PDA

View Full Version : Is Redcloak actually Lawful Good?



Pages : [1] 2

keybounce
2017-09-26, 11:41 PM
Is Redcloak actually Lawful Good?

He does not make actions at random; he does not sow Chaos. He has a goal, that he acts towards; he keeps his word to the other goblins.

He's certainly acting for the good of all Goblin-kind.

Potatomade
2017-09-26, 11:51 PM
You're kidding, right?

No, Redcloak is not Lawful Good. He's a speciest, genocidal...

fratricidal

...fanatic who does absolutely nothing to stop Xykon from murdering goblinoids on a whim. He is actively and knowingly pursuing a plan that could lead to the destruction of all life.

There's no question on the Lawful front, but boy howdy is he Evil.

Edit: Also that whole Smite Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) thing.

Narren
2017-09-27, 12:01 AM
Nope.

/thread

LadyEowyn
2017-09-27, 12:11 AM
In fairness, the Plan only ends the world if the gods are dumb enough to value spiting the goblins over their own survival (or if the heroes destroy the Gates, which is on them). I'm cool with the Plan.

Redcloak is, from the midpoint of the Battle of Azure City onwards, doing everything he can to protect goblins. (Prior to that, he was definitely acting Evil as regards the hobgoblins.) Unless you can make a case that he's able to kill Xykon in a fight (it seems unlikely), then playing the long game re: Xykon was the best option after founding Gobbotopia.

And yes, I've read SOD. Making Xykon a lich was a disastrously bad call; after that point, there were no good options. Prior to meeting Xykon, an argument could be made for Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral - the only thing he was doing was protecting his family and people and seeking justice for them.

At present, he uses torture and slavery, so he's certainly not Good.

Lord Raziere
2017-09-27, 12:22 AM
still tortured a paladin daily to get some information.

still believes that any non-goblin is an acceptable cost to achieving his goal.

still invaded a city full of innocent people just to get a rift to threaten the gods, as in try to negotiate for a better using force and threats.

still associates with someone like Xykon and allows his behavior, considering a few goblins lives worthy of being sacrificed to Xykons entertainment as a "sacrifice for the greater good".

still killed his brother to ensure the success of his plan and brought him back as a zombie.

still willing to risk unmaking everyones soul for his plan to go through.

still willing to continue doing these atrocities than simply kill Xykon and admit it was all for nothing.

still an angry teenager out for revenge on everyone who ever wronged him.

still a guy who almost never wants to admit his fault that all this is happening.

still clinging to his sunk cost fallacy.

still turned his back on ever making Right Eye's village be a thing again.

He is evil. no matter how sympathetic his reasons, and he may even have a point about the injustice done to him, but ultimately his own methods are making him descend farther and farther away from his goal.

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 12:32 AM
In fairness, the Plan only ends the world if the gods are dumb enough to value spiting the goblins over their own survival (or if the heroes destroy the Gates, which is on them). I'm cool with the Plan.


This is assuming that the Dark One is acting in good faith- that once he's got the other gods where he wants them, he won't go any farther than asking for equality. I wouldn't assume that. And no, the heroes destroying the Gates is on Redcloak as much as them. They wouldn't even know about the gates if it wasn't for Redcloak's alliance with Xykon, and they have destroyed at least two gates purely to keep Xykon/Redcloak from getting to them. Acting like he's not in some way responsible for their destruction is kinda silly (especially considering he personally destroyed one of them himself).

I really just don't get the Redcloak love around here. He's neat, and well-written, but the dude's bonkers.

factotum
2017-09-27, 02:32 AM
This is assuming that the Dark One is acting in good faith

Which is maybe unlikely, with him being an evil god. Even if he *is* acting in good faith, we're already at the point where the Gods are deciding whether to destroy the world or not, so it doesn't even have to get to the point where the Dark One has control of the Snarl for rocks to fall and everyone to die.

hroşila
2017-09-27, 04:19 AM
Even if the Dark One is acting in good faith, I'm not comfortable with the idea that the Plan is fine because "it only ends the world if the gods are dumb enough to value spiting the goblins over their own survival (or if the heroes destroy the Gates, which is on them)". That's like saying holding people to ransom is fine because hey, as long as they cooperate you won't hurt them.

OP establishes that Redcloak is Lawful, but then throws in a bogus one-liner as if it proved that he's Good. No he isn't. Almost every Evil person will act for the good of someone, at least in their minds. Tarquin claims to act for the good of a whole continent, but that's either a lie or a delusion. If Redcloak was actually working for the good of all goblins, there are many lines he would never have crossed. You could try to argue that he's more of a coward than harmful to goblinoids per se for his unwillingness to stand up to Xykon, but IMO it's made very clear that it's not fear of Xykon, but rather the sunk cost fallacy, that keeps him going without looking for a way out.

Kish
2017-09-27, 04:43 AM
Is Redcloak actually Lawful Good?

He does not make actions at random; he does not sow Chaos. He has a goal, that he acts towards; he keeps his word to the other goblins.

I'm drawing a blank on when he's visibly kept his word to other goblins when it cost him something. I can certainly think of times he's betrayed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) goblins (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html).

He's certainly acting for the good of all Goblin-kind.
Highly, highly debatable.

That leaves: Redcloak is Lawful. Well, yes, he is. Only Argall ever suggested otherwise, and Argall seemed heavily invested in the idea that he must be a goblin's listed racial alignment of Neutral Evil (he also insisted that "we" should presume Vaarsuvius was Chaotic Good). Lawful Evil is a thing, you know.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-27, 06:08 AM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

Jaxzan Proditor
2017-09-27, 06:22 AM
Well, he is Lawful, so you’re halfway there. However, anyone who willingly associates with Xykon has trouble looking Good from any angle.

Werbaer
2017-09-27, 06:28 AM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?
The Crimson Mantle keeps Redcloak at young age, and made him immune to Lirians Guardian virus.

Redcloak considered Lichification of Xykon before, to prevent him dying of old age before they are able to capture the Gate.

When they were imprisoned by Lirian, he helped Xykon to become a Lich to make him immune to disease. This allowed Xykon to regain his spellcasting powers (which he had lost to the guardian virus) and allow him to blast a way out of the prison (which Redcloak was unable to do himself)

Hamste
2017-09-27, 06:33 AM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

I haven't read the story but my understanding these are the reasons:

Xykon was losing his magic to a disease that saps magical energy. Redcloak needed a high level arcane caster so he had to make Xykon immune (he himself is immune due to his cloak). He also hoped that as an undead he would have more control of Xykon due to Redcloak being a cleric as well as holding the key to Xykon regenerating.

There may also be problems with the cloak needing a goblin but again I haven't read the book.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-27, 08:47 AM
I haven't read the story but my understanding these are the reasons:

Xykon was losing his magic to a disease that saps magical energy. Redcloak needed a high level arcane caster so he had to make Xykon immune (he himself is immune due to his cloak). He also hoped that as an undead he would have more control of Xykon due to Redcloak being a cleric as well as holding the key to Xykon regenerating.

There may also be problems with the cloak needing a goblin but again I haven't read the book.



Oh, right, the problem with RC wasn't that his magic was being suppressed, but that he lacked the magic to get out of there. I think. I should read that part over.

Dr.Zero
2017-09-27, 09:48 AM
Is Redcloak actually Lawful Good?

He does not make actions at random; he does not sow Chaos. He has a goal, that he acts towards; he keeps his word to the other goblins.

He's certainly acting for the good of all Goblin-kind.

Good in D&D asks to fulfill some requirements (personally I house rule the alignments slightly differently, but I don't think the author does the same).
Redcloak simply fails to fulfill these requirements, while he fulfills the requirement for Evil.

D&D-wise he is Lawful (or at most Neutral)-Evil.

Synesthesy
2017-09-27, 10:28 AM
I really think that in the end Redcloack is acting for the good of the Goblinoids people (while he's not acting for the good of every single goblin person, and the sure knowledge of how afterlifes work doesn't help). But I think that this make him Lawful instead of neutral, not good.

Doing the good of a people by aggression war is an evil act: a Good person should have acted more Ghandi-sh.
Gobbotopia is based on speciest discrimination. A Good leader should aim to integration instead. And slavery is not good at all.

However, I don't think that Xykon's crime should be on Redcloack: while it's true that Reddie was the one that made everything moving, Xykon is more powerfull than him and he does whatever he wants. Trying to kill Xykon now would only lead to Gobbotopia demise, as he would surely take revenge on goblin's if one of them betrayed him, and Xykon has the personal power in his own hand to kill every goblins in town.

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 10:34 AM
Xykon is only powerful enough to do all that because of his lichdom. If Redcloak hadn't made Xykon a lich, he might have actually been able to handle him in a fight, though he may have required some backup from... I dunno, some rogue-types maybe. Before Xykon became a lich, Redcloak was the leader of their little group, or at least an equal partner.

Xykon's strength is because of Redcloak's actions, thus Redcloak is responsible for everything Xykon does with that power.

martianmister
2017-09-27, 10:49 AM
He's willing to commit evil acts for the betterment of goblin-kind, so he's 100 percent evil.

elros
2017-09-27, 11:10 AM
Here is what the Giant wrote in :
"There are people in this world who are driven to evil because of what their life has forced them to endure...Redclock might be [one of them]"
BTW, that is an awesome book! I know money is tight, but it was worth $17.

Fyraltari
2017-09-27, 11:22 AM
I really just don't get the Redcloak love around here. He's neat, and well-written].

Kind of answered your own question, here.
Additionally, he his designed as a sympathetic characters and it is a human reflex to not want to be associated with things we disaprove of ; so it can go (subconsciuosly) like this : "Wait I'm feeling bad for that guy and he is evil, does that make me evil ? No, I'm not evil therefore if I feel bad for that guy he can't be evil either."


Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

Would you turn YOURSELF into a never-again-experiencing-earthly-pleasures-or-even-sensations unsleeping immortal shunned-by-everyone ugly abomination if you had any other options ?

martianmister
2017-09-27, 11:49 AM
Here is what the Giant wrote in :
"There are people in this world who are driven to evil because of what their life has forced them to endure...Redclock might be [one of them]"
BTW, that is an awesome book! I know money is tight, but it was worth $17.

Weird that he said "might be".

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 11:59 AM
Additionally, he his designed as a sympathetic characters and it is a human reflex to not want to be associated with things we disaprove of ; so it can go (subconsciuosly) like this : "Wait I'm feeling bad for that guy and he is evil, does that make me evil ? No, I'm not evil therefore if I feel bad for that guy he can't be evil either."

Yeah, but being OK with the utter annihilation of all existing life, precluding the possibility even of an afterlife, just so your god can "win" seems like it's way, way past the point of sympathy. Redcloak's interesting, but he's not sympathetic, at least to me. He's already willing to commit unspeakable crimes early in SoD, before the sunk cost thing starts taking over. I feel like if you're gonna bust out stuff as crazy as that, it needs to be a lot later in the character's development if that character is supposed to be sympathetic. Otherwise it just makes Redcloak look like a lunatic. Which he is.

Kish
2017-09-27, 12:07 PM
Additionally, he his designed as a sympathetic characters and it is a human reflex to not want to be associated with things we disaprove of ; so it can go (subconsciuosly) like this : "Wait I'm feeling bad for that guy and he is evil, does that make me evil ? No, I'm not evil therefore if I feel bad for that guy he can't be evil either."
Far from the first time, I reflect that I am grateful I am not human.

Fyraltari
2017-09-27, 12:08 PM
Yeah, but being OK with the utter annihilation of all existing life, precluding the possibility even of an afterlife, just so your god can "win" seems like it's way, way past the point of sympathy. Redcloak's interesting, but he's not sympathetic, at least to me. He's already willing to commit unspeakable crimes early in SoD, before the sunk cost thing starts taking over. I feel like if you're gonna bust out stuff as crazy as that, it needs to be a lot later in the character's development if that character is supposed to be sympathetic. Otherwise it just makes Redcloak look like a lunatic. Which he is.

Wel, put any one near Xykon and he starts looking sympathetic. That beingsaid everyone has different criteria and limits to his empathy, which is perfectly fine.

Side-note his being a lunatic is what makes him sympathetic to me, he wants to be good but is too deluded for that.

Rater202
2017-09-27, 12:19 PM
In most eiditions of D&D, a Cleric has to have the same or similar alignment to their god--especially in 3E/3.5, which is what Ooots is originally based on and draws most strongly from.

In Start of Darkness, Red Cloak explicitly states that The Dark One is an Evil god. Redcloak is thus obligated by his faith and membership in the clergy to not be of Good alignment.

Bobb
2017-09-27, 12:22 PM
Weird that he said "might be".

He might not have needed much driving at all.



I mean, Gobbotobia is Redcloak's new world. His chance to redress the world the God's made.

His version? Shoe on the other foot. Wholesale. End. Stop. Xykon has nothing to do with how Redcloak plays with his toys (Hobgoblins and the city).

Redcloak is fantastically racist. Somehow him getting from the point where he hates Orange Goblins for being mean to Green goblins (hate enough to enjoy witnessing their death and suffering) to the point where he sees all goblins as equals means he's a good person to some people's minds.

It boggles the mind.

Synesthesy
2017-09-27, 12:43 PM
He might not have needed much driving at all.




Redcloak is fantastically racist. Somehow him getting from the point where he hates Orange Goblins for being mean to Green goblins (hate enough to enjoy witnessing their death and suffering) to the point where he sees all goblins as equals means he's a good person to some people's minds.

It boggles the mind.

It's still better then people that was racist and that now is still racist. It's still better then some lawful good paladins that attacked some other villages killing everyone including women and children just because they happen to have green skin and to follow an evil deity.

One of the reason why I feel sympathetic to Redcloak is that I feel him to be a better person then, for example, Miko or the leader of Sapphire Guard in SoD and O-Chul prequel; people that ARE lawful good, or at least that were lawful good until they killed an old man with white skin.

In other words: I root for Redcloack because he's right about a lot of things, I don't care if he's acting evil because he's still a villain and not a protagonist. Nothing say that I can't root for both Reddie and O-Chul and Roy, I really think that they all will reach their ultimate goals. But while I really like Xykon as a character, I hope he'll die (for real) and pay for everything he did in his long life.

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 12:49 PM
It's still better then people that was racist and that now is still racist. It's still better then some lawful good paladins that attacked some other villages killing everyone including women and children just because they happen to have green skin and to follow an evil deity.

...no? He's still racist against Humans, he's just not against other goblinoids. He led an attack on Azure City and killed or enslaved everyone, including women and children, because he's super racist. How is that somehow less racist than what the paladins did? Maybe it feels more honest, but that doesn't really make it better or more right.

EDIT: By honest, I mean "more true to their alignment." Child-murderer feels like a better fit for Lawful Evil than Lawful Good. But that shouldn't make Redcloak look any less horrible. It just means the paladins got what they deserved- paladins that were so few in number that apparently most of Azure City didn't even know they existed.

Kantaki
2017-09-27, 12:55 PM
...no? He's still racist against Humans, he's just not against other goblinoids. He led an attack on Azure City and killed or enslaved everyone, including women and children, because he's super racist. How is that somehow less racist than what the paladins did? Maybe it feels more honest, but that doesn't really make it better or more right.

Speciesist. Wrongeye's a speciesist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html).

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 12:56 PM
Bah! Speciesism!? is too hard to say.

Lord Raziere
2017-09-27, 01:11 PM
Well keep in mind, while there is Gobbotopia, there is the whole '"it might be completely retaken when Redcloak is gone." thing.

and then there is Jirix. this guy is interesting, because he is a named character and in this comic, thats something significant. He is the Prime Minster of Gobbotopia now, Redcloak has crushed the resistance, and he is outright stated to be a peacetime leader, and that 17 nations have recognized Gobbotopia as a sovereign nation. which means that Gobbotopia is longer an occupied place but its own nation. and thing is with Jirix, is that is that he shouted a warning to Xykon, he is trying to be peaceful, he seems much nicer and is a character that got resurrected. he is important enough to have an entire comic to devoted to his return.

so could Jirix be the guy who truly brings peace between the goblinoids and the others? sure he he took bets with Xykon, but he bet alive, he assumed that Xykon and Redcloak were on the same side, and in general he just seems like a nicer guy. after all, there is that whole conqueror/ruler dynamic: someone who is a good conqueror isn't always a good ruler and often famous conquerors are replaced by far more competent peace time rulers, because the conquerors tend to die right after their war is over or early in their reign, while the ruler after them tends to stabilize the regime and makes it a truly united entity that can work, but history tends to not pay attention to them all that much due to people glorifying exciting things. Redcloak is the exciting conqueror who through evil action made a new nation- but Jirix is the boring peace time ruler who will truly make peace with others and is actually far more instrumental to making true change. it is a pattern in history where a conqueror who does great evil things sets up for someone else to make something more united from their atrocities.

so Redcloak is like Oda Nobunaga or Emperor Chin- he IS evil, but he might be an evil that allows someone else to make great good out of his evil. and Jirix might just be his Hideyoshi Toyotomi.

Dr.Zero
2017-09-27, 01:15 PM
lawful good paladins that attacked some other villages killing everyone including women and children just because they happen to have green skin and to follow an evil deity.

This is getting derailed from the initial question, I suppose.
Anyway...
Killing women? I am a strong believer in gender equality, therefore if killing evil men is ok, so it must be killing evil women. OOTS world shows some pretty badass (and some evil) women, so it seems the OOTS world too works based on a strong gender equality assumption.

And "happen to follow an evil deity"?
Hrmmm.
I understand we are all deep down in relativism nowadays, but "happen to follow an evil deity" isn't exactly like "happen to have red hair". (Usual requirements to satisfy an evil deity: bringing death, destruction, pain).

The children, that is another matter.

Peelee
2017-09-27, 01:17 PM
Well keep in mind, while there is Gobbotopia, there is the whole '"it might be completely retaken when Redcloak is gone." thing.

By who? Wheeee!

hroşila
2017-09-27, 01:20 PM
Jirix doesn't strike me as a nice guy at all. Sure, he's likeable and fun, but nice? Eh, I don't see it. I think he's the starstruck bully who enjoys hanging out with the cool kids and who will abuse his new-found position and popularity in some petty and arbitrary ways. He crushed that cockroach because he, jokes and all, is still going to be an ironfisted dictator. I don't think Jirix is portrayed as peaceful, or that his warning Xykon somehow suggests he's less warlike: he was happy to join the army of dead goblinoids, he participated in the invasion of Azure City, he was happy to fight in the throne room and not very happy to have to leave. He's a warrior.

Incidentally, the reason a scene was devoted to his resurrection wasn't that he is a particularly important character per se, but rather that the Giant needed to flesh out the Dark One and his Plan for readers who haven't read SoD.

Ron Miel
2017-09-27, 01:20 PM
Let's see what The Giant says:

Geekadamia Interview Part 5: The Comic's Storyline, Part II (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20461937&postcount=5)

And I think there's a lot of debate among my fans, because they're not necessarily used to seeing that from fantasy villains, especially when it comes to Black Dragons, undead sorcerers, and Goblins who are out to destroy the Gods. You expect those sort of characters to be very straightforward, and I try to make it a little more complex than that, which, I was thinking, readers, in this [unintelligible] open up alternate interpretations, people would swear that 'cause Redcloak thinks what he's doing is the best for the Goblin people, that Redcloak is in fact the good guy, that he is the hero of the story. And that's... an interesting viewpoint. And I'm glad that I provoked that. I'm glad that I wrote a character that is layered enough that some people would say he's absolutely in the right, but yeah, I really like turning it upside down and not assuming that because it's a Dragon it has no emotions.


RE: Red Cloak isn't evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?229949-Red-Cloak-isn-t-evil&p=12587443#post12587443)
Threads like this are what we call "morally justified" threads around here, as in "Were Redcloak's actions morally justified?" We tend to lock them before they spiral into an angry debate about personal relative ethics. Note that the very first response has already violated the board's rules prohibiting discussing real world historical/political events.

By the D&D rules, Redcloak is Evil. Anything else is a personal moral judgment best discussed among your friends or family members.

Kantaki
2017-09-27, 01:41 PM
By who? Wheeee!

The Gnomes and their steampowered warmachines obviously.:smalltongue:


Jirix doesn't strike me as a nice guy at all. Sure, he's likeable and fun, but nice? Eh, I don't see it. I think he's the starstruck bully who enjoys hanging out with the cool kids and who will abuse his new-found position and popularity in some petty and arbitrary ways. He crushed that cockroach because he, jokes and all, is still going to be an ironfisted dictator. I don't think Jirix is portrayed as peaceful, or that his warning Xykon somehow suggests he's less warlike: he was happy to join the army of dead goblinoids, he participated in the invasion of Azure City, he was happy to fight in the throne room and not very happy to have to leave. He's a warrior.

I dunno, Jirix might've killed the demon roach because he didn't like its suggestion of going all cruel oppressor of Gobbotopia.
Or cause it is, you know a demon.
He looked angry when he crushed it, not gleeful or sadistic.
So I assume he's got a reason beyond wanting to kill.

And if liking to fight, being a warrior makes you evil then most of the Order would be somewhere south of neutral.

I'm not saying he's a good guy or even a neutral guy, mind you, but even if he's evil he can still be a improvement over Reddy and big X.

Unless you subscribe to Miko's view that all beings of the same alignment are exactly the same.

Potatomade
2017-09-27, 02:00 PM
Regardless of whether Jirix is Evil or not now, I hope he winds up being at least Neutral by the end of this whole thing. Possibly while balking at Redcloak cynically sacrificing Gobbotopia at some point. I can imagine the other nations of the world swallowing a Neutral-ruled goblin nation a whole lot better than an Evil-ruled one.

Jasdoif
2017-09-27, 02:17 PM
The Gnomes and their steampowered warmachines obviously.:smalltongue:I dunno...the area's agriculture was primarily rice, not the traditional choice for pasta. I doubt gnomish steampunk techno-cops Alfred and Maria would have enough interest to switch from law enforcement to military over it.


Unless you subscribe to Miko's view that all beings of the same alignment are exactly the same.What makes you think that's Miko's view?

JustAnotherSoul
2017-09-27, 02:19 PM
Far from the first time, I reflect that I am grateful I am not human.

Wait, wait, wait.

And I quote from the registration:


Are you a human?:
Type in either yes or no. Please note that only humans are allowed to register on the forums.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUN!

//

As to the nations of the world not tolerating/dealing with an evil nation in the world, the whole situation in the desert provides evidence to the contrary, no?

Kantaki
2017-09-27, 02:22 PM
What makes you think that's Miko's view?

Start of Darkness.
Miko provides the introduction warning attempted murder of the reader at the start of the book.
In the PDF at least.

Kish
2017-09-27, 02:31 PM
Wait, wait, wait.

And I quote from the registration:


Are you a human?:
Type in either yes or no. Please note that only humans are allowed to register on the forums.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUN!
I joined before they added that requirement.

Also, I'm Chaotic.

I do think Rich made a conceptual mistake with Miko, and in a different way with the Sapphire Guard. You can have "the alignment system is more functional than its detractors claim" or "you can be a champion of Good while being a genocidal racist and petty bully." I don't really think you can have both.

goodpeople25
2017-09-27, 02:35 PM
I'll just put my disagreement in the pool, and because I may have a bit too much free time on my hands here are 92 related questions. Is...

Vaarsuvius actually Chaotic Evil?
Enor actually Stupid Neutral?
Xykon actually Lawful Evil?
Boot Wight actually Neutral Good?
Empress of Blood actually Neutral Evil?
Bozzok actually Lawful Good?
Miko Miyazaki actually Lawful Evil?
Kazumi Kato actually Neutral?
Demon-Roaches actually Lawful Neutral?

Laurin Shattersmith actually Chaotic Neutral?
Julio Scoundrél actually Lawful Evil?
Windstriker actually Neutral Evil?
High Priestess of Odin actually Lawful Evil?
Sabine actually Lawful Evil?
High Priestess of Freya actually Neutral Good?
Vaarsuvius' Horse actually Lawful Neutral?
Lord Shojo actually Lawful Neutral?
Zz'dtri actually Chaotic Evil?
Flumphs actually Chaotic Good?
Ancient Black Dragon actually Neutral Good?
Solt's Donkey actually Lawful Good?
Felix actually Neutral?
Daimyo Kubota actually Chaotic Neutral?
Gontor Hammerfell actually Neutral?
Hel actually Chaotic Good?
Frost Giantess with Axe and Tattoo actually Neutral?
"Durkon" * actually Neutral Evil?
Andi aka Andromeda actually Neutral Evil?
Mr. Scruffy actually Chaotic Good?
Banjo actually Neutral?
Gannji actually Lawful Neutral?
Roy Greenhilt actually Neutral Good?
Nale actually Chaotic Good?
Bloodfeast the Extreme-inator actually Lawful Evil?
O-Chul actually Stupid Good?
High Priestess Rubyrock actually Neutral Good?
Daigo Da- actually Stupid Good?
Thog actually Chaotic Good?
Lee actually Neutral Evil?
General Tarquin actually Neutral Good?
Jones actually Chaotic Neutral?
Crystal actually Chaotic Neutral?
Malack the Vampire actually Chaotic Evil?
Kilkil actually Chaotic Good?
Jephton the Unholy actually Lawful Good?
"Malack" the Lizardfolk actually Neutral Evil?
Cedrik actually Lawful Evil?
Ganonron actually Chaotic Evil
Durkon Allotrope Thundershield actually Neutral Evil
Qarr actually Neutral?
Beatrix aka Bandana Secundus actually Lawful Good?
Shadowdancer actually Lawful Neutral?
Elan the Bard actually Chaotic Neutral?
Silver actually Lawful Neutral
Ho Thanh actually Chaotic Evil?
Loki actually Neutral Evil?
Spiky the Barbed Devil actually Neutral Good?
Pompey actually Stupid Evil?
Therkla actually Chaotic Neutral?
Miron Shewdanker actually Neutral?
Kwesi actually Neutral Evil?
Monster in the Darkness actually Neutral Evil?
Blackwing actually Chaotic Evil?
Hinjo actually Stupid Good?
Belkar Bitterleaf actually Chaotic Good?
Carol actually Lawful Neutral?
Zombie Dragon actually Chaotic Neutral?
Niu actually Lawful Neutral?
Mateo actually Chaotic Neutral?
Geoff actually Chaotic Neutral?
Julia Greenhilt actually Neutral Good?
Hilgya Firehelm actually Neutral?
Ian Starshine actually Lawful Evil?
Elan's Horse actually Lawful Evil?
Phil Rodriguez actually Lawful Evil?
Whisper actually Neutral Stupid?
Yukyuk actually Chaotic Neutral?
Lien actually Chaotic Evil?
Nero actually Lawful Good?
Yikyik actually Neutral Evil?
Roy's Archon actually Lawful Neutral?
High Priestess of Sif actually Lawful Good?
Samantha's Dad actually Lawful Good?
Thor actually Neutral Evil?
Leeky Windstaff actually Chaotic Evil?
Haley Starshine actually Chaotic Evil?
Celia actually Neutral Evil?
Girard Draketooth actually Chaotic Evil?
Soul-Muncher actually Lawful Neutral?
Tsukiko actually Chaotic Good?
Eugene Greenhilt actually Lawful Neutral?
Jirix actually Chaotic Neutral?

