Redemption for Redcloak?

[Takver]

(Some spoilers for Start of Darkness here and probably throughout the thread.)

Before this latest run of comics I would have said for sure that Redcloak is going to die some kind of karmic death and ultimately be a complete failure. Gobbotopia may last and the goblins ought to achieve some form of equality, but Redcloak would be separate from that, as a hypocrite for whom any number of actual goblin lives could be sacrificed for the sake of hypothetical goblin futures. He sold his soul to Xykon. I would never have thought he would be redeemed.

But now with the revelations in 1141-1143, it sounds like Redcloak will be instrumental to saving the world. I mean, that's Thor's plan. No matter how reluctant or cynical or mistrusting Redcloak is, if he chooses to cooperate, that would be a redemptive act. I feel like his odds of survival just went up.

How do you think the story will balance things between Redcloak saving the world and having to pay for his evilness? Do you think he'll ever have to reckon with his hypocrisy and the damage he did to his people by aligning them with Xykon? And how do you think Redcloak gets from where he is now, to cooperating with the good guys?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Redcloak has a massive sunk cost thing going with The Plan. He values completing it more than anything. Agreeing to help seal the rifts means abandoning the plan. It's difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that could lead to him making that decision. And remember that he has no interest in saving the world either, as far as he's concerned getting a reset is an acceptable alternative. So both of his core motivations, "I must secure a future for the goblin race" and "I must complete the plan no matter how much it costs", go directly against the idea. It's not impossible for the story to go this route, but that would be a pretty radical transformation of Redcloak's character. (All the more impressive if The Giant manages to pull it off, though.)

EDIT: A tenuous point, but IIRC we're about 3/4ths of the way through the planned plot points. It's not ideal, as a craft thing, to start and resolve a major transformative character arc in the third act. That still doesn't rule it out, and the plot could be extended (or my memory could just be failing me on that point and I'm completely wrong), but it's a pretty big point against a redemption arc happening, imo.

[Rrmcklin]

My answer to all of those questions is - he doesn't. There is no redeeming Redcloak, there's only whether when he dies or not he's willing to admit where he went wrong.

Besides, just sealing up the existing rifts and just patching new ones isn't a permanent enough solution to satisfactorily end the story on. That alone means that Thor's plans aren't going to work out (that and the fact that we're hearing them).

[Rynael]

My answer to all of those questions is - he doesn't. There is no redeeming Redcloak, there's only whether when he dies or not he's willing to admit where he went wrong.

All "will X be redeemed" questions eventually reach this point—the fact that "redemption" is just far too subjective to productively discuss. But the rise in Redcloak's odds of cooperating with the good guys, reckoning for his hypocrisy, and possibly even surviving (they're all long shots, but this one's the longest shot of all) is a lot more definite. It's still going to take a miracle, and it won't likely happen without a fight (both metaphorical and literal).


Besides, just sealing up the existing rifts and just patching new ones isn't a permanent enough solution to satisfactorily end the story on. That alone means that Thor's plans aren't going to work out (that and the fact that we're hearing them).

If this was a story about the gods and Thor were the protagonist, the "spoken plan" rule might apply, but I don't think it applies to this situation. Getting things into position to execute this plan's going to be hard enough on the Order as it is. This is more about what happens behind the curtain afterwards to explain the heroes' scenario.

[Synesthesy]

I tend to disagree with last posts. I think that redemption for Redcloak has been a must since SoD and Tsukiko's death scene. Why? Because his goal IS right. He has all the reason to hate the old pantheons and paladins and azurites. Maybe Reddie will die, but if he does, he'll die as a hero, at least for his people. I am sure that Redcloak will get redemption, he started during Azure City battle and he hasn't stopped yet.

[The Pilgrim]

How do you think the story will balance things between Redcloak saving the world and having to pay for his evilness?

Redemption Equals Death (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath).

[Peelee]

Five gold days Redcloak never gets redeemed, and someone else - likely Jirix - will be the next Bearer, who will help. In fact, I'll go even further and say TDO will cut off Redcloak's spells to show his displeasure.

[Lacuna Caster]

Five gold days Redcloak never gets redeemed, and someone else - likely Jirix - will be the next Bearer, who will help. In fact, I'll go even further and say TDO will cut off Redcloak's spells to show his displeasure.
Jirix can't cast 9th-level divine spells, unless we've missed a rather major plot point.

[Peelee]

Jirix can't cast 9th-level divine spells, unless we've missed a rather major plot point.

Eh, details.:smalltongue:

[Deliverance]

But now with the revelations in 1141-1143, it sounds like Redcloak will be instrumental to saving the world. I mean, that's Thor's plan. No matter how reluctant or cynical or mistrusting Redcloak is, if he chooses to cooperate, that would be a redemptive act. I feel like his odds of survival just went up.
While I feel that you are missing a larger point - or perhaps that's just a case of me having convinced myself that I know roughly in which direction the story is heading. :smallbiggrin:

See, Thor's plan is merely yet another variant of the "build a better prison" plan that the Gods have been pursuing, and failing at, since the beginning; It is an approach based on the gods initial experiences with the Snarl and something they've been pursuing ever since, either for lack of other options or due to an inability to question their original choice of dealing with the Snarl.

And we, as readers, know something that Thor either doesn't know, or at least hasn't shown any awareness of - namely what Blackwing saw through the rift. All the way back in #672 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html). This sows doubts about the whole Snarl narrative as an unreasoning agent of destruction, because if it was, why would there be a planet on the other side of the rift?

So regardless of whether a the Snarl started out as a being of "pure divine anger and frustration" as the Gods think or whether they misread the situation, it is not the case in the present that the Snarl is that. It is something more than that or something else.

Sure, it lashes out at its jailers and their creations, but you don't need to be unreasoning and driven by pure divine anger and frustration to do that. Whether it is still driven by unreasoning anger or frustration, by the reasoned frustration of being imprisoned time and time again, or by other reasoned motivations - we don't know.

In the final equation, OOTS ending with "and thus with the OOTS securing the Dark One's aid, the Gods improved on the Snarl's prison, securing the world another few tens of thousands of years lifetime, perhaps more, millions, who knows, so long as the Gods kept on imprisoning the Snarl whenever it tried to escape from its prison" would be nowhere near as satisfactory as the story ending with "and thus with the OOTS opening the Gods eyes to another solution to the Snarl problem, the Dark One and the other Gods resolved the problem of the Snarl forever more with the Snarl being either freed (reasoning Snarl hypothesis) or its tangled divine energy being untangled, thus dissolving it (unreasoning Snarl hypothesis)".

...I'm not insisting that the story will take this direction (I'm not that arrogant), but I simply can't understand why the Giant would throw in Blackwing's revelation and V's comments about how that put everything they'd been told in doubt, if the "solution" in the end was to merely build a better prison, and, moreover given the Giant's choice of expressed morality in this comic, I find the narrative turning from looking at the Snarl as being created by the Gods' mistake requiring constant imprisonment into looking at the Snarl as a misunderstood victim quite likely.

[wumpus]

While I feel that you are missing a larger point - or perhaps that's just a case of me having convinced myself that I know roughly in which direction the story is heading. :smallbiggrin:

See, Thor's plan is merely yet another variant of the "build a better prison" plan that the Gods have been pursuing, and failing at, since the beginning; It is an approach based on the gods initial experiences with the Snarl and something they've been pursuing ever since, either for lack of other options or due to an inability to question their original choice of dealing with the Snarl.

According to the Giant, the Snarl is a MacGuffin. It is pretty unlikely to be mis-characterized, but that is obviously possible. Who knows, all the worlds might be preserved in the Snarl.


My answer to all of those questions is - he doesn't. There is no redeeming Redcloak, there's only whether when he dies or not he's willing to admit where he went wrong.

Besides, just sealing up the existing rifts and just patching new ones isn't a permanent enough solution to satisfactorily end the story on. That alone means that Thor's plans aren't going to work out (that and the fact that we're hearing them).

The problem with redeeming Redcloak is a singular lack of reason to want it. Unless he wants to "make it up to right eye", he as zero motivation. His desire to do right for the Goblin Nation is his best quality and already part of the plan. It isn't clear that any deal struck between the Dark One and the rest of the gods would even qualify as redeeming, and even that is unlikely for Redcloak (at least, not before the plan is finished).


Five gold days Redcloak never gets redeemed, and someone else - likely Jirix - will be the next Bearer, who will help. In fact, I'll go even further and say TDO will cut off Redcloak's spells to show his displeasure.

The Dark One's message to Redcloak is "don't screw this up". Unless the Dark One listens in on Durkon's speeches to Red Cloak (assuming he gets close enough), the Dark One will remain in the Dark and is even less interested in canceling The Plan than Red Cloak. As far as I can tell, the Dark One created the Crimson Mantel specifically to put the plan in motion, and then waited till a sufficiently powerful cleric (or possibly wizard) inherited it. I don't expect either to give up the plan, and by the time Red Cloak "screws this up" he will be dead and/or his >2nd level spells won't matter*.

* 1e rules had 1-2 level spells "just happen", 3rd-5th from intermediaries, and 6-7th direct from the gods (and greater gods only for 7th). For some reason cleric spells went 1-7 and not 1-9 (like wizard spells). [I'm probably missing a stage, that is from memory from the 1e era].
There doesn't seem to be anything like this in 3.xe, but OOTS keeps something like it. It at least gives some reason for having gods in your campaign/multiverse.

[Peelee]

The Dark One's message to Redcloak is "don't screw this up". Unless the Dark One listens in on Durkon's speeches to Red Cloak (assuming he gets close enough), the Dark One will remain in the Dark

You have ideas about deific limitations that I do not share.

Anyway,The Dark One wants a fair shake for the goblins. He believes he has nothing to bargain with, so The Plan is to get something to bargain with (ie the Snarl). When The Dark One finds out that he already has something to bargain with, well, The Plan is effectively complete, even though it went in a compeletely opposite direction.

[The Pilgrim]

Five gold days Redcloak never gets redeemed, and someone else - likely Jirix - will be the next Bearer, who will help. In fact, I'll go even further and say TDO will cut off Redcloak's spells to show his displeasure.

One of the big questions of this webcomic is whether Redcloak will be able to stop putting the Plan before the wellbeing of the Goblins, or he will die unrepentant, pursuing the Plan even beyond the wishes of his God.

What did The Dark One meant with "do not screw this up"? The Plan? or Gobbotopia?

[hamishspence]

What did The Dark One meant with "do not screw this up"? The Plan? or Gobbotopia?

I believe Blood Runs In The Family commentary said it was The Plan, that creating Gobbotopia has not "gotten Redcloak off the hook".

[Jasdoif]

What did The Dark One meant with "do not screw this up"? The Plan? or Gobbotopia?I believe Blood Runs In The Family commentary said it was The Plan, that creating Gobbotopia has not "gotten Redcloak off the hook".Yes, the Plan.

[Takver]

If this was a story about the gods and Thor were the protagonist, the "spoken plan" rule might apply, but I don't think it applies to this situation. Getting things into position to execute this plan's going to be hard enough on the Order as it is. This is more about what happens behind the curtain afterwards to explain the heroes' scenario.

I agree here. Thor hasn't so far given any instructions on how Durkon is to complete his mission. So suspense and drama will come from wondering how the Order will complete this very difficult task.


Redcloak has a massive sunk cost thing going with The Plan. He values completing it more than anything. Agreeing to help seal the rifts means abandoning the plan. It's difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that could lead to him making that decision. And remember that he has no interest in saving the world either, as far as he's concerned getting a reset is an acceptable alternative. So both of his core motivations, "I must secure a future for the goblin race" and "I must complete the plan no matter how much it costs", go directly against the idea. It's not impossible for the story to go this route, but that would be a pretty radical transformation of Redcloak's character. (All the more impressive if The Giant manages to pull it off, though.)

EDIT: A tenuous point, but IIRC we're about 3/4ths of the way through the planned plot points. It's not ideal, as a craft thing, to start and resolve a major transformative character arc in the third act. That still doesn't rule it out, and the plot could be extended (or my memory could just be failing me on that point and I'm completely wrong), but it's a pretty big point against a redemption arc happening, imo.

I agree here too. Redcloak has already sacrificed his people, his brother, and his soul to The Plan (Via Xykon.) And unlike, for example, V, he absolutely refuses to see how far he's gone. It's this refusal to see that made me say up until a few comics ago that there was no way Redcloak would be redeemed or rewarded. The fate I predicted for him was something like "Getting stomped by Xykon in the final undeniable proof that every compromise he made was for nothing."

It's very tough to see the path he takes to cooperating. It would be something like...if Xykon was destroyed first, and his chance of completing the Plan shot to hell. I feel like it would have to be that big.


I tend to disagree with last posts. I think that redemption for Redcloak has been a must since SoD and Tsukiko's death scene. Why? Because his goal IS right. He has all the reason to hate the old pantheons and paladins and azurites. Maybe Reddie will die, but if he does, he'll die as a hero, at least for his people. I am sure that Redcloak will get redemption, he started during Azure City battle and he hasn't stopped yet.

His dream of equality is right, but his methods aren't. It helps if you've read Start of Darkness, but even if you haven't, you can see Redcloak sacrificing goblins all over the place in the main story. Look right before Tsukiko's death scene, when he's getting the phylactery back. In 827 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and 831 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html) he could raise the spy or the craftsman, but he doesn't. He even says he would have killed the spy himself. Putting hypothetical goblin futures over actual goblin lives is what Redcloak does.

[mjasghar]

If redcloak doesn’t suffer for what he has done then I’m thinking a lot of people will feel vindicated in their opinion that all the evil he did and does was justified

[Goblin_Priest]

Redemption Equals Death (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath).

Yea, that's a very likely outcome imo.

[D.One]

[...] ...I'm not insisting that the story will take this direction (I'm not that arrogant), but I simply can't understand why the Giant would throw in Blackwing's revelation and V's comments about how that put everything they'd been told in doubt, if the "solution" in the end was to merely build a better prison, and, moreover given the Giant's choice of expressed morality in this comic, I find the narrative turning from looking at the Snarl as being created by the Gods' mistake requiring constant imprisonment into looking at the Snarl as a misunderstood victim quite likely.

Now that you're talking about it, I came to think. After V shared his intel on the planet in the rift with Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html), did he share this information with the rest of the group, including Greg/Durkon?

Because if so, now would be the time for Durkon to ask Thor about it.

[Goblin_Priest]

Now that you're talking about it, I came to think. After V shared his intel on the planet in the rift with Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html), did he share this information with the rest of the group, including Greg/Durkon?

Because if so, now would be the time for Durkon to ask Thor about it.

Hmmm, I don't think so.

Maybe the Planet in the Rift is where the goblinoids could get their happy ending?

[Kish]

If redcloak doesn’t suffer for what he has done then I’m thinking a lot of people will feel vindicated in their opinion that all the evil he did and does was justified
And if Redcloak does suffer for what he has done, a lot of equally confused people will feel vindicated in their opinion that a damn greenskin should never have aspired to anything but death on an adventurer's sword.

Possibly neither group are Rich's target audience.

[Worldsong]

If goblinoids were denied a better future I'd feel it'd be in conflict with the message the story has been trying to get across.

If goblinoids get a better future it's most likely going to involve Redcloak since he's the most powerful goblinoid and he's literally the head piece of the goblinoid god trying to ensure said better future.

If goblinoids were denied a better future just to not let anything good happen for Redcloak it'd feel extremely spiteful.

If Redcloak suddenly was removed just so improving the future for the goblinoids wouldn't involve him that'd still feel spiteful (and very unlikely).

The latest revelations seem to imply that Redcloak IS going to find a way to make life better for goblinoids, and despite all the horrible things he's done and his inability to admit his current path is wrong improving the life of goblinoids is still his original goal and achieving that (and saving the world) would still mean Redcloak is going to save his people and at least somewhat make up for the evil by also helping the world as a whole.

[Rrmcklin]

If this was a story about the gods and Thor were the protagonist, the "spoken plan" rule might apply, but I don't think it applies to this situation. Getting things into position to execute this plan's going to be hard enough on the Order as it is. This is more about what happens behind the curtain afterwards to explain the heroes' scenario.

Still doesn't change the not permanent solution aspect. Thor is basically going "We can't really fix this permanently, but we can get close enough", which, well, isn't satisfying unless this story is a prequel for another story.

The Order of the Scribbles story, for example, would work as a stand alone because you'd know eventually something like what's happening in the main story would eventually follow it.

I'm not saying something of significance won't come from what Thor has told Durkon and what he'll try to do. I'm just saying that the whole "patch the existing rifts, then patch any new ones" is not going to be how this story ends.

Whether it's not the end because Redcloak refusing to play ball or not, or Xykon messing things up, or something else, ultimately doesn't matter. But on the topic of Redcloak redemption, I'd imagine him being unwilling to play no matter what being the most likely factor.

[The Pilgrim]

Redemption Equals Death (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath).Yea, that's a very likely outcome imo.

I'm 50/50 between expecting either that trope or a Redemption Rejection (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionRejection) inmediately followed by a Karmic Death (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmicDeath).

In either case, Redcloak's fate will definitely make it to the headlines of the TvTropes. Probably even as a Trope Namer.

[Fyraltari]

Jirix can't cast 9th-level divine spells, unless we've missed a rather major plot point.Eh, details.:smalltongue:
Bah! Jirix has been level grinding like crazy, personnally hunting every single demon-roaches, bargaining trade deals with humans and thwarting attempted coups* that are sure to arise in a Lawful Evil society.

He will be in Epic territory when we see him again, mark my words.
None of this is serious.

*Likely led by the former Supreme Leader (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0149.html) who probably wants his job back, now that the scary goblin is gone. (unless that is Jirix himself?)

[Douglas]

Anyway,The Dark One wants a fair shake for the goblins. He believes he has nothing to bargain with, so The Plan is to get something to bargain with (ie the Snarl). When The Dark One finds out that he already has something to bargain with, well, The Plan is effectively complete, even though it went in a compeletely opposite direction.
More than that, he has something better to bargain with. If he gets his deal by threatening the other gods, they will be constantly looking for a way to remove the threat, and the moment they find one they'll use it and possibly go for revenge too. If he gets his deal by offering something they all want in trade, something that they will continue to want indefinitely and that the Dark One will remain the sole supplier of for a very long time, they'll be grateful and actively want to keep him around and satisfied as long as he's not too unreasonable.

[Riarra]

I've never been fond of redemption equals death. It always feels like I'm being cheated of seeing the character make a prolonged effort to be better. But the Giant's really good at writing villains' death scenes, so no matter how/if Redcloak dies I'm sure I'll be okay with it. And I guess V and Belkar are giving us a look at prolonged redemption but I don't like them as much as Redcloak.

I'd love to see him redeemed, though. There's not a lot of time left in the story, but if he can get over that first hurdle of admitting he was wrong to sacrifice so many lives for the plan, the way to fix things seems relatively easy. And I'd love to see him prove Xykon at the end of SoD wrong.

[The Pilgrim]

Anyway,The Dark One wants a fair shake for the goblins. He believes he has nothing to bargain with, so The Plan is to get something to bargain with (ie the Snarl). When The Dark One finds out that he already has something to bargain with, well, The Plan is effectively complete, even though it went in a compeletely opposite direction.

Problem is... The Dark One really wants a fair share for the Goblins? Or, pushing for a fair share for the Goblins is just a convenient path for him to amass more power? Which is what, as an Evil Deity, he really wants?

Why settle with "okay let's patch this world in exchange for a bit of it" when he can bid to be the one who gives shape to the next world? Why give up to his plan of warping a Gate and blackmail the other Gods for more power, if not outright killing most of them?

"Tiamat, what about you and me for the next world, keeping some minor deities from other pantheons to tap on their quiddity" looks like a way more sweet deal for The Dark One.

[Rrmcklin]

Problem is... The Dark One really wants a fair share for the Goblins? Or, pushing for a fair share for the Goblins is just a convenient path for him to amass more power? Which is what, as an Evil Deity, he really wants?

Why settle with "okay let's patch this world in exchange for a bit of it" when he can bid to be the one who gives shape to the next world? Why give up to his plan of warping a Gate and blackmail the other Gods for more power, if not outright killing most of them?

"Tiamat, what about you and me for the next world, keeping some minor deities from other pantheons to tap on their quiddity" looks like a way more sweet deal for The Dark One.

You're equating being Evil, with not being able to have altruistic or sympathetic goals/motivations. I feel like it shouldn't be pointed out why that's a mistake in this comic.

Saying that the Dark One is an Evil Deity and so he can't really care isn't how things work here. It might be the case, but it definitely can't be said as definitively as you are.

[dtilque]

There is no redeeming Redcloak,

I don't know about that. I think if you slosh some glue on his back, paste him into a book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26H_Green_Stamps), and mail him in, you could probably get nice toaster oven.

[Patram]

I don't know about that. I think if you slosh some glue on his back, paste him into a book, and mail him in, you could probably get nice toaster oven.

Heh.

Personally, I feel like Redcloak deserves some redemption, though certainly not much, if that makes sense. There's a lot of levels of redemption, and on a scale of Loki to Zuko, I'd say he'd lean closer to Loki. Maybe admitting to some mistakes, or helping with the cause, but dying before we can see him go too far down the hero path.

I don't see Gobbotopia ever becoming a peaceful city-state as long as Redcloak's around/in charge. It'll take a goblinoid with no ulterior motives to make that happen. But I don't see a reason he can't become at least a little remorseful before dying, y'know?

