How many goblinoids HAS Durkon killed?

[Ionathus]

He was in the Dungeon of Dorukan at the start, and the Battle of Azure City. But then he got swept away in the boats, so he wasn't involved in any Gobbotopia Resistance business.

Then when you look back through the archives...he's not really the one doing the killing. Basically everyone except Elan gets more kills in the Dungeon of Dorukan, and the first time we actually see him kill a goblin on-panel is in comic 34 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html). The only other time is comic 111 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html). He gets involved in plenty of brawls with goblins, but isn't often the one actually killing them (on panel).

Then at the Battle of Azure City, he kills one hobgoblin in comic 445 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html), plus three more in comic 473 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0473.html). (thanks dancrilis for that 473 catch!)

That's a grand total of 9, on-panel.

Of course, this is a tiny portion of what he was actually doing at those events. He certainly killed more off-panel, and the kills that he does get are -- like those of the rest of the Order -- throwaway moments, so it's not like "snuffed out" is a poor description of what he was doing. I just find it very interesting that Redcloak would direct his rage towards perhaps the least bloodthirsty member of The Order...at least when it comes to goblinoids and other sentient creatures.

[dancrilis]

9 seemingly (I had missed the one from 445 earlier), but gave him the 4 in 111 (as it seemed Belkar didn't kill any) and you seem to be missing the three here (panel 7) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0473.html).

[BloodSquirrel]

For the record, since this is obviously in comparison to Redcloak's kill count:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html

[Darth Paul]

Regarding Redcloak's question, even were Durkon to have tried a straight answer, it would have been a lose-lose situation.

RC, for all his bluster about the way PCs treat his people as disposable lumps of XP, has the exact same tendency to lump all humanoids in together as indistinguishable, identical, monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobos, basically like the party Roy first adventured with in On The Origin Of PCs.

I don't believe Redcloak has really taken most of what Durkon's been saying seriously, simply because it came out of the mouth of a dwarf (i.e., monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobo). RC is morally invested in the view of the world that he formed in his youth, as the result of his very first encounter with humans; unfortunately, those humans being the paladins of Azure City, who wiped out his village and family for (as far as he knew) no reason but the thrill of it.

I think RC believes in collective guilt, and it really doesn't matter to him how many goblins any particular humanoid personally killed; merely existing as a humanoid "enables" the killers. So to him, all humanoids share the guilt and are equally deserving of goblinoid vengeance. It didn't matter what Durkon's answer was. Even if he said he'd never killed a goblin, so what? What has he done to stop others from killing them? Against a viewpoint like Redcloak's, you can't win that argument.

[Psyren]

For the record, since this is obviously in comparison to Redcloak's kill count:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html

Durkon wouldn't have known about that though, so it's likely he was referring to the likelihood of Redcloak's decision at that table resulting in the avoidable deaths of many more (if not all) goblins when the world is destroyed.

[hroþila]

Much of Durkon's contribution to the battle of Azure City was off-panel (we know it included a lot of healing, but chances are he also killed a few hobgoblins).

[King of Nowhere]

just because he didn't personally hit those goblins, it does not mean he did not take part in the killing, since he was buffing his teammates.

then again, it was a war.

[Ionathus]

Regarding Redcloak's question, even were Durkon to have tried a straight answer, it would have been a lose-lose situation.
...
I don't believe Redcloak has really taken most of what Durkon's been saying seriously, simply because it came out of the mouth of a dwarf (i.e., monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobo).

I disagree, I do think that he has taken it seriously -- for the simple fact that, if he hadn't been considering Durkon's words, he would have been casting on sight. Redcloak is too genre-savvy to indulge somebody in discussion that he doesn't intend to get anything from -- that behavior reeks of a villain like Greg, who just liked to twirl his mustache and gloat about how EEEEVILLLL he was. Redcloak would be more pragmatic, and would just see a threat to The Plan, and would have cast Implosion immediately.