List of characters taken from the list of character appearances thread then randomized. (with a few omissions) Alignments were randomized with matching alignment replaced with the/a (corners were flipped for) corresponding stupid alignment.

ElFi
2017-09-27, 02:38 PM
Redcloak is in no way Good. The idea of him even being Neutral is on very thin ice, and anyone else who's commented here can tell you why. Here's my take on it.

The gods of the OOTSverse created Goblins as a cannon-fodder race to serve as walking bags of XP for low-level adventurers. Redcloak is aware of this, and flipping the power dynamic so that goblinoids are on an even playing field with other races is, ostensibly, the chief motivator for his actions. This is ostensibly a Good goal, since we see many goblinoids throughout the series that aren't evil in any way and don't deserve the lot they've been handed in life. That being said, Redcloak is perfectly willing to commit a lot of unquestionably Evil acts for the purpose of this goal. His scene with O-Chul on the castle walls in Don't Split the Party, in which he tortures the latter for information and shows zero compulsion about killing dozens of humans to satisfy baseline curiosity, is probably among the best examples of this. And that's ignoring the fact that he willingly cooperates with Xykon, an out-and-out sociopath who murders for fun and has been explicitly described by Rich as a deconstruction of the "likable = misunderstood" villain cliche.

You could definitely describe Redcloak as a well-intentioned extremist, but he's not an extremist in the style of Klaus Wulfenbach from Girl Genius, who uses extreme measures for the pursuit of good for all, because Redcloak is willing to use any means for the pursuit of good for what is ultimately a minority among many, if poorly-treated. He'll restrain himself if it comes to the deaths of goblinoids (and even that's a fairly recent development), but beyond that, the comic makes clear time and time again that there is no option, no matter how evil or depraved, that he's not willing to explore if it brings him closer to victory. And people tend to forget that Redcloak, for all intents and purposes, has already won. Gobbotopia is an established nation and has been recognized as a sovereign state by many other countries. He's achieved Right-Eye's goal of making a successful society where goblins can live peacefully without fear, even if it did involve the slaughter of thousands and enslavement of even more to get it. But in many ways, he's still a scared little kid with a lot of dark power who can't face the fact that he's wrong or that he's gone too far, which brings us right back to the above.

I've read some theories floating around here and there that Redcloak isn't entirely in control of his actions, and that the Dark One is in some way manipulating him through the Crimson Mantle, or that the Mantle's anti-aging effects have stunted his mind along with his body. But Redcloak has always been like this, and Start of Darkness makes it abundantly clear that he's always wanted to burn the world down for what it did to his family. The Dark One and the quest it put him on just make it into a goal he can use to explain away his actions.

Redcloak may be likable, but in the end, he's not exactly sympathetic, and was never intended as such. And no, he's definitely not Good.

Quebbster
2017-09-27, 02:40 PM
Start of Darkness.
Miko provides the introduction warning attempted murder of the reader at the start of the book.
In the PDF at least.

In the print book too. At least my copy.

hroşila
2017-09-27, 04:51 PM
And if liking to fight, being a warrior makes you evil then most of the Order would be somewhere south of neutral.
That wasn't a comment about how he is Evil, but about how he isn't particularly peaceful.

Fyraltari
2017-09-27, 05:55 PM
I do think Rich made a conceptual mistake with Miko, and in a different way with the Sapphire Guard. You can have "the alignment system is more functional than its detractors claim" or "you can be a champion of Good while being a genocidal racist and petty bully." I don't really think you can have both.

I think the goal was more "the alignment system allows for more freedom than simple black-and-white morality".

B. Dandelion
2017-09-27, 06:25 PM
I've read some theories floating around here and there that Redcloak isn't entirely in control of his actions, and that the Dark One is in some way manipulating him through the Crimson Mantle, or that the Mantle's anti-aging effects have stunted his mind along with his body. But Redcloak has always been like this, and Start of Darkness makes it abundantly clear that he's always wanted to burn the world down for what it did to his family. The Dark One and the quest it put him on just make it into a goal he can use to explain away his actions.

"It can't be the Crimson Mantle, he's always been like this, since at the very start of the story when he put on the Crimson Mantle." Uh....

We only saw him for a few minutes before he had the Mantle on. If it had some long-lasting effects on his mind it would be nigh-impossible for us to determine. It certainly put him under some obvious compulsion in the short term, and even after apparently snapping out of it he was still repeating the madness mantra he'd been uttering while in a trance. In-story, Right-Eye did judge that being "frozen in time" had had an effect on him and that he was still an "angry kid".

I don't think he's "not in control of his actions" simply because being overtly mind-controlled kills off the tragic aspect of a character who is brought low in part due to his own character flaws. He has to have enough free will for that to matter. But there's still a lot of space there for it to have had effect on him, just not so much that he couldn't have fought it off if he had sufficient will to do so. As it was, with the Mantle offering the opportunity to make some sense of the tragedy he'd suffered and have it be "worth all this," well, quite possibly he took the path of least resistance there.


Redcloak may be likable, but in the end, he's not exactly sympathetic, and was never intended as such. And no, he's definitely not Good.

"Sympathetic" is a pretty elastic word. I'm sympathetic towards him, but I don't want him to get what he thinks he wants. I think what he's not is "admirable". He's not the good guy in the story. You might like him for his better qualities or pity him for the suffering he's endured, but he hasn't risen above it to become something better, he's the villain the real good guys need to stop.

Liquor Box
2017-09-27, 07:06 PM
I think it's a near consensus that Redcloak is evil.

Where do we think he lands on the lawful/chaotic scale? I'm thinking neutral myself.

Peelee
2017-09-27, 07:10 PM
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" practically personifies Reddy. Lawful to a T. Or L, as the case may be.

woweedd
2017-09-27, 07:19 PM
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" practically personifies Reddy. Lawful to a T. Or L, as the case may be.
Not...really. I mean, sure, that's how Redcloak justifies The Plan to himself, but, overall, he's willing to risk the very souls of every being on the planet in exchange for MAYBE getting a chance at improving the life of the Goblin race. That's the opposite of "The Needs of The Many outweigh The Needs of The Few."

B. Dandelion
2017-09-27, 07:43 PM
He's Lawful sometimes to the point of parody. ("Unfortunately, I wrote it on my schedule in ink, so here we are." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)) The fact that he used Hold Monster at one point in SoD (the circus escape scene) led the Geekery thread to conclude he has the Law domain as well.

dps
2017-09-27, 08:01 PM
He's Lawful sometimes to the point of parody. ("Unfortunately, I wrote it on my schedule in ink, so here we are." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)) The fact that he used Hold Monster at one point in SoD (the circus escape scene) led the Geekery thread to conclude he has the Law domain as well.

Yeah, he's clearly LE, but he's even more Lawful than he is Evil. He's probably the most Lawful of the major characters in the story, except maybe Durkon.

Peelee
2017-09-27, 08:21 PM
Not...really. I mean, sure, that's how Redcloak justifies The Plan to himself, but, overall, he's willing to risk the very souls of every being on the planet in exchange for MAYBE getting a chance at improving the life of the Goblin race. That's the opposite of "The Needs of The Many outweigh The Needs of The Few."

The needs of the many (goblins) outweigh the needs of the few (goblins). Lawful.

The needs of the non-goblins are irrelevant. Evil.

Imean, a bunch of other things make him evil, too. But as far as your objection goes, that covers it pretty well.

Kish
2017-09-27, 08:31 PM
Except it's actually "the needs of the hypothetical (goblins in the future or the abstract) outweigh the needs of the actual (his brother, all the goblins in his brother's village, the hobgoblin spy who infiltrated the resistance, the crafter who made the fake phylactery, every goblinoid he's ever interacted with in any way, and explicitly every goblinoid on the planet should it turn out his choices are to abandon the Plan or let the world be destroyed)."

ti'esar
2017-09-27, 08:55 PM
Except it's actually "the needs of the hypothetical (goblins in the future or the abstract) outweigh the needs of the actual (his brother, all the goblins in his brother's village, the hobgoblin spy who infiltrated the resistance, the crafter who made the fake phylactery, every goblinoid he's ever interacted with in any way, and explicitly every goblinoid on the planet should it turn out his choices are to abandon the Plan or let the world be destroyed)."

Yeah, this: Redcloak is acting for the greater good of the goblin people... but as far as his actions are concerned "the goblin people" is as abstract a concept as possible that really has nothing to do with any actual existing goblins.

mouser9169
2017-09-27, 09:15 PM
Redcloak works for the BENEFIT of the goblin people.

HOW he works for that benefit is what makes him Evil.

Lord Raziere
2017-09-27, 09:17 PM
By who? Wheeee!

Yes or no, it doesn't really matter beyond that.

as for whether Gobbotopia is an evil nation or not, that isn't really the point, now is it? the point is to put goblinoids on the same level as the other races, this includes humans and humans can be as evil or as good as they want. I think to Redcloak, the whole alignment system looks borked anyways, so he doesn't really care about the abstract morality meter in the cosmos saying that he shouldn't do this, and that the concrete results of his actions are what really matter to him. To him, the gods screwed over his entire race and probably put that morality meter there in the first place, he doesn't care about it, he knows it exists and that its labeling him as someone to oppose, but then again to him all these so-called "good" people could've offered a chance for them to stop fighting long ago and didn't, because apparently exp and and gold are more important than making sure they are people that should be killed.

also Redcloaks speech about how his an "100% natural goblin" to Xykon and Miko? completely hypocritical considering his Crimson Mantle. so, just remember, Redcloak is not immune to hypocrisy when he talks about how he is oppressed....remember....he is the one enslaving humans, being specieist against humans willingly, and so on. there is no denying that the way the Sapphire Guard killed his entire family aside from his brother was unjust, but his response is to that is to ruin every humans life he comes across, to use the only (former) human he works with as a tool, to kill the second human he seemed to ever work with the moment she knew too much (Tsukiko). the weird thing is, the two humans we works with don't care about goblin life either so they reinforce his hypocrisy and hate towards humans by confirming his views, and the other he talks with any length of time is Miko who confirms his views as well, the only one who doesn't confirm his hatred to humans is O-Chul, so he has to rationalize O-Chul sticking to his principles as callous sacrificing of human lives as an amoral savage- when he hypocritically knowingly sacrifices goblins lives.

So yeah, Redcloak is in many ways a hypocrite.

Thing is, I'm wondering what the conversation will be once he actually talks to the Order of the Stick. at Girard's he clearly recognized them being the PCs. I can see the most interesting conversation between him and Vaarsuvius and him and Roy. Vaarsuvius because they are practically foils of each other, and Roy because finally killing Xykon is the point of his entire quest and him knowing that Xykon was just a pawn for Redcloak's scheme would allow Roy to be really tear into him once he finds out why Redcloak was really doing all this.

Jasdoif
2017-09-27, 09:57 PM
Start of Darkness.
Miko provides the introduction warning attempted murder of the reader at the start of the book.Huh, so it is. Didn't recall that line. I guess it has been years since the last time I read the preface....


Not...really. I mean, sure, that's how Redcloak justifies The Plan to himself, but, overall, he's willing to risk the very souls of every being on the planet in exchange for MAYBE getting a chance at improving the life of the Goblin race. That's the opposite of "The Needs of The Many outweigh The Needs of The Few."To be fair, Redcloak and (barring some outlandish theories) the Dark One exist. Two counts as a few, right?


I think to Redcloak, the whole alignment system looks borked anyways, so he doesn't really care about the abstract morality meter in the cosmos saying that he shouldn't do this, and that the concrete results of his actions are what really matter to him.You may be conflating Redcloak and Tarquin, here.

Kish
2017-09-27, 10:00 PM
Redcloak's plan directly leads to his regular torture by Xykon and features his obliteration as an acceptable risk. That leaves only the Dark One as definitely both 1) existing and 2) benefiting from the Plan, and One is not a Few. Spock called out the distinction in his original use of the expression, "the few or the one."

Jasdoif
2017-09-27, 10:08 PM
Redcloak's plan directly leads to his regular torture by Xykon and features his obliteration as an acceptable risk.At this point, I'm pretty sure Redcloak's in it (the Plan or the possible oblivion, take your pick) to avoid accepting that he murdered his brother with nothing to show for it. I'm sure he finds that a need that has to be fulfilled, he's postponed his overall emotional health to shore up this particular weakness after all.

...then again, I just realized Redcloak and the Dark One would have to constitute the many rather than the few for this to make any notable difference, so nevermind....

halfeye
2017-09-27, 10:23 PM
One thing that bugs me is all the people saying, "now, with Gobbotopia, the goblins have a city of their own." There was a hobgoblin city before the start of this war:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

woweedd
2017-09-27, 10:24 PM
At this point, I'm pretty sure Redcloak's in it (the Plan or the possible oblivion, take your pick) to avoid accepting that he murdered his brother with nothing to show for it. I'm sure he finds that a need that has to be fulfilled, he's postponed his overall emotional health to shore up this particular weakness after all.

...then again, I just realized Redcloak and the Dark One would have to constitute the many rather than the few for this to make any notable difference, so nevermind....
Honestly, if it weren't for The Plan, I think Redcloak would just do a swan dive into The Rift. Whatever he may say, I think he does feel guilt over his brother, so much that, if it weren't for the plan left to fulfill, he'd probably be suicidal. He kinda is, really.

factotum
2017-09-28, 02:46 AM
One thing that bugs me is all the people saying, "now, with Gobbotopia, the goblins have a city of their own." There was a hobgoblin city before the start of this war:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

To be fair, that city was in a place that nobody else wanted. Redcloak's main beef is not that the goblinoids don't have anywhere to live, it's that they end up with the absolute dregs. Now, it's his opinion that this is only because the goblinoids were created as XP fodder for the Gods to level up their clerics, but I think Azure City disproves that--if the goblins band together they're totally powerful enough to take better lands for themselves, so I think the fact they haven't done so in a thousand years since world #2 was created is because they're lacking the will to do so, not the means.

Riftwolf
2017-09-28, 04:23 AM
To be fair, that city was in a place that nobody else wanted. Redcloak's main beef is not that the goblinoids don't have anywhere to live, it's that they end up with the absolute dregs.

A city with a fighting force of 10,000+ is 'the absolute dregs'?
Looking at their city, there's nothing to suggest it's located in a place no-one else wanted. There's a river, a hill for a fort, a wall, space for fields outside the wall, and two roads leading out. Ideal settlement spot. It's entirely possible nearby human societies *want* the space, but the hobgoblins had the defensive advantage.
And at that point in the story, Redcloak thought nothing of treating the hobgoblins as expendable.

hroşila
2017-09-28, 04:32 AM
A city with a fighting force of 10,000+ is 'the absolute dregs'?
Looking at their city, there's nothing to suggest it's located in a place no-one else wanted. There's a river, a hill for a fort, a wall, space for fields outside the wall, and two roads leading out. Ideal settlement spot. It's entirely possible nearby human societies *want* the space, but the hobgoblins had the defensive advantage.
And at that point in the story, Redcloak thought nothing of treating the hobgoblins as expendable.
It's in the mountains, where the Azurites had kept them contained for ages. This is explicitly stated in the comic.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 05:36 AM
You may be conflating Redcloak and Tarquin, here.

Tarquin is perfectly aware of the alignment system and accepts it, he just chooses to play the role of the villain because he deems it the most profitable. Redcloak sees the alignment system as an hypocritical and arbitrary justification for mass murder.


One thing that bugs me is all the people saying, "now, with Gobbotopia, the goblins have a city of their own." There was a hobgoblin city before the start of this war:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

It is not so much that they have a city than that they have a sovereign nation that is recognized by (therefore has diplomatic/peaceful relations with) the nations of the others races.
Remember Elan's speech about making the Hobgoblins die for their... caves.

Manty5
2017-09-28, 05:53 AM
You know, I liked the response "No. /thread" at the beginning of the thread a lot better.

This is just proving that anyone can argue anything, and that neither common sense nor facts are a bar to disputing nonsense.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-28, 06:09 AM
Tarquin is perfectly aware of the alignmentsystem and accepts it, he just chooses to play the role of the villain because he deems it the most profitable. Redcloak sees the alignment system as an hypocritical and arbitrary justification for mass murder.



It is not so much that they have a city than that they have a sovereign nation that is recognized by (therefore has diplomatic/peaceful relations with) the nations of the others races.
Remember Elan's speech about making the Hobgoblins die for their... caves.

The fact is that we know nothing of the condition most goblinoids had before and still don't know anything of the condition most goblinoids have now.

Also, all hints to goblinoids not being treated equal. Redcloak stated his disdain for hobgoblins as a result of hobgoblins' disdain for goblins. Gobbotopia now helps them both on the same footing, with, eventually, the inclusion of bugbears.

We don't have a Similareon-esque document for the OotSverse, though. So whether Gobbotopia houses 90% of the land's hobgoblins or 2.5% of them, we don't know. Yet this information is crucial to know just how much of an achievement it is in the grand scheme of things.

Also, Redcloak kinda *has* to keep going with the Plan because of Xykon, who made it clear that any betrayal would result in a lot of goblinoids dying. Who would stop him if Xykon decided to murder every single inhabitant of Gobbotopia?

B. Dandelion
2017-09-28, 07:14 AM
Thing is, I'm wondering what the conversation will be once he actually talks to the Order of the Stick. at Girard's he clearly recognized them being the PCs. I can see the most interesting conversation between him and Vaarsuvius and him and Roy. Vaarsuvius because they are practically foils of each other, and Roy because finally killing Xykon is the point of his entire quest and him knowing that Xykon was just a pawn for Redcloak's scheme would allow Roy to be really tear into him once he finds out why Redcloak was really doing all this.

I could see almost any character from the Order having an interesting conversation with Redcloak. Even Belkar and Elan have potential hooks. But the PC who seems to have had the most buildup in that department seems to be... Haley.

I'm serious. Since the battle for Azure City she's had something of a track record of foiling him. She's the one who saw through his shell game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html) at the battle for the city, and at Girard's Rift she exploited a loophole in his phrasing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0904.html) in order to save Roy from the Silicon elemental. That's not to mention the time she led a special strike force raid on his private bathroom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html), an incident so bizarre and awkward to explain that it would practically be a crime not to have it come up again in conversation. Of course she also set up most of the Resistance and instructed Thanh to trust Niu with anything stealthy, which ultimately paid off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and let Niu escape in time to give a warning, which led to Roy destroying Girard's Gate. Redcloak also killed off everyone else in the Resistance so you might call that one a draw, although the fact that he personally killed a lot of people she was friends with gives her more reason than anyone else in the Order to feel a personal vendetta against him. When the only other member of the Order who has so much as used Redcloak's name pseudonym is Belkar, she looks to be the most on-the-ball with him in particular out of anyone. She obliquely referred to him (and being worried about him) not fifty comics ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1052.html).

It's odd, but makes a kind of sense. They occupy roughly the same equivalent spot on their team's roster as second-in-command. If Roy's archrival is Xykon, and I don't think Redcloak will actually "usurp" that role, there's some logic to having Haley and Redcloak also face off, although the nature of that conflict is likely to be very different. If someone on the team has to figure out that Redcloak is scamming Xykon, it would certainly make the most sense for it to be Haley, especially as she already saw through one of his earlier cons.

Riftwolf
2017-09-28, 08:46 AM
I could see almost any character from the Order having an interesting conversation with Redcloak. Even Belkar and Elan have potential hooks. But the PC who seems to have had the most buildup in that department seems to be... Haley.

I'm serious. Since the battle for Azure City she's had something of a track record of foiling him. She's the one who saw through his shell game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html) at the battle for the city, and at Girard's Rift she exploited a loophole in his phrasing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0904.html) in order to save Roy from the Silicon elemental. That's not to mention the time she led a special strike force raid on his private bathroom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html), an incident so bizarre and awkward to explain that it would practically be a crime not to have it come up again in conversation. Of course she also set up most of the Resistance and instructed Thanh to trust Niu with anything stealthy, which ultimately paid off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and let Niu escape in time to give a warning, which led to Roy destroying Girard's Gate. Redcloak also killed off everyone else in the Resistance so you might call that one a draw, although the fact that he personally killed a lot of people she was friends with gives her more reason than anyone else in the Order to feel a personal vendetta against him. When the only other member of the Order who has so much as used Redcloak's name pseudonym is Belkar, she looks to be the most on-the-ball with him in particular out of anyone. She obliquely referred to him (and being worried about him) not fifty comics ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1052.html).

It's odd, but makes a kind of sense. They occupy roughly the same equivalent spot on their team's roster as second-in-command. If Roy's archrival is Xykon, and I don't think Redcloak will actually "usurp" that role, there's some logic to having Haley and Redcloak also face off, although the nature of that conflict is likely to be very different. If someone on the team has to figure out that Redcloak is scamming Xykon, it would certainly make the most sense for it to be Haley, especially as she already saw through one of his earlier cons.

I like this idea. Red v red, fighting from opposite corners of the alignment table. Thinking about it, Roy and Xykon are blue v blue doing exactly the same.


It's in the mountains, where the Azurites had kept them contained for ages. This is explicitly stated in the comic.

Can't find mention of this. What's the strip number?

hroşila
2017-09-28, 09:08 AM
War and XPs, bonus strip 320a:
Hobgoblin general: Trust me, the paladins and the regular army of the Azurites have kept us completely penned in those mountains for almost 30 years. They aren't expecting us to just suddenly break out and invade like this. They put most of their military energy into Blueriver.
Redcloak: I guess it never occurred to any of your previous Supreme Leaders to mobilize 90% of your population.
Hobgoblin general: To say the least.

littlebum2002
2017-09-28, 09:41 AM
Even if the Dark One is acting in good faith, I'm not comfortable with the idea that the Plan is fine because "it only ends the world if the gods are dumb enough to value spiting the goblins over their own survival (or if the heroes destroy the Gates, which is on them)". That's like saying holding people to ransom is fine because hey, as long as they cooperate you won't hurt them.

OP establishes that Redcloak is Lawful, but then throws in a bogus one-liner as if it proved that he's Good. No he isn't. Almost every Evil person will act for the good of someone, at least in their minds. Tarquin claims to act for the good of a whole continent, but that's either a lie or a delusion. If Redcloak was actually working for the good of all goblins, there are many lines he would never have crossed. You could try to argue that he's more of a coward than harmful to goblinoids per se for his unwillingness to stand up to Xykon, but IMO it's made very clear that it's not fear of Xykon, but rather the sunk cost fallacy, that keeps him going without looking for a way out.






Highly, highly debatable.

I don't see how it's debatable that the outcome of The Plan, itself, is a Good thing. Sentient beings were created for no other reason than for other people to kill them. That's blatantly Evil. So to fix that Evil act is inherently Good.

The question then becomes, is it Evil to commit Evil acts in pursuit of a Good goal? I would argue that the Plan itself is Neutral, if not Good. Even though it's sneaky and deceptive, it's a "last ditch" scenario to fix an Evil act. There's no way you could consider that Evil.

However, there are plenty of ways in which Redcloak could have pursued the Plan without allying himself with an Extremely Evil sorcerer who is not only attempting to take over the world, but indiscriminately murders innocent people (and goblins) in doing so. By Allying himself with Xykon (not by pursuing the Plan), Redcloak has become Evil.


Another question is the capture of Azure City. The inhabitants of Azure City have been indiscriminately murdering goblinoids for generations. Fighting back and taking their city was self defense. Again, that's Neutral at worst. (using them as slaves afterwards, on the other hand, is Evil)

Jan Mattys
2017-09-28, 09:51 AM
I don't see how it's debatable that the outcome of The Plan, itself, is a Good thing. Sentient beings were created for no other reason than for other people to kill them. That's blatantly Evil. So to fix that Evil act is inherently Good.
Fixing Evil is not inherently good. Fighting Evil with Evil is Evil.
It's not math, where minus and minus equals plus. The way you do things matters just as much as the outcome.

hence:

The question then becomes, is it Evil to commit Evil acts in pursuit of a Good goal?
Yes, oh God yes.
Absolutely.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 09:56 AM
I don't see how it's debatable that the outcome of The Plan, itself, is a Good thing. Sentient beings were created for no other reason than for other people to kill them. That's blatantly Evil. So to fix that Evil act is inherently Good.

I do not believe that your description of the Plan would match Kish's or mine. You seem to be operating under the following definition (and by all means do correct me if I am wrong, I am aware this could be misconstrued to be putting words in your mouth, which is not what I am doing; I am merely extrapolating)

The Plan (v.littlebum2002): "to threaten the existing gods into granting goblinoids equal position in the world"

The problem is that I consider that crass propaganda. As I see it, the Plan is:
The Plan (v.Grey Wolf): "to destroy the world (and possibly the gods that had the Dark One killed), so as to attempt to secure a position in the design comity of the next one, therefore giving the Dark One a chance to create goblins in something other than a subservient position."

The problem is that we cannot know how much of the "official" Plan is lies, because it is likely that the Dark One has lied to his High Priests, and we definitely know that RC lies to himself constantly. The central tragedy of RC's life and his character is that all the sacrifices made for the Plan have long since ceased to be worth it.

But at face value, there is no way the Plan can even happen without destroying the world and starting over. Which inevitably means that the Plan requires the deaths of millions just to maybe improve the lives of nebulous future thousands. No goblin alive right now will ever be better off if the plan comes to fruition, unless RC manages to gate a few off the planet before it is destroyed.

Grey Wolf

Keltest
2017-09-28, 09:56 AM
I don't see how it's debatable that the outcome of The Plan, itself, is a Good thing. Sentient beings were created for no other reason than for other people to kill them. That's blatantly Evil. So to fix that Evil act is inherently Good.

The question then becomes, is it Evil to commit Evil acts in pursuit of a Good goal? I would argue that the Plan itself is Neutral, if not Good. Even though it's sneaky and deceptive, it's a "last ditch" scenario to fix an Evil act. There's no way you could consider that Evil.

However, there are plenty of ways in which Redcloak could have pursued the Plan without allying himself with an Extremely Evil sorcerer who is not only attempting to take over the world, but indiscriminately murders innocent people (and goblins) in doing so. By Allying himself with Xykon (not by pursuing the Plan), Redcloak has become Evil.


Another question is the capture of Azure City. The inhabitants of Azure City have been indiscriminately murdering goblinoids for generations. Fighting back and taking their city was self defense. Again, that's Neutral at worst. (using them as slaves afterwards, on the other hand, is Evil)

Youre making quite a few assumptions (most of them being variations of "We can take everything Redcloak says about the Dark One's motives and goals at face value") about The Plan, but even beyond that, assuming everything goes as Redcloak describes, do you think that strong-arming the gods into giving the goblins more resources is going to be met without mortal resistance? They have free will, Odin cant just force humans to hand over a city to the goblins no matter how much he may want to. And even if he somehow manages to convince them to do so, theyre forcibly relocating the populations of entire cities, and that never goes off without a hitch.

factotum
2017-09-28, 10:07 AM
They have free will, Odin cant just force humans to hand over a city to the goblins no matter how much he may want to.