[Synesthesy]

His dream of equality is right, but his methods aren't. It helps if you've read Start of Darkness, but even if you haven't, you can see Redcloak sacrificing goblins all over the place in the main story. Look right before Tsukiko's death scene, when he's getting the phylactery back. In 827 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and 831 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html) he could raise the spy or the craftsman, but he doesn't. He even says he would have killed the spy himself. Putting hypothetical goblin futures over actual goblin lives is what Redcloak does.

Before his epiphany (Azure City battle) yes. After? Well, someone could argue that revolutions aren't dinner party; it's sad to say it, but resurrecting either the spy or the craftman would have spoiled the secret to Xykon, sooner or later, causing the death of every goblin living there. However, we must say that not resurrecting someone is not as bad as killing them.

After the epiphany, I don't remember Redcloak directly damage any goblinoids, but even if I'm wrong, my point, IMHO, stand: Redcloak is on the right way, he'll get some form of redemption and he'll get his final goal. And I think that his name will not be remember forever as a villain.

[The Pilgrim]

You're equating being Evil, with not being able to have altruistic or sympathetic goals/motivations. I feel like it shouldn't be pointed out why that's a mistake in this comic.

Saying that the Dark One is an Evil Deity and so he can't really care isn't how things work here. It might be the case, but it definitely can't be said as definitively as you are.

I worte that with question marks. So I think I am not being "definitive" on it.

But since you mention it, maybe you should point out why that's a mistake in this comic. Because every single time an Evil character has been forced to choose between "something he cares" or furthering his own goals, the villiain has chosen the latter.

Does the Dark One care about goblins? Yes. Does he care for the Goblins more than he cares about his own power? Probably not.

[Worldsong]

Isn't The Dark One the guy who became a god because he was so zealous about improving the lives of all goblinoids that he managed to raise a huge army and had to be backstabbed during pace talks to prevent the PC races having to concede anything?

I'm somewhat confused by the idea that he's the kind of guy who would prioritize personal gain over the well-being of goblinoids. Unless we're casting his entire background into doubt.

[Peelee]

Isn't The Dark One the guy who became a god because he was so zealous about improving the lives of all goblinoids that he managed to raise a huge army and had to be backstabbed during pace talks to prevent the PC races having to concede anything?

I'm somewhat confused by the idea that he's the kind of guy who would prioritize personal gain over the well-being of goblinoids. Unless we're casting his entire background into doubt.

I like this Worldsong person.

[Fyraltari]

Isn't The Dark One the guy who became a god because he was so zealous about improving the lives of all goblinoids that he managed to raise a huge army and had to be backstabbed during pace talks to prevent the PC races having to concede anything?

I'm somewhat confused by the idea that he's the kind of guy who would prioritize personal gain over the well-being of goblinoids. Unless we're casting his entire background into doubt.

When you are king the line between your personal gain and the well-bing of your own people often gets... blurred.


I am the state.

Besides after that stunt he may simply not trust anybody's promise anymore.

He had a lot of time to wallow in anger, that generally makes people worse.

[DaggerPen]

Isn't The Dark One the guy who became a god because he was so zealous about improving the lives of all goblinoids that he managed to raise a huge army and had to be backstabbed during pace talks to prevent the PC races having to concede anything?

I'm somewhat confused by the idea that he's the kind of guy who would prioritize personal gain over the well-being of goblinoids. Unless we're casting his entire background into doubt.

Well, that's the backstory that his high priest gives, but the people who literally worship him as a god are not exactly unbiased sources. It's entirely possible that TDO's origin is exactly as it seems, but it's also possible that we're getting the rose-tinted lenses version here.

As for Redcloak's redemption, honestly, I give it 50/50. Had the Right-Eye incident not happened, I'd say the prospects for a Redcloak redemption were very high; however, he already threw away one shot to turn away from this path and rejected it, to the tune of being willing to literally murder his brother (we opened this thread with SoD spoilers, I think we're good not to spoiler tag stuff). I believe that redemption is almost always possible as a matter of principle, but as a matter of narrative, it's pretty rare to get two shots at it. However, these are very unique circumstances. Beyond that, the comic has a longrunning theme of conflict as destructive, diplomacy as preferable to violence, etc. (indeed, How the Paladin Got his Scar was one of the Giant's finest stories for how it distilled exactly these themes), and between [HtPGhS spoilers] and gods of all alignment having to work together to get the Snarl, the comic strikes a great balance between "Evil is actually bad and not just another team jersey to wear" and "everyone must work together to avoid destructive conflict."

On the other hand, as said above, "let's just keep releasing patches for the world in perpetuity" is not a great permanent solution, nor one that acknowledges the mystery of the world within the Snarl. Whatever the ultimate solution here, it will probably go deeper than what Thor is proposing. Whether that's because Redcloak refuses, because Redcloak gets killed before he can help with the Plan, or because of new information about the Snarl changing the whole ballgame, I have no idea.

[Jasdoif]

He had a lot of time to wallow in anger, that generally makes people worse.Yeah; melting emissaries (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html) doesn't really say "forgiving type".


On the other hand, as said above, "let's just keep releasing patches for the world in perpetuity" is not a great permanent solution, nor one that acknowledges the mystery of the world within the Snarl.It is, however, one that's conducive to actually treating the Dark One with respect after the fact; since the rest of the gods will almost certainly need his cooperation again the next time rifts form.

[Peelee]

I am the state.

He said "senate." Also he seemed pretty well grounded.

[Fyraltari]

He said "senate." Also he seemed pretty well grounded.

I really should have seen that coming, actually, my bad.

This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France) is the dude I was talking about.

Apparently that's apocryphal, though? Surprising

[Peelee]

I really should have seen that coming, actually, my bad.

This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France) is the dude I was talking about.

I dunno, I've never heard of that guy. Sounds fishy.

[DaggerPen]

It is, however, one that's conducive to actually treating the Dark One with respect after the fact; since the rest of the gods will almost certainly need his cooperation again the next time rifts form.

Oh, for sure, but I expect to see an ending to this comic which both treats TDO with more respect/improves the lot of goblins AND addresses the Snarl more permanently than Thor proposes here. "And then the gods released new bugfixes every couple hundred years for millennia to come" just feels a little unresolved.

[Rynael]

Problem is... The Dark One really wants a fair share for the Goblins? Or, pushing for a fair share for the Goblins is just a convenient path for him to amass more power? Which is what, as an Evil Deity, he really wants?

The Dark One isn't necessarily like Tarquin. I assume, for obvious reasons, that he's more like Redcloak. Redcloak has a lot of dubious motivations, but power has never been indicated to be one of them. The fact that the Dark One would liquify harmless messengers because he doesn't like their master is enough to make him Evil without casting any of what we know about him into doubt.

Moving into interpretation/speculative territory here, I read the Dark One as being sort of like an "idealized" image of Redcloak: what he sees himself as, or at least wants to be. That is, a goblin who has been deeply wronged and will go to horrifying lengths to redress those grievances—or possibly just get violent revenge, even at the expense of those he's supposed to be fighting for. Who can be sure which comes first, yet? If Redcloak comes into conflict with the Dark One, I believe that it will be because Redcloak is the one who gave an inch, although that's simply the lesser of two very, very long shots.

[keybounce]

EDIT: A tenuous point, but IIRC we're about 3/4ths of the way through the planned plot points. It's not ideal, as a craft thing, to start and resolve a major transformative character arc in the third act. That still doesn't rule it out, and the plot could be extended (or my memory could just be failing me on that point and I'm completely wrong), but it's a pretty big point against a redemption arc happening, imo.

Sorry, but if Padme can do a full walk to the light side under the nose of every reader in act 3, when even Luke didn't get the last step done, then sure, we can have a last-act redemption of Redcloak.

(Darths and Droids.)

[The Pilgrim]

Isn't The Dark One the guy who became a god because he was so zealous about improving the lives of all goblinoids that he managed to raise a huge army and had to be backstabbed during pace talks to prevent the PC races having to concede anything?

I'm somewhat confused by the idea that he's the kind of guy who would prioritize personal gain over the well-being of goblinoids. Unless we're casting his entire background into doubt.

That was what Redcloak told us. In crayons. Not exactly the most neutral source of information on the subject.

For all we know, the Dark One could just be yet another Great Conqueror bent on World Conquest, deified by his people and loathed by everyone else.


Well, that's the backstory that his high priest gives, but the people who literally worship him as a god are not exactly unbiased sources. It's entirely possible that TDO's origin is exactly as it seems, but it's also possible that we're getting the rose-tinted lenses version here.

This.

[mjasghar]

You're equating being Evil, with not being able to have altruistic or sympathetic goals/motivations. I feel like it shouldn't be pointed out why that's a mistake in this comic.

Saying that the Dark One is an Evil Deity and so he can't really care isn't how things work here. It might be the case, but it definitely can't be said as definitively as you are.

You’re forgetting Hel who pretty much has done just that, or Tiamat deal with the fiends. Hel knew what was at stake with her high priest having the inside info from the gang but that didn’t stop her

[Bacon Elemental]

You’re forgetting Hel who pretty much has done just that, or Tiamat deal with the fiends. Hel knew what was at stake with her high priest having the inside info from the gang but that didn’t stop her

How does Hel being a sadistic god who only cares for her own power and whatever-Tiamat-was-doing-with-the-IFCC-that-required-a-non-compete-clause relate to "The Dork One is a carpet-chewing baddie who doesnt really care about goblins, despite being their personal god, ascended a mere few hundred years ago"?

[Worldsong]

You’re forgetting Hel who pretty much has done just that, or Tiamat deal with the fiends. Hel knew what was at stake with her high priest having the inside info from the gang but that didn’t stop her

The same Tiamat who got pretty pissed when the plans of the IFCC resulted in the deaths of a ton of black dragons and only relented when the IFCC promised to slaughter several times that amount of good dragons to make up for it?

Sounds like Tiamat does have some interest in the well-being of her black dragons to me.

[The Pilgrim]

The same Tiamat who got pretty pissed when the plans of the IFCC resulted in the deaths of a ton of black dragons and only relented when the IFCC promised to slaughter several times that amount of good dragons to make up for it?

Sounds like Tiamat does have some interest in the well-being of her black dragons to me.

"It is okay thay you slaughter my followers as long as you slaughter several times more followers of my enemies" sounds to me like Tiamat is more interested in undermining the power base of her competitors than in the well being of her Dragons.

[farothel]

Jirix can't cast 9th-level divine spells, unless we've missed a rather major plot point.


Redcloak coulnd't cast those spells either before he put on the red cloak (he only wore the white cloak of a lower level cleric). It's that artefact that gave him all the abilities, although I assume that by now he's leveled up by himself. So the same could happen to Jirix.


As to Hell, I assume that she'd rather start again and maybe renege on the deal she made with Thor.

[mjasghar]

Because Hel is more interested in getting powerful in the next world than breaking the cycle
And btw the whole thing about evil is that it is generally selfish
It’s a well known trope that when the good and bad guys have to work together the bad guys will almost always try to backstab at the last minute - that’s why they’re the bad guys. Unless you’re arguing from the ‘fascists are okay because they get the trains running on time’

[Worldsong]

"It is okay thay you slaughter my followers as long as you slaughter several times more followers of my enemies" sounds to me like Tiamat is more interested in undermining the power base of her competitors than in the well being of her Dragons.

"I'm mad that you killed my followers but I'm not abandoning all my other plans just to get revenge so do me a favour and I'll leave it be for now."

Caring does not mean you can't compromise. The term you're looking for is 'single-minded devotion', which is typically considered a very extreme case of caring because caring is not a binary function.

[Fyraltari]

Because Hel is more interested in getting powerful in the next world than breaking the cycle
How does that relate to the Dark One? Their situations are completely different.

And btw the whole thing about evil is that it is generally selfish
It’s a well known trope that when the good and bad guys have to work together the bad guys will almost always try to backstab at the last minute - that’s why they’re the bad guys. Unless you’re arguing from the ‘fascists are okay because they get the trains running on time’
That's a very black-and-white view of things.

[B. Dandelion]

As far as the "paying for his evilness" issue goes, I would have said he's a fairly decent example of the notion of evil bringing its own punishment -- Being Evil Sucks (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeingEvilSucks) in Troperese. His pursuit of the Plan has largely destroyed his life, isolated him from any family, erased his very identity, and shackled him to a lich who's a real petty SOB alongside being a depraved monster, who belittles him at every turn and openly regards him as a slave. He's overall one of the unhappiest characters around (although Greyview obviously took the top spot). What more punishment inflicted on him would satisfy a notion of "justice" that isn't just gratuitous at this point?

What I kind of want is for the heroes to, well, help save him (partially from himself). He's effectively trapped himself and has no faith in an alternative, in part I think because he's never had interaction with Good characters that would counter an idea that Good is merely a team jersey defining what creatures you get to kill with impunity. Lirian considered herself merciful because she imprisoned him in an underground pit with lichen to eat rather than killing him outright, and that's the single most positive encounter. His phrasing to Jirix about evil being defined by their opposition by those who choose to call themselves Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html) suggests disbelief that it could be anything other than a pretense. O-Chul did nothing wrong while in captivity, but he also had no power in that situation to effectively challenge Redcloak's preconceptions. The Order might get that chance.

(An issue that might come up in the future is that time Right-Eye gave Eugene a massive tip on what Xykon was up to and all but begged him to help because Xykon was routinely killing his minions off. Eugene's first response to this was to remark that evil humanoids had it coming. Then that he wouldn't risk the lives of his own family by going after Xykon. If he'd gone through with it and succeeded, not only would Xykon no longer be a factor, but the goblins would have been in his debt. If Roy learns about this -- the inevitable remarks about "the one-eyed goblin who works for Xykon" are likely to trigger Eugene at some point -- he might blow a gasket when he realizes how much easier the current task would have been if his father had stepped up to the plate all those years ago, although it does give Roy a chance to be a hero to some people his father didn't see as mattering.)

I guess I can see why some people think it makes for a better arc if Redcloak simply never overcomes his own weaknesses and remains a cautionary tale, but I think it could be really moving to see the heroes actually break through the defenses of somebody who is on some level profoundly lost and without faith in anything other than force of might. As far as the cosmology goes, there's no such thing as an evil "point of no return", and the main person who pushed the idea that Redcloak had passed such a point was Xykon, who surely doesn't need the narrative to validate him.

[zimmerwald1915]

The Order might get that chance.
The order has Belkar and Vaarsuvius in it, and Belkar at least never even bothered with the pretense of Goodness.

[Peelee]

The order has Belkar and Vaarsuvius in it, and Belkar at least never even bothered with the pretense of Goodness.

He has bothered with the pretense of non-Evilness, to be fair.

[B. Dandelion]

The order has Belkar and Vaarsuvius in it, and Belkar at least never even bothered with the pretense of Goodness.

Vaarsuvius being on the team is one of the reasons it rubs me the wrong way when people claim Redcloak is "over the Moral Event Horizon" and "must be punished" for his evil actions. Vaarsuvius committed genocide but their being served with divorce papers is apparently meant to be a tearjerker. Obviously you (and Kish) aren't especially moved, but it seems like most people kinda take V's redemption for granted at this point.

Anyway the fact that they're deeply flawed as a group doesn't mean they can't still effectively channel notions of goodness or hope. The Order has Durkon, who literally talked a monster to nonexistence, and Elan, generally one of the most upbeat and hopeful characters around, on their roster too. V having committed atrocities and nearly losing themselves to despair in the aftermath could be the kind of thing that helps to provide greater insight into what Redcloak's gone through rather than an obstacle.

[Kish]

Redcloak coulnd't cast those spells either before he put on the red cloak (he only wore the white cloak of a lower level cleric). It's that artefact that gave him all the abilities,
The Crimson Mantle did not by any stretch of the imagination give Redcloak the ability to cast ninth-level spells.

[Morty]

Vaarsuvius' crimes led them to a conclusion that deeming entire species more worthy of death than others is kind of a garbage thing to do, which is very relevant to Redcloak's cause.

[hroþila]

My unsubstantiated guess right now would be that Redcloak will have the possibility of redemption right in front of him, but he'll turn it down and die 100% a villain.

[wumpus]

You have ideas about deific limitations that I do not share.

Then why don't *any* of the gods know about The Plan? They've been interested in the Dark One since he appeared, but somehow they are completely in the dark. OOTS gods aren't remotely omniscient.

[Peelee]

Then why don't *any* of the gods know about The Plan? They've been interested in the Dark One since he appeared, but somehow they are completely in the dark. OOTS gods aren't remotely omniscient.

Never said or implied they were. They do seem to know what their clerics are up to, though. Other gods don't know about The Plan for the same reason they didn't know about Hel's Plan; nobody talked about it when the other gods' clerics were present. You're assuming that the gods need to be listening incredibly closely at just the right moment, when it seems like the gods have a pretty good idea of what's going on with their clerics.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

He said "senate."
It's treason, then... Yes, this seemed like the sole worthwhile contribution to the thread.

[Peelee]

It's treason, then...

I love democracy. Well, you're not wrong...

[Fyraltari]

Good, good.

[Quartz]

No, I don't think Redcloak will be redeemed; rather, I think he will succeed, but not in the way that he's currently going. The Order will win his cooperation for a price. And that price will be peaceful acceptance of the goblinoids. Which is what he's wanted all along.

The problem will be Xykon. Xykon, being an Epic level caster, will have figured out a way to control the rifts himself, without Redcloak's help, and all of creation and all of the gods will be at risk.

[zimmerwald1915]

The Order will win his cooperation for a price. And that price will be peaceful acceptance of the goblinoids. Which is what he's wanted all along.
The Order is not a world-political power, it is not the whole of society, and it is certainly not the gods. The Order speaks only for itself. And I highly doubt that Redcloak will be satisfied with changing the opinions of a half-dozen eccentrics.

[Fyraltari]

No, I don't think Redcloak will be redeemed; rather, I think he will succeed, but not in the way that he's currently going. The Order will win his cooperation for a price. And that price will be peaceful acceptance of the goblinoids. Which is what he's wanted all along.

The problem will be Xykon. Xykon, being an Epic level caster, will have figured out a way to control the rifts himself, without Redcloak's help, and all of creation and all of the gods will be at risk.

How exactly is that different from Redcloak redeeming himself?

[Teioh]

I guess it's because it sorta proves that RC was sorta *right*, so it's not really redeeming him, more almost justifying him. I would think Redemption would require some sort of 'oh my god, everything I've done this far has been wrong' moment, even if his goal is ultimately successful.

[Lacuna Caster]

Vaarsuvius being on the team is one of the reasons it rubs me the wrong way when people claim Redcloak is "over the Moral Event Horizon" and "must be punished" for his evil actions. Vaarsuvius committed genocide but their being served with divorce papers is apparently meant to be a tearjerker.
Which I do, in fact, have some problems with. I don't think reform and redemption are impossible, but I do think the strip is both oddly selective and wildly overoptimistic about the kind of people for whom it's a realistic prospect.

Redcloak has sailed far beyond the threshold of any tokenistic heel-face-turn as valid grounds for 'redemption'. You might be able to justify some kind of temporary alliance of convenience, but regardless of his origins he has clearly become a genocidal monster and you'd have to be an idiot to trust him.

Lily Orchard did a video recently on Steven Universe which covered some similar ground (https://youtu.be/flLEr_sYC-k?t=5931). I can't say I feel quite as strongly about that particular franchise, and V/Belkar/Redcloak's arcs are rather more organic, but I can... kinda see where she's angling from.

[Quartz]

The Order is not a world-political power,

But the gods are. The quid pro quo will be with the gods, not the Order.


How exactly is that different from Redcloak redeeming himself?

Because he will win. He won't regret - let alone repent - his evil deeds one jot.

[Kish]

How exactly is that different from Redcloak redeeming himself?
"True redemption requires that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds. That you atone for the actions that [earned you the name Redcloak in place of your birth name]. That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong.

[Succeeding and getting everything you want for the destructive path you've been on for all these years, thus proving to your little brother that it was in fact all worth it, incorporates] none of this."

[Peelee]

Which I do, in fact, have some problems with. I don't think reform and redemption are impossible, but I do think the strip is both oddly selective and wildly overoptimistic about the kind of people for whom it's a realistic prospect.

The impression that I get from the strip is that redemption is open to those who
A.) Want it,
2.) Are willing to work for it, and
III.) Admit that they did wrong and need it.

With those criteria, I don't see the strip as being oddly selective at all.

[Fyraltari]

Because he will win. He won't regret - let alone repent - his evil deeds one jot.

I guess it's because it sorta proves that RC was sorta *right*, so it's not really redeeming him, more almost justifying him. I would think Redemption would require some sort of 'oh my god, everything I've done this far has been wrong' moment, even if his goal is ultimately successful.

"True redemption requires that you seek forgiveness for your past misdeeds. That you atone for the actions that [earned you the name Redcloak in place of your birth name]. That you even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong.
[Succeeding and getting everything you want for the destructive path you've been on for all these years, thus proving to your little brother that it was in fact all worth it, incorporates] none of this."
But in that case Redcloak would be abandoning the Plan. The Dark One would bargain with the gods using something he alreday had before all those deaths making them useless. Furthermore, by reinforcing the Gates not only would they undo what Red was doing but then they'd have to trust the gods to abide by whatever they agreed on. It would be like planning to hold someone at gunpoint for money and then disassembling the gun, throwing it into the river and then asking that person to give you a job (well the job would be disassembling the gun so my metaphor is a bit broken but bear with me). Those are completely different course of actions.

The impression that I get from the strip is that redemption is open to those who
A.) Want it,
2.) Are willing to work for it, and
III.) Admit that they did wrong and need it.