(Of course I say this about a villain who was just caught MONOLOGUING instead of finishing the Implosion job. Yes, Redcloak has some genre blind-spots but you get a pass when you only have one eye)

When Durkon revealed he was here on behalf of Thor, that got Redcloak's attention, and I do honestly believe he had it for the entirety of the discussion. Redcloak wouldn't have had that conflicted look on his face on comic 1209, page #2, panel #8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html) if he hadn't been taking the talks seriously. That panel is one of my favorite moments because it shows that the words DO sink in.


Against a viewpoint like Redcloak's, you can't win that argument.
Agreed, unfortunately. Durkon really had no chance of walking in and resolving it. But I love how, as many others have pointed out, the seed of doubt is now planted.


just because he didn't personally hit those goblins, it does not mean he did not take part in the killing, since he was buffing his teammates.

then again, it was a war.

That's a fair point, and goes with Darth Paul's point about "collective guilt." Regardless of his actual personal kill count, he's participated in the slaying of many more goblins, and probably didn't even think it was all that unsavory until recently.

[Psyren]

None of which makes his rebuttal to Redcloak any less accurate.

[Ionathus]

None of which makes his rebuttal to Redcloak any less accurate.

Also correct. I find it interesting to tally and consider the goblin deaths Durkon has caused (and considered cannon fodder), but Redcloak is the one here who's steeped in hypocrisy.

[Elfey]

Top of my head, of various types of goblins, goblinoids, and related, Redcloak has killed ~400 directly, including Hobgoblin "supreme leader", various discipline cases, the artisan, and . Far more if we include those he ordered to their deaths, which is in the thousands at least. And more who were killed off due to Xykon's whims including

He's blind due to the sunk cost and the need to think The Plan will redeem those deaths.

"I'm well aware that there's a high chance that what I'm doing will result in doomsday for us all. But I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

Redcloak is unable to recognize the win being offered. He's emotionally tied to The Plan as the only thing that can redeem his actions. Even though, in essence, Durkon is offering a compromised based on what he's done to get the plan to work.

[Alcore]

the artisan,Pigtail lady killed that one. he merely dusted the body.



He's blind due to the sunk cost and the need to think The Plan will redeem those deaths.

"I'm well aware that there's a high chance that what I'm doing will result in doomsday for us all. But I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

Redcloak is unable to recognize the win being offered. He's emotionally tied to The Plan as the only thing that can redeem his actions. Even though, in essence, Durkon is offering a compromised based on what he's done to get the plan to work.

I don't think he will be redeemed. If the Dark One doesn't punish him then, I feel, he will use Redcloak up like a pawn after a half hearted thanks. His most redeemable moment was towards the end of the battle for Azure City when he finally learned that Hobgoblins are goblins and he was now a green Xykon. there is hope for him but I don't think that will save him.

[ebarde]

Yeah, I am surprised though how the fact that dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblinoids haven't been brought up yet. I say this cause this has been mentioned in the comic before, so I thought there would be some throwback.

Although maybe it was just for that one joke, idk the thing with OOTS is cause it's hard to tell when something is 100 per cent rule of funny or not.

[Darth Paul]

Yeah, I am surprised though how the fact that dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblinoids haven't been brought up yet. I say this cause this has been mentioned in the comic before, so I thought there would be some throwback.

Although maybe it was just for that one joke, idk the thing with OOTS is cause it's hard to tell when something is 100 per cent rule of funny or not.

That was mentioned back in the "joke per comic" period, as a play on how gamers at the table scratch for every conceivable bonus even after the dice stop rolling.

On the other hand, the background to the bonus in game terms was based on an ancient hatred between goblins and dwarves, which in turn was an allusion to Tolkien, where goblins and dwarves truly did have a bloody history and good reason to hate one another, what with peoples' grandfathers' heads being chopped off left and right, smashed in with iron clubs, or whatever the gruesome particulars. I haven't read Tolkien in quite a while because it began to put me off. The history of the Misty Mountains and pretty much the whole shebang seems to me just thousands of years of tribal warfare made more noble-sounding because he wrote poetry about it.

