Who's justified in this war?

[Counterpower]

I've seen echoes of this in other threads, and now I've decided that it deserves its own thread. Which side do you sympathize with? If a measure of Good decided these battles, which side should have won? Who has the force of justice behind them?

For me, it's reasonably clear. Azure City is most assuredly more justified than Redcloak and his army. First, and most simple. The elite forces in the city are all freaking paladins. If they're blatantly Evil, they Fall. The vast majority (all of them excepting Miko, as far as I can tell) haven't Fallen. Hard for them to commit evil acts when the Twelve Gods smack them down for that. The nobles don't seem all that honorable, but then again, they don't rule the city, do they? We've seen two living commanders of the city. Shojo seemed absolutely dedicated to the good of the city, to the point of faking senility in order to do so more effectively. Hinjo directly risked the wrath of said nobles to try and protect the city more effectively. Compare that to Redcloak, who freely admits he hates all humans.

As far as I can tell, the greatest argument against Azure City is Redcloak's allusions to atrocities against the goblins. But there are a few major problems with that. First: Redcloak is not a valid source. As a goblin himself, and likely having seen these supposed "atrocities" first-hand, future comments about these events are not going to be rational accounts of the events. If an Azurite openly said, "Yeah, we went too far with those horrible massacres our troops committed against the goblins," I would be more willing to accept that such events existed. Second: None of his statements directly show that the Azurites harmed innocents or noncombatants. The most recent in 466 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0466.html) just says that no more goblins will have to watch their families be slaughtered. Of course, that says nothing about what their families were doing at the time. Nor is the statement in 422 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html) much more enlightening. He alludes that his mom had suffered at the hands of Azure City. Admittedly, it being his mom makes it much more likely she was a noncombatant, but still not impossible that the Azurites had a reason for their actions.

That said, even if we do take it as fact that Azure City sponsored horrible massacres or other such atrocities (which I still find unlikely) Redcloak STILL isn't justifed. Considering he responded to these "atrocities" with a brutal campaign of his own............ I don't consider hypocrisy justified. Assuming that Azure City isn't justified due to its horrible acts (which I still find unproven)........... means that Redcloak isn't justified either, for horrible acts of the exact same flavor which are all too proven.

[BardicLasher]

Good versus evil? No question, Azure city has Good on its side. But Good and Evil are not the same as Justice and Injustice. Redcloak is definitely here for justice for the misdeeds of Azure city... injust acts done in the name of the "greater good."

[TheNovak]

Objectively, Azure City is more justified simply because they're not the ones who attacked. You always have a right to defend yourself.

Subjectively, no matter what D&D alignment rules may say, mass genocide is not a Good Thing. I can understand why Redcloak was pissed and wanted some revenge. War's still bad, though. As a peace-loving, hippy-dippy, tree hugging liberal pinko, I don't think any war can really be justified. Even fictional ones.

Doesn't mean they're not still fun to read about or watch, mind you :smallsmile:

[Aquillion]

It should be pointed out that we actually do have a strong indication of why Redcloak's parents were killed, from 277 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html):

But we do know that Soon sent his men and women on a crusade to wipe out all who would threaten the Azure City gate, no matter how far removed gegraphically (sic)The accompanying image is of a Paladin slicing the head off what appears to be the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle. Note that Miko recognized the mantle on sight, too, so it's no surprise that the guard has fought that organization in the past. We've also met Soon, and he hardly seems like the sort of person who would go on a crusade for fun... if he went to all those lengths to kill the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, it's because he had good reason to believe he was a threat to the Azure City gate.

I think that that makes it pretty clear: Redcloak's parents went after the gates just like Xykon is doing now, and got brutally slaughtered. In all likelihood, the position of Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, and perhaps the religion itself, is inherently dangerous to the gates.

(Of course, it could be something stupid like a prophecy that the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle will destroy Azure City.)

[Renegade Paladin]

Azure City, hands down, no questions asked. There is no possible rational argument that Xykon and Redcloak are in the right given the information we have.

[Dolash]

The big argument about who is morally justified tends to fall on the goblins' side for one of three reasons:

1) Some people hate paladins.

2) Allegations of genocide suggest the Azurites deserved their fate.

3) Redcloak and the Hobgoblins are only evil subjectively, and as they have a justification for their attack then their attack is just as morally valid as the Azurite's defence.

To address the Paladin thing, this is something that's always bothered me. So far as I can guess, the source of Paladin-hate is that people don't like a holier-than-thou attitude, even - especially - if it's true. The concept of a Paladin can offend people who value their freedom and individual right to choose because part of defending the meek and the poor involves deciding who's meek and fighting their battles for them. They take a lot of flack because in principle, they're taking freedom from people and getting into their business.

My counter to that is that such an idea only works in the abstract, morally speaking. In practicle application, the field in which Paladins apply themselves is one where people don't generally mind having stuff decided for them - their rescue. Paladins destroy the undead and demons (inherently evil), and dedicate their lives to sacrifice so that others may live safely. They are innately righteous, even assuredly so, as Gods exist that can instantly de-paladin any Paladin who fails to live up to their oath. The paladin argument has been around longer than OOTS, however, so to focus down on the events of the comic, the Sapphire Guard have dedicated themselves to protecting existance itself from manipulation and destruction - I mean come on! They're trying to keep Xykon from dominating the world! How is that wrong?

As for the genocide thing, that's mostly drawn from the lines about Paladins being sent far and wide to wipe out any threat to the gate coupled with lines from Redcloak that suggest his people have suffered greatly at the hands of such crusades.

I want to ask you something, what was the mandate of those Paladins? To destroy threats to the gate. You know what sounds like a threat to me? A tribe of goblisn who worship "The Dark One". No, it's probably not a catchy name. Everyone loves their mother and will rightly feel justified in hunting down her killer, but don't be surprised if she's a killer that some day someone might come gunning for her.

In fact, what really gets to me is since when are Orcs and Goblins not okay to kill? Yes, I know in some mediums like the comic Goblins these races have been portrayed as just as prone to good and evil as humans, but it all depends on the laws of each seperate setting. In the OOTS world, goblins drink blood, make living sacrifices, work for liches who happily blast their way through people for kicks, and are generally ACTUALLY EVIL. Genocide against such a people can be justified on the grounds that their entire people exist almost purely to see you die. The day I hear complaints about the "Crusade to villify demons" is the day I hang my head in shame for the lost days of Tolkein.

Lastly is the true moral relativist's dream, the whole "Everything is relative ergo nothing is right or wrong so no one's justified" argument. I don't think there's time or space to argue that case here. Suffice it to say that OOTS is a world where gods exist that personaly embody good and evil. They are universal constants and thus are not bound by any moral relativism you might see in our own world.

[Jefepato]

In fact, what really gets to me is since when are Orcs and Goblins not okay to kill? Yes, I know in some mediums like the comic Goblins these races have been portrayed as just as prone to good and evil as humans, but it all depends on the laws of each seperate setting. In the OOTS world, goblins drink blood, make living sacrifices, work for liches who happily blast their way through people for kicks, and are generally ACTUALLY EVIL. Genocide against such a people can be justified on the grounds that their entire people exist almost purely to see you die. The day I hear complaints about the "Crusade to villify demons" is the day I hang my head in shame for the lost days of Tolkein.

Per On the Origin of PCs, we have precedent that in the OotSverse, just like in normal D&D, not all orcs are evil. This presumably also applies to goblins, hobgoblins, and suchlike. You may not like it this way, but it is indisputably the case.

So no, genocide against such a people can't be justified. Killing the ones who are actually doing evil things can, of course.

[Querzis]

Per On the Origin of PCs, we have precedent that in the OotSverse, just like in normal D&D, not all orcs are evil. This presumably also applies to goblins, hobgoblins, and suchlike. You may not like it this way, but it is indisputably the case.

So no, genocide against such a people can't be justified. Killing the ones who are actually doing evil things can, of course.

Which is why the paladins killed the bearer of the Crimson mantle but didnt killed the little goblin who saw his parent being murdered. Seriously, the simple fact that he is actually alive prove Redcloak is wrong. I dont see how there could be a discussion about it, the people in the hob army conquer AC for those reasons: Fun, rule the world or vengeance. The people in AC defend themselves for those reasons: defending their home, protecting their family and friends and save the world...and kill lots of people if you are Belkar but I dont really see him as on anyone side anyway.

But seriously, even if orcs, goblins or whatever would be always evil (which is definitly not the case in D&D) killing them all just because of that would still make you as evil as them. Thats why I say paladins like Miko (who detect evil and then automatically attack if they are) shoudnt exist, they would fall because thats definitly AT LEAST lawfull neutral if not lawfull evil. Hell, the orcs in Origins could have been evil too but its still not a reason to kill them if they arent a threat to anyone. If a paladin detect a level 1 merchant as evil and kill it because of it, regardless of the race of the merchant, I would make the paladins fall (except I guess if it would have been a fiend or a mindless undead, you dont trully kill them when you defeat them anyway.)

[teratorn]

But seriously, even if orcs, goblins or whatever would be always evil (which is definitly not the case in D&D) killing them all just because of that would still make you as evil as them.

But you're not the DM in OOTS.


Doesn't matter. Killing evil creatures isn't evil,

[mockingbyrd7]

See, when you actually have to think about whether the glorious paladin defenders or the invading hobgoblin horde is more justified, THAT, my friends, is the sign that we have an excellent writer on our hands. Rich Burlew deserves a good clap that slowly and dramatically builds into rowdy, thunderous applause.

*clap clap*
*clap clap clap*
*Clap clap CLap*
*CLAP clap clap clap clap*
*Clap clap clap clap clap CLAP CLAP CLAP*
*CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP--WHISTLE--CLAPCLAPCLAP--CHEER--CLAPCLAPCLAP*
"Rock on, Rich!"

*ahem*
Now, then, on to my opinion. From what I have read (and from what I have the energy to type, since I'm about asleep at my keyboard), Xykon has no justification nonwhatsoever. He's out to conquer the world and use it for his own benefit, he's obviously evil and out to do evil deeds. As he said in strip 300, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html
"Redcloak, we're literally out to conquer the world here. In what... blah blah blah"

Redcloak, however, may have at least a bit of justification here. It works in his favor that he seems to be showing care and concern for his people now, to the extent that he's willing to risk his life for them:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0466.html

He genuinely cares for the lives of all of his soldiers. He hates humans, and particularly paladins and the Sapphire Guard, because they went on a freakin' crusade against his people, and apparently his parent/s were slaughtered:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html (last panel)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

He is attacking Azure City partially because of being Xykon's second-in-command, partially for revenge against the humans, and partially because of some significant divine reason of the Dark One.

I'm not going to go into why the boys in blue are justified, but they are. I'm just too tired to explain, and its rather obvious anyways.

OVERALL: Azure City is more in the right, the overbearing factor being that they are Lawful Good paladins fighting against invading hobgoblins. However, Redcloak is not completely in the wrong (well, in my opinion he's completely in the wrong for being evil, but not for wanting payback against those who slaughtered his parents and his people, and he's completely in the right in that he cares about each life of each of his troops, and his actions lately seem to be going more and more towards good.)

Bed. Sleep. Now.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Breaon]

Objectively, Azure City is more justified simply because they're not the ones who attacked. You always have a right to defend yourself.

Subjectively, no matter what D&D alignment rules may say, mass genocide is not a Good Thing. I can understand why Redcloak was pissed and wanted some revenge. War's still bad, though. As a peace-loving, hippy-dippy, tree hugging liberal pinko, I don't think any war can really be justified. Even fictional ones.

This is the same :redcloak: who thought it was a fine idea to coat his troops in honey mustard, hand them celery and crackers (as a shield/sword) and send them off to bed fed to the guardian at the tower, to satiate said beast, leading us to one of :xykon:'s best quotes, "Sacrificing minions: Is there any problem it CAN'T solve?" #192 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html)

[PaladinFreak]

Really, a Hobgoblin said specifically here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html) "...Any leader who'll let us invade a city and crush it beneath our heels is OK in my book."

The Azurites didn't seek out this war, and the Hobbos don't care who they are fighting, they just want to kill something.

[TreesOfDeath]

The Paladin's are obviously right, Rich's just trying to make people think about mindless slaughter in DND ("lets kill a bunch of green skinned people and take their reasure" or whatever it was).
Even if all things were equal, revenge is not a good reason for a war

[factotum]

Thinking just about the present situation, the paladins are clearly justified--they're protecting their homes from unwarranted aggression.

However, you could apply the same thinking to the earlier time when the Sapphire Guard were merrily going around slaughtering goblins. Was THAT justifiable? Without knowing more about their reasoning, it's impossible to argue that. The fact the Paladins didn't immediately Fall indicates they were at least following their Code in that earlier time, which suggests the Twelve Gods at least approved of their actions...but we don't know how flexible that code is, in the Twelve Gods' eyes. As an example, if Shojo *had* been guilty of all the things Miko thought he was, it would still have broken the paladin code to kill him without trial--would she still have Fallen? My guess is yes. If that's the case, then the paladins who were killing the goblins were not performing unjustified acts.

[Insipid_D]

Right, this is my first post here, so please be gentle. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I believe both sides to be justified in this war. I mean, from a personal perspective level. Xykon, Redcloak & co. needed control of the gate to take over the world, so they had a reason to invade.

Conversely, the native Azureites are perfectly justified in defending their homeland. In fact, it could be argued that they are more justified in this war for that very reason. I certainly think that's true. Of course, I'm against massive armies with megalomaniacs at the head seeking world domination in any case. Yes, even if it is funny to watch.

So, IMO, on a broad morality level, go Azure City! But on a personal perspective level, Redcloak & Xykon are justified, because the end result they desire demands that they did what they did.