With those criteria, I don't see the strip as being oddly selective at all.
I agree.
A and III are kind of redundant, though.


Which I do, in fact, have some problems with. I don't think reform and redemption are impossible, but I do think the strip is both oddly selective and wildly overoptimistic about the kind of people for whom it's a realistic prospect.

Redcloak has sailed far beyond the threshold of any tokenistic heel-face-turn as valid grounds for 'redemption'. You might be able to justify some kind of temporary alliance of convenience, but regardless of his origins he has clearly become a genocidal monster and you'd have to be an idiot to trust him.

Lily Orchard did a video recently on Steven Universe which covered some similar ground (https://youtu.be/flLEr_sYC-k?t=5931). I can't say I feel quite as strongly about that particular franchise, and V/Belkar/Redcloak's arcs are rather more organic, but I can... kinda see where she's angling from.
That's the thing with redemption, it only works if people give you a chance. It's a longshot but when it works, it's worth it.

[Kish]

But in that case Redcloak would be abandoning the Plan.[etc.]
Yeeeees, of course he would be.

You asked a question, how him getting everything he wanted would be different from redemption. We apparently have a difference of opinion on whether Redcloak deserves vindication, and perhaps on whether there is any chance of Rich writing him getting it. Vindication is not redemption. As long as Redcloak holds out for the former, he is as ineligible for the latter as Miko was when she died still blaming Roy for everything.

And that is why A and III are not redundant to the question of Redcloak's redemption: because you're ignoring the idea of redemption entirely to push victory, which only needs to be worked for.

[B. Dandelion]

Which I do, in fact, have some problems with. I don't think reform and redemption are impossible, but I do think the strip is both oddly selective and wildly overoptimistic about the kind of people for whom it's a realistic prospect.

I wouldn't have said the prospect of Miko being redeemed was presented as "unrealistic"... "rare and special thing" is something I read with the knowledge that she's dying and Soon is trying not to make her too miserable about the fact that she didn't make it back to Paladinhood by pointing out that it's a thing few people manage. Now that it's over, she personally shouldn't dwell on what might have been.


Redcloak has sailed far beyond the threshold of any tokenistic heel-face-turn as valid grounds for 'redemption'. You might be able to justify some kind of temporary alliance of convenience, but regardless of his origins he has clearly become a genocidal monster and you'd have to be an idiot to trust him.

It's not a settled issue for me until his arc is over. Like I said, cosmologically speaking there's no "threshold beyond" which redemption can no longer be "valid," though there are individual subjective opinions about what's believable. The only person whose opinion makes it into print is the Giant's, and I'm not sure what he thinks about the matter beyond what's been put in the comic already: true redemption requires that you acknowledge you were wrong. Which so far, Redcloak hasn't done, but there's still one book to go -- and the Order may just be "idiotic" enough.

Not really familiar... like at all... with Steven Universe, sorry.


The impression that I get from the strip is that redemption is open to those who
A.) Want it,
2.) Are willing to work for it, and
III.) Admit that they did wrong and need it.

Yes, agreed.

[Fyraltari]

Yeeeees, of course he would be.You asked a question, how him getting everything he wanted would be different from redemption.
No, I asked how this:

The Order will win his cooperation for a price. And that price will be peaceful acceptance of the goblinoids. Which is what he's wanted all along.
would be different from redemption. Or at least a first step towards it.

We apparently have a difference of opinion on whether Redcloak deserves vindication, and perhaps on whether there is any chance of Rich writing him getting it. Vindication is not redemption. As long as Redcloak holds out for the former, he is as ineligible for the latter as Miko was when she died still blaming Roy for everything.
If by "vindication" you mean "the goblins getting a fair share in the world" I believe that has nothing to do with what Redcloak deserves and that, yes, the Giant is likely to write it happening. Do we disagree?


And that is why A and III are not redundant to the question of Redcloak's redemption: because you're ignoring the idea of redemption entirely to push victory, which only needs to be worked for.

But as I said, this particular scenario would only unfold if Redcloak abandons his plan. Which is not "victory" and for him to do so would require him to realize that he was wrong. So again what would be, for you the scenario where Redcloaks reedeems himself and how is it different from this one?

[Kish]

But as I said, this particular scenario would only unfold if Redcloak abandons his plan. Which is not "victory" and for him to do so would require him to realize that he was wrong. So again what would be, for you the scenario where Redcloaks reedeems himself and how is it different from this one?
Oh. I think I misread what you meant but "but in that case."

Redcloak would need to acknowledge that he was wrong to keep following Xykon for one second longer than he was physically forced to, wrong not to smash the phylactery when Roy destroyed Xykon's body the first time at the absolute latest, wrong to you-know-what in Start of Darkness. Explicitly, not simply by changing his course of action at this late date.

[Fyraltari]

Oh. I think I misread what you meant but "but in that case."

Redcloak would need to acknowledge that he was wrong to keep following Xykon for one second longer than he was physically forced to, wrong not to smash the phylactery when Roy destroyed Xykon's body the first time at the absolute latest, wrong to you-know-what in Start of Darkness. Explicitly, not simply by changing his course of action at this late date.

Given that his justification for all that is that it was necessary to his plan and that the plan is the only way, is abandonning the plan cannot happen without acknowledging that he had no justification to do that. Given that this is a comic, characters realizing stuff tends to happen explicitly, like when this happened for example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html).

[Rrmcklin]

The order has Belkar and Vaarsuvius in it, and Belkar at least never even bothered with the pretense of Goodness.

As far as I remember, neither did Vaarsuvius.


Vaarsuvius being on the team is one of the reasons it rubs me the wrong way when people claim Redcloak is "over the Moral Event Horizon" and "must be punished" for his evil actions. Vaarsuvius committed genocide but their being served with divorce papers is apparently meant to be a tearjerker. Obviously you (and Kish) aren't especially moved, but it seems like most people kinda take V's redemption for granted at this point.

Anyway the fact that they're deeply flawed as a group doesn't mean they can't still effectively channel notions of goodness or hope. The Order has Durkon, who literally talked a monster to nonexistence, and Elan, generally one of the most upbeat and hopeful characters around, on their roster too. V having committed atrocities and nearly losing themselves to despair in the aftermath could be the kind of thing that helps to provide greater insight into what Redcloak's gone through rather than an obstacle.

I've meant to mention his before, but I'm generally opposed to the notions of "evil" and "redemption" being reduced to either intentions/feelings or actual actions, to me it's both, and it seems like for this story purposes, it's both as well.

Vaarsuvius isn't irredeemable (as far as the story is concerned) because they've actively acknowledged their heinous mistakes, has been making attempts to change their behavior so that something like it doesn't happen again, and is interested in trying to do good in the world. V's redemption is by no means complete, and I don't even think we're supposed to take it as a given. So with that, I obviously disagree with you about how V's redemption is being taken for granted.

Compare with Belkar, who has demonstrably done far less harm than V, but only because other people have been raining him in, and expresses no (conscious) remorse or empathy for those he has harmed, or those harmed in general. The situation with Belkar isn't the same with V, and it isn't even the same with Redcloak.

Will, Recloak be "redeemed"? I doubt it, but it's still possible. But he's certainly shown himself to be much less likely and willing than Vaarsuvius for the reasons I (and I think others) have outlined, and I don't think it's even "over" or supposed to be taken as a given with Vaarsuvius. I also never took Vaarsuvius being served with divorce papers as a tearjerker, just an unfortunate, but predictable and justified result of how they had treated their significant other.

[Rynael]

Vaarsuvius being on the team is one of the reasons it rubs me the wrong way when people claim Redcloak is "over the Moral Event Horizon" and "must be punished" for his evil actions. Vaarsuvius committed genocide but their being served with divorce papers is apparently meant to be a tearjerker. Obviously you (and Kish) aren't especially moved, but it seems like most people kinda take V's redemption for granted at this point.

I think the people saying those things are Redcloak are often the same people saying it of Vaarsuvius. For those who aren't, there's Rrmcklin's point about intentions and actions (V's done far worse, but acknowledged it in a way that Redcloak has not), but I am personally on the team of measuring them with the same ruler.*

*Which is to say, my stance about redemption being subjective.


Which I do, in fact, have some problems with. I don't think reform and redemption are impossible, but I do think the strip is both oddly selective and wildly overoptimistic about the kind of people for whom it's a realistic prospect.

It is definitely selective, with the sole criterion being, "how long have we been reading to follow this character?" I fully believe that if, for example, Miko were a founding member of the Order, she would have lived to see redemption.


As far as I remember, neither did Vaarsuvius.

Problem is, Vaarsuvius started to put up the pretense of Goodness—about half the time, anyway—around the same book as their own worst deeds.

[B. Dandelion]

Vaarsuvius isn't irredeemable (as far as the story is concerned) because they've actively acknowledged their heinous mistakes, has been making attempts to change their behavior so that something like it doesn't happen again, and is interested in trying to do good in the world. V's redemption is by no means complete, and I don't even think we're supposed to take it as a given. So with that, I obviously disagree with you about how V's redemption is being taken for granted.

If you took a poll on the forum asking "will Vaarsuvius be redeemed? Y/N/TBD", would TBD edge out Yes? I think most people would vote yes.

Does anybody really expect the comic will end with Vaarsuvius explicitly being denied redemption -- like by dying and being justly sentenced to the lower planes, that's it, end of story?


Will, Recloak be "redeemed"? I doubt it, but it's still possible. But he's certainly shown himself to be much less likely and willing than Vaarsuvius for the reasons I (and I think others) have outlined, and I don't think it's even "over" or supposed to be taken as a given with Vaarsuvius. I also never took Vaarsuvius being served with divorce papers as a tearjerker, just an unfortunate, but predictable and justified result of how they had treated their significant other.

Admittedly as far as the divorce goes, I was thinking more of the last panel in 1046 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html) as opposed to the comic where the papers were actually served. That definitely seems engineered to tug on people's heartstrings.

[Rrmcklin]

If you took a poll on the forum asking "will Vaarsuvius be redeemed? Y/N/TBD", would TBD edge out Yes? I think most people would vote yes.

Does anybody really expect the comic will end with Vaarsuvius explicitly being denied redemption -- like by dying and being justly sentenced to the lower planes, that's it, end of story?



Admittedly as far as the divorce goes, I was thinking more of the last panel in 1046 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html) as opposed to the comic where the papers were actually served. That definitely seems engineered to tug on people's heartstrings.

I mean, that's the thing about main characters - we tend to follow people who, if not already good, are more likely to take up opportunities to be good (well, in a story like this).

Redcloak is a lot of things, including a major character, but he's not a main character. Maybe he will take up that opportunity, but if he doesn't, I doubt I'll find anything particularly strange about V being willing to while Redcloak was not.

And personally, I'm not even really expecting a definitive answer for Vaarsuvius' ultimate fate.

And as far as that strip goes - yeah, that was supposed to get an emotional reaction. But that panel doesn't exist in a vacuum, and doesn't seem particularly egregious or misplaced in the context of the entire strip (and that entire conversation). Obviously not everyone is going to feel something, but it works for the situation.

[Rynael]

If you took a poll on the forum asking "will Vaarsuvius be redeemed? Y/N/TBD", would TBD edge out Yes? I think most people would vote yes.

Does anybody really expect the comic will end with Vaarsuvius explicitly being denied redemption -- like by dying and being justly sentenced to the lower planes, that's it, end of story?

The Giant has already said in the Blood Runs in the Family book commentary: "There are no easy answers, and don't expect one from me." Read with the widest possible breadth, that may leave a lot open, but what it doesn't leave open is the possibility of a deva telling Vaarsuvius, "You've acknowledged and done everything that you could to atone for your past Evil acts. It's not a problem for us. Go on up."

The way I see it, any action being enough to explicitly say, "Vaarsuvius is fully redeemed for Familicide," would be an "easy answer." And if so, then the answer that "most people" would vote is officially confirmed false.

Would, "there was never anything you could do, you literally committed genocide based on racism, go to (the Nine) Hell(s)," be an "easy answer" by that quote's standard? I'm not sure. On one hand, it's sure not something somebody who's done something that bad wants to hear; on the other, it's a pretty explicit confirmation.

Personally, I don't see probable grounds for anything except "TBD."


Redcloak is a lot of things, including a major character, but he's not a main character. Maybe he will take up that opportunity, but if he doesn't, I doubt I'll find anything particularly strange about V being willing to while Redcloak was not.

Redcloak has one thing going for him—he's already passed the, "even acknowledge that you could, in fact, be wrong," point, made the proper response of being overwhelmed, and dramatically reversed his behavior once before, with the hobgoblins. He's demonstrated the capacity.

[Takver]

Admittedly as far as the divorce goes, I was thinking more of the last panel in 1046 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html) as opposed to the comic where the papers were actually served. That definitely seems engineered to tug on people's heartstrings.

I interpret that panel as bitter regret for past mistakes, and so appropriate for V at this point. The emotion isn't "It's so sad that my spouse divorced me" but (contrary to Eugene's dialogue) "I spent all my time on my studies and neglected my spouse, wasting their love, and now I've lost them forever." My pain is my own fault. I have to live with the consequences of my choices. That's something I find very relatable.

Redcloak's a really interesting character, and a very understandable one, but I think his very relatability makes him more despicable, at least to me. He's capable of empathy (unlike Xykon.) He's capable of taking a different path. He just refuses to. It all has to be "worth it" and he has to be right and that's the most important thing to him.

I admit I hadn't considered that Thor's plan wouldn't be the actual solution. It seems like a good idea to me to get to keep the world that they already have. A permanent state of imperfection, requiring maintenance and ongoing cooperation - that sounds like a decent endpoint to me. Kind of like our own world. So I assumed the drama would be in how they get there (thus this thread.) I also assumed the gods already knew about the world within the rift (I mean...it's right there for them to see.) But it is odd that Thor hasn't brought it up yet.

So if there's some other endpoint, then Redcloak doesn't need to be redeemed in any way. He can stick to his Plan to the bitter end.

[Kish]

If you took a poll on the forum asking "will Vaarsuvius be redeemed? Y/N/TBD", would TBD edge out Yes? I think most people would vote yes.

Does anybody really expect the comic will end with Vaarsuvius explicitly being denied redemption -- like by dying and being justly sentenced to the lower planes, that's it, end of story?
Not explicitly, no. I'm hoping for "dead with afterlife destination not stated."

[Mandor]

I think it's human and understandable to go from "This is a really complex and interesting character who I like." to "And therefore I want him to really turn out good in the end and to have a satisfactorily happy ending."

I do not think that is in the cards for Redcloak. Even if he is my absolute favorite character in the comic. (V is a very close 2nd). Redcloak has done and awful lot of evil in the comics, and seems likely to remain completely unrepentant about it. Now, some of it, like his rage against the paladins of the sapphire guard, is understandable. But that doesn't change the fact that he's been swimming in the deep end of the alignment pool for a long long time and is quite comfortable with it. Sacrificing minions to his end, murdering rivals in cold blood, wiping out cities of people who he knows will have innocents just as goblin cities had innocents, willful torture, and being willing to risk the very fabric of all creation and every living thing on it, including every last soul of every single child of his own people.

Without a lead sheet to block it, he would scan evil from the word "Go".

You could argue a bit over what you mean by "redemption" though. Certainly, no WAY he's going to fully qualify per the words of Soon and get all the way to Lawful Good before he dies.
Could he make it to Neutral? Maybe, but I really doubt it. I don't know that a last heroic act can wipe away that much blood built over a lifetime.

But, full disclosure, I'm also one who thinks Belkar is going to the fires down below, unless he's erased from existence by the Snarl.

[Goblin_Priest]

Redcloak coulnd't cast those spells either before he put on the red cloak (he only wore the white cloak of a lower level cleric). It's that artefact that gave him all the abilities, although I assume that by now he's leveled up by himself. So the same could happen to Jirix.


As to Hell, I assume that she'd rather start again and maybe renege on the deal she made with Thor.

No, the cloak didn't make him lvl 17+. Redcloak grinded his levels through the years, and only got lvl 9 spell slots somewhere around the Azure city arc if I remember correctly. He states it in-comic when he finally gets them.

[mjasghar]

Unless he stops being a priest of the dark one I can’t see him straying to good after serving a LE deity
Oots gods seem to be lenient on the whole chaos law (cf Thor) but not on morals
So assuming he stays with DO he will end up on his gods domain which most likely is on Acheron

[Kish]

I don't think "Nope, D&D mechanics say you can't" is going to have anything whatsoever to do with the potential redemption of Redcloak or any other character.

[woweedd]

Overall, I think Redcloak has a better chance of true redemption then V, but, like V, he's gonna have to work like hell to get it. My scheme for how V could get redeemed involves Epic-level magic and profound sacrifice on their part, and Redcloak's would involve the same. My best-case guess is that he goes through with the ritual, acknowledges his crimes, helps to defeated Xykon as a way of making amends, and then spends the rest of his life in penance. Worst-case..Let's just say trying to betray Xykon would not be a good idea, and if he die unrepentant...

[Takver]

No, the cloak didn't make him lvl 17+. Redcloak grinded his levels through the years, and only got lvl 9 spell slots somewhere around the Azure city arc if I remember correctly. He states it in-comic when he finally gets them.

Yep, in 826 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0826.html). "Nothing quite like the feel of a new spell level" as he casts Implosion. Rich must have put that comic in partly because he was already planning 1143.

I don't really understand how it's going to work, since mortal magic doesn't have a quiddity, but it must be something like the 9th-level version of Summon Proxy, so the Dark One can act on the physical world in a certain way. (But then why don't the other pantheons also need clerics with a 9th-level spell slot to do the same thing? Or do they?)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Overall, I think Redcloak has a better chance of true redemption then V, but, like V, he's gonna have to work like hell to get it. My scheme for how V could get redeemed involves Epic-level magic and profound sacrifice on their part, and Redcloak's would involve the same. My best-case guess is that he goes through with the ritual, acknowledges his crimes, helps to defeated Xykon as a way of making amends, and then spends the rest of his life in penance. Worst-case..Let's just say trying to betray Xykon would not be a good idea, and if he die unrepentant...

I think RC is heading for the realization that he has spent his life working against his actual objective. That it will be despite his efforts and not because of them that goblins will get better lives. He might live to see this, and spend the rest of his life defending reality. For example, lets say that my (likely incorrect) hypothesis that ascended gods die with the world. He might come to understand that there is no "next world" for goblins to have equal rights in. That if another world is created, a different race of farmable XP beings will be created and that if he wants goblins to have a chance, this is the only world that will work in. And therefore that he needs to hold reality together with everything he has, or else that will be it for him, his god, and every goblin in existence. But that in his myopic persecution of the plan, he has made reality more unstable, not less.

Would him helping close the rifts bring redemption? No. But it might bring him wisdom.


I don't really understand how it's going to work, since mortal magic doesn't have a quiddity, but it must be something like the 9th-level version of Summon Proxy, so the Dark One can act on the physical world in a certain way. (But then why don't the other pantheons also need clerics with a 9th-level spell slot to do the same thing? Or do they?)

It's not mortal magic. He channels divine energy in the form of spells. What Thor needs is divine energy of the Dark One's quiddity, and thus RC can provide it. Thor's plan will involve (I'd imagine) priest from all three pantheons also pouring divine energy of the existing colours into the rifts.

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

Just something I'm curious about, when talking about redemption are we talking about Redcloak becoming a good person or a Good person?

[Takver]

When I made the thread, the surprising idea for me was that Redcloak might willingly contribute to helping resolve the plot and save the world, rather than threatening it. And he might even do this for the right reasons. Until 1141-1143, I assumed he would be an antagonist and a hypocrite through to the bitter end.

[Rynael]

Just something I'm curious about, when talking about redemption are we talking about Redcloak becoming a good person or a Good person?

As for me, I also mean neither—Just whether Redcloak will, before he dies, acknowledge his mistakes rather than try to ride them out to the end, and whether, like Takver said, he will cooperate with the Order to save the world (or two). Further questions of atonement aren't on my radar, and would just be covering retreaded ground anyway. At most, he could potentially start down that road in epilogue, if he lives, but I wouldn't bet on either of those things.

[Kish]

Just something I'm curious about, when talking about redemption are we talking about Redcloak becoming a good person or a Good person?
I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. The regular assertion that "alignment is not morality" invariably strikes me as being 90% wishful thinking, buffered by a few cases of specific D&D writers (starting with Gygax himself) having really weird moral senses.

(With the caveats that 1) a god is not a person, and 2) Rich labeling a character as good and my labeling them as good are entirely different things.)

[zimmerwald1915]

Not explicitly, no. I'm hoping for "dead with afterlife destination not stated."
Likewise, because that would be a kind of resolution - an admission that there is no more to see in the story. What I expect we'll get is a non-resolution where her death is put off and everything up to the end of the story will have not mattered a jot.

[Deliverance]

When I made the thread, the surprising idea for me was that Redcloak might willingly contribute to helping resolve the plot and save the world, rather than threatening it. And he might even do this for the right reasons. Until 1141-1143, I assumed he would be an antagonist and a hypocrite through to the bitter end.
He might do either, but what has that got to do with redemption?

1) You can't have redemption without transgression, so which of Redcloaks actions do you believe he needs redemption for? And why? He's committed any number of evil actions in pursuit of his goals, but has not violated any of the tenets of the Dark One that we know of by doing so, so what are his sins that he'd need redemption for?

2) What do you think redemption would consist of, and why would it count as redemption?

3) Why would Redcloak possibly want to pursue redemption?

