Redcloak's Name

[LadyEowyn]

One of the things that always jumps out at me when I re-read Start of Darkness is that when Redcloak first meets the MITD - at a time when Xykon is not in the picture, and hasn't been around for a few years - he introduces himself as Redcloak. There's no reason for him to conceal his actual name at that point, which makes me wonder: has Redcloak forgotten his real name? He has, after all, spent decades being called "Redcloak", without his actual name ever being used. And it would emphasize his disconnect with anything outside of his greater strategic objectives, with the cloak literally representing the Plan.

The alternative, out-of-story explanation is that the readers know him as Redcloak, so that's just what he's called for in-comic purposes. But I find an in-universe explanation plausible, and it adds another tragic note to his character.

Related question: Do you think we'll every learn Redcloak's real name? I'm much more curious about that than about something meaningless like, say, V's gender.

[Morty]

I think it's entirely possible, given the emphasis SoD gave Right-Eye calling him "Redcloak" instead of "brother". The name is an artifact of the comic's transition from a gag-a-day strip to an actual story, but it was given actual significance. So I wouldn't be surprised if it came up in Redcloak's arc, whatever it might be.

[Talion]

My gut reaction was that "Red Cloak" was used in that instance as a dig at MitD's childish mentality. This would have been interesting as a compare and contrast to Xykon. However, the name is given before Red Cloak has had in-person opportunity to get that sort of gauge until a few panels into said comic. At least, to the best of our knowledge and assuming that the family didn't talk too much about MitD before RC got stuck with baby sitter duty. So honestly I don't know what to make of it. It could be any one of a half a dozen things.

[Emanick]

If we do learn Redcloak's name at some point, it might be from Redcloak's niece. She probably knows his real name.

[Kantaki]

I seriously doubt we will ever learn Redcloak's original name.
Mostly because there's only one person left who definitely knows it and I think Redcloak desperately wants to leave that part of him in the past.
Although I doubt he's truly forgotten it he certainly might want to.

In a sense the last remnant of the Goblin now known as Redcloak died when he murdered his brother.

The only way I see the name coming up is by Redcloak reclaiming it as part of some kind of redemption and/or rebellion against big X.
And neither seems particularly likely at this juncture.

For the current story it is about as important as V's gender.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I seriously doubt we will ever learn Redcloak's original name.

For the current story it is about as important as V's gender.

The counter argument is that if RC's birth name was unimportant to the current story, there would have been no reason not to give us the name in SoD. The fact we were not told makes it feel like it might become an important plot point in the main story.

GW

[hroþila]

I think "keeping things simple by not giving one of the main antagonists a new (and fairly complicated) name at this point in the story" might have been enough of a reason. In-story, I doubt Redcloak has forgotten his real name, but he seems to like his nickname, despite Right-Eye's objections, and sees it as his nom de guerre, not as a demeaning title for Xykon to use because he wouldn't want to learn his real name. If so, it makes perfect sense to use it with strangers too.

[Goblin_Priest]

The counter argument is that if RC's birth name was unimportant to the current story, there would have been no reason not to give us the name in SoD. The fact we were not told makes it feel like it might become an important plot point in the main story.

GW

While that's a persuasive, how *could* his name matter in any way?

On the other hand, hiding it from us does reinforce how "Redcloak" is what his is, what he has been for some time, and what he will be. It's not just a nickname, not just a part-time occupation, he IS "Redcloak", the bearer of the crimson mantle, and he's that 100% of the time. Anything outside of the scope of the Plan, like whatever his name used to be, is of no importance.

Giving us him name would dilute that. People would refer to him by that name. And he wouldn't just the bearer of the Plan, but also some flesh and blood mundane goblin from some flesh and blood mundane goblin family, with a past, emotions, aspirations, etc., beyond just the Plan.

[Peelee]

The counter argument is that if RC's birth name was unimportant to the current story, there would have been no reason not to give us the name in SoD.

Counter-counter argument! The same could be said of Right-Eye, whose birth name is unimportant to the story.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While that's a persuasive, how *could* his name matter in any way?
Do I look like the author of a very successful webcomic to you? (Hint: I am most definitely not). To an author, hidden information is their bread and butter of future revelations. There are endless ways in which Rich could make use of it.