[Jason]

The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one species, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.

[Vinyadan]

The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one race, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.
Not only that, Galadriel is explicitly said to have thought that Dwarves were the best race when it came to fighting Orcs (=goblins).


In this case Galadriel was more far-sighted than Celeborn; and she perceived from the beginning that Middle-earth could not be saved from the 'residue of evil' that Morgoth had left behind him save by a union of all the peoples who were in their way and in their measure opposed to him. She looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs.

(Unfinished Tales, The Story of Galadriel and Celeborn).

[Fyraltari]

That was mentioned back in the "joke per comic" period, as a play on how gamers at the table scratch for every conceivable bonus even after the dice stop rolling.

On the other hand, the background to the bonus in game terms was based on an ancient hatred between goblins and dwarves, which in turn was an allusion to Tolkien, where goblins and dwarves truly did have a bloody history and good reason to hate one another, what with peoples' grandfathers' heads being chopped off left and right, smashed in with iron clubs, or whatever the gruesome particulars. I haven't read Tolkien in quite a while because it began to put me off. The history of the Misty Mountains and pretty much the whole shebang seems to me just thousands of years of tribal warfare made more noble-sounding because he wrote poetry about it.


The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one race, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.

Orcs and goblins are different names for the same people, not subspecies. It’s just a marker of language drift.

The orcs didn’t drive the dwarves from their homes, dragons (and the occasional Balrog) did that.

In the backstory there is only one significant war that’s purely a dwarf-goblin affair (the War of the Dwarves and Orcs) and, long and bloody though it was, it’s a recent affair: the casus belli was the murder of Thorin’s grandfather.


Ironically dwarves were first imagined as being servants of Melko/Morgoth alongside orcs and later on as neutral arms dealers and only around the inclusion of The Hobbit did they become one of the Free People.

[Jason]

In Tolkien the difference between orcs and goblins is one of different names for the same species yes, but there is also the implication that goblins are the smaller orcs, and orcs are the biggest and nastier varieties..
You are correct that balrogs and dragons were the main reason for the dwarves leaving their most prominent strongholds, but other strongholds, such as Mount Gundabad, fell to orcs.

[Fyraltari]

In Tolkien the difference between orcs and goblins is one of different names for the same species yes, but there is also the implication that goblins are the smaller orcs, and orcs are the biggest and nastier varieties..
Not really? The only time a difference in size comes up (to my memory at least) is when uruk-hai get involved. Hell, I distinctly remember some being described as unusually tall goblins.
There’s also the fact that Azog is called a goblin in The Hobbit and an orc in the Lord of the Rings

You are correct that balrogs and dragons were the main reason for the dwarves leaving their most prominent strongholds, but other strongholds, such as Mount Gundabad, fell to orcs.

Was Gundabad ever a dwarven stronghold? I remember that it’s where Durin woke up but then he left and settled in Khazad-dum.

[hroþila]

That war between orcs and dwarves happened before Sauron revealed himself. The orcs of the Misty Mountains were pretty much completely independent back then. Also, Tolkien didn't try to depict it as "noble", he went out of his way to say it was particularly savage on both sides, which is pretty unique.

[Jason]

History of Middle Earth 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth mentions that Gundabad was in origin a Khuzdul name, it served as a council site for the dwarves, with delegates being sent there to discuss matters relating to the dwarves as a whole, "and its occupation in the Third Age by the Orcs of Sauron was one of the chief reasons for their great hatred of the Orcs." It also says that Gundabad was "re-taken" by orcs reinforced and commanded by servants of Sauron in the middle of the Second Age.