Given that he's an evil cleric of an evil deity, indeed that deity's high priest, and has served that deity since childhood, there is every reason to believe that should he drop dead he'd be ushered in to Dark One's afterlife, there to begin a splendid transformation into a divine mana battery of the Dark One.

That doesn't sound like a person in need of redemption to me. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the question of redemption for Redcloak makes very little sense in the first place.

[Takver]

He might do either, but what has that got to do with redemption?

1) You can't have redemption without transgression, so which of Redcloaks actions do you believe he needs redemption for? And why? He's committed any number of evil actions in pursuit of his goals, but has not violated any of the tenets of the Dark One that we know of by doing so, so what are his sins that he'd need redemption for?

I don't really agree with your definition of transgression. Redcloak did evil things and is an evil character and he is unrepentant about it. That's what he would need redemption for. Not in the eyes of the Dark One but in the eyes of the reader.

1141-1143 changed Redcloak's situation in the narrative. He was set to be a pure antagonist, with a genuine grievance that led him down an evil path. Now he might be the key to saving the world. But Thor's plan flies in the face of everything that Redcloak has dedicated his life to. If Redcloak goes along with it, instead of doubling down once again on his destructive sunk-cost fallacy, that will be redemptive to some degree for the character.

Why he would do this...is, I think, anyone's guess, and Durkon's task, and also, what I started the thread to discuss.

[Goblin_Priest]

I don't think "Nope, D&D mechanics say you can't" is going to have anything whatsoever to do with the potential redemption of Redcloak or any other character.

Redemption as a concept is probably more flexible in a world in which evil gods are known to exist, and are worshipped by a decent share of the population.

Redcloak has already begun a journey of redemption, of sorts, since he started caring about the lives of the goblinoids under him. He's evolved since he first donned on the cloak and was for a moment pretty much just a drone of his god. And while I think that revenge against the paladins (and humans) was a huge motivator for him, I think he's grown more sincere aspirations for goblinoids.

I think some form of redemption is possible... but not one where he turns "good", he is the evil cleric of an evil god, and no matter how righteous he is, he's never shown a drop of remorse for all the suffering he's caused to non-goliboids.

And since goblinoids got objectively screwed by the gods and constantly suffer great injustice for it, I don't think abandoning his kin would be part of his redemption.

The most likely outcome, to me, would be what was explicitly stated in this last strip: Durkon persuades Redcloak to find another way, one that helps the lives of the goblinoids that exist now, without destroying the world.

PS: Random thoughts about the latest strip... Seems like the gods think that destroying the world would destroy the Dark One?

[Mandor]

Redeption as a concept is probably more flexible in a world in which evil gods are known to exist, and are worshipped by a decent share of the population.

Redcloak has already begun a journey of redemption, of sorts, since he started caring about the lives of the goblinoids under him. He's evolved since he first donned on the cloak and was for a moment pretty much just a drone of his god. And while I think that revenge against the paladins (and humans) was a huge motivator for him, I think he's grown more sincere aspirations for goblinoids.

I think some form of redemption is possible... but not one where he turns "good", he is the evil cleric of an evil god, and no matter how righteous he is, he's never shown a drop of remorse for all the suffering he's caused to non-goliboids.

And since goblinoids got objectively screwed by the gods and constantly suffer great injustice for it, I don't think abandoning his kin would be part of his redemption.

The most likely outcome, to me, would be what was explicitly stated in this last strip: Durkon persuades Redcloak to find another way, one that helps the lives of the goblinoids that exist now, without destroying the world. I agree. The hardest part may be getting Redcloak to LISTEN long enough to realize that this may be necessary, instead of directly proceeding to the next Great Dual Between Clerics. On the other hand, Redcloak has been shown to be curious, at times. And certainly a cautious and careful planner. Durkon may need to go in alone though. Get the entire Order in the room, and I think he might go straight to fight-or-flight. Although there's ALSO the matter of how to get a message to him without Xykon listening in. Perhaps a carefully timed Sending, or series of them... start with messages to Lien and O-Chul to see if they can tell when Redcloak is likey to be alone, then do a Sending to Redcloak then.


PS: Random thoughts about the latest strip... Seems like the gods think that destroying the world would destroy the Dark One?I think it would, although not immediately. I do not personally like cosmologies where gods are "fed" by the mana batteries of souls of mortals who worshipped them. Frankly, I would handwave that away in a heartbeat in any campaign I were to run. Houseruled "not in my campaign it doesn't work that way". But if those rules are in place in Stick-verse, then it seems like the Dark One is running on a very finite supply of souls, and might have a very difficult time getting a fresh supply of worshippers in a new world. TDO might in fact "starve to death". No idea what happens then, would he fade away like just another goblin soul, or drift through the outer planes as the husk of a dead god for someone else to tap into his power, who knows.

[Deliverance]

I don't really agree with your definition of transgression. Redcloak did evil things and is an evil character and he is unrepentant about it. That's what he would need redemption for. Not in the eyes of the Dark One but in the eyes of the reader.

1141-1143 changed Redcloak's situation in the narrative. He was set to be a pure antagonist, with a genuine grievance that led him down an evil path. Now he might be the key to saving the world. But Thor's plan flies in the face of everything that Redcloak has dedicated his life to. If Redcloak goes along with it, instead of doubling down once again on his destructive sunk-cost fallacy, that will be redemptive to some degree for the character.

Why he would do this...is, I think, anyone's guess, and Durkon's task, and also, what I started the thread to discuss.
Ok, so your use of the word redemption has nothing to do with redemption of Redcloak within the OOTS world for sins committed, in the sense that e.g. the touching scene with dying Miko and Soon discussing the possibility of redemption is, or how discussions about possible redemption for V in the forum often run, but with Redcloak performing actions that makes the reader feel better about him when using a notion of sins and redemption based on good-aligned values.

Sorry that I got sidetracked by this; I do understand that your main issue is whether Redcloak will change as a character or not, and I've always been open to the possibility that he might, it is just that I didn't see how you could consider this to have anything to do with redemption in the sense that matters in the OOTS world.

[Takver]

Well, I think your phrasing is needlessly dismissive, and I sort of disagree with the...um, is it a distinction, or a lack of distinction? that you're drawing here. Between meaning in the OotS world and meaning to the reader.

Take Miko as an example. Imagine that the Twelve Gods preferred themselves a paladin who never thought she was wrong, and who executed her lord based on a glorified hunch. Imagine an anti-Miko, who displeases these gods by acting reasonably despite her personal misgivings. She serves her lord faithfully to the end. Anti-Miko falls, because she's transgressed against her gods, and she dies without "redemption" in the sense of repairing her transgression. She gets a scene with anti-Soon who explains that she should have killed Shojo based on her hunch, but sadly it's too late for her to live up to her gods' expectations.

Is that a touching scene? Do the emotions resonate with the readers? Does it make sense? I don't think so. Miko's failure matters to us not just because she didn't please her gods, but because how she acted was just plain wrong. We all understand that it's wrong to be so closed-minded and self-righteous and grandiose. These characters' sins make sense as sins mostly in terms of how they match up with our real-world values. And we know that Rich intentionally uses his work to comment on issues of real-world morality.

So yes, if Redcloak dies without having changed one single iota of his worldview, and the Dark One is very pleased with him and everything he's done, I would still consider him "unredeemed," as in "evil and unredeemed from that evil." And I would consider that to be meaningful within the OotS world because his transgressions were against the characters there (his fellow goblins, any humans that were innocent, the population of the world that he intends to threaten.)

If he needs someone in-universe to be redeemed to, you could consider that to be his brother Right-Eye. I don't see why it has to be a god.

[woweedd]

Likewise, because that would be a kind of resolution - an admission that there is no more to see in the story. What I expect we'll get is a non-resolution where her death is put off and everything up to the end of the story will have not mattered a jot.
That feels weirdly cynical...AND I remember who i'm talking to.

[wumpus]

No, the cloak didn't make him lvl 17+. Redcloak grinded his levels through the years, and only got lvl 9 spell slots somewhere around the Azure city arc if I remember correctly. He states it in-comic when he finally gets them.

Wait, he knows he's an NPC. He presumably knows he's the main villain's henchman (and since he acts as the power behind the throne, may be considered the main villain himself). He should be aware that he auto-gains power just like Krystal. Perhaps he wants to "run ahead a bit" to stay alive in team evil, but he should have hit a hard cap now that fits with the rest of the party.

Of course, he might be referring to the order gaining XP "for him". A guy who summons chlorine elementals knows how to lawyer the rules.

[woweedd]

Wait, he knows he's an NPC. He presumably knows he's the main villain's henchman (and since he acts as the power behind the throne, may be considered the main villain himself). He should be aware that he auto-gains power just like Krystal. Perhaps he wants to "run ahead a bit" to stay alive in team evil, but he should have hit a hard cap now that fits with the rest of the party.

Of course, he might be referring to the order gaining XP "for him". A guy who summons chlorine elementals knows how to lawyer the rules.
Firstly, that was a one-off joke. Secondly, that only applies to personal rivals, not main villains. Villains are generally far more powerful then the heroes to start with, either in raw strength, like Xykon, or in resources, as Redcloak used to be in the days after he founded Gobtopia but before he reached his current level as strongest Cleric in the world.

[Kish]

Ok, so your use of the word redemption has nothing to do with redemption of Redcloak within the OOTS world for sins committed
Say rather, it has nothing to do with Redcloak's standing as a cleric or his god's opinion.

If you have truly never encountered a nonreligious concept of redemption, I think you're one of a very small number of people I've ever met who could say that.

[woweedd]

Say rather, it has nothing to do with Redcloak's standing as a cleric or his god's opinion.
Especially since he's also Evil.

[Rrmcklin]

I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. The regular assertion that "alignment is not morality" invariably strikes me as being 90% wishful thinking, buffered by a few cases of specific D&D writers (starting with Gygax himself) having really weird moral senses.

(With the caveats that 1) a god is not a person, and 2) Rich labeling a character as good and my labeling them as good are entirely different things.)

I think it has merit in that, Dnd at least, being "not evil" and "good" are not equivalent. I'd also say that's true for reality as well, but that's a different conversation.

In which case, the question is more "For Redcloak to be redeemed, does he need to become good, or simply stop being evil?"

[Mandor]

I think it has merit in that, Dnd at least, being "not evil" and "good" are not equivalent. I'd also say that's true for reality as well, but that's a different conversation.

In which case, the question is more "For Redcloak to be redeemed, does he need to become good, or simply stop being evil?"

Depends entirely on what you mean by "to be redeemed".
Narritvely, to emerge from the story as a heroic character, of course he would need to become truly good. (I think so, anyway).
To avoid an afterlife in the lower planes, just not being evil MAY suffice if he is "not evil" for a sufficient period of time before his death.
To simply stay true as a champion of his people, willing to take any and all actions, regardless of their position on the alignment pool, to fight for goblins, he may not even need to stop being evil at all.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you have truly never encountered a nonreligious concept of redemption, I think you're one of a very small number of people I've ever met who could say that.
I have yet to encounter a secular concept of redemption that wasn't rooted in religious concepts.

[Crisis21]

1141-1143 changed Redcloak's situation in the narrative. He was set to be a pure antagonist, with a genuine grievance that led him down an evil path. Now he might be the key to saving the world. But Thor's plan flies in the face of everything that Redcloak has dedicated his life to. If Redcloak goes along with it, instead of doubling down once again on his destructive sunk-cost fallacy, that will be redemptive to some degree for the character.

Why he would do this...is, I think, anyone's guess, and Durkon's task, and also, what I started the thread to discuss.

I've been talking about this a bunch in the comic discussion page, but I'll summarize some key points here:

Redcloak and the Dark One currently assume the following:

That this is the second world the gods have created.
That if the world is destroyed by the Snarl, the gods will have to let the Dark One help create the next world.

Basically, these assumptions mean that the Plan is win-win for the Dark One, and by extension Redcloak. Either they successfully gain control of a Gate and use it to blackmail the gods into improving the lot of the goblin people or the Snarl destroys the world and the Dark One gets a say in how the next iteration of goblins is treated from day one.

Recent comics have revealed that no, this is far from the second world as well as that inter-pantheon interaction is tightly controlled to official channels for fear of creating another Snarl. Official channels that the Dark One has cut off. Plus several gods would rather keep the current state of affairs than let the Dark One into the fold and are fully willing to destroy the world prematurely to prevent anyone from misusing the Gates.

This rearranges every assumption both Redcloak and the Dark One have about how the Plan will unfold. What's more, it does so in a way Redcloak would be inclined to believe because it will come across as the gods continuing to screw over the goblins, which is something Redcloak already believes.

[Dradougon]

I really like Redcloaks character and think if you look at it through his POV, he’s in the right. Controlling the snarl, would make goblins the most powerful race in existence. Not a bad goal.

[LadyEowyn]

Based on the last few strips, I do expect that Redcloak will end up working on the same side as the protagonists, and grappling with some major realizations about the path he has followed.

In terms of alignment, it is very unlikely that he will become Good.

In terms of afterlife destination, it seems like a moot point because (unless our information about the Dark One undergoes major changes) Redcloak would presumably want to go to the Dark One's goblinoid afterlife, even if he became Neutral. Though being destroyed by the Snarl is also a reasonably strong option.

[Goblin_Priest]

I agree. The hardest part may be getting Redcloak to LISTEN long enough to realize that this may be necessary, instead of directly proceeding to the next Great Dual Between Clerics. On the other hand, Redcloak has been shown to be curious, at times. And certainly a cautious and careful planner. Durkon may need to go in alone though. Get the entire Order in the room, and I think he might go straight to fight-or-flight. Although there's ALSO the matter of how to get a message to him without Xykon listening in. Perhaps a carefully timed Sending, or series of them... start with messages to Lien and O-Chul to see if they can tell when Redcloak is likey to be alone, then do a Sending to Redcloak then.

I think it would, although not immediately. I do not personally like cosmologies where gods are "fed" by the mana batteries of souls of mortals who worshipped them. Frankly, I would handwave that away in a heartbeat in any campaign I were to run. Houseruled "not in my campaign it doesn't work that way". But if those rules are in place in Stick-verse, then it seems like the Dark One is running on a very finite supply of souls, and might have a very difficult time getting a fresh supply of worshippers in a new world. TDO might in fact "starve to death". No idea what happens then, would he fade away like just another goblin soul, or drift through the outer planes as the husk of a dead god for someone else to tap into his power, who knows.

I dunno, he's not that closed to talking with his foes. Actually, he says it himself when recovering the phylactery, he can't stop himself from doing it. If Durkon tells him "Stop, I need to talk to you about the rifts!", before shots are fired (and if Xykon isn't around), then Redcloak will definitely want to hear him out. He might not believe what Durkon says (at first), but he has no interest in not hearing him out. And he can't help himself from talking. Which, as we constantly joke in our D&D group, "is a free action".


Wait, he knows he's an NPC. He presumably knows he's the main villain's henchman (and since he acts as the power behind the throne, may be considered the main villain himself). He should be aware that he auto-gains power just like Krystal. Perhaps he wants to "run ahead a bit" to stay alive in team evil, but he should have hit a hard cap now that fits with the rest of the party.

Of course, he might be referring to the order gaining XP "for him". A guy who summons chlorine elementals knows how to lawyer the rules.

I don't know what level he was when he first donned the cloak... presumably, very low. Wasn't he just ordained as a cleric?

Then he grinded some before meating Xykon. And then some with him. I don't think we have much information at all on how he gained those levels and when, other than that 9th level spell slot in Azure City. But given that he's going into battles every day where at least some of them give even Xykon some XP, lvl 20 could even be within reach. Not that the difference between a 3.5 lvl 17 and lvl 20 cleric is all that dramatic.

Xykon and Redcloak are somewhat more like anti-PCs than typical NPCs, in that, like PCs, they constantly go up against NPCs, and often get foiled by them. A typical villain NPC does not have such a long list of failures that are not the result of a direct confrontation with the PCs. (Then again, there are no NPCs and PCs in this world because there are no players behind the characters ;) )

[hroþila]

I think that if Redcloak ever faces any members of the Order while Xykon isn't around, his immediate reaction would be "I can finally eliminate this threat without Xykon ruining it for the sake of showing me my place", and any requests for parlay would be dismissed as an attempt to stall for time. In my opinion, he's going to have to be taken down a peg or three before he's willing to listen.

[LadyEowyn]

I was under the impression that one can't refuse a Sending spell. The Order can communicate with Redcloak that way without danger, whether he's initially interested in listening or not.

Once he's heard it, it's big enough news that he's going to spend some time thinking about it.

[Mike Havran]

I think that if Redcloak ever faces any members of the Order while Xykon isn't around, his immediate reaction would be "I can finally eliminate this threat without Xykon ruining it for the sake of showing me my place", and any requests for parlay would be dismissed as an attempt to stall for time. In my opinion, he's going to have to be taken down a peg or three before he's willing to listen.
Redcloak seems to be antagonistic primarily towards Roy. He might be more reasonable towards another member of the Order if Roy is not around. Durkon is obviously the preferred option since he is a cleric as well.

[Kish]

I was under the impression that one can't refuse a Sending spell. The Order can communicate with Redcloak that way without danger, whether he's initially interested in listening or not.

Once he's heard it, it's big enough news that he's going to spend some time thinking about it.
Whether they can Send to Redcloak even if he'd be entirely and eagerly receptive depends on how long it's been since Xykon cast a Cloister that caught Redcloak in its radius.

And, secondarily, whether Redcloak or Xykon has established any other defenses against scry-and-die tactics.

[Doctor West]

Whether they can Send to Redcloak even if he'd be entirely and eagerly receptive depends on how long it's been since Xykon cast a Cloister that caught Redcloak in its radius.

And, secondarily, whether Redcloak or Xykon has established any other defenses against scry-and-die tactics.

Also whether "the goblin wearing a red cloak known as... Redcloak" counts as being sufficiently familiar with the subject. Knowing his real name probably would've helped with that, but I guess we can't expect Thor to think of everything.

[Rynael]

Also, I'm not sure anyone's left who knows Redcloak's name anymore. Redcloak practically is his name by now. Even a theoretically omniscient deity like Thor might know all his own clerics, but would he have even been paying attention to another god's low-level initiate? We're deep in the realm of unconfirmable speculation, though; I think this is just another case of an author not bothering to say "<character we only know by his title>'s real name is actually Steve(?)" 15 years into writing.

[Mordaedil]

I really like Redcloaks character and think if you look at it through his POV, he’s in the right. Controlling the snarl, would make goblins the most powerful race in existence. Not a bad goal.
Redcloak already stated before, they won't be gaining control of the Snarl, he is aware of this. He can at best "summon" the Snarl as an assassin during the Dark Ones negotiations with the other deities. From his point of view, it's just a fair deal for the rotten one dealt the Dark One back when he was alive.

[Goblin_Priest]

I think that if Redcloak ever faces any members of the Order while Xykon isn't around, his immediate reaction would be "I can finally eliminate this threat without Xykon ruining it for the sake of showing me my place", and any requests for parlay would be dismissed as an attempt to stall for time. In my opinion, he's going to have to be taken down a peg or three before he's willing to listen.

What? No... not at all. "Stupid risks are just that... Stupid." Xykon might have done some poor decisions that let them live, but he's not a burden. That's like saying... "this sword is not sharp enough... I'll fight with my bare hands instead!" He's still an epic level Lich that packs a huge punch. Maybe they'd have had Azure City if Xykon had followed the plan. But maybe not. But it remains that Xykon saved Redcloak over there. And without Xykon, Redcloak would never had had a chance in the throne room.

The Order would kill Redcloak no problem, if he was alone.

If it was just Durkon, for whatever reason... even then. Azure city killed his family. There's nobody he hated more. He still heard out their High Priest. Durkon? He's just a rival, it never got personal. There's no reason for him not to listen him out.


Also whether "the goblin wearing a red cloak known as... Redcloak" counts as being sufficiently familiar with the subject. Knowing his real name probably would've helped with that, but I guess we can't expect Thor to think of everything.

They've fought him before. More than once. And he's been a central figure in many of their struggles. I'd think they are sufficiently familiar with him.


Also, I'm not sure anyone's left who knows Redcloak's name anymore. Redcloak practically is his name by now. Even a theoretically omniscient deity like Thor might know all his own clerics, but would he have even been paying attention to another god's low-level initiate? We're deep in the realm of unconfirmable speculation, though; I think this is just another case of an author not bothering to say "<character we only know by his title>'s real name is actually Steve(?)" 15 years into writing.

Well, there are ways to contact the dead.


Redcloak already stated before, they won't be gaining control of the Snarl, he is aware of this. He can at best "summon" the Snarl as an assassin during the Dark Ones negotiations with the other deities. From his point of view, it's just a fair deal for the rotten one dealt the Dark One back when he was alive.

It's basically nuclear threat/deterrent. Most advanced nations have nukes, they aren't universally regarded as being innately evil.

[hroþila]

It goes without saying that Redcloak wouldn't charge like a headless chicken into a fight he knew he couldn't win. When I said "any members of the Order", I was imagining a scenario similar to the Malack vs Durkon fight.

[Peelee]

It's basically nuclear threat/deterrent. Most advanced nations have nukes

You have an odd definition of "most."

[zimmerwald1915]

It's basically nuclear threat/deterrent. Most advanced nations have nukes, they aren't universally regarded as being innately evil.
No they don't. The legitimate nuclear club is five strong, the illegitimate nuclear club is currently four strong. Five countries without their own nuclear weapons share the United States'. The OECD, which is a somewhat smaller group than the "advanced countries," and does not include three of the illegitimate nuclear club, has 36 members. 11/36 is not "most."