On the other hand, hiding it from us does reinforce how "Redcloak" is what his is, what he has been for some time, and what he will be. It's not just a nickname, not just a part-time occupation, he IS "Redcloak", the bearer of the crimson mantle, and he's that 100% of the time. Anything outside of the scope of the Plan, like whatever his name used to be, is of no importance.
Certainly. And how would it affect him, if someone from his past insisted on reminding him of the person he used to be? That's good drama right there. For example (and there are endless other ways this could go): RC reacts to a goblin in Oona's village strangely. he becomes pensive for a good reason, like the goblin having a clue about the caves, but in the fullness it turns out that RC reacted to the name, not the actual goblin, because he happens to have been named the same. This triggers RC to start realising the same things Right-Eye pointed at him, furthering RC's path to truly contemplate the consequences of the Plan. But to keep us in the dark and keep us guessing, we can't know RC's birth name, or the surprise would be ruined.


Counter-counter argument! The same could be said of Right-Eye, whose birth name is unimportant to the story.
Counter-counter-counter argument! If Rich gave us RE's name and not RC's, it'd look a lot more suspicious. As it stands, the above idea that Rich is purposely keeping the name under wraps for future plot reasons is a possibility, but hardly a certainty.

(And yes, if I wasn't clear enough, I am not saying I'm going to be right about all of this, just that there is an argument to be made)

GW

[Peelee]

Counter-counter-counter argument! If Rich gave us RE's name and not RC's, it'd look a lot more suspicious. As it stands, the above idea that Rich is purposely keeping the name under wraps for future plot reasons is a possibility, but hardly a certainty.

Counter-counter-counter-counter argument! I'm thinking of redoing my kitchen and putting in new counters. I like the black Galaxy quartz. I know everyone says that granite is the way to go, but it's my house dammit.

Also, you have a good argument.

[factotum]

The counter argument is that if RC's birth name was unimportant to the current story, there would have been no reason not to give us the name in SoD.

Unless, of course, the reason not to give us his real name is because the Giant has never actually bothered to decide what it is, because it's entirely unimportant and irrelevant?

[Lord Raziere]

Technically none of the main characters of Team Evil have told anyone their real name.

Xykon? something he made up when he was a teenager right before murdering his family and taking off.

Monster-San is just what O-Chul refers to that guy as, he might not even have a name.

and Redcloak pretty much went with the name because the other guy who told his real long name to Xykon- BEFORE Xykon became a lich mind you- got casually blasted to death because it was too long for Xykon to remember. Redcloak said the monikers so that Xykon would remember them and not be tempted to do the same to them. who knows? Redcloak may still be keeping his name "Redcloak" so that Xykon doesn't kill him.

its certainly odd that Rich chose for them all to not have real names. I don't know if it has any meaning or not. maybe its a comment upon their identities? Xykon is just some cool sounding gibberish, just like Xykon is ultimately a charismatic, cool but shallow sorcerer who just there to quip, deal out evil lectures and kick ass. Monster-San is as vague as the darkness around him, put on him by someone else and thus like his entire existence, he is mostly a servant of others and thus his identity is really not much developed. Redcloak reflects his utter commitment to his plan no matter what, despite all the risks he is taking that could destroy all reality. none of them have real names, because none of them have a healthy form of identity that allows them to be anything else.

[martianmister]

His name isn't Reed Kulak?

[Fyraltari]

Obviously, his name is "Goblin Cleric from strip #23, panel 3".

[Hamste]

Is it possible that goblins (like the race not the umbrella term of goblins that includes hobgoblin and bugbears) don't get names and only ever get nicknames? Does any goblin get a name in any of the books? We see Goblin Dan but given the name includes goblin in it, that might just be a nickname or a name chosen for the restaurant.

[hroþila]

Is it possible that goblins (like the race not the umbrella term of goblins that includes hobgoblin and bugbears) don't get names and only ever get nicknames? Does any goblin get a name in any of the books? We see Goblin Dan but given the name includes goblin in it, that might just be a nickname.
SoD gives us the names of several members of Right-Eye's family: his wife was Aliyara, his sons were Ridiziak and Eriaxnikol.