Whew. I think that made sense. *re-reads post* Well, a little sense anyway.

[EyethatBinds]

War is just a dressed up version of mass murder so it is never justified.

Just joking, I like to think that a war happens when both sides have a reason to fight, therefore any war is always justified for both sides. If it weren't one side could simply surrender and save the lives of the people willing to fight in the battle. In this particular case I don't think either side would have chosen such as option.
Ans since this war also resulted in quite a number of humorous comics it is justified on a reader level too. Or maybe I'm being too irreverent.

[Lady_Orc]

I can't really say that I care who is 'justified', especially not according to the DnD alignment system. I quite like Redcloak and Xykon, and I don't like paladins as a rule, so I'm glad they're dead.

Oh, and just in case anybody wonders, that does not mean I condone mass murder in real life. We're talking strictly fiction here.

[TreesOfDeath]

War is just a dressed up version of mass murder so it is never justified.

Just joking, I like to think that a war happens when both sides have a reason to fight, therefore any war is always justified for both sides. If it weren't one side could simply surrender and save the lives of the people willing to fight in the battle. In this particular case I don't think either side would have chosen such as option.
Ans since this war also resulted in quite a number of humorous comics it is justified on a reader level too. Or maybe I'm being too irreverent.


Hmmph I agree with your "joke" statement.
War is just mass murder, often on some leaders petty demands, treating his soldiers as thoguh they were merely pawns to be used for some stupid goal (fighting over a piece of land, that in the grand scheme of things does not matter). War is only justified in self defence or to stop a greater amount of killing (WW2). Hitler may have thought he had some justifcation(and theirs evidence to suggest that he sincercly believed he was doing the right thing), but that doesn't make it ok.
And bring the discussion back to this comic, take a look here.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html
Grand words asside, Redcloak's just an ass, fighting a war just to get revenege (and he possibly hopes to stop more killing, but does that justify Genocide?). He openly admits hes prejudice. And even when he snaps out of the state he was in, he gives no thoughts to the Hobgoblins who would die in the charge. Apparently the ends justify the means.
I have to wonder, what would it be like to live life, and die as a soldier in a stupid and meanignless conflict, then realised you died as a mere pawn in someone's game? Of course most soldiers wouldn't realise that.. but I found it quite a chilling thought while I was playing Age of Empires and using the meat shield tactic just to speed up the end of a level

[SPoD]

I'm pretty sure Redcloak doesn't feel he needs to be justified. He wasn't on a crusade to wipe out the Azurites, he was going about his Evil Plan and just happened to stumble into a way to get some revenge. They're invading the city to capture the Gate, NOT to get revenge, that's bonus. Thus, I don't think justification enters into it.

Redcloak's line is more like comfort to himself that while they lost the big prize, they still did something worthwhile today. I don't see it as an attempt to justify the invasion as much as it's a runner-up prize.

However, I really get an "endless cycle of violence" feeling from the goblins and AC. Who committed the first slaughter? The paladins? The goblins? Did the paladins attack the goblins because they threatened the Gate, or did the goblins get the idea to threaten the Gate to get back at the paladins? Does anyone even remember? The goblins won today, but someday, the humans will be back on top, killing goblins, until the goblins rise up...and so on and so forth forever. I think Rich has deliberately made it so that we don't know who started it or for what reasons. It's an endless war that no one will ever truly win, until the day when the last goblin and the last Azurite stab each other simultaneously through the gut and both their races die out, at which time the rest of the world breathes a sigh of relief and says, "Glad THAT'S finally done with."

[TreesOfDeath]

Partly true, but mind from this strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html it seems Redcloak had personal reasons for picking AC, and now I think we know what those are.
I definately agree with the bottom part of your post

[Jayabalard]

So no, genocide against such a people can't be justified. Killing the ones who are actually doing evil things can, of course.So the hobgoblins and Redcloak are in the wrong since they are waging a genocidal war against the humans?

[Alfryd]

Thats why I say paladins like Miko (who detect evil and then automatically attack if they are...)
Actually, she doesn't. She gathered witness testimony to confirm evil acts in addition to using Detect Evil as grounds for assault.

In fairness, I should point out that Redcloak was only specifically bent on exterminating the Sapphire Guard, and viewed the conquest of the city and defeat or slaughter of it's soldiery as a means to that end. Bear in mind that most of the city's citizens have been evacuated, and his orders were to 'eliminate all opposition', not 'eradicate all humans.'

As regards charges against the Sapphire Guard of genocide, look, a Paladin CAN'T kill unsuspecting innocents without getting a major sticky-note from on high saying- 'you're fired.' It's possible there was some kind of hilarious misunderstanding whereby the Good Lord Goodness of Goodhampton, Paladin Excelsior, wanders into a random goblin camp looking for directions and commits some dreadful faux pas that convinces the villagers he's out to slaughter them, but I doubt it.

[Setra]

War is never justified.

End of story.

Except under circumstances A through R, which completely negates my first line.

[Fighteer]

Actually, she doesn't. She gathered witness testimony to confirm evil acts in addition to using Detect Evil as grounds for assault.
It's never a good idea to hold Miko up as an example of Goodness in action. To her, the interrogation and scrying is simply a way to justify her original intentions, not make a decision.


In fairness, I should point out that Redcloak was only specifically bent on exterminating the Sapphire Guard, and viewed the conquest of the city and defeat or slaughter of it's soldiery as a means to that end. Bear in mind that most of the city's citizens have been evacuated, and his orders were to 'eliminate all opposition', not 'eradicate all humans.'
Redcloak and his hobgoblin horde would be perfectly happy to slaughter every human in AC and take the place over for themselves. The only reason they aren't is because they are interested in the "higher goal" of conquering the entire world. Thus, they are saved from committing a lesser evil by the desire to commit a greater one...


As regards charges against the Sapphire Guard of genocide, look, a Paladin CAN'T kill unsuspecting innocents without getting a major sticky-note from on high saying- 'you're fired.' It's possible there was some kind of hilarious misunderstanding whereby the Good Lord Goodness of Goodhampton, Paladin Excelsior, wanders into a random goblin camp looking for directions and commits some dreadful faux pas that convinces the villagers he's out to slaughter them, but I doubt it.
Pure gold.

[Morty]

Noone is really justified in that war.
Paladins aren't justified, because they slaughtered goblins. They didn't fall because they did that for the greater good, and those goblins were probably evil. But Redcloak doesn't give a damn about why paladins slaughtered his family. The only thing that matters to him is that his friends and family members were killed by blue-clad paladins for no apparent reason. Just because something isn't evil enough to make paladin fall, doesn't mean it's right. We've seen enough of technically good people being hopelessly wrong (Miko, Roy) in that comic to assume that. Good and Evil in this comic are as relative as they can be in black-and-white D&D moralty.
Reddie isn't justified either, because he's perfectly willing to kill innocent citizens of Azure City -who did nothing to him- to get revenge on stuck-up, trigger-happy paladins.


But you're not the DM in OOTS.

I belive the point was, killing evil creatures solely because of their alignment is evil.

[Fighteer]

Noone is really justified in that war.
Paladins aren't justified, because they slaughtered goblins. They didn't fall because they did that for the greater good, and those goblins were probably evil. But Redcloak doesn't give a damn about why paladins slaughtered his family. The only thing that matters to him is that his friends and family members were killed by blue-clad paladins for no apparent reason. Just because something isn't evil enough to make paladin fall, doesn't mean it's right. We've seen enough of technically good people being hopelessly wrong (Miko, Roy) in that comic to assume that. Good and Evil in this comic are as relative as they can be in black-and-white D&D moralty.
Reddie isn't justified either, because he's perfectly willing to kill innocent citizens of Azure City -who did nothing to him- to get revenge on stuck-up, trigger-happy paladins.

I belive the point was, killing evil creatures solely because of their alignment is evil.
Actually, in D&D, that last statement is false. It even says so right in the rulebooks. Besides, in your "relative morality", you overlook the fact that the goblins were a threat to the security of the gates at the time the Sapphire Guard killed them, and undoubtedly committed countless other evil acts. From the standpoint of "protecting the fabric of reality", their destruction was an absolute necessity, even if it wasn't already justified under the general heading of "defeating evil".

It's certainly true that individuals of a species may exhibit variations in alignment and goals from their general brethren. But assuming that any goblin not actively engaged in rape and pillage is a heathen soul desperately yearning for the soothing balm of enlightenment and wisdom is highly ingenuous and liable to get you killed.

Yes, it's easy to see how the Sapphire Guard might get carried away on their crusade to rid the world of evil - it certainly happens often enough when paladins start feeling their oats. But as long as they themselves don't commit an evil act in the process, they are justified in killing any evil being they encounter by definition.

[Wolfman42666]

Hell to aligment, team evil has more justification here.
For these simply reasons:
1) Redcloak (nor xykon) has slaughtered any citizens of azure city.
2) Xykon has said he wouldn't use the gates to slaughter people.
3) I don't like paladins, using it is god's will that these people be slain is unforgiveable in this world, as far as I'm concerned, and i live in this world (hard though that may be to believe:smallbiggrin: )
4)Roy got into the quest to kill Xykon to impress his father, who he himself told to shove his oath up his "wrinkled incorporal ass", his reasons have grown since he started his journey but so have Redcloack's ("my duty as high priest of the dark one to shepard..blah,blah,blah)
The end.

...for now.

[Morty]

Actually, in D&D, that last statement is false. It even says so right in the rulebooks. Besides, in your "relative morality", you overlook the fact that the goblins were a threat to the security of the gates at the time the Sapphire Guard killed them, and undoubtedly committed countless other evil acts. From the standpoint of "protecting the fabric of reality", their destruction was an absolute necessity, even if it wasn't already justified under the general heading of "defeating evil".

It's certainly true that individuals of a species may exhibit variations in alignment and goals from their general brethren. But assuming that any goblin not actively engaged in rape and pillage is a heathen soul desperately yearning for the soothing balm of enlightenment and wisdom is highly ingenuous and liable to get you killed.

Yes, it's easy to see how the Sapphire Guard might get carried away on their crusade to rid the world of evil - it certainly happens often enough when paladins start feeling their oats. But as long as they themselves don't commit an evil act in the process, they are justified in killing any evil being they encounter by definition.

You missed my point. What I meant was, killing those goblins weren't evil, but it doesn't make it automatiaclly right. Besides, it's very possible that paladins just went on a killing spree and killed everyone who could be threat to the gate, wheter direct or not. They didn't fall, because what they did weren't explictly evil, and it was in the Twelve's interest. Not ceratin, but it could have happened.
But again, all this doesn't matter to a young goblin who lost his family and friends.
Yes, I am playing devil's advocate, because I'm so annoyed by this whole "they're goblins, kill them" attitude. And I'll defend the "being evil doesn't make you deserve death" position to the end.

[Pronounceable]

No one is justified for reasons above. Everyone is justified for other reasons above. This is a war, just like real world, all sides are both right and wrong at the same time.

[EvilElitest]

Thinking just about the present situation, the paladins are clearly justified--they're protecting their homes from unwarranted aggression.

However, you could apply the same thinking to the earlier time when the Sapphire Guard were merrily going around slaughtering goblins. Was THAT justifiable? Without knowing more about their reasoning, it's impossible to argue that. The fact the Paladins didn't immediately Fall indicates they were at least following their Code in that earlier time, which suggests the Twelve Gods at least approved of their actions...but we don't know how flexible that code is, in the Twelve Gods' eyes. As an example, if Shojo *had* been guilty of all the things Miko thought he was, it would still have broken the paladin code to kill him without trial--would she still have Fallen? My guess is yes. If that's the case, then the paladins who were killing the goblins were not performing unjustified acts.


We havnen't seen the SG's slaughter of the Goblins, if it was a real genocide then yes the HOs are justified, but i was not a genocide because they didn't fall. Also, Rich's paladin's code seems the same as the one in the PHB, and so the no flexibilty their, they would fal for Genocide. And Miko is still killing a man who hasn't been proven guilty and is defencless, so yes it was not justified. If Shojo had draw a sword on miko, different story, but killing an innocent is wrong by the paladin's code. Also, offically, thouh i don't know how this works in the OOTS world, the gods have nothing to do with hte paladin's code


Actually, she doesn't. She gathered witness testimony to confirm evil acts in addition to using Detect Evil as grounds for assault.
Ummmmmmmmm, no she didn't, she attacked OOTS right out the moment she saw them and only resorted to a trial when it became apperent that talking could work (though it require her to first smite roy and relize that nothing happened"

In fairness, I should point out that Redcloak was only specifically bent on exterminating the Sapphire Guard, and viewed the conquest of the city and defeat or slaughter of it's soldiery as a means to that end. Bear in mind that most of the city's citizens have been evacuated, and his orders were to 'eliminate all opposition', not 'eradicate all humans.'
1. Well techenically he did order that elemental to destroy all humans, including ones on his side,so no surrender option
2. So far he has been bent of killing all his foes, i haven't seen him use any mercy as yet

As regards charges against the Sapphire Guard of genocide, look, a Paladin CAN'T kill unsuspecting innocents without getting a major sticky-note from on high saying- 'you're fired.' It's possible there was some kind of hilarious misunderstanding whereby the Good Lord Goodness of Goodhampton, Paladin Excelsior, wanders into a random goblin camp looking for directions and commits some dreadful faux pas that convinces the villagers he's out to slaughter them, but I doubt it.
True, so the paladins must have been justfied from a good standpoint or they would fall

From,
EE

[Alfryd]

Redcloak and his hobgoblin horde would be perfectly happy to slaughter every human in AC and take the place over for themselves.
They pretty well did.