I think being a God gives Odin a lot more leverage than you're giving him credit for. If the humans refuse to give up their city, all Odin has to do is say, "Right, that means that no cleric under the dominion of the Northern Pantheon will be able to cure disease, or raise dead, or even cast the simplest cantrip until you do what we say." Clerics are the doctors of the Stickverse--without them, a lot of people will die.

Of course, it might not come to that, because who says it has to be the humans who give up land? It might be someone like the dwarves, who we know are deeply religious and will follow what their gods request almost without question.

hroşila
2017-09-28, 10:08 AM
The gods may or may not be able to give the goblinoids better stats*, and they might also be able to make immediate divine concessions to the Dark One which may translate into more and/or more powerful clerics or what have you, but yes, the solution to the broader problem of the goblinoids having been relegated to the poorest areas can only be political and should thus be beyond what the gods can do at this point. Regardless, I think it might be a bit too convenient to just assume the Dark One is lying.

*I seriously doubt that's something they could do now, though.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 10:15 AM
War and XPs, bonus strip 320a:
Hobgoblin general: Trust me, the paladins and the regular army of the Azurites have kept us completely penned in those mountains for almost 30 years. They aren't expecting us to just suddenly break out and invade like this. They put most of their military energy into Blueriver.
Redcloak: I guess it never occurred to any of your previous Supreme Leaders to mobilize 90% of your population.
Hobgoblin general: To say the least.


Plus they literally set up shop in the abandonned back-up fortress of an epic lich : must not be much demand for that particular spot of land.

Keltest
2017-09-28, 10:23 AM
I think being a God gives Odin a lot more leverage than you're giving him credit for. If the humans refuse to give up their city, all Odin has to do is say, "Right, that means that no cleric under the dominion of the Northern Pantheon will be able to cure disease, or raise dead, or even cast the simplest cantrip until you do what we say." Clerics are the doctors of the Stickverse--without them, a lot of people will die.

Of course, it might not come to that, because who says it has to be the humans who give up land? It might be someone like the dwarves, who we know are deeply religious and will follow what their gods request almost without question.

Because the goblins want the good land, not the good caves, and humans are the only race we've seen on the North or South that has any sort of civilization on those lands (besides the Goblins themselves).

Besides which, "Odin threatens to kill a whole bunch of people if they don't relocate themselves to some swamp somewhere" doesn't exactly support the narrative of a peaceful and uneventful relocation either.

littlebum2002
2017-09-28, 10:59 AM
I do not believe that your description of the Plan would match Kish's or mine. You seem to be operating under the following definition (and by all means do correct me if I am wrong, I am aware this could be misconstrued to be putting words in your mouth, which is not what I am doing; I am merely extrapolating)

The Plan (v.littlebum2002): "to threaten the existing gods into granting goblinoids equal position in the world"

The problem is that I consider that crass propaganda. As I see it, the Plan is:
The Plan (v.Grey Wolf): "to destroy the world (and possibly the gods that had the Dark One killed), so as to attempt to secure a position in the design comity of the next one, therefore giving the Dark One a chance to create goblins in something other than a subservient position."

The problem is that we cannot know how much of the "official" Plan is lies, because it is likely that the Dark One has lied to his High Priests, and we definitely know that RC lies to himself constantly. The central tragedy of RC's life and his character is that all the sacrifices made for the Plan have long since ceased to be worth it.

But at face value, there is no way the Plan can even happen without destroying the world and starting over. Which inevitably means that the Plan requires the deaths of millions just to maybe improve the lives of nebulous future thousands. No goblin alive right now will ever be better off if the plan comes to fruition, unless RC manages to gate a few off the planet before it is destroyed.

Grey Wolf

I was trying to make a distinction between the idea behind The Plan, and The Plan itself. The idea behind the Plan (to no longer allow hunting and murdering of sentient beings) is a Good one. We have direct evidence that Azurite Paladins murder innocent goblinoid children. So we know the situation as it stands now is wrong, and something should be done about it. We don't have to rely on the honesty of the Dark One for that

However, the plan itself may not be, depending on whether or not all other avenues have been explored. This is when it comes down to an unreliable narrator. Has the Dark One tried all other options? Is threatening to end the world really his last resort?

However, I don't think you are giving The Plan a fair representation. You claim it only works by destroying the world, but in fact destroying the world and having a say in the next one is "Plan B". The Plan is actually to improve the lives of goblins in the current world, presumably by putting them on the same level as other humanoids and not allowing Good creatures to indiscriminately murder them. I can't see how this Plan could ever be considered Evil, maybe I'm missing something?




Youre making quite a few assumptions (most of them being variations of "We can take everything Redcloak says about the Dark One's motives and goals at face value") about The Plan, but even beyond that, assuming everything goes as Redcloak describes, do you think that strong-arming the gods into giving the goblins more resources is going to be met without mortal resistance? They have free will, Odin cant just force humans to hand over a city to the goblins no matter how much he may want to. And even if he somehow manages to convince them to do so, theyre forcibly relocating the populations of entire cities, and that never goes off without a hitch.

I mean, they already have Gobbotopia. I don't think the goal is "give them other people's land", but instead "put them on equal footing with everyone else who already fights for land". Wars happen, land trades hands. If humans go to war with other humans, and steal their land, that's just how this world works. So I think the mail goal of the Plan isn't to just give the Goblins stuff, but instead erase the loophole that makes it acceptable to murder them, and let them fend for themselves on equal footing with everyone else. If they're equal, and someone goes to war with them and captures Gobbotopia, that sucks, but that's just life.

It's like getting in a fight with someone with your hands tied behind your back. No one can make you win the fight, but they can at least release your hands to give you a fair chance.

hroşila
2017-09-28, 11:09 AM
I don't think anyone is currently allowed (inasmuch as that word makes sense in this context) to indiscriminately kill goblinoids. We're told that the paladins who went after illegitimate targets fell off-panel. Right-Eye and his family mingled with humans without any trouble. No one bothers Goblin Dan. The way I understand it, it's rather that the goblinoids were put on the margins of civilization with few resources so that they'd resort to raiding and thus become legitimate targets, which is complemented by their having been handicapped to make them easy targets for low-level characters.

Keltest
2017-09-28, 11:13 AM
I mean, they already have Gobbotopia. I don't think the goal is "give them other people's land", but instead "put them on equal footing with everyone else who already fights for land". Wars happen, land trades hands. If humans go to war with other humans, and steal their land, that's just how this world works. So I think the mail goal of the Plan isn't to just give the Goblins stuff, but instead erase the loophole that makes it acceptable to murder them, and let them fend for themselves on equal footing with everyone else. If they're equal, and someone goes to war with them and captures Gobbotopia, that sucks, but that's just life.

It's like getting in a fight with someone with your hands tied behind your back. No one can make you win the fight, but they can at least release your hands to give you a fair chance.

Except, as you pointed out, they already have Gobbotopia. Theyre clearly capable of seizing land via military might. There is no loophole that makes it "acceptable" to murder them just for being goblins.

The Dark One's narrative frankly doesn't fit in with his actions or those of his minions. The problems of the goblins as a whole seem grossly exaggerated, based on the number of times and ways that goblins manage to create a society for themselves (only to be ruined by Redcloak and the Plan, even). The solution of blackmailing the Gods doesn't seem like it would have the allegedly desired effect. And Redcloak and Xykon between them have gotten more goblins killed than any other characters shown in the comic.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 11:17 AM
However, I don't think you are giving The Plan a fair representation. You claim it only works by destroying the world, but in fact destroying the world and having a say in the next one is "Plan B". The Plan is actually to improve the lives of goblins in the current world, presumably by putting them on the same level as other humanoids and not allowing Good creatures to indiscriminately murder them. I can't see how this Plan could ever be considered Evil, maybe I'm missing something?

You are missing that your presumed goals of the Plan have already been fulfilled, and yet the Plan is still going on. They are now in possession of a wealthy city, and therefore are on the same level as other humanoids. Priests are going to have a hard time leveling by killing goblins resident in Gobbotopia and the surrounding areas.

But the Plan is not over. Therefore its goals cannot be the ones you presume.

If you really think that the Plan is to have the goblin race as strong as human, that will require the world to be destroyed and every race re-designed. That would be Plan A. It'd have to be, because you can't redesign the inherent rules of the world except by starting it over.

Except I suspect that Plan A is even worse than that, because the Dark One does not come across as a believer in racial equality. If RC's attitudes are anything to go by - and given he has been wearing a cloak capable of putting ideas in his head for decades, I suspect that a lot of his beliefs are due to those ideas - then the Dark One wants goblin supremacy, not equality.

Grey Wolf

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 11:35 AM
Maybe I am completely wrong but I was under the impression that in the OotS-verse goblinoids were an "usually evil" race which as I understand it means that every goblinoid is born with a 90% (or whatever) chance of being evil, thus encouraging the other races to hunt them down for XPs and that THAT was the situation tDO and RC aim to rectify (or at least what they claim).

Laurana
2017-09-28, 11:42 AM
I could see almost any character from the Order having an interesting conversation with Redcloak. Even Belkar and Elan have potential hooks. But the PC who seems to have had the most buildup in that department seems to be... Haley.

I'm serious. Since the battle for Azure City she's had something of a track record of foiling him. She's the one who saw through his shell game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html) at the battle for the city, and at Girard's Rift she exploited a loophole in his phrasing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0904.html) in order to save Roy from the Silicon elemental. That's not to mention the time she led a special strike force raid on his private bathroom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html), an incident so bizarre and awkward to explain that it would practically be a crime not to have it come up again in conversation. Of course she also set up most of the Resistance and instructed Thanh to trust Niu with anything stealthy, which ultimately paid off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and let Niu escape in time to give a warning, which led to Roy destroying Girard's Gate. Redcloak also killed off everyone else in the Resistance so you might call that one a draw, although the fact that he personally killed a lot of people she was friends with gives her more reason than anyone else in the Order to feel a personal vendetta against him. When the only other member of the Order who has so much as used Redcloak's name pseudonym is Belkar, she looks to be the most on-the-ball with him in particular out of anyone. She obliquely referred to him (and being worried about him) not fifty comics ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1052.html).

It's odd, but makes a kind of sense. They occupy roughly the same equivalent spot on their team's roster as second-in-command. If Roy's archrival is Xykon, and I don't think Redcloak will actually "usurp" that role, there's some logic to having Haley and Redcloak also face off, although the nature of that conflict is likely to be very different. If someone on the team has to figure out that Redcloak is scamming Xykon, it would certainly make the most sense for it to be Haley, especially as she already saw through one of his earlier cons.

Another brilliant post by you, I thoroughly agree. Kudos.

Synesthesy
2017-09-28, 11:52 AM
You are missing that your presumed goals of the Plan have already been fulfilled, and yet the Plan is still going on. They are now in possession of a wealthy city, and therefore are on the same level as other humanoids. Priests are going to have a hard time leveling by killing goblins resident in Gobbotopia and the surrounding areas.

But the Plan is not over. Therefore its goals cannot be the ones you presume.

If you really think that the Plan is to have the goblin race as strong as human, that will require the world to be destroyed and every race re-designed. That would be Plan A. It'd have to be, because you can't redesign the inherent rules of the world except by starting it over.

Except I suspect that Plan A is even worse than that, because the Dark One does not come across as a believer in racial equality. If RC's attitudes are anything to go by - and given he has been wearing a cloak capable of putting ideas in his head for decades, I suspect that a lot of his beliefs are due to those ideas - then the Dark One wants goblin supremacy, not equality.

Grey Wolf

Plan A should be blackmail the Gods of the main pantheons for better conditions. They can do this with their influence over some big human nations.
Plan B is remake the world. Redcloack knows that and he agrees. Reddie has a problem he shares with other fanatic religious warrior: he doesn't care about the death because he's sure they'll go to heaven (or Dark One's army), and he really is sure. This is one of the things that make him evil.
Plan C should be, even if it has never been told in the comic, build a goblin nation so strong that human will no more fight goblinoids under his protection. I don't think that Gobbotopia is strong enough for that. Gobbotopia has lots of enemies outside its border. Gobbotopia is a lone city and not every goblinoid live there. They have to grow a lot to become free.

However, Reddie doesn't stop the plan because he knows that he can't, right now, deal with Xykon. In duel, Xykon would crush Redcloak even if Reddie used every resource his nation can offer. Then Xykon would kill every moving being inside Gobbotopia. Maybe even some outside. So, why do that?

The hunt for the last gate can end in 2 ways: either they find it, do the ritual, then it's Dark One's business (and Xykon is not strong enough to compete with a God) and Reddie doesn't care if he dies at that point. Or Xykon can be killed by some hero (Roy or O-Chul?), then Reddie can destroy Xykon once for all and teleport to Gobbotopia. Either ways he win, goblinoids wins.

(or at least, it is what he think).

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 12:21 PM
Plan A should be blackmail the Gods of the main pantheons for better conditions. They can do this with their influence over some big human nations.
Plan B is remake the world. Redcloack knows that and he agrees. Reddie has a problem he shares with other fanatic religious warrior: he doesn't care about the death because he's sure they'll go to heaven (or Dark One's army), and he really is sure. This is one of the things that make him evil.
Plan C should be, even if it has never been told in the comic, build a goblin nation so strong that human will no more fight goblinoids under his protection. I don't think that Gobbotopia is strong enough for that. Gobbotopia is a lone city and not every goblinoid live there. They have to grow a lot to become free.
Are these statements of fact, or statements of personal opinion? I cannot tell, and my answers will be different based on which one it is.


Gobbotopia has lots of enemies outside its border.
[citation needed]


However, Reddie doesn't stop the plan because he knows that he can't, right now, deal with Xykon. In duel, Xykon would crush Redcloak even if Reddie used every resource his nation can offer. Then Xykon would kill every moving being inside Gobbotopia. Maybe even some outside. So, why do that?
I fail to see why the Dark One would give a damn about what Xykon would do if told that the Plan was off the table. And remember, post-Gobbotopia, he sent a message to "Not screw this Up" to RC, so in the DO's opinion, the plan is not complete.

GW

Kish
2017-09-28, 12:28 PM
Maybe I am completely wrong but I was under the impression that in the OotS-verse goblinoids were an "usually evil" race which as I understand it means that every goblinoid is born with a 90% (or whatever) chance of being evil, thus encouraging the other races to hunt them down for XPs and that THAT was the situation tDO and RC aim to rectify (or at least what they claim).
"Usually evil" means that something over 50% of the adult members of that race are evil. Not that they're a race of Rosemary's Babies, any more than Vaarsuvius was born good.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153483&postcount=31) what Rich said on the subject of whether babies are born with an alignment.

Synesthesy
2017-09-28, 01:03 PM
Are these statements of fact, or statements of personal opinion? I cannot tell, and my answers will be different based on which one it is.


[citation needed]


I fail to see why the Dark One would give a damn about what Xykon would do if told that the Plan was off the table. And remember, post-Gobbotopia, he sent a message to "Not screw this Up" to RC, so in the DO's opinion, the plan is not complete.

GW

Personal opinion, as always. And I hope to be smart, but I'm not english yet. I can understand something wrong.

The citation is that at least one nation have sent some agents to actively fight against Gobbotopia, and it was an unknown elven nation. On southern continent, Hinjo said that he wasn't able to make any nation to join him in war against Gobbotopia, but it doesn't mean that they are friend with the goblins. There surely are other lawful good countries that are enemy of Gobbotopia even if don't know of them because they don't fit in this story (yet).

Third, I agree that the plan is not complete in Dark One's opinion. I just said that even if it was completed with Gobbotopia in Redcloack's opinion, he would still be bound to go on until Xykon is gone.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 01:14 PM
Plan A should be blackmail the Gods of the main pantheons for better conditions. They can do this with their influence over some big human nations.
Plan B is remake the world. Redcloack knows that and he agrees. Reddie has a problem he shares with other fanatic religious warrior: he doesn't care about the death because he's sure they'll go to heaven (or Dark One's army), and he really is sure. This is one of the things that make him evil.
Plan C should be, even if it has never been told in the comic, build a goblin nation so strong that human will no more fight goblinoids under his protection. I don't think that Gobbotopia is strong enough for that. Gobbotopia has lots of enemies outside its border. Gobbotopia is a lone city and not every goblinoid live there. They have to grow a lot to become free.
Plan A as described has nothing to do with the Plan, and therefore, regardless of what you think it should be, it is not what it is. Plan C is a pipe dream. No nation is ever going to be that strong without dominating everyone else, and as Tarquin discovered, that is not an achievable goal. Plan B is the only one that fits with the actual comic as we know it, and as far as we can tell, is what the DO wants.


The citation is that at least one nation have sent some agents to actively fight against Gobbotopia, and it was an unknown elven nation. On southern continent, Hinjo said that he wasn't able to make any nation to join him in war against Gobbotopia, but it doesn't mean that they are friend with the goblins. There surely are other lawful good countries that are enemy of Gobbotopia even if don't know of them because they don't fit in this story (yet).
One nation plus the remnants of another is not "many". Especially since 17 nations (and counting) are perfectly happy to recognise Gobbotopia.


Third, I agree that the plan is not complete in Dark One's opinion. I just said that even if it was completed with Gobbotopia in Redcloack's opinion, he would still be bound to go on until Xykon is gone.

This is irrelevant. We are not discussing a hypothetical situation in which the DO did call the Plan compelte, and what then RC would need to do to let Xykon know. We are discussing what actually is happening in the comic.

Grey Wolf

Gitman00
2017-09-28, 01:28 PM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

A few reasons. Redcloak was immune to disease and ageless due to the Crimson Mantle, so he retained his spellcasting abilities while Xykon had lost them due to Lirian's virus. However, he needed Xykon's arcane power to get out of the prison. Liches are immune to disease, being undead, so lichifying Xykon would solve his problems.


Except it's actually "the needs of the hypothetical (goblins in the future or the abstract) outweigh the needs of the actual (his brother, all the goblins in his brother's village, the hobgoblin spy who infiltrated the resistance, the crafter who made the fake phylactery, every goblinoid he's ever interacted with in any way, and explicitly every goblinoid on the planet should it turn out his choices are to abandon the Plan or let the world be destroyed)."

Sorta reminds me of Cersei's criticism of Tywin in Game of Thrones. He's obsessed with preserving the power and legacy of his family, but has no regard for the actual members of his family, his children, beyond using them as pawns in his power games.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 02:06 PM
Plan A should be blackmail the Gods of the main pantheons for better conditions. They can do this with their influence over some big human nations.


Plan A as described has nothing to do with the Plan, and therefore, regardless of what you think it should be, it is not what it is.

Plan A as described sounds a lot like The Plan as described in #830 panel 11. Unless SoD (whichI have still to read) indicated this was a lie, you sound unnecessary harsh, Grey_Wolf.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 02:16 PM
Plan A as described sounds a lot like The Plan as described in #830 panel 11. Unless SoD (whichI have still to read) indicated this was a lie, you sound unnecessary harsh, Grey_Wolf.

The plan to blackmail the gods in #830 has nothing whatsoever to do with influence over any nation, big or small, human or otherwise. It involves threatening the gods with releasing the Snarl, nothing more, nothing less. How they expect the gods to acquiesce to the demands is unknown, but I doubt RC or DO will simply take "The gods will ask everyone to pretty please treat the goblins nicely", nor is it obvious that the gods even could do so.

And, again, if that was truly Plan A, then why is the plan ongoing? They have that. Nations, human nations, some quite large, now acknowledge Gobbotopia. Therefore, Plan A cannot be that, since it is not been completed.

As I said, the whole "all the Dark One wants is a safe space for goblins" reeks of propaganda. Whatever it is the DO wants (and whether or not RC even knows) it's not just a safe & prosperous goblin nation.

GW

martianmister
2017-09-28, 02:26 PM
Is there a reason to believe that Dark One is lying to his own high priest?


I could see almost any character from the Order having an interesting conversation with Redcloak. Even Belkar and Elan have potential hooks. But the PC who seems to have had the most buildup in that department seems to be... Haley.

I'm serious. Since the battle for Azure City she's had something of a track record of foiling him. She's the one who saw through his shell game (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html) at the battle for the city, and at Girard's Rift she exploited a loophole in his phrasing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0904.html) in order to save Roy from the Silicon elemental. That's not to mention the time she led a special strike force raid on his private bathroom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html), an incident so bizarre and awkward to explain that it would practically be a crime not to have it come up again in conversation. Of course she also set up most of the Resistance and instructed Thanh to trust Niu with anything stealthy, which ultimately paid off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and let Niu escape in time to give a warning, which led to Roy destroying Girard's Gate. Redcloak also killed off everyone else in the Resistance so you might call that one a draw, although the fact that he personally killed a lot of people she was friends with gives her more reason than anyone else in the Order to feel a personal vendetta against him. When the only other member of the Order who has so much as used Redcloak's name pseudonym is Belkar, she looks to be the most on-the-ball with him in particular out of anyone. She obliquely referred to him (and being worried about him) not fifty comics ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1052.html).

It's odd, but makes a kind of sense. They occupy roughly the same equivalent spot on their team's roster as second-in-command. If Roy's archrival is Xykon, and I don't think Redcloak will actually "usurp" that role, there's some logic to having Haley and Redcloak also face off, although the nature of that conflict is likely to be very different. If someone on the team has to figure out that Redcloak is scamming Xykon, it would certainly make the most sense for it to be Haley, especially as she already saw through one of his earlier cons.

Is this a shipping post? I never see it that way before.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 02:35 PM
Is there a reason to believe that Dark One is lying to his own high priest?

Certainly. From the standard reason ("Need to know basis" aka "you can't reveal what you don't know") to OOTS god-specific reasons ("how much do you explain your dog when you take him out for a walk, anyway?") to specific characterisation reasons ("RC won't realise just how far down he has dug his own hole until he discovers he is not worth telling the truth to"). Or even because the DO is just that much of a bastard, although that one is unlikely simply because the DO is not a fully developed character at this time. I suspect we'll get to know him better in the next book.

Please note I suspect that RC doesn't have the full story, but it is not a certainty. My belief is based on the fact that the DO's story is playing the victim card a bit too earnestly to come across as 100% unvarnished truth, and yet RC seems to fully believe it. But he might not believe it (deep down, anyway) and it is just another of the lies RC tells himself to keep going.

Grey Wolf

Keltest
2017-09-28, 02:37 PM
Is there a reason to believe that Dark One is lying to his own high priest?

As noted, what The Dark One claims the goal of the Plan is, is different from what the actual effects, probable or otherwise, of the Plan seem to be. It also seems to be having an exceptionally high attrition rate on the goblins it is alleging to be working for the benefit of, which is another mark against taking it at face value.


Please note I suspect that RC doesn't have the full story, but it is not a certainty. My belief is based on the fact that the DO's story is playing the victim card a bit too earnestly to come across as 100% unvarnished truth, and yet RC seems to fully believe it. But he might not believe it (deep down, anyway) and it is just another of the lies RC tells himself to keep going.

Whether or not goblinkind as a whole has been wronged, Redcloak certainly has been wronged, personally and deeply, for being a goblin, and he's never really gotten over it even when the rest of his family, who was wronged just as deeply, have. His inability to let these things go is part of his characterization, and pretty much his entire motivation for the things he does.

Whether this is a natural personality flaw or a side effect of the Crimson Mantle's magic is an interesting question.

Jasdoif
2017-09-28, 02:52 PM
Or even because the DO is just that much of a bastard, although that one is unlikely simply because the DO is not a fully developed character at this time.On this point, I would emphasize that we have never actually seen the Dark One in person. Other than the picture in Redcloak's study, he's only ever been portrayed in crayon drawings, which are known to not necessarily reflect things that actually happened. Without Jirix's tale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html), I think it would be minimally plausible that the "Dark One" was a fictitious entity, a long running con by Hel to destroy the Gates.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 02:57 PM
The plan to blackmail the gods in #830 has nothing whatsoever to do with influence over any nation, big or small, human or otherwise

The plan is to blackmail the gods into bettering the living conditions of goblinkind, there's no reason to assume that would not include ordering their living followers to treat them better.

As for wether or not the Dark One is being honest or not. We do not have any information about him that does not come from either Redcloak or someone who call Redcloak "Supreme Leader". For all we know he could be livid every time RC sacrifices a gob but doesn't want to risk RC abandonning the mission.

If he said to Redcloak "Stop sending my goblins to their death" or "ditch the lich, bitch" or stripped him of his powers there is a good chance that Red would go nuts and try to attack Xykon upfront or wanted to destroy hiswork out ofspite or whatever. Maybe the Dark One does not want to risk that.

Or maybe he does not care at all. There is no way to know yet.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 02:57 PM
a long running con by Hel to destroy the Gates.

Couldn't have been a con by Hel specifically (Loki, on the other hand...?). Issue is, Hel isn't allowed living priests, and I think that wager did not depend on both parties simply agreeing on the rules - I think it was built into the system that she couldn't give spells to living worshipers.


The plan is to blackmail the gods into bettering the living conditions of goblinkind, there's no reason to assume that would not include ordering their living followers to treat them better.
Double negatives in English make my eyes bleed and my head hurt.

I have already given you a reason why it would not include "ordering the living followers to treat them better" - the gods may not be in a position to do so. Governments as a whole tend towards the "lip service religious". Human nations who would pray on Gobbotopia would likely outright ignore or twist any such command. RC's approach of establishing diplomatic relations is a far more reliable way of making sure they are not attacked.

Besides, the Dark One got burned already when trying to trust the words of the other races. I fail to see why he'd now trust their gods to keep their words.

GW

Lord Raziere
2017-09-28, 02:58 PM
I don't think anyone is currently allowed (inasmuch as that word makes sense in this context) to indiscriminately kill goblinoids. We're told that the paladins who went after illegitimate targets fell off-panel. Right-Eye and his family mingled with humans without any trouble. No one bothers Goblin Dan. The way I understand it, it's rather that the goblinoids were put on the margins of civilization with few resources so that they'd resort to raiding and thus become legitimate targets, which is complemented by their having been handicapped to make them easy targets for low-level characters.

Right Eye mingling with humans? Mm.

I dunno his village while peaceful didn't seem to be particularly mingling with them unless your counting that circus?

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 03:14 PM
Double negatives in English make my eyes bleed and my head hurt.

There no reason to assume that it would either. Besides would a double negation be more along the lines of "there aren't no reason" ?



I have already given you a reason why it would not include "ordering the living followers to treat them better" - the gods may not be in a position to do so. Governments as a whole tend towards the "lip service religious". Human nations who would pray on Gobbotopia would likely outright ignore or twist any such command. RC's approach of establishing diplomatic relations is a far more reliable way of making sure they are not attacked.