Also, the logic of the nuclear deterrent is inherently depraved, as people have recognized since 1948. It is also an inescapable trap, which is why we haven't got out of it since 1948.

[Fyraltari]

Also, I'm not sure anyone's left who knows Redcloak's name anymore. Redcloak practically is his name by now.
No one living has heard the name of my birth... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ8Pgjj3c)

Even a theoretically omniscient deity like Thor might know all his own clerics, but would he have even been paying attention to another god's low-level initiate? We're deep in the realm of unconfirmable speculation, though; I think this is just another case of an author not bothering to say "<character we only know by his title>'s real name is actually Steve(?)" 15 years into writing.
No, no, "Sheev (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Sidious#Early_life_and_political_career)" not "Steve".

The Order would kill Redcloak no problem, if he was alone.


:haley: Crap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html)! It's Redcloak!!
:elan: Maybe it's just another illusion?
:belkar: Nah, that would mean we weren't totally boned.
:redcloak: *Proceeds to summon a single monster tough enough to give the Order (minus spellcasters) a run for their money.

Not that clear-cut, I'd think.
Especially since that if Xykon is gaining XP within monster Hollow, so would he.

[woweedd]

[QUOTE=Rynael;23437440]Also, I'm not sure anyone's left who knows Redcloak's name anymore. Redcloak practically is his name by now./QUOTe]
No one living has heard the name of my birth... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ8Pgjj3c)

No, no, "Sheev (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Sidious#Early_life_and_political_career)" not "Steve".


:haley: Crap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html)! It's Redcloak!!
:elan: Maybe it's just another illusion?
:belkar: Nah, that would mean we weren't totally boned.
:redcloak: *Proceeds to summon a single monster tough enough to give the Order (minus spellcasters) a run for their money.

Not that clear-cut, I'd think.
Especially since that if Xykon is gaining XP within monster Hollow, so would he.
I feel like the "minus spellcasters" is important there. V and Durkon could probably even the odds quite a bit.

[Fyraltari]

True, but it would not be a stroll in the park, is what I am saying.

[Goblin_Priest]

No one living has heard the name of my birth... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ8Pgjj3c)

No, no, "Sheev (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Sidious#Early_life_and_political_career)" not "Steve".


:haley: Crap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html)! It's Redcloak!!
:elan: Maybe it's just another illusion?
:belkar: Nah, that would mean we weren't totally boned.
:redcloak: *Proceeds to summon a single monster tough enough to give the Order (minus spellcasters) a run for their money.

Not that clear-cut, I'd think.
Especially since that if Xykon is gaining XP within monster Hollow, so would he.

:redcloak: Summon Monster IX
:vaarsuvius: Counterspell
:durkon: Fire Storm
:elan: "kill kill kill the evil goblin that wants to destroy the world!"
:roy: Righteous Charge
:belkar: I'm the shoeless god of war! stab stab stab
:haley: SNEAK ATTACK!
:redcloak: X.X

Okay, maybe a round 2.

It's action economy. A single spellcaster has no chance agaist a large party of nearly-equal-leveled PCs, especially if that party has TWO spellcasters itself, and that the spellcaster in question is only a cleric (their spell list is quite lackluster imo).

Durkon* was about the same threat range as Redcloak. Less levels, but template perks. And Roy could basically solo him. He needed a whole lot of minions (and cheese) to defeat the order.

Even if Redcloak were to have gained 3 levels since they last fought. Level 20 clerics aren't really any more amazing at combat than level 17 ones. They get 3 more BAB (when have we ever seen him attack anything?), +2 to fort, +1 to ref, and +2 to will. Heck, if they use Durkon for counterspelling, V can hammer him with evocation, his reflex save is certainly not going to be on par with the DCs.


They are obviously NOT gonna do this. Just trying to illustrate how Redcloak stands zero chance if he were stupid enough to try to solo the Order. Which he isn't, either.

[Fyraltari]

:redcloak: Summon Monster IX
:vaarsuvius: Counterspell
:durkon: Fire Storm
:elan: "kill kill kill the evil goblin that wants to destroy the world!"
:roy: Righteous Charge
:belkar: I'm the shoeless god of war! stab stab stab
:haley: SNEAK ATTACK!
:redcloak: X.X

Okay, maybe a round 2.

It's action economy. A single spellcaster has no chance agaist a large party of nearly-equal-leveled PCs, especially if that party has TWO spellcasters itself, and that the spellcaster in question is only a cleric (their spell list is quite lackluster imo).

Durkon* was about the same threat range as Redcloak. Less levels, but template perks. And Roy could basically solo him. He needed a whole lot of minions (and cheese) to defeat the order.

Even if Redcloak were to have gained 3 levels since they last fought. Level 20 clerics aren't really any more amazing at combat than level 17 ones. They get 3 more BAB (when have we ever seen him attack anything?), +2 to fort, +1 to ref, and +2 to will. Heck, if they use Durkon for counterspelling, V can hammer him with evocation, his reflex save is certainly not going to be on par with the DCs.


They are obviously NOT gonna do this. Just trying to illustrate how Redcloak stands zero chance if he were stupid enough to try to solo the Order. Which he isn't, either.

Ah, well I know jack about DnD. The story does portray Redcloak as a formidable opponent in his own right.
Anyway, I doubt a Redcloak alone fights the Order (at top strength) alone is going to happen at any point. If only because the Order never fights a battle with the odds in their favor

[Rynael]

As a member of Team "The Order's gonna have to fight Redcloak, even if they later manage to negotiate," there's a lot to be done to stack the odds in Redcloak's favor, even without Xykon's help. Arena that favors Redcloak, element of surprise, Soul Splice, etc. Sure, Redcloak's shown the capacity to change and the willingness to parley, but the shape of this situation strongly resembles the Dark One's assassination.

Most plot points in mid-to-late Order of the Stick haven't been resolved by winning a fight. However, those big fight scenes do still happen, one way or another, because this is a D&D parody and heroic fantasy pastiche, and that's kind of obligatory in these stories.

[Kish]

There is no chance that the Order will effortlessly defeat Redcloak because action economy blah blah blah. And what's Righteous Charge supposed to be, anyway?

[Peelee]

There is no chance that the Order will effortlessly defeat Redcloak because action economy blah blah blah. And what's Righteous Charge supposed to be, anyway?

When the Evil cleric doesn't take checks?

[Mandor]

I was under the impression that one can't refuse a Sending spell. The Order can communicate with Redcloak that way without danger, whether he's initially interested in listening or not.

Once he's heard it, it's big enough news that he's going to spend some time thinking about it.

I wonder if there's a magic item that intercepts any incoming Sendings, and records them to be listened to later, or discarded.
Espeically when you're trying to sit down and enjoy dinner. :smallsmile:

[Mordaedil]

V wouldn't be able to counterspell Summon Monster IX, as s/he doesn't have 9th level spells or even if s/he did, conjuration is a barred school of magic and s/he'd have to use a Mage's Disjunction to pull it off.

Neglecting that, it's more useful for Redcloak to buff with Spell Resistance and Divine Power before any sort of showdown. A cleric with access to 9th level spells is not an easy fight, even for a party like the order.



It's basically nuclear threat/deterrent. Most advanced nations have nukes, they aren't universally regarded as being innately evil.

But the plan isn't to use it a deterrent. The plan is to use it as an edge for negotiations and actually use it when it fails.

[Goblin_Priest]

Ah, well I know jack about DnD. The story does portray Redcloak as a formidable opponent in his own right.
Anyway, I doubt a Redcloak alone fights the Order (at top strength) alone is going to happen at any point. If only because the Order never fights a battle with the odds in their favor

Redcloak is by no means weak. But it's just not a character build that stands a chance against a full party of nearly-equalled characters.

We've only ever seen him fight with an assortment of epic allies, summoned backup, and numerous underlings, except for that single 1v1 fight. Clerics are great, with a number of buffs, summons, heals, and utility spells.

But just like with any game, no matter how good, a support character remains that, and without anything to support, is generally underpar in a straight-up fight.


There is no chance that the Order will effortlessly defeat Redcloak because action economy blah blah blah. And what's Righteous Charge supposed to be, anyway?

Charging with his nice green flamey sword and eyes. ;)

And yes, of course, I said so that this scene would never happen. Not because Redcloak is too powerful, though, but because it would just make for a terrible story. The Order *isn't* going to just find him alone, and then blitz him into submission.

Trying to force Redcloak into submission to drag him away before talking with him is silly. He'll Word of Recall out. I'm firmly into the "Durkon will negotiate with Redcloak without defeating/capturing him first" camp.

[Fyraltari]

Redcloak is by no means weak. But it's just not a character build that stands a chance against a full party of nearly-equalled characters.

We've only ever seen him fight with an assortment of epic allies, summoned backup, and numerous underlings, except for that single 1v1 fight. Clerics are great, with a number of buffs, summons, heals, and utility spells.

But just like with any game, no matter how good, a support character remains that, and without anything to support, is generally underpar in a straight-up fight.
Can't he support his summons?

[Prinygod]

V wouldn't be able to counterspell Summon Monster IX, as s/he doesn't have 9th level spells or even if s/he did, conjuration is a barred school of magic and s/he'd have to use a Mage's Disjunction to pull it off.

Neglecting that, it's more useful for Redcloak to buff with Spell Resistance and Divine Power before any sort of showdown. A cleric with access to 9th level spells is not an easy fight, even for a party like the order.



But the plan isn't to use it a deterrent. The plan is to use it as an edge for negotiations and actually use it when it fails.

You can conterspell with dispel or greater dispel. Do so is based on caster level check not spell levels. Even if the counterspell fails V would still be able to attempt dispel on their turn so long as they had additional castings. Durkon can do the same. V could also take a lesson from ABD and turn them both into high level commoners. It would be appropriate based on V's character development.

[Doug Lampert]

You can conterspell with dispel or greater dispel. Do so is based on caster level check not spell levels. Even if the counterspell fails V would still be able to attempt dispel on their turn so long as they had additional castings. Durkon can do the same. V could also take a lesson from ABD and turn them both into high level commoners. It would be appropriate based on V's character development.

As you say, dispel magic counterspell is a caster level check, but the DC for a level 17 cleric is 28. Dispel magic can never have a bonus of more than +10, which is a 15% chance of success. Greater dispel is better, the order's spell-casters are around level 15, so they have a 40% chance with the higher level slot (+5% extra for V due to Blackwing's bauble).

The order can try to block RC's spell-casting, but their only reliable way to do so is to get V really close and cast AM field, and then have someone grapple RC before he simply steps out of the relatively small bubble.

[KorvinStarmast]

So yes, if Redcloak dies without having changed one single iota of his worldview, and the Dark One is very pleased with him and everything he's done, I would still consider him "unredeemed," as in "evil and unredeemed from that evil." Yes. However, if TDO says to him "well done, my good and faithful servant" and lets him into TDO's area of afterlife, Redcloak self actualizes completely, and would come as close to dying happy as he could. For him, a happy ending.
I was under the impression that one can't refuse a Sending spell. Hmm, Nale's sending to Roy from Cliffport appears to have been unrefusable.

Also, I'm not sure anyone's left who knows Redcloak's name anymore. Somewhat like a few stars whose stage names is the only name anyone knows them by, besides their parents.

@zimmerwald: yeah, on the nuclear club. MAD was an acronym chosen for good reasons.

When the Evil cleric doesn't take checks? Huh, for clerics, redemption has nothing to do with S&H green stamps and coupons. :smallbiggrin:

[Goblin_Priest]

Can't he support his summons?

Yes, but there's a large difference between coming into a fight with a horde of devils summoned via spells like Greater Planar Ally (on top of a horde of goblins), and, say, using turn 1 of initiative to cast Summon Monster IX.

The first one means you start into play with a lot of allies and you all get to act right away, the second one requires a full round to cast and means you don't get to do anything and are alone until your second turn.

That said OotS seems to make Summon Monsters IX less bad than it is in our games. An elder elemental is a CR 11 creature. Well below the party's level. Pretty tank with 200 HP and DR 10/-, but not having much of a punch.


You can conterspell with dispel or greater dispel. Do so is based on caster level check not spell levels. Even if the counterspell fails V would still be able to attempt dispel on their turn so long as they had additional castings. Durkon can do the same. V could also take a lesson from ABD and turn them both into high level commoners. It would be appropriate based on V's character development.

Yea, and there are also spells like Dismissal, which rid you of summoned creatures, and others that protect you from them.

[Prinygod]

As you say, dispel magic counterspell is a caster level check, but the DC for a level 17 cleric is 28. Dispel magic can never have a bonus of more than +10, which is a 15% chance of success. Greater dispel is better, the order's spell-casters are around level 15, so they have a 40% chance with the higher level slot (+5% extra for V due to Blackwing's bauble).

The order can try to block RC's spell-casting, but their only reliable way to do so is to get V really close and cast AM field, and then have someone grapple RC before he simply steps out of the relatively small bubble.

This is assuming that v has no feats or abilities to improve counterspelling which is one of their favorite tactics. Trading a 6 level spell for a 9th is a pretty good trade even if risky because a caster only gets one. for running out of a anti magic field, he either has to do a withdrawal and give up his action or risk an attack of opportunity. Which means he could be tripped and will really be screwed because the caster of antimagic field will be able to ready an action to move with him every turn after. And even if he does get away? The best he can do is word of recall out, because you know, anti magic field.

[Emanick]

As you say, dispel magic counterspell is a caster level check, but the DC for a level 17 cleric is 28. Dispel magic can never have a bonus of more than +10, which is a 15% chance of success. Greater dispel is better, the order's spell-casters are around level 15, so they have a 40% chance with the higher level slot (+5% extra for V due to Blackwing's bauble).

The order can try to block RC's spell-casting, but their only reliable way to do so is to get V really close and cast AM field, and then have someone grapple RC before he simply steps out of the relatively small bubble.

This. Also, as a level 16 wizard with a certain type of ioun stone, V casts as a 17th level wizard, so s/he should have a 50% chance to dispel a level 17 cleric's spell.

[Mordaedil]

I thought using dispel magic to counterspell didn't work on higher level spells than the spell level of dispel magic.

[Kish]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in some D&D edition...

but not this one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm).

[AceOfFools]

I always felt that 703 could be setup for Redcloak to follow in the Dark One's footsteps and become the second member of the goblin pantheon.

This would allow an "everything is bleakest" moment between when Redcloak dies (at Xykon's hand, I assume) and when he ascends
(where he can help with a four-quiddity solution to the Sarl).

I don't think it's the most likely scenario, and Rich has more work to do before he could pull it off, but I think he could make that twist if he wanted.

[Rrmcklin]

The idea of Redcloak being deified just goes against so much that's been written with his character, I wouldn't be able to think of it as anything other than a terrible writing decision on the Giant's part.

[The Aboleth]

The idea of Redcloak being deified just goes against so much that's been written with his character, I wouldn't be able to think of it as anything other than a terrible writing decision on the Giant's part.

I can see a scenario in which Redcloak sacrificed himself to the Snarl in order to give the Order time to do something that ends up saving the world...and by doing so, it shows the rest of the world that Goblins shouldn't be treated as "bad guys who should be XP fodder." In this scenario, Redcloak wouldn't be a deity, but he would be the example* that people look towards in changing their attitudes about Goblinkind.

*Of course, you'd have to ignore or otherwise reconcile his previous actions up to that point--like the slavery stuff in Azure City--but I guess it's not impossible.

[Peelee]

I always felt that 703 could be setup for Redcloak to follow in the Dark One's footsteps and become the second member of the goblin pantheon.

This would allow an "everything is bleakest" moment between when Redcloak dies (at Xykon's hand, I assume) and when he ascends
(where he can help with a four-quiddity solution to the Sarl).

....as opposed to right now, where he can help with a four-quiddity solution to the Snarl?

[Fyraltari]

I can see a scenario in which Redcloak sacrificed himself to the Snarl in order to give the Order time to do something that ends up saving the world...and by doing so, it shows the rest of the world that Goblins shouldn't be treated as "bad guys who should be XP fodder." In this scenario, Redcloak wouldn't be a deity, but he would be the example* that people look towards in changing their attitudes about Goblinkind.

*Of course, you'd have to ignore or otherwise reconcile his previous actions up to that point--like the slavery stuff in Azure City--but I guess it's not impossible.
History figures do tend to get whitewashed in the public consciousness.

I know it won't happen but if Redcloaks sacrifices himself to the Snarl and as a result people see him as a heroic goblin and that mends their relations with everybody else which in turns makes enough goblin worship a whitewashed Redcloak would that cereate a god? A god who isn't actually our Redcloak but who believes he is and has the personnnality his worshippers thinks Redcloak had and the fake memory to go with them?

Ow0 That'd be ridiculous. And glorious.

[TidePriestess]

Narratively speaking, Redcloak can't lose at this point, since the chances of the narrative saying "whoops, goblins will actually remain second-class citizens forever" are virtually nil. The worst that could happen is the Dark One blaming him for things that not even the Dark One himself knew about, which would strike me as pretty terrible, narratively; second worst would be being erased by the Snarl, which I suppose isn't impossible, but even then, his goals would ultimately be achieved.

There's very little indication that not following the Plan at all would have made the lives of goblinkind as a whole any better, minus the aforementioned behind-the-scenes stuff that neither the Dark One nor Redcloak knew about. And since Redcloak's goal isn't wrong, he could only find redemption for his means, so we'd have to have proof that Redcloak could have fixed the status of goblinkind without being evil and should have known about it beforehand. Truth be told, I don't know whether this could be done well.

So my guess is that Redcloak will die evil and, to some extent, vindicated; he'll no longer be a threat to the world and he'll have been instrumental in saving his people, even if he was going the wrong direction before.

[Peelee]

Narratively speaking, Redcloak can't lose at this point, since the chances of the narrative saying "whoops, goblins will actually remain second-class citizens forever" are virtually nil.

That assumes that "the lives of goblinkind improve" and "Redcloak wins" are the same. Redcloak cares about his way of solving the problem more than the problem being solved. He's the sunk cost fallacy incarnate.

[Kish]

It is entirely possible that Redcloak, like Tarquin, will wind up with exactly what he wants in front of him, swatting it away and screaming helplessly because he wouldn't be getting it the right way.

Whether forum posters could/would construct a chain of "Durkon would never be negotiating with Redcloak if Redcloak hadn't followed Xykon this far" or not doesn't truly matter*; what matters is whether Redcloak would see it that way, or would be cringing and screaming "It's all pointless if Xykon and I don't cast the ritual like I planned!"

*Let me immediately undermine my own statement by adding that I find that argument pretty unconvincing. Thor would want Durkon to seek out and make a deal with the high priest of the Dark One regardless of anything that's happened in the entire comic, since it's about the purple quiddity; that he's an established enemy of the Order who is generally found in the orbit of an epic-level monster with no redeeming characteristics, is all downside. At best, Redcloak's following Xykon this far cut the words "And you have to get him to adventure with your group for a while to powerlevel him to 17 so that he can cast a ninth-level spell" out of Thor's instructions to Durkon.

[Rrmcklin]

That assumes that "the lives of goblinkind improve" and "Redcloak wins" are the same. Redcloak cares about his way of solving the problem more than the problem being solved. He's the sunk cost fallacy incarnate.

Basically this, and I think is what a lot of people are hung up on. Because of plot reasons Redcloak is the goblin we see the most, so if people act that he doesn't "win", it mean that goblins deserve to be XP fodder instead of just meaning he went about his admirable goal in a terrible way.

And I've never understood looking at it that way, but it seems pretty common. I've always figured "Redcloak loses" and "goblins get a better life" would both happen. It would fit best with (what I think are) the story's themes.

[TidePriestess]

It is entirely possible that Redcloak, like Tarquin, will wind up with exactly what he wants in front of him, swatting it away and screaming helplessly because he wouldn't be getting it the right way.

Whether forum posters could/would construct a chain of "Durkon would never be negotiating with Redcloak if Redcloak hadn't followed Xykon this far" or not doesn't truly matter*; what matters is whether Redcloak would see it that way, or would be cringing and screaming "It's all pointless if Xykon and I don't cast the ritual like I planned!"

*Let me immediately undermine my own statement by adding that I find that argument pretty unconvincing. Thor would want Durkon to seek out and make a deal with the high priest of the Dark One regardless of anything that's happened in the entire comic, since it's about the purple quiddity; that he's an established enemy of the Order who is generally found in the orbit of an epic-level monster with no redeeming characteristics, is all downside. At best, Redcloak's following Xykon this far cut the words "And you have to get him to adventure with your group for a while to powerlevel him to 17 so that he can cast a ninth-level spell" out of Thor's instructions to Durkon.
Minor problem: Thor's plan relies on a powerful follower of his both dying and knowing about the Snarl. And knowing about the Snarl is unlikely unless said follower was embroiled in a plot relating to the Snarl. As such, the Snarl problem had to become enough of a threat that a Thor-worshiping adventurer would fight him and die, and Xykon's inability to focus would have prevented him from getting nearly as far as he had without Redcloak. Ergo, Redcloak was necessary to set the plot in motion that would attract Durkon and get Shojo to tell him about the Snarl.

[Rrmcklin]

Regardless of how Redcloak actually does react though, the heroes still need to learn why he's doing all of this.

I don't know whether Thor is going to tell Durkon, or they'll find out some other way, but if they don't find out why Redcloak and the Dark One are doing all of this, I imagine it would make negotiating even harder for Durkon.

