Possibly why Redcloak seems so flawed in decisions while he is offered good solutions

[Mido]

That last page got me thinking regarding Redcloak's seeming flawed decision making. Clerics usually sport a good if not exceptional amount of wisdom and, with Durkon as the bar, RC seems to lack such, having been presented with some reasonable resolutions to the current conflicts, or just his own hapiness in general. The last retort from Durkon was really cutting and I think that would be, as well as other wise decisions the character has made up to this point, confirms to me that Durkon is truly wise.

To cast the highest level Cleric spells, of course RC would need to have enough Wisdom as per the rules followed by the world. However for some reason, such a stat does not seem to extend to his own personality. He is smart to be sure, but wise, I beg to differ.

This being the basis, I wager that RC's flaws are mostly due to him not earning his wisdom, but inheriting it by donning the Crimson Mantle. He is not truly wise, but he was given the gift to tap into the most potent of Cleric spells and he is stuck as that confused pawn that lost Righteye to his own tragic actions, never being an agent of his own destiny but another fodder either to the Dark One or to Xykon.

Just something that came to mind after reading the last page. Would love to hear what others think of this or even if this is old news and I'm just late to the party. :thog:

[understatement]

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.


Redcloak does seem to have perception (can snipe Roy at hundreds of feet), and plenty of willpower (to continue the Plan). Or is it lack of willpower?

Anyways, he does have a lot of conviction, so I guess that somewhat counts as Wisdom. I think he would've been better as a Wizard, maybe.

[Ionathus]

Redcloak doesn't need a stats-based reason to have personal flaws.

The gods, according to the rules, have like 30+ in every stat, and yet many of them are horribly, fundamentally flawed as characters.

You can't apply a stats boost to childhood trauma, lifelong pursuit of a cosmic goal, and the awful burden of a family-wrecking sunk cost fallacy mindset.

Redcloak is making bad decisions because that's who he is as a person, not because he has a low WIS.

[Mido]

In terms of mechanics, agreed. He does show the abilities of having a high wisdom as described, but I'm thinking more intangibles. Honestly, I don't think I grasp it well myself.

I would actually like to see an alternate reality Redcloak that ended up being a Wizard though. Think he has the intelligence chops for it. :smallbiggrin:

[dancrilis]

wisdom ... RC seems to lack such, having been presented with some reasonable resolutions to the current conflicts, or just his own hapiness in general.

Imagine the following.
Redcloak's Thoughts: This is a good deal I should take it, commune, gate, plane shift to talk to The Dark One (or if needed kill a hobgoblin so they can talk to him for me and then raise him) and make sure he is on board and then build up Gobbotopia from a position of strenght, now what will I tell Xykon to get him on side ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I could, um ... ... ... ... maybe I ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Redcloak's Actions: Implosion.

Durkon didn't deal with the Lich issue at all, he didn't even try, and as such as far as Durkon knows Redcloak and Xykon are old buddies working together and as far as Redcloak knows Xykon would wipe out Gobbotopia the second it becomes a distraction from The Plan.

[Mido]

Redcloak doesn't need a stats-based reason to have personal flaws.

The gods, according to the rules, have like 30+ in every stat, and yet many of them are horribly, fundamentally flawed as characters.

You can't apply a stats boost to childhood trauma, lifelong pursuit of a cosmic goal, and the awful burden of a family-wrecking sunk cost fallacy mindset.

Redcloak is making bad decisions because that's who he is as a person, not because he has a low WIS.

I honestly cannot dispute this. I'm guessing I'm putting too much emphasis on ability stats reflecting a character's behavior, a bad habit of mine when I used to DM.

[Mido]

Imagine the following.
Redcloak's Thoughts: This is a good deal I should take it, commune, gate, plane shift to talk to The Dark One (or if needed kill a hobgoblin so they can talk to him for me and then raise him) and make sure he is on board and then build up Gobbotopia from a position of strenght, now what will I tell Xykon to get him on side ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I could, um ... ... ... ... maybe I ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Redcloak's Actions: Implosion.

Durkon didn't deal with the Lich issue at all, he didn't even try, and as such as far as Durkon knows Redcloak and Xykon are old buddies working together and as far as Redcloak knows Xykon would wipe out Gobbotopia the second it becomes a distraction from The Plan.

I'm trying to think overall, starting from Start of Darkness. At this point, Redcloak is already in the "sunk cost" column so in turn, I cannot dispute your conclusion on how he came to the recent decision.

To clarify, I don't think RC has low wisdom, just enough for a novice cleric IMHO.

Lastly, I love the replies so far. Really giving me new perspectives from just a thinker I've been having after reading the recent update.

[TheNecrocomicon]

It's a combination of being way down the sunk cost fallacy rabbit-hole, and being unable or unwilling to get past his own deep-seated prejudices regarding anybody who isn't a goblinoid.