Reddie isn't justified either, because he's perfectly willing to kill innocent citizens of Azure City -who did nothing to him- to get revenge on stuck-up, trigger-happy paladins.
Again, I see no evidence that Redcloak is responsible for, or desired, the slaughter of defenceless civilians. Killing enemy combatants is another matter.

Well techenically he did order that elemental to destroy all humans, including ones on his side...
Because they were all combatant clerics or suspected double agents.
No, we haven't seen Redcloak display clemency thus far. But you can't reasonably accuse him of genocide.

It's never a good idea to hold Miko up as an example of Goodness in action. To her, the interrogation and scrying is simply a way to justify her original intentions, not make a decision.
True to an extent, but only to an extent. That would imply she will still go ahead with the bloodshed and slaughter and wotnot even if she doesn't find corroborating evidence of guilt. Which was untrue at least until recently.

Ummmmmmmmm, no she didn't...
Umm... yes she did.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html

Witness interviews, plus indentification by sapphire guard diviners.


And I'll defend the "being evil doesn't make you deserve death" position to the end.
I'll concede that Redcloak would have to be an extraordinarily merciful and forbearing sort to let go of the slaughter of friends and relatives in the name of an ostensibly just cause. But we don't yet know enough about Redcloak's underlying motives for seizing the gate, or his forbears' general aims and intentions, to say whether the goblins might have had a legitimate case for threatening to unleash a deicidal abomination. I still find it distinctly unlikely.
Perhaps Start of Darkness will enlighten us.

[Ganurath]

Pally Point: Paladins Fall if they do Evil
RC Point: Giant said killing evil creatures isn't evil in his world. Therefore, mercilessly slaughtering goblin civilians is justified according to the paladin code and does not result in falling. The SG could go along, merrily butchering unarmed goblins without falling because their alignment is opposite theirs.
Pally Point: Redcloak is not an objective source
RC Point: Yes, Redcloak is going to argue in favor of his point of view. However, I don't think that there is any confusing the point that a large number of his friends and loved ones were killed by the SG.
Pally Point: No 'Good' source of info supports RC's claims
RC Point: Shojo said the SG were wiping out potential threats. The SG have lead campaigns/crusades to attack goblins. 2+2=SG trying to wipe out goblins.
Pally Point: Hypocritical response from RC
RC Point: There's a big difference between commiting genocide and attacking a city that is the source of the genocide. Even if the hobgobs went so far as to kill every man, woman, and child of AC, there would still be dozens of human nations fully inhabited. However, from the looks of things, RC has the sense of mind to focus his ire on those who are actually threatening his goblins charges.
Pally Point: Defender's advantage
RC Point: Yes, the Azurites are defending their city, congratulations. I take it that makes the goblins the OotS fought at the beginning of the comic more justified than the OotS then?
Pally Point: The Crimson Mantle was threatening the Gate
RC Point: :roy: You're accepting as credible a theory that came from Miko's mouth.
Pally Point: World Domination is Evil
RC Point: Am I the only one to notice that World Domination is practically synonymous with World Peace? Sure, Xykon will be killing folks on occasion to entertain himself, but that's the price you pay to put an end to war for all of time.
Pally Point: Goblins are Evil
RC Point: Genocide should not be based on a majority vote.
Pally Point: Their motives were evil
RC Point: Xykon wants to rule the world, which is more ambitious than evil in and of itself. Redcloak wants revenge, which isn't neccesarily evil either. The hobgoblins want the pleasure of combat and the thrill of victory, which is more barbaric than genuinely evil.
Pally Point: Does stopping genocide justify genocide?
RC Point: Did we forget that there are humans that exist outside the military forces of Azure City?
Pally Point: Redcloak was just working for Xykon
RC Point: This would secure the well-being of goblins over other sentients upon Xykon's sucess, so serving him is done out of concern for the well being of goblinkind. In 300, he even steered Xykon's agenda toward targetting the most aggressive enemy of goblinkind presented in the comic to date. He's not just working for Xykon, he's fighting the fight for the well being of goblins.

Endnote: In 451, Redcloak notes that serving the Dark One means sheperding the goblin people. This does not mean threatening existence with a god-killing monster. This means getting goblins a good position in the new world order and annihilating military threats to goblin communities.

[Poppatomus]

Again, I see no evidence that Redcloak is responsible for, or desired, the slaughter of defenceless civilians. Killing enemy combatants is another matter.


Not getting involved in the bigger discussion, but, while we can't be sure he's aiming for the civilians in this particular fight, he doesn't seem to much care about murdering the innocent here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html), unless maybe he assumed they would be evil kids.

[Morty]

Again, I see no evidence that Redcloak is responsible for, or desired, the slaughter of defenceless civilians. Killing enemy combatants is another matter.

He invaded Azure City, yet he must know that the town isn't dwelled by paladins only. Therefore, he was perfectly willing to slaughter innocent citizens.


I'll concede that Redcloak would have to be an extraordinarily merciful and forbearing sort to let go of the slaughter of friends and relatives in the name of an ostensibly just cause. But we don't yet know enough about Redcloak's underlying motives for seizing the gate, or his forbears' general aims and intentions, to say whether the goblins might have had a legitimate case for threatening to unleash a deicidal abomination. I still find it distinctly unlikely.
Perhaps Start of Darkness will enlighten us.

Well, I think that if Redcloak's family and friends were killed by paladins while trying to unlock the gates or something similiar he wouldn't be so vengeful. And who knows, maybe he wants to seize the gate exactly to take revenge? I'm speculating quite wildly here, and I won't be able to buy SoD anyway.

[EvilElitest]

Again, I see no evidence that Redcloak is responsible for, or desired, the slaughter of defenceless civilians. Killing enemy combatants is another matter.

How about innocent soilders? The basic troops have done nothing as yet except defend his homland.

Because they were all combatant clerics or suspected double agents.
No, we haven't seen Redcloak display clemency thus far. But you can't reasonably accuse him of genocide.
We can't, ok well then, show me one human in the AC war he hasn't tried to kill?


True to an extent, but only to an extent. That would imply she will still go ahead with the bloodshed and slaughter and wotnot even if she doesn't find corroborating evidence of guilt. Which was untrue at least until recently.
she attacked OOTS without proof of their "evil" Actions

Umm... yes she did.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html
You know, their a a magical thing known as proof, it tends to come into play when you decieding if your enemies deserve death. This proof is ment to come about via a trial, and that required checking your sources to know that your are right. As such, when Miko attacking without any attempt to arrest them, that is not looking for proof, that would be murder if she won


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html
wow, you know what is funny, she did that AFTER she attacking them without warning, and her aformentioned attack only stopped when her smite evil on roy failed, so ummmmmmmm no

Witness interviews, plus indentification by sapphire guard diviners.
And that was done at a trial, which i note Miko was not in charge of, her duty was to arrest OOTS, not slaughter them.


I'll concede that Redcloak would have to be an extraordinarily merciful and forbearing sort to let go of the slaughter of friends and relatives in the name of an ostensibly just cause.
Good for him, however if his friends and relatives were commiting evil crimes, I.E. SG were justified then from a good standpoint he is wvil



From,
EE

[Poppatomus]

So i lied


Pally Point: Paladins Fall if they do Evil
Pally Point: No 'Good' source of info supports RC's claims
RC Point: Shojo said the SG were wiping out potential threats. The SG have lead campaigns/crusades to attack goblins. 2+2=SG trying to wipe out goblins.

Retort: This argument is only valid if one assumes that the SG was not justified in attacking the goblins in the first place and that the paladins slaughtered goblins rather than destroying goblin armies or pushing back goblin settlements. Either of those may be the case, but we don't know that yet.



RC Point: There's a big difference between commiting genocide and attacking a city that is the source of the genocide. Even if the hobgobs went so far as to kill every man, woman, and child of AC, there would still be dozens of human nations fully inhabited. However, from the looks of things, RC has the sense of mind to focus his ire on those who are actually threatening his goblins charges.

Retort: That may justify destroying the Sapphire guard, but we have no reason to believe that the army of Azure city itself was involved in the slaughter of Goblins. Raises the very controversial question of at what point it is justified to destory a political entity that contains another, more malignent entity, and what amount of force is valid. Can Al Qaeda kill a jet full of people to attack the army? can the US nuke Kabul to get al Qaeda? Point is ambiguous and falls to neither side.



Pally Point: Defender's advantage
RC Point: Yes, the Azurites are defending their city, congratulations. I take it that makes the goblins the OotS fought at the beginning of the comic more justified than the OotS then?

Retort: again assumes evil as a "team" rather than a value laden discriptor. If Xykon is evil and his forces are evil, and evil actually means inherently bad, than they would seem at least partially justified. Even if one ignores that for a second, the Goblins killed at the start were infact an invading force occupying a dungeon that did not belong to them.



RC Point: Am I the only one to notice that World Domination is practically synonymous with World Peace? Sure, Xykon will be killing folks on occasion to entertain himself, but that's the price you pay to put an end to war for all of time.

Retort: Am I the only one who's ever noticed that slavery is synonymous with full employment?



Pally Point: Goblins are Evil
RC Point: Genocide should not be based on a majority vote.

Retort: non sequitor. Goblins are evil is meant to encompass motive, past action, and intent compared to an objective standard. It is not asserted as a position that is opent to question or that is "relative" based on the social milieu of the world in question. You can argue that they are not evil, but if they are "evil" as evil is understood in the D&D universe, than it is independent of a majority vote. You can also argue that a group being evil doesn't justify they're being genocided, but that also has nothing to do with minority/majority opinion



RC Point: Xykon wants to rule the world, which is more ambitious than evil in and of itself. Redcloak wants revenge, which isn't neccesarily evil either. The hobgoblins want the pleasure of combat and the thrill of victory, which is more barbaric than genuinely evil.

retort: Once again, if Xykon and Redcloak are not evil then they clearly aren't evil, but sophistry alone doesn't prove this point, and while they are clearly complex characters with complex motivation, the giant at least appears to intend them to be evil.

[Ganurath]

How about innocent soilders? The basic troops have done nothing as yet except defend his homland.By killing hobgoblins, which are among the goblins that it is RC's duty as a Bearer of the Crimson Mantle to see to the well being of.
We can't, ok well then, show me one human in the AC war he hasn't tried to kill?Show me one human in the AC war who hasn't tried to kill his charges, his master, or RC himself.
Good for him, however if his friends and relatives were commiting evil crimes, I.E. SG were justified then from a good standpoint he is wvilHey there, little kid. As it turns out, your friends and loved ones do things we are morally opposed to. So, we took the liberty of killing all of them. But hey! They don't agree with us, so it was the right thing to do.

[Morty]

Not so. His orders are to 'eliminate opposition', not 'wipe out humanity.'


I doubt Redcloak is so naive that he belives his hobgoblin soldiers not to kill unarmed citizens. Especially since he's avenging the exact same thing.

[Alfryd]

Pure gold.
He was, naturally, on the trail of the Evil Earl Evil of Evilborough (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2126601#post2126601).



...he doesn't seem to much care about murdering the innocent here, unless maybe he assumed they would be evil kids.
Oh, for heavens' sake.

He invaded Azure City, yet he must know that the town isn't dwelled by paladins only. Therefore, he was perfectly willing to slaughter innocent citizens.
Not so. His orders are to 'eliminate opposition', not 'wipe out humanity.'

How about innocent soilders? The basic troops have done nothing as yet except defend his homland.
Much the same could probably be said of the sapphire guard during their crusades. If you're fighting a war, there are going to be casualties. It's the soldiers' choice to fight and their leaders' not to surrender. Technically, Kubota had a point.
Again, when I see Redcloak systematically butchering unarmed women, children and geriatrics, you can accuse him of genocidal intent. And not before.


You know, their a a magical thing known as proof, it tends to come into play when you decieding if your enemies deserve death.
...wow, you know what is funny, she did that AFTER she attacking them without warning...
I you had bothered to actually read the strips, you would have observed that Miko is referring to witness testimony and divinings that she gathered prior to her encounter with the Order. You will also observe that she is apparently entitled to dispense the death penalty at her sole discretion given readings of Evil alignment. You will also observe that she only attempted to execute Roy, who detected as strongly evil.



The SG could go along, merrily butchering unarmed goblins without falling because their alignment is opposite theirs.
It would still be a gross violation of their code of conduct.

You're accepting as credible a theory that came from Miko's mouth.
So, apparently, are most of the Sapphire Guard.

Redcloak wants revenge, which isn't neccesarily evil either. The hobgoblins want the pleasure of combat and the thrill of victory, which is more barbaric than genuinely evil.
Killing solely for the sake of the pleasure involved, strictly speaking, is evil.

Did we forget that there are humans that exist outside the military forces of Azure City?
If Redcloak had ordered the express and summary extermination of every human in Azure City, the fact that he hasn't gotten around to every other human nation just yet wouldn't alter his clear intentions.

Am I the only one to notice that World Domination is practically synonymous with World Peace?

He's not just working for Xykon, he's fighting the fight for the well being of goblins.
Which is all very touching, unless it comes at the cost of every other race's enslavement or extermination. Frankly, yes, that may well be a greater evil.


You can also argue that a group being evil doesn't justify they're being genocided, but that also has nothing to do with minority/majority opinion...
I believe the point here was that the majority of goblins being evil doesn't, in principle, justify their wholesale extermination.