[Rynael]

Regardless of how Redcloak actually does react though, the heroes still need to learn why he's doing all of this.

I don't know whether Thor is going to tell Durkon, or they'll find out some other way, but if they don't find out why Redcloak and the Dark One are doing all of this, I imagine it would make negotiating even harder for Durkon.

I think O-Chul's presence at the pole will play into this. He has the largest portion of the vital information, and the greatest personal investment in Redcloak's situation.

[LadyEowyn]

I agree. O-Chul's character as shown in GDGU makes it very clear that when/if he learns about the goblins being created as cannon fodder, he's going to be outraged and completely dedicated to changing that situation. This is a guy who was willing to fight a Celestial to defend one goblin village.

Which seems like it could have a major effect on Redcloak, as it's the diametric opposite of what he'd expect from a paladin. Obviously O-Chul will not be happy about working with Redcloak, given that Redcloak conquered his city and tortured him for months, but he'd ultimately be willing to do so in the cause of saving the world and advancing justice.

[The Aboleth]

I agree. O-Chul's character as shown in GDGU makes it very clear that when/if he learns about the goblins being created as cannon fodder, he's going to be outraged and completely dedicated to changing that situation. This is a guy who was willing to fight a Celestial to defend one goblin village.

Which seems like it could have a major effect on Redcloak, as it's the diametric opposite of what he'd expect from a paladin. Obviously O-Chul will not be happy about working with Redcloak, given that Redcloak conquered his city and tortured him for months, but he'd ultimately be willing to do so in the cause of saving the world and advancing justice.

Completely agree with this. I can totally see a situation where Durkon isn't getting through to Redcloak but O-Chul's words and/or actions turn the tide. O-Chul siding with Redcloak's goal (if not his methods) may very well be the moment where Redcloak agrees to Thor's plan, because O-Chul is the last person Redcloak would expect to side with a goblin (especially one that is RC, specifically).

[hamishspence]

O-Chul siding with Redcloak's goal (if not his methods) may very well be the moment where Redcloak agrees to Thor's plan, because O-Chul is the last person Redcloak would expect to side with a goblin (especially one that is RC, specifically).

I predict that some of the characters from How the Paladin Got His Scar:

Tingtox and Former Supreme Leader

might be the ones to convince Redcloak of O-Chul's good intentions.

[D.One]

Completely agree with this. I can totally see a situation where Durkon isn't getting through to Redcloak but O-Chul's words and/or actions turn the tide. O-Chul siding with Redcloak's goal (if not his methods) may very well be the moment where Redcloak agrees to Thor's plan, because O-Chul is the last person Redcloak would expect to side with a goblin (especially one that is RC, specifically).

I agree with this to certain extent. I mean, I'm all in for O-Chul to get a much bigger role, he's completely worthy of that, being probably the most paladinish paladin of the whole story. That said, he's already expected to have some crucial role on MitD's situation. If he is to solve the "convincing RedCloak" problem, he might be stealing the spotlight too much from the Order of the Stick.

[Prinygod]

I agree with this to certain extent. I mean, I'm all in for O-Chul to get a much bigger role, he's completely worthy of that, being probably the most paladinish paladin of the whole story. That said, he's already expected to have some crucial role on MitD's situation. If he is to solve the "convincing RedCloak" problem, he might be stealing the spotlight too much from the Order of the Stick.

Yeah redcloak has about the worst opinion of azure city paladins, and even less likely to trust one that he had personally tortured for months. According to redcloak the dark one was assassinated while try to reach a peace agreement for the goblin's. I doubt O-Chul can over come that.

[Teioh]

Maybe Hinjo is the key? He could forgive the goblins Evil and establish ties between them and New Azure.

Might make RC think it a better option than rock falls, everyone dies, which is about the best case scenario for his under informed Plan.

[Peelee]

Maybe Hinjo is the key? He could forgive the goblins Evil and establish ties between them and New Azure.

Might make RC think it a better option than rock falls, everyone dies, which is about the best case scenario for his under informed Plan.

Guy who believes the Sapphire Guard committed small-scale genocide against his people: "oh thanks for forgiving me, we're A-OK now!"

[D.One]

Guy who believes the Sapphire Guard committed small-scale genocide against his people: "oh thanks for forgiving me, we're A-OK now!"

Adding that he don't just believe. They did.

[Peelee]

Adding that he don't just believe. They did.

I agree, but I also wanted to phrase it so nobody could Gin-Jun it or anything.

[LadyEowyn]

Yeah redcloak has about the worst opinion of azure city paladins, and even less likely to trust one that he had personally tortured for months. According to redcloak the dark one was assassinated while try to reach a peace agreement for the goblin's. I doubt O-Chul can over come that.

He's not going to trust O-Chul based on words alone. If he's in the vicinity when O-Chul finds out about the gods-creating-goblins-as-cannon fodder thing, and if (as I suspect based on GDGU) O-Chul's reaction is outright fury towards the gods? I think that would run utterly counter to Redcloak's expectations and surprise him enough that he might start considering that the OOTS et al might be sincere.

[Prinygod]

He's not going to trust O-Chul based on words alone. If he's in the vicinity when O-Chul finds out about the gods-creating-goblins-as-cannon fodder thing, and if (as I suspect based on GDGU) O-Chul's reaction is outright fury towards the gods? I think that would run utterly counter to Redcloak's expectations and surprise him enough that he might start considering that the OOTS et al might be sincere.

Sincere that they want to seal the gates? He already knows that. Instead they need to convince him that the plan won't work, and that he needs to go against his god because TDO won't get a do over in the next world. Even if he believes them, that won't matter if the plan succedes, because the world won't be destroyed and the TDO will have a bargaining chip. Now maybe Thor will give away a bargaining chip to pass on in an upcoming chapter, even likely, but even that would be third party if passed from O-chul.

[woweedd]

Sincere that they want to seal the gates? He already knows that. Instead they need to convince him that the plan won't work, and that he needs to go against his god because TDO won't get a do over in the next world. Even if he believes them, that won't matter if the plan succedes, because the world won't be destroyed and the TDO will have a bargaining chip. Now maybe Thor will give away a bargaining chip to pass on in an upcoming chapter, even likely, but even that would be third party if passed from O-chul.

Indeed. Especially since, after all the compromises he's made, they're not convincing him on moral grounds. His plan is worth any sacrifice. The only way to convince him would be to work through his intellect: Show him proof his plan won't work. Of course, given Redcloak's general demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if hard proof that all his work has been for nothing would just cause him to want to take a swan dive into the nearest rift, so the part afterwards is gonna be tricky...

[FireJustice]

I'm curious how Rich's going to make it work.

After this last resolution, purple/blue quidity, now NOTHING anymore matters.
You just need to get the goblin to colaborate, maybe this was the plan all along. Getting the gods to acknowledge the wrong doings to the Dark One, so next world, goblins get a better end of the stick.

but yeah, screw azure city, or even Xykon the scale is so infinitesimal compared to the Dark One's.

[Rrmcklin]

I'm curious how Rich's going to make it work.

After this last resolution, purple/blue quidity, now NOTHING anymore matters.
You just need to get the goblin to colaborate, maybe this was the plan all along. Getting the gods to acknowledge the wrong doings to the Dark One, so next world, goblins get a better end of the stick.

but yeah, screw azure city, or even Xykon the scale is so infinitesimal compared to the Dark One's.

...Did you miss some of the details of the past few strips? The Dark One (probably) won't be getting a next chance in the next world. And we've known that was his in his considerations for awhile, we just now know it's infeasible.

And, no, Xykon still very much matters. Really, I'm not sure why you're talking as if the Dark One is some new, unknown player.

[thereaper]

There's very little indication that not following the Plan at all would have made the lives of goblinkind as a whole any better, minus the aforementioned behind-the-scenes stuff that neither the Dark One nor Redcloak knew about. And since Redcloak's goal isn't wrong, he could only find redemption for his means, so we'd have to have proof that Redcloak could have fixed the status of goblinkind without being evil and should have known about it beforehand. Truth be told, I don't know whether this could be done well.

SoD and GDGU both show goblinoid settlements whose lives are greatly improved through peace rather than war. In fact, both of those communities eventually suffer greatly as a result of the Plan. SoD in particular goes out of its way to make it clear that the Plan has not been good for goblins, and Redcloak definitely knew about that one.

It is also worth pointing out that Redcloak's goal is not equality for goblins, because his idea of equality is "now goblins get to be the ones doing the oppressing". This can be seen in both his general hatred of humans and his administration of Gobbotopia.

[Prinygod]

SoD and GDGU both show goblinoid settlements whose lives are greatly improved through peace rather than war. In fact, both of those communities eventually suffer greatly as a result of the Plan. SoD in particular goes out of its way to make it clear that the Plan has not been good for goblins, and Redcloak definitely knew about that one.

It is also worth pointing out that Redcloak's goal is not equality for goblins, because his idea of equality is "now goblins get to be the ones doing the oppressing". This can be seen in both his general hatred of humans and his administration of Gobbotopia.

Yeah but it's open season on goblins, all it would take is one group of adventure's to decide they needed some more xp and that village becomes less peaceful. And this is by the God's will and design. And as far as I'm aware, no God has shown any regret for setting thing up this way.

Think about it the elves stayed out of the western conflict amoung the humans, slavery and conquests alike. But goblins do the same and there were elven special forces with in months.

I am not saying it's right what happened, but redcloak and his god are ends justifing the means sort.

[thereaper]

The only source of that claim is The Dark One, the very same deity willing to sacrifice every goblin in the world in pursuit of revenge. Given that some of the paladins who attacked Redcloak's village are implied to have fallen, the claim seems questionable.

Incidentally, the risk of being wiped out by a random group of adventurers is true of every city of settlement in the world.

[Rynael]

I almost considered writing some long multi-quote proof pointing to all the in-story evidence that, despite Redcloak's many Evil deeds, the goblins and other "monstrous humanoids" are at least as disenfranchised as the Dark One claims, but then I realized I only needed one sentence:

This kind of story won't ever conclude with, "the injustice against goblinoids was fake and/or their fault, actually."

(Redcloak won't be vindicated either, though; of that, I'm all but certain)

[Fyraltari]

I almost considered writing some long multi-quote proof pointing to all the in-story evidence that, despite Redcloak's many Evil deeds, the goblins and other "monstrous humanoids" are at least as disenfranchised as the Dark One claims, but then I realized I only needed one sentence:

This kind of story won't ever conclude with, "the injustice against goblinoids was fake and/or their fault, actually."

(Redcloak won't be vindicated either, though; of that, I'm all but certain)
How about this one:

No gaming party ever, after wiping out the (human) bandits camp, asked "Should we kill the babies, too?"

[Rynael]

How about this one:

No gaming party ever, after wiping out the (human) bandits camp, asked "Should we kill the babies, too?"

Ah. You have beaten me. Such is fate.

[Zholvar]

I agree. O-Chul's character as shown in GDGU makes it very clear that when/if he learns about the goblins being created as cannon fodder, he's going to be outraged and completely dedicated to changing that situation. This is a guy who was willing to fight a Celestial to defend one goblin village.

Which seems like it could have a major effect on Redcloak, as it's the diametric opposite of what he'd expect from a paladin. Obviously O-Chul will not be happy about working with Redcloak, given that Redcloak conquered his city and tortured him for months, but he'd ultimately be willing to do so in the cause of saving the world and advancing justice.

While i think (and hope) O-Chul will have a part in this, it will be not that big. All this is a setup for Durkon for the final, i think nearly every OOTS member will have a reason for saving the world that is more "personal".

But where, other in Star of Darkness, is it mentioned that goblins where created as "cannon fodder"? The crayons part tells us that goblins and other monstrous races where created especially for clerics (and druids, paladins) because divine casters of level 1 where too weak to gain xp otherwise, not generall xp fodder, which is wierd... because they could not just "buff" clerics instead?
I think there should be more going on, it is great for TDO as this keeps goblins away from worshipping other pantheons and keeps it's followers hatefull.

Where in the online version is a strip that tells this story? We have the part where redcloak kills tsukiko, but there it is only mentioned that the plan should help to improve goblinkind. We have jirix speach where the hobgoblins should see redcloak a TDOs prophet. Am i missing somehting?

[Prinygod]

While i think (and hope) O-Chul will have a part in this, it will be not that big. All this is a setup for Durkon for the final, i think nearly every OOTS member will have a reason for saving the world that is more "personal".

But where, other in Star of Darkness, is it mentioned that goblins where created as "cannon fodder"? The crayons part tells us that goblins and other monstrous races where created especially for clerics (and druids, paladins) because divine casters of level 1 where too weak to gain xp otherwise, not generall xp fodder, which is wierd... because they could not just "buff" clerics instead?
I think there should be more going on, it is great for TDO as this keeps goblins away from worshipping other pantheons and keeps it's followers hatefull.

Where in the online version is a strip that tells this story? We have the part where redcloak kills tsukiko, but there it is only mentioned that the plan should help to improve goblinkind. We have jirix speach where the hobgoblins should see redcloak a TDOs prophet. Am i missing somehting?

I pretty sure the "book only" comics are cannon. There is no book cannon and wecomic cannon. I don't have the book with me but I am pretty sure it was in sod, That "The Red Cloak" inparts the knowledge to the wearer iirc. TDO was a mortal who assended, in part because there were no God of gobliniods before him. Even if it's all bunk, it's weird that of all the sapient species started off with gods, with the exception of goblins. Especially since their numbers would mean a ton of soul force to monopolize.

[Zholvar]

I pretty sure the "book only" comics are cannon. There is no book cannon and wecomic cannon. I don't have the book with me but I am pretty sure it was in sod, That "The Red Cloak" inparts the knowledge to the wearer iirc. TDO was a mortal who assended, in part because there were no God of gobliniods before him. Even if it's all bunk, it's weird that of all the sapient species started off with gods, with the exception of goblins. Especially since their numbers would mean a ton of soul force to monopolize.

Yes there is no difference between books only and webcomic, but everytime something from the book only is relevant to the story on the web, there is some form of summary of those events for example the story of Haley leaving the thieves guild from OtOotPC. Regarding Redcloak this is now totaly akward, if you know his story form SoD he's kind of antihero, villain with a good intention, but without that? He's a unholy crusader (we're only told that he's TDO true prophet) who kills Humans, Elfs and others out of pure racism (we have 0 evidence of adventures/saphire guard running around and killing goblins for "fun" outside of OtOoPC and SoD) and endangers / sacrifices his own people.
I think we will get to that later on, seeing as redcloak and TDO becomming more focus in the story, but it's open to twists. Because i doubt that "peacefull" part of TDO since Thor mentioned he was someone who killed a lot of his followers while alive! (Not a raging army of goblins after his death) and
That whole part that ONLY! divine casters could not level because there where no goblins around... that is way to of from my experince with D&D. A level 1 wizard is more dead weight than a level 1 cleric (D8 HD, better armor & weapons than a wizard/sorcerer) in a party. That sounds extremly bonkers... I think this is why people allways say goblins&Co where created as generall XP fodder, but given the crayons of SoD (therefore Redcloaks knowledge) that isn't the case.
This get's even more stranger if you think about that this isn't the second world, because shouldn't the gods haven't known about "how much divine casters at first level suck" when they are regulary agents of them? or is this the first time D&D rules apply? What about the the world before stickworld where the northeners where barabarians, where there no clerics? What about the setup of "the bet" cleric seem to be a quite normal thing for worlds that get created, if you follow that conversation...

And we don't know who/what the goblins worshipped before TDO, and we don't have a creator / caretaker for humans either (maybe there is, but none is mentioned, but a bunch of LE humans in Lee's inbox), expect those parents of the goblin teenagers who worship some kind of demon lord. (Could be a joke | realy TDO, early strips). Could be that goblins where followers of the pantheons before TDO, maybe there are still some out there, we only see northern / southern (hob)goblins under "redcloaks heel" but no western ones to date.

[Prinygod]

Yes there is no difference between books only and webcomic, but everytime something from the book only is relevant to the story on the web, there is some form of summary of those events for example the story of Haley leaving the thieves guild from OtOotPC. Regarding Redcloak this is now totaly akward, if you know his story form SoD he's kind of antihero, villain with a good intention, but without that? He's a unholy crusader (we're only told that he's TDO true prophet) who kills Humans, Elfs and others out of pure racism (we have 0 evidence of adventures/saphire guard running around and killing goblins for "fun" outside of OtOoPC and SoD) and endangers / sacrifices his own people.
I think we will get to that later on, seeing as redcloak and TDO becomming more focus in the story, but it's open to twists. Because i doubt that "peacefull" part of TDO since Thor mentioned he was someone who killed a lot of his followers while alive! (Not a raging army of goblins after his death) and
That whole part that ONLY! divine casters could not level because there where no goblins around... that is way to of from my experince with D&D. A level 1 wizard is more dead weight than a level 1 cleric (D8 HD, better armor & weapons than a wizard/sorcerer) in a party. That sounds extremly bonkers... I think this is why people allways say goblins&Co where created as generall XP fodder, but given the crayons of SoD (therefore Redcloaks knowledge) that isn't the case.
This get's even more stranger if you think about that this isn't the second world, because shouldn't the gods haven't known about "how much divine casters at first level suck" when they are regulary agents of them? or is this the first time D&D rules apply? What about the the world before stickworld where the northeners where barabarians, where there no clerics? What about the setup of "the bet" cleric seem to be a quite normal thing for worlds that get created, if you follow that conversation...

And we don't know who/what the goblins worshipped before TDO, and we don't have a creator / caretaker for humans either (maybe there is, but none is mentioned, but a bunch of LE humans in Lee's inbox), expect those parents of the goblin teenagers who worship some kind of demon lord. (Could be a joke | realy TDO, early strips). Could be that goblins where followers of the pantheons before TDO, maybe there are still some out there, we only see northern / southern (hob)goblins under "redcloaks heel" but no western ones to date.

Yeah but we know that gods offer sponsorships to significant mortals to become demigods. The PC races have so many gods they get to pick ones that match their identity, it only seems the non PC races that end up as some gods portfolio i.e. tiamat for kobolds. I'm sure goblins can worship one of the pantheon gods if they wanted to, but the fact that an evil God has yet to send their cleric's out to goblin lands to convert some easy followers is pretty telling.

[Zholvar]

Yeah but we know that gods offer sponsorships to significant mortals to become demigods. The PC races have so many gods they get to pick ones that match their identity, it only seems the non PC races that end up as some gods portfolio i.e. tiamat for kobolds. I'm sure goblins can worship one of the pantheon gods if they wanted to, but the fact that an evil God has yet to send their cleric's out to goblin lands to convert some easy followers is pretty telling.

Well only the "elven gods" and Dvalin so far, we don't know how many ascended demigods are out there, and what they did. And for the OOTS we only have V who seems to be a believer maybe worshipper of a god (unnamed elven god of magic) and the azurites which worship the whole pantheon. (Not counting aktive divine charakters here). And we don't know if there are / were missionaries of other evil gods out to get goblins as followers, could be true that they got killed/exiled in the process (Expect for SoD we only see goblins hostile towards humans/elfs/dwarfs, or look how the hobgoblins talk about humans in Scar, which know nothing about the grimson cloak btw...). Could be difficult. The rule how gods can show themselfs to mortals aren't known either, do the worlds start with "premade clerics"? Is there a timeframe for reveleations, or some revelation rules?

[thereaper]

How about this one:

No gaming party ever, after wiping out the (human) bandits camp, asked "Should we kill the babies, too?"

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I do not deny that goblinoids (and other creatures, for that matter) have been mistreated by humanoids. I was only casting doubt on The Dark One's claim that the Gods wanted it that way. It is a subtle but important distinction.

[Fyraltari]

Oh, well carry on then.

Though I guess that depends on how much you see the Gods as an allegory for fantasy writers.

[Morty]

I think the pattern with the crayon stories so far is that they're true, but missing something important. Shojo's story was true, but he couldn't know that there had been countless other worlds between the first and current one. Thirden's story was also true, since Durkon's father did die killing a half-dragon troll, but he omitted Sidgi's reaction and his own role in it. Jirix's story is the most suspect, but if we take him at his word, he did receive a revelation from the Dark One - he just didn't mention the part specifically addressed to Redcloak. So until proven otherwise I suspect the story in SoD is likewise true, but is omitting some crucial detail.

[Prinygod]

Well only the "elven gods" and Dvalin so far, we don't know how many ascended demigods are out there, and what they did. And for the OOTS we only have V who seems to be a believer maybe worshipper of a god (unnamed elven god of magic) and the azurites which worship the whole pantheon. (Not counting aktive divine charakters here). And we don't know if there are / were missionaries of other evil gods out to get goblins as followers, could be true that they got killed/exiled in the process (Expect for SoD we only see goblins hostile towards humans/elfs/dwarfs, or look how the hobgoblins talk about humans in Scar, which know nothing about the grimson cloak btw...). Could be difficult. The rule how gods can show themselfs to mortals aren't known either, do the worlds start with "premade clerics"? Is there a timeframe for reveleations, or some revelation rules?

Well hel was able to create a spirt for durkula. Gods not limited by a bet may be able to do the same for the living, perhaps with limitations. Either way with hel as an example, we know what happens if you don't have cleric's, no one will worship you. If a cleric strolled into goblin lands and helped them in a god's name, they would be receptive, especially if that cleric was a non PC race or even a goblin themselves. The idea that the goblins would spern the Divine power of a cleric trying to help them, I think, would preclude TDO from assending in the first place.

[thereaper]

Oh, well carry on then.

Though I guess that depends on how much you see the Gods as an allegory for fantasy writers.