[Quebbster]

Is it possible that goblins (like the race not the umbrella term of goblins that includes hobgoblin and bugbears) don't get names and only ever get nicknames? Does any goblin get a name in any of the books? We see Goblin Dan but given the name includes goblin in it, that might just be a nickname or a name chosen for the restaurant.
Jirix has a name.

[Hamste]

Jirix has a name.

Jirix is a hobgoblin not a goblin.

That said we have three named goblins so that theory doesn't work unless they died soon after revealing their name.

[Morty]

The in-universe reason Redcloak calls himself that is because he'd seen Xykon kill a lizardfolk chieftain for having a name that was too long to remember.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak is saving that reveal for an emergency, of course.

Now, plot-wise, ever since Redcloak donned the crimson mantle, he has viewed himself just as the bearer of the crimson mantle and nothing else. He doesn't views himself as a free-willed individual but as a pawn of the Dark One. So the point at which it becomes relevant for him to revert to his real name, will be the point at when he decides to definitely dispose of The Plan and Xykon, and redefine himself as an individual and not as just a pawn of the Dark One.

The way I see it played is: Hell-face turn(1), Xykon is twarted, Redcloak lays mortally wounded, last words(2), two X in his eyes. With the reveal of the name coming at (1) or (2) depending on when it will be more dramatically appropiate for The Giant to emphatise the point that Redcloak has fully regained his sense of individuality.

[Kish]

I remember reading on this site that Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster, while Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.
By the same token, Intelligence is knowing that Redcloak isn't the redcloaked goblin's real name. Wisdom is knowing that Redcloak is the redcloaked goblin's real name.

[ti'esar]

I remember reading on this site that Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster, while Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.
By the same token, Intelligence is knowing that Redcloak isn't the redcloaked goblin's real name. Wisdom is knowing that Redcloak is the redcloaked goblin's real name.

Which brings us back full circle to the OP, really. I'm not sure he's literally forgotten it, but the distinction is kind of moot at this point.

[wumpus]

Redcloak is saving that reveal for an emergency, of course.

Now, plot-wise, ever since Redcloak donned the crimson mantle, he has viewed himself just as the bearer of the crimson mantle and nothing else. He doesn't views himself as a free-willed individual but as a pawn of the Dark One.

The crimson mantle is a god produced artifact. I'd assume that it had more in the say of Redcloak's future as its bearer than the goblin later known as Redcloak ever had. Did he have many levels in cleric when he first wore it?

[georgie_leech]

The crimson mantle is a god produced artifact. I'd assume that it had more in the say of Redcloak's future as its bearer than the goblin later known as Redcloak ever had. Did he have many levels in cleric when he first wore it?

Not even a little bit. He was new to the whole Cleric gig, and his sole qualification was "alive when the previous bearer wasn't."

[Kish]

I think it's real unlikely that Rich is going to do any form of "Redcloak isn't actually a character," whether "god produced artifact" sounds more impressive than "goblin" or not.

[martianmister]

Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.

In which way?

[Hamste]

In which way?

Victor Frankenstein was a terrible person in the book, he created intelligent life and then immediately rejected it when it didn't satisfy him. He also was very indecisive and went back on promises. He tried to hide behind righteousness but very rarely did anything good.

Of course the monster was pretty monstrous by the end as well but at least they got rejected so many times before they started murdering people.

It should also be noted that Victor was the person who told the entire story to the ship captain so if he looked terrible in his own telling of the story he was probably even worse than he seems.

The idea seems to be, intelligence is knowing facts, wisdom is reading the story and putting together that Victor was a monster.

[schmunzel]

I remember reading on this site that Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster, while Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.
By the same token, Intelligence is knowing that Redcloak isn't the redcloaked goblin's real name. Wisdom is knowing that Redcloak is the redcloaked goblin's real name.

Intelligence is knowing that Goblins arnt per se anymore a danger than any other free willed intelligent beeing. That they can make choices in their life and thus do not need to be the enemy.

Wisdom is to realize that above words are nice and pompous and only last to the next Goblin who uses you as his temporary dagger reposit as he was freewilled and made a choice to be your enemy.

thus in your context intelligence means to realize that redcloak is not his real name, whereas wisdom would say that for our intent and purpose his name is as real as it can possibly get.




The idea seems to be, intelligence is knowing facts, wisdom is reading the story and putting together that Victor was a monster.