[Poppatomus]

By killing hobgoblins, which are among the goblins that it is RC's duty as a Bearer of the Crimson Mantle to see to the well being of.
[quote]

The killing of soldiers in the course of the war seems to me to have no bearing either way. The war might be justified or not, but killing opposing soldiers after the war has started seems to help the argument of neither side(barring atrocity, which no one is being accused of at this point it seems)

[quote]
Hey there, little kid. As it turns out, your friends and loved ones do things we are morally opposed to. So, we took the liberty of killing all of them. But hey! They don't agree with us, so it was the right thing to do.

No Mister. Even though these people who look like me were doing clearly evil and wrong things, because they looked like me I will assume your actions were unjustified, and that I can wreak vengence against anyone that looks like you. Also, it means I can do exactly the evil thing you did to my people to your people, because we all know two wrongs make a right!

Once again, assumes that the goblins are considered evil only in so far as they are opposed to the SG, rather than being objectivly evil. Again, that may be true, but it isn't assumed at this point and, if anything, is presumptivly opposed. You have to argue this, asserting it is not enough, at least not enough to be persuasive.

additionally assumes that justifiable anger = justifiable murder. (see Pa. vs. Miko)

[Morty]

Not so. His orders are to 'eliminate opposition', not 'wipe out humanity.'


I don't think Redcloak is naive enough to belive his soldiers not to kill unarmed citizens. Especially since he's avenging such act- i.e massacre of(at least from Redcloak's point of view) innocents.

[Alfryd]

I doubt Redcloak is so naive that he belives his hobgoblin soldiers not to kill unarmed citizens. Especially since he's avenging the exact same thing.
Whoa! Temporal paradox (wink wink nudge nudge.)
Where, again, is the evidence that the sapphire guard killed unarmed civilians or 'innocents' during their crusades? For all we know, Redcloak's mother was a high priestess of Hel hurling fingers of death left right and centre just before her not-entirely-coincidental death. If Redcloak chooses to ignore that fact, that's his own problem.
As for the soldier's likely behaviour- yes, it's a risk, but hobgoblins are unusually well-disciplined, and it seems to be a risk entailed whenever you occupy an enemy territory. Even if the hobgoblins didn't show perfect restraint, it's not the same thing as wilfully engineering outright genocide.

[Ganurath]

Retort: This argument is only valid if one assumes that the SG was not justified in attacking the goblins in the first place and that the paladins slaughtered goblins rather than destroying goblin armies or pushing back goblin settlements. Either of those may be the case, but we don't know that yet.Killing armies, like what RC is doing at AC now, is apparently justified according to your argument, and I'll conceed that if you're willing to recognize the reverse version. However, pushing back goblin settlements is just Whitewash for attacking civilian areas. Thus, slaughtering goblins.
Retort: That may justify destroying the Sapphire guard, but we have no reason to believe that the army of Azure city itself was involved in the slaughter of Goblins. Raises the very controversial question of at what point it is justified to destory a political entity that contains another, more malignent entity, and what amount of force is valid. Can Al Qaeda kill a jet full of people to attack the army? can the US nuke Kabul to get al Qaeda? Point is ambiguous and falls to neither side.As I understand, that army was not involved in the aggressive campaigns. However, they are participating in military action that directly opposes RC's agenda. Your real world analogies involve the death of civilians, not soldiers who haven't had as advanced of training as the main threat to goblinkind.
Retort: again assumes evil as a "team" rather than a value laden discriptor. If Xykon is evil and his forces are evil, and evil actually means inherently bad, than they would seem at least partially justified. Even if one ignores that for a second, the Goblins killed at the start were infact an invading force occupying a dungeon that did not belong to them.By that logic, the Azurites aren't justified in defending their homeland unless they had been there since the dawn of time.
Retort: Am I the only one who's ever noticed that slavery is synonymous with full employment?Another flawed analogy: There are more reasonable, feasable alternatives to slavery to attain full employment. Do you think it's reasonable that there would be a way to bring world peace to the OotS universe beyond through military action?
Retort: non sequitor. Goblins are evil is meant to encompass motive, past action, and intent compared to an objective standard. It is not asserted as a position that is opent to question or that is "relative" based on the social milieu of the world in question. You can argue that they are not evil, but if they are "evil" as evil is understood in the D&D universe, than it is independent of a majority vote. You can also argue that a group being evil doesn't justify they're being genocided, but that also has nothing to do with minority/majority opinionAlfryd hit the nail on the head: I was making a point that the majority being evil doesn't justify total annihilation.
retort: Once again, if Xykon and Redcloak are not evil then they clearly aren't evil, but sophistry alone doesn't prove this point, and while they are clearly complex characters with complex motivation, the giant at least appears to intend them to be evil.I'm not denying that they are evil. I'm saying that their motives for attacking AC weren't neccesarily evil.
Not so. His orders are to 'eliminate opposition', not 'wipe out humanity.'Consider this quote Exhibit A.
It would still be a gross violation of their code of conduct.I'm actually reading the Code of Conduct in my lap right now. Since killing evil creature's isn't evil, there actually isn't anything in the Code that prevents genocide directed toward evil beings.
So, apparently, are most of the Sapphire Guard.Is it hard to believe that there may be mistaken religious dogma that isn't exclusive to the mind of the late Miko?
Killing solely for the sake of the pleasure involved, strictly speaking, is evil.Killing, yes. Fighting, though? The hobgoblins were excited about the invasion and the victory, not the slaughter involved.
If Redcloak had ordered the express and summary extermination of every human in Azure City, the fact that he hasn't gotten around to every other human nation just yet wouldn't alter his clear intentions.Reference Exhibit A.
Which is all very touching, unless it comes at the cost of every other race's enslavement or extermination. Frankly, yes, that may well be a greater evil.Replace enslavement with subjugation, and extermination would only come to the military forces of those opposing the conquest. Maybe some civlians from nations that didn't think to evacuate them like Hinjo did at AC.

[Poppatomus]

Warms my heart to be (mostly) on the same side as Alfryd once more. Still not sure why my post above got an "oh for heaven's sake" but still...:smallredface:

[Morty]

Whoa! Temporal paradox (wink wink nudge nudge.)

:smallconfused:

Where, again, is the evidence that the sapphire guard killed unarmed civilians or 'innocents' during their crusades? For all we know, Redcloak's mother was a high priestess of Hel hurling fingers of death left right and centre just before her not-entirely-coincidental death. If Redcloak chooses to ignore that fact, that's his own problem.

Unless I'm forgetting something, we don't know who Reddie's mother was. And again, it doesn't matter, since Redcloak belives that they didn't deserve death. Which means that acceptance of killing unarmed Azure City civilians is either hypocrisy or naivety.


As for the soldier's likely behaviour- yes, it's a risk, but hobgoblins are unusually well-disciplined, and it seems to be a risk entailed whenever you occupy an enemy territory. Even if the hobgoblins didn't show perfect restraint, it's not the same thing as wilfully engineering outright genocide.

Not willfully engineering, but accepting, which is still quite wrong.

[Ganurath]

No Mister. Even though these people who look like me were doing clearly evil and wrong things in your belief system, because they were my friends and loved ones I will assume your actions were unjustified, and that I can wreak vengence against anyone that associates with your organization. Also, it means I can do exactly the evil thing you did to my fellow civilians to your armed soldiers, because we all know two wrongs make a right!Edits in bold.

[Poppatomus]

Edits in bold.

Here's the paragraph below the one you've edited in my original post:

"Once again, assumes that the goblins are considered evil only in so far as they are opposed to the SG, rather than being objectivly evil. Again, that may be true, but it isn't assumed at this point and, if anything, is presumptivly opposed. You have to argue this, asserting it is not enough, at least not enough to be persuasive. "

Yes, if indeed the killings of RC's parents were holy unjustified and the SG killed civilians casually and without concern for mercy, than it is possible that the war may be justified (that is, so long as that is still the practice and there was no way to destroy the SG without also destroying Azure city) but again, you can't just assume that's the case, that's the argument you have to make.

And, that aside, you still don't address the difference between being rightfully angry and murder on a large scale being justified, the "two wrongs make a right" point.

[Ganurath]

And, that aside, you still don't address the difference between being rightfully angry and murder on a large scale being justified, the "two wrongs make a right" point.You mean how Redcloak's motives for attack are concrete and undisputed as the killing of his loved ones by the SG that Shojo has affirmed in his exposition, whereas the only evidence supporting the SG's attacks on the goblins would be the dogma from Miko and Soon?

[Poppatomus]

Killing armies, like what RC is doing at AC now, is apparently justified according to your argument, and I'll conceed that if you're willing to recognize the reverse version.


Killing armies is justified if the war itself is justified. The point that I was getting at is that we have some reason to believe that the goblins may have been, as an empire, evil, and that the original war by the SG may have thus been justified in that way. Of course, if the SG was particularly brutal in this war, or committed atrocities against the goblins, then RC may be justified in trying to relieve the threat. This brings us to...



However, pushing back goblin settlements is just Whitewash for attacking civilian areas. Thus, slaughtering goblins.


I knew this was going to be trouble when I wrote this. By this, I meant pushing back settlements in the sense of reversing gains the goblins made through aggression/inevitable or unaviodable damage to civilians during the Goblin war. I should have been more specific at the time. my apologies.

However, even if this was the case, it would justify military action only to either prevent future attacks or punish those responsible for atrocities. I note that red cloak did not list the crimes of the Sapphire Guard before the city, or request the head of Shojo first, or any other pretense of just going after the SG.



As I understand, that army was not involved in the aggressive campaigns. However, they are participating in military action that directly opposes RC's agenda. Your real world analogies involve the death of civilians, not soldiers who haven't had as advanced of training as the main threat to goblinkind.


again, apologies for my lack of clarity. My point was in reference to the sacking and occupation of the city, which had/has civilians in it. RC did not purposefully give them time to evacuate, nor do we have evidence either way on how he asked them to be treated. Without knowing more the actual impact of this point on this argument is limited. I raise it only to highlight the disparity between justified aggression against the SG and justified aggression against the whole of Azure city.



By that logic, the Azurites aren't justified in defending their homeland unless they had been there since the dawn of time.


well, by that logic extended to an unreasonable degree, but fine. I'll concede the point.



Another flawed analogy: There are more reasonable, feasable alternatives to slavery to attain full employment. Do you think it's reasonable that there would be a way to bring world peace to the OotS universe beyond through military action?


While I would love to get into an argument about the relative merits of freedom with consequences vs. "the horror of peace without hope" I'm afraid I just don't have the time, and it's way too off topic. suffice it to say that I can think of more reasonable ways than the world being conquered by a Lich with zero concern for the lives of his subjects.



Alfryd hit the nail on the head: I was making a point that the majority being evil doesn't justify total annihilation.I'm not denying that they are evil. I'm saying that their motives for attacking AC weren't neccesarily evil.


He usually does. I misunderstood the point you were making there, and, as I alluded to in the paragraph below, I agree with the idea that just because a particular group might be mostly evil does not mean that you can justify their wanton slaughter, especially if you claim to be good.

However, several of your arguments for why RC is justified in the attack rest on the idea that the goblins are not evil. Note, I am not referring to motives here. Whether revenge is a sufficient motive for starting a war, or justice, or whatever, is a seperate question. The justification of the war isn't the same as justifications for the emotions underpinning it.

You might be justifiably angry about a police officer shooting someone you know, or justifiably sad. You're hate and desire for vengeance might be borne of love and be pure as the driven snow. However, if that person was killed becuase they were themselves attempting to murder someone else, it would not be justifiable for you to go and kill the police officer that caused their death.

Even if the person you knew was killed accidentally, as the result of collatoral damage, from someone stopping a murder, even though that would make your desire for justice or revenge or your hatred of their killer even more pure, it still wouldn't justify acting on that vengeance, unless the person that caused their death was negligent, or wasn't really taking a "good" action.

As far as we know, the SG was neither negligent nor merely acting as just another nation. We have reason to believe that the Goblin empires really were evil, and it may well be the case, as Alfryd points out, that RC's parents really were evil and deserved their fate. If that's the case it makes the war less justifiable. If the SG no longer represents a threat to Goblins or if RC could have avoided the destruction of Azure City while still punishing those responsible/removing the threat, then it becomes entirely unjustifiable.

[Fighteer]

You mean how Redcloak's motives for attack are concrete and undisputed as the killing of his loved ones by the SG that Shojo has affirmed in his exposition, whereas the only evidence supporting the SG's attacks on the goblins would be the dogma from Miko and Soon?
Actually, Redcloak is not conquering Azure City in retribution for the deaths of his family and friends per se. That is merely a side benefit. He is attempting to conquer Azure City to gain control of the gate that is present there, and in doing so to help Xykon gain absolute domination over the world. This is being done in service to his god, The Dark One.

Apply whatever sophistry you like; these goals are clearly evil on their face, aside from the not so minor chance that they could inadvertently release the Snarl itself and cause the world to be completely destroyed.

As to any side motives Redcloak may have, of course evil tends to justify itself in terms of slights and affronts and "revenge" for past "misdeeds". Especially Lawful Evil, as opposed to Xykon, who is just in it because he enjoys the death and destruction. Redcloak would be a less powerful character (from a storyline perspective) if he did not have some kind of motivation other than simply "conquer the world". None of these facts make him any less evil or worthy of being stopped. The "he did it to me first" excuse for warfare is an inherently Chaotic (not to mention Evil) point of view.

[Poppatomus]

You mean how Redcloak's motives for attack are concrete and undisputed as the killing of his loved ones by the SG that Shojo has affirmed in his exposition, whereas the only evidence supporting the SG's attacks on the goblins would be the dogma from Miko and Soon?