In short, he strikes me as the kind of character, much like Miko of old, who won't see or grow past their problems until it's too late and they've brought about their own doom.

[Fyraltari]

If D&D Wisdom measured what we, in the real world, call wisdom, every Evil character would have low Wisdom.

[KorvinStarmast]

In short, he strikes me as the kind of character, much like Miko of old, who won't see or grow past their problems until it's too late and they've brought about their own doom. There is still a chance, unlike Miko for whom time ran out, for Reddie to admit that he is wrong and to seek to atone for that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html). Likely? I don't think so, but the option is still there. It would take Rich tossing in some gate posts showing Redcloak getting it, and there was a glimmer of self awareness shown here (What the hell is wrong with me?) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)... so there is a chance however slim.

[TheNecrocomicon]

There is still a chance, unlike Miko for whom time ran out, for Reddie to admit that he is wrong and to seek to atone for that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html). Likely? I don't think so, but the option is still there. It would take Rich tossing in some gate posts showing Redcloak getting it, and there was a glimmer of self awareness shown here (What the hell is wrong with me?) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)... so there is a chance however slim.

Sure, but his "my gods what have I done" moment was still only limited to goblinoid lives alone. He promptly demonstrated that he was still completely willing to kill or maim any number of non-goblinoids, combatants or otherwise, to get what he wanted, and he has kept doing that since.

There have been some glimmers that all the death and destruction seem to be wearing on him, but he's been brushing that off as the trials and tribulations of serving his god, rather than signs that he's going way off the proverbial deep end.

[Ionathus]

If D&D Wisdom measured what we, in the real world, call wisdom, every Evil character would have low Wisdom.

Not necessarily. A self-actualized and intelligent, thoughtful person who nevertheless takes what they want without respect for others' lives could still easily have a high Wisdom in D&D. There's no modifier for "compassion" on your Wisdom score; it's just that a complete lack of compassion also often correlates to a low awareness and capability to reason in a society of fellow humanoids.


Sure, but his "my gods what have I done" moment was still only limited to goblinoid lives alone. He promptly demonstrated that he was still completely willing to kill or maim any number of non-goblinoids, combatants or otherwise, to get what he wanted, and he has kept doing that since.

There have been some glimmers that all the death and destruction seem to be wearing on him, but he's been brushing that off as the trials and tribulations of serving his god, rather than signs that he's going way off the proverbial deep end.

In fairness, Redcloak hasn't gotten much panel time since War & XPs (and DStP, somewhat). His personal growth has taken a back seat for other characters in the last few books, and now it's coming back as he returns to the spotlight...accounting for total panels, his "what have I done" wasn't that long ago.

[Jasdoif]

Sure, but his "my gods what have I done" moment was still only limited to goblinoid lives alone.And even then, only for ending them frivolously.

[dancrilis]

And even then, only for ending them frivolously.

In fairness for a while after he didn't want to have them ended non-frivolously either, as explained to the High Priest of the Twelve Gods panel 4 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html), but he grew out of that.

[TheNecrocomicon]

In fairness, Redcloak hasn't gotten much panel time since War & XPs (and DStP, somewhat). His personal growth has taken a back seat for other characters in the last few books, and now it's coming back as he returns to the spotlight...accounting for total panels, his "what have I done" wasn't that long ago.

Do recall that there was the whole arc of interrogating O-Chul in there while refusing to learn or comprehend anything about humans, followed later on by crushing the Azurite resistance while wasting time "decorating" their hideout with their bodies, then casually murdering Tsukiko with her own wights, and then the "let's check in" interlude introducing Oona and the bugbears.

There are significant stretches where Redcloak has had the spotlight over the years. If anything, he arguably gets the most focus out of Team Evil.


And even then, only for ending them frivolously.

This. He's still perfectly willing to sacrifice them, as long as it's for what he perceives as a productive end goal.

[Ionathus]

This. He's still perfectly willing to sacrifice them, as long as it's for what he perceives as a productive end goal.

I haven't seen him directly sacrifice any goblinoids since the Battle of Azure City, though. He even stopped Tsukiko from creating undead from those that were killed in a jailbreak.

The claim "by continuing The Plan, you're potentially sacrificing all goblinoids alongside all other living souls" could easily be a lie from Durkon, or maybe he's justifying it as "if the gods decide to kill us all, that's on them, not me."

Another thing worth mentioning is that he spent an awful lot of time setting up Gobbotopia, losing some of Xykon's remaining goodwill for him in the process, even though pursuing The Gates would have eventually achieved a far more sweeping end-goal.

I think that's an indication that he wants to grab the chance to better the goblinoid races' lives whenever he finds it. It doesn't make him a good person, but it's a step up from SoD Redcloak who only wanted to kill, kill, take, take, revenge. I'm reminded of how Right-Eye had set up a settlement and tried to get Redcloak to join up and relinquish the plan. Gobbotopia may be Redcloak's compromise on that front.