It's also worth noting one could hold the Gods responsible for not reining in their followers, but that depends on how much power said deities truly hold over their followers (note Thor's failure to get across to Durkon and Minrah that trees aren't evil).

Another possibility is that some deities do in fact want to keep goblins down, while others are opposed. A good example would be Monkey's insistence on ninjas in this world.

[Prinygod]

It's also worth noting one could hold the Gods responsible for not reining in their followers, but that depends on how much power said deities truly hold over their followers (note Thor's failure to get across to Durkon and Minrah that trees aren't evil).

Another possibility is that some deities do in fact want to keep goblins down, while others are opposed. A good example would be Monkey's insistence on ninjas in this world.

So the gods created a sapient race of usually evil humanoids, that none of them seem to care about, and it's a coincidence that the other races farm them for xp? And TDO decided to lie to his own high priest, as a goof?

[thereaper]

Are the goblinoids "usually evil" because the Gods wanted them that way? Or did they simply end up that way due to various factors? Or did they end up "usually evil" because whichever god that was responsible for making them set it up that way? Do humanoids farm goblinoids for XP because the gods wanted it that way, or was it due to the humanoids' own racism?

We haven't seen anything to indicate Thor cares about elves; does that mean we should assume he wants them purged?

Notice that Thor notes he wanted to kill The Dark One because he was an evil god. At no point has he ever expressed any hatred towards goblinoids as a species.

There are many possible explanations for why the current situation ended up the way it did; The Dark One provides one explanation, but he did so with a clear ulterior motive: motivating Redcloak to continue The Plan. Throw in the fact that The Dark One is evil, and the fact that he himself seems to have so little concern for Goblinkind (as Right-Eye himself notes), and that the God he complains to in the crayon drawings has since been revealed to have never met him, and it is easy to be skeptical of the truthfulness of his claims. It might be true, or it might be a half-truth, or it might be an outright lie.

[Prinygod]

Are the goblinoids "usually evil" because the Gods wanted them that way? Or did they simply end up that way due to various factors? Or did they end up "usually evil" because whichever god that was responsible for making them set it up that way? Do humanoids farm goblinoids for XP because the gods wanted it that way, or was it due to the humanoids' own racism?

We haven't seen anything to indicate Thor cares about elves; does that mean we should assume he wants them purged?

Notice that Thor notes he wanted to kill The Dark One because he was an evil god. At no point has he ever expressed any hatred towards goblinoids as a species.

There are many possible explanations for why the current situation ended up the way it did; The Dark One provides one explanation, but he did so with a clear ulterior motive: motivating Redcloak to continue The Plan. Throw in the fact that The Dark One is evil, and the fact that he himself seems to have so little concern for Goblinkind (as Right-Eye himself notes), and that the God he complains to in the crayon drawings has since been revealed to have never met him, and it is easy to be skeptical of the truthfulness of his claims. It might be true, or it might be a half-truth, or it might be an outright lie.

You really have to start support your crackpot theory. It runs completely counter to every theme the giant has introduced. Is the entire comic a red herring and everything actually is black and white like standard fantasy.

Maybe a Deva will congratulate Miko because of all killed all those evil creature and only one innocent old man "that we know of". V's guilt is misguided because only 100 or so of the 1000 dragon kin we're "good"?

The idea that Thor could create an entire society afraid of a dishonerable death, but other god's can't discouraged genocide in their societies.

If you think that this is how the forces of good should act, what makes them "good"?

[woweedd]

You really have to start support your crackpot theory. It runs completely counter to every theme the giant has introduced. Is the entire comic a red herring and everything actually is black and white like standard fantasy.

Maybe a Deva will congratulate Miko because of all killed all those evil creature and only one innocent old man "that we know of". V's guilt is misguided because only 100 or so of the 1000 dragon kin we're "good"?

The idea that Thor could create an entire society afraid of a dishonerable death, but other god's can't discouraged genocide in their societies.

If you think that this is how the forces of good should act, what makes them "good"?
You'd be surprised. I saw lots of people say that V shouldn't feel guilty because, hey, they mostly killed Evil things, and, even when the whole Girand thing was revealed, acting like the only thing that made it wrong was the fact that it hit non-Black Dragons, as opposed to the very concept of murdering a large amount of creatures sight-unseen on the basis of "Well, they're probably all Evil".

[TidePriestess]

You'd be surprised. I saw lots of people say that V shouldn't feel guilty because, hey, they mostly killed Evil things, and, even when the whole Girand thing was revealed, acting like the only thing that made it wrong was the fact that it hit non-Black Dragons, as opposed to the very concept of murdering a large amount of creatures sight-unseen on the basis of "Well, they're probably all Evil".
It had nothing to do with alignment; it was about preventing a cycle of revenge (and self-indulgence in massive arcane power).

As an aside, I don't think Rich handled that terribly well, primarily because we never see any sympathetic black dragons or even those who'd had relationships with any of the spell's targets (the only people who knew any of the dead were Nale and Tarquin); to the reader, Vaarsuvius' own guilt is the primary consequence they experience.

[Morty]

Seeing sympathetic black dragons would have kind of missed the point. V's action wasn't horrific because they happened to kill some good people along with the bad ones. Even if the dragons they killed were evil and bad, they still had no right to murder them without even seeing them.

[TidePriestess]

Seeing sympathetic black dragons would have kind of missed the point. V's action wasn't horrific because they happened to kill some good people along with the bad ones. Even if the dragons they killed were evil and bad, they still had no right to murder them without even seeing them.
I'm not sure if that holds up. largely because Vaarsuvius' major concern when it does come up is with having killed A. humans, and B. possibly some non-evil black dragons. No one in-universe has made the argument that killing evil black dragons en masse is wrong.

[Prinygod]

I'm not sure if that holds up. largely because Vaarsuvius' major concern when it does come up is with having killed A. humans, and B. possibly some non-evil black dragons. No one in-universe has made the argument that killing evil black dragons en masse is wrong.

It's splitting hairs. V doesn't only guilt themselves just that they killed some innocents, But that they had not even considered that some could be innocent in the first place. They were not trying to exterminate evil or protect their family. They raised to undeath the ABD so they could explain to her that V was going to exterminate ABD's geneology. Protecting the family was at best a justification, V wanted ADB to know the result of their actions.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure if that holds up. largely because Vaarsuvius' major concern when it does come up is with having killed A. humans, and B. possibly some non-evil black dragons. No one in-universe has made the argument that killing evil black dragons en masse is wrong.

V, at least, has made the argument that the judgement was never theirs to make (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html).

[Fyraltari]

You really have to start support your crackpot theory. It runs completely counter to every theme the giant has introduced. Is the entire comic a red herring and everything actually is black and white like standard fantasy.
Hmm, what?
The goblins are oppressed, nobody contested that. The question is wether the Gods decided so or not. If it turns out the Dark One is lying about that that would not make what they go through okay in any way.

I mean, if that's what he's going for (and that's a "if") then the message would be "oppresion is morally wrong AND it produces people like the Dark One and Redcloak so seriously don't", rather than "Creating fiction where entire groups can be killed without it being morally reprehensible is promoting real-life xenophobia and oppression so seriously don't". Both of which are messages that would go with the comic's themes.


Maybe a Deva will congratulate Miko because of all killed all those evil creature and only one innocent old man "that we know of". V's guilt is misguided because only 100 or so of the 1000 dragon kin we're "good"?
That's not what anybody is saying.


The idea that Thor could create an entire society afraid of a dishonerable death, but other god's can't discouraged genocide in their societies.
You're talking about the Thor who can't get his followers to accept that trees aren't evil? I think you overstate Thor's involvment in the shaping of Dwarf's society beyond telling them that without an-honorable death they'll go to Hel.

[thereaper]

Hmm, what?
The goblins are oppressed, nobody contested that. The question is wether the Gods decided so or not. If it turns out the Dark One is lying about that that would not make they go through okay in any way.

I mean, if that's what he's going for (and that's a "if") then the message would be "oppresion is morally wrong AND it produces people like the Dark One and Redcloak so seriously don't", rather than "Creating fiction where entire groups can be killed without it being morally reprehensible is promoting real-life xenophobia and oppression so seriously don't". Both of which are messages that would go the comic's themes.

That is exactly what I was going for.

Except, I think that both those lessons are in the story, one way or another. The source of the oppression (mortal or divine) has no bearing on it.

[Prinygod]

Hmm, what?
The goblins are oppressed, nobody contested that. The question is wether the Gods decided so or not. If it turns out the Dark One is lying about that that would not make they go through okay in any way.

I mean, if that's what he's going for (and that's a "if") then the message would be "oppresion is morally wrong AND it produces people like the Dark One and Redcloak so seriously don't", rather than "Creating fiction where entire groups can be killed without it being morally reprehensible is promoting real-life xenophobia and oppression so seriously don't". Both of which are messages that would go the comic's themes.


That's not what anybody is saying.


You're talking about the Thor who can't get his followers to accept that trees aren't evil? I think you overstate Thor's involvment in the shaping of Dwarf's society beyond telling them that without an-honorable death they'll go to Hel.

Thor does not seem to be trying that hard to convince them. After all it's not like he would be diameticly opposed to chopping trees. Even in the comic he only brought it up because they did first. You know he didn't do? Explain why the goblins shouldn't be exterminated to every last man, woman, and child. You would think that he now would be the perfect opportunity to set the record straight if only for these 2.

Like "Us good god's don't support the systematic genocide of goblins you know. You would think you would listen to all the times we tried telling you otherwise, but here we are." I guess only tree lives matter. Of course the simper explaination is he is ok with they way things were.

[hroþila]

Thor does not seem to be trying that hard to convince them. After all it's not like he would be diameticly opposed to chopping trees. Even in the comic he only brought it up because they brought. You know he didn't do? Explain why the goblins shouldn't be exterminated to every last man, woman, and child. You would think that he now would be the perfect opportunity to set the record straight if only for these 2.
These two have given no indication that they need the record straightened on that point. Almost certainly, they already know.

There's a lot of middle ground between 'goblinoids were created equal and are treated as such by everyone else at all times' and 'it is ok to kill all goblinoids on sight', and that applies both to the gods and to their followers. If this were another forum, we could talk about many real-world cases where racism against a particular group was widespread, small-scale violence against said group was overlooked and/or rationalized, but large-scale violence was still considered appalling. I believe that's probably where the OotS world is at in regards to goblinoids. I don't think that the story about how they were designed to provide an easy challenge and XP translates into their being acceptable targets (for non-Evil characters) at all times and regardless of the circumstances, as far as the gods are concerned.

[Fyraltari]

What hroþila said.

[Zholvar]

How about this one:

No gaming party ever, after wiping out the (human) bandits camp, asked "Should we kill the babies, too?"

And where do we see THAT! happening?


Even in SoD the majority of the saphire guard limits their attacks on former redcloak, yes we see redcloaks sister getting killed, but that were 2! of the attack force. No shouting "Search for babies and kill them!" There are megatons of assumptions going on about how goblins are treated but what do we really see?

SoD:
The sapphire guard attacking ONE! village because the wearer grimson cloak is there, whose whole mission is to threat / kill ALL! other gods, therefore endangering all off creation. That opening statement is true, the extermination is cruel, but it's implied that a lot of paladins did fall that day, so generally killing goblins can be an act of evil. Later on righteyes villages becomes minions of xykon, a evil lich sorcerer who wants to rule the world, which is a legitimate target for all kinds of adventueres (Even evil ones with the same goal). Yes it is tragic that they were forced to be his minions, but should everybody roll over and get killed and reanimated as corpse because of that? (Well redcloak thinks that's a great idea for humans....)

How the Paladin got his scar:
We have O-Cul which wants, and in the end achieves peace. We have the "Non Gin Jun" part of the sapphire guard who, after it is clear / not shure that the cloak isn't in the village don't want to atack. The whole theme is that there are ones who want war|conflict (Gin-Jun, Hobgoblin General) and the ones who don't (Entire Rest of Saphire Guard, Former Supreme Leader). And if that wasn't enough we have an lawfull GOOD outsider (plantar angel?) who refuses to attack and slaughter the hobgoblin village. It only compromises to tear down the gates and search for the vilain, not to kill "a bunch of mortals" even if it's stated that those mortals are "hobgolins (worthless xp fodder, made by the gods to die...)" it won't attack. Gin Jun thinks he tricked it, but we never see if that was really a valid option (possible it would have plane shifted after destroying the gate and use a divinition spell, we will never know).

So where is there the indication goblins get killed for "fun & exp"? The only thing even close to TDO claim is Oona saying that dwarfes forced bugbears to live near monster hallow (ice region with poor resources). But we never see parties of divine casters of level 1 going out killing goblins because ALL! other monsters are too strong! for level 1 clerics (druids, paladins & rangers) THAT! is TDO's original claim, even that doesn't say they are XP Fodder for all adventureres/Humanoids, just for level 1 clerics.

And Thor wanted to kill TDO because he killed "a lot of his followers while ALIVE" and therefore wanted to stop another force of evil, which makes TDO original claim as peacefull negotiator who got backstabbed doubtfull.



Not saying it is impossible that there is some truth to the oppressed goblin claim, but where have we actually seen that? Maybe we will get more infos on that later on in the story, but in the "main" (online) story it is never stated for what goblins were created (only SoD via TDO). So far we have an entire population of hobgoblins which were excited to kill humans and enjoy slavery of humans. We can even imply that they didn't spare human children, can we? No not going that low, but victimizing the conqueres of azure city won't bring peace either.
And it's interesting that we only see the "atrocities" against goblins only in the extra books, and even there you could conclude that following TDO makes the situation of goblins worse. Online, which isn't finished yet, we have there the exeption of gobbotopia, but we don't know if that will be better for goblinkind in the long run.

[Morty]

So what are you suggesting, exactly? That the moral of the story is going to be "actually, the goblinoids are just terrible and need to be smacked around a bit despite their attempts at garnering sympathy"?

[hamishspence]

And where do we see THAT! happening?


Even in SoD the majority of the saphire guard limits their attacks on former redcloak, yes we see redcloaks sister getting killed, but that were 2! of the attack force. No shouting "Search for babies and kill them!"

We do have:

what looks like the leader of the group, the same guy as gave the "Prepare to die" speech, going "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here".

Which means "Kill everybody, even babies".

[Zholvar]

So what are you suggesting, exactly? That the moral of the story is going to be "actually, the goblinoids are just terrible and need to be smacked around a bit despite their attempts at garnering sympathy"?

First it would be good that the whole "how the goblins entered the world" question gets shown maybe as recap via thor, so that we can adress that witout spoilers for SoD. I mean i only got SoD recently and untill reading it, it was confusing why there is so much sympathy for the goblins in general and redcloak in particular. Because without that, the whole story is about terrible goblinoids that deserve a total smackdown. I mean they invade azure city just because there a humans, enslave them and redcloak intends to use the snarl for even more goodies with the method of threatening the gods (read it without SoD in mind and the whole story flips, the talk with tsukikko mentions what they want to to with the gate and want to improve the situation of goblinkind via TDO, but never is the goblins as xp fodder for level 1 clerics mentioned).

Second, depending on if SoD is 100% true, give the (hob)goblins some revelaltion that evil isn't the path to peace. I mean what makes their goal / god evil if everything is true? The total justified vilain is extreme boring/cliched.

I suggest that the revelation that TDO is an awfull deity for the goblins could be the shock that redcloak needs to work with the order, seal the rift and then reform goblinkind for the better. Even Thor thinks that TDO can't be convinced for teamwork (therefore his quest for durkon to team up), but maybe redcloak.
Right now we have to get some knowledge about what makes TDO evil, because fighting for the rights of oppressed people doesn't fit with my perception of evil, TDO is too much shown as good guy.

And where have the goblins shown any attempt to garner sympathy? I mean what have they done too been not perceived as force of evil that needs to be stoped? If you look at their actions from the perspective of a humanoid in stickworld. We only have SoD and GdgU where they aren't aggresive and or oppresive, to some extend. Unless the themes of these books aren't in main, i think this will happen don't know when, what reason is there to think of them as victims of the pantheons?

[Zholvar]

We do have:

what looks like the leader of the group, the same guy as gave the "Prepare to die" speech, going "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here".

Which means "Kill everybody, even babies".

Or means exterminate the rest who hasn't fled till now, or exterminate the rest of the fighting force. Or yeah kill them all. All kinds of interpretions here, and given that this was an extreme situation it's bold to claim that as "standard procedure for human interaction with goblinkind".


And well seeing as this guy is the rolemodel for Gin Sun aka the sahire guard douchebag we have here the one man in the wrong position (leader who wants war / conflict). And the situation that it is mostly true that they threaten the existence of the world, well the redcloak at least. Yes it was total overkill what they did and yes I asume that those who kill redcloaks sister have fallen, if they were paladins.
But later we have right eye together with humans in the circus, even visiting it regular. So a case of universal "kill for exp" seems unlikely, it would been easy to have someone there state something in that direction.

[Prinygod]

Or means exterminate the rest who hasn't fled till now, or exterminate the rest of the fighting force. Or yeah kill them all. All kinds of interpretions here, and given that this was an extreme situation it's bold to claim that as "standard procedure for human interaction with goblinkind".


And well seeing as this guy is the rolemodel for Gin Sun aka the sahire guard douchebag we have here the one man in the wrong position (leader who wants war / conflict). And the situation that it is mostly true that they threaten the existence of the world, well the redcloak at least. Yes it was total overkill what they did and yes I asume that those who kill redcloaks sister have fallen, if they were paladins.
But later we have right eye together with humans in the circus, even visiting it regular. So a case of universal "kill for exp" seems unlikely, it would been easy to have someone there state something in that direction.



I'm pretty sure in SOD that the goblins we're driven into the swamp until they made their comeback. I don't think any goblin village would be tolerated near "human" settlements, but keep in mind, even if TDO did lie to red cloak, Redcloak is still acting on information provided by his personal god and living experience. And according to his god, this plan will help his "oppressed' people, so why would Redcloak need redemption?

[Zholvar]

I'm pretty sure in SOD that the goblins we're driven into the swamp until they made their comeback. I don't think any goblin village would be tolerated near "human" settlements, but keep in mind, even if TDO did lie to red cloak, Redcloak is still acting on information provided by his personal god and living experience. And according to his god, this plan will help his "oppressed' people, so why would Redcloak need redemption?

Yeah up untill there is new information about TDO origin and the plan redcloak doesn't need redemption, he is the most faithfull servant to his god right now, i agree.


Well one main theme there is, that the azurite army (and therefore azure city) lived long peacefully near the goblins, untill that incident with the saphire guard. O-Chuls, General Bheks and Hinjo's motivation is peacefull coexistence, even the former supreme leader (that Hobgoblin deserves a name) is been shown on the side of the ones who want peace (Great Panels). So the overall theme of "just kill a bunch of them for xp" isn't shown there. You could even say that the most tragic thing here is that the majority wants peace, but a few influential warmongers cause a lot trouble and tragedy. (Hobgoblin General & Gin Sun).
So i'm very sceptical about that claim about no settlements near humans, heck in SoD the circus has visitors from humans and goblins, indicating that there are settlements of both nearby. (yeah no proof, could be other circumstances, but most likely at least 2 nearby settlements). And redcloaks niece gets to be raised by humans! So even in SoD only, there is no clear theme of "Humans just kill goblins, no questions asked."

[Prinygod]

Yeah up untill there is new information about TDO origin and the plan redcloak doesn't need redemption, he is the most faithfull servant to his god right now, i agree.


Well one main theme there is, that the azurite army (and therefore azure city) lived long peacefully near the goblins, untill that incident with the saphire guard. O-Chuls, General Bheks and Hinjo's motivation is peacefull coexistence, even the former supreme leader (that Hobgoblin deserves a name) is been shown on the side of the ones who want peace (Great Panels). So the overall theme of "just kill a bunch of them for xp" isn't shown there. You could even say that the most tragic thing here is that the majority wants peace, but a few influential warmongers cause a lot trouble and tragedy. (Hobgoblin General & Gin Sun).
So i'm very sceptical about that claim about no settlements near humans, heck in SoD the circus has visitors from humans and goblins, indicating that there are settlements of both nearby. (yeah no proof, could be other circumstances, but most likely at least 2 nearby settlements). And redcloaks niece gets to be raised by humans! So even in SoD only, there is no clear theme of "Humans just kill goblins, no questions asked."


Because it would only take one farmer with damage crops, or one Land Barron who wants to expand their territory, to post "Adventurers wanted goblin village harming local industry". We have already seen such a thing happen in comic "local halfling, harrased by kobold." None of the adventure's asked if the kolbold should die, the entire point of the scene was a dark joke about how adventureres treat the non PC races. After all " the only good kobold, is a dead one"

[Teioh]

I've always gotten the printed materials as soon as they came out, so this never really occurred to me. But really, for those who read online only, it really does seem like the Goblins are pretty much generic evil-doers that deserve no mercy. We don't ever get a 'reason' for them to be murderous slavers other than, well, they're Goblins, that's what Goblins do.

I wonder if the Goblin history will come as a 'big reveal' in the comic or something. It'll be a little weird for those who've known about it for years, but the online-only crowd might get a big shock out of it.

[Fyraltari]

And where do we see THAT! happening?

In the real world around the real gaming tables and written in the real fantasy books.