Governement yes, individuals and clergy, not so much. Even if your government is secular, if 95% of your populations follow gods that forbid the murdering of goblins, your society will reflect that.



Besides, the Dark One got burned already when trying to trust the words of the other races. I fail to see why he'd now trust their gods to keep their words.

GW
Because he'd have a god-killing abomination to unleashon them at any time he'd please, that is the entire point.

Jasdoif
2017-09-28, 03:18 PM
Couldn't have been a con by Hel specifically (Loki, on the other hand...?). Issue is, Hel isn't allowed living priests, and I think that wager did not depend on both parties simply agreeing on the rules - I think it was built into the system that she couldn't give spells to living worshipers.Some combination of "worshipping a cause", goblindom as a cause, and the Crimson Mantle giving the face of a goblin legend to that cause, was what came to mind. The complications of which, of course, are what would drop it below "feasible" all the way down to "minimally plausible".

Come to think of it....it appears the Crimson Mantle isn't universally known by all the clerics of the Dark One, so it's possible the Dark One exists but didn't create the Crimson Mantle personally, but goes along with the story for whatever reason....But that's way below the threshold for plausibility.

Keltest
2017-09-28, 03:20 PM
Because he'd have a god-killing abomination to unleashon them at any time he'd please, that is the entire point.

Many of the deities that Rich draws inspiration from have a difficult time keeping their word even when it is in their best interest to do so. I have absolutely no doubt that at least some gods, like Loki, would do everything in their power to get around the strong-arming even if it meant risking their destruction, because they just are absolutely incapable of acting in any other way.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 03:24 PM
There no reason to assume that it would either.
I have no idea what this is supposed to be telling me.


Besides would a double negation be more along the lines of "there aren't no reason" ?
I had to read your sentence more than a handful of times to be able to understand what you were trying to say due to the overabundance of negatives. I don't particularly care if you disagree with my nomenclature of it.


Governement yes, individuals and clergy, not so much. Even if your government is secular, if 95% of your populations follow gods that forbid the murdering of goblins, your society will reflect that.
If the 5% remaining are allowed to keep killing goblins, I don't see that it'd make much of a difference to the goblins. And pining the Plan on 100% compliance to the gods orders is folly.


Because he'd have a god-killing abomination to unleashon them at any time he'd please, that is the entire point.
And having the biggest WMD around, he'd limit himself to merely telling them to pretty please tell their followers to stop, and then go rest on his laurels, confident that the rest of the gods are simply going to obey? Do you see now why I think he is lying?

To spell it out: such threats are useful in the short term, but you cannot depend on them working forever. Someone, sooner or later (likely sooner) WILL call out the bluff. The problem of threatening gods with a god-killing abomination when you yourself are a god is remarkably obvious.

Grey Wolf

Jasdoif
2017-09-28, 03:26 PM
Many of the deities that Rich draws inspiration from have a difficult time keeping their word even when it is in their best interest to do so. I have absolutely no doubt that at least some gods, like Loki, would do everything in their power to get around the strong-arming even if it meant risking their destruction, because they just are absolutely incapable of acting in any other way.If nothing else, we've already seen from the Godsmoot that the gods as a whole aren't very concerned with mortal lives, and heard from the Godsmoot that recreating the world would retrap the Snarl. The question comes to what the gods have more faith in: their own ability to act faster than the Snarl can react, or the word of someone deranged enough to risk releasing the Snarl in the first place.

Keltest
2017-09-28, 03:32 PM
And having the biggest WMD around, he'd limit himself to merely telling them to pretty please tell their followers to stop, and then go rest on his laurels, confident that the rest of the gods are simply going to obey? Do you see now why I think he is lying?

To spell it out: such threats are useful in the short term, but you cannot depend on them working forever. Someone, sooner or later (likely sooner) WILL call out the bluff. The problem of threatening gods with a god-killing abomination when you yourself are a god is remarkably obvious.

Grey Wolf

In fairness, whether or not it is truthful, this is what tDO claims Plan A is. Regardless of how implausible that is, we don't really have a good enough picture of what tDO actually wants to definitively prove that he isn't at least going to make a token effort at that resolution before moving on to lording over the remaking of the world.

Dr.Zero
2017-09-28, 03:56 PM
In that way, the Dark One may use the threat of releasing the Snarl on their home plane to blackmail the other gods.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html)

Nowhere is said that "their" (meaning: belonging to the gods under blackmail) home plane is the same of the Dark One.
As far as we know, the Snarl was incapable of rational complex thoughts, including jumping/finding the gods on outer planes, if left by his own means. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html)

Finally, even if the Snarl could effectively be a menace for the same Dark One, if you are threatened by a kamikaze and what he asks is reasonable, you might find more convenient to get along with him than to check if he is bluffing, and the DO might count on this, too.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 04:06 PM
I have no idea what this is supposed to be telling me.

You mad the assumption that the Dark One demands would NOT include any pressures on mortals. I said there was no reason to make that assumption? You didn't say that you were unable to understand my meaning but, in essence that you disliked the uses of two negatives in a sentence, my answer was meant to imply that by using no negatives at all I would say "there is reason to assume that" which is not true either. Now I apologize for the lack of clarity in my sentence, but next time you do not understnad what someone is trying to say just say it instead of being snide about it, it will be easire for every one. Be assured I will do the same.



If the 5% remaining are allowed to keep killing goblins, I don't see that it'd make much of a difference to the goblins. And pining the Plan on 100% compliance to the gods orders is folly.

Yes, yes it would, people do not go against social conventions, especially religious ones easily.



And having the biggest WMD around, he'd limit himself to merely telling them to pretty please tell their followers to stop, and then go rest on his laurels, confident that the rest of the gods are simply going to obey? Do you see now why I think he is lying?


No he would force them to. Hel clearly wants to go back on her agreement with Thor and Loki but can't, the gods (or at least some) want to change their vote to "No" but can't because of the rules. Their obviously are ways to bind the gods to whatever agreement the Dark One COULD want them to sign.



To spell it out: such threats are useful in the short term, but you cannot depend on them working forever. Someone, sooner or later (likely sooner) WILL call out the bluff. The problem of threatening gods with a god-killing abomination when you yourself are a god is remarkably obvious.

Grey Wolf


If nothing else, we've already seen from the Godsmoot that the gods as a whole aren't very concerned with mortal lives, and heard from the Godsmoot that recreating the world would retrap the Snarl. The question comes to what the gods have more faith in: their own ability to act faster than the Snarl can react, or the word of someone deranged enough to risk releasing the Snarl in the first place.

Redcloak speaks of moving the gates to a different plane (the one where the gods llive supposedly) So in order to retrap the Snarl they would have to remake their own plane. Can they do that ? I honestly don't know. I was under the impression that the Dark One had his plane/afterlife separate from the other gods' (not sure of course I really don't know much about D&D) where he would be safe from the Snarl's rampage at his colleague's home.

Of course blackmail is not a good plan. If villains had flawless plans there would not be a story.
Of course toying with an abomination that can destroy absolutely anything is a terrible idea. That's why the Dark One and Redcloak are villains.


In fairness, whether or not it is truthful, this is what tDO claims Plan A is. Regardless of how implausible that is, we don't really have a good enough picture of what tDO actually wants to definitively prove that he isn't at least going to make a token effort at that resolution before moving on to lording over the remaking of the world.

This. Exactly this. My entire point here is that we donot know enough about the Dark One to be able to call him a liar yet.


All we are doing here (starting with me) is splitting hair anyway since there is no chance that the gobs will manage to execute their plan anyway.

Allright I feel like I am getting way to upset on a forum about a theoritical situation inside a fictionnal universe and I am going to stop arguing here before it gets ridiculous.
I would liketo apologize if I came off as rude or condescending to anyone here, I tend to do that when arguing.

Good night to you all,

Fyraltari out.

hroşila
2017-09-28, 04:57 PM
Right Eye mingling with humans? Mm.

I dunno his village while peaceful didn't seem to be particularly mingling with them unless your counting that circus?
Yes, I'm counting the circus scene.

dps
2017-09-28, 05:59 PM
If the 5% remaining are allowed to keep killing goblins, I don't see that it'd make much of a difference to the goblins. And pining the Plan on 100% compliance to the gods orders is folly.


Grey Wolf

Since humans and other races will find reasons to murder each other, you don't need 100% compliance to put the goblins on equal footing.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-09-28, 07:16 PM
Since humans and other races will find reasons to murder each other, you don't need 100% compliance to put the goblins on equal footing.

I know. From that perspective, they already are on equal footing. Heck, with 17 nations acknowledging them, they are probably ahead of most the countries on the Western continent. My position from the start has been that if the purpose of the Plan was merely to get the goblins a safe and prosperous land they could call their own, they should be happy to retire the Plan at this point. It's the fact that they have not that leads me to conclude there has to be an agenda beyond the safety and prosperity that RC claims is the purpose of the Plan.

Grey Wolf

Kish
2017-09-28, 07:24 PM
It's worth noting that there is another level, which the gods and only the gods could directly address--the mechanical level. Goblins are, by design, far less powerful than humans or dwarves with the same amount of XP; that's something the gods could redesign.

Keltest
2017-09-28, 07:28 PM
It's worth noting that there is another level, which the gods and only the gods could directly address--the mechanical level. Goblins are, by design, far less powerful than humans or dwarves with the same amount of XP; that's something the gods could redesign.

Given that that seems to be one of the things that would require reweaving the strands of reality, it would probably, at the very least, suck pretty hard for the pre-existing goblins that are currently using those strands.

Kish
2017-09-28, 07:33 PM
I don't know why that would be given. Quite the contrary; a number of races' abilities were changed without them being destroyed in the very first online strip, with Durkon showcasing a new dwarven racial ability.

Matt620
2017-09-28, 07:40 PM
No. Redcloak is not Lawful Good. Considering the nation he founds uses slave labor and he is willing to execute innocents on a whim (the "control" group) he is firmly evil.

And I hope he gets what's coming to him.

The Ari-tificer
2017-09-28, 07:56 PM
He's willing to commit evil acts for the betterment of goblin-kind, so he's 100 percent evil.
But evil is a relative term.
PCs are willing to indiscriminately slaughter goblins and other monsters, just to gain a few extra XP.
You need to take the Undertale approach, people.

halfeye
2017-09-28, 07:59 PM
evil is a relative term.

Or is it? Dun dun dun!

Kish
2017-09-28, 08:11 PM
But evil is a relative term.
PCs are willing to indiscriminately slaughter goblins and other monsters, just to gain a few extra XP.
And Roy explicitly denounced that kind of behavior (in On the Origins of PCs).

Emanick
2017-09-28, 08:14 PM
It's worth noting that there is another level, which the gods and only the gods could directly address--the mechanical level. Goblins are, by design, far less powerful than humans or dwarves with the same amount of XP; that's something the gods could redesign.

Do we know this is true in the OOTSverse? Goblins are Medium-sized here, not Small, so they might not have as many penalties, particularly the Strength one. They might even have a larger hit die. We can't assume their physical stats are the same as the MM claims.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-28, 08:23 PM
Do we know this is true in the OOTSverse? Goblins are Medium-sized here, not Small, so they might not have as many penalties, particularly the Strength one. They might even have a larger hit die. We can't assume their physical stats are the same as the MM claims.

Well it's implied they are mechanically disadvantaged. Do they have the exact same stats "bonuses"? Who knows, but probably. I mean, hobgoblins have mediocre stats and get a +1LA for it, making them terrible without making them weak.

Lord Raziere
2017-09-28, 09:32 PM
I know. From that perspective, they already are on equal footing. Heck, with 17 nations acknowledging them, they are probably ahead of most the countries on the Western continent. My position from the start has been that if the purpose of the Plan was merely to get the goblins a safe and prosperous land they could call their own, they should be happy to retire the Plan at this point. It's the fact that they have not that leads me to conclude there has to be an agenda beyond the safety and prosperity that RC claims is the purpose of the Plan.

Grey Wolf

Well yeah, thats kind of RC's problem: he is so committed to his plan he won't stop even when there might not need to continue it, as is pretty much a living embodiment of sunk cost fallacy. if Right Eye were alive, he'd be busy going "no! we don't have to do this anymore, look at what we've accomplished! we could start families!" whoever said that Redcloak's view of how to solve the problem was ever true? its him thats the calling the shots, not the goblins under him who probably don't know the plan, remember there are exactly two people still alive in all of OOTS who know the real plan: Redcloak and the Dark One. now, there are probably few dead mantle bearers who know it, a dead Right-Eye and most recently a dead Tsukiko, but they are all dead. Tsukiko is probably in Hell, and all the goblins are probably with the Dark One. last time I checked, Jirix did not, and he is Redcloak's number two. if he doesn't know, no other goblin under Redcloak does.

At the same time, there is the whole "Xykon wants world domination." problem. Redcloak kind of screwed up by picking one of the most dangerous spellcasters in the world to be his partner in this. the truth of the matter is if Redcloak said "No the Plan is off." Xykon would be ticked, kill Redcloak and give the mantle to Jirix. the problem with Jirix is that he would basically be what what everyone else thinks Redcloak is: a lickspittle to Xykon with no plan of his own, or he'd blurt out the real plan and screw everything up. now Jirix knowing the real plan, he could try to hide it, but he wouldn't be as competent as Redcloak at doing so. Jirix seems younger and less experienced, so he wouldn't be as good as somebody who had been working this plan for far longer. either way something would happen, Jirix would die lot quicker than Redcloak, the goblin people would be left to Xykon's mercy or be without a leader and thus vulnerable to the heroes, and thus the whole whole effort would collapse in on itself, one way or another.

now if say Redcloak decided to dispel all the enchantments on Xykons phylactery, destroy it right there while out of his sight, then try to kill Xykon without announcing that the plan is off......there would be no guarantee that Redcloak would win. to win against Xykon, he would have to sacrifice a lot of goblin lives and use a lot of healing spells and anti-undead magic on the lich. possible, but Xykon is a tough nut to crack, and smarter than he acts. Xykon is after all, the kind of spellcaster that changes the course of battles, so even if the phylactery is destroyed, there would still be Xykon himself to deal with. oh and the fact that in Start of Darkness, Xykon placed a spell on the Monster in the Darkness to eat Redcloak if Redcloak ever betrays him, which Redcloak doesn't know about, and he MitD has forgotten. So if it comes to that, Redcloak would have TWO powerhouses to deal with, not one.

but lets say that Redcloak actually pulls this off, he renounces the plan, he kills Xykon right in Gobbotopia, somehow survives the MitD and how freakishly powerful he is, he stays to try and make it a good place to live......and then comes what happens with the Dark One when he comes calling to ask why Redcloak is abandoning his holy mission from god. Yeah, that......how would that go? Abandoning your holy duties charged by your god is kind of a big deal, a big no-no for clerics. its possible that Redcloak might lose his cleric powers from doing that, and thing is unlike Hel.......the Dark One is almost universally worshipped by the goblins, so the big prophet dude of that losing his powers, that would not be good morale for the Gobbotopians,and if Redcloak tries to convert another god to get back those powers well.....that there is a little awkward all by itself, because why aren't you seeking forgiveness from the Dark one? what did you do to make him reject you? and then he would tell them the plan and why decided to give up on that and the Dark One would be furious, and it would a cause of controversy, it would be a big mess. it might even cause the Dark One to lose a large amount of followers in the process- the ONLY god on the goblinoids team at all. without him well.....what gods will watch over them then? That would a big question that Redcloak would have to answer, and one before the OOTS gets back and ruins all that he worked for with an Azure city fleet with their PC-ness. now Redcloak is very smart, he could possibly pull this off, but it would be close and I'm sure that the OOTS would come running once they hear news of Xykon's demise at Redcloaks hand since they wouldn't know of Redcloaks real motives. they might assume that its just a cliche villain betrayal for more power. and its not as if Redcloak would stop having his prejudice towards humanity. from there is a question of whether Redcloak or the OOTS would win. my bets not on Redcloak. the only way he probably get out of that is by trying to negotiate with the OOTS, which he could probably do very competently- he is smart, wise, competent and charismatic, there is nothing stopping him aside from his own pride which he would have to swallow to do this. unfortunately, pride is his fatal flaw.

so in Redcloaks case, "giving up on the plan" would entail ticking off the most powerful known sorcerer on the planet, unknowingly activating a spell on a very powerful monster to make it try and eat him, be turning back on his god, his religion and his culture, be imperiling his people, and would basically make him a massive target for the PCs. he is a smart cookie, I think he probably has considered the idea in his head once or twice and found doing so unacceptable because of all the risks that it would entail. on the flip side though, just because good is a hard thing to do doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. doesn't change the fact that Redcloak doesn't seem to care for cosmic definitions of good or evil even if he knows and acknowledges they exist, like he seems to care that he is Lawful, but he doesn't seem to care that he is evil all that much aside from his dislike of being "mustache twirly" when speaking to O-Chul, but at the same time he never really understands what "good" is and falls back on his hatred when confronted with his actions not being utilitarian in the least by constantly torturing O-Chul pointlessly. so he is considering all this through the lens of his hate and his culture, and his past experiences. problem is his past experiences show that:
-the humans who are supposed to be the greatest upholders of virtue ever killed his entire tribe for something that only one guy knew
-the only human he ever worked for any long length of time is a chaotic evil sorcerer who kills things for fun, threatens people with death is basically a big jerk
-Miko Miyazaki. which speaks for itself.
-O-Chul, who stubbornly denied him at every turn.

so given that Redcloak's perspective on giving up on the Plan wouldn't paint a pretty picture of how things would turn out for him or the people he is doing all this for, and almost all the non-goblins he met have given him an excuse to hate them and thus stick to his specieism, is it any surprise why he has stuck to his sunk cost fallacy despite the risks of it?

B. Dandelion
2017-09-28, 10:01 PM
I like this idea. Red v red, fighting from opposite corners of the alignment table. Thinking about it, Roy and Xykon are blue v blue doing exactly the same.

Between the four of them they've got the four corners of the grid covered. Actually I think you could make the argument that all four of them also emphasize one half of their alignment more strongly than the other half, although this point was only explicitly made for Roy who is big-G Good and little-l lawful. If Xykon is more Evil than Chaotic, Redcloak is more Lawful than Evil, and Haley more Chaotic than Good, that still covers the four bases of Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic, while also setting Roy and Xykon up as having a more good/evil conflict and Redcloak and Haley duke it out in Law v Chaos.


Another brilliant post by you, I thoroughly agree. Kudos.

Gosh, thanks! :smallredface:


Is this a shipping post?

:smalleek:

She does still have that promise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0794.html) to cash in...


I never see it that way before.

That's always a nice thing to hear too.

Emanick
2017-09-28, 11:32 PM
Well it's implied they are mechanically disadvantaged. Do they have the exact same stats "bonuses"? Who knows, but probably. I mean, hobgoblins have mediocre stats and get a +1LA for it, making them terrible without making them weak.

Where is it implied? Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember such an implication existing in the comic. Looking back, I do remember TDO telling Marduk that the rules for monster PCs "are crap and you know it," which is something of a point in Redcloak's favor, but not quite the same thing as the entire race being disadvantaged - certainly not nearly as bad as every goblin having stat penalties. (Also, IIRC, hobgoblins merely have +2 Strength and +2 Constitution, with no stat penalties, which makes them slightly more powerful than humans unless they're PCs.)

I do think that there's a solid case to be made that goblins have better stats in the OOTSverse than they do in standard 3.5 D&D. Every player race, plus goblins, that has a Strength penalty is also Small; no player race that is Medium or larger has a Strength penalty, nor do any Medium goblinoids. Thus, it seems plausible, even likely, to me that OOTSverse goblins have no Strength penalty, since they're twice the size of their standard-3.5 counterparts.

Edit: Gonna join in the general acclaim for your earlier post, B. Dandelion: I don't remember ever having thought about how Haley might relate to Redcloak before, and you're right, it does sound like a fascinating potential relationship (no, not THAT kind) - at the very least, a recipe for a fascinating set of strips.

goodpeople25
2017-09-29, 12:53 AM
Where is it implied? Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember such an implication existing in the comic. Looking back, I do remember TDO telling Marduk that the rules for monster PCs "are crap and you know it," which is something of a point in Redcloak's favor, but not quite the same thing as the entire race being disadvantaged - certainly not nearly as bad as every goblin having stat penalties. (Also, IIRC, hobgoblins merely have +2 Strength and +2 Constitution, with no stat penalties, which makes them slightly more powerful than humans unless they're PCs.)

I do think that there's a solid case to be made that goblins have better stats in the OOTSverse than they do in standard 3.5 D&D. Every player race, plus goblins, that has a Strength penalty is also Small; no player race that is Medium or larger has a Strength penalty, nor do any Medium goblinoids. Thus, it seems plausible, even likely, to me that OOTSverse goblins have no Strength penalty, since they're twice the size of their standard-3.5 counterparts.

Edit: Gonna join in the general acclaim for your earlier post, B. Dandelion: I don't remember ever having thought about how Haley might relate to Redcloak before, and you're right, it does sound like a fascinating potential relationship (no, not THAT kind) - at the very least, a recipe for a fascinating set of strips.
How do (Core?) race subtypes work into that? Honest question, I don't play I just read the srd for fun but Grey Elves get a Str penalty. I definitely agree on the idea of OotS goblins possibly losing the Str penalty due to changed size though.

Yuki Akuma
2017-09-29, 02:26 AM
But evil is a relative term.

Not in D&D it isn't.

factotum
2017-09-29, 02:34 AM
Well yeah, thats kind of RC's problem: he is so committed to his plan he won't stop even when there might not need to continue it, as is pretty much a living embodiment of sunk cost fallacy.

Yeah, but the main point here is that the Dark One seems A-OK with RC continuing the plan. Unless we interpret his comment to Jirix ("Don't screw this up") as referring to Gobbotopia, of course, which is certainly a possibility.

Emanick
2017-09-29, 03:19 AM
How do (Core?) race subtypes work into that? Honest question, I don't play I just read the srd for fun but Grey Elves get a Str penalty. I definitely agree on the idea of OotS goblins possibly losing the Str penalty due to changed size though.

That's a good point, I'd forgotten about race subtypes - probably because they're mostly ignored in my experience. That's an interesting exception to the rule of Medium-sized playable races generally having no Strength penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a halfling or gnome subrace I'd forgotten about that has no Strength penalty, either. But in general I think that exception doesn't change anything significant - size is still strongly correlated with whether or not one has a Strength penalty, even if Grey Elves are unusually frail for a Medium-sized subrace. It does prove that Medium-sized races are allowed to have a Strength penalty, naturally - but luckily I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise.


Not in D&D it isn't.

Sure, in one sense. However, that doesn't make "Character X is more evil than Character Y" a nonsensical statement. Evil is binary in mechanical terms - a character either is or isn't - but that binary distinction is in effect an (arguably) arbitrary line across a continuum of different levels of morality. So in that sense, evil is relative: Redcloak is pretty clearly less evil than Xykon, yet more evil than the average adventurer that goes around killing random monsters.

Kish
2017-09-29, 08:09 AM
I'm not sure why you're putting so much weight on the Strength penalty. Yes, halflings and gnomes have a Strength penalty, and none of the other baseline PC races do. Does that mean either has worse stats than half-orcs, half-elves, or elves, such that making them Medium and switching that -2 Strength to -2 Something Else (or simply making human-sized halflings--fulllings?--"no stat bonuses or penalties") would make them clearly better? I would venture absolutely not.

Fyraltari
2017-09-29, 11:57 AM
Between the four of them they've got the four corners of the grid covered. Actually I think you could make the argument that all four of them also emphasize one half of their alignment more strongly than the other half, although this point was only explicitly made for Roy who is big-G Good and little-l lawful. If Xykon is more Evil than Chaotic, Redcloak is more Lawful than Evil, and Haley more Chaotic than Good, that still covers the four bases of Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic, while also setting Roy and Xykon up as having a more good/evil conflict and Redcloak and Haley duke it out in Law v Chaos.

That just keeps getting better. Kudos !


Where is it implied? Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember such an implication existing in the comic.

In 417 Haley is sure that the human soldiers can kill 3 hobgoblins each and O-Chul's rebuttal is more about the logistic of battle than contesting that point. Maybe they assume the hobgoblins have subpar equipment or whatnot but at face value and for a non D&D player it seems to mean that the average hobgoblin fighter is a third of the average human soldier (especially when the hobgoblins are militaristic and Azure City is a trade city).

Keltest
2017-09-29, 12:15 PM
That just keeps getting better. Kudos !



In 417 Haley is sure that the human soldiers can kill 3 hobgoblins each and O-Chul's rebuttal is more about the logistic of battle than contesting that point. Maybe they assume the hobgoblins have subpar equipment or whatnot but at face value and for a non D&D player it seems to mean that the average hobgoblin fighter is a third of the average human soldier (especially when the hobgoblins are militaristic and Azure City is a trade city).

Don't forget that the hobgoblins need to scale the walls before they can even effectively attack.

As was noted during the war council, the walls served as a massive equalizer in power between the outnumbered humans and the hobgoblins specifically because it allows the humans to attack the hobgoblins without retaliation.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-29, 12:54 PM
Where is it implied? Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember such an implication existing in the comic. Looking back, I do remember TDO telling Marduk that the rules for monster PCs "are crap and you know it," which is something of a point in Redcloak's favor, but not quite the same thing as the entire race being disadvantaged - certainly not nearly as bad as every goblin having stat penalties. (Also, IIRC, hobgoblins merely have +2 Strength and +2 Constitution, with no stat penalties, which makes them slightly more powerful than humans unless they're PCs.)

I do think that there's a solid case to be made that goblins have better stats in the OOTSverse than they do in standard 3.5 D&D. Every player race, plus goblins, that has a Strength penalty is also Small; no player race that is Medium or larger has a Strength penalty, nor do any Medium goblinoids. Thus, it seems plausible, even likely, to me that OOTSverse goblins have no Strength penalty, since they're twice the size of their standard-3.5 counterparts.

Edit: Gonna join in the general acclaim for your earlier post, B. Dandelion: I don't remember ever having thought about how Haley might relate to Redcloak before, and you're right, it does sound like a fascinating potential relationship (no, not THAT kind) - at the very least, a recipe for a fascinating set of strips.

In a crayon scene, I think?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm

+2 dex/+2 con isn't bad, but certainly isn't worth a +1 LA. And when you compare the base stats...

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Human
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Hobgoblin

Your base human warrior, despite having 2 less dex and 2 less con, has just as many HP, more AC, and a higher attack bonus.


stuff

I think it always worth remembering that Redcloak HAD, at one point, abandoned the Plan, to just settle peacefully.

There's no hope to simply defeat Xykon straight up. As much as he needs Xykon to pull off the Plan, as much as Xykon will never allow him to quit, and will make him pay dearly for any perceived betrayal.