[Keltest]

Redcloak is fully aware that by messing around with the rifts, he poses the risk that all living goblinoids will be killed when the world ends. he considers this an acceptable risk, as he feels The Dark One will at least then ensure that goblinoids get a better place in the next world.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I haven't seen him directly sacrifice any goblinoids since the Battle of Azure City, though. He even stopped Tsukiko from creating undead from those that were killed in a jailbreak.

The claim "by continuing The Plan, you're potentially sacrificing all goblinoids alongside all other living souls" could easily be a lie from Durkon, or maybe he's justifying it as "if the gods decide to kill us all, that's on them, not me."

Another thing worth mentioning is that he spent an awful lot of time setting up Gobbotopia, losing some of Xykon's remaining goodwill for him in the process, even though pursuing The Gates would have eventually achieved a far more sweeping end-goal.

I think that's an indication that he wants to grab the chance to better the goblinoid races' lives whenever he finds it. It doesn't make him a good person, but it's a step up from SoD Redcloak who only wanted to kill, kill, take, take, revenge.

Why not both? Redcloak is still about the killing, taking, and revenge. He demonstrated that loud and clear with how he went about taking down the Azure City Resistance and gratuitously decorating the whole place with their corpses as a "welcoming" display for their returning strike team.

We even had the examples of a Polymorphed spy he was relieved he didn't have to execute by his own hand, and the elder craftsman he refused to resurrect, all to preserve the secrecy of his plot around Xykon's phylactery and its fake duplicate.

The difference is that Redcloak is now more careful than he used to be about how many goblinoid lives are lost or ruined in the process of doing so. He has refined his methods and given more care to the people under his command and their needs. That doesn't really make him any less Evil at heart when he will still happily slaughter as many non-goblinoids as he feels like in the name of his own species' advancement.

[Fyraltari]

Not necessarily. A self-actualized and intelligent, thoughtful person who nevertheless takes what they want without respect for others' lives could still easily have a high Wisdom in D&D. There's no modifier for "compassion" on your Wisdom score; it's just that a complete lack of compassion also often correlates to a low awareness and capability to reason in a society of fellow humanoids.

If they were self-actualized and intelligent they'd realize that hurting people is detrimental in the long run. Turns out that helping others is the best way to be helped in turn. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest)

[ebarde]

Stats are a weird thing, cause they're so vague that they don't actually mean a whole lot on how characters act. Durkon has an extremely high wisdom but is fairly gullible, Redcloak does too but is incapable of any sort of self reflection and Elan is extremely charismatic but is pretty bad at convincing and intimidating people.

The thing is that in reality stats are way too vague and pertain to way too many things to mean more than just what number you add to your rolls.

Even the physical stats are really not that straight forward, cause at the end of the day they were designed with game balance in mind over anything else, really.

[BloodSquirrel]

Imagine the following.
Redcloak's Thoughts: This is a good deal I should take it, commune, gate, plane shift to talk to The Dark One (or if needed kill a hobgoblin so they can talk to him for me and then raise him) and make sure he is on board and then build up Gobbotopia from a position of strenght, now what will I tell Xykon to get him on side ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I could, um ... ... ... ... maybe I ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Redcloak's Actions: Implosion.

Durkon didn't deal with the Lich issue at all, he didn't even try, and as such as far as Durkon knows Redcloak and Xykon are old buddies working together and as far as Redcloak knows Xykon would wipe out Gobbotopia the second it becomes a distraction from The Plan.

That doesn't really hold up- Redcloak is already planning to betray Xykon. The Plan isn't going to do what Xykon thinks it will, so whether he's going with the new plan or the old one he'll still wind up in the same position with regards to the Lich issue. If anything, Durkon's plan is an improvement, since now he'll have the Order to help deal with him.

[Morty]

The D&D wisdom attribute is, to be blunt, a complete mess that describes nothing in particular. Even if it wasn't, any attribute is a mechanical abstraction and using them as basis for behavior and values is flawed at best. Redcloak has well-documented character flaws that lead him to take the actions he's taking; I don't know what the point is of attaching them to the rules of a game the comic has increasingly little connection to.

[Malloon]

If they were self-actualized and intelligent they'd realize that hurting people is detrimental in the long run. Turns out that helping others is the best way to be helped in turn. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest)

Sort of. You only need to name the not insignificant amount of CEOs who are sociopaths to see this isn't the whole story. A good chunk of what average people need from others is validation, love and companionship. Remove the need for those and what people need from others can be gotten through a combination of money, loyalty to specific people and good PR. You need to be halfway decent to some people to get ahead in life, but certainly not all or even most people. A wise but Evil person would know this and (ab)use it.