I'm pretty sure Miko and Soon would dispute Redcloak's assertion that the Goblins were unfairly targeted. Again though, we just don't know. Is it possible the goblins are just misunderstood and that they never did anything wrong until Soon's propogangda factory turned on? yea, its possible (associations with lich's and channeling of negative energy aside). It's equally possible that RC is just glossing over the fact that his parents were killed on the top of a pile of human corpses they were using for a blood sacrafice to summon an ancient evil, and he's convinietly left that out of the story.

Either way, if you want to justify the war the onus is on proving the case of the attacker, and I just don't think that's something you can do in this instance.

[Ar-Sakal]

Well, if you want to use "real life" ethics to justify this war, you should first consider that war has a very AMORAL nature in itself. That is why I find this entire thread a bit too much.

I mean, in "black and white" moralslike D&D, Azure City are the good guys and the Goblins are evil, and thus Azure City is justified to kill Goblins, but Goblins are not justified to do the same. This is a circular argument, because it pretty much states that AC is right because they are good, and they are the good guys because they are always right.

Now, in real life, all wars are full of horrible acts from both sides, no matter what propaganda wishes to say. War by definition is a state of conflict where two sides formed of moderately-advanced societies decide to use violence to resolve an issue, and usually both sides think they can win. If you do not use violence, it is not war, just a diplomatic conflict. If there is no outcome of winning, then usually a side chooses to surrender and comply, or is just simply commiting suicide.

Now, the use of violence always means that another individuals' rights will be affected, no matter how you want to see it. If you consider morally evil the use of violence to force someone to comply, and this violence usually means severly hurting or killing the person, the no one in war is saved from being labeled as evil, no matter how you cut it.

In a higher state of policy-making, above the "common sense" and "general knowledge" (such as "democracies are always good" nonwithstansing the fact that the wars with the biggest body counts have been fought by republics in one or both sides)which in many ways is shaped by the same policy, states NEVER think of right/wrong (just will lead you to impasse)... but always of the cold, rational motives and reasons why the state is doing what is doing. Once there is rational reasoning that justifies the motive, spindoctors go around convincing the people that they are doing the "right thing"

Therefore, BOTH sides are justified, based on their rationale.

Redcloack's combined motive is "Increase of Power agains humas (and other creatures, for that matter), avenging all Goblins killed by SG AND securing the future of goblinkind". Goblin "common sense" would agree with it, even though someone making some sort of ethical argument could claim that well, that means people AND goblins will die to do it.

Hinjo's side's motive is "defending all Creation along with securing AC and its inhabitants". Once again, most of us who see Goblins as monster would agree this is the right thing, but as many nobles raised the issue, WAR was not necessarily the only option. AC could simply hand the sapphire and disband the SG, and probably would be spared. But the possibility of winning the battle was considered strong enough to make a stand. No one asked Hinjo "well, have you considered that the Sapphire Guard has angered enough the Goblins to gain hatred agains AC, and that your actions will kill many humans and Goblins".

As you see, both sides chose to rely on violence, so neither side in that way can be "justified". But given their rational premises and the fact that both populations would agree with them, both sides would be justified. Which takes us to a final point "Don't try to argue the philosophical rationality of something written is in a book or a story. It usually is based on simple premises."

[Fighteer]

As you see, both sides chose to rely on violence, so neither side in that way can be "justified". But given their rational premises and the fact that both populations would agree with them, both sides would be justified. Which takes us to a final point "Don't try to argue the philosophical rationality of something written is in a book or a story. It usually is based on simple premises."
While you are basically correct in your evaluation given the premise of a world of relative morality, D&D is not such a world. D&D is a world of absolute good and evil and therefore any argument that "each side thinks it's in the right" is irrelevant to this game and this comic.

In a world of absolute good and evil, warfare is fated and inevitable and it is (usually) quite clear which side is right and which is wrong. The badguys do evil because they are just plain bad. They want to kill everybody who is not like them. They want to plunder and destroy. They hate light and life. They have no redeeming moral values (or if they do, it's on an individual level and not applicable to the species as a whole). Those who obey the principles of good are fully justified and within their rights to eradicate evil wherever it may be found, while recognizing that individuals may vary and there is always room for redemption. If they don't, the evil folks will happily do the same to them.

[Morty]

While you are basically correct in your evaluation given the premise of a world of relative morality, D&D is not such a world. D&D is a world of absolute good and evil and therefore any argument that "each side thinks it's in the right" is irrelevant to this game and this comic.

In a world of absolute good and evil, warfare is fated and inevitable and it is (usually) quite clear which side is right and which is wrong. The badguys do evil because they are just plain bad. They want to kill everybody who is not like them. They want to plunder and destroy. They hate light and life. They have no redeeming moral values (or if they do, it's on an individual level and not applicable to the species as a whole). Those who obey the principles of good are fully justified and within their rights to eradicate evil wherever it may be found, while recognizing that individuals may vary and there is always room for redemption. If they don't, the evil folks will happily do the same to them.

We've already seen that moralty in OOTS isn't quite as black-and-white as it's supposed to be in D&D. Besides, you're taking both good and evil to their extremes. Evil can have redeeming values, and good isn't always right- Roy and Miko anyone? If it worked otherwise, whole alignment system would be even more worthless that it is already.

[Ar-Sakal]

While you are basically correct in your evaluation given the premise of a world of relative morality, D&D is not such a world. D&D is a world of absolute good and evil and therefore any argument that "each side thinks it's in the right" is irrelevant to this game and this comic.

In a world of absolute good and evil, warfare is fated and inevitable and it is (usually) quite clear which side is right and which is wrong. The badguys do evil because they are just plain bad. They want to kill everybody who is not like them. They want to plunder and destroy. They hate light and life. They have no redeeming moral values (or if they do, it's on an individual level and not applicable to the species as a whole). Those who obey the principles of good are fully justified and within their rights to eradicate evil wherever it may be found, while recognizing that individuals may vary and there is always room for redemption. If they don't, the evil folks will happily do the same to them.


I apologize if I did not make it clearer (I have Vaarsuvius defect of making long arguments), but that's the whole point of my post AND I indicate that position in the first couple of paragraphs when talking of D&D. AC is right because it's good; the Goblin horde is wrong because it's evil in D&D.

I am just answering that wanting to justify any side out of the realm of D&D or a comic would get you nowhere. That's why I said "Don't try to argue the philosophical rationality of something written is in a book or a story. It usually is based on simple premises."

[Senex]

Keep in mind that pretty much all paladins who have participated in Soon's crusades are already dead.

[Corsair]

Azure City is in the right. Why? They're human. Thus, they have dominion over the Earth. Goblins are part of that dominion, and are rising up against their betters. The people of AC and the Sapphire Guard have the right to kill, maim, torture, terrorize, and otherwise harm the other races of the world at whim.

[Alfryd]

You mean how Redcloak's motives for attack are concrete and undisputed as the killing of his loved ones by the SG that Shojo has affirmed in his exposition, whereas the only evidence supporting the SG's attacks on the goblins would be the dogma from Miko and Soon?
...Is it hard to believe that there may be mistaken religious dogma that isn't exclusive to the mind of the late Miko?
Mistaken? perhaps. Deliberately misconstrued to fit a pre-existing agenda? No evidence for it. Being 'a soulless nihilist who seeks to undo creation' ranks highly among the very, very few valid explanations for unleashing a world-consuming deicidal abomination.

I'm actually reading the Code of Conduct in my lap right now. Since killing evil creature's isn't evil, there actually isn't anything in the Code that prevents genocide directed toward evil beings.
Killing defenceless opponents in droves without specific evidence of wrongdoing, regardless of whether they are evil, is a gross violation of the Paladin code of conduct. Certainly as regards due process and fair play, and I would strongly incline toward considering it evil. If evil orc A decides to burn evil orc B alive as part of a sacrifice to Bhaal or wotnot, guess what? That's still an evil act. Even if Orc B intrinsically deserves that kind of punishment. If whatever you did to an evil being was automatically given a free pass as far as alignment was concerned, the overwhelming bulk of Orcs would be neutral because... well, the overwhelming bulk of orcs are evil.

Do you think it's reasonable that there would be a way to bring world peace to the OotS universe beyond through military action?
I might be open to the possibility, if the military force in question were, say, led by Paladins, as opposed to an immortal Lich sorceror whose main source of entertainment is torment and butchery of sentient beings en masse.

Replace enslavement with subjugation...
That remains to be seen.

Consider this quote Exhibit A.
You misconstrue my argument. Redcloak's orders were to 'eliminate all opposition', not 'purge the city of human life.' Redcloak was not, to our knowledge, aware of the evacuation of most civilians from the city, so although the effect of his order was to eliminate most human life within the walls, that was not his express intent. We have no firm evidence that the eradication of humanity is his aim, even if we can't directly rule it out either.

The hobgoblins were excited about the invasion and the victory, not the slaughter involved.
Oh, because after battle they'll habitually put band-aids on the enemy's owwy booboos and kiss it all better.

I note that red cloak did not list the crimes of the Sapphire Guard before the city, or request the head of Shojo first, or any other pretense of just going after the SG.
In fairness, the odds of that having any positive effect either way were close to negligible.

And again, it doesn't matter, since Redcloak belives that they didn't deserve death. Which means that acceptance of killing unarmed Azure City civilians is either hypocrisy or naivety.
...Not willfully engineering, but accepting, which is still quite wrong.
That depends on whether the war was justified in the first place. A Lawful Good invasion force occupying goblin lands is still going to run into exactly the same problems, which are basically solvable only via retreat, bribery, or genocide. At least Redcloak, via the nobles, may have the luxury of bribery. I'm not trying to argue that redcloak is non-evil, but outright genocide is not something we've seen him embark on thus far.

Still not sure why my post above got an "oh for heaven's sake" but still...
I think the kid's meal allusion was mostly humorous.

He usually does ... Warms my heart to be (mostly) on the same side as Alfryd once more.
I'm flattered.

:smallconfused:
You were referring to a post that I deletedited so that it appeared just after yours.

[doliemaster]

First of all, I am going to call on a certain fan population to help me support redcloak, all of you Drizziti fans out their better suppport the cloak 'cause drizziti is out to defeat his people cause they slaughtered his family or some crap.
Now lets look at Azure city and who does and doesn't deserve it.
Paladins-These guys SLAUGHTERED anyone who was a threat to the gate, which is proabably, anything they could find that was evil with an INT score of atleast 3.deserved it.
Soldiers-Not paladins, NPC soldiers just defending their friends and loved ones. Didn't deserve it, but deserve a nice lawful-good afterlife more than the paladins.
Nobles-These people tried to kill their leader over 'meatloaf day' they were less justified than miko in trying to kill Shojo.Deserve it.
Civilians-Just people trying to live happily with their family. Don't derserve it.

Let's see, Civilians and Nobles escape, paladins and soldiers die. Most people will say 'More Soldiers than Paladins died so unjustified.' WRONG! Apparently in this world the sins of the few outway the goods of the many, because the gob's were put through mass-genocide because of what their leaders believed. So I am sorry for the civ's and the soldiers but Azure city derserved all it got.

[doliemaster]

Azure City is in the right. Why? They're human. Thus, they have dominion over the Earth. Goblins are part of that dominion, and are rising up against their betters. The people of AC and the Sapphire Guard have the right to kill, maim, torture, terrorize, and otherwise harm the other races of the world at whim.

Sorry about the double post but dude, that better be sarcasm or you are one of the worst people I have ever met. Also as far as OOTS and DnD goes I HATE humans.

[hanzo66]

Perhaps it's one of those types where you really have to see things from both sides. The details about the goblin slaughters are still fairly shaky and the purpose of the Crimson Mantle is still unknown. Perhaps it's more than just some red cape. Perhaps it's a magical item created of evil (woven by the Dark One itself perhaps with some involvement with the Snarl) and dangerous to all that is good. Perhaps the Sapphire Guard were more thorough than they really should have been and some might have slain some otherwise innocent goblins.

Perhaps that despite the fact that in this case the Goblinoids are unilaterally evil creatures, Redcloak instead does not see the Sapphire Guard as saving the world from another threat, he just sees it as mass genocide of his loved ones by overzealous Pallies whom from his words to Miko are more or less very similar to her. The humans, even the truly noble ones perhaps sees all Goblinoids as potential threats and made mass-eliminations. Then again, Redcloak could have grown up with particularly evil Goblins that although he saw and loved as family members were by all means a true threat to the world and had to be taken out for the greater good.


The details are currently not clear. I'm guessing that more info would be revealed either later in the comic or in Start of Darkness.

[Morty]

Mistaken? perhaps. Deliberately misconstrued to fit a pre-existing agenda? No evidence for it. Being 'a soulless nihilist who seeks to undo creation' ranks highly among the very, very few valid explanations for unleashing a world-consuming deicidal abomination.

Let's not forget that Redcloak may not be "soulless nihilist etc.". Miko saide that, and she's known for having a bit... specific point of view.



That depends on whether the war was justified in the first place. A Lawful Good invasion force occupying goblin lands is still going to run into exactly the same problems, which are basically solvable only via retreat, bribery, or genocide. At least Redcloak, via the nobles, may have the luxury of bribery. I'm not trying to argue that redcloak is non-evil, but outright genocide is not something we've seen him embark on thus far.


Well, he himself admits to hate humans as a specie, so I'd say it's highly probable. But yes, there's no real evidence wheter Redcloak is willing to commit genocide or not.

[Renegade Paladin]

First of all, I am going to call on a certain fan population to help me support redcloak, all of you Drizziti fans out their better suppport the cloak 'cause drizziti is out to defeat his people cause they slaughtered his family or some crap.
Now lets look at Azure city and who does and doesn't deserve it.
Paladins-These guys SLAUGHTERED anyone who was a threat to the gate, which is proabably, anything they could find that was evil with an INT score of atleast 3.deserved it.
Soldiers-Not paladins, NPC soldiers just defending their friends and loved ones. Didn't deserve it, but deserve a nice lawful-good afterlife more than the paladins.
Nobles-These people tried to kill their leader over 'meatloaf day' they were less justified than miko in trying to kill Shojo.Deserve it.
Civilians-Just people trying to live happily with their family. Don't derserve it.