I would go so far as to say that wisdom is the ability to see a greater whole and how your facts stand in regard to the world around you. Although in my book intelligence is a prerequisite for wisdom. Or in other words, wisdom is just a different form of (not necessarily logical) intelligence.
So Victor made his creation a monster because he failed to see that it was human and had human needs. like being loved and needed and respected and whatever.
It does not necessarily make the monsters creator a monster himself (there might a good reason he is not able to see it), albeit from the Monsters point of view that might be a moot discussion.

sch

[martianmister]

Victor Frankenstein was a terrible person in the book, he created intelligent life and then immediately rejected it when it didn't satisfy him. He also was very indecisive and went back on promises. He tried to hide behind righteousness but very rarely did anything good.

He might be irresponsible about the monster, but at least he wasn't a murderer that killed innocent people because of daddy issues.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In which way?

In the same way that "gay" means "homosexual" and not "happy". I.e. the reasonable expectation that when used in everyday conversation, most people when referring to the character "Frankenstein" mean and are understood to mean the monster, and not its creator.

Alternatively: Intelligence is the ability to understand what a person said. Wisdom is the ability to understand what a person meant.

GW

[NamonakiRei]

I think my favorite definition is: Intelligence is knowing Tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is knowing one shouldn't use Tomato in a fruit salad.
D&D-wise, I personally see Intelligence as Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical (and maybe Musical?) intelligences, and Wistom as Existential, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalist and Spatial intelligences, the last two because Survival uses WIS.

More on-topic, I've been thinking about this lately, and I really do hope the birth name of the Goblin who's become Redcloak is revealed. After all, the character I've always and will likely always root for is that kid who just wanted to improve the community and saw his home brutally massacred around him on a day that should've been happy and special, not necessarily the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, Redcloak.

I haven't seen this mentioned, but it's an interesting parallel:

In The Dark One's story we learn his name was lost to the ages, and by when he assembled his army and united the Goblnoid tribes, he was known only as The Dark One. He was even said to have Class Levels and the Elite Array of ability scores.
We don't know if Redcloak has the Elite Array, and if it were as impressive as it is implied by he and his Little Brother to be, they probably would've noted on it at some point, but he definitely has Class Levels, 17 by now, being probably one of the highest level clerics of the OotS-world, and his name has also been lost to time, with maybe one person alive who knows it. He also assembled an army that unites at least 2 kinds of goblinoids, and even made a recognized sovereign country.

[Werbaer]

I.e. the reasonable expectation that when used in everyday conversation, most people when referring to the character "Frankenstein" mean and are understood to mean the monster, and not its creator.
I never heard of this usage. But the english wiki supports this ("Frankenstein's monster, sometimes known as Frankenstein [...]"). So it must be a cultural (US?) thing.

[Peelee]

I never heard of this usage. But the english wiki supports this ("Frankenstein's monster, sometimes known as Frankenstein [...]"). So it must be a cultural (US?) thing.

What happens if you do a GIS for Frankenstein?

[Kish]

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant that Dr. Victor Frankenstein is the most monstrous character in the novel Frankenstein. Just as Redcloak's real name, not given to him by his parents but earned by wrongs culminating in the murder of his brother, is Redcloak.

[Goblin_Priest]

Do I look like the author of a very successful webcomic to you? (Hint: I am most definitely not). To an author, hidden information is their bread and butter of future revelations. There are endless ways in which Rich could make use of it.


Certainly. And how would it affect him, if someone from his past insisted on reminding him of the person he used to be? That's good drama right there. For example (and there are endless other ways this could go): RC reacts to a goblin in Oona's village strangely. he becomes pensive for a good reason, like the goblin having a clue about the caves, but in the fullness it turns out that RC reacted to the name, not the actual goblin, because he happens to have been named the same. This triggers RC to start realising the same things Right-Eye pointed at him, furthering RC's path to truly contemplate the consequences of the Plan. But to keep us in the dark and keep us guessing, we can't know RC's birth name, or the surprise would be ruined.


Counter-counter-counter argument! If Rich gave us RE's name and not RC's, it'd look a lot more suspicious. As it stands, the above idea that Rich is purposely keeping the name under wraps for future plot reasons is a possibility, but hardly a certainty.