There are two passages in The Hobbit that mention orcs, and both imply that they are bigger than goblins.
Bilbo is walking around in the tunnels beneath the Misty Mountains: "'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground." And Gandalf's description of the Grey Mountains to the north of Mirkwood: "they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description." The implication is that these are progressively bigger or nastier creatures. That passage is also the only place "hobgoblins" are mentioned in Tolkien that I know of.

In The Lord of the Rings orcs are occasionally still called goblins, especially by the hobbits, but there are passages here and there where "goblins" seems to imply the smaller variety. "In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North."

[Morty]

Ironically dwarves were first imagined as being servants of Melko/Morgoth alongside orcs and later on as neutral arms dealers and only around the inclusion of The Hobbit did they become one of the Free People.

The Silmarillion does mention that dwarves fought on both sides of the war of the Last Alliance, but that Durin's folk all sided against Sauron.

[hroþila]

Even in The Hobbit there's Orcrist, "Goblin-cleaver". In-universe, goblin is mostly the dialectal hobbit Westron word for "orc".

[Fyraltari]

History of Middle Earth 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth mentions that Gundabad was in origin a Khuzdul name, it served as a council site for the dwarves, with delegates being sent there to discuss matters relating to the dwarves as a whole, "and its occupation in the Third Age by the Orcs of Sauron was one of the chief reasons for their great hatred of the Orcs." It also says that Gundabad was "re-taken" by orcs reinforced and commanded by servants of Sauron in the middle of the Second Age.
Having not read HoME XII I accept your view of dwarf-orc history. Although they really should have found a better name for the Moria War then. Seriously why do the names of wars and battle suck so often ? « Last alliance » yeah, unless you count all the other times elves and men fought as allied after that. « Battle of the Plain of the Battle ».


There are two passages in The Hobbit that mention orcs, and both imply that they are bigger than goblins.
Bilbo is walking around in the tunnels beneath the Misty Mountains: "'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground." And Gandalf's description of the Grey Mountains to the north of Mirkwood: "they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description." The implication is that these are progressively bigger or nastier creatures. That passage is also the only place "hobgoblins" are mentioned in Tolkien that I know of.

In The Lord of the Rings orcs are occasionally still called goblins, especially by the hobbits, but there are passages here and there where "goblins" seems to imply the smaller variety. "In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North."
These sound more like attempts to avoid repetition especially when they are used interchangeably elsewhere in the same book.

[Morty]

Something to keep in mind is that as far as I know, the Hobbit wasn't originally meant to be a part of a larger world. The Tolkien legendarium predates it, and it was sort of grandfathered into it.

[Jason]

In one of Tolkien's letters, where he talks about the origin of "hobbit", and discussing various house spirits of folklore he noted that the passage in The Hobbit mentioning "hobgoblins" as a larger variety of goblin was mistaken: "Alas! one conclusion is that the statement that hobgoblins were 'a larger kind' is the reverse of the original truth."
The note that hobgoblins were "a larger kind of goblin" is in the page "On Runes" at the front of The Hobbit. "On Runes" also says that Orc was the actual name given to the creatures by hobbits, and it was "usually translated as 'goblin'" in The Hobbit.

So I guess I was wrong - there are two mentions of hobgoblins in The Hobbit, although only one is in the main text of the novel.

The History of the Hobbit goes into some detail about the origin of the word "hobbit" and concludes that it was an obscure but "authentic" name for a type of elf or house spirit, but that Tolkien created the name for his protagonist's species independently, by coming up with a name that sounded authentic based on what he knew of languages and folklore. "That his invention should match actual obscure historical words was inevitable provided he did his work well enough...It is a tribute to Tolkien's skill with word-building that his invented hobbit should prove to have indeed had a real-world predecessor, though Tolkien himself probably never knew of it."