That's why I'm placing my bets on RC using the PCs to rid the world of Xykon, once and for all. RC probably won't survive, though.

Kish
2017-09-29, 12:55 PM
Haley didn't say "they'll be stuck outside, I'm sure that will offset their numerical advantage." It was all about "they're 1-HD hobgoblins." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html) In the Start of Darkness crayon scenes the gods commented that a +1 LA is unfair to hobgoblins and that they don't have to care, since they races the were creating were monsters to be fought and killed, not PCs.

Beyond that, I just don't know where this presumption that Rich buffed his goblinoids is coming from. The only support for it is that the goblins are Medium-sized (a lateral movement, not a buff) and therefore he's not following the letter of the rules. Okay? If there's any actual mechanical change there, especially for goblinoids who aren't goblins, why would that point to "he made them more powerful" rather than "he made them less powerful"? Does the entirety of the "solid case" that Rich's goblinoids are buffed relative to D&D goblinoids consist of "larger=better"?

martianmister
2017-09-29, 02:25 PM
I think it always worth remembering that Redcloak HAD, at one point, abandoned the Plan, to just settle peacefully.

That's a good point. Funny that he forgot about these goblin sacrifices back then.

factotum
2017-09-29, 03:16 PM
Beyond that, I just don't know where this presumption that Rich buffed his goblinoids is coming from. The only support for it is that the goblins are Medium-sized (a lateral movement, not a buff) and therefore he's not following the letter of the rules.

I'm pretty sure he made them Medium-sized because he didn't want to have to draw a hundred Belkars in a strip. He also made Celia medium-sized, too, and as a sylph she ought to be even smaller!

Peelee
2017-09-29, 03:53 PM
The only support for it is that the goblins are Medium-sized (a lateral movement, not a buff)

Well, I'd say more a vertical change, myself.

keybounce
2017-09-29, 05:08 PM
Wow, this thread grew faster than i expected.

First, I am (now) aware that Rich has said that according to the rules of D&D, Redcloak is evil. But those rules never seemed fair/balanced to me. Do things to help the group pre-set as good, good. Do things to help the group pre-set as evil, evil.


in which he tortures the latter for information and shows zero compulsion about killing dozens of humans to satisfy baseline curiosity, is probably among the best examples of this. And that's ignoring the fact that he willingly cooperates with Xykon, an out-and-out sociopath who murders for fun and has been explicitly described by Rich as a deconstruction of the "likable = misunderstood" villain cliche.

Have you ever seen a party of lawful good players slaughter "evil" creatures for fun and profit (XP/Treasure)? Sure you have. To a first approximation, Redcloak is the direct opposite.

Willingly co-operates with a clearly evil being, to help limit the total devastation / improve things in the future? No different than Roy with Belkar.

Using "evil" tactics to improve the "good" of the Goblins? Would the reviewer's superiors be upset if he was tossed into the "neutral" pile?

In a very real sense, Redcloak -- whether he started this way or not -- mirrors Roy. And just as Roy realized that you can't keep staying upset with Elan, and have to change, so too Redcloak changed, and now wants to serve all goblins.

Roy tore up the contracts, letting people decide what they wanted to do? Redcloak made a nation, developed treaties with the neighbors, all so that the goblins don't have to be at war/killing all the time. No more "Have to kill because that's what's expected", just as no more "Have to work against Xykon because that's what's expected". There's now choice where before there wasn't.

Is Redcloak perfect? No. Does he make an effort to do better? Sure looks like it to me.

A mix of good and evil, with the goal of good? At least, good as defined by a goblin society?
Compare to Roy's mix of law and chaos with the goal of law.

NB: I only have the web comic to go by, none of the other stories. If people are saying that the mantle that he wears changes his goals/plans/outlook, then the other question is, by how much? Vampires, in this setting, are you on your worst day; a custom-made soul that fits your own personal lacking perfectly. If there is something similar going on here -- if the mantle basically makes you a god-serving person as your own personal strongest pro-god feelings, then we are seeing that at some point, Redcloak believed that his God would make things better for his kind, and we see that this plan, if it works, will give control over the gate (and snarl?) to a god that does not want to destroy the world, but wants to improve the state of that god's chosen ones in this world.

Isn't "taking actions to aid your god to aid your people" almost the definition of "good" for clerics?


Also, Redcloak kinda *has* to keep going with the Plan because of Xykon, who made it clear that any betrayal would result in a lot of goblinoids dying. Who would stop him if Xykon decided to murder every single inhabitant of Gobbotopia?
This. Redcloak is protecting goblins. He got Xykon out of the city, left the city with established relations and a peace-time leader, etc.

Evil actions for the benefit of others? At least neutral.
Trying to improve things? That was sufficient for Roy, why not for Redcloak?


Roy vs Xykon, Red vs Redcloak
So lets finish that. Elan vs Mitd. Belkar vs ... ? Durkon vs ... ? Vaarsuvius vs ... ? Blackwing, Scruffy, and Dino-lizard vs the return of the roaches?

(Again, all I know of the plan is the reveal in 830 -- use the threat of the snarl to make things better. Not to release the snarl. Redcloak and the Dark One want the current world to continue with changes, and are actually allies with The Order against Xykon if they knew it.)


It's worth noting that there is another level, which the gods and only the gods could directly address--the mechanical level. Goblins are, by design, far less powerful than humans or dwarves with the same amount of XP; that's something the gods could redesign.
Just turn Goblins into spell casters. That's an easy fix for the gods.


He also made Celia medium-sized, too, and as a sylph she ought to be even smaller!
Just for completeness, what kind of Sylph? Sylph of heart (in love with Roy)? Sylph of Space (she crosses dimensions -- but would she do any frog breeding?)?

NamonakiRei
2017-09-29, 06:02 PM
Just for completeness, what kind of Sylph? Sylph of heart (in love with Roy)? Sylph of Space (she crosses dimensions -- but would she do any frog breeding?)?
Sylph of Breath obviously - a Healer of the Direction and Goals of people, as evidenced when she got Haley to re-focus on their Goal of resurrecting Roy and reuniting the Party :smalltongue: (Thanks for the HS reference it gave me courage to post)

That said, Redcloak continuously has taken Evil actions, even if his intent is to improve his people's lives. I think not having read Start of Darkness makes it easier to think he's not that bad; when I read it I understood completely that Redcloak is very much Evil aligned, currently. Being Evil doesn't mean you have bad intentions for everyone in the world, it is said the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions after all; but Redcloak only cares for his idea of goblinoids, he's a speciesist, and that's not better than racism. Yes, he has changed a bit, and in some ways improved as a person, or at least as a Goblin Leader; I refer to his acceptance of Hobgoblins after the sacrifice of one. That doesn't make him a Good Person though. I don't want to get into the big argument much, but he hurts humans just because they're humans, for instance, and that's not a Good trait. He also, unlike Roy, doesn't strive to be Lawful Good. He strives to fulfill the Plan and the Dark One's wishes, as described by the Mantle.

Besides, however much the D&D alignment system might not be one's cup of tea and one may disagree with it, it's what's used to judge people in this world, and I doubt the Deva would agree with the opinion that Redcloak's alignment is similar to Roy's for a mix of evil acts to fulfill good goals makes him Good.

Emanick
2017-09-29, 06:44 PM
Haley didn't say "they'll be stuck outside, I'm sure that will offset their numerical advantage." It was all about "they're 1-HD hobgoblins." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html) In the Start of Darkness crayon scenes the gods commented that a +1 LA is unfair to hobgoblins and that they don't have to care, since they races the were creating were monsters to be fought and killed, not PCs.

Beyond that, I just don't know where this presumption that Rich buffed his goblinoids is coming from. The only support for it is that the goblins are Medium-sized (a lateral movement, not a buff) and therefore he's not following the letter of the rules. Okay? If there's any actual mechanical change there, especially for goblinoids who aren't goblins, why would that point to "he made them more powerful" rather than "he made them less powerful"? Does the entirety of the "solid case" that Rich's goblinoids are buffed relative to D&D goblinoids consist of "larger=better"?

Well, it's hardly a stretch to say that a size increase is much more likely to make you stronger than it is to make you weaker. In fact, the rules for monster advancement in the Monster Manual specify that either most or all size category increases should be accompanied by increased Strength scores. We also know that Medium-sized player races have no Strength penalty and Small-sized races do (with, apparently, the exception of the grey elf subrace). With respect, I'm unsure how you could conclude that this isn't pretty good evidence that Medium-sized goblins would quite plausibly be stronger than Small-sized ones.

Without a Strength penalty, goblins merely have +2 Dexterity and -2 Charisma. That seems like a net advantage unless you're a sorcerer or bard, and certainly doesn't qualify as a net mechanical disadvantage. They don't have quite as many little niche abilities as other races, but they do get bonuses to Move Silently and Ride, and they have darkvision.

I already specified that I agree with you about the level adjustment for hobgoblins clearly penalizing hobgoblin PCs. However, since most characters are NPCs, not PCs, and aren't affected by level adjustment rules, that ought only to affect a small minority of the population (or none - there's obviously a lot of ambiguity, or at least disagreement, over what exactly a PC is in OOTSverse). Could that still be significant? Absolutely, since PCs have outsized influence when it comes to power struggles. But it shouldn't be a massive gamechanger for the fate of the goblinoid race, either. And goblins don't have a level adjustment penalty, either, so they'd be fine as PCs.

Regarding Haley's line about the ability of Azurite soldiers to kill an average of 3 goblins, it was established that Haley was being pretty overconfident in that scene. Even if you take her as correct (and she ultimately wasn't; the Azurites and hobgoblins suffered a similar number of casualties), it makes a lot more sense to assume she was attributing the soldiers' qualitative superiority to a combination of the fortifications, better training (e.g. more levels, or levels in fighter rather than warrior), superior equipment, etc., than it does to assume that she was thinking of how weak hobgoblin PCs were, or how an extra feat is far better than +2 to Constitution and Strength. Or, perhaps even more likely, she was just dismissing them as mooks, forgetting that humans can just as easily be cannon fodder.

Yuki Akuma
2017-09-29, 07:11 PM
Level Adjustment affects everyone who uses XP to advance - which appears to be everyone who isn't currently a nemesis to a PC. Every hobgoblin who doesn't have a blood vendetta with a PC needs more XP to advance than an equivalent leveled human would, and that's not really fair.

Jasdoif
2017-09-29, 07:18 PM
In fact, the rules for monster advancement in the Monster Manual specify that either most or all size category increases should be accompanied by increased Strength scores.That table is explicitly for creatures that increases size due to advancing via racial hit dice. It doesn't apply here.


They don't have quite as many little niche abilities as other races, but they do get bonuses to Move Silently and Ride, and they have darkvision.The racial bonus to Move Silently and the favored class of Rogue benefit far more from the +4 size bonus to Hide from being Small than the extra bit of damage your Strength assumption would give them, I'd think.

Kish
2017-09-29, 07:22 PM
Well, it's hardly a stretch to say that a size increase is much more likely to make you stronger than it is to make you weaker. In fact, the rules for monster advancement in the Monster Manual specify that either most or all size category increases should be accompanied by increased Strength scores. We also know that Medium-sized player races have no Strength penalty and Small-sized races do (with, apparently, the exception of the grey elf subrace). With respect, I'm unsure how you could conclude that this isn't pretty good evidence that Medium-sized goblins would quite plausibly be stronger than Small-sized ones.
Okay, "stronger" here seems to be being used to mean two different things--"physically stronger," and "more powerful."

Sure, if Rich actually changed goblin racial stats in any way other than adjusting how they look when drawn (which, to be clear, is already in "I seriously doubt it" territory), he probably moved the penalty from Strength (as for halflings and gnomes) to something else (as for dwarves, elves, and half-orcs), or simply removed it along with the +2 to Dexterity (as for humans and half-elves).

What is puzzling, is that you seem to be assuming he'd just take the penalty away and replace it with nothing. And even if you were right (passing two levels of "this is really unlikely," in my opinion, one for "there are mechanical changes" and one for "those changes are a pure buff"), +2 Dexterity/-2 Charisma goblins are still significantly less powerful than humans.

Halflings and gnomes are not less powerful than half-orcs or half-elves. "Making a race bigger logically equals making them more powerful" is insupportable; "making a race bigger makes a Strength penalty specifically less likely" is true but irrelevant to power and thus irrelevant to how badly balanced goblins are with PC races. If you focus obsessively on the Strength stat, suddenly half-orcs look the best of the PC races, and yet nearly everyone would agree that they're mechanically awful, including Thog.

Isn't "taking actions to aid your god to aid your people" almost the definition of "good" for clerics?If the answer to that was "yes," not just Redcloak but every cleric of an evil deity* in every D&D setting would fall like a rock, faced with a Morton's Fork of "do you fall because you're disobeying your god, or because you shifted alignment to one they don't accept?"

There was a character in the story who took the attitude that he was doing good by killing goblins, boasting of his "good goblins are dead goblins" tagline. He was brought on so that Rich had a character who deserved to get blown up that he could use to demonstrate Redcloak's Implosion.

*Depending on the definition of "your people," of course. If that's limited to "your race," then not every evil deity, but that would make a genocidal human cleric "good," which leaves us with: Faced with a story in which genocidal racism is evil, isn't it more logical to go "yay, the morality in this story isn't completely messed up" than to go, "based on my assumptions about how completely messed up the morality in this story is, I protest that one of the villains is no more villainous than some heroes I just imagined"?

woweedd
2017-09-29, 08:05 PM
Wow, this thread grew faster than i expected.

First, I am (now) aware that Rich has said that according to the rules of D&D, Redcloak is evil. But those rules never seemed fair/balanced to me. Do things to help the group pre-set as good, good. Do things to help the group pre-set as evil, evil.



Have you ever seen a party of lawful good players slaughter "evil" creatures for fun and profit (XP/Treasure)? Sure you have. To a first approximation, Redcloak is the direct opposite.

Willingly co-operates with a clearly evil being, to help limit the total devastation / improve things in the future? No different than Roy with Belkar.

Using "evil" tactics to improve the "good" of the Goblins? Would the reviewer's superiors be upset if he was tossed into the "neutral" pile?

In a very real sense, Redcloak -- whether he started this way or not -- mirrors Roy. And just as Roy realized that you can't keep staying upset with Elan, and have to change, so too Redcloak changed, and now wants to serve all goblins.

Roy tore up the contracts, letting people decide what they wanted to do? Redcloak made a nation, developed treaties with the neighbors, all so that the goblins don't have to be at war/killing all the time. No more "Have to kill because that's what's expected", just as no more "Have to work against Xykon because that's what's expected". There's now choice where before there wasn't.

Is Redcloak perfect? No. Does he make an effort to do better? Sure looks like it to me.

A mix of good and evil, with the goal of good? At least, good as defined by a goblin society?
Compare to Roy's mix of law and chaos with the goal of law.

NB: I only have the web comic to go by, none of the other stories. If people are saying that the mantle that he wears changes his goals/plans/outlook, then the other question is, by how much? Vampires, in this setting, are you on your worst day; a custom-made soul that fits your own personal lacking perfectly. If there is something similar going on here -- if the mantle basically makes you a god-serving person as your own personal strongest pro-god feelings, then we are seeing that at some point, Redcloak believed that his God would make things better for his kind, and we see that this plan, if it works, will give control over the gate (and snarl?) to a god that does not want to destroy the world, but wants to improve the state of that god's chosen ones in this world.

Isn't "taking actions to aid your god to aid your people" almost the definition of "good" for clerics?


This. Redcloak is protecting goblins. He got Xykon out of the city, left the city with established relations and a peace-time leader, etc.

Evil actions for the benefit of others? At least neutral.
Trying to improve things? That was sufficient for Roy, why not for Redcloak?


So lets finish that. Elan vs Mitd. Belkar vs ... ? Durkon vs ... ? Vaarsuvius vs ... ? Blackwing, Scruffy, and Dino-lizard vs the return of the roaches?

(Again, all I know of the plan is the reveal in 830 -- use the threat of the snarl to make things better. Not to release the snarl. Redcloak and the Dark One want the current world to continue with changes, and are actually allies with The Order against Xykon if they knew it.)


Just turn Goblins into spell casters. That's an easy fix for the gods.


Just for completeness, what kind of Sylph? Sylph of heart (in love with Roy)? Sylph of Space (she crosses dimensions -- but would she do any frog breeding?)?
OK, two points: One, you're badly misunderstanding how the D&D alignment system works. In it's original interaction, it has an actual meaning: Helping and protecting others is Good, just trying to survive is Neutral, looking out for only yourself is Evil. In most D&D games, Goblins, Orcs, ETC. Are mostly Evil and have societies that are, for one reason or another, inherently Evil. They rely on slavery, kill people, ETC. and so, it is justified to kill them IF YOU ARE AWARE THEY HAVE DONE THAT. The problem is that many DMs and players forget this, and believe that anything with green skin is worthy of death, even if you aren't aware that the particular creature has done anything wrong except be of a Mostly Evil species. They mistake "Mostly" for "Always". That's the tendency Rich is criticizing, alongside the Unfortunate Implications inherent in rendering certain beings as nameless cannon fodder based on skin color. The Gods are stand-ins for the players and game designers responsible for rendering them as such.

Secondly, while The Goblins have a bad lot in life, and Redcloak has certainly done a lot to improve it, he has also killed multiple innocent people, including his own brother, participated in human slavery, and is trying to accomplish a ritual that, if successful, has a 50/50 chance of actually improving the Goblin's lot in life, and another chance to end up killing every being on the planet, down to their very souls, Goblins included. That will theoretically improve the lives of future Goblins, yes, but he'll have killed thousands of present Goblins in order to get it. If Redcloak had any sense, he would have headed off with Right-Eye, forgotten Xykon in the forest, and stated Gobtopia through some other means.

goodpeople25
2017-09-30, 11:30 AM
Okay let me clarify my postion, I think a correlation between size and a Str penalty is a possibility to consider. How that affects any arguments involving it is of course variable on the argument and how a person understands and stands on that argument.

To me it matters because the overall lower stats is the part I think the most potent of the mechanically disadvantaged point. (As for the tradeoff, Goblins have a 30 foot land speed) I don't see a lowered amount of (possibly situational) abilities as that big of a disadvantage. (Frankly as a non player and in this context I think humans aren't that great, even bad, they have probably the best potential sure but if it's not used) Is it them not being favoured, most likely I just think there are way better points on that front and on them being disadvantaged.

Keltest
2017-09-30, 11:45 AM
If nothing else, being medium sized allows them to use medium sized equipment and weapons, which are stronger. Against the Order that's largely meaningless at this point, but against, say, the defenders of Azure City, that matters. Longswords would do a d8 of damage rather than a d6, for example.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-30, 11:55 AM
OK, two points: One, you're badly misunderstanding how the D&D alignment system works. In it's original interaction, it has an actual meaning: Helping and protecting others is Good, just trying to survive is Neutral, looking out for only yourself is Evil. In most D&D games, Goblins, Orcs, ETC. Are mostly Evil and have societies that are, for one reason or another, inherently Evil. They rely on slavery, kill people, ETC. and so, it is justified to kill them IF YOU ARE AWARE THEY HAVE DONE THAT. The problem is that many DMs and players forget this, and believe that anything with green skin is worthy of death, even if you aren't aware that the particular creature has done anything wrong except be of a Mostly Evil species. They mistake "Mostly" for "Always". That's the tendency Rich is criticizing, alongside the Unfortunate Implications inherent in rendering certain beings as nameless cannon fodder based on skin color. The Gods are stand-ins for the players and game designers responsible for rendering them as such.

Secondly, while The Goblins have a bad lot in life, and Redcloak has certainly done a lot to improve it, he has also killed multiple innocent people, including his own brother, participated in human slavery, and is trying to accomplish a ritual that, if successful, has a 50/50 chance of actually improving the Goblin's lot in life, and another chance to end up killing every being on the planet, down to their very souls, Goblins included. That will theoretically improve the lives of future Goblins, yes, but he'll have killed thousands of present Goblins in order to get it. If Redcloak had any sense, he would have headed off with Right-Eye, forgotten Xykon in the forest, and stated Gobtopia through some other means.

In the forest where again?

Once RC told Xykon about the plan, I think that was pretty much the point of no return.

Though if people have the estimated levels of RC and Xykon throughout the story, I'd be delighted to see them. After all, they both seem relatively weak at the beginning of the story. I mean, I don't care that he's a sorcerer and that those have low BAB, if Xykon was epic when they fought the OotS at #114, where the party was by all appearances around lvl 9, there's no way Roy could have simply punched his head off and then tossed him into the gate.


If nothing else, being medium sized allows them to use medium sized equipment and weapons, which are stronger. Against the Order that's largely meaningless at this point, but against, say, the defenders of Azure City, that matters. Longswords would do a d8 of damage rather than a d6, for example.

True, but look at hobgoblins. Theoretically, they are superior to humans, as lvl 1 warriors in an equal match given they have +2 dex and +2 con, which gives more HP and AC. But that isn't reflected in their warrior stat blocks, because humans are better equipped, resulting in higher AC, equal HP, and higher attack bonus.

A medium-sized goblin might be able to use a medium-sized longsword, but they won't. Because they are screwed over by wealth. Instead they'll use handaxes, short swords, no shields, and no armor, save a few exceptions. So even if they lose the small-related penalties, they are still way below humans. Perhaps even moreso, because they lose the +1 to attack and the +1 to AC from size.

Keltest
2017-09-30, 12:17 PM
True, but look at hobgoblins. Theoretically, they are superior to humans, as lvl 1 warriors in an equal match given they have +2 dex and +2 con, which gives more HP and AC. But that isn't reflected in their warrior stat blocks, because humans are better equipped, resulting in higher AC, equal HP, and higher attack bonus.

A medium-sized goblin might be able to use a medium-sized longsword, but they won't. Because they are screwed over by wealth. Instead they'll use handaxes, short swords, no shields, and no armor, save a few exceptions. So even if they lose the small-related penalties, they are still way below humans. Perhaps even moreso, because they lose the +1 to attack and the +1 to AC from size.

That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not their racial abilities disadvantage them or not. A hypothetical example hobgoblin's equipment loadout is fairly meaningless, since OOTS clearly doesn't use those stat blocks.

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-30, 04:31 PM
That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not their racial abilities disadvantage them or not. A hypothetical example hobgoblin's equipment loadout is fairly meaningless, since OOTS clearly doesn't use those stat blocks.

Yes and no. The crayon texts say the monster races were given the worst places to live in. Poor geography leading to poor economy leading to poor equipment leading to poor battle stats.

They have ****ty equipment because they live in slums because the gods decided that's where their race would live. So it's kind of a racial trait, even though it's not.

georgie_leech
2017-09-30, 06:06 PM
Though if people have the estimated levels of RC and Xykon throughout the story, I'd be delighted to see them. After all, they both seem relatively weak at the beginning of the story. I mean, I don't care that he's a sorcerer and that those have low BAB, if Xykon was epic when they fought the OotS at #114, where the party was by all appearances around lvl 9, there's no way Roy could have simply punched his head off and then tossed him into the gate.

The guy was deliberately grandstanding and not putting any effort into the fight, has bery little indication of being stronger than Roy, and was not expecting to be flung into the giant death traps. Given how he fought Dorukan head on in the Prequel and Backstory, who we know to explicitly be an Epic Wizard, I don't think there's much point in considering Xykon less powerful than that

Goblin_Priest
2017-09-30, 07:47 PM
The guy was deliberately grandstanding and not putting any effort into the fight, has bery little indication of being stronger than Roy, and was not expecting to be flung into the giant death traps. Given how he fought Dorukan head on in the Prequel and Backstory, who we know to explicitly be an Epic Wizard, I don't think there's much point in considering Xykon less powerful than that

Right. I'm thinking though that this was retconned. In the early comics, Xykon routinely appears fairly weak. And it's not just playing dumb to goad the party into triggering the runes, it's the lot of it. A lot of things weren't fixed by then.

hroşila
2017-09-30, 08:13 PM
Right. I'm thinking though that this was retconned. In the early comics, Xykon routinely appears fairly weak. And it's not just playing dumb to goad the party into triggering the runes, it's the lot of it. A lot of things weren't fixed by then.
What other scenes are you thinking of?

factotum
2017-10-01, 02:00 AM
Yes and no. The crayon texts say the monster races were given the worst places to live in. Poor geography leading to poor economy leading to poor equipment leading to poor battle stats.

Crayon texts which were actually Redcloak explaining his motivations to someone else. He might believe them to be true, but where did *he* get his information from? The Dark One, who is hardly an impartial observer of events and isn't necessarily telling the truth anyway. We can't be 100% sure of anything stated in those crayons, for that reason.

(Same applies to Shojo's crayons, by the way--a lot of the information in those can only have come from the Gods, them being the only witnesses to events, and information that comes from a single source cannot be considered reliable).

Ruck
2017-10-01, 04:32 AM
But evil is a relative term.

In a world where Good and Evil are objective and verifiable forces, it's really not.


First, I am (now) aware that Rich has said that according to the rules of D&D, Redcloak is evil. But those rules never seemed fair/balanced to me. Do things to help the group pre-set as good, good. Do things to help the group pre-set as evil, evil.
That is not how those rules work.


Isn't "taking actions to aid your god to aid your people" almost the definition of "good" for clerics?

1)If that were true, there would be no Neutral or Evil clerics.
2)Helping your own people-- your friends, family, tribe, etc.-- is Neutral, not Good. Helping people in need even if you don't know them and without expectation of reward is Good.

Goblin_Priest
2017-10-01, 07:42 AM
Crayon texts which were actually Redcloak explaining his motivations to someone else. He might believe them to be true, but where did *he* get his information from? The Dark One, who is hardly an impartial observer of events and isn't necessarily telling the truth anyway. We can't be 100% sure of anything stated in those crayons, for that reason.

(Same applies to Shojo's crayons, by the way--a lot of the information in those can only have come from the Gods, them being the only witnesses to events, and information that comes from a single source cannot be considered reliable).

Are we really gonna put those in question? Because they basically just relate what every D&D player already believe.

Keltest
2017-10-01, 08:01 AM
Are we really gonna put those in question? Because they basically just relate what every D&D player already believe.

They could be accurate, but because theyre a narrative provided by another character and not an objective historical fact, they could be colored by the narrator's expectations and understanding. The Dark One could have lied to Redcloak about the history of the Crimson Mantle and its Plan, for example. Did he? We cant be sure. And that's the point: their accuracy is not guaranteed. The planet in the rifts certainly suggests more going on here than the characters involved have been told, even if everything else is accurate.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-01, 02:20 PM
Redcloak's retelling of what the Dark One told him may be full of errors and/or lies. It's almost bound to be. However, the specific part about Goblins being designed specifically to be easy XP is both a meta reference to the actual purpose of goblins and similar "weak but usually-evil mook" species in the actual game design of D&D and at the same time a metaphor for the legacy of institutional racism in the real world. There is no way that part isn't accurate.