Goblins literally exist to be canon-fodder for the bad guys, that's why Tolkien created the archetype*.
And yes, in-comic we see adventurers killing goblins and other intelligent "monsters" without giving it a thought : Roy decapitates sleeping goblins, Belkar stabs surrendering goblins, Sir François arguing with his party about "home invasion". And we also see that goblins are not pure evil. Goblin Dan and his burger company are perfectly legitimate, one Hobgob sacrifices himself to save his leader, there are children in Gobbotopia, there are good goblin teenagers znd Gobbotopia itself is managing peaceful relations with human cities.

The idea that Redcloak's and his army's actions mean the goblins "deserve" to be destroyed is as ridiculous as saying that Tarquin's and his army's actions mean the population of the Empire of Blood must be destroyed.



*Something he deeply regretted, by the way, since a race doomed to evil from birth clashed with his view of the world.

[Kish]

"Exterminate the rest" is not an ambiguous command.

[Cicciograna]

I don't know if this pun has already been made, but it would make a great videogame if our favorite goblin cleric amended.

It would be Red Cloak Redemption.

:smallbiggrin:

*** quietly goes away ***

[wumpus]

The idea that Redcloak's and his army's actions mean the goblins "deserve" to be destroyed is as ridiculous as saying that Tarquin's and his army's actions mean the population of the Empire of Blood must be destroyed.

The Empire of Blood is show to be Evil and ripe for a hero to destroy it (as in, specifically designed to appeal to Elon to charge in to attack it). So yes, it should be destroyed.

But "destroying the Empire" typically means driving the current rulers from power (preferably with a trial, but leaving them in the desert to die is fine as well). Likewise there is a huge difference between driving the goblins from Azure city and goblin genocide. OOTS shows that one is a laudable goal and the other is pure evil.

[Fyraltari]

The Empire of Blood is show to be Evil and ripe for a hero to destroy it (as in, specifically designed to appeal to Elon to charge in to attack it). So yes, it should be destroyed.

But "destroying the Empire" typically means driving the current rulers from power (preferably with a trial, but leaving them in the desert to die is fine as well). Likewise there is a huge difference between driving the goblins from Azure city and goblin genocide. OOTS shows that one is a laudable goal and the other is pure evil.

Do notice I said it was ridiculous to say the population of the Empire of Blood should be destroyed.

[AceOfFools]

Re:good gods being okay with things like the violent, oppressive status quo:

Firstly, OOTS's world is the product of many different gods, and they cannot fight or really argue about what would be best without literally risking the creation of god-killing aberrations. For their own survival, they must accept the status quo.

Secondly, the incentive system for God's survival, namely feeding on belief, dedication at the moment of death, and souls in the afterlife, makes the creation of conflict ridden world's in their best interest. It's much easier to commend your spirit to the god who gave your local cleric tools to defend your home than the one who decided your body had to get old and die.

They may not need a violent world, but the harvest of souls is better if they have one (which doesn't preclude them from caring about their followers).

Thirdly, because of how the world works, there are high level monsters and dragons and similar threats. The gods, with their self-imposed limits, do need some way of ensuring high level people exist to defend them from the beloved creations of other gods (and non-mortal world threats like the IFCC). Now that XP and leveling are locked in place as how you get yo be high level, some low-level threat needs to exist to get through the early levels.

Am I saying this justifies the gods supporting this system? No. I am only saying that their support makes rational sense.

And that the gods, when taken as a whole, may not have the mortals best interest at heart.

[Zholvar]

I've always gotten the printed materials as soon as they came out, so this never really occurred to me. But really, for those who read online only, it really does seem like the Goblins are pretty much generic evil-doers that deserve no mercy. We don't ever get a 'reason' for them to be murderous slavers other than, well, they're Goblins, that's what Goblins do.

I wonder if the Goblin history will come as a 'big reveal' in the comic or something. It'll be a little weird for those who've known about it for years, but the online-only crowd might get a big shock out of it.

Yeah this is one of my main points here, what should "online only readers" make believe that goblins are somehow the "opressed guys"?

The goblins who where killed in dorukans dungeon: They are minions for a evil lich and terrorized the whole countryside, what do you expect to to? Throw milk an cookies at them? (coconut milk might work) and that coup de grace scene was in the early days, not shure how much it counts... Belkar attacking something? Realy? The kobold menace joke is somehow the first legit point. The point of Sir Francois is to prevent such things in generall...
And there a lot of D&D sessions where level 1 fights against things like direwolfs, zombies or dretches, or other wildlife. I never was in a campaign were the statement was : "Oh no a cleric in the party, now we need to fight goblins at level 1 otherwise he is dead weight / will not make it". It is this special claim made in SoD which i have a problem with. And please adress the speciality of the claim, not something general, if it turns out the truth is that goblins where made at the start of the world or as general xp fodder, then yes it is generall awfull for them, but that is not the original claim, that is even more ridiculous...


But hey lets take a closer look at what we know :



The Dark one claims that goblins were created after the world was made to give clerics (and druids) of level 1 a chance to level up.

And once again, the claim from SoD is that goblin where made XP Fodder for Clerics of first level (so they stop blessing just sitting around blessing water), not for PC in general, which is very strange, tell me what is so bad about clerics (and / or druids) that they need and only they need goblins to level up. What makes a goblin so special that a clerics goes, yeah finaly something i'm able to kill.

How does this make sense given the following:
This is wold 1+n
Hels bet with Thor (and Loki as proxy) makes it clear that clerics are not something new (what's more important clerics or souls?, how to know when this is a new thing?)
Why would the gods need to make goblins after creation of the world if they knew that divine casters are so terrible and need weak humanoids to level up?
So either the gods have no experience with clerics? (unlikely given how hel and loki talk when the bet is made) Or is this the first world ever which uses D&D rules? Can they change the core rules of their universe? If they can change why not make clerics better? (Yeah they should not be as cool as wizards, but make as good at level 1 as warriors or sorcerers?) Every explanation makes the situation more wierd.
And how did this information in the supposed new world go? Did the gods manifest and told their followers: "We know you suck at start, but don't worry see those new Humanoids? They where made especially for you to bash in a few skulls and get exp! Now you can finaly get to level 2 like the others. Have fun, praise us!" Or do clerics of first level get a handbook with their ordination in which these information is given? If so why wasn't this one of durkons flashbacks? (Ok wrong time to focus on that issue)
Do the clerics know that? If not, why this whole setup? Even more wierd. And no, TDO story makes no sense if it is expected that all classes (all PC) kill goblins for exp, because then those clerircs would be at a disadvantage again... the whole claim is wierd.

So what given only this is more likely: TDO a evil deity lying/being wrong about something or all 3 pantheons totaly incompetent... ok hmm could be a close call ;-)

Then what do we know from TDO and which sources do we have:

Evil God -> given by redcloak and thor = sure thing
Has redcloak as high priest -> given by redcloak, jirix and thor = sure thing
Is in a pantheon of one -> given by redcloak and thor = sure thing

But more?
Acession to goodhood: Redcloak-> After his death a horrific year of slauthter in his name; Thor: somehow managed it on his own (why not confirm SoD here?) = could be different verions, maybe

Lifetime: Redcloak: A great uniter of goblins, made the greatest goblin army ever seen but not going to war with the humans of the north, he choose to negoiate. Thor: he killed many of his followers while he was a mortal (Again why not mention anything close to SoD?) = doubtful for me, worshippers of thor should be dwarfs and humans, or where goblins he killed during uniting the tribes thor worhippers? Because then it was no peacefull first negotian when he was assasinated.

Maybe there is only something missing and will be told later, but given that one of the few things that are sure is that TDO is evil. Therefore everything he claims is 1000% true, no doubt, evil never lies!

[woweedd]

Yeah this is one of my main points here, what should "online only readers" make believe that goblins are somehow the "opressed guys"?

The goblins who where killed in dorukans dungeon: They are minions for a evil lich and terrorized the whole countryside, what do you expect to to? Throw milk an cookies at them? (coconut milk might work) and that coup de grace scene was in the early days, not shure how much it counts... Belkar attacking something? Realy? The kobold menace joke is somehow the first legit point. The point of Sir Francois is to prevent such things in generall...
And there a lot of D&D sessions where level 1 fights against things like direwolfs, zombies or dretches, or other wildlife. I never was in a campaign were the statement was : "Oh no a cleric in the party, now we need to fight goblins at level 1 otherwise he is dead weight / will not make it". It is this special claim made in SoD which i have a problem with. And please adress the speciality of the claim, not something general, if it turns out the truth is that goblins where made at the start of the world or as general xp fodder, then yes it is generall awfull for them, but that is not the original claim, that is even more ridiculous...


But hey lets take a closer look at what we know :



The Dark one claims that goblins were created after the world was made to give clerics (and druids) of level 1 a chance to level up.

And once again, the claim from SoD is that goblin where made XP Fodder for Clerics of first level (so they stop blessing just sitting around blessing water), not for PC in general, which is very strange, tell me what is so bad about clerics (and / or druids) that they need and only they need goblins to level up. What makes a goblin so special that a clerics goes, yeah finaly something i'm able to kill.

How does this make sense given the following:
This is wold 1+n
Hels bet with Thor (and Loki as proxy) makes it clear that clerics are not something new (what's more important clerics or souls?, how to know when this is a new thing?)
Why would the gods need to make goblins after creation of the world if they knew that divine casters are so terrible and need weak humanoids to level up?
So either the gods have no experience with clerics? (unlikely given how hel and loki talk when the bet is made) Or is this the first world ever which uses D&D rules? Can they change the core rules of their universe? If they can change why not make clerics better? (Yeah they should not be as cool as wizards, but make as good at level 1 as warriors or sorcerers?) Every explanation makes the situation more wierd.
And how did this information in the supposed new world go? Did the gods manifest and told their followers: "We know you suck at start, but don't worry see those new Humanoids? They where made especially for you to bash in a few skulls and get exp! Now you can finaly get to level 2 like the others. Have fun, praise us!" Or do clerics of first level get a handbook with their ordination in which these information is given? If so why wasn't this one of durkons flashbacks? (Ok wrong time to focus on that issue)
Do the clerics know that? If not, why this whole setup? Even more wierd. And no, TDO story makes no sense if it is expected that all classes (all PC) kill goblins for exp, because then those clerircs would be at a disadvantage again... the whole claim is wierd.

So what given only this is more likely: TDO a evil deity lying/being wrong about something or all 3 pantheons totaly incompetent... ok hmm could be a close call ;-)

Then what do we know from TDO and which sources do we have:

Evil God -> given by redcloak and thor = sure thing
Has redcloak as high priest -> given by redcloak, jirix and thor = sure thing
Is in a pantheon of one -> given by redcloak and thor = sure thing

But more?
Acession to goodhood: Redcloak-> After his death a horrific year of slauthter in his name; Thor: somehow managed it on his own (why not confirm SoD here?) = could be different verions, maybe

Lifetime: Redcloak: A great uniter of goblins, made the greatest goblin army ever seen but not going to war with the humans of the north, he choose to negoiate. Thor: he killed many of his followers while he was a mortal (Again why not mention anything close to SoD?) = doubtful for me, worshippers of thor should be dwarfs and humans, or where goblins he killed during uniting the tribes thor worhippers? Because then it was no peacefull first negotian when he was assasinated.

Maybe there is only something missing and will be told later, but given that one of the few things that are sure is that TDO is evil. Therefore everything he claims is 1000% true, no doubt, evil never lies!


Ok, dude, firstly: Is English your native language? Because the capitalization, spelling, and grammar here is legitimately hard to parse. Either way, it's not make-believe. It's canon. Also, it's not cleric specific. it'a adventure specific. Maybe you haven't, but lots of first level D&D parties start out, in the words of Belkar, "killing sapient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we don't". Goblins were made as level 1 fodder by the Gods IE game designers, to give low-level adventures something to grind off, and Rich is expressing his point that designating a race of creatures as Evil by default just so the DM doesn't have to do the work of coming up with motivations to fight them is bull****.

[Douglas]

And no, TDO story makes no sense if it is expected that all classes (all PC) kill goblins for exp, because then those clerircs would be at a disadvantage again... the whole claim is wierd.
I don't see how this wouldn't make sense. The point isn't that clerics were disadvantaged relative to other classes, or that only clerics couldn't easily level up, it's that clerics were the ones the gods cared about because clerics are the ones that directly serve them.

If a wizard can't level up because there aren't any suitable challenges, that sucks for the wizard but why would the gods care? If a cleric can't level up because there aren't any suitable challenges, that's a direct hindrance to the cleric's god's ability to influence the world through his agents, so of course the gods want to do something about it.

[Kish]

There is currently no way for online-comic-only readers to know about Redcloak's village.

Which means the information will be given to them at some point. The same way Redcloak revealed to Tsukiko, and thus to the audience, what the ritual would actually do.

It doesn't mean that the set of assumptions an online-comic-only reader brought to the Dungeon of Dorukan will never be challenged by anything that was first introduced in print.

[Zholvar]

I don't see how this wouldn't make sense. The point isn't that clerics were disadvantaged relative to other classes, or that only clerics couldn't easily level up, it's that clerics were the ones the gods cared about because clerics are the ones that directly serve them.

If a wizard can't level up because there aren't any suitable challenges, that sucks for the wizard but why would the gods care? If a cleric can't level up because there aren't any suitable challenges, that's a direct hindrance to the cleric's god's ability to influence the world through his agents, so of course the gods want to do something about it.

Clerics don't have the "cool magical spells as wizards", the only class that is mentioned (and well druids) in SoD. The claim isn't "no one" can level up (would be easy to tell that), but clerics. This leads further to the point that no follower of TDO would ever cooperate with other gods (or other clerics), which is basic indoctrination.

In SoD the crayons tell us that Stickworld is the second world, which is wrong or Thor is lying and that graveyard is just for deception. Most likely TDO just didn't know that. But what sense does this process make in n+x World? The gods know about the capacity of clerics from previous worlds (otherwise the bet makes little to no sense) and still need to adjust the new world after it's creation with goblins so that clerics can level? So it's:
-The first time D&D rules apply to this universe (not just the setting gets changed, then what about the bet? Was the world before Stickworld another system with clerics?)
-All pantheons unable to learn core problems after thousands of world
-Goblins had another purpose / creation
-TDO not knowing or lying about that
-SoD shouldn't be taken seriously

Choose your pick.

[Rrmcklin]

Clerics don't have the "cool magical spells as wizards", the only class that is mentioned (and well druids) in SoD. The claim isn't "no one" can level up (would be easy to tell that), but clerics. This leads further to the point that no follower of TDO would ever cooperate with other gods (or other clerics), which is basic indoctrination.

In SoD the crayons tell us that Stickworld is the second world, which is wrong or Thor is lying and that graveyard is just for deception. Most likely TDO just didn't know that. But what sense does this process make in n+x World? The gods know about the capacity of clerics from previous worlds (otherwise the bet makes little to no sense) and still need to adjust the new world after it's creation with goblins so that clerics can level? So it's:
-The first time D&D rules apply to this universe (not just the setting gets changed, then what about the bet? Was the world before Stickworld another system with clerics?)
-All pantheons unable to learn core problems after thousands of world
-Goblins had another purpose / creation
-TDO not knowing or lying about that
-SoD shouldn't be taken seriously

Choose your pick.

Or it could easily be that D&D rules apply to all worlds, the gods have always made XP fodder races, and this is just the first one to have a god rise from one such race (at least of a different quiddity). And you say "the Dark One doesn't know about the multiple other worlds" as if that were be strange if that were the case.

You're misinterpreting the situation, and claiming there are fewer potential explanations than there actually are.

[Douglas]

Clerics don't have the "cool magical spells as wizards", the only class that is mentioned (and well druids) in SoD. The claim isn't "no one" can level up (would be easy to tell that), but clerics.
Easy to tell, how? I just checked SoD, it's stated that a) clerics couldn't level up, b) druids couldn't level up, and c) cleric spells are less "cool" than wizard spells. That says nothing about whether any other classes could level up.

[Zholvar]

Or it could easily be that D&D rules apply to all worlds, the gods have always made XP fodder races, and this is just the first one to have a god rise from one such race (at least of a different quiddity). And you say "the Dark One doesn't know about the multiple other worlds" as if that were be strange if that were the case.

You're misinterpreting the situation, and claiming there are fewer potential explanations than there actually are.

If every world uses D&D rules and xp-fodder races, then why make goblins after creation? That's what TDO tells in SoD. It's the claim that the gods only knew about "leveling problems" after the creation of the "second world" was finished (The start of Stickworld) that seems unlikely after thousands of worlds, some of them lasting longer than fruitflies. If it's easier to believe that after thousands (millions, billions?) of world the creators of those make a rooky mistake and adjust it afterwards? Shouldn't some things become "common knowledge for starting worlds?" Or were there some more "experiments" going on for stickword? Which totaly could be, but we just don't know. And yeah i know you can stay an idiot forever and never lern something, but is that really the route this story should go for the pantheons? If it turns out goblins were made as xp-fodder during creation of the world and not as afterthougt, the theme would stay the same, but that's not what's told.
I mean putting a whole bunch of races in a existing world of mortals is a huge divine intervention (well all pantheons are involved), no ever recorded this? Or massive amnesia? And they need to be near places where clerics live, or at least near enough that level 1 clerics can travel there to level up.

And it's told that becomming a deity gave him that very specific knowledge, could be because goblins became part of his portfolio and gods know everthing about their portfolio the moment they ascend. But it's clear in SoD that TDO (via the mantle) tells that Stickworld is the second world. So either TDO doesn't know everything, mainly about the snarl, or tells a different story through the mantle.

So we need to wait for the recap about creation of goblins in the future story and need to see if it confirms SoD, or that there is more to it.

Or there could be comedy in it: Pantheon 1:"Hey we forgot making xp-fodder for our clerics!" Pantheon 2 "Again? Well we could use that green people with fangs theme. Everybody fine?" Tiamat: "I want kobolds!" Everbody: "Ok, fine let's put them in the world, somebody should tell the mortals about that";
But i don't think that's good... But this is basically what SoD tells if you think about that there were multiple words before stickword (assuming they use D&D rules everytime)

[thereaper]

In all honesty, the thing that always bugged me about that was that goblins aren't needed as fodder. There are plenty of low-level creatures that serve that role (animals, for example).

[Zholvar]

Easy to tell, how? I just checked SoD, it's stated that a) clerics couldn't level up, b) druids couldn't level up, and c) cleric spells are less "cool" than wizard spells. That says nothing about whether any other classes could level up.

Well the Gods just could make one additional line about that, like: "And Wizards just make floating disks for transporting books" or something, maybe even instead of Druids making Goodberries. Or instead of telling that only those two classes couldn't level up, just say all classes had problems leveling up. Very easy to tell. I mean SoD goes the extra mile telling why divine casters are important and that goblins were made for those (afterwards...). You could take a shortcut with: "PC need XP, Goblins give XP, that's what you good for". Which is what most people seem to unterstand anyway.

Because the "easy way" would be faster (more panels on other stuff) and has a greater impact (goblins should be killed by everyone not just divine casters) and is easier to understand, I asume there was a reason to go that way. We just aren't far enough in the story to know it. This should be a storyarc after Durkons story or a major storyline in the next book. Maybe there is a twist to it, or some important details will be revealed. It is perticular interesting that none of this (Goblin as xp fodder either general or "just" for clerics) has been shown in over 1000 online strips.

[Douglas]

Well the Gods just could make one additional line about that, like: "And Wizards just make floating disks for transporting books" or something, maybe even instead of Druids making Goodberries. Or instead of telling that only those two classes couldn't level up, just say all classes had problems leveling up. Very easy to tell. I mean SoD goes the extra mile telling why divine casters are important and that goblins were made for those (afterwards...). You could take a shortcut with: "PC need XP, Goblins give XP, that's what you good for". Which is what most people seem to unterstand anyway.

Because the "easy way" would be faster (more panels on other stuff) and has a greater impact (goblins should be killed by everyone not just divine casters) and is easier to understand, I asume there was a reason to go that way. We just aren't far enough in the story to know it. This should be a storyarc after Durkons story or a major storyline in the next book. Maybe there is a twist to it, or some important details will be revealed. It is perticular interesting that none of this (Goblin as xp fodder either general or "just" for clerics) has been shown in over 1000 online strips.
Oh, you meant that it would have been easy for the author to tell, not that it's easy for the reader to tell from what the author wrote.

Yes, it would have been easy for the author to tell it. That's beside the point. "All classes can't level up" simply isn't what the characters that are talking care about. It would be awkward and somewhat out of character to shoehorn in them saying something about it, when what actually matters to them is that their personal servants in the world can't level up.

[Rrmcklin]

Well the Gods just could make one additional line about that, like: "And Wizards just make floating disks for transporting books" or something, maybe even instead of Druids making Goodberries. Or instead of telling that only those two classes couldn't level up, just say all classes had problems leveling up. Very easy to tell. I mean SoD goes the extra mile telling why divine casters are important and that goblins were made for those (afterwards...). You could take a shortcut with: "PC need XP, Goblins give XP, that's what you good for". Which is what most people seem to unterstand anyway.

Because the "easy way" would be faster (more panels on other stuff) and has a greater impact (goblins should be killed by everyone not just divine casters) and is easier to understand, I asume there was a reason to go that way. We just aren't far enough in the story to know it. This should be a storyarc after Durkons story or a major storyline in the next book. Maybe there is a twist to it, or some important details will be revealed. It is perticular interesting that none of this (Goblin as xp fodder either general or "just" for clerics) has been shown in over 1000 online strips.

As Douglas said, the gods don't care about the other classes. That other classes would have also been limited and could use the goblins as XP fodder is a predictable but not intended consequence of their actions. Highlighting it would serve no actual point to the story.