[Jason]

Something to keep in mind is that as far as I know, the Hobbit wasn't originally meant to be a part of a larger world. The Tolkien legendarium predates it, and it was sort of grandfathered into it.
That is true, but Tolkien did a great deal of work to try to integrate The Hobbit smoothly into his larger world, and The Lord of the Rings was written with The Hobbit in mind (it was a sequel, after all). The current edition of The Hobbit has lots and lots of small changes from the first edition that also facilitate this. At one point Tolkien did embark on a full re-write of The Hobbit to make it fit even more in line with The Lord of the Rings, but he decided to drop the project after a completing only a few chapters, when an unnamed acquaintance of his said "it's good, but it's not The Hobbit anymore." You can read the re-written chapters in The History of the Hobbit.

It's also true that dwarves were minor servants of the enemy in his legendarium until Tolkien made them good guys in The Hobbit and then while writing LotR decided to integrate The Hobbit into the same world as The Silmarillion. Re-writes followed, and in the published version of The Silmarillion they are among the free peoples. Mîm and the petty-dwarves in The Silmarillion in Turin's story are closer to their original conception.

[hroþila]

Min and the petty-dwarves in The Silmarillion in Turin's story are closer to their original conception.
Mîm was dank.
I'm sorry

[Jason]

Having not read HoME XII I accept your view of dwarf-orc history. Although they really should have found a better name for the Moria War then. Seriously why do the names of wars and battle suck so often ? « Last alliance » yeah, unless you count all the other times elves and men fought as allied after that. « Battle of the Plain of the Battle ».
"The Moria War" or "War of the Dwarves and the Orcs" is what other people call it. The dwarves call the final battle at the gates of Moria "The Battle of Azanulbizar" or "Nanduhirion" in the Elvish tongue. "Azanaulbizar" is the dwarvish name for the great vale that lay between the arms of the mountains about the lake of Kheled-Zaram.
Most of the battles in The Silmarillion have pretty cool names too: like "Dargor-nuin-Gillath - Battle-Under-Stars", "Dagor Aglareb - Glorious Battle", "Dagor Bragoliach - Battle of Sudden Flame" and "Nirnaeth Arnoediad - Battle of Unnumbered Tears".

[hroþila]

Isn't it weird how battles in The Silmarillion tend not to be battles as such but rather campaigns taking place through relatively long periods of time across a whole theatre (compared to ancient, medieval and early modern battles that would be very localized and would very rarely last longer than one day)? They almost read like WW1 battles fought with medieval weapons.

[WindStruck]

Don't think the number even matters, because all those kills were probably justified in some way or another.

But yeah, even taking all off-screen kills into account.. still less than Red Cloak. :smalltongue:

But I think Red Cloak had less or even no justification for his actions.

[Jason]

Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified? Would he? Or would he eventually realize that the price he paid was too great, even with total success of The Plan?

[Fyraltari]

Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified? Would he? Or would he eventually realize that the price he paid was too great, even with total success of The Plan?

I wouldn’t. Wether he would rests entirely on what the Dark One would do with the power. Assuming Redcloak lives to see it, of course.

[snowblizz]

Isn't it weird how battles in The Silmarillion tend not to be battles as such but rather campaigns taking place through relatively long periods of time across a whole theatre (compared to ancient, medieval and early modern battles that would be very localized and would very rarely last longer than one day)? They almost read like WW1 battles fought with medieval weapons.

Considering Tolkien was a linguist and not a historian(*) and wrote and got ideas for a lot of it while involved with WW1 the word(s) I would use is not "weird" but, "yeah that checks out".

(*) meaning he hasn't neessary any more insight to how things were in history than the next person, what he did have in sapdes tough was knowledge of how an actual war was


Anyway we try and count it Durkon has only killed a fraction as many goblins as Redcloak has. And they both know it. Which is why RC does the Implosion IMO.

[Ionathus]

Don't think the number even matters, because all those kills were probably justified in some way or another.

But yeah, even taking all off-screen kills into account.. still less than Red Cloak. :smalltongue:

But I think Red Cloak had less or even no justification for his actions.

I think it's pretty clear that both of them would "justify" their actions to the other. And the other would fire back that they're lying to themselves, or "of course you would say they're justified, but you're wrong."