Goblin_Priest
2017-10-01, 06:40 PM
Redcloak's retelling of what the Dark One told him may be full of errors and/or lies. It's almost bound to be. However, the specific part about Goblins being designed specifically to be easy XP is both a meta reference to the actual purpose of goblins and similar "weak but usually-evil mook" species in the actual game design of D&D and at the same time a metaphor for the legacy of institutional racism in the real world. There is no way that part isn't accurate.

Yea, this.

Plus it's been referenced by a number of characters in one way or another.

woweedd
2017-10-01, 06:53 PM
In a world where Good and Evil are objective and verifiable forces, it's really not.


That is not how those rules work.



1)If that were true, there would be no Neutral or Evil clerics.
2)Helping your own people-- your friends, family, tribe, etc.-- is Neutral, not Good. Helping people in need even if you don't know them and without expectation of reward is Good.
Indeed. Helping your own people, while killing potentially millions of others, is basically textbook "Evil." To quote myself on the last page:


OK, two points: One, you're badly misunderstanding how the D&D alignment system works. In it's original interaction, it has an actual meaning: Helping and protecting others is Good, just trying to survive is Neutral, looking out for only yourself is Evil. In most D&D games, Goblins, Orcs, ETC. Are mostly Evil and have societies that are, for one reason or another, inherently Evil. They rely on slavery, kill people, ETC. and so, it is justified to kill them IF YOU ARE AWARE THEY HAVE DONE THAT. The problem is that many DMs and players forget this, and believe that anything with green skin is worthy of death, even if you aren't aware that the particular creature has done anything wrong except be of a Mostly Evil species. They mistake "Mostly" for "Always". That's the tendency Rich is criticizing, alongside the Unfortunate Implications inherent in rendering certain beings as nameless cannon fodder based on skin color. The Gods are stand-ins for the players and game designers responsible for rendering them as such.

Secondly, while The Goblins have a bad lot in life, and Redcloak has certainly done a lot to improve it, he has also killed multiple innocent people, including his own brother, participated in human slavery, and is trying to accomplish a ritual that, if successful, has a 50/50 chance of actually improving the Goblin's lot in life, and another chance to end up killing every being on the planet, down to their very souls, Goblins included. That will theoretically improve the lives of future Goblins, yes, but he'll have killed thousands of present Goblins in order to get it. If Redcloak had any sense, he would have headed off with Right-Eye, forgotten Xykon in the forest, and stated Gobtopia through some other means.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-01, 07:51 PM
Indeed. Helping your own people, while killing potentially millions of others, is basically textbook "Evil." To quote myself on the last page:

Yup, This. While there is no denying that the goblin people are in desperate need of a determined hero to stand up for their plight by finding four like minded individuals and adventuring forth to defeat evils so that they may get better, Redcloak isn't that hero. Its sad that he is the closest thing they currently have to such a hero, but he isn't that hero. If he was that- guess who would be the top of the list as an immediate threat to them? Xykon. Of all the people in the comic, its arguable that Xykon has killed more goblins or sent them to their death than anyone else, and Redcloak was complicit in that.

and furthermore, Redcloak's plan to move the Gate? proves Dorukan completely right in designing a way to destroy the Gate. Think about it: Dorukan feared that if villains got a hold of the gate, that something worse than the Snarl being unleashed would happen. Dorukan is a really old, really experienced wizard, he would know all about how the Gates are constructed and what schools of magic apply to it, and what effects could be used on it. Say that he figured out one day that the Gate could be moved to the outer planes, then placed the self-destruction there to prevent that. Why? because last time, the Snarl destroyed the prime material plane and the gods were able to make a new one while making a plan to destroy the world and save everyone's souls next time.

However, if the Gate is moved, the Snarl won't be destroying the Prime Material plane. it would be destroying the outer planes along with all the gods.

The Dark Ones plan hinges on the Gods being so afraid of the Snarl they won't risk saying no to his demands. If that somehow fails, then the Dark One has no choice but to unleash it to back up his threat- unfortunately, the Snarl isn't a precision assassin like that one killed him. Its a juggernaut of destruction, and all gods would be destroyed, there would be no more afterlife or gods, the prime material plane would be vulnerable to the Snarl' hunger for destruction, and thus both gods and mortals would die and everything would end permanently, no gods to restart everything, no afterlife to go to, just chaos and oblivion.

So, Redcloaks plan is in fact "hope that my evil god is being honest about how he intends to negotiate and that the other gods are too afraid to say no, or fail and let all of existence be destroyed with no hope of restarting." his Plan completely fails to take the latter possibility into account and he thinks that any failure would take the form of the gods destroying the world beforehand and the Dark One getting a better deal for the goblins in the next world like what is happening now. The fact that he is relying so heavily on the gods caving in to fear is a big gamble in all this, which is true regardless of the Dark One's real intentions. Redcloak's plan is in fact worse than a normal Snarl unleashing, as a normal unleashing the world would get unmade again, but the gods would be able to remake the prison then world 3.0.

So yeah, destroying all the gates is slightly better than Redcloaks plan succeeding just enough for it to fail at the worst possible moment.

Keltest
2017-10-01, 07:59 PM
Redcloak's retelling of what the Dark One told him may be full of errors and/or lies. It's almost bound to be. However, the specific part about Goblins being designed specifically to be easy XP is both a meta reference to the actual purpose of goblins and similar "weak but usually-evil mook" species in the actual game design of D&D and at the same time a metaphor for the legacy of institutional racism in the real world. There is no way that part isn't accurate.

I will readily acknowledge the metaphor there, but if its meant to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it is very much told and not shown. I can recall exactly one group of goblins shown that was killed and generally mistreated by somebody other than Xykon and/or Redcloak, and that group stands out as notable for the, you know, doomsday cultist that was the target of the attack on them. Somewhat ironically, the goblins as a whole have generally been portrayed as successful and prosperous when they appear, with the exception of the unwilling fodder that Xykon dragged into the dungeon of Dorukan.

Jasdoif
2017-10-01, 08:22 PM
While there is no denying that the goblin people are in desperate need of a determined hero to stand up for their plight by finding four like minded individuals and adventuring forth to defeat evils so that they may get better, Redcloak isn't that hero. Its sad that he is the closest thing they currently have to such a hero, but he isn't that hero.That's what makes Start of Darkness a tragedy, really. Redcloak could have become such a hero, but we saw him answer his wakeup call with sedatives.

B. Dandelion
2017-10-01, 08:51 PM
That's what makes Start of Darkness a tragedy, really. Redcloak could have become such a hero, but we saw him answer his wakeup call with sedatives.

I didn't see it quite that way. He did have the opportunity to make more heroic decisions, but those decisions would not necessarily have led him to anywhere actually productive. What else was the point of revealing that Right-Eye's plan at the end of SoD was doomed right from the start? He could have gone along with it, made the heroic choice. He then would have died a heroic death without having actually helped his people at all.

Kish
2017-10-01, 08:59 PM
While there is no denying that the goblin people are in desperate need of a determined hero to stand up for their plight by finding four like minded individuals and adventuring forth to defeat evils so that they may get better,
Four? Why not five? Six people in the Order (and the Order of the Scribble, and the Vector Legion--it's a pretty consistent template for Rich's adventuring parties.

I didn't see it quite that way. He did have the opportunity to make more heroic decisions, but those decisions would not necessarily have led him to anywhere actually productive. What else was the point of revealing that Right-Eye's plan at the end of SoD was doomed right from the start? He could have gone along with it, made the heroic choice. He then would have died a heroic death without having actually helped his people at all.
Well, one answer occurs to me, relating to Xykon rather than to Redcloak directly: It shows that Xykon is far more on the ball than he presents himself as being. Rather than being a stupid superpowered thug who counts on his minions never questioning him, he knew exactly how much Redcloak's brother hated him and was actually interested enough in Redcloak's mental state to set up a test for him--a test which Redcloak shrank from the results of, but couldn't deny.

Peelee
2017-10-01, 09:08 PM
I didn't see it quite that way. He did have the opportunity to make more heroic decisions, but those decisions would not necessarily have led him to anywhere actually productive. What else was the point of revealing that Right-Eye's plan at the end of SoD was doomed right from the start? He could have gone along with it, made the heroic choice. He then would have died a heroic death without having actually helped his people at all.

Right-Eye's dagger wouldn't have worked, but him distracting Xykon, along with Redcloak's help, could have. With much more emphasis on Redcloak's help, of course. Xykon was seriously hurting in that fight. Reddie could hedge likely swing it. Which, I think, is also what makes it a tragedy; he didn't pick the correct answer, he picked a side to thumb the scales for, and that's what ultimately decided it.

B. Dandelion
2017-10-01, 09:30 PM
Well, one answer occurs to me, relating to Xykon rather than to Redcloak directly: It shows that Xykon is far more on the ball than he presents himself as being. Rather than being a stupid superpowered thug who counts on his minions never questioning him, he knew exactly how much Redcloak's brother hated him and was actually interested enough in Redcloak's mental state to set up a test for him--a test which Redcloak shrank from the results of, but couldn't deny.

All right, granted, developing Xykon is definitely a good reason for that specifically to be revealed. But it does still create the impression that Redcloak doing the most heroic thing in that situation would have made Redcloak feel better about himself without actually accomplishing anything besides getting killed. Xykon doesn't at all disprove Redcloak's fears of retaliation if he had in fact failed that test, and Xykon pointing to Right-Eye's corpse as he makes the point about choices Redcloak is too cowardly to ever make always seemed to kind of underline the fact that the choice in question would be to seek freedom in death.

I think that under better circumstances Redcloak might have been able to become an actual hero to his people, or that if he had had a better character he might never have gotten to the point where he's one of the biggest threats to their lives around. But I doubt that he realistically had the chance to reach those truly lofty heights just by having been a better person.


Right-Eye's dagger wouldn't have worked, but him distracting Xykon, along with Redcloak's help, could have. With much more emphasis on Redcloak's help, of course. Xykon was seriously hurting in that fight. Reddie could hedge likely swing it. Which, I think, is also what makes it a tragedy; he didn't pick the correct answer, he picked a side to thumb the scales for, and that's what ultimately decided it.

It has occurred to me, but it's still a what-if not actually suggested within the narrative. It would mean Xykon wasn't really prepared either, despite knowing about the plot and the dagger beforehand.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-01, 09:48 PM
That's what makes Start of Darkness a tragedy, really. Redcloak could have become such a hero, but we saw him answer his wakeup call with sedatives.


I didn't see it quite that way. He did have the opportunity to make more heroic decisions, but those decisions would not necessarily have led him to anywhere actually productive. What else was the point of revealing that Right-Eye's plan at the end of SoD was doomed right from the start? He could have gone along with it, made the heroic choice. He then would have died a heroic death without having actually helped his people at all.

Technically your both correct.

He could've also stood up to Xykon when he came trying to take the goblins as minions to go for the next Gate, but that would've killed a lot of people as well, and even today there is no guarantee Redcloak can actually beat Xykon. the big problem is that Redcloaks intelligence is what allows him see the path forward, but it also prevents him taking the paths that while technically more stupid, are also the Right Thing To Do.

I mean we know that Xykon is somewhere epic level, and Redcloak, he is probably level 20? they're up there, but Xykon is more experienced, has a lot of direct damage spells, energy drain and so on, and has beaten logical planners before, and the fact that he has a ring to protect from positive energy, symbol of insanity on a bouncy ball and his whole way he took out Dorukan, means while he isn't mr. mastermind or whatever, he can still play the plans game to an extent enough to be effective.

Problem is, the Right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of how productive it is. thats what DnD morality cares about. Xykon is a lich and evil, he must be destroyed, and thats morally true for DnD regardless of whether you would die doing it or not. cosmic morality doesn't really care about "but its not useful to do that" as an excuse.

Thing is, since this is a narrative world, and everyone knows it, Redcloak could've been genre savvy and decided "hey if I start making heroic speeches, standing up to Xykon and fighting evildoers for the sake of it while acting as an example of how good goblins can be, maybe I'll be karmically rewarded with my efforts actually working to better their lives and beat Xykon!" but then again we wouldn't have the comic if he did that, so he would have to be savvy to enough to recognize that. Redcloak seems to smart enough to realize both things. The weird thing is about characters knowing they're in a story to this extent means they can incorporate flipping their narrative role into their plans. Redcloak knowing that his role is to be a villain who pushes the main conflict of the story to its breaking point like this and having the smarts he has? could very well know that he can't go against his narrative role until just the right moment. He said he would do something wildly original to make up for mustache-twirling with O-Chul.

So......could Redcloak's plan be to act as if he is following along with the Dark One's plan, then outgambit everyone else at the last moment by just dimensional anchoring Xykon then teleporting back to Gobbotopia with word of recall once the OOTS get to Xykon, interrupting the ritual? Think about it, why did he bother with building Gobbotopia at all, if he was just going to risk all of creation on the Dark One's plan anyways? think about it, if he agreed with Xykon at the end of the battle for Azure City, and just teleported straight to Girard's Gate right after, Xykon would probably have killed all the Draketooth's anyways, gotten through all of the illusions, then just used the ritual then and there before anyone else could find it or begin to do anything about it. the Gate would go to the Dark One, who would start his ultimatum, and whether or not the plan succeeds would be decided right then and there, while the OOTS would be completely separated and Roy dead. It was the perfect time for him to keep going and succeed in his quest, the perfect opportunity- and he didn't take it. Instead he set up shop and made a goblin society without the need for The Plan at all, to the point where he got 17 nations to accept his as a valid sovereign nation. giving the PCs the opportunity to become stronger and to foil their plan by getting to the Gate first.

because if Redcloak does that, he would effectively trap Xykon with a group of PCs with no healing in Kraagors Tomb, get back to his goblin nation that he built, and use the opportunity to get a happy ending for himself by finally being rid of the lich millstone around his neck, not taking the risk of destroying all of creation, and it might not even impact his alignment. the only question is whether the Dark One would be okay with such a move. But then again, Redcloak might be taking Right Eye's words to heart and casting off the red cloak once he does this....sure it would be a bit of a karma houdini if he did that, but if there is any villain that could pull it off in this comic, its Redcloak. The villain actually winning, but with a plan that you didn't think he was going to do that doesn't actually harm the heroes at all, WOULD be a very original move for a villain to make.

Jasdoif
2017-10-01, 10:20 PM
I didn't see it quite that way. He did have the opportunity to make more heroic decisions, but those decisions would not necessarily have led him to anywhere actually productive....He then would have died a heroic death without having actually helped his people at all.Like you said, not necessarily :smalltongue: Seriously though, just imagine disintegrate used against Xykon instead of Right-Eye. It might've changed things with Dorukan and his celestial posse up there. Or it might not have.

Drama's funny that way, it runs on what characters are willing to lose, and what for. Like one's life, for the chance to be free of a megalomaniacal lich. Or the life of one's baby brother, for what that lich indirectly represents.

B. Dandelion
2017-10-01, 11:24 PM
Like you said, not necessarily :smalltongue: Seriously though, just imagine disintegrate used against Xykon instead of Right-Eye. It might've changed things with Dorukan and his celestial posse up there. Or it might not have.

Drama's funny that way, it runs on what characters are willing to lose, and what for. Like one's life, for the chance to be free of a megalomaniacal lich. Or the life of one's baby brother, for what that lich indirectly represents.

I've imagined it, but the whole scenario just seems like a cruel no-win where neither choice is really all that great. Risk getting everyone gruesomely killed in retaliation, or turn against your own kin? A lot of the choices he makes seem to be under similar circumstances. Persist as a slave, or flee while abandoning your god's directives? Remain imprisoned, or turn your often unreliable ally into something much more powerful? Offered a non-crappy option like being able to peacefully settle down or keep trying at the Plan, he takes the former and immediately has his choice negated anyway.

The deck is stacked against him. For his people in general it is that way by explicit design. I don't say he doesn't make the wrong choices, sometimes the worst ones possible -- I think the really damning part of the final scenario in SoD, for example, is that he explicitly had the opportunity to stop Right-Eye non-lethally. But "he could have been a real hero to his people if only he'd answered the call" doesn't seem like the story I read, or at least, is missing a crucial element. That he might be the closest thing they have to a hero seems pretty reflective of the entire warped scenario he is a product of. Goblins are not meant to have meaning and purpose or stories of their own, after all, they exist only to yield XP to the real characters, the PC races.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-01, 11:44 PM
Don't get me wrong, there was definitely a moment when a member of the Order of the Scribble truly had Xykon on the ropes, but it was sabotaged by a character who truly believed they were doing the right thing, but at the same time willfully blinded themself to better alternatives.

But that character's name wasn't Redcloak, it was Miko Miyazaki.

Jasdoif
2017-10-02, 12:21 AM
I've imagined it, but the whole scenario just seems like a cruel no-win where neither choice is really all that great.That, again, is drama. When there's an obvious good option, it's because the option carries little risk and/or cost for what it offers. Drama is conflict, and conflict is hard choices. And Redcloak's certainly had a lot of those, it's true.


But "he could have been a real hero to his people if only he'd answered the call" doesn't seem like the story I read, or at least, is missing a crucial element.That would likely be because the scene has so much going on. There were a lot of things Redcloak could have done differently, if not necessarily better. Buffing Right-Eye, or hedging and letting Right-Eye have his shot at Xykon without interference, or stabilizing Right-Eye after he survived the fall....

However, the "wakeup call" I specifically had in mind was Redcloak realizing he'd actually killed the only member of his original family the Sapphire Guard hadn't, to protect the lich who watched in amusement as his sister-in-law and nephew were killed. The kind of realization that might make one think "you know, this lich-Xykon thing has been a bad horrible horribad idea all along, I need to get out from under it."

But what argument does Redcloak accept from Xykon? "Ignore responsibility for your actions. Obey me. Giving up on me will make your guilt as murderous as, well, you." And that's that for Redcloak improving his own situation. Trying to ignore what he knows to be true is all he's been striving for since. He may have been in the Plan for the sake of all goblins (including himself and his brother) before, but it's all about Redcloak now. If other goblins are aided too, great; if killing other goblins gives a fleeting advantage to his selfishness...well, why would he care? It's not like they're his brother or anything, and Redcloak killed him for nothing.

You were wondering what was the point of showing that Right-Eye's plan was doomed? To show the audience the mindset Xykon was imposing on Redcloak, that of "murdering him made no difference" and "don't even bother trying to destroy me".

Riftwolf
2017-10-02, 02:50 AM
Regarding the size of goblins issue; my recollection is the goblins are drawn much thinner than humans or hobgoblins, and slightly shorter (but not as short as Durkon). Size category isn't just a measure of height, but also mass, so maybe goblins are at the higher end of Small height, square in the middle of small weight. Belkar might be on the short end of small: he seemed the same height as the lady gnome (going by recollection, too lazy to check), and I don't recall him sharing a panel with another halfling for comparison.
Or maybe the size category thing is kinda strange when you think about it for more than five minutes?
Plus it'd undercut Redcloaks menace a bit if he was Belkars height (though it would've certainly make his Tsukiko kill more of a surprise)

B. Dandelion
2017-10-02, 04:37 AM
That, again, is drama. When there's an obvious good option, it's because the option carries little risk and/or cost for what it offers. Drama is conflict, and conflict is hard choices. And Redcloak's certainly had a lot of those, it's true.

Sometimes that's drama, but there's hard as in "entails personal risk or sacrifice" and then there's hard as in "someone potentially suffers no matter which option I take." We expect heroes to meet and pass challenges where they must make the choice to either save themselves, or risk their own lives in order to help others. That's both simultaneously hard and yet "the obvious good option". But sometimes drama doesn't set up a choice with a truly "heroic" option, or a full "win" condition. Sometimes drama means innocent people die no matter what you do. When that happens, I evaluate it differently than if there had truly been an option to minimize the risk to others. That's not to say Redcloak was making Sophie's Choice or that he didn't pick the worst option, but there are many shades of conflict, and that's relevant to how I look at it here.


However, the "wakeup call" I specifically had in mind was Redcloak realizing he'd actually killed the only member of his original family the Sapphire Guard hadn't, to protect the lich who watched in amusement as his sister-in-law and nephew were killed. The kind of realization that might make one think "you know, this lich-Xykon thing has been a bad horrible horribad idea all along, I need to get out from under it."

That's the moment you were thinking of when remarking on how he could have become a true hero and champion to the goblin people if only he'd met that call differently? How does that scenario play out?

What I'm expressing doubt about is the idea that if only he'd made better choices, he'd have become the champion for goblins that they need, which would have been enough to change things. The setting isn't really one that inspires a lot of optimism. The game is literally rigged against the goblins by mystical forces who designed them explicitly as nothing more than fodder. They are intentionally made weak and poor so as to push them towards evil so that adventurers can kill them. Redcloak had some of the makings to rise above that system, and had dreams of a better world, but ultimately he didn't have enough and succumbed to true villainy. It is a tragedy and yes his own personal flaws are very much a catalyst for his descent. But do we evaluate his odds for success as though his failure wasn't an imminently predictable outcome within the system he was born into? Redcloak's flaws are a major part of the story, but not the whole story.



But what argument does Redcloak accept from Xykon? "Ignore responsibility for your actions. Obey me. Giving up on me will make your guilt as murderous as, well, you." And that's that for Redcloak improving his own situation. Trying to ignore what he knows to be true is all he's been striving for since. He may have been in the Plan for the sake of all goblins (including himself and his brother) before, but it's all about Redcloak now. If other goblins are aided too, great; if killing other goblins gives a fleeting advantage to his selfishness...well, why would he care? It's not like they're his brother or anything, and Redcloak killed him for nothing.

You were wondering what was the point of showing that Right-Eye's plan was doomed? To show the audience the mindset Xykon was imposing on Redcloak, that of "murdering him made no difference" and "don't even bother trying to destroy me".

Xykon's argument to Redcloak isn't that he killed Right-Eye for nothing, it's that he would have killed Right-Eye for nothing if Redcloak doesn't complete the Plan using Xykon. It's an appeal to sunk costs. Redcloak thinks (or thinks that he thinks, in his willfully deluded way) he can make all the sacrifices "worth it" by continuing.

Goblin_Priest
2017-10-02, 06:07 AM
Regarding the size of goblins issue; my recollection is the goblins are drawn much thinner than humans or hobgoblins, and slightly shorter (but not as short as Durkon). Size category isn't just a measure of height, but also mass, so maybe goblins are at the higher end of Small height, square in the middle of small weight. Belkar might be on the short end of small: he seemed the same height as the lady gnome (going by recollection, too lazy to check), and I don't recall him sharing a panel with another halfling for comparison.
Or maybe the size category thing is kinda strange when you think about it for more than five minutes?
Plus it'd undercut Redcloaks menace a bit if he was Belkars height (though it would've certainly make his Tsukiko kill more of a surprise)

I think it was just for ease of the art that the choice was made. Because per the srd:


A goblin stands 3 to 3½ feet tall and weigh 40 to 45 pounds.

It'd probably be awkward to constantly draw the heroes bending down to slash at the kid-like goblins.

wumpus
2017-10-02, 11:12 AM
...
still believes that any non-goblin is an acceptable cost to achieving his goal.
...


I've never seen an instance where Redcloak considers the death of a non-goblin to be a cost. He certainly needs enough goblins to populate Gobotopia, but is willing to sacrifice any goblin needed to achieve that (he will consider goblin deaths to be a cost). Non-goblins may be slightly higher in his eyes than others to Belkar (i.e. "juicy bags of xp", although we rarely see Redcloak dealing with anyone who could give him xp).

Presumably Rich made Redcloak to explore the potential justification for evil. The goblins were wronged not just by humans and paladins, but by the very gods themselves. Still, right-eye is shown as right, while Redcloak (who may well save the goblins) is wrong. Of course, how many important nation heroes in human history were at least as evil as Redcloak and how badly would many be off without them? In this case, it is obvious that the OOTS is right in stopping Redcloak (largely due to the threat to the world) but even without it they would right in stopping him.

Jasdoif
2017-10-02, 12:15 PM
Sometimes that's drama, but there's hard as in "entails personal risk or sacrifice" and then there's hard as in "someone potentially suffers no matter which option I take." We expect heroes to meet and pass challenges where they must make the choice to either save themselves, or risk their own lives in order to help others. That's both simultaneously hard and yet "the obvious good option". But sometimes drama doesn't set up a choice with a truly "heroic" option, or a full "win" condition. Sometimes drama means innocent people die no matter what you do. When that happens, I evaluate it differently than if there had truly been an option to minimize the risk to others.Me too: the absence of a "heroic"/"full win" option is what intensifies the drama. Because the significance of a decision is related by its cost, which includes the opportunity cost of not deciding otherwise.


That's the moment you were thinking of when remarking on how he could have become a true hero and champion to the goblin people if only he'd met that call differently? How does that scenario play out?Destroying the phylactery when the opportunity presented itself: after Roy destroyed Xykon, most likely.


What I'm expressing doubt about is the idea that if only he'd made better choices, he'd have become the champion for goblins that they need, which would have been enough to change things. The setting isn't really one that inspires a lot of optimism. The game is literally rigged against the goblins by mystical forces who designed them explicitly as nothing more than fodder. They are intentionally made weak and poor so as to push them towards evil so that adventurers can kill them. Redcloak had some of the makings to rise above that system, and had dreams of a better world, but ultimately he didn't have enough and succumbed to true villainy. It is a tragedy and yes his own personal flaws are very much a catalyst for his descent. But do we evaluate his odds for success as though his failure wasn't an imminently predictable outcome within the system he was born into? Redcloak's flaws are a major part of the story, but not the whole story.Suppose that Redcloak accepting "hey, pretend it wasn't your fault even though it totally was" doesn't reflect his perceived chances of success one way or the other. That there's a really long gap between "become the champion for goblins" and "change things". That the "don't even try to change things because you don't know in advance if you'll succeed" mindset is exactly what keeps things from changing.

I think "evaluating his odds for success", in the context of discussing Redcloak's motivations, would accomplish little more than obfuscating Redcloak's flaws in favor of pointing out how the setting has its own flaws.


Xykon's argument to Redcloak isn't that he killed Right-Eye for nothing, it's that he would have killed Right-Eye for nothing if Redcloak doesn't complete the Plan using Xykon.That's one argument, I suppose. Another is that Xykon gives Redcloak an excuse to overlook that he killed Right-Eye in cold blood...an argument made all the stronger by insinuating that there wasn't any advantage to killing Right-Eye himself, that there's no wiggle room for "but his murder served a purpose!"

Clistenes
2017-10-02, 02:22 PM
I've never seen an instance where Redcloak considers the death of a non-goblin to be a cost. He certainly needs enough goblins to populate Gobotopia, but is willing to sacrifice any goblin needed to achieve that (he will consider goblin deaths to be a cost). Non-goblins may be slightly higher in his eyes than others to Belkar (i.e. "juicy bags of xp", although we rarely see Redcloak dealing with anyone who could give him xp).

