exists in the OOTS-Verse. However, if we apply ours out of fun, it seems like Redcloak would be taking illegal action against Azure City, because the war has resulted in the conquest of the City, which means that the aim wasn't to force the opponent to stop his acts and that the reprisal has prolonged itself after the acts ended; there have been no other efforts than this, as far as we are aware of it; it is disproportionate in numbers ("interests", as Redcloak puts it in 480). Besides, if we think of Redcloak merely as a representant of his village, the acts ended 35 years ago.

Anyway, even if Redcloak were right according to the laws of his village (and I doubt he considers himself obliged to them), it doesn't mean that those laws would be good or justified. Not to mention the problem of territoriality of laws.

[Jasdoif]

Nobody is disagreeing that the paladins who killed goblin innocents are guilty. But it isn't Redcloak's place to decide their punishment or enact it, especially since most of the paladins who are actually guilty are probably dead of old age or other causes by now.Redcloak certainly can decide their punishment, and attempt to enact it if he so chooses. But being a victim doesn't make him any less responsible for his actions, including the enaction of any punishments he decides upon.

[The_Weirdo]

Yes, it's too bad the paladins who committed the massacre weren't tried and executed.

That's my point. It's not only "too bad", it must be corrected.

[Keltest]

That's my point. It's not only "too bad", it must be corrected.

Ok? Suck it up. Theyre almost certainly being punished in the afterlife, which is what its for. Dont even pretend Redcloak's actions are more than tangentially related to what happened to his village.

[The_Weirdo]

Redcloak certainly can decide their punishment, and attempt to enact it if he so chooses. But being a victim doesn't make him any less responsible for his actions, including the enaction of any punishments he decides upon.

Okay, but, when the Azurites get the whole picture, they must chastise, punish or demand reparations from the SG as well.

[The_Weirdo]

Ok? Suck it up. Theyre almost certainly being punished in the afterlife, which is what its for. Dont even pretend Redcloak's actions are more than tangentially related to what happened to his village.

Again: sucking it up is not an option. And "almost certain" afterlife punishment isn't good enough, especially because it was a whole campaign of vilage raids, meaning that there's a possibility not even the gods cared. The goblin victims have the right to see something done.

[Keltest]

Again: sucking it up is not an option. And "almost certain" afterlife punishment isn't good enough, especially because it was a whole campaign of vilage raids, meaning that there's a possibility not even the gods cared. The goblin victims have the right to see something done.

Sucking it up is absolutely an option. Redcloak did it for more than a goblin's lifetime, until his quest brought him to Azure City more or less by chance. Right-eye did it for his entire life.

And your dismissal of any punishment in the afterlife is totally arbitrary. Who gets to decide what is enough, if not the authority figures those paladins answer to?

[Jasdoif]

Okay, but, when the Azurites get the whole picture, they must chastise, punish or demand reparations from the SG as well.The Azurites certainly can decide their punishment, and attempt to enact it if they so choose. But being incidental bystanders doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions, including the enaction of any punishments they decide upon.

(And they are, of course, within their rights to decide no punishment is required or warranted.)


Again: sucking it up is not an option.Sure it is. How do you think they've been able to do it for so long, if it wasn't an option?

[The_Weirdo]

The Azurites certainly can decide their punishment, and attempt to enact it if they so choose. But being incidental bystanders doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions, including the enaction of any punishments they decide upon.

(And they are, of course, within their rights to decide no punishment is required or warranted.)

Sure it is. How do you think they've been able to do it for so long, if it wasn't an option?

Redcloak didn't suck it up. Instead, he forced the world to make reparations to him and his race. He's trying to force the gods to make reparations to him and his race. And he has the right to.

[Kantaki]

Again: sucking it up is not an option. And "almost certain" afterlife punishment isn't good enough, especially because it was a whole campaign of vilage raids, meaning that there's a possibility not even the gods cared. The goblin victims have the right to see something done.

Again, we don't know if there was an further punishment for those paladins that went to far back then.
But even if that happened it wouldn't change anything about what happened at Azure City because that battle was never about justice, but about getting the Gate to enact the Dark One's plan. Ironically that means the SG didn't go far enough when they attacked Redcloacks village considering the purpose was to prevent this.

And what goblin victims? The only victim of the attack still alive is Reddy himself. All other survivors are dead thanks to his own actions. Not to mention all the unrelated goblinoids that have been sacrificed for the plan. If his goal was justice Redcloak would have to punish himself first,

[The_Weirdo]

Ironically that means the SG didn't go far enough when they attacked Redcloacks village considering the purpose was to prevent this.

Not really. If the SG hadn't attacked the village, RC wouldn't have left the village, meet Xykon or invade AC. The SG is to blame for this too. And everyone knows that, when you are a genocidal evil maniac, as the SG was, there's always someone that gets away and returns to end your despotic rule. That someone happened to be evil, but that's the SG's own bad luck.

[druid91]

You know what also has potential and would spite the gods even more? If after realizing that he is evil because he was made for being evil, he became good and started to preach good for he's fellow goblins. He could do it, he wouldn't get help from the Dark One, but he could do it.

But then we wouldn't have a villain.

I'm not saying he's not a villain, just that he's got a critical case of Then let me be Evil.

He doesn't care. He doesn't want to turn over a new leaf. He doesn't want to prove them wrong. He wants to prove them so right that the gods themselves regret their actions and fix the situation.

[The_Weirdo]

But then we wouldn't have a villain.

I'm not saying he's not a villain, just that he's got a critical case of Then let me be Evil.

He doesn't care. He doesn't want to turn over a new leaf. He doesn't want to prove them wrong. He wants to prove them so right that the gods themselves regret their actions and fix the situation.

Exactly! And, frankly? He has the right to.

[Kantaki]

Not really. If the SG hadn't attacked the village, RC wouldn't have left the village, meet Xykon or invade AC. SG is to blame for this too.

If they hadn't attacked then, sooner or later, Redcloak or another bearer of the crimson mantle would have tried to enact the plan and attacked either AC or another Gate, endangering the fabric of the universe in the process. Exactly what the Sapphire Guard was trying to prevent with their attack. The situation certainly would be different, but not by much I think.

[Keltest]

Redcloak didn't suck it up. Instead, he forced the world to make reparations to him and his race. He's trying to force the gods to make reparations to him and his race. And he has the right to.

The Plan has nothing to do with reparations. Redcloak claims that all the Dark One wants for his people is a fair chance to start with. Nothing at all about repayment for past wrongs.

[The_Weirdo]

If they hadn't attacked then, sooner or later, Redcloak or another bearer of the crimson mantle would have tried to enact the plan and attacked either AC or another Gate, endangering the fabric of the universe in the process. Exactly what the Sapphire Guard was trying to prevent with their attack. The situation certainly would be different, but not by much I think.

For starters, the SG would have something resembling a moral high ground. They were committing genocide.

[Keltest]

For starters, the SG would have something resembling a moral high ground. They were committing genocide.

No, they weren't. They were making very specific targeted attacks against the bearer of the Crimson Mantle. There was collateral damage, which is tragic, but they were very definitely targeting the cloak, not all goblins everywhere, for extermination.