Interesting to think of how Durkon would've responded if Redcloak had asked him this before combat, while still sitting at the table. Would Durkon have answered truthfully and apologized outright, admitting the deaths were callous even if done to protect others? I think so. Probably still wouldn't get through to Redcloak though.


Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified? Would he? Or would he eventually realize that the price he paid was too great, even with total success of The Plan?

I think no matter what, he's already realized how high the price is. That's why people are tossing around "sunk-cost fallacy" so much -- he's in too deep now, and if he backs out now that means that, as Xykon put it,
he murdered his baby brother for nothing.

But honestly, I predict that Xykon is putting too much faith in that manipulation, and at a certain point Redcloak is going to surprise him with some major insubordination.

Edit to fix spoiler tag

[Darth Paul]

I think no matter what, he's already realized how high the price is. That's why people are tossing around "sunk-cost fallacy" so much -- he's in too deep now, and if he backs out now that means that, as Xykon put it,
he murdered his baby brother for nothing.


Something strange happened with your post; I couldn't see the spoiler text until I quoted you to ask if you intended to have a spoiler there. It turned out to be the quote I bet it would be.
Now I owe myself $5.

[dancrilis]

Something strange happened with your post; I couldn't see the spoiler text until I quoted you to ask if you intended to have a spoiler there. It turned out to be the quote I bet it would be.
Now I owe myself $5.

They have no text in their spoiler so it doesn't appear - not sure if you fixed that when quoting them (which I suspect) or if something else occured when you quoted them.

For examples:
Spoiler 1 will not appear:
Spoiler 2 will appear fine: will appear fine
Spoiler 3 will also appear fine: will also appear fine

[Ionathus]

It turned out to be the quote I bet it would be.
Now I owe myself $5.

We should just start throwing spoiler blocks up with context. We'd all be able to guess the reference anyway :smallbiggrin:

Reminds me of the old joke with like five variations:

A man goes to prison and the first night while he's laying in bed contemplating his situation, he hears someone yell out, "44!" Followed by laughter from the other prisoners.

He thought that was pretty odd, then he heard someone else yell out, "72!" Followed by even more laughter.

"What's going on?" he asked his cellmate.

"Well, we've all heard every joke so many times, we've given them each a number to make it easier."

"Oh," he says, "can I try?"

"Sure, go ahead."

So, he yells out "102!" and the place is dead quiet, save for a few groans. Confused, he looks at his cellmate who is just shaking his head.

"Isn't 102 funny?"

"It is... But not the way you tell it."

Fixed the spoiler tag btw

[Giggling Ghast]

Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified?

Considering he has allowed hundreds of goblins to be slaughtered just to entertain Xykon ... no.

[TooSoon]

Considering he has allowed hundreds of goblins to be slaughtered just to entertain Xykon ... no.

That was also old Redcloak. New RC puts a much higher premium on Goblin lives. This whole aspect of his character has been well fleshed out by this point.

[understatement]

That was also old Redcloak. New RC puts a much higher premium on Goblin lives. This whole aspect of his character has been well fleshed out by this point.

True and not true. He still has no problem (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) disposing of them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html) when need be.

[TooSoon]

True and not true. He still has no problem (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) disposing of them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html) when need be.

When absolutely necessary, sure, which is underscored by you picking 2 examples where he didn't actually kill the goblins (but said he would have been forced to, due to the risk their living would have for the entire goblin race). The order is the same way for the most part. Ditto the Paladins, etc. The average human city is doubtless much worse.

[hroþila]

When absolutely necessary, sure, which is underscored by you picking 2 examples where he didn't actually kill the goblins (but said he would have been forced to, due to the risk their living would have for the entire goblin race). The order is the same way for the most part. Ditto the Paladins, etc. The average human city is doubtless much worse.
I agree that Redcloak's present ruthlessness where he would kill a goblinoid if strictly necessary is very different from and much better than his former murderous streak, but I disagree with everything else. If you're saying the Order or the paladins would do the same to their own people, that's very obviously not true. If you mean they'd do the same to the goblinoids, then you're comparing two very different things: Redcloak's treatment of his in-group and everybody else's treatment of their out-group. This is not a fair comparison.