Presumably Rich made Redcloak to explore the potential justification for evil. The goblins were wronged not just by humans and paladins, but by the very gods themselves. Still, right-eye is shown as right, while Redcloak (who may well save the goblins) is wrong. Of course, how many important nation heroes in human history were at least as evil as Redcloak and how badly would many be off without them? In this case, it is obvious that the OOTS is right in stopping Redcloak (largely due to the threat to the world) but even without it they would right in stopping him.

Remember that Redcloak considered the Great Plan a win-win one, because either they succeeded at using the Snarl to blackmail the gods, or they failed and the Snarl destroyed the world and unmade every soul on it, goblins included, which he considered would be a victory too, because the Dark One could participate in the creation of the new world and make it better for goblins...

He isn't just willing to sacrifice any goblin for the Great Plan, he is willing to obliterate the soul of every goblin alive for the sake of it...

Ruck
2017-10-02, 03:41 PM
I think it was David Mamet who said "Drama isn't about choosing between right and wrong; it's about choosing between two wrongs."

B. Dandelion
2017-10-02, 05:25 PM
To be honest, I thought it was slightly glib when Jasdoif pulled the "but that's drama!" card but elected not to say it because it's a bit rude and Jasdoif was arguing in good faith to a discussion that I started by replying to a post of theirs.

But if you're going to drop in and do a drive-by making the same point without actually addressing any of the points I was raising about the scene I will go ahead and call it glib. That sounds like something meaningful but doesn't actually address the point I was making, it's just an appeal to narrative convention as if that makes any other analysis of the scene irrelevant. That probably wasn't your intention -- maybe you just wanted to talk about aspects of drama and how it's interesting the way good writers structure it. But in this particular context, it's kind of annoying and feels like I'm being told my points don't matter because... drama!

Yeah, it's drama. The ending of SoD was indeed dramatic. Of course it was. SoD is the most dramatic book in a series that the Giant has said elsewhere* is not a drama but a comedy. It was a scene that put Redcloak to the test and forced him to make a choice which revealed a crucial part of his character. I don't dispute any of that.

The fact that drama often does force characters to make hard or impossible choices doesn't mean that any other forces that might be acting on the scene is rendered irrelevant to analysis of the scene. That's the out-of-story motive to put in such a scene, because it makes for good drama. But in-story, a big part of "how we got here" is that goblins are born into a system that is intentionally set up for them to fail in, and I find that to be pretty relevant to analyzing Redcloak's character. I think he was brought down in part by his own flaws and in part by the fact that he was put into a no-win situation by factors completely outside of his own control.

Is that actually a radically different reading that undercuts the element of drama?

I get the impression from some people (I'm not saying this of anyone I've been replying to in this thread, mind) that basically any indication within SoD that Redcloak is deserving of any sympathy or understanding is to be ignored, attacked, derided or declared a lie. It means nothing that the introduction suggests some people are driven to evil because of what their life forces them to endure. Redcloak's village was attacked for justified reasons and the fact that some paladins fell means he has no real grievance against them. Everything in the crayon section was a lie, most especially the parts about the goblins being screwed over by the gods, intentionally pushed towards evil and being intended only for the harvesting of XP. Also, Right-Eye's village being able to exist for some years is proof positive that there's no real discrimination against goblins, and no worries whatsoever about it being able to continue to exist in perpetuity. The goblins have no real complaint at all, and whatever complaints they did have could have easily been solved peacefully, with only Redcloak and his terrible thirst for vengeance standing in the way.

I tend to push back on that interpretation. That's why I push back also on the assertion that "if he'd been a better character, he could have become a true champion to his people". I think with the setup we have, that's a big maybe at best.

Sheesh, that's a mouthful. I think I've said all I wanted to say. I should certainly hope so as well.

*

Yes, there might be some major character deaths coming up (heck, there are two before this book finishes!) but in the end, this is still a comedy-adventure, not a drama. When the entire Order of the Stick saga is over, Elan will have a happy ending. Not everyone in the story will be able to say the same, but it doesn't take much work to extrapolate a few things that simply could not happen without invalidating Elan's prophecy-assured happy ending. Consider it my way of turning to the audience and saying, "Don't worry, folks! It might get scary for a while, but it will all work out in the end!"

Ruck
2017-10-02, 06:52 PM
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The fact that Redcloak has been pushed into a situation where he has nothing but bad choices-- and that we see how that happens, which makes us sympathetic to his plight-- is what makes Start of Darkness good drama.

My point was just, if Redcloak's choices were easy and clearly delineated between good and bad, then there wouldn't be much drama in them, because his internal conflict wouldn't be as strong nor would the audience sympathize with him if he chose the bad choice.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-02, 07:09 PM
Huh. I thought the Mamet quote supported Dandelion's point: None of Redcloak's options were ever all that good.

In any case thank you so much for that quote, I had been mystified as to what people meant saying "Giant says it's a comedy".... "Comedy" can mean so many things in different contexts.

LadyEowyn
2017-10-02, 07:21 PM
Yes, the quote is clearly stating it's a comedy in the drama/literary analysis sense of "it ends happily", not in the sense of "it's just a bunch of jokes".

Start of Darkness, on the other hand, is deliberately a tragedy (both in the sense of "it ends unhappily" and in the Greek sense of "protagonist destroyed by their own flaws") - or rather, half of a tragedy. The Tragedy of Redcloak isn't over yet.

Ruck
2017-10-02, 08:33 PM
Huh. I thought the Mamet quote supported Dandelion's point: None of Redcloak's options were ever all that good.
So did I, but apparently it needed clarification.

B. Dandelion
2017-10-02, 08:46 PM
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The fact that Redcloak has been pushed into a situation where he has nothing but bad choices-- and that we see how that happens, which makes us sympathetic to his plight-- is what makes Start of Darkness good drama.

My point was just, if Redcloak's choices were easy and clearly delineated between good and bad, then there wouldn't be much drama in them, because his internal conflict wouldn't be as strong nor would the audience sympathize with him if he chose the bad choice.

Damn, I'm sorry. I hadn't really been happy with my previous response and had been a bit preoccupied with that element in particular, and it didn't really occur to me in that mindset that somebody would be stopping by making that point in support of me.

mouser9169
2017-10-02, 09:00 PM
I think that under better circumstances Redcloak might have been able to become an actual hero to his people, or that if he had had a better character he might never have gotten to the point where he's one of the biggest threats to their lives around. But I doubt that he realistically had the chance to reach those truly lofty heights just by having been a better person.

Make no mistake: Redcloak IS a hero to his people. He is the one that led them out to the promised land of Gobbotopia, and all that will hopefully eventually entail.

Why would the goblin people want a Good hero? They are perfectly happy and content to be Evil, and are rewarded in their afterlife by The Dark One for it.

That's the thing about the D&D alignment cosmos: Evil isn't Bad, and Good isn't Better than Evil. Evil is Evil and Good is Good. Both have their followers and devotees and different methods of solving the same problems. One doesn't mind killing or destroying other lives along the way, one does.

Redcloak is fully and wholly Evil. He embraced that a LONG time ago, as do most of the other people of his race. That doesn't mean he can't help his fellow goblins. He certainly can, and he does. But it means he does it ways that are Evil.

halfeye
2017-10-02, 09:04 PM
Yes, the quote is clearly stating it's a comedy in the drama/literary analysis sense of "it ends happily", not in the sense of "it's just a bunch of jokes".

Start of Darkness, on the other hand, is deliberately a tragedy (both in the sense of "it ends unhappily" and in the Greek sense of "protagonist destroyed by their own flaws") - or rather, half of a tragedy. The Tragedy of Redcloak isn't over yet.

I once read (or was it heard?) that the difference between tragedy and comedy was that in a tragedy the characters knew what they were doing, and what the likely consequences of their actions were.

mouser9169
2017-10-02, 10:15 PM
I once read (or was it heard?) that the difference between tragedy and comedy was that in a tragedy the characters knew what they were doing, and what the likely consequences of their actions were.

It's a quote attributed to Shakespeare. Someone noticed that some of his plays were similar, only turning out differently. He said in a comedy, people see the problems ahead and take steps to avoid them. In a tragedy, they do not.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-02, 10:21 PM
Make no mistake: Redcloak IS a hero to his people. He is the one that led them out to the promised land of Gobbotopia, and all that will hopefully eventually entail.

Why would the goblin people want a Good hero? They are perfectly happy and content to be Evil, and are rewarded in their afterlife by The Dark One for it.

That's the thing about the D&D alignment cosmos: Evil isn't Bad, and Good isn't Better than Evil. Evil is Evil and Good is Good. Both have their followers and devotees and different methods of solving the same problems. One doesn't mind killing or destroying other lives along the way, one does.

Redcloak is fully and wholly Evil. He embraced that a LONG time ago, as do most of the other people of his race. That doesn't mean he can't help his fellow goblins. He certainly can, and he does. But it means he does it ways that are Evil.

Evil isn't bad? oh really? Wow, you really don't get the point of this do you?

how are they happy?

Redcloak, an extremist bent on revenge no matter the cost, permanently stuck as an angry teenager with a massive sunk cost fallacy?

Xykon, a lich who lost the one last human joy he had when became a skeleton and now can only get any pleasure from harming others?

Tsukiko, a delusional teen who convinced herself that the Undead are just somehow misunderstood in a misguided attempt to find love, desperately trying to fulfill a mother role to robotic constructs of dead flesh, while trying to make her stupidest fan fic dreams come true with Xykon, someone who literally told her that it wouldn't work in the first few seconds of their meeting? Who died as soon as she poked her nose into something she couldn't handle?

Nale, the angry revenge seeking petty spiteful little man so incompetent at doing villainy that he failed multiple times and got murdered by his own father?

or should we look at vector Legion? Tarquin is in fact a cruel loveless man who tries to force every woman he is interested in to him marry him through torture, who is so focused on his genre-savviness that all his team mates consider him the Elan of Vector Legion, only useful for pointing out cliches to avoid, and is completely obsessed with everything having a proper conclusion as he defines it, breaking down when he isn't in control.

broken people, inability to admit mistakes or turn back, anger unchecked and clinging to delusions, unable to function properly so they just keep inflicting suffering while stewing in their own negative emotions. That is what evil is made of. I'm sure Redcloak would love to have people believe that Evil is just a team with different colors, he seems to believe that himself, but in the end, Evil is Evil. It can have loved ones, it can think its doing something right, it can form the semblance of sanity to hide its true colors, it can rationalize so many of its actions away, but its still Evil, still not happy, still something thats always worth fighting against. Just because Redcloak did one good thing in making Gobbotopia doesn't mean Evil is somehow equivalent to good, especially since look at all the evil that had to happen for that one good thing to occur. The cost of which a real hero would never accept.

Jasdoif
2017-10-02, 10:38 PM
To be honest, I thought it was slightly glib when Jasdoif pulled the "but that's drama!" card but elected not to say it because it's a bit rude and Jasdoif was arguing in good faith to a discussion that I started by replying to a post of theirs.

But if you're going to drop in and do a drive-by making the same point without actually addressing any of the points I was raising about the scene I will go ahead and call it glib.If it wasn't drama, there would be no reason to care. If Right-Eye's success or failure against Xykon was inevitable in Redcloak's eyes, there would have little to no reason for Redcloak to even consider murdering him on that basis. That's what makes the risk a critical element to the scene. Without risk, the decision's roughly as exciting as Redcloak deciding to walk across the street: Sure, a lot of excitement could happen on the way across the street without Redcloak knowing about it in advance, but that would say far more about the street than it would about Redcloak.

Character development is driven by drama, drama is driven by hard decisions, hard decisions are driven by conflict, conflict is driven by unfavorable circumstances. It's not a coincidence that the character who's received the densest dose of heavy development is also the one who's been subjected to the longest litany of malfeasance; the former is a result of the latter. It isn't that writers (with some exceptions) enjoy subjecting their characters to torment; it's that character actions speak far better to character motivations than words do, and it's the writer's job to set up the circumstances where those actions can be taken.

At the same time, Redcloak's evaluation of his odds is certainly a factor, as you say...in his actions. But actions are the means of achieving a goal, while motivation is what brings those goals about in the first place. And Redcloak's motivations tell us more about Redcloak than the circumstances around him do.

It's not a coincidence that I saw realizing he'd murdered Right-Eye as his "wakeup call". A realization that would be just as valid if Redcloak were never able to cast another spell, or if Redcloak was secretly higher level than Xykon all along. And his refusing the call was "no, I'm going to turn my back on self-betterment because doubling down on selfish makes me feel better about myself". Which, again, would be just valid with whatever means Redcloak could have had at his disposal.

You say Redcloak was brought down by his own flaws and the situations he'd been forced into. I say telling the two apart gives you a better understanding of both, and the only thing that "brought down" Redcloak in my eyes was his willing decision to quit trying to stand. That is the tragedy of the book: Redcloak backing down in the face of adversity at the last moment, muttering "I give up" while looking away in embarrassment.

Peelee
2017-10-03, 12:20 AM
I once read (or was it heard?) that the difference between tragedy and comedy was that in a tragedy the characters knew what they were doing, and what the likely consequences of their actions were.


It's a quote attributed to Shakespeare. Someone noticed that some of his plays were similar, only turning out differently. He said in a comedy, people see the problems ahead and take steps to avoid them. In a tragedy, they do not.

Nonsense. A better storyteller than Shakespeare bad a better take on it: Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.

martianmister
2017-10-03, 01:26 PM
I get the impression from some people (I'm not saying this of anyone I've been replying to in this thread, mind) that basically any indication within SoD that Redcloak is deserving of any sympathy or understanding is to be ignored, attacked, derided or declared a lie. It means nothing that the introduction suggests some people are driven to evil because of what their life forces them to endure. Redcloak's village was attacked for justified reasons and the fact that some paladins fell means he has no real grievance against them. Everything in the crayon section was a lie, most especially the parts about the goblins being screwed over by the gods, intentionally pushed towards evil and being intended only for the harvesting of XP. Also, Right-Eye's village being able to exist for some years is proof positive that there's no real discrimination against goblins, and no worries whatsoever about it being able to continue to exist in perpetuity. The goblins have no real complaint at all, and whatever complaints they did have could have easily been solved peacefully, with only Redcloak and his terrible thirst for vengeance standing in the way.

I get the same impression, especially in these recent threads.

Snails
2017-10-03, 06:57 PM
I get the same impression, especially in these recent threads.

This thread started off as a discussion of how RC is Good. Intentionally or not, that had the effect of begging for posters to dump on RC.

A thread that starts off with the idea that RC is sympathetic, even if he is evil, would probably be more to your liking.

Ruck
2017-10-03, 10:38 PM
I once read (or was it heard?) that the difference between tragedy and comedy was that in a tragedy the characters knew what they were doing, and what the likely consequences of their actions were.


It's a quote attributed to Shakespeare. Someone noticed that some of his plays were similar, only turning out differently. He said in a comedy, people see the problems ahead and take steps to avoid them. In a tragedy, they do not.

It doesn't explain the process, but the one I've always heard, particularly with regard to Shakespeare, is that comedies end in a wedding and tragedies end in a funeral.

Psyren
2017-10-04, 08:59 AM
This thread is just "Are Redcloak's actions morally justified?" by another name.

And even if you believe he has good intentions, he has used evil means to achieve them on several occasions, including by non-D&D standards. So at best he would be LN, but from where I stand he lands squarely in LE.

Riftwolf
2017-10-04, 09:26 AM
This thread started off as a discussion of how RC is Good. Intentionally or not, that had the effect of begging for posters to dump on RC.

A thread that starts off with the idea that RC is sympathetic, even if he is evil, would probably be more to your liking.

I'd say Redcloak is a tragic character, who believes himself justified in being evil because of his flaws and backstory. Right-Eye, having the same backstory but different flaws, had more of a case for being TN (I believe thats his Word of Giant alignment) bordering on NG than RC has in being LN/LG.

Also, this is still going!?

Snails
2017-10-04, 11:58 AM
I'd say Redcloak is a tragic character, who believes himself justified in being evil because of his flaws and backstory. Right-Eye, having the same backstory but different flaws, had more of a case for being TN (I believe thats his Word of Giant alignment) bordering on NG than RC has in being LN/LG.

And that is exactly what makes RC's story worth examining. Really every villain has some kind of backstory along the lines of "because that is how the world really works, so don't blame me" -- RC's tale is not at all special in that respect. What is interesting about RC is enough of his reasoning makes sense to us that he is a sympathetic character, at least at key points.

The D&D alignment system does not require Good characters to be 100% nice.
The D&D alignment system does not require Evil characters to be 100% unsympathetic.

Thus just because we dislike a character does not mean they are not Good, e.g. Eugene. Likewise, just because we like a character does not mean they are not Evil, e.g. Tarquin & Malack.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-04, 12:34 PM
I think it's important not to conflate sympathy and entertainment value. I know that some will disagree, but personally, I find Redcloak's pedantry and snark tiresome. But I sympathize with his no-win situation.

Whereas Tarquin is always interesting to watch, but never sympathetic.

In other words: what do you mean "we like Tarquin"?

Kish
2017-10-04, 12:42 PM
I'd say Redcloak is a tragic character, who believes himself justified in being evil because of his flaws and backstory. Right-Eye, having the same backstory but different flaws, had more of a case for being TN (I believe thats his Word of Giant alignment) bordering on NG than RC has in being LN/LG.

Also, this is still going!?
Sort of. The actual thread-starter seems to have ducked out, without addressing any of the arguments people had made that Redcloak could be not-good without it being an illustration of how nonfunctional the alignment system is, but other people have been debating with each other.

Snails
2017-10-04, 01:33 PM
In other words: what do you mean "we like Tarquin"?

A number of posters did not seem to grasp the possibility that they could both personally like Tarquin and Tarquin could still be evil.

Of course, you are correct to point out that many readers may never ever have liked Tarquin.

Peelee
2017-10-04, 02:22 PM
A number of posters did not seem to grasp the possibility that they could both personally like Tarquin and Tarquin could still be evil.

I must have missed that. Can you link to some examples?

Jasdoif
2017-10-04, 02:31 PM
I must have missed that. Can you link to some examples?I remember something close, does that count?


What I found odd was that people tried to claim that he was not Evil because he was lovable. I don't understand that. I've never understood the need of some people to rationalize that a character they like is somehow less Evil just because they like them. Thog is Evil; Thog is lovable. Those two facts do not need to be in opposition. I don't understand treating his lovability as overriding his Evilness, nor his Evilness overriding his lovability. Because he's a fictional character and it's not necessary that we pass a binding absolute judgment on how we feel about him. We can simultaneously appreciate his comedy in this corner of our brain while condemning his evil in that corner.

Apparently, though, that's not how some people see it, and that's what continues to baffle me. I don't see how one could appreciate fiction on any serious level if every character has to boil down to a single LOVE/HATE toggle switch.

(The Thog fan getting killed in the arena fight was just a poke at the people who seem to think that he's blameless for his actions just because he's dumb and funny—not some statement that I hated the character and didn't know why anyone liked him.)

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-04, 02:48 PM
A number of posters did not seem to grasp the possibility that they could both personally like Tarquin and Tarquin could still be evil.

.

True, but my point went a step further than that: "likable," "entertaining to me as a reader," "morally in the right," and "sympathetic" are ALL different axes that a character may be at different points on.

Kish
2017-10-04, 02:53 PM
I don't remember anyone outright questioning Tarquin's technical alignment. I do remember people claiming (separately) that he was "kind of" evil, and that it took a massive effort of will for the audience to remember that such an amazing character was evil, and quoting what he'd said about the alignment system being limited and unrealistic as though it had been posted by Rich.

Peelee
2017-10-04, 04:07 PM
I remember something close, does that count?

Counts enough. Thanks!

Snails
2017-10-04, 06:01 PM
True, but my point went a step further than that: "likable," "entertaining to me as a reader," "morally in the right," and "sympathetic" are ALL different axes that a character may be at different points on.

I agree with your point wholeheartedly. Such seems to be common, but much less universal than I had expected.

NihhusHuotAliro
2017-10-04, 09:11 PM
Redcloak is not Lawful Good. Xykon is not Lawful Good. Belkar is not Lawful Good. Roy is not Lawful Good. Durkon is not Lawful Good.

Nobody in OOTS is Lawful Good. None of you are Lawful Good. Only I am Lawful Good, and you should all give me all of the money and praise.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-04, 09:32 PM
I get the same impression, especially in these recent threads.

well yeah, he is sympathetic. He is basically goblin Lelouch Lamperouge. but that doesn't mean anything he does is right.
you can see someone who in another story where the morality is less cosmic and the adventurers hes facing are not morally correct, he would be the hero. Unfortunately he is a cynical politics drama protagonist in a world of high fantasy adventure. in this kind of world, what he is, is a supervillain that needs to be defeated and gives out drops and exp when killed.

like if he was in some roleplaying game like Exalted, he wouldn't be the villain, he'd be Eclipse Caste, making Gobbotopia would be his first adventure and not even the craziest thing he would do, and it would only be a matter of time before he uses his skills of super-bureaucracy, logistics and diplomacy to subsume the entire continent, then give every nation on the continent he rules a better quality of life than when they were independent, create an army better than anyone ever thought possible then kick the ass of the Dragon-Blooded all up and down Creation. Then he'd be lauded as a hero who united the Scavenger Lands and beating the Scarlet Empire. I could very well see Redcloak doing all of that with very little if any changes to his personality or motivations.

I sympathize with him in that, he is a guy who was simply born in the wrong campaign, the wrong setting. From the very beginning, he was simply never fit for the world he lives in. If the genre was something else, he'd get a happier ending, but he is a villain and here it seems all his efforts are just him inevitably spiraling down towards his defeat because of his sunk cost fallacy. Thems the breaks.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-04, 09:53 PM
"Who the narrative treats as a protagonist" may depend on genre, "who is actually in the right" does not.

Aquillion
2017-10-04, 09:54 PM
I think it's pretty easy. From the SRD:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Redcloak has a complete disregard for innocent non-goblinoid lives. This makes him evil, end of story.

I think it's a bit silly to say that caring about your own race - and being a fantasy version of a racist - makes one non-evil. Evil people can care about some things. Evil characters can have children and parents and extended families and, yes, even an entire race that they care about and want to protect. It's how you interact with other people that determines whether you're good or evil - hence the focus on altruism. Redcloak attaches no value to non-goblinoid life; even his epiphany during the battle for Azure City was just that he should care about hobgoblins because they're still goblinoids, not because they're sentient beings. He has no respect for sentient lives if they're not goblinoids; ergo, he's evil.

(I'm also baffled that people could even find his point of view sympathetic, honestly. He's a goblinoid supremacist - he's demonstrated a willingness to kill any number of innocents of other races, with no compunction at all, if it benefits goblinoids. He's basically the goblin version of Magneto.)

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-04, 10:04 PM
Well, Redcloak is trying to right a horrible injustice.

It's easy to say, "you shouldn't put your subgroup first, ALL SOPHONTS MATTER" when your subgroup is on top. That's not so easy when you and your family are on the bottom and being kept there with ruthless efficiency.

Jasdoif
2017-10-04, 10:17 PM
Redcloak has a complete disregard for innocent non-goblinoid lives. This makes him evil, end of story.His disregard for innocent goblinoid lives when it suits him doesn't help, either.

Snails
2017-10-04, 10:21 PM
Well, Redcloak is trying to right a horrible injustice.

It's easy to say, "you shouldn't put your subgroup first, ALL SOPHONTS MATTER" when your subgroup is on top. That's not so easy when you and your family are on the bottom and being kept there with ruthless efficiency.

A habit of using evil means to achieve a good end is still evil. D&D alignment rules are clear enough on that point.

That there is a genuine measure of justice in his cause makes him sympathetic (perhaps), but does not automatically give him any leeway alignment-wise. His intentions in performing specific acts may arguably matter more than his specific long term goal, and he demonstrates a pattern of malice there, too.

Furthermore, correcting an injustice is not necessarily a good cause, especially if you intend to replace an injustice with another injustice. It is understandable to want to accomplish as much for your tribe, but it in no way buys you "Good credits".

What the Dark One hopes to achieve is a bit vague. Redcloak simply trusting this evil god to correct an injustice is also not a convincing argument for Goodness.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-04, 10:28 PM
(I'm also baffled that people could even find his point of view sympathetic, honestly. He's a goblinoid supremacist - he's demonstrated a willingness to kill any number of innocents of other races, with no compunction at all, if it benefits goblinoids. He's basically the goblin version of Magneto.)

Well here is the thing:
If Redcloak was born human, nothing about his backstory changed just whether he was human or goblin?

He would be an adventurer, and not even a noteworthy one. His backstory of "some people killed my family and my village, I want revenge." wouldn't even be a backstory that most adventurers wouldn't even blink at. it wouldn't be creative or out of place at all. he'd fit right in with every single adventurer who kills monsters by the truckload and rationalizes it away as "they're goblins so its okay" which I've seen actual posters on this forum use an arguments along that line for having fun as an adventurer that way. he'd fit right in with every wizard PC that combines science and magic to do things that no one else even thinks to do, he'd be a model rules lawyer, he wouldn't stand out. At all.

The only thing keeping him from being that adventurer is that he is a goblin and therefore the thing that adventurers kill. At worst some people would snark at how paint-by-numbers his backstory would be, and he'd just go on the campaign as normal without any problems or any of his hate or rage. he'd still be racist against the monsters he kills, and there wouldn't be much outcry over it. after all, Belkar seems to be tolerated and allowed to be an adventurer despite him saying way back in comic 12 that he just thought they'd "wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they green skin and fangs and we don't and take their stuff." the party just gave him a glare then didn't follow up on it at all.

meanwhile the elves during the attempt to retake Azure City said "the only good goblins are dead goblins." then threw the hobgoblin off the building without a second thought. which is someone more than just Belkar tolerating this kind of racist attitude. didn't even give the hobgoblin a chance. can we really say that Redcloak isn't in some way not-so-different from the adventurers he fights? I don't think one can honestly say there is no similarities. it doesn't excuse his actions, or make him less sympathetic, but it is sad that he could've easily been someone else, someone better if the circumstances were different.

Ruck
2017-10-04, 10:37 PM
I'm also baffled that people could even find his point of view sympathetic, honestly.


Well, Redcloak is trying to right a horrible injustice.


That there is a genuine measure of justice in his cause makes him sympathetic

Well, all right, then.

goodpeople25
2017-10-04, 10:45 PM
Well here is the thing:
If Redcloak was born human, nothing about his backstory changed just whether he was human or goblin?

He would be an adventurer, and not even a noteworthy one. His backstory of "some people killed my family and my village, I want revenge." wouldn't even be a backstory that most adventurers wouldn't even blink at. it wouldn't be creative or out of place at all. he'd fit right in with every single adventurer who kills monsters by the truckload and rationalizes it away as "they're goblins so its okay" which I've seen actual posters on this forum use an arguments along that line for having fun as an adventurer that way. he'd fit right in with every wizard PC that combines science and magic to do things that no one else even thinks to do, he'd be a model rules lawyer, he wouldn't stand out. At all.