(And yes, if I wasn't clear enough, I am not saying I'm going to be right about all of this, just that there is an argument to be made)

GW

I'm not saying the reveal wouldn't have importance, but the name itself. I mean, he could be named Bob, and the reveal could trigger a dramatic event, but I can't see Bob being any more or less special George, or anything else. I mean, we don't have any references that could be meaningful, as far as I know.

As for not knowing Team Evil's names, we know Oona's? And for the parallel, I would count the bugbears as being rallied to Redcloak's plans, given the aid for Kraagor's gate.

[Fincher]

I'm not saying the reveal wouldn't have importance, but the name itself. I mean, he could be named Bob, and the reveal could trigger a dramatic event, but I can't see Bob being any more or less special George, or anything else. I mean, we don't have any references that could be meaningful, as far as I know.

His real name is...Roy Greenhilt! Dun dun dun!

[Morty]

Trying to nail down the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom is a lost cause. Wisdom is a grab-bag of different mental faculties that don't quite fit Intelligence and Charisma. Except when they do, but they're in Wisdom anyway, for game balance purposes. Or because they've always been there.

That aside, I agree that at this point, who's to say Redcloak's real name isn't Redcloak? He's been using it far longer than whatever name his parents gave him. All but one of the people who actually knew it are dead... one of them by his own hand and many others through his choices. He chose to be Redcloak.

[factotum]

All but one of the people who actually knew it are dead... one of them by his own hand and many others through his choices.

And we don't actually know that one is still alive anyway. I'm not sure how she could come back into the story at this point--it seems very unlikely she's going to be wandering around the Arctic, and we don't know where else Team Evil are likely to go after that.

[B. Dandelion]

One of the things that always jumps out at me when I re-read Start of Darkness is that when Redcloak first meets the MITD - at a time when Xykon is not in the picture, and hasn't been around for a few years - he introduces himself as Redcloak. There's no reason for him to conceal his actual name at that point, which makes me wonder: has Redcloak forgotten his real name? He has, after all, spent decades being called "Redcloak", without his actual name ever being used. And it would emphasize his disconnect with anything outside of his greater strategic objectives, with the cloak literally representing the Plan.

The alternative, out-of-story explanation is that the readers know him as Redcloak, so that's just what he's called for in-comic purposes. But I find an in-universe explanation plausible, and it adds another tragic note to his character.

Well, my in-universe take would be this: When Redcloak showed up at Right-Eye's village, he'd hit a massive low point in his life's work and was in serious denial about it. The entire Plan had been stalled out for well over twenty years since Lirian's Gate had burned down. None of the other leads on Gates had panned out, Xykon had vanished years ago, and while Redcloak still had hopes of getting things restarted, he was not making any traction with Right-Eye and was otherwise scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas. The big one being to recruit the Monster because he was powerful and scary-looking, although how that was going to help Redcloak find a Gate is beyond me. So basically Redcloak desperately wants to make the Plan relevant again and recruiting the Monster is key to that, and he goes in with "they call me Redcloak" because that's part of his pitch as well as his own declaration of commitment to a project nobody else is really taking seriously anymore. He hadn't actually forgotten his given name, he was just trying to make an obstinate statement in the face of overwhelming reality.


Related question: Do you think we'll every learn Redcloak's real name? I'm much more curious about that than about something meaningless like, say, V's gender.

I would certainly like to. I can't say for sure of course, but I think the odds would be fairly decent on it. Certainly higher than discovering Xykon's real name, but lower than finding out what the Monster is (100% certainty on that). I think it's fair to say "Redcloak" really is his name after Start of Darkness, but his story or growth didn't conclude there. I don't think Redcloak truly enjoys being Redcloak, and I think we have cause to wonder at this point whether his commitment to the Plan itself might not be as strong as it was when he first met the Monster in the Darkness. His dedication to Gobbotopia was above and beyond the Plan, and in fact could rightly be said to have hurt the Plan by delaying their departure for so many months that the Order of the Stick was able to regroup and beat them to the next Gate. His commitment to Xykon is also not necessarily what it was, and the phylactery swap means Redcloak's ultimate betrayal literally is a matter of when not if. Exploring the name issue as a metaphor for identity and loyalty in conflict honesty sounds interesting to me, and there are lots of ways the issue could come up.