[TooSoon]

I agree that Redcloak's present ruthlessness where he would kill a goblinoid if strictly necessary is very different from and much better than his former murderous streak, but I disagree with everything else. If you're saying the Order or the paladins would do the same to their own people, that's very obviously not true. If you mean they'd do the same to the goblinoids, then you're comparing two very different things: Redcloak's treatment of his in-group and everybody else's treatment of their out-group. This is not a fair comparison.

I mean, yes and no. The Order hasn't done much of that, some exceptions aside, but then the new RC hasn't done it at all yet, merely said he would if he had no choice. What are the high stakes examples where the Order declined to kill people to further their own goals? They were just trying to kill Tarquin, he's a fellow human. V killed Kubuto without a 2nd thought. The Paladins kill rebel humans who go against their agenda. You're just conceptualizing it differently because those humans were "not on the same side" as the Order, which is somehow different. It's not RCs fault Goblins are all unified under him, so the parallels are different.

[dancrilis]

I agree that Redcloak's present ruthlessness where he would kill a goblinoid if strictly necessary is very different from and much better than his former murderous streak, but I disagree with everything else. If you're saying the Order or the paladins would do the same to their own people, that's very obviously not true. If you mean they'd do the same to the goblinoids, then you're comparing two very different things: Redcloak's treatment of his in-group and everybody else's treatment of their out-group. This is not a fair comparison.

It is something of a out of character moment for him, but here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) Roy seemed fairly close to killing Belkar for the crime of being Belkar and daring to deliver Roy bad news.
Haley here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html) was willing to abandon Belkar to an unknown fate for the crime of making her life harder (not for murder).
Roy here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) was willing to abandon Elan to an unknown fate for the crime of annoying him.
Vaarsuvius threatened Elan's life here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html) just because he threatened to tell on her for murder.

I am not sure they are any better really then Redcloak saying he was happy he didn't have to kill people who were already dead.

However I would say that I don't buy the whole 'new Redcloak' vs 'old Redcloak' angle for the goblinoids, yes he decided that hobgoblin lives mattered as much as goblin lives ... but he never really seemed to put to much value on goblin lives in the first place, he just gets annoyed when they are taken for reasons that are not part of The Plan, if Xykon had decided to level Gobbotopia I don't think he would have broken ranks he would just have chalked it upto another necessary sacrifice and gotten on with his day.

[TooSoon]

It is something of a out of character moment for him, but here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) Roy seemed fairly close to killing Belkar for the crime of being Belkar and daring to deliver Roy bad news.
Haley here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html) was willing to abandon Belkar to an unknown fate for the crime of making her life harder (not for murder).
Roy here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) was willing to abandon Elan to an unknown fate for the crime of annoying him.
Vaarsuvius threatened Elan's life here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html) just because he threatened to tell on her for murder.

I am not sure they are any better really then Redcloak saying he was happy he didn't have to kill people who were already dead.

However I would say that I don't buy the whole 'new Redcloak' vs 'old Redcloak' angle for the goblinoids, yes he decided that hobgoblin lives mattered as much as goblin lives ... but he never really seemed to put to much value on goblin lives in the first place, he just gets annoyed when they are taken for reasons that are not part of The Plan, if Xykon had decided to level Gobbotopia I don't think he would have broken ranks he would just have chalked it upto another necessary sacrifice and gotten on with his day.

The OOTS are lucky they don't have to make those sorts of choices; however the fact that they are at least somewhat cool with the world being ended as a last resort to defeat their enemies shows they're ok with some sacrifices for the greater good too.

[Wraithfighter]

Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified? Would he? Or would he eventually realize that the price he paid was too great, even with total success of The Plan?