The only thing keeping him from being that adventurer is that he is a goblin and therefore the thing that adventurers kill. At worst some people would snark at how paint-by-numbers his backstory would be, and he'd just go on the campaign as normal without any problems or any of his hate or rage. he'd still be racist against the monsters he kills, and there wouldn't be much outcry over it. after all, Belkar seems to be tolerated and allowed to be an adventurer despite him saying way back in comic 12 that he just thought they'd "wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they green skin and fangs and we don't and take their stuff." the party just gave him a glare then didn't follow up on it at all.

meanwhile the elves during the attempt to retake Azure City said "the only good goblins are dead goblins." then threw the hobgoblin off the building without a second thought. which is someone more than just Belkar tolerating this kind of racist attitude. didn't even give the hobgoblin a chance. can we really say that Redcloak isn't in some way not-so-different from the adventurers he fights? I don't think one can honestly say there is no similarities. it doesn't excuse his actions, or make him less sympathetic, but it is sad that he could've easily been someone else, someone better if the circumstances were different.
So what actually does change in this scenario? Because I don't really see Redcloak's specific actions coming off much better in a direct flip. Also his backstory is a tad more complicated than "village was killed".

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-04, 10:46 PM
A habit of using evil means to achieve a good end is still evil. D&D alignment rules are clear enough on that point.

That there is a genuine measure of justice in his cause makes him sympathetic (perhaps), but does not automatically give him any leeway alignment-wise.


I agree. I was replying to the "I can't believe you even find him sympathetic, when he is totes racist" argument.

(Who also said "he's like Magneto!" when Magneto is one of the most commonly considered sympathetic villains ever.)

Lord Raziere
2017-10-04, 10:55 PM
So what actually does change in this scenario? Because I don't really see Redcloak's specific actions coming off much better in a direct flip. Also his backstory is a tad more complicated than "village was killed".

He doesn't meet Xykon, he doesn't get The Dark One as a god and from there he is just a normal human cleric, humanflipped, his backstory is pretty tame for an adventurer.

goodpeople25
2017-10-04, 11:21 PM
He doesn't meet Xykon, he doesn't get The Dark One as a god and from there he is just a normal human cleric, humanflipped, his backstory is pretty tame for an adventurer.
Okay? Fine I guess, just not exactly what I get from nothing about his backstory being changed and just seems like "if circumstances were different they'd be different".

Kish
2017-10-04, 11:51 PM
Human-Redcloak might well have been in Roy's first adventuring party.

(For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read On the Origins of PCs, that is not a statement that Human-Redcloak would be treated sympathetically by the narrative. Arguments that we should judge Redcloak by a standard which presumes that wanting revenge on an entire sapient race for one's village being wiped out is just normal have always been better applied to some other webcomic.)

Or to address the claim more specifically: Yes, you have a strong case to claim Redcloak is not-so-different from multiple characters who Rich has gone to great lengths to establish as horrible, but that claim would be to Redcloak's disfavor, not his favor; saying he could have been just like the elf who was introduced to have a suitably unsympathetic target for him to demonstrate Implosion on is saying he could have been someone worse if circumstances were different, not someone better.

factotum
2017-10-05, 03:58 AM
He doesn't meet Xykon, he doesn't get The Dark One as a god and from there he is just a normal human cleric, humanflipped, his backstory is pretty tame for an adventurer.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that human-Redcloak isn't evil, now does it? Adventurers can be evil just as much as anyone else--see a certain Belkar Bitterleaf of our acquaintance.

Synesthesy
2017-10-05, 04:54 AM
Well here is the thing:
If Redcloak was born human, nothing about his backstory changed just whether he was human or goblin?

He would be an adventurer, and not even a noteworthy one. His backstory of "some people killed my family and my village, I want revenge." wouldn't even be a backstory that most adventurers wouldn't even blink at. it wouldn't be creative or out of place at all. he'd fit right in with every single adventurer who kills monsters by the truckload and rationalizes it away as "they're goblins so its okay" which I've seen actual posters on this forum use an arguments along that line for having fun as an adventurer that way. he'd fit right in with every wizard PC that combines science and magic to do things that no one else even thinks to do, he'd be a model rules lawyer, he wouldn't stand out. At all.

The only thing keeping him from being that adventurer is that he is a goblin and therefore the thing that adventurers kill. At worst some people would snark at how paint-by-numbers his backstory would be, and he'd just go on the campaign as normal without any problems or any of his hate or rage. he'd still be racist against the monsters he kills, and there wouldn't be much outcry over it. after all, Belkar seems to be tolerated and allowed to be an adventurer despite him saying way back in comic 12 that he just thought they'd "wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they green skin and fangs and we don't and take their stuff." the party just gave him a glare then didn't follow up on it at all.

meanwhile the elves during the attempt to retake Azure City said "the only good goblins are dead goblins." then threw the hobgoblin off the building without a second thought. which is someone more than just Belkar tolerating this kind of racist attitude. didn't even give the hobgoblin a chance. can we really say that Redcloak isn't in some way not-so-different from the adventurers he fights? I don't think one can honestly say there is no similarities. it doesn't excuse his actions, or make him less sympathetic, but it is sad that he could've easily been someone else, someone better if the circumstances were different.

You made a point.

And if the Sapphire Guard were a goblinoids organization, would they still be lawful good?
Because one of the problem IMHO is that we know for world mechanics that some of the Sapphire Guard (like the ones in O-Chul's backstory) MUST be lawful good to be paladins, but I don't feel they are so.

The real speciest here is not Reddie or the Dark One, but who made the multiverse rule in that way. This is why I think that the Dark One, at least in theory, is right, and Redcloack with him. And I think that this is also one reason why O-Chul is so much loved, that I didn't understand well until the poll's thread about O-Chul, Reddie and V: O-Chul feels right, he IS the real lawful good.

Fyraltari
2017-10-05, 11:43 AM
O-Chul feels right, he IS the real lawful good.

Yes. O-Chul and Roy are truly good people while Miko and those in the SG like her, whoobeys le letter of the alignment but not the spirit, strike me more as what Gandalf feared the One Ring would turn him into : a corrupted version of good using righteousness to disguise evil.

Redcloak still is not lawful good though. Can you name a single unambiguously good act he has done ? (Not gobbotopia that is based on slavery and special prejudice).

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-10-05, 11:56 AM
Can you name a single unambiguously good act he has done ?

He took his nephews to the circus so his brother could get some quality time with his wife.

(That this was done while he was taking a break from the Plan strengthens the thesis he is Evil, mind you. But it is undoubtedly a Good act of minor self-sacrifice)

GW

martianmister
2017-10-05, 12:19 PM
This thread started off as a discussion of how RC is Good. Intentionally or not, that had the effect of begging for posters to dump on RC.

But no one is actually discussing whether or not he's LG in this thread, right? Most of discussion in this thread is about how much sympathy he deserves and gets.

Fyraltari
2017-10-05, 12:47 PM
He took his nephews to the circus so his brother could get some quality time with his wife.

(That this was done while he was taking a break from the Plan strengthens the thesis he is Evil, mind you. But it is undoubtedly a Good act of minor self-sacrifice)

GW

Fair Point. I stand corrected.
That is in Start of Darkness, I presume ?I just have to read this one before the next book starts.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-10-05, 12:54 PM
That is in Start of Darkness, I presume?

Indeed. A rather central scene for MitD, too.

As always I thoroughly recommend reading Start of Darkness. IMnpHO, the best book Rich has published.

Grey Wolf

Fyraltari
2017-10-05, 02:08 PM
Indeed. A rather central scene for MitD, too.

As always I thoroughly recommend reading Start of Darkness. IMnpHO, the best book Rich has published.

Grey Wolf

Damn that must be something to behold then.

Grey_Wolf_c
2017-10-05, 02:22 PM
Damn that must be something to behold then.

It is indeed, and what with the celebration of consumerism coming up at the end of December, what better time to gift yourself the book? If shipping costs are a concern (since I see you declare your location as France), I recommend the digital version (https://gumroad.com/richburlew) instead.

Grey Wolf

Fyraltari
2017-10-05, 02:37 PM
It is indeed, and what with the celebration of consumerism coming up at the end of December, what better time to gift yourself the book? If shipping costs are a concern (since I see you declare your location as France), I recommend the digital version (https://gumroad.com/richburlew) instead.

Grey Wolf

I definitely will, thanks for the link.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-05, 03:04 PM
Speaking of Redcloak and the PC's......

On the Origin of the PCs, he is the guy who does the preface, and he seems to have a low opinion of PCs. talks about them like prima donnas, that players are necessary evil at best, and that he'd rather have a world without them. though this might be Redcloak-As-Actor talking and not Redcloak-As-Character talking. its interesting to see nonetheless, though Miko's preface seems to hold herself very in character. so who knows.

as for adventurer alignment, in the Origin of the PCs, the paladin of the group pretty much implies that Roy should kill Durkon because he is annoying but doesn't do it himself because he has to maintain his lawful good alignment, while Roy keeps them all from killing a bunch of orcs who just want to see a rock concert, so there is precedent for Roy to be more than a common adventurer and actually solve situations rather than randomly killing people like a normal adventurer. So it'll very interesting when Roy finally learns why Redcloak is doing all this.

M Placeholder
2017-10-05, 04:45 PM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

Xykon was willing to sink to that level of depravity. Along with the other reasons, that's why Redcloak made Xykon a lich.

Also,
Xykon was chill with losing all his flesh - he couldn't get it up anymore as viagra doesn't exist in the OOTS-verse.

alwaysbebatman
2017-10-05, 05:18 PM
Speaking of Redcloak and the PC's...... there is precedent for Roy to be more than a common adventurer and actually solve situations rather than randomly killing people like a normal adventurer. So it'll very interesting when Roy finally learns why Redcloak is doing all this.

Yeah, this is a point that is minimized by a lot of people. Redcloak has made the wrong choice and the evil choice at every turn, but his objective has always been to destroy the institutional racism towards goblin-kind. And Roy's arch-enemy's quest for power has always been just a shell game tricking him into serving Redcloak's goals. And Roy has never had any clue of either of those facts that would be of great interest to him. It should be extremely interesting to see how he reacts...

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 05:30 PM
...his objective has always been to destroy the institutional racism towards goblin-kind.

That loses its impact when he's openly admitted to being OK with the complete destruction of all goblinoid life, so long as the Dark One gets his dues.

hroşila
2017-10-05, 06:02 PM
That loses its impact when he's openly admitted to being OK with the complete destruction of all goblinoid life, so long as the Dark One gets his dues.
That Redcloak and the Dark One chose a very questionable way to tackle the problem doesn't make the problem itself go away. Personally I've always thought the Order will learn what the Plan is about at some point, and I think Roy will sympathize with the goblinoids. After the Godsmoot, Odin's prophecy and Hel's shenanigans, I wouldn't be too surprised if Roy turned against the gods in some capacity, or if they all ended up dead when the story's over.

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 07:21 PM
That Redcloak and the Dark One chose a very questionable way to tackle the problem doesn't make the problem itself go away.

True, but it does have a nasty tendency to torpedo sympathy for a character like that, at least for me. I honestly have more sympathy for Xykon than I do for Redcloak. Xykon's lost so much based on a lie!

halfeye
2017-10-05, 07:41 PM
Which reminds me... was there a reason he made Xykon a Lich, instead of himself? Insufficient character level?

They were trapped underground, and needed to blast their way out, Redcloak is a cleric, and apparently couldn't use blasting spells at that time, where he got disintegrate from when they were at Girard's gate I don't know. Xykon was the only arcane caster, or maybe the only strong enough arcane caster available.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-05, 07:49 PM
That Redcloak and the Dark One chose a very questionable way to tackle the problem doesn't make the problem itself go away. Personally I've always thought the Order will learn what the Plan is about at some point, and I think Roy will sympathize with the goblinoids. After the Godsmoot, Odin's prophecy and Hel's shenanigans, I wouldn't be too surprised if Roy turned against the gods in some capacity, or if they all ended up dead when the story's over.

Nah, I don't think that rebellion will happen. sounds too much stupid pointless rebellion that would only lead to more problems than it would solve, and Rich has shown that he is far more savvy about the workings of power and politics than that. Don't get me wrong, I love a good rebellion against the gods story, but in OOTS? nothing but Girard paranoia about figures in power taken up to thirteen when it was already at eleven. you have to have a good dose of anime craziness to make that work, and OOTS is waaaaaay too sane and sober for that.


True, but it does have a nasty tendency to torpedo sympathy for a character like that, at least for me. I honestly have more sympathy for Xykon than I do for Redcloak. Xykon's lost so much based on a lie!

I'm not really sympathetic to Xykon, he is a psychopathic team-killing jerk and honestly kind of deserves everything thats coming to him. preferably in the most ironic way possible, because Xykon's entire story is basically "I hate wizards cause they keep talking down to me, I'm bored look at me fail at doing anything important on my own, oh hey a plot where I can rule the world with, that'll put me on the map." which created Roy as his enemy, who also dislikes a certain wizard talking down to him because he is a fighter. odd how this whole thing started because both the protagonist and the antagonist wanted to stick it to a wizard. Its arguably the one thing they can even agree upon but also the thing that caused them to be enemies in the first place. it'll be interesting to see Roys reaction to Xykon complaining about wizards, if that ever happens.

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 08:01 PM
I see Xykon as sympathetic because he's being led on by somebody who was ostensibly a fair and equal partner. I also see him as a guy lashing out because of a bad decision he made (becoming a lich), when he already had temperament problems before. He got power too early and never learned how to be responsible with it- partially because the guys who were supposed to do that were too snobby to recognize how powerful he really was. That makes me feel sorry for him.

And compared to Redcloak's "hey, let's kill everybody because my people are cosmically mistreated" shtick, Xykon seems a whole lot better. Xykon's not a hypocrite.



Edit: This isn't to say that I want Xykon to win or not get his comeuppance, obviously! Guy's a bad dude! I just find his course through life to be more reasonable, and because of that, more tragic. Redcloak was a loon the second he put on the Crimson Mantle, and from that scene in the cafe on, he'd lost me. Even when Xykon showed up again at Right-Eye's house, I felt bad for Right-Eye, not Redcloak.

hroşila
2017-10-05, 08:20 PM
Nah, I don't think that rebellion will happen. sounds too much stupid pointless rebellion that would only lead to more problems than it would solve, and Rich has shown that he is far more savvy about the workings of power and politics than that. Don't get me wrong, I love a good rebellion against the gods story, but in OOTS? nothing but Girard paranoia about figures in power taken up to thirteen when it was already at eleven. you have to have a good dose of anime craziness to make that work, and OOTS is waaaaaay too sane and sober for that.
Just to be clear, I'm not envisioning Roy and the Order revolting against the gods or fighting them in any actual way, but rather Roy deciding that, well, screw the gods, they had it coming. The gods would be destroyed by the Snarl as a direct consequence of how they're dealing with the Dark One's Plan.

Ruck
2017-10-05, 08:28 PM
I see Xykon as sympathetic because he's being led on by somebody who was ostensibly a fair and equal partner. I also see him as a guy lashing out because of a bad decision he made (becoming a lich), when he already had temperament problems before. He got power too early and never learned how to be responsible with it- partially because the guys who were supposed to do that were too snobby to recognize how powerful he really was. That makes me feel sorry for him.

And compared to Redcloak's "hey, let's kill everybody because my people are cosmically mistreated" shtick, Xykon seems a whole lot better. Xykon's not a hypocrite.



Edit: This isn't to say that I want Xykon to win or not get his comeuppance, obviously! Guy's a bad dude! I just find his course through life to be more reasonable, and because of that, more tragic. Redcloak was a loon the second he put on the Crimson Mantle, and from that scene in the cafe on, he'd lost me. Even when Xykon showed up again at Right-Eye's house, I felt bad for Right-Eye, not Redcloak.

That's funny, because based on Rich's introduction to Start of Darkness, I think you were supposed to have the exact opposite reaction.

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 08:55 PM
:smalleek: ...sorry, Giant! I didn't mean it! Honest!

Lord Raziere
2017-10-05, 09:08 PM
I see Xykon as sympathetic because he's being led on by somebody who was ostensibly a fair and equal partner. I also see him as a guy lashing out because of a bad decision he made (becoming a lich), when he already had temperament problems before. He got power too early and never learned how to be responsible with it- partially because the guys who were supposed to do that were too snobby to recognize how powerful he really was. That makes me feel sorry for him.

And compared to Redcloak's "hey, let's kill everybody because my people are cosmically mistreated" shtick, Xykon seems a whole lot better. Xykon's not a hypocrite.



Edit: This isn't to say that I want Xykon to win or not get his comeuppance, obviously! Guy's a bad dude! I just find his course through life to be more reasonable, and because of that, more tragic. Redcloak was a loon the second he put on the Crimson Mantle, and from that scene in the cafe on, he'd lost me. Even when Xykon showed up again at Right-Eye's house, I felt bad for Right-Eye, not Redcloak.

........No.....even at Redcloaks worst, he isn't Xykon. Xykon is a cartoon villain through and through, and the only vaguely sympathetic thing about him is coffee, finding a character more sympathetic simply because they're "honest" and not a "hypocrite" despite being eviller is to be frank not a very good line of reasoning. not being hypocritical or honest is a very selective virtue and dependent upon the situation. I wouldn't rely on them being good things. I would not confuse charisma for sympathy.


Just to be clear, I'm not envisioning Roy and the Order revolting against the gods or fighting them in any actual way, but rather Roy deciding that, well, screw the gods, they had it coming. The gods would be destroyed by the Snarl as a direct consequence of how they're dealing with the Dark One's Plan.

Again, that would be worse than just the world being destroyed, as the Snarl would have rifts to both the upper planes and prime material, assuming the Snarl stops there, all clerics lose their magic, no more healing for everyone and the afterlife becomes a chaotic mass where everyone's souls instantly gets obliterated, and the Snarl won't because it is a nonstop killing machine and will destroy the prime material as well, and thus no gods will remain to rebuild anything, game over, worst possible ending.

the Snarl does not have brakes. do not think that things will arbitrarily stop dying to it at a certain point. I mean what guy you going to call stop The Snarl? Michael McDoesn'texist?

Kish
2017-10-05, 09:16 PM
While I do not think you should feel obligated to have the subjective reactions the author indicates wanting to evoke, I do find the "ostensibly a fair and equal partner" complaint thoroughly misguided. I see no ambiguity that, as a human as much as as a lich, Xykon considered the arrangement to be not "we're fair and equal partners" but "I'm in charge and these goblins are my slaves, whom I will explain that to when I care enough to do so." Everything from him saying when accepting the Plan that he intended his legacy to be "ruled the whole damn world," with no mention of any place in his plans for partners, to his casually and deliberately Cloudkilling goblins for amusement points to it. Redcloak manipulated and used him, but the unfairness was always heavily weighted toward Xykon's side.

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 09:17 PM
........No.....even at Redcloaks worst, he isn't Xykon. Xykon is a cartoon villain through and through, and the only vaguely sympathetic thing about him is coffee, finding a character more sympathetic simply because they're "honest" and not a "hypocrite" despite being eviller is to be frank not a very good line of reasoning. not being hypocritical or honest is a very selective virtue and dependent upon the situation. I wouldn't rely on them being good things. I would not confuse charisma for sympathy.


I didn't find Xykon more sympathetic because he wasn't a hypocrite. I found Redcloak less sympathetic because of it. The sympathy I have for Xykon is because he grew up bad and stayed bad, and the people who might have changed him were terribly equipped to do it. That's sad to me.



While I do not think you should feel obligated to have the subjective reactions the author indicates wanting to evoke, I do find the "ostensibly a fair and equal partner" complaint thoroughly misguided. I see no ambiguity that, as a human as much as as a lich, Xykon considered the arrangement to be not "we're fair and equal partners" but "I'm in charge and these goblins are my slaves, whom I will explain that to when I care enough to do so." Everything from him saying when accepting the Plan that he intended his legacy to be "ruled the whole damn world," with no mention of any place in his plans for partners, to his casually and deliberately Cloudkilling goblins for amusement points to it. Redcloak manipulated and used him, but the unfairness was always heavily weighted toward Xykon's side.

I read that differently. To me, Xykon didn't start being the tyrannical boss of them all until the second diner scene, post-lichdom. During the initial deal, he seemed much more of a team player (happily agreeing to a discuss a land distribution agreement as part of the "nitpicky details"). Yeah, he was a team-killing maniac to the goblins as a whole, but to Redcloak, he was actually rather decent, at that point at least.

Snails
2017-10-05, 09:18 PM
meanwhile the elves during the attempt to retake Azure City said "the only good goblins are dead goblins." then threw the hobgoblin off the building without a second thought. which is someone more than just Belkar tolerating this kind of racist attitude. didn't even give the hobgoblin a chance. can we really say that Redcloak isn't in some way not-so-different from the adventurers he fights? I don't think one can honestly say there is no similarities. it doesn't excuse his actions, or make him less sympathetic, but it is sad that he could've easily been someone else, someone better if the circumstances were different.

There are some similiarities. If only Human RC had linked up with someone like Roy, yes, he could have easily been someone better. In fact, I quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the specific cause of establishing Humanotopia (or even Goblinotopia) by force of arms, if it were a singular notable event of bloodletting to solve a great injustice.

However, there is the torturing and attempting to feed prisoners to a mysterious soul eating god, in the aftermath of that grand success. And, well, the closest thing to a goblin Roy we ever met came to a bad end, with RC having a direct hand in that.

Keltest
2017-10-05, 09:32 PM
I read that differently. To me, Xykon didn't start being the tyrannical boss of them all until the second diner scene, post-lichdom. During the initial deal, he seemed much more of a team player (happily agreeing to a discuss a land distribution agreement as part of the "nitpicky details"). Yeah, he was a team-killing maniac to the goblins as a whole, but to Redcloak, he was actually rather decent, at that point at least.

Xykon may not have started actively exercising his power until then, but there was definitely an undertone of "we need to keep this guy pacified" during their every interaction.

B. Dandelion
2017-10-05, 09:40 PM
I read that differently. To me, Xykon didn't start being the tyrannical boss of them all until the second diner scene, post-lichdom. During the initial deal, he seemed much more of a team player (happily agreeing to a discuss a land distribution agreement as part of the "nitpicky details"). Yeah, he was a team-killing maniac to the goblins as a whole, but to Redcloak, he was actually rather decent, at that point at least.

But then he turned Redcloak into his slave. Moreover he didn't know that Redcloak had been acting in anything but 100% good faith on the capabilities of the Plan, so from his perspective he himself screwed over the "fair and equal partner" in the relationship. If turned out later that the guy he screwed over had in fact been deceiving him the whole time, why should he get sympathy credits for having been a "fair and equal partner" who was led on?


attempting to feed prisoners to a mysterious soul eating god, in the aftermath of that grand success.

Why do people say this? It's up there with "Redcloak helped enslave Right-Eye's village" in terms of things that are often alleged and completely wrong. He didn't attempt it, he threatened it, and was manifestly unwilling to actually carry out that threat.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-05, 09:51 PM
I didn't find Xykon more sympathetic because he wasn't a hypocrite. I found Redcloak less sympathetic because of it. The sympathy I have for Xykon is because he grew up bad and stayed bad, and the people who might have changed him were terribly equipped to do it. That's sad to me.

Not really, all the people who tried to change him were kind of arrogant wizards who kept talking down to him despite knowing that talking down to any spellcaster is probably a bad idea given how strong magic is. like, they should know that the T1-T2 difference only exists when you gather enough spells to make it a real difference, and prepare that as much as you can. it takes work. its not just something you have right off the bat. and its not really sad when Xykon isn't a guy needing help, he was a danger who was killing and zombifying his own grandma, he was already a murderer by the time the xavier knockoff came. then he killed his parents without a second thought after killing the xavier clone. at that point its less sad and more that this wizard was a colossal idiot for not opening with a fireball to fry Xykon immediately.

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 09:57 PM
But then he turned Redcloak into his slave. Moreover he didn't know that Redcloak had been acting in anything but 100% good faith on the capabilities of the Plan, so from his perspective he himself screwed over the "fair and equal partner" in the relationship. If turned out later that the guy he screwed over had in fact been deceiving him the whole time, why should he get sympathy credits for having been a "fair and equal partner" who was led on?

Maybe, but I see that as more of angry lashing out because of what had happened to him. Revoke the sympathy credits for that part if you want, I still feel bad for somebody who never even got the chance to be good. Heck, if we wanna get all meta with it, that seems even more cosmically imbalanced than what the goblinoids got stuck with. It's one thing for the gods to give you the short end of the stick, but it's a whole other thing for the author to do it :smalltongue:

Can't we just agree that Right-Eye is just, like, the best, and leave it at that?

Kish
2017-10-05, 09:57 PM
I read that differently. To me, Xykon didn't start being the tyrannical boss of them all until the second diner scene, post-lichdom. During the initial deal, he seemed much more of a team player (happily agreeing to a discuss a land distribution agreement as part of the "nitpicky details"). Yeah, he was a team-killing maniac to the goblins as a whole, but to Redcloak, he was actually rather decent, at that point at least.
As I said, I find that reading incomprehensible. The "nitpicky details" line strikes me as all but saying, "This won't actually come up, because if you actually think you're going to survive once I no longer need you you're crazy."

Let me ask you something. You say that he was a team-killing maniac to the goblins as a whole but "actually rather decent" to Redcloak. My question is: Why? Why would he treat Redcloak with the regard you agree he wasn't showing "the goblins as a whole"? Is there anything more to it than "unlike Redcloak and his brother, he didn't turn to the camera and spell out 'I'm not trustworthy here'"?

Potatomade
2017-10-05, 10:00 PM
Ok, ok, I concede, can everybody just go back to talking about how Redcloak's horrible again? I can't fight like 6 people at once!

hroşila
2017-10-06, 03:57 AM
Again, that would be worse than just the world being destroyed, as the Snarl would have rifts to both the upper planes and prime material, assuming the Snarl stops there, all clerics lose their magic, no more healing for everyone and the afterlife becomes a chaotic mass where everyone's souls instantly gets obliterated, and the Snarl won't because it is a nonstop killing machine and will destroy the prime material as well, and thus no gods will remain to rebuild anything, game over, worst possible ending.

the Snarl does not have brakes. do not think that things will arbitrarily stop dying to it at a certain point. I mean what guy you going to call stop The Snarl? Michael McDoesn'texist?
First of all, that's assuming the last Gate is destroyed; it's perfectly possible that the Plan will succeed to a certain degree. The Snarl can't shift planes: if he's stuck in a god's plane, that should be it. Also, I'm not convinced that non-theistic clerics would lose their magic, since it seems to be as much a part of the world as created as the clerics themselves, but even if divine magic itself disappeared, that would only mean there'd be a transition to a more realistic world.