[Werbaer]

What happens if you do a GIS for Frankenstein?
Don't know. What's GIS in this context?
Neither google nor wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIS_(disambiguation)) suggest anything that sounds like it's fitting.

[factotum]

Don't know. What's GIS in this context?

Google Image Search?

[Morty]

And we don't actually know that one is still alive anyway. I'm not sure how she could come back into the story at this point--it seems very unlikely she's going to be wandering around the Arctic, and we don't know where else Team Evil are likely to go after that.

It would be an awfully specific detail to bring up and then pass over. Right-Eye told Redcloak that one of his daughters is still alive and raised by humans, while the rest of his family died. And so did he shortly afterwards. It would be unlikely for her to just "wander around" the Arctic, but if she does appear in the story, I suspect she'll have an actual reason.

[Peelee]

Don't know. What's GIS in this context?
Neither google nor wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIS_(disambiguation)) suggest anything that sounds like it's fitting.

Sorry. Google Image Search. I'm wondering if it's an American thing whether different countries will yield different search results.

[ti'esar]

It would be an awfully specific detail to bring up and then pass over. Right-Eye told Redcloak that one of his daughters is still alive and raised by humans, while the rest of his family died. And so did he shortly afterwards. It would be unlikely for her to just "wander around" the Arctic, but if she does appear in the story, I suspect she'll have an actual reason.

I've noted in the past that it seems entirely possibly that Right-Eye's daughter is not a plot point, but rather merely a way of mitigating how tragically things turned out for him. Not saying it's definitely the case, but I don't think it's quite as glaringly a dangling plot point as some people think. Like has been discussed, it's possible that the goblin who is in any real sense her uncle is completely dead by now. (Although again, I think that's going too far).

[martianmister]

In the same way that "gay" means "homosexual" and not "happy". I.e. the reasonable expectation that when used in everyday conversation, most people when referring to the character "Frankenstein" mean and are understood to mean the monster, and not its creator.

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant that Dr. Victor Frankenstein is the most monstrous character in the novel Frankenstein. Just as Redcloak's real name, not given to him by his parents but earned by wrongs culminating in the murder of his brother, is Redcloak.

See, that's why I said "in which way?" back then. And also, no, Victor is not a serial killer. Claiming that he's more monstrous is like claiming that Redcloak is more monstrous than Xykon because he created him.

[Morty]

I've noted in the past that it seems entirely possibly that Right-Eye's daughter is not a plot point, but rather merely a way of mitigating how tragically things turned out for him. Not saying it's definitely the case, but I don't think it's quite as glaringly a dangling plot point as some people think. Like has been discussed, it's possible that the goblin who is in any real sense her uncle is completely dead by now. (Although again, I think that's going too far).

Maybe, but that doesn't feel very meaningful, since he still tried to kill Xykon and resented Redcloak for indirectly causing it to happen. So the tragedy, or his reaction to it, wasn't really mitigated. And if the goblin she very briefly knew as her uncle is dead, then that's significant in itself. She's the last remnant of Redcloak's old life, such as it was. He sees his dead brother every time he looks in the mirror, but that would be something a lot more real.

I'm not saying it will happen or even that it should. But it makes sense to me, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't.

[D.One]

What if it's revealed that his birth name is something like Kaalshuush, and that, in the goblin language, it means "Red Cloak"?:smallbiggrin:

[Synesthesy]

I don't think that Redcloak, as Xykon, has a real name that we'll learn somehow. And if we learn it, it can be meaningless: a goblinoid word has no meaning at all, a name like another neither. Redcloak true name is Redcloak, whatever name was used before he choose this name for himself.

A part from the Giant, that is not known for giving meaningless detail to us curious reader just for the sake of curiosity, there is a rational point: if Redcloak original name mean something to him, why isn't he using it within Gobbotopia?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't think that Redcloak, as Xykon, has a real name that we'll learn somehow. And if we learn it, it can be meaningless: a goblinoid word has no meaning at all, a name like another neither. Redcloak true name is Redcloak, whatever name was used before he choose this name for himself.
Few birth names ever have "meaning" (which here I'm guessing it is meant to indicate some form of intrinsic "demonstrates a characteristic of the individual"), and those that do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym) usually are due to sheer chance. But it could have significant personal meaning to RC, and if introduced to the narrative, it would definitely have significant meaning from the perspective of the story itself.