Let's see, Civilians and Nobles escape, paladins and soldiers die. Most people will say 'More Soldiers than Paladins died so unjustified.' WRONG! Apparently in this world the sins of the few outway the goods of the many, because the gob's were put through mass-genocide because of what their leaders believed. So I am sorry for the civ's and the soldiers but Azure city derserved all it got.
I've seen some tortured logic in my time, but man, this is up there.

First, the biggest hole in your argument is this: If the paladins had run around killing everything with an INT of at least 3 that was evil, they'd have fallen in short order. You may notice that they didn't. Furthermore, Soon's crusade was two generations ago; to our knowledge none of the current paladins participated in it. "Sins of the father" doesn't fly.

The falling issue entirely aside, Shojo said they crusaded to eliminate threats to the gate, not to eliminate all evil they could get their katanas on. If they'd gone on a grand crusade against all evil, he'd have said that. Instead, he said they went after threats to the gate, which is in all likelihood a relatively small subset of evil. Your average orc tribe isn't much interested in gates they don't understand, nor in dying attacking a city that they can't possibly overcome.

Further, we know they didn't kill all evil with an Int of 3 or more because Redcloak is alive. They would have killed him until he died if your theory is correct.

[doliemaster]

I've seen some tortured logic in my time, but man, this is up there.

First, the biggest hole in your argument is this: If the paladins had run around killing everything with an INT of at least 3 that was evil, they'd have fallen in short order. You may notice that they didn't. Furthermore, Soon's crusade was two generations ago; to our knowledge none of the current paladins participated in it. "Sins of the father" doesn't fly.

The falling issue entirely aside, Shojo said they crusaded to eliminate threats to the gate, not to eliminate all evil they could get their katanas on. If they'd gone on a grand crusade against all evil, he'd have said that. Instead, he said they went after threats to the gate, which is in all likelihood a relatively small subset of evil. Your average orc tribe isn't much interested in gates they don't understand, nor in dying attacking a city that they can't possibly overcome.

Further, we know they didn't kill all evil with an Int of 3 or more because Redcloak is alive. They would have killed him until he died if your theory is correct.


First of all, paladins apparently don't fall for killing anything with an evil alignment because miko didn't fall until she killed shojo. Next as far as redcloak being alive with other gobos- they missed a few who then had two generations to breed back from, as far as the average orc tribe thing, the crimson mantle and the gobos obviously knew nothing about the gates beyond that they exist, as redcloak didn't figure out how to open the gate back at Dorukons dungeon and needed that diary to know where the other gates are. The gobos might not have even known there was one in Azure city. Also I know this is should have gone earlier in the post but as for crusade happening two years ago, the paladins still mess with things outside the borders of azure city and direct threats to the city.

[Fighteer]

First of all, paladins apparently don't fall for killing anything with an evil alignment because miko didn't fall until she killed shojo. Next as far as redcloak being alive with other gobos- they missed a few who then had two generations to breed back from, as far as the average orc tribe thing, the crimson mantle and the gobos obviously knew nothing about the gates beyond that they exist, as redcloak didn't figure out how to open the gate back at Dorukons dungeon and needed that diary to know where the other gates are. The gobos might not have even known there was one in Azure city. Also I know this is should have gone earlier in the post but as for crusade happening two years ago, the paladins still mess with things outside the borders of azure city and direct threats to the city.
Whether Redcloak had knowledge of the Gates prior to becoming the high priest of the Crimson Mantle is irrelevant. Obviously, the Order of the Crimson Mantle is or was a serious threat to the world in general, and allowing them to gain access to the Gates would have been catastrophic. The crusade was directed specifically at those who were a direct threat, so unless you assume that the Sapphire Guard were mistaken or intentionally deluded (at which point you might as well forget about them being paladins), you must logically reach the conclusion that their actions were justified at the time by the fact that the CM either intended to interfere with the Gates or would have had they been in a position to.

In other words, their actions were righteous (in the general sense) because of the fact that they were still paladins after taking them. In the D&D universe, this conclusion is unarguable. Applying anything other than D&D morality (as adapted by Rich Burlew) to OotS is inherently meaningless.

That said, we can speculate about the Crimson Mantle's full motives all we want, but we cannot know anything for sure until Start of Darkness is released.

[Morty]

In other words, their actions were righteous (in the general sense) because of the fact that they were still paladins after taking them. In the D&D universe, this conclusion is unarguable. Applying anything other than D&D morality (as adapted by Rich Burlew) to OotS is inherently meaningless.



Well, it migh be that this genocide should have made paladins fall, but it didn't, as it was in god's interest- so they've forgiven that.
Besides, if this slaughter wasn't evil, it still doesn't mean it was right thing to do. Especially from Redcloak's point of view; he probably didn't know anything about gates or any of this stuff.

[Poppatomus]

Well, it migh be that this genocide should have made paladins fall, but it didn't, as it was in god's interest- so they've forgiven that.
Besides, if this slaughter wasn't evil, it still doesn't mean it was right thing to do. Especially from Redcloak's point of view; he probably didn't know anything about gates or any of this stuff.

Right, but even if redcloak is rightly angry, that doesn't justify the war, it just means the anger is understandble and even sympathetic.

[Morty]

Right, but even if redcloak is rightly angry, that doesn't justify the war, it just means the anger is understandble and even sympathetic.

I never implied that Redcloak is jutified; like you said, it's just that his anger is understandable, and it's some redeeming value for him.

[Fighteer]

I never implied that Redcloak is jutified; like you said, it's just that his anger is understandable, and it's some redeeming value for him.
So... I plot to conquer the world in the name of the Gods of Evil. I join forces with an undead abomination to accomplish this, and slaughter countless innocents in pursuit of my goals. I laugh at the pain of others and inflict suffering just because I can.

However, because I feel anguish and indignation over the slaughter of my family and friends by the forces of Good - who were presumably stopping them from pursuing the same agenda as me - I am somehow morally redeemed?

If'n they hadn't been tryin' ta conquer th' world in the first place, there wouldn't ha' been any paladins killin' 'em!

[Morty]

So... I plot to conquer the world in the name of the Gods of Evil. I join forces with an undead abomination to accomplish this, and slaughter countless innocents in pursuit of my goals. I laugh at the pain of others and inflict suffering just because I can.

However, because I feel anguish and indignation over the slaughter of my family and friends by the forces of Good - who were presumably stopping them from pursuing the same agenda as me - I am somehow morally redeemed?

If'n they hadn't been tryin' ta conquer th' world in the first place, there wouldn't ha' been any paladins killin' 'em!

We don't know if Redcloak's family were killed by paladins because they were trying to free the Snarl or anything. In fact if they were, I guess Redcloak wouldn't be so pissed off. For me, it seems that paladins got overzealous in their mission, but it wasn't evil enough to make them fall.
And yeah, Redcloak is evil, sadistic and specieistic. But the fact that he had a family and frieds her cared for, and is avenging them- it's a redeeming value. Something really rare in black-and-white D&D moralty.

[Poppatomus]

So... I plot to conquer the world in the name of the Gods of Evil. I join forces with an undead abomination to accomplish this, and slaughter countless innocents in pursuit of my goals. I laugh at the pain of others and inflict suffering just because I can.

However, because I feel anguish and indignation over the slaughter of my family and friends by the forces of Good - who were presumably stopping them from pursuing the same agenda as me - I am somehow morally redeemed?

If'n they hadn't been tryin' ta conquer th' world in the first place, there wouldn't ha' been any paladins killin' 'em!

I agree with you throughout the thread, but here you are blending arguments. Characters can fight on the wrong side and still be sympathetic, even understandable. Othello is a sympathetic character, he murdered his wife. Rommel was sympathetic, he fought for the Nazis. etc...

Mort is pointing out that, unlike Xykon, RC has goals beyond his own aggrandizement. Not only are these goals personal, they are, in their own way, very human. He wants to right a wrong, he wants justice for his family, he wants to protect the things he values.

That doesn't make him not evil, but there are gradients of evil. Xykon just wants personal power becuase he enjoys that power and think highly of himself. RC has some of the same motivations, but he is also propelled by emotion and his actions have a justification beyond self-aggrandizement or madness. It makes him a better character.

He is not redeemed, but more so than Xykon he might be redeemable, or at least worth trying to redeem.

[Fighteer]

We don't know if Redcloak's family were killed by paladins because they were trying to free the Snarl or anything. In fact if they were, I guess Redcloak wouldn't be so pissed off. For me, it seems that paladins got overzealous in their mission, but it wasn't evil enough to make them fall.
And yeah, Redcloak is evil, sadistic and specieistic. But the fact that he had a family and frieds her cared for, and is avenging them- it's a redeeming value. Something really rare in black-and-white D&D moralty.
I would say that it makes his character more sympathetic, certainly. You can see yourself rooting for him a bit, in the same way can you love well-drawn movie villains and feel bad at their inevitable loss to the good guys. Some of the best badguys out there are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons - this does not, however, make their acts any less wrong. And Redcloak is not doing things for the right reasons, not by any stretch of the imagination.


I agree with you throughout the thread, but here you are blending arguments. Characters can fight on the wrong side and still be sympathetic, even understandable. Othello is a sympathetic character, he murdered his wife. Rommel was sympathetic, he fought for the Nazis. etc...

Mort is pointing out that, unlike Xykon, RC has goals beyond his own aggrandizement. Not only are these goals personal, they are, in their own way, very human. He wants to right a wrong, he wants justice for his family, he wants to protect the things he values.

That doesn't make him not evil, but there are gradients of evil. Xykon just wants personal power becuase he enjoys that power and think highly of himself. RC has some of the same motivations, but he is also propelled by emotion and his actions have a justification beyond self-aggrandizement or madness. It makes him a better character.

He is not redeemed, but more so than Xykon he might be redeemable, or at least worth trying to redeem.
Redcloak makes for a powerful villain because we see more of his motives than simply "kill everything and conquer the world". I get that he wants to protect the things he values, but those things are, in and of themselves, evil, and so his desire to "protect" them is an example of "evil is as evil does". We can like him as a character without liking the things he does or concocting arbitrary justifications for his evil acts.

While I can sympathize with the desire to redeem Redcloak, I cannot bring myself to consider him to be worthy of redemption - his life is too steeped in villainy. At best he might be induced (or decide) to betray Xykon, and thus weaken Team Evil at a critical point, but it wouldn't earn him an alignment shift and a halo. There is nothing he does or has done that can even remotely be construed as having a Good motive. Even his loyalty to his fellow goblins is based more upon his divine mandate to guide his species to world domination than any personal sense of well-wishing towards any particular individual or tribe.

[Keldin]

My take on this is simple -- if in a particular world all (or the vast majority) of a race is inherently evil (which is usually the case in D&D cosmologies) then to kill that race indiscriminately is a justifiable action. This flies in the face of our real world morality because we see good and evil as being functions of a persons actions and behaviour, not their genetic makeup (indeed, to tell someone that because of their ancestry they are inherently Evil sounds close to racism.)

So what we have here is a clash between real world facts and the facts of an imagined world.

But even in a real world situation, we do not usually require those in battle to verify the nature of individual recognized enemies (As in a real world soldier stopping to ask an enemy soldier "are you evil?") If the paladins believe evil creatures to be a threat to their security, they will likely eliminate those creatures on sight.

That said, many people who play the victim card (as Redcloak is doing) usually do not tell the entire backstory of the situation (like a son declaring vengeance against the legal system that executed his father, conveniently neglecting to mention that his father WAS a multiple murderer.)

[Poppatomus]

But even in a real world situation, we do not usually require those in battle to verify the nature of individual recognized enemies (As in a real world soldier stopping to ask an enemy soldier "are you evil?")


There's a point buried in there, but as stated that is wrong.

Yea, in the real world soldiers don't ask enemy soldiers if they are evil, but one of the reasons that the profession of "soldier" came into being was because it allowed you to distinguish who you were supposed to kill from who you weren't. That's why they wear uniforms. (of course here by "evil" i mean the closest real worl analogue which means "you are allowed to kill them in the course of some greater cause without being a murderer." functionally the same as "Evil" in your more D&D based discussion.)



It's one of the reasons that we have so much trouble fighting AQ and other insurgent groups, we don't know who's a valid target and who isn't. This doesn't just make it hard to act in a meaningful way, killing the right guy, it also harms our society because we feel bad, and rightly so, when it turns out we killed the wrong guy.

A soldier that killed enemy POWs or enemy civilians would be charged with murder, court marshalled and put in jail for the rest of their lives. An enemy force that refused to distinguish civilians from soldiers, on either side, would be branded terrorists and, according to the geneva conventions, not be given the protections of international law. (i.e. even when that group killed a solider you could still prosecute them for murder.)

[Keldin]

I didn't want to talk about too specific real world situations because I am still getting used to the rules on this site. I agree with what you said, however. In the fantasy settings under discussion, though, assuming that a race is inherently evil, they have no need to identify themselves as soldiers or anything else because they are already marked by their species. The logic would then be something like:

1: All goblins are evil.
2: All evil must be destroyed
3: Therefore all goblins must be destroyed (with no allowances for age, gender, non-combatant status, or whatever)

Our real world sensibilites quite rightly give us pause when thinking in absolute terms like that.