There's two Goblins that come to mind on this subject: The Polymorphed Spy that died in 827 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) and the artisan that died in 828 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0828.html) and that he lamented being unable to rez in 831 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html). While he didn't kill either of them... he has the ability to raise them from the dead, and its pretty clear that he's refusing to do so explicitly for the plan.

So, yeah, I think he's more than willing to say that all of those Goblins that he had die or stay dead for the sake of The Plan, he'd consider them justified with a heavy heart (well, that's how he'd put it).

However.

There were a lot of Hobgoblins that he let die out of carelessness, indifference or petty cruelty, prior to his "what have I done" realization. More than needed to die simply for the grand plan to work, and a lot of them in really, really petty ways. I think that's where Redcloak's face of rage comes from in 1210: Because he knows Durkon's *right*.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Here's an interesting idea: If Redcloak did pull off his Plan and allow the Dark One to threaten the other gods after all, and get everything he was after, would you consider all the goblin deaths he caused justified? Would he? Or would he eventually realize that the price he paid was too great, even with total success of The Plan?
Yes. YES. The whole point of this sequence is that he absolutely would consider them justified. His reaction to Durkon calling him on the goblinoid deaths he's caused is him saying that, not only does he think every one was justified, but that because they were justified they don't even count as deaths he caused. He's angry at Durkon for, very briefly, forcing him to think through how insane that sounds when you actually put it all together, but that's where Redcloak's character has been building towards for a long time now.

[Jason]

It's pretty clear that, given success of The Plan Redcloak would consider all his sacrifices to have been justified at first. The question is, after the goblin utopia is achieved and Redcloak has received everything he wanted, after years of contemplation, will he feel any regrets? Would he realize that he could have done it at the cost of fewer goblin lives? Would he finally decide that he had made at least a few mistakes that were all his own fault?

I think the question is academic, because I begin to think that Redcloak's destiny is to finally turn against Xykon and the Plan (there is a loaded Chekov's Gun in the MitD that wouldn't go off otherwise), but it can still be an interesting question.

[Metastachydium]

I think the question is academic, because I begin to think that Redcloak's destiny is to finally turn against Xykon and the Plan (there is a loaded Chekov's Gun in the MitD that wouldn't go off otherwise), but it can still be an interesting question.

Turning on Xykon and abandoning the Plan are two different things, you know. In actual fact, from Redcloak's perspective, the only immediately evident problem with the Plan would be that the arcane caster involved is called Xykon. The purpose of the Ritual is to give the Dark One control over a Gate, and to allow him to shift this Gate (and the Rift it seals) to any plane of his choice. Now, as per the Word of the Giant, he can only do this once. Consequently, unless he intends to waste his nuke on an attack the second he acquires it, the Gate must be kept intact until such time as he might need it. Sole problem is, once Xykon realizes Redcloak has been deceiving him for decades, there is a significant risk that he will destroy the Gate out of spite. This being the last Gate, that would sink the Plan definitively.
Thereby, Redcloak needs to take down Xykon the moment the lich ceases to be useful (i.e. the moent the Ritual has been completed), since not doing so would jeopardize the success of the Plan. Personally, I'd wager that this is what Redcloak made arrangements for when he pocketed the phylactery and gave Xykon a fake. Also, logically, this could very well be the confrontation during which Chekhov's Monster does or does not go off.

[Jason]

Turning on Xykon and abandoning the Plan are two different things, you know.They are, but up to this point one of Redcloak's major flaws is that he hasn't been able to admit that.

[Metastachydium]

They are, but up to this point one of Redcloak's major flaws is that he hasn't been admit that.

Not at all. What he refuses is the idea that turning on Xykon before the lich plays his part in the Ritual is a viable option. Like I said, the stealing of the phylactery, for instance, implies that Redcloak is more than aware that Xykon will have to be dealt with, eventually. He most likely just intends to postpone that until a point at which he does not need the lich anymore.