[Dr.Zero]

Sort of. You only need to name the not insignificant amount of CEOs who are sociopaths to see this isn't the whole story. A good chunk of what average people need from others is validation, love and companionship. Remove the need for those and what people need from others can be gotten through a combination of money, loyalty to specific people and good PR. You need to be halfway decent to some people to get ahead in life, but certainly not all or even most people. A wise but Evil person would know this and (ab)use it.

I restate my opinion that this forum needs a like, or at least a "I agree", button.

[Fyraltari]

Sort of. You only need to name the not insignificant amount of CEOs who are sociopaths to see this isn't the whole story. A good chunk of what average people need from others is validation, love and companionship. Remove the need for those and what people need from others can be gotten through a combination of money, loyalty to specific people and good PR. You need to be halfway decent to some people to get ahead in life, but certainly not all or even most people. A wise but Evil person would know this and (ab)use it.

People with anti-social personality disorder often manage to work very well within the confines of society, even sometimes being CEO and things like that, I considered mentioning that in my post as another point why it is wise not to rock the boat and therefore why evil acts aren’t wise.

It seems pretty iffy to me to equate people with a mental disorder as being « evil » though.

[Jason]

The D&D wisdom attribute is, to be blunt, a complete mess that describes nothing in particular. Even if it wasn't, any attribute is a mechanical abstraction and using them as basis for behavior and values is flawed at best. Redcloak has well-documented character flaws that lead him to take the actions he's taking; I don't know what the point is of attaching them to the rules of a game the comic has increasingly little connection to.

The Wisdom attribute is doing a lot of heavy lifting in D&D 3.5, since it is "wisdom", "perception" and "willpower" all in one - stats that are often broken up into separate traits in other rpg systems.

But more to the point, stats are too abstract to show all of a character's flaws. Someone with a high charisma may indeed be the best-looking person ever, or they may have numerous appearance flaws but make up for them with a winning personality. Wisdom works the same way - you can be very perceptive, steadfast, and wise on many issues, indicating a high wisdom score, and still have obvious holes in your judgement because of your character flaws, as Redcloak does.

[Ionathus]

Sort of. You only need to name the not insignificant amount of CEOs who are sociopaths to see this isn't the whole story. A good chunk of what average people need from others is validation, love and companionship. Remove the need for those and what people need from others can be gotten through a combination of money, loyalty to specific people and good PR. You need to be halfway decent to some people to get ahead in life, but certainly not all or even most people. A wise but Evil person would know this and (ab)use it.

This, exactly. The reason Evil PCs are treated like a red flag in tabletop groups is that, without thinking about it, newbie players will play a Chaotic Evil murderhobo who is incapable of playing nice, rather than an intelligent and self-actualized Lawful Evil schemer who knows that they have to fit into society's rules...but will break those rules at the drop of a hat to achieve their goals, as long as they think they can get away with it.

If your PC doesn't need other people's help, or if you only need certain other people's help and you won't lose it by doing evil things to Random Other Person X (either due to deception or apathy), you're perfectly capable of succeeding at life while being both evil and "wise" in your own twisted way. Morally bankrupt yes, but capable.


It seems pretty iffy to me to equate people with a mental disorder as being « evil » though.

Agreed, I'd like to shift away from this topic.

[Malloon]

People with anti-social personality disorder often manage to work very well within the confines of society, even sometimes being CEO and things like that, I considered mentioning that in my post as another point why it is wise not to rock the boat and therefore why evil acts aren’t wise.

It seems pretty iffy to me to equate people with a mental disorder as being « evil » though.

That wasn't what I meant, though I can see how it could be read that way. I wasn't saying people with ASPD are evil, but rather that they have a greater capacity to be evil and achieve their goals, given that those goals are explicitly less or not dependent on getting love, getting companionship and getting validation, the things evil acts sabotage most.

To be evil is to be willing to do evil acts. A wise (and intelligent) but evil person would know when to hold off on doing evils acts when doing so would sabotage their goals, but would not care or might even revel in doing them when they wouldn't. If they had ASPD, they would have more leeway in committing evil acts because their goals would be less susceptible to being sabotaged by them.

You can argue that it's always unwise to commit evils acts, given that society, if it finds out, will push back at you for committing them, even directly and intentionally sabotaging your goals in revenge, or for justice, or whatever you want to call it. But there are also goals that people have that can only, or much more easily be achieved by committing evil acts. Since committing an evil act is not a death sentence to your goals as long as you manage to avoid blame or otherwise have the power to avoid the consequences society throws at you, evil people are willing to risk it in order to also achieve those other goals, and some of them, the most capable, can be considered wise, since they can deduce exactly when and when not to be evil in order to maximise achieving their own goals. Rocking the boat is only always unwise if none of your goals include fishing something up from the water.

[Particle_Man]

Or it could be he suspects Xykon is watching him.