[Poppatomus]

I didn't want to talk about too specific real world situations because I am still getting used to the rules on this site. I agree with what you said, however. In the fantasy settings under discussion, though, assuming that a race is inherently evil, they have no need to identify themselves as soldiers or anything else because they are already marked by their species. The logic would then be something like:

1: All goblins are evil.
2: All evil must be destroyed
3: Therefore all goblins must be destroyed (with no allowances for age, gender, non-combatant status, or whatever)

Our real world sensibilites quite rightly give us pause when thinking in absolute terms like that.

Which is true. I am on your side on this, mostly, though there is something of a question the extent to which this is true in the OOTS' take on alignment. (and there are about a million threads on the difference between usually evil, mostly evil, and always evil.)

I only wanted to point out that, in the real world, we do ask soldiers to make that distinction. That was what motivated my long winded response, no more, no less.

[Renegade Paladin]

First of all, paladins apparently don't fall for killing anything with an evil alignment because miko didn't fall until she killed shojo.
And? So? Therefore? Miko didn't run about killing things for no reason that we ever saw. Name one creature, one, that we saw her kill without a good reason before Shojo. Go ahead. Do it.

Yeah, I didn't think so.
Next as far as redcloak being alive with other gobos- they missed a few who then had two generations to breed back from, as far as the average orc tribe thing, the crimson mantle and the gobos obviously knew nothing about the gates beyond that they exist, as redcloak didn't figure out how to open the gate back at Dorukons dungeon and needed that diary to know where the other gates are.
Wow, that's a long sentence.

Anyway, Redcloak apparently watched his parents die. That speaks to me of him being in immediate and overwhelming danger if the paladins were interested in killing him. Evidently, they were not. Also evidently, that was a mistake. For evidence of that, see the current situation.

As for them knowing nothing about the gates, that Redcloak didn't know details of the gates is irrelevant. As you may have noticed, his parents were killed while he was a child. Unless you expect a child to know all the details of his parents' work, there's no reason why you should think he would know. After all, they weren't around to tell him, so he had to start over from scratch. His parents could easily have known without him knowing. I do not, however, entirely think that his involvement with attempting to take the Gates currently and his parents' killing by the Sapphire Guard in the past for being a threat to the gates are entirely coincidental.
The gobos might not have even known there was one in Azure city. Also I know this is should have gone earlier in the post but as for crusade happening two years ago, the paladins still mess with things outside the borders of azure city and direct threats to the city.
That doesn't matter, as Redcloak was apparently speaking of Soon's crusade that killed his parents, not what the Sapphire Guard has been doing since. As for what the Guard has been doing since, apparently what they're doing is dealing with threats to the Gate, since that is exactly what Miko was doing when she came to arrest the Order. This isn't exactly an obscure plot point, as plot points go.

[Twilight Jack]

The logic would then be something like:

1: All goblins are evil.
2: All evil must be destroyed
3: Therefore all goblins must be destroyed (with no allowances for age, gender, non-combatant status, or whatever)

Our real world sensibilites quite rightly give us pause when thinking in absolute terms like that.

Ah, yes, but not all goblins are evil. It's just a tendency. So now you're back where you started.

[Jefepato]

We've already seen that moralty in OOTS isn't quite as black-and-white as it's supposed to be in D&D.

I haven't seen that. We've seen obnoxious and offensive good characters, and sympathetic evil characters, but I can't think of any way in which OotS's underlying morality has actually departed from D&D's black-and-white system

Defend this assertion, please.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Let's take a look at the major players here:

The Sapphire Guard wants to protect the gate from evil. Good.
Azure City want to defend itself from attack. Neutral.

Xykon wants to conquer the world. Evil.
The Hobgoblins just want to kill humans. Evil.
Redcloak wants revenge. Neutral.

History is rife with wars in which good and evil are not clear-cut. This is not one of them. The forces of darkness are the aggressors in this particular war, and even if Redcloak's personal grudge justifies killing a large city (it doesn't) it's ulterior to the primary reason (the gates, which is ironically the source of Redcloak's grudge). You may argue all you like about Redcloak's history, but there's nothing that says you have to conquer a city that happened to slight you in the past just because the opportunity came up. People who do that in the real world are called madmen.

[Ganurath]

I haven't seen that. We've seen obnoxious and offensive good characters, and sympathetic evil characters, but I can't think of any way in which OotS's underlying morality has actually departed from D&D's black-and-white system

Defend this assertion, please.Belkar is evil and is helping to save the world. MitD is evil, yet has a childish harmless mindset. Same goes for Thog. Arguably Redcloak, with the quest for vengeance and the recent apiphany. There's alsoa Good person who was a malign character, but I dare not say her name.

[Jefepato]

Belkar is evil and is helping to save the world. MitD is evil, yet has a childish harmless mindset. Same goes for Thog. Arguably Redcloak, with the quest for vengeance and the recent apiphany. There's alsoa Good person who was a malign character, but I dare not say her name.

Belkar is along because he gets to kill things.

MitD is childish, but hardly harmless. It wanted to kill the OotS for Xykon, and was going to eat a Kid's Meal made of real kids.

Thog is childish, but hardly harmless. He's killed a ton of innocent beings so far, and goes on rampages when he gets bored.

Redcloak is the high priest of an evil god, leading an army for entirely evil goals. His epiphany was great character development, but although he did stop one form of evil behavior (racism towards hobgoblins), it's not like he's now less evil in any meaningful sense.

This thread does not need to become another argument over what Miko's alignment is/was at any given point.

None of the above contradict the standard black-and-white alignment system even slightly. Having a strange or unexpected personality doesn't mean you don't fit your alignment.

[Ganurath]

Redcloak is the high priest of an evil god, leading an army for entirely evil goals. His epiphany was great character development, but although he did stop one form of evil behavior (racism towards hobgoblins), it's not like he's now less evil in any meaningful sense.Redcloak's divine duel was the pinnacle of altruism, evil or not: he put himself on the line to defend his comrades.

Oh, and that's why I didn't want anyone saying her name.

[Jefepato]

Redcloak's divine duel was the pinnacle of altruism, evil or not: he put himself on the line to defend his comrades.

Sure, but taken in context -- he was defending his evil comrades from getting deservedly smitten by the high priest of the Twelve Gods -- he certainly wasn't committing a good act.

[Ganurath]

Sure, but taken in context -- he was defending his evil comrades from getting deservedly smitten by the high priest of the Twelve Gods -- he certainly wasn't committing a good act.So, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as the good stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward good and the bad stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward evil? That must be the sort of thinking that got RC's parents killed.

[Renegade Paladin]

So, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as the good stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward good and the bad stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward evil? That must be the sort of thinking that got RC's parents killed.
No, the sort of thinking that got Redcloak's parents killed was, according to any and all evidence that we have at this point in time, that they were a clear and present danger to the Gates. There is absolutely no cause to think otherwise. I'm not sure where this fixation with declaring Redcloak's parents to be innocent victims comes from, because nothing we have indicates that they were anything other than evil priests themselves. :smallannoyed:

[Jefepato]

So, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as the good stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward good and the bad stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward evil? That must be the sort of thinking that got RC's parents killed.

It does matter what you do, but saving the lives of evil people who are in the process of doing evil things isn't good. And even if you want to believe that it is, being evil doesn't prevent Redcloak from committing good acts on occasion.

Until we're given some reason to believe otherwise, I can only assume Redcloak's parents were killed because they were threatening Soon's Gate somehow. We don't have the details (I hope Start of Darkness will shed some light), but it's not like a gang of unruly paladins killed them just for being green.

[Fighteer]

So, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as the good stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward good and the bad stuff is done to those with a predisposition toward evil? That must be the sort of thinking that got RC's parents killed.Evil (particularly Lawful Evil) is capable of self-sacrifice under appropriate circumstances. This is not an altruistic decision; merely one of optimizing your use of resources.

Redcloak is charged by his deity to guide the goblin race to absolute domination over the world. His revelation during the battle was that hobgoblins counted equally toward that purpose. The fact that he suddenly cares about the well-being of his troops (as any effective commander should) does not make his actions or his ultimate goals any less evil.

[Poppatomus]

The fact that he suddenly cares about the well-being of his troops (as any effective commander should) does not make his actions or his ultimate goals any less evil.

But it does make the man less evil.

Let me put it this way: who is more evil Xykon or RC? To me, it's obviously Xykon, and I think most would agree.

Now, a harder one. Who is more evil RC or Belkar?

[Fighteer]

But it does make the man less evil.

Let me put it this way: who is more evil Xykon or RC? To me, it's obviously Xykon, and I think most would agree.

Now, a harder one. Who is more evil RC or Belkar?
Redcloak is Lawful Evil, while Xykon is Chaotic Evil. They are both still evil. Let me ask you this: which, in the long run, is capable of causing the most harm and suffering? In this case, you have to measure results, not merely intentions. Could Xykon have taken Azure City without Redcloak's army of hobgoblins? Would he have survived Soon's attack without Redcloak's turning?

Then again, would Redcloak have grown into such an effective commander without being a party to Xykon's goals? It works both ways.

Redcloak's growing strength of character may make him more likeable, but if it makes him less evil, it's in the sense that a cloud makes the sun less hot.

Between Belkar and Redcloak, it's obvious that Redcloak has the ability (and desire) to cause a great deal more harm. Belkar is what you might call Selfish Evil - so preoccupied with his own transient desires that he gives little or no thought to the big picture. Such people may be very hard to control, but they don't have the ability to commit Evil acts on any kind of grand scale without someone more focused directing their actions.

[Jefepato]

Let me put it this way: who is more evil Xykon or RC? To me, it's obviously Xykon, and I think most would agree.

I agree, yes, though on a purely comparative basis. Redcloak has marginally more redeeming features (i.e. any at all), but he's still evil as sin.


Now, a harder one. Who is more evil RC or Belkar?

I'd say Redcloak. Worshipping an evil god and leading an evil army to capture ultimate universe-destroying power and make use of it to rule the world (evilly) is worse than just being sadistic and prone to senseless killing. Although they're both pretty bad.

[Poppatomus]

I'd say Redcloak. Worshipping an evil god and leading an evil army to capture ultimate universe-destroying power and make use of it to rule the world (evilly) is worse than just being sadistic and prone to senseless killing. Although they're both pretty bad.

See to me though, I think they are both equally evil. Xykon is prime evil. He makes things around him evil and moves things towards evil, not just by plot but by personality. He embodies evil. He is Roy's counter part.

RC and Belkar are context evil. Their motivations and responses are extreme, and they are by no means good or potentially good, but their evil is personal. In the right context or setting, they can exist within a good system, so long as they are watched and given an outlet. as such, I consider them (not their acts, themselves) as equally evil.

[Jefepato]

RC and Belkar are context evil. Their motivations and responses are extreme, and they are by no means good or potentially good, but their evil is personal. In the right context or setting, they can exist within a good system, so long as they are watched and given an outlet. as such, I consider them (not their acts, themselves) as equally evil.

What's contextual about being the high priest of an evil god? What outlet can you give Redcloak?

[Ganurath]

What's contextual about being the high priest of an evil god? What outlet can you give Redcloak?Actually, it's plausable that the Dark One is a Chaotic Neutral deity that doesn't allow Good clerics. This would explain how some of the clerics were able to pull a bunch of heal spells out of their hats.

We now have an insubstantial ammount of evidence indicating toward a possibility. By the same logic that it is assumed that the deaths of Redcloak's parents and the crusades of the Sapphire Guard were justified, it must be recognized as fact until proven otherwise.

[SPoD]

Actually, it's plausable that the Dark One is a Chaotic Neutral deity that doesn't allow Good clerics. This would explain how some of the clerics were able to pull a bunch of heal spells out of their hats.

In this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0191.html), Xykon calls Redcloak the high priest of his "evil goblin deity" to :mitd: and Redcloak doesn't contradict him.

[Renegade Paladin]

Actually, it's plausable that the Dark One is a Chaotic Neutral deity that doesn't allow Good clerics. This would explain how some of the clerics were able to pull a bunch of heal spells out of their hats.

We now have an insubstantial ammount of evidence indicating toward a possibility. By the same logic that it is assumed that the deaths of Redcloak's parents and the crusades of the Sapphire Guard were justified, it must be recognized as fact until proven otherwise.
I don't think you're quite getting it. Look. We have a bunch of decidedly non-fallen paladins who undertook these crusades, which by definition means they were justified. These same paladins say that said crusade was to eliminate threats to the Gate (I know technically Shojo said it, but he said it at the trial with loads of paladins in the room; they wouldn't have stood for him lying about it for no apparent reason), so we have a very reliable source seeing how they can't tell a serious lie. This means that Redcloak's parents were at the very least peripherally involved in constituting a threat to the Gate. That is considerably more evidence than you have for any theory that a deity that has been stated to be evil in the comic is not in fact evil. I'm sorry, but as long as there are paladins involved, you can't very well obfuscate the moral issue because they're nearly by definition in the right.

[SPoD]

We have a bunch of decidedly non-fallen paladins who undertook these crusades, which by definition means they were justified. These same paladins say that said crusade was to eliminate threats to the Gate (I know technically Shojo said it, but he said it at the trial with loads of paladins in the room; they wouldn't have stood for him lying about it for no apparent reason)

Actually...this is sort of unknown. If it happened when Redcloak was a child, we don't know that there weren't some paladins who DID Fall for participating because they got carried away and killed goblins that weren't doing anything wrong. It was a long time ago. Yes, it's obvious that SOME of the paladins went on a crusade to wipe out those that threatened the Gates, and that most didn't Fall as a result--but we don't know that there wasn't even a single paladin who stepped over the line, killed Redcloak's family, and Fell.