A part from the Giant, that is not known for giving meaningless detail to us curious reader just for the sake of curiosity, there is a rational point: if Redcloak original name mean something to him, why isn't he using it within Gobbotopia?

Because he currently is RedCloak. Whatever his birthname represented he has long since abandoned it. But I already presented a scenario in which RC could be confronted with his long-abandoned birth name and at that point it would start having a meaning again. There are multitude such scenarios, any of which could be used by Rich. Which, to be absolutely clear, I am NOT saying he will (but equally, I am not saying he won't).

Grey Wolf

[Chei]

Not even a little bit. He was new to the whole Cleric gig, and his sole qualification was "alive when the previous bearer wasn't."

Well, he had at least 1 cleric level, which is in fact a little bit. And that little bit counted. He killed a paladin and saved his brother... for later.

[Synesthesy]

Few birth names ever have "meaning" (which here I'm guessing it is meant to indicate some form of intrinsic "demonstrates a characteristic of the individual"), and those that do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym) usually are due to sheer chance. But it could have significant personal meaning to RC, and if introduced to the narrative, it would definitely have significant meaning from the perspective of the story itself.



Because he currently is RedCloak. Whatever his birthname represented he has long since abandoned it. But I already presented a scenario in which RC could be confronted with his long-abandoned birth name and at that point it would start having a meaning again. There are multitude such scenarios, any of which could be used by Rich. Which, to be absolutely clear, I am NOT saying he will (but equally, I am not saying he won't).

Grey Wolf

Here online, we know that things like Synesthesy or Grey Wolf tell a lot more about ourselves then our birthname. For Redcloak, it's the same.

I still think that knowing Redcloak birthname would have no meaning, because knowing he's called Readsafasas that in ancient goblinoids means something nice or important, doesn't have any more meaning that knowing that my real birthname means "boss" in ancient greek. And knowing that he's called I don't know, Alfred Armstrong? Nothing again.

While I agree that it may (or may not) come a day when Redcloak will confront with who was before the plan even started, I don't think it'll involve a single word with a capital letter to call who Redcloak was.

[Hackman]

I think it's real unlikely that Rich is going to do any form of "Redcloak isn't actually a character," whether "god produced artifact" sounds more impressive than "goblin" or not.


I remember reading on this site that Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster, while Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.
By the same token, Intelligence is knowing that Redcloak isn't the redcloaked goblin's real name. Wisdom is knowing that Redcloak is the redcloaked goblin's real name.

Pedantry is knowing that as a scion of Viktor Frankenstein, the monster would also be called Frankenstein.

[Kish]

Here online, we know that things like Synesthesy or Grey Wolf tell a lot more about ourselves then our birthname.
On the Internet, everyone knows you're a grey wolf.

[Fyraltari]

Pedantry is knowing that as a scion of Viktor Frankenstein, the monster would also be called Frankenstein.

Nitpickery isknowing the creature would not want to be called that.

[The MunchKING]

Pedantry is knowing that as a scion of Viktor Frankenstein, the monster would also be called Frankenstein.

Further Pedantry would ask what the laws are in the time and place where the Frankenstein's experiments took place.

[LadyEowyn]

There are not and never have been real-world laws regarding the surnames of artificially-created entities, as there has never yet been a situation in which such laws would be relevant.

And this 'Frankenstein' discussion seems like a departure from the topic.

[georgie_leech]

There are not and never have been real-world laws regarding the surnames of artificially-created entities, as there has never yet been a situation in which such laws would be relevant.

And this 'Frankenstein' discussion seems like a departure from the topic.

Truly, let us get back to the topic of discussing the fictional name of a character in a webcomic, rather than the the fictional name of a character in a novel.

[Jasdoif]

Truly, let us get back to the topic of discussing the fictional name of a character in a webcomic, rather than the the fictional name of a character in a novel.I think Glove and Boots answered the Frankenstein question pretty well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO39Ss256ws&feature=youtu.be&t=247), anyway. Much like Redcloak, he's not just a monster, he's his own person. And "Frankenstein's metal cover band bassist" hasn't stopped being funny in the past few years.