Thus, it is possible that the main point of the crusade was Good, but the act that precipitated Redcloak's feelings of vengance was not. We can't use the fact that "well, the paladins didn't Fall when they did it" as solid reasoning until we SEE the paladins not Falling. And since it was 30 years ago, it might not have been important enough for Shojo to tell strangers, "By the way, some of those paladins did bad things and Fell; most didn't."

[kirbsys]

Or its possible that Redcloak was so young that he remembers them as good people and doesn't rrealize that the paladins were justified. My dad was scum, but I remember only good things about him because he left when I was like six. My grandma never got along with my grandpa, but for some reason now she seems to say that he'd make everything better if he were still alive. People always remember the good unless they want to remember the bad. So really, you just never know.

[Jefepato]

Actually...this is sort of unknown. If it happened when Redcloak was a child, we don't know that there weren't some paladins who DID Fall for participating because they got carried away and killed goblins that weren't doing anything wrong. It was a long time ago. Yes, it's obvious that SOME of the paladins went on a crusade to wipe out those that threatened the Gates, and that most didn't Fall as a result--but we don't know that there wasn't even a single paladin who stepped over the line, killed Redcloak's family, and Fell.

Thus, it is possible that the main point of the crusade was Good, but the act that precipitated Redcloak's feelings of vengance was not. We can't use the fact that "well, the paladins didn't Fall when they did it" as solid reasoning until we SEE the paladins not Falling. And since it was 30 years ago, it might not have been important enough for Shojo to tell strangers, "By the way, some of those paladins did bad things and Fell; most didn't."

True, we don't know otherwise for an absolute fact. But it seems unlikely that Redcloak would hate the entire Sapphire Guard irrationally if the one who killed his parents was instantly zapped with the divine beige "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"

Really, I'm not sure it matters. The loss of Redcloak's parents still makes him a somewhat sympathetic character whether or not they deserved to die, and his current actions are totally unjustified in either case.

[factotum]

I don't think you're quite getting it. Look. We have a bunch of decidedly non-fallen paladins who undertook these crusades, which by definition means they were justified.

In OotS-land, Falling seems to be something directly determined by the Gods themselves--see what happened when Miko fell. Therefore, we can only say for sure that the Paladins were justified in what they doing IN THE EYES OF THE TWELVE GODS. For all we know, the 12 might have been perfectly willing to countenance Evil acts so long as those acts were directed toward keeping the gates safe (and hence the Snarl imprisoned)...

[SPoD]

True, we don't know otherwise for an absolute fact. But it seems unlikely that Redcloak would hate the entire Sapphire Guard irrationally if the one who killed his parents was instantly zapped with the divine beige "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"

We don't know that he witnessed every moment. We don't know if he knows (even today) what that would mean if he did see it. We don't know that he would even CARE. Redcloak hates humans. All humans, even ones who aren't in the Sapphire Guard. If the paladin fell right in front of him, and he knew what it meant, it would still mean NOTHING to him. It was still a human who did it. What does the judgement of the Twelve Gods mean to him? The Twelve Gods were supporting this whole venture!

If another nation invaded your hometown and a guy breaks into your house and murders your family, do you feel better about it because the nation doing the invading punishes him afterwards? No, because he wouldn't have been there with a gun unless the nation told him to!

The only reason I mentioned it is because the argument was being made that, "We know their actions weren't Evil, because none of them Fell." We don't know any such thing. But whether or not a paladin Fell for it wouldn't affect how Redcloak saw it, because he would see the authority of the Twelve Gods as being meaningless anyway.

[Morty]

I don't think you're quite getting it. Look. We have a bunch of decidedly non-fallen paladins who undertook these crusades, which by definition means they were justified.

Yes, they probably are. From their point of view. Because while Good and Evil aren't subjective in D&D, justice is. The fact if someone is threat to the Gates enough to be killed too. And paladins didn't fall because they were protecting the gates, which is in gods' interest- so they've forgiven them if they went a bit too far.


I'm sorry, but as long as there are paladins involved, you can't very well obfuscate the moral issue because they're nearly by definition in the right.

Which is why I'm sorta on Redcloak's side here. I'm sick of this "I'm paladin, I'm right" attitude.

[Jefepato]

If another nation invaded your hometown and a guy breaks into your house and murders your family, do you feel better about it because the nation doing the invading punishes him afterwards? No, because he wouldn't have been there with a gun unless the nation told him to!

When I got over my shock and grief, yes, I bloody well would feel better about it! Knowing the murderer was punished changes that scenario significantly.


Yes, they probably are. From their point of view. Because while Good and Evil aren't subjective in D&D, justice is. The fact if someone is threat to the Gates enough to be killed too. And paladins didn't fall because they were protecting the gates, which is in gods' interest- so they've forgiven them if they went a bit too far.

Can you back up the claim that the Twelve Gods have, at any time or under any circumstances, been forgiving of breaches of the paladin's code? Or is it meant only as speculation?


Which is why I'm sorta on Redcloak's side here. I'm sick of this "I'm paladin, I'm right" attitude.

You're on the side of obvious evil because you don't like the attitude that the people who can't do evil things must be right?

Of course, the idea that paladins are automatically right is wrong, but there are pretty severe limits to how wrong a paladin can be.

[Poppatomus]

What's contextual about being the high priest of an evil god? What outlet can you give Redcloak?

What's contextual about it is that if he had been raised in Azure city, or if he'd been whatever podunk village Roy was in when he formed the OOTS, then right now there'd be people on the boards arguing over whether he was really chaotic neutral and not chaotic evil at all. the evil he does, especially now that he's begun to assert himself more in front of Xykon, is less a natural function of his personlity then it is of his setting. Same as Belkar, but reveresed.



You're on the side of obvious evil because you don't like the attitude that the people who can't do evil things must be right?


I believe he's on the side of sympathetic evil over unsympathetic good, because he doesn't actually believe that letter of the law paladins can only do right. Or perhaps, that just because something doesn't fit the D&D definition of evil doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Example (of the admittedly dangerous kind). Miko didn't fall for killing Pa and rightly so, because he pulled a sword on her and was going to attack her. at the same time, she was much more powerful than Pa, had just done something where she should have known he would be murderously angry, and had the option of disarming or evading him. Instead she killed him almost without a second thought.

Perhaps, for example RC's father and mother were in charge of defending the town that the temple was in, and had no idea about the gate. Perhaps the paladins decided they needed to wipe out RCs town because it was near a gate, even though the goblins didn't know about the gate yet. until start of darkness we have no idea how "wrong" this non-evil action may have been.



Of course, the idea that paladins are automatically right is wrong, but there are pretty severe limits to how wrong a paladin can be.

Though, as pointed out above, we don't know if the particular paladin responsible in this case fell or not. (and, even if they did fall, whether they were allowed to redeem themselves. To renew the question from earlier, how would you feel if the war criminal were sentenced to two years in prison and then was allowed to walk free?)

and beyond that, as said above, the limits on how wrong a paladin can be do not exclude doing something that could give someone a legitimate motivation for revenge. (again though, I don't think the war overall is justified, just that Red Cloak can be justifiably angry.)

[Morty]

Can you back up the claim that the Twelve Gods have, at any time or under any circumstances, been forgiving of breaches of the paladin's code? Or is it meant only as speculation?

It's pure speculation. It could have happened, which doesn't mean it has- but it's possible that maybe Twelve Gods forgiven their paladins the murder of innocents because it was for the defese of the gates.


You're on the side of obvious evil because you don't like the attitude that the people who can't do evil things must be right?

What Poppatomus said, plus I'm getting more and more annoyed by the fact that D&D moralty, especially when paladins are involved, doesn't allow any shades of gray. So I hope that at least here good won't be completely right, and evil won't be completely wrong.


Of course, the idea that paladins are automatically right is wrong, but there are pretty severe limits to how wrong a paladin can be.

My point exactly. I hope that at least here and now, paladins will turn up wrong. But I'll be most ceratinly disappointed.

[Ganurath]

I don't think you're quite getting it. Look. We have a bunch of decidedly non-fallen paladins who undertook these crusades, which by definition means they were justified.It was automatically justified because it was a genocidal holy war, or because those participating in it are of Good alignment, and therefore infallible?
These same paladins say that said crusade was to eliminate threats to the Gate (I know technically Shojo said it, but he said it at the trial with loads of paladins in the room; they wouldn't have stood for him lying about it for no apparent reason), so we have a very reliable source seeing how they can't tell a serious lie.Correction: the crusade was on all those that WOULD threaten the gate. Odds are they had divinations to determine this to accomodate for travel time, and saw RC leading the charge on Azure City. Self fulfilling prophecy?
This means that Redcloak's parents were at the very least peripherally involved in constituting a threat to the Gate.Or, you know, the diviners booped up.
That is considerably more evidence than you have for any theory that a deity that has been stated to be evil in the comic is not in fact evil. I'm sorry, but as long as there are paladins involved, you can't very well obfuscate the moral issue because they're nearly by definition in the right.After all, the Paladins are diametricly opposite Miko in their zealotry so as to avoid succumbing to any mistaken dogma at all. Oh, wait, they aren't.

[Renegade Paladin]

It was automatically justified because it was a genocidal holy war, or because those participating in it are of Good alignment, and therefore infallible?
They were paladins. They're not infallible, but if they fall, they... Fall. Which they didn't. You can not like it all you want, but that's how it works.

Correction: the crusade was on all those that WOULD threaten the gate. Odds are they had divinations to determine this to accomodate for travel time, and saw RC leading the charge on Azure City. Self fulfilling prophecy?
Maybe, but at this point that's just wild speculation. I, however, am not wildly speculating. Guess which generally yields better results: Wild speculation, or analysis of the evidence at hand.

Or, you know, the diviners booped up.
Possibly. It's unlikely, though.

After all, the Paladins are diametricly opposite Miko in their zealotry so as to avoid succumbing to any mistaken dogma at all. Oh, wait, they aren't.
You're right, they're not, but when Miko did she fell, and hard.

Anyway, none of this matters in the least. Whether Redcloak's parents were killed unjustly (which is unlikely to the point of being an untenable position), he is by no means justified in doing what he's doing. So no matter what the outcome of this is, you're still wrong.

[Jefepato]

It's pure speculation. It could have happened, which doesn't mean it has- but it's possible that maybe Twelve Gods forgiven their paladins the murder of innocents because it was for the defese of the gates.

It's "possible" in the sense that we don't know otherwise, but it's also bizarre and has no real basis in any of the information we do have.

I should also point out that it's not really clear that the Twelve Gods are the ones who make the decision -- after all, in standard D&D, the gods have no say at all in paladinhood. For all we know, the Twelve Gods just showed up to witness Miko's fall (Shojo's last words cast doubt on this, but are hardly a definitive statement).


Example (of the admittedly dangerous kind). Miko didn't fall for killing Pa and rightly so, because he pulled a sword on her and was going to attack her. at the same time, she was much more powerful than Pa, had just done something where she should have known he would be murderously angry, and had the option of disarming or evading him. Instead she killed him almost without a second thought.

She didn't know she was much more powerful than him. Pulling her punches could have gotten her killed.


Perhaps, for example RC's father and mother were in charge of defending the town that the temple was in, and had no idea about the gate. Perhaps the paladins decided they needed to wipe out RCs town because it was near a gate, even though the goblins didn't know about the gate yet. until start of darkness we have no idea how "wrong" this non-evil action may have been.

If the goblins were just sitting there defending a town and not threatening their human neighbors or doing anything else evil, killing them wouldn't be a non-evil action.

If they were in fact doing something evil, I don't see how it could be so wrong (although I can see how young Redcloak would be angry).


To renew the question from earlier, how would you feel if the war criminal were sentenced to two years in prison and then was allowed to walk free?

Admittedly, not so good.

This thread makes me want Start of Darkness more and more, so we can see what the real deal is.

[Snipers_Promise]

As my signature says, no war is justified completely.

[Saph]

Let me put it this way: who is more evil Xykon or RC? To me, it's obviously Xykon, and I think most would agree.

Actually, I think Redcloak is worse than Xykon.

Xykon doesn't try to justify his actions. He's thoroughly evil and enjoys it, kind of like Belkar. Redcloak, on the other hand, keeps trying to justify what he does. If his parents are anything like him then they richly deserved to get whacked by the SG.

Maybe it's just me, but I have an easier time with someone who admits that he's a monster, rather than someone who keeps trying to insist he's not a monster even as he's waist deep in bodies. I read about too many of the second kind in the news every day.

Redcloak's small good deeds seem more designed to make him a more efficient villain. When I ever see him do something good for someone who isn't a goblin, Xykon, or himself, then I might start feeling a little bit of sympathy for him. Until then? I'll save my sympathy for those who deserve it, like the 10,000 Azure City defenders who just died because of Xykon and Redcloak.

- Saph

[Counterpower]

I agree that Redcloak is a much more interesting villian due to these touches of humanity. (goblinity? :smallconfused: ) From a storytelling perspective, I prefer Redcloak to Xykon because of that. From a moral perspective? I think Redcloak is at least on Xykon's level, if not worse. Redcloak put it best himself, even!

:redcloak: "Xykon may be a skeleton stripped of its dead flesh and forced into an unholy semblance of life by arcane powers too terrible to even consider, but at least he cops to it!"

Yeah, and Redcloak may be a mass murderer who kills thousands of people to somehow compensate for his dead parents, but he........... makes excuses? Even taking all of the lacking evidence to mean that the paladins of the Sapphire Guard were horrible mass murderers themselves, that doesn't mean hypocrisy is justified. Saph, I fully agree. The (now homeless) citizens of Azure City deserve our sympathy, not the person who destroyed their homes and in some cases lives.